Germany: G8

G8 2007 Ahead

 
From June 6th to 8th the "representatives" of eight of the most powerful states from the global north are planning to meet in Heiligendamm near Rostock in Germany. Without any legitimacy to decide about global politics they will coordinate their decisions and therefore stand for the continuation of the state the world which for the majority means hunger, misery, war, and exlusion.

Despite police repression and political propaganda, the summit will face one of the biggest mobilisations ever to shut down the G8.

The "hot phase" of the protest started at the ASEM summit in Hamburg last weekend ( 1 | 2 ), with a Critical Mass and a massive demonstration ( Reports 1 | 2 | 3 | Timeline | Pictures 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 (nl) | 5 (indybay) | 6 ). Reports speak of up to 100 arrests but most people are released again allready. Another demonstration is now announced for tuesday night and a "moving assembly" under the slogan Beat Capitalism for wednesday afternoon.

Information Resources: Indymedia Germany will report bilingual: IMC Germany (en) | IMC Germany (de) | G8 TV - daily video stream from the G8 | flashradio - daily podcast (en) | IMC UK Topic G8 2007

Websites: dissentnetwork | Dissent! UK | Interventionist Left | all for all | antig8.tk | Gipfelsoli | people global action | heiligendamm2007.de | Alternative Summit | Camps

Read more for an overview about mobilisation, infopoints, protest agenda etc...

add a comment on this article

video-projection in Hamburg last night

mary 31.May.2007 04:35

tv-tower in Hamburg last night
tv-tower in Hamburg last night

There exist a video of the single-man action underlined with the voices of the arresting policeman:
 http://de.indymedia.org/2007/05/179480.shtml

Where is the political assessment of this current reality?

Petros Evdokas, petros@cyprus-org.net 31.May.2007 23:05


Our Feature article above states that:
"the summit will face one of the biggest mobilisations ever to shut down the G8."

What does indymedia know about the organization and preparations of the mobilization that justifies this statement? If we do, shouldn't we be telling all that to our readers, in addition to what sectors of the progressive and radical community are involved in this campaign, what tactics and events are being planned for and BY WHOM?

Reporting to a globe-wide readership of activists about an event that IndyMedia seems to think is important, should not be left up to generalizations. Is there any participation from the large mass-based progressive organizations in addition to the autonomist/ anarcho-collectivist / anarcho-individualist/ black-bloc tendencies? Is there an alliance with actual bridges between the sections of the Movement? What is the state of that alliance or coalition at the present? Is it working? Is it fragile? What are the points of unity holding it together?

Political reporting and analysis is something different than just "issuing calls" - the "calls" of course, must be communicated as well, but to remain at the level of slogans is to cultivate a shallow Movement without roots, existing only at the level of slogans.


How is success measured? In the article above there is mention of "up to 100 arrests" - is this how we measure the strength or depth of a mobilization? Are there other criteria that should be mentioned or shared here?

This "thing" of just stringing together links and calling it an article might be a valid way to do radical/progressive journalisn in the service of the Movement, to some people (and it certainly seems to be accepted by most indymedia writers as "the norm") but shouldn't we thinking in terms of "what are we doing?" and "what for?". Meaning, "what purpose does it serve to publish this in this form?" It's certainly a quick and easy thing to do - assemble some links in a sentence - but is it serving the mission of IndyMedia? Is it serving the mobilization of intelligent, loving, sensuous and community minded individuals and organizations toward a self-organised effort to attain Liberation? And where are the politics?

Petros Evdokas
____________




but we're not winning.

tired of activism. 01.Jun.2007 06:48

The problem is that we're not winning, and our movements seriously need to acknowledge this.

The compositon of the summit resistance movement has changed drastically in the last seven or eight years, for a multitude of reasons, many of which vary by region. But even in Europe so much energy has dissipated over the years. In the U.S. there is no summit resistance movement left worth speaking of (and there is of course the utterly ineffective and incompetant anti-war movement.) Instead of obsessing over a dying movement and utilizing slogans popularized nearly a decade ago at a completely different moment in class composition and working class power, it might be useful to realistically acknowledge where we are. We're losing in Europe and the U.S. While some struggles in the South have proven to be successful and brilliant, many of us in the North can't claim much success recently.

So please, for the love of god, stop repeating the same old stale slogans and protests, and please stop obsessing over your 'temporary autonomous zones' and moments of 'liberation' and start assessing reality. Realizing you can live a moment of cooperation with minimal capitalist relations is not that exciting when it realistically means some academics, with a few hundred anarchists and autonomist marxists mistaking their 'theoretical innovations' for movements with power.

We're not winning. That seems a lot more important to acknowledge at this point if we ever want to.

Riotious thugs

Disgusted 02.Jun.2007 23:24







Throw the lot of them in Jail!

Workingclass heroes!

@ 03.Jun.2007 00:24

These rioters are heroes. They deserve our deepest respect. Keep it going, people. We wont rest until Bush and the rest of these fuckers have to flee for their life!

You've got to be joking...

Disgusted 03.Jun.2007 02:56



O.K. lets take a poll then shall we, Which of the following definitions would you say best describes the individual pictured above:

(A) Hero: A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life

(B) Thug: An aggressive and violent young criminal

(Definitions from:  http://www.thefreedictionary.com, Photo from Anon. at the G8 "festivities" )

Workingclass heroes

@ 03.Jun.2007 08:15

I would have to choose alternative "a". And so would prolly most people on this site. They are heroes and should be treated as such. Destroy capitalism!

HERO!

twinkle 03.Jun.2007 08:43

If I had to choose between hero and thug, I definitely say Hero. I think this definition fits quite accurately:
(A) Hero: A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life.

Heroic thugs

Count 03.Jun.2007 18:57

It seems to me they fit both definitions perfectly. They are brave, they're cause is noble (even if u disagree with their methods), but they are violent and agressive, the majority are young, and they are criminal.

capitalism stole my virginity

@ 03.Jun.2007 20:38

They are criminal in the same way that capitalism makes us all criminals.Fine by us, we are rather criminals than slaves!

We? Winning?

Sure Pale Face 04.Jun.2007 05:03

Who the hell is we? These pasty faced children tossing rocks? You are not "we". Winning? You think the battle is at some G8 summit? You think that is where the front is? You guys are so full of shit. Interesting the graffiti featured is in English and the demo is in Germany? You are amateur revolutionaries. You are what I call World Bank Warriors. I am so tired of this crap. Patting each other on the backs and calling yourselves heros? Because you broke a window? You think you are making a difference? What at risk barrio, community, nation, or revolution did you advance? Read some history. Google Baader Meinhof? You think your rock tossing asses make any impact in Germany?

Your a bunch of less than committed, unorganized, window breaking dilettantes:

dilettante \DIL-uh-tont; dil-uh-TONT; dil-uh-TON-tee; -TANT; -TAN-tee\, noun:
1. An amateur or dabbler; especially, one who follows an art or a branch of knowledge sporadically, superficially, or for amusement only.
2. An admirer or lover of the fine arts.

adjective:
1. Of or characteristic of a dilettante; amateurish.

Pretentious, taking the movement backwards. Where progressives should be mobilizing behind movements like that of Evo Morales of Bolivia or even Hugo Chavez to put real power at bay, you want to take center stage?

Not that Chavez is the shining example but at least what he does makes a difference on the world scale.

You are like someone pretending to be a martial artist that has never in a fight. I mean really. Who are you?

I see anarchists who buy tickets to travel to Germany and break windows who do not support actions by people of color in their own communities. That is what I see. I see a bunch of people who have made petty vandalism a lifestyle.

Better than nothing but still almost nothing.

Working Class Heros?

Construction worker 04.Jun.2007 18:49

1) What makes them working class heros?
2) Why do these heros destroy peoples cars? Not luxury autos mind you but Fords and Volkswagons.

I was at a break the bank protest where a groups white college students who couldn't win a fight with an ant picked up some working class people's cars and damaged them, placed them in the middle of the street, and ran off laughing. What justifies this?
These cars probably belonged to maintenance workers and resteraunt workers.

I totally agree with the poster above. We are not winning. We aren't even treading water. You are really boring. Do you ever watch the coverage of this shit? "A group of lawless anarchists attacked the g8 summit injuring 400 police". That is the headline. You think the average working person knows what this means? If the point fails to get across? You have done nothing.

I will say this. These are the few demos where anarchists at least don't hide behind others to act childish. Soooooooo......

Hey if you are willing to get the crap beat out of you, go to jail, and smell like urine so you can burn some working persons car? Well ok? Hooray for the hero? I thought you guys wanted results. I figured out a long time ago, you just want to fuck shit up and that you had little interest in changing the world.

Thugs? Are to be feared

Go home 04.Jun.2007 19:18

You aren't thugs, you wouldn't last 5 minutes with real thugs. You aren't to be feared. You don't wield power. No one cares.

You aren't heros, you aren't thugs, you are posers.

You can't challenge the G8. Look at the leaders the individual nations have chosen. Sarkozy? Merkel? Bush? Blair? Putin? The revolution starts at home. If the people elect imperialists, your appearance at the g8 is just decrying the fact. The people of Germany are watching from the sidelines having just elected Merkel a center right technocrat of industry. They aren't with you.

We don't need another hero.....

We just need to know the way home 04.Jun.2007 19:19

Thunderdome

Forward he cried from the rear of the tribe

yawn 04.Jun.2007 19:21

I see people throwing rocks from within a crowd.

Dropping Knowledge

g8 05.Jun.2007 22:05

Hi folks - Wanted to let you know about a site with lots of alternative, copyleft coverage of G8 in Rostock/Heiligendamm.

 http://www.droppingknowledge.org/g8

Tons of edited films, photos and a blog - updated several times a day. Please consider posting a link on your site.

Where is the love?

@ 07.Jun.2007 22:34

Wow, alot of hate. A few comments:
"Who the hell is we? These pasty faced children tossing rocks? You are not "we"."

"We", as in the dispossesed, the proletariat, the material communist movement against capital. Why are you confused?

"Winning? You think the battle is at some G8 summit? You think that is where the front is?"

The battle? The front? The classwar is not some fucking war (despite its name). Why couldnt rebellion towards the G8 people be one of the places where we fight?

" You think you are making a difference? What at risk barrio, community, nation, or revolution did you advance?"

If you cant understand the importance of rebellion, you know nothing about social struggle. What nation did we advance? No nation because the workingclass has no nation.

"Google Baader Meinhof?"

It has nothing to do with Baader Meinhof. Maybe you should google them instead?

"Pretentious, taking the movement backwards. Where progressives should be mobilizing behind movements like that of Evo Morales of Bolivia or even Hugo Chavez to put real power at bay, you want to take center stage?"

Yeah cuz only them brownies have a right to fight for communism. Us rich folks should just support them brownies.

Setting the movmenet back? If anyone is setting "the movement" back it`s Hugo fucking Chaves. All the way back to 1910 or something. Statesocialism, thats so the last century. Get with it, man!

"Not that Chavez is the shining example but at least what he does makes a difference on the world scale. "

On a world scale? How so? By becoming buddies with the iranian dictator and so on? Socialism was tried a century ago as a way of making capitalism more pleasant for workers. Guess what, it failed. Wake up and smell the coffee!The problem with capitalism isn not managment, nor is it a problem of who the profits go to. In short; socialism will not solve the problem of capitalism. Which all you lefties will be painfully aware (once again!) soon.

"I see anarchists who buy tickets to travel to Germany and break windows who do not support actions by people of color in their own communities. That is what I see. I see a bunch of people who have made petty vandalism a lifestyle."

And i see a guy talking out of his ass.

"I was at a break the bank protest where a groups white college students who couldn't win a fight with an ant picked up some working class people's cars and damaged them, placed them in the middle of the street, and ran off laughing. What justifies this?
These cars probably belonged to maintenance workers and resteraunt workers."

Uhm, maybe that they were in the middle of a streetbattle with the fucking cops and needed barricades? And how the fuck do you know they were collegekids?

"Do you ever watch the coverage of this shit? "A group of lawless anarchists attacked the g8 summit injuring 400 police". That is the headline. You think the average working person knows what this means? If the point fails to get across? You have done nothing."

What you liberals and managers of revolt never understands is that what happens on the ground is more important sending sdome fucking packaged, turned down message "to the workers"

"Hey if you are willing to get the crap beat out of you, go to jail, and smell like urine so you can burn some working persons car? Well ok? Hooray for the hero? I thought you guys wanted results. I figured out a long time ago, you just want to fuck shit up and that you had little interest in changing the world."

There is no contradiction to "changing the world" and "shitting shit up". If you dont get that, then im sorry but you need to go home and stop pretending like you are a revolutionary intressting in changing the world. And we dont smell like urine, dickhead.

"You can't challenge the G8. Look at the leaders the individual nations have chosen. Sarkozy? Merkel? Bush? Blair? Putin? The revolution starts at home. If the people elect imperialists, your appearance at the g8 is just decrying the fact. The people of Germany are watching from the sidelines having just elected Merkel a center right technocrat of industry. They aren't with you."

The revolution starts everywhere. Yeah, those people were elected, but that doesnt mean "the people" arent with us (we ARE the fucking "people").

"You aren't heros, you aren't thugs, you are posers."

We are revolutionaries, unlike you spineless liberals.

"We dont need another hero..."

We ALL need to become heroes.





We are not winning

@realthug lol 08.Jun.2007 05:06

It is interesting the poster above never refutes the most important point.

"We are not winning".

We are being made fun of being sprayed with water on John Stewart.

It would be one thing if these tactics delivered victory. Winning territory. Large areas of land and people liberated. Screaming at leaders elected by THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE in these evil empires begs the question. Are the majority of the oppressed people in the world in France? The USA? Japan? Great Brtain? Germany? Canada? Italy? Russia?

Nope and what a coincidence these people who are not oppressed elect leaders to represent their continued oppression of the world. Isn't it time for you lazy bastards to start taking it to your own neighborhoods and forcing change in your own backyards?

The poster above say's: "we are the fucking people".

Ok you are homosapien. WOW. You are also not representative of the majority of your people. So maybe you should go throw rocks at your parents and the next door neighbor. Maybe start the discussion? No that's toooo boring.

Some people are busy really actually fighting a class war. You admit that what you are doing is not war.

Lead, Follow, but get the fuck out of the way. Because you are just half time entertainment.

The clowns are much more fun by the way.

We carry a new world in our hearts

@ 08.Jun.2007 10:38

"We are not winning".

We are winning. Obviously we wont win just by protesting the G8, but we are winning for sure.

"We are being made fun of being sprayed with water on John Stewart."

So? Jon Stewart makes fun of everything. Means jack-shit.

"It would be one thing if these tactics delivered victory. Winning territory. Large areas of land and people liberated."

Get it through your militaristic head that the classwar is not a war with front and lands to be liberated. Capitalism is not a a territory to conquer, its a social relation. We wont win by mobilising armies or storm the white house, its just not that kind of war.

"Are the majority of the oppressed people in the world in France? The USA? Japan? Great Brtain? Germany? Canada? Italy? Russia?"

No? The proletariat/dispossesed in the western world are not "opressed"? What are you, some kind of crasy maoist, or something?

"Isn't it time for you lazy bastards to start taking it to your own neighborhoods and forcing change in your own backyards?"

We do that all the time. Classwar needs to be fought everywhere.

"Ok you are homosapien. WOW. You are also not representative of the majority of your people."

Unlike you we dont claim to represent anyone but ourselves. But we are a part of the "people", of the proletariat, the dispossesed.

"Maybe start the discussion? No that's toooo boring."

You dont win the classwar by talking or converting people into anarchism/communism. You win it by being involved in the actual classconflict against capital. And thats what we are doing.

"Some people are busy really actually fighting a class war. You admit that what you are doing is not war."

I said that the classwar isnt a war. And we are also busy fighting the classwar, as you can see.

"Lead, Follow, but get the fuck out of the way. Because you are just half time entertainment."

The dispossesed in the westernworld are just half-time entertainment? Only them brownies can revolt, huh?

Intelligence -vs- Blockheads

ATTAC 09.Jun.2007 00:24

15 Police Officers Against 5,000 Demonstrators
By Ingo Arzt and Florian Gathmann in Heiligendamm, Germany

By the end of the first day of the G-8 summit in Heiligendamm, many demonstrators were proud of themselves and convinced that they are "better organized than the police." Around noon, thousands managed to push past the police and break through the security fence.


