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 AllOccupy must resist the BlackBloc's efforts as they are likely shills for the whorporates.. If they are truly anarchists then they really don't belong anywhere near the Occupy. Occupy is an effort to work with, around, within, and fix, the current screwed up system So Occupy should just police their own groups and keep the violent tendencies off the table. BB is no different than Tea Party gun toters.
" Occupy is an effort to work with, around, within, and fix, the current screwed up system ..."
Really? I thought the goal was to physically shut down Wall Street.
Would you say that Anonymous is "working with the system"? I'd say Anonymous is kicking the system in the teeth. And more power to them!
It seems the Occupy movement lost perspective, thus control, very early on, failing to understand that they only had the support of a majority of the 99% of the American "sheeple" on paper, or as part of some questionably accurate CNN poll. There were never enough people who came out to participate in rallies, marches, etc. to win anything significant in the first round. The resorting to random petty violence, so soon, in response to atrocious police brutality might have been the death knell to this social movement ever coming close to gaining what it hoped to achieve. Fortunately or unfortunately, a vastly greater number of American sheeple, now scared off from participating in the Occupy movement as Hedges noted, would be required, as occurred in the 1960's, for the authorities to give in even one inch. This might be freedom country, but the power elite has always viciously resisted change to the status quo that favors the elite's place in the social-political structure. So far, Occupy has not won a single thing. Perhaps, at best, the recent, latent, and "mysterious" hiring going on in the corporate economy could be a reaction to the movement, but I have my doubts.
I don't purport to understand tactics or strategies or the life mission of so-called "anarchists". What makes them anarchist, perhaps, is the refusal to conform to the clearly established (early on in the encampments) founding principle of non-violence within the Occupy movement. I think Hedges makes a decent argument about the "cancer in occupy", whether you agree with it or not, and that for this movement to succeed in its second visible round (perhaps this spring) that a fighting squad would need formation inside the movement to marginalize these anarchists at rallies, to prevent them from use of violence against cops or owners of property. This will not be easy, especially if many are trained CIA provocateurs. The American people in far greater numbers than previous will need to physically get out in the streets to support the movement and they will only do so if it is peaceful.
Gardener, very good comments and observations, and I generally agree with you --with one important exception: You claim that "Occupy has not won a single thing".
I beg to differ. The concept of the "1% vs. the 99%" has now become very much part of the mainstream U.S. political dialog. Even when it's being used derisively, or being co-opted, it is at least being acknowledged as an issue, and it has greatly changed the terms of the national conversation.
Prior to OWS, the MSM's obsessions revolved around the fetish of "shrinking the federal deficit" (as if that never existed before 2009, and as if de-funding NPR and the EPA will make it go away). To a significant extent, that meme has now been replaced with the 1% vs. 99% concepts -- thanks to OWS.
Just ask Romney, who will be trotting through the rest of the 2012 election season with the 1% albatross dangling around his neck like a putrid garbage bag. This could be fun to watch. Keep it up, OWS.
I find the 1% vs. 99% to be insidious...it is the same falseness that is at work in the 'get the money out of politics' argument...
the underlying premise is that money, and those that have it, drives the rest, and justice lies in fair distribution of monies, and honorable representatives in DC...
this is wrong...
this is not a struggle between some 1% and some other 99% for money...
this is a war for survival, in the first place, and a viable planet, in the second...
we work for killers so they won't kill us...
this work kills everything, including us...
we must quit working, and face these people...take back the land they have stolen...
we must do this globally, unanimously...September 22, 2012...
I am neither the 1%, nor the 99%...
I have been saying it for weeks; the Occupy movement went off the rails 6 weeks ago. Hedges is attempting to place "blame" for this on Black Bloc, as he usually does in his totally lame articles. Someone else is always to blame, eh Chris?
Actually, Occupy never even got started; the 99% died from malaise long ago.
I wonder if Chris would mind if I borrowed his broad-brush and painted Christians with it?
hey thanks for the comment earlier.... paint away.
...peace...
glad to see you're still here.
