EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Cancer in Occupy
The Black Bloc anarchists, who have been active on the streets in Oakland and other cities, are the cancer of the Occupy movement. The presence of Black Bloc anarchists—so named because they dress in black, obscure their faces, move as a unified mass, seek physical confrontations with police and destroy property—is a gift from heaven to the security and surveillance state. The Occupy encampments in various cities were shut down precisely because they were nonviolent. They were shut down because the state realized the potential of their broad appeal even to those within the systems of power. They were shut down because they articulated a truth about our economic and political system that cut across political and cultural lines. And they were shut down because they were places mothers and fathers with strollers felt safe.
Black Bloc adherents detest those of us on the organized left and seek, quite consciously, to take away our tools of empowerment. They confuse acts of petty vandalism and a repellent cynicism with revolution. The real enemies, they argue, are not the corporate capitalists, but their collaborators among the unions, workers’ movements, radical intellectuals, environmental activists and populist movements such as the Zapatistas. Any group that seeks to rebuild social structures, especially through nonviolent acts of civil disobedience, rather than physically destroy, becomes, in the eyes of Black Bloc anarchists, the enemy. Black Bloc anarchists spend most of their fury not on the architects of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) or globalism, but on those, such as the Zapatistas, who respond to the problem. It is a grotesque inversion of value systems.
Because Black Bloc anarchists do not believe in organization, indeed oppose all organized movements, they ensure their own powerlessness. They can only be obstructionist. And they are primarily obstructionist to those who resist. John Zerzan, one of the principal ideologues of the Black Bloc movement in the United States, defended “Industrial Society and Its Future,” the rambling manifesto by Theodore Kaczynski, known as the Unabomber, although he did not endorse Kaczynski’s bombings. Zerzan is a fierce critic of a long list of supposed sellouts starting with Noam Chomsky. Black Bloc anarchists are an example of what Theodore Roszak in “The Making of a Counter Culture” called the “progressive adolescentization” of the American left.
In Zerzan’s now defunct magazine Green Anarchy (which survives as a website) he published an article by someone named “Venomous Butterfly” that excoriated the Zapatista Army for National Liberation (EZLN). The essay declared that “not only are those [the Zapatistas’] aims not anarchist; they are not even revolutionary.” It also denounced the indigenous movement for “nationalist language,” for asserting the right of people to “alter or modify their form of government” and for having the goals of “work, land, housing, health care, education, independence, freedom, democracy, justice and peace.” The movement, the article stated, was not worthy of support because it called for “nothing concrete that could not be provided by capitalism.”
“Of course,” the article went on, “the social struggles of exploited and oppressed people cannot be expected to conform to some abstract anarchist ideal. These struggles arise in particular situations, sparked by specific events. The question of revolutionary solidarity in these struggles is, therefore, the question of how to intervene in a way that is fitting with one’s aims, in a way that moves one’s revolutionary anarchist project forward.”
Solidarity becomes the hijacking or destruction of competing movements, which is exactly what the Black Bloc contingents are attempting to do with the Occupy movement.
“The Black Bloc can say they are attacking cops, but what they are really doing is destroying the Occupy movement,” the writer and environmental activist Derrick Jensen told me when I reached him by phone in California. “If their real target actually was the cops and not the Occupy movement, the Black Bloc would make their actions completely separate from Occupy, instead of effectively using these others as a human shield. Their attacks on cops are simply a means to an end, which is to destroy a movement that doesn’t fit their ideological standard.”
“I don’t have a problem with escalating tactics to some sort of militant resistance if it is appropriate morally, strategically and tactically,” Jensen continued. “This is true if one is going to pick up a sign, a rock or a gun. But you need to have thought it through. The Black Bloc spends more time attempting to destroy movements than they do attacking those in power. They hate the left more than they hate capitalists.”
“Their thinking is not only nonstrategic, but actively opposed to strategy,” said Jensen, author of several books, including “The Culture of Make Believe.” “They are unwilling to think critically about whether one is acting appropriately in the moment. I have no problem with someone violating boundaries [when] that violation is the smart, appropriate thing to do. I have a huge problem with people violating boundaries for the sake of violating boundaries. It is a lot easier to pick up a rock and throw it through the nearest window than it is to organize, or at least figure out which window you should throw a rock through if you are going to throw a rock. A lot of it is laziness.”