By 11:30 a.m., it must have been clear to police what they were up against. To their right, along the central access road to the G-8 summit's conference zone in Heiligendamm, a vast oat field was filled with an endless sea of people, singing songs and waving flags. The police officers from the German state of Saxony-Anhalt gripped their shields more tightly and pulled down the visors on their helmets. By then the 15 officers, in their green combat uniforms, were facing 5,000 G-8 protestors. Only a few kilometers separated the masses from the suite occupied by US President George W. Bush at the Hotel Kempinski.

"It's a great success for us," said a spokesman from the group "Block G-8." The police could be making precisely the opposite statement. "I don't understand how this could have happened," one officer said. Of course, the official police take on the incident sounds a little different from the protestors' version. According to a spokesman of the Kavala special unit, the authorities were not taken by surprise and were "deployed with significant forces."

But the protestors were never meant to get this close to the site of the summit meeting of the leaders of the world's most powerful countries. German authorities had set up a six-kilometer security zone around the hotel where the summit is taking place. But that effort was apparently in vain.

Protestors had already blocked the A19 autobahn, which passes the airport in Rostock, the city closest to the G-8 conference hotel in Heiligendamm. "We wanted to pull apart the forces of the police and tie up as many officers as possible in the area near the airport," said a spokesman of the protestors.

By 10 a.m., what was about to happen must have been obvious to the police. Almost the entire camp of about 8,000 G-8 protestors at Reddelich -- a village located between Kröpelin and Bad Doberan near Heiligendamm -- were on the move. The march began along a stretch of road heading east, suddenly veered to the left into a forest and then continued through fields and meadows in the direction of Heiligendamm. The crowd quickly acquired a helicopter escort, but otherwise there was no sign of police -- for the space of two hours.

It was an odd mix of people. Some walked alongside bicycles, while others carried straw bales wrapped in red netting to help them set up barriers at night. Some carried flags and banners. The march had the air of a modern-day mass migration. "This is craziness," said a young man with long, blonde hair, standing in the middle of a large rapeseed field, surrounded by red poppies.

'We Are Better Organized than the Police'

The protestors marched in five groups, organized by colors and identified by small flags. There were also smaller, named subgroups. "Stoiber, where is Stoiber?" a young woman yelled, looking for her group.

"We are better organized than the police," people kept repeating. "Well, after all, we did spend three days practicing this blockade in our camp," said a spokesman of a union youth group known as IG Metall Jugend. The protestors had developed something they called the "five-finger system" -- referring to their ability to fan out and then come together again. The concept, the spokesman said, is called "back and forth, thousands of times," and was tested at protests conducted against transports in Germany of radioactive waste from nuclear power plants.

The closer it came to its destination, the faster the group moved. "This adrenaline is unbelievable," said one marcher. The crowd suddenly began to cheer when the fence became visible in the distance, but then nothing happened for hours. The leaders of the march had contacted the police to ensure that everything remained peaceful. During the course of the day, more and more police units arrived on the scene, but the effort seemed highly uncoordinated. A group of police officers from the southern German state of Baden-Württemberg was dispatched to the area from the airport, located on the other side of Rostock. "We had to drive across all these paths through the fields; it was totally chaotic," one officer said.

The situation remained calm, even when the police announced, at about 2 p.m., that it planned to shift the protestors back a few hundred meters. And even the arrival of three water canons a short time later was met with relative calm, although it was unclear why the police had brought in the water canons at that juncture. "There are apparently some stone throwers among the protestors," one officer said.

As a result of the protest march, all access points were blocked, so that journalists and summit attendees alike had to be brought to the site by boat. This was Block G-8's biggest achievement on this first day of the summit. When the group's spokesman announced, using a loudspeaker, "You did it!" the crowd cheered. By evening, it was announced that the police would be bringing in reinforcements, including some police units from Berlin.

But the G-8 opponents were hardly impressed by such announcements on this first day of the summit. "As long as the summit continues, we'll be blocking it here," said Sven Giegold, the coordinator of Attac, a network critical of globalization.






Brownies????

DEM BONES 09.Jun.2007 00:35

Great we got anti g8 Neo nazis.

You don't address the issues

Anti-testosterone 09.Jun.2007 03:24

First you just call Attac liberals. You fail to address the fact that they are the bulk of what is keeping the protest going. You fail to recognize that they are the ones moving forward.

Why are they liberals? I know alot of people from Attac who are anarchists in France. You are really off base.

Also when and how did the person you continue to respond to say they were a Maoist? When did the person say anything racist?

It is a valid point to make that white people are too often always ready to grab the lead rather than gain ideas from other cultures.

I have thrown rocks and have been arrested. I for one feel it has turned counter to our goals. I see the pictures. The overwhelming majority of people throwing rocks are men. This is the fact. In every picture it is a man throwing a rock. I am sure you can find one with a female or two but why do you think the block is overwhelmingly white and male? Do you care?

Fed up with liberals, Fed up with commies, Fed up with anarchists

la proxy obnoxy 09.Jun.2007 03:35

Cool well what about individuals who disagree with all of you? Yet still wish to change the world? Individuals who don't want to live in a totalitarian state of authoritarian boredom or a formless chaotic collectivist society where discussion is boring and endeavor is made fun of. Individuals who feel that just because you are against imperialism doesn't mean you are for either of these less than attractive alternatives. Ever heard of Emma Goldman? She was a pacifist Anarchist. She travelled to Russia and got thrown in jail for speaking against sexism and anti-semitism. Was she just a maoist, sell out, capitalist?

I don't think so. I think you can be an anarchist and a pacifist.

Absolute truth

ART of WAR 09.Jun.2007 20:05

To @,

From the Art of War:

"So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will win hundred times in hundred battles. If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you win one and lose the next. If you do not know yourself or your enemy, you will always lose.

Therefore One hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the most skillful. Seizing the enemy without fighting is the most skillful. "

The problem with progressives today is that the sophistication of their politics is vastly superior to their knoiwledge of struggle or strategy.

Even Che' studied and utilized the work of Sun Tzu. Was it because he was a great,cool,guy? No It was because he knew what he was talking about.

The desired outcome that is not fought for but obtained is the greatest of all victories.

The problem is you want to show up whereever and throw rocks and then get a pat on the back for how cool you are.

Meanwhile you are giving the enemy to know you, watch you, encircle you, (and know this)and at any time they wish cut you down where you stand with superior fire power and man power. Even when your numbers are larger a well fed conditioned and trained army will defeat a force 20 times it's size.

There is a reason they do not cut you down.

To seem bigger. To not invoke the wrath of society at large.

They need the Block to throw rocks in order to justify wiping them off the street. No large problem. Your soldiers dress in Black and join the unorganized rabble that has no internal security apparatus. Your clandestine troops then throw rocks from the side of the rabble.

The rabble then too stupid to stop the infiltrators as they are sypathetic with the action of throwing rocks at the government troops join in.

The government then is justified (on camera anyway) in cracking heads, firing tear gas, cancelling all public rallies, and raiding the homes of suspected rioters.

Good job children.

The force that is inferior in arms and size must then do the opposite of what is expected of it. Dress like clowns. Make clear the minor threat you present. Make your point. Infiltrate the other side and make them laugh.

While the jester snuck into the castle, the jester took the key to all the riches.

Being inferior and standing in a line in front of your superior enemy and inviting violence is not heroic or smart. It is just ignorant.

It is against every guerilla tacticians handbook. It is just school boy. So school boy.

Stop the rocks start the strategy

Read study struggle 09.Jun.2007 20:09

Art of War
Art of War

Our goal is to win not fight.

Cannot take the debate...?

@ 09.Jun.2007 21:40

Well, i wrote a long response to all of you but someone apparently thought i was out of line for some reason (maybe because im beating your asses and you cant handle it) So i wont write anymore.

Again, the class struggle is not a war, neither guerilla nor otherwise. So studying the art of war wont help you one bit. Che was a terrible guerilla strategist and failed miserably.

Che was shit and you are great hahahaha

You loser 10.Jun.2007 00:52

What an idiot. Your not debating. Your all over the place. Your just a loser.

Who are you?

Huh? 10.Jun.2007 02:24

@, Who are you To define:

Class struglle
Class warfare
Revolutionary Struggle
The Proletariat
The failure or success of Che

Your just a stupid ass who feels comfortable throwing around racist words like "Brownie"?

You don't know why one of your posts got cut? Revolutionaries don't throw around the word "Brownies".

Te idiots are taking over!

@ 10.Jun.2007 15:47

Oh my god, the liberalidiots have taken over indymedia international! What a waste.

Its common knowledge that che was a complete failure in his guerillacampaign. Thast why he was taken prisoner and killed eventuelly. Thats why he didnt manage to make one single country into a "socialistparadise". Read some history books. Infact, read any book.

Im not "all over the place". Im just waaay over you liberalidiots level. Have a nice day, assholes.

You just figured out we are liberal?

URA Jerk 11.Jun.2007 04:30

You just figured out we are all so liberal we are way to the left of liberal? Who wants anything to do with a person who calls people Brownies? Who hates liberals? and who fails to recognize the accomplishments of Che?

I am not a commie but even capitalists recognize the accomplishments of the Cuban revolution. Cuba has it's problems but at least they have health care, housing, and free education.Freedom of thought and expression they fail at but they are whooping everyone elses asses on so many levels.

It seems you just want to make thin minded arguments for breaking things. Even things that belong to working class families. You need to come to my neighborhood and talk your "Brownie" trash. You wouldn't last 30 seconds.

The point

bastille day 11.Jun.2007 10:29

The Point

Is?

Stop playing War at peaceful gatherings. You admit this "class Struggle" you are engaged in is not a "class War" or any other kind of war. Are you tellingus that throwing large rocks at people is not a war like action? Be clear. What are you doing. I see pictures of clowns standing around doing nothing but being fummy meanwhile you are next to them throwing rocks? Message? Who cares if non-violent protestors are next to me I will throw rocks anyway?

You yourself say over and over again. "This is not a war. Yet you fools continue to want to play "cowboys and indians" or some variation of Army.

To the point of your racist "Brownie" crap.

The rest of the world have coddled the white European and American while they went back and forth between center rigth and center left long enough. France is poised to elect a left government? No! Polls show they are reverting to a right wing government once again.

The whole world is going ot hell waiting on your infantile notions of "class struggle". The fact is no white country has set about any sort of justice for any length of time. Ever. You alawys revert back to nationalism and imperialism when you are mad about your life style being compimised.

You are rising up against? How? When? Consistently?

I think not.

Dispossessed Class? France? Europe?

URA jerk 11.Jun.2007 10:39

@

Have you heard about the projected outcome of the elections in France? A 70% landslide for the right wing. Are those "the people" you are talking about? They are expectivg the right wing to take 470 out of 577 seats. I have no sympathy for these fools any longer.

liberals to the left of the republican party?

@ 12.Jun.2007 14:17

You are not "to the left" of anything. Very sad that indymedia has developed into a safehaven for whiny liberals who cannot argue without turning into name-calling and slandering at the first sight of anybody who got some brains and have read some (politicaltheory) books. But thats fine, i will just leave you kiddies alone to play with eachother instead. But kidz; leave the actual social struggle to us grownup, wont you?

I just cannot leave the outlandish statement that Emma Goldman was a pacifist uncommented. She was not a pacifist of any kind. Infact, she tried to assassinate a factoryboss together with her husband. She was a strong supporter of violent workingclass struggle and revolution. She saw no contradiction in being for violent methods and at the same time to be a feminist and a critic of marxist-leninist (and Lenin himself, together with the Bolsheviks and the russian revolution).

Have a nice day!

Quote from Emma against violence

UR still a jerk 13.Jun.2007 10:13

1) Emma divorced her husband so go figure your bumb behind.
2) After her life companion Alexander Berkman was found guilty and sentenced to 20 years in jail she foresook violence for herself but did not condemn revolutionary struggle(such as in Spain)for others.
3) She never was implicated nor involved in violence for the rest of her life.
4) You are an idiot.

Your political theory that allows for calling people Brownies is right out of Mein Kampf. You aren't advanced you are in fact probably of the intellect of the retard framed for the burning of the Reichstag.

Emma Goldamn on Violence:


Emma Golman on Violence:

"As an anarchist, I am opposed to violence. But if the people want to do away with assassins, they must do away with the conditions which produce murderers."

Oh my god, you understand nothing about Emma Goldman!

zzzzzz 13.Jun.2007 13:39

I have a feeling that that qoute is taken out of its context to serve your intressts (and i could ofcourse find lots and lots of qoutes that supports violence). But its an intressting choice since even in that small qoute you manage to argue against yourself. The "but" in that sentence tells us that she was infact not against violence and she saw it as a neccessary method to overthrow capitalism. You dumbass.

I wont argue with idiots who cant even understand the context of which i used "brownie", you all sound like you are 10 year old and cant even grasp simple rhetoric. I was being sarcastic over YOUR degrading, and ultimately, racist view of the poor people in the third world who have more right to rebell than us whities in the western world. If you cant understand how rascist and condescendent that it....well, then you are just stupid (as you have allready proven you are).

And to the dumbass who think it matters who get elected as primeminister in France; it doesnt. There aqre still dispossessed in France and they still need to rebell. That some of them might even have voted for the rightwoing candidate tells us nothing. Have you allready forgotten the straight up UPRISING in france last year? Or the "student" movement there? Thats prolly one of the biggest thing that has happen in the western world since the 60ies. People in the western world are dispossessed and need to rebell, and they know it and do it all the time. Only you cant see it cuz you are staring yourself blind on the people in the third world like the little maoist you are. Fuck off with that shit!

Why don't you respond to the debate and stop jerkin

UR still @ Jerk 14.Jun.2007 10:18

Heres to U @
Heres to U @

You are really such a child. No one ever said Emma Goldman condemned all self-defense. As evidenced by her coverage of the Spanish Civil war she was extremely inspired by those fighting a fascist take over by the Spanish government. She did not however ever fell compelled after the conviction of her companion (not her husband you dumb ass she divorced that asshole) Alexander Berkman and sentenced to 20 years in jail to ever be a part of armed struggle again. She decided violence was not in the best interest of the movement or herself. It was a strategic and not a moral decision child. Those are the facts.
You repeatedly fail to respond to facts stated.

Often as in the case of Nelson Mandela and the ANC, even though he sat in jail for 27 years for refusing to condemn armed struggle against Apartheid, he as well as the ANC decided the best strategy given the high profile Apartheid in South Africa had gained in the international media was to cease armed struggle. You see you are too stupid to understand there are multiple and endless strategies for struggle and no one fits every scenario. Something the Block has no understanding of.

Also every reputable liberation movement has a political wing and an active action wing. Political protest should invite and envelope everyone who wants to participate from the person in a wheel chair to the pacifist priest. Events organized by umbrella coalitions should not be forced to an intense state of militancy by a bunch of testosterone junky white boys. Let’s be clear. Every Block (and I have been a part and around them since the beginning (way before Seattle). In fact Kid, I was in Germany in the 70’s back when it still meant something (and no I wasn’t in the military asshole).

Although the cops will often instigate violence at peaceful demos one of the most commonly witnessed goes like this. Super militant starts cussing and running at cops from within peaceful demo. In fact cops have been identified as the ring leaders of spontaneous violence at numerous peaceful demos cops needed an excuse to break up a demo. This has been videotaped and provocateurs are cataloged and photographed as going to meetings and suggesting hyper violence in settings that are obviously inappropriate etc..

Revolutionary struggle is legitimate not always but when:

1) People live under a dictatorship and not an elected government.
2) Communities are defending themselves from aggressive and unwarranted attack
3) Oppressed nationalities such as Native Americans, the Irish and others struggle against imperialist colonialist enterprises.
4) The overwhelming majority of the people and press are denied free expression.

In the case of the USA and Europe, the bourgeoisie and pampered colonialist classes have never really voted for true revolutionary change for a consistent length of time. Like in France, where anti-immigrant racism is being embraced by the majority (and I have been there numerous times), greed and a forgetful populace who fails to recognize most of these immigrants as being from former colonies France raped, they will choose greed and ignorance. Interesting Phenom. When I was in France last the family I was staying with (by no means progressive) had no problem with white Serbian Yugoslavian refugees but wanted the Arabs and Africans gone. It was sad to hear their venomous racism and their intent to vote for the fascist Le Pen.

