Rhetorical Militancy for a Rhetorical Mass Movement?  If Only We Could
Make Them Like Us…

By John Garvey

The main purpose of this article is to address the questions of strategy
and tactics in the anarchist movement with specific reference to the roles 
the Black Block tactic, and militant direct action play in our movement.

Addressing these questions now is particularly important due to the debate
that has re-erupted after the “Heart Attack” protest on Feb. 13 in
Vancouver and the upcoming G8/G20 protests in Toronto.

I take it for granted that militant direct action and revolutionary
violence are a necessary part of any movement that aims to be
revolutionary in practice, as well as in theory and rhetoric. I reject the
idea and practice of “revolutionary non-violence” as both theoretically
misleading and historically inaccurate.

This isn’t to say that non-violent political action doesn’t have a large
role to play in social movements.  It is to say that social movements
should be both theoretically and practically prepared to accomplish their
goals through revolutionary violence if that is what will be most effective.  That said,
we need to clarify what “diversity of tactics” means, and to continually
examine both the tactics we are using and our strategy in protests and in
movement building  .

Let’s Keep Pushing: Physically and Analytically

At the peaceful protest in Vancouver on Feb. 12, after the black block had
been asked to take the front lines against the police by the elders who
were leading the march and to push through the police line in order to
reach the Olympic Stadium, there was a young woman who kept insisting that
we push through the police line.  If everyone there had been willing to
push forward, if there had been greater unity, tactically speaking, we
probably could have done it and then we would have crashed the opening
ceremonies…Imagine that!  Sadly, there simply wasn’t enough people who
were committed to pushing through the police lines to accomplish this.

All the attention that is currently focused on the issue of tactics and
strategy and violence and non-violence has created an opportunity for
those of us who want to see a militant movement to push back against the
idea that social movements are merely a leftish “loyal opposition.”   It
is an opportunity to argue for a greater diversity of tactics than
currently exists as well and to continue subverting the hegemony of the
pacified, “non-violent” social activism that has pervaded the “radical
left” in Canada for the past 4 decades.

 In the last 10 years the radical left in Canada has been able to push the
discussion called “diversity of tactics” far enough that it is a constant
theme in mass mobilizations here.  At the least it is a discussion that
political activists of all stripes are familiar with, and many feel that
they have to engage with, either for or against.

In addition to all of this, the discussion around the “Heart Attack”
demonstration has created an opportunity for the anarchist movement to
engage in much needed discussion about strategy and tactics.  Articles
like those by Mick Sweetman , David Rovics  and others, while I strongly
disagree with many points they made, both involve anarchists thinking
strategically about anarchist movement.

Push? Burn? Build? Strategy in the anarchist movement?

It’s outside of the scope of this article (and of my ability) to address
all of the possible strategies for anarchist movement in Canada.  Instead
I will only point out some of what seems to me to be particularly
important at this time.

Real discussion and debate about strategy is pretty limited in the
anarchist movement (and the radical left) in Canada. Given the need for us
to think before we act , this should be a significant concern to everyone
in the movement.  There is more debate around tactics, but it is often
stilted due the offhand acceptance of ideas and concepts (such as
“diversity of tactics”) rather than critical interaction with them.  A
fair bit of the discussion that does exist conflates strategies with
different anarchist tendencies: anarchist-communists argue for building
class power through worker and community assemblies; green anarchists
denounce workerism and industrial capitalism and argue for sustainability.

The anarchist movement (and the radical left) needs to reprioritize
theorizing and strategizing.  This is a point that INCITE!, among others,
have made.  They also emphasize the resources that the Right has put into
their theorizing, and they assert that this has played and important role
in the right wing resurgence of the last 30 years .  To be clear, this
theorizing needs to be tightly connected to movement practices, should be
informed by them, and should inform them.

I believe that the politics that are delineated by the combination of
anti-capitalism, anti-imperialism and anti-oppression are a good starting
place for the anarchist movement.  I would also argue that an essential
part of anti-oppressive practice is a commitment to anti-authoritarianism.
 The first three principles are all part of the politics outlined by the
journal Upping the Anti in their first editorial.  In that editorial they
also flag the fact that this starting place is purely oppositional, and
the need for the radical left to find “conceptual and practical
alternatives to the system [and] strategies for getting there. ”

In addition to this we need to be clear about what we mean when we use the
terms anti-capitalism, anti-imperialism and anti-oppression.  Like the
phrase “diversity of tactics” any and all of these terms can become devoid
of meaning if we are simply repeating them.  All three of these politics, as
well as the connections and contradictions between them, need to be
clarified.

