Marcher's experience of Black Bloc on 26th March

hi potato planter,

thanks for the article, i'm very sympathetic to what you have to say.

on libcom, we debate the issue of black bloc type stuff (insurrectionism as we call it) hotly.

as far as i know, the general views over insurrectionism are:
a) its an effective propaganda tool to attract people and create a spectacle of anti-capitalist militancy, but it shouldn't be a full-time political devotion - we also have to be involved in regular community/workplace activism.

b) its not an effective propaganda tool, it alienates us from the working class. leave the revolutionising until the revolutionary moment when you have a great mass of the working class ready to take over the means of production. until then attempt to win over that mass through community/workplace activism and refrain from insurrectionary type acts.

c) workplace/community activism is 'left-wing'. better to drop out from society and join a growing movement of ex-workers, and carry out a constant insurrection through the squats and stealing food etc

i personally go with b) now, although i used to go with a).

i think libcom is evenly divided between a) and b)
luckily however on libcom we all disagree with c), although outside libcom there are some misguided people elsewhere in the world who do believe c)

ps there are more threads discussing black blocs:
http://libcom.org/forums/organise/anyway-about-black-bloc-12042011
http://libcom.org/forums/organise/pre-gleneagles-anarchist-communists-debate-the-black-bloc

edit

oh, and btw, the comments on The Commune page are true, the black bloc is not organised, its a loose collection of small groups of people that turn up on the day. also, there were medics there from Green & Black cross, although there were only a few of them.

but yeah its great to hear your thoughts, and i hope you know that many of us anarchists agree

Just to clear a few things up, particulary since some here either willfully misinform or are dreadfully ill-informed on the subject

It is wrong to equate the black bloc with an insurrectional praxis, indeed there is alot of discussion on the tactic, like when, where and how it is and can be effective.
Here's a really good piece written, reflecting on what happened in Asheville on May day.
http://anarchistnews.org/?q=node/11301

Yes and no. An often raised criticism of the methodology is the supposed substitutionism of building for the attack. This a false dichotomy only really raised by critics. Though activity in the workplace/community may not be the same as promoted by social anarchists. There is no general consensus, since like the black bloc, insurrectionalism is a tatic.
However, many insurrectionalists do not believe that there is any value in creating strucutures in the here and now, since we will not have free rein, and with constantly be met with repression by the State. So for a truly revolutionary praxis, we must look for/create moments where individuals are fully able to create and experiment. This is why insurrection is pushed for, aswell as Tempoary autonomous zones etc etc.

Of course some do this, but this sort of crimethinc style is not any major part of the tactic- I cannot think of any piece written from the perspective that suggests that those activities will lead to insurrection?

I wonder about that bit tbh because unless there's no organising at all these structures tend to develop organically anyway, just more informally through affinity groups, and it provides no more protection in the event that the state seriously fancies cracking down.

By structures I mean the whole creating a new world in the shell of the old. That said, the main focus on organisation at the time of insurrection is participation in mass organisations that arise at the time to deal with the needs and necessities of the moment. As Bonanno remarked, the role of revolutionary in insurrectional times is not hurling bricks, but instead spreading information and stimulating the situation by propose actions that will hopefully capture the imagination and boost confidence, with the aim of spreading the revolt.

Going back to what you said though, informal groups are alot more secure than organisations with members information stored up.

you are going to be met with more repression from the state if you are constantly trying to destroy it even when you are a tiny groupiscule.

why not organise relatively peacefully and win over the working class to the point where it is ready to take over the means of production? then you can live out the desire to destroy state control over society because you have the material force to do so.

all our structures have to do atm is to educate people, expand and assist class struggle and prepare them for the revolutionary moment. they will be met with a tiny amount of repression compared to that focused on loose groups that call for the constant overthrow of the state in the here and now by firebombing things.

thats not to say i don't think occupations etc where spaces are created aren't a good thing.

i still think save the insurrection until the workers can do one that will have a chance of overthrowing the state, otherwise its just like premature anarcho-ejaculation.

anyway, this has been done to death on other threads

Yeah I think the split between A and B is a bit of a false dichotomy. but as abstractions thats how the debate generally goes. Personally I think the B line needs to be pushed a little harder, but we are getting there. The interest in more radical action has grown quite a lot over the past few years. I wouldn't be so sure it was flat out alienating either, I have had outrageous responses, indifferent responses and positive responses from people I have spoken to.

