Violent anti-G8-protests in Rostock....Yay or Nay ?

[Fuchs66]

First of all calling Rostock a city is stretching the definition a tad and as for congratulating the people of Rostock as someone has, I think you'll find most of the locals are busy protecting the windows that aren't already boarded up.

As for the effect of the riots, although I do get the feeling that the authorities have fucked up in managing the situation and have seemingly aggravated what could have been a fairly peaceful protest, in the latest opinion polls here the majority of Germans are for a blanket ban on protests, pretty much a reversal of opinions.

 

[TAE]

It would help if the media didn't believe everything the cops tell them.

As for the violence, geez the authorities were almost begging for a violent response given their antics in the run-up to these protests, but I don't think a bit of low level stone throwing achieves anything (apart from pissing people off) - a solid peaceful street blockade will do more for public opinion I think.

 

[Xipe Totec]

Violent and peaceful demonstrations are simply tactics adopted; there is no reason why they should not be complementary.

Mass demonstrations can be used to register dissatisfaction with the political summit. Targeted and effective property damage can be used to maximise the economic cost to the host city.

This places the authorities in a difficult situation, requiring very different reactions. They are trapped between two horns with little margin for error and heavy consequences if they make the wrong choice.

I think this strategy can be adopted beyond the periodic protest event though.
"Between the anvil of united mass action and the hammer of the armed struggle, we shall crush apartheid" said Nelson Mandela.
This dialectic approach has proven to be extremely successful in numerous campaigns, and would only be more so now when individuals and cells can have such an enormous impact.

A systems disruption campaign against vital infrastructure coupled with terrorist attacks on economic targets would expose just how fragile the system is.

 

[grogwilton]

I dont think you can compare a situation like South Africa to the G8.

That was a dictatorship for a majority black population, where armed struggle (armed struggle with AKs and RPGs, not a bit of rock throwing) could be seen as a legitimate response to dictatorship. The liberal democracy is (in the minds of the german public) completely different. The last time someone tried to use a 'hammer' in the german public sphere, it was the RAF, who achieved precisely fuck all besides killing a few wankers and encouraging anti far left feeling and state repression.

The host city quite honestly couldnt give a shit about property damage. They can be given the cost 100 times over by the G8. Violent protest yes, at times whent its necessary and comes from within a community and has community support, not when its just 2000 bussed in european anarchists letting off a bit of steam.

In the history of european bougeiose democracies, and even Tsarist Russia, terrorist action against targets, economic or otherwise have provoked exactly the opposite response to the one you suggest. There are no quick fix solutions, only lengthy and sustained grass roots campaigning.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

"Between the anvil of united mass action and the hammer of the armed struggle, we shall crush apartheid" said Nelson Mandela.

There's some sense in what your post says about what these demos can achieve. But Mandela was in a slightly different position: The vast majority of South Africans were natural allies for his aspirations, whereas the vast majority of people under capitalism are accepting of it, even cheerleaders for it. The ANC won free elections when they had the chance (before selling out to the capitalists anyway). In Europe, parties strongly opposed to G8 strategy tend to do badly. Ugly but true.

 

[Xipe Totec]

Another thought: Intentionally holding these G8 events in cities (rather than away from the public gaze) - so the hooligan element can alienate themselves from the mainstream in front of as many cameras as possible - seems to be a pro-capitalism tactic that's working very well.

Lambs to the media slaughter.

The 'violent protestor' image can be countered with that of the 'heavy handed cop'.
It makes more sense to neutralise their propoganda advantage with an equivilency rather than to try and stop the violence.

And the police will always be at a disadvantge as they will have to contend with both violent and peaceful protesters with much the force.

The image of militarised police cracking down on a peaceful demonstration has the potential to tip the scales in the propoganda war.

 

[Xipe Totec]

There's some sense in what your post says about what these demos can achieve. But Mandela was in a slightly different position: The vast majority of South Africans were natural allies for his aspirations, whereas the vast majority of people under capitalism are accepting of it, even cheerleaders for it. The ANC won free elections when they had the chance (before selling out to the capitalists anyway). In Europe, parties strongly opposed to G8 strategy tend to do badly. Ugly but true.

I look at it as a population pyramid.

