Is rebellion possible?

the reason rebellion is impossible in the US/UK is bc (in general) ppl's lives are too comfortable to want to make radical shifts in our economy + political system

yeah... the reason rebellion is impossible is because no one wants to have a rebellion

Yeah I said that upthread. I don't think it's the only reason in the US, because here people's lives are becoming increasingly uncomfortable, and I think a lack of socially binding institutions, the spread-out way people live, etc., and myths like the protestant work ethic contribute (cf the famous Steinbeck line ""Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.")

But any population that is large enough and poor enough for long enough is kind of there for the organizing if someone can figure out how to do it.

theoretically ppl's lives here could be uncomfortable enough that rebellion becomes possible, but i don't see that happening any time soon. even the US's embarrassed millionaires have a higher quality of life than most of the world

also the US maintains a pretty robust gulag system. that probably helps.

psychologically you would have to change people's brains. it would take decades. or longer than decades. the u.s./capitalist way of life is so deeply ingrained in people. that idea of always growing, growing, growing...if you aren't making more or growing then you are a loser...its a part of everything from poor to rich. if everyone were suddenly poor, things might just get uglier not better. you have to replace the system with something that can work for these massive amounts of people. and the only way people would be okay with that is if people could live with the idea of having less. of living more humbly. which is where the decades and decades of reverse brainwashing comes in.

its a conundrum.

my own pipe dream is this: large amounts of the population go to work for the govt. (a fantasy govt.) doing the hard work of making the entire country environmentally...uh...safer. its a big country. there is a lot that can be done. probably. i'm no scientist. you could have millions of people just planting trees for a living. beats working at rite aid. rite aid sucks.

otmfm

I would rather work at rite aid than do outdoor physical labor for 8 hours a day

cool you can work at rite aid. also where'd you get 8 hours from? that's capitalist hours.

sorry boss I can work overtime

So, some thoughts--

I do think there's an argument to be made for targeted property destruction (or PD) as an autonomous tactic *in concert with* an ongoing campaign or set of direct actions. To get some things out of the way, though:

- Breaking a bank window does not hurt Jamie Dimon.
- Breaking a bank window at a protest with families, immigrants, and POC who might not be prepared for or in position to fight back against the attendant escalation in police action is stupid and wrong.
- There's a pretty unfortunate dichotomy--and I was even perpetuating it upthread some--between the day to day work of community organizing and ostensibly 'insurrectionary' actions that involve PD. The reality is that the individuals I've known to take to PD are

also--once they take off the masks--some of the hardest working pavement pounders and movement builders I've ever met. They're not idiots looking for a fight.
- Breaking a bank window will not jump start The Revo.

All that said. It's my thinking that PD is a tactic that ought to be understood as a rarely used tool in a robust toolbox. Every tactic ought to be scrutinized for effectiveness and evaluated from the same starting point: these are all tools, the only question is which

one is most useful to us right now.

Sometimes we need a rally. Sometimes another anodyne demonstration will echo nicely in the chamber of back patting liberal activism without making a sound outside of it. A lot of the criticisms leveled at PD for being ~merely symbolic~ attacks could be leveled

equally at many other approaches. The important thing when gauging usefulness is context. I think PD is rarely useful, but that it can be.

How can PD "help," as such?

It's been my experience, and historically the experience of lots of organizers, that people can find direct action profoundly empowering. Rather than yelling (again) at empty buildings holding tattered (or too-slick) signs, deliberately putting oneself at risk to

disrupt and impede business as usual. As I said upthread, I've seen ~normie bystanders~ who aren't deeply ensconed in some crustpunk culture inspired and galvanized by PD and other property-related disruptions. Some of these people have even gone on to

involve themselves in movement building work. Some people are repelled by PD. Some are charged by it. I don't pretend to know the proportions, but to exclude from activation people who aren't engaged or moved by the kabuki of the permitted march by

ruling out PD as always and everywhere unacceptable is to exclude people I've seen and worked with who've proven themselves valuable organizers. That's not something I'm willing to do.

Secondly it's worth noting that targeted PD is often the only time particular misbehaviors are even mentioned in the press. Large summits like the G8/20, or the NATO meetings, tend to be sponsored by major corporations & defense contractors. Attacks on their

buildings get coverage, and the March Organizer's Press Release of Grievances is finally put to use and quoted from to provide context.

Further it's worth thinking about PD as an attempt to create space for more mainstream activity and more radical activity as well--even as a diversionary tactic. It was put to spectacular use to divert the police from ongoing lockdowns at the WTO meetings in

Seattle & Cancun, where the lockdowns contributed to the delay & shutdown of those meetings, and in Miami where delegates from the global south cited the lockdowns as sources of courage in their opposition to the trade agreement. Organizers of Miami

actions cited the bloc's flashmob-style targetted attacks as key to delaying the inevitable crackdown and the meeting itself. I think also of the G8 in Alberta, where a bloc infamously descended on and destroyed a police truck bearing a water cannon waiting to be

aimed at the mass of protesters. When the backup arrived, it too was shortly incapacitated. This kept the mass demos going, as that particular mode of repression was prevented from being deployed.

It strikes me that ultimately the cases where PD can be inspiring, press-worthy, or tactically useful are ultimately rare, and that in cases where privilege and arrestability & wishes of fellow travelers are not taken into account the introduction of property

destruction into a demonstration is supremely boneheaded, shortsighted, and harmful to ostensible allies. Most of the time breaking shit is a bad idea--the reasons not to do it outnumber the reasons to do it. It's almost never a 'productive' action per se. That

should be acknowledged. But it's clear to me that while rare, these moments *do* exist.

Now, as I said above, there are propositions I certainly don't buy. There's a more abstract notion I've heard cited calling PD "moments of excess," where understood invisible lines are crossed in order to display their permeability. "Capitalist hegemony has colonized your mind, man, the bosses are no more invincible than this window." I think it's sort of silly and don't really buy this as a strong argument, but I understand what's being gestured at. I've encountered the argument that as a form of direct action that creates a cost, PD is a way of hurting objectionable business' bottom-line. This is sorta silly, obviously--most places have insurance that covers a broken window. (I've also seen this flipped, with "they have insurance!" used to justify PD).

Spectrum & iatee rightly note it's not just the windows. think about the effects on the people who work there, use the services, etc. This is certainly a worthwhile consideration, and as a guy who was once a banker when a small Austin black bloc threw a

brick threw my branch window, I've been on both sides of the glass. The bank is shut down during a stationary demo, which means a lot of thumb twiddling and hoping we'd get sent home early. When the glass breaks there are the moments of panic, the

subsiding of same as the bloc hauls ass and things calm down, and then everyone but the boss *does* go home early while the window gets replaced.

When I helped shut down a bank last fall I spent the day talking with the customers whose days we were busy affecting. There were certainly some that were upset their branch was closed (in fact, we'd spread out a dozen teams and closed every branch in the city), and annoyed that we were in their way. A surprisingly high number of the people I talked to, though--it certainly seemed like the large majority, though maybe there's some availability bias happening here--were ultimately supportive of our blockade once we laid out that we were fighting an eviction, and all the evictions. What I'm saying is that in my experience people are supportive of disrupting an institution that's carrying out injustice, even if it makes their day a pain in the ass.

This certainly isn't an argument for the institution of some flashmob insurrectionary terror squad--but as a tool of escalation, empowerment, press-grabbing, and activist self-defense, I think PD does have a limited and strategically-informed place.

wow weird formatting, sorry

is that legible to people, other than being nonsense

So, some thoughts--

I do think there's an argument to be made for targeted property destruction (or PD) as an autonomous tactic *in concert with* an ongoing campaign or set of direct actions. To get some things out of the way, though:

- Breaking a bank window does not hurt Jamie Dimon.
- Breaking a bank window at a protest with families, immigrants, and POC who might not be prepared for or in position to fight back against the attendant escalation in police action is stupid and wrong.
- There's a pretty unfortunate dichotomy--and I was even perpetuating it upthread some--between the day to day work of community organizing and ostensibly 'insurrectionary' actions that involve PD. The reality is that the individuals I've known to take to PD are also--once they take off the masks--some of the hardest working pavement pounders and movement builders I've ever met. They're not idiots looking for a fight.
- Breaking a bank window will not jump start The Revo.

All that said. It's my thinking that PD is a tactic that ought to be understood as a rarely used tool in a robust toolbox. Every tactic ought to be scrutinized for effectiveness and evaluated from the same starting point: these are all tools, the only question is which one is most useful to us right now.

