Tweet
(image: opk/flickr)
Economics is a closed system; internally it is perfectly logical, operating according to a consistent set of principles. Unfortunately, the same could be said of psychosis. What’s more, once having entered the closed system of the economist, you, like the psychotic, may have a hard time getting out.
- Judy Jones and William Wilson
The Occupy movement has largely been relegated to the margins of mainstream coverage lately – big outlets may mention something in a news capsule but generally have ignored it beyond that. It is still very much alive though, and one aspect of it has become the subject of intense debate recently: The use of violence, or what proponents call diversity of tactics.
The controversy flared up over Chris Hedges’ piece on Monday sharply critical of “Black Bloc anarchists – so named because they dress in black, obscure their faces, move as a unified mass, seek physical confrontations with police and destroy property.” Hedges believes there is widespread disapproval of violent tactics and that attaching them to Occupy is a cynical attempt to legitimize them. But because the two tend to be conflated in popular opinion (to the extent that anyone is paying attention) the primary effect is the discrediting of Occupy generally – both in Oakland and beyond.
The debate can take a downright philosophical turn as people hash out what violence means to them. Some don’t view property destruction as violence at all, but only the destruction of living things. Susie Cagle posted a response to Hedges and described a couple different kinds of property destruction. The first:
There was a dispersal order, but no means of escape. Protesters with shields attempted to push the police line, which responded with several volleys of tear gas into the crowd, still trapped. Instead of enduring the gas, the crowd pulled down chain-link fencing that separated them from the street and safety.
Another:
On November 2, an autonomously organized anti-capitalist black bloc marched through Oakland, destroying windows and other property at banks and, allegedly, strike-busting businesses such as Whole Foods.
Were both of those violent? Neither? I tend to think violence can be done against property, though it is less objectionable than violence done to living things. But context matters too – I wouldn’t consider Cagle’s first example violent because people were trying to get away from police teargassing them. The second, though? While I don’t have any particular love for Whole Foods or the big banks who have caused such misery, I don’t see where video of seemingly random acts of vandalism help the Occupy movement. To this point Occupy has largely – and rightly – been seen as nonviolent.
If that perception changes, pack everything up and go home because it will not achieve anything more of value. We can debate all day long about what’s really violent; about whether Black Bloc is a part of Occupy, an offshoot, an infiltrator or a welcome counterpart; about whether actions taken during demonstrations need to be understood within a longer historical context. In the end, such fine distinctions will mostly be lost on those watching what little coverage is available. In order to get the support of that group – the steelworker union member, the unemployed recent graduate weighed down by debt, the nervous professional dreading word of the next round of layoffs – an unambiguous reputation for nonviolence is essential.
And yes, perceptions matter here. The 1999 Seattle WTO protests have been cemented in the popular imagination as violent, and as being overrun by thugs looking for a respectable veneer for the crime spree they wanted to embark on anyway. I know that isn’t what really happened so please don’t leave comments “correcting” me! The narrative long ago came to consensus on that, however, just like it did on the (ahem) fact that Al Gore said he invented the Internet, and any other number of breaks of reality that were improperly set into casts and hardened into a deformed historical record.
If Occupy doesn’t get it right starting now the same kind of distortions will take hold. It will be presented as the nihilistic rage of a bunch of uneducated criminals and it will be marginalized. No respectable person will be permitted to endorse it – and no amount of strenuous objection will overturn that judgment. The decisions and strategies Cagle reports on may well have their self-contained logic, but like the economist and the psychotic, their world might end up inscrutable to outsiders. If Occupy loses its simple, obvious and visceral appeal to the 99% – remember them? – then get ready for a full retrenchment of the status quo.
Cross posted from Pruning Shears.
78 Comments
Cagle’s ‘self-contained logic’. Exactly; unless you step back to the Big View of the national movement, it can be a bit seductive. And yes to non-violence, and no to stuff that looks like rioting.
And we *have* been debating this here. One thread:
http://my.firedoglake.com/wendydavis/2012/02/06/non-violence-or-diversity-of-tactics-confronting-the-myth-of-the-rational-insurgent/
Good stuff Wendy – thanks. I’m in the process of co-authoring a related post with lambert this weekend. :)
Amen
“In order to get the support of that group – the steelworker union member, the unemployed recent graduate weighed down by debt, the nervous professional dreading word of the next round of layoffs – an unambiguous reputation for nonviolence is essential.”
“an unambiguous reputation for nonviolence is essential.”
Agree, 100%.
I read Chris Hedges article and the reply by Dan Graeber. IMO, Graeber has nothing. He can dance and sing all he wants to, but the news only shows the people in black, whoever they are, commiting pointless violence. In the civil rights marches, the real turning points came when the marchers were shown kneeling and the police were shown with firehoses and police dogs. The outcry over the police attacks on the Occupy participants came with the obviously sadistic pepper spraying and tear gassing. Graeber is simply trying to give cover to people who may be police or other 1% agents.
Thanks for this. I hope the movement is listening.
Any kind of destructive or harmful violence will only hurt the movement. Of course the media will lay this at the door of Occupy. It’s the easy way to report and it serves the narrative. Unless OWS can seperate themselves from these Black Bloc groups then the association will stick and they might as well go home.
For most people violence comes from a feeling of desperation. Once we feel there is no other way to express ourselves, lashing out in some way often becomes the expression of that feeling. For the anarchists it’s a completely different emotion. For them violence is the first act meant for the shock effect of sudden brutality. There’s also a kind of childish insanity involved that comes from their under-developed ego and the overcompensation, through destruction, that is a motivator for many of them.
Their kind of sad when you get right down to it and I personally am sick to death of them.
Might you mean ‘David’ Graeber?
Nice, danps. I dropped the link on one of Lambert’s posts, said I hoped he might stop by, but he didn’t.
Lots of good comments on the thread, by the by. ;o)
Looking forward to the post.
Every local, state, and Federal government has an army. Unless you plan to train, equip, and field an army to defeat them on the battlefield, you will lose if you choose to make the conflict about violence, rather than persuasion.
One is self defense. The other is vandalism. I think it’s pretty easy to figure out which is which.
“While I don’t have any particular love for Whole Foods or the big banks who have caused such misery, I don’t see where video of seemingly random acts of vandalism help the Occupy movement.”
Exactly. I disagree with Barbara O’Brien of the Mahablog on a lot of things, but we agree on one thing: The Bigger Asshole Rule applies here.
Remember the civil rights marchers and how they behaved? They marched, held signs, and didn’t respond to violence with violence, no matter the provocation. They certainly didn’t do things they knew would turn the white audiences in the North, watching on TV, against them. Not one of them broke any windows, much less while cameras where rolling.
So when white viewers watched the pictures unfold, what they saw were images of black men, women and children, dressed in their Sunday best (that is, dressed in ways to encourage white viewers to identify with them), being firehosed and beaten and set upon by police dogs — images that made the white viewers sympathize with the marchers, not the cops.
That’s how the civil rights movement was able to succeed, whereas the later antiwar movement failed: The antiwar protesters, instead of trying to get the mass of Americans to identify with them, went out of their way to both look and act differently from most Americans AND to tell them what dumb hicks and squares and sellouts they all were. This is not how you win friends and influence people.
But do the folks watching at home know this? All they see are suburban white kids in black smashing things and tagging stuff.
Exactly. The testosterone-amped suburban white male teen and twentysomething “manarchists” don’t want to understand that — or to understand how smashing windows and burning property turns off the very people they need to get on their side.
The Civil Rights demonstrations of the 50′s and 60′s lost the moral high ground when they turned into violent riots and started to burn down shit. That is when the majority of public opinion started to turn against it and the left and we got Nixon, and it went south from there. Today, violence won’t work either. The PTB are thrilled about the black bloc because these fools are just making what they’re doing easier to justify.
“Remember the civil rights marchers and how they behaved? They marched, held signs, and didn’t respond to violence with violence, no matter the provocation. They certainly didn’t do things they knew would turn the white audiences in the North, watching on TV, against them. Not one of them broke any windows, much less while cameras where rolling.”
Yes non-violence is a powerful political tool and recruited support from the nation as a whole. It also kept most of them safe once the cameras were rolling.
I would add it is also a powerful spiritual and moral tool. The SLC movement was informed by a very deep moral objection to violence and hatred. They intended to love their oppressors into redemption. I don’t believe the movement would have succeeded were it not for this aspect.
King made some African Americans pretty angry as we know by holding a firm rein excluding the violent anarchists, communists etc from his movement.
“In the end, such fine distinctions will mostly be lost on those watching what little coverage is available.”
“If Occupy doesn’t get it right starting now the same kind of distortions will take hold. It will be presented as the nihilistic rage of a bunch of uneducated criminals and it will be marginalized.”
There should be absolutely ZERO question about this. Those who might quibble must always bear in mind that the same 1% who have essentially destroyed the economy also own the various media entities that can (and most often do) drive and control the narrative.
If 100,000 people show up to demonstrate, and ten of those people break some windows, guess what’s going to be on every freakin’ newscast across the country that night?
This ain’t exactly brain surgery…
The key here was the murder of Dr. King. He and the rest of the SLC exerted very tight control over the marches and the messaging. He was just starting to organize opposition to the Vietnam War in similar fashion when he was assassinated. Without him at the helm, and with the murder of Bobby Kennedy, the antiwar movement quickly devolved into a self-defeating mess that probably helped prolong the war by building public support for “law and order” politicians like Nixon.
Exactly:
http://www.mahablog.com/2007/01/16/augment-the-objections/
OWS will be pegged as violent even if it is 100% non-violent.
This argument reminds me of the one where democrats have to be extra-militaristic and tough on terror, lest the republicans accuse them of being soft.
As that always plays out of course, the democrats could nuke Teheran and they would still be accused of being soft on terror by the republicans.
I watched last night as the discussion on this topic and others came through the virtual grapevine. As Wendy states above we have already discussed tactics here with supporters, occupiers themselves and those just wishing to know.
Consensus is: Non-Violent! That appears the way to broaden the cause and help others to join.
I have several thoughts on Black Bloc, but will withold judgement until I can more fully research them. The problem I have with the Bloc participating with OWS is that they don’t seem to have the same tactics or goals in mind. Otherwise, if they wish to take on the Direct Democracy and Non-Violent awareness actions they should participate. If not, they should return to doing their own Dissent in their own Style.
Graeber reply here: http://nplusonemag.com/concerning-the-violent-peace-police
I don’t think the public as a whole perceived the Seattle WTO protests as having been overrun by thugs. Frankly, I don’t think the protests would have entered the public consciousness if the Black Bloc hadn’t broken windows. The publicity was instrumental in getting some of us who’d been asleep to take a good look at WTO agreements.
One of Graeber’s points was that, while the tactical use of property damage should be judicious, it was inevitable that some groups would use it injudiciously, and that greater harm would be done to the movement by trying to ostracize these groups than by accepting and integrating them.
I’d like to add that what the civil rights movement had that so far Occupy doesn’t that I am aware of, was its singers, who were coming out of the churches and had wonderful songs that united them.
Occupy has done an amazing job with mike checks and the sort of repetition necessitated by the absence of microphones, and I would like to see them begin to have original music incorporated into their demonstrations this summer. (I know they’ve done it a bit, but they need to do more.) Perhaps some of the groups could be presently concentrating on choir rehearsals and the kind of non-media music that grows out of protest and can be universally enjoyed. It’s a natural progression from the mike checks and can incorporate successful chants but be a bit more, well, musical!
Yes, he was taken out because if his effectiveness and his threat level to the racist warring system. COINTELPRO was then unleashed and the violence done was structural and targeted assassinations by the US Govt.
Taking the liberty of speaking for Republicans… nobody gives a rat’s patootie about Occupy. They’re dirty, lice infested, dope smoking, vagrants. There’s no difference between them and your average homeless camp.
We are in intense conversation, reflection, and searching on this issue in Portland. It is an ongoing discussion each Tuesday night. Black Bloc kids are involved. One point to make that has not been made is that, for better or worse, the Black Bloc kids are forcing us to have a discussion on violence as a tactic. And it is a necessary one. I think we are all in agreement in this thread what the outcome of that discussion must be.
I do have a question though. MLK Jr. was killed, his movement, while arguably successful (re: election of Obama), was delayed and decimated by COINTELPRO. My question is: do you think that a Gandhian style (or even MLK/SCLC) non-violent revolution (yes revolution-see below) is possible in America? It seems to me that so much anger and resentment is being channeled by the media and fascists, and that the dangerous issues of climate change are so close that some things may prove inevitable. Witness the constant and overwhelming militarization of public space…
Yup.
“…But if you look at the really successful public protest movements — those led by Gandhi and MLK come to mind — you don’t see a collection of people “expressing themselves.” You see people complying with exacting discipline for the sake of a cause. You see people who understand that the cause is more important than their egos…”
and
“…And may I add that goofy costumes and giant puppets are for circus parades, not for a solemn and serious cause. (OK, I’m an old grouch. I admit it.)…”
King always showed up in a suit. Well Duh. Again, the 1% control the narrative, and if a few people show up in idiot clown suits, guess what’s going to end up on the news?
I can scarcely believe that, in this day and hour, such basic concepts even need to be discussed – and yet they do. Just…incredible.
Unfortunately, this was totally predictable.
If an avenue of dissent is blocked, it is going to take violet turn. Like a river, when its flow is blocked is going to find another way to flow, so is Occupy movement going to take to violence. Our ruling classes are not willing to talk about anything except surrender. And I don’t believe this country is ready for non-violent movement. I am not condoning this, but this was totally to be anticipated. In this country there is so much weaponry in hands of people who definitely should not own arms, that this may soon get out of hand. I think we are going to go down the path of internal terrorism. But fear not, our ruling classes have been militarizing police forces for a while. Well folks, the show is about to begin. Sit back and enjoy.
Violence is inherently injudicious; to talk about its judicious use is a contradiction. Those who take that position are trying to rationalize violence, period, and I’m strenuously opposed to that.
There’s no integrating violence advocates into an avowedly nonviolent movement, either. I’m not interested in dialog with anyone who advocates violence; they’re outside the bounds of civilized behavior as far as I’m concerned. I have nothing to say to them. If they’d like to renounce violence and embrace nonviolence, then dialog can begin. Not before then, though.
Let’s add some perspective on MLK’s assassination. He was in Memphis, fighting for workers’ rights (black sanitation workers rights to form a union to be exact).
The talks were going no where for months.
MLK gets assassinated. Entire city erupts in anger. Entire country erupts in anger, as black riots smash inner cities. Military floods into riots with live ammo to suppress angry rioters.
Within days, city of Memphis makes concessions and allows for the formation of unions amongst the sanitation workers.
So, the violent riots after MLK’s deaths may have lost the moral high ground (in your words), they achieved something – Union rights for black sanitation workers – exactly what MLK was there for.
It’s a god damned shame he had to die. But the reaction of anger in Memphis led to the formation of the unions. The alternative would have been a lot messier than making those concessions.
I think Occupy’s success in altering the national dialog is pretty clear evidence that a nonviolent approach is entirely possible in America.
Yeah, the tactic of King followers of dressing up in their sunday best was very good.
And some people at our actions do. When I was at the port blockade in Seattle, I was dressed in a suit.
This is spot on. OWS has already been marginalized in so many ways, hell, even downright contradictory ways. I remember wathing Fox News (not by choice, it was on TV at the bar), and seeing in one instance, OWS called dirty poor, and next minute, upper class college educated ignorants plugging away on Apple products.
The 1% will marginalize us any way they can. Now, we’re being marginalized again internally, by what I call Anarcho-baiting. Same tactics were used in the 30′s to try and quell the most active union-organizers and activists. Back then you had the AFL president as well as Democratic allies start red-baiting workers who were fighting for their rights to a fair wage and right to unionize.
We should collectively rise above these attempts at fracturing. I’m impressed by the anarchists in the OWS movements. Moreso than the limpwristed approach of people who still think we can work with the Democratic party to achieve our goals of a just and logical economic system. Democrats blew their chance between 2008 and 2010 when they had major holds in the legislature and executive. they had a mandate to fix the corporate culture of corruption. And they squandered it. Hell, they embraced the corruption with open arms.
So, ridicule the Anarchists for smashing a few windows. As if the damge of a few windows is in any way comparable to the thousands of houses the 1% stole under our noses.
Yes, I agree, and it has been incredibly uplifting and vibrant. So, does the mean that the ostracization of Black Bloc, or even a watered-down version of public condemnation of them, is necessary, or something else? They are not going away. As you pointed out above, the corporate media attach Occupy to any Black Bloc thing, whether it is a GA-approved action/march, or not. Someone suggested last night at a party that we all dress up like Black Bloc kids and do the opposite of what they have dome (fix things, cleaning, etc) but we decided that the riot cops would probably get confused by that and go berserk!
Is breaking a window violent? I say it’s not. It certainly is a crime. Sure, it is vandalism, or according to the justice system, malicious mischief. But violence is something else. Violence is what the police have done to peaceful Occupy marches and occupations, when they spray and baton us, and swing bicycles at us, and trample us with horses. That’s violence.
I have gotten into discussions with local Occupy folks about the need to stay non-violent in our tactics, and last night on facebook I had a bunch of the (always MALE) members of Occupy Asheville go off on their violent sick fantasies about how they would step up to protect me from OTHER MALE VIOLENCE with their fists and weapons.
It was just sick.
I shared that I was sexually assaulted in 1977 and non-violently resolved that situation, and they went on about how they could have used their fists and weapons to achieve a better outcome with the help of a time machine. So, they not only have fantasies about using violence in the future to “save” me, they totally negate my successful handing of a violent assault in a non-violent manner.
I have made it clear to local Occupiers that I will film and report any violence that I see going on to the local police. And I would not be surprised if the violent agents were actually undercover cops.
I bring food to the encampment on Sundays – hot food. I am going to make it clear to them that as soon as I see or hear of violence right in front of me, the food delivery ENDS.
Wait, have I missed something? Has there been some sudden outbreak of violence at all these Occupy’s … or is Hedges just addressing an issue that may involve one or two locations?
Of course, we – most of whom are not Occupiers – then debate the issue, giving credibility to the accusation rather than pointing out the even under really trying conditions, there’s been remarkably little violence except from the police.
Oakland presents a rather unusual example given the long history of radical action and organizing there – applying that example, no matter what you think – to the movement as a whole is the same kind of sloppy thinking found in the MSM.
I don’t think you can extrapolate from what did happen in the emotional events after the death of Martin Luther King (nor from the events after the assassination of President Kennedy for that matter) to a conclusion that more that was positive happened in the aftermath of either assassination than would have happened had either charismatic leader lived on.
Nor do I think that it was the violence that achieved the result. It was the enormous emotional gulf when we no longer had the presence of such an inspiring and courageous leader. That was true when Johnson took up the Kennedy programs for the war on poverty, and it was true in the case of the formation of the unions. Without the example of King that would not have happened, and it happened because his example was more powerful than the riots.
“My question is: do you think that a Gandhian style (or even MLK/SCLC) non-violent revolution (yes revolution-see below) is possible in America?”
If it isn’t then we are lost and have become them.
It is not only the non-violence but a whole way of looking at life and mankind. A joy in life that they cannot take away. The songs and the laughter among the protesters was as much a part as refusal to return violence with violence. I think Mandela writes well on this topic also.
Wondering if I actually had missed something, I hit up Google News to see if there were reports of Black Bloc activity at lots of Occupy’s … and found that the only reports are either from Oakland or of one march in Portland. The Portland march was disavowed by Occupy Portland.
Of course then there were tons of pieces from all over then covering the Hedges article and associating Occupy specifically with the Black Bloc …
It’s not ‘smashing a few windows’ ; it’s mindlessly targetting the small businesses surrounding Occupy sites which have supported the Occupiers. That is hooliganism. It doesn’t deserve a fancy name.
There was lots of discussion even before the Hedge’s piece, at least at my local Occupy.
With respect, Siun, I don’t think the conversation on this thread gives credibility to the accusation of violent behavior in Occupy in general but is rather a reaction to the specific events described in the diary – I took advantage of the link to go read Chris Hedges, and his article responds to a specific case. I don’t think anyone is saying that Occupies in general are becoming violent, though there seem to be supporters of that tactic posting.
Rather, I do think we felt obliged to again defend and describe accurately the power of nonviolent activity to fortify what has been such a commendable movement ongoing, against efforts to point the ideology in a different direction.
You must live a sheltered life. The Battle in Seattle was a total disaster for the anti-Globalization movement. No one talked about how Globolization was a way for an international kleptocracy to bring down living standards everywhere and pollute without consequences. People just saw the anti-globalization people as window breaking crazies and were not interested in anything they had to say. It wasn’t until Naomi Klien’s Shock Doctrine came out that the general public started talking about Globolization in a serious way.
Elaborate discussions about what is violence remind me of elaborate discussions of what is torture; once the conversation begins you know you have lost your moral compass. Yes, destruction of property, including smashing windows, is violence. And immoral.
Good for you. This may be the only way to stop it, to make it clear that those of us who are non violent will not tolerate it. That is why Blac Block people have started to attack streamers. And yes, I very much think that many Blac Block people are undercover police. Yet another reason not to tolerate violence.
The night before he was murdered, MlkJr. gave a speech in which he called for a boycott of white businesses, since the mayor was intransigent about giving a permit for their protests, and intransigent about supporting the call for equal pay for black sanitation workers. He asked that black civil rights activists spread the word to boycott Sealtest, Coca-Cola and another business whose name I do not remember. He suggested to them that they go to black home insurers to get their home insurance and car insurance. He made it completely clear that action would be taken whether the march was allowed or not. I think that the Powers That Be knew that they were going to lose that battle, and they killed him. That is why today I believe in the power of strikes , general strikes and boycotts. hey, it worked on SOPA. His rationale was that the businesses he proposed boycotting had treated blacks badly in terms of fair wages and that since they were actively discriminating against the black community already, they were ripe to receive the message of a boycott of their products.
I write as someone who was a trainer of nonviolence trainers for many major civil disobedience campaigns and I am not defending one or another tactic but instead feel that these decisions are ones for Occupy to sort out. While I have had the utmost respect for Hedges, I am disappointed by his use of his media pulpit to create an impression that hurts Occupy rather then supports it.
I’m also always fascinated by the view of the civil rights era that begins and ends with MLK and forgets or is not aware of the “diversity of tactics” debates that were going on then. The civil rights movement did not begin and end with King but incorporated Stokely Carmichael, Malcolm X, Angela Davis and H Rap Brown amongst so many others. The recent … hmmmm… “whitewashing” of that time leaves organizers and activists today without a historic context for some of their own struggles.
A couple things:
-The piece itself is actually pretty balanced, and I like it in general even if the conclusion about violence being a problem in and of itself is wrong. We started with a good exploration in defining violence, and even opening the door a bit to what would be a justifiable use of violence (we’re not there yet, but that isn’t really the point).
Where we went off the tracks was when you capitulated to the American left’s fetishization of nonviolence, instead of keeping that door open and having an honest conversation. We went from interesting questions about whether or not the examples were violent to standard boiler plate about perception through the legacy media. It’s too bad – it could have been much better.
-People that want to capitulate to the terrain of the big media companies don’t get the whole point of this – here’s where, but in no way the only place – some serious cognitive dissonance comes into play.
The whole point of occupy is a nonviolent revolutionary movement. And specifically, that it does not conform nor does it automatically respect existing institutions. It seeks to establish itself outside existing institutions and overthrow them. Why, then, should people operate with what fucking Wolf Blitzer will say in mind, and then adjust to that, if they’re trying to overthrow that same media system?
Only in the US is the “left” so conditioned to be subservient to the power structure that they would think they could engage in a revolution while simultaneously not offending the Fox News viewer, all in an effort for to just all get along, and do it violence-free. You’re either playing the failed inside game, or you’re organizing outside it. And if you’re organizing outside it, in the occupy context, you shouldn’t be giving a fig what Christiane Amanpour says about you.
-The black bloc people are a problem. I remember the mess they made of my neighborhood when they showed up at the RNC in 2008. That being said, they are not a problem because they are violent; they are a problem because they’re anarchists and don’t share the values of the broader movement. With passages such as this:
All we’re really doing here is using the black bloc as an excuse to engage in unproductive fetishization of nonviolence and selfishly absolving ourselves of the responsibility to exercise all tactics, including violence, wisely and prudently. We don’t need to do that – the black bloc is bad enough without using it as an excuse to take things off the table.
—
Like I said, I like the piece itself well enough – but the comments are a whole different story. We’ve really cranked up the nonviolence fetish and the cognitive dissonance here.
For example, a lot of commenters have cited the civil rights movement, and I’m paraphrasing here, as some sort of great triumph for nonviolence. That really couldn’t be further from the truth. It’s not that the marchers didn’t have an effect, they did, but they never would have achieved what they achieved without violence. This view that it was only King and the marchers it just vacuous and represents the worst kind of historical revisionism.
It is not a coincidence that four presidents that supported civil rights in rhetoric (Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson) did nothing all through the marches of the 50′s, and then once blacks started rioting in the early 60′s and the Black Power movement started up that Johnson signed the civil rights act. Malcolm X had a bigger hand in that than King did, in that without what Malcolm represented it would have never happened, but King himself wasn’t exactly indispensable.
If an anarchist breaks a bank window, he goes to jail. If a bank illegally seizes thousands of homes and has law enforcement kick families out into the cold streets, they don’t go to jail. They barely pay fines equal to the punishment.
Who’s more violent – anarchists breaking Chase Bank windows, or Chase Bank robosigning evictions with no appeals process, even if families were paying their mortgages?
Who’s more violent – Protestors blocking a walkway or road, or the police who pepper spray them and beat them?
In my considered opinion, it is more than a little naive to believe that the vampires who feed upon us, and expect to contine doing so, will ever be moved to real change by shame without even a tinge of fear. But, that’s just me, a product of Brooklyn. And, also IMO, arguments to the contrary that rest upon analogies to events before the media was totally corporate owned-and-controlled are completely inapposite. That doesn’t mean I am saying exactly what should be done, but only that I am saying what is very likely not sufficient to accomplish the results that we wish for.
This is a very thoughtful and necessary addition to the conversation, IMO. “Non-violence fetishism” is a good turn of phrase to describe something very real and very limiting of truly rational debate and analysis.
Exactly, dcblogger.
On seeing those Southern terrorists on TV, the naive were not only filled with sympathy, they understood the prior violence which must have been. One must always keep the prior violence in mind, like Ghandi did.
Perhaps in a closed TV land, nothing can breech the fantasy that America is non-violent. One’s judgment must be conditioned on understanding how strong that fantasy is.
I have not been following this closely, so I ask this: Who is doing more to associate the Black Bloc with Occupy? Who would have nailed Ghandi with complicity to the crimes?
Seems to me Chris Hedges ought to be a little thoughtful.
Thanks for this analysis. I agree with the idea that revolutionary change in America has been associated not with non-violence so much as with people saying “Enough of this!” and acting out, even if it did not meet with the desires or digestion of the six o’clock news meat and potato crowd.
Turning a blind eye to structural violence, that is inherent in America’s cultural psyche and intl reach, while professing non-violence is a problem. I am not sure if it is denial or a sense of wish-fulfillment, or something approaching spiritual. But if it is spiritual then who is ready to stand with Nicholson Baker (cf. Human Smoke) and declare themselves to be complete pacifists? It is an issue we have to discuss, reflect on, come to grips with, and one that the Black Bloc kids are forcing upon us.
That makes no sense. Sorry. If you can take such latitude to define violence then I can define it as “harsh language” or “an angry stare” with just as much justification. Violence is the application of force to living flesh. It’s dishonest to say it is anything less than that.
Is it possible that these young people were hired to do what they’re doing? I think so – the 1% will do anything to destroy OWS.
Riots all over the country is stretching it a bit. IMO the rioters were simply using it as an excuse to seize their opportunity in the sun. There were no riots in his hometown where most if not all of the core movement were gathering.. His funeral and surrounding events were carried out with great dignity. I know. I was there.
It’s strange how warped Liberal thinking has become during this lull in the Revolution. While many still claim that the Enforcers of the 1% are members of the 99% the so called Black Bloc are shunned and seperated from the 99%. Some even think that the Black Bloc should be captured and turned over to the 1% because they create opportunities for the MSM to paint OWS as violent.
I see this as a diversion that may become moot when the real violent repression of the Movement accelerates this spring and summer. I don’t advocate violence but aggressive Radicalism will be necessary to move the Revolution forward. The one thing that the PTB do fear is attacks on their sacred Private Property and they will kill and maim to protect that symbol of their control and power.
There’s been one Black Bloc in Oakland, last November 2, during the General Strike. Members of the Black Bloc were physically assaulted and threatened with physical assault in front of the Whole Foods Market and elsewhere during the day. Not by police, of course, for there weren’t any there. The assaults and threats came from Occupy Oakland marchers professing nonviolence, an irony that was noted at the time.
There has been no Black Bloc in Oakland since then.
1. Seattle helped create a shift in perception, whatever the immediate reaction among the majority of the public. I’m the public – I didn’t see them as crazies. Realization seeps into the public consciousness slowly. 2. Globalization and its Discontents appeared before The Shock Doctrine and many members of the public were talking about it. The Council of Canadians, Adbusters, Naomi Klein, Ralph Nader – it’s taken decades of perseverance on the part of these people to get the point across.
I’m not even an advocate of property damage, much less violence, but I do think it’s counter-productive for parts of the Occupy movement to turn on each other. David Graeber has the wiser argument.
It may come to violence but nothing will have changed. Only the lead players. It saddens me to see the philosophy and theology of non-violence rejected by so many writing here.
For those who say non-violence is the -only- way forward with reform struggles should look at two important labor victories in the 30′s. Use these as a springboard to read about militant action, because we need to arm ourselves with our previous victories, both in the civil rights realm as well as workers rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint_Sit-Down_Strike
(where protestors turned firehoses on against cops who tried to break into the plant)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_Teamsters_Strike_of_1934
(street battles, where protestors actually drove through the cop line in a truck to divide and confuse the police. Also, flying picket lines.)
I’m not saying that Occupy is there yet. We have a long way to go and much more organizing to go. Window breaking is amateur hour to what labor activists were achieving in the 30′s.
That is not what I am proposing. I am devoted to building for non-violent progressive change. I can not do anything any other way. However, the conversation is a valid yet difficult one, and one perhaps where we must act to show others how deeply committed to non-violence we are.
Wise words. Thank you. I need to remember that.
The oppressors we oppose at simply itching for violence. We have to find ways to turn that thirst back on them. If want to live by the sword we must let them die by it but not give them more. How’s that for mixed metaphors? :-)
I have been reading the comments over at truthout.org on this subject. Here’s one I found appropriate, by a commenter named Forty:
Diversity of tactics means violence is accepted as a viable tactic. In December occupyseattle , now co-opted by the anarchist black bloc types, voted down a commitment to non-violence. The result: last Saturday’s turnout for an occupyseattle organized anti-iran war march was two dozen people. Today it was one dozen. Last November we were marching thousands in the street.
In Seattle the once enthusiastic activist community has withdrawn from occupy seattle and considers it to be merely a stage for the kiddies in hoodies to confront the police, and for the commies and socialists to attempt to enact their fantasies of creating a vanguard.
In the past two months a kiddie in a hoodie placed a bomb in the entrance of a Seattle bank. (It didn’t go off) Four banks have been vandalized with windows broken and in, at least, one case the word “occupy” spray painted on the bank facade next to an anarchist symbol.
The writer can quibble with bits and pieces of Hedges piece and strut his credentials, but Hedges gets it right: those who commit violence under the occupy banner are a gift to the police and their corporate masters.”
Simply put, Occupy is nonviolent. Period. It is a basic value. Additionally, as Prof Gene Sharp has worked for decades to demonstrate, nonviolent methods of political change are more effective than political violence. If the goal is emotional addiction to destructive behavior, then establishing real democracy over dictatorships and other elites probably is not an important goal. See the documentary “How to Start a Revolution” or read the book, “From Dictatorship to Democracy.” All these questions are covered. Effective alternatives to violence and how to confront it are well covered. For Occupy here, in Egypt, Tunisia, Nepal, Ukraine, Serbia, Indonesia, the UK, Burma, wherever, the principles of nonviolence championed by Thoreau, gandhi, King, and now by Gene Sharp are being reinvented for our world today. Results? Ask the people of Burma as they prepare for elections!
I have to disagree strenuously about the importance of dressing to conform.
Really, shouldn’t we *be* the society we want to create? The general assembly has become an effective description of the spirit of occupy because it demonstrates the kind of equality and democracy we’d like to see in government. Don’t we also want tolerance and multiculturalism? If we do, we ought to show by example how a peaceful group of people of different cultures and backgrounds can operate together as one powerful entity.
IMHO it is much, much more important to remain committed to nonviolence in the face of police attacks. It doesn’t matter what you’re wearing when the police are filmed pepper spraying you in the face while you are sitting peacefully on a sidewalk. Do you remember what those students were wearing? I don’t.
Socialists fought this battle in the guise of the “revolution or reform” debate. History as we know it has settled this debate: Neither revolution nor reform have brought about a socialist society. Yet a generalized human need for radical change, for a new and qualitatively superior social system remains in play. The path leading to that end is unknown. What we do know is that most economically developed society are capable of containing armed insurrection. We also know that economically underdeveloped societies can also contain armed insurrection. One needs only to consider the fate of the El Salvadorian struggle to glean that fact or, for that matter, the fate of the Sandinista Revolution. In the United States today, armed insurrection and violent tactics are sure paths to political defeat. Moreover, even in violent revolutionary struggle were to successfully destroy the American political system, there is no reason to believe the new system that emerges will be a qualitatively better one for the majority of Americans. What may emerge is a failed state condition, one dominated by local dictators, war lords, etc., or a national dictatorship committed to bringing order to the post-revolutionary society.
Finally, as Engels allegedly claimed over a century ago, modern armies have the means able to suppress violent opposition that emerges in civil society. These armed forces, especially the American security-surveillance apparatus, are significantly stronger and better able to contend with popular insurrections than those which existed in the 1890s.
These considerations lead to a preference for a program of radical reform, one that eschews violent methods because they are tactics likely to fail in most cases.
One has to wonder about the value of an oppositional political tactic which, if the Occupy Movement were lacking in those who would use the tactic, that absence would motivate the police to supply individuals who use that tactic.
Notice how the police will supply movements with agent provocateurs who act violently or who promote violence. What the police do not do is supply opposition movements with resources that can be used to increase the size and power of the movement.
I believe the violent ultras in the Occupy Movement are an active threat to the health of that movement. Size matters.
Not to mention the virtual inevitability that some really damaging infiltration of the movement will be by agents using black bloc as an opening.
If you pay attention to the history, it’s too often frustrated young men with a hunger to ‘do something’ who are preyed upon by agent provocateurs, and end up in prison after being used as propaganda by the MSM to discredit and marginalize the occupy movement.
In this way, the discipline of non-violence provides an easy way to spot the spies sent to cause trouble.
Ultimately, it’s about trust.
“I have made it clear to local Occupiers that I will film and report any violence that I see going on to the local police.”
Wow. You’re so nonviolent, you’ll narc out people to the police, so they can then be violently arrested. How very peaceful of you.
“And I would not be surprised if the violent agents were actually undercover cops.”
Why would they need undercover cops? They’ve got you ratting out citizens that don’t think like you.
I agree. Graeber’s point was that we do not need to eat other factions that oppose the oligarchy. Hedges does not need to police the anarchists. And, as you say, as we move toward revolution (and we will as the oligarchy stiffens and turns institutional violence on all those that defy their claims to authority), we will need allies. We are the 99 percent we are the one.
I’m not advocating any particular conclusion, because I haven’t decided yet what position I am most comfortable with for myself, to be completely honest about it, but I do rely on reasoned interaction with the good and smart people here to help me resolve difficult and complex questions, so, in the interest of fine-tuning the conversation, I would just like to point out, first, that Ghandi and MLK did NOT succeed thru pure non-violence, but rather both movements clearly benefited from the simultaneous applications of force and the threats of force by others acting independently, and, second, that asymmetrical guerrilla style tactics have always been more effective against an overwhelming war machine than anybody expected in advance. If we could all incorporate those truths into our thinking, it might advance the overall rational reasoning process.
Graeber’s primary point was that we do not gain by castigating and shunning those that oppose our enemies (the oligarchy). Hedges needs to step back and give this principle its due. There is something to be said for extending sympathy to the devil. The oligarchs will not just give it all up without a fight and we will need to develop strategies to take the fight to them. Many have said this above: successful revolutions find a way to encorporate a wide range of tactics as they gradually put the oppressors in a vice. We are the 99 percent, we are the One.
But as always, there is no shortage of people who will do the job for free.