My post earlier was simply the top of the pyramid, with peaceful protesters forming the bulk of it, anarchists/violent protesters above and an extreme minority who would be willing to resort to terrorism.

I wasn't talking about the population at large, but they would form a larger pyramid. The above pyramid would be the top, a subsection of maybe 20% of the population with progressive views who would support the movement and the remainder of the population disinterested and apathetic.

I think that this upper 20% of society should be targeted primarily, as they can have a great impact when mobilised by becoming activists, contacting local politicians and influencing their social groups.

This is what I was getting at with the 'good cop/bad cop' approach at the protests; the extremists can push beyond the imposed boundaries of discussion, simultaneously making the mass protesters seem more reasonable. If the protesters could improve their image to look more respectable (eg less filthy hippies and more union workers, guys in suits) I think people would triangulate their opinions to become net favourable to the movement as a whole, even with the violence.

From there the political discourse would shift, and the politicians and rest of the population would follow (I don't know which first - "I must see which way the crowd is headed, for I am their leader.")

And of course people accept the current system. It works and its human nature to abide by it while it does. Replacing the current system is a different (and much harder) problem. For this thread I think we should talk about negating the present system rather than positing a new one.

However, regarding your comments on the selling out of the ANC, EU parties; I think the situation is slightly different.
These parties have people genuinely concerned about improving the lives of their citizens (as proved by their actions), and yet they did accept a profoundly unfair system. This is due to the system however: global capital markets set the rules and cannot be opposed by nations states anymore.

This is why I think it's important to specifically target these institutions directly, as they are weak when opposed from outside of the rules that they set.

 

[jæd]

For this thread I think we should talk about negating the present system rather than positing a new one..

No-one will ever shift to a new system unless it has better benefits than the one it replaces. Until you come up with a better system all the protests will be pointless...

 

[Xipe Totec]

I dont think you can compare a situation like South Africa to the G8.

That was a dictatorship for a majority black population, where armed struggle (armed struggle with AKs and RPGs, not a bit of rock throwing) could be seen as a legitimate response to dictatorship. The liberal democracy is (in the minds of the german public) completely different. The last time someone tried to use a 'hammer' in the german public sphere, it was the RAF, who achieved precisely fuck all besides killing a few wankers and encouraging anti far left feeling and state repression.

The host city quite honestly couldnt give a shit about property damage. They can be given the cost 100 times over by the G8. Violent protest yes, at times whent its necessary and comes from within a community and has community support, not when its just 2000 bussed in european anarchists letting off a bit of steam.

In the history of european bougeiose democracies, and even Tsarist Russia, terrorist action against targets, economic or otherwise have provoked exactly the opposite response to the one you suggest. There are no quick fix solutions, only lengthy and sustained grass roots campaigning.

There are no quick fixes to improve society as you say, but the violence I'm advocating pertains to simply brining down a system, which is much easier.

I'm emphatically not talking about mindless destruction. Critical economic infrastructure is very vulnerable, and when attacked by small indigenous cells it's impossible to defend. Global Guerillas has more information on this.

This is also why attacking the police or other implements of the state is not productive. This is not only attacking the strongest point of the system, but pointless: nation states have been rendered beholden to the global capital networks like bots in a network.
It is necessary to attack these markets themselves, such as by targeting specific TNCs and the structures they need to operate, making it impossible for speculators to invest and derive wealth.

They set the law and rig the game in their favour; by operating outside the law, their soft underbelly is exposed. Opposing them legally is a futile task (though necessary in the propoganda war). However, by opposing them with economic terrorism they will fold quickly.

As for the risks of provoking a reaction opposite to that desired, I that shouldn't be the case if handled properly.

The direct action/terrorist campaign should specifially target economic interests, not the general public. When significantly damaged, global capital would apply immense pressure on governments to suppress troublesome citizens. However if the propoganda war is successful this will be met with apathy at best by the population at large. The amount of repressive legislature they could sneak through would be dwarfed by the damage rendered by the disruption; the system would collapse before they could enact an effective clampdown.

 

[Psychonaut]

If your fighting against the system, your still trapped inside it.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

I look at it as a population pyramid.

My post earlier was simply the top of the pyramid, with peaceful protesters forming the bulk of it, anarchists/violent protesters above and an extreme minority who would be willing to resort to terrorism.

