Can "Black Bloc" Tactics Be Rationally Justified?

This is an issue which came up as a sort of aside to another thread of mine, but I think it is an important issue which needs to be discussed.

For reference, I am referring to the so-called "Black Bloc" tactics employed at protests where people dress in all black, covering up their identity and engage in property damage/destruction, antagonizing police and journalists to provoke responses (often fleeing and discarding their black attire once they've stirred up the hornet's nest) and threatening any other protesters who get in their way or try to question them.

To be clear, and to constrain the debate, I am questioning the legitimacy of these (and related) tactics employed at mass protests. I am not questioning the politics or beliefs of anarchists or other radicals, nor do I think that particular political/philosophical beliefs of such a nature are even relevant to the question I am posing (unless of course said belief is directly tied to justifying "Black Bloc" tactics). This thread is also not for discussing police infiltration of such groups or the use of agents provocateurs by the police/government (as we should all be able to surmise what their reasons for doing this sort of thing are). For the sake of this discussion we will assume that those engaged in "Black Bloc" tactics are authentic protesters and not undercover cops et al.

As an opening salvo of sorts, I will repost part of my response to the individual who had brought this up in my other thread:

Black bloc tactics have been proven effective time and time again.

They've "been proven effective time and time again" at accomplishing what, exactly? Giving the police an excuse in the public's mind to beat up and arrest innocent people and trample the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (or Bill of Rights for you American folk)? Check. Further delegitimizing the causes and issues of not only the protesters but the anarchists too? Check. Giving the government carte blanche to further implement police state type laws and systems such as CCTV cameras everywhere? Check. Helping scare those who aren't yet aware of all the corruption and abuse of power so that they cling ever tighter to both their oppressors and the propaganda put out by the MSM? Check. At causing a few thousand dollars worth of damage to well insured international corporations who make billions in profits each year? Check.

Ultimately I am asking a) what end are these tactics ultimately trying to achieve, and b) what evidence/proof can you produce that these tactics actually make progress towards said end?

Have at you!

EDIT: Mods, I just read the subscript or what have you for this forum, which says discussing topics about the Middle-East (The forum title however did not indicate this). Please move this topic to the appropriate forum if this is not the correct place for this topic. (Perhaps the philosophy thread? not sure)


[edit on 17-7-2010 by dangerouslogic]

As Napoleon pointed out, "history is written by the winners." The New England minutemen hid behind stone walls and picked off the redcoats as they marched from town to town. To the British, this was barbaric, savagery of the most cowardly sort that violated every rule of honorable war and decency and earned the US rebels a reputation as terrorist thugs. Today, the same men are considered heroic founding-fathther figures in the US.

So if someday there is a much more sizable upheaval that results in a true toppling of the old order, perhaps the "Black Bloc" people will be hailed as a vanguard before their time. If nothing much comes of it, history's verdic is likely to relegate them to a sour footnote or two. Who sees the "Weather Underground" as heroes today? When they are remembered at all, it is as stupid, spoiled children of privilage who got in over their heads and caused usesless danger and mahem.

Nothing in history can be "rationally justified" in any objective sense because there is no objective sense. Conversely, everything can be justified by a given party if it suits their agenda.

I personally don't think these people have accomplished all that much to date, but we will all have to wait for future events to play out before we can see how they figure (if at all) in the bigger historical picture. And I'm guessing most of us will be (probably mercifully) dead before that happens.

For the sake of my response let's assume that ALL of the supposed black bloc protesters were undercover police and paid agitators.
Watch the videos and look at A) how new their clothing, packs and boots look and B) additional evidence - elbow pads (riot gear), batons and behavioral clues; total lack of concern for arrest, hair cuts, physical appearance, etc.
All the anarchists I used to know had patches all over their gear, weird haircuts, skinny vegans.
MOST of the supposed black bloc were undercover cops. Agitprop forces.
We have to discern the truth for ourselves, the MSM isn't going to help us at all since they work for the same people as the police.

good question.

i'll give 'er a shot.

are not black bloc tactics a direct response to what is deemed irrational policy/governance and injustice? (i'll go with newton on that one. action/reaction.)

so where is the logic in any of this? is it the way of the universe?

