PBB: Capitalist Vice now online

by SPySPotter Mon Jun 09, 2003 10:38

Why did Matt Waine of the SP condemn direct action at EVian? Are the SP opposed to direct action at this conference?

by Acidburn Mon Jun 09, 2003 10:56

You had to go say those three letters!! Not 'against' the SWP, but you should now expect minimum turnout. Actually, this answers a good few questions. I was in doubt wether or not GR was actually a mask for the SWP. And as I understood, GR were ment to be taking care of the paper.
Anyways, good luck to ALL involved.

by Seamas Mon Jun 09, 2003 13:29

Matt didn't condemn direct action at any stage. He disagreed with Black Block tactics. Direct Action does not equal Black Block. As SPySpotter knows well. As for why he opposed Black Block tactics, I can't speak for him. I can tell you why I oppose Black Block tactics though.

The Black Block plays directly into the hands of the state and the corporate media. It helps them to criminalise and brutalise protestors by providing them with wonderful scenes of ineffectual violence. Do I "equate the violence of protestors with the violence of the state"? No. Do I give much of a shit about the property of some multinational? No. Do I care that the thuggish posturing of the oh so r-r-r-revolutionary Black Block alienates ordinary people from the movement? Yes. Do I care that the Black Block provides the perfect excuse for cop repression? Yes. Do I care that they give the media the perfect opening to portray us all as thugs? Yes.

I personally don't much care how many of the stupider acts of the Black Block were directly inspired by cop infiltrators or otherwise. It doesn't really matter. Whether they are always doing it off their own bat or whether there are infiltrators involved what the Black Block actually does is just what the cops and the bosses want protestors to do.

by SPySPotter Mon Jun 09, 2003 13:49

The SP always condemn direct action. Shannon or even back to the Poll Tax demos. They seem to always end up on the cops side.

Its getting into semantics saying that Waine didnt condemn the Black Bloc. He completely dissociated himself from them. This after peaceful demonstrators had been attacked by the cops. Funny he couldnt find time to condemn the cops actions.

If hes been misquoted or underqouted hes had a week to correct it. But no, Matt and the SP are once again opposing direct action.

by Joe Mon Jun 09, 2003 13:53

I've mixed feelings about the Black Bloc as a tactic but unlike Seamus I don't think the tactic always or mostly suits the cops agenda. Those who always describe violent protest as counter productive are effectively on their knees in front of the state.

You could argue the opposite, that marching around in circles and promising to do nothing effective suits the cops agenda. It certainly makes their life easier then dealing with a riot. But this is simply a mirror image of your argument and equally untrue.

Was the anti-globalisation movement more effective then the (re-)emergance of the Black Bloc in Seattle or the earlier adoption of confrontation tactics on J18? Would Prague have been better without the attempt to storm the congress building that drove the delegates out of town? Would Quebec have been so good without the tearing down of the security fence?
The movement has worked because there has been space for diversity of tactics. Those who wanted to just march around have been able to do this. Those who wanted to attack the institutions of capitalism have done so. The most bad feeling has arisen from the demonstrations where some of the organisers tried to limit the tactics of all those coming to what they saw as acceptable.

Who remembers Cologne or Seville? (Both saw over 100,000 demonstrate). Who remembers Prague or Seattle (where far smaller number demonstrated but were direct action shut down or delayed the conferences)? There is a lesson in this and it is that by respecting each others tactics we acheive a lot more then the 'they are cops' crap of the trots.

by Bemused Mon Jun 09, 2003 14:14

The only acceptable form of direct action is through the ballot box. Those who advocate violance advocate enforcing the will of the minority on the majority.

by pat c Mon Jun 09, 2003 14:27

is not violence. dumping rubbish bags at council offices is not violence. preventing disconnection of water is not violence. reconnecting water supplies is not violence.

sitting down outside of the dail is not violence.

Direct Action of the non violent sort has nothing to do with violence

by OK - SP Mon Jun 09, 2003 14:38

Yet again I feel compelled to delve into the murky world of indymedia to put a few things straight.

The Socialist Party do not oppose direct action. In the Water Charges campaign and in the ongoing bin charges campaign we are calling for non-payment (direct action) and we support direct action tactics to prevent non-collection.

What was said in the Irish Times article was that some people in the Black Block were police agents- this is widely accepted and does not mean ALL were police agents.

by Ray Mon Jun 09, 2003 14:40

That is not a claim that should be thrown around lightly. Where is your evidence?

by Joe Mon Jun 09, 2003 14:49

It is widely accepted that some people in the Socialist Party are police informers.

How does it feel OK-SP when the boot is on the other foot?

by pat c Mon Jun 09, 2003 14:52

I fully accept that the SP have participated in direct action in anti charges campaign. I'm sure that Matt said a lot more than was reported in the times. But what he did say suggested a condemnation of the Black Block and implicitly all of those who had been involved in the violence whicj had just taken place. To put it mildly, Matts comments were mistimed. This was just after the police had attacked peaceful demonstrators.

If Matt differentiated even between the actions of the BB and other demonstrators it would be something, but he didnt even do this. Once again the SP attitude to a clash between the cops and demonstrators has ended up with the SP criticising the activists.

It really would help if Matt would come on here and explain his attitude to the police vioence.

by Mark - SP Mon Jun 09, 2003 15:48

SP position on the police is that they should be democratically controlled by communities thus being directly accountable. There are numerous instances of SP condemning police violence (RTS last year and during anti-war protests) and of SP members participating in mass direct action. It is they type of action that we condemn, specificly the actions of the Black Block which are little different to acts of individual terror.

by pat c Mon Jun 09, 2003 15:55

Comparing the Black Block to terrorists is taking the side of the state. Its a short step from calling direct action at Shannon terrorism.

Is this the offical SP line?

by Joe Mon Jun 09, 2003 15:56

Europol is busy arguing for and creating a database of summit protesters on the grounds that they are terrorists.

Now SP Mark happily posts here that the Black Bloc are nearly the same as terrorists. Well done Mark, your cheque from EuroPol is in the post! We have great problems criminalising protest, we love it when you 'good' protesters join us in criminalising those nasty Black Blocers. A doggy treat for you when we get them all locked up. And as for those who suggest you are next, why no, as you keep telling us you are harmless good protesters.

by Seamas - SP Mon Jun 09, 2003 18:47

The Black Block aren't "terrorists" and although Mark didn't say that they are, he is wrong to sling the term around in this context.

That said, opposition to Black Block tactics is perfectly justified. Their actions allow the media and the state to portray the movement as being composed of little more than thugs, they alienate the vast bulk of ordinary people who might otherwise be sympathetic to protests and they give the state a wonderful excuse for cracking down on opposition.

It may feel all very exciting to break some windows or set fire to a bank but it doesn't achieve anything at all. Still less does deliberately setting out to get involved in a ruck with the cops. That doesn't mean that I "equate" their violence with that of the cops. It doesn't mean that I care very much about what happens to some corporation's property. It means that I do care about the damage which infantile Black Block tactics can cause to the whole movement.

