Provocateurs in Berkeley (and elsewhere)?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Provocateurs in Berkeley (and elsewhere)?

Postby brekin » Wed Feb 08, 2017 5:57 pm

minime » Wed Feb 08, 2017 3:00 pm wrote:
brekin » Wed Feb 08, 2017 12:47 pm wrote:I think if you have control over what you wear, and even most people with limited means do, you are wearing a uniform.


If you like.


I like.

We are all dressing a certain way because we want to see our self and others see that self a certain way.
It would be impossible then for us not to identify with certain groups and category membership.
Unless, you go completely nude (17% of RI'ers), or someone else dresses you and you have no say over that (23% of RI'ers), you are putting on a uniform.

What Your Clothes Say About You
http://www.forbes.com/sites/learnvest/2 ... 83dcfe413d

It's no news that your wardrobe says a lot about you.
What you wear can inform passersby of your type of employment, as well as your ambitions, emotions and spending habits.
And now it's even launched a whole new type of psychology.

Clinical psychologist Dr. Jennifer Baumgartner literally wrote the book on this phenomenon, which she calls the "psychology of dress." In "You Are What You Wear: What Your Clothes Reveal About You," she explains not only how psychology determines our clothing choices, but how to overcome key psychological issues your wardrobe might be bringing to light in your everyday life, or even at work.

"Shopping and spending behaviors often come from internal motivations such as emotions, experiences and culture," says Dr. Baumgartner. "You look at shopping or storing behaviors, even putting together outfits, and people think of it as fluff. But any behavior is rooted in something deeper. I look at the deeper meaning of choices, just like I would in therapy."

We spoke with her to figure out why clothes are so revealing (of our personalities, that is), what messages they're sending and how you can use your wardrobe to change how others perceive you—and even how you think about yourself.
How We Use Clothing as an Aid ... and a Weapon

Americans rely on clothing as an economic and social indicator because there aren't official marks of rank such as a caste system or aristocracy, says Dr. Baumgartner.

"When you don’t have a specific system, people come up with their own," she explains. It's what "helps you figure out where you fit in. Especially now, with the economy, with people losing status, maintaining a sense of who we are becomes even more important. Our clothes help place us where we think we want to be. "

She cites the Real Housewives TV series as an example: "Look at the way they focus on money. When they fight, they use logos and designers as a way to put each other down. They're using clothes and accessories both as a tool to know where they fit in and as a weapon against others."

Have you ever been told that you can judge a man by his shoes? Unfortunately, it's not that simple.
There's no one piece or style that makes a person look successful. Dr. Baumgartner recommends the basics when trying to project a positive image: the little black dress, the blazer, the pumps. "With classics, history has done the work for you. It has lasted throughout time, so you already know it works," she says. And what is it that makes a classic a classic? "It has multiple functions, and it's appropriate for different age ranges and body types. It became a classic because it works no matter who you are."

On the other hand, there's no one piece or style that makes a person look unsuccessful. "Anything where it looks like you didn’t take the time or make the effort comes across badly," says Dr. Baumgartner. "The worst clothing is the kind that tries to undo, ignore or hide where or who you are, or the kind that shows you didn't pay attention to your body/age/situation ... Any clothes that prohibit you from doing your job well send the wrong message."
What Your Clothes Say to You, Not About You

A study this year from Northwestern University examined a concept called "enclothed cognition." Researchers define it in their report as "the systematic influence that clothes have on the wearer's psychological processes," meaning what your clothes are saying to you, not about you. And how they make you feel.
The researchers distributed standard white lab coats to participants, telling some that it was a doctor's coat and some that it was a painter's smock. All participants performed the same task, but those wearing the "doctor's coat" were more careful and attentive. Their actions were influenced by their clothing.

The same may be true of you. When your friend dragged you out of the house and told you, "Get dressed up! You'll feel better!" after your last breakup/failed interview/lousy day, she was onto something. "When you dress in a certain way, it helps shift your internal self," explains Dr. Baumgartner. "We see that when we do makeovers, and even actors say that putting on a costume facilitates expression of character. That's just as true for everyday life."

Enclothed cognition gives scientific proof to the idea that you should dress not how you feel, but how you want to feel. Which clothes make you feel powerful? Sexy? In control? Wealthy? The clothes you choose are sending a message to those around you, but also to you, yourself.


