Linguistic Analysis of The Black Bloc Communique

by Lyn Gerry <lyn@wilshire.net> 6:31pm Sat Dec 4 '99

Refutation of the claims that the N30 Black Bloc Communique is "proof" that they are agents provacateurs.

In an article posted to the Indymedia website, Ken McCarthy of Brasscheck asserted that the language employed in the above-mentioned communique proves that it is the work of agents provocateurs. Below, I have made an analysis of the communique to refute that assertion. I have done this in order to further a legitimate debate over tactics of resistance. Cointelpro type activity is alive and well in the US today, and one of its most pernicious features has been the tendency to jump to conclusions when one merely disagrees with a person or group. (This is not to say that cointelpro activities did not occur, however. Just that to dismiss the Black Bloc as provocateurs is to invalidate an entire tactical approach. We can't afford such an arbitrary approach. The opposition is playing hardball, and it will only get harder the more we reach out, the more successful and strong we become. The attempt will be made to split off parts of the movement from each other, isolate the "radicals" and co-opt the more "moderate" elements. This was done to great effect with the civil rights movement in the 60's, for example.

I am extremely disturbed at the widespread denunciations as well as the misunderstanding of anarchism and its various flavors that have been portrayed here - groups such as Food Not Bombs, the IWW, Earth First, most of the Free Radio movement - to name a few - are all essentially anarchist groups, or groups that contain a preponderance of anarchists and function by anarchist principles of direct democracy and consensus desicion making. Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, admired by many who have particpated, are anarchists also. The N30 action's success cannot be separated from the presence of the anarchist community at all levels of particpation. The community has been engaged in, and will no doubt continue to engage in, heated debate about the efficacy or propriety of various tactics of in the struggle against global capital.

What disturbs me is hearing ringing and arrogant denunciations against anarchists, such as that which was made by Democracy Now co-host Juan Gonzalez on the broadcast December 1

love and appreciation to all who took part in the fight to stop the WTO (whatever your flavor),

Lyn

---------------------------------------

> Report from one section of the anarchist black bloc during Seattle's N30

If the authorities had written this, they would not have sent it from "one section" - they would have made it a proclamation from the whole group, a la some Maoist 60's style group. They would not even grasp the concept of a group that functions by free association, where members retain their rights as individuals within the group

>
> On November 30, several groups of individuals in black bloc
> attacked various corporate targets in downtown Seattle. Among
> them were (to name just a few):

Same on this line above - an anarchist wrote this

> --Fidelity Investment (major investor in Occidental Petroleum, the
> bane of the U'wa tribe in Columbia) --Bank of America, US Bancorp,
> Key Bank and Washington Mutual Bank (financial institutions key in
> the expansion of corporate repression) --Old Navy, Banana Republic
> and the GAP (as Fisher family businesses, rapers of Northwest
> forest lands and sweatshop laborers) --NikeTown and Levi's (whose
> overpriced products are made in sweatshops) --McDonald's
> (slave-wage fast-food peddlers responsible for destruction of
> tropical rainforests for grazing land and slaughter of animals)
> --Starbucks (peddlers of an addictive substance whose products are
> harvested at below-poverty wages by farmers who are forced to
> destroy their own forests in the process) --Warner Bros. (media
> monopolists) --Planet Hollywood (for being Planet Hollywood)

Justification for the targets is reasoned and appropriate; if it were a cointel op the purpose would be to impress the readers with the meaningless savagery of the group, not with their compassion for exploited and oppressed workers and environmental destructions. These corporate entities would have been denounced for vague reasons loaded with jargon (imperialist pawns etc.)