Groups of Black Bloc protesters, for example, smashed the windows of a locally owned coffee shop in November in Oakland and looted it. It was not, as Jensen points out, a strategic, moral or tactical act. It was done for its own sake. Random acts of violence, looting and vandalism are justified, in the jargon of the movement, as components of “feral” or “spontaneous insurrection.” These acts, the movement argues, can never be organized. Organization, in the thinking of the movement, implies hierarchy, which must always be opposed. There can be no restraints on “feral” or “spontaneous” acts of insurrection. Whoever gets hurt gets hurt. Whatever gets destroyed gets destroyed.
There is a word for this—“criminal.”
The Black Bloc movement is infected with a deeply disturbing hypermasculinity. This hypermasculinity, I expect, is its primary appeal. It taps into the lust that lurks within us to destroy, not only things but human beings. It offers the godlike power that comes with mob violence. Marching as a uniformed mass, all dressed in black to become part of an anonymous bloc, faces covered, temporarily overcomes alienation, feelings of inadequacy, powerlessness and loneliness. It imparts to those in the mob a sense of comradeship. It permits an inchoate rage to be unleashed on any target. Pity, compassion and tenderness are banished for the intoxication of power. It is the same sickness that fuels the swarms of police who pepper-spray and beat peaceful demonstrators. It is the sickness of soldiers in war. It turns human beings into beasts.
Losing this moral authority, this ability to show through nonviolent protest the corruption and decadence of the corporate state, would be crippling to the movement. It would reduce us to the moral degradation of our oppressors. And that is what our oppressors want.
“We run on,” Erich Maria Remarque wrote in “All Quiet on the Western Front,” “overwhelmed by this wave that bears us along, that fills us with ferocity, turns us into thugs, into murderers, into God only knows what devils: this wave that multiplies our strength with fear and madness and greed of life, seeking and fighting for nothing but our deliverance.”
The corporate state understands and welcomes the language of force. It can use the Black Bloc’s confrontational tactics and destruction of property to justify draconian forms of control and frighten the wider population away from supporting the Occupy movement. Once the Occupy movement is painted as a flag-burning, rock-throwing, angry mob we are finished. If we become isolated we can be crushed. The arrests last weekend in Oakland of more than 400 protesters, some of whom had thrown rocks, carried homemade shields and rolled barricades, are an indication of the scale of escalating repression and a failure to remain a unified, nonviolent opposition. Police pumped tear gas, flash-bang grenades and “less lethal” rounds into the crowds. Once protesters were in jail they were denied crucial medications, kept in overcrowded cells and pushed around. A march in New York called in solidarity with the Oakland protesters saw a few demonstrators imitate the Black Bloc tactics in Oakland, including throwing bottles at police and dumping garbage on the street. They chanted “Fuck the police” and “Racist, sexist, anti-gay / NYPD go away.”
This is a struggle to win the hearts and minds of the wider public and those within the structures of power (including the police) who are possessed of a conscience. It is not a war. Nonviolent movements, on some level, embrace police brutality. The continuing attempt by the state to crush peaceful protesters who call for simple acts of justice delegitimizes the power elite. It prompts a passive population to respond. It brings some within the structures of power to our side and creates internal divisions that will lead to paralysis within the network of authority. Martin Luther King kept holding marches in Birmingham because he knew Public Safety Commissioner “Bull” Connor was a thug who would overreact.
The Black Bloc’s thought-terminating cliché of “diversity of tactics” in the end opens the way for hundreds or thousands of peaceful marchers to be discredited by a handful of hooligans. The state could not be happier. It is a safe bet that among Black Bloc groups in cities such as Oakland are agents provocateurs spurring them on to more mayhem. But with or without police infiltration the Black Bloc is serving the interests of the 1 percent. These anarchists represent no one but themselves. Those in Oakland, although most are white and many are not from the city, arrogantly dismiss Oakland’s African-American leaders, who, along with other local community organizers, should be determining the forms of resistance.
The explosive rise of the Occupy Wall Street movement came when a few women, trapped behind orange mesh netting, were pepper-sprayed by NYPD Deputy Inspector Anthony Bologna. The violence and cruelty of the state were exposed. And the Occupy movement, through its steadfast refusal to respond to police provocation, resonated across the country. Losing this moral authority, this ability to show through nonviolent protest the corruption and decadence of the corporate state, would be crippling to the movement. It would reduce us to the moral degradation of our oppressors. And that is what our oppressors want.
