# Effective 'resistance' versus pointless rioting?



## stove

Alright, so I've never been to a rally, protest, organized resistance, whatever you want to call it. But still, looking from the outside, what's the point? Smashing some windows, getting arrested...does that really solve anything, other than indicating how pissed off, and ultimately riddiculously stupid and mob-oriented, people are?

I'd love to hear some EFFECTIVE suggestions.

Here are mine:

PR stunt: Get someone dressed up real nice- clean cute, shaven, suit, tie, buff the shoes, the works. Have a few shooters (VIDEOCAMERAs) discretely taping every second, and maybe throw a bug or two on them. Have the dummy (literally) get picked up by the pigs- walking down a closed street, through a riot zone, whatever. Do it again and again until you get a response. Record and then publish the whole thing as a negative PR smear on cops.

The only problem is, you need someone clean-cut who can take a hit. When I get back to the states, if I'm not busy, I'll volunteer, assuming I can find a trust-worthy video crew.


Also, as someone mentioned an upcoming IMF meeting in April in DC- DONT SHOW. Seriously, just have a few guys show up, shoot some vids and pics, and then get out. Show absolutely overwhelming police prescence, without any real need. Again, negative PR. But all of this "we can beat the cops" shit is riddiculous- violence begets violence, and when it comes down to it, they've got more guns. And they've got a history of killing. Do you want to really go head-to-head against that?


----------



## LovelyAcorns

I have a question. Why is it that pacifists have to say the exact same thing, fucking over and over again? We get it, breaking stuff is useless mob mentality (tribe mentality?), PR is God, and violence begets violence (which, in fact, would justify our violence as inevitable if true).


Everybody has already heard this, and you know everybody has already heard this. Are you simply going for "power through omnipresence" or something?


----------



## Franny

The POINT is visibility. Not saying that's always accomplished, but that's usually the goal. People get confused on this issue though: the point is not to make yourself visible, but to make the issue visible.

I see both mob-riots and pacifist sit-down strikes effective depending on the situation. A lot of the problem in my mind is that some want to make direct action a fashion show. The original purpose of black blocks was to allow a group to be easily identified without letting the individuals be easily identified. My mind is not working properly right now, I didn't explain that very well. I'm going to come back when I can organize my thoughts.


----------



## wizehop

I have to be honest here. I see protests on TV and they don't even register. When those huge protests took place regarding the war it did nothing for me...it was a 30 second news clip. If anything they all look like a bunch of idiot.. you have people who kill, lie, cheat, oppress to get what they want and people march in fucking parades..seriously.

Protesting is self righteous masturbation and nothing more


----------



## GCM

i see boycotts as being more effective than protesting. but then again there's a time and season...


----------



## Pheonix

other than Martin Luther King, who remembers the non-violent protesters. but I do remember that the unibomber mailed bombs to protest technology and Timothy Mcvay bombed the federal building in OKC to protest the ATFs actions at Waco,TX


----------



## joemojave

Since nobody has said anything yet, I am going to assume that a lot of people here dont understand the true power of nonviolent resistance. The point is not to get lots of publicity and pressure those in power to do what you want, but to get those in power to sympathize with you. Pressuring those in power into making change is only a side effect. I cant explain it very well, so I'll just say that you want to show those in power how important the issue is to you. Thats why hunger strike is such a powerfull tool. You are showing people that the issue at hand is more to you important than food, and ultimately life. 

I am sure that everyone reading this either thinks I am crazy or already knows what I am talking about. If you think I am crazy but you are willing to take the time to learn yourself, check out this youtube video. 



This is a one hour video that will give you an idea of the basics. If you are still interested you can watch the rest of the course by searching PACs 164A on youtube.


----------



## trotsky

A CrimethInc article that talks about insurrection and the difference between activism and 'riot porn':
CWC Texts : Rolling Thunder : Say You Want an Insurrection


----------



## Stargazer

I HATE 99.9% of protesters, Notice how they're always the same broke ass crusty losers with a bandanna, dreadlocks and a chez Guavera T-Shirt calling anyone with a tucked in shirt, haircut and job a "facist"?.....And they always put so much effort into rioting, they should put more commitment into getting their lives together. And they're always so informed about how the "Facist Establishment" is investing in the "war machine"....So what are we left with, some broke, "neo commie anarchist?" sitting on a sidewalk drunk off no name beer, sharing a joint with his other friends who are also real winners......and remember, these are the guys trying to give people political advice. lol


----------



## MoetThePoet

is nobody here gonna talk about community organizing? lol

the most opressed people in the system can't put on balaclavas, risk getting arrested or drop out.

Food not bombs, worker coops and takeovers, land take overs, student, worker and housewife strikes, arming the neighborhood and organizing assemblies is where it's at

notice im not hating on demos because demos do have political weight, but demos alone can't replace community organizing, ever.

btw, "chez guevara"? lol.


----------



## Eviscerate

i think any type of dissent is good. i think the real problem with society today is that nowhere near enough people are politically active. if people arent willing to go the whole way and riot well so be it. its not the way i think they should go about voicing their dissatisfaction but its better than ol stargazer who couldn't give two shits about anything.

we need more protests more strikes more riots because we have to teach people that this is how they should be.

