Tweet
(by permission of Anthony Freda @www.anthonyfreda.com)
It’s by now an open secret that nationally Occupy is facing issues about committing to nonviolence or allowing or encouraging ‘diversity of tactics’. It’s a loaded issue, from finding agreement on the definitions of ‘violence’ and ‘nonviolence’, to strong beliefs and assertions which strategies or tactics ‘work’ or…cannot work, either in the short or long term. Since I’ve been peering into the issue, it’s clear that even the ‘goals’ of different activist sub-groups have histories that inform their visions of the democracy movement/nascent revolution seem to be at odds with most Occupies across the country. If I’m overstating that majority opinion, I’m sure you’ll let me know. ;o)
YOU ARE WELCOME TO SKIP the comments I clipped from the NC thread and posted below the row of stars, of course, but I’d like to at least direct your attention to the posts below the dotted line toward the end. It concerns the subject of anarchist/black bloc or ‘anarchist’ involvement and influence on different Occupies. It’s a subject that needs a closer look, IMO, especially the oft’ heard presentation that ‘violence’ or property destruction is being carried out by police provacateurs.
The failed ‘Move-in’ action in Oakland on Jan. 28 and the associated march later that night that led to over 400 arrests seems to have focused many minds on this issue, and reports of concerns are beginning to bubble up to the surface in the blogosphere; it seems the concerns aren’t limited to Oaktown, but to Seattle, NYC and LA. I’ll link to some here, here, here; the issue has begun to be addressed on an as yet small scale at InterOccupy, , as yet in its infancy.
Recently Correntewire’s Lambert Strether showcased the work that Erica Chenowith will present to the International Studies Association annual meeting in April at Naked Capitalism on Jan. 2. The 212 comments represented many sorts of thought and beliefs, to say the least.
Chenowith makes her motivation for the study clear here:
“My hope is not to provoke discussion for its own sake. Instead, my goals are twofold: 1) to encourage more systematic empirical research on the topic; and 2) to persuade people, on the basis of existing empirical research, that nonviolent resistance can often be a viable alternative for challenging entrenched power.”
She links to her research and methodology (pdf) here, and says that the terms she uses are also explained in her book co-written with Maria Stephan (Why Civil Resistance Works), which leaves us a little in the dark unless we’ve read the book or studied the pdf (I haven’t). The failure to know her definition of the terms led to some conflict in the comment stream, but did serve to allow commenters to focus and tighten up their own beliefs, principles and vision.
An overview of their book’s conclusions are:
“Though it defies consensus, between 1900 and 2006, campaigns of nonviolent resistance were more than twice as effective as their violent counterparts. Attracting impressive support from citizens that helps separate regimes from their main sources of power, these campaigns have produced remarkable results, even in the contexts of Iran, the Palestinian Territories, the Philippines, and Burma.
Combining statistical analysis with case studies of these specific countries and territories, Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan detail the factors enabling such campaigns to succeed-and, at times, causing them to fail. They find that nonviolent resistance presents fewer obstacles to moral and physical involvement, information and education, and participator commitment. Higher levels of participation then contribute to enhanced resilience, a greater probability of tactical innovation, increased opportunity for civic disruption (and therefore less incentive for the regime to maintain the status quo), and shifts in loyalty among opponents’ erstwhile supporters, including members of the military establishment. They find successful nonviolent resistance movements usher in more durable and internally peaceful democracies, which are less likely to regress into civil war. Presenting a rich, evidentiary argument, this book originally and systematically compares violent and nonviolent outcomes in different historical periods and geographical contexts, debunking the myth that violence occurs because of structural and environmental factors and is necessary to achieve certain political goals. Instead, Chenoweth and Stephan find violent insurgency is rarely justifiable on strategic grounds.” [all bolds will be mine throughout]
Please refer as often as you want either to Lambert’s diary at NC or the pdf of Chenowith’s powerpoint presentation. Lambert published some, but not all of her slides; I will publish even fewer, and try to synopsize others. It’s a daunting task in that it’s not possible to copy and paste from the slides, and my memory is challenged. Where I may be inaccurate, it will be unintentional as I try to paraphrase what’s there.
From Naked Capitalism:
“Lambert here: Occupy’s public discussions on “diversity of tactics” have often lacked historical perspective; discussions, at least online, have tended to degenerate to “Ghandi!” “No, ANC!” Now, however, Erica Chenoweth has developed a dataset and analyzed the historical record. Below the fold are slides summarizing the results of her study of 323 non-violent and violent campaigns from 1900‐2006. (There are twenty slides, so anybody with a slow connection may prefer to download a zipped file of the original PDF). (I’m liberally providing the links to the slides.)
These are the ‘conventional wisdoms’ that Chenowith wants her data to explore:
In response to the first two, she posts this chart:
And this one that examines the success rates over the 106 years she studied:
As for the conventional wisdom that ‘all insurgencies begin non-violently, and adopt violence when nonviolence fails’ meme, she offers her beliefs that many insurgents use violence reflexively, and many abandon nonviolent tactics too soon. She quotes Dissent Magazine’s Michael Walzer speaking of ‘Just War’:
“It’s not so easy to reach the last resort; to get there, one must indeed, try everything (which is a lot of things) – and not just once, as if a political party or movement might organize a single demonstration, fail to win immediate victory, and claim that it is now justified moving on to murder…it is by no means clear when they run out of options…What exactly did they try when they were trying everything?”
The slide on violent/nonviolence and brutal regimes is a little inscrutable to me, given no clear definitions or goals reached, but she asserts a 46% win for nonviolent insurrection; you may interpret that through your own lenses and personal definitions.
One graph that’s of major importance is this one showing the ‘Effects of Campaign Membership on the Probability of Success’. We can’t know what ‘membership means here, whether it’s people willing to support various actions in the street, or expressing approval, whether in polls, the press, or what. It seems that about 1.5% of the populations creates a serious tipping point for success, and causes me to envision the multitudes of protesters joining together to physically push the police vans across the bridge into Tahrir Square last year. People power, mass numbers of which can turn the time against our oppressors via neutralizing the power of their protectors.
The data concerning post-insurrection/revolution regimes ‘democracy’ and civil war in the cases of violence-based movements are clear: nonviolence wins by a huge margin.
The question asking whether or not those insurgents advocating violent tactics and or strategies being persuaded otherwise brought Chenowith to this chart, self-explanatory but certainly open to discussion:
The chart on radical flanks aiding or not makes me wonder on her defintions: Does she include ‘perceived threats’ not acted upon, much like the Panthers in aid of MLK seeming a saner alternative, the ‘Let’s negotiate with the Taliban who are preferable to Al Qaeda’ themes; we just don’t know.
I’ve clipped some comments from the NC comment stream that show some of the thoughts represented there; please note that one of the best known anarchists, David Graeber participated. There were a number of ‘kill all the oppressors’ involved, and one of my favorites, Richard Klein, who has written in the past on Progressives Fearing Power (not the exact title, but close).
***********************************************************************************************
Richard Kline says:
It has been well-understood since the 1950s, due to comparisons exactly as here, that nonviolent campaigns had far higher probabilities of success. Stil (sic), this study extends the timeframe surveyed, and that’s a plus.
What I found especially interesting and new, though, was the data on participation rates relative to success. That was very thought provoking. A participation rate of ~1.5% equated to a 90% success rate. And the relationship was effectively linear, greater participation has a very strong correlation with success (though of course there are other variables).
I see one minor and correctible flaw with the presentation, and one examination not evidently pursued but which would be highly valuable. First, nowhere in the presentation is ‘violence’ defined. I’m assuming that violence as presented in this study is guns-and-bombs kind of insurgency, with assassination being a third leg of the stool. I’m sure Ms. Chenoweth had a definition, but it should be made explicit in the presentation. Second, it would be valuable to correlate the degree of violence with the degree of success (or the lack of it). I suspect that this study already has the criteria to perform that evaluation, but it would be a distinct benefit to get the actual results for comparative purposes.
High participation and pronounced nonviolence are by far the best organizational desiderata if objective success is the goal. What we see to my mind is that those committed to violence, or to the gray area of property destruction, simply don’t share the same goals as those focused on nonviolent political change. There is not a ‘diversity of tactics’ but rather an incompatibility of goals. Those perpared to smash-and-dash are not shy about imposing their goals upon others, and have given scant indication of changing those goals. So it remains for the rest of us to decide what we will do about that. ‘Tolerate it’ has been the working choice thus far; as we see here, that will substantially drive down the likelihood of success.”
Paul Tioxon says:
Violence works.
Dr. Chenoweth isn’t arguing that violence doesn’t work—she, in fact, acknowledges [PDF] that it does. But she says that nonviolent resistance is twice as effective as violent campaigns and gives reasons as to why:
Our findings show that major nonviolent campaigns have achieved success 53 percent of the time, compared with 26 percent for violent resistance campaigns. There are two reasons for this success. First, a campaign’s commitment to nonviolent methods enhances its domestic and international legitimacy and encourages more broad-based participation in the resistance, which translates into increased pressure being brought to bear on the target. Recognition of the challenge group’s grievances can translate into greater internal and external support for that group and alienation of the target regime, undermining the regime’s main sources of political, economic, and even military power.