And what dada said.
If I knew all mysteries and all knowledge, and have not charity, I am nothing. St. Paul
I hang onto my prejudices, they are the testicles of my mind. Eric Hoffer
User avatar
brekin
 
Posts: 3229
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:21 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Provocateurs in Berkeley (and elsewhere)?

Postby minime » Wed Feb 08, 2017 6:06 pm

Myself, I don't wear the not "trying not to wear a uniform" uniform: First and only third man in the Mu State.

No design, but not by design.
User avatar
minime
 
Posts: 1095
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 2:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Provocateurs in Berkeley (and elsewhere)?

Postby American Dream » Thu Feb 09, 2017 11:53 am

First, They Shot the Anarchists: Trump and ‘The New Normal’

The riots that took place during Trump’s inauguration as well as in Berkeley, California against Breitbart editor and Alt-Right troll Milo Yiannopoulos, have rocked the political establishment, created a collective gasp of disdain from liberal and leftist leadership, and generated a wave of blowback from both within the State and the mainstream press. Beyond the pillars of both media spectacle and the government, it seems that if there’s one thing that can bring reactionaries on both the Left and the Right together, it’s the demonizing of autonomous, collective acts of resistance and refusal by everyday people.

Those on the Right call for blood. Some have started petitions that seek to get the Trump administration to label anti-fascists a terrorist organization while also claiming that we are all funded by pro-Democratic billionaire, George Soros. Those on the Left simultaneously repeat similar conspiratorial positions that those who flooded into the streets to put their bodies and lives on the line and now face trumped up charges are both paid police agents and are “fully subordinated to the Democratic Party and the capitalist system.”

Everywhere, the ghost of combative autonomous self-activity scares both those in power and those waiting to take power as both the Left and the Right seek to defang resistance movements and overall, paint anarchists and anti-fascists as “outside agitators,” a term that has lost none of its original purpose since police first used it to describe freedom riders in the South.

The question remains: will we normalize resistance to the regime, or the regime itself?


Image


More at: https://itsgoingdown.org/first-shot-ana ... ew-normal/
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Provocateurs in Berkeley (and elsewhere)?

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Thu Feb 09, 2017 1:06 pm

Everywhere, the ghost of combative autonomous self-activity scares both those in power and those waiting to take power...


Aye, it's almost like the point of most civilizations is containing precisely that: "combative autonomous self-activity."
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10896
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Provocateurs in Berkeley (and elsewhere)?

Postby American Dream » Thu Feb 09, 2017 1:33 pm

It's deep...

The state - an introduction


The state and capitalism

In a capitalist society, the success or failure of a state depends unsurprisingly on the success of capitalism within it.

Essentially, this means that within its territory profits are made so the economy can expand. The government can then take its share in taxation to fund its activities.

If businesses in a country are making healthy profits, investment will flow into profitable industries, companies will hire workers to turn their investment into more money. They and their workers will pay taxes on this money which keep the state running.

But if profits dip, investment will flow elsewhere to regions where profits will be higher. Companies will shut down, workers will be laid off, tax revenues will fall and local economies collapse.

So promoting profit and the growth of the economy is the key task of any state in capitalist society - including state capitalist economies which claim to be "socialist", like China or Cuba.


Against the state

This doesn't mean that our problems would be solved if the state disappeared tomorrow. It does mean, though, that the state is not detached from the basic conflict at the heart of capitalist society: that between employers and employees. Indeed, it is part of it and firmly on the side of employers.

Whenever workers have fought for improvements in our conditions, we have come into conflict not just with our bosses but also the state, who have used the police, the courts, the prisons and sometimes even the military to keep things as they were.

And where workers have attempted to use the state, or even take it over to further our interests, they have failed - because the very nature of the state is inherently opposed to the working class. They only succeeded in legitimising and strengthening the state which later turned against them.

It is our collective power and willingness to disrupt the economy that gives us the possibility of changing society. When we force the state to grant reforms we don't just win better conditions. Our actions point to a new society, based on a different set of principles. A society where our lives are more important than their 'economic growth'. A new type of society where there isn't a minority with wealth that need to be protected from those without; that is, a society where the state is unnecessary.

The state needs the economy to survive and so will always back those who control it. But the economy and the state are based on the work we do every day, and that gives us the power to disrupt them and eventually do away with them both.



Read our introduction to capitalism here.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Provocateurs in Berkeley (and elsewhere)?