I wasn't talking about the population at large, but they would form a larger pyramid. The above pyramid would be the top, a subsection of maybe 20% of the population with progressive views who would support the movement and the remainder of the population disinterested and apathetic.

I think that this upper 20% of society should be targeted primarily, as they can have a great impact when mobilised by becoming activists, contacting local politicians and influencing their social groups.

This is what I was getting at with the 'good cop/bad cop' approach at the protests; the extremists can push beyond the imposed boundaries of discussion, simultaneously making the mass protesters seem more reasonable. If the protesters could improve their image to look more respectable (eg less filthy hippies and more union workers, guys in suits) I think people would triangulate their opinions to become net favourable to the movement as a whole, even with the violence.

From there the political discourse would shift, and the politicians and rest of the population would follow (I don't know which first - "I must see which way the crowd is headed, for I am their leader.")

And of course people accept the current system. It works and its human nature to abide by it while it does. Replacing the current system is a different (and much harder) problem. For this thread I think we should talk about negating the present system rather than positing a new one.

However, regarding your comments on the selling out of the ANC, EU parties; I think the situation is slightly different.
These parties have people genuinely concerned about improving the lives of their citizens (as proved by their actions), and yet they did accept a profoundly unfair system. This is due to the system however: global capital markets set the rules and cannot be opposed by nations states anymore.

This is why I think it's important to specifically target these institutions directly, as they are weak when opposed from outside of the rules that they set.

Interesting stuff. I think targetting the top 20% general population as you describe happened at Scotland G8 2005. The MPH movement (IMHO) was largely failed, though many lessons would have been learned and Kipling was right to say we should "treat the imposters of success and failure the same".

MPH did a well good-cop fluffy operation and immediately got co-opted by Labour who then used it for their own propaganda but failing to get decent results in the end. Most people just remember the fancy smug gig now, not the failure.

It was actually the cynical and dangerous Gordon Brown MP who saw how many were comming to Scotland so actually INVITED them to march, effectively making that movement government sponored. It also gave a diversion from the actual Gleneagles event itself.

And it marked the death of any credibility Geldolf and Bono might have retained. Again, they achieved knacker all and to be fair Geldolf has said he was disappointed. But at the time I remember him on TV with Blair saying "no one has done more for the cause than THIS man" - that is an incredible adulation from an iconic figure. Very powerful, very negative and very wrong.

What an insult to the tireless work of nameless 10s of thousands for the inspidid criminal Blair to jump on top of and exploit.

I wonder if the failure of MPH instigated another round of "activist fatigue" on top of the Iraq hangover.

The Sterling camp however was a raging success IMO, though the target of shutting down G8 wasnt met: Traffic disruption and the famous bad behaviour of a few hundred black blockers was about it. All put an end to rather quickly by 7/7 of course.

Where that means "the movement" should go now Im still thinking about but this thread is a great help I guess everyone has their local campaigns and parties.

I think there are people out there waiting to be engaged but retention is always difficult, especially when effecting positive change in the face of the behemoth can be so seemingly rare.

 

[Main Street]

Can't help thinking oh how I would love to be there and if I lived in Europe still I probably would have gone.

I was in Genoa, and the lesson that I learnt is that I could not go on living my life as I had done prior to those G8 protests.

Now well, I work mon to friday and I am happy with my lot for the most part but certainly not happy about other things. I think protest in its many forms is the way to change the world. In addition I think that the violence seen in Germany so far also has its place. Compare the violence of the protestors to the shit going down in Iraq by the British army/US. Now that is violence.

What about the violence of poverty and the desperation that causes.

There's a danger that violence from protestors/Black Bloc deters other protestors but I see them as an army really. An army fighting against capitalism. Spitting in a woman's face - not good. Alienating possible allies - not good. How do we get rid of capitalism? Mobilizing (Black Bloc are doing this?) Organizing to counter capitalism and live alternatives (co-ops), reform the ballot box, or will crisis and environmental catastrophe bring it on. Capitalism has got to go.

Sets alarm clock for an early night for work tomorrow.

 

[In Bloom]

Seattle,Genoa and Prague didnt actually achieve anything though did they? Other then getting the arguments in the news.

