"After the state resorted to live ammunition in Gothenburg and Genoa, for instance, some argued that the movement should retire from the streets and desist from the great international mobilisations. Others insisted that this was wrong - and were proved right by New York, Brussels and Barcelona. Some on the Italian left, like the White Overalls movement, have toyed with the imagery of anarchism. Others, the supporters of the Black Bloc internationally, have done more than toy with such notions. The revolutionary left has replied that such strategies are elitist and exclusive, preclude a serious orientation on the organised working class, and open the door to state repression."
Given that the New York demos was organised, in the main, by anarchists after the "organised working class" (i.e. the trade union bureaucracy) bailed after September 11th, we can instantly dismiss most of his comments -- the "revolutionaries" who were proved right by New York were the anarchists who did most of the organising the SWP now, by implication, seeks credit for. As for the idea that anarchism "preclude[s] a serious orientation on the working class," that is just nonsense (as anyone familiar with anarchism knows). As New York, Brussels and Barcelona have confirmed, anarchists have been involved in both the Black Bloc and the labour movement, in all forms of protest.
Rees goes on to argue that the SWP (or the "revolutionaries"!) "were proved right" in New York "where the Black Bloc pushed their way through a steel workers' contingent and provoked the only police charge of the day." This provoked some puzzlement in anarchist circles, so a comrade sent an e-mail to Socialist Review to discover a source for this allegation. He received a reply from John Rees who stated that the "source is my personal experience: I was on the demonstration with the steelworkers when this happened and argued with the Block Bloc to stop what they were doing. They didn't and the police used the provocation to mount the only charge of the day."
This simply does not agree with the various reports I saw on indymedia and infoshop.org. One report by Warcry to infoshop.org (February 2nd) stated that a "peacefully assembled Black Bloc was viciously attacked by the police . . . while protesters were simply just standing there waiting to march to the Waldorf . . . NYPD rushed into a peacefully assembled crowd - specifically the Black Bloc, and started swinging their riot batons and snatching people. The police caused a little bit of a stampede." The report was entitled "Black Bloc VICIOUSLY ATTACKED by NYPD!!" Another report ("Police repeatedly attack peaceful AWIP marchers during WEF protests") posted the same day tells the same story about the same event. This report notes, significantly, "both RTS and Black Bloc participants had agreed before today's action that their affinity group participants would treat the AWIP march as a 'green' action -- that is, a peaceful, legally permitted street march in which no autonomous civil disobedience was planned." No mention of Black Bloc provocation. Indeed it states that "Black Bloc participants reportedly responded defensively, linking arms and moving to press police lines back so marchers could continue with the permitted action."
All this is at odds with Rees's account. Moreover, his story does not tally with the accounts of other eyewitnesses. One anarchist stated his opinion strongly: "Having been there, I have no idea what the hell they are talking about. The only police charge that day was sometime after the Reclaim the Streets parade (which included the ACC, NEFAC, and other folks clad in black) joined with the AWIP rally. While folks were milling about, the cops decided to attack the folks who brought shields. That's about all that happened." His conclusion? "Sounds like Socialist Review is talking trash."
Another stated that "the big trade unions have been lying low since 9-11. Even if there had been a steelworker contingent, the black bloc didn't push their way through anything, as they were attacked by the police at the beginning of the march. They were just standing around near Central Park, with a few holding shields. I can verify this as the D.C. anarchist contingent witnessed this." He pointed out, unlike Rees, that "the NYC anti-WEF protests were organised primarily by anarchists. It was a coalition effort as usual, but the anarchists played a bigger organising role than usual."
Anarchist David Graeber, one of the main organisers, had this to say:
"I was right there when the police charged in New York. There was no steelworker's contingent anyone had heard of; the unions were in fact denied a permit for a march they wished to conduct two days before ours and held a rally instead; few if any attended our (Saturday) march, at least as unionists. The police had bottled people up in the staging area and it was taking forever to be allowed onto the (permitted) route. The Bloc was just hanging around; we had just got through distributing some large plexiglass banners that could also be used for protection (another small contingent had actual shields) and the police charged - ploughing through about twenty yards of milling protestors to get to where the bloc was. There was no provocation of any kind that I know of - though the police later made some up - three different ones in three different statements. One was that the Bloc had tried to attack the police by 'throwing their shields' at them - which aside from being inherently bizarre, was clearly physically impossible as the Bloc was nowhere near the police when they charged. Another was that the cops had intelligence that the Bloc was going to attack a nearby hotel. A third was that a helicopter observed us gathering rocks to throw - again, utterly impossible since we were standing on a lawn with no rocks whatever to be found anywhere. It would be hard to imagine more obvious ex-post-facto pretexts for a simple premeditated assault. So the SWP people appear to be, as usual, simply lying."
