OK, those of you who were at the GA tonight or on Sunday are already aware of the language of this proposal. What I would like to have, is a copy of the original proposal that passed the Occupy San Francisco General Assembly. Because I have heard this rumor that the people who brought it to our General Assembly in Oakland had already modified the statement to remove language about non-violence, in hopes that it would actually pass our General Assembly. And after what I saw tonight, I have little doubt, but I’d still like to compare their proposal to the San Francisco proposal.
I wasn’t going to say anything about this rumor, although I did think about asking a clarifying question about whether or not the text had been altered. Because, people should know. But the proposal said that we were in solidarity with peaceable assemblies of people protesting. So I figured they must have put the language back in. But after that, somebody told me that the original SF statement actually has more language about “non-violence” in it.
When one woman got up to ask if the word “peaceably” could be removed, and then the person bringing the proposal rapidly agreed that that wording could be changed, the stack filled up for Pros and Cons pretty fast. It turned out that a lot of us actually on both sides of the never-ending debate had issues with this.
Why?
The presenters didn’t quite seem to understand, and I have to admit that I didn’t do myself any favors when I approached them in a way that they rightfully identified as patronizing. But it’s hard for me to understand, even though I myself have a limited history in activism, how you can sign a statement of solidarity with another group and just change the words of the solidarity statement to suit yourself. I always thought that the whole point of two groups signing the same statement was that it was, well, the same statement.
And as I say, some people who are against #OO being explicitly non-violent were also against the proposal, because maybe it would enable Occupy San Francisco to claim that we had signed onto an agreement that we really had not endorsed. It would enable them to misrepresent our intentions, and it defeats the whole point of a solidarity statement if the 2 (or 3, 4, etc.) groups are actually signing different statements. It’s supposed to be a show of support that we can all agree on the same core statement. If Occupy Oakland doesn’t agree with the statement that Occupy San Francisco put out there, then it should not endorse it. Simple as that.
The presenters are very well-intentioned people, and they took me up in conversation despite my confrontational manner. They explained to me, and I agree with them, that we do stand in solidarity with Occupy San Francsico, even if we don’t agree about everything. We don’t even agree amongst ourselves about everything, much less do we agree with everybody at Occupy SF. And if I denied that we are standing in solidarity with Occupy SF, then I’d be lying. So we should pass our own statement of solidarity with Occupy SF. We should pretend to be passing the same statement that they are, when we really aren’t. But I dunno, if I’ve learned one thing from Occupy, it’s that everything is up to discussion. So, discuss….
@fellow worker
Diatibe means, “A prolonged discourse.A forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something. Ironic or satirical criticism.” (Webster)
FWIW you called my second post “assinine.” And your sarcastic tone in your response to my first post could have been heard all the way in India. 😉
The over all mood of your first two response posts were condescending to say the least. In both long posts, you lectured to me as if you were trying to educate an ignorant child who had never read, discussed, or studied history.
I’m so glad that you have so many well thought out opinions about certain factual historical events. And it would serve you better to remember that your analysis of those historical facts are based on opinion and to structure your responses accordingly. That might serve to fascilitate and encourage an exchange of ideas and even a debate.
Please know that I have a very thick skin and I’m not personally offended by what you wrote or the way you chose to write.
I just thought I’d point out that you have accused me of being “dismissive” in your third response to me, “assinine” in the second, and vapid (if I’m interpreting correctly) and “sniping” in your first response.
I guess that you could try to blame me, but when you reread your responses perhaps you’ll get a different perspective.
hi winstanley,
thanks for the positive feedback. yeah oops british academic marxists and radical black liberationist, small difference there.
as to the sanity of systems/structures of violence/oppression:
first i’ll concede that at times they appear less than rational or logical.
second i would argue that there are a number of ways of thinking through how the arbitrary use violence reinforces structures of violence and oppression. if people don’t understand why or how violence is meted out it makes it more difficult (as you note) for people to resist it.
third this observation also reveals some of the shortcomings of thinking in terms of linear causality, and seeking a strict one to one relationships between cause and effect, tactics and results, etc.
fourth, while the insanity of racialized violence, or other forms of arbitrary violence may seem paralyzing, the recognition of the necessity of nuanced analysis and flexible responses, that may even, at times, be incommensurable is a way of overcoming this – thus the need for a movement of movements, a diversity of tactics, a commitment to critical self-refexivity, an overturning of the ways the Western Metaphysics privileges identity over and against difference through an embrace of the idea that difference is the conditional possibility from which identity/being emerges, and in this spirit the elaboration of ever more forms of radical praxis and revolutionary action that can provide sustenance for communities of resistance. if they wanna get crazy as slick rick said “lets get crazy”
So, mizpat (and others), you’re going to drop out because “violence” *might* happen? Because the group of people who called for an action won’t commit to nonviolence? Well, how committed are YOU to nonviolence if you are not willing to put yourself in a situation where violence might happen? It’s easy to maintain nonviolent principles in an ashram…why don’t you try them out in a real situation, where masses of people you (mostly, I think) agree with will be trying to do something you also want to happen?
Martin Luther King walked straight into violent situations, and he talked to a lot of people (face to face I might add, which has a lot more impact). You should come out with us and keep the conversation going at a time and place where it matters most. If you don’t like the OO G.A., join the mass movement and make it your own in the streets.
Very informative post fellow worker. The only thing that I’m not sure about is when you say:
“It is not the willingness of protestors to use violence that determines the degree of the state violence in response, it is the degree of the threat posed by the resistance to the existing order that determines the degree of violent repression used to eliminate that threat”
because it seems to me that a lot of police and other members of repressive forces are actually INSANE and don’t really follow the logic we may have as analysts of revolutionary moments. I think there really is some pathology to be considered here. I mean, when unarmed black men get shot down in a hail of police gunfire for suspicion of petty nonviolent crimes..it would be hard to argue that the victims posed a great threat to the existing order, there is obviously more involved. (And I’m sure you are aware of this) The reason this is important is because there is also a real insanity about *fighting* cops in reaction to this (the panthers called these folks “jackanapes”) and I’ve seen that (shit, I’ve felt it) in some of the people smashing shit and lighting fires in Oakland. I’m not a pacifist but I am into tactics and I’m tired of seeing young people get fucked up and/or jailed for shit that is not thought out, maybe because they’re thinking about revolution too abstractly.
and p.s. you meant Robert Williams, not Raymond.
cool I appreciate this far more nuanced response. as you can tell i have no rant control, and you can characterize it as an “amazing diatribe” if you want, its kind of dismissive, and i know i was pretty much a d-bag through out the post, but there are a lot of substantive responses and i hope you can dig that i don’t mean to be a d-bag.
I can see that I greatly upset you. It’s not my intent.
It’s amazing the diatribe my simple comments have elicited. You read way too much into what I was writing. I get the feeling that we are talking past each other instead of to each other.
I’m really not for or against a commitment to non-violence as a post above that I wrote said in not so clear language.
I honestly feel that no other group should dictate to Occupy Oakland what it should or should not stand for. We have an extreme culture of violence in our neighborhoods that doesn’t necessarily spring from police oppression alone. It’s much more complex than that.
In the work I do I have no right to impose my personal beliefs or cultural values onto the people with whom I work. To do so would be disrespectful in the extreme.