Breaking windows and stomping on cars to a Rage Against the Machine soundtrack is just about the most clapped-out, status-quo-reinforcing thing a person could do at a protest these days. The Black Bloc are just a bunch of agents provocateurs best friends of the .001 percent. The fact that they NEVER get arrested and there is NEVER a riot cop lifting a finger while they flail away tells you all you need to know about who these people are. Kudos to Hedges for calling these jackasses and disguised cops out.
I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about "Anarchism" in this discussion. The history of philosophical anarchism is by no means monolithic, and anarchist have always debated the merits of particular tactics as they have the philosophical roots of anarchism and the very meaning of the word itself. I agree with Hedges on the Black Bloc - they appear to represent more of the Egoist position of Max Stirner than the anything like the more "traditional" positions of Kropotkin, Proudhon, Tolstoy, or even Emma Goldman - let alone the rich tradition of the Christian Anarchists like Peter Maurin, Ammon Hennesy, Dorothy Day, Vernard Eller and Jacque Ellul. All of which are a far cry to the self-centred I-am-the-only-one-that-matters "anarchy" of the Black Blocers. I'd rather call them Nihilists than anarchists. They really give Anarchy a bad name - which it doesnt' deserve. Somebody, please, read Kropotkin's "Mutual Aid". THAT'S Anarchism!
While I support most of what Hedges advocates, I don't find this article helpful.
There will always be this element in any protest movement, whether agents provocateurs, or just some young thugs who use the event as an excuse to vandalize.
Property crime is just property, the only violence is by the state: the police are the ones who are committing the crimes by seriously beating and injuring people.
The bottom line is that there will have to be many more people getting involved in organized civil disobedience before anything can change. Occupy is only the beginning of the beginning. We will need MILLIONS, not thousands, to join in boycotts, general strikes, shutdowns etc. to get results from the Oligarchy.
"The bottom line is that there will have to be many more people getting involved in organized civil disobedience before anything can change."
But that would mean committing to hardship and doing without. Which is something the average American is programmed at an early age to resist.
And a philosophical question for you: Given the documented results of 'civil' disobedience, why should we be 'civil' any more? ('Civil' is used here in it's root meaning, as belonging to a 'city', which is nothing more than a protected concentration of wealth by a violent psychopathic Elite)
Hardship? We (merkans) aint seen nothing yet. Hardships, the likes of which we have never seen, are coming regardless.
OK forget "civil" How about mass open rebellion? Is that a better choice of words?
Much better.
Hedges and Jensen are trying to buttress organization by criticizing localism, what they call "lifestylism", in which the individual harnesses everyday activities in support of one's political agenda. But their criticism crumbles rather quickly. One's everyday activities in resonance with one's political agenda delivers, by far, the most power to the individual. Now, couple that with a very modest amount of organization, and I think you will see, by far, the greatest force assembled to support the people's agenda. Just a small amount of organization is needed to temporarily raise the hairs on the back, to amplify an already formidable power, to remind the elites who is boss. But Hedges and Jensen haven't thought it through. They think organization is the end, everything else is the means. Wrongo.
The Black Bloc are lost puppies, but not because of their rigid dogmatism, per se. But rather because their rigid dogmatism is narrowly focused on an irrational response to oppression. When Hedges/Jensen declare rigid dogmatism as the problem, one's response is to tolerate a wider array of ideas. But that leaves us open to tolerating the elites' agenda of enslaving us. That's been the problem in Merka. If Hedges/Jensen instead declared the narrow focus on an irrational response as the problem in the Black Bloc's rigid dogmatism, we then see the door open for the people to finally embrace what is really in their better interests, to "narrowly focus" on their BETTER interests, instead of wide openness, whoring themselves, to endless concocted mixtures, blends, swirls, collages, aggregates of good and bad, where the good deed justifies the bad deed, where the philanthropy justifies the enslavement, where the flowers justify the dungeon, where the convenience justifies the pollution, on and on and on and on. We're over that. We're beyond liberalism now. The Black Bloc is corrupted by a failure to think, to understand human nature and to act in the better human interest. The Black Bloc is not corrupted by a failure to support organization and openness. Organization for what end? Openness to what idea? You have to answer these questions, because it's a new era now.