Though I enjoyed the march, I thought it was great to see so many people out, I was really unhappy with the Hyde Park show. it became clear that this was less of a protest against the cuts and more of a protest FOR New Labour. Milliband talked about the need for cuts (we will pull the plaster off slower sort of thing) while Barber spoke of 'Middle Britain'. If these cuts have proven anything, its that middle Britain is a phenomena of boom, when its bust, it disappears. We are in a real danger of that march turning into a 'not in my name' spectacle, where all the 'democrats' in the 3 parties can pat themselves on the back for facilitating the right to protest in a democratic state.

new post

ha, premature anarcho-ejaculation. Yeah there can be an element of this, but I think there is a distinction to be made between occupying FaM and defacing The Ritz and fire bombs. Only Glenn Beck would make that direct connection.

We've seen the masses adopt these exciting tactics in Greece, North African and the Arabian peninsular recently. Apart from the student assemblies in Greece, why do you think these movements did not develop "mass [working class] organisations that arise at the time to deal with the needs and necessities of the moment". Unless of course you think mass gatherings in squares are mass organisation?

EDIT: not forgetting militias formed in Egypt to protect personal property

'Main rule: do not act en masse. Carry out actions in three or four at the most. There should be as many small groups as possible and each of them must learn to attack and disappear quickly. The police attempt to crush a crowd of thousands with one single group of a hundred cossacks.

It is easier to defeat a hundred men than one alone, especially if they strike suddenly and disappear mysteriously. The police and army will be powerless if Moscow is covered in these small unseizable detachments[...] Do not occupy strongholds. The troops will always be able to take them or simply destroy them with their artillery. Our fortresses will be internal courtyards or any place that it is easy to strike from and leave easily. If they were to take them they would never find anyone and would lose many men. It would be impossible for them to take them all because they to do this they would have to fill every house with cossacks.

—Warning to the Insurgents, Moscow, December 11 1905'

Anyway, who says these groups want to remain small or whatever? The techniques they use are designed for reproduction- easy to do, resisting specialised forms. These groups are also completely aware that their small actis of sabotage are not going to destory the existent, it has to be a mass action.

I do not believe it is possible to 'win over' a mass group, which is far from homogenous because of some alledgely innate contradiction rooting itself in the current mode of production or civilisation in general. As we have seen, winning the arguement means fuck all when their are structures that can usher though unwanted legisalation and finance inhumane actions that put the enter worlds population at risk.
There is also the arguement that acting now can potenially curb some excesses of capital, showing constant resistance, though these are but small gestures in the current context.
However, why do you believe that it shall be possible to organise peacefully without phyiscal confrontation?

Educate people what? Into a small ideological bracket that they may or may not be inclined to agree with, or that working life is fucking shit? Only the individual can liberate themselves, acting in away that places them as their own revolutionary subject, meeting and co-opting with eachother for mutually beneficial ends. These interactions will then cease when it is no longer beneficial or enjoyable, as relations in a free society would be. How can you base a truly liberating praxis around wanting to control the structures place upon you?
Again, fixed groups would be much easier to clamp down upon. If the tactics promoted by insurrectionalists are so alienating and open to repression, then why are they flourishing places like Greece- after a continual use imprinting the tactics in the minds of the masses- 'We’ve learned at the age of 60 about Molotov cocktails,” he thundered through his gas mask – an accessory sported by young and old alike.' (i understand that Greece is not anywhere else).
http://www.anarchistnews.org/?q=node/14445

An insurrection is a mass act, it cannot be carried out by a small group of radicals. Do you think the first mass physical confrontation, insurrection, can ever lead to revolution?

I'd suggest that the meeting places, like the gatherings and stuff are forms of mass organisation and coordination. Are you meaning organisation as in the formal sense, with a name, a&ps, with an overarching strategy?

I got to say guys, it is a really sloppy assessment of the situation to move between March 26, Greece and the Middle East with such ease. Very very different situations, all 3. Not being able to afford bread (as in Egypt) is very different from a physiotherapist who wants to stay in the public sector rather than go private. Of course arguably Britain is heading the same way as Greece, but it isn't there yet.

Ah K, wouldn't disagree there (though obviously that kind of approach can have some really positive aspects in the short/medium term until it's broken or recuperated).