In some sense the question of just how heavily infiltrated the Black Block sometimes is, or if there are direct provocations carried out by cop agents is almost irrelevant. Either way, the Black Block plays into the hands of the cops. If they do so free from the influence of provocateurs, then that's just more evidence of foolishness. (although I can't believe for a second that anyone seriously thinks that the cops didn't heavily infiltrate the Black Block at some of the major protests and that at least some of the more boneheaded acts of stupidity weren't the work of people hostile to the movement).

by Pink and Silver Mon Jun 09, 2003 18:55

There is an unfortunate tendency in the comments of a couple of people here to conflate "Direct Action" with "Black Block".

You can support and engage in Direct Action while having no time for the Black Blocks. I support Non-Violent Direct Action. I would never get involved in a Black Block, in part because I can kind of see the point made by people above about the damage which unnecessary violence can do to our movement.

It is a mistake to argue as if the BB and DA are the same thing. If those of us who are in favour of DA do it, it just makes it easier for those who are opposed to any DA to turn around and use the actions of the BBs as an excuse not to support Non-violent Direct Actions.

I mostly agree with Joe's point about the need to respect a diversity of tactics. But as I said in the other thread the BB presents some difficulties for that principle. On big mixed protests a minority engaging in BB tactics has big consequences for the rest of us. I'm not really sure how to deal with that tension.

by mick Mon Jun 09, 2003 20:37

One trouble with black block protests is the cops are going to keep all demonstrators further and further away from future summits.The media did indeed focus on seattle and genoa because of the levels of violence, but future demos will have to keep upping the violence to stay newsworthy .That way the corporate media gets to dictate the tactics of the protesters. Another problem is secrecy. The British state fought a war against direct action in northern Ireland .The secrecy involved in fighting the state isolated revolutionary forces from the mass movement - the isolation bred paranoia ,fear of touts ,nutting squads etc.That's not to say there shoudn't be direct action and ,at the end of the day, it is always the police who start the violence ,that's their job after all - they're in the violence business.
Mark from the sp ,you say the police should be accountable to local communities. Mark -it's a dream ,it's never going to happen. Wake up.

by Ray Tue Jun 10, 2003 08:52

Criticising the Black Block is fair enough. I don't expect everyone to agree with all of their tactics (I've written critical articles on the subject myself), and its an important discussion to have.
But those criticisms are distinct from allegations that the BB was full of provocateurs. That is a claim that requires evidence. Some people are making this claim in a deliberate attempt to split the movement - instead of arguing with the tactics used by the BB, write them off as cops and dupes of cops. (Not everyone making this claim does so with an agenda, some people are just repeating what they've been told)

This is a serious claim. You should not make this claim without some evidence to back it up. No-one has presented any evidence. So stop making the claim.

by Mark - SP Tue Jun 10, 2003 10:41

I said the tactic was little better than the tactic of individual terror because it alienates the working class, gives the cops and state an excuse to clamp down on the rest of us and pose themselves as liberators that take the place of mass action. I don't feel I need to apologise for this statement and I fully stand by it.
Their tactics, like terrorist or Guerrilla tactics imply a substitute for mass action of the working class. This does not mean that these three distinct tendancies are one and the same thing but that they have a similar effect in denying the role of mass organisations of the working class and they hand the state a stick to beat the anti-capitalist movement with. So I would argue that it is the Black Block sympatisers who should be expecting a cheque in the post from europol not to mention Bush, Blair, Azanar, Bertie and Co. not me or Mathew Waine for that matter.

by Durutti Tue Jun 10, 2003 11:08

The only way to deal with these 'Trots'* who take the side of the State is to treat them as the Class Enemies that they are: kick the crap out of them.

I restrict this to the SP at present, the SWP, Sparts, SD etc have not taken the side of the State.

by Joe Tue Jun 10, 2003 11:22

Mark the problem is that the SP instead of making political arguments against the Black Bloc tactic use the same tactics that Stalin used against Trotsky and that Lenin used against the Russian anarchists.

Stalin said that if the trotskyists were not actually fascists they were effectively doing the work of fascists.

The Socialist Party say that if the Black Bloc are not actually cops they are doing the cops work.

Lenin said that if the anarchists where not actually white agents they were doing the work of the whites.

So bullshit aside the methods the Socialist Party are using here (mud throwing) are the methods that Leninists have ALWAYS used against their political opponenets. They are simply designed to divide the movement and engineered to provoke responses like the idiotic one from 'Durruti' above. Mark and the other SP members posting here are fully aware of this. Their cynicism just demonstrates again that their politics is the politics of the gulag.

by Ray Tue Jun 10, 2003 11:23

Until they use violence against us, we shouldn't be using violence against them. The SP's eagerness to ingratiate themselves with the media and the state by loudly distancing themselves from any radical action is pretty embarassing to watch, but shouldn't be answered with physical attacks.

by Mark - SP Tue Jun 10, 2003 11:35

That in one case the arguement is correct and in the other it is not.
It is not that hard to see how the Black Block are playing into the hands of the capitalists. They get the most media coverage when they are a minority, taking the emphasis off the issues and putting it on the action. There needs to be a balance between the two. The action must be relevant to the issue. The BB allow the media to portray all anti-capitalists - socialists, anarchists and any other group involved as terrorists. This lays the basis for repressive legislation by the state to clamp down on all protesters. Why do you equate that viewpoint as siding with the police?
When you see some of the responses from BB sympathisers you see what I mean. You criticise their tactics and are met with threats.
Is it then hard to see how they are playing into the hands of the cops or are you that divorced from reality that you think smashing a starbucks is a constructive way of opposing Capitalism?

by Pat C Tue Jun 10, 2003 11:37

Think again Durutti. I am just as annoyed as you are regarding the ongoing degeneration of the SP, the way they will always point the finger at activists when clashs with the cops occur. BUT that does not make them agents of the state, what we have here appears to be some of the younger SP members taking the SPs ambivalent line on state violence to its logical conclusion.

The responsibility for this lies with Kevin McLoughlin, Peter Hadden, Domnic Haugh, Michael O'Brien and the other misleaders of the SP. Domnic Haugh because of his love affair with the Shannon Airport Police has a lot to answer for.

The last thing we need is clashs within the left. Fight back by publicising the poison the SP are spewing forth.

by Joe Tue Jun 10, 2003 11:44

Which is to keep making the same point again and again while not responding to the answers made to it.

Here Mark is the response you ignored to the idea that the Black Bloc is 'bad for the movement'.

Was the anti-globalisation movement more effective before the (re-)emergance of the Black Bloc in Seattle or the earlier adoption of confrontation tactics on J18? Would Prague have been better without the attempt to storm the congress building that drove the delegates out of town? Would Quebec have been so good without the tearing down of the security fence?

The evidence seems fairly clear that Black Bloc tactics, even those I think are a bit silly, played a very important part in making the movement 'sexy' in the first place. The SP played NO role in those days, its ironic that now you want to lecture those who were there at the start on what is good for building the movement and what is not.

by Mark - SP Tue Jun 10, 2003 11:55

There is no ambivelance in our attitude to the state. We have always said that the state is an instrument of class rule and the capitalist state is in particular the instrument of the capitalist class. What is ambivelant about that? Just because we don't scream about smashing the state at every opportunity doesn't mean we are ambivelant. By the way I am not a 'younger' memeber of the party.

by Mark - SP Tue Jun 10, 2003 11:59

Yes the black block have made the movement 'sexy' - that is they make it look completely superficial - all image no substance. The media love 'sexy' don't they.

by Joe Tue Jun 10, 2003 12:21

Thanks Mark for pointing out the rather obvious limitations of 'sexiness'. But (of course) you didn't answer the questions asked (no surprize).