"The Black Bloc anarchists, who have been active on the streets in Oakland and other cities, are the cancer of the Occupy movement."
Sure, Hedges - go on hedging. Pressure the murderous Powers in Place by being polite. You're such a well-educated Preacher - why can't everyone just be like you? - These disgusting "anarchists" only want trouble, there's never any legitimate complaints and frustrations behind resisting violence violently.
Everyone should try once more to "go through the process of trying to work with the system and getting screwed." Because getting screwed is sooo nice. And it proves how bad the bad killers are. Just a few more drone-bombed weddings to really prove that it's wrong - as long as it's not my wedding or the wedding of anyone I know. I agree entirely. Just a few more countries bombed to rubble, to be sure we "go through the process of trying to work with the system". You never know, the leopard might change its spo(r)ts. You're dead right, Preacher - particularly the "dead" part: we should all be good, humble christians and martyrs for as long as it takes. Only a few more years now: it's only been two thousand and twelve years so far - it's bound to work soon...
Go on, Chris, play your game. Meanwhile I'll happily support those who "throw a flowerpot at a cop because it is fun" - and because the cops have done so much worse than throwing a flowerpot at me, and are doing so much worse still. But if you still believe throwing them a peace-sign will improve the world while watching the murder of millons continue, you're bllnded by your superstitious trust in "the process": "There is a word for this—“criminal” " - complicit and collusionist.
Which fear was it that got to you, Chris? - The fear of being called "not nice"?
"The Black Bloc anarchists, who have been active on the streets in Oakland and other cities, are the" ENERGY "of the Occupy movement". - Apart, of course, from the police's agent provocateurs in their midst - always a great problem, one that's not likely to go away by being nice to the police.
The Powers in Place keep proving that violence works. So just why shouldn't counter-violence work, when it's intelligently targetted at the violent powers to dismantle their violent apparatuses?
The discussion is not about violence (force) or not, but about how much force to use and where and how and for what.
I'm definitely saving this response. In fact, I like a lot of this thread.
This US militray/police state has proven that "getting screwed" by it can be ruinouus, torturous and often fatal.
And Hedges advises that we should have another helping.
Idiotic Masochistic Bullshit!.
Goons and thugs and all that
I was reading an article about the ice leaving the surface areas of the deep, deep, ocean. Scientists are trying to determine how much extra moisture will be in the atmosphere and what about all that extra heat in the water? And you look at the stresses we have place before us, the destruction, torture, war, environmental degradation, etc, etc, and on and on. Bill Gates already has an opinion and is making moves to try to engineer the earth's systems, (Crisis Systems). As have, a principle bloc of most conglomerations.
The Science is already concluded, we are in for change.
"I prefer the term 'global weirding,' coined by Hunter Lovins, co-founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute, because the rise in average global temperature is going to lead to all sorts of crazy things — from hotter heat spells and droughts in some places, to colder cold spells and more violent storms, more intense flooding, forest fires and species loss in other places”.
This "world environment" humans have created for themselves, is clearly counter to life, and will lead to all sorts of “crazy things” and crazy people. In effect “we” have created by ignorance, willful or innocent the weirding and the effects and complications are not unique to just the planets weather. We are on the wave; our goal is as you speak Chris. For my part thank you all for the support, ideas, and knowledge. Peace keepers can rise and be a greater part of important times, in fact we must. Any real future will be made possible by those capable of delivering compassion to the next generation.
When you start catching glimpses of the magnitude of the crisis-s we currently face on this planet, it can become overwhelming. Some folks spend time during ages of crisis in a coma, others depression, some at malls, and others break, the weight of the time cannot be understated. The human beings that rise to confront this weirding with clear, sound logic and compassion are humanities hope for redemption, a chance for peace in another time.
