Hedges writes: "The Black Bloc anarchists, who have been active on the streets in Oakland and other cities, are the cancer of the Occupy movement. The presence of Black Bloc anarchists - so named because they dress in black, obscure their faces, move as a unified mass, seek physical confrontations with police and destroy property - is a gift from heaven to the security and surveillance state."
Chris Hedges, activist, journalist and Truthdig columnist, 6/12/11. (photo: lannanfoundation/flickr)
The Cancer in Occupy
06 February 12
he Black Bloc anarchists, who have been active on the streets in Oakland and other cities, are the cancer of the Occupy movement. The presence of Black Bloc anarchists - so named because they dress in black, obscure their faces, move as a unified mass, seek physical confrontations with police and destroy property - is a gift from heaven to the security and surveillance state. The Occupy encampments in various cities were shut down precisely because they were nonviolent. They were shut down because the state realized the potential of their broad appeal even to those within the systems of power. They were shut down because they articulated a truth about our economic and political system that cut across political and cultural lines. And they were shut down because they were places mothers and fathers with strollers felt safe.
Black Bloc adherents detest those of us on the organized left and seek, quite consciously, to take away our tools of empowerment. They confuse acts of petty vandalism and a repellent cynicism with revolution. The real enemies, they argue, are not the corporate capitalists, but their collaborators among the unions, workers' movements, radical intellectuals, environmental activists and populist movements such as the Zapatistas. Any group that seeks to rebuild social structures, especially through nonviolent acts of civil disobedience, rather than physically destroy, becomes, in the eyes of Black Bloc anarchists, the enemy. Black Bloc anarchists spend most of their fury not on the architects of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) or globalism, but on those, such as the Zapatistas, who respond to the problem. It is a grotesque inversion of value systems.
Because Black Bloc anarchists do not believe in organization, indeed oppose all organized movements, they ensure their own powerlessness. They can only be obstructionist. And they are primarily obstructionist to those who resist. John Zerzan, one of the principal ideologues of the Black Bloc movement in the United States, defended "Industrial Society and Its Future," the rambling manifesto by Theodore Kaczynski, known as the Unabomber, although he did not endorse Kaczynski's bombings. Zerzan is a fierce critic of a long list of supposed sellouts starting with Noam Chomsky. Black Bloc anarchists are an example of what Theodore Roszak in "The Making of a Counter Culture" called the "progressive adolescentization" of the American left.
In Zerzan's now defunct magazine Green Anarchy (which survives as a website) he published an article by someone named "Venomous Butterfly" that excoriated the Zapatista Army for National Liberation (EZLN). The essay declared that "not only are those [the Zapatistas'] aims not anarchist; they are not even revolutionary." It also denounced the indigenous movement for "nationalist language," for asserting the right of people to "alter or modify their form of government" and for having the goals of "work, land, housing, health care, education, independence, freedom, democracy, justice and peace." The movement, the article stated, was not worthy of support because it called for "nothing concrete that could not be provided by capitalism."
"Of course," the article went on, "the social struggles of exploited and oppressed people cannot be expected to conform to some abstract anarchist ideal. These struggles arise in particular situations, sparked by specific events. The question of revolutionary solidarity in these struggles is, therefore, the question of how to intervene in a way that is fitting with one's aims, in a way that moves one's revolutionary anarchist project forward."
Solidarity becomes the hijacking or destruction of competing movements, which is exactly what the Black Bloc contingents are attempting to do with the Occupy movement.
"The Black Bloc can say they are attacking cops, but what they are really doing is destroying the Occupy movement," the writer and environmental activist Derrick Jensen told me when I reached him by phone in California. "If their real target actually was the cops and not the Occupy movement, the Black Bloc would make their actions completely separate from Occupy, instead of effectively using these others as a human shield. Their attacks on cops are simply a means to an end, which is to destroy a movement that doesn't fit their ideological standard."
"I don't have a problem with escalating tactics to some sort of militant resistance if it is appropriate morally, strategically and tactically," Jensen continued. "This is true if one is going to pick up a sign, a rock or a gun. But you need to have thought it through. The Black Bloc spends more time attempting to destroy movements than they do attacking those in power. They hate the left more than they hate capitalists."