Before the introduction of black bloc style actions the problem was not that the media was only interested in the movements 'sexisness'. The problem was that the movement (for it did exist pre-Seattle) got no coverage outside of Bono or the odd Bishop grumbling about debt and the unfairness of it all.

The Black Bloc is a TACTIC not a PROGRAM so it is not actully meant to provide detailed analysis. As a tactic it can only achieve 3 things
1. Attract peoples attention ('sexiness'). It clearly has done this
2. Have some sort of impact on the running of capitalism. Surprizingly it has done this is some minor ways by cancelling/delaying conferences.
3. Provide a model that others seek to emulate. Very obviously this has happened unless you believe the jet setting protesters theory.

It can also do some bad things
1. Divide the movement - but in general Blocs have worked hard to avoid this by clearly defining the space in which they will operate. In Quebec anyone at the protest knew that Black bloc style tactics would occur in the red zone. In Prague we knew it would be in the blue section of the march. Generally the problems have arised at protests like Genoa where sections of the movement REFUSED to designate such spaces resulting on BB's occupying the same physical locations as pacifists.
2. Turn ordinary people off the movement - the growth in numbers post Seattle/Prague suggests this is not the case. As anyone in Ireland knows peoples attitude to political violence is complex. hence the expression 'pub republican'.
3. Provide an excuse for repression - this of course has happened but for the most part the Black blocs have born the brunt of such repression. Other trot shitheads in the SWP may have spoken of the Black Bloc being allowed to operate with impunity in Genoa. The reality is one dead and a very large percentage arrested and brutalised.

The decision to support or argue for a Black Bloc tactic at any given event can only be made by combining all of the above (positive and negative) with the local situation. The SPs sweeping statements are unconvincing. All the more so because of the failure of the SP to even support mass non-violent direct action at Shannon.

Finally to return to your 'individual terrorism' bullshit. You don't even seem to understand what lenin meant by that term.

The black bloc is a form of collective struggle in which anyone can choose to participate. It is not about 10 people planning a secret action. it is (most often) about thousands of people coming together at a publically declared location at a declared time and place to fulfill a declared purpose. There is nothing secretive or elitest about this whatever you think of the tactic in itself.

by pat c Tue Jun 10, 2003 12:37

I was prepared to write off your rantings as the impetuosity of youth, but I guess I will have to give you a fools pardon. Its either that or agree with Durutti.

1. Protests took place at Evian. The police attacked peaceful demonstrators.
1a. Immediately after this and in the context of the police attack on the activists, Matt Waine of the SP effectively (no more semantics)condemns the Black Block and impicitly the demonstrators who had just been attacked?

What does this say about the SP? Could one perhaps read an ambivalence towards police violence into it?

2. The Cops & Polos worldwide are trying to have anti capitalist demonstrators classed as terrorists.
2a. SP m,embers say there is little difference between the Black Block & terrorists.

Is this playing into the hands of the State oe what? Its showing either ambivalence or ignorance towards the role of the State.

3. Airport Police at Shannon have harrased and assaulted anti war activists.
3a. Domnic Haugh SP, defends the AP. When I criticised them, he accused me of having contempt for workers.

A clear case of the SP taking the side of cops over activists, far more than just ambivalence.

by Joe Tue Jun 10, 2003 12:52

4. Tommy Sheriden and Steve McNallys threat to 'name names' after the poll tax riot. The CWI NEVER distanced themselves from this threat by two of their leaders (they did spin it in odd ways).

5. Peter Hadden (northern SP leader and 'Irelands greatest living Marxist') pointing out of an SWP organiser to the PSNI as being responsible for an anti-war sit down in Belfast. SPers on indymedia appeared to have admitted this one but said it was OK because the organiser was obvious to the cops anyway!?!

by OK - SP Tue Jun 10, 2003 13:32

I'm sick of shit stirrers on indymedia deliberatly misquoting and misunderstanding what SP members say on indymedia.

We are not supporters of the Gardaí. We beleive that the State is an instrument of capitalist rule. We have always defended lefts that are attacked by the State.

We do not think the Black Block tactic is a good one. That is our legitimate opinion. They do play into the hands of the capitalists (does not mean they are police agents). It is widely accepted that some people in the BB in Genoa were police agents (again does not mean all are police agents).

Pat C et al I'm sure you will continue with your groundless attacks on the 'degeneration' of our 'misleaders'!

by Joe Tue Jun 10, 2003 13:36

It is widely accepted that some leaders of the SP are police informers.

There is actually some 'evidence' for this claim above which is more then can be said for OK's claims about the black bloc. OK please quit the leninist mudslinging exercise!

by pat c Tue Jun 10, 2003 13:37

My attacks are not groundless.

1. Matt made his comments in the context of a police attack on peaceful demonstrators.

2. SP members have said that the Black block are infiltrated by cops.

3. SP members have compared the Black Block to terrorists.

4. The SP have defended the Shannon Airport Police.

by Ray Tue Jun 10, 2003 13:37

"It is widely accepted that some people in the BB in Genoa were police agents "

I'll ask you again, for the fourth or fifth time this week - where is your evidence that some of the Genoa BB were police agents? Where are the photos? Either provide some proof or stop smearing the BB.

(and how about some _specific_ responses to the other points, about the effectiveness of the BB, and the cases of SP members siding with the police)

by SP Bot Tue Jun 10, 2003 13:44

10 PRINT "It is widely accpted that some of the Black Bloc are police agents"
20 IF response = 0 THEN BREAK
30 ELSE GOTO 10

by Mark - SP Tue Jun 10, 2003 13:55

Supposed BB'ers were seen getting out of the back of a police van at Genoa. I have heard SP people as well as SWP people say this. They were suspected by some to be fascists.

by Ray Tue Jun 10, 2003 14:02

Seen by who?
Where, exactly?
Were these 'supposed BBers' dressed in normal civilian clothes - ie. not the kind of clothes BBers wore - like every other set of 'supposed BBers'?
Does the fact that SPers are repeating something they heard from an SWPer (or vice versa), who may in turn have heard this from somewhere else, make this claim more or less credible? What do you think?
Does the fact that both the SP and the SWP have a vested interest in portraying the BB as hopelessly infiltrated make the allegation more or less credible? What do you think?

EVIDENCE. Photos. Videotape. Released police documents. Confessions. Not 'I heard this guy say that a friend of his knows somebody who had one of them BBers in the back of his cab once...'

by Durutti Tue Jun 10, 2003 14:04

Were seen getting into garda vans in Shannon. They were also seen to dress in airport police riot gear. In the North Spers often drive around with the PSNI pointing out duissident Republicans.