I believe that Occupy Oakland will define where it stands on the very complex issue of violence. There may never be a commitment to non-violence. But it’s not for the reasons you seem to think. And I’m not sure I completely oppose a non-commitment around non-violence for Occupy Oakland.
Just realize that the system we have now was born from violent revolution against the British. The white land owners drew up the founding documents of this system and only intended to allow white land owners a vote. Again, this was accomplished through violent revolution.
I hope we all consider that when we factor what role, if any, that violence will or will not have in the actions of Occupy Oakland.
@simcha
it was in response to your asinine post. you can be snarky all you want it’s not constructive nor does it shine a favorable light on the dialogue that you’re trying to engage in. you’re not going to build allies by being a d-bag. but whatev’s i’ll play along.
First: The argument i made in favor of the paris commune was not a defense of violent revolution pre se, i specifically indicated it was the organizational structure that eschewed hierarchical social formations and organized around egalitarian self-management – that points the way toward to revolutionary change. It was the everyday operation of the commune not the canons of Montmarte that made the commune what it was. And it was this that has been evoked in Oakland w/ the name Oakland Commune. And beyond the fact that i’m invoking the “non-violent” aspects of the Paris Commune I even explicitly indicate that OO/the Oakland Commune is not violent. but your response is to build up a stickman argument you can easily defeat, talk invalid points.
Second: the historical analysis you’ve offered here is really something. France the cliff notes version and India the revisionist gandhian-tinted-lens version.
with regard to france, thanks for the assurances now that i have your word on it, seeing as you are a student of french history, i’m convinced the paris commune had no effect on the ruling class. boy i wish learning all history was this easy. please reduce and over-simplify other historical events so that i may better understand the world around me.
Could you explain how France and the US (presumably) are just now finding themselves plunging into a mess? who is france and how did it come to self awareness? why is it that the US and France as sentient beings are just now becoming aware of this mess in which they are plunging? what antecedents have produced this mess? and how is this mess related to the mess or lack there of in post-colonial india?
With regard to india all I can say is wow. Your narrative is incredibly ahistorical.
The problems of india, according to you, lay not in the legacy of colonial domination, but in the pre-colonial legacy of indian culture before european invasion.
REALLY!?! Have you heard of the partitioning of india or the conflict of kashmir? This is what Arundhati Roy has to say about the validity of your historical claims:
“OK. Well, Kashmir, as they say in India, you know, is the unfinished business in the partition of India and Pakistan. So, as usual, it was a gift of British colonialism. You know, they threw it at us as they walked — I mean, as they withdrew. So Kashmir used to be an independent kingdom with a Muslim majority ruled by a Hindu king. And during — at the time of partition in 1947, as there was — you know, as you know, almost a million people lost their lives, because this line that was drawn between India and Pakistan passed through villages and passed through communities, and as Hindus fled from Pakistan and Muslims fled from India, there was massacre on both sides.
And at that time, oddly enough, Kashmir was peaceful. But then, when all the independent princedoms in India and Pakistan were asked to actually accede either to India or Pakistan, but Kashmir, the king was undecided, and that indecision resulted in, you know, Pakistani troops and non-official combatants coming in. And the king fled to Jamu, and then he acceded to India. But he was — you know, there was already a movement for democracy within Kashmir at that time. Anyway, that’s the history.
But subsequently, there’s always been a struggle for independence or self-determination there, which in 1989 became an armed uprising and was put down militarily by India. And today, the simplest way of explaining the scale of what’s going on is that the US has 165,000 troops in Iraq, but the Indian government has 700,000 troops in the Kashmir valley — I mean, in Kashmir, security forces, you know, holding down a place with military might. And so, it’s a military occupation.”
And as you say the india independence movement removed british colonial rule “beautifully” and made it so Indians are “to this day masters of their own house” because it was non-violent and they didn’t overthrow the local power elite.
lets unpack some of this shit storm.
first the Indian independence movement included a diversity of tactics, and emerged out of a multiplicity of causes. Property was destroyed, bombs were thrown in the indian parliament, assassination were carried out, there were numerous violent rebellions against colonial enclosure. thus if your statement that the Indian Independence movement was a beautiful success is true than the actual history of this movement shows a diversity of tactics can produce beautiful successful stories. Now of course the representation of the process of Indian Independence as a “beautiful” success is a violently reductive historical myth that obscures the millions of rapes, murders, and brutality that took place in the process. Only a sadist could look at the piles of broken bodies beaten by colonial forces on the Salt March and call it beautiful.
second: this idea that india’s have become masters of their own house because of independence is incredibly problematic. Obviously this hasn’t been the case for those Indians who aren’t part of the ruling elite or in the elevated levels of the cast system to which you refer. “India” as in the abstract nation state is the “master of [it’s] own house” in the classical Westphalian sense, and it is dominated by a “ruling elite” that is fully integrated into the modern capitalist command and control structures and social dynamics that are maintained by state force. And some of the outcomes of this social configuration is that 1/3 of the people living in poverty globally live in India. as of 2005 41.6% of the India population lived on under $1.25 a day. In 2010 the Forbes list of 10 richest billionaires included 2 Indians, and the number of billionaires in India doubled. This is at a time when over 17,000 Indian Famers kill themselves annually because of poverty (see Wikipedia page for ‘Farmer’ Suicides in India’). India has also been the site of mass popular resistance movements since independence that have opposed the decisions made by the Indian Government. For instance the anti-poverty movement in India is huge, there is a strong feminist movement, the farmers movement, the anti-dam movement and the alter-globalization movement have all clearly articulated the masses opposition to how the Indian government has decided to act as master of its house, there’s even a Moaist rebellion in the poorest regions of India that is being put down with overwhelming military force – in what the Indian government has dubbed Operation Green Hunt – with over 600 villages being cleared and destroyed using tactics based on the US/British Models for pacifying southeast Asia (see the march 22, 2010 democracy now). In addition to this military mastery the Indian Government has refused to recognize Kashmir’s independence, fought several wars against Pakistan over claim to Kashmir, and maintains a police state in Kashmir w/ 700,000 troops stationed in one of if not the most militarized places on earth. So this idea that indian’s are now masters of their own house because they didn’t rise up against the local ruling elite is highly dubious, and only true if one looks at the world form the persepective of the state and not that of individual human beings.
Then you argue that no-one’s suggesting giving up.
Well snarky one line responses to three paragraphs of content are less than clear. And what I was responding to is the implication that since the Paris commune was crushed by the state we should ignore the organizational structures and example that it provides – ie give up on the spirit of the commune – because it faced police repression. And if that’s not what you were meaning to say it was unclear because of your lack of explanation. And as I’ve indicated above the argument that your making about the commune is a.) not responsive to my argument about it’s organizational structure being a revolutionary model, and b.) your response represents a truly twisted historical comparison based on the slimmest of analysis.
Then you say you specifically are not giving up, your nonviolent and those that disagree w/ you operate on a false premise. Concluding “Violence begets violence unless one side refuses to play along. History proves that”
First: good to hear your not giving up. I don’t know what that means, because in the context of the posts that your responding to that means you’re not giving up on the example of an anarchist society like the one run by the workers of paris for two months in 1871. If that’s the case none of your statements in response to mine reflect that commitment. But if you say so.
