Chris Hedges is on a mission. That mission is to save the Occupy movement from anarchists who employ any tactic of which Hedges does not approve. Apparently he never read, or gave credence to, anthropologist, anarchist, and sometime black bloc participant, David Graeber’s respectful and urgent open letter written in response to Hedges’ by now infamous article “The Cancer in Occupy.” Despite Graeber’s patient explanation that black bloc is a tactic, not a movement, and that anarchists like himself were centrally involved in organizing the occupation of Zuccotti park, creating the General Assembly process, and originating the 99% slogan, Hedges continues to refer to black bloc as a group of people and to assert that their “cynicism” and “feral” acts of violence will destroy Occupy from within.
Nor does it seem to matter to Hedges that his pronouncements do not reflect the spirit of a movement he claims to value and hopes to “grow.” That spirit is epitomized by the General Assembly, a remarkably democratic institution, where all voices are allowed a chance to be heard. Instead, the Harvard educated master of divinity continues to pound the pulpit, fulminating against what he describes as “black bloc anarchists,” and calling for the expulsion from Occupy of those who do not adhere to his extreme version of nonviolence.
In a video posted at Truthdig this week, of a question and answer period following a panel discussion at the April 2nd Control the Corporation conference, a self-identified anarchist asks Hedges how much he actually knows about Occupy, noting that many of the movement’s processes were authored by anarchists. Hedges responds that he, too, is an anarchist, a Christian anarchist, and that in his article he was not criticizing anarchy, but instead “stupidity.” Consider for a moment how it must feel to have someone not only telling you how the movement you helped to create ought to be run, but also demanding your expulsion from that movement, and calling your tactics “stupid.” I marveled, watching the video, at the restraint of the anarchists questioning Hedges. There was shouting at the end that I couldn’t make out, so perhaps they did ultimately respond with insults, but by then, who could blame them?
Central to the dispute between Hedges and the anarchists who helped to found Occupy is the issue of violence versus nonviolence – and how those are defined. In general terms, anarchism refers to the absence of rulers (hence, the “leaderless” Occupy movement). The idea is not lawlessness or general chaos, but rather, freedom from hierarchical authority and ruling power enforced by violence. Anarchism has a long history in the United States and many anarchists were involved in the early labor movement. Then, as now, anarchists sought to push back against police brutality. One contemporary method for doing so is the black bloc.
The black bloc tactic originated in Germany in the 1980s in response to police brutality against peaceful protesters. Participants dress in black and cover their faces to avoid identification and more easily evade police. American anarchist David Graeber describes the attire as:
a gesture of anonymity, solidarity, and to indicate to others that they are prepared, if the situation calls for it, for militant action. The very nature of the tactic belies the accusation that they are trying to hijack a movement and endanger others. One of the ideas of having a Black Bloc is that everyone who comes to a protest should know where the people likely to engage in militant action are, and thus easily be able to avoid it if that’s what they wish to do.
Graeber also notes that anarchists are not the only activists who participate in black blocs.
Christian anarchism similarly rejects secular rulers, but embraces submission to god and the teachings of Jesus; in particular, the Sermon on the Mount. For the unchurched among us, these are the teachings that include the verses about the meek inheriting the earth, turning the other cheek, loving your enemies, praying for those who persecute you, and calling peacemakers blessed. Nonviolence and pacifism are central tenets of Christian anarchism.
In the video cited above, Hedges calls for “a rigid adherence to nonviolence,” including “linguistic violence.” The “violence” that motivated Hedges’ original impassioned denunciation of “black bloc anarchists” was an action in Oakland on January 28th, during which, Hedges writes, some protesters “thr[ew] rocks, carried homemade shields and rolled barricades.” When protesters in New York took to the streets in solidarity with their comrades in Oakland, Hedges continues, “a few demonstrators” threw “bottles at police and dump[ed] garbage on the street. They chanted ‘Fuck the police’ and ‘Racist, sexist, anti-gay / NYPD go away.’”
Only in America would we see such hand-wringing and condemnation for such petty and isolated infractions – especially considering the length of the Occupy activity in the fall, the number of groups involved around the country, and the violence inflicted on peaceful protesters by the police. Hedges invokes Tahrir Square as an example Occupy should follow, yet some Egyptian protesters threw rocks and still considered themselves nonviolent. On March 29th, Spain saw a hugely successful general strike, (despite the union leadership), with nearly 80% of workers participating, and concurrent rioting in Barcelona, to protest privatization and austerity measures there. What happened in Oakland was child’s play in comparison. Oddly enough, Hedges himself praised Greek rioters in a May 2010 article in Truthdig:
Here’s to the Greeks. They know what to do when corporations pillage and loot their country. They know what to do when Goldman Sachs and international bankers collude with their power elite to falsify economic data and then make billions betting that the Greek economy will collapse. They know what to do when they are told their pensions, benefits and jobs have to be cut to pay corporate banks, which screwed them in the first place. Call a general strike. Riot. Shut down the city centers. Toss the bastards out. Do not be afraid of the language of class warfare—the rich versus the poor, the oligarchs versus the citizens, the capitalists versus the proletariat. The Greeks, unlike most of us, get it. (Emphasis added.)
It is difficult to reconcile Hedges’ celebration of rioting in Greece with his angry screed against isolated incidents of rock and bottle throwing in response to police brutality in the United States. Hedges says his goal is to “grow the movement” and that the “violence” that occurred in Oakland alienates the mainstream. In other words, he wants middle-class Americans, including “parents with strollers,” to feel safe and comfortable in joining Occupy.
Who in their right mind would take a child in a stroller to places where police kettle, beat, and pepper spray peaceful protesters? That would be like taking a black child in a stroller to a lunch counter in Woolworths during the Civil Rights movement. Hedges himself says the Occupy strategy should follow that of the Civil Rights movement, of drawing out and exposing the violence that enforces an unjust system. By definition, that’s no place for a toddler – or for anyone expecting a risk-free day at the protest parade.
Then, as now, young people took the brunt of the violence. Certainly many people of all ages were involved in the Civil Rights movement and are participating in Occupy. But those at the forefront of the violence, at the lunch counters, on the Freedom rides, and at Occupy actions are primarily young people.
That’s why it’s so difficult to stomach Hedges’ arrogant attitude toward the anarchists and other young people who are the heart and soul of Occupy. At one point in the video, in response to a question from a young anarchist about diversity of tactics, Hedges reiterates that “nonviolence is the route” and asserts that “people in groups like Veterans for Peace or Code Pink, they’ve been doing this a really long time and we’d be very smart to listen to the lessons they’ve learned.”
Although Hedges did not speak harshly, in the context of the discussion, the comment reads as a sort of “sit down, shut up, and listen to your elders” type of response. Adding insult to injury, the moderator followed up by inviting Dorli Rainey, the 84 year old activist who was pepper sprayed in Seattle, onstage to voice probably the most ignorant opinion expressed in the video. “The anarchists are really not anarchists,” she declared. “They’re hoodlums!” The crowd of primarily white and middle to senior aged people gave her a standing ovation.
Hedges claims that “black bloc anarchism” is the “portal into the movement” by which agent provocateurs will undermine it; that “the goal is to sever the Occupy movement from the mainstream.” But black bloc or no black bloc, the movement has been and will be infiltrated – as have all social movements.
Hedges’ intransigent attitude and apparent unwillingness to engage in true dialogue with young activists at the center of the movement, whose views differ with his, constitutes a greater threat to the movement than any government infiltrator. Dismissing and alienating the brave and spirited young people who created Occupy will not “grow the movement” – though it may allow other entities to co-opt, and ultimately, kill it.
Hedges has written of the so-called “black bloc anarchists” that:
The Black Bloc movement bears the rigidity and dogmatism of all absolutism sects. Its adherents alone possess the truth. They alone understand. They alone arrogate the right, because they are enlightened and we are not, to dismiss and ignore competing points of view as infantile and irrelevant. They hear only their own voices. They heed only their own thoughts. They believe only their own clichés. And this makes them not only deeply intolerant but stupid.
Mr. Hedges, I respectfully suggest that you take a look in the mirror. Or, at the least, heed Matthew 7:5 and “first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”
Related post: Reconsidering Violence and Nonviolence in the Age of Occupy
Katherine M Acosta is freelance writer currently based in Madison, Wisconsin. Contact her at kacosta at undisciplinedphd dot com. Her blog is UndisciplinedPhD.




188 Comments

Wrong.
Black Bloc is not organizing the protest events. Black Bloc is showing up at event other activists groups organize. Black Bloc is demanding the right to hide masked in the midst of other non-violent protesters. Black Bloc is forcing non-violent protesters to deal with the massive police response to the violent actions Black Bloc has taken while they hide behind non-violent protesters.
Sigh
It is my own personal experience that the Black Bloc are good, dedicated activists.
During the RNC in St Paul 2008 I proudly marched with them.
This is a more complicated issue that most folks realize. And Chris Hedges is claiming the privilege of fame to speak to essentially a diverse movement, within which only some of the locations have had issues with black bloc anarachists. And more importantly, other groups have had issues with agents provocateurs or just hoodlums (sometimes acting in the name of some ideology or another).
This means that experiences will vary depending on what exactly you have come up against.
The real issues are fairly straightforward. What is effective direct action and what constitutes acceptable (strategically) civil disobedience? What to do about “supporters” whose actions potentially entrap other supporters in decisions that they did not necessarily consent to and that have physical or legal consequences they certainly were not provided informed consent about? Is vandalism or destruction of property ever effective direct action and under what circumstances?
The concern of folks like Chris Hedges is that certain actions attributed to black bloc anarchists muddy the issue for the public about whether the Occupy movement is a seriously non-violent movement. Given the way that authorities seek to frame police actions against Occupy locations, that is likely a misplaced concern.
Going forward, the issue that Occupy locations will be debating is what does escalation that broaden and deepen the movement look like.
By the way, the Occupy movement is hardly “the kids”. Which makes Hedges’s concern seem patronizing.
Sigh. Thank God for Chris Hedges or this fucking tedious debate would have fallen by the wayside and we could be talking with the rest of the 99% about what really matters instead of spending all of our waking hours talking amongst ourselves and taking potshots at people like Dorli Rainey. Have you considered a career in PR?
As someone driven away from Occupy Oakland by the bullies and insurrectionists – who I will be the first to admit, are not necessarily the same people as the anarchists or those who use black bloc tactics – I agree with Tarheel that this is a complicated issue. Hedges is mostly wrong and misinformed and a lot of what he says is insulting and dismissive. On the other hand, Hedges has no monopoly on insults and derision; there is just as much of that coming from the anarchists who think they own the movement (as evidenced by the constant repetition of that narrative in this diary).
Enough already. The same 150 to 200 of us are not going to change the world. Unless we STFU about who started the movement and how fucking noble they are and start organizing and bringing more people it, then circular, internal, pointless conversations like this are all that Occupy is going to ever amount to.
