Persecution of Black Block is typical of fake 'left'

by col - swp Mon Jun 24, 2002 00:30

ummm... sorry to disapoint you, but firstly,i do disagree with the tactics.. i think that the actions of the black bloc can depoliticise and demobilise the working class movement - I'm less likely to get union sponsorship to go to an anticapitalist demonstration or forum as a result of their actions. and no- i'm not against the thrashing of a mcdonalds on a moral issue- but it does have ceratin results that don't help.
betray black blocks to the police? never.
and i'm a member of the swp; a 'cliffite' - I don't see that as an insult - sorry.

I also think that it's lamentable that you used such an issue to attack the swp without any grounds. the discussion on the actions of the black bloc has been discussed openly at campsite meetings in genoa for example- and this was a fraternal discussion - not one of mudslinging or 'betrayal'

by red - socialist party Mon Jun 24, 2002 01:56

black block are idiots the have been infiltrated by the police for a long time. In genova half of the bb were cops. in brussells the bb themselves found 5 police infiltrators. The bb are cops anyone who supports them is very very stupid, and i mean this as offensively as possible. BB == cops.

by Eoin Dubsky Mon Jun 24, 2002 02:06

Antid Oto says "The so called 'socialist' organisations who take place in big anti-capitalist mobilisations across Europe and elsewhere" -- wait a second -- I thought that the black bloc were the only 'socialist' organization that takes place in big anti-capitalist mobilizations?

Seriously, have you every seen the black bloc go off and do an action on their own? Have you ever been walking down the street on a normal day, and while other anti-capitalists are working in whatever way they usually do on normal days, suddenly you hear the sound of the black bloc smashing the windows of banks etc. on their own..? I never have.

Unfortunately I've found the black bloc to only exist at big demos when it will make the telly and can perhaps hide amongst the crowds of people who clearly aren't ready/willing to fight with cops.

Smash up McDonalds or CitiBank or whatever on a normal day, stand over what you've done, and then come back to us (I'll join you!!).

by Brian Cahill - Also Socialist Party Mon Jun 24, 2002 02:12

You make a fair point when you say that Black Blocks are easy for the police to infiltrate. And wearing masks doesn't help on that score. But that doesn't mean the Black Blocks equal police.

You yourself give an example of a Black Block finding and expelling some infiltrators!

I don't have any time for Black Block tactics. I think that they are infantile and that they play into the hands of our rulers by alienating working people, helping the media portray as violent lunatics and giving an excuse to the authorities to intorduce and use more oppressive measures.

It is one thing to say that Black Block tactics are stupid, to argue that they make it easy for police agents and even to support the right of other protestors to evict those who insist on using them from a demonstration. It is quite another to argue that those who use them are equal to police.

by Phuq Hedd Mon Jun 24, 2002 02:26

deserves an answer. And here it is:

1. Black bloc is a TACTIC, not a specific group of people. It predates the current "anti-globalisation" "movement" by at least ten years. It was used by the German Autonomen and Italian Marxist-autonomists for years. The Germans especially used it in their defence of their squats and community gardens and farms in Berlin.

2. Right now Black bloc is used very actively in the U.S.A. and here is just one of the recent examples that I can think of:
http://la.indymedia.org/display.php3?article_id=12964

3. Here's another:
http://la.indymedia.org/display.php3?article_id=14113

As you can see from these examples these Black bloccers turned up ready to DEFEND themselves and preserve their anonymity from police spies. In both cases they were seriously hurt and injured. In the Mayday example several of them have been jailed after being assaulted by the police.

So Eoin, drop the attack-the-bloc stance. It can be a valid tactic and is very useful on occasions. It would be MORE useful if more people joined in it to preseve their anonymity.

I agree with you that there's a problem if people that want to do Blac bloc turn up and mingle with people that don't, but to my knowledge that hasn't happened on any demonstration that I've been in in either Europe or the U.S.A.

Furthermore, who should you be blaming if the police attack you because they believe someone that trashed a Macdonalds just _might_ _perhaps_ be standing within a 200m radius of you? The police perhaps?!!

by Des Mon Jun 24, 2002 03:06

The so called black bloc are a bunch of infantile cretins who are used by the cops to infiltrate and discredit anti globalisation protests via their totally discredited tatics, i.e. smashing windows, trashing mcdonalds etc. etc. My advice to anyone on a demo is to keep well away from them. You could well be talking to an undercover cop.

by L'Humanite Mon Jun 24, 2002 14:34

Interesting the way these people all know the Black Bloc are cops but don't produce any evidence to support their claim. So all I have to do is type Socialist Party = Cops , and there you have it, must be true!

The S.W.P. ran a smear campaign last year, claiming exactly this, and producing no evidence.
(an old Leninist habit)
Meanwhile they ask the mother of a murdered Black Bloc'er to talk at their Marxism event in London.
Talk about hypocriscy.

The Black Bloc tactic emerged in Germany during the 1980ies, part of the anti-fa and anti-nuclear movements, the left would prefer marching in circles asking the government to do something.

To the more serious posters I'd ask what exactly it is you are disagreeing with.

Masking up - Don't and you'll be gassed and identified.

Property Destruction - Well I'm inclined to agree with you this is pointless.

Defending yourself from police violence - obviously the smarter thing to do is offer them your head.

As for the 'bad media image' whingers, no black bloc = no media image.

Back to the S.W.P. smear campaign, in Genoa they claim they were for direct action, so what was that?

They are against Ya Basta, against pacifist N.V.D.A., and against the Black Bloc so what is this direct action they were in favour of?

Perhaps their smear campaign was produced by the fact that some of their members and sympathisers were atracted to a more Black Bloc type of direction after experiencing the total naffness of the S.W.P.'s efforts in Genoa.

Finally what does the establishment want? legal, ineffective, marching with no confrontation (be it violent, a-violent, or non-violent), like say the demo. to take place after the summit. Unless that is you think Prague, Seattle, Genoa was a success for the establishment.

Consequently if anyone was working for the state it would be the people who want legal ineffective protest marching as opposed to confrontation/direct action (be that violent or non-violent). However this is not necessary as it appears they do the state's work without payment.

by MG Mon Jun 24, 2002 14:51

A question: What do protestors want to do when they take to the streets in their thousands. Do they want to have a party every time the EU or the G8 meets, or do they want to actually change the status quo?

Waving banners and taking part in stage-managed parades will change nothing. The world's rulers have successfully ignored those tactics since Seattle. For proof, I ask: How much debt has been cancelled, how has neo-liberalism been slowed down, how has the crackdown on civil liberties been prevented?

The powerful understand only one thing - violence. As a believer in human rights, I feel that this violence is best directed towards property. If protestors can cause financial damage to the regimes which rule the world, it is the first step in a war that can be won. The anti-capitalist movement can easily outnumber the forces which prop up global capitalism, but instead of taking real action, the protestors dress up in pink and wave flags, thereby prolonging the status quo.

Also, if you guys think the Black Block is the only leftist group that has been infiltrated by the police, you must be very naive. Can Globalise Resistance, SWP, even the Socialist Party guarantee that none of their members are infiltrators, either from the police or from the mainstream parties. You guys can preach non-violence 'til the cows come home and that's your right, but if others are compelled to take more forceful action, you have no right to criticism them. They have a significantly better chance of changing things than the pacifists do.

by tel - swp Mon Jun 24, 2002 16:04

Hi MG
ithink this is an important debate and one that is worth having. I think we can agree that it is fair to critise a tatic you think is wrong as you have already done, your points are well made.

in answer to the direct question yes people do want to change the world and stuff the status quo i think that goes without saying. However the people on the demo do actually enjoy the feeling of collective strengh they get from being on large 'stage managed' demos. for instance i cite the Saturday in genoa.
Why?
for years people have felt helpless, with out strengh, yet the comming toghther of hundreds of thousands like minded people, lifts peoples confidence. they are more likely to talk to their mates at work about issues and more importantly likely to face up to their boss over some grievence. if they win that it is more important than smashing a window because the power relations of work have been turned up side down.

