Are You An #Anarchist ? The Answer May Surprise You!
by David Graeber
Chances are you have already heard something about who anarchists are and what they are supposed to believe. Chances are almost everything you have heard is nonsense. Many people seem to think that anarchists are proponents of violence, chaos, and destruction, that they are against all forms of order and organization, or that they are crazed nihilists who just want to blow everything up. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to. It is really a very simple notion. But it’s one that the rich and powerful have always found extremely dangerous.
At their very simplest, anarchist beliefs turn on to two elementary assumptions. The first is that human beings are, under ordinary circumstances, about as reasonable and decent as they are allowed to be, and can organize themselves and their communities without needing to be told how. The second is that power corrupts. Most of all, anarchism is just a matter of having the courage to take the simple principles of common decency that we all live by, and to follow them through to their logical conclusions. Odd though this may seem, in most important ways you are probably already an anarchist — you just don’t realize it.
Let’s start by taking a few examples from everyday life.
- If there’s a line to get on a crowded bus, do you wait your turn and refrain from elbowing your way past others even in the absence of police?
If you answered “yes”, then you are used to acting like an anarchist! The most basic anarchist principle is self-organization: the assumption that human beings do not need to be threatened with prosecution in order to be able to come to reasonable understandings with each other, or to treat each other with dignity and respect.
Everyone believes they are capable of behaving reasonably themselves. If they think laws and police are necessary, it is only because they don’t believe that other people are. But if you think about it, don’t those people all feel exactly the same way about you? Anarchists argue that almost all the anti-social behavior which makes us think it’s necessary to have armies, police, prisons, and governments to control our lives, is actually caused by the systematic inequalities and injustice those armies, police, prisons and governments make possible. It’s all a vicious circle. If people are used to being treated like their opinions do not matter, they are likely to become angry and cynical, even violent — which of course makes it easy for those in power to say that their opinions do not matter. Once they understand that their opinions really do matter just as much as anyone else’s, they tend to become remarkably understanding. To cut a long story short: anarchists believe that for the most part it is power itself, and the effects of power, that make people stupid and irresponsible.
- Are you a member of a club or sports team or any other voluntary organization where decisions are not imposed by one leader but made on the basis of general consent?
If you answered “yes”, then you belong to an organization which works on anarchist principles! Another basic anarchist principle is voluntary association. This is simply a matter of applying democratic principles to ordinary life. The only difference is that anarchists believe it should be possible to have a society in which everything could be organized along these lines, all groups based on the free consent of their members, and therefore, that all top-down, military styles of organization like armies or bureaucracies or large corporations, based on chains of command, would no longer be necessary. Perhaps you don’t believe that would be possible. Perhaps you do. But every time you reach an agreement by consensus, rather than threats, every time you make a voluntary arrangement with another person, come to an understanding, or reach a compromise by taking due consideration of the other person’s particular situation or needs, you are being an anarchist — even if you don’t realize it.
Anarchism is just the way people act when they are free to do as they choose, and when they deal with others who are equally free — and therefore aware of the responsibility to others that entails. This leads to another crucial point: that while people can be reasonable and considerate when they are dealing with equals, human nature is such that they cannot be trusted to do so when given power over others. Give someone such power, they will almost invariably abuse it in some way or another.
- Do you believe that most politicians are selfish, egotistical swine who don’t really care about the public interest? Do you think we live in an economic system which is stupid and unfair?
If you answered “yes”, then you subscribe to the anarchist critique of today’s society — at least, in its broadest outlines. Anarchists believe that power corrupts and those who spend their entire lives seeking power are the very last people who should have it. Anarchists believe that our present economic system is more likely to reward people for selfish and unscrupulous behavior than for being decent, caring human beings. Most people feel that way. The only difference is that most people don’t think there’s anything that can be done about it, or anyway — and this is what the faithful servants of the powerful are always most likely to insist — anything that won’t end up making things even worse.
But what if that weren’t true?
And is there really any reason to believe this? When you can actually test them, most of the usual predictions about what would happen without states or capitalism turn out to be entirely untrue. For thousands of years people lived without governments. In many parts of the world people live outside of the control of governments today. They do not all kill each other. Mostly they just get on about their lives the same as anyone else would. Of course, in a complex, urban, technological society all this would be more complicated: but technology can also make all these problems a lot easier to solve. In fact, we have not even begun to think about what our lives could be like if technology were really marshaled to fit human needs. How many hours would we really need to work in order to maintain a functional society — that is, if we got rid of all the useless or destructive occupations like telemarketers, lawyers, prison guards, financial analysts, public relations experts, bureaucrats and politicians, and turn our best scientific minds away from working on space weaponry or stock market systems to mechanizing away dangerous or annoying tasks like coal mining or cleaning the bathroom, and distribute the remaining work among everyone equally? Five hours a day? Four? Three? Two? Nobody knows because no one is even asking this kind of question. Anarchists think these are the very questions we should be asking.
