there is a discussion on reddit including people who have participated in this type of action:

"It's a direct assault against the physical manifestations of capitalism. Smashed windows are usually rather pricey to replace, and can inflict a fair bit of a harm on the business owners. The ALF/ELF have used similar tactics to effectively shut down slaughterhouses. For me, this is secondary. The window represents the barrier between the common person and the private accumulation of goods. Ideally, after smashing a store front, the goods inside would be returned to the commons."

http://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments…

Eli: 1, Brendan: 0

Brendan, maybe kill a few more caged squirrels with a pellet gun, and you just might get that pulitzer too someday.

--Adam 12, Adam 12
--250 white dudes dressed in black
--Heading down 2nd
--Carrying guns, knives and sticks and
--Destroying property.
--Call in.

>>Sorry dispatch, I've got a Mexican guy who looked at
>>my girlfriend in a bar that I have to jackboot him.

--Right
--
--ADAM 14...ADAM 14...

Can we please acknowledge that when a protest turns violent it becomes a riot and should be called that?

Thanks, Eli! It's really heartening to read an "attaboy" for all the readers in enlightened, progressive, liberal Seattle care more for the costs multibillion-dollar corporations incur from a couple of dozen broken windows (not to mention the RUDENESS of those hooligans!) than for the homes, jobs, and lives lost to keep those corporations profitable. Remember, the #1 priority is not to offend anyone who's put off by smelly hippies who get out of line!!

Great post, Eli, even though we disagree on several points.

But the most salient one for me at the moment: How would you linguistically differentiate between smashing a bank window with a brick and smashing someone's face with a brick? How would you tweak a headline like "Violence at Protest" to be more precise, and indicate that glass was smashed, but blood wasn't spilled?

Or is there no useful linguistic (or moral) distinction between the two? "Calling out violence when I perceive violence" is not a good moral guidepost for anyone who isn't the caller-outer.

Also, I'm confused about why people keep referring to the window-smashers as "cowardly," meaning "timid" or "defeatist" or "complete lack of resistance." (That's Webster's, since we're referring to our dictionaries in this conversation.) That, again, seems like a canned use of language instead of an accurate description. You could call them "shitheads" or "counterproductive" or "foolish," but their actions don't seem even remotely timid.

Thank you, Eli!

The protest didn't turn violent. The protesters and the anarchists were two obviously separate groups.

I'm definitely with Eli versus Brendan here.

Were the vandals cowardly? Yes.
Was what the vandals did violent? Yes.
Do we have any idea what the vandals really wanted to do? No.

Speculate on their reasons and attempt to justify these actions, if you want...but the only thing in evidence is that a group of people decided to use the May Day protests to violently damage property...because they wanted to. (And that's weak sauce.)

And linguistically, if you violently hit someone in the face with a brick--that's assault and possibly attempted murder. If you violently smash, repeatedly with sticks and/or incendiary devices, a store front window...that's vandalism and possibly terrorism. Both of those scenarios clearly meet my definition of "violence."

Bravo, Eli Sanders! You nailed the shit out of this. The question right now shouldn't be whether this type of action is *ever* justified -- instead, people would do better to ask "How does this affect the movement for economic change? Are more people willing to support us now or less?" For every "pricey to replace" window that's broken and every symbolic destruction of "barriers between the common person and the private accumulation of goods" hundreds more people got turned off, to not just Black Bloc tactics, but the Occupy movement, protesting, and working for social change in general. Is this a victory?

I think a critical point that the Black Bloc people miss is that almost almost no one is interested in participating in symbolic window breaking or rioting or clashes with the police. People want to see substantive changes for the better. It may be "reformist" to work to get people housing and to ensure there's a safety net for the poor and to change racist laws, but that's the kind of thing that will improve people's lives and could eventually lead to a successful broad movement.

I am much more afraid of the violence from the police in this city than I am of any protester or Black Bloc anarchist.

Dictionary definitions of 'cowardly' and 'violent' are far too thoughtful a response to anarchists. The most fitting words I can come up with are the adjective 'pointless', and the noun 'tantrum'.

Bravo, Eli!

Brendan, regarding just your last point in your post @6 - Here's why the Window Smashers seemed cowardly to me: not only did they not, as Eli suggests, stand in front of the windows they'd smashed and explain why they'd done it, but they also changed into and out of their black smashing clothes (what, no courage riding Metro in your Smashing Blacks?) and melted into the crowd of legitimate protestors when it suited them, in other words, when they wanted to hide.

They 1) did not own their identities, choosing to hide in their blacks, 2) did not own their actions (no explanations), and 3) they parasitically and quite cynically hid within the ranks of actual, grown-up demonstrators.

To say nothing of the fact that the Smashers didn't give Shit One about the terrified employeess within those awful companies, the ones who just came to work on Tuesday and found themselves under seige... because a bunch of 20-somethings read some theory somewhere.

That's why I think their actions were cowardly.

What are the chances the SPD WAS the so called "Black Bloc"? Not 0%, anyway...

Great points, Eli. Especially about "violence," and just the general sentiment that we should be talking about this with some serious thought. I just wanted to comment on your 3) and 4), though.