Again pretty much agree with that as an aim (I don't necessarily see SolFed as being the organisation that will carry through revolution, I'm hoping it'll be influential in building such a movement).

Mm but security is only one part of the equation. Sure a few more might slip through the net through an affinity network if a crackdown comes (though the AR movement's experiences don't back this much in Britain tbh), but such a crackdown is also much more likely at a much earlier stage because the state can justify it as "anti-terrorism" etc and those attacked are more likely to be isolated/distant from the general public.

I'd also argue that security is as much a matter of people knowing their stuff about keeping things safe as it is about member lists - a well-embedded mole can learn as much about an affinity system over time as any captured member list can offer.

Yes, but in Egypt for example the mass uprising doesn't seem to have been marked by a willingness to keep pushing once the basic "get rid of Mubarak" had been completed and the populace seems to be in danger of buckling under to a new regime with new faces.

I think what blackrainbow is getting at is that they don't seem to have moved beyond a wish for an barely-specified "change," subsequently defined by the new regime as a nod to electoral democracy. The nation's new understanding that change can be brought about through mass action is clearly not the same thing as deciding this change should amount to the implementing of libertarian communism.

I think this is a bit of a blind alley tbh though because as Arbeiten points out the conditions in Egypt are very different from those of Greece or Britain, both of which have a longer experience of liberal democracy's inadequacies and in Greece's case a deep experience of watching the gloves come off. In Britain there's still a huge lingering respect for the police and a very mature corporate media which is highly effective at defining mass morality which doesn't seem to be the case in Greece. The tactics we build with have to be pretty specific to our own experience.

I thought as much and wrote an answer, though I got timed out of the net! :-o
TBF, this was what I had expected from the North African & Arab world struggles, not being pessimistic either. It is hard to believe that social revolution is going to stem from the first insurrection. The point of insurrection, is the praxis of anarchists (IAs), is that it matures the population and opens up the terrain to experimentation and learning. The reason social revolution did not take place in Egypt, I'd say, is that the mass has not 'come to daggers with the existent'. Meaning that while the people desire change they do not want to completely reorganise their lives, and this can be for a number of reasons. Perhaps many look towards different nations and believe that a more just, efficient form of government in possible- being stuck with one dictator they haven't been able to live through the same shite with a different person at the top, like people in liberal democracies have.

Yep.

Disagreements over tactics in Greece sometimes get ignored. See this comment from an article by ESE for example

Maybe it's necessary to look at the context of insurrectionist type tactics and actions. For instance I doubt that ESE would be critical of tactics at Keratea, which as far as I can see have the support of the community involved.

That is bollocks and even goes as far as to suggest that it was intended? The action was not 'indiscriminative', it was a bank, which are commonly targeted. The deaths were tragic, however it was in no way intended. The bank was boarded up with the workers inside, since the bosses made them work- unlike other banks and recurring targets which shut down when big demos are taking place in Greece. The building appeared closed for business and the extent the boss went to, breaching fire security, actually prevented the workers escaping from the building- as stated by a worker who survived the blaze.

'The management of the bank strictly bared the employees from leaving today, even though they had persistently asked so themselves from very early this morning – while they also forced the employees to lock up the doors and repeatedly confirmed that the building remained locked up throughout the day, over the phone. They even blocked off their internet access so as to prevent the employees from communicating with the outside world.'

http://www.occupiedlondon.org/blog/2010/05/05/an-employee-of-marfin-bank-speaks-on-tonights-tragic-deaths-in-athens/

yes but thats a different situation, makhno's cossacks were a mass movement, at which point i would endorse them engaging in violence against the state because they stand a chance and represent actual potential to establish libertarian communism.

you clearly don't understand the nature of class at all.
it is not at all homogenous, but we all have essentially the same class interests - better standards of living, having to work less, and crucially seeing our bosses having to abandon their expensive hobbies so that we can get all this. these need to be encouraged but strengthened to the point that they become social and mutual desires. ie. we all should have better standards of living.
we have to simultaneously show that capitalism cannot fulfil these interests, largely because the ruling class are such fuckers, and that we are all just treated as commodities to have our labour power bought and sold.

therefore libertarian communism it is not just winning arguments, it is realising our theory of praxis as two-way dialog between itself and practical struggles .

i said relatively peacefully, not avoiding all physical confrontation, just not going on inane sprees like March 26th

no, practically assisting them with their class struggle, encouraging class consciousness and the things you wrote just after that sentence :

As Mark. and Rob Ray have argued, this is exceptional, because of the nature of the situation.
i do not criticise insurrectionalism in the face of blanket state terrorism, as is the case with the greek state in keratea. and insurrectionalism is flourishing there because non-anarchists are being subjected to the same terror as anarchists.

i believe in engaging in different periods of activity for different circumstances. in a time like now in england when you have a small group of libertarian communists, its better to try and enlarge it and forge closer connections with our subject, the working class, through assisting their role in the class struggle.