The others did, because it was seen that people who were not normally involved in protest, and who made up a majority or significant minority of their community to actually frighten the establishment. The riots that take place at G8 protests dont actually scare the establishment as they correctly realise that its just the sum of europes anarchists, when compared to the european population its tiny.

Dont get me wrong, im not saying violence never achieves anthing, it does, but only in certain situations, and just getting everyone in europe who's up for a ruck in one place and then having a ruck, whilst it may be fun, isnt going to change anything anyitme soon. Im not against people doing it, i just dont do it because I dont think it'll achieve that much.

'zaktly

I'd go even further, riots can play a useful role sometimes, but even so, focusing on the riots, is a mistake. It wasn't the riots that stopped the poll tax, but the mass movement of people refusing to pay.

Beneath the pavement, a spectacle

 

[biff curtains]

Well I was in the "Black Block" section of the protest on Saturday, and it was us what started it (to a large extent) - supported by many of the left and liberals who in the UK would have opposed our actions, but on saturday were mostly supportive.

The fact is that the german cops panicked and lost control as soon as the first brick was hurled, charging willy nilly in small groups into the crowd indiscimintaly attacking and violently arresting "peaceful" and black block alike, charging around the surrounding housing estate completely randomly.

It was one nil to the anarchists and we haven´t even started yet - wait until wednesday!

As for nazi elements yes it´s true that the relative success and strength of the left in Germany has led to them aping some of it´s clothes and slogans - but there was no far right participation in Rostock, a few local nazis appeared on the fringes shouting abuse at cops and protestors alike but they were more interested in drinking beer and watching. None of them were dressed in any other style than traditional skinhead look.

As for the poster above criticising the German left over Israel/Palestine, their favourite slogan is smash zionism and anti-semitism, which seems perfectly logical to me from a class-struggle perspective. It makes sense for nazis to unite with the lunatic islamist fringe, the two ideologies are not that different and they have a common enemy.

 

[biff curtains]

As for the reports in the German media, it entirely serves the interest of capital and state to try and divide the protestors, it makes sense for their patsies in the leadership of the NGOs and Die Linke to blame us. But what of the opinions of their thousands of rank and file supporters?

Do you think the german public are so stupid to believe a universally despised politico like Joschka Fischer over the evidence of their own eyes?

 

[goldenecitrone]

Do you think the german public are so stupid to believe a universally despised politico like Joschka Fischer over the evidence of their own eyes?

I thought Joschka Fischer had one of the highest popularity ratings of any politician in Germany. Anyway, to all the protesters over there-

'Mach die Bullen, Platt wie Stullen!'

 

[kyser_soze]

The French Revolution successful? Surely much more was achieved during the terror in terms of making sure the population got exactly what liberte, egalite and fraternite meants and if they disagreed imprisoning or executing them.

Several others have made the point - until there is massive cross demographic support for any progressive alternative to capitalism protests like this, peaceful or otherwise, are a pointless excercise, and rioting is simply the chance for some macho posturing as evidenced by Biff Curtains, for the Tories to get foamed up about more retrictions on civil liberties and for the liberals to wring their hands.

 

[Belushi]

The French Revolution successful?

 

[Luther Blissett]

duplicate post

 

[Luther Blissett]

duplicate post!

 

[Luther Blissett]

The French Revolution successful? Surely much more was achieved during the terror in terms of making sure the population got exactly what liberte, egalite and fraternite meants and if they disagreed imprisoning or executing them.

Several others have made the point - until there is massive cross demographic support for any progressive alternative to capitalism protests like this, peaceful or otherwise, are a pointless excercise, and rioting is simply the chance for some macho posturing as evidenced by Biff Curtains, for the Tories to get foamed up about more retrictions on civil liberties and for the liberals to wring their hands.

Ain't it so.

Don't know any violent anarchos - every single one is pacifist - it's a fundamental aspect of anarchist philosophy that freedom from domination cannot involve dominating another, even a capitalist or a policeman. There are plenty of miniscule marxist-revolutionary groups who like to lob things. For example, in bombers in Greece were incorrectly described as 'anarchist' in the media, but are associated with Nov17, a marxist-revolutionary communist group in reality, and Xipe Totec just lumped 'anarchist' with 'violence' in one simple 'anarchist/violent protestors' - that's how easy it is to label unidentifiable protestors as 'anarchists' in the visual and written media.