Stargazer, you post in all of these threads as if you know ever single protester ever in existence. these are the people that fight for your rights. these are the people who keep the internet free that try to keep government surveillance to a minimum and you have the balls to tell them that they dont know what they are talking about? Maybe, infact probably they know a fuckload more about politics and the way the world works than you ever will. the middle and lower classes have fought and fought for their right to speak and you dare tell us now that all that is worthless?


----------



## Gudj

stove said:


> I'd love to hear some EFFECTIVE suggestions.
> 
> Here are mine:
> 
> PR stunt: Get someone dressed up real nice- clean cute, shaven, suit, tie, buff the shoes, the works. Have a few shooters (VIDEOCAMERAs) discretely taping every second, and maybe throw a bug or two on them. Have the dummy (literally) get picked up by the pigs- walking down a closed street, through a riot zone, whatever. Do it again and again until you get a response. Record and then publish the whole thing as a negative PR smear on cops.
> 
> The only problem is, you need someone clean-cut who can take a hit. When I get back to the states, if I'm not busy, I'll volunteer, assuming I can find a trust-worthy video crew.


 

That doesn't make sense. 
Right now, the very best that bad PR (say, a video of cops beating someone to death) accomplishes, is getting pissed people out in the street for a "pointless" riot. 
What else could it be good for? If enough people youtube the video, you think that we are going to peacefully vote the cops out of existence? 
Neither tactic is anywhere near perfect (rioting and PR...voting doesn't count as a tactic), but ALL possible tactics must be used together to get anywhere. Boycott is useless, small riots are useless, protests are useless, sabotage is useless, even targeted assassinations are useless. Historically it's when all these are combined, that shit gets going.

Disclaimer to whoever is reading this: I am not going to assassinate anyone or convince anyone else to, I said that as an example of historical tactics during revolutions.


----------



## connerR

> the most opressed people in the system can't put on balaclavas, risk getting arrested or drop out.



I think that's an important thing that a lot of protestors and activists overlook. If you want to start a revolution, shouting a bunch of bullshit slogans and waving pretty signs isn't going to do much. You need to understand what demographics you'll be going after and how you plan on relaying the message to them. Protesting is marketing; the protest itself is perhaps the most primal form of advertisement available. 

The best way in my mind to start any kind of revolution - peaceful or violent - is to make it both palatable and encompassing. While the average people may agree philosophically at the end of the day, they're going to see punk kids with patched up clothes, crazy hair, tattoos and piercings, etc, and think, "these kids are crazy!" I think the Anarchist Bookfair in SF a few months back was the quintessential example of this: I think I saw three people there who looked "normal" (inb4 shitstorm, you know what I mean; there are people this society trusts and people society doesn't trust). The rest were tat'd, pierced, dirty punk kids. You can boycott, riot, protest, sabotage, and bust caps, but if the general public aren't on your side, you're going nowhere.


----------



## MoetThePoet

I don't know if my last post was too harsh or whatever
Just wanted to point out that I think demos are fun to attend and it's a nice activity to get out of closed room meetings, and all the boring crap that activism can be. It's an important thing, but not "good enough"

I just wanna make it clear that im not definitely putting down demos and riots. But I still think we need more than that (ESPECIALLY neighborhood, household and workplace assemblies)

As for people dressing up and looking like punks and it alienating people, I don't think it alienates anyone, and I think we should celebrate a variety of identities and "sub"cultures within the movement. From crustie kids to moms who look like moms.

Otherwise, would you leave out bboys cause their looks alienate people? What about cultures who don't dress "mainstream"? Do you supress them?


----------



## connerR

Punks, bboys, goths, metalheads...whatever stupid classification that humans have lumped themselves into...none of those people are considered serious in the world. There are more people pursuing the American Dream than there are protesting.


----------



## MoetThePoet

So because they're not taken seriously they should be supressed and silenced? Should everyone wear a westernized shirt and tie so that they can be taken seriously?
What the population needs to acknowledge is that subcultures and cultures should be taken seriously, and change their view of what is considered serious. Not just adapt to their version of what serious is. Otherwise it's vanguardist and it most probably is what "the power" tells them serious is (shirt and tie, westernized civilization)


----------



## catfish

to show unity.


----------



## connerR

MoetThePoet said:


> So because they're not taken seriously they should be supressed and silenced? Should everyone wear a westernized shirt and tie so that they can be taken seriously?
> What the population needs to acknowledge is that subcultures and cultures should be taken seriously, and change their view of what is considered serious. Not just adapt to their version of what serious is. Otherwise it's vanguardist and it most probably is what "the power" tells them serious is (shirt and tie, westernized civilization)


 
Well, that's not quite what I'm saying. They should not be suppressed and silenced. But what the population should do and what they will do are two different things. The reason certain subcultures aren't successful is because they do a poor job of representing themselves seriously. For every anarcho-punk who really knows his or her shit, who I actually respect for their knowledge on the subject they choose to take the side of, I can show you probably ten scumfucks who just want to break things and get fucked up. And the population (that really is a terrible word to use) lumps both of them together. Granted, it's a two-way street: assuming you have to wear a westernized shirt and tie is just as much of a misconception.

