Do you think rioting has a place as a legitimate strategy? Is it useful? Desirable? Is it to be condemned? Or is it just an unavoidable consequence of the society we live in that has nothing to do with Anarchism?
Posted Feb 22, 2016, 7:56 PM UTC
Ironically enough, im writing my big paper this semester at uni about this exact topic.
IMO, rioting itself doesn't do much other than cause damage to bad businesses. However, riots tend to have an effect on media and once media starts reporting it, they have to give the rioters motives which brings mass attention to the cause.
For example, the 1999 Seattle WTO protests. After the riots the anti globalization movement had a huge spur of activity.
So, to answer your question: is it viable? Not in changing any status quo or similar cause. Riots are mainly good at spreading ideas and attention, so they could be used to bring attention to anarchist ideas.
The problem I think we face with regard to rioting can be seen clearly with more recent riots, such as the 2011 riots in London. The riots initially started as a clear reaction to police brutality and racism - however what was reported were the incidences of looting and random destruction of small businesses.
The anger that was targeted at the police and at capitalism was skipped over and ignored by the media.
In that climate is there any way to make rioting a more viable option?
I also think some insurrectionists might argue that rioting is a precursor to violent or armed revolution - although personally I think we're at least 70 years too late for that to ever be effective.
Ironically enough,
As a side note, there's nothing ironic about this, it's just a happy coincidence!
Very good points, especially the one about irony haha.
I wanted to mention it in my lost but she to time I didn't, but I guess I'll just say it now. It's really hard for companies to focus on anarchist or any anti capitalist causes as they themselves rely on that system, and it is kind of a case by case issue I think.
However, with the addition of social media and the internet in general I think we can help overcome this. If people on social media come out to support the rioters cause people will ask why. If rioters leave a URL at the bottom of the sign someone is sure to google it.
It's kind of a shitty predicament, but the way I see it is if we riot, we are going to get attention. And chances are it won't be the best. But now that we at least have the spotlight, its up go us to get rid of that negativity before the spotlight leaves.
Given that terrain it would seem like the only viable strategy would be Zapatista-style media outlet occupations acting in conjunction with popular social ruptures.
Have you read anything about the type of attention? Is it positive or negative? I suppose it depends on the media spin.
It heavily applies. As sync0pate pointed out, in londons recent riots the anti cpitalost ideas were skimmed over and the looting and damage was more the focus.
I'm hoping that with the addition of social media and independent news sources we can see better coverage of events but as it stands now most attention is indeed negative. I would still argue that while it's negative, the basic ideas get out there and thereby cause more people to dig further.
Rioting is a must if you want social revolution. Non stop mass scale rioting that defends against attempts to quell it until the status quo collapses, and then begins organizing itself is the model for anarchistic revolution in my opinion.
There is a cone that goes like this: some protests turn into riots, some riots turn into insurrections, some insurrections turn into revolts and some revolts turn into revolutions.
Trying to push a population engaged in one of these stages to the next one is what people desiring a rupture with the social fabric try to do. The difference between anarchists and others engaged in this process is that anarchists don't try to control a population engaged in such a rupture, but rather encourage the individuals involved to organize themselves and to accept no rulers.
some protests turn into riots, some riots turn into insurrections, some insurrections turn into revolts and some revolts turn into revolutions.
Do you think that's still a realistic, viable path to social change in any of the major western democracies (ie, the countries that most of reddit lives in)?
I would imagine that a lot of these countries have reached the point of having such extreme and absolute control that any kind of violent insurrection is no longer feasible, and possibly never will be.
I do think it is still viable. I think we are a lot closer to the edge than people tend to think.
Look at the Ferguson riots for instance. The police could not clear those streets without taking a tense situation and turning it into a potential catastrophe. Tensions were already very high all over the country. Protests were springing up all over the place. The attitude to police was very hostile across the entire nation (still is to a large extent). If the police would have just tried to beat and shoot people off the streets of Ferguson, the tension was such that the riots might have spread to other areas in St.Louis or even throughout the country. They had to manipulate, placate, and play politics to get a handle over the situation. The Feds had to get involved and assure people they were going to fix things.