WHERE IS YOUR PROOF ABOUT THE BLACK BLOC?

by Ray Tue Jun 10, 2003 14:22

There have been quite a few pictures taken of Genovese cops in civilian clothes
http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/genova/pics1.htm
is one that's been widely circulated. But these cops, just like in all of the other photos I've seen, are in PLAIN CLOTHES. They are not dressed as Black Blockers.

by Joe Tue Jun 10, 2003 14:29

'Thor' is an unlikely* handle for an anarchist or other black blocer to use (Some Scandenvian BBers are marxists, either Maoists or autonomists). People making physical threats in this thread might well be fascists trying to stir shit up ...

by Jim Monaghan Tue Jun 10, 2003 14:59

"The only way to deal with these 'Trots'* who take the side of the State is to treat them as the Class Enemies that they are: kick the crap out of them."
This is from someone who shares the name of a great Iberian Anarchist.Perhaps he prefers an easy target or maybe he has already defeated the forces of the state. Get a grip.
I have had bad experiences of socalled direct action. Those who throw rocks etc. at the cops from a safe distance over the heads of pther protesters who provide a safe barrier from cop retaliation. I ahve heard some of them say that the way to radicalise the masses is to get the cops to attack them. The reality is that when this occurs the next march is reserved for the young and the fast.
There is oppertunities to move beyond marchs to other forms of activity when there is sufficent
support to make them effective and not vainglorious stunts.
Yes, I am suspicious of the Black Bloc. Ther is not a mass movement for their kind of activity across Europe. Most news broadcasts used their activity to drown out everything else.I have to search for any other kind of news.I am sure to suits those who wish the mass movement against capitalist globalisation would disappear.
The WSM and its allies are not the Black Bloc and and are a very useful and constructive part of the whole movement whatever disagreements may arise betwen them and the rest of the Left.The Direct Action advocated at Shannon bore no relationship to that of the Black Bloc. The pity of it was that many thoughyt that Shannon would end up that way and that is at the root of the unfortunate disagreements.
Perhaps more dialogue would create a space where debates and some give and take on disagreements could occur without the acrimony and exaggeration which suits only our enemny.
There will be more Imperial wars we need to learn the lessons of the past and prepare for them

by Ray Tue Jun 10, 2003 15:10

You say "there will be more imperialist wars...". Does that mean you agree that the current war, and thus the current anti-war campaign, is over? And doesn't that imply that a long-term strategy of slowly pulling everyone together over a long period was doomed from the start? And that therefore the only way to win the campaign was to win _before_ the bombs started fallin?

by Durutti Tue Jun 10, 2003 15:15

You are an irrelevant superannuated trot wanker. What are you really involved in? You come here to lay down your words of wisdom, like Moses delivering his tablets. Well you are the one who needs to keep taking the tablets.

The so called Socialist Party is dragging the Red Flag through the mud and all you can do is join in the attack. If you love these cop and loyalist supporters so much why dont you join them? You could happily join in their attacks in the Garvaghy Road residents.

You are old enough to know better. Ditch the cynicism and join in the struggle.

by Joe Tue Jun 10, 2003 15:32

Two points Jim

1. None of us know who 'Durruti' is or what they may or may not be part of. We do know that fascists have posted similar messages to indymedia in the past obviously designed to provoke conflict they hope to gain from. It is unwise to take 'Durruti' at face value and draw the sort of conclusions you do above.

2. You seem to be fighting past battles in your 'analysis' of the black bloc. It is not 'Revolutionary Struggle' of the new milenium. Black blocs go out of their way to seperate themselves off from other protesters rather then throwing rocks from behind them. That's part of the reason for the black clothes etc. Of course there are incidents where the cops have chased a BB into an area occupied by other protesters but I'm unaware of any incident where a convincing case can be made of a BB using others as shields.

As to the issue of media coverage there is no real evidence that the BB's take coverage from other protesters. At demonstrations like Seville last summer when no bloc was present there was simply no coverage of the protest in Ireland. Where a bloc is present it will mean that the violence makes the headlines but this actually creates a space for other protesters to speak as well (all the more so because few from a bloc will talk to the media). The simple test is to ask yourself 'did these protests get more or less coverage before the advent of confrontational tactics'. The answer to this is obvious.

You are right about Shannon being a different kettle of fish but many of those who took part and even organised it have been on black blocs in other cities. This would include some WSM members. Again the bloc is a tactic rather then an organisation, your summit black blocker is very often a community, union or even NGO activist the other 364 days of the year. At Shannon it was very clear that a black bloc was not appropiate, the approach taken was much more 'pink and silver'.

"Perhaps more dialogue would create a space where debates and some give and take on disagreements could occur without the acrimony and exaggeration which suits only our enemny."

Exactly, hence the clarifications above. Don't assume you already know what you are arguing against. Sometimes knowledge and experiences leads to assumptions about what is happening today that are simply wrong. The black blocs of today exist in part as a critique of the 'parks in the park' vanguardism of the 60's and 70's.

by Durutti Tue Jun 10, 2003 15:45

I am not the only Anarchist to do so on Indymedia. That is why I am annoyed at the coments Joe made. If you have read my comments over a period of time you will see that I am active. I realise that support for the Czech Anarchist position is a minority one but that is no reasion to disown me. You havent done that to the Czech Anarchists who actually attack Leninists, uou debated with them as I did. They convinced me more than they did you.

by OK - SP Tue Jun 10, 2003 15:59

Pat, Thanks for the short and readable reply to the points I raise.

You Say: "1. Matt made his comments in the context of a police attack on peaceful demonstrators."

No he did not. Matt was interviewed early Sunday evening. The police violence happened later that night in Geneva. And for the record We didn't see any police violence untill we saw the papers that night as we were staying outside of Geneva centre.

You said: "2. SP members have said that the Black block are infiltrated by cops."

Yes. They probably are infiltrated by police. Again this is not saying all are police agents. I'd say other contingents in the march also had police agents.

You said: "3. SP members have compared the Black Block to terrorists."

I think you're taking this out of context. What was said that their actions were individualistic and counter productive.

You siad: "4. The SP have defended the Shannon Airport Police."

This is incorrect.

by Joe Tue Jun 10, 2003 16:01

'Durruti' you are free to remain anonymous but I don't know who you are and I'm a bit wary of someone whose main contribution seems to be to advocate violence against other sections of the left. If I knew who you were I would have a context to put this in - but as of now I just know you as an occasional contributor who seems to want to provoke punch ups on the left. It seems obvious as to why I would therefore be reluctant to take you at face value.

I see Thor has returned as well. I'd no idea it was a given name but in any case it should be obvious that threatening to fly in and start left punch ups in some other country is, well, unhelpful.

Disagree as I do with Thor and Durruti on this it would be not all that surprising if this is how some people react to being called a police agent. If the SP were labelling named individuals/organisations rather then the broad tactic in this way I would consider it a legtimate response. Those in the SP who engage in such name calling would be wise to catch themselves on.

by Ray Tue Jun 10, 2003 16:15

"2. SP members have said that the Black block are infiltrated by cops."

Yes. They probably are infiltrated by police. Again this is not saying all are police agents. I'd say other contingents in the march also had police agents."

But your comrade didn't say "Globalise Resistance are full of police infiltrators". He didn't say "Socialist Youth are full of police infiltrators". Nor did he say "There are probably police infiltrators all over this demonstration". He singled out the Black Block.

Since then, you and others have repeatedly, with absolutely no evidence, alleged that the Black Block in Genoa was full of cops.

If you're going to single out the Black Block, you have to have some evidence.

