The Black Bloc – a dead end (response to Jonathan Moses)
Jonathan Moses – a fellow UCL occupier (and in fact one of the main instigators of the occupation) – has posted a defence of the ‘Black Bloc’ tactic over at Open Democracy. Below is the response I left in the comments box
I agree that there needs to be a tactical, rather than a moral debate. But it is genuinely beyond me how the Black Bloc ‘tactic’ is anything other than an entirely counterproductive dead-end.
I was active in the ‘anti-globalisation’ movement of the early 2000s. I was kettled on May Day 2001 in Manchester as a 16-year-old, which is where I first encountered Black Bloc-style tactics. It is interesting how the anti-globalisation movement is barely mentioned even on the left today. That is because – as a directionless, amorphous movement – it lost momentum pretty quickly and made no real lasting political impact.
Black Bloc tactics strike me as a militant twist on consumer boycotts: the same underlying idea (inflict economic damage), but posing absolutely no threat whatsoever to the capitalist system, however good it might make the participants feel.
Firstly, it provides a pretext for the state to crack down on basic civil liberties. For some, this is desirable: it’s long been a tactic among certain types of anarchist to encourage disproportionate actions on the part of the state in order to expose it. But in practice it just leads to repression that undermines the ability of movements to organise.
Secondly, the tactic alienates the vast majority, including most people who would otherwise be sympathetic to our aims. To me the ‘Black Bloc’ tactic strikes me as an example of what happens when activists are confined to a ghettoised radical milieu, without relating what they are doing to non-politicised people. While a poll has shown 73% in support of peaceful civil disobedience, only 3% support actions like smashing windows. To me, this is probably the least surprising finding possible. I don’t understand the rationale of a tactic that has no popular support.
I think the fact that the overwhelming majority of arrests were UKUncut activists – and barely any of those causing property damage – reveals who the state thought was the real threat. Disruptive but peaceful actions enjoy popular support and challenge the wealthy elite, in a way that tokenistic actions that alienate people – like smashing a window – do not.
I know many protesters – especially those with children – who find the sight of an army of black-clad protesters intent on smashing stuff up extremely intimidating. There is, I think, something rather macho and even militaristic about it.
I also found “Brighton Uncut”‘s post describing the response of Vodafone workers in a shop whose windows are being smashed as “collateral distress” pretty abhorrent. To me, that showed an underlying contempt towards working people.
Thirdly, the tactic purges protests of ‘ordinary’ people. Most people do not want to be in situations where they are associated with – or in the vicinity of – vandalism or violence, or face the prospect of arrest. If people feel they will end up in such a situation by going to a protest, they will simply stop going.
Fourthly, it substitutes for the collective power of the working-class. As far as I’m concerned, only the labour movement – the largest democratic force in the country, representing 7 million working people – can challenge this Government and capitalism as a whole. But Black Bloc tactics seem to be about a self-selecting elite (i.e. those with the stomach for causing property damage) taking the initiative in their place. They have no way of relating to this organised power of working people, and in my experience, some even have contempt for it.
Fifthly, Black Bloc tactics are easily infiltrated. Anyone can get involved – you just need to mask up and wear black. Video footage has already emerged of police agents working behind the lines.
Sixthly, it poses zero threat to capitalism. Insurance covers all the damage, and some low-paid workers clear up the debris. But other than providing the pretext for further repression, providing copy for the right-wing media, dividing and alienating many of our supporters, and making those involved feel better, I just don’t get what purpose Black Bloc tactics serve. It lets capitalism off the hook: in place of building a genuine mass movement, people can feel they’re challenging the ruling class by throwing a brick at a window.
One of the arguments put in favour of the Black Bloc is that ‘the violence of capitalism is worse’. Well yeah, obviously – but that doesn’t vindicate it as a useful tactic.
There are those who put up a false dichotomy – it’s either actions like this, or A to B marches. But there should be a range of actions that are open to all, not simply a vanguard of the most radicalised elements: protests, strikes, and peaceful civil disobedience.