seems like most black bloc brick throwers are spoiled college-age kids trying to play revolutionary. which is a riot. (pun intended.) property destruction doesn't matter to someone that has never had to work or earn anything for themselves. nor does it mean much to those that have no property. especially if said property belongs to a faceless entity like a corporation or the state.

if they really wanted to do some damage, it could be much worse. honestly, i think they are holding back. more damage probably gets done after a major futbol or hockey upset. there is plenty of footage of raging sports fans tearing up the streets, burning cop cars, looting...

perhaps they (black bloc) would rather be throwing molotovs and 7.62 rounds, but reason and rationality prevailing dictate otherwise. the lesser of two evils?

sure, some of them might be real deal hardcore, but even they are more than likely squeamish of holding the title of "terrorist". so civil disobedience it is.

at the end of the day, everyone wants to go home...

... except for those douche-bags that will one day be high profile criminal defense lawyers that can say: "i was there maaaaan..." because they have an arrest record to prove it.

the guys that really want to open fire on the man are too busy working to attend what amounts to a juvenalian parade. you'd probably find some of them among the cops, the black bloc's other half. (or big brother if you will...)

the peace and flowers thing was tried and abused. "make love not war" fell on deaf ears. so naturally, the reaction has intensified. the credo of "Peace" has gone the way of "F*** You!"

i don't rightly know if thats rational or not, but i'd wager it is the reason. justifiable? heads have rolled for less.

so far, all that has been accomplished is superior crowd control technique.

then again...

if the goal is to minimize violence, that much may have been achieved. i've been expecting to see fighting in the streets for 20 years now. not because i want it, but because (to me) it seems inevitable.

with the newest wave of crowd control technology it seems the point is to not even allow a crowd to gather. if the outlet of protest is denied, the reaction may further intensify.

Originally posted by silent thunder
As Napoleon pointed out, "history is written by the winners." The New England minutemen hid behind stone walls and picked off the redcoats as they marched from town to town. To the British, this was barbaric, savagery of the most cowardly sort that violated every rule of honorable war and decency and earned the US rebels a reputation as terrorist thugs. Today, the same men are considered heroic founding-fathther figures in the US.

Your point is well taken regarding the U.S. revolutionaries, however I don't think it is a fair comparison to the "Black Bloc". One of my main points against these tactics when I was disagreeing with the other member (other thread) was that they seem to actually avoid (perhaps with good reason, such as being afraid for their individual safety) directly confronting or attacking those who they consider their oppressors to be (i.e. police, government officials, corporate executives, etc.) If, instead of actually attacking the redcoats, the minutemen had just run around smashing a couple windows and burning a few wagons, would they still be remembered today the way that they are? Further, would they ever even have succeeded at getting the British to give up the colonies? I would argue no.

Conversely, everything can be justified by a given party if it suits their agenda.

Perhaps in their own minds it can be, but that defeats the purpose of this thread (and all rational thinking or philosophical inquiry, I might add). I think its safe to say that those who engage in "Black Bloc" tactics feel themselves justified in doing so. I am challenging them or anyone to rationally justify it to those who do not already unquestionably agree with them.

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
For the sake of my response let's assume that ALL of the supposed black bloc protesters were undercover police and paid agitators.

But you're missing the entire point of this thread friend. Of course some (and perhaps all) "Black Bloc" folks are actually police provocateurs (if nothing else, Montebello, Quebec 2007 SPP protest proves this). But the point of this thread is to have a philosophical discussion on the merits and rationality of "Black Bloc" tactics as a form of resistance. As I stated before, there should be no mystery as to why the police "Black Bloc" provocateurs engage in these tactics. However, what is not entirely clear is why authentic protesters would also engage in these tactics as, at least as far as I can see, they seem to actually be counter-productive to their aims (resistance against, and possible overthrow of, the state). Further, I think this transcends political beliefs (for the most part) as well. Even a radical anarchist (you know, the MSM boogeyman type) would not be served by these tactics as, at least in their current manifestation, they seem to only help strengthen the state and its control over our lives (by justifying more police, cameras, draconian laws, etc etc etc etc ad infinitum).

To be clear, I am willing to accept that perhaps some different or new type of tactics may be effective in pushing back the state. My argument is that this current manifestation of "Black Bloc" tactics is not.