Second: On premises true and false.
I think the historical examples that you’ve tried to use to prove the efficaciousness of collective nonviolence fail demonstrate the claim that you are supporting and thus History doesn’t prove your premise to be true. The historical narrative that you presented has been challenged, now to prove that this premise is true you have to argue
a.) That a diversity of tactics did not exist in the india independence movement to access the claim that Indian independence is proof that collective nonviolence in itself is effective.
b.) you have to overcome the contradiction between gandhian nonviolence in theory and the actual reality of post-colonial India’s governmental apparatus, and class structure, that I identified above, to be able to access any claim to the lasting success, beauty, or generalized emancipation of the Indian populace (which during the independence movement included Pakistan and Bengaladesh) or to be able to make the argument that “The Indians are to this day masters of their own house because of that revolution where non-violence was held as a value. They didn’t have their revolution to overthrow their own power elite.”
The idea that collective nonviolence is the only tactic that should be adopted by resistance movements, is not historically proven insofar as it has never been the sole cause for undoing systems of oppression. and in fact it has often served to divide (eg. MLK/SCLC/NAACP v. Raymond Williams) and limit movements capacity to effect change (eg the environmental movement of the 1980-90s) in the past.
Additionally the idea that the Paris Commune (specifically the organized self-management of a non-hierarchical society) engaged in, and that property damage is a form of, violence is a false premise. This is because the commune acted in self defense, it did not, though it could have, attacked existing elements of the French state and later counter-revolutionary forces that did attack the commune – which defended itself. The communards didn’t violently overthrow the state, the workers overwhelmed Paris took it for their own, refused the demands of the state, and operate the city in the most democratic manner anyone has ever seen, until the state showed up w/ plans to massacre them. Much like Occupy Oakland however on a much larger scale. Additionally smashing a window isn’t violent – for you to win an argument that it is requires an affirmative defense of the claim, at which point I’ll respond, but up till now that’s not really even at stake in this debate.
And this leads me to the final premise you implied that being – the state has a monopoly the escalation of force, the more violent we are the more they’re advantaged.
I think your fundamentally right. That state has a monopoly on the use of force and will escalate the level of violence to suit itself. What is self evident is that real alternatives to the existing order will be violently crushed by the forces of domination that are threatened by them. I think that your fundamentally wrong when you characterize either the Oakland Commune or the Paris Commune as violent. I also think your wrong about how states responds to revolutionary situations. It is not the willingness of protestors to use violence that determines the degree of the state violence in response, it is the degree of the threat posed by the resistance to the existing order that determines the degree of violent repression used to eliminate that threat. And yes the Paris Commune posed the biggest threat to the existing order of hierarchy and exploitation of modern capitalism and it was suppressed far more violently than Gandhi and his homies. Another anecdote is the fact that the FBI via CONITELPRO actively sought to neutralize MLK and the SCLC throughout the 60s and even after his Kings death in ’68. Obviously a decade of survailence the FBI knew King wasn’t violent, but that didn’t stop the FBI from responding to the threat he posed to the existing order w/ systematic repression. The state will act w/ force when it’s threatened the only way for people to overcome this is to delegitimize and undermine systems of violence and oppression until they become irrelevant in peoples daily lives. Which is exactly what the Oakland Commune has been doing. It is not guaranteed by violence. It is not sustained by riot cops that will violently exterminate its opposition. It might smash a window or two but its smashing much more than that – the Oakland commune has smashed the illusions that there is no alternative.
Who are the Koch bros?
Whatever pose you choose, rest assured that your “comrades” are calling your (collective) actions a revolution, and the measures to manage that revolution, whether it is real or not, are themselves very real. I agree that it is a silly pose, and that is why I no longer associate with “you people” in public places.
The assertion that the Tahrir Square uprising “worked” smacks of provincialism, especially in light of the fact that so many Egyptians claim that it did not “work”. “Your” democratic ideals are simply neocolonialism, a tool of the 1% to promote the illusion of choice.
The assertion that I advocate what went down in Libya is vulgar stupidity, not so offensive as inane. Libya was among the pearls of North Africa, and now look at it. Its late unfortunate leader played a rough game and lost, but was in every other respect no better or worse a human being than Hillary Clinton.
You may condone the theft of all that gold by the CFR, but I do not.
I won’t touch the bit about liberators (which is a steadfast as a dandelion) but I will add that a Tactical Action Committee is cute but pointless without a strategy. Strategy without tactics is the longest path to victory, and tactics without strategy is the noise you hear just before defeat.
The image of you as agitators is well founded. Transparency would be an asset if you (collectively) had a strategy and not disjointed tactics. The moral high ground, without strategy, offers no intrinsic advantage.
Hear hear. Radical transparency would do us a world of good. As is, people are creating all sorts of theories as to who is really ‘behind’ ows, trying to equate it with a liberal version of the Koch bros revolution. Or even more sinister plots.
This is a war of ideas. We will never win a war that escalates to bilateral violence. Our only hope is a battle for the hearts and minds of the people. And in that battle, maintaining the moral high ground is essential.
A Peaceful, Expedient Solution
Perhaps there is one thing we can all agree on: Private money in politics is why we are protesting. We can remove private money from politics by incentivizing congress to enact campaign finance reform by offering to adjust their pay and pensions upward. The 1% did not sacrifice and risk life and limb to gain control, they acquired it with financial incentives and so can we. For a brief 4 min read with details see: http://politicalfinancereform.org/
Hmm. Apparently I can’t edit. Socialist groups, not broods. Stupid swype text entry…
Note: Socialism does not, by necessity, have any element of hierarchy or central control/authority. Many socialist broods have been using horizontal power structures and leaderless consensus systems for a long time. And despite the fact that it’s an incredibly poor plan to -call- it such, ows is fundamentally aligned with many socialist ideas and ideals.
Just like anarchism is a much maligned term that has come to mean actually virtual opposite things at the same time, so with socialism. Don’t mistake it with Maoism any more than you would mistake anarchism to solely mean violent anarchy punks or Ayn Rand/Ron Paul anarcho-capitalists. These are bastardizations.
Wait, was that to Aaron or me? The first part seemed like it was to me and the rest seemed like a rant by someone who is worried that their points aren’t valid.
Anyway, you asserted that the Paris Commune example is the gateway to real social change. As a student of French history, I can assure you that it didn’t change the way that the French government of the time treated its people nor did it force the 1% of that time to share resources more equitably. It did get a while bunch of people killed.
France had a series of armed revolution followed by a brutal counter revolution followed by many coups over the course of a century or so to arrive at their current Fifth Republic. And now they find themselves plunging into the same mess as us.
India is also continuingly struggling with its issues which are very different than ours. They had a formal rigid caste system based your birth that was imposed on everyone that officially is abandoned but is still in force in practice. That isn’t what we face. The struggle for independence for India was directed against the Bsritish to remove them as the ruling power. It succeeded beautifully at doing this. The Indians are to this day masters of their own house because of that revolution where non-violence was held as a value. They didn’t have their revolution to overthrow their own power elite.
No one here is suggesting that we give up, from what I’ve read here. Some are suggesting that collective non-violent action is more powerful. Many are dismissing this out of hand based on false premises.
Violence begets violence unless one side refuses to play along. History proves that.