Your right that the rulers understand violence. They use it every day whether it is the unseen coercion of wage slavery or the fact that the state has bodies of armed men to prop it up eg police force, army and prisons.
The lessons of the panthers and the lessons of the 70's cannot be lost on us now. The panthers found that if you confront the police with guns they will have bigger guns. The seventies showed that groups that have no real links to workers end up in ritualised confrontations with the state only to find the state grows bigger while their forces get smaller and more isolated.
If your gonna to smash windows they will be replaced the next day. profit will be made from this. so how are we best to get rid of capitalism?
i believe it looking to those folks on 'stage managed' demos, who ideas are changing, who are gaining confidence from the movement, who believe they can start organising in their own workplace because where the chains are forged thay must be broken.
I believe that the black bloc has no long term strategy. i dont mind smashing windows but that is not a way we are going to win. and we have to win because we have to sort out the debt, we have to stop neo liberalism and war and the working class are the poeple to do it.

by Myles Mon Jun 24, 2002 17:26

SWPer wrote:
"for years people have felt helpless, with out strengh"

Maybe that's got to do with the SWP tactics. March in circles, buy the paper, join the party, listen to a bunch of egotistical academics.
Been there, done that, it's sickening.

by L'Humanite Mon Jun 24, 2002 20:46

"I believe that the black bloc has no long term strategy. i dont mind smashing windows but that is not a way we are going to win. and we have to win because we have to sort out the debt, we have to stop neo liberalism and war and the working class are the poeple to do it."

This just goes to show how ridiculous the S.W.P. is. Probably a reflection of the lack of debate and discussion within their organisation.

"I believe that the black bloc has no long term strategy"

Duh! Black Bloc is a tactic not an organisation, it's like saying I believe that occupation has no long term strategy, or I believe that striking has no long term strategy, or I believe that squatting has not long term strategy.
You can't seriously believe anything about something when you don't even know what it is.

We then have the stock in trade appeal to abstract "workers" :

"the working class are the poeple to do it."

Which means what exactly? The Black Bloc is a tactic employed by working class people. It might be a bad tactic, a good tactic or an indifferent tactic but it cannot be counter-posed to the idea that working class action is the vehicle of change when it itself is working class action.

So what is the S.W.P.'s alternative?
March, Listen to Speeches, Ask the government to do something.

The point of direct action is that it empowers people by doing it not asking for it (the later being so mindnumbingly stupid it beggar's belief that self proffesed revolutionaries come out with it, I await the petition to "overthow capitalism now").

So black blocs participated in actions in Germany aiming to stop Neo-Nazi marches by going out and stopping them, likewise with the nuclear transports, whereas the S.W.P. would have us protest, wave a few placards, that does nothing.

I disagree with property destruction because I feel this to be an example of protest politics rather than direct action.

Could the swimmers please tell us what they meant by direct action in Genoa?

Any defence of the smear campaign ye ran after it?

by L'Humanite Mon Jun 24, 2002 20:50

"The lessons of the panthers and the lessons of the 70's cannot be lost on us now. The panthers found that if you confront the police with guns they will have bigger guns."

Moral of the story - don't resist police violence.

Revolutionaries? Pull the other one, it's got bells.

by action Tue Jun 25, 2002 08:31

COMMUNIQUE FROM NYC-YA BASTA!
and
THE NYC-DIRECT ACTION NETWORK IN GENOA, JULY 22, 2001

CONCERNING THE ATTACK ON THE INDEPENDENT MEDIA CENTER AND FASCIST/POLICE COORDINATION DURING THE G8 SUMMIT

The Independent Media Center in Genoa City and a nearby schoolhouse "safe area" was attacked at midnight last night by police, aided, it appears, by mysterious elements disguised as anarchists who committed savage and bloody attacks on activists and independent journalists. This is the culmination of a systematic campaign of state violence against enormous and overwhelmingly peaceful protests against the G8 summit here.

We were in the Carlini stadium which was where Ya Basta! was camped out when the attack occurred - most of the major tutti bianci and other contingents were already gone, there were only about three or four hundred people left there at 1 AM when we got news of the IMC attack. We were told to get our things and walk up to a different camp about twenty minutes walk away while Ya Basta! assembled journalists and parlaimentarians whose presence would protect us, as our camp was definitely next. Apparently the cops did show up an hour after we took off, and completely trashed the place; after searching everything, they opened the camp to a bunch of junkies who then went through all the remaining bags and tents and made off with or destroyed everything of value.

The cops have been working with a lot of low-life elements: the big story today is of a group of about fifty "Black Bloc" types who none of the other anarchists knew who always showed up and started acting extremely violently right before the cops arrived to gas and attack peaceful protestors. In some cases this reportedly caused actual fistfights with other Black Blockers who were trying to stop them from attacking small shops or other illegitimate targets. The main question people are asking is whether they were cops or fascists working with the cops - the question may be moot if reports are to be believed that the top story of the local carabinieri HQ here is covered with swastikas and fascist symbols.

The story with the IMC: a couple minutes before midnight according to an eyewitness account from someone from RTS New York, a band of 50 "anarchists" in suspiciously uniform black clothes, bandanas and halmets appeared on a corner near the IMC, coming from the direction of a police position, started overturning dumpsters, and vanished again. At exactly midnight a major police convoy appeared and bashed down the gate of the IMC with a van; people on the street who tried to form a line were beaten bloody with truncheons; at the IMC itself they had to produce a warrant and behave in a fairly civilized fashion, simply ripping tapes out of cameras, appropriating files and smashing computers - largely because the IMC was given the space by the city government and at least one minister of parlaiment was present - but across the street, in a "safe space" in which many activists were sleeping or eating in a schoolhouse, they simply came in swinging and attacked everyone they could get their hands on. Most of the most savage beatings were again not done by uniformed police but by characters dressed in jeans and bandanas and helmets with 'police' written on their T-shirts, which had presumably been under the black sweatshirts all along. There was blood and broken glass everywhere inside; dozens were arrested, many carried off to the station in stretchers with broken limbs; today every third person you see in the IMC is wounded in some way - black eyes, arms in casts, gashes and cuts all over. Most are afraid to go to the hospital because the police have been removing people with unexplained wounds from hospital beds and throwing them in jail.

There were unconfirmed reports in the corporate media that three people were killed in the assault; most people today think this was mistaken (corporate media is hobbled in covering stories like this because most of them have a policy not to use independent media as a source. Apparently the BBC refused to run live footage of the police assault the IMC offered to supply them while it was happening because they claimed the event was "unconfirmed"!) A French journalist is looking into the matter of the "warrant" and believes that it was a fraud - no such warrant was actually issued. There are rumors that Amnesty International is going to take up the matter at the World Court at the Hague and specifically accuse the Italian government of fascism.

Considering the fact that the Berlusconi regime is already working in coalition with overtly fascist parties (ie, led by Mussolini's grand-daughter) the press is already beginning to talk of a fascist government. Many of the techniques employed here: the use of fake bomb threats, rightists posing as leftist terrorists to justify brutal oppression, were those employed in the '70s to repress Autonomia.

However, what is happening here is obviously not just an Italian phenomena: techniques of repression are clearly being developed systematically, with new elements being added with every major action. For instance, the Italian police here used what were for them entirely new techniques here, such as the wall around the "red zone" and the systematic use of extremely powerful tear-gas, which were spearheaded in Quebec City in April; the use of agents provacateurs disguised as anarchists right before police attacks on peaceful protestors was used at least since Barcelona in June, where it was fully documented on film and acknowledged even by the corporate media; the use of live ammunition of course goes back to Gothenburg. It is important to note that after Gothenburg, Ya Basta! appealed to the government, saying that they were going to promise that no one associated with them engaged in any aggressive acts against either persons or property, and they were asking the police in return to agree not to bring live ammunition but rubber bullets and other relatively non-lethal arms. The police refused, and even publically announced a week before the summit that they were ordering body bags for dead protestors. The shootings and killings were not accidental: this was an intentional policy which goes back at least to the top of the Italian government but most likely to agencies like the US secret service which were ultimately coordinating the defense of the summit.