[edit on 17-7-2010 by dangerouslogic]

Originally posted by gravykraken
if they really wanted to do some damage, it could be much worse. honestly, i think they are holding back. more damage probably gets done after a major futbol or hockey upset. there is plenty of footage of raging sports fans tearing up the streets, burning cop cars, looting...

perhaps they (black bloc) would rather be throwing molotovs and 7.62 rounds, but reason and rationality prevailing dictate otherwise. the lesser of two evils?

sure, some of them might be real deal hardcore, but even they are more than likely squeamish of holding the title of "terrorist". so civil disobedience it is.

I certainly agree with your line of reasoning here, though ultimately, any form of civil disobedience needs to be targetted and effective (towards whatever end it has). If a particular activity meant to disrupt the PTB actually turns out to help the PTB and not actually upset them much at all (again, insurance would have covered all the relatively minor damage that was caused at the Toronto G20 protest), then it is no longer civil disobedience, but something else entirely.

the peace and flowers thing was tried and abused. "make love not war" fell on deaf ears. so naturally, the reaction has intensified. the credo of "Peace" has gone the way of "F*** You!"

For sure, and to that extent I empathize completely with the "Black Bloc" adherents. But if, for instance, the flowers stuck in rifle barrels had actually turned out to be a new type of ammunition for the police/national guard to use against the people, then would that tactic not be an utter failure and should that tactic then not be abandoned in favour of a new tactic which actually achieved or worked towards the protesters' own ends?

Using the action/reaction you mentioned above, how then must a "Black Bloc" adherent judge the efficacy of their own tactics when, time and time again, (to quote one of their supporters) "Smashy smashy" (action) results in further clamp down on rights and freedoms, further abuse by the state against its people and, I would argue, worst of all the delegitimization of the political issues, causes and beliefs of all protesters (including "Black Bloc" adherents) in the public's eye (reaction)? The same public, I would remind everyone, that we are trying to wake up to all the corruption and abuse of power.



[edit on 17-7-2010 by dangerouslogic]

in my experience there is only one way to deal with a bully, and that is to sink as low or lower. thats all i can really say about that.

i would say that the hippie movement was derailed buy a heavy dose of '___'. so in essence, i agree. the flowers were just a band-aid placed over a sucking chest wound. more harm than good. kind of like the old practice of dosing a crying baby by dipping it's pacifier in whiskey. "here, this will shut 'em up."

so what you (OP) are saying is that the black bloc, provocateurs aside, are still being played like a fiddle? that they are falling into the plan, a pawn on the game board?

perhaps the black bloc should take some cues from MLK. it got him killed, and many more beaten down, but it made the opposition somewhat show their hand and change did occur without devolving into all out war.

Originally posted by gravykraken
so what you (OP) are saying is that the black bloc, provocateurs aside, are still being played like a fiddle? that they are falling into the plan, a pawn on the game board?

In a way, yes. It's not to say that their motivations for their tactics are wrong or suspect, but rather that their actions (for the most part anyways) do not seem to achieve anything close to what their goals seem to be. In some cases they even seem to achieve the opposite.

To me, it seems illogical to challenge the state's monopoly on violence in its own arena of supremacy. We need to find ways of circumventing its monopoly on violence so that we can tear its house of cards down from underneath it, rather than to just throw ourselves, no matter how well intentioned, at their strongest defenses.

EDIT: To add: MLK is an excellent example as well. When "Black Bloc" engage in their tactics, the government and police know how to deal with it and only get better and better at dealing with it day by day (ie: hunting down and arresting members and charging them with terrorism related offences, among other tactics). On the other hand, MLK was assassinated because he represented a threat which they did not know how to deal with, or at least they could not deal with efficiently. If MLK had lived long enough to realize his ambitions of a mass march on Washington DC to shut the city down with a mass strike which would not leave until the civil rights issue had finally been dealt with and African American's had achieved equality, then the government would have been backed into a corner where they either had to expose themselves as the fascists that they were by violently quashing the strike or actually deal with the issue on the protesters' terms, rather than in a way that maintained the status quo.