When the chips are down Europeans turn to what they know best. Fascism! I have lived there and know many people there (no I was not a rich college student). They are progressive when it comes to their health care but every so often they turn to a Hitler to cleanse the blood through nationalism. And Here we go again in France.

So who are the dispossessed in France? The immigrants, the children of forgotten French colonialism. They were the movement that rose up you spoke about. What was the reaction by the way? The election and landslide of the very party of Sarkozy they were protesting. So is burning cars always THE tactic? Is it always ok? Not when you are burning the car of the persons whose sympathy you desire.

The point you keep refusing to deal with is this. IS it smart to always dress in black, to always throw shit, to always be predictable? No! You must choose your struggles carefully. You must as Mandela did know when to shift to the boycott. Now you are going to respond “Mandela is an ass sucking liberal”, “He is no revolutionary” and I will say back to you? Love to see your resume moron. Bet nowhere will it say “ended 300 years of white rule in a country where 10% of the population ruled over the other 90%. And if it doesn’t say that you have no credentials to say shit to Mandela. He was settin’ it off when you weren’t born. If you are comfortable attacking a 89 year old man because he choose to be a commie and throw out his 27 years in jail and call him a whining liberal? Once again I can’t wait to meet your ass because we would have real struggle between us and it would be vigorous.

Go back to school, little kid

@ 14.Jun.2007 11:22

"1) Emma divorced her husband so go figure your bumb behind. "

Irrelevant information.

"2) After her life companion Alexander Berkman was found guilty and sentenced to 20 years in jail she foresook violence for herself but did not condemn revolutionary struggle(such as in Spain)for others."

I would like to see a qoute where she "foresook violence" . By the way, i hope you are not confusing assassination with collective violence in social struggle, because it is not the same thing. She rejected violence against individual capitalists after the failed assassination attempt, but she did not ever in her life reject violence used collectively in social struggle. I dre you to challenge that claim. You wont, because you cannot.

"3) She never was implicated nor involved in violence for the rest of her life."

Irrelevant information and has prolly more to do with outside circumstances (like getting deported and getting old) than anything else.

"4) You are an idiot."

Well, atleast im not a clueless foll like you.

Actually you racist Imigration marches Biggest thing

Real thing 14.Jun.2007 11:50

You racist! Once again you overlook the millions who marhed for immigrant rights in the USA over the last year. The largest marches in the history of the USA and you call some march in France the biggest thing in the west? You are really showing your racism @. Oh those rallies were too peaceful for you to consider significant. I forgot.

You are still misinformed

fool 14.Jun.2007 19:21

You are really such a child. No one ever said Emma Goldman condemned all self-defense. As evidenced by her coverage of the Spanish Civil war she was extremely inspired by those fighting a fascist take over by the Spanish government. She did not however ever fell compelled after the conviction of her companion (not her husband you dumb ass she divorced that asshole) Alexander Berkman and sentenced to 20 years in jail to ever be a part of armed struggle again. She decided violence was not in the best interest of the movement or herself. It was a strategic and not a moral decision child. Those are the facts.
You repeatedly fail to respond to facts stated.

Often as in the case of Nelson Mandela and the ANC, even though he sat in jail for 27 years for refusing to condemn armed struggle against Apartheid, he as well as the ANC decided the best strategy given the high profile Apartheid in South Africa had gained in the international media was to cease armed struggle. You see you are too stupid to understand there are multiple and endless strategies for struggle and no one fits every scenario. Something the Block has no understanding of.

Also every reputable liberation movement has a political wing and an active action wing. Political protest should invite and envelope everyone who wants to participate from the person in a wheel chair to the pacifist priest. Events organized by umbrella coalitions should not be forced to an intense state of militancy by a bunch of testosterone junky white boys. Let’s be clear. Every Block (and I have been a part and around them since the beginning (way before Seattle). In fact Kid, I was in Germany in the 70’s back when it still meant something (and no I wasn’t in the military asshole).

Although the cops will often instigate violence at peaceful demos one of the most commonly witnessed goes like this. Super militant starts cussing and running at cops from within peaceful demo. In fact cops have been identified as the ring leaders of spontaneous violence at numerous peaceful demos cops needed an excuse to break up a demo. This has been videotaped and provocateurs are cataloged and photographed as going to meetings and suggesting hyper violence in settings that are obviously inappropriate etc..

Revolutionary struggle is legitimate not always but when:

1) People live under a dictatorship and not an elected government.
2) Communities are defending themselves from aggressive and unwarranted attack
3) Oppressed nationalities such as Native Americans, the Irish and others struggle against imperialist colonialist enterprises.
4) The overwhelming majority of the people and press are denied free expression.

In the case of the USA and Europe, the bourgeoisie and pampered colonialist classes have never really voted for true revolutionary change for a consistent length of time. Like in France, where anti-immigrant racism is being embraced by the majority (and I have been there numerous times), greed and a forgetful populace who fails to recognize most of these immigrants as being from former colonies France raped, they will choose greed and ignorance. Interesting Phenom. When I was in France last the family I was staying with (by no means progressive) had no problem with white Serbian Yugoslavian refugees but wanted the Arabs and Africans gone. It was sad to hear their venomous racism and their intent to vote for the fascist Le Pen.

When the chips are down Europeans turn to what they know best. Fascism! I have lived there and know many people there (no I was not a rich college student). They are progressive when it comes to their health care but every so often they turn to a Hitler to cleanse the blood through nationalism. And Here we go again in France.

So who are the dispossessed in France? The immigrants, the children of forgotten French colonialism. They were the movement that rose up you spoke about. What was the reaction by the way? The election and landslide of the very party of Sarkozy they were protesting. So is burning cars always THE tactic? Is it always ok? Not when you are burning the car of the persons whose sympathy you desire.

The point you keep refusing to deal with is this. IS it smart to always dress in black, to always throw shit, to always be predictable? No! You must choose your struggles carefully. You must as Mandela did know when to shift to the boycott. Now you are going to respond “Mandela is an ass sucking liberal”, “He is no revolutionary” and I will say back to you? Love to see your resume moron. Bet nowhere will it say “ended 300 years of white rule in a country where 10% of the population ruled over the other 90%. And if it doesn’t say that you have no credentials to say shit to Mandela. He was settin’ it off when you weren’t born. If you are comfortable attacking a 89 year old man because he choose to be a commie and throw out his 27 years in jail and call him a whining liberal? Once again I can’t wait to meet your ass because we would have real struggle between us and it would be vigorous.

thats right, keep making a fool out of yourself...

@ 15.Jun.2007 19:04

Dumbass nr1: i was talking about the uprising in the suburbs of France. Not the student thing.

Dumbass nr2. where is the evidence that she foresook violence as a method of choice for the movement? Show me where she says that! You calling it facts doesnt make it so. Also, you are confusing fucking violence and attacks against INDIVIDUAL CAPITALISTS with violence by a social movement against the chains of capital. She never rejected violence. Prove me wrong then, asshole.

The rest of your post is just liberal rantings. Its not even worth responding to for serious revolutionary intressted in real social change. Not use violence because we live in a "dmeocracy"? Give me a break. You are one of those liberals who likes to think of themselves as "radicals", but when the shit hits the fan FOR REAL, you will find the place where you allways belonged - along with the counter-revolutionaries and capitalists! Fuck off. Pacifism is so lame....

Not a pacifist

ur a jerk 15.Jun.2007 23:13

When and where would you like to meet so I can show you? Some people have fought.You can tell a true fighter they never look forward to the fight. ALl the talkers ever do is talk about some fight they have never been in.

Testosterone is lame

Lil syntax U 16.Jun.2007 01:35

@ keeps responding to things nobody said. Others include research and quotes and he just says "pacifism is lame", "liberals are shit". He is a he that is for sure. Never repsonds to the fact that Blockers are 95% white and male. Never responds to the need for a strategy.
He just seems illiterate and screaming about stuff he doens't comprehend. It seems he is just angry someone pointed out that the Black Block is mainly white males breaking things.

I have a question I bet he won't answer.

Name three critiques you have of the Block? That don't include answers like "they don't throw enough shit at demos".

Just name three.

We all know people who have no sense of self analysis are just egotistical slobs.

Man, im crushing you guys!

@ 16.Jun.2007 13:10

It is bullshit that the black bloc is 95% white and male. The black bloc exists all over the world, in the third world too. In Europe it may be mostly white but thats because most people in Europe are whites, dumbass! Whites need to rebel just as much as coloured people, i dont see anything wrong with white people rebelling in the black bloc.

Strategy?Whats your strategy? You have none. All you have are vague mystified thoughts about "winning the people over to our side". Thats no strategy, and the miserable state of the left shows that you have no strategy.

Quaking in our boots

U DA MAN 16.Jun.2007 16:10

Oh my what will we do. The murderous 14 year olds have come with their rocks to scare the boogey man away. Armed with their rock throwing analysis how could they be beaten. Their Anglo Saxon revolutionary legacy to show us how the little boys throw down game.

He who can see in all the females in the pictures above throwing rocks (ZERO).

He who defends an all white black block on a continent that is 10 percent Muslim immigrant.

What clarity.

Middleclass liberals dont know how to argue

@ 16.Jun.2007 22:43

What do you want; you want precentage representation by the people of colour in the bloc? Are you insane? If it makes you feel any better i can tell you that the riot dubbled in size after half an hour with "regular" people and people of colour from the third world joining the black bloc to fight the pigs. You see, they dont have any moral problem with fighting the cops because they too, unlike you middleclass liberals, know what this system is really like.

And to the asshole who threatened me; hey fuckface, i will meet you any time at any place! Bring it on, sucka!

Funny how you idiots call me the testostirone and angry one, when its YOU who are trying to shout me down, call me names and slander me. I have tried to have a discussion but you kiddies cant handle that anyone challenge your liberal, pacifist dogma, so you try to shut me up.

Speaking about no women in the black bloc...

@ 17.Jun.2007 15:42

..the person at the front (to the left) in the first picture sure looks like a woman to me. So what was that about no women in the black bloc? Morons.

Meet me in Miami

Chicken 18.Jun.2007 01:12

I warned you before I am not a pacifist. I have trained people in the movement in Kung Fu for 20 years. I also trained professionally in all of the martial trainings including equipment. We will be there July 5th with video to prove you weren't there chicken.

Camp Reynolds
18601 NE 22 Avenue, Miami FL 33180
FIre Ring

July 5th 6:00pm

One woman enough for @

Moron 18.Jun.2007 01:48

One woman? That is enough for you?

The one woman isn't throwing rocks

sexist 18.Jun.2007 07:34

He is ok with one woman in the picture. One who isn't throwing rocks.

Also? No one was there to take pics when the people of color showed up?

I have seen a thousand pictures and video from these demos and I have seen one person of color.

Lilltle Buddy

xmass 18.Jun.2007 07:39

Little Buddy is stuck on stupid. He takes on the argument with "I think it is always smart to stick your head in a lions mouth" ie... it is always smart to throw rocks regardless of the situation or consequence. And he tells anyone who disagrees they are a pacifist even when they say they aren't.

He doesn't respond to militant Mandela calling for a strategic ceasefire. He doesn't respond to any factual arguments with facts. He just calls people Brownie and moves on.

He defends lack of women by saying "look there is one woman".

Dude you are just dumb.

This just in- Black Block on Viagra

get laid 18.Jun.2007 12:16

Black Blockers

Calm Down Get laid.

You have been poisened with testosterone and Viagra. This strategy was set upon by the authorities to make it impossible for you to do anything but run around in crowd banging into people and throwing rocks. You are compelled to throw rocks in an effort to keep the cops away from the one poor woman stupid enough to hang with you.

You been took. You been had. They put Cialis in the humus.

If you have an erection for more than four hours see a doctor.

little kiddies, go back to sleep

@ 18.Jun.2007 12:31

One woman in five random pictures. I would call that a good thing. I think it shows that there were quite alot of women there too, since they are able to get represented in these five random pictures. And she is holding a stone and are about to throw it. Dumbass.

Ok, dumbas, i will see you in Miami. And you will see my fists against your face.

Get it through your head that i dont give a fuck about Mandela, Ghandi or MLK, they were liberal reformists, who if anything, recuperated a real social movement instead of helping it. That Mandela says something doesnt work as an argument to me because i dont give a fuck about him. Where are all the other "facts" that i havent responded to? I just see liberal rantings about how we cant use violence because we live in a "democracy". Fuck off with that bullshit. Rantings arent facts, they are just rantings. You are the dumbass. The ignorant dumbass. My god, am i arguing with 12-year olds??

"To us, violent means are not superior by nature to peaceful ones. But a movement that renounces violence renounces historical change, and contents itself with whatever doses of change the existing system will permit."

Once again you just get it wrong

See ya 19.Jun.2007 07:52

you have made it how clear it is what a dumb ass you are. Mandela and Ghandi don't belong in the same sentence. Mandela never renounced armed struggle idiot. That is why he sat in Jail for 27 years? For refusing to renounce armed struggle. The ANC did temporarily and for strategic reasons cease armed struggle. Mandela could whip your ass at the age of 89. He was a weapons maker and chief military startegist. The ended 300 years of apartheid racism. Through vatious strategies including armed struggle but also employing an international boycott.

Everyone here sees your ignorance clearly. You don't know MLK from Mandela. MLK and Ghandi were pacifists. Mandela was not. Anyone who knew anything abouut the history of struggle in South Africa would know that.

Once again failing to respond to the facts.

This is way over your head.

The rest of us would like to go on with a constructive dialouge with an intelligent and thoughtful self critique of the movement. You aren't capable. All you can do is call people names and misinterpret history.

You can't spew out MLK. Ghandi and Mandela are liberal pacifists and not look like a complete idiot. Anyone who knows a beginners knowledge of the history of the ANC in South Africa is laughing at you not with you.

As if you who ever you are have sacrificed even a minute of the 27 years Mandela sacrificed for the people, have any right to call out Mandela? Your a baby. It is obvious. You know absolutely nothing about what you are speaking.

This isn't to say Mandela was perfect or at his advanced age coming out of prison he made all the right decisions as the new president, but one thing is for sure. He and his comrades ended 300 years of colonial rule. You are just some video game playing poser. Passing gas.

What a sexist!

mankato 19.Jun.2007 07:59

No woman is throwing a rock in those pictures. It is a bunch of dicks endangering others who have the misfortune to be caught up in the shit.

The clear majority of the protestors at the G8 were non-violent the Black Block showed and and endangered everybody.

@ The whimp

Poor Baby 19.Jun.2007 08:45

Got caught with your facts all backwards.

Mandela a real fighter

U Racist 19.Jun.2007 08:47

In February 1985 South African President P.W. Botha offered Mandela conditional release in return for renouncing armed struggle. Coetzee and other ministers had advised Botha against this, saying that Mandela would never commit his organisation to giving up the armed struggle in exchange for personal freedom. Mandela indeed spurned the offer, releasing a statement via his daughter Zindzi saying "What freedom am I being offered while the organisation of the people remains banned? Only free men can negotiate. A prisoner cannot enter into contracts."

The first meeting between Mandela and the National Party government came in November 1985 when Kobie Coetzee met Mandela in Volks Hospital in Cape Town where Mandela was being treated for prostate surgery. Over the next four years, a series of tentative meetings took place, laying the groundwork for further contact and future negotiations, but little real progress was made.

Throughout Mandela's imprisonment, local and international pressure mounted on the South African government to release him, under the resounding slogan Free Nelson Mandela! In 1989, South Africa reached a crossroads when Botha suffered a stroke and was replaced as president by Frederik Willem de Klerk. De Klerk announced Mandela's release in February 1990.

Mandela Facts Cont

Ura racist 19.Jun.2007 08:50

Imprisonment
Nelson Mandela was imprisoned on Robben Island where he was destined to remain for the next eighteen of his twenty-seven years in prison. On the island, he and others performed hard labour in a lime quarry. Prison conditions were very basic. Prisoners were segregated by race, with black prisoners receiving the least rations. Political prisoners were kept separate from ordinary criminals and received fewer privileges. Mandela describes how, as a D-group prisoner (the lowest classification) he was allowed one visitor and one letter every six months. Letters, when they came, were often delayed for long periods and made unreadable by the prison censors.

