Global Activism Thread

I don't know what their goals/objectives are. I oughta know more.

As far I know, they don't have "an objective", on the virtue they aren't a truly organized group at all. As demarquis said, 'Black Block' is the name given to a tactic, not to some international organization.

That said, in one given place and time, there will be group of people who will be more associated to this tactics than others and some might even start to call themselves "black blocks". Such a thing have happened here in Rio. I am not sure if they actually call themselves as such, but pretty much in every manifestation you can see the same group employing such tactic. Over here, if you are talking about "the black blocks", you are likely talking about them^note or supposedly talking about them. The label is being thrown around wildly.

Personally, my experience with protest policing is generally quite good. Glasgow police, while not perfect by a long shot, are certainly much better at it than, say, the American or London police seem to be.

It's for this reason I look askance at Black Blocks, at least where I am, because they tend to be full of people whose only motivation is to break stuff. It also damages the credibility of protests as a whole, because the media (understandably, because it's more exciting) will inevitably focus on the looters and smashers.

That said, I'm lucky in that the police where I am are generally competent and generous enough to let protests happen properly. I'd have more sympathy with them if I was somewhere like London or Brazil, where there seems, arguably, to be a need for them.

edited 11th Oct '13 1:19:18 AM by Achaemenid

This is Chris Hedges now infamous attack on the black block.

"...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."

On the other hand, here is an open letter by David Graeber wrote in response to Hedges arguments:

"...1. Black Bloc is a tactic, not a group... 2. Black Blocs do not represent any specific ideological, or for that matter anti-ideological position... 3. Even if you must select a tiny, ultra-radical minority within the Black Bloc and pretend their views are representative of anyone who ever put on a hoodie, you could at least be up-to-date about it... 4. Your comment about Black Bloc’ers hating the Zapatistas is one of the weirdest I’ve ever seen... 5. “Diversity of tactics” is not a “Black Bloc” idea. The original GA in Tompkins Square Park that planned the original occupation, if I remember, adopted the principle of diversity of tactics (at least it was discussed in a very approving fashion), at the same time as we all also concurred that a Gandhian approach would be the best way to go..."

Finally: "Anger is the enemy of non-violence and pride is a monster that swallows it up." Mahatma Gandhi

Yeah, I don't know how it is Glasgow, but over here the police is terrible. They are insanely and unprofessionally violent against protesters, the arrest people without charges (and sometimes plant evidence on them) and pursuit people over a kilometer away from the focus of the confusion, often targeting people who weren't even in the protest in the first place. In such situation the existence of people crazy enough to stay and fight is a blessing. It allows the rest of us to run away more easily.

PS:Oh, and the media around here often blame them for starting the confronts in the first place and, thus, giving a reason for the police to crack down. I am very cynical about that. First, it is not like the police needs a decent reason. They have just randomly cracked down in the past without the protesters throwing the first stone. And second, there have been very credible reports of infiltrated undercover policemen starting the confront to blame the protesters on it.

edited 11th Oct '13 8:47:35 AM by Heatth

@Heatth: There are manuals on line that show you what to do. Be safe.

This, really. Like I said, I'm more sympathetic to violent protest action where protesting is hard. Enormous respect to everyone continuing to protest in the face of this kind of thing.

edited 11th Oct '13 9:03:49 AM by Achaemenid

Heh, thanks. But I don't know how much of it is relevant for me. It is not like we actually want to take down the government. I still shall give a read, though. Seems interesting. Who is it from?

Thanks.

edited 11th Oct '13 9:23:02 AM by Heatth

IT was originally written by an anonymous committee organizing the 2011 Tahrir Square protesters. While they discourage vandalism or act of violence, they do allow for defensive spraying of police officers with spray paint if attacked. They also have specific tactics intended to get the B Bers up front.

Not that I am condoning such tactics. In some cases it may be more effective politically to take the beating, provided you can get it on camera.

I actually agree with that, but it is not that simple. For starter over here there isn't a single organized group pulling the protests. It is many groups and individual people doing it together each one for their own reasons. It is not exactly easy to convince all of them to just take a beating. Furthermore, the media coverage here sucks. They aways underplay the police's violence while overstating the protester's. We do have plenty of individual people filming everything and showing things how really are, but these footage won't reach the masses. The ones who know where to look are more often the ones who did not need to be shown this stuff anyway.

The one problem that I start to have with protests being cracked down on is that in some circumstances, the police are obligated to remove you, even if you aren't being violent.

If a bunch of protesters decided to sit down in the middle of the road that leads to the main gate of the base I work at, we would move them forcibly if they didn't move from verbal commands. If they decided to make every arrest a wrestling matches, firehoses and batons would be the next line of reasoning for moving them.

You might call it civil disobedience, but sometimes we're obligated to give protesters an assbeating if they don't follow instructions.

And I think that's actually ok. No one should really blame the police simply for doing their jobs, and going to jail is simply the price one pays for bringing attention to some form of political oppression. But not all police in the world are as professional and careful to avoid injury as you and many other US police officers likely are. The ones in Brazil, I understand, are particularly nasty.

Okay. And the best solution for that removal is to beat people up, shot them in the face with rubber rounds, arrest people with false charges and them pursuit them far away from the initial confront, where they have stopped doing anything. All of this while often targeting innocent bystanders.

Yeah, no. That excuse only works if the police is sensible about it.