I think that what is being worked out here is whether or not the movement wants to be able to retaliate with violence or whether it will retaliate with non-violence.
I believe that answering the state’s violence with violence forces the state to increase the intensity of the violence and the police state. It’s self evident.
Is that what we want? We already have plenty of violence in our communities. Do we want to add to that?
really? wow what another productive post – you’re on a roll. the paris commune was crushed by repressive state forces… …occupy oakland is also being confronted by the fascist police state…just sayin’…the state doesn’t like challenges to it’s authority…is that a reason to concede to fascist social constructions the ability to operate smoothly and determine the conditions of our existence without resistance? if your answer is yes then i don;t know why you’ve been participating in such an endeavor, but if your response is no then your conceding that your post is asinine and beside the point – even in the face of overwhelming odds and adversity we should stand for whats right – like egalitarian non-hierarchical social structures that include and everyone in making decisions that effect their lives.
You do know what happened to the people in Paris Commune right? I’m just sayin’…
@AaronM
these examples are absurd. there is now way of proving the counter-factual argument your making. we can’t say what gandhian revolutionary violence would result in because it didn’t happen. We do know however that post-colonial india is no paradise and has been the sight of mass-ethinic violence, replication of colonial social relations, and mass starvation and warfare (see Shiva’s India Divided, or Roy’s recent works on the failed democracy of post colonial india). We also know that while Cuba under Fidel and Raoul has been the site of state repression and violence (see frank fernandez’s cuban anarchism) it’s no North Korea. thus we can say that gandhian social revolutions fail to produce utopian social conditions and can in fact be easily recuperated to reinforce structures of power and domination (see the numerous examples of non-violence practitioners who have colluded with repressive state forces to marginalize more radical elements – John Seal posted an article called “why the 1% loves anarchist violence” that relays one of these examples – the movie End-Civ around minute 54:00 also addresses this treacherous history – as well as all the examples above in shiva’s and roy’s works). And that violent social revolutions can have differing outcomes as per the difference between the Castros and the Kims.
However the Paris Commune, when it existed, as w/ occupy oakland, points the way toward true revolutionary change – specifically the self-organization of social structures that are explicitly designed in opposition to the replication of coercive structures of power and domination. for two months oakland california was the site of an anarchist commune w/ 400 full-time inhabitants, thousands of supporters and a functioning gift economy providing 1000+ hot meals around the clock, medical services, social services, housing, socks, sanitation etc. What is to come of this experience for all of those effected by it is unknown, but at least for a small window in time for those of us who have been there and have gotten to experience it we can rest assured that we have been part of unique time and place in modern human history that really does pose an alternative to all the shit we see around us (Cops who kill and assault people w/ impunity, unaccountable decision making entities that decide for us what kind of world we will live in, Profit obsessed capitalist who perpetuate social relations that result in millions of preventable deaths every year not to mention shitty living conditions for the billions living in poverty and alienation under modern capitalism). what we have seen in oakland is an anarchist society and while it’s not perfect, or all that pretty at times – it is not violent (vandalism and destruction happens inevitably when one builds on a fault line, and consolidates hundreds of thousands of people in a single place, thus non-anarchist societies hasn’t solved these problems either, and it’s not as if property destruction is more endemic or characteristic of OO than the rest of society look around there is graffiti everywhere, there are clear cuts, damed and diverted streams and rivers, strip mines, and drag nets enough in dominant society to kill millions of people, drive millions of species to extinction and risk all life on this planet. on balance OO’s not nearly as destructive as dominant society which is fundamentally based on violence and destruction. and property destruction against corporations is not violence.
and to imply the BPP is to blame for gun violence in the black community is offensive. the BPP were far more than just gun fetishizing media spectacles. they also fed kids and are the reason we have breakfast programs. they produce news papers for their communities and provided dozens of services including self-defense. the rise of gun violence in black communities has far more to do with the disintegration of the manufacturing base and the jobs it provided the offered economic stability and middle class existence, endemic racism manifesting in the form white flight to the suburbs and a drug war replicating the conditions of racialized slavery and the jim crow south nationally, combined w/ the strange availability of hard imported drugs and automatic weaponry in poor minority communities in the 1980s, and neoliberal austerity programs removing support services see the welfare to work, or the destruction of public housing and public schools in place like New Orleans, Baltimore, Detroit, and Oakland – you have a recipe for high crime and gun violence and a story that’s far more compelling than blaming a single group for a single over dramatized image for all of the gun violence in the black community over last 40 years.
@aaronm
Your first argument in defense of nonviolence is silly.
no one has suggested throwing molitov cocktails at cops but you. so your argument is based on a false premise that mischaracterizes what is actually being debated. if you want to call your opponents in a debate puppy killers thats fine, but it doesn’t support your position in relations theirs it just means you can make shit up.
and the image of Sgt. Pike pepperspraying students is so powerful, that it’s now a meme joke that is better know for “pepper spraying” the constitution, women’s breasts, famous public figures etc. than it is because real people were hurt. people largely don’t care if protestors are hurt, this might have to do with the way the structures of imaginative identification are skewed in such a way that people identify with authority more than they do w/ one another, or it might have to do w/ the collapse of meaning and significance into free floating spectacle of ironic frivolity that seams to animate “post-modernism.” either way powerful images are not all that powerful the second time, assuming they had any effect the first.
and for you second argument about SF students and Tuition hikes:
okay, that’s cool no has told them they can’t do that. in fact the diversity of tactics advocates explicitly advocate your/their right to have the space to do this. unfortunately there’s no reciprocity.
i’m sure the students at SFSU back in the 60’s were empowered by the radical and yes violent student strikes back then. I know this because i’ve heard stories relayed by participants who were there. and SFSU has an ethnic studies program because of these strikes.
I bet people in the black bloc feel empowered by it. in fact one has even said so on film in the movie “breaking the spell.” and judging by it’s growth out of europe in the 1980s to the present including numerous actions in the US (documented in the “Black Bloc Papers”) the bloc has empowered a whole generation of activist. and these are many of the peaceful folks on earth – buildings don’t have feelings a broken windows not violence.
your third argument is that there are good and bad protestors, but the bad ones ruin it for everyone else:
first i don’t know what your talking about i’ve seen pictures of the port march, children’s brigade etc. there were also some pictures of vandalism and the bloc. the fact that the media focus more one than the other doesn’t matter. they’re not on our side – they were the ones parroting an estimate of 5-7k people.
second : most of what your saying isn’t true the justification for removing OO had more to do w/ the “public safety” issues, the 2nd was not cited as the reason for eviction by city leaders, and it’s irrelevant becuase it’s clear that the city had no intention of allowing the occupation to stay in OGP. They had evicted OO once already. And Hospitalized numerous people in our ranks. and the city used a tragic murder more than anything to justify the eviction.