Tell you what, how about if every time someone mentions the Socialist Party or the CWI on indymedia, I add a comment saying that both groups are probably full of undercover cops? Every time the SP calls a demonstration, I'll point out that there'll probably be lots of undercover cops there. Whenever the SP calls for mass non-payment of bin charges, or calls for people to dump their rubbish outside the Dail, I'll mention that there are probably plenty of undercover cops in the bin charges campaign.

Is that fair enough?

by pat c Tue Jun 10, 2003 16:16

"You Say: "1. Matt made his comments in the context of a police attack on peaceful demonstrators."

No he did not. Matt was interviewed early Sunday evening. The police violence happened later that night in Geneva. And for the record We didn't see any police violence untill we saw the papers that night as we were staying outside of Geneva centre."

Point accepted. That was not clear from the Times interview. It appeared that Matt was commenting after the fact.

"You said: "2. SP members have said that the Black block are infiltrated by cops."

Yes. They probably are infiltrated by police. Again this is not saying all are police agents. I'd say other contingents in the march also had police agents."

On what evidence? Do you accept that the CWI contingent had been infiltrated?

"You said: "3. SP members have compared the Black Block to terrorists."

I think you're taking this out of context. What was said that their actions were individualistic and counter productive."

This is what Mark said:

>we condemn, specificly the actions of the Black >Block which are little different to acts of >individual terror.

"You siad: "4. The SP have defended the Shannon Airport Police."

This is incorrect."

Om numerous occasions Domnic Haugh has defended the Airport Police. When I criticised them he accused me of having contempt for workers.

by Seamas - SP Tue Jun 10, 2003 16:27

This is absolutely hilarious stuff. We have a handful of Black Block sympathisers here who have managed in just a few posts to claim that:

The Socialist Party supports the cops. That we take the side of the state. That we support Loyalism. That we "implicitly" condemn peaceful demonstrators who have just been attacked. That we fingered an SWPer in Belfast. Then you have threats of physical violence.

Rarely in the occasionally spotty history of Indymedia have I seen such bile and such idiocy, so many lies and so many threats in just one thread. The most remarkable thing about it is that each of the allegations are so obviously and so demonstrably false. Why not claim that the Socialist Party brought down the Roman Empire while you are at it? It would only be marginally more ridiculous.

Members of the Socialist Party regard Black Block tactics as destructive, stupid, and damaging to the movement. There are simple reasons for that. None of them have anything to do with support for the state or concern for property of some multinational. In reality the foolish behaviour of the Black Blocks allows the state and the media to present protestors as dangerous thugs. It allows them to criminalise and marginalise us. It gives them the excuse to unleash repression against us all. It divorces our movement from the concerns of ordinary people.

That members of the Socialist Party feel that way is hardly surprising. We have a long history of arguing against anyone who seeks to replace the mass of the working class with the adventures of a "heroic" few - whether that heroic few is composed of paramilitaries or of Black Blocks (which doesn't mean that the Black Blocks are paramilitaries before some cretin starts predictably jumping up and down).

It has been made clear in this thread that opposing the Black Block tactic does not mean siding with the violence of the state or regarding both as equal. It means that we regard the Black Block tactic as damaging to the movement. The Black Block behave exactly as I would want a section of the movement to behave if I was a major capitalist, a news baron or a G8 leader.

Let's take a possible example one of the upcoming major protests in Dublin. It isn't beyond the bounds of possibility that some idiots will decide to organise themselves as a black block. Let's be clear about it only a handful of the stupider locals might be involved, but I'm sure that the numbers could be scraped up from visiting protestors. So some big protests take place, likely the biggest ones Dublin has seen for more than a decade excluding the anti-war mobilisations. At those protests a small group organised as a Black Block wanders down some commercial street, putting in a few windows and getting involved in a ruck with the cops (probably but not necessarily started by the cops).

What would the consequences of this brave "propaganda of the deed" actually be? Apart from making a few black clad goons feel all excited and convinced that they have "moved beyond protest into resistance" or some other such self-justificatory nonsense.

Well I'll tell you. To start with large numbers of other protestors, who had nothing to do with the black block would get the crap kicked out of them. The entire media would have one story and one story only: protestor thugs smash up Dublin. It would drown out all of the real issues at stake along with the voices of everyone else taking part in the protests (including the possibility of much broader non-violent direct actions). It would seriously damage the relationship of ordinary people to the movement. It would mean that every protest for some time to come could be attacked with impunity, undoing all of the consequences of the RTS attack and more. And these are only the immediate consequences.

Now the ironic thing is that I would be very surprised if any of the people offering support to the Black Block tactic would be in favour of any such thing happening in Dublin. Only a tiny number of the most foolish and least patient would be so unbelievably stupid as to actually want to damage our own movement so thoroughly. That doesn't stop a wider number from defending the tactic for somebody else's city, damaging somebody else's movement.

So when the consequences of one groups oh so exciting actions are so severe for the entire movement, is it really unreasonable for others to totally oppose such actions or surprising that they do so? You can't mask such a fundamental conflict with platitudes about a "diversity of tactics" when one group's tactics have an immediate impact on everyone else. And of course some of the very people who are so quick to wheel out that platitude see nothing wrong in making physical threats against other parts of the movement who disagree with them.

And again, just to drive the point home to anyone who is particularly dedicated to misrepresenting what I say, making clear our total opposition to black block tactics has nothing to do with "siding with the state" or regarding the cop's violence and the Black Block's violence as "equal". What it has to do with is wanting to avoid a dictatorship of the stupidest imposing the consequences of it's own impatience on the entire movement.

by pat c Tue Jun 10, 2003 16:36

1 I am not a Black Block supporter.

2 The SP have consistently supported the Shannon Airport Police. Domnic Haugh got outraged when the AP were called Templ;emore Rejects. Despite their continued assualts and harrassment of activists who were merely taking details of military planes landing and taking off, the SP have yet to in any way criticise rhe Airport Police.

When I criticised the AP Domnic Haugh said I was showing contempt for workers. A leading member of the SP thinks that cops are workers in uniform.

I have yet to see any member of the SP disagree with Haugh.

by Seamas Tue Jun 10, 2003 16:52

On the side issue - and it is a side issue - of police infiltration:

It is a fact that the police around the world have been known to try to infiltrate left wing organisations. There was an interesting series of programmes on the British state forces and the far left in the 1970s and 1980s on the BBC quite recently, for instance. Those programmes detailed the activities of quite a number of the spies who operated in the old CPGB, Militant, the SWP and the IMG.

In Ireland, I am sure that the cops would love to be able to run similar agents but I suspect that what resources they have in that line are heavily tied up in spying on the various paramilitary organisations.

There was a famous remark from Lenin on the subject, when he was asked what he thought should be done about spies in the Bolsheviks. He replied something along the lines of "make sure you get a lot of effort out of them". In other words, there is nothing which can be done to completely seal off an organisation if the state is determined to infilitrate it.

That isn't an excuse for complacency though. I'm sure that each of the major blocks at big demonstrations has people working for the police on them. That includes "red" or "pink" blocs as wekk as the "black" block. However, the widespread use of masks and its fluid temporary nature makes it obviously easier to infiltrate numbers of cops onto the black block. The same factors and the entire - adventurist - purpose of the Black Block in turn makes it easier for any infiltrators to have an impact on events. If you were to design a set up to allow the cops to push protestors into doing rash things then you couldn't do so better than to have a fluid and temporary block of masked people prepared for a bit of ruck wandering around, could you?