Also, frankly, I call bullshit on that logic. If hundreds thousands of people have gathered somewhere to complain and make demands to the government. The first action of said government should be negotiate, not to beat them down. I find extremely doubtful that the access of that base is more important than whatever people are demanding.

I do agree not to blame the soldiers and policemen who are only doing their jobs. But I do blame those who make their jobs be what it is. Be it the politicians or the officers.

edited 11th Oct '13 9:43:27 AM by Heatth

Well, to be fair, if you are a member of the political elite, then nothing is more important than maintaining your position and status in society. Unfortunately, if this were an ideal world, we wouldn't need to protest in the first place. So the sad reality is that you cant protest effectively without breaking the law, and you cant break the law without expecting some form of consequences.

If you are an egotistical asshole, maybe. But it doesn't mean I have to respect such position.

True thing. But protesting against such laws and consequences is part of our job too.

Anyway, about the "blame on the individual policemen" thing. That is one big problem over here, I believe. Every time the police the catch doing something obviously against the law^note planting evidence, arresting unjustly, killing someone and vanishing with the body..., it is the individual policemen who are blamed and the ones to burden all the consequences. While I am not against said bastards paying for what they did, we all know it is not just one individual thing. It is something insidious inside the corporation. It is very likely said persons received orders from above to do what they did. And, yet, it is they who suffer all the burden, while the true "masterminds" scape scott free.

edited 11th Oct '13 9:51:53 AM by Heatth

That's not similar to what Barkey said, though. He was talking about American police/military forces, while you're talking about Brazil.

From what I've heard, there's a world of difference.

Naturally. But he posted his post immediately after mine. The way he phrased it, it is unclear whether he could tell the distinction or if he applied his POV to all situations (unlike Achaemenid, who made the difference clear). As such, I thought I should make my point clear.

Though, regardless, I disagree with the principle you should give the protesters "an assbeating" if they don't follow instructions, regardless of how light said ass beating might be. Again, if hundreds of thousands of people rose up to complain, the first response shouldn't be crack them down. If that many people are upset, you better listen to them if you want to be, or pretend to be, a democracy.

That said, I can understand situations where the police needs to intervene. But, it shouldn't be the first resource.

edited 11th Oct '13 10:50:51 AM by Heatth

I figured it applied since those complaints have occurred in the US as well.

Occupy comes to mind. When you're pitching tents in a public park and mass-violating a vagrancy and obstruction ordnance and the police tell you to move, one of two things is going to happen. Either you're moving of your own volition, or you're moving without your own volition.

That's the part that always pissed me off, people think the cops are supposed to just shrug their shoulders and say "Ah, yeah, letting these guys break the law for the purposes of protest is totally worth risking losing my job."

Doesn't really work that way. I've broken up protests before, mostly immigration ones, and usually the protestors are already cursing you out before you've done anything and possibly throwing shit. By the time you've given a verbal order to disperse and they don't, it's not a tough moral decision for you to get the batons out and start cracking people.

As it have been said, just because it applies to USA it doesn't mean it applies everywhere where the same excuse is employed. Your rhetoric is exactly the same as the one used by the police and government in my country, except in my country the police is, apparently, much more violent and unfair. I find very problematic using such argument without recognizing there are cases in which they just do not apply.

Anyway, again, from the police'men perspective, I certainly don't blame you for doing your job. Assuming you are actually doing your job, not breaking the law yourself and not being asshole about it. But, again, I don't think it should be your job to crack down protests like this. There should be a negotiation before the cracking down, aways. And, no, the police coming and saying "move out or else..." doesn't count as a negotiation.

Btw, the above apply only to actual protests, of course. And probably only protests who are big enough, not, say, 20 people stopping a street. I am talking bout mass protests of hundreds and thousands of people

edited 11th Oct '13 11:39:03 AM by Heatth

Is the nature of protest changing? Are people becoming more impatient with the slow pace of change, esp. in the face of economic stagnation?

A New Era of Digital Protest: An article on the increasing importance of social networking within the protest movement.

"In countries that are increasingly wired — some 40 percent of Brazilians are now online, forming the second largest bloc of Facebook users in the world — they are an especially powerful constituency. Digital natives are highly networked and underwhelmed by conventional ideologies or top-down hierarchies. And while operating in highly decentralized and fluid networks, they have a keen sense of their capabilities, and how to use them to disrupt authority."

The Changing DNA of Mexico’s Protest Movement:

"Mexico’s street protests, long a political staple, are turning violent, with a growing number of protesters referring to themselves as anarchists."

What does everyone thing about the Zapatistas in Mexico. They especially interest me, though I wonder what South Americans think of them: local perspective and all that.

Video of Russian Spetsnaz seizing Greenpeace's ship.

One of the Russians is packing a pretty rare silenced assault rifle, the AS Val. Makes it seem these aren't the local SWAT team.

anti-government-protests-rattle-bangkok- "Thai protesters continued their push to topple Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, as police stood by and allowed them to swarm the prime minister’s compound. Yingluck has made it clear she will not accept the opposition’s demand to hand power to an unelected council..."

Although arguably the protesters arent really agitating for democracy, but engaging in a civil/social dispute. Still a situation worth keeping track of.

Amid protests, Thailand's PM Yingluck Shinawatra dissolves parliament

I have a broad question.

What, exactly, is boycotting an election intended to accomplish? I mean, I get that it's an attempt to strip the legitimacy from an election that, for one reason or another, your side's not going to win. But how is that supposed to affect the government's ability to maintain power?