by Mike King
A section of the movement that calls property destruction violence, and doesn’t raise an eyebrow when “peaceful protesters” like themselves are viciously beaten and left in agony in a jail cell without medical attention for hours, is not in a position of moral authority to be dictating terms or holding people accountable. Or maybe they have the excuse that the corporate media feeding them this 100-year-old “violent anarchist” trope was not aware that the second veteran in a week from Occupy Oakland was undergoing major surgery after being viciously assaulted by police that same day. Whether they did or didn’t know about the police beating of Kayvan Sabehgi, something tells me it would not sway them in their attempts to redefine and exaggerate the actions of their fellow protesters and to rationalize or excuse the actions of the police.
What’s Next?
Occupy Oakland at a Crossroads
by MIKE KING
The historic and diverse protests that took place all day and into the night in Oakland on November 2nd marked a clear advancement of the Occupy movement. Though it was not a full general strike, it took advantage of overlapping political opportunities to broaden and deepen a struggle that is evolving and expanding by the day. The movement is organically evolving in stages that are taking place so quickly that it is difficult to fully capture. One thing is clear: Oakland was a different place on Thursday morning than it was when people got ready to hit the streets on Wednesday.
Cynical or duplicitous evaluations tend to complain that the movement has no demands, or that it has too many demands, or that the demands are unreasonable. It is not so much a matter of demands on the existing social relations and institutions; it is about abolishing some structures, transforming others, and creating new ones. The fact that 20,000 people responded to an organic call to shut down the city that was unapologetically and unambiguously anti-capitalist is an honest indication of the overall politics of the movement. Today’s question is: “What’s next?” As Wednesday’s multiple and diverse actions demonstrated clearly, there is no lack of good responses or collective energy. Because of the context, good ideas are becoming practical solutions. Occupy Oakland is not done. Looking at the solidarity actions in various US cities and around the world, the broader movement is not done either.
The crisis is more powerful than the forces trying to manage it
Wednesday’s actions, highlighted by the complete shut-down of one of the biggest ports on the West Coast, pushed the local movement from public occupation to mass movement. It also broadened what “occupation” means in Oakland and foreshadowed a likely future of more occupations of empty properties. The 9pm occupation of an abandoned center for the homeless was both symbolic and strategically minded, although the resulting skirmishes that resulted have been hotly, if not always strategically or contextually, debated. The whole day of action was a pivotal moment in the Occupy movement, one that expanded the limits of what is politically feasible and inspired hope in others to push harder wherever they are. Pivotal moments are generally a coming together of revolt and solidarity from below and contradictions and crisis above. Oakland has found itself blessed with both in the same moment, with the former helping to exacerbate the latter.
Former Oakland Police Chief Batts stepped down in recent weeks due to a stated lack of autonomy and resources in a city where police murders of unarmed men of color are common, officers are unaccountable, and the OPD controls 2/3rds of the city budget. The OPD wanted to have a free hand to destroy the occupation, which they would not get until after Batts resigned, which helped create an immediate stir for a mayoral recall campaign. The picture is more complicated, as Homeland Security, other federal forces, 17 agencies of state police and local police forces coordinate in the Bay Area as an ongoing reality, geared to quickly respond to mass protests, as they did in the movement that grew out of the police killing of Oscar Grant. The exact political reasoning and bureaucratic dynamics of the overall lack of aggression during the day Wednesday by police has yet to be fully examined. The basic reality is that a gap between the Mayor and police forces, whatever its nature and however big it is (or was), created a political opening. The lack of a sitting police chief, public backlash to the eviction of the occupation on the morning of October 25th, the (possibly deliberate) shooting of Marine veteran Scott Olsen that night, the re-occupation of Oscar Grant Plaza and overwhelming public participation the next night calling for a general strike, and the international visibility of the day of action all played a role in widening the political opening. We forced the door open and have walked through it. Now what?
The new face beneath the mask: wolves in sheep’s clothing
While the State could not manage its opposition or it’s own internal contradictions, the movement proved itself capable of gaining a much stronger footing by overcoming enough of its own contradictions on Wednesday. We should not grow too comfortable that either of these two realities will remain true as we move forward and the stakes increase for both sides. Whatever our temporary victories have been, numerous and complex tensions are arising, starting with debate over a police attack of the building occupation Wednesday night. A messy public debate has arisen within and outside the movement over militant tactics. The exacerbation of this tension could likely result in the imploding of this movement, a situation that would be greeted as a blessing by both the Mayor and police locally, as well as the federal government, banks, and the 1%.