I think a good example of this is the Canadian G20 protests. The only people who seem to care are other protestors and the anti-Capitalist community around the world which, it seems, is quite the minority. The rest of the world (the people I'd assume they'd be trying to convince?) has labeled them as effete "idiots" who are just making a bunch of noise. This article is just one of many portraying this: durhamregion.com | What it's like to protest the G20. Also, I found it humorous when I read on a message board that Lakers fans caused just as much chaos as the protestors, and they were just drunk sports fans.


----------



## Pheonix

yea them drunk sports fans really know how to riot. I think we should have sports fans riot for us it would be easy just give them free beer than when their nice and drunk talk shit about their favorite team.


----------



## coldsteelrail

We live in a fucking capitalistic police state, where protesting is a priveledge, not a right. Everyone has their own way of trying to get their point across that another world is possible. If you've ever been to a protest, you'll notice that not everyone is a youth, and there are a lot of 'mainstream' people out there, shouting for change alongside the kids in bandanas and the neo hippes. The world changes with ourselves, with our communities, and change is created when the people come together, and create actions tenaciously. Knowledge is power. We are coming to desperate times, and when you all find out an 'effective' way to be resistant, or even what it is you are cohesively resisting, let me know.

wizehop wrote: _"Protesting is self righteous masturbation and nothing more"_

Indeed, any massive social change that a small group of people have created for themselves, has started with protests. A protest only looks like a parade when you don't believe in the issue, when you're uneducated, when there aren't enough consequetive protests, and perhaps when the protest becomes a venue for every active group in the city to come out to promote their own separate issues. Stay aware and get involved, and you might be moved to protest yourself, even if they can feel like a parade. I agree that from the outside, looking in, it can be difficult to decipher chants, or to stop the marchers and ask what is going on. It is about visibility, but how does a protest become coherant and inclusive?

I think the violent actions would make a better statement if done outside of the 'peaceful' protests, and i believe a passive march is most effective if it goes on for days, and is accompanied by other forms of public outreach and community organising. I believe a lot of the rioting is instigated by the police themselves, however when people are rioting, at sport events, or at protests, i think it expresses anger, and discontent, and it's important to harness that energy and use it. It isn't called 'smash the state' for nothing. I advocate sitting peacefully in the face of state resistance, but sitting peacefully is gonna get your ass trampled, even if it does attract positive mainstream attention. I also believe in arming and militarizing the people, but what comforts are we in rich 'western' nations willing to let go of? 

Protesting (passive or violent) is an important tool to educate, recruit, build mass resistance, and create a vital energy for change to build within our communities. I agree with those who say we need more protests, full of more people; However protesting must lead to direct action, and if we want the world to change, i think we've got to be prepared to give up our cushy lives and to die for our cause.

Believe in the power of people, and the process of change! If you criticize the actions used, be creative, and try other tactics!


----------



## Gudj

coldsteelrail said:


> if we want the world to change, i think we've got to be prepared to give up our cushy lives and to die for our cause.
> 
> If you criticize the actions used, be creative, and try other tactics!



No doubt.


----------



## ayron

violent protesting has the potential of being massively effective, but the problem lies not in the action but how far its taken. If Protesters didint think of protesting as a one time thing, as day trip to the streets and then back to living the lives they were just calling out against, protesting would be very effective. as they would stay and fight, the looting would never stop and the battles for the streets would be ongoing untill the pigs backed down. anarchism would emerge if that were the case.

its the diffrence between living the change and wanting the change. protesters want change but are not ready to live it. if we want to stop tar sands we should have a constant occupation of the streets and riot, fight pigs, eat and share food, make music, loot, destroy the institutions involed untill the tar sands get stoped, or the forces masses at the tar sands and took them over! its a way of life, not a one time deal and until thats recognized as such, protesting will never truly accomplish anything.


----------



## Stargazer

Lol seems like everyday some stupid ass hippie douche or neo nazi scumbag keeps ranting to me about how they're fighting for my freedoms. I DONT NEED NOR WANT HELP Especially some douchebag crusty looking revolutionary reject philosopher wannabes with dreadlocks and a chez Quevevra T shirt...All you do is cause damage which hard working peoples taxes go to pay. Do you not realize there's a shit load of people that when they see these assholes setting shit on fire and breaking windows, they yell at their TVs "WHY THEY FUCK AREN'T THE COPS SHOOTING THESE IDIOTS....maybe in you're groups, This is acceptable, but to normal conforming hard working people with morals...I believe you would calls these "sheeoples". This is grounds to have you killed or at least locked away.
I And its not "what you stand for" its how you stand for it....Half the shit you destroy doesn't even give you a tactical edge. Used clothing store? Seriously whats the point of throwing a cocktail bomb into a used clothing store. Was it a secret base where "The establishment" works 24/7 to slowly enslave us LOL seriously fuck off, "NO GUNS, NO PEACE...KNOW GUNS, KNOW PEACE....by the way, to the idiot I said" you guys would not accomplish anything at the G20, prove me wrong....lol looks like I was right....wow 6 cops cars destroyed...oh no!, you really brought down" the system" LOL what a wast of fucking time that was, I was expecting some epic battle...lame.