The Black Bloc movement bears the rigidity and dogmatism of all absolutism sects. Its adherents alone possess the truth. They alone understand. They alone arrogate the right, because they are enlightened and we are not, to dismiss and ignore competing points of view as infantile and irrelevant. They hear only their own voices. They heed only their own thoughts. They believe only their own clichés. And this makes them not only deeply intolerant but stupid.
“Once you are hostile to organization and strategic thinking the only thing that remains is lifestyle purity,” Jensen said. “ ‘Lifestylism’ has supplanted organization in terms of a lot of mainstream environmental thinking. Instead of opposing the corporate state, [lifestylism maintains] we should use less toilet paper and should compost. This attitude is ineffective. Once you give up on organizing or are hostile to it, all you are left with is this hyperpurity that becomes rigid dogma. You attack people who, for example, use a telephone. This is true with vegans and questions of diet. It is true with anti-car activists toward those who drive cars. It is the same with the anarchists. When I called the police after I received death threats I became to Black Bloc anarchists ‘a pig lover.’ ”
“If you live on Ogoni land and you see that Ken Saro-Wiwa is murdered for acts of nonviolent resistance,” Jensen said, “if you see that the land is still being trashed, then you might think about escalating. I don’t have a problem with that. But we have to go through the process of trying to work with the system and getting screwed. It is only then that we get to move beyond it. We can’t short-circuit the process. There is a maturation process we have to go through, as individuals and as a movement. We can’t say, ‘Hey, I’m going to throw a flowerpot at a cop because it is fun.’ ”
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


784 Comments so far
Show AllREAD THIS:
David Graeber responds to Chris Hedges:
Concerning the Violent Peace-Police
An Open Letter to Chris Hedges
http://nplusonemag.com/concerning-the-violent-peace-police
Sure I'm new here (no I'm not see, mysticpirate) I somewhat agree with this actualleftist. There has been an anarchist group, but Hedges does not know the story here. The anarchists I know dressed approximately the way as described, but that was several years ago. Most of them have long since stopped that, and the cops to some extent have co-opted it. Most of them that I know also know how to break things, but most of them have long since stopped, and most of them that I know wouldn't be stupid enough to kill a march. What I've seen is that the so called "anarchists" are mostly cops using a fad from about 7 years ago to start fights. Hedges, the boat left on that one, and you weren't on the boat. However I normally love what you write, this time I was wondering, "Huh? That boat left some years ago, and those "black bloc anarchists" are nothing more than posers with a nice name provided by the press these days. The whole anarchist thing is an easy scapegoat for everybody. I tried to point that out to many anarchists.....about 10 years ago, but they were too punk to take me seriously until about 7years ago.
The main point, for me, in this article is that the Black Block constantly hides amongst non-violent protestors and innocents using them as shields and in so doing discredits them [the non-violent]. If the Black Bloc wants to throw flower pots at the cops, for whatever reason, they should stop hiding like cowards.
"Black Block constantly hides amongst non-violent protestors and innocents using them as shields..."
Isn't this what we hear from the US/Israeli militaries about all of their official enemies?
Anyone who dare fight against the heavily armed Machine from a position of inferior firepower is immediately denounced as a coward.
Maybe it depends on the relationship? If the small group is simply using the larger one as camouflage/violence-sink while it works to achieve ends the larger group doesn't share, does that feel okay to you? It doesn't me.
That's a good point-- and a very big "IF".
Good comment. Hedges is in fact a "Master of Divinity from Harvard Divinity School". So expect him to be a Preacher, with a dose of moralist superstition injected.
actualleftist,
"Is there any group of people more dedicated to this sort of fight than the anarchist groups?"
Yes. Anyone who wants to win enough to remain peaceful. Anyone who wants to prove their case enough to refrain from violence. Anyone who cares enough about their real connection to all life, all other beings, and all therefore on the 'other side' to act with love and wisdom, discipline and patience. The anarchists are dedicated to expressing unconsciously their own unconscious rage. Like other examples of Eric Hoffer's True Believer, any cause will do; this is just the currently popular one among some of those whose childhood psychological problems persist and drive their hatred of all limits, peacefulness (which makes them intolerably anxious and then triggers rage) and real love.
I think you are missing the point here. If the black bloc is going to effectively attack peaceful demonstrations then they are are in fact doing the bidding of the fascist 1%. It is true that the OWS sites are/were shut down because of the message, but it's much easier to shut them down if the anarchist crazies show up, AND, the police get the added enjoyment of using more violence to do it, which will ensure it doesn't happen again. Violent and non-violent revolutionaries need to respect each other enough to stay separate, or we end up fighting the wrong people. Besides, we know where this is inevitably heading, if the two groups stay apart - I guarantee we'll get their sooner.