It is important to stress that the initiative for personal violence in just about every case we have looked into came from the police and not the protestors. On the 19th, there was a completely peaceful march of 50-60,000 people calling for international freedom of movement; since the police did not attack, there was no violence or property destruction of any kind. The next day there were to be four or five separate columns descending on the walled "red zone" ranging from the Tuti Bianci in whimsical foam rubber armor and giant plexiglass shields, reformist groups like ATTAC who had no intention of doing direct action of any kind, radical syndicalists, a theatrical "pink bloc" with wigs and feather dusters, and a pagan bloc teamed with Gandhian pacifists who performed a spiral dance ceremony. Every single one was attacked by the police, and always following the same pattern: first massive gassing similar to Quebec City, then baton charges meant to break bones and heads. The only group which was not attacked was the small "splinter group" within the Black Bloc which somehow mysteriously appeared in the middle of whatever group the police were about to attack next, destroying property randomly, and in some cases physically attacking people (including other anarchists) who tried to stop them, then somehow vanishing right before the cops began gassing. This group was never itself assaulted by the police, it seems, but every other one was at one point or another. If the police were intending to provoke mayhem, they succeeded: enraged protestors and many local citizens banded together to smash store windows and set fire to banks; in some places they even turned police violence back on the police, throwing rocks and bottles: there were several street battles, and in one of them, nearby where the Ya Basta! march was blocked by a police assault, local people, (real) anarchists and others combined forces to drive the police back and at certain points the police were definitely getting the worst of it; this is where a police officer shot one protestor through the eye and drove his van over him, killing him. Whatever the circumstances of the actual shooting (and it was not the only occasion in which police used live ammunition, others were, apparently, wounded by live bullets), the decision to incite violence and then arm police with live ammunition was made beforehand with full knowledge of the likely results, and in open defiance of desperate pleas from the protestors not to take that course. It is the Berlusconi regime and the international police networks who have been coordinating the repression of the movement who are responsible for the violence and death in Genoa, not any particular policeman, carabinieri, or even fascist. These men knew exactly what they were doing.

by gsf Tue Jun 25, 2002 08:33

An account from Genoa (police & "Black Bloc" vs. demonstrators)

Translator's note: This is my quick and dirty translation of an open letter type account of the Genoa demonstrations, written by the brother of the leader of the Genoa Social Forum (the coalition of peaceful protesters there). I cannot vouch for everything written, but it fits remarkably with my own impressions (I was in Genoa for one day. At least, the part about the police acting with random brutality but, remarkably leaving alone the people doing the vandalizing I can confirm). Please forward to anyone you know.

By Stefano Agnoletto

Dear friends

Now, I was in Genoa, I've seen it. Don't believe the news you've seen in the press and on TV. It was something insane, a massacre. It is still difficult to tell you what happened between Friday and Saturday. To do so, I'll use what I've seen together with my dear friends who were present in Genoa with me. I ask you to have the patience to read this message, it really is the chronicle of a nightmare which probably will not reach the mainstream media.

I arrive to Genoa on Thursday, after an immigrant's rights demonstration of about 50,000 people. There are arrival camps, many, thousands of peaceful people, a marvellous atmosphere (remember the Boy Scouts?), we discussed, sang and just stayed together. Clergy, activists, volunteers and just normal people, on Friday we begin the issue areas in a Blocaded city.

The various groups partcipating will converge in different points of the city to have a carnivalesque "siege" against the "red area" [The place, in Genoa, where the G8 was held and demonstrations were not permitted] with street theatre, dancing and slogans.

At this pont, from the beach-front members of the now infamous "Black Bloc" [supposedly Extremist groups blamed for most of the destruction in the city] arrive. Some are seen chatting with police, others just come out of police crowds. Most of them speak German. They start to break everything. Police and Carabinieri [the Italian military police] just stand there. The Black Bloc tries to join in with a group of COBAS workers [COBAS is the new Italian Trade union unaffiliated with party politics]. They beat up one of their leaders, the group manages to stay clear of them with some difficulty.

Then the Black Bloc makes head for the first issue area, belonging to the Italian Social Centers [Centri Sociali. Difficult to translate exactly, call them community organizations]. They arrive armed to the teeth. The police goes after them, and demonstratos find themselves attacked first by the Black Bloc and then by the police, which starts to charge violently against all demonstrators.

The Black Bloc leaves suddently and appears on the square were the Lilliput network is based (fair trade, Catholic campaign groups, etc.). Its members try to peacefully make them leave. The police follows and charges against everyone on the square. Truncheons and teargas are used indiscriminately. People raise their hands, shout "Peace".

The Black Bloc leaves the square and starts to vandalize the city systematically. 300-400 of the Black Bloc roam Genoa, and whoever guides them seems to know the city very well. Their path crosses every issue area, where the campaigns of our movement are located. It's incredible. They move with military discipline, infiltrate everywhere, some leaders shout orders which are promptly followed by the whole group. And, shortly afterwards, police and Carabinieri make their appearance.

Meanwhile, in the issue area where ARCI, ATTAC ecc. ("mainstream" Italian 3rd-world campaigning organizations) are located everything is fine.

During the early afternoon we decide to leave the boundary with the red zone were we were demonstrating. People start moving towards Dante square. Suddendly, police launches tear-gas from behind our march, causing panic everywhere. Hospitals fill with wounded demonstrators, but many do not go to hospital since police seems to arrest everyone who turns up there.

It's evening, people are downbeat,many are angry. Suddently, no trace of the Black Bloc. At the old city, where the camp of the Genoa social forum is, there's about 10,000 of us. The news of the dead demonstrator reaches us. We are scared, tales of extreme police brutality are told by many people. Young men, nuns start crying. Many people are hurt. One old man is crying with a bandage on his head. He is a retired metal worker.

There is Don Gallo, of the San Benedetto (catholic) community group. There is the leader of the mothers of Plaza De Mayo, in Argentina, those women who for years have been looking for their disappeared children: She says she is shaken at what she has seen, it's uncomfortably close to Argentina during the dictatorship. She did not think something similar would happen here.

My brother Vittorio [spokesman for the Genoa Social Forum], Luca Cesarini [leader of the Social Centers] and Bertinotti, the only politician with the courage to come here [the leader of the Italian Refounded Communist Party, sort of the equivalent of Nader in Italian politics] try to calm everyone: They tell us not to come out in small groups, not to accept violent provocations. We decide our answer will be the enormous demonstration the next day, there'll be many of us, peacefully responding to any provocation, whether from the Black Bloc or the police.

Senator Malabarba tells us he was at the police station. He saw strange people who dressed like the demonstrators, they spoke German and other foreign languages. Most of them come out of the station after exchanging a few words with the police.

Suddently, there is a fire at a bank close to the old city. For 40 minutes, helicopters circle us, but no firefighters or police arrive. At night, one of the camps were we are sleeping, the Carlini, is surrounded by police: They go in and search, doing what you want. People cry. They ask that brutality stop. Police enters, but does not find anything in the camp.

Saturday, the demonstration starts, a thousand colors. People from all over the world, farmers, ONGs,workers, people from Kurdistan... all singing, dancing, waving all sorts of flags.

On Kennedy square there is no violence, in fact there is no one there. Suddently the Black Bloc appears. Police, with no warning or reason given, divides the demonstration in 2 parts. A real battle begins.

Charges everywhere, people being beaten with truncheons. It seems cops have gone crazy. Metal workers, the youth wing of Rifondazione [the Italian left wing party] are charged. Groups of demonstrators flee and are followed by police. Whoever is isolated is pursued and beaten. Many people are telling of being beaten only for being recognized as demonstrators.

Even the Italian correspondent of the Sunday Times is beaten [in today's issue of the paper he tells of his adventure]. In a part of the march which so far was quiet, by the sea, suddenly teargas is fired from the roofs. Panic ensues as people cannot breathe.

The Black Bloc? They appear and disappear, no one stops them. They attack a youth from Rifondazione, wreck his flag, beat him. They throw stones at the spokesman of the Genoa Social Forum. They wreck stores, set fire to buildings. Many are armed to the teeth. How on earth they managed to come to Genoa, with soldiers controlling every car?

At the head of the march, things are still quiet. The Genoa Social Forum invites everyone to leave calmly, and stay together. We are being led to Marassi, where there are buses with everyone who arrived this morning. We stopped there, and could not go further: On Kennedy square, there is a war. There are many of us just sitting there. Suddendly, teargas is used, panic everywhere. We try to get back to the camp of the Genoa social forum. Police trucks pass us by, and policemen in them shout: "we'll kill you all".