"Their thinking is not only nonstrategic, but actively opposed to strategy," said Jensen, author of several books, including "The Culture of Make Believe." "They are unwilling to think critically about whether one is acting appropriately in the moment. I have no problem with someone violating boundaries [when] that violation is the smart, appropriate thing to do. I have a huge problem with people violating boundaries for the sake of violating boundaries. It is a lot easier to pick up a rock and throw it through the nearest window than it is to organize, or at least figure out which window you should throw a rock through if you are going to throw a rock. A lot of it is laziness."
Groups of Black Bloc protesters, for example, smashed the windows of a locally owned coffee shop in November in Oakland and looted it. It was not, as Jensen points out, a strategic, moral or tactical act. It was done for its own sake. Random acts of violence, looting and vandalism are justified, in the jargon of the movement, as components of "feral" or "spontaneous insurrection." These acts, the movement argues, can never be organized. Organization, in the thinking of the movement, implies hierarchy, which must always be opposed. There can be no restraints on "feral" or "spontaneous" acts of insurrection. Whoever gets hurt gets hurt. Whatever gets destroyed gets destroyed.
There is a word for this - "criminal."
The Black Bloc movement is infected with a deeply disturbing hypermasculinity. This hypermasculinity, I expect, is its primary appeal. It taps into the lust that lurks within us to destroy, not only things but human beings. It offers the godlike power that comes with mob violence. Marching as a uniformed mass, all dressed in black to become part of an anonymous bloc, faces covered, temporarily overcomes alienation, feelings of inadequacy, powerlessness and loneliness. It imparts to those in the mob a sense of comradeship. It permits an inchoate rage to be unleashed on any target. Pity, compassion and tenderness are banished for the intoxication of power. It is the same sickness that fuels the swarms of police who pepper-spray and beat peaceful demonstrators. It is the sickness of soldiers in war. It turns human beings into beasts.
"We run on," Erich Maria Remarque wrote in "All Quiet on the Western Front," "overwhelmed by this wave that bears us along, that fills us with ferocity, turns us into thugs, into murderers, into God only knows what devils: this wave that multiplies our strength with fear and madness and greed of life, seeking and fighting for nothing but our deliverance."
The corporate state understands and welcomes the language of force. It can use the Black Bloc's confrontational tactics and destruction of property to justify draconian forms of control and frighten the wider population away from supporting the Occupy movement. Once the Occupy movement is painted as a flag-burning, rock-throwing, angry mob we are finished. If we become isolated we can be crushed. The arrests last weekend in Oakland of more than 400 protesters, some of whom had thrown rocks, carried homemade shields and rolled barricades, are an indication of the scale of escalating repression and a failure to remain a unified, nonviolent opposition. Police pumped tear gas, flash-bang grenades and "less lethal" rounds into the crowds. Once protesters were in jail they were denied crucial medications, kept in overcrowded cells and pushed around. A march in New York called in solidarity with the Oakland protesters saw a few demonstrators imitate the Black Bloc tactics in Oakland, including throwing bottles at police and dumping garbage on the street. They chanted "Fuck the police" and "Racist, sexist, anti-gay / NYPD go away."
This is a struggle to win the hearts and minds of the wider public and those within the structures of power (including the police) who are possessed of a conscience. It is not a war. Nonviolent movements, on some level, embrace police brutality. The continuing attempt by the state to crush peaceful protesters who call for simple acts of justice delegitimizes the power elite. It prompts a passive population to respond. It brings some within the structures of power to our side and creates internal divisions that will lead to paralysis within the network of authority. Martin Luther King kept holding marches in Birmingham because he knew Public Safety Commissioner "Bull" Connor was a thug who would overreact.
