Has the Black Block tactic reached the end of its usefulness?
international |
anarchist movement |
debate
Thursday June 23, 2005 18:28 by Severino - NEFAC - Barricada Collective
As class struggle anarchists who recognize the importance of a diversity of tactics in order to attack Capital, the State, and oppression in an effective manner, we see the black bloc as an important tool of struggle. Only one tool among many, but an important one nonetheless.
Has the Black Bloc tactic reached the end of its
usefulness?
by Severino (Barricada Collective)
This article, written by a member of the American anarchist
organisation, NEFAC, responds to an article by Ray Cunningham in Red
and Black Revolution no. 6 called 'Bashing
the Black Bloc".. Both this article and the reply to it
'Anti-capitalist protest:global and local', were written in 2002 and
some of the references may appear dated. However, the central points
of each article are just as relevant and valid now.
As class struggle anarchists who recognize the importance of a
diversity of tactics in order to attack Capital, the State, and
oppression in an effective manner, we see the black bloc as an
important tool of struggle. Only one tool among many, but an
important one nonetheless. However, this by no means implies that we
feel it to be in any way above criticism. Indeed, we are very
troubled by how black blocs often operate, the manner in which
actions are sometimes carried out, and the direction that some black
bloc elements seem to want to head in.
It is for this reason that we were glad to see
the
text by our comrades from the Workers Solidarity Movement (WSM).
Particularly refreshing was the fact that, unlike many other texts
critical of the black bloc, this one was clearly written in a
comradely, honest, and constructive fashion. This is the only way in
which an effective and useful dialogue on the subject can be had, and
our response is with the same spirit and intentions in mind. With
that said, we do in fact have several important disagreements with
the WSM text, and will attempt to clarify some of our positions in
this article.
Has The Black Bloc tactic reached the end of its usefulness?
This is the first question posed by the WSM article, and it is a
question (and sometime assertion) that we are starting to hear quite
often in some anarchist circles. The reasoning behind it tends to
vary, involving anything from the symbolic nature of the
confrontations black blocs often engage in, to issues about whether
or not it can serve as a tool to encourage empowerment,
self-organization and the construction of dual power. In the case of
the WSM text, the argument is centered to a large extent around the
issue of constantly heightened security and enlarged police presence
at large summit type events, which hinders the ability of the black
bloc to act in an effective manner. In our opinion, this argument is
flawed on two important levels.
The first, is that it places all the responsibility for the
failure, or at least controversial nature, of several recent black
blocs on the actions of the police. To us, while indeed greater
preparation and numbers on behalf of the police are part of the
problem, they are actually a much lesser concern than the role played
by the opportunist, reformist, and moralist tendencies in the "move -
ment" in isolating the black bloc, and the tactical consequences for
us of their actions.
In both Quebec City and Prague, resounding successes in our
opinion, the police knew to expect a black bloc, often made reference
to how dangerous it was in the press, and tried to stop black bloc
participants from arriving. There was no element of surprise, just as
in Genoa. However, the difference between those two mobilizations and
Genoa, was not the police, but rather the relationship between
militant anarchists in the black bloc and the larger organizing
groups.
In Prague and Quebec City, through INPEG and CLAC respectively,
the space of activists choosing to use militant tactics was
respected, allowing for mutual cooperation and coordination in the
days before the action. In both cases this took the shape of
different zones for particular types of action or levels of risk,
thus allowing all tactics to work together effectively and complement
each other, while lessening internal strife. However, when organizers
try to isolate black bloc anarchists in order to gain favor with the
press, politicians, and cops problems will inevitably arise,
hindering the ability of all involved to act in an effective and
respectful manner.