The second part of the demonstration never arrives to the square. They are charged by police. Many flee to the small streets, towards the hills, where a real man-hunt starts.

Saturday night, the demonstration has ended hours ago, the police enters into the press-center of the Genoa Social Forum. They beat up everyone they encounter, with shocking brutality. All they seem to be after are documents (paper, video, pictures, etc.) which tell of what happened in the previous two days. Many of these documents --computers, disks are simply destroyed. The lawyer who coordinates the forum's legal team is arrested. Among the destroyed material, there are the documents this legal team put together as part of the defense of those arrested. Now, even the motives for their arrest are not known. During this "search", with no legal mandate, members of parliament, journalists, lawyers and even doctors are not let in the building. None of us have ever seen the famous weapons shown at the press conference yesterday. Police departs, leaving us with only those wounded and arrested.

No one knows what happened to the Black Bloc.

To sum it up, two nightmare days. Both the Black Bloc and the police knew what they were doing when they committed this violence. All along, from Friday, they insulted and verbally abused us as they did what they did, someone seems to have brainwashed them. And today, we look at the TV and read papers. My god, it seems like a dictatorship. Did everyone miss what we all saw? When I think that many will read this and say "you violent protesters just talk bullshit", I go mad. Please, don't let anyone fool you, find the courage to question your faith in our wonderful police and democratically accountable institutions.

What happened in Genoa beggars belief. Some inauguration for the new government. Just to give you a flavor of the spin control effort, do you know what the first version of the official investigation into the death, before the videos appeared, was? Killed by a stone launched by the demonstrators. If you think that many of the documents put together by witnesses have been destroyed during the "search"... the only version left to the public is that, "uncontestable", of the police.

Please, forward, print, talk about this document. To everyone, friends, relatives, collegues. The truth has to come out. I beg you, don't look the other way.

Thank you

Stefano Agnoletto

PS: My brother Vittorio [the spokesperson of the Genoa Social Forum] is destroyed. He told me: It's crazy, it seems we are in Latin America during the '70s. Maybe even he did not realize fully with whom are we dealing here.

The truth has to come out.

by anarcho Tue Jun 25, 2002 13:02 anarcho at geocities dot com

Let us consider that the following is true:

"At this pont, from the beach-front members of the now infamous 'Black Bloc' arrive. Some are seen chatting with police, others just come out of police crowds. Most of them speak German."

According to this account, a section of the BB were
police agents, acting to disrupt the march by violence. More than that, they were *German* police
agents -- which implies an international conspiracy,
to say the least and this takes planning, and so on.
And what do they do? They talk with the police and
exist from police ranks! D'oh! Kinda gives the game away, does it not?

Now, I cannot help thinking that someone who took
the time and energy to organise an international
conspiracy against the Genoa demos would be a bit
brighter than do this...

I think an easier argument was that the police infiltrated *all* parts of the demos. The BB tactic on this occasion did not work and was
used by the police (as they will use anything) as
an excuse. If the BB were not there, it would have
happened anyway.

Ultimately, the state will attack any movement,
regardless of the tactics it uses. The only way to
avoid this is to do everything the police tell you....

by L'Humanite Tue Jun 25, 2002 13:33

"mysterious elements disguised as anarchists"

Sorry no one is denying the existance of state agents. You probably will not have them in a situation where you march in circles this is because marching in circles is not worth the State's attention.

This was clearly an attempt to discredit the Black Bloc tactic (now why did they want to do that?) and the fact you are posting it up here in this debate (to make what point, BB = cops?) shows how successful it was. So you are merely doing the bidding of the state.

P.S. the only actual photo of infiltrators shows people not in any kind of Black Bloc dress, and the White Overalls faced at least attempted infiltration as well. Furthermore these stories go back as far as Seattle (Black Bloc infiltrators), you might ask yourself why is it that people whose action consists of selling red bandanas never seem to encounter this police interest.

Finally if the point being made (we have to guess) is that Black Bloc tactic is prone to infiltration, well actually the Ya Basta report above is refering to a group seperate from, not a part of, the rest of the Balck Bloc. Not really infilitration then.

by L'Humanite Tue Jun 25, 2002 13:40

"The Black Bloc? They appear and disappear, no one stops them. They attack a youth from Rifondazione, wreck his flag, beat him. They throw stones at the spokesman of the Genoa Social Forum. They wreck stores, set fire to buildings. Many are armed to the teeth. How on earth they managed to come to Genoa, with soldiers controlling every car"

This is this guy (brother of the chairman of the GSF) who attempts to prove Black Bloc = police.

Kindly explain then what people from the G.S.F. were doing putting their bodies in between the Black Bloc and the police, and preventing the Black Bloc from attacking the police.

What the G.S.F. was doing handing Black Bloc'ers over to the police.

What the police were doing shooting dead Black Bloc'ers.

Why the police tear gassed, assaulted and arressted Black Bloc'ers.

It doesn't suggest that either the G.S.F. think that is the case in reality and it seems someone forgot to tell the police that they were shooting themselves.

Try harder.

by bLISSET Tue Jun 25, 2002 14:32

but the highest ambition of the spectacle is still to turn revolutionaries into secret agents and secret agents into revolutionaries

Guy Debord commenting on events in Italy in the 1970s

by blisset Tue Jun 25, 2002 14:40

News Analysis: Hamas history tied to Israel
By Richard Sale, UPI Terrorism Correspondent
June 18, 2002

In the wake of a suicide bomb attack Tuesday on a crowded Jerusalem city bus that killed 19 people and wounded at least 70 more, the Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, took credit for the blast.

Israeli officials called it the deadliest attack in Jerusalem in six years.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon immediately vowed to fight "Palestinian terror" and summoned his cabinet to decide on a military response to the organization that Sharon had once described as "the deadliest terrorist group that we have ever had to face."

Active in Gaza and the West Bank, Hamas wants to liberate all of Palestine and establish a radical Islamic state in place of Israel. It is has gained notoriety with its assassinations, car bombs and other acts of terrorism.

But Sharon left something out.

Israel and Hamas may currently be locked in deadly combat, but, according to several current and former U.S. intelligence officials, beginning in the late 1970s, Tel Aviv gave direct and indirect financial aid to Hamas over a period of years.

Israel "aided Hamas directly -- the Israelis wanted to use it as a counterbalance to the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization),"said Tony Cordesman, Middle East analyst for the Center for Strategic Studies.

Israel's support for Hamas "was a direct attempt to divide and dilute support for a strong, secular PLO by using a competing religious alternative," said a former senior CIA official.

According to documents United Press International obtained from the Israel-based Institute for Counter Terrorism, Hamas evolved from cells of the Muslim Brotherhood, founded in Egypt in 1928. Islamic movements in Israel and Palestine were "weak and dormant" until after the 1967 Six Day War in which Israel scored a stunning victory over its Arab enemies.

After 1967, a great part of the success of the Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood was due to their activities among the refugees of the Gaza Strip. The cornerstone of the Islamic movements success was an impressive social, religious, educational and cultural infrastructure, called Da'wah, that worked to ease the hardship of large numbers of Palestinian refugees, confined to camps, and many who were living on the edge.

"Social influence grew into political influence," first in the Gaza Strip, then on the West Bank, said an administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

According to ICT papers, Hamas was legally registered in Israel in 1978 by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the movement's spiritual leader, as an Islamic Association by the name Al-Mujamma al Islami, which widened its base of supporters and sympathizers by religious propaganda and social work.

According to U.S. administration officials, funds for the movement came from the oil-producing states and directly and indirectly from Israel. The PLO was secular and leftist and promoted Palestinian nationalism. Hamas wanted to set up a transnational state under the rule of Islam, much like Khomeini's Iran.

What took Israeli leaders by surprise was the way the Islamic movements began to surge after the Iranian revolution, after armed resistance to Israel sprang up in southern Lebanon vis--vis the Hezbollah, backed by Iran, these sources said.

"Nothing provides the energy for imitation as much as success," commented one administration expert.

A further factor of Hamas' growth was the fact the PLO moved its base of operations to Beirut in the '80s, leaving the Islamic organization to grow in influence in the Occupied Territories "as the court of last resort," he said.

