Re: developing an alternative (reply to Joan)

[ermadog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Hi Ben!

I like your title, developing an alternative to the window-smashing
tactics of the Black Block is exactly what is being discussed in
discussions by anti-global acitivists all over the internet as we speak.

With your concluding paragraph, we are in agreement. However, it is the
middle part that presents difficulty.


On Sun, 29 Jul 2001, Ben Seattle wrote:

> Hi Joan,
>
> You had some comments in relation to Seattle-WTO in November 1999
> and Genoa today.
>
> Ben:
> >  And criticism of incorrect tactics
> >  is justified and called for.
>
> Joan:
> > Unless it is directed at Mac's precious
> > Black Block - then we are all sectarians.
>
> Ben
> I believe that you are mischaracterizing Mac's position.

Joan
I believe you are wrong on this point. I have presented Mac with text upon
which I base my characterizations; he does not address them.

> Ben:
> > What Louis, Joan and others cannot see are the two key factors
> > that have led to the emergence of anarchism (as opposed to
> > marxism) as the dominant ideology within the anti-globalization
> > movement:
> >
> > (1) the historic pattern of accommodation
> >      of the "marxist" movement to:
> >      (a) the corrupt strata often referred to
> >           as the "labor aristocracy",
> >      (b) the ideology of social-democracy
> >      (c) the striving for "respectability" in the eyes
> >           of these "natural allies"
> >
> > (2) the bankruptcy of "marxism" as an ideology which has
> >       not yet come to terms with its history as a state
> religion
> >       in the hands of the enemies of the working class
>
> Joan:
> > I see point one
>
> Ben
> Good.  We are on the same page.
>
> Ben:
> > I will note here that Louis and Joan have
> > both counter-posed the respectable corn-fed trade union
> > bureaucrats (hereinafter "TUB's") to the "anarchists".
>
> Joan:
> > Since when do union bureaucrats
> > don the marshall's armbands?
>
> Ben
> I witnessed this personally, as did approximately 30,000 people.

Joan
I am doubting that any of these marshalls was a bureaucrat. My
understanding is that marshalls' groups are formed on an ad hoc basis in
response to a particular situation. In general, bureaucrats rarely get
their hands dirty. Correct me if I am wrong.

> Ben
> The point that I believe we should all strive to see is that the
> mindless and counter-productive actions of a small number of kids
> are a reaction to the treachery of the stratum of the labor
> aristocracy (defined broadly:

Joan
Are you certain of this? My understanding is that youth today is reacting
to conditions of life under capitalism. Betrayal by their various leaders
is only one factor.

> Ben
> not just the TUB's but the various
> "respectable" misleaders) which actively seeks to channel all
> protest into actions that are tame and without spirit.

Joan
That's what they do, all right.

> Ben
> The
> damage that is caused by the stratum of the labor aristocracy is
> vastly worse than that of the black block--but this damage is
> often *less visible* because it usually takes place quietly.

Joan
Fallacy of question begging. Since this is a point at issue; you must
support your assertion. How do you know which causes the more harm?

> > Joan
> > I actually identified more than these two
> > agents. I had to because Mac kept posing the
> > formula of Black Block v. Labour; and the situation
> > was actually more complex. Stainsby is fond of false
> > dichotomies.
>
> Ben
> I think that we should all be careful about false dichotomies.

Joan
Comrade Stainsby's false dichotomies have placed his critics in a position
that requires they defend positions they do not hold. In previous
argumentation, I have presented Comrade Stainsby with examples from his
own text. He refuses to address them.

>
> Ben:
> > The most powerful tactics at the Seattle-WTO actions
> > were the mass tactics of blocking the streets.
>
> Joan:
> > This was not organized by the Black Blocks.
>
> Ben
> Quite correct.  What you appear to overlooking, however, is that
> no one is making such a claim.