We, in the Occupy Movement, must stand firm in our statements against the use of violence and property destruction. We must monitor our marches and events to prevent anything against these commitments. We need to have our events well monitored by our members to prevent violence. All the people in the movement must speak up against threatened violence and prevent any destruction to occur.
The Occupy movement must realize that the police are working people scared that they too will lose their job and with that, their families' standard of living. The police are doing as they are directed by their officers. We, the Occupy movement, must show clearly that we are not a threat to the police. It is important to the movement to have the police sympathetic to our purpose of getting some democracy in our nation. Yelling "pig!" at the police is counter productive to our goal of representative governing. We are the people of "We the People" mentioned in the Constitution. We have the power. We will win the fight for liberty and justice for all in this land.
"The Occupy movement must realize that the police are working people scared that they too will lose their job and with that, their families' standard of living."
You must have loved the Reagan speech at Bitburg.
Hedges initiates a needed discussion. I would look to the USA civil rights movement with MLK Group, SNIC, Black Panthers and Black Muslims. I would propose that the Black Bloc initiates its own action separate from Occupy, because Occupy is a movement stressing co opting. Does Hedges object to priests and nuns wacking nukes? Nor should he object to any other destruction of property implemented in repression and/or harm. I draw the line at harming other beings, I do not believe property used in harmful ways to be exempt from destruction by Pacifists.Any movement which opposes the corporate state will have agent provocatuers injected into the movement especially Pacifist movements. This has always been evident.Jensen is mistaken when he claims we have not gone through the stages to validate property destruction, this revolution is approxiamately 50 years old and has seen the assasination of most of its leaders and many ardent supporters from MLK to Huey Newton to Malcolm X. Demonstrations alone have allowed a totalitarian state of indefinite detention and extra judicial executive execution to be installed. How can a rational being think that Demonstrations will lead us out of a totalitarian state if they were unable to prevent it? Oilybomber supporters and Democrats are a millstone around the neck of those attempting to replace fascism with democracy, their is no repairing a imperial fascist totalitarian state only replacement. Again for those in serious denial, contemplate indefinite detention and universal extrajudicial executive executions and then attempt to rationalize how the USA is not a Totalitarian state. Nobody was denied access to parks by Occupy, Occupy begged people to come, feed and clothed people. We are trying to rid the world of a mass murdering fascist imperial superpower and people have the audacity to complain about spurious details, exactly the millstones we do not need.
Good points. I'm sure that Hedges fully supports ploughshares-type action - yet they are "violent" in the same way black bloc actions are. Is it becasue in the former case, they recieve Holy Communion from the Berrigans or Roy Bourgeois before the action?
Nonviolent tactics have their place. But all they are is a tactic - useful for certain situations points in history or the timeline of a movement. As soon as nonviolence become some kind of rigid religion, we are going to have problems.
I agree with you both.
Also I find Hedges' religiousity, moralism and sanctimoniousness counter-productive and repulsive. He's a cross between a schoolmarm and a monk. Yes he has woken up to the immorality of US imperialism, but he seems to think that he is the conscience of the Movement.
OTOH, I'm not supportive of the Black Bloc. They are much to far out ahead of the masses. They remind me of the Weather Underground who thought that they could simply materialize a revolution if they were extreme enough in their rhetoric and tactics. While there were many dedicated revolutionaries in the Weather Underground, their program was faulty from the start.
Nonetheless, Hedges devotes so many words and so much virulent rhetoric to attacking the Black Bloc and by inference any propertyy destruction. His bourgeoisie Xian biases are showing here in a big way. He can be a great propagandizer (and I mean that as a complement) but he is not much use as a strategizer.
An excellent, balanced viewpoint, imo!
The only point I might question is:
"Hedges devotes so many words and so much virulent rhetoric to attacking the Black Bloc and by inference any propertyy destruction. "
I'm not sure that we infer a general attack on property destruction.
My question is still not answered. It is not a rhetorical question. If a black-clad anarchist breaking the window of a (closed and unoccupied) Starbucks is "violence", why were those bunch of devout Catholics who hammered the expensive nose cones at King-of-Prussia (and reportedly also threatened a security guard who discovered their activity) not regarded as "violent"?
It's not about the difference between violence and non-violence.