As much as it most certainly is a very sad state of affairs (not to mention tragic and extremely unfair) that we must, to some extent at least, be willing victims of state violence, we are left (at this juncture at least) with few other choices. For example, if the iconic man standing down the tank in Tienamen (sp? sorry!) Square had instead been dressed as a "Black Bloc" member and was throwing eggs or firebombs at the tank, would it remain as powerful and iconic a symbol of Chinese oppression as it is today? I would argue that if he had, that video would today actually be accessible in China (not censored) and the Chinese government would be saying something like: "See, we need to act this way to defend our glorious People's Revolution against these evil terrorists!" Would the Chinese government be justified in such a claim or in using such tactics? No. Would most people (the public in general) believe that the Chinese government was at least semi-justified in doing so, thus tacitly allowing such repression to continue unchallenged? Yes.

[edit on 18-7-2010 by dangerouslogic]

well, having "anarchy-club" meetings once a month sure as hell won't do it.

they are too loosely organized. for what they (presumably) want to achieve requires a natural born leader or military discipline. both would be optimal. neither of which they have. because if they did, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

among the "black bloc" are several focus groups that can't seem to agree on anything.

i hate to stray from the parameters of the thread... BUT: if the feds can infiltrate la cosa nostra, they can certainly infiltrate a ragtag band of gutter-punks, uber-vegans, and scene kids. it is unrealistic to exclude this from strategic planning. it must be assumed. i don't mean just cops acting as provocateurs, but as well federal agents that help the planning. it is much easier to single out an undercover cop than it is a government agent.

a partial strategy is a failed one. all possible tangents and contingencies must be considered.

Okay, before I engage in debate I'm going to post some relevant links on the black bloc; info on what it is, the tactics involved, history, and its recent role in the G20 protests in Toronto. Some of these links will contain purely information, some will be news/reports, some will be opinion (both for/against), and some will shed light on the aftermath.

If you're reading this thread, PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO EDUCATE YOURSELF VIA THESE LINKS.

Read one, read a few, read em all, pick the ones that catch your eye, read as much as you feel like but PLEASE utilize these resources to inform yourself, they're gold I promise.

Here ya go:


Bloackbloc FAQ/Black Blocs For Dummies


What is the black bloc?


Fire and Flames! - A Militant Report on Toronto Anti-G20 Resistance


Toronto G20: Eyewitness Report


Disruptive movements, state security and the Black Bloc


No action is sufficient in itself, black bloc or otherwise


On Protests and Less-Legal Tactics: Part 1


On Protests and Less-Legal Tactics: Part 2


Snitching on the Resistance: How celebrity activists have set off a witch hunt against anarchist militants


Day 3 - Heart Attack talkback


The Toronto Star: Police release G20 photos of ‘most wanted'


G8/G20, They Few, We Many: Solidarity with the Toronto Arrestees


Unapologetic Anarchist Bloc in Montreal


Anarchism and Nonviolence: Time for a ‘Complementarity of Tactics’


Black Bloc-Headed

reply to post by NoHierarchy


Thank you for supplying these resources! I will have to take a look as, as of yet, I'm still not entirely comfortable with the usage of the term "Black Bloc". That is, is it an actual faction/group or is it the title of a particular grouping of tactics, or a bit of both, or even something else entirely? It may take me a bit, but I'll definately take a look at these!

Keep in mind people... a LOT of what you're discussing- from the infiltration of government agents, to the efficacy of certain tactics, from violence to nonviolence, from property destruction to the harm of people (the latter of which is very largely restricted and eschewed except in cases of self-defense), and so on, is ALREADY being heavily discussed by Anarchists and other protesters close to such activism.

I highly advise you read up on the words of ACTUAL Anarchist websites, conversations, debates, and so on. You will see that there's a LOT of heated debate even within article comments, though it's not always sure whether everybody participating is an Anarchist or not.