Joan
Comrade Stainsby made such implication. This is one reason why I decided
to become involved in the discussion. Perhaps this was a hasty formulation
by Comrade Stainsby. If Comrade Stainsby wishes to publicly state that
this is not his position, we do not need to discuss this point further.

In his earliest posts, Comrade Stainsby did not always make sufficient
distinction as to whether he was discussing anarchism in general,
anarchists in the anti-global demonstrations, or the Black Block
specifically. This lack of clarity confused matters greatly. This
misunderstanding underscores a point I addressed in my "Summing Up" post.
I see a need for Comrade Stainsby to refine his argument and sharpen his
logical skills. His 14k postings were little more than propaganda pieces
with little substance, and showing confused thinking and logical errors.
They could easily have been reduced to a few paragraphs in length.

> > Joan
> > I have praised the sit-in people to the skies. But these
> > were not the Black Block, whom Stainsby insists we worship.
>
> Ben
> Here is where I believe your tunnel vision is leading in a
> direction which is counter-productive.

Joan
This piece of hyperbole was intended to underscore my frustration
with Comrade Stainsby's constant use of false dichotomy as a means of
forcing his critics into a position which they could not defend, and which
seemed to serve no purpose other than to allow him to demonize his
critics. I characterize this methodolgy as sectarian, dishonest
argumentation, and slander. Must I revive the text? I have saved all of
Comrade Stainsby's posts against just such an eventuality.

I have, in previous argumentation, presented Comrade Stainsby with
examples of his own text as proof of my characterization. He evaded my
proof.

> Ben:
> > These tactics were actually more militant and successful
> > than the few kids who broke windows and stuff.  Both
> > Lou and Joan, however, present matters as if the two
> > main trends at Seattle-WTO were: (1) the TUB's and
> > their rank-and-file followers and (2) the few
> > window-breaking kids.
>
> Joan:
> > No, I do not. I identified at least three different agents.
> > Have you always been this reading-impaired?
>
> Ben
> Joan, if I misrepresented your position I stand corrected and I
> offer you my apology.  I try to be extremely accurate when I
> describe someone's position.

Joan
Apology accepted. No blood, no foul.

> Ben:
> > But the dozen or so window-breaking kids were an
> > insignificant minority that were important mainly to the
> > bourgeois press.
>
> Joan:
> > They gave the city the excuse it needed
> > to call a state of emergency.
>
> Ben
> The city would probably have called a state of emergency anyway.
> The window-breaking made it easier to call the state of
> emergency.

Joan
Since neither of us is psychic, we cannot know the mind of the mayor.
Reports I have seen have indicated he was reluctant to make this call, and
caved in when the window was broken.

>
> Joan:
> > I'm glad you recognize that they were a minority. That
> > is the first step in breaking Stainsby's false dichotomy.
>
> Ben
> I think it is safe to say that Mac recognizes that the
> window-breakers in Seattle were a small minority.

Joan
I'm glad I have your assurance on this point.  As I have previously
iterated, this was not at all clear in his first few postings.

> Ben:
> > And, as they did, these workers were soon joined
> > by many others as what was at first a trickle turned
> > into a steady stream.  It turns out, I guess, that many
> > of the workers were sort of looking for an excuse
> > to defy their shepherds.

Joan
This may or may not be a good thing. In the absence of a more complete
understanding of the situation, I will not pass judgement. If you or
Comrade Stainsby can present a clearer picture, please do so.

> Joan:
> > But their small numbers frustrate Stainsby.
> > He takes it out on us.
>
> Ben
> If there were greater recognition on this list of the treachery
> of the TUBs there would probably be less frustration.

Joan
I would assume that an understanding of the treachery of the TUBs would be
a fundamental element of the understanding of most members of this list,
and is therefore a point requiring very little direct referrence. I don't
see why that would not be an assumption of Comrade Stainsby's.