If it’s true that some window smashing has brought a coordinated nation wide crack down on the movement by the DHS, 19 mayors and police departments, is either a reason to mobilize in the face of a police state, or it’s a silly argument that grants the police state the power it seeks to marginalize and undermine dissent. I think the fact that anywhere from 5,000-100,000 (probably 50-60K) people mobilized and shutdown the port in what was roundly characterized as a successful general strike – is far more frightening than a few hundred masked anarchist.
the actions of a few outwiegh those of the many only because you’ve chosen to make that decision for yourself, that doesn’t mean it’s true for the rest of us – i disagree and feel like the actions of the divisive peace police have been far more damaging to the movements focus and energy than anything the black bloc did.
your fourth argument is that w/out an explicit non-violence resolution is excused.
first you concede violence is inevitable and than you make an ahistorical observation about implicitly condoning violence if we don;t explicitly oppose it, as if this hasn’t been an issue of debate in social justice movements for more than 100 years. if you don’t believe me, try to find Ben H. Williams’ essay “Sabotage” in the February 25,1911 issue of Solidarity (published in Rebel Voices: an IWW Anthology), which is strangely timely and contrasts this debate to a tee.
no one is excused from responsibility for their actions. the only person implying that we should embrace a social ethic where people aren’t responsible for themselves and to their community is yourself. The person who murdered another Human Being in our presence in OGP was in no way given explicit or implicit okay by anyone in OO. none of us are responsible for what happened and that person can;t use our refusal to pass a nonviolence resolution as an excuse, or justification, or reason for his actions. this is another example of the perverse social ethics of nonviolence – those who are actually violent get a pass, but those who are represented as violent in the spectacle of media images, but actually aren’t violent by any sane analysis are held to insane standards of conduct.
your final argument is to say we all have to make a choice, and you’ve made yours you “will never accept, participate, encourage, or forgive those who use violence.” and that “Keep voting against non-violence, and I will continue to not stand in solidarity with those who use violence.”
What does this last part mean? where do you stand, because the status quo is determined by enormous amounts of violence, if you don’t believe me, look at Sgt Pike, he lurks around the corner in almost every situation ensuring we dont make the right and ethical choice, like feeding the hungry people on the corner w/ the food in the stores, or housing the houseless in the empty houses etc. and so – if the movement’s violent and the conditions of existence are violent – in following your commitment to nonviolence – where do you stand? or put another way when forced to choose between one group who’s violence consists of fracturing skulls, rupturing spleens, and using chemical weapons, in defense of a system of structural inequity and violence that kills millions of people every year in literally Holocaust levels of violence, or another group who’s violence consist of only damaging property and not living beings, while defending oneself from attack by violent thugs armed to the teeth behind full body armor – who’s side are you on and why?
I was there when the global revolution livestream burst onto the internet on Sept. 17 (or so): everyone on the chat – up to 20,000 at some points, stated and prayed for non-violence in Liberty Plaza.
this is a joke. you were there? where? on the internet? …oh you mean you watched a viral live stream and participated in a chat – and because of this you and 20K people all of the same mind, (as if that’s true) now have a privileged position with regard to what principles are adopted by the movement. when was it that 20K people held a chat forum GA and consensed that the movement was going to embrace nonviolence as value-principle? is there a copy of the proposal? do you have a link or a transcript or minuets of the meeting? and how did all of you plan to enforce adherence to this principle – particularly since there doesn’t seem to be any paper trail documenting it? ….Oh, your just gonna go home because you haven’t gotten your way, okay – that’s lame but whatevs.
I work one block inside Berkeley on the border with North Oakland. I’ve been present for two occasions where bullets have flown through my workplace, not physically harming anyone at work or the homeless youth I serve. There was one shooting directly in front of my workplace that killed one of the local neighborhood guys. There are vigils that commemorate this at regular intervals. I’ve lived with this for 6 years.
I work directly with homeless youth who suffer from severe PTSD due to violence in Oakland, Berkeley, and Richmond (and other areas of the Bay) providing whatever treatment I can (surely just a band aid).
There is a culture of violence in these communities. I grew up a suburbanite. My culture is quite different.
While I value non-violence, I know that I have no right to impose my beliefs on those whom I serve, no matter how I feel. That wouldn’t be respectful of their experience and cultures.
I have wrestled with this idea of imposing non-violence on all Occupy movements. I value the non-violence pledges of other Occupy movements. And I value greatly the example of non-violent action by the students of UC Davis. It continues to be a powerful demonstration of what non-violence can do.
And this is Occupy Oakland. It’s not Occupy UC Davis. It’s not Occupy Santa Rosa, Occupy Marin, or Occupy San Francisco, for that matter. Occupy Oakland deserves the freedom to develop as it needs to so that it meets the needs of Oakland and expresses the voices of all Oaklanders.
Why does Occupy Oakland have to change its name to distance itself from the OWS movement at a whole? Isn’t OWS all about unity through diversity and non-hierarchical power? Why can’t Oakland be part of OWS while retaining some autonomy in philosophy and action? Even if we do decide to change the name to suit the needs of Oaklanders, does that mean that Occupy (Decolonize) Oakland would not be able to be considered an “authentic” OWS movement and part of the 99%?
It’s sounding more and more like I need to get my butt to Sunday’s GA. Maybe I’ll get to meet you guys. I’m a 41 year old white looking Jewish looking guy with brown hair with gray and brown plastic glasses. I wear a navy blue wind breaker that has a pale blue “Black Panther” button that says, “Commemorator.” Look for me. I’d like to meet you guys.
Absolutely, which again is why at this point I think the best option is to show up tomorrow at 2:00 to support a name change to “Decolonize Oakland.” #OO has its own agenda and issues, and we should not allow ourselves to speak for the rest of the movement by using the name “Occupy” if we are not going to sign on to what is indeed, as you say, one of the core value-principles of the movement.
As far as support for pre-existing groups, it’s a troubling distinction that I can’t personally make in such a definitive way as you seem to be taking it. I am very wary of pre-existing groups and of the coalitions between #OO from such groups, especially the group of anarchists who actually had a lot to do with founding Occupy Oakland and setting us on such a divergent path from the rest of the movement. But there are many pre-existing groups such as the Bradley Manning Support network whose goals and methods I’m completely behind and who I think are natural allies of the Occupy/99% movement. I am completely in solidarity with all the Veterans groups for peace and against war. I am in solidarity with groups that provide direct aid to the homeless and the dispossessed. But many other groups are poisoned with top-down hierarchy (unions, socialist groups, Democrats) are not in solidarity with us and should not be, because we are working I believe ultimately against their consolidated control of politics just like we are against corporate/bank control of politics. At least, that’s how I see it and how I see my role in this, as an individual and not as a member of a union.
I think that possibly the best option right now is to show up tomorrow at 2:00 and support the name change to “Decolonize Oakland.” At the very least, that provides some room for #OWS and other groups to distance themselves from us if some of our members go too far and embarrass the movement. Occupy Oakland prides itself on being different and more militant than other groups — so why not go all the way? It’s not fair or right for us to pretend to be part of the “Occupy” movement, if the rest of the groups are non-violent but we are leaving things open in that regard.
I agree. And you are right that, win or lose, we need to represent ourselves and our aspirations for the future and for the world. What would the world think of us if we were all silent, as Americans, about the increasing fascism of our rogue nation? I think of all the people who resisted the Nazis in Europe, the many thousands who hid the Jews in their homes and helped them to escape for example. They reminded the world of the basic humanity of the German and Austrian people, and they kept the anger and the revenge of the world against Germany in check. There may come a day when American imperialism will have to be ended from without, if we cannot win and stop this madness from within. I will not aid a foreign power in overthrowing our Republic, but I will provide visible and open resistance against the Empire so that those who judge us can judge us as a people and not as a monolithic entity who represent oppression and violence.