Of course I understand that the labour movement has a responsibility to organise a coherent, democratic movement, otherwise more young people may end up being attracted to Black Bloc-style tactics. But if that happens, it is a sign of failure, not of success.
Owen,
1) The state cracks down on civil liberties all the time, even when there are not black blocs. Your Labour party sporadically cracked down on civil liberties throughout its terms of office. Including the aggravated trespass laws used to charge the UK Uncut occupiers.
2) Do the black bloc tactics ‘alienate the vast majority’? It’s more complicated than that. Of course, some people react negatively. But in workplaces, there are also plenty of people who say ‘fair enough, good on ‘em’. In previous posts you’ve rolled this out as an article of faith; but it’s ultimately patronising, based on an image of a homgenous, timid working class personality.
The majority reaction is more ambiguous. In many cases, it’s something like “I hope that doesn’t distract from our message, but on the other hand just marching doesn’t work does it”. Given this, it’s up to us – socialists – how we respond. Your choice is evidently something like – “oh, aren’t the black bloc terrible, and by the way, why don’t you join the Labour Party instead?” I’d prefer to stress the fact that only mass working class action will defeat the cuts, but in the context of a Saturday afternoon in Piccaddily, I’m pleased the movement had a militant, autonomous edge, organised from below.
73% may support peaceful civil disobedience. But very few of those 73% understand that a) it doesn’t work as a tactic by itself (although in can be useful in the context of movements prepared to go further on its wings – e.g. the anti-colonial movement in India), b) you just get dragged out the way and hit with batons/pepper sprayed, and therefore c) if you wish to hold your ground you need to push back – which was what went on in Trafalgar Sq on the 26th. The survey result merely reflects approval for a form of words popular in liberal discourse, but without any definite content. You might as well have quoted a study saying that 73% of people want to have their cake and eat it.
It is entirely understandable that some people don’t want to be around it. On the 26th, in Piccadilly, it was absolutely possible to walk away. For a start, because you would have had to have been on a breakaway march to even be there in the first place, and furthermore because there was no kettle for a long time.
Finally, don’t you think the fact that UK Uncut activists were the vast majority of arrestees reflects the fact that they stormed into an enclosed space, and then walked out into a police cordon, rather than running away, as black bloc people did?
3) There’s that patronising, homogenising view of the mythical ‘ordinary’ person again…
“The media like to paint a picture of hooligans and thugs, mindless men on the rampage. It is simply not true. There are women and probably transgender people too. Some of the scariest-looking anarchists work in jobs like social care and mental health. It doesn’t come from a thuggish place.”
– now I have no idea of whether that black bloc person interviewed in The Guardian is painting an accurate picture. And neither do you. But in the absence of any evidence, I don’t see what your point is, beyond tailing the preferred narrative of the Murdoch media.
4) It doesn’t substitute for the collective power of the working class. Two different black bloc activists interviewed in the Guardian say as follows:
“Do you consider the black bloc to be the most radical part of the new movement?
“No. Occupations of universities and town halls are far more important, and this is where the anti-cuts movement has been heading. To develop, it needs to spread into workplaces next. The black bloc tactic was appropriate to give the day a confrontational edge, and to target the real enemies: the rich. The aim was to make people realise this is not an abstract struggle between “the economy” and us, but between a group of super-rich exploiters and those they are exploiting – the workers.”
5) Black blocs are no more easily infiltrated than anything else – as the recent stories of infiltration of everything from Youth Against Racism in Europe to the Campaign Against Arms Trade and Climate Camp has shown. I’m sure elements on the Labour Party left were heavily infiltrated in the ’70s and ’80s. Right?
6) Voting Labour doesn’t pose any threat to capitalism, and nor do most strikes, but you still advocate and support those things.
The purpose it serves is seeking to make the movement, in general, more aggressive and confrontation; to constitute it on a new, less timid, basis than the serried ranks of Labour Party and TUC officialdom would prefer. Good!
In general, Owen, I think you’re falling into the right’s trap, which is to accept that black bloc tactics “distract from your message”. They don’t. They accentuate it: or they would if we were willing to make it do so, rather than retreating to the back foot.
