The main argument I keep hearing in response to calls for a commitment to nonviolence goes something like this: Is breaking a window violent compared to throwing a tear gas canister at a protester’s head? Compared to banks foreclosing on whole neighborhoods? Compared to 16% annual increases in UC tuition? Compared to ______ [fill in the blank]?
OF COURSE we are not equating breaking windows with breaking heads. To suggest otherwise is absurd and insulting.
The argument is also a red herring, meant to distract from the main proposal, which has only to do with which strategies and tactics the movement will support, encourage, and endorse.
It is meant to discredit those of us who represent the MAJORITY of the movement’s supporters, those who have made the main proposal calling for a commitment to nonviolence and peaceful means.
So let’s drop the red herring and get to the meat of the proposal, which has only to do with strategies and tactics the movement will support, encourage, and endorse.
We do not support, encourage, or endorse such things as breaking windows, throwing projectiles, vandalizing property, intimidating people, attacking people, or anything along those lines.
We have many reasons; pick one:
It is counterproductive because we will lose mass public support, and Nov. 2 will be a one-off.
It gives credence to accusations that we protesters started it, that the police had to respond.
It gives the authorities and vigilantes an excuse to crack down, even if we didn’t start it.
It leaves us extremely vulnerable to provocateurs and infiltrators.
These tactics make us no better than the 1%.
It is morally wrong.
We can never match the military power of the 1%, and we will lose if we try.
Nonviolent resistance is extremely powerful, and the only power the powerless have.
As shown on Nov. 2, our strength is in numbers, and those numbers will remain supportive only if we commit to nonviolence.
Those are just some of the many reasons we have conveyed to you. They are not mutually exclusive, but you do not have to believe in all of them to believe in one. And all it takes is believing in one.
Let’s be the change we wish to see. Let’s commit to nonviolence once and for all.
at least you’ll now admit that you are actively trying to undermine the movement – it’s too bad you;re doing so out of ignorance and spite – but whatev’s – it’s clearly impossible to change your mind or even get you to listen to people w/ respect and integrity. please stop bothering people. your position has been articulated and it’s clearly self-marginalizing (even nonviolence folks think the tone and argumentation/demands of those representing nonviolence have been less than constructive) and/or irrelevant (because of it’s divisive and dogmatic tone). it’s too bad you couldn’t bounce-out with the grace of someone like think!, who though they may disagree w/ me and others still comports themselves respectfully and constructively.
Unfortunately the mechanism of direct democracy and the General Assembly does not allow for that. It is time for the whole Occupy movement to rethink the mystique around the GA process. It’s just a tool, not an end or a revolution in itself. Imagine trying to run the entire country on the GA process. Essentially that’s what the anarchists are asking us to do I think.
You don’t get it — most of us at this point WANT to divide the movement. We don’t want you violent people to be part of it. You’ve demonstrated your devotion to an ideology of violent revolution. We are committed to changing the hearts and minds of the 99% and building a movement that the elites cannot ignore.
It is counterproductive because we will lose mass public support, and Nov. 2 will be a one-off.
This is an unwarranted assertion. Just because you say something doesn’t mean it’s true. clearly you have a flawed overly reductive historical perspective on movement tactics and the struggle for social justice and mass support (ie the question of violence/nonviolence wasn’t the only reason the 1960’s movements succeeded and/or fell apart, there were a multitude of reasons – internal divisions, state repression that was not a REACTION but aggressive and indiscriminate attack on the left generally, the end of the Vietnam War, the leadership complex that placed all the movements hopes and goals on a single charismatic leader, and the collapse of organized labor under the pressure capital’s attack on the working class since the 1970 through neoliberal austerity programs.) obviously “violent” movements can garner mass public support, the fact that you keep on pretending like the 1960’s movements were nonviolent shows that this perception can be overcome and we can convince the mass to support us even if we’re “violent”.
It gives credence to accusations that we protesters started it, that the police had to respond.
Okay this means it is not a red herring to bring up police vs protestor violence. If you are saying protestors actions justify police actions then the question of how the police act in relation to how protestors act is an issue for this debate. It is because of this argument that people are saying the cops A.) will attack us regardless of our tactics (violent or non) and B.) will attack using overwhelming force and violence that is in no way commensurability in so far as the cops hosipitalize people we don’t.
It gives the authorities and vigilantes an excuse to crack down, even if we didn’t start it.
This is inevitable, because obviously the facts don’t matter to people who want to attack our movement regardless of who “started” it. This is actually a red herring because a commitment to non-violence will do nothing to stop this.
It leaves us extremely vulnerable to provocateurs and infiltrators.
Get real we’re all famous now. There is no privacy and security in the new normal. We know the bush admin and local authorities infiltrated nonviolent peace/antiwar organizations over the last decade. We know we are under permanent survaillence and provcateurs and infiltrators are inevitable. if your just now worried because of what happened it the 1960’s you’ve been ignoring what’s happened over the last 40 years. This is actually why people cover their faces and form affinity groups w/ their friends who they know and trust.
These tactics make us no better than the 1%.
Wow. This is funny. Cross apply all of your own arguments for why we shouldn’t make ridiculous comparative statements and red herrings. This one takes the cake, because comparing two forms of “violence” seams to make sense – were as comparing who is “better” based off of these assertions is completely absurd.
It is morally wrong.
This is another assertions that has no support and necessitates a discussion over what is/not moral and how we determine this. Simply saying you’ve got morality on your side is both dubious and dangerous – because it’s a short step to go from im morally superior to i can exclude and repress you.
We can never match the military power of the 1%, and we will lose if we try.
That’s not what people are doing – thanks for another red herring argument in your post criticizing the “red herrings” of those you oppose.
Nonviolent resistance is extremely powerful, and the only power the powerless have.
This is wrong. The powerless have more power than the spectacle of their victimized bodies. The MST through forcibly occupying land (landless peasants movement of brazil) it has done infinitely more for the powerless than a cops baton or a journalist camera. But perhaps you only want the powerless to have a power that elites will grant them.
As shown on Nov. 2, our strength is in numbers, and those numbers will remain supportive only if we commit to nonviolence.
Wrong again. Supporting the diversity of everyone in the movement is the only way to generate mass support. Sowing internal divisions is the only guarantee that we will loose support. Stop arguing for ultimatums and purges and start organizing in the nonviolence committee.
Those are just some of the many reasons we have conveyed to you. They are not mutually exclusive, but you do not have to believe in all of them to believe in one. And all it takes is believing in one.
Let’s be the change we wish to see. Let’s commit to nonviolence once and for all.
No lets not make a rhetorical commitment that we cant enforce and that will divide the movement. instead of a proposal get out and organize. Act on your rhetoric. We get it – you oppose “violence” – now act on that.
Violence begets more violence. Ghandi had it right, and it’s time to let the Black Bloc know they are welcome as part of the 99%, but violence is NOT welcome and will NOT be tolerated.
YEs,yes,yes!
Here’s one more:
If we initiate violence, we invite escalation and destroy the space (both physically and in the public mind) where non-violent protests can take place and be effective.
Violence and vandalism are not part of a “diversity of tactics”. Violence and vandalism DESTROY the potential for a diversity of tactics.