This is exactly what occurred in Genoa with the actions of the
Social Forum. The GSF divided the entire eastern part of the city
(the only part reasonably accessible to demonstrators) into three
blocs for the main day of action, July 20th. These were the Network
for Global Rights, composed of some moderate social centers and
grass-roots trade unions; the civil disobedience bloc, composed of Ya
Basta!, the Communist youth, and a few others; and the pacifist/White
hands bloc, primarily composed of Lilliput network people. All these
blocs were within the GSF structure and had agreed to a "no sticks,
no stones, no fire" clause. A space for those with militant tactics
was nowhere to be found. What was implied? That we should go
elsewhere. When asked why this was, GSF people responded with the
very shaky excuse that, since anarchists were not in the GSF, they
were simply not taken into account. Furthermore, when anarchists
began meeting, to address the problem and begin effective organizing
in Carlini stadium (Ya Basta! headquarters) it was immediately made
clear by the Ya Basta! people in charge that they would have to go
somewhere else. Finally, to top it all off, even though the GSF
claimed to respect and desire to work with groups and people who
chose to go outside of its structure, only a few hours after the
posters for the International Genoa Offensive (i.e. black bloc) had
been put up at the convergence center, people wearing GSF staff
passes could be seen taking them down. There was no co-ordination, no
respect, and no solidarity.
Despite this, black bloc participants did manage to coalesce and
hold several mass meetings beforehand. However, since the GSF refused
to coordinate efforts, or even accept the black bloc as a legitimate
section of the mobilization, choosing instead to defame and slander,
on the day itself people with very differing tactics found themselves
in the same geographic locations and the inevitable problems ensued,
with black bloc members being accused of being police officers, being
the tool of the police to justify repression, mindless hooligans,
Nazis, etc.
All this was not a simple accident, but rather the logical
conclusion of the relationship between the reformist and
authoritarian sections of the antiglobalization "movement," in this
case exemplified by Ya Basta! and ATTAC (under the umbrella of the
Genoa Social Forum), and the revolutionary anarchist movement.
The fact is, these reformists and opportunists are merely using
the anti-globalization "movement" as a vehicle to increase their
power and influence and gain their so badly desired "seat at the
table" of global capitalism. At one point they needed anarchists and
direct action as a tool to gain attention in the media and assert
themselves as part of the debate on the globalization of Capital.
With this achieved, the relationship between them and us has
radically changed, and it is this that has made the difference at the
large mobilizations, not the role of the police.
We, as anarchists, are not interested in watered down
demonstrations, false declarations of war, or ritualistic spectacles.
We are not interested in, and believe there to be no such thing as,
common ground for dialogue with the rulers and exploiters of the
world. Likewise, we have no interest in political maneuvers and
schemes. We are indeed an "ungovernable force", content with nothing
less than a total social revolution with the aim of creating a new
society based on the principles of mutual aid, workers'
self-management, decentralization, direct democracy, freedom, and
communism.
As such, we are a danger to the reformists and opportunists. We
are a bad influence on their drones, we ruin their parties, destroy
their spectacles and rituals, we expose realities which they seek to
hide, and most importantly, by truly confronting the State and
capitalism we make their phony "wars" all the more real everyday. The
politicians and reformists in the anti-globalization "movement"
realize this, and have for this reason begun treating us as their
enemies, never hesitating to try to isolate us, hand us over to the
police, or send their "pacifist thugs" to physically attack
anarchists. Furthermore, a massive whitewashing of history has begun
which intends to sell the lie that the anti-globalization "movement"
has grown despite the negative influences of militant anarchists,
when in fact it has grown precisely because of us.
In light of all this many comrades are starting to see
"anti-globalization politicians" as the enemies that they are, but
their suggested solution to the problem is simply to withdraw from
the anti-globalization struggle, and particularly the mass
mobilizations. We feel that this approach is both incorrect and
dangerous, as it would only serve to further isolate anarchists and
anti-authoritarians, while at the same time leaving the road wide
open for the total cooption of the tide of discontent with capitalism
that is currently sweeping much of the world.
In opposition to this, we suggest a battle against these elements
within the framework of the anti-globalization "movement" on multiple
fronts which include the following:
- Combating the constant attempts of whitewashing
history which seek to attribute the emergence and influence of the
international movement of resistance to capital to the work of the
mainstream NGOs and political parties.