Postby Luther Blissett » Thu Feb 09, 2017 2:30 pm

The classic:

Fashion Tips for the Brave

Nowadays, entirely apart from the question of whether you’re engaging in illegal activity, it can be important to protect your privacy while participating in public protests. Local and federal law enforcement agencies are compiling extensive files on everyone they deem suspect; if you don’t want them invading your privacy, it may be appropriate for you to remain anonymous while exercising your supposed right to free speech. The same goes double if you lack the privileges of citizenship or you fear your employer may discriminate against you for your political beliefs. In the light of the felony charges resulting from the recent RNC protests, it is especially important for activists to be aware of this.

We’ve already published extensively on this topic, most notably in the guide Blocs, Black and Otherwise. The following is largely a refresher for anyone who needs it before hitting the streets again.

Fashion Tips for the Brave and Fabulous
Do you desire to be an autonomous individual rather than a faceless, mass-produced cog in the machine? Great! That is, unless you are marching in a bloc—where conformity is a weapon that you can use to smash the machine itself.

The goal of the bloc as a tactic is to have everyone look as similar as possible, so that, ideally, no single individual can be identified within the anonymous mass. This helps to keep everybody safer. If only some people within a bloc take these precautions, the cops can more easily spot and target individuals and groups, which is dangerous both for those who are acting within the bloc and for those who are not. Those who make the effort to stay anonymous can draw extra police attention; those who don’t can be more easily identified, which can make them easier targets. Neither of these situations is desirable.

Take this stuff seriously! If you’re setting out to accomplish something risky, taking these precautions is crucial. If you’re not, you can help to protect your comrades and avoid making yourself a target.

  • If you’re going to wear a mask, keep it on at all appropriate times! If you are captured on camera or witnessed at any point with your mask off, you can then be easily identified with it on.
  • Be extremely conscientious about where and when you change into and out of your mask and anonymous clothing; there should be no cameras or hostile witnesses. If possible, explore the area in advance to find appropriate spaces for changing. Remember that police are especially likely to target masked individuals who are not in a crowd that is similarly dressed.
  • Wear different outfits layered one upon the other, so you’ll be prepared for any eventuality. Ideally, you should have one outfit for getting to the site of the action without attracting attention, your anonymous gear for the action itself, and then another outfit underneath so you can look like a harmless civilian as you exit the area. Don’t forget to stay hydrated, particularly if all those clothes get hot.
  • If you have tattoos that are or could be visible, cover them up! You can do this with makeup or concealer, especially if you use heavy-duty products designed for that purpose. Many actors and dancers use Dermablend to cover up tattoos, burns, and scars. It comes in numerous colors that can be mixed to match your skin tone, and it’s water resistant and rated for 12 hours of wear. It’s expensive, but cheaper than bail! If you can’t find Dermablend or a similar product, cover your tattoos with clothing that won’t ride up. Tuck your clothing in if you have to.
  • Likewise, if you have visible piercings, take them out—or at least cover them up so they are sure not to be exposed.
  • Do not march in a bloc wearing your regular clothing, especially if it’s distinctive. Cops may be stupid, but they can probably match the pictures of the masked-up person with the purple polka-dotted pants to pictures of the same person in the same outfit minus the mask—even if the pictures were taken on different days.
  • If you are going to carry a backpack or bag, don’t take the one you carry around in everyday life. No matter how perfect your outfit is, it’s all for naught if your bag is recognizable—especially if, like many people, you change bags much less frequently than you change clothes.
  • The same goes for your shoes, for similar reasons—wear different ones during the action than you wear every day. This is also important because cops can attempt to use footprints or other traces from shoes as evidence.
  • Do not wear patches or other identifiable insignia on your clothing while in a bloc, unless everyone else has exactly the same ones in exactly the same places.
  • Don’t just cover your face! Bandanas are popular and convenient, but they don’t conceal enough. Cover your head completely so your hair cannot be seen—especially if it’s distinctive. In a black bloc, you can do this by wearing a ski mask or making a mask out of a T-shirt—stretch the neck hole across your eyes and tie the sleeves behind your head, with the rest of the shirt covering your head and shoulders. In other circumstances, you could try a wig, if that fits the aesthetic of your action.
  • If possible, cover your eyes. Goggles can do this while serving the dual purpose of protecting your eyes from chemical weapons; nondescript sunglasses could also work in a pinch. Both of these can be obtained in prescription form and are better to use than your regular glasses, particularly if your regular glasses are distinctive. Contact lenses are not recommended in situations where you may come into contact with chemical weapons.
  • Be careful not to leave fingerprints and DNA evidence! Wear cloth gloves—leather and latex can retain fingerprints and even pass them on to objects you touch. Wipe down tools and other items with alcohol in advance, to clean fingerprints off them—you never know what might get lost in the chaos. Don’t forget about the batteries inside flashlights!
  • Practice at home! Don’t go out in a bulky outfit you’ve never worn before expecting to pull off cop-shocking feats of dexterity. You need to be familiar with your outfit and comfortable moving in it; it’s important that your vision isn’t compromised, too.
  • Do not let any of this give you a false sense of security. Be careful! Assess your relationship to risk honestly; don’t do anything if you’re not sure you could live with the worst possible consequences. Stay aware of your surroundings and listen to your instincts. Make sure you know and trust the people you’re working with, especially when it comes to high-risk activities. Practice proper security culture at all times. Know and assert your legal rights [PDF - .9 MB], especially in stressful situations. Doing so may not make things better, but failing to do so will certainly make them worse!
Don’t get caught! Stay safe(r), and smash the state!
The Rich and the Corporate remain in their hundred-year fever visions of Bolsheviks taking their stuff - JackRiddler
User avatar
Luther Blissett
 