When the intifada began, Israeli leadership was surprised when Islamic groups began to surge in membership and strength. Hamas immediately grew in numbers and violence. The group had always embraced the doctrine of armed struggle, but the doctrine had not been practiced and Islamic groups had not been subjected to suppression the way groups like Fatah had been, according to U.S. government officials.

But with the triumph of the Khomeini revolution in Iran, with the birth of Iranian-backed Hezbollah terrorism in Lebanon, Hamas began to gain in strength in Gaza and then in the West Bank, relying on terror to resist the Israeli occupation.

Israel was certainly funding the group at that time. One U.S. intelligence source who asked not to be named said that not only was Hamas being funded as a "counterweight" to the PLO, Israeli aid had another purpose: "To help identify and channel towards Israeli agents Hamas members who were dangerous terrorists."

In addition, by infiltrating Hamas, Israeli informers could only listen to debates on policy and identify Hamas members who "were dangerous hard-liners," the official said.

In the end, as Hamas set up a very comprehensive counterintelligence system, many collaborators with Israel were weeded out and shot. Violent acts of terrorism became the central tenet, and Hamas, unlike the PLO, was unwilling to compromise in any way with Israel, refusing to acquiesce in its very existence.

But even then, some in Israel saw some benefits to be had in trying to continue to give Hamas support: "The thinking on the part of some of the right-wing Israeli establishment was that Hamas and the others, if they gained control, would refuse to have any part of the peace process and would torpedo any agreements put in place," said a U.S. government official who asked not to be named.

"Israel would still be the only democracy in the region for the United States to deal with," he said.

All of which disgusts some former U.S. intelligence officials.

"The thing wrong with so many Israeli operations is that they try to be too sexy," said former CIA official Vincent Cannestraro.

According to former State Department counter-terrorism official Larry Johnson, "the Israelis are their own worst enemies when it comes to fighting terrorism."

"The Israelis are like a guy who sets fire to his hair and then tries to put it out by hitting it with a hammer."

"They do more to incite and sustain terrorism than curb it," he said.

Aid to Hamas may have looked clever, "but it was hardly designed to help smooth the waters," he said. "An operation like that gives weight to President George Bush's remark about there being a crisis in education."

Cordesman said that a similar attempt by Egyptian intelligence to fund Egypt's fundamentalists had also come to grief because of "misreading of the complexities."

An Israeli defense official was asked if Israel had given aid to Hamas said, "I am not able to answer that question. I was in Lebanon commanding a unit at the time, besides it is not my field of interest."

Asked to confirm a report by U.S. officials that Brig. Gen. Yithaq Segev, the military governor of Gaza, had told U.S. officials he had helped fund "Islamic movements as a counterweight to the PLO and communists," the official said he could confirm only that he believed Segev had served back in 1986.

The Israeli Embassy press office referred UPI to its Web site when asked to comment.

by L'Humanite Tue Jun 25, 2002 16:10

Interesting post about Hamas Blisset, but you should probably have started a new thread with it.

The "anti-capitalist movement"'s opening shots: J18, Seattle and Prague were characterised by direct action/confrontation (non-violent or violent) and the relative abscence of leftist parties.

Such parties then reacted to these events by seeing a golden opportunity to recruit fresh blood, either directly from the "anti-capitalist movement" or as is more likely from people attracted to it.

Hence Globalise Resistance and Worker's Power's front group 'Revo' and the split in the Insternational Socialist Tendency (- S.W.P. international, the American wing of it was denounced by the British wing for not mobilising for Seattle - exactly as the dominant British group didn't have anything to do with J18).

Subsequently there has been more and more attempts by leftist parties to predominate.
See for example the Socialist Party of Spain or the Communist Refoundation of Italy.

They aim to do two things:
(one) to establish, in the place of non-heirarchial and federalist organisation with a diversity of tactics, one single body with a leadership.

(two) to move away from direct action/confrontation (violent or non-violent)towards protesting. Protesting is a bigger version of lobbying (i.e. writing to politicans to ask them to do something).

For example the S.W.P.'s (sorry I mean G.R.'s) mass lobby of the Labour party conference in Brighton or their recent Mayday march in London.

In other words they want the "anti-capitalist movement" to be the exact opposite of what it was previously.

In order to do this, and to inoculate their newer members from outside influences, they must denounce what has previously consitituted the "anti-capitalist movement".

So non-violent direct action is denounced as "pacifist" and "reformist" and counter-posed with direct action (yes I know that doesn't make sense).

The Black Bloc is denouced as the work of police agents and White Overalls are denounced as elitist.

The question is not violence or non-violence BUT protesting (lobbying) OR direct action and libertarian, federalist, organisation with a diversity of tactics and autonomous groups OR one single body with a leadership.

To the more far leftist outfits (e.g. SWP)anything which appears more radical than them in this context is a threat to the ever present goal of recruiting because their basic modus operandi is to rub up close to well known reformists and then pose as THE radical alternative to them, which is of course a little difficult if a few blocks down there is a battle with the police.

And so we get to the specific method: "The Big Lie", based on the premise if a lie is so outrageous it will be more likely to be beleived as it seems too much to think that someone would invent it.

In the annals of leftist history, we have the Kronstadt sailors (linked to the Whites apparently), the P.O.U.M. (linked to the fascists apparently), the radicals of the May Events in France in '68 (agent provacteurs apparently).
So this is an age old leftist practise.

Finally, from a swimmer:

"I also think that it's lamentable that you used such an issue to attack the swp without any grounds. the discussion on the actions of the black bloc has been discussed openly at campsite meetings in genoa for example- and this was a fraternal discussion - not one of mudslinging or 'betrayal'"

And who was it who was describing the other side in the "fraternal discussion" as State agents as soon as they got back to Ireland. Anyone who was selling 'Socialist Worker' was, because that's what the articles said.
"mudslinging"?

P.S. There is a rather large difference between discussing the role of state agents - and that is a legitamate and important discussion and denouncing an entire section of the movement as State agents.

P.P.S. Remember how the S.W.P. responded to founded criticisms of them in early May.

by ? Tue Jun 25, 2002 16:55

what did they say?

by MG Tue Jun 25, 2002 18:47

Tel (SWP), I take your point on board about empowering civil society through protest, but that doesn't answer my concern. I said in my earlier post that the rulers of the world have been ignoring the anti-capitalist movement for years and I don't see this changing. If the anti-capitalists are to make progress they need to change tactic and to examine which tactics have succeeded in the past. Much as I hate to say it, violence has been the most successful tactic in world history (with notable exceptions like Ghandi).

The brunt of my argument was intended to be that the anti-capitalist movement must cause financial damage to the ruling elite if they seriously want to affect change. Violence is one means of doing this, general strikes are another. Protest, in my view, changes nothing because it can easily be ignored (and is ignored on a daily basis in most countries - both developed and developing).

To paraphrase Che Guevara, a true revolutionary makes revolution. Those who engage in violence (ie Black Block tactics) should be supported by other layers of the movement, rather than ridiculed, unless of course they cause hurt to the innocent (the tactics of the powerful). At least they're trying to fight for what they believe in, rather than spending their lives preaching and running away from the confrontation that will ultimately be needed to bring about another world.

by Des Tue Jun 25, 2002 19:27

I think that it is beyond dispute that the so called "black bloc" have been infiltrated by the cops. Anyone who was in Genoa is aware of what happened. Individuals in the black bloc in very friendly conversation in cops and later engaging in breaking windows and other totally pointless behaviour which achieves absolutely nothing. Capitialism is not going to be endangered by smashing a few windows. It simply gives the establishment media an opportunity to smear the whole anti globalisation movement.

by H -SWP Tue Jun 25, 2002 21:43

"SWP are more than happy to betray the Black Block and Anarchists to the cops and open them up to state repression.The persecution and betrayal of the Black Block by so called 'socialists', taking place at Genoa and in Seville is no freak phenomenon but exposes the allegiences of these self-declared heirs of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky"

How are we persecuting them out exactly? When were BB betrayed? Do any blockers who were in Genoa feel we have betrayed them? I don't think so.
There is a fundamental difference between our argueing against property damage etc. and calling the cops (and some of the posts were genuinley interesting).

Or is this another load of bollocks from libertarians who think we are all potential Stalins....

by L'Humanite Tue Jun 25, 2002 21:56

"I think that it is beyond dispute that the so called "black bloc" have been infiltrated by the cops."

