RE: [Marxist Debate] More on BB antics and their defenders

[John Lacny]

Ethan writes:

> I'm in general agreement on BB/OO but
> disagree on impact of mid-to-late 60s
> urban explosions. They did more than
> trigger reform and backlash. They
> asserted the power - real and potential
> - of communities that had been dismissed
> as defenseless pariahs since the end of
> reconstruction.
>
> They were mass uprisings, the same thing,
> for restless communities in the 60s, that
> mass strikes and workers councils were in
> the post-WWI period.

I completely agree, especially with the follow-on point that "This is not a
case for small putschist groups trashing and fighting cops. Just the
opposite. That practice only highlights the powerlessness of the left. Who
wants to stake their lives on a bunch of powerless losers?"

I've seen this debate happening in various places on the Internet lately,
and I've refused to participate in it for this reason. On both "sides," the
debates are abstract discussions of tactics in the absence of discussing
strategy. If you're not an ideologically rigid pacifist, the only question
you have to answer is not "Are these tactics appropriate?" but "Is this
specific tactic appropriate in this specific situation?"

I can't think of a single situation at the present moment in the United
States where "Black Bloc" tactics are effective for building a mass
movement, and if there were such a case, I would certainly not be discussing
it ahead of time on Facebook.

To the extent we as communists get involved in these discussions, I'd say we
should push against this tendency to have discussions by proxy, and instead
have discussions about a more fundamental divide: between those who
recognize that achieving social transformation requires mass organizing and
mobilization on the one hand, and on the other, those under the delusion
that change comes from the exemplary actions of a few in "propaganda of the
deed."

And I should note that in my personal experience, people of the latter
persuasion are more often than not the type who "talk tough," but then find
excuses for not doing the more militant things they claim they want to do.
Which to me proves that they are really the other side of the coin of
liberalism. But it was ever thus, no?

John Lacny

[nathan tankus]

I completely agree we should be talking about the black bloc as
tactic and about whether certain things the black block does in
specific situations in specific times are appropriate. I also think we
should recognize that someone may throw a can of tear gas back to the
cops in the middle of intense police violence (the projectile objects
reported by the media were apparently tear gas canisters being thrown
back at police). What ever the Left "consensus" is in the next couple
of weeks things like that will still happen. From what i hear the
actual tactics on the ground we're talking about are more mild then
the wild eyed "antics" being discussed at LBO. Things such as taping
one's wrists with cotton so that zip ties don't cause pain and nerve
damage is getting denounced by others in occupy. I know conservatives
who could readily see circumstances where that's justified. There have
also been reports that the "property damage" was the breaking of a
fence so that protesters ("violent" and non-violent alike) could get
away from the police.Without context these denunciations of "violence"
are meaningless.

> --
> To post, send email to marxist...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe, send email to
> marxist-debat...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit
> http://groups.google.com/group/marxist-debate

--
-Nathan Tankus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Ethan Young]

What we have here is a smear of those critical of the trash mobs, combined with a knee jerk defense based on the idea that they have been victimized, and that they are just another bunch of occupiers, "all things being equal." Let's be clear: trash mobs are being rejected by pacifists and non-pacifists alike because they do more harm then good [even assuming they do ANY good] to the movement and communities in whose name the mobs claim to speak. The trashing and fronting off with cops are NOT a spontaneous response to cop attacks. They are planned in advance by a small group that have convinced themselves that this is 'upping the ante' and moving things forward, seizing the initiative from imagined liberal sell-outs (as if liberals have enough influence to divert Occupy into forming Young Democrats clubs).

After the students get out of jail and start to get too bored and scared to go on, it's the neighborhood folks, workers and unemployed, who will have to deal with a rabid, bloodthirsty, militarized and unleashed police force every goddamn day. They will not be glad this happened. They will not be inspired to occupy City Hall. They'll be trying to survive, as before, only now it will be harder, thanks to 'the coming insurrection.'ey

[nathan tankus]

i want some evidence that

A) people choosing to wear masks and all black make plans to riot no
matter the police response and choose their forms of violence
arbitrarily.

B) Black Block tactics specifically, and not occupy in general, are
a major reason locals will be treated more harshly by police

[Ethan Young]

I dont care what color clothes they wear, or even if they wear masks (although that in itself is indicative either that they are play-acting or choosing to be separate from regular citizens). The problem is the tactic. Do people who try to lead demonstrators into confrontations with cops known to be looking for violence (as in Oakland) just get the idea at the spur of the moment? It's a silly argument, yet if that were the case, they're still unworthy of support.

It's not about 'black bloc' or 'rioting.' It's about putschism in any form. Substituting the small group for the 99%. If Occupiers instead focus on broadening their support from different constituencies, and deepening their ties with working people, they not only make it possible to pressure the City to raise the bar on the level of allowed cop violence, but create a situation where protest is not so easily smashed. The tactic we are discussing has the opposite result. The insurrectos are not hurting the cops and empowering the people. Flip it.ey

[nathan tankus]

"Do people who try to lead demonstrators into confrontations with cops
known to be looking for violence (as in Oakland) just get the idea at
the spur of the moment? It's a silly argument, yet if that were the
case, they're still unworthy of support."