3) I think "smash and grab" is the same rhetoric used to distract people from the truth as "pointless hoodlums," "agent provocateurs," and other terms thrown around in mainstream media sources. The brand of anarchism discussed by some of these people, as pointed out by Brendan and many, many others, is a form of organized communalism, not every man for himself. It is completely consistent with the changes they would like to see to physically destroy icons (or even specific examples) of the political and economic systems they deplore.

4) The only reason the black bloc "hurt" the peaceful protest movement is because they are not advocating for the same things. You clearly stand more on the side of peaceful, democratic change through the existing system, because of your use of the pejorative when describing their acts. But for others who genuinely believe there is no use in getting protest permits and writing letters anymore, these acts are the next logical step.

Keep up the great work, guys.

Nice to see at least one person on staff doesn't have their head completely up their ass.

@6 not standing by your actions is cowardly. Eli's right, if the thugs stood by the windows it would've been one thing, but smashing and running is cowardly

@Brendan: Thanks, and I guess I'm not as worried about the word "violence" in a headline so long as it is accurate (which I think it was in this case) and the article beneath explains what was perceived as violent (which I think ours, and I hope most others, did).

As far as the moral distinction between smashing a window and smashing a head... I go back to the question of intent and circumstance. But in terms of people's right to use the word "violence" to describe either or both, I guess I'm a little anarchic on that one--I think a situation in which everyone can call out (and explain the calling out of) violence when he or she perceives it is fine.

On cowardly: I use it because the window smashers are not owning their action and political ideogy, as far as I can tell, but running from it. If there's a better word to describe their unwillingness to be personally accountable for their ideas and actions, I'm all ears...

At the risk of reducing the discussion to an interpretation of context & linguistics, I can envision a plausible scenario in which a bunch of shit-brained klansmen smashed out the windows of, say, an all black inner-city school in the wee hours of the night, and I'd not chatacterize it as violent. Hateful, morally repugnant, reprehensible, plenty more, but I'd not likely use "violent" which I guess, like Brendan, I'd always (incorrectly?) understood to involve bodily harm. Thanks for a couple wonderful & stimulating posts.

When is the time to smash the state, Eli? This nation is extremely violent--it wages wars abroad and on people within these borders. It wages those wars with technology more sophisticated than any Empire in the history of the world. It protects its authority with more than overt violence, but with the insidious violence of infiltration, coup d'etat, crack cocaine, imprisonment. This nation imprisons how many people? What is the statistic--the US has 4% of the world's population and 25% of its prison population? 1 in 99 adults behind bars? This is a nation of people in cages.

This nation has a prison system existing strictly for one minority population (immigrants). This is the definition of a concentration camp. The US military extraordinary renditions people and tortures them. If they don't have the will to torture them personally, they send them to states propped up with US military aid to do the dirty work for them. We're actively bombing how many countries? The CIA is actively exercising in how many countries? In fact, Obama has expanded CIA operations in other countries. He has substantially worsened the problem.

This is the most terrible Empire that has ever existed. If this state does not deserve to be destroyed, then what state ever does?

Finally, regarding the numbers of protesters and the consensus on the streets. I was at the anticapitalist bloc. I saw how many people were there, and what their attitudes were. There were far more than 50 people in the black bloc. There were easily a couple hundred, and in addition to that there were people dressed as the black bloc but not moving with its mass.

There were at least 1500 people in the anticapitalist march with the black bloc. What surprised me most about the march, as someone who advocates this kind of tactic, was the consensus in the crowd. Normally when shit gets rowdy in this kind of situation, there are peace police trying to interfere, trying to "prevent violence." In these situations, the most violent people are almost always the people advocating nonviolence. They are the ones who pepper spray people. They are the ones assaulting people, grabbing them and trying to unmask them. And most importantly--they're the ones trying to hand people over to the police, the arbitrators of State violence, the greatest violence that exists. They would be happy to see someone who breaks a window get the shit kicked out of them, all while condemning violence. Cognitive dissonance in the extreme.

But excluding the superheros, that crowd LOVED the black bloc. I didn't hear anyone in the march complain. There was nearly perfect unity of purpose even among those who were not dressed in black. Not everyone who supports the black bloc, dresses in black bloc. Not everyone who looks "normal" is upset about the black bloc blending in. In fact, many of those people are there for the purpose of providing cover for those who are willing to risk their lives to make real the discontent they feel with this world.

For all of you who hate me right now, I found a job ad for you.

http://www.goarmy.com/careers-and-jobs/b…

Let's end some generalizations, please, starting with your language - insert "some" before each appearance of the word 'anarchist/s.' There is no one monolithic anarchist; not all are into property destruction, targeted or no.

Regarding cowardice: smashing windows regularly results in jail time. It is not cowardice to hide your face, it is intelligence. How many of you would call the Zapatistas cowards? What is fundamentally different about them covering their faces and protesters in the US covering their faces? They engage(d) in illegal property destruction. Hell, they used guns. They fought the army out of cities, regions. Is it the US protesters' lack of success that bothers you?

