ANARCHIST/BLACK BLOC MOTIVATION
Firstly, I am an anarchist, and this has been written because much of the
anarchist position on street fighting tactics needs to be explained, especially
after the murder of the brave street fighter Carlo Giuliani.
Nobody should expect radical change to be a comfortable and easy process.
Many people are angry, and confused by events in Genoa, this article is designed
to help turn some of that anger and confusion into constructive ends.
Because the anarchist movement is an anti-authoritarian one of free thinkers
I, of course, only talk for myself, but I believe many feel the same thing.
GENOA
This isn't just a dogmatic defense of the Bloc in Genoa. The Black Bloc made
mistakes I'm sure, and there are issues on how the Bloc can weed out problems,
however I still believe in the Black Bloc and it's tactics for many
good reasons, which are:
1) I don't believe we should have a seat
at the table with people like the G8, WTO, IMF etc, as you can't reform
capitalism in anyway more than just blunting some of the sharpest corners.
As such that is why I don't support the lobby groups like Greenpeace who
would seem to want to ride some of the wave of support the anti-globalization
movement has been getting, and turn it into a place at the powerfuls table.
Further more anarchists don't think elite groups of lobbyists are any substitute
for fighting towards the real and long reaching benefits that direct democracy
would offer.
2) I don't believe that you can use some
sort of mass peer pressure on the system to be nice, as many pacifist protestors
seem to think. This is because, as I said, you can't reform capitalism much,
as it will fundamentally always exploit people. The only permanent change
is getting rid of capitalism, not asking it to reform itself.
This is on top of the issue raised by Tony Blair, who said:
'We recognize and praise the role that peaceful protest
and argument have played, for example in putting issues like debt relief
on the international agenda.'
A statement which could be taken in the way he wants you to take it, or
as it could mean that he likes peaceful protests because of the little to
no change it bring towards the fundamentals of the system yet helps to (when
used exclusively) disarms dissent by giving the system the illusion of being
democratic (something we know it isn't). I, and many others, believe the
latter meaning and therefore aren't content with solely street partying
capitalism and oppression out of existence.
3) I believe that showing people fighting back
against security forces isn't in all cases disempowering or turns people
uninvolved off.
Quite the opposite to the mild to non-confrontational approach of many
other activists I believe that the only way to stay credible is to be as
confrontational as appropriate to our opponent (in this case the G8 ministers).
Effective, not symbolic, confrontation is what REALLY shows we are serious,
and attracts more people to the movement (as opposed to counter submits,
manifestos, marches etc, however these thing also have a very important
role to play).
4) I think this movement has got as far as it has
because of its diversity. The above groups that I have written above in the
other points, while I disagree with them on some issues, I still welcome them
to the movement, want to co-operate and agree not to interfere with their
activities (a show of respect many anarchists don't get in return).
These four points, I believe, are held by a large number in the anti-globalization
movement and they help to justify the Black Bloc action.
JUSTIFYING THE BLOCS' TACTICS
This article isn't an argument to say that forceful direct action is always
appropriate. As such I would also hold open the possibility that what has
happened in Genoa by the Black Bloc was the wrong thing to do, either in part
or wholly.
Writing tactics such as the Bloc off because of some mistakes is too simplistic.
CONFRONTATION
The debate between if to use force or non-violence is one that should really
be dropped. In its place should be the much more useful debate of what is
the best confrontational tactic for the situation. It is neither street fighting
nor non-violent action that draws people to the movement, it is the level
of confrontation.
Take Seattle as and example to illustrate this point. There was mostly non-violent
action there AND most of that non-violent action was pivotal in the successful
blockade. The effective blockade in turn showed our confrontation to our oppressors
that we needed to kick-start the movement. Post Seattle people were attracted
to the movement by the fact that the WTO was effectively disrupted, not that
peaceful protestors were beaten, as some like to think.
When you look at all the anti-globalization events it can be seen that they
all hold in common a simple equation, the succeed because they aren't
a simple demonstration, they are an active confrontation.
Now look at how tactics have developed, from Seattle to Prague, from Melbourne
to Quebec, both non-violence and street fighting have been effective in developing
an inspiring confrontation.
However, more and more, the role of non-violence committed activists in achieving
confrontation to those we oppose has dropped off dramatically, in favor of
this 'carnival protest' model which is, on the confrontation scale, only symbolic
resistance at best.
It has been the anarchists and the Black Bloc in particular, and more and
more groups like Ya Basta!, that have kept tactics fresh and relevant by planning
how to challenge the walled city approach now used by the powers that be to
protect their meetings.
BUT VIOLENCE IS A PROBLEM
I'm not dismissing comment made by people who disagree with violence;
in fact I would encourage a dialogue between the differing factions, a dialogue
that would hopefully think up improved tactics.
An example of the cross faction tactics we need would be the tactic of separating
the different street fighting/non-violent factions into their own section
so that people can choose their level of involvement. Admittedly this tactic
fails sometimes in that it doesn't address the fact that police won't always
respect the difference, but this is the kind of thing we need to think around
and improve upon.
STOP THE VIOLENCE BY BEING EFFECTIVE
This single biggest issue that needs to be addressed is one that concerns
committed non-violence activists themselves. Since Seattle they have, mostly,
failed to come up with new non-violent direct action tactics that maintain
confrontation between us and our oppressors and adapt to the current way summit
are organized.
Those committed non-violent direct action desperately need to abandon the
blockade model, and to dismiss the protest march/street party approach as
their only response as both are ineffective in disrupting these summits.
In Genoa those who are prepared to street fight would welcome feasible non-violent
tactic for crossing into the red zone and disrupting/closing down the meeting
of the G8.
In return for fresh and effective non-violent tactics, I believe, the Bloc
would abstain from using force while the tactic still works. But, as everyone
know, those committed non-violent direct action tacticians came up with no
such plans, they just contented themselves with a symbolic resistance, something
that will always be intolerable to those who demand radical change.
WHAT WOULD GHANDI HAVE DONE?
Consider, what would have Gandhi done? Would he have sat outside a conference
gate, or marched around the center, knowing that this would disrupt nothing,
or would he have (perhaps) scaled the fence, or done something else (ie encourage
a general strike)?
I personally, and many other, can't stand to see people getting passively
beaten up, and we will defend ourselves if attacked, but we will respect those
who have their own tactics. If non-violent direct action theorists come up
with something effective then it will be supported.
'NON-VIOLENCE TEACHES US...'
One problem with forums like Indymedia is the endless rhetoric paraded
as arguments, such as how 'violence beget violence' etc etc. Those people
need to be less elitist, get off their high horse and realize that people
who street fight have though about all these points as well, and just disagree.
As such if you want a change in tactics, if you want to stop the street fighting,
you're going to have to come up with an alternative that remains confrontational.
One of the worst aspect of the movement now is the way that people content
themselves on blaming others for failings of the day as a way of dodging their
own responsibility to adapt to changing situations.
AN APPEAL
Finally I would like to appeal to those who street fight and those who believe
in non-violent action alike:
