BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

The Angry Brigade

  
 
Shortfatdyke
15:24 / 03.02.02
http://www.observer.co.uk/life/story/0,6903,643923,00.html

i had anarchist friends way back who loved this lot. i'm too young to remember the trial, but the local connections (i live a short walk from amhurst road) keep it fairly fresh in my mind. however, never mind the nostalgia trip: i used to be in a direct action political group, but it was totally non-violent. as a teenager i was very into the idea of making bombs and blowing up butcher's shops etc but never did it.

can such tactics work? the angry brigade never killed anyone, which goes in their favour as far as i'm concerned. they caused much embarrassment to the then conservative govt but did they achieve anything other than stating - however loudly - 'we're pissed off, okay?'. has angela mason achieved more by being in stonewall than she did with the angries???
 
 
The Monkey
19:18 / 03.02.02
I don't get their point. Then again, I have similar feelings toward the random "anarchists" who trashed the WTO protests.
Random property damage has no propagandic value, frightens Joe Public, and has almost no strategic value against entrenched political structures. I do wonder if these guys actually get the idea of "anarchism" as in a dictionary definition, or do they just think that trashing stuff until the government falls apart will do the job.

I'd assess the activities of "the Angries" as actually counterproductive to the larger cause of anarchism. Random terror actions--with or without casualties--frighten more than educate. Bombings generate in the public a desire for more government control in the name of safety. And if the government can't provide this, they'll oust them for an even more authoritarian structure. I'll wager your average Sun-reading, pub-drinking plugger was all for a crackdown on counter-culture types...not because he gave a shit about Tories, or even voted for one, but because the "anarchists" to him were just violent thugs whose posed a potential risk to him, his family, and his mates.

Also, in the public eye--hell, in my eye--what is the difference between a soccer thug trashing a Starbuck's and an anarchist doing the same thing? I mean, anarchist "ideology" that advocates such an action hasn't been digested by the public, and the latter are likely to see just a particular deluded thug.
Even I can't claim there's much of a difference.

As someone who considers himself more of an anarchist than any other political ideology, I really get sick of people my age who posture themselves as such...most of them being upjumped vandals. Smashing shit will not lead to a revolution. Or it will lead to the French Revolution, which was a tad of a joke.

Ironically, the Angries probably achieved the most through their trial, and the clear case of trumped-up evidence put forward by the cops.

[ 03-02-2002: Message edited by: [infinite monkeys] ]
 
 
Jackie Susann
04:18 / 04.02.02
This is a statement from some people involved in one of the black blocs who engaged in property damage at the WTO protests.

Presumably you have read it, since I'm sure you sought out the perspective of those you criticise before forming an opinion. Just thought others might be interested.

quote: As someone who considers himself more of an anarchist than any other political ideology...

If this continues I am going to start sounding like such a broken record.

Apologies for thread rot.
 
 
gentleman loser
13:43 / 04.02.02
quote:Originally posted by [infinite monkeys]:
Random property damage has no propagandic value, frightens Joe Public, and has almost no strategic value against entrenched political structures. I do wonder if these guys actually get the idea of "anarchism" as in a dictionary definition, or do they just think that trashing stuff until the government falls apart will do the job.

As someone who considers himself more of an anarchist than any other political ideology, I really get sick of people my age who posture themselves as such...most of them being upjumped vandals. Smashing shit will not lead to a revolution. Or it will lead to the French Revolution, which was a tad of a joke.[ 03-02-2002: Message edited by: [infinite monkeys] ]

My thoughts exactly. Most of the teen poseurs I've met who claim to be "anarchists" would wet their pants and cry for their mommies if they ever came up to it face to face (like say in Rwanda, mid 90's).

I have come more and more to believe that some of these people you see at various protests burning cars, trashing storefronts, throwing rocks, etc. may be paid off right wing plants.

What better way to give the powers that be an excuse to rain nightstick blows on the heads of the vast majority of us who believe in non violent protest action?

After all, what does CNN pay attention to, fifty thousand non violent protesters, or five drunken idiots breaking stuff?

Another thing I don't understand is the romantic idea that "anarchy" is a political ideology. It's either lawlessness or Libertarian fantasy.

Yes, that's the dictionary definition.

In either case, it can't work, at least with the population density that we know have. If you believe that people can be nice and respectful to each other without a central government and not be greedy assholes, you have a lot more faith in the human race than I do.

Yes, Dread Pirate Crunchy, I read your link. It seems to me to be the usual twaddle from certain clueless members of the poseur radical left and a good example why the left isn't taken very seriously by the middle class. No offense intended, just my opinion!

Real revolutionaries don't hide their faces.

[ 04-02-2002: Message edited by: gentleman loser ]
 
 
The Monkey
14:16 / 04.02.02
The tone of everything below is sarcastic. I mean it to be. I am truly offended by DPC's characterisation of my thoughts, and the fashion in which he/she rebuts, which is intentionally ad hominem. I do not like having my intelligence questioned in such a trite and snobbish fashion.