It's about the difference between specifically targeting the actual instruments of mass murder, and standing publicly to announce what you are doing and why, and not dragging in others who are not involved in your targeted protest action;
Versus wading anonymously into a crowd of people who are NOT there to righteously smash windows or set dumpsters on fire, and acting purposefully as a flash-point and justification for police violence against the mass of people who are NOT there for your purposes.
Black Bloc USES protests and protestors. Ploughshares does not. That's one difference between the morality and ethics of the two.
"and standing publicly to announce what you are doing and why"
To me that bit is tactically stupid. Live to fight another day! You're not ever going to win hearts and minds through the mainstream media filter. Hit your targets and scoot!
Good model: Anonymous!
Wrong about the police, pig lover.
I've known a lot of police and everyone was racist, sexist and anti-semitic. They hated the poor and yearned to be let off the leash so that they could beat and kill the underclass.
Non-violent movements will not defeat the US police/military state. Your pollyanna approach seems to be a product of a privileged upbringing.
You pacifist bourgeoisie nannies really need to loose your sense of moral superiority and privilege.
"I've known a lot of police and everyone was racist, sexist and anti-semitic. They hated the poor and yearned to be let off the leash so that they could beat and kill the underclass."
A gross over-generalization, imo.
"Non-violent movements will not defeat the US police/military state. "
Nor will violent movements.
[Since you're engaging in argument- by -assertion, I thought I'd do the same. -:) ]
Generally, empires are destroyed from within are alreadyweakened by military defeat, combined with economic crisis and subsequent widespread revolt among the masses.
Fit that into your defintion of violence anyway that you'd like.
I'm merely expressing my interpretation of the social revolutions that I've studied that have toppled European empires from within: French, Russian, German (1918). The English empire collapsed irrevocably due to WW II, without an internal social revolution.
I don't think the US military state will go down in an orderly English fashion. In any case, the war and economic crisis that will bring down the US Empire already appears to be in its early stages. An attack on Iran will pull the trigger on a massive muslim revolt backed by Russia and China. But other events could set of a world war as well.
I agree with Hedges. The Black Bloc are Egoists, not anarchists, and they are, as we use to say in farm country, useless as tits on a bull.
I'm guessing you voted for Harper...
Hedges is spot on. The Black Bloc'ers are immature cowards. If we don't confront them and keep them out of the OWS movement, they will destroy the movement. We need to post photos/name names when these cowardly provocateurs crawl out of the shadows.
"If we don't confront them and keep them out of the OWS movement, they will destroy the movement. We need to post photos/name names when these cowardly provocateurs crawl out of the shadows."
So you are okay with denying a disenfranchised minority their voice, and will cheerfully assist the very forces of Elite repression in carrying out their program of the suppression of freedom of speech and human rights?
So much for "WE are the 99%".
More like 'We are the voluntarily self-diminishing percentage of dogmatic pacifists who will obey orders and not make too much of a fuss when you decide to beat the crap out of us.'
Yup, and don't forget to turn them in to the cops. Outsource your self-rigetous violence to the police.
"Cowards" is an interesting choice of words to describe the black bloc. As a veteran of the 1999 WTO protests in Seattle, and many of the various summit protests in the early 2000s, I have seen black bloc protesters perform acts of courage that would make a pacifist hang their head in shame. When the police are attacking demonstrators, attempting to haul people off to jail, etc., it is the black bloc -- and only the black bloc -- who jumps in there to defend others, to unarrest protesters being snatched by the cops, and essentially to mount a serious challenge to the authoritarian police state that everyone else seems to tacitly accept.
I would have liked to see more black bloc participation earlier on in the Occupy movement, as they would not have stood by and watched as young women were pepper sprayed in the face, or as police kettled demonstrators to engage in mass arrests. The black bloc would have at least attempted to mount a self-defense against these fascists, instead of standing around shouting "shame" or "the whole world is watching" like the meek little pacifists.
I honestly believe that much of the animosity toward the black bloc is simply based on the insecurity of the kumbaya crowd, who more than anything, hate to have their cowardly worldview challenged. It is easier for the pacifists to believe that their inaction in the face of police violence is actually based on some higher "Ghandian principle", than it is to admit that in fact it is based on cowardice and timidity.
And by the way, Hedges is a massive hypocrite for singing the praises of the Greek rioters a few months ago and then coming out with this piece of garbage denouncing the US anarchists. Apparently, rioting is perfectly acceptable and even admirable when it is done in other countries, but just not in the USA. (Of course, violence is celebrated here as well, but only if it happened in the past, such as the Revolutionary War.)
