shivas.wisdom said:

ballsalsa said:

both sides are ineffective at fighting as a group.  The best I've seen or read about either side doing is to attempt to isolate targets and drag them behind the lines.  I also read about a ninja leading a biker who was chasing him into an ambush.  If they insist on fighting it out with sticks and shields, they should learn a few formations and use them.  Same thing if it escalates further.  If everyone insists, they should at least learn to do it right.

---

Although I don't know for sure as I'm not located in the States, I suspect that a large majority of people who have been participating in antifascist action since Trumps election are young and inexperienced with this type of direct action. The "antifa" name has received widespread attention since the inauguration, not only to people on the right but also those on the left who may agree with the approach.

I think this because I agree, there has been too much sloppiness from antifa groups in the USA recently.

Although I'm glad that those opposed to antifa seem set on convincing others (and themselves) that antifa is solely composed of skinny kids, as under estimating your opposition only hurts you, for the benefit of this thread I want to point out that anarchists have been engaging in street fighting for decades; not only against other civilians but often the police and other state forces as well. It would be ludicrous to think that nothing has been learned from these actions.

If you're interested in reading some radical literature on the topic, Bodyhammer: Tactics and Self-Defense for the Modern Protestor is a short pamphlet that gets into to the creation and use of shields, as well as proper group formations. A more indepth view can be found with the Black Bloc Tactics Communiqué by the Anti-Racist Action & The Green Mountain Anarchist Collective.

Medieval warfare is definitely being mined from useful tactics. I wonder if Cinnamon understands how apt that picture is. 

But, of course, much of this knowledge hasn't been seen in many of the recent antifascist demonstrations in the USA. Mostly just chaotic street melees and bravado. This hasn't gone unnoticed and the inexperienced individuals are learning; both from taking part in actions both successful and unsuccessful, as well as listening to the old timers that they have likely made connections with. If you notice, the near weekly street brawls have died down. The fourth of July just passed, did you hear of any street fights? I assure you the 'trolls' were out there goading for one. 

You've seen how the alt-right protests have developed over the months, why would you assume anarchists would be static in their approach. Lack of hierarchy may have its disadvantages, but stagnancy definitely isn't one.

---

shivas.wisdom said:

Repertoire89 said:

This is why I dont like decentralized groups though, the outliers should never get in the group, or they should be kicked out and disowned by officials from a group. Along with having rules about when one type of action or another is justified.

---

This does exist, to some extent. An obvious example would be anarchist resistance to infiltration from agent provocateurs and snitches. Behaviour that continually undermines the objective would also, I can only assume, be rejected. The response doesn't come from an overseeing figurehead though, rather it will be through community response that this will happen. For example, in the case of government agents, trusted communication networks (built over time by working with other affinity groups) are used to spread the message around once a local group discovers the tumor in their own community, allowing for a coordinated movement-wide response.

In the case of antifascist members acting out by indiscriminately attacking other people, cross-network shunning likely won't be the first response, instead you can expect the rest of the affinity group to address the issue with their own solution. In the case of an individual ignoring this, or an entire affinity group practicing indiscriminate violence, you can expect an eventually movement-wide shun will happen.

As for rules, don't expect a law book full of rules to ever find widespread acceptance amongst anarchists, but that doesn't mean basic notions of what is acceptable and what is unacceptable don't exist. But, I think when you say rules about whether one action or another is justified, you are referring to the dichotomy of nonviolent and violent action. There is an anarchist concept of diversity of tactics that says such a distinction is impossible to make. Nonviolence is more desirable than violence as a means, but the choice of means will almost never be pure, and will involve such complexities that the simple distinction between violence and nonviolence does not suffice as a guide. The degree of disorder in civil disobedience should not be weighed against a false ‘peace’ presumed to exist in the status quo, but against the real disorder and violence that are part of daily life, overtly expressed internationally in wars, but hidden locally under that facade of ‘order’ which obscures the injustice of contemporary society.