They aren’t for everyone and they aren’t a substitute for the mass action of the working class. But no one ever said they were.
I think about all the kids arrested after EMA demos after their photographs were printed in the press. I think: shit mate, if only you’d been wearing a mask and black hoody. I think alot of them, and their mates, probably think the same thing now. That’s understandable, isn’t it?
c0mmunard
April 6, 2011 at 10:27 am
Owen, you are spot on. The image shows someone who looks like they are enjoying the destruction – it means that anyone can dress up and join in for kicks, like those who smashed up my local bus stop last week.
With respect to marches not working (communard), it was the sight of half a million workers/voters in London on the 26th which moved the 1922 committee to action against Cameron, not the black bloc tactic.
Norrette
April 6, 2011 at 12:19 pm
I largely agree, but I think it’s important to draw a distinction between the Black Bloc strategy and simply not following the pre-ordained route.
And sometimes I think you put a bit too much emphasis on the role of the trade unions. They might be the largest democratic organisations in the country, but they still don’t represent a majority- and in the current economic system, they are unlikely to ever do so again.
Daniel Frost
April 6, 2011 at 1:04 pm
Hi Norette – I actually didn’t say that marches don’t work. What I said was that civil disobedience doesn’t work as a tactic by itself; and marches aren’t civil disobedience.
Furthermore, you yourself presumably don’t believe that everything you want to achieve can be rolled back by marches; so – just like me – you think that marches, and indeed civil disobedience, aren’t enough alone.
There are plenty of times in British history where riots have lead to positive political change. The Brixton riots lead to the Scarman report, for instance, and a wave of investment in deprived urban communities and lighter touch policing – for a while.
We can go round in circles each pointing out times when different sorts of action worked – each of which will no doubt be true – and accusing the other of crudely advocating the efficacy of only one tactic, but I don’t think it’ll get us very far.
c0mmunard
April 6, 2011 at 1:07 pm
They might be the largest democratic organisations in the country, but they still don’t represent a majority
Right now, only the Coalition can claim to represent a majority of voters, unfortunately.
The point by Owen is simple: unions are still the biggest and most democratic of left orgs.
Sunny Hundal
April 6, 2011 at 1:32 pm
Whilst that’s true, I think it’s wrong to argue that everything should revolve around them. The Black Bloc is clearly counter-productive, but other tactics might be more appropriate for students, who deserve inclusion in the fightback just as much as UNISON and the like!
If we solely rely upon the trade unions, then we rather alienate everyone who distrusts trade unions, as well as those who are unable to become members (such as the self-employed, who I hardly think to be the enemies of socialism).
Daniel Frost
April 6, 2011 at 5:04 pm
“most democratic”, says Sunny, with an ignorance of union conferences so sublime it touches on the beautiful:
http://libcom.org/library/a-brief-account-unisons-national-conference-2008
c0mmunard
April 6, 2011 at 2:24 pm
Unlike UK Uncut et al, Black Bloc only seem intent on destruction – violence against property as a retort to what they see as the violence of capitalism. Aside from the brief interview in The Guardian, the Brighton letter and the messily scrawled slogans down Piccadilly they haven’t articulated anything to a wider audience in the way UK Uncut have. Even Labour are doing a better job articulating their points than Black Bloc.
One line from the start of Owen’s article sums them up best with reference to the anti-globalisation movement: “…a directionless, amorphous movement…it lost momentum pretty quickly and made no real lasting political impact.” Other than damaging the message behind a swelling movement against the coalitions cuts what purpose do Black Block’s tactics pay?
Owen Smith
April 6, 2011 at 2:31 pm
Eighthly, who gives a crap what you think
your momma
April 6, 2011 at 3:55 pm
The actual black bloc tactic is to dress all in black and cover your face for anonymity. That’s it. Smashing windows and graffitti happens on the periphery of that, but the real economic damage comes (or came, since I’m mostly going off March 26th here) from the presence of a giant, roaming blockade.