Second, whereas governments easily justify violent counterattacks against armed insurgents, regime violence against nonviolent movements is more likely to backfire against the regime. Potentially sympathetic publics perceive violent militants as having maximalist or extremist goals beyond accommodation, but they perceive nonviolent resistance groups as less extreme, thereby enhancing their appeal and facilitating the extraction of concessions through bargaining.
When David Graeber says:
“We obviously are never going to defeat the 101st airborne division on the streets,” said anthropologist and anarchist David Graeber [my link; wd], addressing that general assembly. “Where we win is when we are able to convince the 101st airborne division not to shoot us.” He’s pointing to one dynamic—defection of the security forces—that makes nonviolent resistance more effective, according to Chenoweth, than violent campaigns.
David Graeber says:
This is all true, but I feel I should clarify a bit on what we’re calling “violence.”
The Egyptian uprising against Mubarak is generally seen as having been successful in this way because of non-violence, as indeed it was. However when I talked to Egyptians involved in organizing it, they said things like “sure we were non-violent. We just threw rocks. We never used guns or anything like that.” Which kind of brings home that how protestors acts are reported and perceived means a lot too. It would be extremely difficult to create a way to ensure that when a crowd is being assaulted by riot cops with plastic bullets, let alone real bullets, no one will even so much as chuck a bottle at them, or throw back a tear gas canister. But we have plenty people here in the US who claim that even strong language (“fuck the police”) on the part of protestors being attacked is a form of violence and somehow justifies those attacks or anyway is the only thing worthy of report from the event.
If events like have been happening in Syria were happening in the US, the US media, despite not being directly controlled by the government, would have reported them exactly like the Syrian government-controlled media did: just repeat whatever the army and police said, note protestor “violence” of any kind and never describe the army and police violence as “violence” but only as a response, etc etc.
So we have to understand there’s a difference between not attempting a military solution, which is not only ineffective, as you note, but also will pretty much guarantee if you win nasty things will happen, and total pacifism. And I would encourage everyone to be careful not to frame things in ways that play into the hands of media whose first instinct will always be to justify official violence against protestors who – while one or two might break some glass or throw something against armored riot cops (basically an expressive act) – are not setting out to actually hurt someone.
Michael says:
I have to admit that this study is consistent with my biases. In my experience, the people advocating for violence in the orgs I was involved with were doing so because they wished to be violent, not because they viewed violence as the tactic most likely to be successful. There were often good reasons for this — those advocating for violence were often deeply angry and hurt by brutality which had been committed on them in the past. But it was about them, not the movement.
RW Jones says:
This is a definite problem with resorting to violence. A cause may actually attract new followers when it resorts to violence, but this isn’t necessarily because they think the cause now has a chance of success. Often they are simply attracted to the violence itself, and prove to be adept at using that violence for their own personal ends rather than in furtherance of the cause. Napoleon comes to mind as an excellent historical example of this phenomenon.
rotter says:
this study is full of loaded asumptions…er..assertions.. .. mostly everything in your power point presentation in undefined…what is a “democracy” 5 years after? what is “success”? …Personally i believe that the western focus on “nonviolence” is a protection feature for the ruling class. Youll notice the culture of the U.S…all of it. poliitcal, acadremic, etc., which pays such glorious lip service to “noviolence” is always, nonstop, in the process of inflicting violence on anyone and anything that stands in its way.
libarbarian says:
Nonviolent campaigns precludes the killing of people who deserve to die.
F. Beard says:
Nonviolent campaigns precludes the killing of people who deserve to die. libarbarian
Why do them the favor? There are many other problems with your desire for vengeance but ineffectiveness is one.
Praedor says:
I am more than happy to see to it that those who deserve to die actually die. I would be unaccepting of a “Truth and Reconciliation” movement that allowed murderers from a nasty regime to go free for the sake of “reconciliation”. How nice of you to decide for the dead, for their families, etc, that reconciling with the torturers or murderers trumps true justice.
Some people deserve to die and must die. Anything less is rewarding their monstrous actions.
Lambert Strether says:
Well, apparently Chile, South Africa, and Argentina disagreed with you.
Maju says:
I can respect the process of South Africa: it was deep and pardon was not guaranteed: the victims had to issue it and the criminal had to show repentment. That was intended to be cathartic and, as far as I know, it was.
But the process of Chile and Argentina has been like in Spain: burying the memory of the fascist terror. That only causes persistence of the wound and of the vicious dynamics created by the fascists, who in Chile and Spain at least, still control the system almost totally.
The anger remains, the countries are divided sociologically and the fascists have not repented at all. The corpses of the massacres remain buried by the roads, the kidnapped children may still no know who were their true biological parents but worst of all is the lack of shame by which the fascists, recycled into conservatives and liberals (center-right in Europe), still think that the are in charge (and for most practical purposes they are).
That’s not any solution. It does not work. I prefer all out war to this shameful method of “I beat you and then we are friends, so I can beat you again”. That’s not reconciliation: it’s a vicious circle of abuse.
Lambert you are either extremely naive or a system’s propagandist.
Fiver says (in part):
Don’t get me wrong. I absolutely CRAVE a non-violent re-ordering of power. But to win requires MORE courage than violent resistance, because you have to be willing to be brutalized and NOT fight back. How many people in the US or other wealthy countries have THAT sort of courage, or ANY sort of courage, for that matter? So far I’ve seen a tiny handful of the adult population, a few terrific people, mostly kids, involved in OWS and the attempted Flotilla(s) and that’s it – in a country where the President has asserted the right to incarcerate or kill anyone deemed an “enemy”. Have we even 1 iota of the courage of the Palestinians who dared that walk KNOWING what would happen?
We better be clear in our minds exactly what it means when those with power refuse to hand it over and do not care what it takes to keep it.
This exchange made me laugh:
ebear says:
I’ll just add that there are really two questions here.
1. what is an appropriate level of response to violence?
2. what is the rate of success of that response?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
lambert strether says:
Actually, there’s one question, and here it is:
Why do violence advocates, who believe killing in service of their political goals is good, try to impose standards of evidence and reasoning on non-violence advocates that they are not willing to impose on themselves?
I’m seeing an awful lot of repetition of shopworn anecdotes and talking points I see from violence fan bois on Occupy threads; and I see very little direct engagement with the points Chenoweth makes. Where’s the massive takedown? Come on, violence fans: Is that all you’ve got?
Maju says:
“throwing bottles, rocks, smashing a few windows”…
Where? I see these accusations being thrown once and again but all I see in videos is nonviolence, at worst some angry yelling. I have the impression that some people is just lying to throw shit on a movement and damage its reputation.
affinis says:
Yep Maju, I guess “some people is just lying”.
Is it worth taking the time to respond to trolls who choose to be willfully blind?
For a start.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ev8Bg4nT6w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJenvz_JBM0
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/19634501
There’s a ton of additional similar video available, but I trust I’ve made my point.
Maju says:
How do you know those “activists” so keen of gratuitous vandalism (not even real violence, just vandalism) aren’t police infiltrators? That’s what we got in Canada just a year and a half ago – some have short memory! Probably US secret services are less naive and won’t use uniform boots in undercover operations, specially not after that fiasco.
Whatever the case these acts are isolated provocations, whoever is the culprit and do not seem to represent the general spirit of the Occupy movement. I watch videos and news all the time about this movement and it’s the first time I have watched such acts, certainly too similar to the provocations of Ontario police in 2010 (and other cases).
Maju says:
And all the images are from the same isolated incident for what I can see.
Lambert Strether says:
“For what you can see?” You didn’t click through to the videos (not “images”), then. Or you did, and decided not to tell the truth. One is from the ground during the night, the other is from a skycam during the day, and the third is agitprop for black bloc aggro (which I encourage all to watch). They are clearly not the same incident, nor could they be, since the agitprop is not an incident, by definition.
I certainly hope all violence advocates aren’t this lazy or untruthful. That would bode ill for those who buy into their tactics.
affinis says:
The three links I posted are from at least two entirely different dates – as it says on the videos.
Here’s one from yet another date
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-734482?ref=feeds%2Flatest
I can keep posting these indefinitely, but I don’t see the point, since infinite evidence will never be sufficient for willful blindness.
BB is mainstream in Occupy Oakland. I didn’t say it represents Occupy in general. There have been BB actions elsewhere, but more limited.
Most of the people doing BB actions sincerely think they’re heroic revolutionaries. They’re deluded. I’ve been trying to convince some of them that their actions harm the movement, but have had zero success. And I wouldn’t be surprised if there were some provocateurs among them.
As someone from Occupy Oakland said, “violence is sexy”, so it gets attention and spreads. And some people elsewhere see Occupy Oakland as “inspirational”, so want to emulate its tactics.
Some of the latest BB acts are against Occupy livestreamers – e.g multiple streamers targeted in Oakland (with cam stolen from OccupyFreedomLA) and an attempt by a BB guy to snatch Tim Pool’s cam at OWS (with multiple people calling Tim Pool a “snitch” for filming BB acts). The BB don’t want their antics filmed. But if you take out the streamers, you’re undermining one of the most important assets Occupy has.
****************************************************************************************
A term that I’d like to see added to these discussions is: confrontational, and I’m thinking of videos in which protesters approach the police and get right in their faces and scream obscenities. It’s another thing that makes it to the teevee news at night. We also need to have major discussions over The Message Wars, which are crucial to any movement’s success or failure, IMO, given the need for massive public buy-in and activist support.