I don't think so. I think the bravery of those who fight--not just walk in circles with sign, not just sit in the street waiting to get arrested--but FIGHT to end the tragedy of this genocidal nation, exposes your own cowardice.

The state is not strictly a physical thing. It is ideology, social norms, economy, patterns of behavior.... as such, "smashing the state" is a metaphor.

Furthermore, no one I know thinks the end of the state is near. It is rhetoric, an idealism, a masturbatory fantasy... whatever you want to call it, it is all those things, and more.

I would like to hear the Black Block answer this: Police paramilitary tactics and weaponry are both increasing, in no small part thanks to cowardly punk anarchists (yes, i called you cowards).

You anarchists protest the militarization of the police force as an action of the state attempting to exert more control of the people.

Dont you see how you guel that? By smashing things that the state has an interest in protecting, you cynically contribute to the state amplifying its police powers.

Nut up, you cowards. Next time you cowards feel the urge to smash shit, stop and silently stand by your handiwork.

As someone else suggested - take credit, allow the police to arrest you. Think how powerful a statement that will make. It steals from the authority figures all their fear of you, while convincing them of your seriousness.

Really. And we will stop calling you cowards cowards. We may all begin to respect your message.

Protestors in many, many other movements showed the strength to allow themselves to be arrrested. And they prevailed.

You cowards are not gonna accomplish jack. Change your tactics.

After Brendan's, juvenile fascination with Colton Harris-Moore, I was surprised that you guys were surprised with his apologia for vandalism.

"But left unexamined is the fact that the distracting actions of the "Black Bloc" ended up hurting the protest efforts of the people living this economic violence (immigrants, the working poor), and in a sense did violence to their cause. Which, you could argue, is immoral."

The fundamental problem facing immigrants is not violent protesters. The fundamental problem is the existence of borders and the violent state that enforces those borders. Liberal recuperation (ie. permitted protest, picketing, etc.) is what hurts immigrants. The UW has a history project about the WTO protests. In it, Juan Jose Bocanegra of El Comite has an interview in which he talks about Central and South American campesinos marching on Capitol Hill and seeing the battle unfolding between young militants and police downtown. He speaks about their eagerness to fight and how he restrained them and prevented them from joining the fray because it would put their visas and speaking tours at risk.

Liberal recuperation is the greatest threat to any "movement" that would substantially challenge the fundamental problems facing immigrants.

What is left unexamined, Eli, is the racism of leftists who assert that immigrants can't fight, that people of color can't fight, that queer and trans people can't fight. It completely disregards the long history of immigrants violently confronting their oppressors. It completely erases the violent resistance of queer and trans people.

Who's the coward again?

the emperor can burn villages, the people are forbidden to light a candle.

Denying other's their rights to meet force with force is a pathology in this country. How dare you admonish victims for beating back on an attacker. And #29 is right, it's a complete revision of history. Always with the MLK never a nod to Malcolm X. Always with the LGBTQ parades with vodka and thumping music and the only reason to trot out Stonewall is to say "thank god those days are over", as if they were. As if oppression, ignored as rude interruption to civilized life by the majority, has ended.

Dear Eli Sanders and The Stranger editorial staff,

Would you care to attempt to justify the disproportionate emphasis in SLOG coverage to the property damage, relative to the peaceful demonstration by thousands of people over the course of May Day?

Whether or not you stand by the application of the word "violence" to describe vandalism, how can you justify shaping SLOG readers' impression of the day by leading your coverage with Christopher Frizelle's declaration, "Violence Erupts at May Day Protests, Mayor Issues Emergency Order on Weapons" (only edited later in the evening to include a mention of the peaceful rally) and numerous close-up shots of broken windows?

Clearly the vandalism was carried out by very few people who do not represent the sentiments of the vast majority of those participating in the day's events. Why elevate their significance?

Obviously every mainstream media outlet in town was providing more than ample coverage of the vandalism.

Isn't The Stranger supposed to offer, oh I don't know, an alternative, perhaps even more progressive perspective to the mainstream tunnel vision?

Or do I have that wrong?

@30 How do you think this country came into existence, Einstein?

> "'Smashing a window is not violence, it's vandalism,' he writes. 'There is a difference—unless you think of people as the moral equivalent of property.'""Smashing a window is not violence, it's vandalism," he writes. "There is a difference—unless you think of people as the moral equivalent of property."

Anyone who could write that needs to spend more time reading up on the Kristallnacht.

Accountability. That's why it seemed a bit cowardly. Stand for what you believe in and own it. As Latrice Royale says, "Get up. Look sickening. And make them eat it." Latrice would have owned it. Course, she probably wouldn't have cracked windows, vandalized cars, and threatened peoples lives. Niether would Stevie Wonder. I'm starting to believe that, the more I live like Stevie Wonder, the better.

And while we're all in fifty cent word mode, let's consult with the all powerful internet dictionary.

Violence:

vi·o·lence   [vahy-uh-luhns]

noun

1. swift and intense force: (the violence of a storm.)
2. rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment: (to die by violence.)
3. an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: (to take over a government by violence.)
4. a violent act.
5. rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language: (the violence of his hatred.)