It only takes one aggressive person, unresponsive to the needs of the group to ruin an affinity group. After they have forced the group to dissolve several times because of their aggressiveness, you would think it would become clear that they are there to dissolve the group. I am only speaking from my own experience and not for Occupy. I believe that nonviolent demonstrations are the only possible tactic because I have seen too many people hurt by police and I do not want to give the police a reason to hurt any more of my brothers and sisters. Just my two cents. In reflecting on what I have written, I wonder if I have not raised two different issues: non-compliance with leadership by consensus and nonviolence as a requirement for effective civil disobedience.
The truth is that the movement is moving forward and not at all interested in these distractions. Occupy Chicago collaborated with folks occupying a mental health clinic in Woodlawn that Mayor 1% has slated for closure because of austerity. The walking occupations are making friends and explaining the movement to people in places that have not yet had a movement presence and who often have never heard of the movement. (Not everyone in North Georgia, East and Central Tennessee, Western and Central Kentucky, Southeast Ohio, and Eastern Indiana is glued to FoxNews or the mainstream media.) Occupy Raleigh is fighting a mortgage foreclosure eviction that looks shady.
But those now routine actions don’t grab even diaries on the blogosphere anymore. In spite of the fact that 9 occupiers were arrested in Raleigh and 23 occupiers were arrested in Chicago. And in Chicago, the folks arrested included patients and staff of the clinic.
The Occupy movement has had maybe 8000+ arrests so far. It is hard to tell exactly how many people that represents because of multiple arrests. But likely the number of people is huge considering that a good number of them never had been arrested before or would have considered civil disobedience.
The Free Dictionary defines “anarchism” as “the theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.”
I guess I’m not clear on the concept. Edify me. Aren’t Occupy’s General Assemblies a form of government? Should those who disagree with the majority vote in the GA’s be free to act as they choose under the Occupy banner?
The OP stated: “Only in America would we see such hand-wringing and condemnation for such petty and isolated infractions..”
Petty? Probably. Isolated? Sure. Neither is the point. The point is that these petty, isolated actions can easily put the entire movement at risk. Should that be so? No. But a mass media owned and operated by corporate America just loves the storyline. Would they lie anyway? Of course, but that doesn’t mean we should hand them their lead stories.
As for the violence versus non-violence debate, I’m sorry to say that, while I’m a “try-non-violence-until-it-fails” proponent, I fear that at some point violence will be needed. I also fear a far greater repression should violence fail to effect the changes we seek.
If anarchists want to use violence as a tactic, they should leave the Occupy movement. Whether Occupy has formally defined itself as non-violent or not, it seems to me that by using the “99%” label, violence is not compatible with Occupy. Can anyone credibly argue that violence is a core value of the 99%?
According to David Graeber, the anarchists involved in planning the original occupation of Zuccotti intentionally chose nonviolence at the start.
There are a couple of points I’m trying to make and apparently failing:
1) Anarchists, including some who have previously engaged in minor violence, were among the core group who organized Occupy.
2) Hedges is essentially saying that some of the core organizers should be thrown out of their own group! I find that arrogant.
3) I’d like to see Hedges engage in a true dialogue with these people, rather than lecture and hector them.
I have my problems with Hedges, and also have admiration for him in many ways. I think they could benefit from him and he from them. But the approach he’s taking is counter-productive and deeply depressing.
Katherine
Such a complicated issue, as TarheelDem, and others point out.
Non-violent, is to me the only recourse that can be taken – aggressive non-nonviolence – that being said, both Gandhi and MLK, are two individuals that stood as the names and faces, of past, successful non-violent campaigns to change. They also experienced those who would did violence.
Each man, stood committed to non-violent, fearless, non-compliance, and civil disobedience. Neither man condoned violence, but neither man condemned those who engaged in it, either.
ggrrr – no edit – that should read “do violence” rather than “did”.
Tarheel, this is what I found deeply troubling in the video. He has a platform, he’s invited to conferences to speak, he regularly gets his point-of-view published on Truthdig and elsewhere, and he has years of experience writing and speaking – in sum, he has a huge advantage over them. And he’s using it to shut them down rather than engage them. That’s what I find so troubling.
In another video elsewhere on the web (I’ll try to find the link) the amateur videographer talks to a guy who yelled a question at Hedges – presumably an anarchist. In fact, it’s the guy who yells, you obviously do know about violence (as a war correspondent), why do you equate armed violence with breaking a window?
The guy tells the videographer that he thinks Hedges is smart, indicates that he has important things to say. But he and they are clearly frustrated with Hedges on this issue. I’d like to see Hedges make more of an effort at dialogue rather than lecturing and hectoring and thundering about expulsion.
Katherine
The tactical argument against what you are saying is that both Gandhi and MLK benefitted from being up against a government that could be swayed by public opinion. And that philosophical nonviolence is suicidal when you are going up against an authoritarian regime that can suppress information and brutalize nonviolent activists at will. Such proved to be the case with nonviolent protesters in Libya and Syria February a year ago. And is proving to be the case in Bahrain currently.
Opposition is a very individual decision as to what tactics you decide to take and what consequences you are willing to accept.
One of the principles from the early days of the Occupy Wall Street general assembly was that no one’s insights or opinions were more privileged than another’s by who they were. This was the basis of long discussions about white privilege, male privilege,…. It also goes to professional deference.
Katherine –
You stated:
What significance do you attach to this? If a group of citizens forms a movement that puts the GA process at its core, do they retain “ownership” such that they can ignore the will of the majority?
Perhaps there is an irony here but should founders have greater voice than newcomers? The social contract that was established was not “first come, first served”; it was “all voices are equal.”
Your point that anarchists were some of the core members of the movement is abundantly clear. What’s not clear, as welshTerrier asks above, is WHY that seems to matter so much. Either it’s a non-hierarchical movement where everyone is a leader, or the core group that started it really does want ownership and leadership status. That’s what has happened at OO, whether the “founders” want to acknowledge it or not. They have consistently shouted people down and, in one case, banned other longtime members of the group who disagreed with them publicly. So they can disagree with what Hedges is saying about violence and non-violence, but that core group of anarchists seem to be employing the exact tactics that Hedges suggests.
Of course not. They don’t “own” it and if they had that mentality they wouldn’t have instituted the General Assembly in the first place. But I have a problem with Hedges saying they should be thrown out of the movement entirely. Who is he to say that? Maybe their own GA can say that, if there is a consensus on nonviolence and they violate the consensus. But who is Hedges to order their expulsion?
Katherine
The key point there being there being they chose to make the event non-violent. Nobody should defend any violent acts at an event that was supposed to be non-violent. Anarchists defend just that sort of violent act at events that were supposed to be non-violent all the time.
There is no such thing as “minor” act of violence at a protest that organizers had agreed beforehand to be non-violent. We all know beforehand the corporate media will try to make us look 10x worse than it was.
As Tarheel (I think) pointed out things are different in different locales and Hedges is making broad pronouncements – that may be applicable in Oakland but not other places.
My issue is with Hedges – he’s as much at fault as the people you describe. Who is he to order a blanket expulsion of people?
Chris Hedges isn’t a name, it is a sentence. Subject: Chris. Verb: hedges.
I know Chris Hedges has one hell of a sounding board and his comments are given a lot of exposure; that’s unfortunate. It’s also unfortunate that Hedges keeps providing opportunities for anarchists to do what it seems many of them do best (IMHO): argue and debate. Whether it’s a righteous argument or not, people outside the core group are not attracted to such a tense, adversarial atmosphere – especially when that’s what they have to deal with in their regular lives every day.
Adam, I’m curious to know how your group addresses and defines nonviolence prior to an action. Has there been any discussion of what constitutes violence? Is property destruction included as violence or is that limited to harming persons? What about the “linguistic violence” Hedges talks about? Is saying F the police violent?
Not trying to be snarky here; genuinely interested to know. Thanks.
Katherine
I know different.
I watched occupy portland “anarchist-leaning” facilitators and the anarchist core group use the GA “consensus process” to block any attempts to steer away from big ugly pointless fight with the Mayor over a city street that ran though the two parks originally occupied.
I couldn’t agree more with you, it is individual – and we are in such a predicament, that we probably need all tactics, even those we haven’t seen yet. Hence, I personally will not condemn the tactics of those, ummm – less “civil” in their “disobedience” than I. Nor will I applaud others who would dismiss, shut out, or condemn the same.
I’m curious, PhD; is this all academic for you, or are you on the streets protesting or engaging in civil disobedience? It may be that the two views are wholly different if you reap what others sow on their own, or their small group’s decision to use so-called ‘diversity of tactics’.
You may be interested in danps’s archives; we’ve had this discussion many times here, including on one of my own diaries a few months back after Hedges wrote his ‘cancer’ piece. Dan’s posted about eight or nine times here and at correntewire.com.
Any movement against authority that COMPLETELY eschews violence is doomed from the start. Without the threat of violence, nothing ever changes. History has proven this.
A couple of examples: the British didn’t leave India because of Gandhi’s nonviolent movement; they left because they weren’t willing to pay the price of attempting to suppress a violent independence movement if they did not accede to Gandhi’s demands. Martin Luther King Jr. did not pass what we call the Civil Rights Acts, LBJ did(oh he did because he actually mostly agreed with MLK), and Southern white governors caved because they KNEW LBJ was willing to send in the tanks if they didn’t.
All that said, anarchism is nonsense. There has been, is, and always will be hierarchy of one sort of the other so long as the human species exists. It’s in our DNA. It’s the way we are, because we are social animals.
You can’t be social animals without some form of hierarchy. The question is, what kind of hierarchy do we want? To pretend we can get by without one is as nutty as anything Ayn Rand ever wrote.
Well, guess I probably pissed a lot of people off. So be it. I think I’m right. If you disagree, prove me wrong. Screaming insults will just prove my point.
What I think doesn’t matter a whole lot. What the people who might see a video after the protest if something bad happens is who matters. I don’t see others being very sympathetic toward someone who’s been yelling a lot of f–bombs.
Hedges: “We have to have agreements about how we comport ourselves in the face of corporate power. We have to make sure that we do not attempt to engage in the kind of paranoia, secrecy, violence including linguistic violence, that are the hallmarks and characteristics of the corporate state.”
Hedges: “And this message finally resonates most effectively with those who are actually inside the power structure itself.”
Hedges: “The power we have is our powerlessness, our transparency and our honesty. If we can find the self-discipline, the moral courage and the strength to hold fast to these values, and that will require confronting and expelling those in the movement who refuse to accept those values, then I think we can bring ‘em down.”
I haven’t commented on Hedges in this thread… until now. I watched the video very carefully and extracted what I think were his key statements.
First, I think Hedges has as much right to speak out as anyone else does. He’s entitled to his opinion about the best direction for Occupy to take. If the objection is “how dare he tell Occupy what to do”, I think that’s his right and, frankly, I think it’s incumbent on all of us to engage in public discourse on the subject.
