|
printable version
- js reader version
- view hidden posts
- tags and related articles
View article without comments
by samirah_girl@yahoo.com
Wednesday, Jan. 22, 2003 at 2:12 AM
none
Anarchists took a break from ANSWERS permited march
against war, and decided to take to the streets. When
we scream "Who's streets, Our streets" anarchists
actually mean it.
NO WAR BUT THE CLASS WAR!
Two Thousand Anarchists go on Rampage in San Francisco
Thousands of protestors marched, danced and sprinted
through the streets of San Francisco today,shouting
slogans against war, racism and capitalism. The
protestors were part of a breakaway march from the
larger permitted rally organized by A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act
Now to Stop War and End Racism) which brought out
approximately 200,000 demonstrators.
After the permitted march got to its destination,
about two thousand demonstrators broke off and
proceded on a militant and well-planned march through
the streets of the city. Throughout the march, they
targetted a number of symbols of the current
capitalist war. They stopped at the building that
holds the San Francisco Chronicle, a major newspaper,
notorious for its right-wing slant. Masked speakers on
a megaphone pointed out how the coverage from this
newpaper, and from the capitalist media in general
serve to bolster the US war effort at the same time as
other masked protestors conveyed this message by
graffittiing the building with "weapon of mass
destruction," among other messages. Next, the building
that houses the British consulate was grafittied, with
protestors stressing the international nature of the
struggle against war and capitalism, and calling for
similar actions by the people of britain against the
capitalists there. Protestors are well aware that Tony
Blair is, as one person at the event put it, "Bush's
Poodle." Protestors punctuated their message by
smashing a number of windows. One spray-painted slogan
read "UK out of Iraq! Burn the State!"
The breakaway march wound its way through the city,
using a number of sophisticated tactics to
out-manoeuver the police. At times they stopped
quickly and reversed direction. At others, they
stopped, shouted a countdown from 10 and then the
entire demonstration ran for a block. As they moved
along, more and more newspaper boxes were knocked into
the street, and through the windows of a Starbucks and
a Victoria's Secret. The energy built up as protestors
chanted "What do we want? CLASS WAR! When do we want
it? NOW!" and "What do we want? PEACE! How we gonna
get it? REVOLUTION!"
The high point of the demonstration was in attacks on
the building that houses the Federal government's
Immigration and Naturalization Service. Numerous
windows were broken and a cement pylon and a newspaper
box were thrown through the INS building's glass front
doors. As the call for the breakaway march, put out by
a group called Anti-War Action stated, "The thousands
of Arab and South Asian desaparecidos in the US since
September 11th recall the US-supported fascist regimes
of Latin America."
Apparently angry at being consistently outfoxed,
police became more aggressive. An undercover officer
grabbed one demonstrator, a number of police on
motorcycles rode directly into the crowd and a group
of mounted police in riot gear began to chase the
protestors. The demonstration walked quickly through
the streets for some minutes, leaving garbage cans in
the streets to slow the pursuing police, and ended by
going down into a BART station (Bay Area Rapid
Transit). As protestors dispersed on San Francisco's
busy Market Street, a number of police in riot gear
rushed down into the BART station, and are reported to
have arrested two protestors.
After September 11 of last year, media, critics and
politicians gloated about what they saw as the death
of radical street protests in the United States. The
more conservative elements of the anti-globalization
movement were frightened by a possible confrontation
or worse, saw it as a time to stick together and offer
"critical support" to the United States government. At
the same time the radicals were targetted with
stronger and more aggressive policing, and
international financial institutions such as the World
Trade Organization held their meetings in countries
with repressive regimes that do not allow protest. But
the radicals in the anti-globalization movement were
never just protesting "globalization", they were
opposed to capitalist globalization. This analysis has
transferred easily into anti-war organizing.
The callout for today's breakaway march read "This is
not a war between the people of the US and the people
of the world. It is capitalism--a war on the poor.
Investors in US oil companies will get a new pipeline
through Afghanistan and increased access to the Iraq’s
oil reserves (second only to Saudi Arabia). The
weapons manufacturers will get new contracts and the
US politicians will have an excuse to increase their
power. Meanwhile, the poor and working people of
America will definitely not be better off. We continue
to live in a world of unemployment and minimum wage
jobs, of racism and harassment, of surveillance and
prisons, of impossible rents and evictions--a world
not built for us, but on top of us."
Maybe smug critics and politicians were wrong. We are
witnessing a rebirth of the radical street
demonstrations in the US. As one black-clad and masked
protestor said today, "The anti-globalization movement
is dead, but the anti-capitalist movement is alive and
well."
Today's protest are only a small taste of things to
come if the war on Iraq happens.
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/01/1562051.php
BREAKING NEWS: A COMMUNIQUE FROM ORGANIZERS OF THE JANUARY 18th SAN FRANCISCO ANTI-WAR BREAKAWAY MARCH.
Saturday during the nation-wide protests against war in Iraq, anti-war activists, anti-capitalists, and ordinary Americans broke away from the permitted march and marched through the streets of San Francisco. The 1000+ march snaked through the streets, leaving a colorful trail of anti-war art in its wake. Drawings ranged from multicolored chalk drawing to spray-painted stencil and graffiti art. The energy grew and march participants made bolder statements, smashing windows at a Starbucks coffee shop and at the INS building.
Organizers point out that their role was simply to move the march from place to place, so that "affinity groups" and individuals could express themselves as they saw fit. They say their march was meant to send a powerful message to both private and governmental institutions they see as implicated in the war effort. Moreover they felt it was important to make this message "publicly and collectively" to amplify voices that have been shut out by the establishment and are not being heard in society. Organizers expect that their communities will show uncompromising and increasing resistance to this unjust war.
Organizers said they had been asked to bring the march to three locations, which they did. They did not cite Starbucks as one of these locations, but smiled when they were told that its windows had been smashed.
The Chronicle, San Francisco's only major local newspaper, was the first to be covered in a graffiti mural consisting mostly of short messages such as "Lies" and "Weapon of Mass Distraction". Activists criticized the paper as a "mouthpiece of the Bush regime" and said it failed to present any dissenting analysis or critical viewpoint on the war. One participant said that the spray-painted messages she left behind are "more representative of the views of our progressive communities than Chronic Liar propaganda."
The protesters then descended on the Citicorp Center building, home to the British Consulate. "Has Britain become a colony of the United States?" asked one protester, "Tony Blair is an embarrassment to British people everywhere." Protesters also targeted Citicorp itself, citing its financial complicity in the war effort. Citicorp was also criticized for funding exploitative projects in third world countries, for its offenses against the environment, and for the way it fuels poverty and injustice throughout the world. Another protester phrased her message as a question to passers-by: "Who profits from war?"
Energy remained high as the crowd redecorated the imposing INS building with images of a world without oppression. This building had recently been the target of angry protests over the mandatory "registration" of many Arab and middle-Eastern men. Marchers chanted "no borders, no nations, fuck deportations" as protesters smashed the windows of the INS and redecorated its façade. One protester said he was "outraged at the way our friends and neighbors are being humiliated and dehumanized. No person should be hauled away to a secret detention, abused, and denied access to their family or lawyer."
After the march left the INS building, plainclothes policemen who had infiltrated it tackled, brutalized, and hauled off at least two activists. The police became more and more aggressive, and organizers worried as the march began to be hemmed in. They led the protest back to Market street and headed up the street, sometimes running as police attempted to drive motorcycles into the crowd. Organizers looked for a place to disperse peacefully and called the march to an end at the Powell street BART station. Many protesters then entered the BART, only to be chased down into the station by police officers in riot gear. What happened in the BART station is still unclear.
Organizers of the march expressed gratitude to all who participated and made the event a great success. They offered a "special shout out to the pink bloc," in an apparent reference to a radical queer contingent in the march. Organizers also dismissed the preliminary media reports of violence saying, " Our march did not confront a single individual human being with violence. The only people looking for a fight today were the police."
There is no public press contact for march organizers. ###
Report this post as:
by Gordon Lamb
Wednesday, Jan. 22, 2003 at 3:00 AM
...And people wonder why the "peace" movement is taken seriously by no one buts it's own members.
Fuckin ridiculous.
Report this post as:
by there in 68
Wednesday, Jan. 22, 2003 at 10:13 AM
Members of the Bloc should review recent american history to learn a thing or two. I was active "back in the day" so please... listen.
As the Civil Rights movement came under attack and it's leaders were murdered... as the war in Vietnam became ever more bloody, new militancy and tactics took shape in the U.S.
The Black Panther Party was THE militant organization in the country and targeted by the FBI as the number one threat to the nation's security. The Panthers advocated armed self defense and organized themselves into para-military units... but the one thing they NEVER advocated or tolerated was random property damage done in the name of revolution.
The Panthers were AGAINST rioting and discouraged it constantly. They insisted that the Black community be organized neighborhood by neighborhood, and that only a united people, educated and politicized, could wield the power necessary for changing society. The Panthers saw rioting as a foolish waste of time.
Out of SDS sprang THE most militant of all organizations... the Weatherman faction. Numbering no more than a thousand at best, Weatherman wanted to take on the system in militant "direct action" confrontations. They believed in armed struggle and wanted to assist the Vietnamese and world revolution by waging urban guerilla warfare inside the U.S.
One of Weatherman's first actions was it's "Days of Rage" gathering in Chicago. Weatherman believed that action was needed beyond demonstrations... they wanted class war and were ready to wage it at any cost. "Days of Rage" was a call to all militants to come to Chicago for the express purpose of fighting the police and destroying the property of the ruling class.
Weatherman cadre responded to the call but few others did. There were perhaps 600 militants who showed up... but they came in crash helmets and carried iron bars and baseball bats. When the action began, Weatherman cadre fought hand to hand with the cops... beating several senseless... as well as destroying much property owned by the wealthy.
After "Days of Rage" the Weatherman people had to go underground. The leadership was wanted for "conspiracy to riot"... and besides, Weather cadre wanted EVEN MORE militant action. The group changed it's name to Weather Underground ("weatherman" was sexist), spit into armed fighting cells that operated in big cities... and pulled off dozens of spectacular military actions in the U.S. (like bombing the Pentagon). All of this was done in "solidarity with the Vietnamese people" and to "bring the war against imperialism home."
The results?
While Weather Underground was romanticized by some in the anti-war movement, it's supporters were actually quite small in number. Most found the tactics of Weather as being "totally insane." The wider mainstream society saw it as a lunatic fringe. Weather actions brought INTENSE repression down upon the movement... as the FBI was looking for "terrorists."
Weather was almost completely isolated in their base of support as well as in their tactics. They miscalculated terribly... thinking that revolution was just around the corner and that their armed actions would help trigger revolution.
Today... those surviving members of the Weather Underground will tell you that their military tactics were a mistake. As wild and radical as the 60's were... Weather Underground was DEAD WRONG in seeing the period as being ripe for revolution.
Black Bloc and others who advocate militant direct action including the destruction of state and corporate property should take a long hard look at the Weather Underground. There was no one more militant, daring, revolutionary, or willing to sacrifice themselves for revolution than the cadre of Weatherman. Yet their strategies and tactics failed... why?
They failed because they had not done the mass work necessary to bring millions into struggle. Weatherman was essentially "vanguardist" and way out ahead of the masses... in the same way that today's militant anarchist Black Bloc is out of touch.
Having revolutionary politics does not make a revolution... having the full support of the majority of the people is what makes revolution. Being able to operate as a fluid, combative, elusive street army does not make social change... it does not scare the ruling class... they WILL deal with you. What makes social change is working with the people, interacting with them, bringing them into the struggle... until the radical ideas and longing for something different is shared by all, THEN, and only then, can things change.
Weatherman failed because they acted without the support of the people... Black Bloc anarchists will fail for the same reasons.
Report this post as:
by anarchist
Wednesday, Jan. 22, 2003 at 11:55 PM
As an anarchist, or at least someone who is sympathetic to the principles of anarchism, I couldn't agree more with the last poster.
History is clear on this matter with regards to the United States (not necessarily so in other times and places). Militant struggle does not build movements or change the hearts and minds of ordinary folks.
Connecting with people and building resistance in other ways is the kind of work i am i nterested in. Smashing windows may feel good at the moment, but i think its elitist and only serves to alienate the so-called anarchists from the large majority of americans.
I am increasingly disturbed at the fundamentalism of today's anarchists, mostly individualists and young white males. It's time for other anarchists to challenge the elitism of the black bloc. I am sure i will be called 'liberal' or 'authoritarian' myself, just in the same way the term "bourgoies" was used against those who oppose the RCP/CP/WWP in the past.
Remember that the state has a monopoly on violence and terror. You are incredibly naive to think you can win using their tools. You will be crushed that way. The only way towards revolution is via the hearts and minds of ordinary people. Once we have made these relationships, then we can shut everything down and resist simply by not participating. Until then, and only then, will the word revolution have any meaning.
sincerely,
anarchist
Report this post as:
by ordinary people
Thursday, Jan. 23, 2003 at 8:18 AM
As an ordinary person, I would like to tell the last poster to fuck off and leave me alone. I don't want to have my heart won by you or anyone you associate with.
As for some kids creating a situation where I might be able to break out the windows of INS or some other piece of shit place, I'm for that.
Report this post as:
by anarchist
Thursday, Jan. 23, 2003 at 9:12 PM
I don't think I could have made my better when you say things like the following:
"As for some kids creating a situation ..."
Your world is only concerned about kids and people "creating a situation" for you to jerk yourself off to smashing shit up.
Don't ge me wrong, i understand how good it feels to attack the targets of oppression, but what you ignore is that your actions are completely self serving. What you are doing historically is called "propaganda of the deed" and was used by some anarchists at the turn of the century (and later,yes), but was abandoned by anarchists who were actually concerned about *organizing* a revolution amongst the under classes.
perhaps you are only concerned with the kids, but i am concerned about working families, the elderly and the disabled. and more importantly, i am concerned about those who are most easily targeted by the state; namely imigrants. do you think they have the luxury of young, either white or even US citizens, of getting arrested or targeted for arrest because of your machismo? i think you need to be less concerned with your own self and your own anger and care a little more for those most directly targeted by the state.
anarchist
Report this post as:
|