Well, I'm no SWP member, but I do remember that after the great anti-poll tax riot in London in 1990 the SWP refused to denounce those who physically resisted the police. They supported peoples right to self defence. Militant (then a large trotskyist group in the Labour party) did threaten to denounce 'anarchists'to the police. However, the SWP actually defended Class War member Andy Murphy when he was victimised by his employers. So a more measured view is needed.
As for your confusion of groups like the wombles with the black block, this just shows your ignorance. The wombles are trying to impliment an assertive but nonviolent strategy. (I'm no womble either)
In Genoa, the white overall movement actually physically seized black blockers and ejected them from their ranks. Ya Basta and Tutti Bianche are not exactly Trots are they?
As for the 'black block' - this is a term often mistakenly used to describe all people who physically defend themselves from police attack. Quite often 'moderate' demonstrators will do this if they have to. Marxist socialists would on principle support the right of people to self defence in these situations.
But the black bloc as a tactic is infantile. Those who think they can smash capitalism by smashing shop windows, and by 'upping the anti' on demo's have a romantic view of themselves. For them, it is not real resistance unless there is a car or two burning on the street. This is their ideology. I have heard them talk of this 'radicalising' a demo! They are more patronising and dangerous than any Trot paper seller! As we saw in Genoa, they are also easily penetrated by police and fascist agents provocatuers.
I hope that those who really want to smash capitalism will soon grow out of such infantile behavior, but I would not denounce them to the police. I'll give them a fucking good talking to down the pub.

There's a lot of talk about agents provocateurs, but they aren't needed on the ground. All that's needed is people putting it about that only the black blocs are the true saviours of the world. There are plenty of people who just enjoy smashing things up and fighting the police who will take the excuse, and far too many people who let themselves be intimidated into accepting the destruction of their protests. Those who condemn "reformists" are working for the enemy, because reform and regulation is what the corporations fear more than anything. The fat cats are laughing their heads off when they see the black blocs giving protest a bad name and calling for some vague "revolution" which they, the black blocs, haven't even begun to imagine. Use the law, use the rules, use reason, charm, peaceful protest, that's how to really change things and make the bosses choke on their champagne.

The agents will slag this message off of course, that's their job, it's what they get paid for.

Your post shows your high levels of ignorance, so all people with different views to you are working for the state/global capitalism, you dumb fuck...

I have not really posted much to this website before, but I want to get something off my chest about the "left" and my own experiences.

After spending two years in the SWP and another year wandering from group to group, I have given up on the revolutionary left. I don't think group - SWP, black block, etc - actually listens to people; they are all too busy pushing dogma and selling papers. Try speaking to anyone on the "revolutionary left" - you won't get debate, you get literally surrounded by people who barrack you until you submit to the party line. You must apply class analysis to everything, you must relate every event to what Lenin said, you have to shout silly slogans on marches, you have to refer to each other "comrade" (a hackneyed and pretentious expression), you even have to annoy people in your workplace and in your union branch with pointless petitions which are just excuses to raise money and push membership.

Every Saturday I was "encouraged" (read: forced) to stand on a street corner in the city centre failing to sell the bloody Socialist Worker, which is poorly written and exerts a hard editorial line which censors internal debate. The Socialist Worker is a paper that does not investigate issues but responds to the mainstream headlines with its own spin. There is no interest is exploring issues that are outside the Marxist interpretation of current affairs. There is certainly no way they accept articles written by the rabble party membership.

The worst thing is the phone calls. Every other night, I'd get a party afficianado calling me telling me of yet another "discussion" on Palestine or US imperialism - issues which are done to death within the SWP. After a while, I'd tell my girlfriend or housemates to tell them I was out or in the bath, but they'd ring me sometimes three or four times in a night. I felt trapped and put upon.

But this appears to be the same for every left-wing party. Yet the anarchists are the other extreme: most are lazy and disorganised and too busy bitching about each other to make anything happen. It's a wonder that they manage to organise the anarchist bookfair without tantrums, fights, etc. Although I don't subscribe to the common complaint that they are violent thugs, the little organisation there is is based on cliques which are hard to penetrate, in my experience. In contrast to the Marxists, the anarchists are clustered around closed circles.