Now imagine a racially charged police brutality case like that occurring during another recession. Imagine it occurring when people are angry or disappointed over some political issue like someone like Sanders losing an election recently. What might these conditions do to the populations readiness to respond to such an incident with hostility?
The point is, the police did not and could not control the streets of Ferguson. If the conditions that caused that were a little different, and the population in general were angrier and more ready to react, then you may go from a localized fairly short lived riot in one area along with tense protests all over the country to instead a long term series of riots all over the country with localized insurrections. And if an event like that can be combined with radical perspectives and organized collaboration among people, you start building the ingredients for revolution.
And I'll also point out that many of those participating in Ferguson were looking at things from a radical and even class perspective -- at least as far as interviews I've read and seen from there show. Fire To The Prisons for instance had some good coverage of the riots in Ferguson and Baltimore.
yap! a(A)a
I mean, it's fun. No strategy is "legitimate" if you ask me.
Very desirable and very useful.
I mean "legitimate" as in it might actually help us take steps toward our goals.
Depends on how many of us do it.
[removed]
Rioting is the only way we can keep (some of) our squats open in my country.
That sounds really interesting and a great point, can you share some more information please?
Squats bring a lot to the society like food, shelter, alternative nightlife, etc for the youth and unfortunate.
They get a good amount a support from them, and surprising enough from the locals whenever the -far- right politicians try to seize them. In the end, it's better for the city tidiness to keep all these people confined in a place, than spreading them all around the city smashing police cars.
Unfortunatly it's mostly true for the largest quats only. Smaller ones don't get as much recognition.
It's hard to control a riot which is sort of against the point of political riots anyway. People lose their life's work and savings to riots and if rioters are violent and destructive that is all the media will focus on. Even if the damage is done to public buildings, it's the public that pays for them.
If we look to history for "successful" riots, we don't see a whole lot and the ones we do see are bloody as hell. I feel like a murderous rampage defeats the purpose of turning over the established system. If we want to promote peace we should be peaceful. What message are we sending about our cause if we're murdering people and destroying things? Most people won't see the whole "Destroy in order to rebuild" idea and just see destructive assholes.
One thing I've thought of is a mass walk-out. Nation wide. Everyone gets up from their desks, schools, work places, and walks the fuck out. Production stops, order stops, the capitalist machine screeches to a halt when there is no one working to feed it.
We would need to heavily plan this. Secure food banks and shelters for people who need their job for day to day survival. A walk-out could seem impossible for a low income wage slave unless they knew they were being taken care of. There should be planned events so that too many people don't just get bored and decide to turn it into a looting/violent sort of riot. There's a lot more that would need to go into organizing and preparing for something like this, but it could be a peaceful and effective way of disrupting the machine.
If we look to history for "successful" riots, we don't see a whole lot
I mean, it depends how you class a riot, but direct actions of various kinds have achieved pretty much all the social progress we've had in the past 100 years, I think.
One thing I've thought of is a mass walk-out. Nation wide. Everyone gets up from their desks, schools, work places, and walks the fuck out. Production stops, order stops, the capitalist machine screeches to a halt when there is no one working to feed it.
You've invented the "General Strike", congratulations!
We would need to heavily plan this
Yes, this is one of the most important parts of anarcho-syndicalism, "constructing a new society within the shell of the old". Creating new structures and organisations to support society before you do away with the old capitalist structures. You see these structures today in the form of trade unions and co-ops, for example.
I rely on dictionaries to define things that are less than subjective and the only relevant definitions [of riot] involve violence. Most of our social progress has come from peaceful protests. The complete overturning of a governing body has only ever been brought about by bloodshed, but you can (and I'm sure you will) correct me if I'm wrong.
I never claimed to invent the idea of a general strike. Just saying we've never had one quite massive enough for the desired response. Community or trade-specific walk-outs result in new laws and regulations and that's not what anyone is talking about here. The goal is to re-write the system, not amend it.
My whole point was that riots tend to be A) violent B) ineffective and C) not the only option.
edit: clarification
the only relevant definitions [of riot] involve violence. Most of our social progress has come from peaceful protests.