The UK's Socialist Worker did not mention any police attacks, nor did the (expelled) US version. However, Rees's account did not correlate with the Canadian Socialist Worker which stated that while "the cops tried to provoke the crowd on several occasions," people "were disciplined and organised, and there were few arrests." Absolutely no mention of Black Bloc provocation.
That Rees is trying to demonise anarchists and anarchism is clear. We have the usual approach of equating anarchism with the Black Bloc and denying our other roles in the movement (as demo organisers and as participants of non-Black Bloc sections, such as labour ones). Nor is it mentioned that the Black Bloc, as the red flags seen in Genoa show, is hardly exclusively anarchist. However, it is easier for the SWP to present their politics in a good light by simplifying reality to their members. However, it is hardly convincing or honest -- particularly when there is much evidence against the claims!
A few final comments. To the claim that "such strategies are elitist and exclusive," I can let a Black Bloc member reply: "This is an absurd distortion. The point of being an elite is that you try and exercise power over other people. The point about the black blocis that people simply want the autonomy to be able to express their anger as they see fit. There is nothing elitist in that . . . In the case of the Leninist party organisations that criticise . . . the black bloc for this reason, their motives are pretty clear -- the mode of organisation they favour is 'democratic centralism' -- where everyone would be subjected to some huge democratic process of deciding what would and wouldn't be allowed on demos, a decision, when made by our 'representatives' would then be enforced. How that really would be elitist." (On Fire, p. 46)
Far from weakening the movement, the Black Bloc has been a source of inspiration to many, showing that it is possible to fight back. Moreover, in North America those anarchists involved in the Black Bloc have made links with other protestors, building good will by their commitment, self-discipline and willingness to communicate and co-operate with their fellow protestors as equals. And as Quebec showed, it does not "preclude a serious orientation on the organised working class."
While not all anarchists agree totally with all aspects of the Black Bloc tactic (and I am one), it deserves better than Rees's superficial dismissal. He is simply building on (and contributing to) the general ignorance of this tactic which exists in Britain in order to present an argument which, as proven above, has little empirical support. If anything, it is contradicted by the increase in size of the protests over the years (J18, Prague, Nice, Genoa, Brussels, Barcelona...)
Finally, there is the claim that it can "open the door to state repression." Perhaps it is churlish to note that "state repression" can only be avoided by doing exactly what the state wants, when it wants ("They say jump, you say 'how high?'") but it is essential. Any form of effective direct action, as history shows, will "open the door to state repression." As is well known, in Seattle the police attacked the non-violent blockaders long before the Black Bloc did anything. If the Seattle protestors had embraced the SWP's ideas, they would have simply marched where the police let them and shouted themselves hoarse inside police pens as the WTO got on with business as usual. What inspiring tactics for the movement! And as New York shows, even this does not guarantee it will avoid state repression. Ironically, Rees is confirming the argument of SchNEWS (in Monopolise Resistance?) that "all their [the SWP's] activities are geared towards making our movement less confrontational and less effective."
However, his comments have a deeper significance. Genoa was a pre-planned campaign of state terrorism. The Black Bloc did not "open" any doors and by blaming it he has effectively let the state off the hook. He is simply repeating the liberal line that the state is neutral and will only act when protestors break the law, so putting the onus of blame onto the activists' heads. And Rees is meant to be a revolutionary...
One last point. The anarchists who use the Black Bloc tactic adjust their actions to the demonstrations they are part of. This has been proven time and time again, particularly in North America. This is its greatest strength. As such, Rees's comment simply suggests his ignorance of the matter. Rather than start a dialogue with his fellow activists as part of a process to develop tactics, he simply dismisses their experience, ideas and activities. That is true elitism. It shows that for the SWP "communication" is distinctly one way.
Would the current "anti-capitalist" demonstrations have grown so impressively if it had not been for those willing to express their anger at the system directly? Where would it be without those willing to say "Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me?" whether it is the Black Bloc or the non-violent blockaders? Would it be the movement it is now if it had followed SWP approved tactics to avoid "state repression"? Would it exist at all? The answers to those questions show the weakness of Rees's arguments.