> Ben:
> Large numbers of activists have an instinctive aversion > to the
> straight-jacket that many well-meaning > know-it-alls would seek to have
> them wear.
>
> Joan:
> > And here we have the obligatory sectarian jab -
> > not very imaginative; but, it must be done.
>
> Ben
> I think that you are being premature to label my actions as such.

Joan
Am I to take it, then, that you are specifically excluding us, Marxists
who attempt objective critique of the Black Block, in your
characterization of know-it-alls who attempt to place a straight-jacket on
activists? I would like your judgment on record, please.

> Ben:
> > If we cannot see the cowardice and opportunism of the
> > "respectable" movement misleaders we are in a weak position to
> > lecture "anarchists" over the adventurism of a small minority
> > within their ranks.
>
> Joan:
> > No-one is lecturing anarchists. Stainsby is supposedly
> > a Marxist. Like his precious Black Block, Stainsby
> > folds in a fight. He has left our ranks because we are
> > too mean to him.
>
> Ben
> It is probably more that it is a waste of his time to be part of
> a discussion where his views are continually being distorted.

Joan
Then he should clarify his position and refine his argument, leaving us no
room for false construction.

> Ben:
> > Also, the many demand[s] that the various leftist youth groups
> > place themselves under the "democratic control" of the majority
> > of the movement can be highly misleading.
>
> Joan:
> > What democratic control? There was no organization to
> > impose control. The democracy I was talking about was
> > the spontaneous, vote-with-your-feet kind. People showed
> > up to a peacefull demonstration because that's what they
> > wanted. They talked over the sit-in at the intersections and
> > decided to do it (these discussions took place during the
> > course of the demonstations). The activists were fully
> > prepared to be arrested in the traditional passive resistance
> > tradition.
>
> Ben
> This is why I brought up the post by Phil Ferguson's on the 1981
> anti-Springbok mobilizations in New Zealand.  There is a strong
> tendency by many to make "passive vs. active resistance" the
> dividing line between what is productive and counter-productive.
> But Phil's post shows that this would be seriously misleading.

Joan
I am completely aware of the danger of posing this false dichotomy. I do
not require a lecture from you, from Comrade Stainsby, or from anyone
else on this point. The question on the table is specifically the tactics
of the Black Block. Please try to follow the programme, Comrade.

Regardless of how we feel, the fact is that the majority of the affinity
groups have an orientation toward peacefull, lawfull assembly. That is
their decision to make. It is not ours, nor Comrade Stainsby's, nor that
of the Black Block. If the Black Block were unable to win the majority to
their view on this matter, it had not been up to them to abrogate the
decision of the majority.

Let events of the day show clearly that it is the state, and only the
state, that causes violence on these demonstrations. We are not yet in a
position to storm the World Bank.

> Ben
> There are many different factors involved and a wide variety of
> situations and circumstances.  Mac argued (I think)

Joan
You think! You are not actually sure of his position, yet you lecture me
on the need to portray positions accurately?

Ben
> that in some
> situations pulling down a gate and breaking thru a line of police
> is useful and productive.  In other situations it will not be.

Joan
I hardly think anyone here needs to be convinced of this point. But,
please, let's argue specifics, shall we? I would like to know more about
Comrade Stainsby's experince at the APEC demonstration in Vancouver. If he
will deign to speak to me again.

> Ben
> Let's consider a different kind of example: workers militantly
> defending a picket line against scabs and police.  Is it ok to
> fight with the police to defend a picket line?  If we look at
> things this way we will see that the only correct answer is: "it
> depends".  It depends on all the factors that are present: What
> are the relative strengths of the opposing forces?  What is the
> history of the conflict?  Who would likely _win_ in a physical
> confrontation?

Joan
Let us see Comrade Stainsby's analysis of the array of forces at both
Seattle and Quebec, since he was present at both. Let him make a
convincing case. Let him put aside his propaganda and present analysis.

Ben
> I believe it would be helpful if you were to acknowledge this.