- Do you really believe those things you tell your children (or that your parents told you)?
“It doesn’t matter who started it.” “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” “Clean up your own mess.” “Do unto others…” “Don’t be mean to people just because they’re different.” Perhaps we should decide whether we’re lying to our children when we tell them about right and wrong, or whether we’re willing to take our own injunctions seriously. Because if you take these moral principles to their logical conclusions, you arrive at anarchism.
Take the principle that two wrongs don’t make a right. If you really took it seriously, that alone would knock away almost the entire basis for war and the criminal justice system. The same goes for sharing: we’re always telling children that they have to learn to share, to be considerate of each other’s needs, to help each other; then we go off into the real world where we assume that everyone is naturally selfish and competitive. But an anarchist would point out: in fact, what we say to our children is right. Pretty much every great worthwhile achievement in human history, every discovery or accomplishment that’s improved our lives, has been based on cooperation and mutual aid; even now, most of us spend more of our money on our friends and families than on ourselves; while likely as not there will always be competitive people in the world, there’s no reason why society has to be based on encouraging such behavior, let alone making people compete over the basic necessities of life. That only serves the interests of people in power, who want us to live in fear of one another. That’s why anarchists call for a society based not only on free association but mutual aid. The fact is that most children grow up believing in anarchist morality, and then gradually have to realize that the adult world doesn’t really work that way. That’s why so many become rebellious, or alienated, even suicidal as adolescents, and finally, resigned and bitter as adults; their only solace, often, being the ability to raise children of their own and pretend to them that the world is fair. But what if we really could start to build a world which really was at least founded on principles of justice? Wouldn’t that be the greatest gift to one’s children one could possibly give?
- Do you believe that human beings are fundamentally corrupt and evil, or that certain sorts of people (women, people of color, ordinary folk who are not rich or highly educated) are inferior specimens, destined to be ruled by their betters?
If you answered “yes”, then, well, it looks like you aren’t an anarchist after all. But if you answered “no”, then chances are you already subscribe to 90% of anarchist principles, and, likely as not, are living your life largely in accord with them. Every time you treat another human with consideration and respect, you are being an anarchist. Every time you work out your differences with others by coming to reasonable compromise, listening to what everyone has to say rather than letting one person decide for everyone else, you are being an anarchist. Every time you have the opportunity to force someone to do something, but decide to appeal to their sense of reason or justice instead, you are being an anarchist. The same goes for every time you share something with a friend, or decide who is going to do the dishes, or do anything at all with an eye to fairness.
Now, you might object that all this is well and good as a way for small groups of people to get on with each other, but managing a city, or a country, is an entirely different matter. And of course there is something to this. Even if you decentralize society and put as much power as possible in the hands of small communities, there will still be plenty of things that need to be coordinated, from running railroads to deciding on directions for medical research. But just because something is complicated does not mean there is no way to do it democratically. It would just be complicated. In fact, anarchists have all sorts of different ideas and visions about how a complex society might manage itself. To explain them though would go far beyond the scope of a little introductory text like this. Suffice it to say, first of all, that a lot of people have spent a lot of time coming up with models for how a really democratic, healthy society might work; but second, and just as importantly, no anarchist claims to have a perfect blueprint. The last thing we want is to impose prefab models on society anyway. The truth is we probably can’t even imagine half the problems that will come up when we try to create a democratic society; still, we’re confident that, human ingenuity being what it is, such problems can always be solved, so long as it is in the spirit of our basic principles — which are, in the final analysis, simply the principles of fundamental human decency.
RADICAL LONDON – #COMMUNITYORGANISING
London wide meeting
Saturday 14th January • 4pm-6pm
London Action Resource Centre
62 Fieldgate St
London E1 6ES
MAP
AN APPEAL TO ALL RADICALS AND ANTI-AUTHORITARIANS
Why we should all help form radical local community-based groups
Our goal should be the creation of a society free from the exploitation of capitalism and the oppression of the state – a society which is non-hierarchical and in which everyone is free, yet works together collectively. This will be achieved when the mass of the working class share these goals; in other words, we need to help build mass grassroots movements in which radical and anarchist ideas and ways of doing things can flourish in our communities.
Radicals are involved in a wide range of activities. The media tend to stress the more visible and physical roles such as the direct action at demos, arrests etc. But to overcome isolation and not just be a mere pinprick in the side of capitalism and the state, we must also reach out to the mass of the working class.
So what can we do?
The groups that are linked into the Radical London network believe that setting up local radical/anarchist/solidarity groups and networks, with the aim of engaging in local community actions as well as supporting local workplace struggles, is a key way of spreading ideas, solidarity and resistance amongst the wider working class. In addition, we are strengthened by our connection to others and we are in a better situation to actually participate in and win struggles.