That would be a silly argument. I'm glad I didn't make such an
argument. If you don't want to respond to my query, that's fine. But
don't pretend as if you are responding to it.

[fractal-vortex]

http://socialismbeta.wiki-site.com/index.php/Alexander_Bogdanov_Tectology

fractal-vortex, Ukraine

[fractal-vortex]

http://socialismbeta.wiki-site.com/index.php/Alexander_Bogdanov_Tectology

fractal-vortex

13.02.2012, 09:21, "Ethan Young" <ethan...@earthlink.net>:
> I dont care what color clothes they wear, or even if they wear masks (although that in itself is indicative either that they are О©╫play-acting or choosing to be separate from regular citizens). The problem is the tactic. Do people who try to lead demonstrators into confrontations with cops known to be looking for violence (as in Oakland) just get the idea at the spur of the moment? It's a silly argument, yet if that were the case, they're still unworthy of support.

>
> It's not about 'black bloc' or 'rioting.' It's about putschism in any form. Substituting the small group for the 99%. If Occupiers instead focus on broadening their support from different constituencies, and deepening their ties with working people, they not only make it possible to pressure the City to raise the bar on the level of allowed cop violence, but create a situation where protest is not so easily smashed. The tactic we are discussing has the opposite result. The insurrectos are not hurting the cops and empowering the people. Flip it.ey
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
>> From: nathan tankus <somekindo...@gmail.com>
>> Sent: Feb 12, 2012 11:18 PM
>> To: marxist...@googlegroups.com
>> Subject: Re: [Marxist Debate] More on BB antics and their defenders
>>
>> i want some evidence that
>>

>> A) О©╫people choosing to wear masks and all black make plans to riot no

>> matter the police response and choose their forms of violence
>> arbitrarily.
>>

>> B) О©╫Black Block tactics specifically, and not occupy in general, О©╫are

>> a major reason locals will be treated more harshly by police
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 11:05 PM, Ethan Young <ethan...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>>> О©╫What we have here is a smear of those critical of the trash mobs, combined with a knee jerk defense based on the idea that they have been victimized, and that they are just another bunch of occupiers, "all things being equal." Let's be clear: trash mobs are being rejected by pacifists and non-pacifists alike because they do more harm then good [even assuming they do ANY good] to the movement and communities in whose name the mobs claim to speak. The trashing and fronting off with cops are NOT a spontaneous response to cop attacks. They are planned in advance by a small group that have convinced themselves that this is 'upping the ante' and moving things forward, seizing the initiative from imagined liberal sell-outs (as if liberals have enough influence to divert Occupy into forming Young Democrats clubs).
>>>
>>> О©╫After the students get out of jail and start to get too bored and scared to go on, it's the neighborhood folks, workers and unemployed, who will have to deal with a rabid, bloodthirsty, militarized and unleashed police force every goddamn day. They will not be glad this happened. They will not be inspired to occupy City Hall. They'll be trying to survive, as before, only now it will be harder, thanks to 'the coming insurrection.'ey
>>>
>>> О©╫-----Original Message-----