One of the reasons that the theoretical framework of anti-capitalism,
anti-imperialism and anti-oppression seems useful to me is the possibility
this framework has for building common ground on the radical left in
Canada.
In his excellent article , Joel Olson states that the anarchist movement
needs to move beyond Infoshops and Insurrection to movement building, and
to prioritize struggles against certain forms of oppression  as more
relevant or strategic than others.  Regrettably, he doesn’t define the
exactly what is involved in movement building.

It seems to me that we want, at the least, to be part of an anarchist
movement, as well as of autonomous social movements, that address the
triple oppressions of race, class and gender.  Building this kind of
movement means that anarchists need to focus on issues that address these
oppressions, such as, for example, organizing against anti-police violence
and the prison-industrial complex.

Focusing on these three oppressions would involve updating anarchist
theory and practice to take into account the most vibrant movement of the
past 5 decades: anti-racist and anti-colonial movements, the feminist,
anti-nuclear, queer and environmental movements.  The anarchist movement
needs to take this into account.  The classical anarchist tradition with
its relatively exclusive focus on class does not adequately address the
issues of these movements and the theory and practice that has come out of
them.

Finally, on the subject of insurrection, mass anarchism and revolutionary
violence, it is mistake to separate building a mass movement with building
a movement that also engages in militant direct action and has the
capacity to engage in revolutionary violence.  That is to say, a mass
anarchist movement, if it is to be more than rhetorically revolutionary
will need to be capable of defending itself from state and corporate
repression, and will need the capacity to engage in offensive strikes
against state and corporate power.  Numbers will not be enough, and we
can’t rely exclusively on the General Strike, as important as mass strikes
will be in any confrontations with Canadian capitalism and the Canadian
state.

The long history of the Canadian state using violence, up to and including
murder, to break strikes in the 19th and early 20th centuries provides a
clear example of what the state will do when revolutionary unions and
workers threaten the status quo.  Similarly, US state repression of the
Black Panther Party and the American Indian Movement provides a more
recent example of the lengths to which the state will go to protect itself
from threats, as well as offering up another revolutionary model than
revolutionary unionism.  In both cases revolutionary movements at the time
were required to defend themselves, and, for different reasons, they were
incapable of doing so.  We need to be conscious of this history and to be
planning how to defend ourselves, our allies and our movements.

Not Now (Not Ever): Diversity of Tactics and the Black Block

The first thing that needs to be said in this debate is that we can’t
simply substitute the phrase “respect for a diversity of tactics” for
actual and critical discussion for any and all tactics used at and outside
of protests   .  As others have pointed out, honest criticism of certain
tactics can’t focus exclusively on the black block, as opposed to, for
example, signing petitions, and lobbying politicians .  That said,
attempting to silence people who engage in respectful criticisms of the
black block and other tactics is wrong both at a moral and a political
level.

This article isn’t going to trace all of the points and counter-points
that have been made for and against a “diversity of tactics.” Instead it
will be quickly and one-sidedly respond to some criticisms of the black
block made by people inside of and outside of the anarchist movement.

Some of the debate around “diversity of tactics” has become somewhat
stylized, so that we already know in advance what people will say on
“both” sides of the issue.  This condemnation or support for a diversity
of tactics usually falls along a few binaries: violent/non-violent,
illegitimate/legitimate, illegal/legal and ineffective/effective .  The
Black Block is often coded as violent, illegitimate, illegal and
ineffective.  These different binaries, and others could be added, are
also often, but not always, considered reinforcing: violent protest =
illegitimate protest = ineffective protest.

People also often make references made to the civil rights movement,
emphasizing that it was non-violent and effective.  It’s effectiveness is
usually linked to, they say, it’s perceived legitimacy with large numbers
of people and the use of the tactic of civil disobedience.

To take up the side of the people who support violence and the black block
tactic (which I do) I offer this quote:

 “while the American civil rights movement is often credited with the use
of non-violent means, the abolition of legalised segregation in the
United States was in fact accomplished through a series of what were
clearly violent state interventions, most notably sending in the National
Guard to oversee the desegregation of schools in southern states. ”

The point being that no matter how non-violent the civil rights movement
was and how large, it was it was relying on state violence to enforce
desegregation.  So, people who use this example to valorize non-violence
are often being contradictory.