It shut down Oxford Street, gave the police the run-around, and joined the occupation of Fortnum and Mason. Moreover, that it started as 3-400 anarchists and ended as several thousand people including working class kids from London shows proves the point that working class response to it is not uniform.
I’m not going to deny that there was vandalism. But I’m not going to condemn it either, because a lot of people who joined the bloc will have felt there was no other way to vent their class anger than in acts of destruction. That’s not their failure, it’s a reflection of the lack of organisation amongst the working class beyond the trade unions’ comfort zones.
But that vandalism isn’t the “black bloc tactic.” Anonymity is. Strength in numbers is. (This is particularly important amongst European Antifa facing off against the far-right.) Anything beyond that is incidental.
I agree that this is no substitute for broader mass action. As a member of Solidarity Federation, I’m active in my workplace, on picket lines, standing up to fascists, leafleting estates, etc. But that doesn’t mean we should discount it entirely. State repression increases not against violent tactics but against *effective* ones. Though it does help that in this case the effective ones are also unlawful, causing as much economic damage as possible to make the cuts the more expensive option. But that means we should stand up to repression, not bow to it in the hope of mercy, and as such if you’re going to dissent against the government, then more people are realising that masking up is a perfectly sensible act of personal security.
Phil Dickens
April 7, 2011 at 12:32 am
I always thought the action of masking up was a response to the intelligence gathering teams of the police, irrespective of any vandalism or violence? Judging by the intimidation the police use once they have your face on their database I think it is a wholly acceptable practice. I notice the FIT weren’t very active on the TUC march, but then again most on that march didn’t pose a threat to the status quo did they?
I believe ALL forms of protest have their place, from marching to civil disobedience and direct action, all can be effective and all are going to be needed to fight this government.
My opinion is that it is better to stand together as one and fight rather than bicker and be judgmental about tactics as it’s doing the governments job for them by dividing the movement, but that’s just my opinion.
jo13564
April 7, 2011 at 1:39 pm
Ah “ordinary people” – that media phantasm chased by focus groups, marginal seats and our increasingly insane press. Can’t help but cringe at anyone claiming to speak for/to the “ordinary”. If you mean white, middle-class, homeowner etc. say so – otherwise we’re back to those mysterious “hard-working families” New Labour kept promoting.
I agree that all forms of protest should be welcomed. The TUC, Labour etc. have no right to dictate how anyone should behave. The last thing either wants is civil disobedience. They exist to make deals (for themselves usually). And anyway, far too many unions are still under a Blairite agenda. The only thing ‘left’ about them is that they still call themselves unions. If I hear any of them call for sustained strikes (remember them?), maybe I’ll pay attention to their claims to ‘represent’ the left. Otherwise, they ‘represent’ workers as much as Sunny Hundal.
W.Kasper
April 7, 2011 at 4:38 pm
By “ordinary people”, I mean “people outside the activist bubble”. I think a growing problem we’re witnessing – as I touch on in my response to Jon Moses – is an increasingly ghettoised activist clique, and I think some of the ideas that are emerging are the result of this. Although some activists seem to think they represent Year Zero, they are in some cases almost carbon copies of similar student ‘New Left’ factions in the 1960s/1970s.
The polls show that the vast majority of the population reject violence or vandalism in protests. This is, as I say, probably about the least surprising find imaginable and it is beyond me why anyone would even bother contesting it.
Len McCluskey – the leader of the biggest union in the country – has called for co-ordinated strike action. However, I’m not sure if you’re familiar with the fact that we have the most repressive anti-union laws in the Western world (as Blair himself once boasted), and this poses all sorts of difficulties – as the overturning of Unite strike ballots that had overwhelming support on absurd technicalities has shown. Secondary strike action is banned. And before you say “well why don’t just defy the anti-union laws” – if they do, their funds are sequestrated by the state and the unions and then bankrupted. And that’s before even discussing winning sufficient rank-and-file support.
You can feel frustrated with the fact that have yet to win sufficient popular support – polls show that the majority still think cuts of some sort are necessary or unavoidable, which chimes with my own experience on the doorstep – but circumventing the need for winning over working people by acts of pure theatre, like smashing stuff up, is not the answer.