The Black Bloc's thought-terminating cliché of "diversity of tactics" in the end opens the way for hundreds or thousands of peaceful marchers to be discredited by a handful of hooligans. The state could not be happier. It is a safe bet that among Black Bloc groups in cities such as Oakland are agents provocateurs spurring them on to more mayhem. But with or without police infiltration the Black Bloc is serving the interests of the 1 percent. These anarchists represent no one but themselves. Those in Oakland, although most are white and many are not from the city, arrogantly dismiss Oakland's African-American leaders, who, along with other local community organizers, should be determining the forms of resistance.
The explosive rise of the Occupy Wall Street movement came when a few women, trapped behind orange mesh netting, were pepper-sprayed by NYPD Deputy Inspector Anthony Bologna. The violence and cruelty of the state were exposed. And the Occupy movement, through its steadfast refusal to respond to police provocation, resonated across the country. Losing this moral authority, this ability to show through nonviolent protest the corruption and decadence of the corporate state, would be crippling to the movement. It would reduce us to the moral degradation of our oppressors. And that is what our oppressors want.
The Black Bloc movement bears the rigidity and dogmatism of all absolutism sects. Its adherents alone possess the truth. They alone understand. They alone arrogate the right, because they are enlightened and we are not, to dismiss and ignore competing points of view as infantile and irrelevant. They hear only their own voices. They heed only their own thoughts. They believe only their own clichés. And this makes them not only deeply intolerant but stupid.
"Once you are hostile to organization and strategic thinking the only thing that remains is lifestyle purity," Jensen said. " ‘Lifestylism' has supplanted organization in terms of a lot of mainstream environmental thinking. Instead of opposing the corporate state, [lifestylism maintains] we should use less toilet paper and should compost. This attitude is ineffective. Once you give up on organizing or are hostile to it, all you are left with is this hyperpurity that becomes rigid dogma. You attack people who, for example, use a telephone. This is true with vegans and questions of diet. It is true with anti-car activists toward those who drive cars. It is the same with the anarchists. When I called the police after I received death threats I became to Black Bloc anarchists ‘a pig lover.' "
"If you live on Ogoni land and you see that Ken Saro-Wiwa is murdered for acts of nonviolent resistance," Jensen said, "if you see that the land is still being trashed, then you might think about escalating. I don't have a problem with that. But we have to go through the process of trying to work with the system and getting screwed. It is only then that we get to move beyond it. We can't short-circuit the process. There is a maturation process we have to go through, as individuals and as a movement. We can't say, ‘Hey, I'm going to throw a flowerpot at a cop because it is fun.' "
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |














Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
How do you tell the difference between black-block and 1% provocateurs? The provocateurs know how destructive to we the people they are, I guess, and get police-issued shoes.
Rejection of hierarchy does not mean rejection of discipline, compassion, principles, humility and accountability. Far from it.
I suspect that a critical number of these so-called anarchists are police agents and paid Koch thugs.
These thugs cant follow into action. These criminals have a historical analogy- the Brown Shirts, thugs used by Adolf Hitler to do random acts of violence, stupid things like attacking a locally owned coffee shop. Of course, Hitler executed the Brown Shirts so loyal to him when he got his power, knowing what fools act like this. Such people are fools by nature, hoping for bloodshed that can only create the strictest and most militaristic of societies. Everything they do plays into the hands of the worst people, the enemies of communisim, democracy. These anarchists are what stopped rebellion at the turn of the 20th century from the 19th, as average people saw capitalism as better than being shot and roasted.
They have the same morals as teh CEOs who give themselves and insiders millions in morally stolen bonuses- there is a song about it
"Nobody else in the world but you?
I read that some are discouraged by the difficulties of rule by consensus. I see rule by consensus as peripheral. Occupy's signal achievement has been to change what people talk about. Whatever it takes to keep *that* going, I'll continue to support in ways that I can.
I also believe this to be true.
I's sometimes been hard to know which were the "agents provocateurs" and the finks but the combination caused a real in situ headache for those of us who were trying to keep the peace and get the public on our side.
I got a few bruises and bashings myself (and gave some back) just trying to figure that out but in fact was trying to help the cops at the time by isolating these bastards.