Do you think its that helpful to this poster to get into really niche in-fighting over the relative merits of insurrection (given that we have already established the black bloc is not insurrectionist).....

lols yes i think we just embarrassed ourselves through our bickering. however, i stick to what i said, and while black bloc is not inherently insurrectionist, it often facilitates it. and i think the issue the original poster was having was with insurrectionist attitudes

The Makhnovists were around in 1918-1921...
That said, the sentiment remains absolutely the same when applied to demonstrations and indeed activity in general, learning and realising that things are not invunerable. We should embraced our rejection of centralisation.

No, I just don't share you ideas on the 'nature of class'. I agree with what you say but getting a mass to rally behind a certain banner, centralising struggle is niave. Please refrain from such arrogance, since it is only a theory that you allign yourself with and leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
Revolution on the scale with want has never been achieved, so best not act deterministically, and of course it is highly likely that our vision of revolution differs- but that shouldn't be a problem with an anti-authortarian position, eh?

Few would disagree.

A so overlooking sections of the working class looking for release. Not being funny but big sections of particualry younger working class/underclass are in constant contradiction with law and order- through drugs, scamming, free parties and so on. As has been reported these elements have been attracted to by the black bloc, though for differing reasons. It would seem that a diversity of tactics is preferable. Actions as plural and society is plural, as it were.

Situations change and show the capacity of a change in the human mentality. Why do you think the Greeks are more likley to attack things? Because of the continual attack of symbols and infrastructure by anarchists or because people in Greece are naturally different? This is not to skirt over cultural differences. These things are built up, they don't simply exist.

Insurrectionalists don't care so much about the quantity of radicals, that isn't the goal, it isn't something that can or should be sold, though that is not to say that growth is not a good thing!
The reason for the tactics promoted is because IAs think that permanent conflictuality, informalist and self organisation are necessary for a social struggle to expand and increases the chances of success.

'KK: Also, the notion of us trying to get people active implies an organizer-organized relationship as well. We’re much more interested in relating to people in a horizontal way. Also we are not going to be the main catalyst for getting people to be more conflictual. A lot of that is going to come from people’s everyday experiences in conflict at their workplaces and in their neighborhoods. The various riots that have broken out in the US in the past decade have not come from any conditioning by anarchists, but rather from people’s own personal experiences being fucked over. On the other hand, the part that anarchists can play in those situations is to push those ruptures further by intervening in the conflict in a way that promotes, through action and ideas, autonomy, direct action, and the rejection the political process completely.

For instance, in France during the fight against the CPE, a bill intended to increase bosses’ power at work, people took action to extend the conflict by attempting to paralyze the economy. Train stations were blockaded, attempts were made to communicate with other workers who weren’t involved, people transformed demonstrations into riots, etc. They weren’t promoting an ideology; they were creating momentum through their actions. And these actions, this practical experience, subverted a variety of social separations such as work, academia, racial boundaries, breaking the social peace through direct action against cops, political structures, business, etc.'

http://www.reocities.com/insurrectionary_anarchists/murderofcrowsinterview.html

Yeah, but I think that is less with the 'insurrectionist attitude' per se, then the perceived attitude. I don't think many black blocers that day thought they were bringing on the revolution any time soon, but that is how they have been portrayed. But it's difficult because although it seems exclusive, its an action that can't really be inclusive as such. I think it would have been real bad if other marchers were convinced to get involved and were then rounded up/arrested/loose their jobs because of it.