- Constantly denouncing through propaganda and example those who
seek to manipulate the popular rejection of the current system in
order to advance their own ambitions of power. We must make clear
that reformists, the vast majority of NGOs, mainstream trade unions,
and 'institutionalized oppositions' are enemies, not only of
anarchists, but of all those who struggle for the creation of a
radically different world.
- Clearly denouncing all those who seek to reign in and
institutionalize the growing tide of resistance and vigorously work
to expose as the enemies that they are all those who seek to
'dialogue' and/or find com mon ground with' the exploiters of the
world (for example those planning to 'debate' with the IMF). There Is
no debate to be had, and no possible common ground. Only total
rejection and war.
- Constantly go where they go. We must ruin their parties, crash
their debates, and turn their futile attempts to appeal to power into
insurrectionary events where people are encouraged to think and act
autonomously, thus freeing themselves from the chains, if not yet of
Capital and the State, at least of the reformist party/NGO apparatus.
This way we simultaneously present alternatives (be it by speaking at
their events, radicalizing a demo, breaking a window, or simply
distributing a flier) and avoid the political and tactical trap of
isolation which they place for us in order to discredit us and leave
us open to state repression.
- Making clear that, while black blocs and other forms of mass
militant confrontation are important aspects of the anarchist
struggle, they are certainly not the only ones. Anarchists, and
anarchist influences, are everywhere in the resistance (as medics, in
Indymedia, in non-violent civil disobedience, as cooks, and
everywhere else) and anarchists accept and embrace people of all
tactical outlooks as long as they are respectful of others.
- Most importantly, we must build, develop, and coherently present
the anarchist alternatives to the project of the parties, NGOs, and
reformist unions by continuing to develop the anarchist culture of
resistance and self-management. From autonomous collectives of
struggle on particular issues, to squats, to cooperatives,
revolutionary unions, federations, community power organizations, and
all other projects which serve to render the NGO / party / boss /
union / state / capital apparatus irrelevant while at the same time
building anarchist alternatives.
In order to be successful in this task, we will need all the tools
and tactics available to us, and this very much includes the black
bloc. Clearly, there are reforms that need to be made in the black
bloc if we are to heighten its effectiveness and defend against some
of the problems that are beginning to arise (infiltration,
contradictory actions, etc.), but that is a different article
altogether.
The Black Bloc Beyond Anti- Globalization Protest
The second level on which we find the arguments made in the WSM
text flawed is that of what context black blocs are viewed as
operating, and being effective, in. The analysis of black blocs in
the WSM text seems to be centered wholly around the antiglobalization
"movement," something which to us (and we know that the WSM agrees),
should only represent one part of the anarchist struggle. We believe
that the black bloc should be a tactic that transcends struggles. In
fact, we feel the largest potential for future black bloc lies
precisely in not being limited to summits, but becoming a regular
staple of community and workplace struggles, adding an often much
needed militancy and power to such conflicts.
The black bloc carries enormous potential as a tool that, rather
than being limited to primarily symbolic action around mass
convergences, is used to reinforce class struggle at the grassroots
level. Indeed, this is not something unheard of, as, for example, the
historical significance of the role of black blocs and
street-fighting in the struggles for housing, against gentrification,
and against streetlevel fascism in Europe (primarily, but not limited
to, the Netherlands, Germany, and Italy) and in struggles in South
Korea (not waged by anarchists, but in terms of tactics, clearly
black blocs) cannot be denied. Other recent examples include the
tactics employed by the Anti-Expulsions Collective in Paris during
the immigrants' struggle of '97-98, which included storming police
offices, using mass militant action to stop trains being used to
deport immigrants, and inflicting massive damages on hotels used as
temporary immigrant detentions centers, or the black bloc in the U.S.
which recently took action against Taco Bell in solidarity with
workers struggling for union recognition.
These are all clear examples of black blocs, or at the very least
black bloc tactics, being used to reinforce class struggle through
the use of methods and tactics that other people, for a variety of
reasons, are either unwilling or unable to use. This by no means is
to imply that other tactics cannot be as, or more, militant. Nor are
we arguing that black blocs are any sort of vanguard of struggle.