Joan
As far as I'm concerned, this discussion is about the tactics of the Black
Block. If I need a lecture on the fundamentals of revolutinary
self-defence, I will let him know. However, there have been numerous
concrete examples posted to the list during the course of the debate whose
perusal would mean more to me were I able to take the time from answering
posts like this in order to read them.

The Black Block, however, has one tactic:  window smashing. This we have
seen from their own manifestoes.

> Ben
> In the concrete circumstances of Seattle-WTO in November 1999 it
> was the mass blocking of the streets that proved to be the most
> militant and successful.  But even here, it was not all passive.
> How about the activists who picked up tear-gas cannisters and
> threw them back at the police?  Are you going to say that this
> was wrong?  I hope not.

Joan
Of course not!

> Joan:
> > The rock through the window changed all that.
>
> Ben
> This is why it is frustrating discussing this with you.  This is
> likely to be my last post replying to you.  Everyone knows that
> the tear-gas and police attacks took place _before_ any windows
> were broken.  You appear to forget this.

Joan
I have characterized these attacks as provocation from the police,
intended to spark a reaction from demonstrators so as to provide further
excuse for all-out assault. Anyone who's ever been on any demonstration
knows that this is standard police procedure.

Comrade Stainsby has yet to address this point.

> Ben
> You appear to present
> matters as if the attack by the state would not have happened
> were it not for the few kids who broke windows.

Joan
You have acknowledged that it may have provided the excuse needed by the
city for its declaration of the state of emergency.

Ben
> I simple do not
> have the time to exchange views with people who insist on
> presenting matters in this way.

Joan
I appreciate your attempt to clarify Comrade Stainsby's position. I am
sure Comrade Stainsby would be welcomed back any time, should he wish to
resume the discussion. Particularly welcome would be an argument that has
been refined and clarified and well-reasoned.

<snipped: rehash of long-ago events>
> Ben
> On the other hand, if we had listened to people like you--we
> would have had to fold up our banner in order to avoid the
> possibility of a fight.

Joan
Upon what grounds are you raising such an inferrence from my words? I have
said that the incident you describe differs from that of the
window-smashing at Seattle. To draw the inferrence you have done is an
instance of casuistry and hasty generalization and non sequitur; it is
false. I actually have insufficient information about this situation; and,
therefore, can have no opinion.

> Ben
> And, hence, this is one example of the
> straight-jacket that well-meaning know-it-alls would have
> activists wear.  Don't use provocative words that will upset the
> powers that be.

Joan
So, I was correct in assuming that your first use of this term was a
sectarian jab?

> Ben
> The truth is that a demonstration belongs to the masses.  No one
> "owns" it.

Joan
That is the point, the whole point, and the only point.

> Ben
> Similarly the actions at Genoa provided an
> opportunity for lots of different political trends to gather
> their own experience.  Many of the black block tactics played
> into the hands of the state, allowed police agents to pose as
> bloc-istes, etc.  This will be summed up.  I hope that most of
> the youth who have been attracted to this kind of politics will
> learn from this experience.  And I have no problem with criticism
> of the black bloc tactics.  It is the tunnel vision that I
> oppose.

Joan
If you see tunnel vision, it is because you raise hasty inferrences from
my words. Sometimes I have not been as clear as I should be. If you wish
to examine my position further, please feel free to do so. I must say, you
have conducted your part of this discussion much more reasonably than
Comrade Stainsby has. Perhaps you could assist him with his debating
skills.

> Ben
> Ultimately we are going to have to recognize that the root of all
> the problems of the left is the lack of a mass revolutionary
> organization that has prestige and authority.  If such an
> organization existed then far fewer kids would have been drawn to
> counter-productive tactics

Absolutely!

--because they would have seen a
> militant alternative to the groups that hanker after bourgeois
> respectability.

I am not entirely certain I understand exactly how you use the term
militant here. Let us just say that we all agree that the class has the
right to defend itself; and the duty - the duty! - to go on the offensive
when History says: Here is the rose, dance here!

Comradely,
Joan Cameron