Thank you for reading, and I hope, as Lambert Strether and Erica Chenowith do, that this will cause further thinking and discussion past discussion for its own sake. This democracy movement must work, and we need to aid the bumps it will face with honesty, courage and clear eyes.
Stay strong, and build community through loving attention wherever you’re able.
(cross-posted at www.kgblogz.com)
85 Comments
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”
thanks wendy for compiling and putting this together.
I think you’re right. This discussion definitely needs to happen and it is. OWS being a consensus and as such will remain imperfect… the difficulties in positive outcomes outshining negative ones in spreading word via MSM stories will continue in effect to dilute the message. Even if that’s perfect. Like you say,
“we need to aid the bumps it will face with honesty, courage and clear eyes.”
Those who espouse violence, or insist on the diversity of tactics are the very ones who open the backdoor for agent-provacateurs to infiltrate the movement.
The MOTU welcome violent tactics because it gives them an excuse to use violence themselves.
Having paid close attention to the tactics and methods employed by agent-provacateurs since the 1960′s I feel comfortable saying there is no surer way to allow yourself and your movement to be co-opted by provacateurs than to adopt a casual attitude towards those who steadfastly prefer violent action.
This is a topic that can be well understood, and put to rest if only people would do their homework, read some history, and quit tolerating the immature and violent who insist on a place at the table but refuse to respect your ground-rules.
In the end, the police do get tired of doing violence to non-violent people, but they never tire when facing violent opposition.
Wendy, I think this is an excellent analysis and sampling of this debate. Rec’d and I will be back with comments later.
Recommended!
This is a mega truck load, Wendy. I will finish reading and share my thoughts. Until then, I am hoping this will make it’s way to front page of FireDogLake, not just front page MyFDL.
BTW, I still catch glimpses of people trying to get consensus on unified national strikes.
Not sure where you’re heading, storyofo. You mean that it’s already too late for massive nonviolent civil resistance?
Welcome, populist. It’s good that the cautionary tales are starting to come to light. For too long, understandably in many ways, the idea of ‘comradeship trumps all’ has been in the air, and it’s been hard for some in GA’s to speak honestly in the face of such strong ‘diversity of tactics’ verve.
I know that due my natural reflexes, I would need a nonviolence training once a week, if not more often. I’ve..er…stupidly leapt into more frays than I care to recount in order to save someone from injury.
Hierarchies mimicking our top down system seem hard to neutralize, and some may not have the good of the movement in mind as they exert their influence.
Some police have employed violence against passive resistance or just being at encampments, but as to your larger points about violent tactics giving them even further excuse to be brutal, I agree.
The media also love the optics of flag-burning, and any video or still that fit their definitions of ‘riots’. At so many of the anarchist websites and links I visited over the past few days, there were many words used to excuse damage to buildings, or excuse violence because ‘the system is violent itself’ or as excused for the movement to not get coopted by…libruls, or some such stuff.
I chose not to include some of those links, since there’s still a great chance that nationally, OWS and GA’s will work through this phase as more sunlight shines on it.
There is a whole different political thoughts on this.
I was raised a Catholic in a dirt poor housing project, in northern Ireland. Those who eschewed non violence were, for the most part middle class. They were called the SDLP Social Democrat Labour Party. Or as we called them, the Stoop Down Low Party. They have been viewed with contempt in many poor neighborhoods.
My hero, Bernadette Devlin had the very best line on this. She stated that she disagreed with the IRA but she understood why they felt the need to take up arms. That she would NEVER condemn them and in fact stood for their rights to resist, as they felt fit. To those who stood on the sidelines and complained, she would respond “Answer why these people feel the need to take this course?” She never got an answer.
My mother, was the most non violent and gentle person in the world. She put it perfectly when she said to me, as a child “Michael, I do not hate them (the British) for what they have done to us. I hate them for what they have forced us to do.”
There is no better answer than that. There really is not.
Do not blame the Black Bloc. Blame the system that makes them feel they have no other alternative.
There- The voice of direct and personal experience on this issue.
> You mean that it’s already too late for massive
> nonviolent civil resistance?
Heckifiknow. I favor nonviolent revolution and shutting the machine down as a first and second resort, not as the last resort.
Thank you, wendy.
Recommended to the very serious consideration of EVERYONE at FDL.
Please front-page this diary.
I suspect, wendy, that you and most others, here at FDL, already know my abiding prejudice.
If we seek a more humane, just, and reasonable society, then non-violence is the only way toward that goal which possesses the moral authority to allow our actions to reflect those things which we claim to seek.
As well, my practical experience, both in the Civil Rights struggle of the early nineteen-sixties and, later, during the resistance and opposition to the war in Vietnam, very clearly proved to me the efficacy and the value of non-violence. Non-violence attracted the best and bravest, the most honorable, and it precluded risking, deliberately and cynically, the physical well-being and lives of others who might have easily been put at risk by “leaders” who sought power, for themselves rather than meaningful and worthwhile change for others.
My mind is made up, and I shall not change. Reason and experience are what I hope might guide others, if you’ve not yet had the experience, then let reason be your guide.
DW
Exactly the evidence for what I said in my answer to Watt4Bob, Michael Cavlan RN. I’d ask you to consider the massive growth necessary to grow the movement; it’s all to easy to claim the system requires it, or that underlying rage at such violence trumps anything else. I do understand the feelings and motivations.
I don’t even need to argue the importance of The Moral/Ethical High Ground with you for now; practical considerations alone say your way will lead to failure quickly.
And yes; there are better answers than that, and I am so glad others see it. If you want to put it down to class demarcations, so be it.
Thanks for reading, carol. And yes, Chenowith worked it hard, even though she might have been a bit biased. ;o)
I guessed (hopefully not wrongly), that the bits I clipped at NC might be useful as evidence of the wide-ranges of opinion on the subject. The Robespierres always manage to flip my socks right offa me. Srsly. And often, if you backtrack the argument, they often also ballast the full-violence at the outset meme.
My stars; I read for days on this subject at so many different sites. What an education; and I can still come up with some moral quandaries that really challenge my basic beliefs about nonviolence, especially in defense of others. Hard choices, my friend, as I know you know only too well.
Hey darlin’ PP; nice to see ya here. ;o) You needn’t read the host of comments from Lambert’s thread at Yves’ House; I just included them for further edification, if not enjoyment. ;o)
But damn. No twoop? Even for Lambert or Chenowith? LOL!
Good enough, dear. Thanks for the clarification, though I did sorta intend for this to be a free-fire zone. Best laid plans…all that. ;o)
The alternative to dissolution , disruption always lies in coalescing on central principles. Any movement when simplified to it’s core ideas both unites and binds around the issues rather than around who the members are or aren’t. ‘Anybody, any group can join or can come in but this action is for THIS issue.’ etc. or language focused on the issues rather than the members. And I feel I understand the frustration people have for being unable to redress their government or our corporotocracy for grievances. There’s so much f’d up in so many areas it warrants lots of discussion in all areas.
BUT the basic ideas of all the Occupiers seem widely or broadly understood ‘out there’… it’s just not being transmitted regularly via the MSM. So regular people don’t get regular updates or reinforced perspectives. The massive evictions of last week and massive arrests barely got noticed out here in the prairie.
Maybe I’m impatient and just expect there to be half a dozen shows like Chris Hayes and Jon Stewart to show more people and for them to be wildly popular etc. lol
what do you mean here?
“Hierarchies mimicking our top down system seem hard to neutralize, and some may not have the good of the movement in mind as they exert their influence.”
you mean jackasses like Breitbart? There will always be those. Especially since they get paid so well.
I’ve read some but not all of the stuff you linked to. I have so many opinions about this. They change from one hour to the next. Here are some of them as of 5:30 PST today:
- I agree with Kline and Graeber that it is crucial to define violence. For me there is a continuum from complete pacifism to violence against another person, and you have to pick a spot on that continuum in order to have any rules about it. It’s very difficult to do that, as you apparently discovered in your reading marathon. Almost any situation you can think of has a but-what-if component.
- Occupy Oakland’s relationship with the City and the Police has reached a point where “non-violence” has become almost meaningless. Factions on both sides seem intent on inciting a riot whenever possible. Some of us are attempting to minimize the future influence of a specific group of “organizers” who put themselves both on committees that propose and carry out actions and on the Media group that promotes those actions through press releases, videos, etc. These “organizers” are academics who knew each other and have been flogging certain anarchist agendas for years prior to Occupy. People who have been reticent to mention any of this have finally had enough. Including me.
- Internal and external criticism seems to fan the flames of insurrection. I’ve gotten caught up in that myself so I understand the psychology. Today OPD turned a non-violent situation into a melee by refusing to allow amplified sound and confiscating the sound system at a noon rally that had been peaceful up to that point. As someone who is firmly in the “not-gonna-take-a-beating-lying-down” camp, I am not sure that any vow of non-violence would have kept me from protecting myself had I been in the middle of today’s “skirmish” – especially if I had chosen to attend that event because I did not anticipate confrontation.
- Which leads me to where I am at the moment. I most definitely have violence fatigue and I think the best thing I can do is to stay away from events where it is likely to occur (except for my neighborhood; can’t get away from it here). What that means for me and OO on a practical level is that I need to work with my like-minded OO comrades on events that do not require confrontation with the police. For now that seems like the way forward, since in all honesty I can’t see a clear path to overall sanity just yet.
