A response specifically to "Letter to an 'anarchist' friend", but also to others who either don't understand the use of violent or condem it. ... An attempt to open ration discussions on this subject.
I applaude your rational tone and seemingly earnest desire to discuss these issues. The questions you raise are good ones, but are full of misunderstandings. Case in point:
Your second to last paragraph, where you seem to be saying that if everyone sat down the police would not gas and beat. This is, unfortunately, very naive as numerous non-violent direct actions have shown.
When I was at a16 in DC last year (and, yes, participating in the Black Boc), the first thing we saw in the morning was an intersection where police had run over peaceful protesters with their motorcycles. And all day long the Black Bloc engaged in defensive activities to keep police from attacking peaceful protesters. These included picking up the tear gas canisters launched at people in lockdown and throwing them back at the police, chasing off police who were beating on people, etc.
My point: non-violent protest brings a violent response, just the same as if the protesters had been violent to begin with. The reason being: the ruling class will not let ANYONE stand in their way. They G8 leaders are calling for "peaceful protest" and for peaceful protesters to betray their less peaceful comrades. This is an overt attempt to divide us, and should not be tolerated. And what do they mean by "peaceful protest"? Marching with signs and chanting and generally being unobstusive. Keep in mind that they regarded the blockades in Seattle as inherently "violent". They regard anything that might actually threaten them as "violent. (Besides the fact that the G8 are "condeming all kinds of violence" while being the same people who not only help to perpetuate capitalism, an inherently violent system, but overtly engage in acts of terrorism and violence against anyone who defies their will.)
Now, it is good, I think, that you raise the question of tactics. And I agree that many Black Bloc participants need to rethink their tactics in regards to people who do not want to engage in aggresive confrontation. But that is the essence of the notion of "diversity of tactics". You decry the Black Bloc for endangering people after the fence came down in Quebec, but from what I understand from Quebec participants, Black Bloc and non-Black Bloc, is that people followed the Black Bloc into these situations because the felt that the Black Bloc was most likley to breach the fence. They knew that the Black Bloc was part of the Red March (which was open to violent confrontation), and chose to go with them.
From what I understand about Genoa, however, is that many of the people who desired to be confrontational and the umbrella group had a falling out a long time ago over tactics because the controntationals were attacking people not willing to be violent, and the umbrella group was attacking people for willing to be violent. So, if this is true, then they are BOTH at fault for betraying the notions of solidarity and autonomy central to this movement. And, as a result of this, from what I understand, no diversity of tactics arrangements were made, that is: no attempts were made, as in Prague and Quebec, to say "this is where you go if you are willing to be controntational, and this is where you go if you are willing to do CD and this is where you go if you can only march and carry signs and such". This way of organizing protests is important because it creates an atmosephere of solidarity while allowing for tactical diversity and autonomy.
On the question of violence itself, while its easy to decry revolutionaries for engaging in violent activity as reproducing what they hate, it is too simplistic. There is much to think about:
1) Capitalism is an inherently violent system for the vast majority of people on the planet. Including those of us who live in advanced capitalist regions... we are still forced to work or starve, we are still forced to live in a psychologically amd emotionally empty and draining consummer culture, we are still often the subjects of police violence, etc. Thus, it can be argued and ANY violence directed at the capitalist system is inherently SELF-DEFENSIVE.
2) Thus, the difference between people (the working class) acting violently in their own defense and people (the ruling class) acting violently to maintain a violent system is obviously very great. The violence of those acting against capitalism is part of an effort to create a space in which we can re-assert our humanity against this system which tries to make everyone into a cog in its machinery. And while I agree that it can be, and should be, debated what is tactically necessary and when, it is erroneous to try to equate the violence of the working class with the violence of the ruling class because the fact is this: regardless of whether or not we are violent, they will violently repress any efforts we make that actually have an impact. And if things were to carry on into an insurrectionary situation, you could be rest assured that any police and military people who did not join the insurrection would be well used in violently repressing it, regardless of how non-violent it is. This would mean that people would have to defend themselves even more rigorously if we, and the movement for qualitative change, would survive. It seems to me that this logic holds true in less dramtic situations, and thus the real issue is merely tactics.
3) In regards to the anarchists in Italy: the anarchist movement in Italy has received a large brunt of state-violence in the last ten years. They have been scapegoated for bombings, when there is no evidence to support this. The closest thing to "evidence" is the notes from groups claiming to be anarchists. However, fascist groups in Italy have a well-known history of commiting acts of terror and then trying to blame left-wing groups in order to turn people against them. From what I understand, many anarchists in Italy are confident that this is what has been going on. However, the Italian police (who are known to be majority fascist sympathizers) have continually and brutally criminallized the anarchists. This has resulted in the deaths of a number of anarchists over this time. So, I imagine that when many of these groups saw an opportunity to strike back during these protests they did (are doing) so. HOWEVER, AND THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT: this does not diminish the commitment of anarchists to qualitative change. You can be rest assured that most of the Black Bloc participants could argue this point intellegently with you, and have an analysis of the situations we face.
Conclusions:
1) Police will be violent toward any actions that seriously challange the authority and power of the ruling class.
2) Thus, the responsibility for violence rests on the shoulders of the ruling class, not those sections of the working class who choose to be violent.
3) This notion is re-inforced by the fact that capitalism is inherently violent toward the working class and the planet, thus working class violence is always (self-)defensive.
4) However, this does not put the use of violence above criticism from a tactical standpoint.
Quick notes: I published another article on this website at: http://italy.indymedia.org/front.php?article_id=3684&group=webcast I also published a few responses at: http://italy.indymedia.org/front.php?article_id=3766&group=webcast (scroll down) These each take up important aspects of this debate which did not address here, such as the media representation of protests, police infiltration, etc.
Also: I throw around class terminology a lot, whithout definitions. So I encourage readers to have a look at the text at http://www.geocities.com/mechanicsfordisrepair , which is the main text of the group to which i belong. It contains a definition of class which I feel is appropriate for understanding capitalism. The text is also contains our ideas on what we can do to be rid of capitalism.
