Dear Black Bloc,
In the event that after personal investigation, one finds your group with
'strings' tied to a 'father figure' (that being said is against those
wanting freedom) what do you say then that the very same tactics that you
employ
were to be used against your group for the very same reasons of individual
freedom that those of us are fighting for and thus, wish not your bloc
domination nor your 'father figure' behind those 'curtains' - what do you
say
to us then ....do you give us the freedom of opposition as you give
yourself?
I like what you write 'cause I learn from it but every individual comes with
a set of history and therefore every individual is capable only of
evaluating
as per their personal experience, and agreement with anything is getting
more and more a far stretch nowadays.
Regards,
Zin
> ----------
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED][SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 11:40 PM
> To: STUDIES IN WOMEN AND ENVIRONMENT
> Subject: Re: FW: One WTO account
>
> "can I clarify that the political
> philosopy that was called 'Anarchism' did not initially advocate any form
> of
> violence nor
> destruction?"
>
> Well, to clarify, anarchism as an active praxis has always respected the
> rights of individuals to choose the strategies they find best. Anything
> else
> is a negation of liberty.
>
>
> Now that's not to say there haven't been some nasty debates over the
> years.
> The debate over violence, over "propaganda by the deed", and over
> destructive
> direct action has always been a lively one within anarchism, but it
> certainly
> would be impossible to exorcise those who have chosen sabotage as a tactic
>
> without at the same time excising clearly revolutionary aspects of the
> movement as well.
>
> As far as whether the praxis of the black block cadres represents a
> clearly
> articulated form of anarchism in the 21st century, it most certainly does
> ;
> but again, anarchism respects the freedom of people to make their own
> decisions within the guidelines of the general principles of direct
> action,
> collective self-empowerment, solidarity, mutual aid,etc. that most
> anarchists
> agree to. There are a large number of mainly nonviolent anarchists, and a
> good number of ideologically nonviolent anarchists as well (Tolstoy-ites,
> etc.). Anarchism as a tendency is simply too large to be summed up
> neatly.
>
> However, yes, there is a tendency within the movement that might be called
>
> "insurrectionary" which seeks to go beyond standard protest protocol and
> generate some direct damage to the corporate powers that be. In point of
> fact, I think most people are pretty empathetic to this sort of thing, but
> it
> just is usually framed in such a way by the media that people condemn it
> par
> for the course. But the fact is that a large degree of the destruction in
> this world right now IS being carried on by very specific corporations who
>
> have very specific people working for them who can be held accountable for
>
> their actions. The actions of the Biotic Baking Brigade and their
> pie-throwing sprees are exemplary in this regard. Also noteworthy is the
> direct action taken against the CEO of a major oil firm, who found a box
> with
> fake dynamite underneath the seat of his car with a note that said "BANG!
> This could have been real! Think about the damage you're doing to
> indigenous
> people."
>
> Sabotage has a long history in people's resistance, with the Luddites
> being a
> noteworthy example. Contrary to popular opinion, the Luddites were not
> mindlessly "anti-technology", but were working class people who were
> taking
> actions against specific technologies which were disrupting their
> communities, which shows a sophisticated awareness that technologies have
> social impacts, something those who mindlessly criticize "luddites" show
> almost no awareness of!
>
> Now, again, by identifying these tendencies, I am not suggesting that
> everyone needs agree with them. But yes, in fact, there is a GREAT deal of
>
> difference between corporate saboteurs and black block direct action on
> the
> one hand, and terrorism on the other, which has no regard for individual
> life
> ; and in addition, I think it's extremely politically important to
> underline
> this distinction in point of fact, because the FBI is doing a great deal
> to
> classify anyone who takes direct action against the powers that be as a
> "terrorist", and the American public of course thinks the people being
> prosecuted are scum with no regard for life when in fact they may simply
> be
> (and are in a large number of cases) insurgents. If we can't distinguish
> between insurgents --- and especially insurgents motivated by a great love
>
> for life, people, and wilderness --- and terrorists, it's a sad day
> indeed.
>
> I hope that addresses your question.
>
> (un)leash
>
