Dockers attacked in Strasbourg

[montevideo]

The intention wasn't to stop the vote, it was to change the outcome.

The message sent in this instance was about the repercussions if the MEPs tried to implement PP2. Clear message delivered in an unambiguous fashion making immediate demands.

What message were the G8 protesters sending?

precisely. But then we must ask why is burning cars in the centre of strasbourg going to help change that outcome? (Don't you think the european wide stoppages would've been enough of a message sent to convince those mep's of their serious intention). Wouldn't, as the etf themselves have intimated in their press release comdemning the dockers actions, the smashing of windows & attacking police jeopardise that support? If not why not? Can we safely say then that the tactic of attacking 'violently' seats of power is a useful one if it delivers a clear message in an uambiguous fashion? I'd like to think we can.

I actually agree with your description of direct action - people prepared to fight by whatever means at their disposal againt the implementation of conditons that affect them.

We have no desire to lobby those in power; we do not want a seat at their table. We stand in opposition to their very existence. In a world where eight men can affect the lives of millions - causing untold destruction and suffering - the freedom, autonomy and self-organisation we are struggling for can never exist. The G8 was created to allow capitalism to show a unified face against great opposition, to gloss over the cracks caused by popular resistance. It is the system behind this mask that we aim to destroy - capitalism.

During the G8 summit, we can collectively focus our struggles, allowing us to share our power of resistance and realise aspects of the new world we hold in our hearts. Around the planet these struggles take many forms - from opposing international institutions, corporations, the nation state, or government from the highest level to oppression in our schools, workplaces and in our communities. They come from diverse places and experiences, but they are unified in resistance.

http://www.wombles.org.uk/news/article_2005_06_30_3838.php

 

[Top Dog]

Wouldn't, as the etf themselves have intimated in their press release comdemning the dockers actions, the smashing of windows & attacking police jeopardise that support? If not why not? Can we safely say then that the tactic of attacking 'violently' seats of power is a useful one if it delivers a clear message in an uambiguous fashion? I'd like to think we can.

form and content monty, as has already been pointed out to you. You're dazzled by one so much so that you cannot see the other. Lets take a couple of well known examples...

The Poll Tax wasnt immediately abolished by the massive campaign of non-payment (tho it did indicate the scale and problem of revenue collection). It was however, pretty quickly withdrawn following the events of 31st March 1990. This is about as good an example as you can get of "attacking 'violently' seats of power" to "deliver a clear message". It worked.

The unabomber also apparently employed a "tactic of attacking 'violently' seats of power" His clear message was even printed verbatim by the New York Times.

So did both of these campaigns possess the same qualities in your view?

 

[The Black Hand]

form and content monty, as has already been pointed out to you. You're dazzled by one so much so that you cannot see the other. Lets take a couple of well known examples...

The Poll Tax wasnt immediately abolished by the massive campaign of non-payment (tho it did indicate the scale and problem of revenue collection). It was however, pretty quickly withdrawn following the events of 31st March 1990. This is about as good an example as you can get of "attacking 'violently' seats of power" to "deliver a clear message". It worked.

The unabomber also apparently employed a "tactic of attacking 'violently' seats of power" His clear message was even printed verbatim by the New York Times.

So did both of these campaigns possess the same qualities in your view?

Don't you think that's a rather silly question Top Dog? I would think you could answer that one yourself using the terms of Montys argument.

 

[Top Dog]

Don't you think that's a rather silly question Top Dog? I would think you could answer that one yourself using the terms of Montys argument.

Silly? No.

Exaggerated (to tease out the essence of the argument)... Yes.


I was wondering when you were going to show up on one of monty's threads. Taken your time

 

[The Black Hand]

Silly? No.

Exaggerated (to tease out the essence of the argument)... Yes.


I was wondering when you were going to show up on one of monty's threads. Taken your time

I don't come here often at the minute - I have more time/opportunity/enthusiasm for it at varying levels...

 

[The Black Hand]

I wouldn't have a problem with Class War stuff going in the library, I think it's important for people to see what Class War was/are about and what they thought/think.