You all know that I have spent many, many hours day after day watching dissent. My opinion is always that non-violence is the most adult and couragous way to go. I’ve watched sitting students, kettled women, and young slim boys sprayed and beaten right here in the United States. I could almost have mistaken some of the scenes late at night for those of Egypt or Libya when the masked militarized “Peace” Officers showed up and started firing.
No amount of police commissioner bullshit or media spin will ever convince me or mine that what has taken place was necessary, even if a bottle flew across a barracade. It is beyond excuse and proves how little there is left of this country and the so-called rights and greatness our forebears fought for.
Wendy,
I have seen some, especially in Oakland get into the officers faces. I agree that is provacation to a degree and I also feel strongly that occupiers should keep their distance. There really is no reason for occupiers to have any kind of discussion with riot police when they are there loaded and ready to swarm. Whether that discussion be friendly or with malice, it is not the time. Time and timeing are everything when so much is on the line. Peaceful resistance is all that is warranted.
There was a point months ago that several of us here at FDL discussed those women that stood up to the Army and caused them to lay down their guns. American women, especially those actively in the streets with occupy groups have just as much power, actually more power to redirect the emotion and scene of police confrontations. Even though you are not in the streets you can still dissent through your daily actions by banking, purchasing, and so many other activities that block what is killing our country.
Men and Women both have to make it clear that our current situation does not support the continued money flows to the top through every single entity of modern life. People have to say that they cannot support or raise a family or begin to aspire to anything more than simple survival.
The thing that I fear most is that not enough people will take a stand or speak up. That is my greatest fear because the lack of will to do so will eventually cause violence. There is only so much of this police brutality that people can witness, and there is only a short line separating what is left of a free society in this country. Be fearful of not standing up instead of how the media will frame the dissent.
I find myself needing to explain the “not-gonna-take-a-beating-lying-down” comment since this kind of discussion is so fraught with potential misunderstanding. I used to consider myself a pacifist; that was before I spent time face-to-face with the Oakland Police Department. I have yelled at them in situations where they were violently kidnapping people from the plaza for offenses like holding a sleeping bag or having a food table (seriously; I am not exaggerating). I have said confrontational things to their face in a normal tone of voice – like when I walked away from hugging Oscar Grant’s uncle and found myself looking at an SUV full of them laughing.
If I were simply marching or standing and they decided they’d like to try to hurt me, I imagine I would try to defend myself. Likewise, if I were standing right by someone else who was being brutalized, I might try to intervene. I can’t imagine a scenario in which I would throw things at them or yell at them without provocation.
Peasant Party, I totally understand your reaction to seeing Occupiers get in the face of police. As I commented above, I have done it myself – although in my case, it has been about something specific and not just because I felt like it. I don’t agree with throwing things or being unnecessarily provocative and I don’t agree with direct action that has chaos as its endgame.
I don’t trust myself to be in the presence of OPD right now; it’s kind of like trying to hang out with an abusive ex-husband. So my tactic is to avoid that and try to figure out other means of protest.
I use specific and common sense definitions of Violent Resistance Campaigns and Nonviolent Resistance Campaigns:
——————————————————————–
A Nonviolent Resistance Campaign is characterized by a strategy of disobedience and unarmed confrontation with illegitimate authority.
A Violent Resistance Campaign on the other hand is characterized by a strategy of armed insurrection and use of deadly force against illegitimate authority.
See the difference? Armed/unarmed? Insurrection/disobedience? Deadly force/confrontation? They’re not the same thing. What is the same is the object of the resistance campaign: illegitimate authority.
——————————————————————
Erica Chenoweth uses similar definitions in her work, though I make no claim that my definitions are the same as hers.
By these criteria, all of Occupy including Black Bloc and other militant aspects of Occupy Oakland is Nonviolent, since no one connected with any Occupy is advocating or engaging in armed insurrection or the use of deadly force. The only armed and deadly-force using aspect of the conflict underway is found among the police.
Random bottle throwing, vandalism and mischief do not constitute anything even remotely like a Violent Resistance Campaign, nor does confrontation and defiance.
I hope at some point everyone will take a step back and see more of the bigger picture. Black Bloc is an almost infinitesimal factor in Occupy demonstrations; in fact, it’s completely absent from almost all of them. Vandalism is very rare, as is throwing things at the police.
A lot of people seem to think that unless there is no vandalism ever, and nothing is ever thrown, and nobody dresses in black, and everyone is polite to the authorities and unless “the anarchists” are all purged and expelled, Occupy is a failure.
But we’ve been hearing that from the beginning. It wasn’t true then, it isn’t true now.
Welcome, DW. And I do assume most here know of your convictions, based on your moral principles, as well as your experiences during the civil rights era and struggle.
I will say that during the late ’60′s, I was more a proponent of Malcolm X, as I lived in Shaker Heights during the time the black community ‘burned down’ the Hough Avenue district next door to SH, which then was a Jewish enclave and the one of the highest per capita income areas in the US.
That those destructive actions served in the near future to earn some benefits to the black community (local neighborhood banks, stores, etc.) serve as a reminder to me today that ‘goals’ are important, both short and long term, and should be stated up front. As I discussed with a friend recently: if anarchists have determined some short term goals that they believe might be served by confrontational or even violent or destructive-to-property tactics, let them be separate from Occupy actions, and operate separately, and see where their visions end up, whether in the dustbin of history, or proving efficacious (doubtful at this point, imho.)
This thought of yours: ‘Non-violence attracted the best and bravest, the most honorable, and it precluded risking, deliberately and cynically, the physical well-being and lives of others who might have easily been put at risk by “leaders” who sought power, for themselves rather than meaningful and worthwhile change for others.’ really has my mind pinging.
What I’ve gleaned from those who are beginning to push back against the anarchist leadership who are, in effect, using the young black bloc’ers for their own agendas, is that those operating behind the curtains *aren’t the ones* who put themselves in the position of being arrested, going to jail, and so forth. It begs the question, “What’s up with that?”
Just for fun, I thought I’d say that we have a small group of kit grey foxes here right now (they really do climb trees, awesomely enough), and we’re in the process of letting the wee chickenshits know we won’t hurt them, and that *we* are the purveyors of all the treats they snarf up every evening. ;o)
And also, that the winter constellations are fully up now, Leo, Orion, Auriga and all the others that remind us that in the scheme of things…we’re pretty much an afterthought. I sorta like that.
Thanks, DW, for your good thoughts and strong convictions in these serious and defining matters.
I have to take your last sentence first, PP: ‘Be fearful of not standing up instead of how the media will frame the dissent.’ The two are closely associated in my mind, which is why I think that the visuals shown at online ‘news’ media online, and the six o’clock teevee news matter so much. A still of someone (juvenilely, imo) burning an American flag compared to Officer Pike pepper-spraying an economy-sized flask of pepper spray onto seated, silent dissidents exercising their First Amendment rights is far different to ordinary Americans than scenes that can be interpreted as ‘riots’, IMO.
For me, even if we are to disregard moral precepts, simple pragmatism dictates that we win the message wars, and lately, support nationally is eroding. That’s down to us, and the tactics being used, and the resultant optics, whether fair or not.
You reminded me of the ubiquitous photos from the turn-of-the-century photos of workers; strikes (most memorably miners), in which the women were in the vanguard, their presence silently appealing to the Pinkertons, whomever, for leniency, not brutality.
Now…those considerations of women…are all off. Off also for the disabled, the elderly…were I to go out in the street in one of the more fascist-police Occupy areas, I wonder how I would react were I to be treated brutally, or were my neighbor beside me, even worse. As I said above, I would require the nonviolence training often.
And starving the Vulture Capitalism Beast is key; you’re sooo right.
Your opinions are duly noted; thank you for weighing in, ChePasa, although your second to the last paragraph is, IMO, strawman bullshit, with all due respect. ;o)
wd
Wendy, I’m glad to see this here. The hotheads, the testosterone-poisoning victims, and the people reared on first-person-shooter video games will always look for an excuse to be stupid, but Dale Carnegie is not mocked. Neither, for that matter, is Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., or Gandhi.
I disagree to an extent with Maha of the Mahablog on what makes effective protests, but we agree on this: One of the keys to effective protests is acknowledging the reality of the Bigger Asshole Rule. The Bigger Asshole Rule is why nonviolence works against violence. When pictures of the eighty-four-year-old grandmother being pepper sprayed by the cops hit the news, that had the same galvanizing effect as when pictures of Bull Connor’s police dogs and fire hoses being turned loose on unarmed black men, women and children did fifty years earlier. (Note that the civil rights demonstrators of the 1960s were strictly nonviolent at all times, even when attacked.)
As for the black bloc crew, a friend of mine who has worked with eco-protests on the West Coast for decades has this to say, in the context of a favorable recommendation of Chris Hedges’ piece on “The Cancer in Occupy” and the “deeply disturbing hypermasculinity” obsessions of the black bloc:
I regarded Malcolm X as one of the most brilliant human beings alive at the time, wendy, and when he broke from the Muslims and returned from his trip to Mecca, my thought was that his leadership had never been more powerful nor his humanity more perceptive. I well understood the sensibility which had inspired the incredible discipline of his well-ordered thoughts and his truly burning desire to understand.
DW
Due respect noted.
If you were subjected to the kind of “nonviolent” abuse I’ve experienced for pointing out the obvious: that Occupy is by definition a Nonviolent Resistance Campaign — and the literally hysterical responses by some Occupy supporters to the throwing of a bottle (see: Hedges, Chris; you know where) you might want to check your “strawman bullshit” at the door.