The point about the medics is of course important, and as it has been mentioned previously, there are green nd black cross there. I think worrying about children/by-standers getting hurt is a bit of a bogeyman rather than anything based on fact (London demos I'm talking about, not the Greek bank), the only people who get hurt are the people involved in the action themselves. As for controlling for fear and/or bystander panic attacks, it just can't be done. I guess this is a result of the permanent stereotyping of black bloc as the media definition of 'anarchist' (which is to nihilism).But what Potato Planter is getting at is the need to make connections, right? and its a valid point and something we need to concentrate on more. The SolFed letter to UKuncut was a start though....

Just as a side, I think personally thought the sound bombs/bangers, were just really annoying for the marchers....

if the new definition of centralising is gathering people into one organisation no matter how pluralistic, directly democratic and acknowledging that it won't itself seize control of the means of production but only attempt to assist the workers to do so with whatever assembly/council economic structure arises in a revolutionary moment, then i am a complete leninist.

well i'm still laughing, because you don't seem to realise that there are so many other ways that people can be attracted to politics rather than emotional spontaneous 'breaking down social separations' through boisterously macho anti-state actions. sorry but insurrectionalism as a body of thought just seems so romantically out of touch. of course we all want insurrection, but we have to go beyond our base desire to smash the state right fucking now, in order to get to a mass insurrection that will actually be able to smash it. the best thing about bourgeois democracy is that it allows us to organise free of overt repression up till the time we want to destroy capitalism, so why ruin that by getting busy having our heads bashed in by a much more superiorly armed & trained force

Only just realised this was here.....it's very good that the discussion about this question is continuing. I will try to catch up and come back to it.

As someone who has never really taken much interest in insurrectionism (either critical or not) my take is that its essentially a strawman in a lot of cases, or that in the cases where its not, "debate" is almost pointless because thats not the point. I mean I hardly think the posters on Indymedia for example who post up wierd little poems about burning the tyres of a G4S van are going to stop because someone introduces them to Bordiga or something.

I dont really know what I'm trying to say here and I'll get to it eventually I'm sure, but theres almost a fear of "insurrectionism" for anarchists as theres is for "anarchists" to the general public. And any recreation of a narrative from the perspective of capital is probably wrong.

I just dont see how you can make a split between class based poilitics and insurrectionism (and maybe thats because I havnt read enough insurrectionISM, and I've just read too much about insurrections). It seems to me that its "being critical" that is really the divide, Critical class politics, and critical insurrectionism seem to me like they would end up at the same point, where as uncritical class politics and uncritical insurrectionism would end up miles apart. I mean I obviously think say lobbing a brick through a Mcdonalds window at the dead of night is counter productive... however I dont think the action itself is counter productive, its the tactical use of it.

For instance i can imagine that shady low level property damage could be a part of valid class politics, and the have morally ruled against it just seems stupid. I suppose much like I said in the thread on the bloc, its a matter of tactics, not ethics, morals or other things like that.

yh i seriously have no moral problem with it, and neither do most non-insurrectionary anarchists. i still advocate an insurrection to achieve libertarian communism, but that has to be attempted by the class as a whole. and for the record i madly dislike bordiga , i'd say introduce them to Pannekoek or Ruhl

i have to say i've never seen it used as a strawman, and i think its a positive development in recent years for groups to develop criticisms of it.

I really dont mean to aim this at you, because its not, I just dont have time to trawl through and pick up similar sentiments, but thats what I suppose I was getting at. Also just a question: is a blac block an insurrectionary tactic?.. I wouldnt have thought it was.

First of I dont think its right to claim insurrectionism is "boisterously macho". Theres nothing within insurrectionism, as I understand it, that makes that a pre-requisite, it seems more to be a tactical failure rather than an inherrent flaw. Thats not saying i dont agree with what you're pointing at,but I suppose I think thats broader that just insurrectionism.

Insurrectionism seems out of touch? Again without having read much insurrectionist stuff I dont really know If I agree, but I cant help but think back to the joy over the energy on the student demo's....they were "out of touch" as well, they were "romantic" (in terms of what they set out to achieve) yet they got almost the opposite reaction. I understand there are differences between the two but I think its a point worth thinking about.

The last part I agree with, but thats when you start on a tactical approach. Maybe I'm just misreading the views of it, but I often think it basically just gets cast off as "jumped up, immature kids" and to be totally honest thats just not an adaquate criticism of it for me. But I'm fast getting the idea that we might not actually be talking about the exact same thing here.

I really do not think it is fruitful to think of the romanticism of student demos as a schema on which to think through the romanticism of insurrectionism. They are miles apart....