In any case, and for better or for worse (for worse, I think) the civil
rights movement all too often gets used in order to make political points
by different sides in arguments over diversity of tactics.

This is only a very superficially look at how these binaries play out in
two arguments.  The larger point that I am trying to make is that in order
to make a militant movement we need to break down these mutually
re-enforcing binaries.

Moving along, it is also common for people to assert that militant actions
dissuade people from joining the movement.  The evidence for this is
usually purely anecdotal and/or personal in nature.  This lack of
foundation means that, at the exact same time, the opposite argument, that
militant action brings people into the movement, is also made.  Given
this, it seems likely that militant actions and militant tactics by
themselves don’t necessarily do either of these things and that the result
of using militant tactics and engaging in militant actions depends on the
“who, what, when, where, and how” of an action, on the context of an
action.  So, for example, the fire bombing of three porn stores that
distributed pornography that eroticized violence against women by the
Vancouver 5 didn’t result in the collapse of the feminist movement in
Vancouver, or of the campaign that existed to shut these outlets down.  In
fact, these actions were an effective contribution to the campaign, and
were widely supported by large numbers of activists .  However, and I
realize this is obvious, but bear with me, if there hadn’t already been a
mass feminist movement and a significant campaign specifically targeting
the chain, then the response likely would have been entirely different. 
Which is to restate that the effect of militant tactics and actions
depends on the context in which they are undertaken.  Excluding militant
direct action, and demonizing the people who do it is and will continue to
be divisive and if it were accomplished would significantly shrink the
movement, not expand it.

Finally, I want to talk about the issue of police infiltration.  Some of
the criticisms about the black block, and of militant tactics are that it
is a tactic that is easily used by the police and the police use it to
discredit the anarchist movement  (or whichever movement the person making
the point belongs to).  This argument isn’t very convincing.  Arguments
about whether an action or tactic discredits or benefits the movement
often has more to do with the personal opinion of the author (ahem) than
anything else.  If it discredits the movement, then it does so regardless
of who throws the stones.  Personally, I don’t think that it does.  It may
be true that a police agent threw the first stone, but this is the sort of
thing that we’ll ever be able to prove.  And, in fact, relying for
argument on accusations that are impossible to prove is evidently and
concretely an action that hurts the movement .

Further, I would argue that one of the likely goals of the police is to
discredit a tactic, the black block tactic, as well as to discredit any
and all forms of militant direct action.  Truthfully, I believe that they
are content to discredit groups and movements regardless of what tactics
they are using.  To the extent they (re)act in a rational manner, the
police and organizations like CSIS will try and discredit any tactic,
movement, group, etc. which they perceive as a threat to the status quo. 
In the case of the anarchist movement, this means to the extent that it
threatens to become a mass revolutionary movement.  It isn’t helpful to
isolate the Black Block tactic as the only way in which the police can
infiltrate our movement.  Any above ground or open organization can be easily infiltrated by the
police.  Any strategy and/or tactic that said organization chooses or uses
is open to manipulation by police agents.  And, to the extent that we are
going to organize openly there is not much we can do about it except to
ensure that the strategy and tactics that we decide on will be effective
in building the type of anarchist movement that we want.

Sticks and Stones May Break my Bones, but Words Will Never Hurt Me

“For those who came here to peacefully make their point, I welcome them
here because I want them to be integrated into the long-term debate. For
those who came here to break windows and hurt small businesses or stop
people from going to meetings and having their say, I condemn them. And
I’m sorry that the mayor, the governor, and the police officers and others
have had to go through this. We need to make a clear distinction between
that which we condemn and that which we won’t.”  - Bill Clinton

This quote illuminates a similarity between Bill Clinton’s politics  and
certain statements made by anarchists in the recent debate about strategy
and tactics with regards to property destruction.  It is also helpful in
highlighting the fact that “the establishment” actually doesn’t like
property destruction, contrary to the point being made by people who
accuse the Black Block of doing the will of the police.

Granted, the reasons that Bill Clinton, and Democrats who support him, and
anarchists oppose property destruction are different.  Still, I feel like
it says something when you’ve got Bill Clinton on your side.