For example…
- Campaigns against cuts, to save a local market or a green space, or challenging the impact of the Olympics;
- Supporting community groups and activities such as tenants and residents associations;
- Local industrial disputes and supporting local workers involved in national strikes;
- Practical solidarity work with claimants, people fighting eviction etc;
- Fighting oppression, working with others to challenge racism and other forms of oppression;
- Putting on activities such as film-shows, public meetings or radical history walks;
- Producing leaflets and news-sheets with alternative ways of thinking about current issues & organising.
The groups in Radical London (and around the UK) are doing all of these things. If there were groups throughout London and the UK doing similar things and sharing our experiences and learning from each other, it would be a crucial step in making anarchist & radical ideas influential in a range of grass roots struggles – and a serious alternative to the current establishment / status quo.
Website and more info: http://www.radicallondon.net/
UK #Antifascist Prisoners Sean Cregan And Andy Baker Released
We are very pleased to be able to announce that two of the UK antifascists sent down last year were released on 30/12/11 on ‘Home Detention Curfew’ (electronic ‘tag’). We wish sean Cregan and Andy Baker the very best of luck and hope that they can successfully rebuild their lives. Thank you to the many groups and individuals who have allowed us to properly support these comrades. For the moment, the other three antifascists sentenced in relation to the same case remain inside and in need of support.
A recent article by Sean Cregan:
“Freedom’s Fight
“Mick, Sean’s up at the bloody window!”
My dad took the stairs three at a time and caught me just before I fell. The window was nailed shut with six-inch nails… That was my earliest bid for freedom. I was not yet a year old but somehow I had made it up to that ledge, as my folks nattered to the neighbours downstairs.
Looking from that point to this, my own struggle for freedom has been and still is a major factor in who I am as a person today. Indeed it is the reason why I write this from a prison cell.
Born to Irish parents, growing up on south London’s housing estates was always going tbe a challenge. I loved my Irish roots but to other “real” Irish I was just a “plastic Paddy”. The English hated me for being Irish. I couldn’t win. My feeling of always supporting the underdog, the downtrodden, probably took root at that early age and has never waned. If a human or animal had no voice and was being mistreated, I’d be there to fight for what I believed to be right.
In my late teens the world of punk rock opened up a whole new world for me. I listened to bands that sang with anger and passion about the way humans and animals were treated. The “safe” music in the charts didn’t rock the boat and that’s how the authorities liked it. Punk music had such a profound impact. It made me aware of things I’d been ignorant of. I was inspired to form my own band to add my voice to the call for freedom and justice.
I naturally gravitated toward like-minded people: people who questioned everything they were told; people who did not blindly accept what they were told; people that cared for others outside the immediate circle of family and friends. These were heady days for me and I felt alive and part of something good and exciting.
In time I moved into the squatting “scene” and started to attend demos and actions, from CND marches to animal rights and anti-nazi demonstrations. I met punks, hippies, crusties and junkies! Many colourful people, some from privileged backgrounds and from all over the world. I found lots of common ground as well as uncommon ground. My working-class roots found some of the people a bit rich. Literally!
Most of my new-found friends considered themselves as anarchists/activists. After a while it became clear that many of these folk used that label to look the part but actually do little more than take drugs and do nothing; a part of the problem not the solution. I remember one time at a squat in Tooting we were sat smoking weed and putting the world to rights when the doorbell rang. I swear not one of us would-be revolutionaries could be bothered to answer the door! I never smoked another joint. It made me paranoid anyway. There were other drugs that I liked better; speed and acid, mushrooms and pills. We were having the time of our lives, squatting rent free, going to gigs and travelling the country to actions of every description. It was a bit hedonistic but I was happy.
The feeling of living in those squatted communities was one of belonging. It was as if I’d found my second family, my tribe even. We believed in freedom of expression, mutual respect and activism against the oppressive system. We shared a common hatred of the state; the futile wars fought in our names, the corrupt politicians, the greed of big business and the sad consumer materialistic society that had grown in the wake of the Thatcher era. What really was free? Not much as far as we were concerned unless you were part of the privileged few.
We live in this western “democracy” and believe we are truly free, and compared to some countries it may well seem that we are, but that is a skewed way of looking at things. In our society today we are more controlled, restricted, spied upon and monitored than at any time in our history. The last twenty years have seen more
and more of our rights taken away from us under new laws that the government stealthily introduce, by for instance telling us it’s for our own protection in the case of powers granted to the police in the fight against terrorism. It may
initially be used for one section of society but could have a range of implications for the public as a whole. We have more CCTV cameras than anywhere else in Europe. We are constantly watched and tracked, and with “smart” phones the authorities can pinpoint you to a place in seconds while Oyster cards keepa handy record of where we have been.