Posts: 4990
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:31 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Provocateurs in Berkeley (and elsewhere)?

Postby Luther Blissett » Thu Feb 09, 2017 2:43 pm

And now, a really good critique, against both reactionary and liberal hand-wringing and bloc adventurism. Probably one of the best pieces I've read on black bloc tactics in years.

Back in Black

Salar Mohandesi February 8, 2017

On Friday, May 3, 1968, several hundred radical students stared down a contingent of fascists outside the Sorbonne, in Paris. The day before, the neo-fascist group Occident torched the offices of a leftist student organization, leaving behind their call sign, the Celtic Cross. In response, radical students called for a demonstration against “fascism and terror,” steeling themselves for a fight.

Brawls between radicals and fascists had become a common feature of the Parisian political scene since the Algerian War, when fascists turned to terrorism, assassination, and bombings in a last-ditch effort to prevent Algerian independence, demolish the left, and seize state power. After the war, paramilitary groups like Occident continued to wage war on the left. In this context, many student radicals began their political education in antifascist organizing, where they learned how to fight fascists in the streets, confront the police, and organize swift, militant actions. As one radical explained, “I was antifascist. That was how I was socialized. Others wielded the dialectic – I wielded the matraque.”

The radical youth groups of the 1960s developed paramilitary wings known as the service d’ordre (SO). As its name suggests, the SO took responsibility for maintaining general order. They acted as parade marshals during demonstrations, protected rallies and meetings from raids, defended militants hawking newspapers from fascist attacks, and later handled security at occupations. But the SO also played an offensive role, disrupting lectures during student strikes, storming fascist meetings, and confronting police during demonstrations. For those in the movement, there was no contradiction between these functions, so long as the SO answered to the larger struggle.

That Friday, both sides came prepared. When Occident thugs marched towards the university, sporting helmets, clubs, and smoke bombs, radicals fastened their helmets and smashed furniture to fashion weapons for the inevitable melee. Panicking, the chancellor called the police, who made matters worse by raiding the demonstration and making indiscriminate arrests. Students quickly retaliated, surrounding police vans, ripping up cobblestones, and throwing missiles at police.

The were 574 arrests that day. Students across Paris were radicalized by the crackdown, and took to the streets demanding that the police liberate their comrades. Protests climaxed a week later, on May 10, when radical youth, led by the battle-hardened SO, fought police into the night. Radicals cut down trees and overturned cars to erect barricades, stretched wires across the streets, rolled automobiles into police lines, set fires to halt police advances, and unleashed salvos of cobblestones. When the plumes of tear gas finally cleared, 200 cars lay in ruins, at least 400 were injured, and over 500 arrested.

Remarkably, despite the vandalism, violence, and property destruction, polls indicated that 80 percent of Parisians supported the youths. In fact, residents of the Latin Quarter provided protesters with food, water, material for barricades, and refuge from police. On May 13, the unions called a strike. Students occupied the university, factory workers followed suit, and by the end of the month, some nine million workers were on strike. As life in the capital ground to a halt, President de Gaulle left the country to consult with the army. Though de Gaulle soon reasserted control, the May events overturned French society. Factories became ungovernable for over a decade, diverse social movements proliferated across the country, and de Gaulle himself was forced out of office in 1969.