With that said I do believe I need to clarify this:

The OP has stated a couple times throughout this thread that black bloc tactics do not serve the desires of Anarchists or other protesters and should thus be discarded. HOWEVER, first I must urge you to educate yourself on specifically what tactics are used by the black bloc, as well as be aware that the black bloc is absolutely open to NEW tactics (both violent and peaceful) as they prove effective and in line with principles. We cannot behave as if there are some tactics out there that are SUREFIRE to bring us what we want... this is a DIFFICULT battle to fight and a range of tactics at a range of times/places must be used and experimented with. We cannot expect perfection out of the black bloc, the black bloc is ITSELF not a group but an amalgamation of tactics under autonomous/anonymous solidarity. Also keep in mind, when addressing the efficacy of black bloc tactics you MUST educate yourselves on WHY each tactic is being used. Do not assume that a certain tactic means one thing, its purpose could serve an entirely different aim than you think, not to mention the depth of motivations of those carrying it out may be different than you'd like to assume. For instance, when the black block smashes a cop car or pushes back against police lines, this can be for a variety of reasons, sending a larger message to society and the establishment that there will be resistance to tyranny, but ALSO this serves the simple purpose of maintaining protester/activist self-defense, control and freedom within the protest itself. Not every action during a protest is meant to change the world, and that is ok, some battles are small, each small/local fire (so to speak) must be tended to as everybody works to tend to the larger/global ones. A diversity of tactics is respected in most Anarchist communities as well as a diversity of battle-fronts. Each action, each battle, each tactic has its place within the range/scope of resistance. Certainly some of it may be pointless or counterproductive, thus imperfection, however, not all or even most can be said to be pointless at this point in time. Most of the outcry against black bloc tactics seems to be circular and self-fulfilling, taking focus away from the REAL problems of activists. Anarchists and those who participate in black bloc ARE NOT responsible for the misconduct of police and media. While I can definitely see the argument that it makes their misconduct more likely to occur, I still believe that the vast majority of their misconduct is INDEPENDENT of the actions of the black bloc and MUST BE RIGOROUSLY PROTESTED AND CHANGED on its own without demonizing a scapegoat who should be your ally.

While I do lean more towards supporting black bloc tactics, do not assume that I don't also have my own internal debates. However, having the skeptical/scientific mind that I do, I do not like to deal in black/white when I should be thinking in gray. In the case of the black bloc, using direct action, civil disobedience, and even targeted violence/property-destruction are TIMELESS tactics and should NOT be wholly and forever tossed out simply because the system doesn't like it, it scares some of the public who don't understand it, or it doesn't fix all of our problems. Though I agree with you guys that the peacenik/flower-in-the-gun-barrel attitudes of the 60's have gone sour to many people (including myself in some ways) I also don't think that nonviolence should be tossed out either. There was a LOT of good work done in the 60's by many great and radical activists. Keep in mind too, most hippies were just hipsters or partiers and not activists, it was just the style of the time for most young people. Check out a guy named Abbie Hoffman (if you don't know of him already), he was involved in a lot of great activism during that time and is well-respected among activists/civil-disobeyers. Of course Gandhi and Martin Luther King come to mind as well. Many of the early American Revolutionaries were TEENS and young adults even! Violence and non-violence encompass MASSIVE swaths of activism and can be adapted to what is most effective and most in line with goals/aims. Vision, solidarity, and tact are very important. And believe me, though I do feel that black bloc tactics have their place in activism/resistance, I also believe that most of the battle is a non-violent one. Hearts and minds must be changed, not with lies and propaganda but with truth and forward-thinking principles. I also believe a larger dialogue MUST opened up between the majority of activists and Anarchists who are typically viewed as on the fringe about these issues. A scientific/rational discussion must be had about staying united, in solidarity, and choosing/respecting the right tactics at the right times.

Originally posted by dangerouslogic
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

Thank you for supplying these resources! I will have to take a look as, as of yet, I'm still not entirely comfortable with the usage of the term "Black Bloc". That is, is it an actual faction/group or is it the title of a particular grouping of tactics, or a bit of both, or even something else entirely? It may take me a bit, but I'll definately take a look at these!

You're welcome! Definitely take some time to look 'em over, whatever piques your interest.