In March 1982 Mandela was moved from Robben Island to Pollsmoor Prison, along with other senior ANC leaders Walter Sisulu, Andrew Mlangeni, Ahmed Kathrada and Raymond Mhlaba. It was speculated that this was to remove the influence of these senior leaders on the new generation of young black activists imprisoned on Robben Island, the so-called "Mandela University". However, National Party minister Kobie Coetzee says that the move was to enable discreet contact between them and the South African government.

Mandela Cont

U racist 19.Jun.2007 08:53

“ During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to the struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.”

Bram Fischer, Vernon Berrange, Harry Schwarz, Joel Joffe, Arthur Chaskalson and George Bizos were part of the defence team that represented the accused. Harold Hanson was brought in at the end of the case to plead mitigation. All except Rusty Bernstein were found guilty, but they escaped the gallows and were sentenced to life imprisonment on 12 June 1964. Charges included involvement in planning armed action, in particular four charges of sabotage, which Mandela admitted to, and a conspiracy to help other countries invade South Africa, which Mandela denied.

Mandela Cont

U Racist 19.Jun.2007 08:54

While Mandela was imprisoned, police arrested prominent ANC leaders on 11 July 1963, at Liliesleaf Farm, Rivonia, north of Johannesburg. Mandela was brought in, and at the Rivonia Trial, Mandela, Ahmed Kathrada, Walter Sisulu, Govan Mbeki, Andrew Mlangeni, Raymond Mhlaba, Elias Motsoaledi, Walter Mkwayi (who escaped during trial), Arthur Goldreich (who escaped from prison before trial), Denis Goldberg and Lionel "Rusty" Bernstein were charged by the chief prosecutor Dr. Percy Yutar, the deputy attorney-general of the Transvaal, with the capital crimes of sabotage (which Mandela admitted) and crimes which were equivalent to treason, but easier for the government to prove. The second charge accused the defendants of plotting a foreign invasion of South Africa, which Mandela denied.

In his statement from the dock at the opening of the defence case in the trial on 20 April 1964 at Pretoria Supreme Court, Mandela laid out the clarity of reasoning in the ANC's choice to use violence as a tactic. His statement revealed how the ANC had used peaceful means to resist apartheid for years until the Sharpeville Massacre. That event coupled with the referendum establishing the Republic of South Africa and the declaration of a state of emergency along with the banning of the ANC made it clear that their only choice was to resist through acts of sabotage. Doing otherwise would have been tantamount to unconditional surrender. Mandela went on to explain how they developed the Manifesto of Umkhonto we Sizwe on December 16 1961 intent on exposing the failure of the National Party's policies after the economy would be threatened by foreigners' unwillingness to risk investing in the country. He closed his statement with these words:

Mandela the Fighter:the Facts

URa Racist 19.Jun.2007 08:55

Ok You throw rants about throwing rocks. You probably never threw a punch in your life.

Facts on Mandela a real fighter and political prisoner for 27 years (when he got out he was 69 years old) He never renounced armed struggle you whimp:

Guerrilla activities
In 1961, Mandela became the leader of the ANC's armed wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe (translated as Spear of the Nation, also abbreviated as MK), which he co-founded. He co-ordinated a sabotage campaign against military and government targets, and made plans for a possible guerrilla war if sabotage failed to end apartheid. A few decades later, MK did indeed wage a guerrilla war against the regime, especially during the 1980s, in which many civilians were killed. Mandela also raised funds for MK abroad, and arranged for paramilitary training, visiting various African governments.

Mandela explains the move to embark on armed struggle as a last resort, when increasing repression and violence from the state convinced him that many years of non-violent protest against apartheid had achieved nothing and could not succeed.

Arrest and Rivonia trial
Main article: Rivonia Trial
On 5 August 1962 Mandela was arrested after living on the run for seventeen months, and was imprisoned in the Johannesburg Fort. The arrest was allegedly made possible because the CIA tipped off the police as to Mandela's whereabouts and disguise. Three days later, the charges of leading workers to strike in 1961 and leaving the country illegally were read to him during a court appearance. On 25 October 1962, Mandela was sentenced to five years in prison. Two years later on 11 June 1964, a verdict had been reached concerning his previous engagement in the African National Congress (ANC).

The very definition of rant

@ is a child 19.Jun.2007 09:02

The very definition of rant is devoid of dates and verifiable claims. That is what you do @. YOu just throw around shit. Others post documented facts, dates, quotes and profess some sort of logical ideology. You lump MLK and Mandela together as if they knew each other.

Look up rant in the dictionary.

You donj't make historical and factual basis for your statements.
Really who are you. Some fucking kid who needs to wash the urine out of his black jeans and Carhart and go back to school. I hate to see these college drop outs who plague the movement with their (yawn) pronouncements of their white boy more radical than thou phase they are going through.

You seem to be a passionate person why not take the time to get some training behind the wheel. Why not put your self to good use. You know some people create collectives and others just flop in them and live off of everyone else. Isn't it time you pulled your weight.

Paint fumes are dangerous

Enough Paint 19.Jun.2007 09:08

It is sad to see the effects of long term exposure to paint fumes. It isa one of the side effects of tagging. Some smart young people end up becoming consumed by paint addiction in their effort to spray every wall and fur coat they see. Don't forget where a fiber filter folks. THis could happen to you.

Ghandi is Mandela! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Paint fumes are dangerous

Enough Paint 19.Jun.2007 09:08

It is sad to see the effects of long term exposure to paint fumes. It isa one of the side effects of tagging. Some smart young people end up becoming consumed by paint addiction in their effort to spray every wall and fur coat they see. Don't forget where a fiber filter folks. THis could happen to you.

Ghandi is Mandela! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Women be warned

Sad day 19.Jun.2007 09:20

Men who call themselves progressives take note. Black Blockers are bragging inclusion because one woman was standing in a crowd of men throwing rocks. These are same kind of sexists who proclaimed the socalled revolution in Russia a liberation of the oppressed.

Block Heads

New Name 19.Jun.2007 11:44

Block Heads

The Football players of the left. Easily manipulated. Feed them carbs and protein and tell them they are fucking shit up and point them where you want them.

Where were they since the war on terror started in 01? HIDING!!!

Haha...i knew you dickfaces would go crazy if i dissed Mandela!

@ 19.Jun.2007 13:02

Oh no, your favorite liberal "freedomfighter" got dissed by the scary anarchist! To the rescue! Haha.

Oh no, you guys got me. Except i never said that Mandela was a fucking pacifist, you fucking idiots!

Where are all the facts and logical ideology? Nowhere but in your head. Im so over you guys head its not even funny.

And the person to the left in the first picture with the overturned car is a a god damned woman!

Mandeal was no liberal reformer

UR Still Dumb 19.Jun.2007 18:34

You said he was a liberal reformer. At the age 89 I doubt he is running around tossing rocks in Black Pajamas. Until the age of 69 he was in jail for armed struggle. And he spent his life in armed struggle for a revolution to overthrow apartheid. That is the fact you are dodging.

You are nobody. You have accomplished absolutely nothing in comparison. Tell us about your resume. We shouldn't learn from the experience of people like Mandela? There is nothing to learn from him? Do you realize just how ignorant you sound?

And again he finds 1 woman standing in the midst of all these white boys while a car is burning.

A movement that is hundreds of white boys and one or a handful of women doesn't cut it.
That is clear to everyone reading this but you.

What is scary about little boys throwing rocks?

Wield Truth 19.Jun.2007 18:49

I am sorry to wade into this but what is scary about anything you have said, @? You throw rocks? That's it? You think that is scary or radical? What are you talking about? Thatis like saying little kids in a mud fight are scary. Also you are one anarchist. Every anarchist doesn't agree or believe the stuff you keep spewing. In fact, not only are you not over our heads it seems the only person whose head you are over is your own.

Obviously the revolutionaries of old didn't have it all right. But they knew more than you do. At least they ge results. We need to learn the strengths and mistakes of all who come before us, so that we can hope to achieve moving the movement forward. You are just a bore. Not scary, in fact it seems you have no true grasp fo anarchism. You think all anarchists think the same? All anarchists have to think throwing rocks is good? That is against the entire concept of anarchism. Anarchism is everyone being free to conceive of revolution in their own way. Everyone dressing the same, acting the same, talking the same? That is what anarchists are against.

Dick Faces?

No Revolutionary 19.Jun.2007 18:52

Is that how revolutionaries talk today? Dick faces? That is how my brother's 8 year old boy talks like that. I don't know any revolutionaries who engage in that kind of hyperbole.

Ozzie Osbourne Please come get your child

Crazy Brain 19.Jun.2007 18:54

Ozzie your son @ got into the speed again.

Lone dude wlaking around ranting and saying "I am so far over your heads"

stupido 19.Jun.2007 19:27

They called him Hitler.

Hey @ seen the new Transformers yet?

children unite 19.Jun.2007 19:30

"Brownies"?

"Dickfaces"?

Man you are so cool.

The Transformesmovie is going to rock, man!

@ 19.Jun.2007 20:22

The woman in that picture is just one example. I was there, i know for a fact that there was lots and lots of women there. I know several women comrades personally who took part in the riot. Also, before yall play the the "sexist" card like the nice little Chivalry morons you are, just know that the notion of women, somehow being against using violence because they are women, is infact a sexist noting in itself. So fuck off with that bullshit.

And to the person who ranted about anarchism; you only know the liberal, watered down version of anarchism and wouldnt know real anarchism if it hit you in the face. You have no connection to the REAL historical anarchist movement. Nowhere in the history of anarchist massmovement have they denounced violence. Nowhere have they even thought twice about the use of violence whenever they see it fit. Prove me wrong, asshole. You cannot.

And where the fuck have i said that i only throw rocks? Nowhere. But i understand the importance of rebellion as part of the struggle for real freedom and community - communism/anarchy.

Nelson Mandela was a liberal reformist who after a while took up armed struggle against the fascist apartheid system because they didnt want to lose ground to other, more radical groups that used it. It was a way of recuperating the movement to the refomist, liberal ends that the ANC fought for. Just because social democrats took up arms against the nazis, didnt make them anymore revolutionary, dumbass. And besides, who is talking about armed struggle? Not me. There is a diffrence between understanding the importance of using violence in social struggle, and calling for armed struggle. I have nothing to learn from the politician, master of revolt Nelson Mandela. But i do have something to learn from the millions of poor, faceless black southafricans who fought for freedom.

Its simple kids; if you guys keep acting like bitches, im going to tret you like bitches. Simple as that.

Now he uses the B word

What a man 20.Jun.2007 03:48

First it's "Brownie"

Now it's the b word

Next it will be the N word.

Ignorant fool

ANC Man 20.Jun.2007 03:50

The ANC was the Communist Party of South Africa. There is a Social Democratic party. He was not a member. Your a moron.

Talk about white male privilege

Anyway 20.Jun.2007 05:41

What is so cool about @ is how he is a constant great example of what everyone is talking about. Swaggering know it all white guy who because he bothers to go to proetests feels empowered to throw around racist, sexist, eptieths.

He feels empowered to disregard anyone who doesn't fit his coomie cutter expectations of the perfect revolutionary and yet what has he done?

He went to Germany and threw rocks. We are all supposed to bow down to his self proclaimed Scary Anarchism?I truly doubt he was there. What is scary about a bunch of skinnier than Mick Jagger white boys throwing rocks?

Germany has seen far more abrasive activists. If the goal is scary you got some catching up to do.

People talk about the wish for more womyn leadership he says "look there's a woman" (more like the sighting of a rare whale at a Block gathering) and then says "if you act like a B_ _ _ h I'll treat you like a B_ _ _ h" and plows forward. We all know people who talk like that on the internet. Their brain is is bigger than it really is. Their waist is smaller. Of course, their crotch always alegedly huge. We pity them anywhere else and we should pity @.

Pathological sociopaths are of the most pathetic in our society. Simutaneusly they are a great danger more to themselves than anyone else. They wake up one day and realise that they are just a mole on a molecule in the grand scheme of things.

I for one feel sorry for him and his false sense of security. I hope you get better.

You guys are sooo owned!

@ 20.Jun.2007 08:50

I think its hillarious how you guys dont even try to respond to the things i say anymore. Could be cuz im right and you are wrong? Im too much for you guys, both theoretically, and in practice. So instead you call me names, inclusing sexist and rascist (which just show you have difficult it is for you to grasp the wisdom of what i am saying), and turn into cheap two-dimes shrinks and try to write me off as mentally ill. Haha.

ANC was hardly "communist". At most they were anti-imperialist nationalists. Most importantly, they were liberal reformists tho.

I really dont get it guys; i keep bitch-slapping you over and over again, and still you come back for more. Just give up, man! You are going to hurt yourself!

Your the reformer

Weirdo 20.Jun.2007 10:34


Sounds like your the liberal reformer. You said:

"Just because social democrats took up arms against the nazis, didnt make them anymore revolutionary, dumbass. And besides, who is talking about armed struggle?"

Read between the lines everyone. He isn't a revolutionary. He wants to throw rocks. That is it. That is his revolution. No boycotts. No armed struggle against dictatorships. Just tossing gravel and calling people names.

By the Racist and sexist aren't names. They are terms descibing behavior. "Brownies" a noun is a name. Bi_ _ es is a name. Another noun. You see racist can be used in numerous ways as well as the word sexist sexist. You see child you are using names. One dimensional names that denote sexist and racist thought patterns. Unlike the word "Brownie" a racial eptitath and name and unlike the word B_ _ _ch which is used most of the world over to insult women by referring to them as female dogs.

You impune yourself in so many humerous and yet disgusting ways. You travel across international borders to throw rocks at peaceful demos. Pretty dumb thing to do on the internet. Not courageuos just dumb. The sad thing is that most think you weren't there at all. We think you are just talking crap.

Then you call individuals who sat in jail 27 years somehow less militant than your lilly white self.

Quite sad. You should be on suicide watch.



Dr phil has come to join the debate?

@ 20.Jun.2007 12:01

Man, do i have to be your teacher once again. You kids should really read more. Books are your friends. They have informatrion in them that can give you knowledge that can be quite useful in your practice, you know.

There is nothing sexist about the word "bitch" in itself. Like you said, it means "female dog". It is only sexist when you call women a bitch. And since none of you losers are women, it is not sexist. Fucking PC wankers who cant even spell out the word cuz they are afraid of being sexist, what a joke!

You people dont think i was there because if i was it would prove all your predujance and slander against the black bloc wrong. So you cover your ears and try to tell yourselves that i wasnt there. But guess what? I was there and every word i have said is true.

Nelson Mandela wasnt a revolutationary by any stretch of the imagination. Again, do some reading. The result they have now is exactly what they wanted, and it still sucks to be black in South Africa! Not that the corrupt govermning party of ANC cares anymore tho!

You people call me names with no base in reality, and you do it to try to shut me up. But im not going to be silenced by a bunch of liberal wankers who thinks Mandela was a revolutionary and whose only ideology is one of PC-liberalism. You guys just cover your ears and keep shouting that im a sexist, rascist and yadda yadda yadda, because you cant take or refute what i am actually saying. Very sad.

And about riots. Again you cannot see the diffrence between riots and armed struggle? Are you so blinded by your pacifist dogma? Riots has a direct social element to it that cannot be disconnected. Armed struggle, on the other hand, CAN be disconnected from all social elements, and therefore be militaristic and statist. And i have never said that i ONLY throw rocks, but i do think riots are important for the general rebellion against capitalism.

The only behaviour pattern i have shown is a a great pattern of kicking your asses in this debate, and moreover being smug about it! Haha.

Once again the boy needs schooling

Educated 21.Jun.2007 03:44

Your eductional and ideological understanding of the meaning and origin of riots is obviously lacking.

From the Encyplodia Britanica:

"Riots are a form of civil disorder characterized by disorganized groups lashing out in a sudden and intense rash of unpremeditated violence, vandalism or other crime. While a riot may be premeditated and intentionally incited, a true riot is quickly joined by people without foreknowledge of the riot. While individuals may attempt to lead or control a riot, riots are particularly chaotic and exhibit herd behavior."

The suburban French riots were riots.
The LA riots were a spontaneous explosion of rage in reaction to 4 cops being found innocent by an all white jury in the beating of Rodney King. The reaction that far exceeded throwing rocks by an organized group of people all wearing the same color clothes who premeditated showing up at the G8 and planned their activities.