Of course the main point is that left to their own devices, the Black Block will eventually do pretty much what the state and media want a section of the protestors to do anyway - get involved in petty destruction and throw rocks at the cops.

by Seamas Tue Jun 10, 2003 16:56

Pat, your memory is faulty. A number of members of the SP made it clear that they are opposed to the actions of the Airport Police in harrassing protestors including both OK and Brian Cahill. In fact I'm pretty sure I remember Dominic saying so too although he also said some other stuff you disagree with.

by Ray Tue Jun 10, 2003 17:00

If the SP are left to their own devices they'll do pretty much what the state wants them to as well -
march in ever-decreasing circles while issuing empty calls for workers to strike.
As Marx (should have) said, "There is a zombie haunting Europe, a zombie made up of self-styled revolutionaries who are only capable of repeating the same actions over and over again, a zombie whose fondest dream is to replicate the mistakes of revolutionaries past, a zombie who has been so successfully enslaved by its master that it would devour itself rather than break its master's laws..."

by pat c Tue Jun 10, 2003 17:04

If anyone dares to criticise the AP. Lets hear you say It Seamus:

The Airport Police at Shannon are part of the State Repressive Apparatus, They are not workers and should not be members of SIPTU.

WEll do the SP agree with the above statement?

by hs - sp Tue Jun 10, 2003 17:31

nothing more or less than middle class kids having some "revolutionary" fun. They'll dissappear soon enough. And if they alienate the mass of people along the way all the better for the state. I don't see how anyone can take these muppets seriously. Have you ever spoken to one? I have, the one's I spoke to are all middle class arseholes who think everyone who doesn't agree with them are reformists. And are just playing games, they're not prepared to go into the factories or take part in strikes just throw muppety bricks through windows before daddys lawyer mate rescues them. They have noting to do with the autonomist movement and very few are involved in the social centres. And they're the easiest group of people on the planet to infriltrate.

by trotsky's axe Tue Jun 10, 2003 17:35

What started out as the uploading of the satire newspaper of the Socialist Party, has become another stream of piss from the bearded fruitjuice drinkers.

by Seamas Tue Jun 10, 2003 17:37

1) Ray, why bother posting something that you know is untrue? Members of the Socialist Party have in fact gone to jail for breaking a wide range of anti-working class laws. This has nothing to do with "fearing to break our masters laws" and you know it.

I suppose it is easier to misrepresent than to seriously argue against what we actually say. The problem with what the Black Blocks do isn't that their actions are "illegal" but that their actions are foolish and dangerous to the movement. Is that clear?

2) Pat, you are confusing two issues. The Airport Police played a very bad role in Shannon and nobody has any problem with criticising them for that. Whether or not they are also workers is a quite different issue. In my view, that fundamentally comes down to the fact that they are forced to sell their labour for a wage in order to survive. This is the last I'll be saying on this issue as I dont want to get sidetracked.

by Stephen Boyd - Socialist Party Tue Jun 10, 2003 22:23 info at socialistparty dot net

In relation to the comments made here by Durutti, Pat C, Joe, Ray etc, etc, regarding the position of the Socialist Party on a whole host of issues:
1) The Socialist Party has NEVER posted an official statement on any of these issues on indymedia.
2) If you want to know what the position of the Socialist Party is on these various issues then read our newspaper the Socialist Voice or our political journal Socialist View or visit our website or the website of our international.
3) You are attempting to discredit the Socialist Party by putting up arguments against what you claim is the official position of the Socialist Party on these various issues. It might be a more credible form of polemic if you actually quoted from official Socialist Party publications, rather than rehashing postings on Indymedia which could have put there by anyone.

by Ray Wed Jun 11, 2003 09:13

So, you've never published an official statement on indymedia. Congratulations.
Instead, you go to the fucking MAINSTREAM MEDIA to talk about police infiltrators, you speak at demonstrations and call people 'virtual warriors', while these 'virtual warriors' are being ARRESTED. But you haven't made an official statement on indymedia. Whoop-de-fucking-doo.

As for the Black Blocks, there are two issues here.
One is whether they are damaging to the movement or not. Joe posted a long comment above discussing this. Surprise surprise, none of the many SP posters since have addressed his arguments. Not one.
The second issue is whether they were infiltrated by the cops. Despite repeated allegations that 'everyone accepts it', and despite the fact that SP members chose to make these allegations to the Irish Times*, not one SP member has come up with _any_ evidence to support this. Its just the standard smear tactic - repeat something often enough and maybe people will start to believe it.

*Instead of talking about Carlo Giuliani, the Irish people arrested and mistreated in Genoa, or the police raid on the social centre where they battered people indiscriminately. Because none of these things are as important to the SP as the fact that the BB have broken some windows.

by Mark - SP Wed Jun 11, 2003 10:22

In actual fact after the murder of Carlo Giulliani, SY organised a protest rally in front of the central bank. Joe Higgins also spoke out against the police brutality in Genoa in the Dail. This is hardly an ambivelant position. Our position after the police attack on the RTS demo was not ambivelant either.
As for the continuing threats made against myself and other SPers by BB sympathisers, well it kind of proves our point.

by Ray Wed Jun 11, 2003 10:35

Yes, you did speak out at the time.
But when an Irish Times journalist asked one of your members about the Black Block, what did he say?
"Whatever the Black Block have been doing, and I don't agree with their tactics, it pales into insignificance beside the murder in Genoa of Carlo Giuliani" or maybe
"Although I disagree with the Black Blocks, the level of police repression is far more important. In Genoa, the police raided a school that was being used as sleeping quarters, beating people indiscriminately. In other incidents, several Irish protesters were arrested and badly mistreated."

No, the SP member thought it was far more important to allege that the Black Blocks are full of police infiltrators. Gotta love those priorities.

Maybe the Socialist Party needs a new motto? "We're not with them, honest?" "Capitalism's loyal opposition?" "For a virtual revolution?" "They say Rent-a-mob, we say Rent-a-quote"

by Stephen Boyd - Socialist Party Wed Jun 11, 2003 13:05

Anonymous Ray! Instead of inventing your own quotations in order to engage in a very bizarre form of argument, why don't you actually use real quotations from the Socialist Party.
Of course you won't be able to find quotations that fit in with your line of argument because what you accuse the Socialist Party of is utter nonsense. So you just continue to invent the position of the Socialist Party and have a little temper tantrum and rant, and never mind actually dealing with reality.

by Ray Wed Jun 11, 2003 13:30

Anonymous? I use my real name, which is more than most Trot contributors. I don't use all of it - neither do 'Mark - SP', or 'Seamas - SP'. Does that make them anonymous too? I'm not about to put my full name up on the web but I've made no secret of who I am.