----------



## connerR

Stargazer said:


> Lol seems like everyday some stupid ass hippie douche or neo nazi scumbag keeps ranting to me about how they're fighting for my freedoms. I DONT NEED NOR WANT HELP Especially some douchebag crusty looking revolutionary reject philosopher wannabes with dreadlocks and a chez Quevevra T shirt...All you do is cause damage which hard working peoples taxes go to pay. Do you not realize there's a shit load of people that when they see these assholes setting shit on fire and breaking windows, they yell at their TVs "WHY THEY FUCK AREN'T THE COPS SHOOTING THESE IDIOTS....maybe in you're groups, This is acceptable, but to normal conforming hard working people with morals...I believe you would calls these "sheeoples". This is grounds to have you killed or at least locked away.
> I And its not "what you stand for" its how you stand for it....Half the shit you destroy doesn't even give you a tactical edge. Used clothing store? Seriously whats the point of throwing a cocktail bomb into a used clothing store. Was it a secret base where "The establishment" works 24/7 to slowly enslave us LOL seriously fuck off, "NO GUNS, NO PEACE...KNOW GUNS, KNOW PEACE....by the way, to the idiot I said" you guys would not accomplish anything at the G20, prove me wrong....lol looks like I was right....wow 6 cops cars destroyed...oh no!, you really brought down" the system" LOL what a wast of fucking time that was, I was expecting some epic battle...lame.


 
FABULOUS post. I was going to respond to ayron: "as they would stay and fight, the looting would never stop and the battles for the streets would be ongoing untill the pigs backed down. anarchism would emerge if that were the case."

No, it wouldn't. Anarchism would die a bloody death because people would *shoot the activists*. And I think maybe 1% of the entire "anarchist" community are bad enough dudes to sit through something like that. The second bullets start flying I imagine a lot of protestors would become FOR the system real quick.

The thought of violent anarchist protests, to me, is laughable. 
"Fuck capitalism! Join us! We light things on fire and aim to dismantle everything you've grown up believing!"


----------



## Gudj

connerR said:


> FABULOUS post. I was going to respond to ayron: "as they would stay and fight, the looting would never stop and the battles for the streets would be ongoing untill the pigs backed down. anarchism would emerge if that were the case."
> 
> No, it wouldn't. Anarchism would die a bloody death because people would *shoot the activists*. And I think maybe 1% of the entire "anarchist" community are bad enough dudes to sit through something like that. The second bullets start flying I imagine a lot of protestors would become FOR the system real quick.
> 
> The thought of violent anarchist protests, to me, is laughable.
> "Fuck capitalism! Join us! We light things on fire and aim to dismantle everything you've grown up believing!"


 
There has been alot of shittalk on "pointless rioting" so far, but not a whole lot said on effective resistance.
What do you think should be the alternative connerR? (I also really want to read how stargazer might have answered this question, but oh well).


----------



## anyways

connerR said:


> The best way in my mind to start any kind of revolution - peaceful or violent - is to make it both palatable and encompassing. While the average people may agree philosophically at the end of the day, they're going to see punk kids with patched up clothes, crazy hair, tattoos and piercings, etc, and think, "these kids are crazy!"
> 
> You can boycott, riot, protest, sabotage, and bust caps, but if the general public aren't on your side, you're going nowhere.


 
I think you hit the nail on the head (one of them anyway). If people aren't seeing our point of view, and just seeing a bunch of windows getting broken (or whatever) it's to the everyday person a senseless act of vandalism.

No political message really gets across.


----------



## anyways

I really don't see even these "pointless" protests going on anymore... Maybe I've just been missing everything but I haven't seen action on any level in years.


----------



## ayron

connerR said:


> FABULOUS post. I was going to respond to ayron: "as they would stay and fight, the looting would never stop and the battles for the streets would be ongoing untill the pigs backed down. anarchism would emerge if that were the case."
> 
> No, it wouldn't. Anarchism would die a bloody death because people would *shoot the activists*. And I think maybe 1% of the entire "anarchist" community are bad enough dudes to sit through something like that. The second bullets start flying I imagine a lot of protestors would become FOR the system real quick.
> 
> The thought of violent anarchist protests, to me, is laughable.
> "Fuck capitalism! Join us! We light things on fire and aim to dismantle everything you've grown up believing!"


 
you make a good point dude, thats for sure. i mean a militant army of pigs armed to the teeth against a massive crowd of people with rocks, signs, molotovs and baseball bats its ludicris in the first place. but if were talking about real insurection the violent anarchists you laugh at would have stragies, guns, armour, and take full advantage of a less radical rioting crowd to kill, loot, sabatage key places and people, even pigs from building windows, and if the pigs are getting shot from behind and above, there not gonna shoot at a corwd infornt of them, becuase theyd die. with flanking tactics used by small groups from massive protests with the drive to kill if need be, along side with, all kinds of people in the street from peacefull fucks to rioters and food not bombs, the pigs would be overwhelmed in a city that was not expecting such resistance. imagine what the the pigs would do trying to deal with a typical large protest thats on the verge of roiting, if their precinct blows up from a small cell? and if at the same time 3 other small cells went around taking out banks and etc? if there are say 2 large collectives peacefully protesting 2 different topics at the same time (which is realitivly easy to do) and they build momentum, and snowball, they could lay the foundation for a very powerfull resistance, and quite possibly insurection....its not about public support btw, it is not a populatiry contest for the sheeple to agree with blowing up a copshop, or killing pigs or taking out banks. haha thats the point, if radiacal anarchist took out gas stations sure thed be hated, but even if there not, NOBODYS gonna be buying gas.

nono anarchism is very possible, we just need to at least have faith and fucking balls. the pigs fight for a payroll, we fight for our lives, theres no question weather anarchism will rise, its just a matter of what city first, then the rest will fall.


----------



## coldsteelrail

I know that it can be really hard to be sure about this...but sometimes i think 'the pigs' are just confused, insecure people with a really shitty job. It should never be about the pigs vs the people. Cops are used for crowd control and also a diversion. When there's cops surrounding cops, and snipers on the roof, it is pointless to fight directly against the cops and expect to win. They will gleefully shoot you, lock you up, and fuck up your entire life. How to humanize the cops, so that they are working with the people? How to humanize the government, and the general public, so that the value of our entire lives and society are restructured?
I'm at a loss right now when i look at our world. I am working on understanding my own apathy, and social goals. Current life in canada and US is really comfortable, but the illusions are falling very quickly, although we can all still be easily sold. Even though their needs to be mass cohesive uprisings, it's positive social action that builds a stronger, smarter, healthier society (like community gardening, food not bombs, and pedestrianized streets).
Social uprising creates civil war, and i think that most people from the US or Canada do not understand the depth of the change they are asking for, or even that much change is needed. You can talk about blowing up gas stations, but what is your objective? What is the alternative to gas? What would you do in a blacked-out city while there's a state of emergency? You can talk about cities falling, but honestly they need to be re-engineered, 'cause what else do we have right now? There are so many people in this world, where are we all gonna go? Why should we be a species praying for the death of ourselves, as though we are not vehicles of change. Living in a lawless society where chaos abounds is not productive or fun. It's dangerous and depricating. Would you prefer to live in somalia? Are we ready for blood on the streets, and would we follow ghandi?
Governments all over the world have used destabilizing tactics to create total chaos, so that entire systems are easy to topple and manipulate. These tactics always amount to even more complete disintegration, degredation, and profound loss. If we were to actually create an anarchistic society today, we would probably become vunerable to complete dictatorship and ruin very quickly. 
my gov't (canadian) is happily selling off crown corporations, with a preference for transnational and foreign buyers. None of our resources, including our fresh water, are being used for the benefit of canadians, and untimately we are holding back the rest of the world from major positive change, while at the same time destroying our own nation. 
We are witnessing the catalyst...how do we take control?


----------



## notconnerR

ayron said:


> nono anarchism is very possible, we just need to at least have faith and fucking balls. the pigs fight for a payroll, we fight for our lives, theres no question weather anarchism will rise, its just a matter of what city first, then the rest will fall.


 
I'm going to go ahead and say that not only will it never happen, it CANNOT happen. If anarchists took out gas stations, police would be fucking merciless in their actions against anarchists and I'm not going to bet any money that the "sheeple" (I fucking hate hearing that god damned word) are going to give a shit. Hell, anarchists can't even agree with each other on what they want.

I don't understand when I hear anarchists say that it's not about marketing their idea or garnering public support. All the anarchists I talk to want to spread anarchy and dismantle the way things are, but they expect it to all just change in a flash, perhaps with a "pointless riot" or getting drunk under a bridge. 

Anarchy will only be sustainable when there is one man or woman left in the world.


----------



## cranberrydavid

notconnerR said:


> If anarchists took out gas stations, police would be fucking merciless in their actions against anarchists



I gotta agree here. I'm old enough to remember when the Watts riots were going down. It only lasted 6 days. Later I got to know a guy who'd joined the Guard to dodge Nam and ended up riding in the back of a truck under a canvas with twin 50 calibers as they patrolled the streets of LA during the last couple days. When they'd hear a shot they'd rip off the tarp and he'd take out the whole floor where they thought the shot came form. The force of the firepower would sweep all the furniture to the far wall, shatter every cup, plate, toilet, lamp, bottle..... That's how governments take control back. Remember "shock and awe"?

The only difference between now and then is now the Guard has actual combat experience in urban warfare from Iraq, a whole bunch of new toys and tactics, and can be called in faster.


----------



## ayron

coldsteelrail said:


> I know that it can be really hard to be sure about this...but sometimes i think 'the pigs' are just confused, insecure people with a really shitty job. It should never be about the pigs vs the people. Cops are used for crowd control and also a diversion. When there's cops surrounding cops, and snipers on the roof, it is pointless to fight directly against the cops and expect to win. They will gleefully shoot you, lock you up, and fuck up your entire life. How to humanize the cops, so that they are working with the people? How to humanize the government, and the general public, so that the value of our entire lives and society are restructured?
> I'm at a loss right now when i look at our world. I am working on understanding my own apathy, and social goals. Current life in canada and US is really comfortable, but the illusions are falling very quickly, although we can all still be easily sold. Even though their needs to be mass cohesive uprisings, it's positive social action that builds a stronger, smarter, healthier society (like community gardening, food not bombs, and pedestrianized streets).
> Social uprising creates civil war, and i think that most people from the US or Canada do not understand the depth of the change they are asking for, or even that much change is needed. You can talk about blowing up gas stations, but what is your objective? What is the alternative to gas? What would you do in a blacked-out city while there's a state of emergency? You can talk about cities falling, but honestly they need to be re-engineered, 'cause what else do we have right now? There are so many people in this world, where are we all gonna go? Why should we be a species praying for the death of ourselves, as though we are not vehicles of change. Living in a lawless society where chaos abounds is not productive or fun. It's dangerous and depricating. Would you prefer to live in somalia? Are we ready for blood on the streets, and would we follow ghandi?
> Governments all over the world have used destabilizing tactics to create total chaos, so that entire systems are easy to topple and manipulate. These tactics always amount to even more complete disintegration, degredation, and profound loss. If we were to actually create an anarchistic society today, we would probably become vunerable to complete dictatorship and ruin very quickly.
> my gov't (canadian) is happily selling off crown corporations, with a preference for transnational and foreign buyers. None of our resources, including our fresh water, are being used for the benefit of canadians, and untimately we are holding back the rest of the world from major positive change, while at the same time destroying our own nation.
> We are witnessing the catalyst...how do we take control?


 


FUCKING BRILLIANT! thank you so much for that i think your mostly spot on actually.

my whole point was basicly going to the extreame of protesting as a single tactic. but for real change this whole diversity of tactics thing has to come into play, direct action movments to build well basicly the same principles of the venus project. like an example would be say a campainge to build awareness of geothermal energy that would supply unlimitd energy creating the oppurtunity to go nearly completly elctical in our cars, homes, and in a way thats totaly eco freindly and so on. and when were on the verge of pushing it through, and when the government is blantatly telling us its not going to happen, we blow up the local dam or somthing and force the city to rebuild somthing and with so much support to have geothermal itll go through.

rioting and so on is just a single tactic and really cannot be singled out, no tactic alone can accomplish anything and it needs to be disscused in context to the rest of the movment. i was just trying to defend roiting and protesting, becuase quite obviously it has lost much respect and support, anarchy and anarchists have nothing todo with rioting, its no more important then food not bombs. but the sterotype says other witch many people subscribe to.


----------



## ayron

notconnerR said:


> I'm going to go ahead and say that not only will it never happen, it CANNOT happen. If anarchists took out gas stations, police would be fucking merciless in their actions against anarchists and I'm not going to bet any money that the "sheeple" (I fucking hate hearing that god damned word) are going to give a shit. Hell, anarchists can't even agree with each other on what they want.
> 
> I don't understand when I hear anarchists say that it's not about marketing their idea or garnering public support. All the anarchists I talk to want to spread anarchy and dismantle the way things are, but they expect it to all just change in a flash, perhaps with a "pointless riot" or getting drunk under a bridge.
> 
> Anarchy will only be sustainable when there is one man or woman left in the world.


 
i agree only when people expect change to come from soley roiting or "pointless roiting" as you say. the roiting that has real change accmpanies an entire movment that already has the people behind it for what ever reason. we must look at roiting as part of a bigger picture or your just wasting your time being defeatist and more importantly discounting a very powerfull tactic for when the time comes.


----------



## Cobo

It's all pointless. No matter what you do to the system you can never remove the factors that led to the creation of the system in the first place - human nature. We were a species of anarchists at some point, before governments and moneys and all that. We created all this stuff for a reason.

Until we can change human nature anarchy will never be sustainable.


----------



## Eager

GCM said:


> i see boycotts as being more effective than protesting. but then again there's a time and season...


Boycott is the most exclusively middle class and ultimately reformist form of protest there is.

Can you imagine if folks had started a "boycott" instead of a riot and looting spree after the Rodney King verdict?

Nothing would have happened except starvation amongst the oppressed; because when you are poor, you can barely buy anything as it is. Buying power and the ability to be a "respectable citizen" is a privilege not afforded to the most oppressed people in this society.

And thats not even delving into the obvious problems that arise from an intent to overthrow a racist power structure by participating in the role of a "good, respectable consumer". It doesn't challenge that power structure; it recognizes it, plays into it, and adapts it.

Don't you get it? "The masters tools will never dismantle the masters house." As long as you fall into the predictable role of "subject"; you are forced to ask for concession.

And how can you ever win in such a circumstance? What sort of victor lets the loser choose the pre-conditions for victory?


----------



## Thoreau

currently reading, hope il learn something


----------



## Eager

joemojave said:


> Since nobody has said anything yet, I am going to assume that a lot of people here dont understand the true power of nonviolent resistance. *The point is not to get lots of publicity and pressure those in power to do what you want, but to get those in power to sympathize with you.* Pressuring those in power into making change is only a side effect. I cant explain it very well, so I'll just say that you want to show those in power how important the issue is to you. Thats why hunger strike is such a powerfull tool. You are showing people that the issue at hand is more to you important than food, and ultimately life.


 

This is exactly the problem with pacifism as an ideology; the unfounded assumption that oppressors are subconsciously empathetic to the oppressed.

As an all-encompassing dogma; its a complete ignorance of class and social dynamics are its political impotence, unable to distinguish self-defense on the part of the oppressed from the violence imposed upon them by the powerful.

In the pacifist line of thinking, our system that distributes power unequally is a myth; because the oppressed are equally "morally implicit" in perpetuating their own oppression:

The rape survivor who castrates her rapist, should have appealed to the rapist to avoid being raped.
The worker who sabotages her bosses machinery, should have appealed to the boss to avoid her exploitation.
The queer person who fights against his attacker, should have appealed to the homophobe to avoid his abuse.
The poor person who loots a convenience store, should have appealed to the owner to hire him.
The prisoner who kills a cop and breaks out of prison, should have appealed his jailers to release him.


Anyways, my question to the original poster is this: *What is the difference in "gaining sympathy from" and "appealing to" those in power; if at the end of the day, they remain the ones in power?*


----------



## Teko

stove said:


> And they've got a history of killing. Do you want to really go head-to-head against that?


yes i do.


----------



## dolittle

This is not indepth, helpful advice. Just something I thought of while reading this thread.
Back in the 50's & 60's, the mafia owned most all the Gay clubs. This was OK cuz they paid off the cops to keep harassment to a min.
On night the cops decided to raid this club called Stonewall.
Started out a normal bar raid.... Until one of the Dragqueens got her tempo in a knot.
The Dragqueens decided to stand together & say enough is fucking enough.
By sunrise the following morning, the local Gay community had the cops barracaded in the bar, pissing their pantys. Thus was born the modern "Gay movement.
As any victim will tell you... When you are fed up with being pushed down & having your milk money taken from you. The only efective move is to beat the shit out of your bully.
Personally, I don't need a mob of protesters to change shit. I can do that all on my own. And I do make a change. Every time I feed a hungry person. Every time I give a homeless person a warm blanket or jacket. EVERY time I do what is right for my fellow man & my planet, I make a Chang.
You can wax phillisofic all you like, words are cheap. If you REALLY want Chang, go find a roadside, a creek or river & clean the trash out of it. Go find a family in need, (there are plenty of them these days) & use the money you spamed for beer to buy that family healthy food. Or gas for their car or pay the light bill for them.
I'm guessing all this chang ya'll are talking about is changing the world to make it a better place for everyone. Protest & riots are soon forgotten. A clean roadside or creek bank & a couple good deeds tend to linger in the back of folks mind for a long time.


----------



## Thoreau

dolittle said:


> This is not indepth, helpful advice. Just something I thought of while reading this thread.
> Back in the 50's & 60's, the mafia owned most all the Gay clubs. This was OK cuz they paid off the cops to keep harassment to a min.
> On night the cops decided to raid this club called Stonewall.
> Started out a normal bar raid.... Until one of the Dragqueens got her tempo in a knot.
> The Dragqueens decided to stand together & say enough is fucking enough.
> By sunrise the following morning, the local Gay community had the cops barracaded in the bar, pissing their pantys. Thus was born the modern "Gay movement.
> As any victim will tell you... When you are fed up with being pushed down & having your milk money taken from you. The only efective move is to beat the shit out of your bully.
> Personally, I don't need a mob of protesters to change shit. I can do that all on my own. And I do make a change. Every time I feed a hungry person. Every time I give a homeless person a warm blanket or jacket. EVERY time I do what is right for my fellow man & my planet, I make a Chang.
> You can wax phillisofic all you like, words are cheap. If you REALLY want Chang, go find a roadside, a creek or river & clean the trash out of it. Go find a family in need, (there are plenty of them these days) & use the money you spamed for beer to buy that family healthy food. Or gas for their car or pay the light bill for them.
> I'm guessing all this chang ya'll are talking about is changing the world to make it a better place for everyone. Protest & riots are soon forgotten. A clean roadside or creek bank & a couple good deeds tend to linger in the back of folks mind for a long time.


 
Very true

But when people actually succeed in rioting, holy shit, they take down everything, soviet revolution all the way
Sure it would just create instability, but what happens when the people invite the army to their side? shit gets done, believe me
Then again the military must be not so brainwashed


----------



## billyriot

The problem with "pointless rioting" is that people are trying to make a point and they want to show what they are demanding, but they go about it in all the wrong ways. Not to say I condemn senseless property damage nor do I openly advocate it, but if you're going to support Direct Action, make it clear to yourself and to the people who you are trying to help, that you are here (or there) for the benefit of the community.