Our mainstream media is largely run by a handful of millionaires that feed us whatever party line they support through their papers; a nice cosy arrangement with the politicians who in turn get their media mates to bury news they don’t want us to know about. We are given a set of rules, laws to abide by. They claim to be for the common good but we are constantly shown that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor. A truly fair and equal society would indeed be free. Free from injustice and a place where we could all meet and live as equals sharing our collective wealth, but that is just not the case. Something like five per cent of the population own ninety per cent of the land! How did these people get to own land in the first place? By taking it by force manyyears ago. I’ve personally always thought that owning the land is a ridiculous notion but their laws ensure that we have no freedom to roam where we choose.
We are told it’s wrong to steal and yet we are robbed every single day by landlords, banks, big business marking up huge profits, taxed to death by the government – the list is endless. Most working people are lucky to have enough to get them through to the next week and once they’ve paid out the bills there is preciouslittle left. And that’s just the way the state wants the lower classes to be: reliant wage slaves, given just enough but not nearly enough!
We are also bombarded with the lives of the rich and famous. The TV and magazines like OK and Hellosell us glimpses into their luxury lifestyles. The ever-pouting Posh Spice and her gormless jet-set equals Paris Hilton et al
flaunt their unbelievable wealth in our faces while doing absolutely nothing to earn it. The poor lap it all up and long to be them, knowing the likelihood of that ever happening is zero. The uber-rich live in countries where they can
avoid paying their taxes – so it would seem freedom is obtainable at the right price. If you have the money you can buy it!
Violence, we are told, is not permitted in a civilised society. Yet we watch as those in power sell masses of arms to corrupt regimes around the world that end up in the slaughter of innocents. When there is money at stake and oil to be controlled it would seem that people’s freedom is way down the list where the men of Mammon are concerned. How many indigenous people have been crushed, uprooted and in some cases eradicated in the name of oil, timber or whatever commodity it is that they desire?
There is only the freedom that tyrants and despots around the globe allow us to have. Their double standards and hypocrisy are disgusting and how they still manage to pull the wool over the masses’ eyes is a mystery to many.
As the years passed my involvement in direct action increased. I became a hunt saboteur and regularly attended hunts in defence of the animals’ liberty. The rich and infamous took exception to their “sport” being disrupted and violence was never far away. Arrests inevitably followed with the law firmly on the side of the well-to-do hunters.
I lost my freedom after being sent to prison for kicking a police riot shield on a May Day protest demo. The police had held us for over six hours using the new “kettling” tactic for the first time. We had been crushed and bashed with batons all day and my temper broke loose with one kick. I was sentenced to six months. This did little to deter me and only underlined the injustice of law and order. Losing my liberty was the worst feeling ever.
In recent years my political life has been dominated by the fight against the rise of the far right. On a wet weekend in March 2009 myself and fellow anti-fascists tried to stop a concert by the extreme nazi organisation Blood and Honour. Given the chance, these fascists would deny many of us our freedom. Their message is one of intolerance and hatred. As the police seemed indifferent we felt it was our duty to try and stop these vile people preaching their politics of hate.
I was involved in a fight with one of the “master race” and myself and twenty-two others were arrested in dawn raids in a massive operation by the authorities.We were charged with conspiring to commit violent disorder. Six were found guilty and sentenced to twenty-one months.
I try to make some sense of why I am sitting in this cell. It seems that those who are prepared to stand up for what is right are treated as criminals. I don’t know if losing my own freedom in defence of others’ freedom is too high a price, but I will always believe freedom is worth fighting for. How I carry on that fight remains to be seen.”
New Years Honours List…And Not An Anti-Fascist Among Them!
While Cameron and Co hand out medals to the posh and corrupt lets recognize some folks who really are deserving of them but are instead fitted up and jailed in the fight against fascism.
Andy Baker, Thomas Blak, Sean Cregan, Phil De Sousa, Ravi Gill, Austen Jackson as well as all those jailed in the struggle against the far-right everywhere, we stand with you in solidarity.
70 years ago they’d have been called heroes, today they’re labelled criminals and extremists.
When Is A Political Prisoner Not A Political Prisoner?
………….When he or she is an Anarchist.
By Paul Stott from his blog I Intend To Escape…And Come Back Again
I guess at my age I should be too old to get annoyed by the Socialist Workers Party, or indeed by the wider socialist/marxist milieu in the UK, of which the SWP is representative. Every now and then however they still manage to press my buttons, in a way that it surprises me how much I can still rage at their idiocy and perversion of ideals.
The Socialist Worker website currently has an article and list of prisoners it suggests we write to over Christmas. It is a mixed list of those jailed in the student revolt, alleged and actual miscarriage of justice cases, plus a couple of examples of very long term prisoners who have been in correspondence with left wing groups for many years.
Needless to say the five anti-fascists still in UK jails for attacking members of the fascist Blood and Honour organisation in 2009 , do not get a mention. I can think of no reason for this other than the fact they are Anarchists. They simply do not exist in Socialist Worker’s ethos.