I'd say the linguistic integrity of violence was spot on.

As for the violence perpetrated by the economic monsters on Wall Street, I doubt the seriousness of which it is all taken by some at the occupy movement. I asked (ok, yelled) for anyone to tell me what a credit default swap was yesterday at Westlake. Also, "DO YOU KNOW WHAT A SYNTHETIC CDO IS?" "WHAT ABOUT SUB-PRIME MORTGAGE'S?" Not only did no one say anything, I got a, "WHO GIVES A SHIT?" I give a shit. I give two shits. It's why Adbusters created Occupy Wall Street in Zucotti Park in the first place.

I am sickened by the economic violence this system has created and fostered. Half the country is near, at, or below the poverty line. Regardless of the dysfunction at the state or federal level, I continue to see those routes as the best bet to stem the tide of income inequality. This probably makes me a bougie liberal, but I believe in the core principals of democracy. I have talked to people all over the country who are feeling taken advantage of by the powers that be. Communities that have been systematically de-constructed.

I feel that involving oneself into the system to bring about measured, lasting, and effective change is the best way forward. I will follow that path and the anarchists will follow their path and the first person to bring more justice into the world wins.

Thank you to Brenden and Eli for the open and honest conversation. It's a good thing and it matters.

The march at noon yesterday was an anti-capitalist march. While I usually find property destruction to be unstrategic (but rarely immoral), I did not consider property destruction of capitalist property at an anti-capitalist march to be hijacking the message.

Disclaimer: I consider myself a social anarchist of the non-smashing variety. Maybe I can read the situation better than someone new to protesting, but when I see dozens of folks dressed in black, I know what is likely to go down, and can decide accordingly where to safely position myself.

Brendan, I don't call them cowardly because I disagree with them. Hell, I don't even know why they did it. We're all just guessing. I call them cowardly because the hid within a crowd of peaceful demonstrators and hijacked someone else's cause. They did a bunch of property damage (I don't really care whether you call it violence or vandalism for this point), and then fled. They took no responsibility for their actions, and have not articulated any reason for their actions. I'm not saying they should go maskless and stand around until they get arrested. But unless they explain the purpose of their action, they appear no different than a random mob of mindless thugs, breaking shit just for thrills. Violence/vandalism without purpose is just mindless violence/vandalism.

Hiding among a crowd of peaceful demonstrators is a bit like the Taliban hiding amongst civilians, hoping the military won't shoot them. Black Bloc was essentially using the peaceful demonstration as human shields, and forcing them to be unwilling participants in their vandalism. Using human shields is a coward's move.

I would have credited them with some degree of bravery (even if I disagree with their purpose) if they had done this action on their own, without hijacking the peaceful demonstration, and they had somehow somewhere articulated their reasons and stood behind their actions.

If I had been down there participating in the peaceful marches, and these clowns tried to melt back into the crowd after smashing a bunch of windows, I'd have thrown the nearest one to the ground myself and held him there till the police arrived (and yes, I do have the training and the stones to back that up).

@6

Suppose I rush at you with a drawn knife, slash through your coat, and then stop short, the blade a hair's breadth from your exposed skin.

Have I escaped any accusation of violence? I've only damaged your property, I haven't so much as touched your human body.

Is it not violent to merely threaten physical harm to human beings? Would there be an exception if the human beings happen to be working for a large corporate entity at the time?

Also, can someone please explain the George Washington definition of courage to Brendan?

There's neither courage nor cowardice in cutting down the cherry tree, if no-one knows you've done it. If the act is free of immediate risk, then courage can be found only in admission to the deed in front of those who would judge you for it.

When was the last time a leaderless, disorganized, anarchic protest lead to the dissolution of any state?

I think both the vandalism and its ideological separation from the greater protest are very well balanced under the circumstances. Occupy Wall Street and it's concerns continue to be under represented in the media and the public debate, the vast majority of the press coverage to date has resulted from police overreacting to protests. If violence is the only thing that gets coverage, then the cause is served by a measured amount of fucking things up. The cause is also served by the fact that most people involved find that kind of excess reprehensible, so the way I see it everyone is right.

On 'violence' vs. 'vandalism', I lean toward Brendan. I do think that the smashing of windows is commonly perceived as violence in our culture, but I think this is exactly the kind of mistaken attribution that Occupy is fighting. Property is not the same as people, and we too often use the same language to describe violence against inanimate objects that we do to describe crimes against individuals. It isn't linguistically wrong to do so, but it is laden with cultural bias that is particularly relevant to this discussion and it's lazy to ignore that.

@44

"On 'violence' vs. 'vandalism', I lean toward Brendan."

Well yes, that was entirely apparent from your first sentence, never mind the rest of your first paragraph.

We don't often hear from the Art Production Manager of The Stranger; it's kind of interesting to see what dropping a bit of dynamite like this into the pond will bring to the surface.

Dear @17:

Then I guess the irony of your statement, coming as it does from an anonymous commentor hiding behind the mask of a fake name in order to avoid the consequences of taking ownership of anything you might say is lost on you, isn't it?