It’s astonishing to see, then, the reaction of the liberal intelligentsia to the return of the “black bloc” today. Some critics, like Erica Chenoweth, claim that “history” allegedly proves that “black bloc tactics” are ineffective. To begin with, accounts like these erroneously conflate militant street-fighting with armed struggles against dictatorships, misrepresenting the black bloc as a militia or guerrilla force, rather than a specific tactic. Even worse, they’re historically inaccurate. There’s little doubt among historians that militant street-fighting played a crucial, catalyzing role in 1960s France. There’s also agreement that the tactic proved effective in many other struggles – for an example closer to home, consider the Detroit uprising of 1967. Rather than ending in chaos, the riots not only radicalized unions, but actually generated long-lasting and durable organizations like the League of Revolutionary Black Workers.

But let’s not make the opposite error as Chenoweth. The example of May ‘68 does not suggest that street-fighting will automatically call into being mass movements of the kind that radically overturned French society in the 1960s and 1970s. The confrontational tactics of radical youth before and during May 1968 detonated a highly combustible conjuncture, and the exact political sequence of the May events can never be repeated.

“History,” then, does not provide us with models to mechanically follow or avoid. If the history of militant confrontation shows us anything, it’s that black bloc tactics may work in some cases and not in others: effectiveness depends entirely on the conjuncture at hand. Evocations of the past might shed light on a time when something like the black bloc did play an important role in social movements, but can’t tell us whether the black bloc is appropriate today. Only a concrete analysis of our concrete situation can determine what role, if any, the black bloc can play in today’s movements. While many have rightly questioned the bloc’s overall effectiveness over the past decade or so, we are now in an objectively different historical conjuncture, which should force us to reconsider the potential role of the black bloc.

New Conjuncture

As I have argued elsewhere, the black bloc represented a specific tactic that once enjoyed a valuable place within the strategy of a certain constellation of movements. But over the course of the 1980s and 1990s, these movements collapsed, repression heightened, and radical spaces were restructured, undermining the social bases that grounded black bloc tactics. The bloc managed to live on as a kind of “floating tactic,” but survival came at a cost. Without a broader strategy, partisans of the bloc found themselves compelled to continually reproduce this single tactic in the hopes of spontaneously resurrecting the strategy that once gave it meaning, trapping themselves in a bad infinity of spectacular actions. Separated from mass organs, its members tended to take on a distinct cultural identity, sometimes in outright opposition to movements. Throughout the 2000s, some black bloc militants derided other demonstrators for holding them back, while less confrontational activists denounced the bloc for irresponsible adventurism. It’s from this period that the bloc’s reputation dates.

But the dawning of the Trump administration has changed the game. By unleashing a massive assault on all sectors of the working class, his presidency has raised questions about security, personal safety, and bodily autonomy. Trump’s unilateral imposition of racist immigration policies has already thrown the lives of immigrants into disarray. Future actions will further imperil the lives of the undocumented. If passed, the Republican’s nationwide right-to-work bill would gut unions, leaving countless American workers even more vulnerable than they already are. Meanwhile, Trump’s foray into “healthcare reform” could leave twenty million Americans uninsured, potentially resulting in 43,956 deaths annually. Hate crimes have already spiked, as emboldened fascists have tagged swastikas in cities across the country, sent death threats to synagogues and mosques, and verbally and physically harassed minorities. Just two weeks ago a Tump supporter shot a protester at a Milo Yiannopoulos event in Seattle – the victim’s right to free speech saw none of the defense from civil libertarians that Richard Spencer was granted for a non-lethal punch. In this context, it’s worth reconsidering the role that militant confrontation, and self-defense, might play in protecting collective movements.

There’s also evidence that the idea of confrontation is gaining wider acceptance. Many of those organizers who have not previously adopted black bloc tactics are growing far more receptive, and in some places are seeking alliances with those who use them. Despite the controversy surrounding the event, it seems many Berkeley students supported the militant tactics that prevented Milo from speaking at Berkeley, where he intended to launch a campaign against sanctuary campuses, and may have planned to reveal the names of undocumented students. “My campus did nothing to stand between my undocumented community and the hateful hands of radicalized white men — the AntiFas did,” an undocumented student wrote of the Milo event. “A peaceful protest was not going to cancel that event, just like numerous letters from faculty, staff, Free Speech Movement veterans and even donors did not cancel the event. Only the destruction of glass and shooting of fireworks did that.”