In Genoa, at least two genuine anarchists went on record as decrying the destruction of violent/riotous protestors, one - a street sweeper adorned with a crash-helmet who gently challenged the Italian police about their heavy-handed tactics (policeman replied - "ask them why all this" (pointing to the trashed street-furniture), and another anarchist who clearly pointed out that since there is no personal property in anarchist methodology, then smashing the street where the community 'commune', shops/street furniture/etc, is against our principles.

So who are these out of control people with their planned-violent tendencies? And why should that be considered anarchism?

 

[Brainaddict]

If your fighting against the system, your still trapped inside it.

Everyone is trapped inside it whether they like it or not, unless they go and live in a cave and eat wild root vegetables and roast rat, so that's a bit of a pointless thing to say isn't it?

 

[kyser_soze]

it's a fundamental aspect of anarchist philosophy that freedom from domination cannot involve dominating another, even a capitalist or a policeman

Hmm, I've raised this argument before with anarchists around here - how can you hope to actually change society when your medium for change is to continue to use violence and conflict, the two key markers of capitalism's methid of dealing with dissent; that you can't build a peaceful society out of violent change (ultimately the use of violence to achieve peace tacitly says that violence is still the final arbiter, not peaceful discussion...

 

[Idaho]

These groups of rioters are just the same as football gangs. They go for a fighting holiday and dress it up with spurious politics. It's just a sub-culture. Nothing really to do with politics.

There definately is a place for violent protest. But not in some other country against an ill-defined and in an abstract cause.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

you will find some more footage of the riots at http://www.spiegel.de under "multimedia" -> "krawalle in rostock" in the middle of the page (not top left - just scroll down). it's in german but the scenes a very impressive.

english equiverlent articuel

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,486330,00.html

and photos...

http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/0,5538,PB64-SUQ9MjIxMDMmbnI9MQ_3_3,00.html

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

So who are these out of control people with their planned-violent tendencies? And why should that be considered anarchism?

it's the double headed hydra of anarchism; the those who have an intellgent informed opinion arachism is the highest form of politics available, with personal responsiblity and culpabiltiy taking the paramount form.

to society at a large however, anarchism is lack of law or lawlessness and chaos.

This dualitly of defintiton is the main problem; anarchy is synoimous with what's happened in iraq, which is arguably anarchy under the second defintition but not under the poltical one.

perhaps we should seek to lable anarchy of this type as black bloc tactic and attempt to reclaim anarchy only for the poltical process except that the poltical process kind prevents by it's definitive lack of defintition the right to exert sole ownership of the name...

hence then diffculty...

until anarchy is taught in schools along side aprty poltics then you are never goign to unblur the edges....

 

[Jografer]

Condemning this sort of violence is counter revolutionary.

dontcha just love kids...

 

[bluestreak]

If your fighting against the system, your still trapped inside it.

whereas if you're not fighting the system, you're part of it.

there is a time and a place for violence. however we are never going to agree when it is. let each justify their own stance and do their own thing. all of us who wish to remove or reform capitalism are the enemies of capitalism. we will be lied about, misrepresented, sneered at, attacked, undermined and divided against each other. the system will do whatever it takes to hang on to power, it will not reform willingly unless it absolutely has to, and it will not strike camp and sneak off in the middle of the night. globalisation has pushed the true workers of the world into the margins, a majority almost unseen in the opulent west. thus in this day and age it appears to be in the interests of all but the lowest on the rung that they support capitalism. so we need to educate as well as fight, numbers and power are not on our side. if you can justify violence use violence.

 

[biff curtains]

Anyone who thinks throwing bricks at the police who are defending the mass murdering scumbags of the G8 leadership is violent is sorely mistaken. How is to violent to try and disrupt a meeting where the attendees are planning how to continue to pillage the resources of everyone else (including us)?

Of course it may not be the best tactic at all times, but in terms of making an impact and attracting attention to our struggle it is useful.

As for pacifism the working class can afford to be pacifist once the final oppresor has been strangled with the entrails of the last tout.

 

[biff curtains]

If your fighting against the system, your still trapped inside it.

What does this even mean? Seriously maybe there is a place for meaningless platitiudes but it is probably in a cookie in a chinese restaurant in San Francisco.