I think the best thing you could do would be to put "Class War: A Decade of Disorder" online (edited by Ian Bone, Alan Pullen and TIm Scargill, printed by Verso in 1991. That book covers Class Wars best participation/interventions, carries most of Class Wars' theoretical innovations, and is a good class struggle history of the 1980s and the Poll tax.

 

[blamblam]

I think the best thing you could do would be to put "Class War: A Decade of Disorder" online (edited by Ian Bone, Alan Pullen and TIm Scargill, printed by Verso in 1991. That book covers Class Wars best participation/interventions, carries most of Class Wars' theoretical innovations, and is a good class struggle history of the 1980s and the Poll tax.

Think something's missing? Just register and post it.

 

[The Black Hand]

Attica - we're aware of the gaps, they're something we're working on, as I've said above the site is constantly expanding. I'm not trying to say the site is a totally comprehensive resource for anyone interested in class struggle, but it's a start and probably the closest to a comprehensive resource than anything else I've seen.

Hi again Darlings - a few suggestions;

Put Dave DOuglass pamphlets "Come and Wet this truncheon" (police and the miners strike), and "Tell us lies about the miners" (media and the miners).

Also Daves' speech at the start of the strike to a mass emergency branch meeting is one of the best class war participations ever - pages 92 to 100 in "The Enemy Within: Pit villages and the Miners' Strike of 1984-85, Edited by R. Samuel, B. Bloomfield and G. Boanas, printed by Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1986.

You could also try bits of "All power to the imagination" by Dave and Published by Class War, and some of "State of Siege - Miners strike 1984, Politics and Policing in the coalfields", eds J. Coulter, S. Miller and M. Walker, published by Canary Press, 1984. Further detail can be found in "Striking Back", Welsh Council for Civil and Political liberties, 1985 -isbn --947740-02-3, published by Welsh campaign for civil and political liberties and the South Wales area NUM.

There are more books on miners but this will do you for a start on the strike (Daves book on the Doncaster miners during the strike, and 'A Year of Our lives' is good too) - I wrote 5000 words-ish on the policing of the miners strike as well, involving other sources, but i have not got a file on computer (it was written in the days before I could use a computer).

 

[montevideo]

form and content monty, as has already been pointed out to you. You're dazzled by one so much so that you cannot see the other. Lets take a couple of well known examples...

The Poll Tax wasnt immediately abolished by the massive campaign of non-payment (tho it did indicate the scale and problem of revenue collection). It was however, pretty quickly withdrawn following the events of 31st March 1990. This is about as good an example as you can get of "attacking 'violently' seats of power" to "deliver a clear message". It worked.

The unabomber also apparently employed a "tactic of attacking 'violently' seats of power" His clear message was even printed verbatim by the New York Times.

So did both of these campaigns possess the same qualities in your view?

Well let's start by recognising all riots are symbolic gestures, how can they be anything else. Let's also recognise there are 2 forms of riot, political (be they at summits, during mayday, those provoked on demonstrations etc) & social ones (you recognise this yourself given you copied verbatim from an article defending the riots on mayday 2000 a few posts earlier. You wrote that article?)

Now we can argue the affects these riots have, but how do we judge whether certain activities on the day are acceptable or not. This was reflected in the discussion about the paris riots. (We could argue whether the paris riots were political or social & we could argue who gets to decide that - amateur anthropologists, part time interweb sociologists, anarcho-hobbyists with a book full of good intentions & the correct line in their own sense of purpose?)

The troubling aspect about the paris riots discussion was the assertion that it was a not a political riot because people were burning [workers] cars (& committing other acts of anti-social behaviour) reinforcing the idea of acceptable modes of behaviour & how they reflect against wider society. Such concerns & criticisms don't seem to have surfaced here.

What we are still left with though is the strasbourg riot having all the ingredients of a summit protest. Is this coincidental? More impoprtantly must we dig around, often deperately, for the one thing that seperates it from a summit protest riot in order to differentiate them, thus making one acceptable, the other not?

The unabomber was an individual who targeted individuals in a campaign of 'terror'. Where he comes into all of this i don't know beyond a red herring. (Or is this what you people call a straw man?)