We need Peace scientists, diplomats, scholars, as principle outliners of our possible success. Without clear minds understanding the stakes, many more millions will die at the hands of thugs; this is the very cycle we are trying to break. The ability to curtail anger and revenge will be a gain to our possible success.
Hot heads on the deck at this time, will bring the truncheon down on innocent children, mother’s and fathers and grandmothers and fathers who are coming together to make a stand.
Commit to Peace
The real cancer is the creeping corporatism and its supporting media. I do believe non-violence to the end is the way to go. It is indeed effective. Change has come, much more is needed. Occupy and 99% must endure.
Hedges' latest is a good example of why it's important to learn about a particular subject before spouting off. His criticism of the "black bloc" is fairly accurate, however his use of the term "anarchy" and "anarchists" is right of the corporate media playbook.
Hedges would perhaps be surprised to learn that the man from whom Gandhi borrowed most of his non-violent philosophy, Leo Tolstoy, was an anarchist; indeed, Gandhi himself was an anarchist, stating that the ideal society would be an "ordered anarchy".
When I interviewed Howard Zinn (another anarchist) before his passing, I asked him what he thought of the term "violent anarchist". He laughed, noting that the number of deaths that can be attributed to anarchists amounts to a drop in the ocean compared to virtually every other political philosophy.
I asked Chomsky (yet another anarchist) the same question; he said that, "part of it is ignorance, and part of it is intentional". Since anarchist philosophy is antithetical to the beliefs of the ruling class, anarchists are the most demonized of all political groups.
Anarchy means "without ruler(s)"; thus, rulers aren't very fond of anarchists. Anarchy is often used as a synonym for chaos, but anarchist philosophy is basically just anti-authoritarianism. The goal is to create a society as non-hierarchical as possible, or, as Chomsky puts it, "as close as you can get to real democracy".
There have been periods in history where anarchists engaged in what we now call terrorism. "The propaganda of the deed" period during the late 19th and early 20th centuries was a campaign of terrorism against political elites, undertaken in the belief that it was spur the masses to revolution. During the civil rights era and its aftermath some anarchists engaged in similar, eg the Baader Meinhoff group in Germany.
The association of anarchists with "violence" ie "violent anarchists" might have something to do with the fact that they have traditionally targeted the upper class, whereas other political philosophies have the side effect of killing the working class. By the billions.
There is also the problem of identity. Then as now, we don't actually know how many of these bombings/assassinations etc. were actually committed by anarchists vs. agent provocateurs and other corporate/state entities. In the excellent BBC documentary on Operation Gladio, it was revealed that Baader Meinhoff was completely infiltrated by the CIA, who in turn supplied them with most of their guns and explosives. The goal was to create a "strategy of tension" and encourage the election of right wing governments.
Indeed, you can go back to the 19th Century and find a fictitious anarchist group in Spain known as "The Black Hand", which carried out what we would now term "false flag operations". Haymarket in the United States is another example of an "anarchist" frame-up, though it remains unknown who threw the bomb.
Concerning the Black Bloc, there have been several documented examples of police provocateurs dressed up in black pajamas attempting to instigate a riot.
The police in Montebello, Quebec, were caught red-handed; and Greek television showed footage of a "black bloc anarchist" hob-nobbing with police. You can see the footage in my short film "Police State Canada". At the G20 Summit in Toronto, the "Black Bloc anarchists" were wearing Nike track pants.
In Genoa, 1999, the anarchist Starwhawk noted, "we encountered a carefully orchestrated political campaign of state terrorism. The campaign included disinformation, the use of infiltrators and provocateurs, collusion with avowed Fascist groups . . . , the deliberate targeting of non-violent groups for tear gas and beating, endemic police brutality, the torture of prisoners, the political persecution of organisers . . . They did all those openly, in a way that indicates they had no fear of repercussions and expected political protection from the highest sources."
What all of this means, in short, is that it is grossly irresponsible to castigate "black bloc anarchists" or "violent anarchists" without at least qualifying one's statements. Presumably there are some misguided youth who think breaking a window is a revolutionary act, but they should be not be held up as representatives of anarchist philosophy.