The truth is that the whole spectrum of the revolutionary left is incapable of making any difference. The best way a political activist can advance their ideas is through single-issue campaigns that come together on common themes, like the Trade Justice Movement set up this week.

There's also the point that you can get more of what you want through the current mainstream parties, the LibDems or Labour, which at least have their levers on power, unlike the pathetic floundering "revolutionary left". There is not going to be a revolution with the current state of revolutionary politics, so why waste your time with it? I know I'm going to get shot down for this, but since I've disengaged myself with the "revolutionary left", I feel more able to speak and think for myself. And while these reformist groups might not make the wholesale change we all want, at least they can achieve something where the Marxists and anarchists achieve nothing. Amnesty International, Friends of the Earth or Oxfam are far more able to achieve something concrete - the release of a political prisoner, putting forward a convincing scientific (as opposed to dogmatically ideological) case against GM or actually giving third world communities the ability to feed themselves.

"Revolutionaries" are a waste of time and just encourage hopelessness.

"As for your confusion of groups like the wombles with the black block, this just shows your ignorance. The wombles are trying to impliment an assertive but nonviolent strategy."

I'm afraid this just shows *your* ignorance.
The wombles (I am one) are not a nonviolent group. In some situations, such as demonstrations in the UK, nonviolence has been used because it was judged to be most fitting for the day. I support all physical attacks on the State.

And if you think that the SWP is so great, then why did their stewards point out Wombles to the cops and have them arrested in Brighton?
And why did they offer *no* support to the 7 wombles who were attacked and arrested on Oxford St on the way to a Haloween party?

"In Genoa, the white overall movement actually physically seized black blockers and ejected them from their ranks. Ya Basta and Tutti Bianche are not exactly Trots are they?"

Ya Basta (who steward/control Tute Bianchi actions) are authoritarian Communist arseholes. They are not anarchists and they are not linked to the Wombles in any way. Their form of "nonviolence" is to physically attack people who dare confront the State on its own terms.

"But the black bloc as a tactic is infantile. Those who think they can smash capitalism by smashing shop windows, and by 'upping the anti' on demo's have a romantic view of themselves."

So was the suffragettes window-smashing also useless and infantile? Would it have been more "grown up" for them to have sold papers instead?

"For them, it is not real resistance unless there is a car or two burning on the street. This is their ideology."

What the fuck? It's just a tactic. Anarchism is their ideology. This of course means creating a new classless society based on the principles of freedom, mutual aid and voluntary co-operation.

"I have heard them talk of this 'radicalising' a demo!"

I sincerely doubt you have ever heard "them" talk of anything, since I have certainly never said this and nor has anyone else I have ever spoken to. But of course even you must know that if a demonstration is not violent, nobody hears about it...

"They are more patronising and dangerous than any Trot paper seller!"

What by saying that they are the "vanguard" who must
lead the ignorant masses to the revolution? Bollocks that what the Trots say.

"As we saw in Genoa, they are also easily penetrated by police and fascist agents provocatuers."

What do you mean "as we saw"? If you went then you mut have gone with GR/SWP who achieved fuck all on the day. the tiny number of Infiltrators, blown all out of proportion by Socialist Worker and liberal posters to IMC made no difference to anything which happened there.

"I hope that those who really want to smash capitalism will soon grow out of such infantile behavior, but I would not denounce them to the police. I'll give them a fucking good talking to down the pub. "

But that didn't happen yesterday in Seville: Trots and social forum people worked together with the cops to isolate the Black Bloc and arrest any militant workers. It was disgusting.