But then maybe not.
Cheers!
I’m fading and more than a bit frazzled by now, populist; sorry.
In answer to your question about what I mean by ‘Hierarchies, yada, yada…’, please see hotflashcarol downthread at 5:58p.m. She echoes what I’ve been reading and hearing from offline friends at a few Occupies around the country. The betrayal of the democracy movement by those who have agendas other than the common good, IOW.
Perhaps I’ll have some steam tomorrow to address the rest? (she wondered hopefully) ;o)
It’s hard to hear your news of today, carol.
You have been so honest and courageous describing for us your ever-evolving and often conflicted thoughts and feelings about everything OO. I’m sure others will join me in thanking you for all of it.
Zttttt!
More tomorrow, darlin’; I just reached the limits of my ability to stay awake and be in any sense of the word…coherent.
Sleep well; you are doing so amazingly well in the face of all you’re experiencing on the ground there, while I…clack my keyboard trying to help in the only way available to me.
love,
wd
Love to you all. I seriously just hit the wall for tonight, and need to sleep…perchance to dream, and let Morpheus and five hours of rest renew me and my brain.
We are all in this together, like it or not. And we need to have these conversations to jump the hurdles standing in the way of ultimate success.
We need to get our democracy back! And make sure that our government and society work in the best ways possible for all of us. It’s exciting stuff that OWS (and all of keyboard supporters) is helping us to imagine a better world based on the principles of all the best Prophets that ever got born onto this planet; I really do like that.
Good night, and see ya in the morning.
wd
Love back to you, my friend. The good news is that a couple of brave (and exasperated) souls are calling out the insurrectionists at OO – posting links to previous statements they’ve made, blogs they’ve written, meetings they’ve hosted where the following questions were discussed: “How does a situation of generalized rioting become an insurrectionary situation? What to do once the streets have been taken, once the police have been soundly defeated there? … What is the practical meaning of deposing power locally? How do we decide? How do we subsist? How do we find each other?” http://jacket2.org/commentary/trio-reports-radar-productions-evening-debate-some-alleged-members-invisible-committee-an
It can’t be a coincidence that so many of them who have worked together on very similar actions involving student strikes are now attempting to defeat the police and depose power locally.
One of the most interesting developments is that some of the people using black bloc tactics (black bloc is a tactic, not a group), especially those anarchists who have attempted to be principled, are beginning to realize that they are being used. And I don’t think they like it. But I still think it is a long road ahead. I hope everyone understands that I am in no way endorsing violence or property damage or vandalism and that I think we should all aspire to non-violent revolution. As Wendy says, I am just trying to be very, very honest about what’s happening in Oakland and how it has affected all of us. It is quite a journey.
Here’s a video of the police confiscating the sound system. However you may feel about events in Oakland, this will probably reinforce your opinion. And it should give you some idea why some of us in OO are so conflicted.
http://youtu.be/dokCDVWY2Ns
Hey, Che; please see downthread (in search of a larger comment box).
@ChePasa February 6th, 2012 at 8:03 pm
I can’t really speak to the abuse you’ve received since I didn’t witness it, Che, but I can speak to the fact that you and others seem to minimize protesters hurling firecrackers and other objects at cops to ‘throwing *a* bottle, as did David Graeber in the NC thread. Yep; cops in riot gear may be well-protected from some missiles, but not from firecrackers and I believe molotov cocktails at some events, and it sure serves to piss them off, and acts against the ‘police are also the 99%’ theme.
The tendency seems to be to blame the ‘mischief’ (as though these are Halloween pranks) on black bloc, which kids have often been coopted by the Elder Statesman of the anarchist movement, whose longtime goals have included eradicating police as a tactic cum strategy. Wow; how stupid.
I wasn’t gonna bring up all this for this diary, but here we are now. You might like to read Black Orchid Collective; some of the articles and links are enlightening as to their over-arching step by step plans to manipulate Occupy away from theorizing that cops *are the 99%*, thus might be convinced to *not* make war on protesters to full-out rage that could help toward their goals of annihilation. ( I’ve read a host of others over the past week, just so I could be a little more sure I’d have been on more solid ground in case I chose to include all this. I chose not to, save for the links at the end of the NC thread.)
http://insurgentnotes.com/2012/01/guest-article-the-radicalization-of-decolonizeoccupy-seattle/
If they were a bit more up front about seizing buildings, businesses, etc. on the road to killing capitalism, antagonizing police *as a feature, not a bug*, it would be better, IMO; people could more readily choose which actions to participate in.
So yeah; this reductionism is just goofy in light of the burgeoning control and influence that seasoned anarchists are having over newbie, impressionable black bloc devotees, and the sometimes threatening and abusive tactics at a few large Occupies whose actions are playing right into the hands of the Oligarchy, and decreasing public support *and* causing the numbers of activists to tank dramatically.
10,000 marched to the ports in Oakland; now maybe, *maybe* they can field a thousand or two. Seems the anarchists may have gotten it wrong, eh? Can OO and OWSNY and LA win folks back, and regain general public support back? I hope to gawd the answer is yes.
And I sincerely hope that the calls for May Day General Strike are billed as workers massively educating the US that our labor is not free for the coopting as it has become increasingly during at these crap ‘necessary austerity measures’ that only serve to further line the pockets of the Feudal Overlords. We’re working longer hours now, producing more…for less, which means further downsizing of jobs…what a vicious cycle we’ve let them create. But if the strike is billed as a Socialist Strike, it will fail for obvious reasons; the point should be to teach workers of all political persuasions that they are being abused, with an eye toward increasing the movement’s numbers; education is ongoing, and should be inclusive to all sides being heard as that process goes forward, IMO. Lefties don’t have all the answers for all the population, and this cannot just be a Lefty movement. Period.
The Black Orchid piece shows such amazing disdain for the original folks who Occupied Zucotti Park that they’ve coined the term ‘dumpies’ for them (fooling around with ‘Downwardly Mobile Urban Professionals), and why it’s important to marginalize them. (Never mind that they totally mischaracterize them.)
So you may think what these folks are doing is plenty short of ‘armed insurrection’, but to me…they can’t be allowed to dominate the movement and scare off others who don’t want to have their safety threatened as part of some other *nontransparent* faction’s agenda. Ergo, your statement here:
“A lot of people seem to think that unless there is no vandalism ever, and nothing is ever thrown, and nobody dresses in black, and everyone is polite to the authorities and unless “the anarchists” are all purged and expelled, Occupy is a failure” to me amounts to…a strawman argument.
wd
TWOOPH! TWOOPH! TWOOPH!
You see, the only way that I think the rest of population will stand up and join the movement is if it stays non-violent. Women, especially the older variety are not equipped to recover quickly from a batting by a riot cop. They know this and no matter how much they wish to participate, they know they will drag the process down. If the protests continue to march peacefully or demonstrate in front of corporations that are causing people to live in misery then yes, it will grow.
Why do I keep going back to the women participants now and in the past? Many, many issues there that are both emotional, societal, and delegational. Who better to teach our children and those that need continuing education in what is most important in life?
You have to know that I understand and support you to the ends of the earth. It is hard not reacting when you are in the midst of the situation. I have Southern Scots blood in me and I am the first to tell someone that I’ll jerk the skin off their eyes if they hurt me or mine. I’d do it too, or die trying. You cannot feel or see my reactions while live blogging for all of you out there on the streets. I would have lost my cool because I can’t stand to see innocent people brutalized.
HotFlash, the trust issue you have is warranted and I too would have the exact symptoms. I am speaking from the window view and how I see best to keep the movement going and growing. As I said above, the comparison to the violent reactions from the police reminded me of “those” other countries. We no longer have the luxury of looking at lesser countries with superior view of how they treat their citizens.
YOU ARE A HERO!
And a hearty TWOOPH! to you, PP!
I’ve long held the bias that it was emulating third world women that would be the beacons to lead us out of the darkness. ;o)
As a prize, here’s a link to one of the most perfect songs I’ve ever heard in my life; tragic, but soothing in its own way, somehow; and masterful performances by every musician there.
Thanks for telling about Zerzan; didn’t know of him, or if I ever did, I can’t recall it.
I’d disagree with your friend and Hedges about black bloc; it does seem to more of a tactic than a group, and individuals decide how to proceed in different actions, within different movements, etc., as HFS notes.
http://infoshop.org/page/Blackbloc-Faq
The more poking around I do, it seems likely that they are being used by the more seasoned baby boom generation anarchists who have different goals in mind than the diffuse and (hopefully) burgeoning Occupy does. For the anarchist academics, this is the best thing that’s come along for them, especially if they can influence the agendas by their opaque shifting of the conversation to more confrontational actions whose assumed failures and crap planning might just be ‘a feature, not a bug’.
Nonviolence seems just right as a moral precept, but also as far as pragmatically inclusive to more? Yikes; yes!
I might be willing to die in the defense of our country, but I know I don’t want to kill another for it, though in defense of someone else (my grand-babbies, for instance), I admit I can picture the feelings I’d be working against as long as it were possible. Tough thoughts.
Yes. ;o)
And yet, so many refuse to see him as anything but having been damaging to the fabric of civil rights and harmful to black people themselves; astoundingly wrong, imo. His speeches can still raise the hair on my arms. ‘…his truly burning desire to understand’ is nice to contemplate, DW; thanks.