Clearly, this would be an exceedingly narrow conception of militant
struggle. We see them rather as an appendage to struggles that,
because of its militant and anonymous character, can at times be used
to advance and intensify struggles.
Revolutionary Cells?
The WSM text, in our opinion, presents us with a false dichotomy
by pitting effective and organized direct action against mass actions
of a participatory nature. As anarchists, we believe firmly in the
ability of people to take mass militant action in a fash - ion which
is simultaneously effective and participatory, democratic and
decentralized.
Again, drawing from our experiences in the anti-globalization
"movement," we can see examples of incidences where, despite all the
harassment from the forces of repression (both the state's and the
anti-globalization "movement's") many hundreds of militant anarchists
were able to come together and organize their actions in a
participatory and democratic manner via general assemblies. This was
the case in Prague, Gothenburg, and Genoa, to give some recent
examples, where the black (or blue as the case may be) blocks were
organized in an open manner with very broad (as far the anarchist
movement goes) participation and involvement.
This said, we do agree that the real victory lies not in the
"military" feat of shutting down this or that summit or gathering of
the rich, but rather in forcing them to cower behind thousands of
armed thugs, denying them legitimacy, and bringing forward the
contradictions that exist in class society. We further agree that the
most important and significant aspect of mass mobilizations lies in
the large scale experiences of self-management and direct democracy
that they provide, not only for us as anarchists, but for those who
believe these ideas to be dreams unworkable in reality. So indeed, we
must strive to maintain that character of participation and
anti-authoritarian democracy. However, again, to us, it is the
stifling influence of the political elites that seek to build their
future on the back of "anti-globalization" (the ATTACs, Ya Bastas.
and Bonos of the world) that is killing that spirit, not black blocs
or militant confrontation.
All this having been said, we do believe that there are also times
when other tactics and methods of organization are warranted, because
of the risks involved or other security concerns. We firmly believe
that actions of this sort can still be very much positive in the
advancement of anarchist and anti-authoritarian ideas when organized
with a strong regard for security culture, via networks of trusted
affinity groups, and in line with anarchist principles of voluntary
association. The critical difference between anarchists organizing in
this fashion and Marxist-Leninists is the conception that the
particular group has of itself. Evidently, Marxist- Leninists see
armed or underground formations as revolutionary vanguards. On the
other hand, anarchist or anti-authoritarian influenced groupings try
to serve as appendages to struggles, to complement them through other
means, much like the Autonomous Commandos of the Basque country, who
carried out actions to aid striking workers or against the forces of
repression, or Direct Action and the Wimmins Fire Brigade in Canada,
who also sought to advance ongoing struggles by bringing attention to
them, while at the same time radicalizing their character.
In Conclusion...
We are indeed opposed to the fetishization of the black bloc,
which leads, among other things, to the phenomenon of black bloc
spectators as well as "black bloc as fashion." We further agree that
the black bloc, being but one tool of many available to us, is not
appropriate for all circumstances. Indeed, for it to remain
effective, it is imperative that it be used intelligently. Also, like
the WSM, we see some serious problems developing within the black
bloc tactic that merit serious attention and open discussion.
However, while we cannot stress enough that we are open to
discussions of militant tactics and strategy, we feel that discussion
around the issue is often tackled from an exceedingly narrow and
short-sighted perspective. This often leads to an analysis that we
deem to be significantly problematic and that could have important
consequences for anarchism as a serious political movement.
First, this analysis views black blocs solely within the context
of the antiglobalization struggle, and more precisely, the mass
convergences that often come with it. To us, these mainly provide
outlets for symbolic action, while the greatest strength of black
blocs, when used appropriately and organized effectively, is real
direct action used to advance day to day class struggle, in the form
of strikes, housing occupations, antifascist struggles, immigrants'
rights struggles, etc., all of which are fronts on which the black
bloc tactic has already proven its efficiency and value.