“My sincere convictions lie not in the words and ideas I put forth under various names, but in the service I provide by way of a “range of dissent”, without which “ideals” are not fully considered and only half-baked.
Credibility and consensus have their place, and I have mine. Try to take what I say in context. Sometimes it’s just there for laughs.”
Hitler is not funny to me, and your whole tactic to undermine consensus is not as valuable as you so arrogantly assume. It is not for you — as an individual, and despite all your tricks and deceptions you are just one person — to represent “range of dissent.” We should speak from our hearts, we should turn away from anonymity and secretiveness, and the range of dissent will come out from the range of our human beliefs and aspirations. It should not come from one person who wants to feed his/her ego by simply obstructing any and every constructive avenue of discussion or action. That is what we know as a “troll”, my friend. Trolling is never constructive, it is just an exercise to satisfy ego. Consensus is constructive, and it depends on each person having only one vote and one voice.
“If Occupy were a legitimate revolution and not a social meme, and one fighting against Empire, then announcing your tactics, or the limitations of your tactics, is deadly. When your enemies know what you will NOT do, they will learn something and you will not.”
I don’t have any enemies. I refuse to fall into this silly revolutionary pose. I am for radical reform, not revolution. The reason that the Tahrir Square uprising worked, to the extent that it worked (it’s still a work in progress) is that the protestors were able to get the middle class behind them and eventually the police/military. What you are trying to advocate is more like the Libyan model, except it won’t work because NATO is not going to come and help us get rid of the insanely powerful U.S. military. So it’s really you who are spinning your wheels in the mud; either that or like some here are saying you are just a troll who is saying anything to get attention and distract us.
But I want to speak more to the idea of “not saying things openly”, since I’ve also heard that expressed by the Tactical Action committee and people who are, unlike you, actually part of the movement. Our transparency is our greatest asset. It is what enables the average American to still see us in some sense as something that is not “other.” The more secretive and “revolutionary” we become, the less that our message is heard and the more we will be seen as agitators instead of liberators.
I agree with you Aaron, and it’s really hard to understand that there are sincere people who can’t see how much more powerful and effective the tactics used by UC Davis protestors are, in terms of changing the minds of the 99% so that they understand our revolve and our seriousness. I agree that the actions of those who want to smash windows and throw things at the police actually endanger peaceful protests and the Occupy movement itself.
At this point, the best answer is to show up on Sunday, tomorrow, @2:00 for the GA and to vote for the name change to “Deconolonize Oakland.” At the very least, that will enable the rest of the Occupy Wall Street movement to distance itself from Occupy Oakland more easily if and when we shoot ourselves in the foot again. And if we are going to claim to be so distinct from the rest of the movement, we should go ahead and embrace that. The really disturbing thing about Occupy Oakland’s “diversity of tactics” is that it puts a violent and destructive image out there under the sanction of the name “Occupy.” In a sense, Oakland is arrogantly speaking for other groups who don’t share our “radical inclusiveness.” And the failure of the SF solidarity proclamation should be the latest indicator that while we are in solidarity with other Occupy groups, we have taken a different path. Let’s call it what it is.
It’s sad that the unions have co-opted #OO and secondarily attracted violent citizens to their actions. It wasn’t enough for Oakland to shut down the port, but then that night, the violent element came out and demanded the Traveler’s building. OWS is about consensus. The unions and violence-mongers are only two of the many issues Oakland has to deal with. It’s the unions who continue to use their old tactics, (including bullying) rather than thinking of creative new ways to empower the movement. I will now volunteer in neighborhoods as a representative of OWS, and will not participate in anything pre-OWS that affiliates itself with it which I can still do on my own time. What makes me a representative of OWS is that I am a leader, (we are all leaders) and it is non-hierarchical and non-violent. I was there when the global revolution livestream burst onto the internet on Sept. 17 (or so): everyone on the chat – up to 20,000 at some points, stated and prayed for non-violence in Liberty Plaza. I believe it is one of the core value-principles of OWS.
@Aaron M: “The image of Sgt. Pike pepperspraying students is so powerful, because the students were non violent.” Exactly.
To all for the cause: I suggest we simply reply to each post from the troll(s) – who might well be one in the same person – as such, so other forum participants have fair warning, and say no more. Do not bother to engage, no matter how convoluted or misleading or mistaken the troll’s argument. It’s a waste of our time.
there will never be a conclusion reached here…not in the oakland movement, anyway. i think people are just going to have to live with the fact that it will be unresolved.
It certainly was a nice day in the Bay today, wasn’t it? Did you walk or run today at all?
I’ll just say that there are some concrete “suggestions” coming from the Occupy movement. Did you know about these already?
Take care,
Tlahtolli
The Occu-Nazis (think! et al) really get uptight, don’t they? Compared with legit social movements aimed at concrete change, the incident at UC Davis was nothing. Consider Amritsar, for instance.
As we know, since I actively work against the interests of the 1%, the oligarchs and the plutocats, and Occupy does not (while claiming to do so), I am honor bound to oppose the fake hipster revolt that threatens to distract the middle class in the 11th hour.
Opposing Nazis and fascists is politically correct in other circles, but not in these. The common ground between Occupy and Black Bloc is the level of sophistication, the vehemence.
If it were grassroots, with a clear (and agreeable) mission, I’d support it. Meanwhile, think! is chasing its tale to no avail.
One of the most powerful moments in the history of social movements was UCDavis students sitting in peaceful silence as the Chancellor shamefully walked by them. That was the most memorable, empowering tactic they could have used. And it brought more people on board with the 99%.
Don’t let “Change Agent” fool you… (s)he doesn’t want this movement to succeed, as (s)he said him/herself… so be wary when (s)he advises any particular tactic or approach. For that matter, when (s)he advises AGAINST a particular approach, it probably means (s)he thinks that approach will be successful.
Yes, by all means, keep the peace. And stay out of the “nonviolence” box. It’s a death trap.
Aaron, I doubt that think! means any harm, despite the bullying about that s/he enjoys dispensing. But confusion abounds among the pacifists, too. Whether or not think! finds the source of all that violence and confusion, it’s best not to get swept up in it, nor lost in personal attacks upon people who do not give their real name.
Thanks for the advice.
I wouldn’t conflate “revolution” with “popular armed struggle”. It’s “legitimate” only in the context of a militaristic point of view.
But you are right. The Chancellor at UC Berkeley deemed that locking arms is NOT a form of non-violent protest. What good is it if we have one definition of non-violence, but they have another? From a tactical point of view not much, but this struggle isn’t just about tactics. It’s about holding the moral high ground.
It’s still early, but so far, for refusing to box ourselves in a “non-violence” box, we’ve done a good job at keeping the peace.
“There is nothing to fear but fear itself.”
– Joe Stalin
David,
“Change Agent” is a provocateur who is on this forum to undermine our cause. This person claims not to condone violence, yet encourages us to be violent in his/her posts. This person uses manipulation and lies to try to undermine us. Please be wary, as this infiltrator has now shown up under at least 6, possibly 7 or more pseudonyms. This person is not to be trusted is trying to distract, provoke, and undermine. Oh, and I hope you don’t believe that “Change Agent” was joking in using his/her Hitler quote that offended you. Yet another lie.