There’s even a growing mainstream interest in the black bloc. Within hours, the video of Richard Spencer getting punched in the face received nearly a million views, and was set to music from “Born in the U.S.A.” to “The Boys Are Back in Town.” The black bloc is now discussed at the dinner table, featured on cable television, and addressed on the front page of the New York Times, challenging some mainstream liberals like Sarah Silverman to rethink their assumptions. This changing attitude is likely a reflection of the radicalizing political situation. Animated by Trump, hundreds of thousands of Americans who never joined a protest before this election are now sacrificing their free time for political meetings, marching against traffic, shutting down airports, getting trained as organizers, and even contemplating a general strike. Many are coming to feel that the violence of a broken window pales in comparison to the violence of Trump’s administration. In fact, it’s precisely this surprising openness to black bloc tactics that has sent critics into such a delirious state.

At the same time, black bloc militants recognize the need to find ways to organically integrate street-fighting within a whole ecosystem of struggles. Let’s not forget that in Berkeley, the bloc’s actions were only one aspect of a broader campaign that included publishing op-eds, buying out tickets, working with faculty to pressure the administration into canceling the event, organizing through the UAW, contacting local politicians, reaching out to different communities in the area, and holding public meetings.

The black bloc militants I’ve spoken to at recent demonstrations in Philadelphia have stressed the importance of working with larger mobilizations, not against them. That means transforming the bloc from an identity to an integrated tactic. The way forward, then, is to creatively articulate street-fighting not only with a wider range of tactics, but with wider mass movements, which will likely mean putting the bloc to a range of uses, as French radicals in the 1960s did with the service d’ordre.

During Trump’s inauguration, black bloc tactics helped Black Lives Matter activists shut down a checkpoint, chasing away neo-Nazis. What other uses can the bloc serve today? Shutting down airports? Protecting abortion clinics? Helping to stop deportation raids? Defending the autonomous survival programs we’ll need to develop in the coming years?

Challenges

The question, then, is whether Trump’s presidency has created the conditions to restore the black bloc to its historical function as an integral element of mass struggles, rather than as a floating tactic. It seems the possibility exists, but making this encounter take hold will no doubt present many challenges.

First, there’s the hypocrisy of American conventional wisdom on violence. During May ‘68, the Parisian public thought little of the dozens of cars that went up in flames. The police, whom the majority disrespected, were clearly in the wrong. In contrast, although it’s clear that thousands of Americans are coming to rethink militant confrontation in the streets, the ideology of law and order remains strong. Even among some who oppose Trump, the police are often presumed innocent, and their victims guilty. For the black bloc to find a firm place in today’s movements, this ideological deference to legal authority has to change.

This is not at all to say, as the liberals do, that this attitude is so ingrained that we should throw our hands in the air and police our movements so they appeal to liberal sensibilities. If there’s one thing we’ve learned this past year, it’s that the people’s attitudes can change rapidly. We can expect Trump to do some of this work for us. But we can also make an effort to wage a fierce campaign of political education, especially within the mass demonstrations drawing in tens of thousands a week, that insists we approach confrontation not through moralistic judgement but tactical consideration.

Second, there’s the challenge of formalizing the link between the black bloc and other struggles. To be effective, the black bloc requires a certain degree of autonomy, especially given the legal risks of confrontation. On the other hand, if the bloc is to amplify movements, rather than work at cross-purposes, it must be transparent and accountable. In the past, the balance was achieved through formal organizational unity. The service d’ordre, for example, existed within, and took general direction from, a larger organization. In this way, those engaged in bloc tactics and those involved with other actions could coordinate their efforts to achieve maximum effectiveness. To make the link work today, we need to find ways to recreate this formalized relationship, which means inventing new forms of unity and building collective organizations. In fact, in the current context, the very question of unity makes little sense without organization.

Lastly, and most importantly, if this reunification is to work, we need a strategy. The black bloc, after all, represents only a tactic. While Trump’s presidency may have created a new need for militant confrontation, the larger strategic questions that can give such a tactic meaning remain open. How can we collectively articulate diverse social forces into a lasting political unity that respects their different needs, interests, and desires? What forms of organized self-activity will resonate with the particular composition of the U.S. working classes? In what ways can the anti-Trump resistance transition into a positive movement for radical social change, beyond capitalism and the state? Only by thinking through these strategic questions can we really determine the place of the black bloc, and not the other way around.