 

[Random]

What we are still left with though is the strasbourg riot having all the ingredients of a summit protest. Is this coincidental? More impoprtantly must we dig around, often deperately, for the one thing that seperates it from a summit protest riot in order to differentiate them, thus making one acceptable, the other not?

It clearly doesn't have 'all the ingredients of a summit protest'. So we don't need to dig, and so the differences are staring us in the face. I could, as easily say, that you are 'digging' for similarities.

Anarchists, socialists, fascists, etc all call demonstrations, some of which turn into confrontations. Does that mean that all the ingredients are the same?

 

[montevideo]

It clearly doesn't have 'all the ingredients of a summit protest'. So we don't need to dig, and so the differences are staring us in the face. I could, as easily say, that you are 'digging' for similarities.

Anarchists, socialists, fascists, etc all call demonstrations, some of which turn into confrontations. Does that mean that all the ingredients are the same?

clearly it does.

 

[Random]

clearly it does.

Clearly it doesn't

 

[In Bloom]

What we are still left with though is the strasbourg riot having all the ingredients of a summit protest.

The Strassbourg riots might have many things in common with a summit protest, but one thing that summit protests lack that the Strassbourg riots did have is that the Strassbourg riots were part of an existing struggle with concrete demands, as opposed to being something entirely artificial. Summit protests are created by people looking for something to protest about, grief seekers, to borrow from another poster here

 

[montevideo]

The Strassbourg riots might have many things in common with a summit protest, but one thing that summit protests lack that the Strassbourg riots did have is that the Strassbourg riots were part of an existing struggle with concrete demands, as opposed to being something entirely artificial. Summit protests are created by people looking for something to protest about, grief seekers, to borrow from another poster here

just so we're clear i meant summit protest riot (as made clear from the sentences that followed). Of course the riot in strasbourg started off as a regular a to b march, the organisers weren't expecting a riot & roundly condemned those who did riot.

Summit protests, in europe anyhow (when it comes to the english doin' summat we all know where we stand), are always made up of trade unions, workers & the like. If cobas heard you describe them as grief seekers (nice phrase) they'd probably have something to say about it.

 

[catch]

precisely.

well not really

We have no desire to lobby those in power; we do not want a seat at their table. We stand in opposition to their very existence. In a world where eight men can affect the lives of millions - causing untold destruction and suffering - the freedom, autonomy and self-organisation we are struggling for can never exist. The G8 was created to allow capitalism to show a unified face against great opposition, to gloss over the cracks caused by popular resistance. It is the system behind this mask that we aim to destroy - capitalism.

During the G8 summit, we can collectively focus our struggles, allowing us to share our power of resistance and realise aspects of the new world we hold in our hearts. Around the planet these struggles take many forms - from opposing international institutions, corporations, the nation state, or government from the highest level to oppression in our schools, workplaces and in our communities. They come from diverse places and experiences, but they are unified in resistance.]

clear message and immediate demands not present unfortunately.

 

[montevideo]

well not really

clear message and immediate demands not present unfortunately.

Workers rioting to ask mep's to vote their way - you mini-me marxists are some mixed up kids.

 

[soulman]

well not really

clear message and immediate demands not present unfortunately.

What makes you think a riot or any other form of direct, unmediated resistance has to have a message or demands that are clear to our rulers?

 

[In Bloom]

What makes you think a riot or any other form of direct, unmediated resistance has to have a message or demands that are clear to our rulers?

Well it is kind of useful if you want to achieve something.

 

[Random]

<rises to the bait>

What makes you think a riot or any other form of direct, unmediated resistance has to have a message or demands that are clear to our rulers?

Directly resisting what? If you riot and stop a place getting evicted, that's direct resistance. If you riot and stop a law, etc, that's direct resistance. If you riot against capitalism, then what are you directly resisting?

[if you're a real situ, then you've got to answer 'boredom' at this point, btw ]

 

[montevideo]

<rises to the bait>



Directly resisting what? If you riot and stop a place getting evicted, that's direct resistance. If you riot and stop a law, etc, that's direct resistance. If you riot against capitalism, then what are you directly resisting?