Occupy Wall Street itself was actually started by a bunch of anarchists, and its horizontal, directly democratic organizational structure is anarchic to the bone.
Anarchists are not the "cancer" inside the movement, they are its heart and soul.
Thank you. I'm copying this so it doesn't disappear.
Good post man. "Since anarchist philosophy is antithetical to the beliefs of the ruling class, anarchists are the most demonized of all political groups."
Made me think back on reading Chomsky on Anarchism.
Excellent!
Thanks for this erudite, thoughtful, and insightful comment/critique, Durrutix.
Thank you, Durrutix, for this incredible comment!
Right On! (I'm an old fart)
Very good article, 'Durritix'. I bow to your clarity of mind.
Tnx for taking the patience to factually counter Chris Hedges' mud-slinging against "anarchists" - lumped together and generalized with the falsely homogenous term 'Black Block' - which is mostly a media-term, and to a large extent self-confirming by giving some misguided people the idea to dress in black with masked faces to join the perceived most forceful "Block" of demonstrations.
Hedges uses "anarchist Black Block" as straw-man for people and tendencies he doesn't like. But the uniformity of the "Black Block" - snappy as the term is - is a fiction.
Real anarchism - expressed in e.g. L.A. Blanqui's slogan "Ni dieu, ni maitre" ("Neither god, nor master") - is the Golden Rule of Ethics: "Do to others as you'd like others to do to you", "Everyone can do what they please as far as it doesn't infringe on others' right to the same" - applied on an in politics.
That this idea isn't perfected yet the world is a testament to. But western history is also a testament to the incremental learning-process of how to apply the anarchist idea, at least from the time of the absolute monarchs, roughly in the 17th century.
"Real anarchism...is the Golden Rule of Ethics: Do to others as you'd like others to do to you."
You're a bit confused. The Golden Rule is the foundational moral principle of every major religion in the world, it is not an anarchist creed.
And if smashing property is a manifestation of the Golden Rule, then please post the home addresses of those anarchists so we can return the favor.
Well said. It it is good enough to do to someone, you ought to take off the bandanas and let people do the same to you.
Once you step on the slope of violence, you justify all the violence that returns to you.
I told myself I wasn't going to post any more comments... it's unbelievable how wound up everyone got on this thread. But then I can't pass up responding to such inept typing of all violent protestors as anarchists (never mind non-compliant posters as trolls?!?)...
Shade: have you ever been at a protest? Have you ever met an actual self-identified full-on "an-archist"? Do you know how much their influence contributed to early social reforms, albeit indirectly, especially between the world wars? I'm betting my life savings you haven't realized all three of these... (you could start by reading Zinn).
Anarchist studies: the greatest story never sold.
These are not bandits in bandanas... these are people like, well, me at least, who don't want any conflict or interference in their lives... but have discovered one way or another that this is not always possible, and despite all the great stuff we've read, have learned that sometimes you have to meet power face to face. I'm fortunate enough not to have engaged violently myself, but would never tell others what to do based on my beliefs alone. Of course I'd prefer to be non-violent, but the events of our time are getting more intense and wicked, and I firmly believe that those such as us who spend too much time online will be forced into defending ourselves sooner or later.
I'm psyching myself up more toward 'sooner'.
You might not realize something else: violence is already in full swing all around you, so forget the 'slippery slope'... your masters are riding it with glee right now.
hey, Robert Riversong!
you say:
~ The Golden Rule is the foundational moral principle of every major religion in the world, it is not an anarchist creed. ~
I struggled with that, too, for quite some time...
Why do all major religions feature such a creed?
Who fosters the world's religions?
The murderous, thieving, indenturing and enslaving ruling class...
Who benefits most from the Golden Rule?
Those breaking it...
We must suspect every mental tradition, and reverse most, if we are to survive...
RE: 'Durritix'. I bow to your clarity of mind.
Clarity about which there is no clarity. If anarchism can be called a political philosophy, it is the most politically diverse (from far left to far right), incoherent and contradictory of them all - with the possible exception of anarcho-syndicalism (which does not represent anywhere near the bulk of those who self-identify as anarchists). If you talk to 10 "anarchists" you will get 10 different versions anarchism.
