š¾ Archived View for library.inu.red āŗ file āŗ anonymous-anarchist-black-bloc-motivation.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 06:22:19. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
ā”ļø Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Anarchist / Black Bloc Motivation Author: Anonymous Date: 2001 Language: en Topics: anti-globalization, black bloc, direct action, Italy, violence Source: Retrieved on September 1, 2009 from www.geocities.com/kk_abacus/ioaa/bbmotiv.html
This anonymous article was found on the web. Many seem to be confused or
angry at those who have used street fighting tactics in Genoa. By
explaining the motivation behind using these street fighting tactics,
especially from the Black Bloc perspective, this article hopes to sooth
some of that anger. The article also suggests some ways we as a movement
can move forward concerning the disagreement over forceful or
non-violent direct action.
Firstly, I am an anarchist, and this has been written because much of
the anarchist position on street fighting tactics needs to be explained,
especially after the murder of the brave street fighter Carlo Giuliani.
Nobody should expect radical change to be a comfortable and easy
process. Many people are angry, and confused by events in Genoa, this
article is designed to help turn some of that anger and confusion into
constructive ends.
Because the anarchist movement is an anti-authoritarian one of free
thinkers I, of course, only talk for myself, but I believe many feel the
same thing.
This isnāt just a dogmatic defense of the Bloc in Genoa. The Black Bloc
made mistakes Iām sure, and there are issues on how the Bloc can weed
out problems, however I still believe in the Black Bloc and itās tactics
for many good reasons, which are:
the G8, WTO, IMF etc, as you canāt reform capitalism in anyway more than
just blunting some of the sharpest corners.As such that is why I donāt
support the lobby groups like Greenpeace who would seem to want to ride
some of the wave of support the anti-globalization movement has been
getting, and turn it into a place at the powerfuls table.Further more
anarchists donāt think elite groups of lobbyists are any substitute for
fighting towards the real and long reaching benefits that direct
democracy would offer.
the system to be nice, as many pacifist protestors seem to think. This
is because, as I said, you canāt reform capitalism much, as it will
fundamentally always exploit people. The only permanent change is
getting rid of capitalism, not asking it to reform itself.This is on top
of the issue raised by Tony Blair, who said:āWe recognize and praise the
role that peaceful protest and argument have played, for example in
putting issues like debt relief on the international agenda.āA statement
which could be taken in the way he wants you to take it, or as it could
mean that he likes peaceful protests because of the little to no change
it bring towards the fundamentals of the system yet helps to (when used
exclusively) disarms dissent by giving the system the illusion of being
democratic (something we know it isnāt). I, and many others, believe the
latter meaning and therefore arenāt content with solely street partying
capitalism and oppression out of existence.
isnāt in all cases disempowering or turns people uninvolved off.Quite
the opposite to the mild to non-confrontational approach of many other
activists I believe that the only way to stay credible is to be as
confrontational as appropriate to our opponent (in this case the G8
ministers).Effective, not symbolic, confrontation is what really shows
we are serious, and attracts more people to the movement (as opposed to
counter summits, manifestos, marches etc, however these thing also have
a very important role to play).
diversity. The above groups that I have written above in the other
points, while I disagree with them on some issues, I still welcome them
to the movement, want to co-operate and agree not to interfere with
their activities (a show of respect many anarchists donāt get in
return).
These four points, I believe, are held by a large number in the
anti-globalization movement and they help to justify the Black Bloc
action.
This article isnāt an argument to say that forceful direct action is
always appropriate. As such I would also hold open the possibility that
what has happened in Genoa by the Black Bloc was the wrong thing to do,
either in part or wholly.
Writing tactics such as the Bloc off because of some mistakes is too
simplistic.
The debate between if to use force or non-violence is one that should
really be dropped. In its place should be the much more useful debate of
what is the best confrontational tactic for the situation. It is neither
street fighting nor non-violent action that draws people to the
movement, it is the level of confrontation.
