Is rioting counter prductive?

[muckypup]

There's nothing like a good politically oriented riot to get the spirit of community flowing again.

Fucking hell we live in an age of so many laws and regulations which effectively prevent us from coming together as a community that a good riot is well and truly in order.

Besides its bloody good fun and a bit of looting from morrisons would come in handy

 

[cantsin]

So are you disputing that it's a bloody silly thing to say?

And do you not think speculations about my private life should be kept to PM (if they should happen at all)?

another TOTAL PLANK making a nuisance of himself round here - depressing stuff

 

[bluestreak]

another TOTAL PLANK making a nuisance of himself round here - depressing stuff

a big thing to say for someone with 11 posts. why not add something to the debate eh rather than ad hominems.

 

[Onket]

another TOTAL PLANK making a nuisance of himself round here - depressing stuff

Kindly explain what the fuck you think you are on about, you utter cunt.

 

[dennisr]

Besides its bloody good fun and a bit of looting from morrisons would come in handy

Its all me, me, me with some folk

 

[cantsin]

Kindly explain what the fuck you think you are on about, you utter cunt.

as I had had a lager or two when this was written , I've had to go back thru the thread to try and work out what it was I was in fact on about , but to be honest , am now non the wiser - think I've confused you with someone else (having looked at another thread I , er , 'contributed' to ) - apologies

 

[TopCat]

The poll tax riot scared the state for sure. I laugh at the folk here saying it was 200 scruffs..

There was over 10,000 people actually fighting all day. At 2am 2000 re grouped and had yet another charge on downing st.

Cracking day. A real topping to Class Wars long campaign of polarising confrontations with the police. That they were proved right really pissed of the paper selling left too.

 

[Stobart Stopper]

The poll tax riot scared the state for sure. I laugh at the folk here saying it was 200 scruffs..

There was over 10,000 people actually fighting all day. At 2am 2000 re grouped and had yet another charge on downing st.

Cracking day. A real topping to Class Wars long campaign of polarising confrontations with the police. That they were proved right really pissed of the paper selling left too.

Pig was working that, but he can't remember the 2am thing at Downing St, he said they were all sitting around drinking tea. (the cops not the rioters)

 

[Onket]

as I had had a lager or two when this was written , I've had to go back thru the thread to try and work out what it was I was in fact on about , but to be honest , am now non the wiser - think I've confused you with someone else (having looked at another thread I , er , 'contributed' to ) - apologies

Ok, I withdraw the 'utter cunt' statement then!

 

[yokerist]

rioting= bringing the critique off the paper/empty words and into reality.

it is never counter productive imho even if it is "politically vain" as is often levelled at such upheavels as the the recent uprisings in france or the dublin orange march fiasco/outrage/post modern disturbia.

it does however often play into the hands of the state ie in ireland there is a government plan afoot to upgrade cctv in major town centres and the prevention of riots such as occurred in dublin.

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/74507

however this cctv ting was an inevitability and every action against capital & state leads to a repressive response!!!!

 

[bluestreak]

I'd have thought the tightening up of protest laws was a more direct response to the poll-tax riots, etc. So I'd say, yep, riots are counter-productive...

i love this sort of argement. i guess in the old days there was a gentleman's agreement of some sort, you know, we won't riot if they don't pass stupid laws that loads of people don't want.

 

[october_lost]

i love this sort of argement. i guess in the old days there was a gentleman's agreement of some sort, you know, we won't riot if they don't pass stupid laws that loads of people don't want.

The fact that they pass a law to prevent collective action proves they fear the public, and as usual liberals theorise and put it in a completely wrong context.

 

[The Black Hand]

sometimes its better to push back - polarise the questions - before the other side gets carried away. Think of it as a sort of 'virtual self-defence' - but not a particularly heated one

In the case of the traf sq riot one had to both defend the self-defence element while carefully avoiding the trap being laid by the media of wanting to show the riot was what the 'extremist' organisers intended or wanted to provoke themselves. That was all sheridan was - maybe clumsily but nethertheless legitimately - trying to do. Despite this obvious fact ejets repeat the rubbish as 'fact'. There was not reason to 'discipline' him - certainly not at the behest of those who remain irrelevent - either the armchair 'revolutionary critics' or the type of anarchist who also claim rioting is a sufficient act in and of itself.



which is what the original comments I made express - you initially said i went "far to far" - i was countering a popular illusion among certain anarcho/leftie types who mistake necessary self-defence as being the same as violence for the sake of it. I think one has to be clear and sharp on that point.

I think you in your first post, maybe unintentionally, muddied the waters for your own reasons and i'm glad you have clarified (above) but still cannot see how this ties in with your earlier view that the riot (as opposed to the mass demo) was an important factor in secureing the defeat of the poll tax? Just ended up with a lot of dissappointed folk being sent down. I would condemn those who stand on the sidelines cheering while these folk naively left themselves open to being done. And lets make my view clear - I am not angry with them for rioting (even if I don't think it was too clever what they were doing and will say so) - I am angry they were in effect being used in an attempt to discredit the anti poll tax movement (conciously by some - unconciously by others).

I've avoided commenting but I will say; The Millies thought they owned that movement, behaving as the arrogant turds some of them were, packing meetings, giving themselves positions etc, and not trying to enable people to organise themselves. Plus stuff in their paper calling CW 'agent provacoteurs' (similar to the SWP calling the Black Bloc) or some such nonsense.

Far from being exceptional Sheridans comment was part of their role of Policing the anti poll tax social movement for the state, and their 'workers state' in waiting.