One thing that does exist in that rose-tinted view of the world is a ‘war against Islam’. Curiously two of the men who were allegedly behind the most important British Jihadist website, Azzam.com are listed on the SWP’s support list. Azzam.com, named after the spiritual founder of Al-Qaeda, Abdullah Azzam, played a key role in supporting the struggle to establish an Islamic theocracy in Chechnya, receiving praise from the likes of Ibn ul Khattab .
This article sums up the level the last century left has slumped to. Five working class men in jail for fighting Nazis on the streets of London are not worthy of a mention, yet a veteran of the Bosnian Mujahideen, like Babar Ahmad, is .
I have never really believed the argument that concepts of a ‘left’ and a ‘right’ in British politics are no longer relevant. However, on this type of evidence, and more generally on issues surrounding race and religion (especially Islam) I really can’t see where the divide exists any more. That a division between the gullible and the realist exists, I am sure. How to articulate that it wider political terms, I am, at this stage, less sure about. Perhaps my PhD is a step towards doing that.
Paul Stott can also be followed on Twitter here https://twitter.com/#!/MrPaulStott
Western Anarchism On The Rise.
Western anarchism on the rise
Arab Spring was followed or preceded by many similar mass movements, the last being the riots in London. Greeks were on the streets long ago. Israelis are no different; hundreds of thousands have poured onto the streets protesting their governments for a number of reasons.
Some protest against cuts in their wages, hurt by austerity measures that reduce public spending. Israelis demand affordable houses. In the town squares of many European cities young people are protesting unemployment and structural inequality created and sustained by earlier generations that still rule their countries. The same inequalities find their voice in the US under the banner of the “Tea Party” as if they are up against a colonial power.
There are different reasons for the rebellion of the masses, especially the youth in varying countries, but there is a visible commonality: they all want an “attainable future.” They can no longer see such a future within their reach. It is too elusive and seems inaccessible in the midst of a crisis that seems to last for an indefinite time. The middle and lower middle classes are especially affected. By pouring on to the streets they express their desperation and fear of a future that can no longer be imagined. That is why being a politician is getting harder by the day. People want results; they want to feel hopeful again. With spreading protest movements, the power and privilege of leaders and politicians are diminishing. As they lose face and power, they call these movements “anarchic.” Indeed they are because in ancient Greek anarchy means “without a leader.” Anarchists repudiate the omnipotence of the state. They do not want the state in their “business,” or the hierarchy it has created. They refuse a morality dictated by a state that leaves no room for the sovereignty of the moral law of the individual.
Today’s rebels (as they are often called “anarchists”) are anti-authoritarian. They show this not only in their rhetoric but also in actions that are getting increasingly violent.
The youth of Europe had learned that good government is good to its people. With stringent social welfare austerity measures they began to question this assumption. They now believe that governments prefer to sustain a system in which a small privileged minority receives more benefits than the common people.
The rebels or anarchists of Europe want a revolution. They yearn for a unified anti-authoritarian international network of activist groups composed of “autonomous individuals” who can think for themselves as well as other fellow human beings, not governments or regimes or financial systems. They tend to plan to sabotage the international economic and political system that has led the world from one crisis to another. That is why they see solidarity with other nations’ rebels as so important for their aims.
If such a plan works and an international front of rebels/anarchists is set in motion we may expect the following:
• Threatening leaders and harassing politicians.
• Attacking government facilities, police and law enforcement facilities (including courts) or personnel.
• Attacking embassies, starting with symbolic “imperialist” powers.
• Bombing banks.
• Vandalizing selected/symbolic cultural and political targets/groups.
• Symbolic robberies.
They see this selective violence as an “initial phase of the revolution” to come. Needless to say, they want this to be a global revolution. But as of now they have no post-revolutionary vision of a society or social nexus.
The European anarchists have a shared legacy of terror. Now this backdrop has been revitalized by the ongoing economic crisis that has upset the balance between economic prosperity and democratic stability. The young generations of Europe and the Americas are questioning this equation that has so long been taken for granted.
If the West does not mend the bridge that has collapsed between democratic stability and economic sustainability and welfare in the shortest time possible, terrorism of the alienated middle-class will be the biggest challenge of the Atlantic region. The massacre in Norway, the rise of racism, xenophobia and the violence-prone right must be eye openers. We are living in interesting times.
http://www.todayszaman.com/columnist-254661-western-anarchism-on-the-rise.html
Black Blocs For Dummies.
<Version 4.2 – January 31, 2004
Go to main Black Bloc page
What is a Black Bloc?
A black bloc is a collection of anarchists and anarchist affinity groups that organize together for a particular protest action.The flavor of the
black bloc changes from action to action, but the main goals are to provide solidarity in the face of a repressive police state and to convey an anarchist critique of whatever is being protested that day.
Is the black bloc an organization?
The black bloc is a TACTIC, not a group or organization. Just like there cannot by the “Civil Disobedience Group,” neither can the black bloc be an organization. Some people are under the mistaken impression that one can join the “black bloc organization.” There is no standing black bloc organization between protests. There is the anarchist movement which always exists (and has been around for over a century). You can think of the black bloc as just a temporary collection of anarchists that represent a contingent in a protest march. The black bloc is a tactic, similar to civil disobedience.