It's an involved topic that deserves its own thread but if you're interested the book Disobedience and Democracy: Nine Fallacies on Law and Order is probably a classic text on the subject. Even the more recent communiqué, The Coming Insurrection says "Weapons are necessary: it’s a question of doing everything possible to make using them unnecessary…the prospect of Iraq-style urban guerilla warfare, dragging on with no possibility of taking the offensive, is more to be feared than to be desired. The militarization of civil war is the defeat of insurrection".

Quote:

Violence or disruption though, is impossible to justify in the US atm. There are no centralized violent fascists here, only the occasional drunk skinhead or some such. If we had a serious problem and the gov did nothing about it, then I would definitely condone it being ended by non-government entities, but nothing remotely close to that exists out here and a few racist/fascist groups are on terrorist watch lists

---

Since January, white supremacist extremists conducted four attacks, one plot, and three stockpiling incidents across the United States. Also since January, the Federal government cut funds for groups that counter violent white supremacy, seeking to shift focus on violent Islamists.

It may not seem like a problem to you, but to the folks that are being targeted, it is a problem. Statistically, one death isn't a major thing, but one death is major to the community that suffers it.

At what extent would you consider it to have finally become a problem?

---

Repertoire89 said:

The LA riots are a good example, the police couldnt do much about it, so many people got together with weapons to protect their communities / businesses. Thats why our police force has been militarized recently, so they can respond to anything from terrorists with AKs, to looters in LA.

---

Enlil said:

IMO, cops should not be allowed to carry guns on duty.

---

Enlil said:

Nah, I don't think cops should be armed on duty.  People should have a right to carry, but police carrying guns becomes an oppressive force.

---

Repertoire89 said:

its already a dangerous enough job

---

The Ecstatic said:

Repertoire89 said:

its already a dangerous enough job

---

Not really.

---

Enlil said:

First, most day-to-day duties that turn lethal only turn lethal because the officer makes it lethal.  Police have transformed from being a community service force into a community-averse force.  When an officer responds to a call or pulls over a car, they assume that the subject is a criminal and enter the encounter with that mindset.

That mindset can and often does lead to officers thinking of their own safety above all else.  Once we reach that point, the officers are no longer serving the public good, but their own good.  Guns are a huge part of this because that self-preservation priority is inherently lethal when a gun is the primary tool.

There are situations where government agents should have firearms to respond adequately.  That is a small minority of police encounters, however. 

Would the lack of guns mean that more cops get killed?  Certainly.  Would it mean that less innocent civilians get killed?  Probably.  For my tax dollars, I want a police force that puts their own safety second and the safety of the public first. 

---

I think this could rectified with updated training procedures across the board.
Both criminal and officer are concerned for their own safety above all else.

So as a cop the smart move is always being prepared for the worst and being surprised by the best.

I think what you'd find in the situation your advocating is a massive shortage of police officers working and criminals capitalizing on it.
I'd much prefer considerable improvements to training for officers to reduce 'jumpy' trigger fingers.
A lot of civilians killed by cops come down to the officer being mentally fragile and unable to hold his nerve in stressful situations.
I rarely see a reason for a cop needing to shoot a suspect with a knife that can't be mitigated first by controlling your distance, stuff like that just isn't taught and I had read that officers rarely if ever get tested on their weapon proficiency once out of the academy.
Bad shooters + inadequate training = disaster

We have firearms in in police cars here, all in lockboxes, but the officers also have Bushmaster rifles in the trunk which is extremely unique for the police in this region (Australia doesn't equip as heavily).

But given this situation, there is a push to actually have officers carrying their weapons in light of recent officer shootings by gangs.


I get where you're coming from but the U.S just seems too armed and has a very entrenched gang/criminal culture for it to seem feasible.

Repertoire89 said:

The Ecstatic said:

Repertoire89 said:

its already a dangerous enough job

---

Not really.

---

Where Im from cops get shot on a regular basis, they definitely dont need guns out in random small towns, but in places like Miami what would they even be there for when everyone has a gun?

---

Enlil said:

63 cops killed in the U.S. by gunfire in 2016.  That's 63 out of 765,000.  In an average 30 year career, that means the odds of being killed by gunfire as a cop is about a quarter of a percent.  By contrast, garbage men are 5 times as likely to die on the job.

---