# football violence vs political violence



## bluestreak (May 15, 2008)

so once again we see that the beer boys can send the cops running and hold a town for a while.

while i'm not a violent man, i do get pissed off that time and time again, small groups of cops have held large groups of protesters in kettles.  and each protest is smaller, because people don't want to be held in kettles all day.

so why don't people fight back?  you don't need to use the levels of violence that the footy lads do, you don't need to break any personal rules about fighting, you just need to move en masse.  if anyone wants a ruck send them to the front, and as soon as the line starts to waver, charge!  it can be done, i've done it.  i admit that the random baton mashing is pretty scary, especially if you can't go anywhere because of the crowd pressure from behind, but hell, once you've broken through once and realise it can be done then you're free!


----------



## Sadken (May 15, 2008)

Doesn't work, does it?  Makes it easy for the press to jump all over you and denigrate your cause straight away.  Look at the anti-capitalist May Day stuff.  Still seem to be pretty much capitalism'd up as far as I can see.  More now than ever.


----------



## TopCat (May 15, 2008)

It does work, I have seen this happen time and time again. Plus most footie punchups like last nights are just a load of drunks throwing plastic chairs and getting a beating from riot police. 

The exception would be the Millwll vs Brum puchup wit the police a while back, that was hardcore, or was everyone throwing hardcore?


----------



## bluestreak (May 15, 2008)

Sadken said:


> Doesn't work, does it?  Makes it easy for the press to jump all over you and denigrate your cause straight away.




This is something I agreed with when I was younger.  That if you were nice and fluffy the press would be nice to you.

But they won't.  If there's no violence it's ALWAYS reported as being due to the polis keeping order so well, never because you didn't want violence.  The press will always fuck you over, so why try and suck their dicks in exchange for a few coins?  It's pointless to let the mainstream press set your agenda.  You will not win.


----------



## Sadken (May 15, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> This is something I agreed with when I was younger.  That if you were nice and fluffy the press would be nice to you.
> 
> But they won't.  If there's no violence it's ALWAYS reported as being due to the polis keeping order so well, never because you didn't want violence.  The press will always fuck you over, so why try and suck their dicks in exchange for a few coins?  It's pointless to let the mainstream press set your agenda.  You will not win.



No, they definitely won't but smashing the shit out of a load of small businesses won't get them onside either.  We're fucked, mate and we all have to lump it basically.


----------



## TopCat (May 15, 2008)

Sadken said:


> No, they definitely won't but smashing the shit out of a load of small businesses won't get them onside either.  We're fucked, mate and we all have to lump it basically.



No we don't have to lump it.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (May 15, 2008)

my guess? political groupings don't inspire the same sense of tribal loyalty as footie mobs essentially. having said that, i remember seeing headhunters & bushwhackers at cja and rts rucks in the past. so perhaps, its also that some lads go to the footie cos its an opportunity for a ruck with the cops and they aren't particularly bothered about any long-term political affiliation.

i saw a youtube vid of a load of burnley lads outside a pub having a row with armoured riot cops and i've rarely seen such sustained levels of confrontation and aggression, these blokes were calling the cops onto them and then flying in with such force that the cops kept having to retreat. last nights aggro was certainly alcohol-fueled so may be politicos need to get more lashed first, so they don't feel the pain?


----------



## bluestreak (May 15, 2008)

Sadken said:


> t but smashing the shit out of a load of small businesses won't get them onside either..



That's a bit of a straw man though innit.  I never said that, and I'm specifically against that sort of thing myself.

Resisting the polis, targeted violence, holding onto streets to show that you have power and commitment... all these things are not the same as smashing the shit out of small businesses.


----------



## lights.out.london (May 15, 2008)

Interesting thread.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 15, 2008)

One thing the authorities fear most of all is the loss of their authority. 

If a demo turns into a riot, and a breakdown of order seems on the cards, the authorities tend to act in two ways. First they will come down very heavily on the rioters, probably beating them up and certainly throwing a few into jail, while at the same time publicly deploring the riots and pledging not to give in to such criminal intimidation. Second, probably a little while after this, the authorities will concede at least some of the rioters' demands.


----------



## Sadken (May 15, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> That's a bit of a straw man though innit.  I never said that, and I'm specifically against that sort of thing myself.
> 
> Resisting the polis, targeted violence, holding onto streets to show that you have power and commitment... all these things are not the same as smashing the shit out of small businesses.



So what then?  Attacking the police or something?  Are you more or less advocating a popular revolution?  Cos that is not going to happen simply because Big Brother is more popular than revolutions these days.  

Also, you're more likely to see this sort of thing happening from the BNP etc rather than the left I'd say.


----------



## Fruitloop (May 15, 2008)

Isn't present-day pomo leftism based in precisely the failure of that kind of protest - '68 and all that?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 15, 2008)

Fruitloop said:


> Isn't present-day pomo leftism based in precisely the failure of that kind of protest - '68 and all that?


To what extent did the 1968 protests change France, for instance? Obviously as revolution, they failed, but as a trigger for evolution, did they have any successes?


----------



## bluestreak (May 15, 2008)

Sadken said:


> So what then?



Resisting the polis, for example, by refusing to be kettled or moved somewhere out of the way. Defending yourself against aggressive police tactics rather than either attacking the police apropos of nothing OR simply evaporating.

Holding a street, in the old street party sense.  Saying _this street is temporarily ours_ and then not backing down.

That sort of thing.


----------



## Fruitloop (May 15, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> To what extent did the 1968 protests change France, for instance? Obviously as revolution, they failed, but as a trigger for evolution, did they have any successes?



I'm no expert on the period, but my impression is that it mostly collapsed into recrimination and obsurantist hot air.


----------



## Thraex (May 15, 2008)

Bluestreak I'm liking your posts more and more. Being an ST holder for the mighty 'wall I've seen a fair few offs with the OB. One major problem is that everywhere's cameraed up and with those FIT scum about not too many people want to get on the front page of the Evening Standard. Most FV is alcohol and charlie fuelled too. 

I long for the old days when one could get away with sooo much then quietly disappear to the pub...but then I'm just a grumpy old anarchist


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 15, 2008)

The authorities can ignore peaceful protest however large it is, it seems. With hindsight, we should have rioted against the Iraq War, not marched.


----------



## Sadken (May 15, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> Resisting the polis, for example, by refusing to be kettled or moved somewhere out of the way. Defending yourself against aggressive police tactics rather than either attacking the police apropos of nothing OR simply evaporating.
> 
> Holding a street, in the old street party sense.  Saying _this street is temporarily ours_ and then not backing down.
> 
> That sort of thing.



Didn't that happen in Parliament Square though, for instance?  Didn't change anything did it?  Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see it happen and if I thought there was a chance of real change left these days I'd be a lot more pro-active but I just don't.  Technology has made life a lot harder for protestors, it's easy to be tracked and listened to now in a way it never was before.  I realise I'm part of the problem by not being part of the solution but I've got a life to live and I'm not gonna waste it chasing teenage anarcho pipe dreams.  Not anymore anyway.


----------



## spacemonkey (May 15, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The authorities can ignore peaceful protest however large it is, it seems. With hindsight, we should have rioted against the Iraq War, not marched.



Would sustained rioting in several UK cities have sent a stronger message that we didn't want to go to War? I think it would. 

All the students from my uni took packed lunches.


----------



## TopCat (May 15, 2008)

dragonwolf said:


> Bluestreak I'm liking your posts more and more. Being an ST holder for the mighty 'wall I've seen a fair few offs with the OB. One major problem is that everywhere's cameraed up and with those FIT scum about not too many people want to get on the front page of the Evening Standard. Most FV is alcohol and charlie fuelled too.
> 
> I long for the old days when one could get away with sooo much then quietly disappear to the pub...but then I'm just a grumpy old anarchist



I have not been down the den since the brum play off! Away is much safer these days.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 15, 2008)

spacemonkey said:


> Would sustained rioting in several UK cities have sent a stronger message that we didn't want to go to War? I think it would.
> 
> All the students from my uni took packed lunches.


Thing is, especially for the Great Shuffle, there were many - quite probably over half the people there - who weren't anarchists, or lefties, or activists of any kind. You could tell from the way they quietly ambled along that they didn't quite know what to do, never having protested against anything in their lives. There was no question these people would have rioted - and it was enough that they had turned out at all. But maybe some of the rest of us could have done something. 

I dunno - the idea of protest seems to have died on that day.


----------



## TopCat (May 15, 2008)

Sadken said:


> Didn't that happen in Parliament Square though, for instance?  Didn't change anything did it?  Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see it happen and if I thought there was a chance of real change left these days I'd be a lot more pro-active but I just don't.  Technology has made life a lot harder for protestors, it's easy to be tracked and listened to now in a way it never was before.  I realise I'm part of the problem by not being part of the solution but I've got a life to live and I'm not gonna waste it chasing teenage anarcho pipe dreams.  Not anymore anyway.



Thats was a scuffle not a riot.


----------



## The Black Hand (May 15, 2008)

Fruitloop said:


> Isn't present-day pomo leftism based in precisely the failure of that kind of protest - '68 and all that?



No.


----------



## The Black Hand (May 15, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The authorities can ignore peaceful protest however large it is, it seems. With hindsight, we should have rioted against the Iraq War, not marched.



100% accurate. You must have been reading MAYDAY magazine issue 2


----------



## phildwyer (May 15, 2008)

It's funny for me reading this as an American.  Does anyone seriously think the UK government would allow the police to be beaten up by political radicals?  They'd arm the police, and then the police would come back and kill you.


----------



## editor (May 15, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I dunno - the idea of protest seems to have died on that day.


That was the day that the dark forces of political apathy joined up with the great Gods of 'Meh' and the Overlords of 'Whatever.'

Mind you, Nike don't seem to have much trouble getting thousands of people out on the streets for their logo-branded, product placed 'Fun Runs.'

<deepest of resigned sighs>


----------



## Fruitloop (May 15, 2008)

Attica said:


> No.



What would you know about pomo, you live in the nineteenth century.


----------



## bluestreak (May 15, 2008)

Poll Tax Riots?

Stop being such a wet liberal, dwyer.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 15, 2008)

editor said:


> That was the day that the dark forces of political apathy joined up with the great Gods of 'Meh' and the Overlords of 'Whatever.'
> 
> Mind you, Nike don't seem to have much trouble getting thousands of people out on the streets for their logo-branded, product placed 'Fun Runs.'
> 
> <deepest of resigned sighs>


Actually, for me at least, the idea of protest only died when Blair went to war anyway. On the day itself, I for one still genuinely believed that there was a chance the opposition to the war could prevail. Yet the warmongers are still in power five years down the line.


----------



## Andy the Don (May 15, 2008)

If you want to go down the footie violence route be prepared for footie violence sentencing. The Maze Hill 7 got up to 7 years each for the Charlton/Southampton meet in 2002.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ing-football-riot-at-rail-station-562588.html


----------



## The Black Hand (May 15, 2008)

Fruitloop said:


> What would you know about pomo, you live in the nineteenth century.



Hahahhahahaha that's obviously the smell of bullshite emanating from your direction.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (May 15, 2008)

Andy the Don said:


> If you want to go down the footie violence route be prepared for footie violence sentencing. The Maze Hill 7 got up to 7 years each for the Charlton/Southampton meet in 2002.
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ing-football-riot-at-rail-station-562588.html


fucking hell man 

_Police said Walker, from Stafford, had not taken part in the clash between 30 Charlton and 15 Southampton fans at Maze Hill, but had been instrumental in arranging the incident in a series of web postings, e-mails and phone calls._

and he got more than 2 years for that ffs...


----------



## soulman (May 15, 2008)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7402858.stm


----------



## soulman (May 15, 2008)

What can you expect when someone turns the TV off?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 16, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> so once again we see that the beer boys can send the cops running and hold a town for a while.



Does this have something to do with soccer hooliganism?


----------



## TopCat (May 16, 2008)

phildwyer said:


> It's funny for me reading this as an American.  Does anyone seriously think the UK government would allow the police to be beaten up by political radicals?  They'd arm the police, and then the police would come back and kill you.



The police took a pasting on the poll tax riots.


----------



## Kizmet (May 16, 2008)

Football hooligans as _role-models_?

Get thee down the shed end for some inspiration... I'll lend you a United scarf...


----------



## phildwyer (May 16, 2008)

TopCat said:


> The police took a pasting on the poll tax riots.



That was a long time ago.  You can't seriously be suggesting that physically assaulting the police is a sensible tactic?  Unless you have a lot of guns it's suicide.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 16, 2008)

phildwyer said:


> That was a long time ago.  You can't seriously be suggesting that physically assaulting the police is a sensible tactic?  Unless you have a lot of guns it's suicide.


It's a sensible tactic if you want to get things changed enough not to mind losing your freedom for a while. It may land you in jail for a few years, but if enough of you do it, some of your demands will be met. All governments will make concessions if they fear a breakdown in order. They will lash out nastily, but they will also make concessions.

And in another Poll Tax-style riot, the police would not use guns. British civil society would not tolerate a Mexico- or China-style massacre of protesters.
ETA: Mind you, if it happened, the resultant upheaval could provide the best opportunity for a renewal of the social contract since 1945.


----------



## TopCat (May 16, 2008)

phildwyer said:


> That was a long time ago.  You can't seriously be suggesting that physically assaulting the police is a sensible tactic?  Unless you have a lot of guns it's suicide.



I have done it and seen it done and the police never yet have fired a shot, no bullets, no baton rounds, just a lot of CCTV and video and big prison sentances.


----------



## Kizmet (May 16, 2008)

Lucky you don't live in Mexico.. eh?


----------



## likesfish (May 16, 2008)

baton rounds are in reserve but there tactics and kit has come on a fair bit


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 16, 2008)

likesfish said:


> baton rounds are in reserve but there tactics and kit has come on a fair bit


Maybe. My experience of the police teaches me that you should never underestimate their capacity for incompetence.


----------



## phildwyer (May 16, 2008)

TopCat said:


> I have done it and seen it done and the police never yet have fired a shot, no bullets, no baton rounds, just a lot of CCTV and video and big prison sentances.



Yeah well its true that the British cops are amazingly tolerant.  I remember someone posted a video of the "Bash the Rich" march on MATB a few months ago.  Posh little punk rockers swearing at the police and being patronizingly patted on their heads for their trouble.  In the States they'd have been dead times ten.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (May 16, 2008)

I think it's pretty clear that riots can result in change, and far more effectively than marching around. IMO though that's only likely to happen when you get a lot of non-activist type people starting to get involved. If you've got a self-contained group of left-wing types trying to take on the Police it might work once through surprise, but they'll just come back next time with more force.


----------



## Onket (May 16, 2008)

phildwyer said:


> Yeah well its true that the British cops are amazingly tolerant.



Depends who you are.


----------



## Kizmet (May 16, 2008)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> I think it's pretty clear that riots can result in change, and far more effectively than marching around.



Do you have any examples of where a _riot_ resulted in the change that the rioters wanted?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 16, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Do you have any examples of where a _riot_ resulted in the change that the rioters wanted?


The storming of the Bastille?


----------



## phildwyer (May 16, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The storming of the Bastille?



Betcha every person who took part in that was dead within five years.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 16, 2008)

The Bread Riots in St Petersburg, 1917.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 16, 2008)

Mississippi race riots, 1962.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 16, 2008)

Riots in Kenya and other British colonies in the 1950s that led to independence.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 16, 2008)

... And of course, the Poll Tax Riot in the UK.


----------



## Kizmet (May 16, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The storming of the Bastille?



Although that was a significant moment there were other changes already in effect that made it so. Otherwise it would have been just another bloody riot.

We've hopefully become a little more advanced since then.

The problem with mob violence is that to use it as a rule for getting what you want allows it to be used by any group wanting anything.

That's all well and good as long as you're on the rioting side. But not so hot when you're the darkie or crip or whatever being rioted against.

You don't legitimise violence because you think your cause is right.

Every fucker thinks their cause is right.


----------



## Kizmet (May 16, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> ... And of course, the Poll Tax Riot in the UK.



Again. I think it's a mistake to think it was the violence that instigated the change. The causes had popular support.. that was what was important.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 16, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Again. I think it's a mistake to think it was the violence that instigated the change. The causes had popular support.. that was what was important.


You think the Russian Revolution could have succeeded without violence just because it had popular support?

Of course, without popular support, the causes would not have succeeded, but I think you underestimate the power of violence. There is absolutely no way that the British would have abandoned their empire with such haste if they had not seen their authority being undermined.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 16, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> You don't legitimise violence because you think your cause is right.


This is precisely how all violence has always been seen to be legitimised.

Governments can do it with armies. The unarmed populace must make do with collective bargaining by riot.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 16, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> We've hopefully become a little more advanced since then.


Our weaponry certainly has. Clever old advanced us with our nuclear bombs.


----------



## Kizmet (May 16, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You think the Russian Revolution could have succeeded without violence just because it had popular support?
> 
> Of course, without popular support, the causes would not have succeeded, but I think you underestimate the power of violence. There is absolutely no way that the British would have abandoned their empire with such haste if they had not seen their authority being undermined.



I don't underestimate the power of violence.. that's exactly my point. I think you do.

The point is that without the popular cause the violence would have been nothing but violence.

With the popular cause the violence (in general) is a symptom of mass action that, at best, speeds up the transferrence of power a bit.. but at worst causes irreprable damage to lives, property and social order.

Just isn't worth it.

I think you underestimate how easily violence can spread.. and while you're only thinking about being the one dishing it out.. it's easy to forget that there are folk out there ready to dish it out to you.


----------



## Kizmet (May 16, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is precisely how all violence has always been seen to be legitimised.
> 
> Governments can do it with armies. The unarmed populace must make do with collective bargaining by riot.



You have to include the second part of that sentence... Every fucker thinks their cause is right.

But don't forget there are plenty of causes out there.. and not all of them are right. More importantly none of them should feel that they can get what they want by hurting enough people.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 16, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> I don't underestimate the power of violence.. that's exactly my point. I think you do.
> 
> The point is that without the popular cause the violence would have been nothing but violence.
> 
> With the popular cause the violence (in general) is a symptom of mass action that, at best, speeds up the transferrence of power a bit.. but at worst causes irreprable damage to lives, property and social order.


Sorry, but I think that really is nonsense. The evidence of history shows that changes from absolutist systems of government did not evolve peacefully. They came about through violent ruptures.


----------



## Kizmet (May 16, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Sorry, but I think that really is nonsense. The evidence of history shows that changes from absolutist systems of government did not evolve peacefully. They came about through violent ruptures.



You're talking about non-democratic governments, in general, aren't you?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 16, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> You're talking about non-democratic governments, in general, aren't you?


'Democratic' governments can do some pretty nasty, violent things. Just ask a Palestinian...



...or an Iraqi.


----------



## Kizmet (May 16, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> 'Democratic' governments can do some pretty nasty, violent things. Just ask a Palestinian.



You're not palestinian, though. So why should their example be relevant to you?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 16, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> You're not palestinian, though. So why should their example be relevant to you?


You're right. I'm not Palestinian, so fuck 'em, why should I care.


----------



## Kizmet (May 16, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You're right. I'm not Palestinian, so fuck 'em, why should I care.



We're not talking about whether you should care, though.

We're talking about whether you can justify mob violence in general.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 16, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> We're not talking about whether you should care, though.
> 
> We're talking about whether you can justify mob violence in general.



'Mob violence' by Palestinians against the effectively apartheid state that they live in, caged into their homelands by the Israeli government, can be justified very specifically. You ask for some general abstract justification, but all I can give you is concrete examples.

And whether it is mob violence or collective community action depends on your perspective - it is similar to the distinction between freedom fighter and terrorist.


----------



## Kizmet (May 16, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> 'Mob violence' by Palestinians against the effectively apartheid state that they live in, caged into their homelands by the Israeli government, can be justified very specifically. You ask for some general abstract justification, but all I can give you is concrete examples.



The justification for violence is pretty easy. The question is whether it is effective and whether it is 'worth it'.

In some extreme situation it may prove to be so.. but we do not live in those extreme situations.. and therefore I can't see how it can be effective or worth it for us.



> And whether it is mob violence or collective community action depends on your perspective - it is similar to the distinction between freedom fighter and terrorist.



No it doesn't. That's the point of having the popular cause on your side. Because then you are a freedom fighter. Otherwise you are a terrorist.


----------



## biff curtains (May 16, 2008)

Sadken said:


> No, they definitely won't but smashing the shit out of a load of small businesses won't get them onside either.  We're fucked, mate and we all have to lump it basically.



Who gives a fuck about small businesses?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 16, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> No it doesn't. That's the point of having the popular cause on your side. Because then you are a freedom fighter. Otherwise you are a terrorist.


OK. Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel. They have a great deal of support in the occupied territories - terrorists or freedom fighters?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 16, 2008)

Kurdish independence fighters in Turkey. Lots of popular support among ethnic Kurds in Turkey. But take Turkey as a whole and the majority are against them.


----------



## Kizmet (May 16, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> OK. Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel. They have a great deal of support in the occupied territories - terrorists or freedom fighters?



Neither. Or both. Only time will tell.

But they're not mob rioters, are they? And most importantly their situation is not like our situation.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 16, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Neither. Or both. Only time will tell.


You mean, if they win they are freedom fighters, if they lose they are terrorists?


----------



## Kizmet (May 16, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You mean, if they win they are freedom fighters, if they lose they are terrorists?



To put it harshly.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 16, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> To put it harshly.


Oddly, I reserve for myself the right to make my own judgements as to the rightness of a cause, independent of its success or failure.


----------



## TopCat (May 16, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> OK. Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel. They have a great deal of support in the occupied territories - terrorists or freedom fighters?



I prefer "people who justifiably have the right arse".


----------



## Kizmet (May 16, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Oddly, I reserve for myself the right to make my own judgements as to the rightness of a cause, independent of its success or failure.



Everyone has that right. The point is that it's just an opinion.

And as I said.. Every fucker think that their cause is right.

The palestinians, the swp, the Bnp... until they win or lose they are all just people with a cause that you may or may not believe in.

It's only once they've won or lost that they really become either.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 16, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Everyone has that right. The point is that it's just an opinion.
> 
> And as I said.. Every fucker think that their cause is right.
> 
> ...


I cannot abide that kind of relativistic nonsense. That you can lump the plight of the Palestinians alongside the BNP shows how wrong your thinking is.


----------



## Kizmet (May 16, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I cannot abide that kind of relativistic nonsense. That you can lump the plight of the Palestinians alongside the BNP shows how wrong your thinking is.



We're not discussing the rightness of their causes, lbj. That's the point I'm trying to make to you.

You only seem to think in terms of causes that you believe are right.. however once you start to legitimise violence as a method of getting what you want you allow people whose causes you don't believe in that same justification. Like the BNP for example.

This is the reality of the history of violence.. we tend only to remember the ones that succeeded. Little mention is made of the many many others that spilled blood for an unjust cause.

This may not affect you personally.. it won't, for example, affect a middleclass white male living in a nice house and nice area as much as, say, a black man living in Tower Hamlets.

That's a very obvious example.. but I hope you can appreciate what I mean.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 16, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> We're not discussing the rightness of their causes, lbj. That's the point I'm trying to make to you.
> 
> You only seem to think in terms of causes that you believe are right.. however once you start to legitimise violence as a method of getting what you want you allow people whose causes you don't believe in that same justification. Like the BNP for example.
> 
> .


In the case of the Palestinians, I would say that they are responding to violence that has been inflicted on them. It would be hard for the BNP to make the case that violence has been used to suppress them and that this has provoked their violence. The blackshirts of the 1930s were not spurred into action in the East End by violent acts by the Jews living there. 

There is a legitimate distinction to be made between the oppressed and the oppressors, I think. As TopCat says, the oppressed are those who justifiably have the arse.


----------



## Kizmet (May 16, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In the case of the Palestinians, I would say that they are responding to violence that has been inflicted on them. It would be hard for the BNP to make the case that violence has been used to suppress their cause.



They would use another justification. Whether you agree with it or not isn't relevant. It's whether enough people agree with it to cause trouble for others.


----------



## TopCat (May 16, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In the case of the Palestinians, I would say that they are responding to violence that has been inflicted on them. It would be hard for the BNP to make the case that violence has been used to suppress their cause.



Er what about twenty years of AFA battering them?


----------



## Kizmet (May 16, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There is a legitimate distinction to be made between the oppressed and the oppressors, I think. As TopCat says, the oppressed are those who justifiably have the arse.



I'm not really disagreeing with that.

We're really only talking about methods. Because whether you agree with a cause or not.. if you use violence - they will use violence.


----------



## cantsin (May 17, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Do you have any examples of where a _riot_ resulted in the change that the rioters wanted?



poll tax


----------



## Kizmet (May 18, 2008)

Didn't we already do that one?


----------



## bluestreak (May 18, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Didn't we already do that one?



perhaps you meant to ask the question



Kizmet said:


> Can anyone think of a riot that got a result that I would agree with?



Besides which, rioting doesn't need a result any more than any other political action.  The act of rioting is participating in a political action that sends a message of anger and reminds those in power that there is only so long they can push their sick agendas.


----------



## Kizmet (May 18, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> perhaps you meant to ask the question



No, I didn't. Whether I agree with a result or not isn't what we're talking about.

We're talking about justifying violence for *any* political reason.



> Besides which, rioting doesn't need a result any more than any other political action.  The act of rioting is participating in a political action that sends a message of anger and reminds those in power that there is only so long they can push their sick agendas.



Said the BNP representative to the skinheads....


----------



## bluestreak (May 18, 2008)

Strawman, mate.  Each of us are moral agents.  Just because some people can justify a riot for reasons I don't believe in, doesn't mean that I abdicate my moral responsibilities to take actions that I believe are correct.  I reserve the right to send a message using violence if the democratic process fails peaceful negotiation.


----------



## likesfish (May 18, 2008)

At the moment political violence can't really be justified in the uk.
 go ahead and ruck with the police chances are you will go to jail. no sympathy for football hooligans just a bunch of drunk tossers who have made it difficult for fans 
and were responsible for the fences going up


----------



## Kizmet (May 18, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> Strawman, mate.



Not even slightly.



> Each of us are moral agents. Just because some people can justify a riot for reasons I don't believe in, doesn't mean that I abdicate my moral responsibilities to take actions that I believe are correct. I reserve the right to send a message using violence if the democratic process fails peaceful negotiation.



It absolutely does. Remember you're the guy who said that it is the sign of a civilised society that we cause no physical harm to convicted childkillers.

.. and yet here you are saying you reserve the right to use violence against any random target because of your own personal beliefs. No matter how wrong they are. And no matter what they have done.

The two don't go together.

If you are relatively safe from the prospect of riot violence ie you don't work for the police, the government, small business or you're not of an ethinc minority.. it's easy to feel safe and secure in prescribing violence.

However that just shows a blindness to the effect that justifying violence has on those in less secure positions.

Remember when you reserve the right to use violence.. you give that right to those that disagree with you.


----------



## Kizmet (May 18, 2008)

likesfish said:


> At the moment political violence can't really be justified in the uk.



That's the basic point, I think.


----------



## soulman (May 18, 2008)

likesfish said:


> At the moment political violence can't really be justified in the uk.





Kizmet said:


> That's the basic point, I think.



I think you both have to define what you mean by political violence. I would say that violence used by the state, for example the police, is political violence. Can you see what I'm saying here?


----------



## Kizmet (May 19, 2008)

soulman said:


> I think you both have to define what you mean by political violence. I would say that violence used by the state, for example the police, is political violence. Can you see what I'm saying here?



Yeah. You want them to stop hitting you and you think the best way is to hit them back.


----------



## Detroit City (May 19, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> you don't need to use the levels of violence that the footy lads do, you don't need to break any personal rules about fighting, you just need to move en masse.


you should read up on rioting psychology and methodology because you have no idea what the hell you're talking about...


----------



## The Black Hand (May 19, 2008)

soulman said:


> I think you both have to define what you mean by political violence. I would say that violence used by the state, for example the police, is political violence. Can you see what I'm saying here?



You all should read "Understanding Political Violence" by V. Ruggiero - OUP/Open university press, 2006.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2008)

Or maybe the works of Class War Hooliganz?


----------



## The Black Hand (May 19, 2008)

butchersapron said:


> Or maybe the works of Class War Hooliganz?



There was none.


----------



## Kizmet (May 19, 2008)

Didn't they get to number one in Austria?


----------



## soulman (May 19, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Yeah. You want them to stop hitting you and you think the best way is to hit them back.



Simplistic but in a sense not untrue. Unless of course you're some kind of martyr.

You didn't comment on violence by the state, and it's agencies, being political violence.


----------



## Kizmet (May 19, 2008)

soulman said:


> Simplistic but in a sense not untrue. Unless of course you're some kind of martyr.



It doesn't work, though.



> You didn't comment on violence by the state, and it's agencies, being political violence.



What's theere to comment on? It's violence and it's political and it's wrong. It's not that much of a problem here and therefore retaliation is innappropriate.


----------



## soulman (May 19, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> It doesn't work, though.



If using force to defend yourself against someone violent stops them then it's worked.


----------



## Kizmet (May 19, 2008)

soulman said:


> If using force to defend yourself against someone violent stops them then it's worked.



In the short term. And on an individual basis.


----------



## bluestreak (May 19, 2008)

The thing is kizmet, I think that things are getting really bad in this country.  I'm a pacifist at heart, but I'm also angry.  You think I'm wrong, and that's fine.  I'm not going to argue with you, you're a moral agent as much as I am.  I also don't disagree that my stance is also slightly wonky, it is.  But we live in an age where dissent itself leads to being treated like a criminal.  Free speech is rapidly becoming a redundancy.   In the end, we can either put up with it and toe the line, or we can express our anger.  The system as it stands now is no longer one in which multiple opinions are expressible, and when too many people are disenfranchised, extremism naturally follows - extremism of all political flavours.

I'm not interested in trying to force you to agree with me, merely want to make sure that my opinions are expressed properly.

Would you ever consider rioting against any conceivable political regime or law?  In any circumstances?


----------



## Kizmet (May 19, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> The thing is kizmet, I think that things are getting really bad in this country.



On what scale? Bad compared to?



> I'm a pacifist at heart, but I'm also angry.  You think I'm wrong, and that's fine.  I'm not going to argue with you, you're a moral agent as much as I am.  I also don't disagree that my stance is also slightly wonky, it is.



Violence happens. The only thing I think is wrong is promoting it as a course of action.



> But we live in an age where dissent itself leads to being treated like a criminal.  Free speech is rapidly becoming a redundancy.   In the end, we can either put up with it and toe the line, or we can express our anger.  The system as it stands now is no longer one in which multiple opinions are expressible, and when too many people are disenfranchised, extremism naturally follows - extremism of all political flavours.
> 
> I'm not interested in trying to force you to agree with me, merely want to make sure that my opinions are expressed properly.



We live in an age where dissent and free speech are at their most powerful due to the rise in communications and the internet.

I understand the concerns about the limitations that society puts upon the individual in the name of 'the good' of society.. but in the context of very real dangers I can also understand the desire for these limitations.

It's complicated.. which is why the last thing we need is people getting all het up and angry about stuff. Cool, calm heads. That's what will ultimately help.



> Would you ever consider rioting against any conceivable political regime or law?  In any circumstances?



Rioting? No. Personal physical action? Yes.

I don't believe in mob justice.


----------



## soulman (May 19, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> In the short term. And on an individual basis.



Just seen your edit, and that's fair enough, because I did move it on to an individual basis as I think it's easier to comprehend violence by the police against an individual, rather than against a group of individuals. But I think the same principle applies if it's an individual or a group of people who are forced to defend themselves against that violence. The important thing is to ensure immediate, short term safety.

Looking to the longer term I've heard the violence begets violence argument more times than I care to think about. What I haven't heard is an honest discussion of how allowing state violence, turning the other cheek, means that next time you will be met with the same level of violence if it takes their fancy.

Eventually people are going to become tired of being pushed around, bullied and walloped with batons or whatever. That's when they tend to turn their backs on the whole thing, and walk away...


----------



## bignose1 (Sep 25, 2012)

TopCat said:


> It does work, I have seen this happen time and time again. Plus most footie punchups like last nights are just a load of drunks throwing plastic chairs and getting a beating from riot police.
> 
> The exception would be the Millwll vs Brum puchup wit the police a while back, that was hardcore, or was everyone throwing hardcore?


 Did they win on aggregate!!!


----------



## sunnysidedown (Sep 25, 2012)

The old ones are the best...


----------



## el-ahrairah (Sep 25, 2012)

A classic thread.


----------



## malatesta32 (Sep 25, 2012)

a very interesting dissertation!
http://afaarchive.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/thesis-p2.pdf


----------



## TopCat (Sep 25, 2012)

What a bump...


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 27, 2012)

Kizmet's arguments on this thread are utterly incoherent. The idea that we shouldn't engage in political violence because this would serve to legitimise it is at odds with his acceptance of the fact that the state uses political violence every day. If the authorities use it then that legitimises it to a far greater extent than if we use it. So it's already been legitimised - in which case we might as well use it, nothing to lose innit.


----------



## likesfish (Oct 4, 2012)

Except you cant win.
 Its not 1917.
 Having a punch up with the police changes nothing.


----------



## Ole (Oct 6, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Kizmet's arguments on this thread are utterly incoherent. The idea that we shouldn't engage in political violence because this would serve to legitimise it is at odds with his acceptance of the fact that the state uses political violence every day. If the authorities use it then that legitimises it to a far greater extent than if we use it. So it's already been legitimised - in which case we might as well use it, nothing to lose innit.


What we _do_ have to lose is any reasonable possibility of mainstream support. The police are not viewed by the masses as 'fair game' for violence even in retaliation, whatever you think of the sense of that view. Violence in general tends to destroy public sympathy for a cause and on that basis alone should be avoided.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 6, 2012)

That's a different argument completely though. And it depends on the situation - sometimes the only way to retain public support if not sympathy is to engage in violence.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 6, 2012)

Ole said:


> What we _do_ have to lose is any reasonable possibility of mainstream support. The police are not viewed by the masses as 'fair game' for violence even in retaliation, whatever you think of the sense of that view. Violence in general tends to destroy public sympathy for a cause and on that basis alone should be avoided.


out of curiosity have you any evidence to support this view?


----------



## Onket (Oct 6, 2012)

I think 'normal' people's view of the police has gone downhill, esp since Tomlinson.

That's an opinion though, so before Pickmans asks, I've got no evidence.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Oct 6, 2012)

Onket said:


> I think 'normal' people's view of the police has gone downhill, esp since Tomlinson.
> 
> That's an opinion though, so before Pickmans asks, I've got no evidence.


 
Despite Tomlinson I think there's still large support for the police. The only poll I can find (ICM - The Guardian, after the riots last year) suggests support of 61% and that would probably rise once riot fetishists started bashing them over the head.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 6, 2012)

Onket said:


> I think 'normal' people's view of the police has gone downhill, esp since Tomlinson.
> 
> That's an opinion though, so before Pickmans asks, I've got no evidence.


unlike ole you've got the wit not to make up claims you can't support.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 6, 2012)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Despite Tomlinson I think there's still large support for the police. The only poll I can find (ICM - The Guardian, after the riots last year) suggests support of 61% and that would probably rise once riot fetishists started bashing them over the head.


you seem to take 61% as a starting point, whereas it's not clear it's anything of the sort. and indeed it's not clear what you mean by 'support' - do you mean 61% of the population will support the police come what may? i'd say that if after widespread rioting of the sort seen like august the police can only muster 'support' of 61%, then a large portion of the population - 2 people out of five - have no truck with the police when all 'right thinking' people are rallying behind the cops. i wouldn't be surprised if the percentage of people who answered the question in whatever poll you refer to - and a link would be nice - if asked now would be nearer 55% or lower.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Oct 7, 2012)

As I said, I can't find any other polling that asks such a question, but if you can find one that puts the figure at around 55% then that would be interesting to see. 61% was in answer to the question: "Are you confident that the police enforce the laws fairly, uniformly and without prejudice?" After the riots, a lot of people were pissed off with the police because they perceived to have not done enough to stop them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/12/riot-poll-public-back-police

In the wake of the Manchester murders I'd say that there is a lot more sympathetic support for the police now, but either way, even if almost half the population didn't support them there's no evidence that many people would actually support violence against them and when there _is _violence against them, support for them would probably increase.


----------



## Ole (Oct 7, 2012)

And "support for the police" is not the question anyway. It's "support for anarchists/leftists who attack police". They're significantly different questions.



SpineyNorman said:


> That's a different argument completely though. And it depends on the situation - sometimes the only way to retain public support if not sympathy is to engage in violence.


It is a different argument yes and I agree, everything's about circumstances - I'm not endorsing a principled non-violent stance. If it is more effective it is the right thing to do (given that it's justifiable in itself of course).



Pickman's model said:


> out of curiosity have you any evidence to support this view?





Pickman's model said:


> unlike ole you've got the wit not to make up claims you can't support.


He says, without waiting for an answer.

I don't have empirical evidence, like scientific polls determining how sympathetic the British public would be towards anarchists and leftists once they were to start attacking police officers - not to say that such empirical evidence of any degree doesn't exist, I don't know if it does or not - but thankfully it's not the only instrument we have to understand the world we live in, Pickman's Model. I believe fairly straightforward reasoning can lead me to the conclusion I've reached: first, people generally perceive the institution of the police as a legitimate force to maintain order, but much more than that, they view people who attack police as criminals. No poll... it just seems obvious. It's difficult to think of any instance where this hasn't been the case...

If winning public support is paramount, attacking coppers doesn't seem like a good idea at all. It carries with it a massive risk of losing substantial public support, and in my opinion, equally effective political action can usually be taken without committing yourselves to violence against police and shouldering the risk that carries.

In my opinion.


----------



## Onket (Oct 7, 2012)

It's very unlikely we will see any large scale attacks on the Police at demos where there isn't also clear evidence of the Police acting in a way that can be seen, confining, enticing and attacking protesters. This is usually the case, anyway. There would have to be a massive re-thinking of Police tactics for this not to be the case. If that happens, then AH hss a point. In normal circs sympathy for battered coppers who hit first is limited.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 8, 2012)

Ole

Just because somethings SEEMS obvious, that doesn't make it true. you've said you don't have anything, bar bluster, to support your claim. But i'll ask one last time anyway. Do you have any evidence to support your assertion?


----------



## Onket (Oct 8, 2012)

Do you have any evidence of what people you know have talked to you about, Pickman's?

Stop asking a silly question.


----------

