Social "Activists" as Terrorists

I find it sad that social protest which was mainly a peaceful activity in the 1950s and 1960s that turned violent only when you had bigoted police or racists "locals" who would attack a demonstration. The actual demonstrators were peaceful. They mostly followed the tactics of Gandhi using moral suasion to try and bring the majority to their side. But starting in the late 1960s when the Yippies and the SDS and other crazies got all the attention of the media, demonstrations turned violent. The lingering "activists" from the 50s & 60s took the wrong message. They were convinced that confrontational street theatre brought social change. It doesn't, it hasn't, and it won't. If anything, it hinders real change because it frightens ordinary citizens away from legitimate peaceful protest.

These days, the demonstrations by interest groups, unions, or social activists are quickly thrown into disarray as a bunch of thugs dressed in black, with helmets and facemasks, show up to "demonstrate". That is what has happened at the lastest G8-G20 meeting in Toronto. Wikipedia details the story with broad strokes.

One thing that bothers me is that a lot of these fanatics/crazies claim to be "anarchists". Traditionally anarchists have attracted crazies. But the political philosophy of anarchism doesn't equate to vandalism and disregard for public order. The great historic figures in anarchism were mostly gentle and reasonable people who abhorred the instruments of a state run by and for elites (landed aristocracies, big organized churches, and the new capitalist class). These anarchist used violent terms, but the same way that a firebrand like Patrick Henry Lee was famous for giving a speech saying "Give me liberty, or give me death!".

Traditionally anarchists called to disband the police and empty the prisons because they had a vision of a self-policing society, a society based on peace and understanding, not violent repression. So the cruel joke is that today, those who come to trash urban centres, who use violence, call themselves "anarchists". They stolen the term and turned it inside out.

There was a violent streak in traditional anarchism, led by Bakunin, whose fervor for "the cause" led him to firebrand oratory and a willingness to join in conspiracies. But his fundamental philosophy was not one of "my way or the highway", one of threatening anybody who didn't agree with him. He was interested in convincing you of his vision, not dictating his "answer" to how the world must be, or else! Sadly, the violent types in Toronto are using actions that say "do what I say, or I'll trash your town; I don't want political discourse, I want mindless violence as the tool for social change". It nutty. It suits the agenda of the media and the current governments because it is a message that almost everyone finds abhorrent.

I noticed that some of the graffiti in Toronto had the traditional anti-cop, anti-prison sentiment. But nobody in his right mind would sign up for a political movement that attacks police, burns police cars, smashes shop windows, and loots. That is nihilism. Not a serious political movement. Traditional anarchists were against the police and prisons because these were the tools that authoritarian governments used to squelch social change.

If you live in a democracy, you don't have to fight the police or demand that the prisons be emptied. That is nutty. The police aren't your "enemy" and the prisons are full of liberals who want to change an oppressive authoritarian regime. The prisons are mostly filled with dangerous criminals. Nobody in his right mind wants those people back on the streets a day before their sentences are fulfilled.

Anarchists have a vision of a society in which the community controls itself, i.e. there is no need for cops and prisons. But these crazies hear half the message: get rid of cops & prisons. They don't hear the other half: a community has to police itself. So these thugs are worse than useless. They actively undermine the true political philosophy of anarchism.

My bottom line: I have no love for the black-clothed thugs. I have no love for the riot police. There is no political dialog when these two groups go at each other.

There are a lot of things I hate about capitalism, but there are some things I like about it. Unlike feudal and aristocratic societies, capitalism is deeply democratic, i.e. anybody is allowed to rise up the ranks by creating wealth. That's good for everybody. What I hate about capitalism is the power they wield and how they can buy off the politicians to reshape society to the desires of the new capitalist elites.

I'm all for protests, but I don't understand any protestor who would immediately "walk away" when he sees somebody dressed all in black or anybody trashing anything. This gives protest a bad name. To remain on the street is to implicitly endorse the violence and the disrespect these crazies show toward everybody who doesn't submit their their "value system".

I don't understand how, when you have many thousands of police, you can let a group of one or two hundred break off and go down about 5 city blocks destroying store fronts and burning police cruisers. Seems to me you quickly bottle up those streets and arrest anybody on them.

I appreciate the Canadian Civil Liberties Association for taking on unpopular causes, but I think it is ridiculous for them to claim that sweeping the street of rioters somehow "abridges liberty". You have no rights if you are in a mob or standing near a mob or encouraging a mob that is looting and trashing. You are implicitly part of a conspiracy to destroy, so you should be liable to arrest. But the Ontario Civil Liberties Association is complaining because their "monitors" were swept up with the rioters. My basic rule: if you see unlawful behaviour, immediately leave the area or risk being painted by the same brush. I have no sympathy for people claiming they were "peaceful" and were "swept up" by the police. The police have no way of deciding who did what when a mob is trashing a street. They have to arrest everybody and then try to sort things out later. The need to maintain public order pre-empts "individual liberty". It is the same rule that says that your "liberty" to shout "fire!" in a crowded theatre is trumped by public safety needs.

So... I watch the G8-G20 summit with interest, but I am aghast at the idiocy in the streets and I'm saddened that legitimate protestors have been bullied and pushed aside by the handful of "black bloc" thugs roam the streets. Whatever message might have come out of the other demonstrations or even from the meeting of the leaders, that is drowned out in the media because violence trumps everything else. That is what these thugs brought to Toronto: just another story of nihilistic violence.

This is what passes for "demonstrating":



What does it demonstrate other than a mob taunting the police daring them to restore order? There is no political vision in this mob. There is no reasoned advocacy of social change. This is not demonstrating for an idea or an ideal. This is just thuggery. And... the police respond with their own organized thuggery. What else would you expect?

And this video shows at 1:20 honest protestors trying to step in and stop the thugs from destroying a police cruiser. They are asking "how is this helping us?". Good question...



And this shows the sheer nihilism of the crowd. This isn't a "demonstration" in favour of any political ideal. This is purely destructive rage by rich kids who are bored and want to lash out at the world. This isn't politics, this is idiocy...