@29, are you complaining about what Boca did or justifying what he did? You're a bit unclear.

@43

More or less leaderless, anarchic uprisings have led to the dissolution of a great many states. What they have failed to do, curiously, is to establish leaderless, anarchic societies where the dissolved states once stood.

@46

And your real name is...?

@46

Actually, never mind your real name, first I want to know how you figure the consequences for posting comments on a blog are comparable to the consequences for chucking a rock at a window of a building with people inside of it.

The smashy-smashy is a juvenile, macho, masturbatory distraction. And the Black Bloc's romanticizing of violence has a distinctly fascist aroma.

Don't go away mad, bozos in black. Just go away.

@52

Black bloc is a tactic, not a group. If you're referring to the group of people who share the ideology of violence as political statement, then the correct term is not "black bloc," but "smashist." If you're referring only to present-day groups, who have renounced assassination and bombing of public spaces, but not "property destruction," the correct term is "neo-smashist."

I'm saying Boca is a liberal recuperator and the enemy of liberation. What those farmers felt, what would have satisfied them, was to fight alongside their comrades against the forces of repression. Boca stood in their way, putting him on the side of the police.

And for the record, I don't personally engage in property destruction at protests. I smile when others do and I will defend them for doing it. I spent most of today raising bail for a friend and comrade accused of vandalism. I'm sure it won't be the last time that I do that. Because, you know, vandalism is a risk-free endeavor.

@55

If that "risk free" crack is directed at me, I don't think you understand what I mean by "immediate risk"-- I'm talking about the kind of risk where actually doing the thing is physically dangerous to oneself, like rushing a machine-gun nest, or spearing a lion. Immediate physical danger to oneself, that would not exist without the action-- that's the only exception to the George Washington definition of courage.

So if your vandalizing buddy could have been bitten and maimed by the concrete slab he was throwing paint at, then congrats, he's made the cut. Otherwise, no.

@57

Gosh, thanks for using up so much of your very valuable and productive Serious Taxpayer time to read our inane scribblings, and respond to them.

Getting tackled by the police (uniformed or not, paid or not), probably beaten, thrown in a cell, and forced through months or years of legal proceedings... no, that doesn't factor in at all.

Regarding the perpetual sexism of leftists insisting that militancy is "macho" or "dick-waving" or blah blah blah...
http://latfmanarchists.tumblr.com

Okay, so now that you've got your Putlizer, when the hell are you dumping this birdcage-liner?

I'm just weighing in on the use of "violence" by the media. I just finished teaching a seminar with incarcerated women at the WCCW prison in Purdy tonight. We started with a lively discussion of anarchy and the Seattle May Day events. They quickly pointed out the "spectacle" element of the media inappropriately calling the window breaking "violent." The women prisoners told me that violence referred to action against a person, not property. Of course, maybe they have more time to think about these fine points, but they thought the description of these actions as "violent" was part of trend of undiscerning media coverage that was meant to sensationalize, produce fear, and finally control society. I think I fall in line with the convicts on this one: they have a more sophisticated understanding that parallels Brendan's critique.

And robot, do you know anything about protests? Have you seen any of the footage that has come out of Oakland the past years?

Chemical weapons, gas and spray, flash-bangs, concussion grenades, baton charges... all very real, immediate consequences to militant action. So fuck you for pretending that any of this is "safe" or without "risk." Tell that to Elliot Hughes, you spineless fuck.

You want to see courage? Here's scenes from Oakland on May Day. At 2:27, watch a comrade get arrested. Then watch the bottom left corner of the screen as that person is pulled back to freedom by those cowardly protesters, cowering from the police, cowering away from the batons, cowering from the chemical warfare that the OPD has been waging against the people of Oakland for years.

http://efg-bnusfoodreserves.blogspot.com…

@53

Thanks for the clarification. The subtle distinctions of nomenclature are tricky. I still can't tell the Judean People's Front from the People's Front of Judea.

@59

That is not a risk of the act itself, that is a risk that comes only with judgement for the act in the eyes of others.

Did your vandal buddy stand up and face that risk courageously?

Did your vandal buddy remove his mask, wait for the police to arrive, and boldly tell them, "yes, I threw that paint at that concrete slab?"

You make no sense. You're like Gandhi, telling the Jews of Europe that violent resistance against Naziism is wrong, that they should throw themselves upon the knife so that their moral superiority can win the world's support. Because obviously, the Nazis craved the approval of everyone else. Fuck that, fuck Gandhi, and fuck you for assuming the gender of my friend, you sexist pig.

And believe me, not one of us cares about the judgment of others. It's their violence and their cages that scare us. And that fear is rational and useful.

In spite of that fear, these people have chosen to act. THAT is the definition of courage.

You, on the other hand, bitch about it on the internet. Coward.

@22

"This is the most terrible Empire that has ever existed."

U.S. foreign policy has been and remains authoritarian and murderous and despicable. But when you say stuff like the above, which is not only obviously and objectively untrue, but downright juvenile in its historical ignorance, it's reasonable for people to ignore you. It also explains why you think breaking windows equals "smashing the state."

Which Empire was worse? Do tell.