For some, violence is all they know, and it is all they ever will know. They are confused about what the world is really like. They do not understand that there can be peace in the world. They were often abused, so they then become the bullies, abusing others.
I hope that one day you are able to look inside yourself to see where your violence comes from. It’s not from economic disparity, it is much deeper than that.
Maxine,
It is obvious that you DO condone violence. Don’t be ashamed of being pro-violence. Just come out and say the truth about what you really believe, rather than using underhanded manipulation.
My “Beg to differ” remarks, above, are entirely on the level, FYI. Cheers.
Not really. It was a joke. I remember a young lady declare at the GA just before the “raid” of Oct 25 that, in essence, any one who wasn’t willing to fight should get the fuck out. An amusing moment, to be sure.
More seriously, my remark was a direct quote from Hitler, which reminds me of this “avatar” I utilise. Rather than argue with me (a truly lost cause) or believe/disbelieve me (or wonder if I believe/disbelieve “myself), try to understand the extremes to which “ideals” can go.
My sincere convictions lie not in the words and ideas I put forth under various names, but in the service I provide by way of a “range of dissent”, without which “ideals” are not fully considered and only half-baked.
Credibility and consensus have their place, and I have mine. Try to take what I say in context. Sometimes it’s just there for laughs.
(I’m SO grateful for the insults I receive here, and happy to be a safe outlet for the latent rage. Respectfully, I get many laughs here. You all could laugh WITH me and not AT me, but that is you own “communal” affair.)
“I use emotion for the many and reserve reason for the few.”
– AH
If we fail, and there is another market boom and crash, we will at least have known that we stood for what is true and right. They can never take that away from us. And we are not going to get rid of capitalism entirely, I don’t think there’s going to be a move to get rid of the Dow Jones, we are not going to re-write the constitution, we are not going to end democracy in this country. There will be continued booms and busts, even as there was before we had democracy and capitalism in this world. But, we should lead by example. If we want whatever happens down the road, whether it is generations away or weeks away, to be violent, then we should be violent. If we want the future to be non-violent, then we should be non violent.
True, you make some very solid arguments, and that is the reason why I am still out there supporting #OO. But I think that it’s hard to ask a lot of pacifists to march with those who will not disavow violence. And so I think this stubborn attitude of refusing to define ourselves — even temporarily — as a peaceful group, is very destructive.
I B E G T O D I F F E R
When Occupy Oakland fully sells out, you will know it when the pledge of nonviolence is passed by unanimous vote in a diverse quroum of the 99% numbering over 1000 souls. The $20K bribe was merely the first step.
The reason is this: If Occupy were a legitimate revolution and not a social meme, and one fighting against Empire, then announcing your tactics, or the limitations of your tactics, is deadly. When your enemies know what you will NOT do, they will learn something and you will not.
Personally, I do not condone violence, which is often not the last but the first resort of stupid men, and more often than not often “whiteys”.
The more important strategic consideration is even less philosophical, though. Once you well-intentioned people make consensus to disavow acts of violence and their perpetrators, you fall into a more insidious trap.
If (and when) your enemies (let us call them “the police”, since by now you’ve assured that they’ll never side with you) square off, THEY AND NOT YOU will define “violence” and single out anyone whom THEY AND NOT YOU deem “violent” and treat them accordingly, especially because YOU AND NOT THEY voted to “disavow” the individuals in question.
Whether you commit or condone acts of violence, or not, and whether some of you ever even organize to throw tear gas back at your enemies (“the police”) or physically oppose and disable them (black bloc, pink bloc, et al.), or not, it is unwise to discuss the subject openly or ever to vote on it.
I do not condone violence, but the vote itself can and will be used against you or your “comrades” by someone, somewhere. As I watch the storm clouds gather, I sympathise with Gandhi more than ever.
“It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.”
– Mahatma Gandhi
No, it’s pretty obvious except to dead-enders in the “diversity of tactics” camp that their philosophy is causing Occupy Oakland to shrink while the student movement and other peaceful movements of the 99% are growing. But if we ever do get the masses to come back and support us, I think we will finally get a nonviolence resolution passed in Oakland. We just need about 1500 good-hearted citizens to stand up against the stormtrooper crowd.
Wow, that is a twisted attitude. So I guess you finally decided to drop the pretense/lie about being “all-inclusive”? Because it sounds to me like you hate your fellow Americans more than you hate the 1%. Good luck with that. Occupy Wall Street is a non-violent movement. I want to be a part of it, I want Oakland to be a part of it, but your bigoted hatred prevents me and so many others from fully joining this struggle. I hope that you and your friends realize when you look out on 12/12 and you see a much smaller crowd than on 11/2, that it is because of your attitude of hatred towards the peaceful 99% which has done this.
I might be whitey, but I’m not from the Suburbs. I live a part of East Oakland where the gangs call the shots. And they also do not believe in non violence (or when they do, they say they are non violent, but carry guns and justify it saying if they want non violence, then the cops better stay the fuck away).
Perhaps a more relevant way to explain the power of non violence is what we can learn from the Occupy actions that happened with our university counterparts.
The image of Sgt. Pike pepperspraying students is so powerful, because the students were non violent. They chose to unify together to use non violent tactics. If only one of them had thrown a molitov coctail at the police while he was about to pepper spray the students, the reaction the world had would have been the opposite.
When students marching in SF against tuition hikes chose to have a sit in at a bank, put up a tent, and peacefully be arrested, while the cameras rolled one by one they were arrested. Peacefully, but empowered by the images and the peaceful tactics.
When Oakland had a general strike that drew about 20,000 people, a small percentage of who smashed windows, started fires, etc, a majority of the strike was a success. But did we see images of the peaceful protestors, or the violent ones? And these violent actions turned so many good people against the cause, away from OO, and if anything, did more to justify cities denouncing and removing encampments more than any thing. Yes, the actions of the few violent individuals outweighed the actions of the majority of peaceful protestors.
Even if the group comes to a consensus and votes to adopt non-violent tactics, there will always be a few bad apples who will be violent, whether there is resolution of not. But what happens when there is no resolution towards non violence, is that we empower the actions of those who use violence, we give them justifications and excuses and reasons to be violent.
We do not need to empower those who use violence. As an individual, I will never accept, participate, encourage, or forgive those who use violence. I personally do not care if there is consensus or not, I am not a mindless sheep. Keep voting against non-violence, and I will continue to not stand in solidarity with those who use violence. This is a choice we all have to make for ourselves, and even if there is no “consensus” to accept non-violent tactics, I encourage every person who is a part of this movement to use non violence as their tactic.
Yeah, I really have thought about it. One thing that is so damn irksome about almost every conversation I’ve had with someone who is against a pledge of non-violence, is the way that they come at me in a condescending way…. “Oh, you just say that because you’re a whitey from the ‘burbs”, or “You’ve never seen real violence so you don’t know.” The way I see it, cash and violence are the only things that really amplify your voice in Oakland. The 10 year old kids that I used to teach at Calvin Simmons middle School already understood that. So, they are just coming at us and saying, “These are my limitations, you must respect and accept them.” But what I ask them to do is to transcend cynicism, to look beyond the box and the narrow definition of “power” that has been current in Oakland for 3 decades. It’s not an easy thing to ask. I understand why #OO is different. But it’s not possible to create a mass movement and militiant movement at the same time.