>>>> From: nathan tankus <somekindo...@gmail.com>
>>>> Sent: Feb 12, 2012 10:03 PM
>>>> To: marxist...@googlegroups.com
>>>> Subject: Re: [Marxist Debate] More on BB antics and their defenders
>>>>
>>>> I completely agree we should be talking about the black bloc as
>>>> tactic and about whether certain things the black block does in
>>>> specific situations in specific times are appropriate. I also think we
>>>> should recognize that someone may throw a can of tear gas back to the
>>>> cops in the middle of intense police violence (the projectile objects
>>>> reported by the media were apparently tear gas canisters being thrown
>>>> back at police). What ever the Left "consensus" is in the next couple
>>>> of weeks things like that will still happen. From what i hear the
>>>> actual tactics on the ground we're talking about are more mild then
>>>> the wild eyed "antics" being discussed at LBO. Things such as taping
>>>> one's wrists with cotton so that zip ties don't cause pain and nerve
>>>> damage is getting denounced by others in occupy. I know conservatives
>>>> who could readily see circumstances where that's justified. There have
>>>> also been reports that the "property damage" was the breaking of a
>>>> fence so that protesters ("violent" and non-violent alike) could get
>>>> away from the police.Without context these denunciations of "violence"
>>>> are meaningless.
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 9:44 AM, John Lacny <jla...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>>>>> О©╫Ethan writes:
>>>>>> О©╫I'm in general agreement on BB/OO but
>>>>>> О©╫disagree on impact of mid-to-late 60s
>>>>>> О©╫urban explosions. They did more than
>>>>>> О©╫trigger reform and backlash. They
>>>>>> О©╫asserted the power - real and potential
>>>>>> О©╫- of communities that had been dismissed
>>>>>> О©╫as defenseless pariahs since the end of
>>>>>> О©╫reconstruction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> О©╫They were mass uprisings, the same thing,
>>>>>> О©╫for restless communities in the 60s, that
>>>>>> О©╫mass strikes and workers councils were in
>>>>>> О©╫the post-WWI period.
>>>>> О©╫I completely agree, especially with the follow-on point that "This is not a
>>>>> О©╫case for small putschist groups trashing and fighting cops. Just the
>>>>> О©╫opposite. That practice only highlights the powerlessness of the left. Who
>>>>> О©╫wants to stake their lives on a bunch of powerless losers?"
>>>>>
>>>>> О©╫I've seen this debate happening in various places on the Internet lately,
>>>>> О©╫and I've refused to participate in it for this reason. On both "sides," the
>>>>> О©╫debates are abstract discussions of tactics in the absence of discussing
>>>>> О©╫strategy. If you're not an ideologically rigid pacifist, the only question
>>>>> О©╫you have to answer is not "Are these tactics appropriate?" but "Is this
>>>>> О©╫specific tactic appropriate in this specific situation?"
>>>>>
>>>>> О©╫I can't think of a single situation at the present moment in the United
>>>>> О©╫States where "Black Bloc" tactics are effective for building a mass
>>>>> О©╫movement, and if there were such a case, I would certainly not be discussing
>>>>> О©╫it ahead of time on Facebook.
>>>>>
>>>>> О©╫To the extent we as communists get involved in these discussions, I'd say we
>>>>> О©╫should push against this tendency to have discussions by proxy, and instead
>>>>> О©╫have discussions about a more fundamental divide: between those who
>>>>> О©╫recognize that achieving social transformation requires mass organizing and
>>>>> О©╫mobilization on the one hand, and on the other, those under the delusion
>>>>> О©╫that change comes from the exemplary actions of a few in "propaganda of the
>>>>> О©╫deed."
>>>>>
>>>>> О©╫And I should note that in my personal experience, people of the latter
>>>>> О©╫persuasion are more often than not the type who "talk tough," but then find
>>>>> О©╫excuses for not doing the more militant things they claim they want to do.
>>>>> О©╫Which to me proves that they are really the other side of the coin of
>>>>> О©╫liberalism. But it was ever thus, no?
>>>>>
>>>>> О©╫John Lacny
>>>>>
>>>>> О©╫--
>>>>> О©╫To post, send email to marxist...@googlegroups.com
>>>>> О©╫To unsubscribe, send email to
>>>>> О©╫marxist-debat...@googlegroups.com
>>>>> О©╫For more options, visit
>>>>> О©╫http://groups.google.com/group/marxist-debate

>>>> --
>>>> -Nathan Tankus
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> To post, send email to marxist...@googlegroups.com
>>>> To unsubscribe, send email to
>>>> marxist-debat...@googlegroups.com
>>>> For more options, visit
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/marxist-debate

>>> О©╫--
>>> О©╫To post, send email to marxist...@googlegroups.com
>>> О©╫To unsubscribe, send email to
>>> О©╫marxist-debat...@googlegroups.com
>>> О©╫For more options, visit
>>> О©╫http://groups.google.com/group/marxist-debate

[c b]

, Angelus Novus wrote:

> Eric wrote:
>
>> How come opponents of BB and anarchism never take it seriously (or,
> in shag's terms, respect it)?
>
> The problem is rooted in the ambiguity of the very term "anarchism".
>
> On the one hand, there's "Anarchism" properly speaking, a historical tendency within the labor movement tracing its roots back to the Bakunin wing of the First International, and later theoretically elaborated by thinkers like Kropotkin, and reaching its organizational and political zenith in the Spanish CNT-FAI. This is basically the "Anarchism" dealt with in Daniel Guerin's book, with which Noam Chomsky identifies. This represents something like a defineable trend within the left, and it can be analyzed as such.

^^^^^^^^
CB: In the US , the anarchist tradition goes back to the Indigenous
Peoples who did not have states.

Then  there are the Haymarket anarchists whom we honor on May Day,

May Day parade and strikes

In October 1884, a convention held by the Federation of Organized
Trades and Labor Unions unanimously set May 1, 1886, as the date by
which the eight-hour work day would become standard.[9] As the chosen
date approached, U.S. labor unions prepared for a general strike in
support of the eight-hour day.[10]

On Saturday, May 1, rallies were held throughout the United States.
There were an estimated 10,000 demonstrators in New York City[11] and
11,000 in Detroit.[12] In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, some 10,000 workers
turned out.[12] The movement's center was in Chicago, where an
estimated 40,000 workers went on strike.[13] Albert Parsons was an
anarchist and founder of the International Working People's
Association (IWPA). Parsons, with his wife Lucy and their children,
led a march of 80,000 people down Michigan Avenue.[13] Another 10,000
men employed in the lumber yards held a separate march in Chicago.[14]
Estimates of the number of striking workers across the U.S. range from
300,000[13] to half a million.[14]