Why a black bloc?
There are several reasons why some anarchists do black
blocs at demos. These reasons include: 1) solidarity – a massive number of anarchists provides cover against police repression and it demonstrates
the principles of working class solidarity; 2) visibility – the black bloc as gay pride march; 3) ideas – a way to present an anarchist critique of the protest du jour; 4) mutual aid and free association – provides a visual example of how affinity groups can come together in a larger group and articulate common goals; and 5) escalation – a method for ratcheting up a protest so that it goes beyond mere reformism and appeals to the state to remedy injustice.
Does the black bloc promote violence?
Again, the black bloc is a tactic used at major protest actions. The tactics used by a given black bloc are decided by those in the bloc. There isn’t always agreement within the bloc about tactics, but there is tolerance of different tactics.
Why do black blocs attack the police?
During your typical street demonstration, the police inevitably show up and start causing problems. People might be exercising their rights to march down the street, or they might be hanging out in front of some building, but the cops can be counted on to show up and start causing problems. When you see violence in the streets during protests coming from protesters, most of the time this is in response to police violence. The police have attacked numerous black blocs without provocation and some participants in these black blocs have opted to fight back.
Secondly, because the police are in the way. While most anarchists oppose police brutality and seek an end to policing and prisons, our main targets are the rich and powerful. Since the police are the violent face of capitalism–in other words, the guard dogs for the rich–they are on the frontlines when the anarchists show up to pursue our class war against the rich.
Does one have to wear black to be in a black bloc?
No. Black is the color of anarchism, which is one reason it is called
the “black” bloc. Anarchists wear black to dramatize the color of our politics. Black is also worn during street demonstrations because it helps provide anonymity. With the terrorist police forces videotaping and recording every protest, the only way some of us can participate is to wear black, including the black masks.
Isn’t the black bloc just a bunch of young hooligans?
Black blocs have been comprised of people of many different ages. While participants in black blocs tend to be young–reflecting the demographic of most protesters–there have been quite a few people over the age of 30 in black blocs. There have been reports of black bloc participants who are in their 50s and 60s.
When people accuse the black bloc of being “young hooligans” they are engaging in ageism and in the process of marginalizing people because they choose to engage in a tactic that sometimes involves property destruction and violence. A few activists can’t accept the fact that other activists actually do engage in property destruction. Dismissing the black bloc as “young hooligans” is a feeble attempt to deny the agency and politics of those that engage in black bloc tactics. The unstated assumption in this accusation is that those who are engaged in the black bloc “are going through a phase they they will grow out of.”
Do all black blocs do property destruction?
It depends. The black bloc that marched in Seattle during the N30
anti-WTO protests is the one that put black blocs on the international radar. They engaged in a variety of activites, including property destruction.This was not mindless and adolescent vandalism–it was done for political reasons. By the way, not all members of the N30 black bloc were from Eugene Oregon. If you have more questions about anarchists at the Seattle protests, see our special FAQ.
Why do black bloc members wear masks?
Anarchists using the black bloc tactic wear masks for many reasons. The main one is the fact that the police videotape activists for their “Red” files. The police do this surveillance and information-gathering to frighten moderate activists from participation in protests and social struggle. The police do this even when there are laws against it (see red squads). Masks promote anonymity and egalitarianism. Instead of a “leader” yelling instructions to a protest group via a megaphone, those in the bloc make decisions among themselves. They also protect the identities of those who want to engage in illegal acts and escape to fight another day. Finally, as Subcommandante Marcos once wrote: “There are some black bloc anarchists who don’t wear masks during blocs. These are usually the folks who are “out of the closet,” so to speak.
What are some typical black bloc tactics?
Tactics vary from black bloc to black bloc. Some common ones include unarresting and arm-linking.
Unarresting is where the bloc frees people who don’t
want to be arrested. This usually works if you outnumber the cops. It also works because most cops are shocked that activists would try and free someone. Arm linking, or locking, helps a bloc maintain cohesion and makes it harder for the police to disperse members. It’s kind of like a police formation, although more fluid and organic.
Where do black blocs come from?
The black bloc tactic originated in Germany during the 1980s. It was
a term coined by the police to describe the militant squatter youth and Autonomen who fought them in the streets. The first black bloc in North America was organized for the Gulf War protests (1991).
What are some examples of past black blocs in North America?
The black bloc wasn’t invented in Seattle in 1999. There have been numerous black blocs at demos throughout the 1990s. One of the biggest was the 1999 black bloc at Millions4Mumia in Philadelphia, which numbered around 1500-2000. This was a good example of a nonviolent black bloc whose purpose on that day was to show solidarity for Mumia Abu-Jamal and to remind the Leftists in the movement that they shouldn’t take us for granted (in fact several post-M4M articles in the Left press completely ignored the anarchist presence at Millions 4 Mumia).
