An Open Letter to those Seeking a “Nonviolent” Resolution from the Occupy Oakland General Assembly
As a young person that identifies as a nonviolent activist, I am disturbed by the messages coming from ‘advocates of nonviolence’ in the Oakland community.
I studied Peace & Conflict Studies formally for two years at UC Berkeley, most of my mentors are elders in the field of nonviolence, and I continue to study nonviolent communication. That being said, I have found much of what is being said under the banner of nonviolence to be entirely erroneous and the actions that are being taken, and not taken, abhorrent.
Many claim that Occupy Oakland has not taken a strong unilateral stand against violence. However, any advocate of nonviolence would see that Occupy Oakland has, despite it’s very early stages, taken a strong stance against many of the root causes of violence including political, economic, cultural and social inequalities which produce individual incentives to engage in direct violence.
From my understanding, nonviolence theorists emphasize that violence is inherent in political structures such as patriarchy, capitalism and the state. Unlike democratic socialists who argue that socialists should win political power by constitutional means, nonviolence theorists usually share the anarchist aversion to state power in any form. For those whom have evoked Gandhi in the last few weeks, it is important to remember that he thought that the apparatus of the state is deeply rooted in force and violence—in fact, that this is the essential nature of the state. Gandhi believed that the state represents violence in a concentrated and organized form.
Like Occupy Oakland’s current stance of honoring a diversity of tactics, nonviolence theorists are interested in a comprehensive strategy of resistance and disruption, coupled with the creation of a vast network of cooperative organizations which will ultimately undermine patriarchy and state power.
Yet, what I have heard over and over again since the November 2nd General Strike is that until Occupy Oakland passes a resolution that adopts a “nonviolent” stance, the majority of Oakland residents will not support the movement.
To me, this is an embarrassing excuse to remain complicit in the face of state sanctioned violence.
As a volunteer on the facilitation committee there have only been two proposals that have so far addressed the recent topic of “nonviolence.” With much respect to the individuals that submitted these proposals, each proposal attempted to distill nonviolence into an overly simplistic anthem. The proposal that was presented to the General Assembly on Wednesday, November 9th began the much needed conversation, and was received with well thought out and insightful criticisms.
I would also like to point out that upwards of 40,000 people participated in the General Strike in Oakland yet under 100 people participated in acts of vandalism. The Occupy Oakland General Assembly has not since passed any resolution condoning the actions of vandalism. The only acts of physical violence against human beings that have involved community members of Occupy Oakland have been perpetuated against community members of Occupy Oakland by the Oakland Police Department.
During the last raid the police attacked the peaceful protest with flash grenades, tear gas, sound cannons, and rubber bullets.
Occupy Oakland is anticipating another violent raid. If, like me, you believe that nonviolent methods are effective, I invite you to model the power of non-violent resistance. The next time the riot cops begin a military assault on the legitimate political demonstration that is Occupy Oakland, I call on you to organize and resist.
Remember that nonviolent action is not an attempt to avoid or ignore conflict. Nonviolent activists believe that whatever the issue and scale of a conflict, nonviolent action is a technique by which people who reject passivity and submission, and who see struggle as essential, can wage their conflict without violence. It is one response to the problem of how to act effectively in politics, especially how to wield powers effectively.
Peace & Solidarity.
Sara Mizner
Thank you to David and Think! I will continue to participate and make sure my voice is heard because I, in solidarity with all Occupy locations, love and support this movement and know that it is going to make a huge difference. I also am a citizen of Oakland and do agree that it is my duty to continue to participate with Occupy Oakland. Thank you, again, for your feedback, comments and experience!
Sara, you WANT a violent conclusion. Nothing less will validate your beliefs. You enjoy the struggle. You encourage the violence.Shame on you.
Wonderfully well written.
I particularly liked Many claim that Occupy Oakland has not taken a strong unilateral stand against violence. However, any advocate of nonviolence would see that Occupy Oakland has, despite it’s very early stages, taken a strong stance against many of the root causes of violence including political, economic, cultural and social inequalities which produce individual incentives to engage in direct violence.
From my understanding, nonviolence theorists emphasize that violence is inherent in political structures such as patriarchy, capitalism and the state. Unlike democratic socialists who argue that socialists should win political power by constitutional means, nonviolence theorists usually share the anarchist aversion to state power in any form. For those whom have evoked Gandhi in the last few weeks, it is important to remember that he thought that the apparatus of the state is deeply rooted in force and violence—in fact, that this is the essential nature of the state. Gandhi believed that the state represents violence in a concentrated and organized form.
Susan,
You are not alone. As an Oakland resident myself, I wish I could continue participating at the GA’s, but I feel my presence is more useful at other Occupy camps, such as #OSF, where I feel my voice is heard and I can contribute. Until more respect for fellow protesters and some sort of non-violence statement is enacted, I continue to participate with #OO online only. (My belief in a nonviolence statement is not a moral issue, but rather a belief that the Occupy Movement will not grow if the public continues to be frightened off by pointless destructive acts of personal aggression).