Politically motivated riots by an underclass reacting to their oppressors usually involve reappropriation of wealth (ie. Looting). They involve uncontrolled rage that usually means the public meeting authorities with equal force (ie. LA)

"Let's all go to Germany and on the Saturday before the G8 let's all show up and start some shit with the cops before the coalition starts marching"?

Honey Child that isn't a riot. People in riots don't happen to have their ski mask handy to cover their identity and gas masks to blunt the tear gas.

A lame one a that. LA riots paralyzed the majority one of world's largest cities. Billions in property were taken by poor African Americans and Latinos sick and tired of police oppression.

What you guys do is wait for some large coalition to plan an event and then you organize to upstage it with rock throwing and graffitti.

Millions participated in the LA riots. A couple thousand organized at the G8 to Block up.

That's the drill. You know it we know it. Own it. That's what you do. Be proud of who you are.

I dare you to start throwing rocks at cops in the New York City or Miami girlfriend. They would cut you down where you stand.

Don't take a rock to a gun fight. Those odds suck. Better to organize than demoralize by being videotaped getting your asses kicked by the cops. That is an embarassment to the movement.

Sun Tszu:
Don't enter a fight you cannot when. It demoralizes your people.

Last:
If Mandela was a liberal reformer, why, when offered to be released from decades of impisonment, did he still refuse to renounce armed struggle.



There was NOTHING Revolutionary about LA/Paris Riots

Glorious&Triumphant 21.Jun.2007 08:08

Educated, you say that "Politically motivated riots by an underclass reacting to their oppressors usually involve reappropriation of wealth (ie. Looting). They involve uncontrolled rage that usually means the public meeting authorities with equal force (ie. LA)"

Let me ask you something. Did the "politically motivated" rioters of LA go all the way to the shopping malls of affluent Orange County to "reappropriate wealth? Or the ones in Paris to the boutiques of Champs Elysees?

NO! THEY ROBBED OTHER POOR PEOPLE OF COLOR! They trashed stores, flipped cars and broke into the homes of OTHER poor, working class Blacks and Muslims.

53 people died in the LA riots. Only 8 died as a result of police action (and they were all acting in self defense or against violent gangsters who took advantage of the chaos to commit violent crimes) All the rest were killed by the rioters.

Same goes for the Parisians. They only attacked other poor or working class Muslims because they were easy targets for theft and robbery.

They were not revolutionaries. They were opportunists and nothing but violent thugs, thieves and scum.

Nazi on Indy media

Real Anarchist 21.Jun.2007 10:13

Ok your busted Nazi. Now I know you are comletely whak. Your the one that was talking about the significance of the riots in the French suburbs now you are dissing them.

You know nothing about the LA Riots. Number one, they looted and burned stores owned by rich people in their neighborhoods. They made it almost all the way to Hollywood.

They went further than you ever will.

Your just a racist, elitist, hiding behind calling yourself and anarchist. I thought it was weird how you were throwing around "Bitch", "Brownie" and trashing Every leader of color brought up.

You would get run out of any anarchist gathering in the USA if you said that shit openly. White radicals in this country thank the Latinos and African Americans in LA for showing the police that there are consequences when you fuck with people.

What was accomplished? Chief Gates fired, Several officers involved went to jail, the abilition of the famed rampart division where officers were busted for all kinds of shit from murder to drug dealing. The whole thing had a ripple effect. The Anarchist cheered "Cop Watch" was born out of the LA riots. Police forces across the US started watching cops more closely out of fear of mob reprisal.

Like in Miami where a unit of the force was busted for murdering drug dealers and stealing their money and drugs and selling them. Like in Miami where officers were busted for planting guns on unarmed suspects that were killed.

Since then African Americans have rioted in Miami, Cincinnati, Indy, and cities all over the US.

I hate you and all Intellectual Caucasians like you. You sit there and shit on Che, Mandela, MLK, the LA Riots, the Cuban independence movement, the South African anti-racist movement, the womyns movement.

You are to the right of Mussolini. You haven't appluded one movemnet of color, nor any leader of color. It's obvious. You can type whatever names you want. By the way some of the people posting in here are womyn by the way and "Bitch don't fly in our collective. Your politics, your language, your grammar all sucks. You just suck. Go away. You saw Quadrophenia too many times. You are probably the last Mod in Britain.

Everytime you type another post you dig yourself deeper. You just suck.

I bet you hate gay people as well.

I am curious what do you have to say about the Gay, Lesbain, Bisexual, movement comrade asshole.

Calm down kiddies. Papa @ is here

@ 21.Jun.2007 12:07

Actually, that wasnt me. I would have thought that you had noticed that i sign all my posts with "@"?

Anyway, about the riots. You dont think they were riots because it was "planned" and "prepared" for? What the hell are you trying to say?

By the way, we kicked the shit out of the police that day.

It wasn't a riot

That's all 21.Jun.2007 20:32

You may have taken the police to task, fine. It hust wasn't a riot. It was an organized event.

If a bunch of local people had heard and did not know "Hey the G8 is here", "Oh my God I am outraged I can't contain myself", "Let's go nuts". THen that is a riot.

These events were organized months in advance and people had airline reservations for god's sake. Hardly a riot.

A very well planned series of Violent, Non violent, artistic, and other events occurred. Some more strategic than others in my view but not a riot.

grasping for straws?

@ 21.Jun.2007 22:50

Dude, even if it was a planned event, it is still a riot. By the way, how can you differance between a "planned" and a "spontaneous" riots? Those are false opposites in everything but in your head. Give me a break.

And by the way; the LA riots and the riots in the french suburbs were awesome!

Awesome because they wer Spontaneous

Real Anarchist 22.Jun.2007 04:45

Not contrived. An uprising.

The rebellion in Los Angeles: The context of a proletarian uprising

@ 23.Jun.2007 02:11


The Rebellion in Los Angeles:
The Context of a Proletarian Uprising

On April 29th, Los Angeles exploded in the most serious urban uprising in America this century. It took the federal army, the national guard and police from throughout the country three days to restore order, by which time the residents of L.A. had appropriated millions of dollars worth of goods and destroyed a billion dollars of capitalist property. Most readers will be familiar with many of the details of the rebellion. This article will attempt to make sense of the uprising by putting the events into the context of the present state of class relations in Los Angeles and America in order to see where this new militancy in the class struggle may lead.

Before the rebellion, there were two basic attitudes on the state of class struggle in America. The pessimistic view is that the American working class has been decisively defeated. This view has held that the U.S. is - in terms of the topography of the global class struggle - little more than a desert. The more optimistic view held, that despite the weakness of the traditional working class against the massive cuts in wages, what we see in the domination of the American left by single issue campaigns and 'Politically Correct' discourse is actually evidence of the vitality of the autonomous struggles of sections of the working class. The explosion of class struggle in L.A. shows the need to go beyond these one-sided views.


1 Beyond the image

As most of our information about the rioting has come through the capitalist media, it is necessary to deal with the distorted perspective it has given. Just as in the Gulf War, the media presented an appearance of full immersion in what happened while actually constructing a falsified view of the events. While in the Gulf there was a concrete effort to disinform, in L.A. the distortion was a product not so much of censorship as much as of the total incomprehension of the bourgeois media when faced with proletarian insurrection. As Mike Davis points out, most reporters, 'merely lip-synched suburban clich�s as they tramped through the ruins of lives they had no desire to understand. A violent kaleidoscope of bewildering complexity was flattened into a single, categorical scenario: legitimate black anger over the King decision hijacked by hard-core street criminals and it transformed into a maddened assault on their own community.'[1] Such a picture is far from the truth.

The beating of Rodney King in 1991 was no isolated incident and, but for the chance filming of the event, would have passed unnoticed into the pattern of racist police repression of the inner cities that characterises the present form of capitalist domination in America. But, because of the insertion of this everyday event into general public awareness the incident became emblematic. While the mainstream television audience forgot the event through the interminable court proceedings, the eyes of the residents of South Central L.A. and other inner cities remained fixed on a case that had become a focus for their anger towards the system King's beating was typical of. Across the country, but especially in L.A., there was the feeling and preparation that, whatever the result of the trial, the authorities were going to experience people's anger.[2] For the residents of South Central, the King incident was just a trigger. They ignored his televised appeals for an end to the uprising because it wasn't about him. The rebellion was against the constant racism on the streets and about the systematic oppression of the inner cities; it was against the everyday reality of racist American capitalism.

One media set response to similar situations has been to label them as 'race riots'. Such a compartmentalisation broke down very quickly in L.A. as indicated in Newsweek's reports of the rebellion: 'Instead of enraged young black men shouting "Kill Whitey," Hispanics and even some whites - men, women and children - mingled with African-Americans. The mob's primary lust appeared to be for property, not blood. In a fiesta mood, looters grabbed for expensive consumer goods that had suddenly become "free". Better-off black as well as white and AsianAmerican business people all got burned.' Newsweek turned to an 'expert' - an urban sociologist - who tells them, 'This wasn't a race riot. It was a class riot.'[3]

Perhaps uncomfortable with this analysis they turned to 'Richard Cunningham, 19', 'a clerk with a neat goatee': "They don't care for anything. Right now they're just on a spree. They want to live the lifestyle they see people on TV living. They see people with big old houses, nice cars, all the stereo equipment they want, and now that it's free, they're gonna get it." As the sociologist told them - a class riot.

In L.A., Hispanics, blacks and some whites united against the police; the composition of the riot reflected the composition of the area. Of the first 5,000 arrests '52 per cent were poor Latinos, 10 per cent whites and only 38 per cent blacks.'[4]

Faced with such facts, the media found it impossible to make the label 'race riot' stick. They were more successful, however, in presenting what happened as random violence and as a senseless attack by people on their own community. It is not that there was no pattern to the violence, it is that the media did not like the pattern it took. Common targets were journalists and photographers, including black and Hispanic ones. Why should the rioters target the media? - 1) these scavengers gathering round the story offer a real danger of identifying participants by their photos and reports. 2) The uncomprehending deluge of coverage of the rebellion follows years of total neglect of the people of South Central except their representation as criminals and drug addicts. In South Central, reporters are now being called "image looters".

But the three fundamental aspects to the rebellion were the refusal of representation, direct appropriation of wealth and attacks on property; the participants went about all three thoroughly.

Refusal of representation
While the rebellion in '65 had been limited to the Watts district, in '92 the rioters circulated their struggle very effectively. Their first task was to bypass their 'representatives'. The black leadership - from local government politicians through church organisations and civil rights bureaucracy - failed in its task of controlling its community. Elsewhere in the States this strata did to a large extent succeed in channelling people's anger away from the direct action of L.A., managing to stop the spread of the rebellion. The struggle was circulated, but we can only imagine the crisis that would have ensued if the actions in other cities had reached L.A.'s intensity. Still, in L.A. both the self-appointed and elected representatives were by-passed. They cannot deliver. The rioters showed the same disrespect for their 'leaders' as did their Watts counterparts. Years of advancement by a section of blacks, their intersection of themselves as mediators between 'their' community and US capital and state, was shown as irrelevant. While community leaders tried to restrain the residents, 'gang leaders brandishing pipes, sticks and baseball bats whipped up hotheads, urging them not to trash their own neighbourhoods but to attack the richer turf to the west'.[5]



"It was too dangerous for the police to go on to the streets"

Observer, May 3rd 1992

Attacks on property
The insurgents used portable phones to monitor the police. The freeways that have done so much to divide the communities of L.A. were used by the insurgents to spread their struggle. Cars of blacks and Hispanics moved throughout a large part of the city burning their targets - commercial premises, the sites of capitalist exploitation - while at other points traffic jams formed outside Malls as their contents were liberated. As well as being the first multiethnic riot in American history, it was its first car-borne riot. The police were totally overwhelmed by the creativity and ingenuity of the rioters.

Direct appropriation
"Looting, which instantly destroys the commodity as such, also discloses what the commodity ultimately implies: The army, the police and the other specialized detachments of the state's monopoly of armed violence."[6] Once the rioters had got the police off the streets looting was clearly an overwhelming aspect of the insurrection. The rebellion in Los Angeles was an explosion of anger against capitalism but also an eruption of what could take its place: creativity, initiative, joy.



A middle-aged woman said: "Stealing is a sin, but this is more like a television gameshow where everyone in the audience gets to win."

Davis, article in The Nation, June 1st 1992

"Looters of all races owned the streets, storefronts and malls. Blond kids loaded their Volkswagen with stereo gear... Filipinos in a banged up old clunker stocked up on baseball mitts and sneakers. Hispanic mothers with children browsed the gaping chain drug marts and clothing stores. A few Asians were spotted as well. Where the looting at Watts had been desperate, angry, mean, the mood this time was closer to a maniac fiesta."[7]

The direct appropriation of wealth (pejoratively labelled looting) breaks the circuit of capital - Work Wage-Consumption - and such a struggle is just as unacceptable to capital as a strike. However it is also true that, for a large section of the L.A. working class, rebellion at the level of production is impossible. From the constant awareness of a 'good life' out of reach - commodities they cannot have - to the contradiction of the simplest commodity, the use-values they need are all stamped with a price tag; they experience the contradictions of capital not at the level of alienated production but at the level of alienated consumption, not at the level of labour but at the level of the commodity.



"A lot of people feel that it's reparations. It's what already belongs to us."

Will M., former gang member, on the 'looting'.
International Herald Tribune, 8th May 1992

It is important to grasp the importance of direct appropriation, especially for subjects such as those in L.A. who are relatively marginalised from production. This 'involves an ability to understand working-class behaviour as tending to bring about, in opposition to the law of value, a direct relationship with the social wealth that is produced. Capitalist development itself, having reached this level of class struggle, destroys the 'objective' parameters of social exchange. The proletariat can thus only recompose itself, within this level, through a material will to reappropriate to itself in real terms the relation to social wealth that capital has formally redimensioned'.[8]

If the bourgeois press had to concede the class nature of the uprising, all the stranger that a part of the left here felt it necessary to insist that what happened was a race riot. Living Marxism felt it necessary to reduce this eruption of class anger to their narrow conception of the 'silent race war'. The fact that the multiracial rebellion by the proletariat of L.A. was a massive explosion of class struggle escaped the notice of the RCP; but then for followers of Living (Dying?) Marxism class struggle has no existence; certainly it is not something that can be allowed to get in the way of 'the battle of ideas'. The RCP's whole stance on this and other acts of class struggle (such as the poll tax rebellion) is evidence of their retreat to the realm of ideology.

The SWP's response was more traditional. While they at least recognised the class nature of the events they did not bother to analyse the events themselves, just used them as illustrations of how their line on race and class was correct. Alex Callinicos, for example, subordinated his attempt at a serious analysis of the relation between 'Race and Class' to the more urgent task of giving a rather lame defence of their ANL strategy which is obviously in deep crisis.[9]

The RCP and SWP: mirrors of each other. What we saw in both cases was not a response to the riots - not an attempt to learn from the actions of the class - rather just the taking of them as an excuse to trot out the previously developed line. So for the RCP the uprising was a 'race riot' showing the correctness of their idea of a 'silent race war' while for the SWP it shows the validity of their ANL strategy. For both groups the significance of any outburst of class struggle is always just to show the problems of capitalism and the need for the(ir) party. The point with these and other Trotskyite groupings is that they already know what revolution is and what forms of organisation and actions it involves - it was what happened in Russia in 1917. They can only see the L.A. rebellion as evidence that their diagnosis of capitalism's sickness and their cure remain valid.

But we on the non-Leninist revolutionary left should be wary of just repeating our line that the riots were just great and that we support them whole-heartedly. It is not enough just to support the events, we should try to understand them and the development they represent.


2 Race and class composition

So even Newsweek, voice of the American bourgeoisie, conceded that what happened was not a 'race riot' but a 'class riot'. But in identifying the events as a class rebellion we do not have to deny they had 'racial' elements. The overwhelming importance of the riots was the extent to which the racial divisions in the American working class were transcended in the act of rebellion; but it would be ludicrous to say that race was absent as an issue. There were 'racial' incidents: what we need to do is see how these elements are an expression of the underlying class conflict. Some of the crowd who initiated the rebellion at the Normandie and Florence intersection went on to attack a white truck driver, Reginald Oliver Denny. The media latched on to the beating, transmitting it live to confirm suburban white fear of urban blacks. But how representative was this incident? An analysis of the deaths during the uprising shows it was not.[10] Still, we need to see how the class war is articulated in 'racial' ways.