The run up to the big riot at Trafalgar Square was preceeded by many smaller riots preceeding it, which Militant had no control of either. To say that the mass movement was more important than the rioting is not only wrong, it takes the 'struggle' part away from "Class struggle". Conflict is necessary for class struggle, without conflict you are liberals.

 

[northernhord]

Nowt wrong with rioting, look at the Poll Tax riots, a good turn out, plenty of rich folks cars and shops smashed up and the poll tax scrapped.

 

[Threshers_Flail]

I have to say that it depends on the circumstances. A riot benefits the police and gives them the higher morale grounding in the eyes of the general public. Yet such an act of protest as a riot does increase the level of media attention substantially.

 

[ska invita]

Originally Posted by niksativa:
40 years on I think its fair to say he was right - authority has greatly increased its capacity to repress and police - and in direct response to each act of violence against it.

This would have happened anyway.

Not sure that is so - I think riot police tactics, gear and funding increase in relation to real incidents. However, its probably true that as time passes and technology and resources become available there is a natural tendency for states to become more sophisticated in their methods of repression.

It could also be argued that the biggest motor for all technological advance/state sophistication comes from off-shoots of the military industrial complex - which trickles down directly into policing. State warring has parralels with the policing/rioting model.

The result is folk do not learn a basic lesson in how to defeat repressive laws rather than how to express their anger (but often end up reinforcing in repressive laws)

Which is a crucial point - I think I agree that a riot can achieve some limited short term goals, but once the anger subsides state repression increases to better prevent future acts and oppress in general.

Therefore the options are:
i.) do not support rioting, but concentrate on better organisation including other acts of non-violent civil disobedience (as in mass nonpayment in the poll tax)
or
ii.) go all out the other way and, as Attica says, enter into a perpetual state of rioting.

I think that secret desire inside some that 'if only there were more riots we would have a revolution' is naive - unless there was widespread support for rioters amongst the majority of the public (which requires the hard work of building real social movements) regular rioting would simply force the state to bring in martial law and crush the opposition, with the complicit support of the majority.

I would also argue that civil disobedience of a less destructive type is more effective than rioting - suffragettes willingly going to jail was a great example of this. This requires the radicalisation of those not normally assosciated with law breaking (which is the real taboo-breaking punch of rioting), which in turn requires real political organisation.
Rioting in Chile this week, for example, has clear political weight behind it, and is all the more worth it as it threatens the legitimacy of the current government:
This weeks riots in Chile>>>

By contrast rioting without deeper political support (as in LA riots, Brixton/Tottenham riots, Paris riots) at best provokes some moderate reforms, but ultimately strengthens the state position - both in terms of equipment/techniques, and in legitimising repression by caliming to protect a fearful public.

 

[The Black Hand]

It could also be argued that the biggest motor for all technological advance/state sophistication comes from off-shoots of the military industrial complex - which trickles down directly into policing. State warring has parralels with the policing/rioting model.

Which is a crucial point - I think I agree that a riot can achieve some limited short term goals, but once the anger subsides state repression increases to better prevent future acts and oppress in general.
Therefore the options are:
i.) do not support rioting, but concentrate on better organisation including other acts of non-violent civil disobedience (as in mass nonpayment in the poll tax)
or
ii.) go all out the other way and, as Attica says, enter into a perpetual state of rioting.

I think that secret desire inside some that 'if only there were more riots we would have a revolution' is naive - unless there was widespread support for rioters amongst the majority of the public (which requires the hard work of building real social movements) regular rioting would simply force the state to bring in martial law and crush the opposition, with the complicit support of the majority.

I would also argue that civil disobedience of a less destructive type is more effective than rioting - suffragettes willingly going to jail was a great example of this. This requires the radicalisation of those not normally assosciated with law breaking (which is the real taboo-breaking punch of rioting), which in turn requires real political organisation.
Rioting in Chile this week, for example, has clear political weight behind it, and is all the more worth it as it threatens the legitimacy of the current government.

By contrast rioting without deeper political support (as in LA riots, Brixton/Tottenham riots, Paris riots) at best provokes some moderate reforms, but ultimately strengthens the state position - both in terms of equipment/techniques, and in legitimising repression by caliming to protect a fearful public.

Just a few points, a discussion of the ins and outs of political strategy divorced from the wider class struggle, and i am including trade unions here, is not worth anything. AS for the Suffragettes they also broke the laws and ran away, a position I have empathy for.

What I will not do is condemn people for their class consciousness and fighting back when they feel the need to. The left does this over and over again, and the liberals.

The state is ALWAYS tooling up, there is not one period where it has gone the other way, so to say that rioters strengthen the states hand simply is NOT true. The widespread rioting I am thinking of is that surrounding the poll tax, that is the 'towards revolution' model I think... Unrelated rioting of course does not strengthen overall class consciousness, though it does express the local class consciousness surrounding a particular issue.

 

[urbanrevolt]

Good post Attica- agree with everything here.

Only point I'd make is not all the left condemn fighting back- but enough do to justify your comments.

As for niksativa comment "i.) do not support rioting, but concentrate on better organisation including other acts of non-violent civil disobedience (as in mass nonpayment in the poll tax)"

We should actively organise for nonviolent civil disobedience, yes, but also make active steps to defend ourselves- and support the right of organised self-defence.

Of course that also includes tactics such as discipline, democratic stewarding, proper legal defence etc but under certain conditions people have the right and sometimes have to fight back- self-defence is no offence
or

 

[october_lost]

Very good post Attica