This past week at Toronto's G20 Summit, the usual "black bloc anarchists" gave real anarchists a bad name. After all, what would a riot or protest be without blaming it on the anarchists, socialists, or any other marginalized group that is deemed to be fringe? There are government provocateurs who are hell bent on inspiring whole groups of people to raise up and fight the Man by smashing windows and torching cop cars. However, there are also plenty of ordinary people who feel the need to rebel in the exact same way: by violence. And what is most frustrating of all is that these abject morons call themselves "anarchists."
Regardless of whether or not they could actually name a single anarchist philosopher, or whether they could form a coherent and logical defense of anarchism, the "anarchists" suit up in their black attire and raze city blocks with no discretion or thought. In fact, what these protesters did in Seattle in the 90's, in Pittsburgh last year, and in Toronto this past weekend is so fundamentally opposed to anarchism that it is laughable.
Anarchism is a stateless society. People have to learn how to interact with one another peacefully and civilly. There is no compulsion or coercion in an anarchist society, unless, of course, it is criminal. Just as in our current state, the only justifiable force is that used in self-defense. So, to put it mildly, when those black bloc lunatics smash the storefront of a mom and pop store, or burn a soccer mom's van, what type of message are they trying to send? If their goal is a stateless society, one devoid of an entity that steals, murders, and coerces, then they best change their tactics. The reason being that if they are willing to attack and harm innocent establishments/bystanders, they are becoming exactly the type of monster that they are so "courageously fighting."
My gripe with them does not end there. For the most part, these "anarchists" are outright cowards. They act as if they're the hardest kids to hit the street since NWA, but this couldn't be further from the truth. God forbid any of them reveal their faces as they carry out their "propaganda of the deed." Then again, none of them would want to ruin their chances of getting a job, going to grad school, or doing countless other conventional things; because as soon as they pull off that black mask of theirs, most go back complacently and quietly into their cage in society. Weekends with big protests like the G20 allow these faux-anarchists to "blow off some steam," most likely built up from years of being "misunderstood" by their parents or never outgrowing their outrage developed from years of listening to grunge.
However, I must say that it is always fun to watch their antics. Wearing skin-tight jeans that would put spandex in its place, black eyeliner (for guys and girls alike), and an overpriced, possibly designer, bandana, these twig thin thugs need to hurl roughly 7 cinder blocks at paper thin glass to merely crack it (lest we forget, it probably takes five of these "anarchists" to merely lift one). Their chants are often meaningless, poorly synced, and could easily be defeated, in both originality and audibleness, by a girls' softball team. What is even funnier to watch are clashes between the black bloc and the overzealous police force (As an aside, the behavior of the Toronto/Canadian authorities this past weekend was outright atrocious with a blatant disregard of the protesters' rights and the rule of the law).
Superiorly armed criminals (the police) line up against inferiorly armed criminals (the black bloc) in straight line formations that haven't been used since the Revolutionary War. Bricks, stones, and other everyday objects are hurled against rubber bullets, batons, and sound and water cannons. It is almost as if Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection is being tested in front of my own very eyes: Two groups of mindless morons duke it out to the death. I can't complain.
Let me finish by saying this, I am a long term anarchist with short term solutions (Thank you, Nick Hankoff). I would have gladly stood beside my fellow anarchists at the G20 to protest the thugs and criminals that we call world "leaders." But I will not tolerate provocateurs or people calling themselves anarchists who violate the very principles that they "advocate." These black bloc bozos have given the anarchist movement a bad name for far too long. Next time you see them, call them out for what they are: violent criminals.
- Blog Policy
- Login or register to post comments
Connect with YAL
to the YAL channel on 
Upcoming Events
-
Info This seminar offers an introduction to the thoughts and thinkers of the...
-
Info The contrast between liberty and power in the history of the...
-
Info The summer’s final Freedom University boasts lectures on the hottest...
-
Info This is an all day, family-friendly convention for freedom-minded folks in...
-
Info Taking RSVP now for a June 30th - July 1st convention.We need to secure...
The dumb of society pays the tax for these public-subsidized corporate mercenary gangs. The dumbest make sure they don't go to waste.
For further reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
This is sort of unfair, because the author is partaking in the Rhetoric of Definition and this uses the wrong qualifier. He is not making the short statement below, but rhetorical skills to ask one to believe that the ways in which they've been using anarchist in the past has been wrong (does an analysis) and then shows ways in which one could be correct (does an analysis) creates a new conclusion.
Anarchism is non-violent
He is violent
He is no anarchist
I'm not exactly sure what you are saying.
Brian Beyer is grumpy about the wider association of all that might be called 'anarchist.' That's understandable. The best route to avoid unfair reputation bleed is to educate others that there are different kinds of anarchists, just as their are different kinds of Republicans, Christians, Muslims, etc. Squatting on the whole category isn't the right way to go, just as it isn't right for Baptists to say that Methodists aren't Christians. Whether or not their doctrine is true is another matter.
To say that it isn't fair on my part to point out the definition squatting since that is what the author intends doesn't make any sense to me. But maybe I misunderstand you.
The squatting itself isn't a big deal, but it is a bit juvenile. Nothing in the term 'anarchist' denotes, connotes, or implies civility or non-violence.
Its a bit unfair not to elaborate more. Thanks :)
Yes I agree, whether or not something is "true" is sort of vague, in all "honesty."