I sure don’t feel like a hero, just a confused middle-aged woman hoping that this is finally the revolution that makes a better world for our kids and grandkids.
I need to say that it is very, very important that we hear from those of you caring and supportive souls who are watching – we have to know how things look. Because (thank heavens) it is not just a choice of our narrative or the MSM’s; many folks are coming to their own conclusion that the truth is more complicated. So thank you. You are a hero for having our backs.
We are all on red alert for any co-opting of May Day events into anything other than a General Strike. OO’s ability to work cooperatively with the other groups who are planning events will be key and I think we will have to mend some fences that we’ve torn down. It would be really nice if we can all march together and get those 10,000 or 20,000 people back out again.
Hey wendydavis,
IMNSHO this is a must read.
http://antemedius.com/content/perspectives-hedges-cancer-occupy
“The media also love the optics of flag-burning, and any video or still that fit their definitions of ‘riots’.”
In Chicago, 1968 I saw a television ‘report’ supposedly ‘live’ where the action zoomed in on a ‘rioter’ who looked just like Che Guevara, long hair, beard, fatigue jacket, and aviator glasses. He was in the process of hauling down an American flag. A very old and infirm woman approached him and hit him with her cane, at which time he turned around, hurled her forcibly to the ground, and then hoisted the Viet-Cong flag in place of the American flag he had thrown on the ground.
Even though I was a teenager at the time I understood that I was watching a phony act. There were many people in the picture, including policemen, none of which would have ignored the attack on the old woman, but nobody seemed to care.
I’ve seen the same ‘character’ on at least three different occasions since then, they all look just like Che, and they perform inflammatory acts meant to fool viewers.
The last one I saw was almost funny, in this instance, ‘Che’ rushed from the rear of a large group of Honeywell Project protestors peacefully assembled in front of the old Honeywell headquarters in Minneapolis, in his hands he clutched a very large American flag which he lowered as ran, and smashed through the plate-glass doors of the main entrance to Honeywell.
He disappeared into the building, never to be seen again.
Great television.
Important post, and recommended. It’s about five years since I used to get in trouble around here for merely suggesting that we should begin to have this conversation, so good on you for precipitatiing it. I’m still conflicted about what the best course of action is, as to moral grounds, but I will just say that group violence and organized violence is a sure loser, on purely pragmatic grounds, whereas spontaneous and individualized actions, not directly linked or linkable to the Occupy movement itself, could definitely apply the only kind of pressure the bastards really seem to understand.
“The central antagonism is not between the police state and the people, but between labor and capital.” This is from an excellent analysis written by someone who was arrested at the OO YMCA kettling; it’s sort of a response to Hedges but mostly self-reflection. http://viewpointmag.com/2012/02/06/santa-rita-i-hate-every-inch-of-you/
Vintage Diane G, for sure, Robert. She does include a lot of different themes in it, and I’d be interested in know which ones resonated with you.
The last bits about the other road Hedges could have/should have traveled sound good, but then…I haven’t read Hedges piece yet except for the bit that metamars clipped from it; guess I’ll have to now.
And I hate that; I quit listening to him after his revisionist piece on the failure of ’60′s activists to effect any meaningful change in American society, and especially now that he and some portion of OWS adherents have mutually dubbed him some Major Spokesman for the movement, and remember him saying ‘how humble about it he is…’
Beyond that, I’ll try (and fail) to anticipate that her litany of how many our nation continues to kill both domestically and abroad dwarfing any actions by black bloc protesters (probably guided by others HFC mentions obliquely) might have raised a bit of an ‘Hallelujah’ for you and others on the thread, and for sure was mirrored on Lambert’s thread.
It’s almost too seductive a trap for me: spiking my adrenaline rage in agreement at the death-dealing vulture capitalists, and making it harder to step back and see the movement from a wider angle from the sky, and seeing that what Chenowith seemed to find was that regimes following uprisings that used violence…mirrored the same thing.
But there I am tripping out over all that, and you hadn’t even said a word about why you’ve deemed it ‘a must read, in your not so humble opinion’. ;o)
Cool; I’d just been seeing that framing already around the web. Figure it’s pretty limiting, no matter how much some of us might like to see socialist democratic principles at play later on. ;o)
This should be put on one of those little blue buttons on the right side of the main FDL screens for permanent access. It would serve those interested in protest in the U.S. and other developed countries well, and even some more difficult places.
It is unfortunate that Dr. Chenoweth’s theories probably do not serve well everywhere. It’s difficult to see how they would apply here, for instance. Non-violent advocacy does work there, and patient insistence that parties observe their obligations, but it doesn’t resolve the conflict or obtain satisfaction for the governed, only help maintain minimal human dignity where possible, sometimes.
In Syria, as Dr. Chenoweth has written, there is actually still hope for non-violence to prevail. Let’s hope that it can, it’s at best a long shot at this point. If it’s hard to keep the Blac Bloc at bay in Oakland, it’s much harder to keep the anger at bay in Homs.
If there were 3000 refugees who feared for their lives while the protests were still largely peaceful in Tripoli, there are 1.3 million refugees and stateless people largely in Aleppo, Homs, and Der-az-Zors. They are ‘outsiders’ if anything worse should happen.
Wer mit Ungeheuren kampft, mag zusehen dass er nicht dabei, zum Ungeheuren wird. – Nietsche
Don’t become the monster.
A really thoughtful piece; I’ll like reading it again. He mentions some of the same ideas we’ve been kicking around, plus a few more levels that bear considering, about the need to depart from the liberal victimization framing, for one. And yet…growing the movement depends on just such framing for now as people start to awaken to the fact that the Emperor Has No Clothes, and we kept seeing them against our own best interests.
And clearly, people like me need to learn more about Marxist thought and the value of labor; we feel it, but don’t know how to frame it’s galloping devaluation since the ’70′s very well. I don’t, anyway.
Hallo, realitychecker; thanks for reading. *One* pressure they seem to understand is profit loss, and we should be far more in those areas; Move Yer Money’ was only so successful, and further pressure could be really useful. We need to hasten the meltdown of the Bigs, imo, and make sure there are no more covert bailouts, which many say the new Obama mortgage re-fi’s accomplishes in spades. Argh.
But…you may speaking of other sorts of actions, since you mention ‘not linkable to Occupy’. Won’t put ya on the spot asking for more. ;o)
Boots Riley speaks that language very fluently and very persuasively. I’ll see if I can find some of his posts. When he breaks it down into labor and capital, it’s so very, very simple. That’s why the Port Shutdown and the General Strikes draw big crowds because the message is pretty unassailable. We own the labor and we have the means to control it. And that is truly the only thing we own right now.
My favorite character, Owen Meany, in one my favorite books by one of my favorite authors, John Irving, often yelled in his high-pitched nasal voice: TV GIVES GOOD DISASTER! ;o)
Who said that propaganda is designed to ballast what people are already pre-disposed to believe?
But yeah; the idiots really did burn the flag, embarrassingly enough. That’ll show the bastards! Whoa.
@ hfc:
Oh; I thought i’d seen video of the folks burning the flag. But at least the author makes this
concessionclear:“At the same time, it should also be clear that there is nothing preventing those who want to from organizing non-violent direct actions autonomously with clear guidelines as such. This is what we mean by diversity of tactics.”
The ‘accuse of us of naivete, but never of never of malice or hidden agendas’ part was interesting.
Zactly!
The way to slay the dragon is not to be like the dragon, but better!
Their tools are hatred, intimidation, batons, flash grenades, pepper spray, and rubber bullets. We are better and have much more tools in the quiver.
;o)
There were a number of Marxists who wrote at the Cafe; I always hoped that if I read enough of their pieces and let them wash over me enough times…they’d seep into my pores. I try the same thing with quantum physics, but…not so much, lol!
Southern Dragon has been including links in his morning Diner to Marxism.
I don’t usually throw up posts, but maybe it is time to do it here at FDL.
You can begin the same as I did here with a four part introduction:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wkO3qsZY_U
Bookmark it and listen when you can.
“We own the labor and we have the means to control it. And that is truly the only thing we own right now.”
TWOOPH! Can’t say it enough!
Thanks Peasant Party, I will do that.
Tweets from Boots after the first General Strike, plus comments – haven’t read the comments yet but I imagine they are interesting as well . . .
http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2011/11/27/boots-riley-on-black-bloc-tactics/
I didn’t know Chenowith had written that about Syria, but charts on ‘repressive regimes’ was fuzzy without further reading, in any event.
And she seems to have tracked data, and admitted that violence can work in many cases, but not all, and depending on the goals (she mentions democracy often), half as often as armed violent uprisings. (which begs some of the push-backs to terms not quite in evidence above).
But I can’t get your link to work, ondelette. All I get is an empty Reuter’s page.
Hey, hotdog; nice to see you, and thanks for reminding us of the Nietzsche quote.
Hope you and your family are well and thriving, and yer daughter isn’t experiencing further glassy-eyed stare syndrome. ;o)
Ta, dear. ;o) Gonna edjycate me yet, eh?
