Is Militant Street Fighting Always Infantile & Wrong?
Posted by Mike E on April 11, 2010
by Mike Ely
Discussion and debate has broken out in several places over the recent Open Letter on “The Politics of Impatience” (criticizing certain actions at CUNY’s March 4 protest).
In one of those threads, Lorenzo Kom’boa Ervin wrote:
“It isn’t just ‘insurrectionary Anarchists’ (I assume you mean the Black Bloc) who engage in vanguardist acts of violence. For years, there are also groups like the ISO who go into demonstrations just like this, run up front, unfurl a banner, and then claim they are “leading” the demo. They also did provocative stuff, like trying to “take over”… demonstrations, which could and did bring on police repression. In fact, they were notorious for this type of thing, way before there was a Black Bloc in the 1990’s.
“There has always been infantile Leftists, going back many years, including the Weather Underground in the 1960’s…. engaged in street fighting with the cops. They didn’t get anybody’s “permission”, and it was never a mass tendency. Many groups that engage in armed confrontation or street fighting were never popular tendencies, many times unaccountable. This is a political issue, however, and contending political movements need to debate this, not necessarily everybody at large. I may have political differences with the Left over this type of vanguardism, but respect their right to protest in forms other than pacifism, the main tendency since the 1960’s.”
My reply:
I have to engage Lorenzo’s comment. If I understand it correctly, his overall point is that people should not be mechanically limited to non-violent tactics. That is something I agree with.
But there are some statements above that need to be unraveled (or at least clarified), because they are very strangely conservative and blanketly anti-militant:
“There has always been infantile Leftists, going back many years, including the Weather Underground in the 1960’s, who… engaged in street fighting with the cops. They didn’t get anybody’s ‘permission,’ and it was never a mass tendency. Many groups that engage in armed confrontation or street fighting were never popular tendencies, many times unaccountable.”
Actually, in the 1960s, street fighting with cops was often a mass tendency. And it would be very wrong to blanketly denounce militant tactics as infantile and self-isolating.
The rise of street fighting was often tied to the rise of a mass pro-revolutionary consciousness and movement. And was a good thing.
Just a few examples: The fight for peoples park in Berkeley. The May Day for Bobby Seale street fighting in New Haven 1970s. The militant street-fighting in the days after King was murdered. The street-fighting at the Chicago Democratic Convention.
Or more recently, look at the anti-police fighting and car burning of France’s immigrant suburbs, or the rebellions of Greece.
Weatherman’s 1969 Days of Rage was a fiasco (and it was obvious to many of us at the time that it would be). But that only underscores the point that the problem is not militancy or street fighting (as such) — but that some forces have no sense of “uniting with the people” or “relying on the people.” No mass line.
I don’t really know where Lorenzo is coming from with his remarks. So I won’t make assumptions…
However others on “the left” have always believed that violence and lawbreaking are (somehow) inherently self-isolating and alienating — or that violence can’t possibly be a mass tactic — and then (based on those false assumptions) build a whole structure of tactical rules and self-righteous denunciations.
But people (broadly) often demand militant tactics and often support them. Come participate in a miners wildcat — if you think violence is never a mass tendency! Or I can give a dozen other examples from life. Come to the LA rebellion of 1992 — which had broad initial support, and not just among Black and oppressed communities.
I also don’t think we should equate non-confrontational tactics with “pacifism.” Pacifism is a philosophy that holds that violence is always and inherently wrong. But many forces (who are not pacifist and even quite revolutionary) hold specific actions (marches, rallies, picket lines, vigils whatever) that are tactically non-violent — because the conditions and goals of that moment don’t call for sharp antagonistic confrontation.
saoirse said
this is an important component of the discussion to have but I have qualifiers. As a former anarchist we analyzed, discussed and trained ourselves in mobile street tactics including the use of militant action. Anarchist in general seem to have a greater level of experience in these tactics than other activists. So when things have the potential to break out, anarchists are often more than ready to go there. Other activists regardless of trend suddenly are faced with new choices and experiences. Let’s be clear and honest, street fighting is scary, violence is disturbing if sometimes politically necessary. It’s hard to win folks over to this before the conditions exist and that the rub. As TNL and others have mentioned in another thread on Kasama there needs to be an escalation of smart tactical militancy there was time in the 90s when groups from the Greens, anarchists, act up and reproductive rights movements saw this and had real break throughs.
decolonize said
Would suggest others read Lorenzo’s expansions on his points in the linked post.
Lorenzo Komboa Ervin said
[moderator note: Lorenzo originally posted this in a nearby thread.... but it now belongs here.]