Second, I don’t agree with the OP’s conclusion that Hedges called for expelling anarchists or black bloc anarchists. He chose his words very carefully. After expounding on the movement’s non-violent values, which I agree is a core value of Occupy (YMMV), he said that those in the movement who refuse to accept those values should be confronted and expelled. What he’s saying is that anyone who doesn’t accept majority rule and violates the sanctity of the GA process should not be part of Occupy.
What’s the problem with that? Should Occupy be a “big tent” and should it allow those who disagree with its core values… and core tactics… be allowed to remain under the movement’s banner? I say no.
Hedges has no authority. He isn’t Occupy’s president or dictator. He’s merely laying out what he believes is the path to success. Each GA is free to ignore him or to embrace his ideas. I also liked what Kevin Zeese had to say.
Finally, the OP is correct to say that “…people outside the core group are not attracted to such a tense, adversarial atmosphere…” Sometimes, though, in governing ourselves, it is necessary to “have it out.” It serves no purpose to pretend that deep-seated differences are not real. If we can work together, great; if not, I would hope we have the wisdom to travel on our own paths rather than fighting among ourselves.
Gene Sharp and the Albert Einstein Institution disagrees with you about non-violent action.
http://www.aeinstein.org/
There’s… like… 4 e-books you can download for free, and 10 videos that make a pretty good case for non-violent action.
Adam
With all due respect there are a few folks who disagree with your position.
Gerry Adams, Bobby Sands, Nelson Mandela, Malcolm X spring to mind immediately.
Then there are people like my own hero Bernadette Devlin who opposed those violence but also stood by their rights to resist British rule as they see fit.
As best as I can tell Chris Hedges seems to be headed in that direction.
WelshTerrier, what you quoted about people not being attracted to such a tense adversarial atmosphere was a comment from me, not the OP. And what I meant by that is two things:
1) When GAs refuse to allow dissenting opinions without devolving into heckling and when the “block” is removed from the consensus process (as it was in OO very early on, maybe even before the first GA), nobody will participate in the GAs and the idea of the GA being the governing body falls apart. People do whatever they want, good or bad, because the process turns out to be no better than the fucked up one we’ve been using our whole lives.
2) When the majority of actions automatically involve clashes with riot police or at least a significant potential for arrest, people who already live with the threat of violence and arrest in their neighborhoods may not be down for the optional version. Some of this is very specific to Oakland, of course.
CAROL
Ummm *twinkle*
Never mind the issues of class and race privilege
I don’t make any claims to be as wise or smart as Nelson Mandela, or Malcolm X, Gerry Adams, etc. Violent actions are just one of many thing that a Nelson Mandela could pull off that I would not attempt.
Adam
No problem. In fact I eschew hyper masculine violence. While at the same time understanding fully the reasons that some feel compelled to take that route.
Hell. When I lived in northern Ireland my real hero (my Mother RIP) and I had discussions about this all the time.
Her most astute observation was this
“I hate the British not because of what they have done to us. Instead I hate them for what they have forced some of us to do.”
In other words
Know your enemy and it is not us, no matter how much we disagree on tactics.
I have no problem with anarchists or a diversity of ideologies within the OWS movement. What I do have a problem with is people using the cover of a street demonstration and the anonymity possible in a chaotic crowd situation to give LE a plausible rationale for escalating their response. You want to smash windows and create looting scenes for the press? Because if retail shop windows are smashed a random crowd is likely to contain individuals who will avail themselves of the opportunity. Or throw objects at police to incite them? It’s just stupid and counterproductive and has nothing really to do with ideology, just testoterone fueled adolescent stupidity. And it poisons the visuals and alienates the same people we are trying to form an alliance with.
I would like to see anarchists try to be more understanding about why so many have problems with masked protesters. Do they not understand just how easily police can see masked protesters present at an action, and radio undercover officers to put on masks too.
Thanks to black bloc, most of the people at a protest in masks are police, and the police are the only one who know which ones are cops.
No this is NOT true. In Minnesota there are activists who show up masked. In fact I have done so myself (inn my case it was a Kafka wrapped around my face and another where I wore a balaclava.
Just because you say something does not make it true.
Not meant as snark. Just pointing out the facts
This argument was old months ago.
Graber was 100% correct.
Hedges is partly correct.
Black bloc *tactics* are perfectly legitimate as self-defense. I have no beef with these people. But yes, agent provocateurs can abuse it, but they could do it regardless. Did the guy who got that group of protesters pepper sprayed at the museum in DC need black bloc to do that? Nope.
Spray paint is not violence; broken windows are a result of a violent act. Needless to say there has been some “creep” on the definition of violence…
Can we please talk about shutting down banks again?
Anarchists played a role in the Russian Revolution but it was the Bolsheviks that prevailed.
Cops putting on masks at protests pretending to be black bloc is a documented fact.
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20111110/NEWS/311100042/THP-went-undercover-among-Occupy-Nashville-protesters
http://my.firedoglake.com/spocko/2011/10/31/whos-undercover-at-your-occupy-protest-in-oakland-its-hese-guys/
I lament the fact there aren’t 81 communists in the U.S. Congress.
They play into the hands of the 1%ers. Who knows, maybe unconsciously they wish they could be 1%ers.
I lament the fact there aren’t 81 progressives left in Congress.
That too. 81 communists and 81 progressives might add up to something, unless of course you have a problem with communists.
If the police state can easily identify those wearing masks, what’s the point for Occupy to wear masks? If a police state provocateur wears a mask, they are hiding their identity from Occupy. So if Occupy has a consensus or majority rule for not wearing masks, where everyone agrees to abide by the vote, then the only ones wearing masks will be provocateurs, presumably police/fbi, in which case Occupy should be wary of such persons and especially vigil outside the Occupy encampment. I think this is a case where transparency can be very beneficial.
The anarchists involved with Occupy I’ve spoken to are actively opposed to movement-building. Period. They see Occupy as a place to kickstart militant action and nothing else. So don’t pretend the anarchist element in Occupy is interested in building a broad-based movement. Anyone who has had experience with the anarchists knows otherwise.
The anarchists/insurrectionists want to use you as meat-shields, as cover for their property destruction or rock-throwing or whatever currently floats their boat. It has nothing to do with what is a good idea strategically for activists in a particular location.
You need to stop denouncing your allies. Solidarity.
I don’t make any claims to be as wise or smart as Nelson Mandela, or Malcolm X, Gerry Adams… or Gandhi.
First off, thank you for this discussion phd
IMHO
I have a lot of thoughts on this, and I’ve wanted to do a few diaries on this subject, and strategy, the importance of occupy, and I can’t do it justice with a short and brief comment, but I’m at a McDonald’s, and on my way out the door … so, that’s all I have
I’ve gone to occupy organizer meetings, strategy meetings, outreach meetings. And, I’ve got to tell you the community that has been grown is heart-warming and heartening. Hungry people have been fed, homeless have been fed, people of different races, different religions, different social networks, ages, and economic strata have all come together with a common purpose
I’ve also got to say that if outsiders come in here to promote violence against people or property and there happens to be a consensus for violence — I’m out
I’m gone — and won’t have anything to do with Occupy ever again
Once you go that route you can’t put the genie back in the bottle. Through a promotion of violence you can’t win in a court of law — and you won’t win in the court of public opinion.
You don’t have the muscle to defeat the police and/or the National Guard, in hundreds of cities. And all you’ll do is harden the PTB’s ideas that we’re all scum of the earth because we aren’t ivy leaguer billionaires, or white shoe lawyers who were given everything by our robber baron grandpas
The greatest, awesomest weapon we have is PR. I want to see kids there. I want to see Grandmas there. I want people to feel safe with us.
Right now, the political debate is changing in a way that never could have happened without Occupy.
That’s all I have for now
U PhD, thanks for a thought provoking post and links to all the related articles. You’ve provided a lot to think about here. My contribution to the readings o’ the day: “Everybody Talks about the Weather . . . We Don’t: The Writings of Ulrike Meinhof.”
While I appreciate Hedges, I’m not a fan. Graebner I don’t know about, but his open letter seemed more reasoned than Hedges’ “Cancer” piece.
The question that pops to my mind in regard to Hedges’ challenge to the anarchists at the conference on the video is, how does Hedges reconcile Christianity with anarchy? A Christian anarchist seems to me an oxymoron, as Christianity is inherently authoritarian and hierarchical.
As AdamPDX has noted, the “black bloc” clowns are very much into hijacking things others start and ruining them. They are also very much into pretending that they are the only true anarchists even though most actual anarchists are nonviolent.
I agree w/ Hedges.
Movements ultimately become defined 100% by their tactics. If you choose violence, then you essentially define the entire movement as a violent movement. Then when police crack craniums on the street w/ their clubs the general public no longer sees it as injustice against peaceful protesters, but justice against thugs.
When a PEACEFUL movement protests and gets their craniums cracked, the general public becomes outraged, and that outrage spreads, and that is how change happens.
“I’m sorry to say that, while I’m a “try-non-violence-until-it-fails” proponent, I fear that at some point violence will be needed. I also fear a far greater repression should violence fail to effect the changes we seek.”
Then perhaps you’re not really trying non-violence. Like free speech, it only matters when it hurts, when the chips are down, when it costs you something. Otherwise, you’re only pretending. And an eventual resort to violence?! Why would you give the cops the only things they know how to deal with effectively? They are trained and prepared to deal with violence. They don’t know whether to shit or wind their watches when it comes to non-violence, which is why they always end up looking bad in public when they attack peaceful protestors.
“There are a couple of points I’m trying to make and apparently failing”
Nope. Your’e coming through loud and clear.
They did it in protest after protest starting with Seattle. It got to the point where the media could get away with reducing demonstrations for economic justice to the idiotic theme of “The Police vs. The Protesters”.
Yes, police brutality can and will happen without any sort of violence by demonstrators. We’ve seen our share of that with Occupy. However, even a small Black Bloc group acting violently gives the cops an excuse for a full-blown police riot without the public sympathy that nonviolent Occupy protesters get when they are victimized by police thuggery.
BINGO !
How do folks like Hedges reconcile their claim to anarchism with their efforts to tell other people what to do? I hear so many self-proclaimed anarchists engaging in this authoritarian behavior that I wonder exactly what part of anarchism appeals to them. Very strange. It all sounds like a whole lot of partisan, authoritarian-informed jockeying for control and power. The end result of all this seems like the probability of having a new boss who is the same as the old boss. “I’m an anarchist and here’s what I think other people should do!” Really.
Suggestions to would be anarchists: Spend less effort trying to change the world and others and more effort changing yourself. You want to be an anarchist? Act that way. Be. If you dislike government and authority, then ignore them. Most essentially, start by dispensing with your own authority.
What is the fucking deal with these black uniforms?! How are wearing uniforms compatible with anarchy? Ye gods! Leave Uniforms to the cops, soldiers, priests, and “business cocksuckers” (see George Carlin on this phrase). These black uniforms are worn for anonymity?! That’s precisely one of the reasons the military insists on uniforms. “If we’re gonna wear uniforms man, you know, let’s have everybody wear something different.” –words to live by from Tommy Chong
If you think violence is a practical solution. Great. But don’t break the windows of local coffeshops. That’s just lame. Start setting fire to the personal private property of CEO’s. Go after the destruction of things that have value to them beyond what can be covered by insurance or written off on their taxes.
You write this as if it were an insult. It isn’t. It sounds like a backwoods evangelical railing against snooty liberals.
I’m sorry, but this is silly. Not only is Hedges not a “non-violent extremist,” as he writes in “War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning,” he’s not even a pacifist. While you can’t always be non-violent, it’s generally understood that for a variety of moral and tactical reasons, non-violence is a much better way to go. I think that’s what Hedges is saying.
This is hyperbole.
Chris Hedges isn’t above criticism any more than anyone else. But he feels, as do I, that it’s a tactical and strategic blunder to infuse the Occupy movement with a strain of gratuitous violence, which will only help the power structure and corporate media marginalize the movement.
Violence is defined by monopoly media on which OWS depends .To say that breaking a window is a violent act is , obviously , absurd , yet we all know a 10 k march will be defined on the news with a couple of assholes committing petty property crimes Every successful movement is premised on forethought and discipline .Unlike many here , I know this G20 austerity will end with a terribly violent outcome but I hope that OWS can be perceived as something that resembles an alternative and hence can become politically powerful .People dumb enough to piss on their own parade achieve what they deserve , absolutely nothing .
what’s in a name?
Chomsky calls himself a libertarian anarchist… and he’s smarter than both of us put together.
Actually, I think what you write here makes a lot of sense.
Have the anarchists ever negotiated or won anything?
If you think you are right and are relying on others to prove you wrong, you are very likely to end up having your assumptions and your own Right Answers confirmed. Is this what you are after?
“Nothing ever changes” without the threat of violence? Nothing? Ever? I’ll bet if you honestly looked for exceptions you could find at least one.
And here lies the appeal of V in the movie version of “V for Vendetta.”
Nicely put!
Seconded.
“Consider for a moment how it must feel to have someone not only telling you how the movement you helped to create ought to be run, but also demanding your expulsion from that movement, and calling your tactics “stupid.””
As someone already said, Hedges has as much right to speak his opinion as anyone else, so why must we “consider how it must feel” for somebody to meet with (gasp!) disagreement or criticism. Are some people supposed to be beyond those common experiences? I really don’t understand the reason for all this indignation.
Yes, that’s it exactly.
“Violence, even well intentioned, always rebounds upon oneself.”-Lao Tzu
Hey otto , there is no contradistinction between a Christian faith and an anarchist vision .Fuck corporate religion , the works of Jesus and small-scale autonomy led by consensus are easily resolved in a humble ethos of pure democracy .To those who defend black-bloc juvenilia by defending violence on grounds of determinism ,maybe it would be better to whack a few oligarchs so at least a few people could respect you .
UndisciplinedPhD,
Thanks for your considered post, great to see it front paged.
Perhaps you’ve encountered Peter Wirzbicki’s post, “Historicizing “Violence”: Thoughts on the Hedges/Graeber Debate”?
Check out the comments as Graeber joins the thread. Very insightful.
OK. Can you explain how? If Christian faith demands submission to its god and anarchism holds authority to be undesirable, how are these two ostensibly contradictory injunctions reconciled? A Christian can’t get to heaven without following god’s will, but the very definition of anarchy is opposed to such acquiescence. This construction seems mutually exclusive. Or. . . ? I would think that the likely response of an anarchist would be to fuck not just corporate religion but any religion with an authority figure who had to be obeyed.
“People dumb enough to piss on their own parade achieve what they deserve”
What does deserve have to do with the works of Jesus or “a humble ethos of pure democracy”? This dismissal does not sound loving, humble or democratic.
I’m all for a revolution in the US. I just don’t want a violent one. There are ways to overthrow corporate power and two party tyranny that don’t require any kind of aggressive or violent action. They simply require coordination and a general consensus from people who believe in the revolt to strictly adhere to certain general tactics (don’t shop at Walmart). I might be an idealist, but I think it’s possible with the right kind of leadership, but unfortunately, the Left is more concerned with fashion than change.
The issue of whether or not violent protest is productive is separate from the issue of whether or not Chris Hedges’ attacks are productive. Although I’m inclined to agree with him on nonviolence, his desire to influence events by making pompous, vicious attacks on the BB is extremely unhelpful. Rather unchristian of him, it seems to me.
Is your argument here is that war, including civil war, is never justified?
Your argument, if you argue for pacifism in all circumstances, which, by the way, Hedges does not, is that “the shot heard round the world” should never have been fired.
Let me be very clear about this; I strongly support non-violent tactics for the very reasons you cited. At some point, though, and Hedges suggests in the video that this point is when state power is likely to be used to annihilate the masses, you have to do whatever is necessary to survive.
As the issue specifically relates to Occupy, violence is totally unwarranted at this time. Non-violence is the only way to win the hearts and minds of the people and to broaden the movement. For Occupy to be truly representative of and respected by the 99%, a broader movement is essential. With millions in the streets, day after day, it is my hope that the police forces and the military will respond favorably and refuse to carry out the orders of the 1%. But what if they don’t?
If the state’s enforcement powers are prepared to repress our non-violent revolution by killing us, the question then becomes how should we respond? In my view, at that point, non-violent tactics will have done all they could and we would have little choice left but to defend ourselves. I’m not optimistic about our chances should it all come to this.
This is a lot of words to pretend to justify bad tactics with umbrage.
Look, if you want to express umbrage and don’t care how it turns out, don’t associate with #occupy. Just do stupid, destructive stuff on your own and reap the consequences.
But don’t use the nonviolent protesters of #occupy as human shields, devaluing their efforts in the process. This isn’t difficult, and it’s only the refusal of those engaged in violent tactics to appreciate that their decision is based on their personal needs, not the needs of the movement, that makes this conversation even required.
That said, this is a good conversation, because we do need to talk about what to do when disruptive, violent people infiltrate a social movement in order to impose their values on it by force.
We aren’t even remotely close to the Civil War point yet.
If we’re at Civil War, we’re accepting the fact that we’re burying our parents, brothers, sisters, and babies, because there is no other choice whatsoever. I thought the whole point of #occupy was that we didn’t want to do that. #Occupy is, as a concept, utterly incompatible with discussions of Civil War.
“We aren’t even remotely close to the Civil War point yet.”
And no one suggested we were. The issue was raised because we were discussing violence versus non-violence and whether violence would ever be appropriate.
I agree with what Hedges said about this in the video. Violence may someday be required; it is completely unjustified and ill-conceived today.
I’m going to say this and I know this may sting and I may get flamed…but…it’s time for the old timer boomer activists to step aside and let the kids take over. Hedges is wrong about the old activists–they are using tactics that are essentially out of date in the contemporary context. I really think the old folks have a problem with leaderlessness because they are used to a head honcho directing the troops.
Actually, I think the kids have it right and we should ignore what the oldsters have to say–because their activism has failed us for the past 20-25 years. Time for some new blood! We need new ideas.
Full disclosure…I am 45, which makes me an oldster.
Seems to me that this is only true if:
A) Only if you have a sympathetic press.
I mean, can anyone really show me an instance where heads got cracked and people were rushed off to jail and the media either didn’t report it or gave it unfriendly reporting and the non-violent movement succeeded? Gandhi and MLK had sympathetic press.
B) Only if you have a higher political authority to appeal to.
In India, Gandhi wasn’t not trying to win over the hearts and minds of the British colonials in India–he was trying to win over those in the UK proper, who could overrule the colonials. In the South, MLK wasn’t trying to win over the Klan or the die-hard segregationists–he was trying to appeal to everyone else outside of them, who had the power to overrule these.
Neither case exists with the OWS movement in the US. We don’t enjoy particularly friendly press coverage (more unfriendly than friendly, in fact) and there are no other bosses to appeal to other than the current crop of capitalist sociopaths in charge. And don’t quibble about the voters, they respond to the information they are given (see A above).
What these sociopaths DO respond to, as Ian Welsh has said, is fear. Fear of losing their property, and fear of losing their very lives. I know this is not politically correct to say, and that seems self-evident to me. The very definition of sociopathy is that one’s compass of concern is just limited to what affects numero uno.
But worse, this discussion brings up all that’s wrong with the American left, and what has been wrong with it for the past 60-plus years. The American left always shoots its own left flank: the Right doesn’t have to do this, because the left does it for them. We disavow anyone who’s not of the “reasonable” left (“reasonable” being defined as what’s tactically convenient for mainstream acceptance at the time). We shoot the socialists, the anarchist, the communists, the Wobblies, the Earth-Firsters, NAMBLA, the Radical Queer Fairies, you name it. Then we wonder why the Overton Window keeps marching ever-rightward.
Here’s a hint, guys and gals–when you disavow and marginalize and “shoot” those to the left of yourself, then *YOU* become the “extreme” post of the debate. Even if you don’t agree with them, you should defend their right to participate because they’re serving your cause as well. They make your position look “moderate” and “sensible”; if they’re not there you get the “extreme” label.
-stewartm
Word!
Stewart
Thank you. You framed this perfectly. No need to say any more.
Phoenix
That is a flat out lie. Right here in Minnesota we had the RNC 8. Anarchists who were targeted by the FBI. For providing the infrastructure for the protesters of all types during the RNC in St Paul 2008.
Of course we all know that Democrats and their operatives HATE Anarchists. Because the Anarchists call the Democratic Party on their bullshit, pretend “progressive” views.
Democrats and their hacks also hate politicians and activists who say things like
The Democratic Party is where progressive politics and movements go to die.
Do you imagine that anything will change our current political trajectory? Right now, we’re headed for collapse, which will entail mass suffering on an unimaginable scale, and our elites are doing everything in their power to ‘floor’ the accelerator towards said collapse.
In 2012, we’ll have an election. But no matter who wins, does anyone imagine that the *best* possible scenario involves merely *defensive* victories, just shoring up the tatters of the New Deal, of women’s rights, of environmental and consumer protections, that remain? It’s not going to stop the overall trajectory.
So let’s say–2016. 2020. 2024? What sea change is going to happen to change this? Nothing, at least in regards to us, not given our current policies and practices.
The only thing that will bring change is that the elites (or at least some of them) start to get really, really, REALLY scared (which, come to think of it, happened in 1932). But being an elite means that you’re insulated against suffering far more than the median human. So even the more sympathetic amongst them won’t notice until things are horribly bad. And even here, from the sympathetic elites, the most likely result are quarter-measure palliatives that won’t do much good. (Again, hearken back to the New Deal, which was overall a positive result; what was objectively needed was not tried).
My point in all this is simply this: our “successes” haven’t been so successful. To echo Long Haired Hippy’s point, maybe the kids are on to something.
-stewartm
Hear! Hear!
The anarchists are a breath of fresh air from the rot of the Demo Party and its ossified institutions. At least, they DO something. The liberals are afraid of their own shadow.
Well said. Why is IOIYAR? Partially, because if anyone else tried it, the Peace Police (or in Hedges’ case, the Preach Police) will try and drop on you for your efforts.
Note to everyone: while the American left always shoots its own left flank, the American Right usually protects its right flank.
Just look at the example of Christian Dominionist David Barton, who qualifies as someone on the “extreme right”. From the People for the American Way site:
Can you imagine an avowed socialist, anarchist, radical ‘queer’ or environmentalist getting the same treatment by the Democrats?
The Right does this because they realize that setting the posts of the debate is a very important thing to do. The Left always gets so tied up in looking-at-the-tree election-year tactics that they lose sight of the forest.
-stewartm
A couple things: the anarchists/insurrectionists aren’t all ‘kids.’ A lot of their guidance comes from older academics and intellectuals like Graeber and others. And violence, property destruction and rioting aren’t new concepts they invented–there are long histories for all of those things. Even the bandannas have been around for a while. Since October, no has one stopped the anarchists/black bloc when they’ve decided to break windows, spray paint or have ‘fuck the police’ marches at OO or other Occupys. From my point of view the results have been: arrests, negative publicity, and driving moderates and non-violent leftists away from the movement. When are we going to start seeing the effectiveness of these tactics? Isn’t it up to the insurrectionists to demonstrate to the rest of us reformist idiots the awesome-ness of busting open the jails and battling the police in the streets?
I’m not advocating the Black Bloc point of view–though I at least respect them–but what the hell have the “reformist idiots” done to help the average working person in the last, oh, 30 years. Not one damn thing.
The point of mainstream liberals is to impeded democracy and freedom. Anarchism has been so abused and misunderstood for so long that even political scientists don’t understand what it means. Anarchism is just socialism, with a libertarian bent. Nothing more. Anarchists are, by definition, socialists. The problem is that the establishment–and I include the left establishment–have always hated what anarchists have to say because they are essentially correct in their diagnosis of the problem. Authority and capitalism are the root cause of our present environmental and cultural predicament.
People are afraid of looking at the REAL issues: the system of elite control which advocates a tiny, monied minority having control over billions of people on this earth. It is an untenable system. And we see the results. Now we can make fun of anarchists and say they are naive–but who the fuck has got us to this point? The authoritarians of both the left and right who believe that might makes right and that humans are incapable of managing their own affairs because they are savage beasts who must be controlled. But, tell me, who are the REAL savage beasts? The elite rich are destroying the human race, certainly not anarchists.
Hedges is a puffed up Bourgeouise braggart. Im sick of his self glorifying war stories and im sick of his use of the occupy movement as a self-absorbed, therapuetic activity.
Another result we’ve seen is a dramatic decrease in participation. What, some 8000 left OO?
If it looks like a riot on the news, it may as well be, and people stay away in droves. If that’s what Solidarity looks like to the few, I’m not down with that.
Can’t say I was a bit happy when Occupy seemed to embrace Hedges as some spokesperson. His stated ‘humility’ over the fact was…embarrassing.
The short answer to that would be, from history: you’ll see the effectiveness when it gets widespread enough that very rich people start getting very scared for their property and lives. That’s a long away away from now, and you’re right, the very brutal crackdown and backlash will come first. However, the collapse we’re heading towards actually lessens the ability of the state being able to crack down (that’s the odd thing about our current conservatives, they’re “starving the ‘beast’” that actually is protecting and shielding them in so many ways). The loss of the ability of the state to punish and repress is also part and parcel to such things working out successfully.
Now–after living a lifetime of seeing progressives hold marches, protests, sit-ins, petition drives, voter registration efforts, etc. etc. etc., only to see the politics of this country continue to drive relentlessly rightward–I’d like to ask you this: when are *your* preferred tactics gonna start producing results?
Now, which would any sane, normal person prefer? The peaceful route, of course. But that has been tried, and continues to be tried, and yet it produces not only *no* results in the right direction, it’s not even producing much in the way of restraining all the results in the wrong direction. After all, all that peaceful marching and protests and fists in the air didn’t stop the JOBS act from being promoted and passed by the current “Democratic” president and administration. What makes this key is that the JOBS act sums up almost everything thing the OWS correctly identifies as wrong with the country.
Nor is this anything I personally wish. I’m not made for violence. But I can’t for the life of me any totally non-violent means working anymore in and of itself.
-stewartm
You know, I’m an anarchist–I’ll be up front and say it proudly–and I’m just a regular guy going to work, paying bills, etc. We exist! We are not all caricatures. Anarchists historically were just regular men and women from the working class (as it should be!) And we are today as well.
I participated in OWS and I didn’t wear a bandana or some shit. And many of anarchists I met were not frothing at mouth animals. In fact, anarchists are highly thoughtful people, empathetic people. The fucking media paints us as a bunch of feral beasts, which is complete bs.
The reason OWS is losing steam is not because of the anarchist “menace” but because regular working people are afraid. They are afraid of the cops and establishment beating the crap out of them. The Greeks at least understand you can’t be afraid. You gotta fight sometimes if you want things to change!
Pleased to meet you, Hippy, but I need to disagree that anarchists are ‘working people’, unless you count college professors and academics as the same. I also read at several anarchist websites, and know many as thoughtful and intelligent people, but with a different vision of what needs to occur *now*, and lots of rationales for elites becoming leaders in the democracy movement, thereby blowing right by the idea of horizontal democracy.
I spent a good part of a day after Hedges did his initial ‘cancer’ piece, watching hours and hours of live-streaming from Tahrir Square to refresh my memory of events there, and watch film I hadn’t yet seen.
The push-back against the security forces was necessary, imo, but so were all the Elders staying the hands of the rock-throwers. But what impressed me most and gave me the shivers was that there were so many Egyptians on the streets at one point, they actually pushed the police vans coming into the Square backward off the bridge. And that’s exactly how you can end up with a non-violent success story (and no; things are dire there yet, but much of it’s another proxy story by the Western powers, imo.)
Adding irony to this thread and the comments are my diary from yesterday, positing an evolutionary consciousness transformation being heralded by Occupy. Purdy flippin’ funny in light of some of the comments here. (I’m a different kind of Hippie, I reckon.) ;o)
Very interesting collection of remarks about “the movement.” (Or however you wish to characterize it.) That being said (and at risk of having my eyeballs burned out with counter-punches), I offer a few observations.
1. The MSM, primarily television, will be covering (after a fashion) this movement. That agglomeration of reporters and/or infotainers will always tend to to “cover” the flashiest parts of any given demonstration, which (by definition) will always be the most action-oriented. (Broken windows, etc.) Don’t expect rational, considered discussion of the actual issues behind the movement, because it ain’t gonna happen. Call it laziness, a very narrow scope, corporate directives or all of the above.
2. Most people get their information (such as it is) from television. That television will invariably cover those individuals who challenge corporate power by breaking windows (to the exclusion of everything else) is the reality. Don’t look for anything else; that’s just the way it is.
3. The obvious conclusion that people will draw from what they’re seeing and/or reading is that the movement is populated completely by “hooligans and ne’er-do-wells.” Hence, the opportunity to win over more converts will be lost, very probably permanently. (Never mind that these potential converts are also being crushed under the boots of corporate capitalism.) I’ve observed this first-hand. Repeatedly.
As controversial and stuffy as it may sound, I see it as being imperative that the movement unite behind the idea of non-violent confrontation. This means (among other things) no broken windows, etc. I would also strongly suggest that people lose the clown costumes. (Take a look back at MLK’s movement. Suits and ties. Very smart, very effective.) And the “mic-check” thing has also served its purpose and (accordingly) should be left by the wayside. There are other, more effective ways, to communicate ideas / messages.
In short, do you want to haggle over ideological scraps and crumbs, or do you want to win? Personally, I want to win. That being said, I cannot overstate the importance of consistently making a very good impression on television and in the mainstream papers. The smaller the target, the less it can be berated. Sorry, but that’s the way the game is played – and it’s only getting worse.
Now, I’m going to go hide in a bunker.
There’s a lot of truth in that comment. A difficult and complex conversation, with pieces of the truth being offered in many different comments. All the truthful elements deserve careful consideration.
I have a soft spot for anarchism, though I can’t say that I can forsee the abolition for the need of a state. Worker-owned cooperatives are great, and go to the root solution of many of our income and wealth redistribution problems, and I indeed favor them replacing all corporations. But I could still see these discriminating, or polluting, or doing any sorts of other very harmful things that would need to be curbed by some sort of central authority.
-stewartm
The real inconvenient truth is, there are savage beasts in BOTH places, high and low. Savage beasts are worthy of savage treatment, high or low, IMO, but a just society has to deal with their presence in any event. It’s hard, as W used to say.
It is stupid — practically senseless — for movements like the Occupy Movement to directly and violently confront the police, the militia (National Guard), the Army and the armed groups belonging to the federal security-surveillance apparatus. These institutions are powerful, control the means of violence, typically have the tacit consent of much of the population and have no trouble enduring over time. Popular groups who would confront them are typically weak, lack arms, are technically unsophisticated in matters of armed confrontation, lack direct and emphatic popular support and find it difficult to endure over time.
The Occupy Movement will not succeed if it engages its well-armed opponent in violent confrontations. The Occupy Movement ought to use the tactics pioneered by guerrilla war-makers.
Mao on guerrilla warfare:
And:
Solidarity is thus the fount of popular power. The oligarchs, elite and their hired muscle fear a broadly popular movement far more than they fear window-breakers, fire-starters and their kin.
You keep bringing the focus back to a very uncomfortable place, but I agree with you that we will get nowhere if we avoid the uncomfortable. Of course, avoiding the uncomfortable is something most are very good at.
Thanks.
What I’m in essence referencing is the truth in JFK’s famous remark:
What JFK was laying out was an either/or condition. Either the elites will have to accommodate peaceful reform, OR they will have to deal with violent revolution that might take away all that they own and might even kill them.
What some seem to say on the left is that said “OR” condition never should kick in. But if it never kicks in, the plutocrats say “Ok, sure. We’ll never budge. We don’t get a rat’s ass for sorry state of affairs, you can fsck off and die as far as we’re concerned and we won’t lose a moment’s sleep over it. Just as long as life continues to be sweet for us”.
I would also add that when push came to shove, George Washington, Thomas Paine, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and many others decided that non-violence in and of itself wasn’t the highest standard to uphold. That does not make these bloodthirsty killers, just people who know that at times you have to respond in kind.
And truth be told, what is being done to Americans now is more awful than what was being done to colonials back then. They had the British takeover of Boston, which they considered an intolerable outrage, but we are witnessing a similar takeover and denial of the right of self-government, which I predict will become the new model of how the Right will govern in the future–*Michigan*. “Emergency mangers”, here we come. Not counting the votes in the legislature, here we come.
And if Boston was deemed “Intolerable” according the the men of Franklin’s and Adam’s day, requiring the severest of countermeasures–what does Michigan say??
-stewartm
Comparing the Left to the Right is silly. There is no comparison. The Left is at a massive disadvantage. The Left has no money, no decent press, and it almost always has to advocate more complex and nuanced political positions. As far as leadership is concerned, stating that it’s time for the younger generation to take over is just a cop out. Go back to sleep, we won’t force you to involve yourself. Thanks for checking in, though, hope that gives you a warm feeling. With regard to revolution and protest, I suggest people look to the French Revolution and events during the Enlightenment. The Left could learn a lot about the situation we’re in right now by consulting the overthrow european monarchies.
You spoke truth, you should not have to hide for that. ((shoto)) There are lots of pieces of obvious truth floating around this thread, but we have not yet found a single narrative/strategy that will accommodate all of the seeming conflicts among them. This is a very good and necessary conversation, and we are still very early in it.
I agree, and have felt from the beginning, that spontaneous and/or guerrilla-style asymmetrical warfare held the only hope for success, and a good one, if non-violence fails. We have wasted a lot of energy debating the lack of merit of an open, organized revolution, which was never a realistic option, and have not yet progressed to an honest consideration of the efficacy of asymmetrical warfare tactics. I see no reason why that should not be part of an honest conversation.
[Mod. Note - we will remind you that Jane has given guidance on this topic:
]
Why bunk-ify yourself? Isn’t yours the most well-represented theme here?
The problem is, with your “respectable motif”, is this:
The Right lies. Even if you’re staging the most non-violent, peaceable, “respectable” protest in the world, the Right will make up lies about it, portraying it as a bunch of bloodthirsty Maoist revolutionaries. The O’Keefes of the world will manufacture their own “documentaries” to buttress this perspective for the faithful and the misinformed. Meanwhile, the “he said/she said” dynamic which constitutes journalism today will give this lie credibility. (I mean by gosh, it’s there are talking heads on CBS referencing “both sides”, so there must be SOMETHING there!!)
To reiterate: MLK had a sympathetic press. And a press more willing to report the real issues and to do real journalism than today. Don’t expect mic time.
And to reiterate my other point–OK, let’s say that despite all the above, you get public sympathy. What’s that gonna get you? How is this going to translate in terms of leveraging power, of passing legislation? After all, calls against the bailouts ran 1200:1, and they passed anyway. The public option and Medicare expansion were popular, and they didn’t pass. The bankruptcy law of 2005 was very unpopular, and it did pass. Sad to say, in our “democracy” today public support and $2 will get you a decent cup of coffee.
The difference here and with Gandhi and MLK was that in both their cases the “public sympathy” and support gained was in fact an appeal OVER the heads of the oppressors, to THEIR bosses (the UK proper in Gandhi’s case, and the entire US in the case of MLK and voting rights in the South). Not true here. They don’t call the the “Masters of the Universe” for nothing.
I’m not trying to diss you or anyone making your argument, nor mapping out things as I wished they were. I personally WISH things were different. The reality I see isn’t a very pleasant or comforting one; not to me or anyone else. It’s dark and threatening and unpleasant and difficult and I don’t like it myself, and it could easily turn out very wrong (the new boss being as bad or worse than the old boss). But it seems the closest thing to an objective appraisal of the current situation.
-stewartm
I thank god Jesus didn’t use violence in his movement. Man he reamed out that disciple who cut off that ear didn’t he ? Cut of the ear with what? A sword.
Last week’s NYT Magazine has a fascinating article on the student movement in Chile, which has experienced both infiltrator and black block violence. The leaders have not been able to keep the violent away. Every demonstration ends in an attack by the cops.
It looks like the people who want to influence the political system are being beaten up by violence from the cops and from the twin forces of infiltrators and black block activists.
The reporting is open-ended. Here’s a link: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/magazine/camila-vallejo-the-worlds-most-glamorous-revolutionary.html?_r=1&ref=magazine
I’m wondering what lesson we can draw from the experience in Chile.
And remember Jesus protesting the money changers. He sure talked them out of their oppressive tactics with’ words”?
I read he made a whip and beat the shit out of them, in my 1850 bible.
The thing is this….the state can and will unleash lethal force when it sees fit, whether or not we are against it or not. They don’t give 2 shits about what we think and never have. Sure, you can petition and protest–but, in the end, they win. The state is the root cause of violence on this planet, because it perpetuates and condones–even encourages–violent solutions to human problems.
Yet, the state will truck no violence from its citizens. I am not saying we should be violent, only that the state ultimately operates from a double standard and is therefore illegitimate ipso facto. Of course, they have all of these reasons and explanations for their violence, and we are expected to be patriotic good citizens and obey our Master, even when we know war is insanity and our leaders are insane (see John Lennon quote). But then, if you point this out you are insane and unreasonable. See how that works? Its a form of emotional manipulation on a grand scale. That’s what patriotism is all about–coercion that doesn’t seem like coercion. They appeal to the lizard brain in all of us. Naturally, this can be fought against, but you will end up in jail. That’s why we cower so much. Fear is what keeps up from experiencing true freedom. You think President Obama wants you to be truly free? No, hack pol wants that folks.
Plain and simple, the State knows how to handle violence. This is the thing the black bloc kids just don’t get. If there’s one thing American Police and Military know how to deal with, it’s violence. That’s
what they train for. They have helmets, stun guns, real guns, pepper spray, helicopters, armor, etc… and Occupy? Well, we have a couple of dozen unruly college dropouts, a couple of alcoholic ex-marines, and a whole bunch of empty budweiser bottles. If you really think that any thing that could be called victory will be achieved by going mano-y-mano on the NYPD, you are seriously deluded.
We choose non-violence, not because of deeply held spiritual beliefs, or because of effete liberal nostalgia for Dr. King, but because it is a tactic against which the establishment has no defense. Their only method for dealing with large non-violent gatherings is violence.
Violence against non-violent protestors is kind of like spitting into the wind; it comes right back in your face. It looks terrible on camera, and it strengthens the opposition.
#Occupy went from footnote to phenomena on the basis of a viral video of a cop pepper spraying helpless corralled girls who were dong literally nothing and obeying police instructions. Had the girls been throwing bottles, I doubt that video would have gotten much play. That the police have repeated actions like this for six months now all over the world is further proof of my thesis.
VIolence is the only tactic the establishment has for suppressing dissent. Engaging in it ourselves is like tossing aside our most potent weapon. Those who advocate for it are the establishment’s best friends.
The establishment’s own propensity for violence is Occupy’s best friend. To resort to pathetically impotent attempts at the same on our own part is the height of self-destructive stupidity.
I’m not sure large protests really matter. The most effective protest is large numbers of protesters (only relevant to US politics and power insofar as they’re consumers) attacking corporate brands. I’d rather have 5 incredibly strong boycotts adhered to by hundreds of thousands of progressives, than a huge protest in a park that lasts for 6 months (I’m not against protests, I just think they’re ignored and uninspired most of the time). The people in power obviously don’t give a shit about camp-outs. They start getting nervous when people stop paying them.
Thanks for this diary and the interesting avenues it opens. Here I am curious about the lacunae in Chris Hedges’ protestations.
1) Is there such a thing as “Christian anarchism”? Isn’t this very likely a form of theocracy?
2) Does Chris specifically explain that fear of violence causes compradors in the 99% to grow counter-reactionary, i.e. to hove closer to the diktat of the 1%?
3) Aren’t there many handles by which the media can provoke false moralization in order to discredit Occupations? Perhaps he has not made it adequately clear that it is impossible to satisfy this false morality?
@ the Moderator @ 108:
I’d like you to clarify your comment moderation, please, as Occupy, the Democracy Movement and eventual revolution (massive change and reset, as in revolutio, ) are themes in many of our diaries, mine included.
As a strict NV advocate, I’d still like to point out that in the ‘Red is now green’ link Ms. Hamsher provided, the update says this:
“[UPDATE: One person had this question, so others might as well: I am not at all saying that simply endorsing civil disobedience is now not protected speech. However, doing so and also facilitating civil disobedience is what the court ruled is not protected. So in the example above, the organizers promoted civil disobedience, encouraged it, set up a website telling people where to go and when, and there were people involved to specifically support those arrested. I think there is a very real danger of that type of conduct being affected by the reasoning presented in this ruling. That is what I had meant by the headline and preceding points.]“
Looking forward to you response; clarity is always necessary to avoid what the site will considers blunders, or worse.
wd
To the Mod: Are you saying I have already violated a boundary, or just that I am coming close to one? I am confused, because so many other comments on this thread have gone unremarked upon. I assume you noted that my entire comment was premised upon “if non-violence fails.” That is a condition that cannot be satisfied anytime soon. So, the discussion is purely a theoretical one, an exercise in game theory, as I see it. Can you give some clarification, please?
History shows just the opposite. From the Indian sub continent, to the American south, to the Philippines, to Eastern Europe, those movements who were able to sustain a non-violent movement in the face of police brutality were victorious. Those who succumbed to violence, Basque separatists, Northern Ireland, Kurds, Palestinians, were unsuccessful. And even where violence succeeded, for example Vietnam, what followed was not much of an improvement. So to win, and to win in such a way that you have something better than before, it is necessary to sustain non-violent discipline. The means determines the ends.
They (the elite minority comprising state power) know we know what they are all about–at least a small minority does–but they are able to sway the great multitude with fictional tales of gold and glory, that everyone can and will be rich if you try your damnest. If you don’t, well, you’re a fucking good for nothing loser, unAmerican commie– or something. The powers that be sell fairy tales and people believe in. The existential problem they have now is that those fairy tales are becoming non-credible. That scares the shit out of the rich bastards, that the great multitude may see through the Wizard of O curtain and free themselves from their shackles.
“We choose non-violence, not because of deeply held spiritual beliefs, or because of effete liberal nostalgia for Dr. King, but because it is a tactic against which the establishment has no defense. Their only method for dealing with large non-violent gatherings is violence.”
I’m not sure if the former statement (that the establishment has no defense) is true any more though. So far, their defenses against it seem to consist of the following:
1) Have sympathetic press that will either ignore the protest or cover it in the least favorable light. Notably, no matter how peaceful protests are, they can still use this approach.
2) Refuse, categorically, to give in to any of the demands that the protesters are making. (This, unfortunately, seems to be their strongest defense).
I’d like to reiterate stewartm’s point because I think it’s a very good one: I still haven’t seen any mechanism for translating public sympathy, no matter how widespread, into a change of behavior from the people that are ruling us now.
Yup; Erica Chenowith crunched the historical numbers arguably with bias, but this is how she presented her understanding of the ‘Nonviolence v. Diversity of Tactics‘ results, and…what came next, which point we keep failing to address, imo.
I appreciate your perspective. Of course the right lies – all day, every day. However, the proverbial breaking of windows is only going to add fuel to their fire. I advocate giving them nothing. Why deliberately paint a target on your back? Makes no sense to my tiny little pea brain.
As for the fact that the most reprehensible pieces of legislation continue to be passed, that is also a given. We all know that these pols couldn’t give two piles of dog shit about their constituencies – unless, of course, they are truly threatened with losing their seats, in which case they will tend to flex. Any movement must make these corrupt bastards (and bastard-ettes) feel the actual real potential / fear of being thrown out of office if they don’t do what’s right and decent. Real change cannot be effected overnight, but if the movement gets crushed under military / police boots (again, because of the proverbial breaking of windows), the potential of it happening at all is effectively reduced to a great big zot.
Or maybe I’m just fuckin’ crazy. That possibility also exists.
Let’s try to go objectively over your list.
There, to repeat myself, a non-violent strategy worked because of a favorable press and the fact that those doing the direct oppressing had “bosses” that Gandhi and MLK could and did appeal to. It is very doubtful that the Civil Rights movement could have won if the decision had been left up to the white leadership of the ex-Confederate states.
,
The Philippines? There the “boss” motif played out as well–the US started distancing itself, and the US had provided hundreds of millions of dollars worth of annual aid. AND you can’t say that there was no violence–there was a running latent communist insurgency, which again hearkens to the idea that the elites (here including the US leadership) are more likely to deal with peaceful protest when there are violent insurrectionists around that might replace them–JFK’s “either/or” reference once again.
As for Eastern Europe–those states were client Soviet states, and those governments were entirely dependent on Soviet economic and military aid to maintain themselves. Not surprising at all that they went down once the aid was pulled and the Soviet troops left. Here the real “boss”, like Elvis, had left the building.
.
The problem is, I have problems seeing how these would have succeeded if their movements had been entirely peaceful.
What about the (ahem) USA? We didn’t win independence non-violently. The slaves in this country weren’t freed non-violently. The labor movement in the country didn’t gain prominence non-violently.
That all being said, this indeed is your strongest point–that violent revolution often brings in a new boss just as bad or worse than the old one. That’s because the hesitance to resort to violence is both part of our nature and intertwined in much of our cultures, and that’s a good thing. Those who would jump to use violence as a first resort, who would open up this Pandora’s box, must be viewed with suspicion.
There’s also the human cost, which are often overlooked in all this theorizing. On another forum, Lisa Simeone (yes, that Lisa, from NPR) spoke of a leftist friend of hers decades ago who quite willingly helped initiate a riot “to crack some heads”. One of the victims in said “head-cracking” was a policeman, who ended up a paraplegic for life. When it comes to violence, despite all its justifications there will be people who will lose loved ones, will never walk again, never enjoy the things they once did. The fact that some of these may be servants of the old order does not matter one whit–most of them too, are members of the 99 %, and should be our allies. They just don’t see it. (This is also why it was so important to prosecute the former Bush administration for inflicting all this misery, unnecessarily, on both Iraqi civilians and US servicemen from the comfort and safety of their esteemed positions of governance).
But having said that, I can’t simply say that violence should never be used. As I said, in Michigan today we are seeing a denial of the right of self-government that our founders called “Intolerable” when it was applied to their Boston in 1774. There isn’t any easy or comfortable answer I’m afraid.
-stewartm
I don’t think your brain is the size of a pea, but I know your heart is the size of a continent.
And, I reiterate I’m not made of the stuff myself. People who know me say things like “Stewart couldn’t bear to put a worm on a hook”. I think the reluctance to inflict suffering and pain–even on the guilty–is a good thing.
But sad to say, our economic and political cultural trajectory has meant for the past 12,000 years (largely the result of warfare) that sociopaths do mighty well in becoming our bosses. The things that you or I hold dear they scoff at as weakness.
-stewartm
This is at least a generation out of date. The replacement system has been inculcating compradors for the dismantlement of liberal capitalism. Those attitudes infiltrate and lie behind the present corrosive social divisions. The capitalism which promised to exceed envy-entangled communism now reverts to elimination and dehumanization in “austerity”.
The polarization of comrades and compradors becomes even more severe because compradors must lie in their beds. So while politique du pire may increase the number of awakened comrades, it also increases the viciousness of compradors.
WT, I didn’t have an argument @56, just a suggestion and a question.
Apart from this, I would say that war is unjustified in so far as it reflects people’s inability to come up with other solutions for resolving their differences. In other words, war is less a solution than a failure of solutions. War and other kinds of violence is the easy way out. Personally, I’m a pacifist but not an ideologue about it.*
In the US, I see a serious paucity of ideas for dealing with the violence of the state. Without more thought put into a broader range of options other than reacting to state violence, the option of last resort quickly becomes the first option. For example there is the option of not participating. Does survival include imitating the violence of the state? “Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster.” –Nietzsche
More generally, I see a lot of reaction to the state but not a lot of proactive disengagement from the state, especially by so-called anarchists (Hedges included)–actual anarchists seem as rare as Whigs. If anarchy is primarily about the undesirability of governmental authority, many so-called anarchists sure seem to spend an awful lot of time reacting to that authority, assuming and working within the established political frameworks (I did not say institutions), and jockeying for power. I don’t see many anarchists. Instead I see folks using that label while acting like any other political faction, doing little more than representing a flip side of the same political coin with no thought that a better, more anarchistic solution might be to dispense with the coin altogether. I see so-called anarchists who spend time reacting and destroying (these uniformed, proto-fascist posers in Guy Fawkes masks (what bluetoe suggested @43)) but almost no time actually creating what they are after. Maybe they’ve never heard of Bakunin?
For what it is worth in respect to community, I’m in your man, comrade.
* The Dude: Then you know he’s got emotional problems, man.
Walter Sobchak: You mean… beyond pacifism?
http://reconstruction.eserver.org/073/comer.shtml
Rather, they just can’t see or don’t actually approve of the alternatives. They know what it’s like to be in last place because they are the ones making it so awful. They are very clear on their dilemma.
One should not underestimate the difficulty of converting the forces of order and especially those of a world empire.
“They simply require coordination and a general consensus from people who believe in the revolt to strictly adhere to certain general tactics (don’t shop at Walmart).”
One possibility for non-violent revolution is for citizens to simply stop participating in what they say they disagree with. Don’t like the imperial wars of aggression in the Middle East? Stop consuming more energy than you produce domestically. Don’t like repressive laws? Stop obeying them. Don’t lie the deficit or exploitive banking practices? Stop buying non-productive, consumer goods on credit. But such a solution requires personal cost, and most folks seem to want to change the world but not themselves.
Oh, I don’t underestimate it at all–even more so of the military than the police, who are more propagandized, more pampered, and who tend to be young without the doubts or experience of age. With some police, there have been reports (Michael Moore being one) where a policeman would say “those bastards stole our pensions”.
But I don’t consider them my “enemies”. The 1 % would gladly sacrifice legions of these too just to keep a tax break. The hired help just doesn’t see that.
-stewartm
Excellent suggestion!
Booyakasha! Fucking brilliant comment.
I am afraid that is an underestimation. If they did see that, it still would not be a convincing justification for not being “with them”.
“You want to be a hero, boy? Do you know what happens to heroes?”
For the forces of security, their own security is primary.
Exactly. The best argument against violence in the context of street protests is simply that it is unambiguously counterproductive. The counterarguments all miss this simple truth.
Thanks.
In regards to the left shooting its own extreme left flank, while the right protects its extreme right flank, I thought of another example–how Congressional Republicans in the 1990s blocked hearings into the neo-milita movement after the Oklahoma City bombing.
They did this even though McVeigh was a neo-Nazi sympathizer. It was repeated ad nauseum in the media how The Turner Diaries were “anti-government” but that’s not so–they were *Neo-Nazi*, as can be seen if you just read this.
Even their Nazi right flank they protected. We by contrast don’t even protect our non-violent left flank.
-stewartm
“It is stupid — practically senseless — for movements like the Occupy Movement to directly and violently confront the police, the militia (National Guard), the Army and the armed groups belonging to the federal security-surveillance apparatus.”
OWS, proclaiming to speak for the 99%, attack members of the 99%.
“The American left”. Harrumph.
It’s kinda like cheating to mention the American Revolution, isn’t it? /s You are in fine form today. Truly. Uncomfortable truths.
99% is a symbol. The reality to which it refers, the vast majority of Americans, is far more diverse and conflict-ridden than the sense encapsulated by the symbol. Thus some members of the 99% are enemies of the 99%, the agents of the security-surveillance apparatus being a key example of that group. Opposing the police (generally considered) does not mean one opposes the 99% Let the police (generally considered) abandon their jobs as police.
Ah, yes. And this was repeated recently with Breivik in Norway.
One of the big indicators that there is no appreciable difference between Reps and Dems (who pass for the left in the US) is there shared animosity toward violence against the state and against those on the actual left of the spectrum–the commies, socialists, the anarchists.
“Let the police (generally considered) abandon their jobs as police.”
Amen!
But what does the 99% symbolize if not real people?
I was making a poor attempt to make light of an irony with my comment @137
“As far as leadership is concerned, stating that it’s time for the younger generation to take over is just a cop out.”
You might have missed the point here which was about fresh ideas, not coping out.
Is there a point on the political spectrum where the far left becomes indistinguishable from the far right?
“The Right lies.”
I suspect it is more a function of authoritarianism (including the authoritarianism of worshipping an ideology), which is why one sometimes sees similar lying on the hard left.
Someone mentioned Ian Welsh saying that the MOTUs need to fear the people before massive change occurs…or close, and I remember reading it on his site, but I forget exactly how it went…
But I’m still thinking that at this point in time, when Americans have been asleep, shopping, buying every piece of propaganda about war, the state of the economy, fearing ‘the terrorists’, unions and environmental regs causing products to be higher priced, and contributing to jobs being outsourced overseas… In other words, being good little vassals and peasants in service to the Masters.
But now, people are starting to twig to some of what’s occurred since 2008; they are seeing millions out of work, and no one cares who could actually create jobs; they see their home values declining, and not yet hitting bottom; they see their pensions cut by a third at least; they see their grocery bills…and still see the Empire spending billions on war, and trillions to bail out banks, and opulence galore, enjoyed by Fat Cats with stogies. And it ain’t playin’ well, even in my town of 1300 Westerners (yeah; kinda redneck-y).
And what they may fear more than armed insurrection, or physical harm, is a populace waking up, with pitchforks in their hearts, if not their souls, with the will to change everything, and restyle our democracy for regular people. Which…education of people with alternative media and community outreach by Occupy people needs to gain traction, imo, including simple New Common Sense pamphlets to hand out.
Ideas and Truth; those catching on and spreading like wildfire this spring, or whenever the conditions are bad enough to allow people to be open to the nagging voices inside them that’s something’s radically wrong in America!, will turn the tide. Can’t say there won’t be blood, but this is a social movement, not a war. IMHO, of course.
The words of Jesus: “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” Matt 10:34
And what could be more violent than sending folks to hell?
I know lefties who are enraged about the actions of the too-big-to-fail banks, but won’t be bothered with the tediousness of moving their money out of Wells Fargo or B of A. If politically minded people can’t even be bothered with something like that, then I have to wonder if it’s worth all the spilled ink. If such inertia already blocks realistic change in the liberal-minded community, then acts of violence are absurd for all the reasons szielinsky has already enumerated. Save the mosh pit for getting drunk at a show, not your political protests.
Goddamn, you, stewartm and others are knocking them out of the park today. The delusion of a representative democracy coupled with crippling Fear. Indeed.
Too true. If folks don’t like criminal investment banking policies, then stopping giving them your money to gamble with. Empty your retirement account and use the money for something productive one can put their hands on. Hell, buy an acre of land for a garden. Get together with others, pool the money you are currently letting the owning class gamble with, and start an anarcho-syndicalist commune. Or, wait for the very real possibility that these funds will be stolen along with your Social Security.
Copy that.
If the Vietnamese, each and every one of them, had resisted the invaders and occupiers with their heart and mind and soul would they still have lost 3 million of their follow citizens?
You just did without wasting paper and have reached a larger audience than your physical handing out pamphlets could ever hope to reach.
Like George Bush, no problem unless of course you want him to reside next to you for eternity. George and dick earned their tickets.
Did compradors win or lose in Vietnam?
Thanks, tjbs; I was starting to wish I owned a penis, or else others deemed my contributions here to be pithy enough to address. Sadly, not.
You don’t own a penis, it owns you (don’tcha know?).
I was going to comment on this wishful thinking:
but, at the time, I chose to let it go.
As one owned by a penis, I think this is an inadequate assessment. Other penis-owneds and wanna-be’s are much too arrogant, no, full of belligerence to admit fear. But more importantly, they have too much pride; they need a bigger-penis-owned to tell them to stand down because they can’t risk it themselves. A Great White Father to tell them this capitalism bullsh*t just isn’t working.
Unfortunately, with the way we reward dickheads in this country (and that includes the penis-free), we’re much more likely to get one who says Putin is a reincarnated threat.
Given the callous humiliation the armed forces like to bestow, I think we have a long ways to go before pitchforks are a real threat. Can we stop sqawking about them?
Hey, how about the ole Lysistrata solution? Do you think the penis-free are up to that yet?
I wish I could remember the exact quote and who said it (it was either Ulrike Meinhof or someone discussing her–or maybe it was Bob Altemeyer), but the gist of it went like this: People who look to authority figures will go along with revolution only when they no longer see the current authority figures as infallible. The lesson then for those interested in revolution is to expose the political leadership as impotent, corrupt, sociopathic, etc. in hopes that a critical mass of the citizenry will lose faith in them.
Or, perhaps things will change when the bulk of the people in the US stop being Consumers and instead become citizens. Maybe this will occur when most of us can’t afford to buy $8/gallon bottled tap water anymore?
Penis envy can strike when, and where, you least expect it lol. (((wendydavis)))
(grin) I’d been considering writing about a new APS study that contrasted subjects who chose to engage (as part of the experiment) as either ‘consumers’ or ‘citizens’. Interesting implications, and materialists seem not to mind being thought of as consumers. And yes; little by little, people are being reminded that it’s a hollow and impossible trail to follow, even if forced into the minor Gestalt of it.
Anyhoo; it’s clear from the verbiage you chose that you’d already presaged the study’s parameters. Pretty kewl, ottogrendell. You must stick your finger into the ether now and again, too. This…is a benefit, in case you’re wondering. ;o)
The Lysistrata Solution for the penis-free and penis-owned: We all stop letting the 1% and their political representatives fuck us. The fucker needs the fuckee. Resistance only increases their pleasure and lets them know they are important enough to resist. Instead, ignore them. Do not play their game. Do not participate. Act as if they don’t exist. Stop talking to and about them, stop looking at them, stop listening to them, stop voting for them, stop giving them your money to gamble with, stop borrowing their money and using it to buy their products, stop obeying their laws, and for fuck’s sake, stop joining their armed forces.
“. . . and materialists seem not to mind being thought of as consumers.”
Well, I guess that helps explain why the word consumer has replaced the word citizen in our national discourse–a phenomenal development. Please write about the study!
I’m sorry, you think I must stick my finger where?
I’d better leave that metaphor alone. Damn, I can’t do it. I’d say the 1% and their compradors are bisexual.
O.
It must be hard to say the word vagina, but I hear that, lol! Wrong-o on the melodious word-scale! I tend to use ‘yoni owners’, myself. Rings so much better, imo.
As for the Lysistrata Solution: I’m In! I wrote a diary recently about Ben Bernanke playing off the (true) story of the Madams in Madrid withholding their services from Big Bankers until and unless they started lending to small businesses and individuals in need of loans. I obviously loved the dickens outta the idea. ;o)
My own contention has always been that Third World Women future-sight and pragmatism will lead us out of the Dark.
And as far as this: “You don’t own a penis, it owns you (don’tcha know?); I certainly see ample evidence of it daily, and frequently rail against it as often as I tilt at windmills. My friends and (male) family members (sorry for the pun) will attest to the fact that I often say…well, never mind. Wouldn’t want to be unduly harsh to penis-owners, okay?
But sorry; I think Truth and (in the spirit of Arthur Silber) reconstructing the conventional, sordid narrative…will help win the social/spiritual revolution. And without spiritual/psychological manifest recalibration…we will die of attrition in all spheres of human viability. IMO, of course.
(There must be something seriously wrong with me tonight; I think I understood you, Ludwig!) ROTFLMAO!
Sounds like the study has a sampling bias.
Well, darlin’ dear; guess I shouldda include a snark tag, but I can never remember how they go. I am sooo glad I am tallywacker free; I wrote a diary about it at my other blogging home. To say it wasn’t received well would be an understatement.
All I can say in my defense id:
TAWANDA!!!!!!!!
(((RC)))) ;o)
Ha!
Indeed.
Into the ‘ether’, the noosphere, the collective consciousness.
Wot? Ya thinkin’ with your tallywhazzit again? And tallies, imo, aren’t just about ‘thinkin’ with’, they’re about Certainty of Supremacy’, and Ludwig is Oh, so correct: Women can be dicks, too, a fact which burns my cookies soooo often. ;o)
Nah, this is why Maggie had to front that TINA crap, which Liberals snatched up to discredit any revolutionary tingles. Conservative cannibals will be hanging on to their lesser evils as long as they deliver the bacon, “infallibility” be damned.
So excellent to see ya havin’ some fun, Ludwig; a nice change, imo. ;o)
Oh, oh, oh. Ok. With all the penis talk I got confused.
It may depend on the cost of the fallibility. I suspect there may be victims of sexual abuse by priests who lost their faith as result for whom the proposition is valid.
Still, there is a whole theme in story-telling that people have internalized:
THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES. Now, that resonates with the deeper suspicions people harbor, methinks, and is starting to catch on.
LOL! I will pretend to believe you.
But I’m for bed. Thanks for playing; the rest of you, too. Pleasant dreams.
This thread took a turn for the more interesting!
BB < genital politics
To you as well.
Did I stumble onto the wrong thread? I was looking for the Asian porn . . . Look, let’s all agree right now that we won’t share our dreams in the morning. It’s for the best.
Can I have a do-over for this one?
“Penis envy can strike when, and where, you least expect it lol.”
Wot?!? You want another one??? You reckon one doesn’t get you in enough trouble, you power mad troll darlin’?
Okay, no dream reporting. Sigh. ‘What happens with Morpheus stays with Morpheus.’ Or my shrink.
It may be no one will ever read this, but in a glorious moment of vindication for my diary about Occupy and transformational evolution of consciousness, I found this in the new edition of Adbusters Magazine; crowing gleefully am I. ;o)
We awoke one morning to the dark realization that humanity is being dragged into a black hole of ecological, financial and spiritual catastrophe … that our democracy has been seized by a corporatocracy … that every day two hundred species of plant, insect, bird and mammal become forever extinct … that a deluge of advertising is sleepwalking our civilization to the brink of insanity … and that unless we fight back in the most visceral and creative way possible all will be lost.
And yet, what sets our struggle apart in 2012 is that we are not fighting to save a distant future. We are not trying to prevent some terrible event that is still to come. This is not about our unborn grandchildren. Instead, many of us sense that the threshold has already been crossed; the tipping point has already happened and what we are fighting for is our present. We are living in that tragic moment of eerie stillness where the fatal damage has been done, widening cracks can be seen, yet the edifice still stands and business as usual continues … but for how much longer?
Our days may be shadowed by this dark realization, but there is reason to be deeply optimistic for “where danger is, grows the saving power also.” Never before has the tantalizing possibility of a Global Spring, a worldwide people’s insurgency for democracy, seemed as close. For perhaps the first time in human history, we just might be on the edge of an everywhere-at-once revolution against the financial fraudsters, corporate lackeys and the ideology of consumerism that has brought the Earth to the precipice of collapse.
In this, the era of the total and transcendent indignato swarm, we look to each other, not to the masters above, to find out what it will take to pull off the ultimate culture jam: spiritual insurrection.
for the wild,
Culture Jammers HQ
Far fucking out!!!
Nobody’s going to read that.
Unless they leave their cocoons and read your Butterfly diary thread lol.
O, ye silver-tongued wordsmith of little faith; I will simply do my earnest best to call them back here (including the author, whatever became of her, or broadcast it site-wide through my powers of impeccable intention.
;oP
” . . . whatever became of her . . . ” Maybe the crows got her? LOL
(Newly developed slightly demonic laugh, lol!)
Can’t stop. Just sent an email to a friend telling of the three loaves of homemade bread we just threw out for the…CROWS!
See; it’s catching, luv, that psychic power stuff. ;o)
Yes, but whose psychic power was that? Only
. . . the Shadow knows lol.
…and she’ll never say…. two-way radio synchronicity?
;o)
In one sense, I share the optimism; in another, not so much.
It seems increasingly clear to me that we have crossed the Rubicon. Power and wealth have become so perversely centralized that nature’s sustaining systems can no longer endure. They have poisoned our soil and our water and our air and the very food we eat.
There will be a “spring” and the power elite, however long it might take and however bloody it might be, will be vanquished. To this extent, I share the author’s optimism.
But, sadly, I’m afraid that if we keep cooking the same stew with the same ingredients, our next meal might well taste quite a bit like the last one.
We know injustice when we see it; that doesn’t mean, however, that we have the wisdom and the compassion to architect anything better. We only need to look at our daily interactions with so many around us to see that our problems are far deeper than an oppressive ruling class.
We suffer from all manner of ignorance and selfishness and callousness. Therein lies the rub.
It is not the global spring I fear, but the summer… and the fall… and the winter.