Oh, gee, Dread Pirate, that said a whole lot.

My dear--and at this point I will break out an equivalent level of condescension to your own--so what if they made a statement? Every day we castigate politicians for doublespeak and rationalization. Line up that little declaration with the standard output of US Representative in Congress: notice the parity of neither saying anything?

O yes, such a beautiful organic metaphor about the necessity of the "black bloc" that doesn't explain fuck all about the wherefore of their activities.

Not to mention that theory doesn't seem to explain the validity of smashing stuff as a political statement or as any form of valid strategic attack on the corporate world. Your link, presented with an arrogant flourish, does nothing to address my question.

Hell, I'd go as far to say that article said nothing. It was self-righteous bullshit, ironically hinged around the contradiction of mask-wearing and "not caring what they [the police] think."

So, I repeat, how does smashing the window of a Starbucks contribute to the defeat of corporate America?

Or maybe does it just mean extra clean-up the next day for the wage-laborers who don't have a choice.



[ 04-02-2002: Message edited by: [infinite monkeys] ]

[ 04-02-2002: Message edited by: [infinite monkeys] ]
 
 
The Monkey
14:52 / 04.02.02
By the way Crunchy,

That I have a different opinion than you doesn't mean you get to treat my like a congenital idiot. Congratulations on your ability to exercise rudimentary sarcasm, though.

"Presumably you have read it, since I'm sure you sought out the perspective of those you criticise before forming an opinion. Just
thought others might be interested."

And I see no problem with claiming that I prefer the ideal of a lack of central government, aka anarchy. It's a fucking ideal...I don't have to justify that to you or anyone else.

Nor do I have to throw a bomb or pretend to be Subcommadante Marcos and present some sort of easy-digestable archetype to the public.
I'm not King Mob, and I'm not subverting anything from the inside. I support those things I feel are right by donating time, money, and influence, and that's the only thing I can find conscienable to do.

When I change my mind and start ramming planes into the side of major American economic institutions in the name of the revolution, I'll be sure to let you know.

[ 04-02-2002: Message edited by: [infinite monkeys] ]
 
 
deja_vroom
15:57 / 04.02.02
By gentleman loser: quote:Real revolutionaries don't hide their faces.



WHAT???
 
 
grant
17:02 / 04.02.02

Subcomandante Marcos?
 
 
Jackie Susann
20:55 / 04.02.02
I apologise for continued threadrot, I swear this is my last non-AB related post here.

quote: Another thing I don't understand is the romantic idea that "anarchy" is a political ideology. It's either lawlessness or Libertarian fantasy.

Yes, that's the dictionary definition.


Well if the dictionary says it, who am I to argue? Anarchism has been a political movement as long as Marxism has; indeed, Marx and Bakunin ("the father of anarchism") engaged in protracted power struggles over the direction (statist or anti-statist) of the First International. Since then there have been anarchist movements around the world - notably in the Ukraine, in turn of the century USA (the Wobblies), and in Spain, which was briefly organised as an anarchist society before WWII. Not to mention various movements, collectives, groups, etc. throughout both the industrialised world (Angry Brigade, for instance, but also groups like Food Not Bombs and Indymedia) and the global south. Contemporary so-called 'anti-globalisation' movements are often described by sympathetic commentators as anarchist. To say there is no such thing as anarchist politics is just wrong. The dictionary might not explain this (and by the way, I am curious as to which dictionary defines anarchism as 'Libertarian fantasy'), but any decent intro to political ideologies type textbook should.

quote: So, I repeat, how does smashing the window of a Starbucks contribute to the defeat of corporate America?

As, I think, is relatively clear from that link, it doesn't; it's not supposed to. Maybe an equally relevant question is, Why is the ethical value of an action measured by its contribution to the defeat of corporate America? Why should everything activists do be measured on such narrowly utilitarian criteria?

Gentleman, I feel like we're shouting at each other across an incredibly wide gorge. The left isn't taken seriously by the middle class? Why would radicals care? I think your understanding of radical politics is summed up fine in your last line.

IM, I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to offend you. I posted a link that, even if you feel didn't answer it, certainly addressed your question. Then a comment that did not seem to me to be outside the boundaries of acceptable, friendly bulletin board sarcasm. I really don't think I was treating you like a 'congenital idiot', and I'm sorry if it seemed that way. I'm not even sure what 'ad hominem' means - want to lend me that dictionary, Gentleman? - so I don't know if it was intentional, but if it was, sorry.

Yes, it annoys me when people who have appear to have no sympathy for or understanding of radical politics complain - in terms indistinguishable from corporate mass media - about activists being nothing but "upjumped vandals". It doesn't mean I think you're stupid, it just means you've pushed my buttons.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
00:41 / 05.02.02
quote:Well if the dictionary says it, then who am I to argue?