I spent 15 years of a life sentence for hijacking a plane to Cuba in 1969, so obviously, I am not denouncing all street fighting, and obviously not in the 1960’s when I myself was active. I *do denounce silly miniscule tendencies on the Left who fight ideologically each other more than they ever fight the cops or government. My comments came in response to this. Someone had put forward some nonsense about the CUNY protests, claiming that ISO was being attacked by Anarchists, or putting forth yet more ideological oneupmanship, demanding that we should all be sympathetic. It was a blanket attack on all Anarchists. I was responding to that, not making a blanket statement condemning revolutionary violence. Certainly the Black Panther Party did engage in armed self-defense, and the Black liberation Army caused these issues to be raised inside the party to an even higher level during the 1970’s, when it had an ideological split, which ultimately fractured the group.
The original assertion was that the Black Bloc was a vanguardist tendency, which physically attacked ISO, and broke windows, which brought on police repression. Even other Anarchists disagree with some Black Bloc tactics, which I believe are infantile sometimes. Further, if an underground movement takes such action, with no mass base, then yes it can be politically provocative. Yet it does not mean the movement itself is equivelant to police provocateurs, as some pacifists and competing Left/Progressive tendencies assert, or that it is a new form of “propaganda of the deed”, as occurred during the 19th century. I believe Black Bloc tactics are a deliberate attack on capitalist property, and although I consider it too small scale to mean anything, I do not denounce it out of hand.
You are wrong, I was not making any “conservative” comments. I generally don’t condemn revolutionary violence or even street violence against the cops and the government as part of mass protest campaigns. All of this is if the people are down with it. But poor people are already living with daily repression, it is a subject of debate if revolutionary/street violence brings on more repression anyway. Maybe it brings it onto middle class white radicals, who can afford to engage in pacifism, but it exists everyday in the ghetto. Can’t get away from it. Black people are beaten, arrested and even killed everyday for any act of resistance.
As for the 1960’s, I was one of those fighting in the streets, was in the Black Panther Party and a number of militant tendencies during that period, and know that, yes, street fighting and armed resistance itself was a mass tendency in 1968. But the issue was if groups like WUO then or Black Bloc now had any accountability to the masses engaging in “peaceful” demonstrations. I do not know that they did then or do now, but I was not/am not part of those tendencies. Should they use those demonstrations as a backdrop, or engage in their own “days of rage.”, taking on the cops first-hand? It is a political question that must be honestly and seriously debated among the contending forces, if that is possible, before bringing it to the wider Left/Anarchist movements. Otherwise, it is just mindless recriminations and ideological oneupmanship, on a fast place to nowhere.
These issues of political violence at demonstrations are not issues which are easily answered, but we cannot be dogmatic and denounce all violence at a demo. It depends on place, time, circumstance, and other factors, and esp. mass support. Even during the civil rights period you had the Deacons for Defense and Justice in Mississippi and Louisiana, and the anti-Klan militia in Monroe, N.C. They did have mass support, as they protected demos, and took on the Klan and hostile racist forces. I was active during the late 60’s when Black Power changed the politics inside SNCC, and activists picked up guns for self-defense against the KKK. (And of course, self-defense and revolutionary violence became a singular issue in founding of the BPP).
Much later, I was one of the contemporary leaders who organized an anti-Klan movement in Tennessee during the 1980-90’s, which used a variety of tactics, including armed self-defense to back back violent fascist tendencies. Our coalition included Anarchist, Marxist-Leninists, civil rights militants, Black nationalists, and others. Some so-called Leftists denounced us as “provocateurs” or anti-white, said we should debate those sympathetics to the Klan, in the name of “class unity,” which was nonsense. We do not debate fascists, we attack and beat them down, if strategically possible.
I obviously agree about the righteousness of class violence, or mass insurrection, but never said that I thought this was a bad thing in the first place, and I obviously supported the Watts, Detroit, Cincinnati and other rebellions against the state. I did not say that every protest that did not engage in violence was “pacifist”, and i know the theoretical differences about pacifism and tactical non-violence. I said that pacifism is still the main tendency in progressive movements, and I understand the tactical questions of “non-confrontation”. Many use Dr. M.L. King as the example for their activism, and dogmatically adopt his pacifism, as opposed to the tactical use of non-violence in a specific situation. That was the early debate between SNCC and Dr. Kings’s SCLC.
My personal belief is it unwise for an unpopular tendency to engage in violence with no base of support at all, even among those of its own class/activists. They should engage those who disagree with their tactics in debate to try to win them over, but on the other hand no one should denounce them to the cops. That is indefensible. I apologize for making this so long, and maybe disjointed.
tellnolies said
I think the critical thing is to have a broad repertoire of tactics that can be used in different contexts. There are forms of non-violent action that can be very disruptive in some situations where more militant forms of action would be self-isolating and therefore impotent. This was certainly true in the first phase of the civil rights movement. In other situations an insistence on non-violence is an obstacle. Pacifism and insurrectionary anarchism share a fetishism of particular tactics and a dogmatic rejection of others. We are at a moment I believe when there is a real potential for big struggles to break out. That could initially take the form of urban rebellions OR mass acts of civil disobedience. Either would be a welcome break with the prevailing attitudes of fear and deference towards the police and the state.