Sometimes we need a rally. Sometimes another anodyne demonstration will echo nicely in the chamber of back patting liberal activism without making a sound outside of it. A lot of the criticisms leveled at PD for being ~merely symbolic~ attacks could be leveled equally at many other approaches. The important thing when gauging usefulness is context. I think PD is rarely useful, but that it can be.

How can PD "help," as such?

It's been my experience, and historically the experience of lots of organizers, that people can find direct action profoundly empowering. Rather than yelling (again) at empty buildings holding tattered (or too-slick) signs, deliberately putting oneself at risk to disrupt and impede business as usual. As I said upthread, I've seen ~normie bystanders~ who aren't deeply ensconed in some crustpunk culture inspired and galvanized by PD and other property-related disruptions. Some of these people have even gone on to involve themselves in movement building work. Some people are repelled by PD. Some are charged by it. I don't pretend to know the proportions, but to exclude from activation people who aren't engaged or moved by the kabuki of the permitted march by ruling out PD as always and everywhere unacceptable is to exclude people I've seen and worked with who've proven themselves valuable organizers. That's not something I'm willing to do.

Secondly it's worth noting that targeted PD is often the only time particular misbehaviors are even mentioned in the press. Large summits like the G8/20, or the NATO meetings, tend to be sponsored by major corporations & defense contractors. Attacks on their buildings get coverage, and the March Organizer's Press Release of Grievances is finally put to use and quoted from to provide context.

Further it's worth thinking about PD as an attempt to create space for more mainstream activity and more radical activity as well--even as a diversionary tactic. It was put to spectacular use to divert the police from ongoing lockdowns at the WTO meetings in Seattle & Cancun, where the lockdowns contributed to the delay & shutdown of those meetings, and in Miami where delegates from the global south cited the lockdowns as sources of courage in their opposition to the trade agreement. Organizers of Miami actions cited the bloc's flashmob-style targetted attacks as key to delaying the inevitable crackdown and the meeting itself. I think also of the G8 in Alberta, where a bloc infamously descended on and destroyed a police truck bearing a water cannon waiting to be aimed at the mass of protesters. When the backup arrived, it too was shortly incapacitated. This kept the mass demos going, as that particular mode of repression was prevented from being deployed.

It strikes me that ultimately the cases where PD can be inspiring, press-worthy, or tactically useful are ultimately rare, and that in cases where privilege and arrestability & wishes of fellow travelers are not taken into account the introduction of property destruction into a demonstration is supremely boneheaded, shortsighted, and harmful to ostensible allies. Most of the time breaking shit is a bad idea--the reasons not to do it outnumber the reasons to do it. It's almost never a 'productive' action per se. That should be acknowledged. But it's clear to me that while rare, these moments *do* exist.

Now, as I said above, there are propositions I certainly don't buy. There's a more abstract notion I've heard cited calling PD "moments of excess," where understood invisible lines are crossed in order to display their permeability. "Capitalist hegemony has colonized your mind, man, the bosses are no more invincible than this window." I think it's sort of silly and don't really buy this as a strong argument, but I understand what's being gestured at. I've encountered the argument that as a form of direct action that creates a cost, PD is a way of hurting objectionable business' bottom-line. This is sorta silly, obviously--most places have insurance that covers a broken window. (I've also seen this flipped, with "they have insurance!" used to justify PD).

Spectrum & iatee rightly note it's not just the windows. think about the effects on the people who work there, use the services, etc. This is certainly a worthwhile consideration, and as a guy who was once a banker when a small Austin black bloc threw a brick threw my branch window, I've been on both sides of the glass. The bank is shut down during a stationary demo, which means a lot of thumb twiddling and hoping we'd get sent home early. When the glass breaks there are the moments of panic, the subsiding of same as the bloc hauls ass and things calm down, and then everyone but the boss *does* go home early while the window gets replaced.

When I helped shut down a bank last fall I spent the day talking with the customers whose days we were busy affecting. There were certainly some that were upset their branch was closed (in fact, we'd spread out a dozen teams and closed every branch in the city), and annoyed that we were in their way. A surprsingly high number of the people I talked to, though--it certainly seemed like the large majority, though maybe there's some availability bias happening here--were ultimately supportive of our blockade once we laid out that we were fighting an eviction, and all the evictions. What I'm saying is that in my experience people are supportive of disrupting an institution that's carrying out injustice, even if it makes their day a pain in the ass.