And they’re not sorry; no, they are dumbfounded: http://occupyoakland.org/2012/02/a-statement-from-occupy-oaklands-move-in-assembly/
Had to quit watching; the crazy jerking was too hard for my brain. But here’s a black bloc page I found months ago for a different diary, showing you have it right about ‘tactics’ not ‘a group’, and different groups in a movement make their own rules.
http://infoshop.org/page/Blackbloc-Faq
Also, I was wrong about the name of the woman in DemocracyNow video describing events after Move-In; it wasn’t Caitlin Mannning, but Stephanie Demos; pretty clueless about what would come after Occupying the auditorium, lol! What electricity? What water? Flushing toilets?
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/1/30/occupy_oakland_over_400_arrested_as
Which is not to say that the flag-burning itself was not done by some provocateur. From two decades ago.
There is video of the flag burning; I suspect that part of the City Hall action was probably a spontaneous act on the part of one or two people. But I could be totally wrong and it could have been planned. Certainly wasn’t approved by the GA. ;o)
Hey Wendy. I was hoping I could catch you today. I need your feedback. I had a WEIRD coincidence this morning- emotionally loaded, and one for the ouji board experiences list. I’d love to get your take on it.
I’ll contact you through my ouija board. I do *weird* goodly. ;o)
Over and out. ;o)
And…er…check yer Junk Mailbox.
Wendy,
The abuse is really rhetorical, and it seems to be coming primarily from a cadre of “Nonviolence purists” who believe that the proper way to enforce their demands is to be as hostile and offensive toward others and other points of view regarding the topic of “violence” as possible. (see: Hedges, Chris, you know where, for an example).
He’s using his platform to whip up fear of the Other… in this case, the so-called “Black Bloc anarchists” which in his polemic is pretty much nothing but Occupy Oakland.
I’m familiar with Occupy Seattle’s many struggles with those who want it tamed and deradicalized, just as some are demanding happen to Occupy Oakland (see: above).
Now obviously you and at least a few others would permit the occasional attendance at GA by a radical contingent — as long as they didn’t scare the old folks or the horses — but when Hedges and the like go wilding, they don’t appear to be as generous of spirit as you, and from my perspective, they’re calling for out and out purges.
Let’s not fool ourselves: despite all the mutual denunciations and attempts to cleanse Occupy of the Other, no one at all is calling for armed insurrection or guerrilla action or use of deadly force against police attack. No one. Guess what? That means Occupy fits my definition — and Chenoweth’s working definitions — of a Nonviolent Resistance Campaign (with internal struggles going on.)
So why not, just for shits and giggles, get off the “Eek! Violence!” Train (along with the OMG, More Librul Fools, side car) and get on with important matters?
Or do you just want to “win” over whatever your preferred Occupy opponent is?
ChePasa, in case your reference to “see above” was about my comments: I do not wish to see Occupy Oakland “tamed and deradicalized.” I disagree with a great deal of what Hedges has to say. My concerns are not about the variety of people who employ black bloc tactics; it is about a handful (a dozen or less) of insurrectionists who have been allowed way too much influence over our supposedly “leaderless” movement. The debate we are having is not about NV/DOT at all; it’s about the use of Oakland as some sort of testing ground by a few people who likely live in the Berkeley Hills or SF and tend not to put themselves in the line of fire or in the kettle.
I think Wendy has done a remarkable job of portraying this debate in all its ugliness and I don’t see her as being on the Eek! Violence train. That kind of statement is just as reactionary as the ones Hedges is making.
Oh, and just for fun, there’s a line in Buffalo Springfield’s revived revolutionary anthem “For What It’s Worth” that seems to be getting some traction. Let’s see if I can remember it:
“A thousand people in the street
Singin’ songs and carrying signs
Mostly say ‘Hooray for Our Side.’”
Yep, that’s what we need. More signs saying Hooray for Our Side. The other side says: Not yours. Your side sucks.
“We better stop, children, what’s that sound?
Everybody look what’s goin’ down.”
ChePasa, OO’s Move-In Assembly statement – which I linked to above re the flag burning – fairly reeked of “Hooray for Our Side.” So I know just what you mean. Maybe that’s not what you meant, but you are making my argument for me. :)
hotflashcarol: “See above” refers not to you but to Hedges and those who have been thinking like him. I’ve been putting (see: Hedges, Chris, you know where) in my comments about it to Wendy; I guess it wasn’t clear that (see: above) referred to the previous (see: Hedges…) parenthetical. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
You really think Oakland’s “insurrectionists” live in the hills? Could be, I suppose. I actually never thought of it.
I really wish people wouldn’t use terms like “insurrectionist” though unless they know for certain that this or that handful of people is advocating, preparing for or actually engaging in an armed insurrection (by definition, violent resistance). I don’t see it, but maybe I’m just blind.
I’m not accusing Wendy of being on the Eek! Violence train. What I wrote is a suggestion to everyone to dial back the violent rhetoric that’s being used against one another, try to listen a little more, and recognize that everyone is on the same side. Essentially.
Oakland *is* a laboratory for change, potentially profound change, and as I’ve posted and commented elsewhere, OO has accomplished a stunning first-level victory by completely de-legitimizing civic authorities and their police. Nothing like that has happened anywhere else due to Occupy persistence and pressure. Some of my contacts in Oakland think I’m crazy for saying so. But that’s what I see from the outside. The mayor, city council, the city administration, the police chief, and the police officers have lost any legitimacy they may once have had.
What now? That’s the big question…
Oh no, that’s it exactly.
Well, let’s see how to unwind any of this, Che. Nice passive-aggressive sucking up, though, saying that I might be generous of spirit enough to allow a few radicals to attend my GA, then smack me one for being one of the ‘Eeek! Violence!’ train passengers…or mebbe ya think I’m tryin’ to be the Conductor; who knows, eh?
;o)
As far as this: “Or do you just want to “win” over whatever your preferred Occupy opponent is?:
Whoa, Nellie. No dear; I want the revolution to succeed, ergo, all the zillion diaries I’ve published on the subject. Maybe you’ve missed them, eh? No matter; you’d likely not be a fan in any event.
I already listed my objections above clearly to what seems to be afoot as far as I could see, that the anarchists were exerting enough influence over the GA’s to intimidate those who were uncomfortable about actions here and there, and were creating a de facto alternate sort of morality based on loyalty to comrades, etc.
As far as Hedges piece, gah; I still haven’t read it, and while I do get that I’ll have to sooner or later, I have issues with the man, and wish he and OWS hadn’t sorta mutually crowned him King. But…not my business, I guess.
As far as your take (and Diane G’s) on him calling out The Other as frightening, I will say I’ve taken some licks on these boards for attempting to encourage an alliance with Tea People and Paulites who share some of the same anti-Imperialist, anti-Fed, break up the Big Banks, prosecute fraud, end the drug wars issues, in the spirit of finding common ground to win the fight.
Didn’t hurt a bit, frankly. It’s blogging, dear, and people smack each other around now and again. Well, maybe more than that, but I write under my own name, and stand by what I write, or apologize if I find I’ve gotten something dead wrong (it happens), and usually don’t go all self-pity at opinions contrary to my own.
Yes, things will arguably get worse come spring, as more Americans wake up and decide to join us, and ‘the authorities’, backed by DHS and the militarized police decide to neutralize us. Some black bloc adherents may help protect people as carol says, but provoking police may fall well short of your ‘armed insurrection’ and ‘intention to harm others lethally’, or however you said it.
But one of my questions on the boards has been: are Occupy’s goals different from Anarchist goals, and I don’t mean the kids they influence. I mean the ones whose goals are to annihilate the police, seize businesses, operate them ‘for the people’, all that. If the goals either locally are being hidden, that pisses me off. And I’d advise them to run their own operations out in the open, and give others a chance to join them…or not.
I’d once again ask you to step back and consider whether those confrontational tactics are winning or losing supporters for the movement, and ask you if your purpose is more about ‘winning the argument FOR the black bloc folks you respect and feel comfortable with. Hell, I might just love some of ‘em. But in my town, our GA is just two of us, so…I don’t get much chance to find out.
Peace to you; I hope you get over being gobsmacked over all this; it’s gonna be a busy spring, and we need to figure some of this shit out, IMO, for everyone’s good.
wd
“Let’s self-critique. Okay. Wow; we were srsly awesome!” LOL!
Thank you for clarifying, ChePasa. Let me clarify too: I use the word insurrectionist very intentionally. I am talking about several of the people who are on both OO’s Media Committee and Facilitation Committee and are among those who make the most significant proposals and are constantly on TV and in the newspaper, with very little accountability.
Among these folks are at least two professors from colleges that are not even in the Bay Area (Cal State Monterey Bay, UC Davis); there are numerous grad students or “fellows” with advanced degrees from places like Cal and Cornell, who also seem to have a great deal of free time – in other words, they are at every event during all hours of the day or night, attend hours-long meetings at midday, etc. Not exactly your working-two-jobs grad students or $40K a year non-tenured professors. They frequently call on large numbers of students from here and from out of town – I was there on J28 and saw dozens if not hundreds of people I didn’t recognize.
Many of these people know each other and have been associated with other by co-hosting seminars, co-writing books and articles, etc. Many of them were involved in similar actions at building occupations at universities like Santa Cruz in 2009 and perhaps earlier. When you google their names along with “anarchist,” you get a great many hits.
And when you google their names with “insurrectionist,” well . . . they hosted the French authors of the book The Coming Insurrection (don’t tell me about Glenn Beck, I know) at an event in SF. I have a link to that in a comment above. Many of their writings discuss insurrection very specifically. And defeating the police – not just delegitimizing them. J28 was a perfect example of a spectacularly ill-conceived and ill-planned event that was almost guaranteed to end just as it did – in chaos, with mass arrests and police brutality.
