Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
Unless expressly stated, I'm not implying either agreement or disagreement with views cited or linked to.
Stuff that looks like this is quoted material.
Stuff that looks like this is my own opinions.
Perhaps this discussion influenced the Bloc's tactics at the D.C. event. In D.C., the Bloc worked in strong solidarity with the rest of the protesters, in a manner that was spirited and inspiring. They kicked ass, and did not forget about the rest of the mobilization. They "Blocked" intersections with ruthless efficiency, and fought off police brutality with spirit. They were one of the major presences at the event.
"Everyone in black?" "Everyone in black." "EVERYONE in black?" "EVERYONE IN BLACK!"
i looked around and noticed cops pushing their way towards the small group and i started towards them and was blocked by an undercover cop, it seemed that they had been surrounded by undercover agents, I stood in front of police as they pushed in but they pushed me aside unninturested in me because of my brightly covered shirt, and did arrest most all of our brothers and sisters in the black bloc.
My affinity group was U-Locked by their necks at 21st & G. A riot squad descended on us. As ten huge cops beat us, most of our intersection sat down, donned peace signs, and hummed. This quickly confused the riot cops who backed off. Enter some black bloc folks. They--in short--struck the cops, slammed on their cars, and broke a window of some random car. The cops retaliated. They drove into the black bloc mob... who split like the red sea. So the riot cops beat us. Three folks in the lock down took clubs to their faces. And the cops dumped protestors on top of the U-Locked people. Their necks were on the line.
More useful than attacking inanimate objects which pose no immediate threat to the day's actions, it would seem sensible for black bloc type affinity groups to engage in diverting police attention from those aggressively or passively engaged in trying to shut down the streets and the meetings. Moreover, such affinity groups could engage in all manner of offensive actions to penetrate police lines, spontaneously construct barricades where needed, and so forth. Remaining focused on that goal -- which many black block activists began the day with on N30 in Seattle but were themselves diverted from -- would go a long way toward ensuring the sustainability of protest, and the success of civil disobedience.
The Black Blocs brought to the actions tactical energy, creativity, and courage, as in Seattle, but now also considerable willingness to blend these attributes into the larger venue respecting the desires of other constituencies and repeatedly actively defending their less prepared fellow participants. It was a praiseworthy transformation in a very short period. Likewise, activists personally dedicated to non-violence openly respected those advocating different tactical views. Tactical differences remain, and hitches in the mosaic, of course, as do political differences, but all are being constructively handled, which is also great progress.
Clearly the left, broadly speaking, has come to a creative impasse. We need to invent some new forms of demonstrating that minimize the danger while maximizing the possibilities for individual self-expression (sea turtle costumes, songs, dancing, and general playfulness). We need ways of protesting that are accessible to the uninitiated, untrained, nonvegan population as well as to the seasoned veteran. We need to figure out how to capture public attention while, as often as possible, directly accomplishing some not- entirely-symbolic purpose, such as gumming up a WTO meeting or, for that matter, slowing down latté sales at a Starbucks.
Rock-throwing doesn't exactly fit these criteria, nor did the old come-as-you-are demos of the sixties. But neither do the elaborately choreo-graphed rituals known as "nonviolent" civil disobedience. The people at Direct Action Network, Global Exchange, and other groups were smart enough to comprehend the workings of the WTO, IMF, and World Bank. Now it's time for them to figure out how large numbers of people can protest the international capitalist cabal without getting clobbered--or trashed by their fellow demonstrators--in the process.
Prefatory note: the following discussion pertains only to what people organising themselves in a Black Bloc do in the context of a larger, heterogeneous Frente Amplio mass action, where the perspective of a broad spectrum of non-pro-global-monopolist opinion needs to be considered.
I think the general thrust of my thinking is that in an ideal world (in which actions themselves wouldn't be needed, of course), the militant tactics of the black bloc wouldn't be appropriate or necessary in a symbolic civil disobedience demonstration, because the authorities could be relied on to be civil: they might indeed arrest civil disobeyers (one can't really object to this: it is sort of in the definition) but would not abuse them. There would of course be no reason that anarchists couldn't all wear black and march in a group. Masks would not be needed, as we would not fear to exercise our constitutional rights without fear of reprisal, etc.
Unfortunately this is not the world we live in. It has become apparent that while the Opposition was considerably more subtle for A16, unacceptable and unprovoked police violence and abuse took place. I don't yet know what happened at Windsor/Detroit; that will provide more data. But given the propensity of the Opposition for violence against our civilian population, one has to consider a conterforce strategy. Given the overwhelming armed superiority of the Opposition, direct defense is problematic, altho' certainly one valuable and heroic action of the Black Bloc can be to intervene on behalf of attacked civilian demonstrators, if and only if this is in accord with the wishes of the attackees. To intervene without the consent of the intended beneficiaries can easily even with the best of intentions violate their space and autonomy, and thus be contrary to anarchist principles. The actual mechanics of coordinating this agreement could be somewhat complex, but should be investigated.
Another possible action of the Bloc is in carefully targeted, reactive countervalue strikes. The understanding here would be that if the Opposition stays clean, the Bloc refrains from countervalue actions (trashing); if the Opposition resorts to abuse, they have violated the social contract and our basic democratic and constitutional rights to peaceably assemble, petition for redress, etc. One must grant that civil disobedience involves breaking the law, and so civil, nonviolent arrest must be viewed as a response within the rules by the Opposition. However, abuse, abuse of prisoners, preemptive strikes such as the 600-odd prior to A16 and the Convergence Center raid are violations of our basic rights, and can legitimately be answered with tactical flexibility.
The argument in favor of tactical flexibility is that it might provide pressure on the Opposition to avoid violence. If it is widely understood that violations of our rights will be answered by proportionate reactive strikes against corporate property, this might create an economic and political cost for the Opposition sufficient to dissuade them from attacks on our civilian population. The argument against it is that any tactic involving property damage or active confrontation provides material which the Opposition and their controlled media will use to justify precisely the sort of violations of our political rights which these tactics might be used to prevent.