Authored by: MD on Friday, November 30 2007 @ 02:29 PM CST

This seems to be less about the french rioters, and more about a ideological and principal rejection of violence per se. Well, then thats a diffrent story and we will just have to agree to disagree.

---
Omnia sunt Communia!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: intifada-oner on Friday, November 30 2007 @ 03:13 PM CST

One of the reasons for posting the booklet was to have anarchists re-examine their ideology in light of the recent uprisings in France. Not that I expected the booklet to change anyone

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: talonx on Friday, November 30 2007 @ 04:18 PM CST

I'd say part of the problem is that some (not either of you) just want to attack anything that doesn't agree with them. Dielectics has merits as well.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: nostalgia on Friday, November 30 2007 @ 06:00 PM CST

TalonX, to say that the zapatistas didn't use violence against people as a tactic in their revolutionary struggle is simply a fallacy that you are perpetuating to justify your privileged, first world conception of pacifism (let's call it what it is here) to yourself. The reason that I said I speak from firsthand experience is because I have spent a significant amount of time providing solidarity aid in
Zapatista communities. Moreover, I have friends who were involved in the struggle in chiapas in 1994, although for reasons of security I can't get too specific.

But I'll leave behind the realm of philosophical ejaculate that you are blowing into your mouth from your academic auto-fellatio and break it down into plain english. You are absolutely incorrect about the role of violence in social struggles, in particular the struggles of the zapatistas and the european squatters. So when police were set ablaze by squatters during riots in germany in the 1980s, was this not an example of violence? For another example of your lack of comprehension of the role of violence in revolutionary struggles:

(from an earlier post) "Affinity groups and horizontally organized groups don't kill. Only groups that seek power through violence kill"

This is one of the dumbest, most historically ignorant arguments that i have ever heard in my life. Read the wikipedia article on affinity groups. This is pathetic. Please... read....something. Affinity groups were first used by spanish anarchists and, long before the concept spread to the rest of the world, horizontally organized affinity groups were killing fascists in spain. If that makes you uncomfortable that's fine, but don't try to reshape history to fit your narrow ideology. People in less privileged situations (for example, in the midst of a fascist coup) often lack reservations about using violence. Deal with it.

""Most youth involved in gangs are commiting violence" (what you said I said) is a fundamentally different statement than "Gangs are comiting most of the violence" (what I said). They are different becaus the former supposes that the youth are acting individually, whereas the latter supposes they are acting with gang solidarity in a collective manner(I was assuming, lead by authority, here as well; which makes for a meaningful difference)"

No, the two terms are fundamentally synonymous. Are you implying that gangs are not made up of individuals? If this is not what you are implying, than you have done nothing but solidify my point that the two terms are synonymous. Now, you still refused to answer one of my most basic questions: what evidence do you have that the majority of the participants are involved in gangs? Are you really too stupid to answer this?

"In this case the media is not simply an accuser they have provided evidence. I don't believe I have heard any arguments from the youth themselves which show the medias evidence to be fallacious, surely if it existed it would be on infoshop by now."

First of all, if your illogical "it's right because the media said so" rant didn't work before, why are you restating it here? You have yet to show how the media provided evidence that the majority of the youth are members of gangs or acting directly under the command of gangs. You also failed to demonstrate how the media calling the kids gang members is any more credible evidence than your hypothetical scenario of fox news calling them jihadists. Both are based on entirely biased, unsympathetic 4th and 5th hand accounts.

Moreover, your own definition of a gang as "any durable, street-oriented youth group whose own identity includes involvement in illegal activity" would mean that virtually every militant anarchist movement, from the maknovschina to the spanish anarchist militias to the german squatters of the 1980s would be classified as a gang. And because illegal activity, not violence, was the basis for your own definition, that would mean that any group of anarchists that blocks a road or breaks a window would, in effect, be a gang.

Now, with that being the case (at least going by your definition) what is the problem with "gangs" taking action against the incarnations of subjugation they encounter in their daily lives? Your anti-gang as anti-hierarchy argument is based on a non sequitor.

Gangs may or may not be organized hierarchically+ some of the rioters may or may not be in gangs= you oppose the riots on the basis that they are organized hierarchically? Doesn't make too much sense, especially given the fact that so many "gangs" (anarchist affinity groups) are organized horizontally.

"The media has presented video evidence."

Of what? Young people burning cars? Exactly what does that have to to with them being in gangs or the gangs being hierarchically organized? More importantly, if, hypothetically, the majority of the youth do happen to belong to hierarchically organized gangs, this does not mean that they are not organizing horizontally to riot. The same way a group of workers who are employed at a hierarchically organized workplace can horizontally organize autonomous actions while still being employed by an authoritarian institution.

So basically, for you to justify your own half argument against supporting the riots on the basis of gang activity, you now have to: provide evidence that the majority of the rioters are gang members , prove that the gangs are hierarchically organized, and then prove that the youths are acting under the command of gang leaders and not their own volition when they destroy property.

Maybe next time you shouldn't be so judgmental of the spontaneous struggles of disenfranchised people. Just a thought.

Have a nice day!!!!!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: nostalgia on Friday, November 30 2007 @ 06:03 PM CST

And now, for the big throwback http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/10.Watts.htm

The Decline and Fall of the Spectacle-Commodity Economy

August 13-16, 1965, the blacks of Los Angeles revolted. An incident between traffic police and pedestrians developed into two days of spontaneous riots. Despite increasing reinforcements, the forces of order were unable to regain control of the streets. By the third day the blacks had armed themselves by looting accessible gun stores, enabling them to fire even on police helicopters. It took thousands of police and soldiers, including an entire infantry division supported by tanks, to confine the riot to the Watts area, and several more days of street fighting to finally bring it under control. Stores were massively plundered and many were burned. Official sources listed 32 dead (including 27 blacks), more than 800 wounded and 3000 arrests.

Reactions from all sides were most revealing: a revolutionary event, by bringing existing problems into the open, provokes its opponents into an inhabitual lucidity. Police Chief William Parker, for example, rejected all the major black organizations

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: talonx on Saturday, December 01 2007 @ 07:13 PM CST

You should try reading what I actually wrote instead of just lashing out at me with no regard to reality.

[ Reply to This | # ]