The Third Reich, for its genocide? This nation exterminated unknown millions of people living within the current-day borders of the United States long before the Nazis.

So, again. Please tell me which Empire was worse than the United States.

@62

Oh, yes, marching directly into enemy lines, or actually charging and attacking the police, that's intrinsically risky, definitely.

Throwing some paint at a concrete slab, though, isn't.

Which one was your buddy doing, again? I seem to have forgotten.

Go fuck yourself, cop.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QngE6kKk8…

So many "I" statements, and "we" statements from individuals speaking for the "royal we". Interesting dynamic that, and it sheds a lot of light on why anarchists do such a poor job of representing anybody but themselves.

Did you seriously just try to get me to incriminate my comrade? What the fuck is wrong with you? Are you that eager to put people in cages? What kind of sick fuck are you?

@69

I eagerly await your explanation of how the US Empire is worse than the Khmer Rouge. Or even worse than the pre-civil-war US Empire, what with the legal owning of people, and all that.

It's all a matter of perspective, of course, I totally understand that. I'm sure I'm blind to all sorts of evil the United States is currently perpetrating; at least half of it's classified, no doubt. But I'm genuinely puzzled as to how it might be worked out that Barack Obama is eviller than Pol Pot, and when I'm puzzled, nothing satisfies me more than a cogent, detailed explanation, regardless of whether or not I ultimately agree with it.

@74

Incriminate? Certainly not!

I merely asked a question, comrade: What was the nature of the Action for which your Buddy-Comrade was arrested, and did your Buddy-Comrade bravely stand and offer hermself up for judgement before a jury of Real Actual Human Beings, or did hse flee the scene of hsr Action?

@69, wow. Okay. The genocide of the American aboriginals was a disgusting thing. Awful. Terrible. But the vast majority of aboriginals were killed/died before the the U.S. was a country, and most of them from diseases brought from Europe. For it's awful part, the U.S. government killed anywhere between many thousands to several millions (some research suggests at most one million American aboriginals have died of all causes since 1776).

But to suggest the U.S. empire is more terrible than Rome's? Alexander's? Atilla the Hun's? The Soviet Union's? Mao's? Could you vent your rage at the atrocities of these empires if you'd lived there? Could you publicly pretend that breaking windows is a valid form of protest? Well, you could, but then you'd be dead.

Like I said, the U.S. has done and continues to do awful things at home and abroad, but perspective and historical accuracy are essential parts of an honest assessment.

@61, I really appreciate your comment. I feel very mixed about the appropriateness and effectiveness of the acts that went down during the protest. However, I firmly believe that the tendency of news to label this as "juvenile," "kids," "a handful polluting the message," and even the "agent provocateurs" label is an ingrained reaction to discredit legitimate (if minority) anger and obscure the serious problems caused by deep ideology in this country. It's very easy to get people on your side if you prevent any serious discussion about why banks were the target, why Nike was a target. It's a ploy to promote ignorance and quell all rational discussion. An appeal to complacency.

I hate all that McDonalds stands for, so I'm going to smash up Joann Fabrics, some random cars, and a Subaru dealership.

Not very effective.

THE BLACK BLOC DIDN"T "HIJACK" ANY MARCH. There was the smashy march early in the day for those who wanted to take part (several hundred people, BTW, not "50"), and the rest of the marches were for people who didn't want to be around during the smashy. No hijacking - just a diversity of tactics.

And for clarification, how exactly did the black bloc "hurt" the other protests that day? It seems to me like you're blaming the bloc for how the media decided to tell everyone that they ruined everything.

@80

So, I'm confused.

Why did the immigrant rights marchers shout down a chant of "Whose Streets? Our Streets!" with a rousing chorus of "Si! Se Puede!" ?

Oh come on, someone throw an @33 my way.

We're paying far too much attention to a few acts of vandalism, at the expense of the bigger picture of Occupy and social justice.

Paul Constant had it right in his May Day post, and everything he said there applies perfectly to The Stranger:

Based on what I've seen of the coverage, this General Strike is being blown out of proportion by almost every media outlet in town (and a few around the country, too.) Right this moment, we have a few broken windows along one block downtown.

[...]

Here's the thing: There are hundreds of people all around town right now protesting income inequality, identifying a desperate need for immigration reform, and celebrating our shared American history of organized labor. Those are issues that need our discussion, and our consideration, and our attention.

At least SLOG has multiple perspectives on the vandalism. Yet, the "May Day Protest Coverage" header at the top of this page focuses SOLELY on vandalism, violence, "violence" vs "vandalism", etc., and features a photo of an act of vandalism as an icon for the day!

Meanwhile, Constant's acknowledgement of the issues underlying May Day falls to the wayside.

Who is making the day-to-day editorial calls at The Stranger? Is it Savage? Frizelle? Sanders?

I'd like to see someone representing The Stranger's editorial direction address this error.

The black bloc undermined the other protests by giving the mainstream media an opportunity to focus their attention on the sensational behaviors of a few, which happened to be completely unrelated to the purpose of the march (as Occupy Seattle put it: Workers, students, immigrants, and the unemployed standing together for economic justice).

