Open Letter to Those Involved in the Black Bloc

From Willful Disobedience, #12

The anti-globalization movement has brought with it an increase in
public confrontations with those in power. Of course, anarchists have
been there. One of the tactics anarchists have used in these situations
is that of the black bloc. I am not interested in going into a thorough
discussion of the effectiveness of this tactic or discuss its merits as an
anarchist practice. Rather I want to deal with a somewhat troubling
recent development that has made its appearance in discussions about
the black bloc. In the Summer/September 2001 issue of Barricada and
in the October 2001 issue of Tute Nere there are articles discussing the
tactics of the black bloc. This is certainly not surprising, nor is it
uncalled -- for after two years of regular summit demonstrations as well
as other demonstrations in which black bloc participates were involved.
What bothers me is the direction in which the examination of the black
bloc has gone.

It has been said over and over again that the black bloc is not an
organization, but a tactic. The organizational framework in which it has
operated has been the affinity group (or at least, the small group of
friends -- each such group can decide for itself to what extent to which it
has made a determined effort to achieve true and deep affinity). The
purpose for wearing black has been anonymity and a visual statement
of solidarity, not the formation of an anarchist army. I am convinced that
this informality has been the real strength of this tactic, providing
flexibility and leaving real choice of action in the hands of individuals in
relation with others of their choosing. The tactical organization here
reflects the aim of a world without delegation or hierarchy, a world
where the separation between decision and action has disappeared, at
least to some extent.

But the context for which the black bloc was developed and in which
it has been used is that of mass street demonstrations, often involving
attacks against the symbols of the state and capitalism and pitched
battles with the police. It was, of course, inevitable that some would
start to raise the question of how to better coordinate black bloc
activities. Unfortunately, this question has been raised without first
dealing with more fundamental questions which would effect it and
which I feel should not be ignored or given second place by those
seeking to develop a specifically anarchist revolutionary practice. I
would assume that very few if any anarchists would say that the defeat
of the police in street battles is the central aim of anarchist struggle.
Nor, for that matter, is the destruction of as much capitalist property as
possible (as enjoyable and potentially useful as such destruction may
be). Rather these are specific moments in the struggle that can
certainly serve important purposes but that need to reflect the greater
aim of an anarchist insurrectional project.

Yet in the articles in Tute Nere and Barricada, the questions raised
are purely strategic, questions of immediate effectiveness. The greater
question of what it is we are really struggling for is lost. And so the
solutions brought up involve an increasing centralization and
militarization of the black bloc, an embrace of "tactical" delegation and
hierarchy. The writer of "The Communiqué on Tactics and
Organization" in Barricada even goes so far as to talk of "elected
tactical facilitators" (emphasis mine) and "anarchist principles of tactical
leadership" with no hint of irony. The only aim reflected is that of
out-maneuvering the police during demonstrations, as if these
demonstrations represented the essence of the anarchist struggle.
Putting the ideas of this communiqué into effect would transform the
black bloc from a tactic taken up by individuals with those they know
and trust into a formal and basically military organization. In my opinion,
this would itself constitute an immediate defeat of our anarchist aims in
our own practice here and now regardless of what improvements there
might be in black bloc street maneuvers.

As I see it, the central aim of anarchist struggle is the subversion of
existence, the reappropriation of life by each of us as individuals, the
creation of our relationships on our own terms free of all domination, all
hierarchy, all delegation and every chain of command, even those which
claim to be merely tactical, and the destruction of everything that
prevents or suppresses these possibilities. Rather than examining our
practice first and foremost on the level of tactics and strategies, of
effectiveness in battle, our first priority should rather be to examine
them in terms of whether they indeed reflect and are therefore capable
of creating -- not just in the future, but also here and now -- our aims. Do
they reflect in practice the principle of individual self-determination and
the collective struggle for individual realization? Military methods
involving tactical leadership are founded on chains of command, that is
to say on hierarchy and obedience. As such they are in contradiction
with the aims of anarchist struggle.

As I see it, the questions those involved with the black bloc need to
be asking is: how do we carry out this specific method of struggle in
such a way that it reflects our aims? Can this tactic be effective as a
specifically anarchist tactic in the context of demonstrations? If not,
then should we maybe consider the other areas of our struggle where
we can continue to fight in a way where our practice reflects our aim?

The struggle against this order is the place where we can most
completely implement the aims of anarchy here and now. If we give
ourselves over to the domination of the strategic, to the ideology of
efficiency for its own sake, we have lost what is most essential -- what
is left of our life. Our anarchy becomes just another political program,
and not the life we desire to live here and now. I reject the sad and
desperate slogan, "By any means necessary", in favor of the principle,
"Only by those means that can create the world I desire, those means
that carry it in their very practice as I carry it in my heart."