Manarchists are not helping. They are self serving and value self-expression over the more difficult work of organizing and expanding the movement. We have already been through this in the 60's and saw how violence, often pushed by state provocateurs, destroyed a once huge movement. While it is certainly true that the police have reacted with violence without provocation giving them an excuse to escalate harms the 99%. The macho of the long adolescence of American males is most useful to the state whether in selling them gadgets, hiring them as warriors or using them as excuses to crack down on social movements.
I have never understood the appeal of anarchy. Lawlessness is the corporate goal and is the chief corruption of the United States.
In anarchy, no one is responsible for their acts.
How do the "black bloc" members organize? If they truly hate rules, why do they dress in a certain pattern? Clearly, they are frauds who need to have their faces EXPOSED.
The anarchy of the corporate state is similarly enforced by violence and devious appearances of those in a UNIFORM.
Anarchist are sociopaths, whatever their purported reason for being.
The greatest threat to humanity is NOT laws, but it is the willful disdain for any laws.
I can't help wondering if these black bloc frauds are CIA operatives.
They share the same tactics.
Thanks, BA (and tofu) for your fine comments.
"I have never understood the appeal of anarchy...."
- Obviously. Do some reading here and here to educate yourself: http://crimethinc.com/ http://theanarchistlibrary.org/index.html
" Lawlessness is the corporate goal and is the chief corruption of the United States."
- Incorrect. Laws are the ultimate Corporate goal because they choose the ones that protect them from the masses.
"In anarchy, no one is responsible for their acts."
-Wrong. In anarchy you ARE held personally responsible for your actions. No Government,Corporation, political party or religion to hide behind.
"How do the "black bloc" members organize? If they truly hate rules, why do they dress in a certain pattern? Clearly, they are frauds who need to have their faces EXPOSED."
- In general, they reach a consensus of their members, just like and social gathering. They dress in a 'certain pattern' as a member of self and group identity. They conceal their faces for two possible reasons: 1) self protection from rampant surveillance and Police abduction or 2) THEY ARE THE POLICE.
"The anarchy of the corporate state is similarly enforced by violence and devious appearances of those in a UNIFORM."
- Partly correct. But the Corporate State is anything but anarchy. It has rules and laws that YOU have to obey, but the Corporate 'super-citizen' does not.
"Anarchist are sociopaths, whatever their purported reason for being."
- Wrong. But thank you for conforming to the Elite's anti-anarchist propaganda.
"The greatest threat to humanity is NOT laws, but it is the willful disdain for any laws."
-Then why did you vote for Obama? Hasn't he broken innumerable laws while catering to his Corporate masters?
"I can't help wondering if these black bloc frauds are CIA operatives."
- No doubt some of them are frauds. The trick is to learn to spot them as Police agents and plants.
"They share the same tactics."
- No, they don't. You can tell which ones are acting on Police orders when said Police DON'T ARREST THEM.
Another good reference is infoshop.org.
Actually infiltraters are often arrested otherwise they might be exposed and possibly executed by the revolutionareis or resistance.
Not In Canada.
There have been at least three verified events where Police agents were exposed, and the Police moved in to extract and protect them from the crowd. Others have been 'arrested', but never charged, and act as 'witnesses' at the show trials of those who are actually on trial. I would bet much the same happens in the US and elsewhere.
"Galenwainwright"
You certainly do represent what I would expect from an anarchist.
You lie and misrepresent because there is no accountability in YOUR world.
The fact that you would ASSUME that I voted for Obama when I, in fact, voted for Nader, is typical of the arrogance which anarchy would unleash unchecked.
Look up the definition of anarchy, you fraud.
"In anarchy you ARE held personally responsible for your actions."
Held responsible by whom, and by what organized method with what means of enforcement, and on what societal level?
"Under Anarchy, the man with a gun rule's and he/they do what they want."
Unlike now..?
At this point in the thread, I'm noticing increasingly witless comments... such as this one.
You know nothing... NOTHING!... about what anarchy actually is. It is the most misunderstood concept in modern politics... ahead of 'socialism' and 'democracy' by far. You are following the dictates of the established order, which is as shallow as a frat boy. No wonder most true anarchists are loathe to identify themselves pubiclly... it requires too much preamble and attention to make it worthwhile.
I'm one of those people who read too many books, Ianista. I find it more elevating than putting up with lame-ass opinions of those such as you. I'll read Jensen and Graeber, and then go out and work up the garden... theory and practice are not far apart.