Tactics that are easily reconciled with establishment views of political
legitimacy risk being relatively easily appropriated and co-opted.  If,
however, the argument isn’t against property destruction, per se, but
against property destruction at this time, this means that the question of
when property destruction will be acceptable needs to be answered: if not
now, when?  The argument goes that at some point in the future the
anarchist movement will begin to engage in mass militant direct action
that will destabilize Canadian capitalism and its state.  I think that
this is an impractical argument:

“You have to build the consciousness, you have to build the psychology,
you have to build the experiential base, and you have to build the
theoretical base… ”

A movement that has refrained from engaging in revolutionary violence and
militant direct action won’t have done any of these things and will
necessarily have to start from scratch.  That puts us behind the game, not
in front of it.  This is particularly so in the Canadian context given the
extent to which pacifism has and continues to influence movements for
social justice.

This isn’t to leave the Black Block off of the theoretical hook:

“…If you are going to go up against [the repressive apparatus of the
state,] of if you’re going to do serious damage to the structure of
things, it isn’t going to happen in some sort of frontal confrontation
with whatever deployment of force the state makes.  So it is symbolic [in
a sense.]….[The Black Block] might want to ditch the uniforms…put on a
phony beard….And it is just this level of tactical evolution they’ve
refused. ”

The Black Block tactic is one tactic, no more and no less.  To me there
shouldn’t really be any controversy about using it.  If blocking up and
breaking windows at a demonstration accomplishes something, people should
do it.  And if the Black Block is used by rote, if the tactic is used in
an entirely ritualized fashion so that it becomes the anti-capitalist
version of “family-friendly” liberal demonstrations with politicians like
Iggy and Jack Layton as the main attraction, this needs to be criticized.

That said, the Black Block should also not become the limit of our
militancy.  Taking the Black Block, or any one tactic as the limit of the
meaning “diversity of tactics” is a contradiction in terms.  Our tactics
should only be dictated by what will be most effective in reaching our
goals.

What if, for example, one of the affinity groups at the “Heart Attack”
Demo had chosen instead to torch a Hudson’s Bay Company outlet on the
outskirts of Vancouver, or in another city?  This would have resulted in
significantly more financial damage to the HBC.  It could also move the
debate around tactics further forward and reduce the criticism of the
Black Block, as people who want to condemn militancy would probably focus
on arson rather than window breaking.

In Conclusion: Militancy and Mass Movement

Sometimes it seems like critics of the Black Block are drawing a
comparison between it and insurrectionary anarchism’s “propaganda by the
deed”.  For the most part I think that this comparison is not accurate. 
While some members of the Black Block may draw inspiration from this
history, the tactic itself is incompatible with it in a number of ways,
the clearest being that it depends on and is designed for mass action.  It
is a tactic that is used at relatively large demonstrations, and that is
more effective the larger the size of the demonstration and of the Block
itself.  And it is important to remember that a large number of people who
use the tactic and/or who support the tactic are not insurrectionary
anarchists. It is a mistake to make generalizations about the politics of
people who use the Black Block tactic, and it is a mistake to make a
division between the Black Block and a mass movement.

The anarchist movement needs to be a militant mass movement.  The
militancy shouldn’t begin at some hypothetical point in the future, but
needs to be, for very practical reasons, part of our current practice. 
The idea that the Black Block and militant tactics, in themselves, ruin
the potential for a mass movement is an assertion is simply not true. 
Instead, tactics need to be seen in context.  Out tactics need to be
dictated by well thought out strategies.  I’m not making an argument
against militant direct action right now, however, quite the contrary. 
Our movement needs to become increasingly militant as of yesterday or even
two weeks ago.  What I am suggesting is that people who have the courage,
the desire and the ability to take more militant actions think carefully
about all of the possible consequences of their actions.  The rule of
thumb seems to be that militant actions shouldn’t be taking in isolation
but need to be part of a larger campaign and movement.

The lack of discussion around strategy in the anarchist movement creates
is one of our weaknesses.  It results in divisive arguments around
militancy and the Black Block. It also results in a lack of much needed
clarity about what actions we need to take in order to build a mass
movement.

For example, is the theoretical position of opposing all forms of
oppression really a disadvantage when it comes to movement building? Does
it prevent us from organizing effectively due to the fact that the
movement is going in so many directions at the same time?  If so, what
should we be focusing on?  What does this mean for organizing around
issues that are deprioritized?  What is to be done?