Unlike you, or me, or the Black Bloc, union leaders are elected by working people and are at least in some way accountable to them. The problem with the leaders of the ‘leaderless’ student movement is that they are not accountable to anyone.
Owen Jones
April 7, 2011 at 4:47 pm
Am not gonna argue all the points, since I’m sympathetic with much of what you say Owen, and have yet to make up my own mind as to the tactical merits of black blocing.
Two things to touch on mind… one is the way that particular question in the poll is phrased by YouGov…
Do you think each of the following is an
acceptable or unacceptable way of protesting…
violent protests (such as breaking windows or damaging buildings)?
…seems very loaded. Ask most people whether they are in favour of something with the word ‘violence’ in front of it and you’ll get a negative response. It also implies the possibility of person-on-person violence, by not ruling it out. Why not just ask…
Do you think each of the following is an
acceptable or unacceptable way of protesting… breaking windows or damaging buildings?
I would therefore not take much notice of that statistic myself.
I’m also weary of appealing to ‘chasing’ the poll data myself, which possibly just betrays my political naivete. It’s to a large extent what was used to justify new labour, and seems at its basis to give up on trying to convince people of your politics and instead accomodate your politics to theirs. I’m not saying compromise isn’t a valid political path, but in terms of trying to build a better, lefter (because, being here, we all believe that to be more or less the same) Britain people’s current views cannot be taken as a valid reason on its own to dismiss our own.
Now I understand that you were citing that stat in terms of the tactical validity of the Black bloc of appealing to everybody in the immediate short term to the anti-cuts movement. That’s valid, but I think you need to take into account the space such acts open up in the long term with regards to people’s perception of the boundaries of political dissent… pushing those boundaries, which will inevitably have a backlash in the immediate term, especially by the media, can serve to normalise such things (and less ‘extreme’ forms of protest by proxy) in the long term.
And in this regard, ‘pure theatre’ can be a very powerful thing.
GabrielB
April 8, 2011 at 3:28 pm
BTW if we have the most repressive strike laws, they should be ignored. Nothing substantial for the working class has ever changed in compliance with the law. And I include the ’81 riots, that at least gave the police pause for thought (until Tony B. happily revived SUS laws, that is). You may also find resources flooded towards community groups, compared to what they had at their most ‘law-abiding’ and passive.
If there is no right to withdraw labour in any meaningful manner, that renders unions redundant. ‘Representatives’ having nice chats with politicians is worthless to any of us outside the room. Time and time again, it’s been proven that the only mass assembly they pay attention to is the most volatile.
W.Kasper
April 8, 2011 at 3:41 pm
The problem is not with a few acts of booted up vandalism. Or, in the case of the Fortnum and Mason’s occupation, a much liked protest (my sister worked as a Lift Girl there at the age of 16 and I emphathise with the idea of this action.
Most people I’ve spoken to couldn’t give a damm about the sight of a few windows being stoved in.
The problem is that the Black Bloc is not just a tactic but – in their eyes – a strategy.
As someone who knew the remnants of the Italian autonomists in the 1980s the best place to look at their failings is there.
Andrew Coates
April 10, 2011 at 1:15 pm
[...] example, Owen Jones writes that “it substitutes for the collective power of the working-class.” The bloc is [...]
The pros and cons of the black bloc « Property is Theft!
April 10, 2011 at 8:57 pm
Completely agree Owen. The tactics of the so-called “Black Block” strike me more as revolution as play than about any possibility of genuinely radical change. It is falling into the trap of thinking that a minority can bring about change, rather than the working classes themselves. Even when organised minorities have succeeded the 20th century has taught us that minority rule simply brings about further tyrannical rule.
It is also a case of why bother. I mean, why bother smashing windows of multi-millionaire business that can simply repair them the very next day at no cost whatsoever? You’d literally be spending your time better leafleting or something. At least then you don’t turn-off many otherwise-sympathetic people.
I have a feeling the tactics of the “Black bloc” aren’t really about real change though, more about nihilism.
James Bloodworth
April 11, 2011 at 7:55 am