This certainly isn't an argument for the institution of some flashmob insurrectionary terror squad--but as a tool of escalation, empowerment, press-grabbing, and activist self-defense, I think PD does have a limited and strategically-informed place.

(hopefully getting a mod to delete that other post)

Get a blog motherfucker

^^ easiest route for waterface to unendear himself to most of ilx

waterface you can eat my butt 24 hours a day at hoosteen.net

*guyfieri.jpg*

Wow you shut down a bank I guess you showed those banksters

after we shut down 12 banks that day, my friend got to keep his house. so yeah, we did.

That's cool! Very cool dude.

by making something about one person's house you allow the bank to win on the PR game

I think it's cool his friend got to keep his house.

I just disagree with the tactics. How many people's lives did you disrupt that day?

lol fuck you

being disruptive is not the waterface way

I am the Occupy of ILX.

#occupyilx

bootlicking is, xp

How many people's lives did you disrupt that day?

people=people who needed to use a bank. duuuuuuuuuuuuh

soccupy

by making something about one person's house you allow the bank to win on the PR game

― iatee, Monday, June 17, 2013 8:46 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this is why it's never solely about one person's house--it's about a movement to oppose evictions, and every piece of literature we produce, every interview we give, every time one of our homeowner's speaks at a rally or to the press, we work to emphasize that this is bigger than one person in one house. and i can tell you that no journalist in this city runs the story as 'bank does a nice thing.' it runs as 'activists win victory against bank.'

emphasize it sure but it's very clear that the tactics to get one bank branch to modify a mortgage aren't going to be effective on a macro scale because it's the difference between asking them to give up basically nothing and asking them to give up something substantial

Hoos your daddy now, Big Bank?

yes, you've cracked the nut of 'organizing a mass movement against foreclosures.' i don't know how to solve that problem either, but people better versed in the appropriate policy questions are doing a lot of thinking about it right now, and i'm listening.

xp

as in 'what is the pressure point to attack that will result in motion in the direction we're aiming'

well the only way to make radical political changes in society is the actual political process

there needs to be a platform for the political process to fall back upon otherwise there's no reason to change; protests form the foundation of that platform

I don't think bothering a bank until they decide x thousand dollars isn't worth this annoyance constitutes progress...it's kinda just a feel goody activism. it's not super far from someone being the lucky person to get a home makeover show on tv and it pulls at the same heartstrings. xp

there needs to be a platform for the political process to fall back upon otherwise there's no reason to change; protests form the foundation of that platform

ya I agree w/ this and I was the first ilxor at ows for the record. I don't think protesting is bad but it also can quickly become navel gazing when it refuses to engage w/ the political meatgrinder

activists should give the banks home makeovers instead and see what happens

I don't think bothering a bank until they decide x thousand dollars isn't worth this annoyance constitutes progress...it's kinda just a feel goody activism. it's not super far from someone being the lucky person to get a home makeover show on tv and it pulls at the same heartstrings. xp

― iatee, Monday, June 17, 2013 9:09 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

no, one win isn't the fuckin revolution. it's a step that builds momentum, gains membership for a movement, builds community power and solidarity. every time we win one, the number of people at our next local meeting has doubled. and we're not even really killing it the way they're killing it in minnesota, for example, where they in fact *are* winning policy changes based on the successful creation of a statewide network that mobilizes as a unit.

Most successful political movements have radical and non-radical wings. It basically boils down to "You can get with this [milder-mannered, "legit" group working through political process to achieve relatively reasonable goals] or you can get with that [more "militant" group who won't compromise so gladly and will cause you a lot more trouble]."

and it's way more fun to be on the far side.

drunk guy told me once "i'm mostly an anarchist bcz i think it's important that there are anarchists in the world"

"i don't know what i want, but i know how to get it..."

are you sure he didn't say "alcoholic"?

"You can get with this [milder-mannered, "legit" group working through political process to achieve relatively reasonable goals] or you can get with that [more "militant" group who won't compromise so gladly and will cause you a lot more trouble]."

― i don't even have an internet (Hurting 2), Monday, June 17, 2013 9:19 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

lol kudos didn't notice this

and it's way more fun to be on the far side.

broadly speaking I think there's an inverse correlation between how fun any given political activism is and how efficiently you're using your time