I'm not talking about including anything non-violent, but if you really believe that most of our social progress has come from peaceful protest then you're very, very misguided. I wish it were the case, but I can't think of a single social advance that's been made entirely peacefully, can you?
Well since you're the one who made the claim that every societal change we've had in the past 80 years has been from violence, the burden of proof is on you. Not me.
That being said, I have no qualms with supporting my claims. Little Rock, Montgomery Bus Boycott, Million Man March, Lust Lady Strike, and the Applebee's Lacktivists strike.
Please do tell me what leaps and bounds we've made through violence.
edit: a letter
Yep, riots are pointless (generally). People have been doing riots in every civilization and pretty much none have achieved a stable and democratic anarchic society.
I don't think for a second that a riot is going to produce a stable alternative form of society, but I don't think that necessarily means it's pointless either.
You may be interested by this thread. I found it while I was looking for this blog post
I view rioting as a symptom of oppression, and I do not see it as a strategy to further any cause other than literal chaos.
Rioting != armed action or show of force
For decades the establishment has tried to embed the idea that Anarchism==Chaos, and that anarchists are angry teenagers that just want to the world to burn in flames. It seems to me the supporters of rioting promote this image. Is it not the goal of every anarchist to prove that civilization without authority, oppression, or aggression is attainable? Then why advocate aimless violence when those same people, those very same rioters, could be using that energy and time to promote their cause in a much more readily acceptable format, e.g. painting, music, protest, activism, etc.
Has there ever been a study that can without doubt claim that a certain Revolution would not have happened without rioting? By the time rioting occurs, Revolution is likely well underway, and if anything rioting may serve as a lubricant.
I get why people riot. I don't blame the truly oppressed seeking expression. I do blame the instigators who antagonize and misdirect those that would otherwise use their time and energy more wisely. Ultimately I think rioting is a waste of time; it's chaotic energy aimed in no particular direction, used as a tool by revolutionaries to make a power grab, whose ideas are likely not even aligned with those rioters.
Capitalism and the state are social relationships. And you can't just smash a social relationship.
This is true, but it doesn't answer the question.
Sure it does. Rioting or any form of violence is not going to replace the underlying causes and social relationships that create and reinforce capitalism and the state. Revolutionary movements are only attempts to remove the downward authoritarian push of a particular social movement or power structure, which is why they often times just replace one form of authoritarian structure with another form.
If property ownership itself is not challenged, if the social organization is unchanged, then capitalism or some other form of authoritarian relationship will just re-exert itself in some new form.
Now it's possible that a social upheaval can open moments where people create alternatives to the existing social order, that all that needed for the seed to bloom tearing away at the asphalt, but it can just as well translate into another authoritarian form.
"The riot be the rhyme of the unheard" -Rage
Violence is always regrettable, but given enough pressure some release is inevitable. It makes as much sense to condemn a riot as it does to condemn a stampede. The blame falls on the system that organized such pressures.
I think is another tactic that plays is function, as long is also played with other tactics.
a(A)a
[deleted]
Its stupid. You can't fight tyrany while sitting behind bars.
It does nothing but promote the misconception that anarchy=chaos. It is easily turned against us in the media to make those who don't understand what we believe in think that we all want a society where there is no order and every man, woman and child is for themselves.
Rioting IMO is, unlike what others have said, when the State wins. Not to offend others but it resembles when a child gets upset and instead of using rational thought or actions to resolve the issue it throws a tantrum. A riot is the breakdown of an organized collective which becomes unorganized selfish violence, in a large group it can infect others and cause counter productive antagonists amongst you. It allows the State an excuse of violence to suppress the riot and in other cases herd the confused masses into their own neighborhoods to destroy. It also disenfranchises the Anarchist movement because it helps to cement the populist view that Anarchism just means doing whatever you want in chaos and doesn't help the masses understand the the order that exists in Anarchism.
Additionally the thought that smashing a single Starbuck's or bank's windows somehow hurts the capitalist business system is just a fantasy conjured up particularly by young Anarchists (though it is mostly caused by agents provocateur of the police state). The business may close for a day or 2 hurting the workers but the company itself just gets an insurance reimbursement and that insurance company then raises rates to businesses which cause the businesses to then pass the costs back to consumers or layoff workers. Thus by doing so you not only alienate people with sympathy to your cause by doing violence to structure but alienate the working-class/consumer class by possibly costing a minimum wage slave a paycheck to keep a roof over their head.