Duh! Of course there are going to be cops *pretending* to be demonstrators, which is somewhat different from Black Bloc = police.
As I asked before, what is the point of this?

You might tell us why if Black Bloc = police what the police were doing shooting Black Bloc'ers last summer.

Furthermore it has been extensivly disputed above!

"Anyone who was in Genoa is aware of what happened. Individuals in the black bloc in very friendly conversation in cops"

So Des you were in Genoa and you saw this.
When and where.
Whereas the G.S.F. prevented the Black Bloc from attacking the police, have been filmed behind police lines and handed Black Bloc'ers over to the police. As seen by me or people I have spoken to.

Also an assumption that any Black Bloc action anywhere ever is initiated by the police in the basis of an assertion to the effect that one such action was. Must like being hit the cops!

"It simply gives the establishment media an opportunity to smear the whole anti globalisation movement."

So with out it (which I disagree with incidently) you would have what? Positive media coverage? No media coverage?

Sorry folks before you go around accusing people of being state agents you would want to have a little evidence, so far I have seen assertion, no one has said I saw this, I was told this by someone who saw that I can trust, there is this photo and so.

Finally I disagree with property destruction and the bulk of it that went on in Genoa was on the White Overalls march - wherein there was only a few people who could be classed as part of the Black Bloc.

Finally of course there will be police infiltrators - any effective movement will face this (just look at the Leninists of the Black Panther Party), given that such were removed from the Black Bloc in Brussels how does that square with Black Bloc = Police.

by red - sp Wed Jun 26, 2002 00:21

alright then the bb aren't cops. but they were infriltrated and have proved themselves worse then useless, in fact a threat to the movement.
bb have attacked other protesters, were they bb or cops? who knows. About it being simply a tactic, its a shit tactic that helps no body. What will it be next "the red birgades are misunderstood" .
Individual acts of infantile vandalisim are useless and the fact that they have been infriltrated makes it worse.
Socialists and Anarchists should be arguing for MASS action not individual action, why are anarchists so SOFT on the BB, I though they had dropped the idea of individual acts by now. Or is it some sort of trendy romantic nonsense. The BB are about as unarchistic as you can get, anarchism is supposed to be about non leadership while being organised. If you're arguing thats what the BB are your doing a diservice to your beliefs (unless your one of the trendy ones)
The automen from Germany defended themselves from attacks on Social Centres by cops completely different from the BB. I have NEVER seen or heard of black blockers being there when any social centres were shut down or attacked by cops in Italy. In brussells they were simply pathetic no other word for them.

by Phuq Hedd Wed Jun 26, 2002 05:29

"Red" calls for MASS action. What is that essentially? Do you mean a protest march? What is that supposed to actually achieve? Is it an appeal to the government to be nice to us? Is it a threat that if they are not nice then there'll be trouble?

On one of these MASS actions, suppose the police decide to attack people to intimidate the crowd (and dear readers, this is the true history of all the troubles that have occurred: they are violence instigated by the police) do you advocate a completely pacifist response?

Suppose the police take pictures of the crowd so that they can gather data to make sure that certain "troublemakers" can be dealt with. Do you advocate that everyone in the crowd should be wearing individually distinctive clothes for easy identification? (After all to do otherwise would be provocative, indicating that you have somethng to hide, right?)

Personally I think that you are mis-understanding the tactic of Black bloccing. It suggests that the police are violent thugs who will attack, beat, intimidate, gas, harrass and spy upon you. If you wish to avoid this then dressing identically to everyone else and wearing a mask (preferably a gas mask) will help you out.

On the other hand if you want to be a sheep led to slaughter beneath the placards of the Leninists then you should avoid this tactic completely. Then when you have your head cracked open, your lungs filled with tear-gas and other nerve agents and your Special Branch file filled-out nicely you will be a martyr to the cause.

I'm afraid I won't be joining you. I'll cry for you though.

I think there are two genuine points raised in this debate:
1. Eoin Dubsky asked what the bloc do the rest of the year. Well, we look just like ordinary people, yes They Walk Among You!!! Black blocs are temporary tactical gatherings of shifting composition, sometimes involving people that will never BB again, sometimes involving people that have taken part in many. People that have taken part in BB do not avoid other types of activism, they may be also involved in reformist organisations seeking to apply pressure in as many different ways as possible. ( I heard that a lot of Italian Trots were doing BB in Genoa, but I've got no way of confirming that. There are lots of reports of Maoists having their own bloc in Genoa also, and those reports indicate that some heavy property damage came from them: they do believe in urban insurrection so I find this believable. I also believe that there were police _agents_provocateurs_ forming their own blocs)

2. What is the alternative. Some will advocate going out for a bloody big march. I'll leave everyone to make up their own minds on that. Others will advocate Non-Violent Direct Action. I'm pretty happy with NVDA as long as it's understood that self-defence is allowed. If it isn't and Gandhi is quoted then I think that a read of Ward Churchill's "Pacifism as Pathology: Notes on an American Pseudopraxis" and a look at how the Brits were worried that Gandhi's _satyagraha_ was really a precursive threat to a bloody war would be useful. Churchill's book was written about 13 years ago and challenges many of the assumptions that those that advocate NVDA typically hold.

by tel - swp Wed Jun 26, 2002 13:42

Again hi Mg, clearly the situation is frustrating. i still believe that black bloc as a tatic will not work. However i dont believe i would shop any BB to the cops.
What is needed is for the struggle that was born on the streets to expand and grow deeper. We Need these big demos to be larger maybe more unified. We have to find a way of getting your workmates to go to these demos instead of sponsoring you who is already active.
The state has upped the anty, therefore we must respond. We should see the battle, as it were, in the workplace,(eg in my job we will be striking for more staff in september and the Irish Glass Bottle strike thats happening at the moment). Your right that the rulers can ignore protests. after quebec, corporate chiefs admitted this themselves (however i don't believe they could ignore demos the vietnam war produced) But they are very concerned that the spirit of the streets enters the workplace. strikes are always more effective than demos. A revolution can begin when what happens on the streets resonates in the workplace, not by force of will.

by L'Humanite Wed Jun 26, 2002 15:23

“What will it be next "the red birgades are misunderstood" .
Individual acts of infantile vandalisim are useless and the fact that they have been infriltrated makes it worse.
Socialists and Anarchists should be arguing for MASS action not individual action, why are anarchists so SOFT on the BB, I though they had dropped the idea of individual acts by now.”

So I see you have stopped accusing people of being police agents. Is it that easy deciding this without evidence and while being unable to put up an argument. A questionable practise I would have thought.

Secondly I see you are arguing against property destruction, I’m against property destruction, however I’m not against Black Bloc actions because there is more to it than property destruction, namely defending yourself against the police or physically stopping nazi marches and so on.

The “property destruction” thing comes from North America and is protest politics akin to waving placards and shouting slogans. Hence I’m opposed to it.

Thirdly you come out with the “individual terrorism” line except Black Bloc actions are mass actions.

Fourthly the Red Brigades were Marxist-Leninist.

“The automen from Germany defended themselves from attacks on Social Centres by cops completely different from the BB. “

Huh!??! So forming yourselves into a Black Bloc to defend your squat or participate in anti-nuclear actions or anti-nazi actions – the things which constitute the vast majority of Black Bloc actions “is completely different from the BB”. Where does the Black Bloc idea come from?, where have most of them been?

Oh Dear! Another Trot that doesn’t have a clue what they are talking about. I love the way they can talk so authoritatively about things that they don’t actually know anything about.

Onto the swimmer:
“strikes are always more effective than demos. A revolution can begin when what happens on the streets resonates in the workplace, not by force of will.”

I see, consequently the S.W.P. will no longer participate in demonstrations then. No, you do and the fact you do shows this counter-posing of Black Bloc actions with strikes to be besides the point.
There isn’t a Black Bloc ideology which maintains revolution can be achieved by “force of will” as we have tried to explain to you (not an organisation, remember?)

The question is simple do Trotskyists believe people should defend themselves from police attack and consequently do they believe people should organise and prepare to defend themselves from police attack.

Furthermore Trots give a big talk about “Smashing the Nazis” kindly explain how to do that except through actions along the lines of Black Bloc actions.