Take Seattle as an example to illustrate this point. There was mostly
non-violent action there and most of that non-violent action was pivotal
in the successful blockade. The effective blockade in turn showed our
confrontation to our oppressors that we needed to kick-start the
movement. Post Seattle people were attracted to the movement by the fact
that the WTO was effectively disrupted, not that peaceful protesters
were beaten, as some like to think.
When you look at all the anti-globalization events it can be seen that
they all hold in common a simple equation, they succeed because they
arenāt a simple demonstration, they are an active confrontation.
Now look at how tactics have developed, from Seattle to Prague, from
Melbourne to Quebec, both non-violence and street fighting have been
effective in developing an inspiring confrontation.
However, more and more, the role of non-violence committed activists in
achieving confrontation to those we oppose has dropped off dramatically,
in favor of this ācarnival protestā model which is, on the confrontation
scale, only symbolic resistance at best.
It has been the anarchists and the Black Bloc in particular, and more
and more groups like Ya Basta!, that have kept tactics fresh and
relevant by planning how to challenge the walled city approach now used
by the powers that be to protect their meetings.
Iām not dismissing comment made by people who disagree with violence; in
fact I would encourage a dialogue between the differing factions, a
dialogue that would hopefully think up improved tactics.
An example of the cross faction tactics we need would be the tactic of
separating the different street fighting/non-violent factions into their
own section so that people can choose their level of involvement.
Admittedly this tactic fails sometimes in that it doesnāt address the
fact that police wonāt always respect the difference, but this is the
kind of thing we need to think around and improve upon.
This single biggest issue that needs to be addressed is one that
concerns committed non-violence activists themselves. Since Seattle they
have, mostly, failed to come up with new non-violent direct action
tactics that maintain confrontation between us and our oppressors and
adapt to the current way summit are organized.
Those committed non-violent direct action desperately need to abandon
the blockade model, and to dismiss the protest march/street party
approach as their only response as both are ineffective in disrupting
these summits.
In Genoa those who are prepared to street fight would welcome feasible
non-violent tactic for crossing into the red zone and disrupting/closing
down the meeting of the G8.
In return for fresh and effective non-violent tactics, I believe, the
Bloc would abstain from using force while the tactic still works. But,
as everyone know, those committed non-violent direct action tacticians
came up with no such plans, they just contented themselves with a
symbolic resistance, something that will always be intolerable to those
who demand radical change.
Consider, what would have Gandhi done? Would he have sat outside a
conference gate, or marched around the center, knowing that this would
disrupt nothing, or would he have (perhaps) scaled the fence, or done
something else (ie encourage a general strike)?
I personally, and many other, canāt stand to see people getting
passively beaten up, and we will defend ourselves if attacked, but we
will respect those who have their own tactics. If non-violent direct
action theorists come up with something effective then it will be
supported.
One problem with forums like Indymedia is the endless rhetoric paraded
as arguments, such as how āviolence beget violenceā etc etc. Those
people need to be less elitist, get off their high horse and realize
that people who street fight have thought about all these points as
well, and just disagree.
As such if you want a change in tactics, if you want to stop the street
fighting, youāre going to have to come up with an alternative that
remains confrontational. One of the worst aspect of the movement now is
the way that people content themselves on blaming others for failings of
the day as a way of dodging their own responsibility to adapt to
changing situations.
Finally I would like to appeal to those who street fight and those who
believe in non-violent action alike:
force that the state and capital has out maneuvered time and time again
over most of the last 50 years. Each faction needs to actively avoid a
split by influencing the members within each that move to create a
division over dogmatic interpretations of ideology.
to consider how to confront our oppressors in their planning our
oppression, with the aim of disrupting/shutting them down non-violently
ideally and primarily, but forcefully if necessary.
tactics, including non-anti-summit actions. Radical change is unlikely
to come about just through shutting down these meetings (but it would be
a good start).