A brief listing of notable black blocs
- 1992- Washington, DC – Black bloc during anti-Gulf War Protest. Windows of World Bank smashed.
- 1992 – San Francisco – Columbus Day – BB marches to protest 500 years of First Nations genocide.
- 1999 – April 24 – Philadelphia – 1500-2000 anarchists march in black bloc during Millions 4 Mumia march.
- 1999 – November 30 – Seattle – Black Bloc engages in some “anarchist shopping” in downtown business district
- 2000 – April 16 & 17 – Revolutionary Anti-Capitalist Bloc (RACB) at the A16 anti-IMF/World Bank protests in Washington, DC. Around 700-1000 participated on A16
- 2000 – May Day (May 1) – Black blocs in New York City, Chicago, and Portland, Oregon. The New York black bloc takes several pre-emptive
arrests. - 2000 – August 1 – Philadelphia – Street actions during GOP convention
If you’d like to learn more about the history of black blocs, click here.
Wasn’t the black bloc at the 2001 G8 protests in Genoa, Italy, organized by the police?
Anarchists from around the world organized and participated in black blocs at the 2001 G8 protests in Genoa, Italy. However, the Italian police also organized a fake black bloc using undercover police officers and neo-fascists from around Europe. These fake black blocs attacked other protesters, set cars on fire, and vandalized small businesses. It is suspected that the police organized these fake blocs to drive a wedge between moderate and militant protesters. Another goal may have been to demonize anarchists as “terrorists” in the eyes of the general public.
What are some common anarchist criticisms of the
black bloc?
For starters, check out Jim Bray’s (Working)Start of Critique of Black Bloc Technique.
Do you have more pictures?
Yes, click here.
I’m a journalist who would like to talk to anarchists. Who can I contact?
Please send an e-mail to chuck@tao.ca
Further reading?
“The Subversion of Politics: European Autonomous Social Movements and the Decolonization of Everyday Life” by George Katsiaficas (Humanities International Press).
- A
few notes about the RACB - Anarchist Black Bloc Press Release
- Anarchist! Get Organized!
- Jim Bray replies to Chuck0
Further listening?
<!– CONTENT ENDS –>
ARE YOU AN ANARCHIST?
Great article by Phil Dickens.
With the the G20 summit and the massive protests in response to it, which I’ve covered in-depth in Truth, Reason & Liberty, we find the media for once using the term “anarchists” to describe people who actually hold to anarchic ideals.
Typically, the media definition of “anarchy” and “anarchists” are far detatched from their true meanings. The former is commonly associated with chaos, destruction, mob rule, and the idea that “do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.” The latter are usually depicted as terrorists, thugs and rioters, or at best idealists detatched from reality.
This is, of course, not true. Rather, it is a perception deliberately put about by the media and governments since the advent of the movement to disuade people from following it. Today, I am guessing that it may even have resulted in people holding anarchic views without knowing that they are that or shying away from using the term because of the attached social stigma. Thus, the question I pose to my readers – those who do not already consider themselves to be anarchists, of course – is this;
Are you an anarchist?
To answer this question, you need to know what an anarchist believes in, and what anarchy is. My own articles, specifically What I believe in and The illegitimacy of private propety cover this in some depth. An Anarchist FAQ, hosted by Infoshop.org, is extremely comprehensive. I would also recommend What is Property? by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution by Peter Kropotkin, Anarchism and Other Essays by Emma Goldman, and Chomsky on Anarchism by Noam Chomsky, to name but a few influential books on the subject.
However, for the sake of this exercise, I shall list the core principles of anarchism in order to offer a basic overview to help readers determine whether or not their views are compatible with anarchy.
What anarchists oppose
Hierarchy – anarchists oppose domination of one person or group of people by another as detrimental to human society. We believe that people should be free to make their own decisions and that relationships of command and obedience are to be opposed.
Authority – all forms of authority must bear a heavy burden of proof in order to demonstrate their legitimacy and necessity. Some positions of authority meet this burden, for example the relationship between teacher and student or parent and child, but most – government, bosses, religious leaders, slave owners, etc – do not and must be dismantled.
The state – centralised rule of a set geographical area (country) or people (nation) by a government of elites is inherently illegitimate. The state / government is essentially nothing more than a near monopoly on the use of violence maintaining order with armed bodies such as the police and military and coercive institutions such as courts and prisons. Even when elected in a watered-down form of “democracy,” the state serves only elite interests and never those of ordinary people and the working class.
Capitalism – anarchists oppose capitalism, the system that puts wealth, power, and the means of production (capital) in a few private hands and forces everybody else to rent their labour to that few in exchange for a wage or to starve. This system leads inevitably to privilege and injustice.
State socialism – the “alternative” to capitalism, state ownership of the means of production, is essentially just capitalism in another form. Still, the working class have no economic freedom and often – in practice – no political freedom either. State socialism, often termed Communism, is little more than brutality and slavery.