And I wasn't attributing false quotes to the SP, as I thought would be obvious even to those used to letting others do their thinking for them. I was suggesting other things that your member could have said.
He could have criticised the police, but instead he chose to criticise the Black Block. In a national newspaper. Quotes in this story here
http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=51499&start=40

Either he's too stupid to realise what happens when you talk to the press, or he thinks spreading unsubstantiated allegations about other protesters is more important than criticising the police. That is the reality - are you going to deal with it? Or are you going to go home and work on some placards for the next protest - "DON'T WORRY GARDAI, WE'RE THE SOCIALIST PARTY, WE JUST WANT TO MARCH UP AND DOWN A BIT"
Hmm, maybe that's too big for a placard, but you could put it on a banner. Here's a nice Connolly quote for the back
"If you strike at, imprison, or kill us, out of
our prisons or graves we will still evoke a
spirit that will complain that we were peaceful protesters, not like that other crowd who deserve everything they got! We defy you! Do your worst (to them)! (BTW, here are their names...)"

(updated slightly to suit the new spirit of revolutionary socialism)

by Joe Wed Jun 11, 2003 13:32

It's funny that senior SP members can NOW find the time now to trawl back through indymedia threads to point out that SP posters were not giving the SP position on these questions yet when it actually mattered (the discussion before March 1st) they were unable to find the time to do so. No surprise there, lots of people predicted at the time that depending on how things went the SP would hang out these members to dry in this way if it suited them afterwards.

Pull the other one Stephen!

by pat c Wed Jun 11, 2003 14:44

"2) Pat, you are confusing two issues. The Airport Police played a very bad role in Shannon and nobody has any problem with criticising them for that."

Wrong. Domnic Haugh SP, has a problem with any criticism of the Airport Police.

"Whether or not they are also workers is a quite different issue. In my view, that fundamentally comes down to the fact that they are forced to sell their labour for a wage in order to survive."

So, are they workers in uniform then? If you cant see the difference between a worker and a member of the State Repressive Apparatus then your organisation really has problems.

"This is the last I'll be saying on this issue as I dont want to get sidetracked"

So, the class nature and role of coppers is a side issue!

by *$* Wed Jun 11, 2003 14:58

Perseveration is the name of the game.

"Black Block are cops" - "Prove it?"
repeat ad nauseum.

"He's behind you - "

Who's turn is it to play in the revloutionary sand pit today?

"My revoloution is better than yours."

"I know you are but what am I?"

Anyone visiting the site for the first time and reading this drivel would run a fucking mile.

Solidarity comrades.

by Durutti Wed Jun 11, 2003 15:07

You accuse people of being, cop agents, terrorists and fascists. Because people get annoyed , this proves you point. Is this some kind of trot logic?

It is widely accepted that the SP run child prostitution rings.

by Mark - SP Wed Jun 11, 2003 15:50

Getting annoyed is one thing, threatening to crack skulls is another.
Am I to believe that mr. Durutti here thinks its ok to crack the skulls of people who don't agree with you? Funny stance for someone who would accuse Lenninists of authoritarianism.

by Mark - SP Wed Jun 11, 2003 15:57

"If you cant see the difference between a worker and a member of the State Repressive Apparatus then your organisation really has problems."

They are both. Being a worker doesn't necessarily make you progressive. In the past though there are numerous instances of members of the State Repressive Apparatus coming over to the side of the people against this aparatus.
Many arms of the state aparatus have a dual nature. Take education for example. To a large extent the education system conditions us to be "good citizens" but on the other hand it provides us with some of the tools we use to question the nature of the regime. Not everything is black or white.

by Joe Wed Jun 11, 2003 15:58

But you think it is OK to execute people who don't agree with you so you don't have much of a leg to stand on.

by Mark - SP Wed Jun 11, 2003 16:08

Another lie. Not worth my effort.

by pat c Wed Jun 11, 2003 16:11

A teacher cannot baton you or shoot you, its a weak analogy. I accept that in some cases soldiers and even cops can be won over to a radical cause. But dont have illusions.

by Joe Wed Jun 11, 2003 16:17

Mark your heroes Lenin and trotsky executed thousands of revolutionaries who had different ideas to the ones they had. You and your organisation uncritically support their actions. You don't have state power right now so you are not in the business of knocking off your opponents but you have supported the execution of those who disagree with you. And given your use of leninist mud slinging tactics in the here and now I presume you would do so again.

by (idiot pretending to be) Ray Wed Jun 11, 2003 16:18

It's a well established fact that Durutti fucks his Mother.

by (idiot pretending to be)Ray Wed Jun 11, 2003 16:20

And that Pat C is so ugly he can't find anyone to fuck not even a relative!

by Ray Wed Jun 11, 2003 16:27

1. Posting under someone else's name
2. Posting under the name of an IMC editor - someone able to modify or delete comments - on a thread that editor is reading

by Mark - SP Thu Jun 12, 2003 09:11

Deluded.

by Pat C Thu Jun 12, 2003 10:24

You are the deluded one Mark. Your ambivalence towards the cops has been exposed. Instead of criticising the Cops, Matt attacked the BB (Ray has outlined how he might have made his differences clear while putting the blame on the cops). Your glorious leader Stephen Boyd has come here to DISOWN YOU and say that none of the SPs official poicies have been expressed on Indymedia.

You have even dropped Haugh like a hot potato. His over enthusiastic support for the Airport Police has proved an embarassment even to the SP.

by OK - SP Thu Jun 12, 2003 11:04

SP members on this thread have been quite clear.

In what was quoted in an Irish Times article (remember they may have ommitted some things- capitalist media are capable of that) an SP member said that SOME in the BB were police agents. (I emphasis SOME)

In this thread it was also said by SP members that Police agents may also be in other contingents.

We do not support the individualistic actions of the Black Block. That does not mean we support police attacking them and the media portraying anti-capitalist demonstrators as violent. The violence of the Capitalists is far more damaging than a few broken windows at a demo.

Stephen was making the point that Indymedia postings are not necessarily what our positions are. To base a polemic against the SP on indymedia positngs is dodgy. There is no way of confirming that postings are from SP members. That's not 'disowning'- it's stating a fact.

by OK - SP Thu Jun 12, 2003 11:06

Pat C and others have been looking for evidence for the widely accepted fact of police agents in the BB.

I've heard plenty of eyewitness accounts of that from people that were in Genoa. Eyewitness accounts are evidence

by pat c Thu Jun 12, 2003 11:12

So gossip is evidence now? LETS HAVE NAMED PEOPLE COME ON INDY AND SAY EXACTLY WHAT THEY SAW.

Otherwise its just so much as crap.

by Ray Thu Jun 12, 2003 11:17

First off, a question.
The SP member we're discussing is quoted in the media criticising the Black Block, not the police. Is that because he spent most of the interview criticising the BB, or because he's too stupid to know how to deal with the media? Do you agree that he should not have made the statements quoted?

Second, where is this evidence? Its getting to be like the WMDs at this stage. You keep making this allegation, but you keep failing to substantiate it. Saying that evidence exists 'somewhere' is like saying that Iraq has anthrax 'somewhere'. Either point it out, or shut up.

Finally, if you're just saying that every contingent on the march was infiltrated by the police, would you be happy for me to repeatedly assert that "Everybody knows - and SP members admit - that the CWI contingents in the summit demonstrations are heavily infiltrated by the police"? If not, why not? If I was being interviewed by the Irish Times, what would your reaction be if that quote appeared?

by Mark - SP Thu Jun 12, 2003 14:36

As Oisin has stated eye witness reports are evidence. Of course we're not going to go naming names especially giventhe threats already made by us and the probability the cops are monitoring this.
I don't know if there were any cops with the CWI contingent but its hardly worth their while is it;What would be the point in them spending their time with us selling papers and giving out leaflets when the BB give them the opportunity to paint the protesters in a bad light?

by Ray Thu Jun 12, 2003 14:42

Tony Blair couldn't have put it better - "We have lots of evidence that WMDs exist, of course we do. We just can't show you any."
Eye witness reports that only you know about are not evidence. They're hearsay, rumour, or plain bullshit.