Known as the father of anarchism, Bakunin contributed to the demise of the First International by clandestinely undermining agreement. Auguste Blanqui was not an anarchist at all, though anarchists took up his slogan. Prudhon originated the slogan "property is theft" but nonetheless sought to protect the property interests of the petty bourgeoisie from which he came. Chomsky is revered by anarchists yet he hasn't written any book on anarchist or revolutionary theory, while few anarchists read Murray Bookchin arguably the most important anarchist theorist of the 20th century. Then there those anarchists who claim to be Marxists but not Leninists and communists but not socialists. There are those that ascribe to the theories of Hakim Bey's Temporary Autonomous Zones, the "socio-political tactic of creating temporary spaces that elude formal structures of control" as if by declaring that this space is outside of capitalist dominance it somehow makes it so. There are those anarchists who follow Negri and Hardt, who argue that laughter is a revolutionary practice and that if you don't recognize the power of the state it ceases to exist and many other forms of magical thinking. How many anarchists could give a reasonable definition of syndicalism, mutual-ism, prefiguratism?
Even anarchists themselves recognize some of these problems, Chris Day (Love and Rage) says:
"Not only has anarchism failed to win lasting freedom for anybody on earth, many anarchists today seem only nominally committed to that basic project. Many more seem interested primarily in carving out for themselves, their friends, and their favorite bands a zone of personal freedom, "autonomous" of moral responsibility for the larger condition of humanity (but, incidentally, not of the electrical grid or the production of electronic components). Anarchism has quite simply refused to learn from its historic failures, preferring to rewrite them as successes. Finally the anarchist movement offers people who want to make revolution very little in the way of a coherent plan of action. Projects, schemes, and reasons to riot abound -- but their place in a larger coherent strategy for actually overthrowing the existing order is anybody's guess.
Anarchism is theoretically impoverished. For almost 80 years, with the exceptions of Ukraine and Spain, anarchism has played a marginal role in the revolutionary activity of oppressed humanity. Anarchism had almost nothing to do with the anti-colonial struggles that defined revolutionary politics in this century. This marginalization has become self-reproducing. Reduced by devastating defeats to critiquing the authoritarianism of Marxists, nationalists and others, anarchism has become defined by this gadfly role. Consequently anarchist thinking has not had to adapt in response to the results of serious efforts to put our ideas into practice. In the process anarchist theory has become ossified, sterile and anemic. In the place of substantive political debate the anarchist movement has raised the personal quarrel to an art form. On the rare occasions that substantive issues are broached the response is invariably concerned more with the process by which they were broached or speculation on the character-structure of anybody who would question the received anarchist wisdom than with the political content of what has been said. This is a reflection of anarchism's effective removal from the revolutionary struggle."
source: http://libcom.org/history/historical-failure-anarchism
~~~~
It has taken me 25 years to get the debilitating effects of anarchist thought out of my system...
One of the things that people who come from received-wisdom/scriptural backgrounds usually have a terrible time with is that it's not necessary to have or know theories or definitions or scriptures in order to live an autonomous, principled life.
It should be a hint, I think, that every major teacher boils down human ethics into the same single precept: if you wouldn't like something being done to you, don't do it to anyone else.
That's anarchism! Right there, that's it: don't mess with other people. That's the whole thing. Don't impose on them. Willingly cooperate for the common good, but don't try to run their lives and don't let them run yours.
RE: ...in order to live an autonomous, principled life.
I never said anything about "received-wisdom/scriptural backgrounds", are you intimating that I come from this? Human beings are social not autonomous beings. Where do principles come from? Where do ethics come from, morals? They are not innate; they are social constructs and develop out of ruling class ideology. The best of anarchism, like that of the Spanish civil war were trying to create a revolution. It wasn't based on the Golden Rule. For all my criticism of anarchism I have more respect for it than that.
RE: That's anarchism! Right there, that's it: don't mess with other people. That's the whole thing.