You'll find, reading through the first couple links, that the black bloc is NOT an official group/organization but instead a range of tactics which most popularly include disguises/masks/black clothes, mass civil disobedience and property destruction, self-defense against police brutality/arrest, as well as a range of peaceful protest methods. Anybody is welcome to join in on a black bloc action, it is not restricted to Anarchists, it's sort of like a flash mob with a few simple/common sense rules/guidelines in order to be effective and achieve a feeling of collective solidarity and protection from police surveillance (which is absolutely a threat and has been used to unjustly target protesters and strip them of their rights).

reply to post by NoHierarchy


Following your suggestion; a very good one; I educated myself on "Black Bloc" tactics from the sites you provided.
My comment comes from the other direction, however. I understand that BB participants think that this is working for them, at least half the time. If I were of that mindset, I would definitely rather participate in Black Bloc actions than the incoherent and intellectually fuzzy "street theatre" and other actions by the more "anti-violent" sort of protesters.
Coming from a counterintelligence background however, these BB actions and other "direct action" type of protests are just what the authorities need to ratchet up the response. Believe me, in Canada, where even the conservatives are liberal, the police response was nothing like you'd get in Dallas or El Paso. The more popular BB actions become at conference venues, the closer the opposition moves toward rubber bullets and serious head-cracking. The average twenty-something American protester is a fairly coddled person. I don't think they have any clue what a world of hurt is going to come down on them when the police are really unleashed. And whatever you think, they have not been unleashed. These won't be regular beat cops or "community policing" types either. They will be people like I trained for twenty years that will not care if your brains end up on the street or not.
I'm not advocating anything one way or the other. I have removed myself from that world and have some sympathies toward anti-NWO types. I'm just trying to inject some realism into an environment crowded with starry-eyed dreamers. Don't start something you can't conceivably finish.

Originally posted by taskforce4256
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

Following your suggestion; a very good one; I educated myself on "Black Bloc" tactics from the sites you provided.
My comment comes from the other direction, however. I understand that BB participants think that this is working for them, at least half the time. If I were of that mindset, I would definitely rather participate in Black Bloc actions than the incoherent and intellectually fuzzy "street theatre" and other actions by the more "anti-violent" sort of protesters.
Coming from a counterintelligence background however, these BB actions and other "direct action" type of protests are just what the authorities need to ratchet up the response. Believe me, in Canada, where even the conservatives are liberal, the police response was nothing like you'd get in Dallas or El Paso. The more popular BB actions become at conference venues, the closer the opposition moves toward rubber bullets and serious head-cracking. The average twenty-something American protester is a fairly coddled person. I don't think they have any clue what a world of hurt is going to come down on them when the police are really unleashed. And whatever you think, they have not been unleashed. These won't be regular beat cops or "community policing" types either. They will be people like I trained for twenty years that will not care if your brains end up on the street or not.
I'm not advocating anything one way or the other. I have removed myself from that world and have some sympathies toward anti-NWO types. I'm just trying to inject some realism into an environment crowded with starry-eyed dreamers. Don't start something you can't conceivably finish.

Thanks for readin em and for a response from experience.

I agree that such violence (on both sides) can ratchet up the other side's violence and create an escalating conflict, and also that Canadian cops are probably not as hot-headed or brutal as American cops. However I must contend the notion that protesters don't understand the risks they take. I can't say what percentage of protesters have experienced tear gas, rubber bullets, batons, arrest, police brutality, etc. However, there is a very strong awareness of such police actions amongst protesters and especially Anarchists. I must also contend the notion that protesters are too coddled to realize what kinds of pains police can inflict, because police indeed regularly dole out such brutality at protests and many protesters have experienced some quite harsh treatment, injury, and pains. I don't believe that police have been fully unleashed, but in your hypothetical situation that black bloc tactics become much more popular and police thus are unleashed further, I don't see many protesters tolerating it. Surely it'd be an ugly and regrettable situation, but there are plenty of people out there who I'm sure would be just as willing to smash cops' heads in as vise versa. I'm sure even people who normally wouldn't think of such a thing may change their mind in a severe enough situation. I'm not saying that many black bloc tactics thus far would prove useful or strong enough when faced with serious police repression, but the nature of the black bloc is to adaptively use what is most effective/appropriate for each protest, situation, and encounter and in the event of very severe police crackdowns I'm sure you'd have equally severe tit-for-tats. Also, I'm not necessarily advocating any of that, but I'm just pointing out the nature and capability of ALL humans whether they're cops, protesters, men, women, black or white... Everyone is capable of serious offensive/defensive actions (both successful and unsuccessful) in a conflict or survival situation. Protesters may not fully know what they're up against... but by the same token neither do police, especially since knowledge is everywhere and potentials can be circumstantially decided and carried out.