>
> This activity lasted for over 5 hours and involved the breaking
> of storefront windows and doors and defacing of facades.
> Slingshots, newspaper boxes, sledge hammers, mallets, crowbars and
> nail-pullers were used to strategically destroy corporate property
> and gain access (one of the three targeted Starbucks and Niketown
> were looted). Eggs filled with glass etching solution,
> paint-balls and spray-paint were also used.
>
> The black bloc was a loosely organized cluster of affinity groups
> and individuals who roamed around downtown, pulled this way by a
> vulnerable and significant storefront and that way by the sight of
> a police formation. Unlike the vast majority of activists who
> were pepper-sprayed, tear-gassed and shot at with rubber bullets
> on several occasions, most of our section of the black bloc
> escaped serious injury by remaining constantly in motion and
> avoiding engagement with the police. We buddied up, kept tight and
> watched each others' backs. Those attacked by federal thugs were
> un-arrested by quick-thinking and organized members of the black bloc.
> The sense of solidarity was awe-inspiring.

Too much love in this statement for a fed

>
> THE PEACE POLICE
>
> Unfortunately, the presence and persistence of "peace police" was
> quite disturbing. On at least 6 separate occasions, so-called
> "non-violent" activists physically attacked individuals who
> targeted corporate property. Some even went so far as to stand in
> front of the Niketown super store and tackle and shove the black
> bloc away. Indeed, such self-described "peace-keepers" posed a
> much greater threat to individuals in the black bloc than the
> notoriously violent uniformed "peace-keepers" sanctioned by the
> state (undercover officers have even used the cover of the
> activist peace- keepers to ambush those who engage in corporate
> property destruction).
>
> RESPONSE TO THE BLACK BLOC
>
> Response to the black bloc has highlighted some of the
> contradictions and internal oppressions of the "nonviolent
> activist" community. Aside from the obvious hypocrisy of those
> who engaged in violence against black-clad and masked people (many
> of whom were harassed despite the fact that they never engaged in
> property destruction), there is the racism of privileged activists
> who can afford to ignore the violence perpetrated against the bulk
> of society and the natural world in the name of private property
> rights. Window-smashing has engaged and inspired many of the most
> oppressed members of Seattle's community more than any giant
> puppets or sea turtle costumes ever could (not to disparage the
> effectiveness of those tools in other communities).
>
> TEN MYTHS ABOUT THE BLACK BLOC
>
> Here's a little something to dispel the myths that have been circulating
> about the N30 black bloc:
>
> 1. "They are all a bunch of Eugene anarchists." While a few may
> be anarchists from Eugene, we hail from all over the United
> States, including Seattle. In any case, most of us are familiar
> with local issues in Seattle (for instance, the recent occupation
> of downtown by some of the most nefarious of multinational
> retailers).
>
> 2. "They are all followers of John Zerzan." A lot of rumors have
> been circulating that we are followers of John Zerzan, an
> anarcho-primitivist author from Eugene who advocates property
> destruction. While some of us may appreciate his writings and
> analyses, he is in no sense our leader, directly, indirectly,
> philisophocally or otherwize.

The feds would have no reason to not implicate John Zerzan. The rejection of "leadership" and the nuances of the concept of leadership expressed here were written by an anarchist. If a fed could understand these concepts well enough to write this, he'd probably defect. Someone deeply imbued in authoritarianism and hierarchy such as a member of any police force would not have this subtlety

> 3. "The mass public squat is the headquarters of the anarchists
> who destroyed property on November 30th." In reality, most of the
> people in the "Autonomous Zone" squat are residents of Seattle who
> have spent most of their time since its opening on the 28th in the
> squat. While they may know of one-another, the two groups are not
> co-extensive and in no case could the squat be considered the
> headquarters of people who destroyed property.

The feds would have no reason to try to shield the squatters, as these comrades are doing - knowing the squatters are vunerable - this is love here, not cointelpro disinformation

>
> 4. "They escalated situations on the 30th, leading to the
> tear-gassing of passive, non-violent protesters." To answer this,
> we need only note that tear-gassing, pepper-spraying and the
> shooting of rubber bullets all began before the black blocs (as
> far as we know) started engaging in property

> destruction. In addition, we must resist the tendency to
> establish a causal relationship between police repression and
> protest in any form, whether it involved property destruction or
> not. The police are charged with protecting the interests of the
> wealthy few and the blame for the violence cannot be placed upon
> those who protest those interests.
>
> 5. Conversely: "They acted in response to the police
> repression." While this might be a more positive representation
> of the black bloc, it is nevertheless false. We refuse to be
> misconstrued as a purely reactionary force. While the logic of
> the black bloc may not make sense to some, it is in any case a
> pro-active logic.