Publicly invisible as well as more overt counter-insurgency from multiple sources is underway that may destroy a popular movement through various forms of disruption, division and misinformation. What may or may not be liberal “protest police” have tried to make citizen’s arrests, and groups of young people with bandanas over their own faces went through the anti-capitalist march on Wednesday and took pictures of people’s faces and initiated actual violence against anarchists attempting to destroy property. Others are calling for a ban on any type of mask.
A media disinformation campaign was intensified on Thursday and has attempted to supplant our victory by playing up internal tensions and manufacturing a crisis of “violence” – with various forces stoking fires and anticipating our demise. Wednesday a veteran who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan was viciously beaten by a group of cops, whom the Guardian reports that he did not provoke. Although he was injured to such an extent that he needed surgery on his spleen, all anyone wants to talk about is anarchists reacting to police violence. A section of the movement that calls property destruction violence, and doesn’t raise an eyebrow when “peaceful protesters” like themselves are viciously beaten and left in agony in a jail cell without medical attention for hours, is not in a position of moral authority to be dictating terms or holding people accountable. Or maybe they have the excuse that the corporate media feeding them this 100-year-old “violent anarchist” trope was not aware that the second veteran in a week from Occupy Oakland was undergoing major surgery after being viciously assaulted by police that same day. Whether they did or didn’t know about the police beating of Kayvan Sabehgi, something tells me it would not sway them in their attempts to redefine and exaggerate the actions of their fellow protesters and to rationalize or excuse the actions of the police.
The Occupy movement is the biggest social movement in the US in at least several years that is democratically initiated, self-led, and making clear, radical demands that connect with people outside the tradition Left. As Wednesday’s crowd clearly showed, this movement had a tremendous victory, but that victory is deliberately getting lost in public discussion. We have quickly found ourselves in rough waters, rehashing old debates that have frustrated every social movement in modern US history, but with uncommon dynamics. Historically, radicals usually try to transform reformist movements into transformative ones. What we are seeing looks like the inverse.
Any type of tactic or strategy needs to be understood in its social and political context. Evaluations of the usefulness of tactics should be partly based on how our opponents respond, and the costs and benefits of likely outcomes. This applies to both anarchists and those condemning them. If people want to engage in a better way to occupy buildings – property occupations were something that was called for in a democratic vote at the General Assembly – or do something completely different, they can do that. People will eventually gravitate to what works. Instead of engaging in strategic action of any nature or going through the democratic channels that have been created at Occupy Oakland – many are deliberately trying to bait radicals and divide the movement. I have heard nothing in their argument that proposes effective alternatives or strategies, or even has an honest discussion of violence in our society. Movement tactics can and should be debated, but police tactics within the movement are not debatable no matter where they come from or what their intent. The lessons of COINTELPRO show us we shouldn’t loosely throw around accusations of “provocateur” because we do not like people, or uncritically accept media accounts of our movement; but we also should not create a culture that lets these tendencies grow, nor should we seek false safety by turning inward. No one said that this would be easy.
The media and some currents of the movement are preoccupied with an effort to bait the radicals at the center of creating this whole movement as “violent” for destroying property and defending themselves against the police. The morning Occupy Oakland was evicted a snake march with more than a few anarchists wove through the city for hours and destroyed nothing, despite plenty of justified anger and police provocation. Later that night, when Scott Olsen was shot in the head from close range with a “less than lethal” weapon that almost killed him, and police ruthlessly attacked a crowd with a variety of similar weapons for hours, nothing was destroyed and the worst the cops got was some water and paint thrown at them. People have shown up trying to make citizen’s arrests, trying to start chants that cops are the 99% (that get quickly shouted down by a large majority) or posing for pictures with uniformed police. These same segments don’t understand the function of the police.