Furthermore, the media were able to tar the dangerously successful Occupy movement with the brush of the black bloc's jerk off exercise: the smashy-smashy that the vast majority of workers, students, immigrants, and the unemployed find repugnant.

Good job, clowns.

@84

"black bloc" is a tactic (or more accurately, a tactical package), not a group or a movement.

Every time you use "black bloc" as a group noun, the Neo-Smashists, and some other fraction of Occupy, will regard you as deeply unserious, or even counterrevolutionary.

The Neo-Smashists really are entirely serious about this purity test of nomenclature. If you want to engage with Occupy at this level, you're going to have to alter your rhetoric.

I myself am clearly less than entirely serious about the Smashist rhetoric, yes, but then the serious engagement I'm seeking with contemporary anarchists is on issues that run deeper than the cockfights of Smashist apologia.

In order to improve the public discourse on this issue, I suggest the next business owner to face a brick-hurling 'anarchist' shoot him in his masked face, as is his legal and moral right to do. I can only hope that store owner is a member of a racial minority, preferably an immigrant, and the 'anarchist' a rich white boy - or, better, girl. That should really create the discussion about civil and immigrant rights the 'anarchists' are looking for.

@84

No, the clowns did a great job on May Day.

It was the vandals who sidelined the messages of Occupy, immigrant rights groups, and labor demonstrators. And The Stranger's editorial board was all too happy to oblige them.

Just think of how many ad clicks The Stranger reaped over this fiasco! When you're a mainstream media outlet, crime always pays.

(Holy shit! I just turned off Adblock Plus for a moment to take a look at SLOG's ads. This site is filthy with ads!)

@84 it is your anti-militancy that threatens Occupy, not the other way around.

You would have this movement like any number of the anti-war protests, a completely innocuous million people come out, plead peacefully, government lauds them and themselves for the "free" society in which we live that allows people to do this and then they continue what they were doing, dropping bombs on people and expanding the wars.

If you don't have any militancy in you, this movement is not for you. Go log on to Moveon dot org and sign endless online petitions, call congress, beg them to be nice (or else what?? you'll put on a parade? lol)

The right wing could not have better friends than anarchists so they either work for the police or the Republicans literally or just by their stupid, stupid actions. And I wish the police could use tranquilizer darts on the assholes.

Good discussion (at least until some trolls showed up). I'll add another term to the mix that has been alluded to by several insightful commenters: civil disobedience. That is the courageous path a protestor can choose to gain a place to air their grievances while limiting the violence they inflict upon bystanders.

To engage properly in civil disobedience, you openly and precisely violate the law you disagree with, then you accept responsibility for the action, even if there are negative consequences, like getting arrested. That is how you win hearts and minds. I would even go so far as to say that I'd have been more open to hearing the critiques of neoliberal capitalism by a window breaker if they had stood there calmly telling people why they did it until the police arrested them. Own your message, own your politics - give people a face, a person to connect to the idea.

If I am not secure in my property, then I cannot feel secure in my person. Violence directed at property is an implicit threat of violence directed at a person. Don't think so? What if you were approached in a public place and someone took your stuff and destroyed it right in front of you? Would you not be concerned that the violence would next be turned on your person? Would that not be a legitimate concern?

Violence against property carries an implicit threat of violence against people. To deny that is to be intentionally false.

Blaming the media (including, apparently SLOG) for complicity in demeaning the message of the protests notwithstanding, the only message of Occupy that Joe-suburb and Jill-inner-residential-neighborhood comes away with is dangerous Nike-wearing punks smashing the windows of stores. Sounds nice to call them anarchists, but I don't know this is true.

Unless the arrested few make eloquent statements at their arraignments, I'm afraid I'm going to continue to believe that if only the Neo-Smashists had gotten better SAT scores, they'd instead be smashing windows at frat parties.

Sometimes shitheads who like to smash stuff are just looking for opportunities to smash stuff.

Eli, you're a thoughtful dude but I believe you're trying too hard here.

I have to call you out on you parallel between Klan window-smashes and "Anarchist" window smashes (I hesitantly quote anarchist because I want to highlight that this word is also possibly being misused; there are a variety of anti-capitalist identities).

The Klan are indisputably racist, and, as such, have as there targets a group of humans. The black clad "cowards" (again a terribly inaccurate word based on my own experiences at the demonstrations Tuesday) explicitly took/take an anti-capitalism stance. Thus, these folks have as there target a system of oppression which happens to be represented by someone's private property. The destruction of that property cannot, I think, be reasonably linked to a hatred of a group of humans, nor to an intention of causing physical harm to them.

Hence, I oppose the use of the word violence to describe the actions of the protesters, anarchist or otherwise. To reiterate a comment above, I also witnessed violence only on the part of the police, in the form of unlawful seizure (of flags for fuck's sake) outside of McGinn's prescribed 'zone' and in the form of smacking my brothers and sisters in the head and body with their goon sticks.

That said, I'm grateful that the police showed up to direct traffic...but you don't need guns and rods to do that. Thanks, Brendan, for being a refreshing challenge to the media inaccuracies about resistance movements!