Widening our Horizons

On May 7, 1968, members of the UJCml, one of the radical student organizations of the time, met at the École normale supérieure to discuss the student revolts. Robert Linhart, the group’s undisputed leader, remained convinced that the entire affair was a ruse. Fastened to a crude workerism, Linhart argued that rebellious students could not possibly lead the revolution. In fact, their puerile street-fighting was not only a distraction, but played right into the hands of the bourgeoisie by keeping them trapped in the Latin Quarter, away from the workers. As their flier, And Now to the Factories!, explained, everyone should “leave bourgeois neighborhoods where we have nothing to do,” and “go to the factories and popular neighborhoods to unite with the workers,” the only class who could make the revolution.

Yet the order to ignore the student demonstrations did not sit well with UJCml activists who watched as the Latin Quarter went up in flames. “Robert,” Linhart’s wife declared, “the students are fighting outside. It’s foolish to stay here, behind closed doors. It’s time to join in … The proletariat wants to join the demonstrations and, following the students’ example, to go on strike!” Linhart, however, refused to budge. Trapped in rigid models, refusing to assess the novelty of the situation at hand, the UJCml missed the opening acts of May ‘68.

It’s not 1968, and never will be again. The May events don’t give us a model to follow. On the contrary, they reveal the need to treat models and received ideas with caution, to remain politically flexible in the face of a new and unfamiliar situation. Indeed, this is the lesson French militants drew after the energies of the insurrectional period subsided. Many attempted to configure a historically adequate, effective set of political practices, through inquiry and “action committees,” to set up relays between the struggles of workers, students, immigrants, and the still-substantial French peasantry. We have to recognize that we’re in a radically different and quite unstable historical conjuncture. The playbook can only take us so far. We have to take inspiration from the struggles around us, whatever their contradictions, and broaden our imagination.

It may be that the black bloc’s time is over, that it remains completely inadequate to our present conjuncture. But it may also be the case that we can find ways to reintegrate the bloc into today’s struggles, which might ultimately make our movements even stronger. We will get nowhere by indulging in knee-jerk denunciations based in moralism, dubious appeals to the authority of history, or fixed ideas about what struggles ought to look like, as the real struggles rage outside. We have to begin with a concrete analysis of the concrete situation to see what kind of political experiments we need today, making sure we don’t miss the possibilities of unprecedented events. Instead of drawing conclusions from behind closed doors, we should base our strategy on what’s happening in the streets.
The Rich and the Corporate remain in their hundred-year fever visions of Bolsheviks taking their stuff - JackRiddler
User avatar
Luther Blissett
 
Posts: 4990
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:31 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Provocateurs in Berkeley (and elsewhere)?

Postby brekin » Thu Feb 09, 2017 3:54 pm

American Dream » Thu Feb 09, 2017 10:53 am wrote:
First, They Shot the Anarchists: Trump and ‘The New Normal’
The riots that took place during Trump’s inauguration as well as in Berkeley, California against Breitbart editor and Alt-Right troll Milo Yiannopoulos, have rocked the political establishment, created a collective gasp of disdain from liberal and leftist leadership, and generated a wave of blowback from both within the State and the mainstream press. Beyond the pillars of both media spectacle and the government, it seems that if there’s one thing that can bring reactionaries on both the Left and the Right together, it’s the demonizing of autonomous, collective acts of resistance and refusal by everyday people.
Those on the Right call for blood. Some have started petitions that seek to get the Trump administration to label anti-fascists a terrorist organization while also claiming that we are all funded by pro-Democratic billionaire, George Soros. Those on the Left simultaneously repeat similar conspiratorial positions that those who flooded into the streets to put their bodies and lives on the line and now face trumped up charges are both paid police agents and are “fully subordinated to the Democratic Party and the capitalist system.”
Everywhere, the ghost of combative autonomous self-activity scares both those in power and those waiting to take power as both the Left and the Right seek to defang resistance movements and overall, paint anarchists and anti-fascists as “outside agitators,” a term that has lost none of its original purpose since police first used it to describe freedom riders in the South.
The question remains: will we normalize resistance to the regime, or the regime itself?


Image

More at: https://itsgoingdown.org/first-shot-ana ... ew-normal/


That photo, that headline, that text. So unintentionally Starship Troopers binary, tertiary, for everyone involved.
Were any Anarchists "shot", or were they sprayed with pepper spray? Because there is a difference.

Geez, "The Bugs laid a trap for us didn't they?"

If I knew all mysteries and all knowledge, and have not charity, I am nothing. St. Paul
I hang onto my prejudices, they are the testicles of my mind. Eric Hoffer
User avatar
brekin
 
Posts: 3229
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:21 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Provocateurs in Berkeley (and elsewhere)?