As for the Hedges article... I find that Jensen's sentiments are compelling, but Hedges bothers me when he rules out all rough behavior whatsoever. As actualleftist pointed out, the police are spoiling for a conflict with or without Black Bloc elements. They molest and dominate with more gusto when there are no defiant individuals on hand. Anarchists are more sinned against than sinning... they get the blame, but no glory for leading the charge or for ORGANIZING (yes: that's the word!) and sustaining such actions as these.
I've worked with anarchists before and found them effective and productive. Others, like Hedges, just bitch about the demise of the left and refuse to accept that its renewal may not come in the flavor that pleases them.
Hedges bothers me when he rules out all rough behavior whatsoever. As actualleftist pointed out, the police are spoiling for a conflict with or without Black Bloc elements. They molest and dominate with more gusto when there are no defiant individuals on hand.
--------------------------
Doesn't it ultimately depend on what the goal is? If the goal is sociolegal change, then how is vandalism going to help with that? Unless it's a credible proxy for a shooting revolution, what good is it? By itself, it's at most a minor annoyance to the corporatocracy. What will it do that demands without vandalism won't?
Thanks for your thoughtful response, Mairead. It is necessary to put questions this way. But you aided my reaction by providing the phrase "By itself, it's... a minor annoyance...". Would you be willing to believe there's more to it than vandalism 'by itself?'
I strongly urge you... and everyone here... to read this essay by David Graeber: "On the Phenomenology of Giant Puppets"
http://libcom.org/library/phenomenology-giant-puppets-0
We shun tiny (and I DO mean tiny) instances of violence when they are associated with our cause, but is this just another form of PR damage control for lefties? The only ones making the most of property destruction are the MSM.
Here is a quote:
"Property destruction is a matter of taking an urban landscape full of endless corporate facades-- and flashing imagery that seems immutable, permanent, monumental-- and demonstrating just how fragile it is. It is a literal shattering of illusions."
I think more people need to see that this is an educational technique... not for us, but for the 'viewers at home' gaping in disbelief. The corporate and financial powers that be are undeniably finite and need to be experienced as such.
Okay, but do you have any evidence that people in general do perceive vandalism as proof of corporate fragility rather than as a violation similar to a friend or family member getting their new car keyed?
Most people's whole experience of vandalism is as the innocent victim, or a friend/relative of an innocent victim. What mechanism would cause them to switch their identification from the victim to the perp?
You might be surprised by the reaction of 'outsiders' [in this sense, outside the action of protest]: thanks to Hollywood movies, a lot of people have become habituated to 'disaster porn'... they have expressed a hidden glee at some of these actions and in no way confuse the smashing of a bank window with the keying of their car. Maybe they don't relate it to corporate fragility, but talk to people at random and see how many would love to trash their bank! We shouldn't rely on polls only, but apparently at some of the first actions 10-12 years ago, a sampling of 'the public' responded and the numbers came out in favor of the protestors rather more than expected. CNN and other news outlets were surprised by this and kept those figures to the side for the time being.
I'm afraid that playing up the 'vandalism' angle is really working to the advantage of the powerful. They're the ones who want you to behave. Hedges is doing the bidding of perception managers everywhere ("Keep quiet and we might be able to get another serving of cake!"). I don't think this stuff will matter before very long, though... some of the people writing on here will get a rude awakening when they finally experience the full wrath of their rulers (I say 'their rulers' because I don't acknowledge them as 'my' rulers'). That's why anarchists [but not Black Bloc necessarily] are at the vanguard... they know what some here don't know: pretty soon we're going to have to look after ourselves whether we like it or not.
"As actualleftist pointed out, the police are spoiling for a conflict with or without Black Bloc elements..."
And so apparently are you. So tell me, how does it feel to play the straight man/side kick to Actual Leftist and Pdj? Guess they out-rank you, huh, ZE(R)O?
Lanisa wrote --
"If Anarchists had their way, you wouldn't have to worry about police. There would be none. And if there were no police, believe me, you would truly miss them. Ask folks in Rawanda how they feel about Anarchy or those in Darfur for instance."
The genocide in Rwanda was a state-organized affair, meticulously planned, and carried out by local authorities -- especially police -- following a coup. Lists were drawn up of every single Tutsi living in a particular village, while villagers were organized into gangs by state backed Interwahme. Church authorities were also heavily implicated. Moreover, the conditions that led to the genocide -- namely the artificial "separation" of Hutu and Tutsi -- was also a matter of state decree -- a "divide and conquer" mechanism by imperial Belgium.