The primary comment here can´t really be denied, the writers saying :look at what these so called revolutionaries are doing to people who are actually actively trying to dismantle these fucked up systems of capitalism and authority¨

If you were in sevilla you´d have noticed this is what they did. I was there, prepared to do BB but I thought it didnt look very friendly or very effective, and you know you gotta think strategically, however some kids did mask up. It was obvious from how they did it that they were unexperienced, running around singly without anyone to watch their backs, sorrounded by social forum peace police(who are really bought by the govt, literally) and the socialist parties. Though I didn´t want to myself be in that situation cause I thought from experience it wasnt safe or smart, I still didnt wanna see the kids get smashed so I follwed them, kept an eye out. When some windows of a bank got broke some big commy organier and other socialists started chasing them, I ran out and stopped them asking if they were police, what the fuck were they doing attacking other demonstraters, they turned on me. One nasty commie after another coming and screaming in my face tearing at my clothes as I explained I hadnt thrown any rocks but that they were attacking OUR side. Ridiculous. Another anarchist came to help me, nice solidarity for once. I got into a big argument with this commie about this. Him saying go to your own country and break stuff, this is our march you make these thousands of people look bad to the whole world with this VIOLENCE¨ So a broken window is violence and a big commie mutherfucker chasing some silly 18 year old kid and tackling him is not. These fuckers waste their breath demeaning real actionand have hardly any time to condemn the real violence that the state perpetuates every day. the police, the wars, the prisons, the violence of work and of capitalism, the violence of alienation and isolation. They decide a broken window is really more worthy of their anger (they´ll fight and attack other manifestantes but not the system that creates the violence).

Well, anyway, that´s my story and it´s repeated all the time, I have more, I´ve seen these pacifist peace police attack many demonstraters in many locations, it´s a cover for something else. It isn´t the violence of a broken woindo that bothers them it´´s that this type of protest is direct action, it lives outside the respectable boundaries of respectable protests, and more then anything these commies and socialists and liberals want to be a part of this respected establishment, where property is more sacred then human life and happiness. Fuck that. As Jerry Rubin said ¨We can´t be coopted because we want everything¨!
Viva la anarquia!

Snufkin

ps( anarchists are not at all part of teh extreme left, we are on a completely different spectrum, and to those who claim ownership of the movement, and still call us lazy (as if you know any of us) who do you think has been working both in Black blocks and behind the scenes organizing since way before seattle? The socialists just hopped on, the commies and liberals hopped on, it was anti authoritarians and anarchists who formed a main and respctfully diverse part of the movement and who are now being purged by reformists and liberals. Also we´re probly the most active community organizers in North America (our own community in hundreds of ways from bike coops to food not bombs to squats, unlike liberals who´d rather organize someone elses community) The biggest danger we face is to lose hold of our own movement, to have the empowering direct action of seatle transformed into boring parades like sevilla, taking away our power, giving it to these wannabe leaders, these respectable mutherfucking political parties that just use the actions to sell their papers, which was funny actually in sevilla seeing the couple dozen socialist groups all hawking thier papers not even worthy to pick up dog shit, all in rows, haha.

I attended the various demonstrations in Sevilla and I , like Snufkin, thought that the utilisation of the Black Bloc tactic on the Saturday protest (June 22) was rather disorganised. Approximately half way through the march a section of masked anarchists streamed forward leaving the rest of the anarchist bloc behind. Unsure which bloc I should stick with I stayed with the main anarchist bloc. About 10-15 mins later I saw a group of what looked like protesters (actually undercover policemen) dragging away someone to a police van. As I feared the black bloc participants appeared to have been rather poorly prepared for this undercover police tactic. Would it not have been more sensible for those who left the main anarchist bloc to have stayed with it and undertaken their direct action within the relative safety of this section of the march? Let´s face it, you cannot trust other sections of protestórs to help defend you in such situations. This seemed to me to be a rather naive application of the Black Bloc tactic.

snufkin, you must be referring to 'that Jerry Rubin, you know, the former yippie who became a wall street banker and a republican,

 http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials
/Chicago7/RubinJ.htm


angry young blac blocker at twenty giving us old lefties lectures, media executive, liberal lecturer at forty, sen iy too many times,

btw, i was at Genoa and Cologne, the black block never matures it is a expression of angry youth which will disapear as they get their mortgages...

yeah too cynical , i know..some of what you are doing in U.S is good, just too self-righteous...

Firstly, lets make clear that everybodies energy and participation should be welcome. The dark clouds of a global war for global profits are gathering. This is accompanied by a climate of racism and nationalism, promoted by the Fascists (and encouraged by corrupt mainstream politicians).