Yeah, don't tread on me! Straight out of the "rugged individualism" of John Wayne and Ronald Reagan. So what's the difference between this view and the right wing libertarianism of Ron Paul?
RE: Willingly cooperate for the common good...
Ah, but only when they feel like it; not when it's necessary.
I have you ever really studied anarchist thought?
I never said anything about "received-wisdom/scriptural backgrounds", are you intimating that I come from this?
---------------
No, you intimated it yourself the moment you started talking about "anarchist thought" and how glad you were to have escaped it.
--------------
So what's the difference between this view and the right wing libertarianism of Ron Paul?
--------------
Are you joking? The difference is that he wants to be free of restraints while at the same time remaining free to restrain others. He's typical of his sect: mental age around 14.
--------------
Ah, but only when they feel like it; not when it's necessary.
--------------
If someone is unwilling to cooperate for the common good, either the activity is not really for the common good, or the non-cooperator isn't an anarchist. There are plenty people who claim to be anarchists but are not. Some are genuinely confused, others (most of the rightwing Libertarians as far as I can tell) are immature, and the rest are voluntary psychopaths out to get what they can by preying on the goodwill of real anarchists.
---------------
I have you ever really studied anarchist thought?
---------------
I'm not sure how to make my answer meaningful to you, since you're apparently unaware of your attachment to received wisdom.
Anarchism isn't a set of techniques to be learned for the accomplishing of some purpose like dressing a wound or building a greenhouse. Nor is it a religion, where communicants are expected to know the dogma and how to participate in the liturgy. There's nothing to be studied. It's an attitude of mind, like love (very like love, actually).
You believe that you've "studied anarchist thought". How do you know that? Who told you that the scriptures you studied were written by anarchists? Why did you believe them? How do you know that you were being told the truth? Did all the scriptures say the same thing? If they did, why did you continue reading after the third one---didn't you get what you were looking for? If they didn't all say the same thing, then how could you possibly think you were learning anything about anarchism from them---or is 'anarchism' just a word without a stable meaning, like "freedom fighter" and "terrorist", available to any psychopath who wants to force it to serve them? (Those are real, serious questions. I'm not trying to have a go at you.)
You seem to be saying that those theorists/practitioners like Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, Goldman, Serge, Bookchin who are generally acknowledged to be anarchists and considered themselves to be, were really producing "scriptures" and I am stupid to "believe them?"
Your post is exactly what I was referring to in my post of Feb 7 2012 - 3:07am. Anarchism by most people that call themselves anarchists (like you) is a political free-for-all save for some vague references to individualism and anti-authoritarianism.
There are serious anarchists out there, like anarcho-syndicalists, and while we have sharp political differences on some issues, we share views on more issues than not.
So what marxist-leninist party are you selling papers for? Which great leader would you like me to follow? Just curious. ISO? RCP and Chairman Bob? LRS?
"On the rare occasions that substantive issues are broached the response is invariably concerned more with ... speculation on the character-structure of anybody who would question the received anarchist wisdom than with the political content of what has been said."
source: http://libcom.org/history/historical-failure-anarchism
If your ideas were strong enough you would address the content of my post instead of attempting an ad hominem by way of association.
I wasn't talking about my ideas. You were blathering on about the failures of anarchism, completely confusing yourself in the process.
I asked a simple question. If you are opposed to anarchist methodologies and philosophies, I assume you prefer a centralized party with a clear hierarchy. If that is the case, which one do you prefer?
It's quite a simple question.
You seem to be saying that those theorists/practitioners like Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, Goldman, Serge, Bookchin who are generally acknowledged to be anarchists and considered themselves to be, were really producing "scriptures" and I am stupid to "believe them?"
------------------------
If they had never lived, would anarchism exist? Where did the first anarchist discover how to be an anarchist?
You persist in thinking of anarchism as a set of techniques to be learned, and you're making yourself crazy by trying to find The Authorised Version. You might as well be trying to find The Authorised Version of love or joy or sadness or integrity or breathing.