As for Darfur, it is completely remote from anarchy. Darfur is ruled by extremely hierarchical paramilitary organizations.
If you want to see what an anarchistic society looks like, go research "primitive" societies where power is bottom-up, or learn about work cooperatives.
Again, always best to learn something about subject before expressing an opinion.
Spot on, BA. I don't know that I'd call them sociopaths, but angry and cynical. If the CIA didn't invent them, the folks in Special Ops are probably wondering why they didn't think of the idea first.
The MSM - and some of those trying to get a rise out of the mainstream (the Sex Pistols, for example) - have a lot to answer for, using the term "anarchy" as a synonym for "chaos". It's become ingrained in the public psyche, which is why those with more than a passing acquaintance with Anarchist philosophy will often say "Anarchism" instead of "Anarchy". The appeal of Anarchism is not difficult to understand.
An Anarchist, provided things have been determined collaboratively, will have no problem with order or rules. The issue is with orders and rule. Many principles that can genuinely be described as democratic are anarchistic - government of the people, by the people and for the people being an obvious one (though I'll concede that "Democracy" is fast on its way to becoming a dirty word because of similar misuse). Principles of equality and egalitarianism are of necessity anarchistic - if you have anyone in the position of a ruler, you don't have equality.
I'm sure Ianista below will think I've "been reading too many books". It's an interesting condemnation - I've never thought I could read enough. There's also the suggestion that with Anarchy or Anarchism society will be determined by those with the biggest stick. Would that be as opposed to what happens now?
But if you are not an Anarchist, who do you think should tell you how to live your life? Or do you think you should have some say in it? Guess what that is.
Chris Hedges has fallen prey to the Corporatist propaganda about the so-called 'Black Bloc'. Many of the more public acts of confrontation and vandalism by these Corporate Media and Police described 'anarchists' are actually the actions of dedicated Police agent provocateurs. Those non-Police agent 'Black Bloc' activists (along with tens of thousands of disenfranchised street youth) who have learned to conceal their identities because of rampant Police use of surveillance cameras and targeted arrest and abduction after the fact.
Are there Anarchist's who are tired of the nonproductive peaceful demonstrations and civil disobedience that are dominated by dogmatic Ghandian pacifists? Yes. Definitely. But there are just as many Anarchists who believe that non-violence is the only answer too.
I think Mr. Hedges is showing one of two things, possibly at the same time he is demonstrating that he is openly practicing Corporate approved self-censorship.
1) Mr. Hedges openly calls for submission to uni-directional (from the top down only) violence, to not fight back when violations of human and civil rights and physical attacks with no provocation by the Elite and their Police thugs. This is not atypical of practitioners of 'Civilized' hierarchic patriarchal monotheists.
2) Mr. Hedges TRAINING in obedience to a hierarchal monotheist religion DEMANDS that he excoriate those who dare to find their own voice. His castigation of the so-called 'Black Bloc' is very reminiscent of the similar castigation of 'Sea Shepherd' founder Paul Watson by the now corporate PR industry flack dominated Greenpeace.
Yeah Sea Shepard
Galenwainwright:
What shall be the answer we make concerning violent acts,
either done to us or by us? Your phrase, "openly practicing
Corporate approved self-censorship" (applied to C. Hedges)
is quite a provocation to thought. I cannot resist quoting
Frederick Douglass on acquiescing in one's own oppression:
"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and
it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to
and you have found the exact measure of injustice and wrong
which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till
they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits
of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they
oppress." Shall we cooperate in our own suppression, or shall
we not so cooperate? Does so not cooperating entail violence
committed by ourselves, or violence tolerated in (supposedly)
fellow travelers? Martin Luther King chose non-violence totally
[non-violence in actions, and none within his principled toleration.]
We are called upon now to walk a fine line. We might be " ... as
wise as serpents and as harmless as doves." Nevertheless,
revolution there must be. Thomas Jefferson thought that a little
revolution now and again wouldn't be such a bad thing in a nation
that is [supposed to be] a democracy; after all, he participated
in the one in the 1770's that established an independent nation,
supposed to govern itself by the consent of the governed. I must
come to the conclusion that I would not be too quick to seek to
forbid violence as one element of a resistance movelent, seeing as
how (at least) it will be imposed on us, whether we do it ourselves
or not. We must nevertheless be wise in discerning any violence
that is commited solely such as to provoke and "excuse" the violent
responses by external police force. We must police ourselves of
agent provocateurs.