"Anarchy" lives in the popular consciousness of our society as term that has implications of non-aggression:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy
Did you read Ethics of Liberty by Rothbard yet? It is free for download from Mises U which you can access via iTunes
'"Anarchy" lives in the popular consciousness of our society as term that has implications of non-aggression:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy'
In my experience people use the term 'anarchy' synonymously with 'chaos' or 'disorder.' Both 'anarchist' and 'atheist' carry negative associations for most people, but those are uneducated sentiments.
I recently read Ethics of Liberty. It was interesting and deserves a second read and more thought. But the logic suffered a number of convenient assumptions that seemed obviously flawed to me. There was some sloppy confusion of 'possession' and 'ownership,' and I scrunched my eyebrows a lot at his approach to objective morality. I realize it wasn't the goal of the essay to go into great depth in every area, but some of it really deserved better thinking since this was meant as a foundational work. But, overall, it was interesting.
That is a good point too, I would add to somehow usurp the prevailing hierarchy it would seem could be snuck in there. It just seems ... way to unpractical or irrational to think all forms of social order would be in chaos. I'm mostly thinking in economic (decision making about scarce resources) type of things. I mean, people would still trade because it is very easy to see the benefit one gets from trade. Hayek called it an ordered chaos - I think because the trade may be irrationally based ("I'll give you all my money for crack") but there is still that idea that one person values something more than the thing one is trading and the other person vice versa.
Maybe the agreement is people are uneducated...they mistake hooligans for anarchists?
I would have trouble w/ Rothbard unless I saw a specific instance, but I'm sure there is one there. In "Man, Economy, and State" he basically says it would behoove the reader to be familiar with the first 140 pages of Mises's "On Human Action" before reading this book. - its right in the footnote of the introduction. So I imagine some of the praxeological terms have already been outlined by Mises and its part of the commonplace discourse he's using.
I live in Toronto and was witness to much of what went on in downtown Toronto. Here's some further information on what happened on Saturday/Sunday.
1) The police deliberately drove police cars into the crowds and then abandoned them there. As far as I can tell the police had no problem with allowing some protestors to incite this kind of violence and destruction. The fires were not put out for some time, ensuring that media outlets would capture images of the burning cars. The images of burning police cars are now what people will associate with this protest and messages from peaceful protestors have been overshadowed by images of violence that were deliberately promoted by the police.
2) The police did nothing, and I mean nothing, to stop these people from running wild down two major streets in Toronto (Queen St. and Yonge St.). There was no effort whatsoever to stop them destroying private property. I even heard reports from others that when peaceful protestors attempted to intervene and stop the black bloc tactics they were pulled back by police and told not to intervene to try to stop the violence. Whether that was for their own safety or so that more violence would be on display, I am not certain.
3) There were definitely undercover police dressed as protestors in the crowd. I can't seem to find the video of it now, but I saw some of them myself when I was there, complete with the cliche Che Guevera patch sewn on a napsack and cannabis leaf bandana. I did not witness any engaging in violence (I left before things got too out of hand) but they were present at the demonstration and I've heard claims that some of these guys might have been involved in violence.
4) The Integrated Security Unit (ISU) claims that they had a victory because they were not drawn away from their posts at the 18 foot high security fence to stop vandals. They were far more concerned with protecting the elites meeting at the G20 summit than they were about protecting the private property of shop owners and retailers in downtown Toronto.
5) The majority of the more than 900 people that were apprehended and taken into detention were not black bloc protestors. Many of them were citizens who got caught in the wrong place and at the wrong time and simply could not get out of the way before police closed in and started making mass arrests. The temporary detention facility had appalling conditions. 7-8 people in a cell 8' x 6', barely any food and some people released without having their footwear returned.
6) After things got completely out of hand on the first day the police clamped down hard on peaceful protests that happened on Sunday. Groups that were out protesting peacefully on Sunday were treated to a variety of police violence despite not having engaged in any destructive behavior whatsoever. This video pretty much sums it up. After singing the national anthem the police storm the crowd for no apparent reason. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ze4F1Oetiw) The police also fired rubber bullets into peacefully protesting groups outside of the temporary detention center for no apparent reason. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPnzCwt9Sps - not sure if this is right video) The police also denied using rubber bullets, but it was clear that they did. Once video was released showing the police firing they claimed that these were blanks.
7) As far as I can tell this was pretty much an excuse to introduce much more heavy handed police state tactics in Toronto and perhaps Canada in general. Supposed "temporary" surveillance cameras were installed in downtown, but the contract the city police have with the company providing the cameras states that the cameras may be purchased at the end of the lease. I highly doubt the police are planning to uninstall these cameras. The Toronto police have also added to their arsenal sound cannons, a water cannon, ARWEN rifles for tear gas cannisters and rubber bullets. I've been watching the militarization of the police in the US happen for some time, but only now have they begun to introduce this to Canada. This was a truly unfortunate event and seems to hav been pre-planned to happen much the way that it did.
I'm sure this was pre-planned for a couple reasons.
Offering a few police cars to be burnt is a small sacrifice. Those were absolutely put there as a distraction. More violence to a car is less to the shops or the police themselves. The loss gets socialized anyway - the taxes from all will pay for it: ineffective way to protest.
Letting someone smash a private business is also a small price to pay for not being personally injured. An insurance company will pick it up - or maybe the city will socialize that loss as well when all the hoopla is over.
These are both ineffective and protesting like this is only a way to build social capital rather than doing something "effective."
Think of MLK Jr. and the Bus Boycotts that lasted a year! That was effective because they stayed with it - and they hurt the city in their dollar!
Gotta hurt the state through its dollar to be effective. Not saying that's extremely hard - just saying that is the best way to do it.