The only hope is the growing movements for social change from below - which thankfully are increasing in size and strength from Seattle to Genova and beyond. George, our 'disilusioned ex-revolutionary' posting above is right to focus on concrete practical struggles - but these need to be part of a wider vision of social transformation, and mass participation. Whatever struggle we engage in, we need to acknowledge the powerful forces of capitalism that we confront. The fight for reforms is often stifled by reformist politicians. Important reforms are won under pressure from mass movements who have a wider agenda than such politicians.
And sometime we are going to have to face up to the task of dismantling capitalism and the state, and building a more humane and equal post-capitalist order as a practical necessity to save the earth from war, fascism and ecocide. Anti-capitalism is only the only realistic political response to the threat posed by a degenerating system. This will becoming clearer to millions if capitalism descends into acute global crisis - Argentina on a world scale.

Now a new generation is arising to confront an age old battle. But we need clear ideas. Our movement would be disarmed by a dogmatic commitment to pacifism and nonviolence - but the fetishisation and romanticisation of violence can be just as harmfull. Todays direct activists, while having the right spirit, are often divided into a sterile non-violence/ultra-violence 'fluffy/spikey' debate. This is because they are used to acting in a vacuum on behalf of a passive population. In the UK the defeats of the trades unions under Thatcher meant a new generation emerged in the 90's forced to fight alone, in small numbers, in actions usually focused around the eco-wars. Both fluffys and spikeys often found themselves as unwitting vanguards, forced to substitute their own actions for actions by the mass of the exploited and oppressed themeselves. But now when millions stir, like in the general strikes in Spain, Italy and elsewhere, we are in a different ball game. And a good thing too.

In British labour history of the past 3 decades, workers have had to confront state violence. Long, long ago, in a different age, during the 1972 miners strike the ruling class had one big pile of coal left to keep the economy going, at Saltly depot, near Birmingham. The miners and their allies had to close the gates of saltly, to shut down the country and cripple the Tory government. But the police used all their force to beat the pickets for a week. Then the rank and file miners appealed for solidarity from the Engineers. 100,000 downed tools, and 20,00 marched on Saltley gates. The chief copper annonced on the radio that the pickets would close the gates 'over his dead body' - but he was powerless to oppose the mass picket. The gates were closed - we won the battle. The next day the Tory home secretary was asked why he did not send in the troops - and he was forced to reply "should I have sent them in with their rifles loaded or unloaded? - either course would be disasterous" The ruling class knew that if police violence provoked a mass strike of engineers - then sending in the army would probably provoke a general strike. They (temporarily) retreated for a decade.

This demonstrates that it is neither 'violence' nor 'non-violence', but mass solidarity that has the power to beat the rulers. For this you need deep roots inside every community and popular participation and legitimacy - combined with an unwavering militancy. This was only possible because the action was lead by networks of politicised rank and file workers, not reformist bureaucrats.

Of course the British miners are now long gone - but there are still around 7 million trades union members in the UK today. We are along way off from the sort of power we had 30 years ago - but its re-emergence in new forms and locations is not impossible in the future.

Now onto the 'black bloc'. As I have said before, it is important to distinguish popular self defence on demonstrations and pickets from the black bloc as a tactic by a minority ideologically committed to it as 'the solution'.

Lets consider some of the arguments above:
Snufkin reminds us of the:

"real violence that the state perpetuates every day. the police, the wars, the prisons, the violence of work and of capitalism, the violence of alienation and isolation." and contrasts this with the pathetic concern by reformists for mere broken windows.
Quite correct - if this was a seminar on moral philosophy we could easily win the argument that the 'violence' of the oppressed is insignificant compared to the real violence of the system. So in terms of morals it may be justified. But we are not in a moral philosophy seminar. We are testing tatics in the arena of serious action. Therefore the real question should be "is it effective"?
Anarkissed (hi mate!) refers to the ability of the tactic to break through media silence: "But of course even you must know that if a demonstration is not violent, nobody hears about it". Yes, we have all been on demo's of over 100,000 without a word of media recognition. Of course the downside is that when the media play up a few sensationalist images of 'anarchist' street 'violence', they are doing this to politically isolate us from our potential support and strength amongst the people. What Anarkissed is really saying is that the blac bloc tactic is a media publicity stunt - obviously smashing a window is not going to seriously affect capitalism, apart from boosting small glazing buisinesses (!)its not 'direct action', it is to grab media attention. So is this is the same as greenpeace draping a banner from a chimney for dramatic effect - but with a more 'r-r-revolutionary' flavour?
Personally I would rather try to consolidate the 100,000 on the street into some sort of coherent political force which can go back to their communities and influence people - with those kind of numbers we could seriously talk about bypassing the corporate media for good! I find it amusing that activists who spend so musch time slagging off the corpo media are actually symbiotically dependant upon it!
And yes, the suffragets smashed windows as one tactic to get publicity - but in a controlled way,on their own and not in the middle of a mass demonstration with the danger of legitimating police violence against your fellow non-blac bloc protesters. When I have seen blac blockers do the 'window tactic' I wish they would emulate the suffragets, fuck off and go break their windows on another day! Thats why other demonstraters have called them 'parasites' - they seem to draw energy and confidence from our numbers on the street in order to engage in petty vandalism - and then screem 'reformist scum' at anyone who objects to them!

(And it could also be argued that the suffragets who lead these historic actions were liberal bourgeoise driven to extreems - if you want to associate revolutionary anarchism with this then you play into the hands of your Marxist critics who always have accused anarchism of being merely 'militant liberalism').

Having witnessed all tendencies on display last summer in Genova I have come to some conclusions. There was Ya Basta comming down in armour from Carlini Stadium, then ambushed and retreating - learned the lesson that full frontal assults on state power have a special place - as an insurrection during a mass social revolution, not at a preliminary skirmish at the dawn of a new movement. Then during this retreat, there was defensive hand to hand fighting which saved lives - which the liberal media mistakenly label a 'blac bloc'. Then there was the pink bloc dancing all the way up to the redzone, the pacifisti sitting infront of the Caribineri, the blac bloc running around all this, fucking over the Lilliput liberals and the COBAS syndicalist workers alike. And oh yes, globulise resistance, SWP and attac, whom I didn't go anywhere near - but who actually got to the fence and pulled a bit of it away so I hear. So there are all these tactics, each perhaps representing legitimate moments of the struggle - but each one gets seized upon by different groups, then frozen rigid, removed from its context and fetished as a badge of political identity - a panacea for all time.
Anyway, I'm ranting away here... The main point is that what will help us win is a mass movement, rooted in every community, with mass participation, which grows out of the daily concerns of people and connects them to the global issues.This will probably be a lifetimes work. the biggest danger is its hijacking by reformist politicians who will lead it into a dead end inorder to advance their own careers and standing. We will need to outflank them politically and organisationally. In this task, the blac bloc tactic is of little value, and risks playing into the hands of the reformists and the state.

I think if anything Georges comment is the most illuminating on here.
The SWP turn all resistance into one boring flag waving parade.
It comes out in this monotone,”lets chant in time” style.
Anarchism to me is a celebration of diversity AND solidarity.
If someone feels the need to smash the window of a corporate,sweatshop owning bastard then so be it.
Even if it is not my choice to smash windows, the person doing the smashing is on the same side as me because he IS fighting capitalism, even if not in the same way.
Trot’s always seem to restrict themselves to non-violent marching and chanting.
Possibly this is because they have more to lose?
History has sown that when the TRUE working class rise up they actually couldn’t give two shites for “revolutionary politics” or cohesive strategy or the way they appeal to the politicians, the beurocrats, the mass media, all the things we’re supposed to be fucking fighting.

Down the road from me hundreds of windows were smashed, houses were set on fire, factories were smashed, policemen got bricked.
It was these VIOLENT actions that stopped the government from implementing the poor law.

Some people are pissed off; some people have suffered enough, or have been incensed enough by the suffering of others that they actually want to let their emotions and rage show through their actions.
Selling papers is the reserve of the middle class dickhead with too much time on his hands and a guilty conscience.
You cave in to authority because you don’t want to put off other middle class intellectual farts that are afraid of getting their hands dirty.
Feel free to be the “vanguard” for the rest of us, just don’t be surprised if us partridges leave you behind somewhere for the worn out relics you are.