What purpose would these two preceding paragraphs with their careful explanation serve in a disinfo piece. The purpose of a disinfo piece would be to scare the general public or to sow seeds of dissension among anti-WTO forces. While the communique addresses a basic conflict in tactics, and perhaps ideology as well, the focus is ultimately turned back to state violence. The writers feel aggrieved, but hope by their statement to create understanding rather than escalate conflict.

>
> 6. "They are a
bunch of angry adolescent boys." Aside from the
> fact that it belies a disturbing ageism and sexism, it is false.
> Property destruction is not merely macho rabble-rousing or
> testosterone-laden angst release. Nor is
it displaced and
> reactionary anger. It is strategically and specifically targeted > direct action against corporate interests.
>
> 7. "They just want to fight." This is pretty absurd, and it
> conveniently ignores the eagerness of "peace police" to fight us.
> Of all the groups engaging in direct action, the black bloc was
> perhaps the least interested in engaging the authorities and we
> certainly had no interest in fighting with other anti-WTO
> activists (despite some rather strong disagreements over tactics).
>
> 8. "They are a chaotic, disorganized and opportunistic mob."
> While many of us could surely spend days arguing over what
> "chaotic" means, we were certainly not disorganized. The
> organization may have been fluid and dynamic, but it was tight.
> As for the charge of opportunism, it would be hard

Feds would not have even added a paragraph like this. Only anarchists, who argue endlessly among ourselves about forming organizations would have even responded or been sensitive to the issue of organization. This paragraph will bring at least a rueful smile to readers in anarchist movements

> to imagine who of the thousands in attendance _didn't_ take
> advantage of the opportunity created in Seattle to advance their
> agenda. The question becomes, then, whether or not we helped
> create that opportunity and most of us certainly did (which leads
> us to the next myth):
>
> 9. "They don't know the issues" or "they aren't activists who've
> been working on this." While we may not be professional
> activists, we've all been working on this convergence in Seattle
> for months. Some of us did work in our home-towns and others came
> to Seattle months in advance to work on it. To be sure, we were
> responsible for many hundreds of people who came out on the
> streets on the 30th, only a very small minority of which had
> anything to do with the black bloc. Most of us have been studying
> the effects of the global economy, genetic engineering, resource
> extraction, transportation, labor practices, elimination of
> indigenous autonomy, animal rights and human rights and we've been
> doing activism on these issues for many years. We are neither
> ill-informed nor unexperienced.
>
> 10. "Masked anarchists are anti-democratic and secretive because
> they hide their identities." Let's face it (with or without a
> mask)--we aren't living in a democracy right now. If this week
> has not made it plain enough, let us remind you--we are living in
> a police state. People tell us that if we really think that we're
> right, we wouldn't be hiding behind masks. "The truth will
> prevail" is the assertion. While this is a fine and noble goal,
> it does not jive with the present reality. Those who pose the
> greatest threat to the interests of Capital and State will be
> persecuted. Some pacifists would have us accept this persecution
> gleefully. Others would tell us that it is a worthy sacrifice.
> We are not so morose. Nor do we feel we have the privilege to
> accept persecution as a sacrifice: persecution to us is a daily
> inevitability and we treasure our few freedoms. To accept
> incarceration as a form of flattery betrays a large amount of
> "first world" privilege. We feel that an attack on private
> property is necessary if we are to rebuild a world which is
> useful, healthful and joyful for everyone. And this despite the
> fact that hypertrophied private property rights in this country
> translate into felony charges for any property destruction over
> $250.

