Hamburg Riots - Prelude to G8 Trouble (Plus Pics)

I think thats a poor critique of it. the prop of deed stuff extended beyond personal violence and it did really freak out the state, they felt threatened enough to deport jail and execute as many anarchists as they could find. it failed in that it did not lead to the big revolution, of course, but it succeeded in many ways too. the french deeds, for example, were each followed by another similar deed culminating in the death of president carnot which supported its other central hypothesis that acts of courage lead others to acts of courage. though morally questionable at best and reprehensible at worst (cafe terminus), i would say the propagandists of the deed were in fact the logical, personal, physical manifestation of anarchism at the height of its adolescence (the late 19th century). i fail to see why it was 'stupid', i mean, it was certainly naive to think that the masses would rise b/c a president died but it was a courageous attempt and there was plenty of intellectual support for it at the time (as well as criticism). i wouldnt suggest that be revived but neither do i think i would distance myself from anarchists who take it upon themselves to destroy capital or reject state's monopoly on force, because what else is that but a personal performance of core anarchist tenants? they aren't idiots, just frustrated.

no doubt, but let that be constructive criticism about tactics, not dismissively calling them idiots. they aint.

right on.

because i'm a politico and i don't see how a summit riot in germany is relevant to me, what am i supposed to say? incidentally a couple of years ago when i was more sympathetic to summit stuff i did talk about it, and the only thing that stopped my workmates thinking i was completely mental was because they thought i was a pacifist because i was anti-war.

kinda shows a catastrophic misunderstanding of capital though

could you explain that? my understanding is that capital is the productive property of an owner which is used solely for the purpose of constructing or accommodating more capital. what am i missing?

that capital is a social relationship, and as such it can't be blown up

is that a bootleg card? i only ask because i think that clown has the best analysis yet

vs.

body odour ... 9! starhawk pwns liberal!!!11!

I propose we put the Anarchist top trumps in their own thread... and also that we incorporate Magic: the gathering style card games where there's such cards as:

"Anarchist doctor. Heals damaged unit.."

"Empty plastic bottles. gives White bloc extra 4X armour."

"Impetigo. Any groups in solidarity with Crusties must roll 5+ to not get infected."

*looks out for waving hands*

C'mon guydebordisdead didn't the clown army rescue some Irish black bloc'ers in Scotland? They should get some points for that...maybe in an irony category.

i'd say that the state is a social relationship and there are social relationships specific to capitalism but 'capital' itself is a resource (or resources) that powers capitalism, like an oven in a pizza hut or the raw materials used to make clothing, etc. and many items of capital can in fact be blown-up, as the Luddites did in Manchester. you couldn't blow-up labor, for instance, but you could blow up a factory. both of these would be capital. by the way, i've read that little essay, You can't blow up a social relationship and i gotta say i don't think it made anywhere near as convincing a case as Peter Gelderloos' How Non-violence Protects the State, which i think deserves its own forum thread.

i don't think opposing propaganda by the deed = non-violence btw

yeah that's pretty much the standard economics textbook definition of capital (not having a go, i did a business degree ), what i was getting at is that capital is dead labour (i.e. product of past labour) that exists to expand itself by harnessing living labour (i.e. us), thus capital is a social relation. read it as capitalism if that helps distinguish it from 'means of production.' i'm certainly not opposed to property destruction per se, it's a case of who's doing it and for what purpose. 'anarchists' thinking they can fight capitalism by blowing up means of production is stupid and substitutionist, workers engaging in sabotage however might be a good idea. you're right, probably a new thread topic really ...

a distinction i am definitely sensitive to.

however this distinction is fuzzy for me, how are these different?

hey i just noticed i passed the 100 posts mark! i'm gonna celebrate by blowing my nose.

well if i go and blow up an (empty) sweatshop because capitalism is bad, that's substitutionist and stupid. if the sweatshop workers decided blowing up their workplace was a useful means of struggle then all power to them* (though they may of course be making a mistake, it's their mistake to make). basics of self-organisation, you know, anarchism

* i think bangladeshi workers attacked their own workplaces in the recent struggles there, including arson iirc

edit: congratulations, have a sneeze on me!

ok, cool. yeah i dig it, its a prohibition on vanguardism. but shouldn't, say, starbucks be a legitimate target for a brick by the enterprising anarchist b/c the thrower is a victim of (as well as a sort of unwilling producer) of the consumerist spectacle that makes up the face of modern capitalism? one could make a case that actions like that are a sort of sabotage too, instead of allowing the starbucks to be unremarkable and normative, a brick makes it an object of analysis. isnt that is a sort of spectacular sabotage... your grasp on the spectacle is better than mine. what do you think?

apparently burger king's board were jealous it was always mcdonalds that got smashed up because it reflected poorly on their brand recognition. no spectacle is bad spectacle for them, it seems.

again, i'm not opposed to bricking a starbucks in principle, but it's a case of who and for what purpose. most of the time it's in the context of a group of anarchos who have only got the safety in numbers to do it by mobilising across a whole continent, so divorced are they from a militant class movement, so that seems to put it closer to the vanguardism than the self-organisation. of course for all i know there are starbucks workers in a black bloc, and i hardly start jumping up and down condemning it, though it's often kinda pointless.

but is it sabotage? even if you dont work for the starbucks but smash it on the principle of engaging with the spectacle? regardless of whether it makes a rival jealous (which is hilarious).

generally i'd call sabotage something done by participants in an going struggle as a tactic, so i wouldn't consider random anarchists smashing up a brand name store as sabotage. i think it's done for different reasons. it's not done to put pressure on a boss and strengthen the workers in struggle, it's done as a spectacle of resistance, the impulse of a powerful crowd, and to be honest habit. none of that necessarily makes it bad, just different.

(i suppose smashing up a store also helps kill the cop in your head, so to speak)

thats a useful distinction

Is it me or does this guy look suspiciously like Alf? I know the ICC hate anarchists but this is going a bit too far.