Their response to being confronted with these facts are “you need to go to a shrink” or “you’re on a witch hunt.” They won’t take any serious responsibility for their mistakes on J28 – and the mistakes were most certainly THEIRS, given that pertinent details were kept secret and suggestions were dismissed. If they don’t like what you say, they will take you right off their listservs or attempt to move their meetings to the Holdout (their anarchist enclave) at the last minute.
It would be one thing if they were honest about this. But they’re not. And we have casualties. There is at least one person in Santa Rita facing serious felony charges from the YMCA kettling.
So yeah, what now is definitely the big question.
More clarification: some of us don’t believe the “mistakes” I referred to above were really mistakes; perhaps the event went exactly as they intended. They’re pretty darn smart and yet the planning was pretty darn stupid. There are lots of other actions being undertaken by OO but you don’t see these particular people holding press conferences or talking about it on Democracy Now. It’s all police vs. protestors, all the time. They control the message and this is all you are hearing about.
Erica Chenowith answers questions via email; one such posted at Occupy Chicago on Fef. 3, 2012 reads in part:
“A definite continuity across all different cases, however, is that few campaigns–nonviolent or violent–typically succeed without mass popular participation. This is an argument for which we find considerable empirical support in our book, corroborating decades of research by others on the effectiveness of social movements in general.
Achieving this level of participation often means organizing around a set of grievances or symbols that have a high degree of resonance with vast portions of the population. Moreover, such people tend to be more amenable to accepting the risks of participation if there is an alternative vision of the future–or strategic aims–that again have broad resonance within the general populace. As we find in our book, nonviolent campaigns are much more likely to attract the vast and sustained public participation necessary to success, with the average nonviolent campaign being 4x larger than the average violent one. This is because there are lower physical, moral, informational, cognitive, and commitment barriers to participation in movement activities. The data show that when nonviolent campaigns adopt violence, participation declines dramatically. The punchline: successful movements will abandon anything–a tactic, a slogan, a communication strategy, etc.–that drives down participation, and replace it with something that increases participation.
Most movement’s time could perhaps be more usefully deployed coming up with new and creative disruptive nonviolent techniques–something that’s always worthwhile–and linking them to a clear strategy aimed at maximizing public participation. I doubt that enough successful cases exist for us to meaningfully compare the effectiveness of nonviolent vs violent methods in “eliminating” abstract feudalism, racism, and patriarchy. If the premise is that such structures do indeed still exist, despite centuries of violent struggle, then one would be hard-pressed to find a single case whether nonviolent OR violent resistance succeeded.
I often hear people dismiss the idea that strategic nonviolent action can work in producing meaningful outcomes, but they offer no strong empirical support for the notion that an alternative approach (complementing nonviolent methods with violent ones, or even escalating to armed struggle) will produce superior results. I would be happy to stand corrected if challenged with a compelling analysis grounded in strong empirical evidence. But given violent resistance’s costs in terms of human suffering, I should think people would want to be pretty confident based on systematic, historical evidence that violence was indeed necessary before embracing it as an acceptable method of struggle. And, from where I sit, I see no such evidence to suggest that this is the case.
When I started my research on nonviolent resistance, I was as skeptical as they come. I was convinced at the beginning that I’d find nonviolent resistance far less effective than violence, or that I’d find violence to be a superior method of struggle in some circumstances where nonviolence would be impossible. The closest call is secessionism, where nonviolent resistance is almost as ineffective as violent resistance. But I have not yet found clear cases where violent resistance–or an armed wing attached to a nonviolent campaign–was MORE effective than a well-executed nonviolent campaign could have been, even against the most brutal, violent, long-standing regimes.”
http://occupychi.org/phpbbforum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2337#p6718
Sorry I wasn’t able to complete a reply yesterday — got embroiled elsewhere. But I’d very much like to continue the discussion if you’re up for it.
I’m still getting used to the formatting limitations of posts here, and so far I’ve managed to screw it up several times which has led to more than a little misunderstanding. Sigh.
You’re welcome to visit my blog, Ché (What You Call Your Pasa)where I go into sometimes ridiculous and mind-numbing levels of detail about these and other topics…
Cheers.
hotflashcarol: Thank you very much for your helpful clarifications and explanations of what you see going on in Oakland especially what you have seen and experienced among those who are among the chief instigators and managers of the situation. I’m familiar with at least some of the people you’re referring to, and I have a general understanding of their intentions and philosophy. I wish they wouldn’t use some of the terms they do, either. Words have power; they know this, but sometimes I wonder whether they are thinking through the consequences down the road. Revolution is not something to engage in mindlessly.
I’m not in Oakland; I observe from a “safe” distance. Ha. I know some of the people who are there and are involved, and I’m in periodic contact with them, and I know others of the anarchist bent who have gone to Oakland to join up, but I’m not in contact with them. Sometimes I feel like I really need to be there, but I resist the urge because OO doesn’t need me, for one thing, and because in a sense, I don’t need to be directly involved in what’s happening. No matter what I do or don’t do, things are going to go the way they do. I’m OK with that.
I can understand how to you and many others J28 would appear as an almost tragic failure, as none of the stated objectives were achieved. The Oakland Auditorium (I’m Old. That’s the name I know it by) is still functioning at its Higher Use as a Vacant Building, and none of the other intentional good works were accomplished either. Many people were wounded (I’m told, there were hundreds of injuries) and hundreds were arrested, some held in torturous conditions for days.
This isn’t what people of good will had set out to do or to get involved in, and I don’t doubt many felt betrayed and used at a fundamental level.
You’ve clarified what I haven’t been able to get an answer to: whether participants in J28 actions knew the “real” objectives and whether they recognized a Victory. It looks like the answer is not only “no” but that many feel fundamentally betrayed and used.
And those who are manipulating the People and the situation for their own ends don’t give a shit about their “feelings,” right?
I understand how frustrating and perhaps frightening this situation must be. If you can’t trust the cadres and they won’t tell you what they’re up to and they routinely jeopardize the safety of others in order to satisfy their own — unstated — ends, then what makes them any better than the present authority they’re working so hard to undermine and delegitimize?
I hope if/when I do go to Oakland, we’ll have a chance to meet.
Cheers,
@ChePasa upthread at 9:31 AM:
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I should be more specific about my own experience with J28. I went to initial planning meetings and was fine with the building location being a secret – although I suspected Kaiser all along. My husband and I were among the original campers and were very, very supportive of the idea of taking a building even though we prefer to try to take back the plaza. We drive by Kaiser auditorium every time we go downtown and we started looking at it strategically. We began to hope that it wasn’t the mystery building for any number of reasons having to do with ease of getting/keeping such a site.
At early meetings I mentioned my concern about how the proposers were planning both a festival and an illegal building takeover and how I thought those two things could not really happen simultaneously. My husband, a builder, went to sub-committee meetings hoping to talk about stuff like electricity, water, access, fire safety, etc. We were quickly told we were “wasting people’s time” and the planners went happily about figuring out how to build wheeled carts on which to bring their furniture. And what kind of snacks would be best.
Emails whizzed by and it was clear that people were spending copious amounts of time making rules for safe spaces and who’d be able to go in and out of the building and what times certain people would speak at the two-day festival and blah blah blah. Any mention of OPD, the Thanksgiving porta-potty riot (where cops refused to allow delivery to OO people just trying to have a potluck), the minimum number of people that would be required for success, etc. were met with great big frownie faces. It was as if a bunch of jr high school cheerleaders were planning the action.
We finally became exasperated and stood aside from the planning. At the last minute, we chose to participate on J28 because it seemed like the right thing to do. We crossed our fingers that someone had been secretly mapping out the building, the entrances, places where we might get kettled, etc. No. I spoke to one of the people with the peace shields who was quite unhappy that they had ended up acting spontaneously and that there had been no “martyr bloc” plan and that the crowd tended to retreat even when the people with shields were trying to protect them. These are things that could have been practiced ahead of time without giving away any big secrets.
So after being at some of the meetings, watching a month’s worth of emails from the move-in group, talking to many others and participating myself, I have come to the conclusion that at least a few people wanted to see it fail. It makes so much more sense than to think that all these well-meaning people made such obvious mistakes – unless it is really a matter of ego and some sort of magical thinking.
I wandered onto your blog one day this week; I thought I left hints of that. ;o)
Can’t really see beating a dead horse; we aren’t going to change one another’s minds, methinks.
I did remember finally to go back to Lambert’s thread in which I left this link, saw you were working hard there, too.
This one and my last one each tool two full days just to answer comments, added to the days and days of research, so…I’m fine with letting this one die a well-deserved death. Looks as though carol left you something way downstream, there.
Funny, but I chose this one to see if this software had a feature the moderator was telling us about, or…at least if I could figure out how to use it, otherwise I never would have seen these extra comments. ;o)
“Ego and magical thinking…”
I think you’ve put your finger on a big part of what’s gone wrong — and some of what’s gone right, too.
Looks like there might even be some soul-searching going on. There is so much need in Oakland and so many people who really do want things to work, at least that’s my impression. Thanks for sharing what you experienced. Your instinct about it sounds pretty spot on.
Saw Elaine Brown shame the City Council last night on the Ustream.
Devastating.