Here they pinned one of the core issues in the dispute over the do CD, get arrested - model. Again, part of an ongoing debate within the activist community - again, too subtle and too much context for disinfo

>
> MOTIVATIONS OF THE BLACK BLOC
>
> The primary purpose of this communique is to diffuse some of the
> aura of mystery that surrounds the black bloc and make some of its
> motivations more transparent, since our masks cannot be.
>
> ON THE VIOLENCE OF PROPERTY
>
> We contend that property destruction is not a violent activity
> unless it destroys lives or causes pain in the process. By this
> definition, private property--especially corporate private
> property--is itself infinitely more violent than any action taken
> against it. Private property should be distinguished from personal
> property. The latter is based upon use while the former is based upon
> trade. The premise of personal property is that each of us has what
> s/he needs. The premise of private property is that each of us has
> something that someone else needs or wants. In a society based on
> private property rights, those who are able to accrue more of what
> others need or want have greater power. By extension, they wield
> greater control over what others perceive as needs and desires, usually
> in the interest of increasing profit to themselves. Advocates of "free
> trade" would like to see this process to its logical conclusion: a
> network of a few industry monopolists with ultimate control over the
> lives of the everyone else. Advocates of "fair trade" would like to see
> this process mitigated by government regulations meant to superficially
> impose basic humanitarian standards. As anarchists, we despise both
> positions. Private property--and capitalism, by extension--is
> intrinsicly violent and repressive and cannot be reformed or mitigated.
> Whether the power of everyone is concentrated into the hands of a few
> corporate heads or diverted into a regulatory apparatus charged with
> mitigating the disasters of the latter, no one can be as free or as
> powerful as they could be in a non-hierarchical society. When we smash

> a window, we aim to destroy the thin veneer of legitimacy that surrounds
> private property rights. At the same time, we exorcize that set of
> violent and destructive social relationships which has been imbued in
> almost everything around us. By "destroying" private property, we
> convert its limited exchange value into an expanded use value. A
> storefront window becomes a vent to let some fresh air into the
> oppressive atmosphere of a retail outlet (at least until the police
> decide to tear-gas a nearby road blockade). A newspaper box becomes a
> tool for creating such vents or a small blockade for the reclamation of
> public space or an object to improve one's vantage point by standing on
> it. A dumpster becomes an obstruction to a phalanx of rioting cops and
> a source of heat and light. A building facade becomes a message board
> to record brainstorm ideas for a better world. After N30, many people
> will never see a shop window or a hammer the same way again. The
> potential uses of an entire cityscape have increased a thousand-fold.
> The number of broken windows pales in comparison to the number
broken
> spells--spells cast by a corporate hegemony to lull us into
> forgetfulness of all the violence committed in the name of private
> property rights and of all the potential of a society without them.
> Broken windows can be boarded up (with yet more waste of our forests)
> and eventually replaced, but the shattering of assumptions will
> hopefully persist for some time to come.

Feds would have no interest in drawing the very important distinction made above - it would be in the interest of the state to equate destruction to property with violence toward persons. The NikeTown action in Eugene last year sparked a vigorous debate withing the activist community there - a great panel discussion was aired on cable access and rebroadcast on Free Radio Cascadia - a tape of that fascinating broadcast, "Cascadia Alive: Nonviolence, property destruction and the tactics of resistance" is available in the archives of the A-Infos Radio Project in mp3

ftp://penguin.josephson.com/radio2/1111cascadia.mp3

> > Against Capital and State, > > the ACME Collective > > "Peasant Revolt!" --------------------- Disclaimer: these > observations and analyses represent only those of the ACME > Collective and should not be construed to be representative of the > rest of the black bloc on N30 or anyone else who engaged in riot > or property destruction that day.

Again, careful not engage in an authoritarian act of pretending to speak for others without their consent.

End of linguistic analysis

From: Independent Media Center
http://www.indymedia.org