Postby American Dream » Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:11 pm

I was watching film of the 1999 WTO protests last night- it brought back ugly memories. When the robe-cops attack you it feels incredibly violent. They aim rifles and other such things at you that may be "less lethal" but can wound horribly, remove eyes, cause permanent brain injury and certainly excruciating pain- that is exactly the point.

Are you a pacifist?
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Provocateurs in Berkeley (and elsewhere)?

Postby Luther Blissett » Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:29 pm

Which film? Publicly available?
The Rich and the Corporate remain in their hundred-year fever visions of Bolsheviks taking their stuff - JackRiddler
User avatar
Luther Blissett
 
Posts: 4990
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:31 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Provocateurs in Berkeley (and elsewhere)?

Postby American Dream » Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:34 pm

I watched a DVD of This Is What Democracy Looks Like. There is also a dramatic reenactment, available for free I think, on Netflix.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Provocateurs in Berkeley (and elsewhere)?

Postby brekin » Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:43 pm

American Dream » Thu Feb 09, 2017 3:11 pm wrote:I was watching film of the 1999 WTO protests last night- it brought back ugly memories. When the robe-cops attack you it feels incredibly violent. They aim rifles and other such things at you that may be "less lethal" but can wound horribly, remove eyes, cause permanent brain injury and certainly excruciating pain- that is exactly the point.

Are you a pacifist?


In those ugly memories, do you remember what you were protesting? :)
Because it seems the anti-Globalization/anti-free trade/anti-WTO candidate is now in office.

Pacifist? No.
The Jesus Christ pose doesn't really work for me.
Standing in front of armed riot cops during protests that get out of hand to be consecrated in the orange activist juice also doesn't seem to do much to disrupt the system.
I see cops as just other people with a certain job.
Standing in front of Star Bucks baristas and preventing them from doing their jobs seems about as gainful and successful at disrupting the system to me.
If I knew all mysteries and all knowledge, and have not charity, I am nothing. St. Paul
I hang onto my prejudices, they are the testicles of my mind. Eric Hoffer
User avatar
brekin
 
Posts: 3229
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:21 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Provocateurs in Berkeley (and elsewhere)?

Postby American Dream » Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:53 pm

My stance wasn't pro-Democrat or Republican, nor based on a demand for any isolated reform. I also wasn't locked down, preparing for a chemical weapons attack- I was helping push a friend in a wheelchair around for a good part of it and doing media work. This did not prevent me from being attacked.




brekin » Thu Feb 09, 2017 3:43 pm wrote:
American Dream » Thu Feb 09, 2017 3:11 pm wrote:I was watching film of the 1999 WTO protests last night- it brought back ugly memories. When the robe-cops attack you it feels incredibly violent. They aim rifles and other such things at you that may be "less lethal" but can wound horribly, remove eyes, cause permanent brain injury and certainly excruciating pain- that is exactly the point.

Are you a pacifist?


In those ugly memories, do you remember what you were protesting? :)
Because it seems the anti-Globalization/anti-free trade/anti-WTO candidate is now in office.

Pacifist? No.
The Jesus Christ pose doesn't really work for me.
Standing in front of armed riot cops during protests that get out of hand to be consecrated in the orange activist juice also doesn't seem to do much to disrupt the system.
I see cops as just other people with a certain job.
Standing in front of Star Bucks baristas and preventing them from doing their jobs seems about as gainful and successful at disrupting the system to me.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Provocateurs in Berkeley (and elsewhere)?

Postby brekin » Thu Feb 09, 2017 5:38 pm

American Dream » Thu Feb 09, 2017 3:53 pm wrote:My stance wasn't pro-Democrat or Republican, nor based on a demand for any isolated reform. I also wasn't locked down, preparing for a chemical weapons attack- I was helping push a friend in a wheelchair around for a good part of it and doing media work. This did not prevent me from being attacked.


I don't doubt that. When you go to the riots expect anything and everything. The world is neither a fair, nor fair.

Image
If I knew all mysteries and all knowledge, and have not charity, I am nothing. St. Paul
I hang onto my prejudices, they are the testicles of my mind. Eric Hoffer
User avatar
brekin
 
Posts: 3229
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:21 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Provocateurs in Berkeley (and elsewhere)?

Postby American Dream » Thu Feb 09, 2017 5:43 pm

That seems kinda cold, to me.

I did not go for riots, and the only kind I saw was a police riot. Everything had been planned for months as nonviolent civil disobedience- and that is all I expected.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests