Breaking windows is not a revolutionary act
The first time I ran into people who believed that breaking windows was a revolutionary act was in 1972. We had just had 21 people arrested for occupying the campus at University of Toronto to set up a tent city for transient youth. We called it Wachea, a place where everyone was welcome, or so we thought. A radical new left group called Red Morning tried to convince the assembled masses that going back to the University and "trashing it," in the parlance of the day, was the best way to protest the arrests. It was the moment I stepped into leadership, debating them for hours, saying that more violence was counter productive and would give more strength to the arguments against us. Instead we should protest on the grounds of Queen's Park and demand that the government give us land for our transient community. In those days we didn't have the notion of "diversity of tactics." We believed in the group who was organizing the demonstration deciding democratically what to do. Red Morning withdrew their proposal since they couldn't convince us.
I was in the my early twenties then, named in an injunction against the occupation, and risking prison, but still unwilling to see how deliberate vandalism furthers a cause. It's almost forty years later, and protesting the Olympics is a much more important issue than setting up a tent city for transient youth, but breaking windows still risks derailing the important Indigenous rights, anti-poverty and anti-corporate messages of the thousands of protesters on the streets of Vancouver.
As anyone who follows my work knows, I think the youthful anti-globalization movement that became visible in Seattle in 1999 has been responsible for some wonderful innovations in organizing and protesting. I am a big supporter of non-violent direct action, including, when needed, blockading streets and bridges to show the importance of an issue. I support horizontal networked organizing so that particular groups can take responsibility for the issues and actions that mean the most to them.
But if diversity of tactics means that people who aim to commit vandalism and sometimes violence can come into the middle of a demonstration with black face masks and break up whatever takes their fancy when the vast majority of people involved don't want them to, then I draw a line. It's true that violent action gets more publicity, but it's the wrong publicity that is about the violence itself, not about the issue.
Protesting these Olympics is tricky ground. VANOC has gotten the participation of four host First Nations, run the torch through communities that have never had that kind of attention before, embedded media sponsors so that it is practically impossible for them to write anything critical about the games, and promoted a level of patriotism rarely seen in these parts. Nevertheless, groups in the Vancouver have done an outstanding job of crafting their protest in a way that has persuaded the majority in BC that the Games are not good for the province.
International coverage of the protests has been excellent Here is a slide show from Huffington Post. But in Canada, the coverage has been underplayed, so the only thing a lot of Canadians have seen of the protest is the window breaking.
When a spontaneous anger against the Black Bloc emerged on social media, people berated us for "dividing the movement." But it is the Black Bloc tactics that are creating these divisions. Lots of new activists tell me they believe anyone who commits these violent acts are police agents. That would be easy, but it's not true.
There are agent provocateurs, particularly trying to infiltrate more militant actions and move them to violence as we saw a couple of years ago in Montebello. False accusations have also been part of police over-reaction to demonstrations that get violent like the 600 arrests in Seattle in 1999 and the arrest of Jaggi Singh in Quebec City in 2001. But there are people, and I have debated with them, who really believe that these tactics, by provoking a police over-reaction, reveal that the state is in essence an armed body of men, thus radicalizing people on the march.
The "diversity of tactics" approach does not allow us to debate these issues. It is not whether to defend the people arrested in Vancouver who are. no doubt, in the majority peaceful protesters. It is about whether a small group of people should be able to put thousands of people in jeopardy of being tear gassed, beaten and arrested without their consent. Red zones don't work because if the police do over-react, they will find protesters in whatever zone they might be. As the G8 and G20 plans are developing in Toronto, it is time to debate tactics before the event and if, as I suspect, the majority feels more or less like I do, to tell those enamoured of Black Bloc tactics to do it somewhere else, at a time where they don't put other people and the issues we are fighting for in jeopardy.
Perspective is Important
What if all the energy spent by the left on discussing the breaking of windows at a demo in Vancouver were spent on discussing ways to improve our tactics, our outreach, our mobilization?
I figure as long as capitalism and oppression exist, people are going to be angry. Sometimes that anger is going to manifest into property destruction. Sometimes even, as folks have suggested, cops might disguise themselves in black and instigate or cause that destruction.
If this is the case, it could be angry hurt people or cops in disguise, does it really deserve that much debate? It seems in either case it will likely continue to happen. It happened, it's over. Let's move on. We can discuss broken windows etc... but i think if the left spent their time explaining to "the public" perhaps why these windows got smashed, explained the relationship between olympic sponsor the bay and colonization, we'd be alot farther ahead than having self-styled leaders like david eby and judy rebick denounce a couple smashed windows.
I mean come on, in the same weekend NATO forces killed some 20 something afghan civillians...during an olympic truce!
How much time did you all spend talking about that violent action that happened the same weekend?
It doesn't mean you can't discuss broken windows. But these mostly white liberals who are denouncing the action better be ready to have every single action they ever do be criticized and denounced publicly and out in the open for it's lack of revolutionary quality. Because that is essentially what they are doing by focusing so much on one small element of a massive week long convergence.
Who is distracting who from the real issues?
Perspective is important.
Writing blogs is not a revolutionary act
Writing blogs is not a revolutionary act.
Get over it.
I feel the fact that you
I feel the fact that you obviously accomplished nothing with your peaceful protests a full 13 years before my birth is an excellent example of why more direct action must be taken.
Toronto is still in desperate need of tent cities, squats and affordable housing.
Seeing the black bloc protests in Vancouver filled me with a sense of hopefulness I haven't felt since reaching adulthood.
It's comforting to know that other people are pissed off. We're no longer looking for a few tax dollars - We're looking to tear the whole thing down.
Also, i found this response to this article, if you havent read it yet:
http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20100315000021579
Protecting Windows is Not a Revolutionary Act
nor is denouncing people that have put themselves at risk. why not talk about the HBC instead of writing this. You have acted like the corporate media would, focusing on the violence, not the issues. Why did we want to build an alternative media, can you remind me?
We need a mass movement not a black bloc
Importance of public discussion
I agree that I made unfortunate generalizations in my piece about "deliberate vandalism." There are times as Derek Anderson has pointed out on my Facebook page, like when Jose Bove led a dismantling of a McDonalds that was in the process of being constructed and kicked off a major food movement in France, when property damage is justified. However, most of my blog is a criticism of Black Bloc tactics in the middle of mass demonstrations or peaceful direct actions.
I don't accept that we can't discuss this publicly. It is of utmost importance not to hide behind the wall of secrecy. No-one has to admit to being part of such actions to defend them. I believe this debate is central to broadening our movement but that is part of the debate. Do we want to simply raise shit or do we want to bring more people into action.
"Diversity of Tactics"
I couldn't agree more, Judy. If I know the black block will be there, I won't be.
Thank you Judy Rebick for
Thank you Judy Rebick for this articulate piece.
I agree that any one tactic
I agree that any one tactic which undermines another tactic with a similar aims can be problematic and "we" need to have conversations and make commitments to one another about the impact one set of actions might have on another. But your posting is uncritical and lack the complexity to do such a discussion justice and in fact undermines and puts at risk a number of people in a very real way, too.
To be coherent with what you are saying , you would have to agree that there may be tactics which are often named as non-violent, that can be equally disruptive. I have all-too-often seen people undermine and in fact put at risk tactics that i believed were sound (one mild example was as a group of pagans washing off graffiti done by youth at a demo)
It's imperative to continue the discussions that occurred around the turn of the century, but this needs to be done through internal discussion and debate, rather than a denunciation of tactics in a public forum, in which the context and complexities (and indeed other viewpoints) get lost.... See More... See More
For one example, you invoke the participation of some first nations in the torch ceremony, without mentioning the strong and consistent indigenous resistance in BC and throughout turtle island, including the fact that the torch route was changed to avoid protests by Six Nations were the torch to cross into their territory. You reference to the support of some first nations to the torch ceremonies invisibilizes the strong pockets of resistance to the Olympic games within first nation communities.
More to the point of your article however, you paint a particular singular dimension to the complex issue you are writing about in terms of "black bloc tactics"
There are definitely agent provocateurs and may be people who believe, as you say, that provoking police is exposing the violence of the state. I have not heard that argued myself, but perhaps some people feel that. You are, however, leaving out a whole range of views and opinions on the subject, and leaving anyone who reads this article with the impression that what has been happening is one of 2 things.
I must say that i am not invloved in the organizing, nor am i on the streets in Vancouver. I don't know who is engaging in what sorts of actions, and have no idea of the motivations or impacts of any specific actions, beyond what people individually claim. What i have to say is not about the protests in Vancouver at all. It is about the questions you raise in general.
I think it is a problem to consider property damage violence. First of all, I would understand violnece as being enacted against someone/thing that can experience pain or trauma. Metaphysics aside, i think there is a huge difference between throwing a rock through a window, and punching a person in the face.
In fact, i would go further to say that inaction in this world of any sort is defacto violence. Standing by and not fighting against the oppression and exploitation of this world is an act of violence. I have often witnessed acts which are later denounced as violence, but are in fact attempts at protecting people in a real and immediate sense,
Also, to be clear, there are times when property damage, or "trashing a place" is framed as a legitimate tactic of economic disruption. In the face or organizations that value profit above all else, the cost of protecting, cleaning up and repairing or replacing property can make a decision unprofitable. Consider a building that kicks out an Israeli embassy because the building management doesn't want to deal with the on-going security needs, or a logging company that can't continue to replace logging equipment which is damaged.
I think the complexity of the issues go far beyond what can be discussed on facebook or in a blog, and those views get distorted thru a public statement such as yours. They are questions and issues that need to space and input and safety of internal communities to discuss and come to deeper understandings. Hopefully, to come to stronger, more coherent ways of fighting together in this world, but at the least, to support and be in solidarity with one another in common struggles.
Post new comment