I think it'd be a whole lot easier and more enjoyable for both police and protesters if police simply stepped out of the way and let some chosen-mouthpiece protesters infiltrate meetings like the G20. There doesn't have to be any violence, but essentially a protest is sending a message and demanding answers. So... why not let protesters demand answers of our world leaders face-to-face? Why should we put up with their dodging of dialogue with the public that they more/less rule over? It's not like protesters are a bunch of idiots... they're some of the most willfully informed/concerned people of the entire populace. Yes that's a tall order that I'm afraid will probably never be served... however it's reasonable and the police as individuals should have no problem with demanding the same answers from elites... because let's face it, police may be the de-facto hired attack dogs of the elites but they certainly aren't part of the privileged club.

I think its safe to say that those who engage in "Black Bloc" tactics feel themselves justified in doing so.

The problem with the black bloc tactics is anyone can use them.

Just dress the same and pick a target.

The ultimate way to attack your enemies.

Don't like illegal immigrants just show up at a pro illegal immigrant protest and cause a riot.
Don't like PETA show up at one of there protest and start a riot.
Same with a tea party protest.
commons.wikimedia.org...:Black_Bloc_demonstrators_at_J20.jpg
www.radicalhomosexualagenda.org...

With 10 people and some picket signs like this and a few cans of pepper spray in the back of a peaceful protest i could turn it into a riot with the peaceful protesters trying to get away from the pepper spray by running right into the police lines,
The cops seeing the anarchist signs will call a full scale call up and the peaceful protesters will think the cops are out to get them.
anarchyfiles.files.wordpress.com...

Originally posted by ANNED

I think its safe to say that those who engage in "Black Bloc" tactics feel themselves justified in doing so.

The problem with the black bloc tactics is anyone can use them.

Just dress the same and pick a target.

The ultimate way to attack your enemies.

Don't like illegal immigrants just show up at a pro illegal immigrant protest and cause a riot.
Don't like PETA show up at one of there protest and start a riot.
Same with a tea party protest.
commons.wikimedia.org...:Black_Bloc_demonstrators_at_J20.jpg
www.radicalhomosexualagenda.org...

With 10 people and some picket signs like this and a few cans of pepper spray in the back of a peaceful protest i could turn it into a riot with the peaceful protesters trying to get away from the pepper spray by running right into the police lines,
The cops seeing the anarchist signs will call a full scale call up and the peaceful protesters will think the cops are out to get them.
anarchyfiles.files.wordpress.com...

I suppose that's possible... but then again you're sort of wildly speculating and not basing such fears on the reality and history of black bloc protests. By the same token a peaceful/plainclothed protest could be just as easily infiltrated or steered wrong... or perhaps it wouldn't be so easy. You see, protesters may look like a herd, but since they're used to keeping organized, aware, and rational in such situations it'd be difficult to fool everyone into screwing themselves over.

Originally posted by gravykraken

well, having "anarchy-club" meetings once a month sure as hell won't do it.

they are too loosely organized. for what they (presumably) want to achieve requires a natural born leader or military discipline. both would be optimal. neither of which they have. because if they did, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

They should embrace social hierarchy and develop strata for leadership?

among the "black bloc" are several focus groups that can't seem to agree on anything.

i hate to stray from the parameters of the thread... BUT: if the feds can infiltrate la cosa nostra, they can certainly infiltrate a ragtag band of gutter-punks, uber-vegans, and scene kids. it is unrealistic to exclude this from strategic planning. it must be assumed. i don't mean just cops acting as provocateurs, but as well federal agents that help the planning. it is much easier to single out an undercover cop than it is a government agent.

a partial strategy is a failed one. all possible tangents and contingencies must be considered.

Because if they don't become more like the system they oppose they will remain wild, uncontrollable and ultimately, a danger to the accepted norm that the 'leaders' know best that the individual must be controlled?

reply to post by taskforce4256


Every active anarchist understands it is impossible to make omelette without breaking eggs. Revolutionaries understand the risks of revolution. Put your life and liberty on the line even though success is not guaranteed.