Furthermore, this line of thinking places a dichotomy between
effective militant action and participatory and directly democratic
forms of selfmanaged struggle and organization. This is dangerous in
that it threatens to dissuade anarchists from using what is very
likely our most powerful weapon: our disregard for legality and our
willingness to engage in militant mass confrontations, coupled with
confidence in the ability of people to organize themselves to take
back power and control over their lives.
Finally, by identifying the battle between police and militant
elements as the prime motivation for the increasing difficulty of
revolutionary anarchists to find a place for themselves in the
anti-globalization "movement," this outlook ignores the quite blatant
reality of a "movement" being rapidly hijacked. A "movement" being
hijacked by power seeking reformists and opportunists, who need to
isolate and discredit revolutionaries and all those who maintain that
a profound change in society is not only desirable, but possible and
viable, in order to harness the growing power of the
anti-globalization backlash. These are the Lenins, Trotskys, and
Stalins of our day, willing and able to persecute, betray, discredit,
and isolate anarchists in order to advance their ends. Movement
criticism and analysis are indeed important things, but this is a
case where looking inwards by placing responsibility for the State's
escalation of repression on militant tactics risks making us blind to
the challenges we face from within the "united front" of
anti-capitalist groups. This has been one of the most painful lessons
of anarchist history, and if we are truly striving for an authentic
antiauthoritarian revolution, rather than another change of masters,
we should endeavour to not make the same mistake again
This article was first published in Red & Black Revolution
(no 7, Winter 2003)
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (1 of 1)
Jump To Comment: 1While I admire what some of our European comrades have done and continue to do in the street and the community outside of summits/big protests, in the North America I know, I see nothing but the liberals and vanguardists marching one way (with a permit) and some BB, mostly young white males, marching in another, usually up to the police barricades to see if they can push them back/knock them down. There is a lot of macho posturing, some get arrested, the cops are violent in their actions, but the young men are flailing back in reaction, some barricades get knocked over and some of us further back might fill in that space and dance and mill around, etc. I'm sure you all know the scenario. The cops round people up, etc.
Besides my most important concern that what I see there is not the change I want to be in the world (people screaming insults at each other, erroneously believing they are "fucking the State up"), it doesn't change anything either. As a tactic, it just does not work, period. I am all for smashing corporate windows, especially if it's clear to bystanders why we're doing it, and you don't have to be in the BB to do it. I've seen the BB for the past five-odd years of my 25 years of protesting, and not once have I seen an average working person come off the sidewalk to join in. I have not seen a demo get radicalized—just split into factions, and there's nothing new about that in our movements. Fliers usually end up on the ground. We are preaching to the choir most of the time—let's at least be honest about that. A first- time protestor can march safely under the vanguardist/liberal wing or get his head busted and jockey with better-armed cops. I don't see how we are inviting and welcoming working folks who are fed up with the same things we are.
Definitely, we must "build, develop, and coherently present the anarchist alternatives to the project of the parties, NGOs, and reformist unions by continuing to develop the anarchist culture of resistance and self-management. From autonomous collectives of struggle on particular issues, to squats, to cooperatives, revolutionary unions, federations, community power organizations, and all other projects which serve to render the NGO / party / boss / union / state / capital apparatus irrelevant while at the same time building anarchist alternatives." But I just don't see it happening. People don't even live up to the small commitments they make to run e-mail lists, return phone calls, etc. BTW, I worked with the Coalition of Immokalee Workers on their Taco Bell boycott and other actions since their inception in Immokalee, Florida, in 1994, and maybe the BB helped somewhere else, but I never saw them in Florida or heard about them helping out anywhere else. If I am wrong, I stand corrected, but it's not surprising I wouldn’t have seen that blip on the screen. If I sound discouraged, I am. Let's put the illusions aside about effectiveness though, if we expect to reach out to others. Here in Ottawa, BB to me means young white males marching around in stormtrooper boots looking all scary while onlookers ask each other what the hell is going on and being more scared of them than the cops. We have to be the beautiful change we want to see, and we need help. I'm not sure that what I've seen in North America, as compared to Italy and some other parts of the world, is gonna win over people who aren’t already in the choir.