In America generally, the ruling class has always promoted and manipulated racism, from the genocide of native Americans, through slavery, to the continuing use of ethnicity to divide the labour force. The black working class experience is to a large extent that of being pushed out of occupations by succeeding waves of immigrants. While most groups in American society on arrival at the bottom of the labour market gradually move up, blacks have constantly been leapfrogged. Moreover, the racism this involves has been a dampner on the development of class consciousness on the part of white workers.

In L.A. specifically, the inhabitants of South Central constitute some of the most excluded sectors of the working class. Capital's strategy with regards these sectors is one of repression carried out by the police - a class issue. However the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) is predominantly white and its victims massively black and Hispanic (or as P.C. discourse would have it, people of colour). Unlike in other cities, where the racist nature of the split between the included and excluded sectors is blurred by the state's success in co-opting large numbers of blacks on to the police force, in L.A. capital's racist strategy of division and containment is revealed in every encounter between the LAPD and the population - a race issue.

When the blacks and Hispanics of L.A. have been marginalised and oppressed according to their skin colour, it is not surprising that in their explosion of class anger against their oppressors they will use skin colour as a racial shorthand in identifying the enemy, just as it has been used against them. So even if the uprising had been a 'race riot', it would still have been a class riot. It is also important to recognise the extent to which the participants went beyond racial stereotypes. While the attacks on the police, the acts of appropriation and attacks on property were seen as proper and necessary by nearly everyone involved, there is evidence that acts of violence against individuals on the basis of their skin colour were neither typical of the rebellion nor widely supported.[11] In the context of the racist nature of L.A. class oppression, it would have been surprising if there had not been a racial element to some of the rebellion. What is surprising and gratifying is the overwhelming extent to which this was not the case, the extent to which the insurgents by-passed capital's racist strategies of control.



"A lot of people feel that in order to come together we have to sacrifice the neighbourhood."

Will M., former gang member, on the destruction of businesses.
International Herald Tribune, 8th May 1992

One form the rebellion took was a systematic assault on Korean businesses. The Koreans are on the front-line of the confrontation between capital and the residents of central L.A. - they are the face of capital for these communities. Relations between the black community and the Koreans had collapsed following the Harlins incident and its judicial result. In an argument over a $1.79 bottle of orange juice, Latasha Harlins, a 15-year old black girl, was shot in the back of the head by a Korean grocer - Soon Ja Du - who was then let off with a $500 fine and some community service. While the American State packs its Gulags with poor blacks for just trying to survive, it allows a shopkeeper to kill their children. But though this event had a strong effect on the blacks of South Central, their attack on Korean property cannot be reduced to vengeance for one incident - it was directed against the whole system of exchange. The uprising attacked capital in its form of property, not any property but the property of businesses - the institutions of exploitation; and in the black and Hispanic areas, most of these properties and businesses were owned by Koreans. But though we should understand the resentment towards the Koreans as class-based, it is necessary to put this in the context of the overall situation. In L.A., the black working-class's position deteriorated in the late 1970s with the closure of the heavy industry, whereas at the end the sixties they had started to be employed in large numbers. This was part of the internationalization of L.A.'s economy, its insertion into the Pacific Rim centre of accumulation which also involved an influx of mainly Japanese capital into downtown redevelopment, immigration of over a million Latin Americans to take the new low-wage manufacturing jobs that replaced the jobs blacks had been employed in, and the influx of South Koreans into L.A.'s mercantile economy. Thus while Latinos offered competition for jobs, the Koreans came to represent capital to blacks. However, these racial divisions are totally contingent. Within the overall restructuring, the jobs removed from L.A. blacks were relocated to other parts of the Pacific Rim such as South Korea. The combativity of these South Korean workers shows that the petty-bourgeois role Koreans take in L.A. is but part of a wider picture in which class conflict crosses all national and ethnic divides as global finance capital dances around trying to escape its nemesis but always recreating it.


3 Class composition and capitalist restructuring

The American working class is divided between waged and unwaged, blue and white collar, immigrant and citizen labour, guaranteed and unguaranteed; but as well as this, and often synonymous with these distinctions, it is divided along ethnic lines. Moreover, these divisions are real divisions in terms of power and expectations. We cannot just cover them up with a call for class unity or fatalistically believe that, until the class is united behind a Leninist party or other such vanguard, it will not be able to take on capital. In terms of the American situation as well as with other areas of the global class conflict it is necessary to use the dynamic notion of class composition[12] rather than a static notion of social classes.



"When Bush visited the area security was massive. TV networks were
asked not to broadcast any of Mr Bush's visit live
to keep from giving away his exact location in the area."

International Herald Tribune, 8th May 1992

The rebellion in South Central Los Angeles and the associated actions across the United States showed the presence of an antagonistic proletarian subject within American capitalism. This presence had been occluded by a double process: on the one hand, a sizeable section of American workers have had their consciousness of being proletarian - of being in antagonism to capital - obscured in a widespread identification with the idea of being 'middle-class'[13]; and on the other, for a sizeable minority, perhaps a quarter of the population, there has being their recomposition as marginalised sub-workers excluded from consideration as a part of society by the label 'underclass'.[14] The material basis for such sociological categorisations is that, on the one hand there is the increased access to 'luxury' consumption for certain 'higher' strata, while on the other there is the exclusion from anything but 'subsistence' consumption by those 'lower' strata consigned to unemployment or badly paid part-time or irregular work.[15]

This strategy of capital's carries risks, for while the included sector is generally kept in line by the brute force of economic relations, redoubled by the fear of falling into the excluded sector, the excluded themselves, for whom the American dream has been revealed as a nightmare, must be kept down by sheer police repression. In this repression, the war on drugs has acted as a cover for measures that increasingly contradict the 'civil rights' which bourgeois society, especially in America, has prided itself on bringing into the world.

Part of the U.S. capital's response to the Watts and other 'sixties rebellions was to give ground. To a large section of the working class revolting because its needs were not being met, capital responded with money - the form of mediation par excellence - trying to meet some of that pressure within the limits of capitalist control.[16] This was not maintained into the 'eighties. For example, federal aid to cities fell from $47.2 billion in 1980 to $21.7 billion in 1992. The pattern is that of the global response to the proletarian offensives of the 'sixties and 'seventies: first give way - allowing wage increases, increasing welfare spending (i.e. meeting the social needs of the proletariat) - then, when capital has consolidated its forces, the second part - restructure accumulation on a different basis - destructure knots of working class militancy, create unemployment.

In America, this strategy was on the surface more successful than in Europe. The American bourgeoisie had managed to halt the general rise in wages by selectively allowing some sectors of the working class to maintain or increase their living standards while others had theirs massively reduced. One sector in particular has felt the brunt of this strategy: the residents of the inner city who are largely black and Hispanic. The average yearly income of black high school graduates fell by 44% between 1973 and 1990, there have been severe cutbacks in social programmes and massive disinvestment. With the uprising, the American working class has shown that capital's success in isolating and screwing this section has been temporary.

The re-emergence of an active proletarian subject shows the importance, when considering the strategy of capital, of not forgetting that its restructuring is a response to working class power. The working class is not just an object within capital's process. It is a subject (or plurality of subjects), and, at the level of political class composition reached by the proletariat in the 'sixties, it undermined the process. Capital's restructuring was an attack on this class composition, an attempt to transform the subject back into an object, into labour-power.[17]

Capitalist restructuring tried to introduce fragmentation and hierarchy into a class subject which was tending towards unity (a unity that respected multilaterality). It moved production to other parts of the world (only as in Korea to export class struggle as well); it tried to break the strength of the 'mass worker' by breaking up the labour force within factories into teams and by spreading the factory to lots of small enterprises; it has also turned many wage-labourers into self-employed to make people internalise capital's dictates. In America, the fragmentation also occurred along the lines of ethnicity. Black blue-collar workers have been a driving force in working class militancy as recorded by C.L.R. James and others. For a large number of blacks and others, the new plan involved their relegation to Third World poverty levels.[18] But as Negri puts it, "marginalisation is as far as capital can go in excluding people from the circuits of production - expulsion is impossible. Isolation within the circuit of production - this is the most that capital's action of restructuration can hope to achieve."[19] When recognising the power of capital's restructuring it is necessary to affirm the fundamental place of working class struggles as the motor force of capital's development. Capital attacks a certain level of political class composition and a new level is recomposed; but this is not the creation of the perfect, pliable working class - it is only ever a provisional recomposition of the class on the basis of its previously attained level.

Capitalist restructuring has taken the form in Los Angeles of its insertion into the Pacific Rim pole of accumulation. Metal banging and transport industry jobs, which blacks only started moving into in the tail end of the boom in late 'sixties and the early 'seventies, have left the city, while about one million Latino immigrants have arrived, taking jobs in low-wage manufacturing and labour-intensive services. The effect on the Los Angeles black community has not been homogeneous; while a sizeable section has attained guaranteed status through white-collar jobs in the public sector, the majority who were employed in the private sector in traditional working class jobs have become unemployed. It is working class youth who have fared worse, with unemployment rates of 45% in South Central.

But the recomposition of the L.A. working class has not been entirely a victory of capitalist restructuring. Capital would like this section of society to work. It would like its progressive undermining of the welfare system to make the 'underclass' go and search for jobs, any jobs anywhere. Instead, many residents survive by 'Aid to Families With Dependent Children', forcing the cost of reproducing labour power[20] on to the state, which is particularly irksome when the labour power produced is so unruly. The present consensus among bourgeois commentators is that the problem is the 'decline of the family and its values.' Capital's imperative is to re-impose its model of the family as a model of work discipline and form of reproduction (make the proles take on the cost of reproduction themselves).[21]


4 A note on architecture and the postmodernists

Los Angeles as we know is the 'city of the future'. In the 'thirties the progressive vision of business interests prevailed and the L.A. streetcars - one of the best public transport systeems in America - were ripped up; freeways followed. It was in Los Angeles that Adorno & Horkheimer first painted their melancholy picture of consciousness subsumed by capitalism and where Marcuse later pronounced man 'One Dimensional'. More recently, Los Angeles has been the inspiration for fashionable post-theory. Baudrillard, Derrida and other postmodernist post-structuralist scum have all visited and performed in the city. Baudrillard even found here 'utopia achieved'.[22]

The 'postmodern' celebrators of capitalism love the architecture of Los Angeles, its endless freeways and the redeveloped downtown. They write eulogies to the sublime space within the $200 a night Bonaventura hotel, but miss the destruction of public space outside. The postmodernists, though happy to extend a term from architecture to the whole of society, and even the epoch, are reluctant to extend their analysis of the architecture just an inch beneath the surface. The 'postmodern' buildings of Los Angeles have been built with an influx of mainly Japanese capital into the city. Downtown L.A. is now second only to Tokyo as a financial centre for the Pacific Rim. But the redevelopment has been at the expense of the residents of the inner city. Tom Bradley, an ex-cop and Mayor since 1975, has been a perfect black figurehead for capital's restructuring of L.A.. He has supported the massive redevelopment of downtown L.A., which has been exclusively for the benefit of business. In 1987, at the request of the Central City East Association of Businesses he ordered the destruction of the makeshift pavement camps of the homeless; there are an estimated 50,000 homeless in L.A., 10, 000 of them children. Elsewhere city planning has involved the destruction of people's homes and of working class work opportunities to make way for business development funded by Pacific Rim capital - a siege by international capital of working class Los Angeles.

But the postmodernists did not even have to look at this behind-the-scenes movement, for the violent nature of the development is apparent from a look at the constructions themselves. The architecture of Los Angeles is characterised by militarisation. City planning in Los Angeles is essentially a matter for the police. An overwhelming feature of the L.A. environment is the presence of security barriers, surveillance technology - the policing of space. Buildings in public use like the inner city malls and a public library are built like fortresses, surrounded by giant security walls and dotted with surveillance cameras.

In Los Angeles, "on the bad edge of postmodernity, one observes an unprecedented tendency to merge urban design, architecture and the police apparatus in a single comprehensive security effort."[23] Just as Haussman redesigned Paris after the revolutions of 1848, building boulevards to give clear lines of fire, L.A. architects and city planners have remade L.A. since the Watts rebellion. Public space is closed, the attempt is made to kill the street as a means of killing the crowd. Such a strategy is not unique to Los Angeles but here it has reached absurd levels: the police are so desperate to 'kill the crowd' that they have taken the unprecedented step of killing the toilet.[24] Around office developments 'public' art buildings and landscaped garden 'microparks' are designed into the parking structures to allow office workers to move from car to office or shop without being exposed to the dangers of the street. The public spaces that remain are militarised, from 'bumproof' bus shelter benches to automatic sprinklers in the parks to stop people sleeping there. White middle class areas are surrounded by walls and private security. During the riots, the residents of these enclaves either fled or armed themselves and nervously waited.

We see, then, that in the States, but especially in L.A., architecture is not merely a question of aesthetics, it is used along with the police to separate the included and the excluded sections of capitalist society. But this phenomenon is by no means unique to America. Across the advanced capitalist countries we see attempts to redevelop away urban areas that have been sites of contestation. In Paris, for example, we have seen, under the flag of 'culture', the Pompidou centre built on a old working class area, as a celebration of the defeat of the '68 movement.[25] Here in Britain the whole of Docklands was taken over by a private development corporation to redevelop the area - for a while yuppie flats sprang up at ridiculous prices and the long-standing residents felt besieged in their estates by armies of private security guards. Still, we saw how that ended... Now in Germany, the urban areas previously marginalised by the Wall, such as Kreuzberg and the Potzdamer Platz, have become battlegrounds over who's needs the new Berlin will satisfy.

Of course, such observations and criticisms of the 'bad edge of postmodernity', if they fail to see the antagonism to the process and allowed themselves to be captivated by capital's dialectic, by its creation of our dystopia, could fall into mirroring the postmodernists' celebration of it. There is no need for pessimism - what the rebellion showed was that capital has not killed the crowd. Space is still contested. Just as Haussman's plans did not stop the Paris Commune, L.A. redevelopment did not stop the 1992 rebellion.


5 Gangs



"In June 1988 the police easily won Police Commission approval for the
issuing of flesh-ripping hollow-point ammunition: precisely the same
'dum-dum' bullets banned in warfare by the Geneva Conventions."

Mike Davis (1990) City of Quartz , p. 290

We cannot deny the role gangs played in the uprising.[26] The systematic nature of the rioting is directly linked to their participation and most importantly to the truce on internal fighting they called before the uprising. Gang members often took the lead which the rest of the proletariat followed.[27] The militancy of the gangs - their hatred of the police - flows from the unprecedented repression the youth of South Central have experienced: a level of state repression on a par with that dished out to rebellious natives by colonial forces such as that suffered by Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. Under the guise of gang-busting and dealing with the 'crack menace', the LAPD have launched massive 'swamp' operations; they have formed files on much of the youth of South Central and murdered lots of proletarians.

As Mike Davis put it in 1988, "the contemporary Gang scare has become an imaginary class relationship, a terrain of pseudoknowledge and fantasy projection, a talisman."[28] The 'gang threat' has been used as an excuse to criminalise the youth of South Central L.A.[29] We should not deny the existence of the problems of crack use and inter-gang violence, but we need to see that, what has actually been a massive case of working class on working class violence, a sorry example of internalised aggression resulting from a position of frustrated needs, has been interpreted as a 'lawless threat' to justify more of the repression and oppression that created the situation in the first place. To understand recent gang warfare and the role of gangs in the rebellion we must look at the history of the gang phenomenon.

In Los Angeles, black street gangs emerged in the late 1940s primarily as a response to white racist attacks in schools and on the streets. When Nation of Islam and other black nationalist groups formed in the late 'fifties, Chief Parker of the LAPD conflated the two phenomena as a combined black menace. It was a self-fulfilling prophecy, for the repression launched against the gangs and black militants had the effect of radicalising the gangs. This politicisation reached a peak in the Watts rebellion, when, as in '92, gang members made a truce and were instrumental in the black working class success in holding off the police for four days. The truce formed in the heat of the rebellion lasted for most of the rest of the 'sixties. Many gang members joined the Black Panther Party or formed other radical political groupings. There was a general feeling that the gangs had 'joined the Revolution'.