I'll copy and paste something I previously posted in regards to this.
I think it's a good point that a riot is one of the few opportunities that we get to see a very visceral demonstration of a situation where the state is not in control.
It's just a shame that to many people, this might help to promote the idea that a loss of state control is a negative thing.
Yeah, but honestly, I think it's less people that come away with that thought than is generally assumed. People seem to often forget (especially those of us who frequent the internet) that the HIGH majority of the world is poor as fuck, and has no love for the maintenance of contemporary social orders. But the people who do have a stake in law and order and the survival of capitalist property relations are the same people who more likely have access to means of making their voices heard; via the internet, TV, radio, etc. The people to whom a total break down of social order would be most intriguing are also those who said social order is designed to marginalize and ignore, they are the people whose CNN street interviews get cut off and who don't have thousands of Twitter followers. So whenever I hear the (not entirely baseless) criticism that riots or other types of militancy alienate people, I always have to ask, which people?
How does looting and property damage damage capitalist structures? When insurance reimburses them and ultimately the cost is passed on to the working class and consumers the only people you hurt are the working class. It makes a media bias against the group, painting the picture that anarchists want a chaotic destructive society.
Also to your point that it demonstrates state power, find one person on the fence considering different political views... Do you think they will see the State suppressing looters and people smashing their cars as a bad thing? Most masses enjoy the minimal comforts they're allowed in life, to see rioters smashing their few comforts and causing minimum wage works to lose their jobs with no place to go will never help the masses side with your cause.
What masses are you talking about? The masses who work at a store, or the masses who shoplift from it? The masses who are getting directly fucked over by the store's owners, through him or her docking their pay to account for increased insurance premiums, or cutting their hours, or the masses who are so fucked over by capitalism in general that they couldn't afford to shop there in the first place? When looting breaks out, thats thr only chance many of "the masses" will ever have of getting those small comforts you refer to as being so intrinsic to our daily life. Why should someone who can barely afford bus fare give a shit that someone's luxury car gets its windows broken? Why should someone who makes their living through black market transactions care a few people who they've never met need to find a new job? You speak of what "the masses" want or need as though there is a single homogenous mass of people in the first place, whose lives all look essentially the same, who all have the same needs and desires. That's patently bullshit. If "the masses" don't like rioting and looting, then who do you think is doing the rioting and looting? All those thousands of people in the streets in Ferguson or Baltimore or st Louis or Watts or whetever, who are they, if not "the masses" you speak of so reverently?
Sorry but the Anarchists that Black Bloc riot or even Anarchists in general are less than 1% of 1%, destroying things of the working class does not help those numbers grow.
When I say the masses i refer to the working class living paycheck to paycheck, sorry you don't give a "shit" if you make them homeless in your looting of a store that doesn't affect the capitalists or if you destroy their one possession that may help them survive in a capitalist system.
As to your Ferguson riots, what does burning your own neighborhood to the ground accomplish? They think their community is rough, well when you drive everything out of town I'm pretty sure it's not getting easier. If you're such a smash and grabber and burn it down type of guy, lets see you do it to something other than other working class... lets see you riot in a gated community.
And define your black market. Because I'm sorry but selling drugs sponsored by violent cartels and dealing guns and selling possession you stole from your neighbor is not Anarchism it's just crime. So how are you going to fit in in an Anarchist society when all you have is selfish aspirations? That sounds more Capitalist to me.
My point is that it isn't the "black bloc anarchists" that are doing the rioting. It's the "working class" that's doing it. And who are you to be so paternalistic as to think you have a better idea of what's good for people than they do themselves. People smash up their own neighborhoods because that's where they experience the oppression of capitalism and the state every day of their lives. That's where It manifests, so that's where they fight it. Sorry people don't seek your approval before doing what they feel like they have to do. What was it Martin Luther king said? A riot is the voice of the unheard...and here you are, still not listening. Whatever.