Nationalism and fascism – these are but the worst forms of the state, gaining the loyalty of the people with strong, often brutal discipline and by developing an almost religious, fevered love of the state and the rulers in the form of patriotism. Often, racial and national differences are exploited to bring about this mentality, which serves only to divide he working class and strengthen the position of the rulers.
Discrimination – nobody should be excluded or discriminated against based on nothing more than their gender, ethnicity, sexuality, background, or beliefs. Anarchists do not expect all people to have the same talents and abilities, nor to all be carbon copies of one another. Equality does not imply that all people are the same, merely that all people should have the same opportunities and be judged only on their personal qualities rather than on superficial group characteristics.
What anarchists stand for
Liberty – all people should be free to live their life as they see fit, without rules and laws passed from above that serve no purpose other than control and domination, as long as they are not infringing the right of anybody else to the same.
Equality – as stated above, nobody should face discrimination because of their gender, ethnicity, sexuality, background, or beliefs. Nobody should have to face indescribable poverty whilst others live in luxury, merely because of an accident of birth. And nobody should have power or control over any other.
Community – human civilisation evolved, from its primitive roots, through the priciple of Mutual Aid. On an ordinary, everyday level, this principle remains, and human beings still cooperate and help each other. It is those at the top, and the capitalist system, which promotes competition and domination, and this should be removed as it is harmful to the advance of civilisation.
Solidarity – humanity is divided only between the rulers and the ruled. Other divisions, those which bring about sexism, racism, heterosexism, and other bigotries, are promoted by the ruling class in order to divide their subjects and keep them under control. As long as we foster these divisions and define ourselves by them, our strength as a unit is removed. Only together, in solidarity across borders and racial lines, do we stand any hope of bringing about any meaningful change.
How anarchy would work
Self-management – groups, such as workforces or local communities, would be free to operate and govern themselves free of any higher authority. Decisions would be made by popular assemblies using direct democracy, so that everybody would have an equal say in how their community or workplace operated.
Free association – all individuals would be free to live where they wanted and associate with who they chose. Not only would they be able to choose who to associate with, they could choose who not to associate with, which means that people could elect to not be part of a participatory community in their local area and opt out of decisions on the running of a place if they opposed them, so long as they did not violate the basic liberty and equality of others.
Voluntary federation – instead of the state, where indivudal communities and groups of people are bound together by the coercive force of a central authority, local communities and workers collectives can choose for themselves which other communities or collectives to associate with. Each would retain their own autonomy and elect spokespeople to voice agreements on trade and other matters between the different groups.
Direct democracy – unlike in parliamentary democracy, these spokespeople would be just that, elected not to a position of authority but to voice decisions that remain in the hands of the people, as in trade union and workers council structures. This principle, “bottom-up” decision making rather than “top-down” power could operate from a local and regional level right up to a national and international level.
Mutual Aid – in participatory communities and workers collectives, Mutual Aid is a central principle. Easily summed up with the phrase “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” this boils down to voluntary cooperation, fair distribution of resources, and help and support to those who need it within a local community.
Free, fair trade – for the sharing of resources between different communities and individuals who opt out of Mutual Aid, anarchy would see the emergence of a truly free market. The “free market” of capitalism is not in fact free at all, as the trading relationships are distinctly unequal because of the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a minority that is an inevitable part of the system, and the coercion that results removes all but the pretence of freedom. Truly free trade is fair trade, without domination and exploitation of the poorer or weaker trading party. In other words, the free market is only free without capitalism.
Individual liberty – 90% of “crime” is either victimless, harming either nobody or only the perpetrator by their own choice, or a product of the injustice and inequality created by capitalism and the state. Anarchy would not be governed by vast statutes of law that control people down to the last action and instead holds to the liberty of every person to do as they please so long as they are not harming the person or liberty of others.
Collective defence – this is not to say that anarchist society will contain “perfect people,” and there will certainly be acts of aggression, oppression, and violence – albeit on a lesser scale than is commonplace in today’s world. Rather than monopolise defence in a police or military force, this would be the responsibility of everybody either on an individual basis or by voluntary participation in a communal militia.
Justice, not vengeance – courts would be elected for each individual case, rather than appointed and given unnecessary authority, with the aim to establish guilt or innocence, negotiate reparations, and organise rehabilitation rather than to support the oppressive prison systems which only make matters worse by serving as little more than universities of crime.
The summary of anarchic beliefs above is not as brief as I would have liked, due to the misconceptions apparent not just in the idea of anarchy itself but also in the ideas that make it up. However, it serves as a good summation of what anarchy is, without the false impressions put about by the state and the media.
If any of it appeals to you, and especially if you find yourself agreeing with far more than you disagree with, then I suggest that you may well be an anarchist.
I hope the idea doesn’t cause you too much stress.
http://propertyistheft.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/are-you-an-anarchist/