Let's not start this. If we're agreeing to use the English language as a means of communication, then that means we're agreeing to use the words as defined by the authority on it. Naturally, slang doesn't count, but you can't use "sandal" to describe a boot. If it means you can't use the word "anarchy" as you like, tough shit. Modify it somehow. Don't go arguing about the mechanics of something you've already agreed to use.

quote:can such tatics work?

I really don't see how it can. It doesn't affect the government or any corporation (who have more than enough money and resources to fix things). Well, I suppose it could make the populace think twice about working at Starbucks if they (the Starbucks) had a habit of exploding in the middle of the night (just as people will be hesitant to become a president if the last four were assassinated weeks after they were instated), and Starbucks would see a drop in sales as franchises shut down. But unless you can make this a regular occurence, it won't phase the people you want it to. It will, however, make the locals scared silly of you, and cause trouble for the poor guy who's trying to make some money to support himself, and propably get you arrested. Simply put, it gets the public even more fearful of anarchy and anarchists.

So how do you fight back without killing anyone? Keep in mind you're fighting an illusion has power because people think it's real (which isn't to say that at this stage some illusions aren't neccessary). I take the Discordian route of trying to get people to see that the government isn't really there, and never was. It was just people who agreed that this animal existed, and then forgot that they can make it dissappear just as easily. I think that if enough people ("enough" being a good portion of the citizens) were to see that the authority the government holds over them is just what they give it, then it (the government) would start to dissappear as people decided they didn't need it anymore. I'd like to think that by the time this happens, we'll all be ready to adopt a policy of "Let's not try to fuck each other over, because otherwise we're all screwed. Other that that, do what you will." I realize this is a long way off. But it's the most peaceful way to go, in my opinion.

"The leading cause of government are anarchists, just as the leading cause of chickens are eggs." I forget where that's from, but I'm pretty sure Robert Anton Wilson was behind it.
 
 
Shortfatdyke
05:26 / 05.02.02
Johnny - i would agree with your approach. but we have such a long, long way to go to evolve to that stage - if in fact the human race ever will (and i have serious doubts) that i understand when people lose patience and try to force change.

i hate starbucks, macdonalds, gap etc as institutions. but putting low waged workers out of a job to show how much i hate them is counter-productive.
 
 
deja_vroom
05:26 / 05.02.02
[infinite mokeys]:
One of the leaders of RAWA (Revolutionary Organization of Afghan Women), Mariam Rawi, 27 years, came to Porto Alegre, to the Forum, to talk about the Afghan situation. She doesn't use her real name and never shows her face. RAWA was responsible for showing the world the summary execution of dissidents in Afghanistan.
 
 
BioDynamo
16:05 / 08.02.02
On the Angry Brigade's tactics and their effectiveness: last summer I heard of a book published about the radical politics in the UK at the time of the AB. Among other things it included a list of performed bombings in those years, and apparently the list is huge. Thousands of them, mostly simple petrol bombs thrown through the windows of the establishment, but some slightly more advanced, like those of the AB. Still, the point of the AB was supposed to be: "We're not elitist, we do this with simple tools just about anyone can lay their hands on."

That seems to be one thing that puts them closer to the revolutionaries in 20's and 30's Spain, rather than some highly funded elite-terrorists. More popular, "of the people", right?

Also, the AB did, what, 30 bombings, one injured. The rest of the bombings, arsons, attacks, whatever, also didn't kill anyone, as far as I know. Obviously there were plenty more people doing this than the AB. They were part of a movement, acting in a particular historical situation with plenty repression, plenty resistance.

So, no. Today, starting a bombing campaign against the authorities in an industrialised country would probably just lead to disillusionment, ruining the movement, and you landing in jail very quickly. However, I think the AB were in a different situation than the one we are in, and they had a better case for it, as well as a stronger movement around them.

As for the statement that bomb-throwing techniques do not work, that is historically inaccurate. As an organizing tool, "propaganda of the deed" (i.e. terrorism) worked very well in pre-WWII-Spain. Whenever the bosses killed a labour organiser, the Solidarios or the FAI killed one of the bosses. The workers felt they had their own police, their own army. It was better to be part of the CNT than not, and as a result a majority(!) of the spanish workforce was organised in the anarchist labour unions. Largely thanks to their militancy.

So, they bought a factory for themselves, just to be able to make the steel casts for hand grenades. And the mine workers stole the dynamite from their jobs.

Pretty massive. They only got beaten after a very long and brutal civil war. Spain and Durruti should be mandatory reading, really. Nice stuff.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
07:26 / 09.02.02
quote: From the website DCP linked to;
When we stand in front of the police, the government, politicians, and their bosses in the corporations, they can not question our legitimacy (are we "good" protestors?) because we dont care what they think.

Pardon? 'They cannot question our legitimacy because we don't care what they think'? Oh really? Is this just sloppy writing on Blackies' part or am I missing something?
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
19:55 / 09.02.02
Yeah, a lot of that article didn't make any sense to me. That whole "we don't have a message" thing is bothering me most.
 
  
Add Your Reply