Can you imagine if Ghandi would have used violence as the main means to rid their country of their foreign occupiers? They could have gone on to be a giant North Korea after that. Can you imagine if the Black Panthers had not taken up violence as their means of fighting racial injustice? Oakland might not have the embedded culture in the African American community that having a gun is the way to be right, and that the cops are always the enemy and always take justice into your own hands and kill anyone who crosses you (leading to one of the highest murder rates in the country, mainly among AA men).
Think about it.
Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live.
one cannot “sting like a bee” without engaging in violence. I still wonder, how is non-violence supposed to win out against violent acts? If the government knows it can demoralize protestors by intimidating them with controlled police brutality, we have lost. I already see people here writing that they will not participate in the 12/12 Port Closures because they “don’t trust the police response” (mizpat)
The average modern American is a weak and complacent specimen. Willing to stay indoors where its more safe strictly for fear of police retaliation. What about our own retaliation? Why can’t we stand for non-violence but also make it clear we will respond to violence with controlled violence of our own…until those inflicting violence are detained and arrested? yes, I do mean the corrupt police departments.
we need an occupy police force or peoples unarmed (but trained) militia to stand by and allow the occupy protestors to remain non-violent!
too bad #oo is still stuck on this, it really is. my general strike carpooler and i will not participate in the 12/12 port closure because of this stubborn refusal to commit to nonviolence, as every other occupy has done, and i will urge my 80-year-old activist friend who marched to the port on 11/2 not to march on 12/12, not so much because i don’t trust #oo as i don’t trust the police response. and yet if #oo had come out quickly and firmly against the destructive violence (yes, it was violent – just try confronting someone using a steel bike lock as a weapon of destruction) of a tiny fraction of the general strikers, i would have taken my chances. i had already decided to risk arrest from police overreaction and rioting, but i refuse to risk arrest from their sheer stupidity. if #oo had committed to nonviolence after 11/2, i would have risked arrest even knowing a few renegades might act on their own, but at least i would know the vast majority was with me and not endorsing those fools (yes, i think they are counterproductive fools at best and possibly infiltrators at worst). nonviolence is our best strategy and tactic by far, showing crystal clearly the police state beneath the thin veneer of our democracy.
i close with this quote from the adbuster editors who got the occupy ball rolling (capitals added):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-occupy-wall-street-will-keep-up-the-fight/2011/11/17/gIQAn5RJZN_story.html
“In this visceral, canny, militantly NONVIOLENT phase of our march to real democracy, we will “float like a butterfly and sting like a bee.” We will regroup, lick our wounds, brainstorm and network all winter. We will build momentum for a full-spectrum counterattack when the crocuses bloom next spring.”
in short, if you don’t commit to nonviolence, not even “militant” nonviolence, you cannot call yourselves occupy. period.
Some people will be in favor of anything, but my impression is that the main sticking point has been property damage—most of the people who spoke against the last property damage proposal still expressed support for the first clause about not assaulting people.
And as to the legal aspect—surely a group doesn’t have to adopt a formal statement of non-violence before it’s entitled to First Amendment protection? Aside from some of the rhetoric at GAs, the movement’s actually been remarkably peaceful given its size and the level of police violence directed against it. (I live downtown and I’ve seen anarchist groups smashing windows and torching cars during the Oscar Grant riots, and the degree of restraint the same groups showed on the night of Oct. 25 was astonishing.) While I’m a bit dismayed by the refusal of #OO’s militants to dissociate themselves from some of the clowns who showed up at the General Strike, I’m still more inclined to trust their discretion than I am to think they’ll follow a declaration imposed on them against their will by the GA.
Has anyone asked OSF if they want a solidarity statement from OO with the nonviolent references removed? My guess is they would want us to make a separate independent statement not referencing them.
I mean too BIG to fail.
Those of us in the movement need to also keep in mind, the whole world is watching. If we can’t even agree that we are a peaceful movement are we going to grow and gain the support to really be too to fail ?
Well, I would vote for that, but I think there are some people who would vote against that in favor of “keeping all options open.” It’s pretty weird, it’s really not sustainable actually. The ACLU and National Lawyer’s Guild are helping about 6 people from our group sue the City of Oakland because they violated the civil rights of peaceable protestors. But #OO can’t adopt a statement with the word “peaceable” in it, so how can we honestly claim we even have the right to 1st Amendment protections? I think a lot of the anarchists in our group have a very loose grasp of the legality of protest.
What if we adopt the SF statement as-is, but attach a codicil stating that by “non-violent” we mean “avoiding physical harm to human beings, except for individual or communal self-defense”?
Absolutely… well you know, it was the way things happened. A lot of us have been waiting for this for a long time. Personally, I would probably have left America after George Bush got re-elected, but if you run away from fascism then you’re helping it. I have more power as an American citizen, even with the shreds of freedom that they’ve left us after the Patriot Act and SB1867 and other such atrocities on the Bill of Rights.
I have pretty broad hopes. Even the “Arab Spring” is just beginning. China’s true people’s revolution is still to come. The signs of it are clear for all those who are awake to see. I believe we are inspiring the people in China and in the Middle-East by responding to the emergency around the world. No matter what we accomplish in terms of changing America, we are doing something truly good for this country anytime we show that we are in support of the end to war, the end to indefinite imprisonment and torture, the end to capitalistic corruption of government, the end to military occupation of the people’s own land from Oakland to Chiapas to Tahirir Square and someday back to Tiananmen Square.
It’s kind of too soon to call out. This movement is stil only a a few months old. If this was a band we wouldn’t even have our best song yet. We are still teaching ourselves how to do things. Also starting in fall and going into winter was a tactical misstep. Ooops. Just keeping this shit going through to April is going to be fun!
Thanks, yeah I agree entirely.
As far as dropping behind quorum, I feel bad for the people bringing this proposal because it’s happened twice in a row now. When the proposal was read, the crowd seemed really positive about it. I liked it too. But then, you know like I said, “Peace rears its ugly head.”
I don’t think we can build a militant movement and a mass movement in the same place and at the same time. People in America aren’t pissed off enough yet. If Occupy Wall St. fails, and if they manage to build another speculative bubble to “fix” the economy, when the next crash comes and everything comes falling down it’s not going to be “peaceable” no matter what anybody says. I really think this is our last chance, if it’s not too late already.
“But it’s hard for me to understand how you can sign a statement of solidarity with another group and just change the words of the solidarity statement to suit yourself.”
Exactly.
Either we have the courage to embrace the SF statement or we do not.
If we need to modify it, than we do not. I am very happy that this was pointed out at the GA.
It was a damn shame that when we started discussion we quorum. By the time we got through the initial statement and then into clarifying we were already under.
p.s. I mean at the end “We should not pretend to be passing the same statement that they are.”
also p.p.s. I love all you guys and I’m as sick of this conversation as everybody else which is why even though I care a lot about the integrity of solidarity statements I was ready to pass this one with limited knowledge just because I liked it so much. But we can’t pass a statement that somehow depicts Occupy San Francisco as anything other than a non-violent protest, when they have already dedicated themselves to non-violence.