So much attention on the windows! The smashing at that particular time was a bad strategy. You don't even have to consider the question of violence. If a group of people went around downtown Seattle at 4am when there is a minimum of innocent bystands and smashed windows of banks, etc., would people be in a huff about it? Probably not. Certainly not to the same degree. The public may even be more supportive of it, because such an action would show a regard for the people but a complete disregard for the corporate entities, which supposedly is what the smashing of the windows was all about. It would have been a focused, well-targeted attack. Smashing windows during a peaceful protest not only distracts from the cause of the peaceful protesters, but puts a lot of people, protesters and non-protesters alike, unnecessarily and unjustifiably in harms way. The violence towards windows is irrelevant, although certainly still violence. It is the violence towards the people that is at issue here. Call it collateral damage if you want to. The point is that the attack on the corporate state ends up misdirected and displaced, causing too little damage to its enemy and far too much damage to its allies.

"But to suggest the U.S. empire is more terrible than Rome's? Alexander's? Atilla the Hun's? The Soviet Union's? Mao's?"

I'm not defending any of those empires, but I would argue that the technology that those empires used was so primitive relative to the US that they pale in comparison. The US is the only nation in history to use nuclear bombs. The US continues to use concentration camps and secret prison camps to torture and execute people. The US is currently waging more wars than any other power has ever been able to simultaneously execute. The US leads the way in developing techniques and technologies of surveillance.

Regardless, you've already made my point. The US is in the company of "Rome, Alexander, Atilla the Hun's, The Soviet Union's, Mao's China." So fine--for the sake of argument, I'll retract my statement that it is the MOST terrible. It's only in the top 5. You must be so proud.
O-BA-MA!
O-BA-MA!
O-BA-MA!
O-BA-MA!
O-BA-MA!
O-BA-MA!
O-BA-MA!
O-BA-MA!

Oh, and the estimates for the population of North America north of Mexico prior to the European colonization are far higher than 1 million. Try 10 to 12 million.

@49:

You're looking at it.

One example: When blip tells another commentor to "go fuck themselves", (s)he does so knowing full well that they are protected from any sort of real retribution for such a comment by virtue of their anonymity.

It's not a matter of degree, which in these types of discussions inevitably devolves into hair-splitting, as is currently happening with the "shattered window" argument for example. The simple fact, however, is that people use anonymity - whether it's dressing in black scarfs or creating an online handle - precisely to empower themselves to do or say things without suffering any negative consequences, which they most likely would NOT be able to do if their identities were known. One can argue the comparative degrees of telling someone to fuck off versus throwing a brick through a window, but regardless of the specific circumstances, the objective goal provided by remaining anonymous while doing so remains precisely the same.

@ 38 - "While I usually find property destruction to be unstrategic (but rarely immoral), I did not consider property destruction of capitalist property at an anti-capitalist march to be hijacking the message."

And so then what would be your justification for smashing car windows? How many car windows were smashed yesterday and how did that serve to carry the message about anti-capitalism? Did those citizens who happened to park downtown yesterday DESERVE to have their personal private property destroyed? Why? What about the guy who was down visiting from Canada and had all his car windows smashed in - was he an enemy of the state?

Don't you see, when anonymous thugs commit widespread indiscriminate violence (yes, violence) and property damage with no personal accountability or clear messaging, then all a greater audience can conclude is that a bunch of kids went nuts in the city. I'm sure they had a great time - it looked like they were having a great time - but that's all that was "accomplished".

Other than turning off thousands and thousands of people from their 'cause'....

@93,

A romantic partner destroying your stuff to get back at you is actually a HUGE red flag for physical abuse or the ever popular murder-suicide. In most people's minds, your stuff = you. Harming your property = harming you, and it's not much more of a leap to physical, interpersonal violence.

@104:

Knowing who you are makes not one iota of difference to me personally - Bailo, however, may have different thoughts along those lines. Of course, recognizing you're some 800 miles out-of-reach may give you a small measure of security when it comes down to it. OTOH, simply Googling "Brandon LaMere San Francisco" could give him all sorts of ideas, you just never know, do you?

@101

I think I understand. You want there to be no distinction between anonymous speech and anonymous action. Carry on, that's a very pretty bit of rhetoric.

I don't know how you can characterize the window-smashers as cowardly for trying to protect themselves from a rigged justice system, when those they try to fight hide behind corporate entities. One does something evil and exploits millions of people, the other broke a few windows costing a multi-billion dollar multinational organization ~$10,000.

I don't support the vandalism, but protecting themselves from the wrath of a huge corporation isn't cowardly. It's just smart. I bet the American Sharpshooters were also cowardly because they hid and shot from the bushes? Get the Hell outta here, your arguments are all freaking ludicrous.

Oh, and newsflash to everyone that keeps proving they read no further than the headline. The people arrested at Pike Place had NOTHING to do with the vandalism, and were wrongfully targeted by police. Freaking photographer was arrested for capturing the cops mistreating the first arrest. Go read the freaking full story.

@108:

Well, I can imagine it's comforting to make that assumption. But, "going postal" didn't enter the lexicon for no reason...