I would like to point out to one of the Trots, that GR got infiltrated by a Daily Mail journo in Genoa, the Black Bloc wasn't...

This discussion is precisely why there hasn't been a global, united revolution and why there won't be for quite some time. 'Black Blocks'? 'Wombles'? Standing up in front of a guy with a gun isn't a revolution, it's grandstanding. Throwing bricks through windows isn't 'strinking a blow against capitalism,' it's petty vandalism. Instead of spending our time coming up with Nickeloadean names for groups to join, lets start businesses that are run by elected councils. Businesses that provide health care and job stability for employees. Let's use those businesses to build a new kind of banking infrastructure that can be global in scope. A little thought is really all it will take, not showboating for the cameras, even if they do belong to indymedia...dmr, esq

Jimmer - I don't know what the point is, but for historical accuracy, the (anarchistish and not very Trot) Wombles were deeply infiltrated by a DAILY TELEGRAPH journalist called Tom, who for weeks was a 'close comrade' throughout their Genoa adventure(as I stand witness). I dont know what that proves!
BUM! REVOLUTION! TEA AND CAKES! Libertarian Communism! Aint Indymedia great?
I suppose the main thing is that Trots and Anarchos have knee jerk reactions against each other, and spread pointless rumours. It is amazing what we can achieve when we get together, but unity is hard as their are real differences - but the problem is is that some exagerate these differences for the polemical purpose.

1) cynicist makes the basic comment that young people are only radical because they´re inexperienced. He cites Jerry Rubins sell out, but let me point of that here in spain it´s common for old veterans of the spanish revolution to wander into an anarchist cafe and start ranting, that there are millions of old people that are fucking revolutionary. The reason that people sell out is not because they become smarter, it´s because the extreme pressures exerted by the government adn authoritarian society become too much, the routine and threats, the social and economic presure to conform. So you become closed and bitter because you are hopeless and then you flaunt this like it´s something to be proud of rather then just having your spirit broken adn baring your complete disgraceful (but understandable) collapse of values and individuality.

2) SOmeone makes the usual comment that its funny that we can even organize a march with all the infighting going on. Maybe you don´t know the past, this is part of a resistence stretching back centuries. anarchists have worked with leftists forever, in fact we used to be part of the early socialist movement. Today there are many calls to seperate ourselves from leftism, and the authoritarianism that´s so connected to it now. Instead of placing ourselves concretely on the side of the SWP and ISO we put ourselves on the spectrum of authority and anti authority. We´ve leanrned how quick their rhetoric of solidarity is broken. In the spanish and russion revolution their first acts to getpower were to kill or imprison the anarchist revoluutionaries who helped make the revolution. Their parties have used us cheaply in every case, paris 1968 the new left amaericans, etc. and betrayed us, bought off for power. And now they´re trying to take power over the anti globalization movement (like teh SWP in england and their front group globalize resistance) they use crap methods to take control. ANyway there´s a history and in the end we don´t want the same things.
The difference in the "infighting" is that anarchists, yeah we criticize them, but we don´t try to impose things on them, we don´t chase them send them to cops imprison them etc... It sounds like a little difference but teink about it. We don´t break up or infiltrate tehir meetings or forcibly dominate coalitions. this is what they do (practicing for when they´re the police). We only criticize their authoritarian actions, we don´t try and force them to act in a certain way adn especially never to join our groups or follow us. the difference in the argument is night and day. Think about it instead of justspitting out the kneejerk call to unity.

Actually, the Daily Mail journo (as well as The Times, The Independent, BBC and C4) didn't infiltrate GR - they were on the GR train openly as journos - and paid the journo ticket price which was more than the normal ticket price. The only paper that sent an "undercover" journo on the GR train was the Evening Standard - but she didn't get the dirt she was after - just made a fool of herself after another journo recognised her!

Infiltrating GR is completely futile - we're not secretive and exclusive. We publicise our events and actions we're involved in as widely as possible, we talk to the media, we have nothing to hide.