The repression of the movement involved the FBI's COINTELPRO[30] programme and the LAPD's own red squad. The Panthers were shot on the streets and on the campuses both directly by the police and by their agents, their headquarters in L.A. were besieged by LAPD SWAT teams, and dissension was sown in their ranks. Although the Panthers' politics were flawed, they were an organic expression of the black proletariat's experience of American capitalism. The systematic nature of their repression shows just how dangerous they were perceived to be.

As even the L.A. times admitted,[31] the recrudescence of gangs in L.A. in the early 'seventies was a direct consequence of the decimation of the more political expressions of black frustration. A new aspect of this phenomena was the prodigious spread of Crip sets which caused the other gangs to federate as the Bloods. As Davis puts it, "this was not merely a gang revival, but a radical permutation of black gang culture. The Crips, however perversely, inherited the Panther aura of fearlessness and transmitted the ideology of armed vanguardism (shorn of its program). But too often Crippin' came to represent an escalation of intra-ghetto violence to Clockwork Orange levels (murder as a status symbol, and so on)...[the Crips] achieved a 'managerial revolution' in gang organisation. If they began as a teenage substitute for the fallen Panthers, they evolved through the 1970s into a hybrid of teen cult and proto-mafia".[32]

That gangs, even in their murderous mutation as 'proto-mafia' Crips and Bloods, have been an expression of the need for political organisation is indicated in a few instances where they have made political interventions. In two major situations, the Monravia riots in 1972 and the L.A. schools bussing crisis of 1977-79, the Crips intervened in support of the black community. These gangs, as an expression of the proletariat, are not in the grips of a false consciousness that makes them think all there is to life is gold chains and violence. Whenever they have been given a chance to speak, for instance in December 1972 at the beginning of the transformation of the gangs into the ultra-violent Crips and Bloods, they have come out with clear political demands.[33] Every time they have been given a chance to express themselves, similar demands have been voiced. The LAPD does all in its power to stop the gangs being given a voice so as to maintain its war against them.

Still, if the gangs wanted to appeal to people's sympathies, they have done themselves no favours by dealing in crack. However, if we look closely at this we find that the mass move into this trade is pushed on them by capital. Young blacks moved into the alternative economy of drugs when traditional occupations were destroyed. We are dealing with material pressures.

For a member of South Central's youth proletariat, the only rational economic choice is to sell drugs. While the internationalization of the Los Angeles economy has meant a loss for working class blacks, what the Crips and Bloods have managed to do is insert themselves back into the circuit of international trade. While the international trade in legal commodities decided that the Los Angeles blacks were expendable another branch found them eminently useful. Southern California has taken over from Florida as the main route of entry of cocaine into the United States. When in the early 'eighties the cocaine business found the market for its product saturated, its price falling and profits threatened, it, like any other multinational, diversified and developed new products, the chief one being crack - 'the poor man's cocaine'. Young proletarians participate in this business because it is the work on offer. It is not them but capital that reduces life to survival/work. We can see, then, that selling crack is in a sense just another undesirable activity like making weapons or cigarettes that proletarians are forced to engage in.[34] But there is a significant difference. Within most occupations proletarians can organise directly within and against capital; but the drug dealing gangs do not confront capital as labour. Gangs do not confront the capital of the enterprise, they confront the repressive arm of capital-in-general: the State. In fact, to the extent that the gangs engage in the cocaine trade and fit firmly into the circuit of international capital, they are the capitalist enterprise. This is a problem. The drive-by shootings and lethal turf wars of the black gangs is the proletariat killing itself for capital.

It is necessary to see, then, that the murderous gangbanging[35] phenomenon which is presently halted has not been, as the bourgeois press would have it, the result of the breakdown of 'family values' and the loss of the restraining influence of the middle class as they left for the suburbs; rather it resulted from: 1) the economics of capitalist restructuring (the replacing of traditional industries with drugs) and 2) the active destruction of political forms of self-organisation by state repression. The solution to the problem of the murderous crack wars is the rediscovery of political self-activity of the sort shown in the rebellion. The solution to inter-proletarian violence is proletarian violence.

The irrepressible nature of the gang-phenomenon shows the pressing need for organisation on the part of the youth proletariat of L.A. For a while in the 'sixties it took a self-consciously political form. When this manifestly political form of organisation was repressed, the gangs came back with a vengeance, showing that they express a real and pressing need. What we have seen in and since the uprising is a new politicisation of gang culture: a return of the repressed.


6 Political ideas of the gangs

Since the rebellion, some attention has been given to the political ideas and proposals of the gangs (or, more precisely, the gang leadership). The proposals are mixed. Some are unobjectionable, like that for gang members with video cameras to follow the police to prevent brutality and for money for locally community controlled rebuilding of the neighbourhood; but others, like replacing welfare with workfare, and for close cooperation between the gangs and corporations, are more dubious. The political ideas from which these proposals spring seem largely to be limited to black nationalism. So how should we understand these proposals and this ideology?

The attempt by the gang leadership to interpose themselves as mediators of the ghetto has similarities to the role of unions and we should perhaps apply to them a similar critique to that which we apply to unions. It is necessary: 1) to recognise a difference between the leaders and the ordinary members 2) to recognise the role of the leadership as recuperating and channelling the demands of the rank and file.

Some of the gang leaders' conceptions are, quite apart from being reactionary, manifestly unrealistic. In the context of capitalist restructuring, the inner city ghetto and its 'underclass' is surplus to requirements - it has been written off - it has no place in capitalist strategy, except perhaps as a terror to encourage the others. It is extremely unlikely that there will be a renegotiation of the social contract to bring these subjects back into the main rhythm of capitalist development. This was to an extent possible in the 'sixties and 'seventies, but no longer.

Understandably, in the light of the main options available, there is a desire in the inhabitants of L.A. for secure unionized employment.[36] But capital has moved many industries away and they will not come back. Many of the people in these areas recognise the change and want jobs in computers and other areas of the new industries. But, although individual people from the ghetto may manage to get a job in these sectors (probably only by moving), for the vast majority this will remain a dream. Within capital's restructuring, these jobs are available to a certain section of the working class, and, while a few from the ghetto might insert themselves into that section, the attractive security of that section is founded on an overall recomposition of the proletariat that necessarily posits the existence of the marginalised 'underclass'.

But, leaving aside the change in the conditions which makes large scale investment in the inner cities very unlikely, what do the gang leaders proposals amount to? Faced with the re-allocation of South Central residents as unguaranteed excluded objects within capital's plan of development, the gang leaders present themselves as negotiators of a new deal: they seek to present the rebellion as a $1 billion warning to American capital/state that it must bring these subjects into the fold with the gang leaders as mediators. They are saying that they accept the reduction of life to Work-Wage-Consumption, but that there is not enough work(!) i.e. they want the proletariat's refusal of mediation - its direct meeting of its needs - to force capital to re-insert them into the normal capitalist mediation of needs through work and the wage. The gangs, with their labour-intensive drug industry, have been operating a crypto-Keynesian employment programme; now in their plans for urban renewal the gang leadership want fully-fledged Keynesianism, with them instead of the unions as the brokers of labour-power. But, even apart from the fact that capital will not be able to deliver what the gang leaders seek, the rebellion has shown the whole American proletariat a different way of realising its needs; by collective direct action they can take back what's theirs.

These demands show the similarity of gang and union leadership: how they both act to limit the aspirations of their members to what can be met within the capitalist order. But for all the negative aspects to the union/gang organisation, we must recognise that they do originate from real needs of the proletariat: the needs for solidarity, collective defence and a sense of belongingness felt by the atomised proletarian subject. Moreover the gangs are closer to this point of origin than the scelorised unions of advanced capitalist countries. The gang is not the form of organisation for blacks or other groups, but it is a form of organisation that exists, that has shown itself prepared to engage in class struggle and that has had in the past and now it seems again to have the potential for radicalising itself into a real threat to capital.

Black nationalism
The limitations of the practical proposals of the gang leaders are partly a result of their conflict of interest with the ordinary members but also a function of the limits of their ideology. The gangs' political ideas are trapped within the limits of black nationalism.[37] But how should we view this when their practice is so obviously beyond their theory? After all, as someone once observed, one doesn't judge the proletariat by what this or that proletarian thinks but by what it is necessary impelled to do by its historical situation. The gangs took seriously Public Enemy's Farrakhan- influenced stance on non-black businesses and 'shut em down'. Although Farrakhan does not preach violence as a political means many in the black gangs agree with his goal of black economic self-determination and saw the violence as a means towards that goal. In reality this goal of a 'black capitalism' is wrong but the means they chose were right. The tendency of separation and antagonism shown by the rebellion is absolutely correct but it needs to be an antagonism and separation from capital rather than from non-black society. It is necessary that as the marginalised sector rediscovers the organisation and political ideas that were repressed in the 'sixties and 'seventies that it goes beyond those positions.

But, just as blacks were not the only or even the majority of rioters, the Crips and Bloods are not the only gangs. Chinese, Filipinos, Vietnamese, Salvadorians and most other Latin American immigrants have all evolved the gang as an organisational form for youth. Now just as these gangs are far less involved in the international side of the drug business - selling indigenous drugs such as marijuana, PCP and speed at much smaller profit - they also do not have the nationalist leanings of the black gangs. Before the rebellion, a level of communication was reached between black and Latino youth through the shared culture of rap music and the experience it expresses. The tentative alliance between blacks and Latinos that emerged during the uprising shows a way forward. Los Angeles and America generally does need a rainbow coalition, but not one putting faith in Jesse Jackson; rather, one from below focusing on people's needs and rejecting the mediation of the existing political system. For the blacks, a leap is required, but it will not happen through some 'battle of ideas' with the black nationalists carried out in the abstract, but only in connection with practice; only by and through struggle will the blacks of L.A. and the rest of the American proletariat develop a need for communism to which the direct appropriation of goods showed the way.



"In one crowded apartment building 75% of the tenants were found
to possess looted goods and were swapping goods among themselves."

LAPD Lieutenant Rick Morton, International Herald Tribune, 8th May 1992.

We might say the proletariat only sets itself the problems it can solve. Only by and through a new round of struggles such as began in L.A. will there be the opening for the American working class to find the ideas and organisational forms that it needs.


7 Conclusion

The rebellion in Los Angeles marked a leap forward in the global class struggle. In direct appropriation and an offensive against the sites of capitalist exploitation, the whole of the population of South Central felt its power. There is a need to go on. The struggle has politicised the population. The truce is fundamental - the proletariat has to stop killing itself. The LAPD is worried and are surely now considering the sort of measures they used to break the gang unity that followed the Watts rebellion. The police are scared by the truce and by the wave of politicisation which may follow it. That politicisation will have to go beyond black nationalism and the incorporative leanings of the gang leadership - another leap is required. In the multi-ethnic nature of the uprising and the solidarity actions across the country, we saw signs that the proletariat can take this leap.

For years, American rulers could let the ghetto kill itself. In May '92 its guns were turned on the oppressor. A new wave of struggle has begun.

[Aufheben 1]
[Aufheben]

[1] Mike Davis, 'In L.A., Burning All Illusions', The Nation, 1st June 1992. Davis has also produced admirable bottom up accounts of the development of the working class of L.A. and America generally that emphasizes the active role of the class struggle in shaping American society. His work, particularly City of Quartz, has been a major source for this article.

[2] An article on the front page of the San Francisco Examiner, March 24, 1991 warned "They're lucky it's been rainy and cool here because the City of Angels - stunned by the police department's beating of Rodney King - is about to explode." The explosion was held off till the verdict but it when it came the wait was worth it. Incidentally one would have to deny the notion of certain conspiracy-minded comrades that the authorities purposely produced a not-guilty verdict to provoke the rebellion. There is no need to try and see capital's logic in an explosion of the proletariat's logic.

[3] Newsweek, 11th May 1992.

[4] Davis article in The Nation, 1st June 1992.

[5] Newsweek, 11th May 1992, p. 15. In the organisation and circulation of the struggle the gangs played a significant role. This will be looked at in a later section.

[6] 'The Decline and Fall of the Spectacle-Commodity Economy' in Situationist International Anthology, p. 153.

[7] Newsweek, 11th May 1992, p. 16.

[8] Toni Negri, 'Crises of the Planner-State: Communism and Revolutionary Organisation', in Revolution Retrieved, p. 146.

[9] A. Callinicos, 'Race and Class', International Socialism, 55.

[10] The video images of white people being savaged by mobs had little to do with the way people died. At least one person, maybe two or three did die that way. More whites, however, died in fires, in overblown squabbles and in misguided heroics. In a riot thought to express anger among blacks towards whites, blacks died in greatest numbers, and mostly in black neighbourhoods. International Herald Tribune, 12th April 1992.

[11] As evidenced in the cases who where whites who were injured were protected and helped by black residents.

[12] 'Class Composition' is used here in a double sense to cover both the objective and technical structure of labour power and the subjective side of the needs and desires of the working class. This use of the term derives from the Autonomist Marxist tradition. Central theoretical texts can be found in Revolution Retrieved and other Red Notes publications, also Sergio Bologna's 'Class Composition and the Theory of the Party at the Origin of the Workers' Councils Movement'. A practical example of 'militant research' on class composition by German comrades is available in the pamphlet 'Class Struggle in a German Town'.

[13] This is not purely or in the main an ideological process. The 'conservative revolution' that has been the ideological side to capitalist restructuring involves the mobilisation of a large section of the working class with the true middle class. American capital's success in cutting wages has not in the main affected this sector though in the present crisis it too is beginning to feel the pinch. This has meant the excluded sector has suffered immensely. The perceived necessity of pitching their appeal at the 'middle class' is now accepted by both contenders for the 1992 presidential election. However the ability of capital to consolidate a consensus for the values of an 'ideological middle class' has in America, to be put in the context of mass political abstentionism by half the population including a majority of the working class.

[14] Though `underclass' is often used as a pseudonym for 'blacks' many members of other 'races' fall into this category and blacks themselves in LA and throughout America have a new 'middle class' as well as a shrinking but large proportion employed in traditional blue collar labour.

[15] But both included and excluded sections, those with expanded and those with minimal consumption are still proletarian. Why? Because the proletariat's poverty cannot be alleviated by access to luxury goods. To be a proletarian is to be impoverished in the sense of having no ability to control one's life except in the choice of which way to submit to capital - the alien force that controls the means of production and subsistence. The difference between the strata is then, that while the poverty of the included sector is materially enriched, the poverty of the excluded has been intensified by their removal from access to social wealth.

[16] It is important not to see such concessions from capital as the 'buying off of discontent'. Much of the money that flooded into the inner cities following the sixties uprisings was used to fund radical initiatives.

[17] "Thus at the level of material production, of the life process in the realm of the social - for that is what the process of production is - we find the same situation that we find in religion at the ideological level, namely the inversion of subject into object and vice versa." Karl Marx, 'Results of the Immediate Process of Production' in Capital, Vol. 1 (Pelican), p. 990.

[18] Of course the feature of deprivation within American capitalism is not new and neither is its falling disproportionally on blacks. Even at the height of the post-was boom many did not share in the 'American dream' but whereas when they revolted then, capital could respond by trying to give them money and jobs, at this period of capitalist crisis it will not be able to answer their demands in such a fashion.

[19] Negri, 'Archaeology and Project: The Mass Worker and the Social Worker' in Revolution Retrieved, p. 215.

[20] Considering that we like to theorize welfare spending as a function of working class strength it should be addressed why there is an ambiguous attitude if not antipathy to welfare among many of South Central's residents. This ambivalence can be traced to the fact that, although the state is unable to completely retake the ground won by the proletariat in terms of social spending, it has been able to reorganise that welfare in capital's interest.