Sorry to hear about their re-emergence. Has "Occupy" thought of trying out some marshals? must enquire of a few bod's I know (I'm gettin' too bloody old for the physical part but would still like to support them in some way).
The right wing and their media LOVE this development.
"Anarchists" are nothing more than wannabe dictators.
*** RSN MODERATOR'S NOTE ***
While you are reading a comment, many other people are also reading it, and voting. When you click a thumbs up or down, it refreshes the count with the total of all the votes during that period of time - not just yours.
To see an accurate reflection of your vote, simply refresh the page and then vote immediately.
If you want infotainment, tune in to any of the major US "News Channels". Some of us like fact-rich dialogue from articulate, passionate, experienced and credible reporters like C.H., an endangered species!.
Big corporation, the Lobby, are very skillful at the art of infiltrating. I am sure they are there in the OWS as they are in the Arab Spring.
Investigate and denounce them before it's too late.
The Occupy movement is an offshoot of dissatisfaction with the status quo. It makes sense that is leaderless now as that phase in itself will evolve.
No need to label it right or leftwing.
Personally I am so tired of the irdeolgical extremeism. Is it really neccsary for an individual to align his/her self with one side or the other.
This polarization is the exact reason why Congress is paralyzed. What if there was no party gain by doing the right thing. The sharp minds of Congress would hav solved more issues as they would not have to serve one or the ideology.
It is time for humnaity to move on and shed segregationism through political rhetoric.
Why can't we find common ground for working together.
Hey giys we are in the 21st century with a huge amount od techno tools and savvy. We have great social networks to communicate. Parallels to the French Revolution etc. are somewhat useful but not relevant to where we are today.
We are ALL tired of ideological extremism. That is WHY we have embraced OWS. There is NO OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD MORE IDEOLOGICAL EXTREME THAN THE USA.
It is time to move on, as you say, and begin to relate to the amazing possibilities of the technology you refer to. Sadly, though, the U.S. probably will stagnate in that system regardless of efforts to stimulate alternatives by such as OWS.
Black Block, neither Idiots nor Pervs, but 'Peace Terrorists'.
Deliberate 'infiltrators', ....'False Flaggers' , giving their compadres in the Forces of Oppression, the excuse they 'need' to 'crack down' and send everyone home.
(Probably many CIA, off-duty cops etc,)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homage_to_Catalonia#Chapter_eight
The results of this type of action are to frighten people away from participation for fear of violence, to make it harder to form coalitions with other groups, and permitting the rulers of our country to stereotype the movement as violent and confuse who are the violent ones in the society.
Building a movement is a long and sometimes exhausting job. Most of the Occupy protesters are committed to attending meetings and participating in committees and occupying. A certain amount of leadership might help determine long-term strategy, if that leadership comes from within the ranks of Occupy and is answerable at all times.
That does not mean an end to democracy; it means that a small offshoot of the movement does not determine the nature of an action and how it is perceived. Although it is dangerous deliberately provoke the police, breaking things is like an angry adolescent fighting with a parent. It doesn't require a lot of work.
"Once you give up on organizing or are hostile to it, all you are left with is this hyperpurity that becomes rigid dogma. You attack people who, for example, use a telephone. This is true with vegans and questions of diet. It is true with anti-car activists toward those who drive cars. "
The overwhelming majority of vegans and anti-car activists are thoughtful and respectful of those who disagree with them. That there are some a**holes among them is not the basis for this kind of generalization.
The Black Bloc, on the other hand, is organized disrespect.
Would the author of this report please consider that government at some level or corporatists, or both, may actually be hiring and training such infiltrators?
Is it possible to report such trashing or criminal behavior to the police since you are entitled to their protection for your right to peaceful assembly?
I hope there is some way to quell or neutralize peacefully such infiltrating groups that seem to be there just to give cause to the media to slam Occupying groups.
Whatcha think? sandyo@PassERA.org
Those of us who believe in the civil disobedience of Ghandi or King are quite aware that a violent uprising in the U.S. only assures death and destruction.