P.S. The articles I was referring to (see question above) was a two page spread in Socialist Worker last August going on about the Black Bloc being fascists and allied to the cops.

by Brian Cahill Wed Jun 26, 2002 18:34

If you define the Black Bloc tactic as a willingness to defend yourself from police attack then you are widening the definition so far as to include practically everybody on every demonstration bar a few pacifists. That particular argument is entirely disengenuous.

As understood by most people on large demonstrations, "black block" tactics are to engage in property destruction and to look for a fight with the police regardless of police actions.

There is no controversy about being willing to defend yourself from assault. There is no controversy about using physical force to confront fascists.

The argument is about the use of property destruction as a tactic on demonstrations and about deliberatly seeking to provoke violent clashes with the cops. If we are going to argue about correct tactics on demonstrations then lets concentrate on the issues we actually disagree on.

So to those who have been writing in defense of black bloc tactics: Do you (A) support the use of property destruction on demonstrations or (B) support deliberately seeking violent clashes with the cops?

by Des Wed Jun 26, 2002 21:05

The "Red Brigades" were an ultra left organisation with absolutely no connection to the working class. Like Baader Mienhof, they were a bunch of middle class adventurists. Re the Killing of Aldo Moro, their is good reason to think that the CIA were not grief striken that a supporter of the "Historic Compromise" that would have seen the Italian CP in power was no longer around.

by tel - swp Thu Jun 27, 2002 10:20

the force of will was not aimed at you but at the qoute by che guvara.OKAY? real revolutionarys make revolutions. Seems an okay statement. but it aint. Revolutions are made by the working class and are carried through by the class. So a small group of people staging a uprising is elitist and at heart is patronising it says 'leave the struggle to us. we know whats best for you.' At its core it ses the working class as nothing more than observers of history rather than active participants.
er...yes we will participate in demos. but strikes carry more weight than demos tho demo are useful for raising peoples confidence.
Erm we will never agree here. you seem to be convinced that bb is at the moment the cutting edge tatic i disagree. i think the cutting edge are the workers in the Irish Glass Bottle factory on strike at the moment. Who through the strike are challenging the system.
oh and to smash the nazis i dont thik one small band of anti fascist millitants going toe to toe with nazis will stop them. i think that the tatics of the ANL work best.
But we won't agree so i'll look forward to reading your reply.

by dermot donnelly Thu Jun 27, 2002 10:44 somewhere in cavan

if the swp guy above is counterposing the Bloc actions with strikes is he not just stating that workers have to be mobalised and that demos can lift there confidence, let them go back to work and do some thing about their conditions.
if that is the case i agree.i dont think they are dimetrically opposed as the blocer says. bloc tatics seem to suggest they are the only ones who can cause real trouble. is not the bloc aslo known as the revolutionay anti capitalist bloc. question what about everyone else? what can they do?

by Brian Cahill - Socialist Party Thu Jun 27, 2002 16:59

I am in agreement with almost everything Tel said in his last post. The one disagreement I would have is over his claim that "the tactics of the ANL work best".

The tactics of the ANL are a total disaster. Waving lollipops at fascists from behind police barricades and chanting liberal slogans like "refugees are welcome here" doesn't help in any way. Unless your primary goal is to pick up a few paper sales and a couple of recruits of course.

Organising platforms for Liberal Democrats, New Labourites and Scottish Nationalists doesn't help either. Nor does calling on people to vote for "anyone but Nazi". There is a technical term for this kind of tactic and it isn't "united front of a new kind" as Alex Callinicos might have it. The term is "popular front". It means uniting with right wingers, representatives of the ruling class, because you think it will help isolate and defeat fascists.

The actual purpose it serves is to tie all of us more closely to our ruling class. In particular flash point areas the result can be even worse.

Who for instance is primarily responsible for the poverty in which racism festers in a place like Burnley? New Labour, the Liberals and the other mainstream right wing parties - not the Nazi scum of the BNP. What does telling people who are rightly angry to vote for the mainstream right actually do? Well it works in some cases helping to build support for the Tories / Liberals / New Labour. But in other cases it reinforces the idea that the only alternative to the mainstream right, the people quite rightly held responsible for the poor conditions people face every day, is the BNP. "Anyone but Nazi" in these situations isn't just wrong in principle, it actually serves to help the Nazis.

I note, by the way, that the SWP can see this point when they aren't involved. They quite rightly criticised sections of the French left for calling for a Chirac vote. In Britain at the same time they were calling for a vote for "Anyone but Nazi". Don't do as we do, do as we say! Right?

The problems of the ANL approach are best illustrated by the example of Sighthill in Glasgow last year. Sighthill is one of the most deprived housing estates in Europe. Glasgow Council moved a thousand asylum seekers into the estate, without consulting the locals and without providing any extra resources to help integrate the new arrivals. They then provided the asylum seekers with a few basic commodities, like new fridges etc - nothing like enough to lift the asylum seekers out of poverty but just enough to stir resentment amongst the local population.

Unsurprisingly racial tensions rose, culminating in the murder of a Kurdish refugee. The response of the SWP was to relaunch the ANL, to organise some public meetings with representatives of the main right wing parties speaking at them and to plaster the whole estate in posters with the slogan "No Return to Hitler and the Holocaust!". Yes really, "No Return to Hitler and the Holocaust!".

There was no problem of fascism in Sighthill. There was a problem of racism. Predictably the effect of the lunatic approach of the SWP/ANL was to make a bad situation worse. Their posters were read by some locals as "those students are calling me a Nazi". The speakers for their public meetings were representatives of the very organisations responsible for screwing all of the residents of Sighthill, local and asylum seeker alike, called together for the purposes of lecturing local working class people about how they should be nicer.

Unsurprisingly the rest of the Scottish Socialist Party was unimpressed with the SWP/ANL to say the least. Luckily the SSP with the help of some very good local community leaders was able to partially turn the situation around by arguing that the problems of the estate were the fault of the Council and not of the asylum seekers. Eventually they managed to organise a march of 800 local and asylum seekers together down to the Council offices under the slogan "Sighthill United Against Poverty And Racism".

The SSP approach was not to lecture the locals and shout "Asylum Seekers Welcome Here", but to patiently argue that all of the residents of Sighthill had common interests against a Council and an establishment which was ignoring them all.

by L'Humanite Fri Jun 28, 2002 01:24

“If you define the Black Bloc tactic as a willingness to defend yourself from police attack then you are widening the definition so far as to include practically everybody on every demonstration bar a few pacifists. That particular argument is entirely disengenuous.”

Well, no. Remember the famous picture from the Poll Tax riot in London in 1990 of a women wielding a bar at a copper. Well she was masked then, and but later charged, cause she wasn’t masked earlier on and was identified from her clothes. So for starters BB generally includes a preparation for physical violence.
Furthermore, from my experience, it's usually more than a few pacifists. There are a lot of them.

Secondly you will remember a certain Tommy Sheridan and Steve Nally (then of Militant Tendecy, which is know known as the Socialist Party), and their comments to the media offering information to the police on people who defended themselves that day.
So I would say a willingness is meaningless and possibly harmful without organization. Furthermore clearly from the above not everyone is willing.

“As understood by most people on large demonstrations, "black block" tactics are to engage in property destruction and to look for a fight with the police regardless of police actions.”

Well you see you cannot speak in this general terms, there was property destruction in J-18 and no Black Bloc, I never saw tell of any connection between Black Bloc actions and property destruction before Seattle.

I’m totally against property destruction, I would prefer if there was a tactic which involved self defence against the police but was not associated with property destruction, as Black Bloc actions now are. If you have any suggestions I’m willing to hear them. But I have yet to see Trots organize a bloc geared to self defence. Which makes your argument a little hollow.

On the second point, well again depends on the specific bloc you are referring to, this has not been the case in some situation and has not been the case in others (I think some Black Blocs in the States have basically been non-violent). It certainly was the case in Prague and I support that.

“There is no controversy about being willing to defend yourself from assault.”

Tell it to Tommy.

“There is no controversy about using physical force to confront fascists.”

Tell it to Tel. (and that represents the bulk of Black Bloc actions, incidentally).

“The argument is about the use of property destruction as a tactic on demonstrations and about deliberatly seeking to provoke violent clashes with the cops. If we are going to argue about correct tactics on demonstrations then lets concentrate on the issues we actually disagree on.”