*coldsteelrail* put it best, as far as I've read in this thread; to bring about change either in your community or elsewhere, provide ways to change the things around you. Food Not Bombs, Homes Not Jails, PPL, etc. Now, I'm not telling anyone that they have to support any organization to effectively resist the society we live in; but if you claim to practice an anarchistic school of thought, apply it! Instead of smashing windows and looting (worst tactic ever, mind you; we're intelligent, at least some of us, so act like it!), give them an opportunity to see that we're more than a bunch of hoodlums trying to dismantle things we can use to our advantage. Or better yet, to the advantage of our community.


----------



## Benny

Passive protesting doesn't change a much. Martin Luther Kings movement gave more civil rights to the blacks but they are still enslaved to the wealthy banks and corrupt government like the rest of us. Ghandi got more rights for the indians but they are still in utter poverty.

Until the Federal Reserve quits making us pay interest on there phony money, nothing will ever get better. What do banks do.....suck the money out of you.

The founders of this country didn't wave signs at the British and protest.


----------



## 3rdEyeVision

I can't find the video clip of this specific part, but I think George Carlin has some pretty fuckin' flawless logic. This is the audio taken from his "Life is worth Losing" performance.


----------



## wokofshame

To the contrary, the founders of the country did hold protests. Like the tea party deal. They just eventually decided they needed to take more radical measures.


----------



## Benny

MURT said:


> To the contrary, the founders of the country did hold protests. Like the tea party deal. They just eventually decided they needed to take more radical measures.


Yeah you're right, they did protest for a bit. My point was that they didn't wave signs for awhile and give up when they got bored. They got pissed off and attacked the British oppressors with their guns.


----------



## travelin

the actual spark that started the whole shooting match was a government attempt at gun control. the concord/lexington battle was centered around british troops marcing to sieze an arsenal.

the thing that made it noteworthy is that these british troops were not the best trained and disclipined and they were badly understrangth from their on-paper numbers. the fact that they held together well enough to actually march back to boston in some semblence of order is amazing.

they took heavy casualties from the minute men pulling hit and runs while they were marching. the officers commanding the british force did not know how to counter this type of tactic having only been trained in european style open field battle with large units facing each other.

the minutemen relied on individual initiative and in this battle they proved it could work.

later on just about every time american rebel forces faced the british in open field battle, they would break and run.

the winter at valley forge baron von steubon attempted to train the american forces to load and fire and stand in open field battle but he quickly realized that he could not bring the american up to anywhere close to the british levels.

the british could walk right up to you, stop, fire, load, fire and then fix bayonets and walk right into you. they could do this under fire without breaking and running.

it is a little known fact that the british bayonet charge was usually performed at a quick step which was 120 steps a minute. this is just about the pace of a brisk walk. there was no running charge, they would just walk right into you with muskets leveled and those long long bayonets would do their deathdealing.

a video of this is available from the movie "barry lyndon". it shows a british force just walking right into french infantry, taking casualties, closing ranks and they just keep on coming. unfortunatly it cuts away from the battle action to follow the commander just at the crucial moment where the british troops would have stopped and fired.

once again ive made a rambling post that really has nothing to do with the subject except in a vague way...


----------



## 3rdEyeVision

travelin said:


> the actual spark that started the whole shooting match was a government attempt at gun control. the concord/lexington battle was centered around british troops marcing to sieze an arsenal.
> 
> the thing that made it noteworthy is that these british troops were not the best trained and disclipined and they were badly understrangth from their on-paper numbers. the fact that they held together well enough to actually march back to boston in some semblence of order is amazing.
> 
> they took heavy casualties from the minute men pulling hit and runs while they were marching. the officers commanding the british force did not know how to counter this type of tactic having only been trained in european style open field battle with large units facing each other.
> 
> the minutemen relied on individual initiative and in this battle they proved it could work.
> 
> later on just about every time american rebel forces faced the british in open field battle, they would break and run.
> 
> the winter at valley forge baron von steubon attempted to train the american forces to load and fire and stand in open field battle but he quickly realized that he could not bring the american up to anywhere close to the british levels.
> 
> the british could walk right up to you, stop, fire, load, fire and then fix bayonets and walk right into you. they could do this under fire without breaking and running.
> 
> it is a little known fact that the british bayonet charge was usually performed at a quick step which was 120 steps a minute. this is just about the pace of a brisk walk. there was no running charge, they would just walk right into you with muskets leveled and those long long bayonets would do their deathdealing.
> 
> a video of this is available from the movie "barry lyndon". it shows a british force just walking right into french infantry, taking casualties, closing ranks and they just keep on coming. unfortunatly it cuts away from the battle action to follow the commander just at the crucial moment where the british troops would have stopped and fired.
> 
> once again ive made a rambling post that really has nothing to do with the subject except in a vague way...


 
I'll even go more off track to state my belief that these shootings like the movie theatre incident recently are all cia ops staged strategically for gun control and probably even more shit.


----------