Anarchism is exactly as simple as I said: don't try to run anyone else's life; don't let anyone else run yours; cooperate willingly for the common good. Everything else is garnish or obfuscation.
"Not only has anarchism failed to win lasting freedom for anybody on earth, many anarchists today seem only nominally committed to that basic project. Many more seem interested primarily in carving out for themselves, their friends, and their favorite bands a zone of personal freedom, "autonomous" of moral responsibility for the larger condition of humanity (but, incidentally, not of the electrical grid or the production of electronic components). "
You seem to be arguing in favor of authoritarianism. I'm an anarchist that believes in direct democracy. But if I don't want to do something and as long as I do no harm, why should they make me do it?
Hello? The quote you pasted above was from an anarchist! (But a thinking one.)
"Authoritarianism" is the standard refrain of anarchists. But what does it mean, really?
What's more authoritarian than a revolution? Is the authority emanating from the vast majority or from the tiny few who dominate the vast majority? You might bow to the "authority" of Noam Chomsky regarding linguistics, but it would dumb to it if the issue was open-heart surgery. The issue shouldn't be authority, it should be the LEGITIMACY of the authority.
You claim to be in favor of "direct democracy." (I am too.) But many anarchists claim that democracy or rule by the demos (the people), is itself authoritarian; because you'd have to follow the decisions of the majority ("...why should they make me do it?") The whole issue of "as long as I do no harm" is a euphemism for doing whatever. The individual will be the judge of "harm" regardless of the social consequences. The issue of what is harmful should be open to discussion and democratic decision-making so that coherent strategies and tactics can be implemented and acted upon collectively. But many anarchists are opposed to democracy and organization. It is not anarchists that bring revolution, it is mass movements. Ultra-leftism, which is overpopulated by anarchists of all stripes, is more focused on pet ideological purity than building a movement with revolutionary capacity. Like teenagers rebelling from the "authority" of their parents, they are political adolescents.
But many anarchists claim that democracy or rule by the demos (the people), is itself authoritarian; because you'd have to follow the decisions of the majority ("...why should they make me do it?")
-----------------
The mistake you're making is to accept their self-labeling uncritically. Real anarchists are grown-ups regardless of physical age. It's a hallmark.
We know that physical law dictates that everything has a price. Someone who doesn't want to pay the price of community can go live alone and take the rough with the smooth all by themselves. What they can't do is have all the benefits of community AND all the benefits of living alone. That's something only a child or a psychopath would demand. Real anarchists accept reality, choose community or solitude, and pay what their choice costs without complaint.
(I'm somewhat sure you're effectively misinterpreting ezeflyer's "why". To be a proper anarchist, it's necessary to constantly question demands. The question "why should I/we have to do that/not do that?" is the basic question. If the person/group trying to make the demand can't explain why in a satisfactory way, then the demand is probably not legitimate and should be rejected. It is always the obligation of the demander to justify his/her/its demands. As Milgram wrote at the end of "Obedience to Authority", acquiescence should *never* be the default response to a demand.)
RE: To be a proper anarchist...
Who decides who is and is not a "proper anarchist". Who is the "authority" on that? (Oops, that would be authoritarian.) Since you eschew any anarchist canon, then "proper" anarchism is determined by - you?
Why do you insist on treating it like a religion? Were you raised as an RC or something, that you're so deferential to authority?
Of course I'm the one who determines who's a proper anarchist. If I didn't, who would?
Kudos Durrutix, But please explain the Nike track pants comment! Nike is so horrible an Anarchist could not possibly wear them?
I agree with others; a very good post. (And I'm not an anarchist.)
Martin Luther Gandhi... Martin Luther Gandhi.... Martin Luther Gandhi.... Martin Luther Gandhi.... Martin Luther Gandhi.... Martin Luther Gandhi.... Martin Luther Gandhi.... Martin Luther Gandhi.... Martin Luther Gandhi.... Martin Luther Gandhi.... Martin Luther Gandhi.... Martin Luther Gandhi....
[mantra to be repeated indefinitely, until all the bad stuff goes away]