Well now you see this is the problem with debating with trots, ye start off with denouncing with no substance (for reasons partly explored in previous posts), ye also ignore the bulk of Black Bloc actions and where the tactic originates from – mass anti fa actions in Germany, which makes me question do ye want a genuine discussion. I’m fairly critical of ALL these tactics, but I think Torts want to denounce, rather than find effective tactics, because it all comes down to party building. If not kindly explain how you deal with full on police assault. When have Trot groups organized a block which doesn’t do the things some Black Blocs do, which you guys disagree with, but is organized to defend itself?

“So to those who have been writing in defense of black bloc tactics: Do you (A) support the use of property destruction on demonstrations or (B) support deliberately seeking violent clashes with the cops? “

To answer your question: no to point A, point B is well a loaded question, any kind of prior preparation will be taken by you as indicating “deliberately seeking”.

”Red Brigades
by Des Wed, Jun 26 2002, 8:05pm “

etc… Certainly my point is merely that they were all that and Marxist-Leninist (or such they professed) not anarchists, as is often claimed in discussion of these things.

Tel:
“the force of will was not aimed at you but at the qoute by che guvara.OKAY? real revolutionarys make revolutions. Seems an okay statement. but it aint. Revolutions are made by the working class and are carried through by the class. So a small group of people staging a uprising is elitist and at heart is patronising it says 'leave the struggle to us. we know whats best for you.' At its core it ses the working class as nothing more than observers of history rather than active participants.”

Which has what to do with Black Bloc actions. They are actions of small minorities, but no more so than the demonstrations beloved of the SWP.
So get away from the “individual terrorism” line, I agree with it, probably more so than you do, but it is not applicable in this case.

”Erm we will never agree here. you seem to be convinced that bb is at the moment the cutting edge tatic i disagree. i think the cutting edge are the workers in the Irish Glass Bottle factory on strike at the moment. Who through the strike are challenging the system.”

Sorry I never said this “bb is at the moment the cutting edge” . Which is partly why you counter-posing with striking is besides the point.

A community or workplace based struggle has far more radical potential than any activist based struggle, be the later black bloc, NVDA, White Overalls, or waving placards. Nobody is arguing against this, except the strawmen which exist in the imagination of the writers for Socialist Worker.

Of course the logic of your argument suggests non-participation in the “anti-capitalist movement” period. Because it can be equally applied to any such activity. Furthermore you guys are wrong about the “point of production”, take a look at community based struggles (not that this means ignoring the workplace, far from it).

”oh and to smash the nazis i dont thik one small band of anti fascist millitants going toe to toe with nazis will stop them. i think that the tatics of the ANL work best.”

Sorry what does “Smash the Nazis” mean again. Fact is that if it wasn’t for these small bands of anti-fascist militants, there are many places in which small bands of International Socialists wouldn’t be able to operate. Waving a placard will stop nothing. We all know the actual purpose of the ANL so why bother debating this with us.

Dermot:

”if that is the case i agree.i dont think they are dimetrically opposed as the blocer says. bloc tatics seem to suggest they are the only ones who can cause real trouble. is not the bloc aslo known as the revolutionay anti capitalist bloc. question what about everyone else? what can they do?”

I dunno if I’m the “blocer”, but I wasn’t saying they are diametrically opposed,
It was Tel who was counter-posing the two, not me.

“revolutionay anti capitalist bloc.” Was a banner carried by a Black Bloc somewhere or other.

Much like there are banners with Socialist this that or the other, worker’s this that or the other, Green party branch of…

It says the people following this banner are this, it does not then follow that someone else isn’t.

This is a strange point.

P.S. Back to the "police agent" stuff, do ye just turn this on and off like a tap, I've just remember ye had a thing like this about the group Class War, where ye claimed they were fascists in disguise (with wigs to cover the skinheads).
D you not find this a quenstionable practise.

by Brian Cahill Fri Jun 28, 2002 15:39

Firstly, I am glad that you oppose the tactic of property damage. If the Black Blocs abandon such tactics it will be a step forward - although it will also mean that the distinctiveness of "Black Block" tactics is greatly lessened.

The best method of self defense on protests is organised, disciplined stewarding - something which the Socialist Party organises around our contingents at major anti-capitalist demonstrations.

There is a simple reason for this: you can't out-violence the capitalist state. The advantage will almost always lie with the state apparatus. This is a point which has to be understood over time. You can win an individual brawl for a short period, but what does doing so actually gain? The cops can get you (or somebody else it doesn't really matter) later. And outbreaks of anti-police violence on the streets help the state to bring in even heavier repressive machinery. And the impression of left wing protestors and mindless thugs is all the more easily conveyed to the bulk of workers who were not on the demonstration. This is not pacifism this is a tactical point.

The best response to an assault by the police is stewarding and careful withdrawal. It's not as much fun and it's not as r-r-r-revolutionary, I admit. But it is necessary.

On the ANL tactics I mostly agree with you - see my above post for an example of the kind of tactics I would favour alongside vigorous militant action to ensure that fascists cannot organise. Two of the five anti-fascists jailed in Leeds last week are members of the Socialist Party.

One of the great myths about the Poll Tax riots is that Steve or Tommy offered to hand rioters over to the police. They did not. They denounced a tiny minority of a couple of hundred who had come looking for a fight - note not the people who defended themselves - as idiots and said that the Anti-Poll Tax Federations would be carrying out an internal investigation. No mention of the police at all, except by the interviewer.

Is mise le meas
Brian Cahill

by Phuq Hedd Fri Jun 28, 2002 19:53

So where does that leave the prospects for rrrrevolution then Brian? Do we have to wait until the Socialist Party wins a majority at the ballot box?

by chekov Fri Jun 28, 2002 20:37

Therefore, anybody who takes part in an occupation or holds the picket line of a strike is a dangerous provocateur? Remember the Russian revolution? The Spanish revolution?

This position, of absolute pacifism until the very eve of the revolution, is ludicrous and based on a flawed analysis of the source of violence in capitalist society. We live in a world where a truncheon is constantly poised above our heads, a fact that we only notice when we try to get off our knees. Any movement that appears to challenge the rule of the powerful will be suppressed with state violence unless it can defend itself.

"The best method of self defense on protests is organised, disciplined stewarding"
And:
"The best response to an assault by the police is stewarding and careful withdrawal"

This is not self defence it is conceding defeat and seeking to minimise physical harm.

Remember the Citizens' army? They were originally set up to defend workers' demonstrations against police attacks and were armed with hurlies. They were actually quite succesful. The police were much more careful about picking fights with a crowd that included a few hundred organised and armed workers than they had been with unarmed crowds. This is so obvious, it shouldn't have to be stated.

If a movement threatens the powerful they will respond with violence. If the movement doesn't organise to defend itself from this violence it will be beaten off the streets. Certainly the powerful will attempt to use the existence of workers' self-defence to demonise the movement and isolate it from the masses, but this is not an insurmountable problem. The violence of the pickets during the miners' strikes was not the reason that the strike failed, in fact I don't recall this as having any real impact on their popular support. Most people understand that there are situations where people need to defend themselves from the violence of the authorities. When movements are physically attacked by the police, the problem is to explain to people what is happening and to convince them that 'our' violence is self-defence, not to retreat, however disciplined and careful this retreat might be. Therein lies the road to quietism and reformism.

We want the world, they won't give it up without a massive fight. Each step of the way will be hard fought and will involve millions of acts of physical self defence, small and large. However we are many, they are few, we can neutralise the violence of the capitalist state and without violence there is no state.

by Des Fri Jun 28, 2002 22:15

Re the "Red Brigades" and marxist leninism, you should read Cde. Lenin's work, "LEFT WING COMMUNISM, AN INFANTILE DISORDER". Also, have you not thought it strange that their actions, i.e. the killing Aldo Moro, coincided the the views of U.S. imperialism at that time.

by L'Humanite Sat Jun 29, 2002 14:51

Two things Des, I have read it, secondly I'm not disagreeing with you about the Red Brigades so what is your argument???????? My point is merely that they proffesed Marxist-Leninism *NOT* Anarchism. I could care less whether or not they represent the authentic Marxist Leninist current as revealed by "Comrade" Lenin.