You are not alone. I would like to encourage you to continue to come out to the general assemblies and keep your voice out there. But I’m not even sure that it’s safe down there at night, unless quite a lot of us show up for the GA. And who knows what will happen later tonight. If they smash the camp, how many folks from the community are going to come back out there again like we did on 10/25? Occupy Oakland has squandered a lot of the trust of this community. I have supported since day one; at first curious, then bringing some food and tarps and stuff, then outraged on 10/25 and marching in the streets getting shot at with tear gas, I mean that is not stuff that I usually am a part of. But since then, I’ve grown more and more outraged at the way that a small group of people are able to use the consensus process to try to push Occupy Oakland into a militant stance at a time when we could never hope to gain the support of the community for that pose and when we haven’t even made it clear what goals we are fighting for exactly. I think we all know what our problems are, but I have a strong feeling that my goals are not the same as most of the anarchists.
i think the point is that we could be having a more constructive dialogue. where people treat one another with respect and use the force of the better argument instead of actual force or dogmatic brow-beating. for instance i just a posted a response to one of your other comments on the forums where you as i would say the vast majority of your cohorts (eg the comments above from Susan George, while constructive/respectful are still based in the assumptions of received doctrine nonviolence=good, which i feel are well refuted by at least 2 of us on the forums, and David Heatherly) continue to assert your rightness without debating the specifics of these issues. it’s really frustrating to talk to people who assume everyone else is just like they are or they are marginal freaks. if you want to have a dialogue and debate than have one dont just be divisive and dogmatic.
I believe strongly to debate the semantics of what is and isn’t violence only leads us down a very divisive path. Instead, I would venture to guess that the great majority of the people active and supportive of the Occupy movement agree with the theory of non-violence you state above: “[a] comprehensive strategy of resistance and disruption, coupled with the creation of a vast network of cooperative organizations which will ultimately undermine” and I would change the end of that sentence to say: the concentrated, corrupt and destabilizing economic power of the 1% and the influence it wields on all levels of government.
The Occupy movement that began with Occupy Wall Street is at its core a non-violent movement. This principle has been made very clear from the outset. What is most important is that we are able to grow and sustain this movement to be TRULY “inclusive” of the diverse communities that form the 99%. This is a huge vision and has not been attempted to this degree in any recent history that I am aware. I venture to say that we all–even the most studied and practiced activists–have much to learn.
The preference of eschewing more dangerous, violent tactics while also embracing bold, subversive and disruptive tactics has been clear from all Occupy locations in the US and is being acted upon daily by a diverse array of Occupy locations. This is already taking place and growing. It has really just been Oakland that has been trying to re-frame this. Why? Is it due to a small number of people who are attached to (either doing, condoning or being silent about) tactics such as throwing things, breaking things, setting things on fire and defacing property? How much of the 99% do you think would agree to these tactics? Probably a very minute percentage.
The viewpoint that you find to be “abhorrent” is simply that the great majority of people who are directly involved and/or who support the Occupy movement and want it to grow, do not want distracting and potentially dangerous tactics of a very small number of people to be sanctioned either officially, unofficially or through silence. We believe that these tactics undermine the larger vision, purpose and longer-term health, viability and effectiveness of this movement, which is still in its infancy.
You are absolutely correct that the preponderance of inhumane and violent activity has come through law enforcement and the corporations, systems and governments they protect and defend. That is why it is so important that we do not participate in destructive and potentially harmful actions as well. First, it muddles the field of who the oppressor and oppressed are to the public and the media; and second it puts others in this movement at greater risk of being physically harmed.
We cannot guarantee the safety of people when it comes to the violent actions of law enforcement. However, we CAN make it clear to people who would like to begin to or continue to support Occupy Oakland that any tactics within our movement that put at risk the safety of another are NOT condoned by Occupy Oakland. For me this stance is simple and clear and even radically inclusive because it attempts to provide assurance of an atmosphere of respect and safety for our greatest resource–the people participating in this movement.
I for one have had to make the decision that until Occupy Oakland is able to take such a stand, I will participate with other Occupy movements because what Occupy is about is so important to me. I have lived in Oakland for over 40 years and would love to get more involved with my home-town Occupy movement, but I cannot at this time because it continues to put the needs of a very small number of people over the needs of the many. I sincerely hope this changes so I can again participate. I don’t think I am alone.
Yet, what I have heard over and over again since the November 2nd General Strike is that until Occupy Oakland passes a resolution that adopts a “nonviolent” stance, the majority of Oakland residents will not support the movement.
This is a correct assessment of the current center of mass of our culture. This is an accurate statement relative to at least half (probably more) of the Oakland population – those that still have something to lose.
What’s your point? That this is not an ideal situation? Yeah, no shit. But it’s what we’ve got, and it’s what we’ve got to work with. It’s not about being “complicit” with violence – it’s about organizing effective protest, and avoiding shooting ourselves in the foot.
The problem here is that unless the Occupy Oakland movement makes it clear that it is not a violent movement and that it does not condone vandalism (the fact that it has not condoned it explicitly is insufficient), we do not even have the right under the 1st Amendment to be there at the plaza. While they tell us that our assembly is illegal, I believe that as long as we are a “peaceable assembly” the 1st Amendment allows us to express our opinions in whatever way we desire, with or without a permit. The notion of requiring a permit for any march or any protest, the notion of “free speech zones”, is fascist and anathema to the real spirit of the Republic.
I do not believe we need to adopt a stance of non-violence. Tactics of non-violence are up to those who choose to follow them. However, to proclaim that we are a peaceable assembly is not the same as saying that we all endorse the practices or theories of Gandhi. It is just to say that we will not condone or tolerate the destruction of private property or violence against any human being in the context of our Occupy movement. This is not a sentiment required to ease the conscience of the non-violent; it is an absolutely essential message to send if we expect any community support or if we expect to reach the rest of the 99%.
Well said.