[if you're a real situ, then you've got to answer 'boredom' at this point, btw ]

riots are physically contested territorial space. What riots symbolically constitute, political ones at least, are collective expressions of the de-legitimacy of those who retain power, & how they seek to wield that power. What riots seek to create then is a moment of rupture that destroys the facade of that legitimacy. Which is why i suspect anarchists & working class people know the value of a good riot, whereas others simply bemoan its afterthought.

 

[dennisr]

riots are physically contested territorial space ... working class people know the value ...

are you doing some sort of academic thesis on this?

from my limited experience the vast majority of working class people concously avoid the sort of idiot who would come out with such absolute tosh. I don't think the dockers would thank you for your 'support'

working class people - or whoever - riot when all other avenues of protest are cut off - out of desperation and anger. They are also the ones who have to clean up the mess afterwards and tend to be the ones who have thier 'contested territorial spaces' destroyed. Riot fantasists like you tend to come along afterwards and act the arse in the wake of real events. I don't have a morale for or against position on 'rioting' as a method of improving ones lot. its perfectly understandable in some situations - but i am very, very wary of (usually very comfortable ...) folk who would come out with such purile crap ...

 

[montevideo]

are you doing some sort of academic thesis on this?

from my limited experience the vast majority of working class people concously avoid the sort of idiot who would come out with such absolute tosh. I don't think the dockers would thank you for your 'support'

working class people - or whoever - riot when all other avenues of protest are cut off - out of desperation and anger. They are also the ones who have to clean up the mess afterwards and tend to be the ones who have thier 'contested territorial spaces' destroyed. Riot fantasists like you tend to come along afterwards and act the arse in the wake of real events. I don't have a morale for or against position on 'rioting' as a method of improving ones lot. its perfectly understandable in some situations - but i am very, very wary of (usually very comfortable ...) folk who would come out with such purile crap ...

i agree riots are acts of desperation, neither are they solutions, but then i'm not saying they are.

Doing an academic thesis? With these hands?

 

[Random]

i agree riots are acts of desperation, neither are they solutions, but then i'm not saying they are.

Oh come on! If you're going with the 'riot as carnival' thing at least do it with conviction!

And you had a blatand opportunity to slip the knife between dennisr's ribs over APTU and Traf Sq.

Now get back in there -- and KILL KILL KILL!

 

[montevideo]

Oh come on! If you're going with the 'riot as carnival' thing at least do it with conviction!

And you had a blatand opportunity to slip the knife between dennisr's ribs over APTU and Traf Sq.

Now get back in there -- and KILL KILL KILL!

i've no idea what any of that means. Am i clint easterwood, or the other one?

 

[sovietpop]

with those hands? the other one, obviously.

 

[soulman]

<rises to the bait>



Directly resisting what? If you riot and stop a place getting evicted, that's direct resistance. If you riot and stop a law, etc, that's direct resistance. If you riot against capitalism, then what are you directly resisting?

[if you're a real situ, then you've got to answer 'boredom' at this point, btw ]

I'm too poor to be a real situ, and the answer's 'alienation'

Serious point tho, as people find more and more avenues of 'democratic' protest cut off - not just the redundant parliamentary avenue, but also extra parliamentary avenues - and the increasing alienation in everyday life, not just in the workplace becomes more acute the more the likelihood of these explosions of unmediated rage. It's all very well for professionals - politicians, community leaders, the police and so on to try to attach demands to rioters actions but what do the rioters themselves want? Nothing, everything, an end to feeling shit about an everyday life that is shit. If I was a situ I could probably insert a nice snappy slogan here. Something like "DOWN WITH A WORLD WHERE THE GUARANTEE THAT WE WON'T DIE OF STARVATION HAS BEEN PURCHASED WITH THE GUARANTEE THAT WE WILL DIE OF BOREDOM"

 

[Random]

Euro-situs say 'alienation' because they're all stuffed full of Marx. Anglo-Situs say 'boredom' because we're from a philistine, utilitarian culture

I agree with you about demanding everything and nothing, btw. I'm too situationaist to be a situationaist.