(BTW, its good of you to confirm what the rest of us have long suspected - all the CWI ever do on demonstrations is give out leaflets and sell papers)

by Mark - SP Thu Jun 12, 2003 14:42

That should read Threats already made against us

by Durutti Thu Jun 12, 2003 14:44

What do you expect when you slander real anti capitalist fighters. You have produced no evidence.

by Fighting fair? Thu Jun 12, 2003 15:03

Ha Ha,

Blair also claimed he couldn't name his sources on WMD in Iraq because it might put them in danger!?! SP you are exposing yourselves beautifully here as the same old 'stalinist' methodology under another name.

The funny thing is that the SP has far more to lose if we retaliated in kind then they have to gain through slandering the Black bloc. Your whole strategy is either not thought out or based on the assumption that we'll be nice while you play nasty.

Just imagine the electoral damage, if, for instance it was widely believed that a certain TD had to drop out of the seminary after showing a bit too much interest in children. There are of course eyewitnesses to this as well but for rather obvious reasons they don't want their identities revealed!

How'd you like to see that in the Irish Times? Would it make you want to take a swing at someone perhaps?

by Mark - SP Thu Jun 12, 2003 15:16

That certain TD would be able to sue them for libel. The capitalist press would only print slanders that are difficult to disprove.
As for you being real anti-capitalists, you are just frustrated teenagers and sad old punks.

by Durutti Thu Jun 12, 2003 15:27

Posters and leaflets alleging that a certain TD likes kids go go around.

by Ray Thu Jun 12, 2003 15:29

I'll leave that blank to illustrate the pointlessness of your name-calling.

Nice to see you admit your reliance on difficult-to-disprove slanders.

by Fighting fair? Thu Jun 12, 2003 15:42

So you feel safe putting around slanders because you know that no black blocer is going to sue you in the courts. The Irish Times feel safe printing such slanders for the same reason.

But you squeal loudly when someone makes the vaguest threat to take the only other course open to them to deal with a liar (a fair term for someone who refuses to produce evidence when challenged). Six months back I disagreed with the politics of the SP but thought they were people you could work with and even trust to a certain extent. March 1st and this discussion have certainly opened my eyes.

Anyway if my politics were anything like so shit that I would stoop to your methods I wouldn't start with the Irish Times. With a rumour of that magnitude I'd just start casually mentioning it to taxi drivers. It would be all over the city in a month. But don't worry, I do have principles and the vileness above is for purposes of illustration only. Now excuse me, I have to go and gargle to get the taste out of my mouth.

by Pat C Thu Jun 12, 2003 16:07

Who saw them? How did they know they were BB?

This is all just so much gossip. If the SP/CWI have REAL evidence then there is a duty on them to publicly reveal this at a forum wherby it can be independently assessed.

In the Irish context this would mean asking the ICCL and Amnesty to vet the evidence and to publish the outcome of the vetting

by mick Thu Jun 12, 2003 17:01

I don't understand why anarchists are making such a fuss about cops infiltrating the BB.
If the black block are a serious threat to capitalism then they will be infiltrated by the cops . The socialist party would also be infiltrated ,not because the state considers them a threat , but just in case somebody might join them who takes their revolutionary rhetoric at face value.

by Ray Thu Jun 12, 2003 17:24

So the SP won't object if I follow every statement they make with "Of course, its widely accepted that the Socialist Party is full of police infiltrators". When they next call a demonstration, I'll point out that "Its generally understood that the people calling this march are full of undercover cops." When someone from the SP stands for a position in a union or campaign, I'll stand up and say "While I'm sure comrade X is a sincere and committed activist, the same can't be said of everyone in the SP. Its widely accepted that many of X's comrades in the SP are, in fact, on the Garda payroll".
Is that okay with everyone? Can I take it that nobody from the SP will object to this behaviour?

by Trotsky Thu Jun 12, 2003 19:42

The Black Block and their Irish Anarchist brethern think they are hard men because they throw a few stones at the cops and break a few windows. But if you and your kin become an obstacle to the class struggle by your actions and deeds then you will be dealt with.

by silly sal Thu Jun 12, 2003 20:08

What if its only by their actions and not by their deeds,will they still get their heads ripped off ?

by john throne - labors militant voice Thu Jun 12, 2003 22:13 loughfinn at aol dot com

In my opinion whether or not to take direct action is a tactical decision not a principled one. It is also one that has to be put in context. I believe that one of the most powerful aspects of the mood of the working class today is that they cannot see what they can do to throw back the capitalist offensive. In this situation I believe that direct action is more appropriate in this period than it might be in another period because it can show that victories can be won and begin to break down the mood that nothing can be done. Direct action case work is increasingly being carried out here, by this is meant taking up speciific issues, an eviction, an unpaid wage or overtime, police brutality, a deportation and struggling against these through direct action. In this way victories can be won. I believe that this approach of direct action is directly related to the needs and consciousness of the working class.

Then there is the direct action at the mass demonstrations. I am in general in favor of this with this addition. These actions should be around a clear program or set of demands that working class people can recognize and relate to. For example some of us here had a discussion at the San francisco events that direct action should leave behind it walls painted with slogans, for example $15.00 an hour minimum wage, free health care for all, free eductation to the highest level for all, no to the war of the US corporations at home and abroad. Direct action which left these messages behind rather than just some broken windows would help build and develop a movement of the working class.

And that to me is the issue relating to direct action. We should see direct action not as some individualistic action but as action the purpose of which is to build a movement of the working class against the war, against poverty, against global capitalism. Some direct actions make it harder to build a movement. Some make it easier to build a movement. So in discussing direct action the issue to me is does it help build a movement of the working class.

John Throne.

by Joe Fri Jun 13, 2003 10:39

Some SP supporter posting under the name trotsky threatened Ray. This proves the point I was making ... blah blah blah ... snooze.

by ENOUGH, ENOUGH, ENOUGH Fri Jun 13, 2003 20:17

I logged on this evening to have a look at indymedia for the first time in a few days. Thread after thread, after thread is full of this sh*te between a handfull of anarchists posting under different names (probably) and a handfull of SPers posting under different names(probably).

I have to say, in nearly all the threads, the mud slinging comes from the anarchists side and then the SP retaliate.

I don't want to see stuff about what someone was SUPPOSED to have said months ago. You said this, no I didn't, yes you did, no I didn't........ In the middle of it all the truth is lost. Ever hear the quote "Lies, damned lies and quotations". Anyone can make any quotation say anything they want (if they have half a brain).

Finally a comment on the Black Bloc. Maybe they have not been infiltrated by the cops, but if they haven't they are making a damn good effort to indicate they have.

by Joe Mon Jun 16, 2003 12:35

Err 'Enough' do you not see something a little odd in pleading for the row to stop and then ending your post with a repetition of the point at the centre of it? Duh!