Kal said
Just a brief point clarifying what happened at CUNY Hunter March 4, prompting this open letter & various other discussion. It wasn’t that the ISO was attacked by anarchists. Rather, some anarchists without a campus base, mostly from NYU & the New School, came to Hunter, a working-class campus, determined to start a building occupation. Organizers at Hunter wanted to go ahead with a planned outdoors rally, and this led to some violence between the two, with the best-documented instances initiated by the occupationists, as described here.
In the aftermath there was a lot of outrage at Hunter – how dare a bunch of mostly-white kids from downtown come and attempt to forcibly impose their line on the struggle? The occupationists’ initial defense was to try to blame police intervention on the ISO, claiming that an ISO member was snitching. Somebody even hijacked his Facebook page briefly and issued a fake “confession”. This accusation couldn’t be documented and was dropped pretty quickly. But it led to a situation which some saw as “anarchists vs the ISO”, though no one at Hunter was interested in denouncing all anarchists.
If you want to get a sense of the politics of the one side, check out Take the City. (The most recent post is the most coherent; scroll down to “beware those who would deliver you to a cheaper suicide” for the real uncut crazy.)
For the other side, see Hunter activists’ “Open letter to the student movement“.
For comment from an ISO member, see “The debate in our movement“.
Stephanie McMillan said
When you’re a revolutionary taking part in a broad peaceful action, it makes sense to try to give expression to a more combative tendency that might be latent within that, and to try to spark that off. It should be done with some sense of who’s involved in the larger action and how they will respond. It should be done in a spirit of respect and sensitivity toward those who don’t want to go that far or who are more vulnerable if repression comes down. (Usually if this is attempted, the militant pacifists will attack the revolutionaries (no matter how careful they are to do this right) and call them provocateurs, because they absolutely want to keep tactics at their level and not bust out. That’s wrong too — respect should go both ways).
If some section of the larger group might be inspired or unleashed to take their actions further, it often makes sense to set the example, to go out in front and push things.
What’s happening in some anarchist circles now, though, is that “militants” are attacking less militant others who are in the movement, those whom they should be making alliances with. It’s irresponsible and destructive. To refer to a recent incident, it’s a lot easier for militant vegan anarchists to throw cayenne pepper into the eyes of a fellow activist who eats meat than it is to take on those who run the industrial food system. Yes, that actually happened.
There’s a noticeable lack of skill among many active trends (especially anarchists) regarding making strategic alliances and working with others to bring the system down. There’s too much focus on personal purity, leading to antagonism toward others in the broad movement, and not enough focus on forging principled unity to fight our common enemy. It’s a serious problem. It involves confusion around who the real enemy is, and what it’s going to take to win.
redflags said
There are a set of behaviors promoted by FBI agents and their snitches, called “agent provocateurs” that involve sparking sectarian attacks, snitch-jacketing, use of anonymous rumor and efforts to turn the attentions and work of activists back on themselves.
With the recent exposure of Brandon Darby, and the fresh history of widespread infiltration and snitching in the anti-anarchist Green Scare – the anarchist movement needs exactly the self-examination that the Politics of Impatience statement is just the start of.
For further reading, and to situate these problems outside the particularities of 21st Century American anarchism, Brian Glick’s The War At Home is essential reading. Review and share this handbook on dealing with Cointelpro (even if cointelpro was created to stop the same communists these anarchists hate…). The number of similarities to issues provoked by recent “anarchist” assaults on other activists is stunning, especially considering the book is about 20 years old.
Security culture means not doing the FBI’s work, whatever ideology one uses to evade accountability for dodgy actions.
redthreadbris said
What do you mean “communist these anarchist hate”? The communiques coming out of these scenes often identify the authors as communists who want communism….as do the authors of The Coming Insurrection
rebel love
Dave
takethecity said
I’m not sure if s/he was even there or just taking the side of the most vocal contingent, but Kal’s assertions have been disputed since the beginning.