[21] Capital's reasoning was shown in a stark form in a Newsweek article that came out after the uprising on May 18th. In the article entitled 'Yes, Something Will Work: Work', Mickey Kaus argues the problem of the 'underclass' is that upward mobility has taken the 'good workers' away so that the rest are "now isolated and freed from the restraints the black middle-class had imposed. Without jobs and role models, those left in the ghettos drifted out of the labor market." But this argues the bourgeois is only possible because welfare "enabled the underclass to form. Without welfare, those left behind in the ghetto would have had to move to where the jobs are. Without welfare, it would have been hard for single mothers to survive without forming working families." So the obvious answer is the replacement of welfare with the offer of low paying government jobs: "Single mothers (and anyone else) who needed money would not be given a check. They would be given the location of a government job site. If they showed up and worked they'd be paid for their work." The result: "True natural[!] incentives to form two-parent families would reassert themselves. But even children of single mothers would grow up in homes structured by the rhythms and discipline of work."

[22] Baudrillard, America, p. 75.

[23] M. Davis, City of Quartz, p. 224.

[24] Noticing a correlation between public toilets, crowds and crime, the LAPD has stopped toilets being built and closed ones that already existed. L.A. now has the lowest ratio of public toilets to people of any Western city.

[25] The postmodernists and post-structuralists like to present themselves as heirs of the movement of '68. In reality, to the extent they do relate to its ideas, they are vultures feeding on the leftovers of its radical theory and regurgitating it in forms that pose no threat to capital's survival. They are the heirs of its defeat.

[26] And this role is certainly not being ignored by the repression. Under the direction of the FBI the forces of the American state have combined to get revenge on those responsible, i.e. the proletariat. 'A special "We Tipp" hotline invites people to inform on neighbours or acquaintances suspected of looting. Elite L.A.P.D. Metro Squad units, supported by the National Guard, sweep through the tenements in search of stolen goods, while Border Patrolmen from as far away as Texas prowl the streets.' (Mike Davis, June 1st Nation article). The Immigration Service is used to summarily deport "illegals" who participated in the uprising. The idea behind the sweeping operations is to terrorise the whole population of South Central for its participation in the rebellion. But they also want to get the groups who took a lead; as the FBI officer in charge said on television, they know who was responsible for most of the attacks on property: the street gangs, and it is this section that they are trying to target.

[27] The gangs were certainly equipped to aid the uprising. Popular gang demonology would have every gang member toting an Uzi in each hand. Now, although this is certainly an exaggeration and is used by the LAPD to justify their possession and use of the most sophisticated weaponry and other equipment available to any police force anywhere (L.A. is, for example, subjected to more intensive and sophisticated helicopter surveillance than Belfast!), nonetheless the gangs are one of the most heavily armed sections of the American proletariat. It is thus interesting to note that, despite the gangs' armoury which was augmented by their systematic appropriation of gun shops they held back from killing the police. As the International Herald Tribune (12/4/92) notes, "police killed nine rioters but rioters killed no policemen." A tactical decision perhaps? Next time...

[28] In 'Civil Liberties: Between the Hammer and the Rock', New Left Review, 170, p. 39.

[29] The war on the gangs is another instance of the crossing over of 'race' and class. Although the gang scare and the repression it justifies can be seen largely as the repression of South Central's youth proletariat, in the L.A. context it naturally takes racist form as when the police anti-gang operations tend to criminalise black youth irrespective of their class position.

[30] The Counter Intelligence Program, a massive FBI operation against domestic subversion using all the wartime techniques of counter-espionage - infiltration, discrediting, manipulation.

[31] Los Angeles Times, 23rd July 1972, quoted by Davis, City of Quartz p. 298.

[32] Mike Davis, City of Quartz, p. 299-300.

[33] "The Human Relations Conference, against the advice of the police, gave a platform to sixty black gang leaders to present their grievances. To the astonishment of the officials present, the 'mad dogs' outlined an eloquent and coherent set of demands: jobs, housing, better schools, recreation facilities and community control of local institutions." Davis, City of Quartz, p. 300.

[34] Of course, for the black youth of L.A., unlike for the C.I.A., drug dealing bears additional business costs - the risk of being killed by the police or by competing outfits.

[35] This term refers to inter-gang blood-letting.

[36] "The scale of pent-up demand for decent manual employment was also vividly demonstrated a few years ago when fifty thousand black and Chicano youth lined up for miles to apply for a few openings on the unionized longshore in San Pedro." Davis, City of Quartz, p. 306.

[37] In fact, within the gangs alongside the high level of class hatred there is in general such a low level of theoretical awareness that it is actually the politically advanced who adhere to this ideology.

1

@ Posts argument against himself

LA RISING 26.Jun.2007 04:17

@

THe article you posted makes the case everyone has been makinmg against the block:

The LA riots involved armed struggle

The LA Riots was made up of the oppressed

THe LA Uprising was the rising up of African Americans and Latinos against the racist white power structure including a privledged white middle class that supports the police over the community.

The LA Riots wasn't a bunch of militants invading a peaceful demo and hiding from the cops behind those not aligned with violence.

The LA riots involved militant angry people courageously standing up against the pigs and not hiding behind anyone.

The LA riots were an expression of the oppressed nationalities against their oppressor.

The LA riots once begun involved organized street gangs utilizing technology and weapons to force the cops out of their territoy.

DId the LA uprising involve the oppressed redistributing wealth? Yes

Was it clear to the world what the LA rioters were fighting against? YES
and it was the top story world wide.

Now lets compare:

Did the Black Block drive the cops away or win anything at the G8? No

Did the Block consist of the oppressed nationalities of the people most affected by the G8 and it's policies? NO

Did the Black Block piggy back on peaceful demos organized by people who wanted nothing to do woth them? YES

Did the Black Block win anything at the G8? No

Were the LA riots aimed at the people who oppressed them? The Cops? Yes

Did the Black Block have any effect on those members of the G8? NO

Who did they fight? Cops who have nothing ot do with the G8.

Did the Black Block meet an opoising force with equal force? No they threw rocks at people with guns.

Did the Black Block at the G8 or at any other organized rock throwing party redestribute wealth? No

Did the Black Block make their views clear to the world through their actions at the G8? No most coverage covered it as people angry at Bush.

Did the Black Block pose any threat to power? No they were an inferior force.

Was the word anarchy or anarchist even used in the majority of the coverage? NO and when it was it was to point out that peaceful groups werte pissed at the anarchists for disrupting peaceful protests.


Thabks for making the point against yourself.

Stuck on dumb?

@ 26.Jun.2007 13:38

Actually, you dumbnut, i never said that the La riots/uprising (which wasnt armed struggle by any stretch of the imagination) was exactly the same as the black bloc riot - that would be absurd! Obviously, the LA uprising was much bigger and better, but it still doesnt mean that the riots by the black bloc was wrong, bad or that they didnt involve the dispossessed. So the article hardly argued against what i have been saying all along.

The rest of your post is just the sad rantings by a liberal who obviously have very little crasp about the concept of social struggle beyond some seemingly radical liberal slogans.

Why don't you stop trying to pretend to be 18?

@ Dumb ASS 26.Jun.2007 18:10

In LA Arms were used it is well documented.

You miss the whole point or just ignore it. The LA Riots were led by the dispossesed. They were an outpouring by and from the dispossesed.

Who cares if the Blockheads can cliam a couple of people who are minorities showed up. The Black Block was created by upperclass whites, in maintained by whites, and is predominantly whitte male.

YOu can't deny it. Look at the pictures over the last decade. DC, Seattle, Italy, Miami, etc.

THe Black Block is a white boy thing.

Also it was not a riot in Germany.

@ come down off yyour white boy radical soapbox!

Poor Little Fella 26.Jun.2007 18:43

He went to his first demo

He threw some rocks at the PoPO

Now he thinks he da Mau Mau

but He afraid of things that go pow pow

he got a ski mask on his face

Stale urine between his legs

He thinks he the white boy che

He think "who the hell was che"

WHAT you GOT White Boy selecta

Chorus
You got a pocket full of rocks and you living in a box
but you can go back to mommy whenever you damn want
You runnin around like you a master criminal
But we all know your crime dumpster diving

You a wannabe soldier
fightin for vague outcomes
You a wannabe radical
flyin into germany
You a wannbe soldier
whose throwing rocks at armored cars
You a wannabe radical
you probably wearin Black face make up now

Verse 2

He used to be a skinhead

but he wasn't bad enough to run with them

SO he decided to be a blockhead

because they a bunch of punks anyway

They wait for the peaceful

and then they start throwin rocks yea

When the police come runnin innocent nuns get beat down

Now he breakin out a window

Spray paintin on the benzo

Burnin up poor peoples cars

So they got somethin to hide behind

Chorus:

Now he callin himself @

But he really smells like pee

He a gravel throwin fiend

Fueled by humus and stale dupster bread

His daddy is a broker His mama got a trust fund

He got a british passport

And he comin to your town

He don't care he aint invited

He don't his crew is all white

He comin to your town

and he bring the po po to come raining down

Tear gas in the hood
Blockhead gonna do no good
Police State all around
cause the blockheads come to your town
They cordonned off the neighborhood
Cause the white boy came to your hood
Now you can't park your car within a mile of your fuckin house

Chorus:



Wow, a song written just for me? Im honored!

@ 26.Jun.2007 19:41

Actually, you are the one who ignores my arguments. The black bloc are not a "white thing" since it exists all over the world. And whites are part of the dispossessed classes too (not all whites are middleclass and not all coloured people are part of the dispossessed!). The people in the black bloc are part of the dispossessed classes, no doubt about it.

Just because some arms was used in the riots (not very many), doesnt mean it wan an armed uprising!
And the riots in Germany was just that - riots. Are you so dumb that you dont even know what a riot is? Stop grasping for straws. You have allready lost. Now sit down and accept defeat!

The dispossessed whites?

The grand scheme 27.Jun.2007 07:01

When it comes right down to it Blockers don't even want to acknowlege they are white.

@ will you admit when you put on a suit and black man puts on a suit that you will be treated differently?

If you don't understand that you are not part of the movement.

If you do not recognize when a man of color goes into a store and you go into a store you are treated different because of the historical oppression of miorities you cannot be a part of any revolutionary movement.

Racism is the prime device used to keep the lower classes divided. But anywhere there is a black middle class and a white middle class the black middle class is treated worse.

If you do not know that you are just a pissed off white BOY.

Let's see how did America come about.

The flotsam and jetsom of Eurotrash starting with Columbus washed his syphillitic small pox infected ass up onto the shore. Then the English sent their rot teethed pilgrims and puritans to subjugate the North.

They then set about the business of creating the transatlantic slave trade. People of color have lived as inferiors in this world ever since. The modern society you enjoy with socialized health care and education? Paid for on the backs of slaves and dead aborigones. Look at Australia, the Native Americans, the Vietnamese, all of Africa, you really believe you do not benefit even today from the conquests of your ancestors?

YOU ARE a member of the COLONIALIST CLASS SIR, THE WHITE IMPERIALIST INVASION THAT HAS DESTROYED THE WORLD.

Is that so hard to admit.

Even if you are a British garbage man you enjoy mass transit, social education, health care, technological ecstasy the third world only dreams of. There is no place in Europe that does not have internet access for instance. In much of the world they still have not received the bicycle.

Are you saying this is not true? C'mon Look in the mirror. Please. You live in a counrty where first world residents wear clothes made for nothing by who? Third world peasants you have nothing in common with.

Name one predominantly white nation that is considered third world?

You cannot.

I know you feel guilty and cannot admit the truth but that is the truth. The sooner you people realize your pivilege the sooner we can get back to a sane and balanced stuggle for social justice.

Third worldism is so lame

@ 27.Jun.2007 09:46

Sir, your class analysis suck monkeyarse. You are either an ignorant liberal fool, or a crazy maoist. Either way you have nothing to give to the movement against capital. As if the classlines goes inbetween coloured and white people, between the western world and the third world. As if the eternal contradiction (the conflict) in capitalism is that inbetween the people of colour and whites, or the western world and the third world. As if!

No, the contradiction is inbetween capital and labour (as in work). Always. Read some Marx!

And the wellfare system we got in Europe was not built on the backs of the third world - it was built on class struggle!

What a racist @ is

Bandy 28.Jun.2007 00:47

So obvious

Oh...shut the fuck up

@ 28.Jun.2007 11:47

You got nothing.

Marx was white

Chili pepper 28.Jun.2007 20:04

Why would I want to read yet more Yawn........ Marx, Hegel,Nieztche,Hobbs, Locke, Jefferson, whatever etc..
We have had all the advice we could stand from the doctors of failed revolution worldwide.

This guy is amazing. At no point does he praise, or look to the examples of any people of color.In fact, he has attacked every example brought up. Thenn he tells us top read Marx? After he previosly condemend Communism and socialism.

This guy is a National Socialist or Nazi as they are called. It is so obvious. Calling people Brownie, telling us to read Marx but condemneing Marxists of color. Hitler talked like that.

Refusing to acknowledge the history of racism, slavery, and colonialist oppression. Trying to argue that everyone had it equal.

Hey asshole when did any African Country oocupy Europe. When did any Native Americans ever invade Europe. When was the last time a man of color had a white slave? 3,000 years ago. The closest you get to any invasion of Europe by people of color was the Mongols and they made it Eastern Europe and only briefly. The Ottoman empire invaded Slavic Europe and that was how long ago?

For the last thousand years Europeans have killed each other but uniquely they have militarily banded together to invade, enslave, rape, and exploit Africa, the Americas, the middle east, South East Asia, they even triend to colonize China! Didn't work but they tried.

There is a divide my friend and the longer you deny it the deeper the divide becomes. Did you know that the South African Communist Party originally stood on for the rights of white workers? There is a divide and white people created that divide.

The trouble with capitalism is not rascism

@ 28.Jun.2007 22:54

Well, it might be good for you to read some Marx and others to understand capitalism alittle better. Then you wouldnt have to be making such a fool of yourself with your crazy analysis of this world.

My forefatherts did not go over to rape Africa or the indians in South America. They were here at home being raped and exploited by the BOURGOISE class who was left at home. You see, classes exists in the western world too.

Yes, rascism has been used to divide US in the dispossessed class (both white and coloured, first and third world), but thats not the essence of capitalism, nor will it die if we get rid of rascism. There is a divide, and it needs to be OVERCOMED by us through practical solidarity by both sides and a realisation that we ALL belong to the dispossessed class and work together against our common exploiter - capitalism. Whites in the western world has just as much grievance against capitalism as the coloured people in the third world, it just take sa slightly diffrent form. I fight for myself and my comrades here at home. And if my comrades in the third world realise that our struggle is common, then we will join hands and fight together violently to destroy capital once and for all (and this is allready happening ofcourse except for you white-guilt, thirdworldists who think we should fight for someone else, namely the coloured people in the third world. Insane analysis). Thats the right stand for "the movement", and if you claim otherwise you cannot belong to it simply because you are of no use to it. Because then you dont understand what we really are fighting against. The black bloc and most anarchists understands this, and therefore are part of the movement. The coloured people in the third world also understand that and therefore welcomes the black bloc (from the western world that is, it exists everywhere over the world as a tactic) into OUR movement. Im not so sure they welcome white-guilt ridden liberals/maoists like you as much tho.

And i have never denounced communism, you duchbag.

Coloured People?

OMG 29.Jun.2007 07:48

Coloured People? DO we need to say anything else?

Look Snow Flake. I am not White so digest that. We don't want to link with you or your pals. Secular Humanism will never allow for reparations, for return of stolen land, and for redress of the oppression your people have heaped upon us. We have seen you vote for Bush, Merkel, Tony Blair, and Sarkozy. Your working class are still racial opportunists. We want our own cultures and lands so we will not be linking up with the people who call us "coloureds", "Brownies", "Niggas", or "Bitches". We won't be linking up with the deluded white poeple who have convinced themselves their plight is the same as ours. Our goals are not the same, our oppression is not the same nor as lenghty in history, and our friends support our demands to have our lands won back for us. Not for us and you. You will be welcome to visit as a tourist. We want nothing to do with sharing with the likes of you.

I win...?

@ 04.Jul.2007 17:19

So i guess you suckers have finally given up and admitted defeat. Thats good, that means you have learnt something. That you have developed.

And as my win and superior skills are undisputable, i would just like to thank yall for this debate. It has been fun. I havent had this much fun since the heydays of indymedia. I thought indymedia had gotten boring, but this was like old times again! Thanks again for making indymedia alittle more fun again.

See you on the barricades (well maybe not..hehe)!

You win? Where were you July 5th Chicken

@realthug 13.Aug.2007 04:30

You didn't win a damn thing. You didn't show up to the fire ring. Everyone knows your a little poser.