What is going on with these naive people is some form of romanticized version of violence for violence's sake. Violence can be a rather toxic and attractive elixer to these disenfranchised , shiftless, and extremely alienated young adults. There is no future in the minds of these kids other than burger flipping or being a barista at the local coffee joint. Sort of reminds me of the movie "Fight Club." What is really scary is that I might of joined them 30 years ago.
http://www.statsvet.su.se/publikationer/ahmed/andra_artiklar/ahmed_partition_of_india_r.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=af75n5DjRis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtqHSLDuXR8&feature=related
I'm all for demanding that demonstrators take off their masks or leave - "no masks" should be one of OWS's ground rules. But what if the masked toughs refuse to do either? The cops won't help.
This quote says it all:
"..I have no problem with someone violating boundaries [when] that violation is the smart, appropriate thing to do. I have a huge problem with people violating boundaries for the sake of violating boundaries. It is a lot easier to pick up a rock and throw it through the nearest window than it is to organize, or at least figure out which window you should throw a rock through if you are going to throw a rock..."
To me, this illustrates the moral hypocrisy that was at the root of the Occupy movement from the very beginning, and was the seed for its self-destructio n. Had it been committed--I mean really committed-- to non-violent protest in the tradition of King and Gandhi, it would have grown in popularity and support rather than marginalize itself.
Once you have a mindset that "throwing rocks" is permissible, you lose control over who throws them, where and when. Or as King might say, you start the cycle of violence.
I am hoping for a non-violent centrist synthesis of the Tea Party and Occupy. In a democracy, real change comes from the majority, not the fringes.
In fact, there was little violence and it was transient. And a good possibility that it was sparked and encouraged by police agents provocateurs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_1968_in_France
Oakland Police Dept has a history of operating as a terrorist gang. This goes back at least as far as the death squads run by OPD against the Black Panthers Party.( Say what you want about the Panthers, they were anything but anarchists) What transpired on Saturday the 28th would have happened with or without the Black Bloc. Occupy announced ahead of time the intention occupy a deserted building and convert it into a comminuity center as a space for organizing and providing services, such as food and clothing distributions for those most affected by the criminal activities of the banksters and their allies in Oakland’s liberal government ( entities that have done nothing to alleviate structural poverty in Oakland and they have monopolized economic and political control for a generation.) The unemployment rate in Oakland is comparable to the Central Valley. The levels of hunger and homelessness in Oakland and Alameda County surpass the Central Valley. Occupy Oakland was merely attempting to highlight these glaring disparities and point out the hypocrisy of the elites in control, and were met with overwhelming militarized force the moment the march to the abandoned convention center began. (as an aside, I find it hard to believe that there were over 400 members of the Black Bloc in Oakland that day). The left needs to stop eating at itself and focus on the elites.
In Paris 59 there was a service d'order that took care of that sort of trouble maker. Since they cannot rule their own actions some one needs to protect the less aggressive. We must police ourselves of course. Follow the example of the American Indian Movement by providing food, water, lawyers, medics and protection. Teach the weak how to deal with the bully boys in black as well as the bully boys in blue. They are the same sick personalities. Realize that the changes needed and survival sometimes require force.The cop handing a woopin to a weaker person, the Blocer smashing bookstore windows, provoking cops to attack children need the spanking. Making changes sometimes is a contact agenda, be aware.
The most significant thing about Occupy is how is has managed to gain the support of a broad swath of the public. If "everyday folks" are scared off by factions like the BB, the movement is doomed to remain small, isolated and ineffective. Violence is the playing field of the state, on which we will always lose if only because the state is so much better armed. MLK and Ghandi led movements that achieved real social change because they understand that.
And folks, enough with the comments speculating that "ooh, maybe some of these folks are police provocateurs!" OF COURSE they are. It's been documented again and again.
Hint to BB'ers who AREN'T on the police payroll: if your "revolutionary actions" look exactly like what the police are doing to destroy your movement, you're doing it wrong.
http://nplusonemag.com/concerning-the-violent-peace-police
I suspect the truth, as usual,is somewhere in the middle.
RSS feed for comments to this post