“Organizers at Hunter wanted to go ahead with a planned outdoors rally, and this led to some violence between the two, with the best-documented instances initiated by the occupationists”
Kal didn’t link it, but you can find a response to this now canonical (and deeply flawed) description of the Hunter events here: http://takethecity.wordpress.com/2010/03/08/a-response-to-the-lies-of-march-4th
Also, besides the backhanded compliment of ‘coherence’, the Let the Dead Bury their Dead piece confronts a lot of the more general problems of movement-building, leadership, etc that have arisen out of March 4th in NYC. For the sake of balance, we’d appreciate if the kasama project would consider posting it: http://takethecity.wordpress.com/2010/04/07/let-the-dead-bury-their-dead/
Kal said
@Takethecity:
As it happens I wasn’t there, but have talked to trusted friends who were.
You have a lot of nerve talking about what I don’t link to, and Kasama’s “balance”, given:
1) I did, in fact, link to your blog.
2) As far as I can tell TakeTheCity has not linked to either of the Hunter or ISO pieces I linked, or the anarchist open letter that Kasama originally posted, or in fact any polemics by other members of the left, as opposed to an emotional Facebook group and an article in the Hunter newspaper.
3) Relatedly, TakeTheCity repeatedly puts the (reactionary) phrase “outside agitator” in quotes without demonstrating that anyone against whom the blog is polemicizing has actually used it – only the most obvious of the many misrepresentations of the variously labeled “CoMB”, “Trots”, “vanguard of submission”, “reformist block”, “permitted resistence”, “mouthpieces of the police”, etc.
4) TakeTheCity moderates its comments and has not posted at least one bit of criticism: a comment in which I mentioned the Cointelpro-style hijacking of an ISO member’s Facebook account and its use to issue a fake “confession” of snitching. Note that this comment was entirely temperate and in fact I concluded that this was probably not done by an actual anarchist.
Since I was downtown at the time, I don’t really want to get into a debate about the specifics of what happened on March 4. On that question, I’ll trust the people I know; readers can judge from what you say and what a very diverse group of others say.
I will say that though your most recent post is indeed your most coherent – it approaches a strategic argument rather than being a compendium of adjectives – it is basically contradictory. The Socialist Worker article and the “Politics of Impatience” letter deal effectively with, well, the politics of impatience, more broadly. I can only add a little.
The specific conceit of “Let the Dead Bury Their Dead” – that your ideological opponents are stuck in the Russian past – is hard to square with your description of them as interested in rallies, coalition-building, transparency, etc. For most of their existence, the Bolsheviks were an illegal underground organization. Subsequently they operated within soviets and factory committees which were working-class organs of “dual power”. At no time was building popular movements analogous to those of our time, with open voting and organization, central to their method; for years being open was impossible, and then within days the “movements” had moved past that stage and become proto-governments. And we are not talking about “democratic centralism”, we are talking tactics.
The piece is nevertheless right about some of the key questions:
How are these actions manifesting the antagonisms of class society? How is this activity building the preconditions for greater collective action? How are these modes of struggle confronting real material and social needs? How are they contributing to a new repertoire of tactics that address the unique conditions of this era? These lead to other questions: What good is an enormous rally if everyone feels less powerful once it’s over? When does “movement building” actually build movement as opposed to suppressing it? If we apply a critical reading of history, we can see that in many instances more people have been mobilized far more quickly and passionately through collective militant action than through teach-ins, rallies, panel discussions and newspaper articles.
It’s nice to see the point conceded that we need worry about making masses of people feel powerful, “actually” building a movement, and mobilizing “more people… more quickly”. Sometimes one reads proponents of occupation justifying them as ends in themselves; as if the fact that a small space is temporarily “liberated” for a few dozen activists is some kind of substitute for an end to war, poverty, oppression, and ecological destruction. Questions relating to how our tactics now contribute to a situation where we can actually put a new kind of society on the agenda are, indeed, the key ones.
But in your self-congratulations for asking these questions, you appear to think that merely by doing so, you are ahead of your ideological opponents. (Not “ahead” in a “vanguardist” way, of course!) I suppose this follows from your belief that your opponents are primarily interested in gaining “control [of] self-organized student movements by stacking working committees” (bolding of this apparently crucial insight in original).
What you miss in your conspiratorial fantasizing is that your opponents are asking these questions too, and what’s more, attempting to answer them not by appeal to some sort of occupational zeitgeist, a Hegelian “spirit of the age” which makes occupation the tactic of the day, but by looking at concrete conditions in different places at different times. Will an occupation result in a victory? Or will it only lead to an ugly split with allies or potential allies, isolation, police violence and arrests, and the subsequent absorption of a small core of activists’ time by inward-looking legal defense and fundraising efforts?
The occupations in Berkeley and at Santa Cruz were sparks. The most recent occupations at NYU and the New School and the attempted occupation at Hunter were fiascoes. What do we learn from this? TakeTheCity does not appear to have anything of substance to say on that question – only a mix of denial, evasion, red herrings, and epithets.