In a purely objective sense, the police are there to maintain the exiting order. This means evicting protesters and shooting, arresting or beating peaceful protesters that do not disperse as they have done numerous times in Oakland. A successful movement can debate tactics and how they fit into contexts or strategies, but a successful movement does not debate basic social facts or delude oneself about the nature of those who are paid and trained to stop us from creating a just society. These tendencies normalize the role of the police in suppressing dissent, have no solidarity with the movement when it is attacked, and purposely or inadvertently extend police attempts to manage, divide or destroy the movement without offering alternative strategies. A debate over a diversity of tactics necessitates that we share the same objectives – transforming social relations. The fact that these shared goals of radical change are likely not universal makes this a red herring.
The variety of forces that are at play here either want to drive the anarchists and radicals out of the front of the movement and let something more palatable replace them or to sow such a division in the movement that the potential course of that (ostensibly) intra-movement conflict scares people who are not radical or militant away. Those are the two traps that lie in front of us. If we close our eyes and move forward we will find ourselves in one of them. If we are smart we can walk around them with an ever-increasing number of people.
Evolving praxis
Shortly before I moved to the west coast almost 10 years ago I was having a conversation with a Bay Area radical who had lived here for a while. I was young and excited to be moving somewhere with such a great and diverse radical history and a persistent hub of radicalism. He basically told me the radical scene was good but it was less than the sum of its parts. I soon came to agree. There are a lot of incredible people, a vibrant radical culture, and great political projects from almost every facet of the radical Left that is truly unique and often amazing. However, there are longstanding and prevalent norms of insularity, ultra-sectarianism, non-strategic activism (in a pejorative sense), and a lack of organization or political work that reaches beyond the pre-established Left, in a more heightened way than most places. In short, a bubble. This analysis is usually dismissed as sectarian itself.
Despite the fact that I will also be denounced as a charlatan for saying this out loud – I think the bubble is bursting. A broad swath of the radical milieu have built a radical, democratic and non-sectarian project that everyone is watching, working together with the same objective, seeing commonality instead of difference, and making a push to transform the world rather than simply “transforming ourselves” or the Left. Furthermore we have created a space that is both non-sectarian and where radical democracy intrinsically marginalizes the folks who think the revolution is in their newspaper. For once the revolution is an open meeting, it has an organic direction and it is showing few signs of ending. We should collectively step back and appreciate the significance of this historical opportunity. We are delving into a discussion based more on media-driven emotion than fact, that is intended to chase us back into our respective holes.
In many places at many times, radicals devolve into sectarianism, navel-gazing theory excursions to nowhere, or sometimes engaging in projects more to justify calling oneself or one’s scene “political” than to actually effect change. We often sit within a dialectic of political hopelessness and lack of obvious political openings that never substantially evolves. Like Beckett’s Vladimir and Estragon in Waiting for Godot, the best of us find ourselves waiting around for an ill-defined change to arrive that never does without ever figuring out why. Oakland has broken out of that cycle, hopefully for good. This scares the hell out of those in power – as well it should.
Solidarity must drive movement progression
The multiple weaknesses of the existing social order often open up the political space for the creation of a new one. The Occupy movement has grown out of both the chasms between the rich and poor and the expanding gaps between the needs of the people and policies of existing institutions. The retreat of the welfare state’s mitigating effect on the contradictions of capitalism has steadily increased economic pain and political disempowerment across the bottom 8o% of the economy, obvious felt hardest by the growing number of unemployed, homeless and uninsured sick. The brazenness of those in power and their obvious miscalculation of people’s ability to understand the society they live in have created a crisis of legitimacy in terms of government and capitalism. From my perspective, the Occupy movement is increasingly occupying that space of legitimacy in the minds of millions of people. The next step seems to be to fuse mutual aid and counter-power to engage the contradictions in our society, not to mitigate them, but to build a new society. Occupy Oakland has always had a kitchen with plenty of hot food, a library, children’s area, free bike repair, and a well-staffed medical clinic. There was a children’s march on Halloween with dozens of kids and a piñata that, after much struggle, succumbed to the inevitable forces of history – and candy loving kids. I think half the town probably has at least one of the multiple designs of the incredible “Occupy Oakland” posters that are almost constantly being screen-printed. The same “violent anarchists” getting dragged through the mud, self-organized most of this.
The movement is not an intentional community or intended to be a home, though it is a home for many people who don’t have a house to live in. Wednesday night’s occupation of a former homeless clinic that surely wasn’t closed for lack of need, located around the corner from Oscar Grant Plaza, is likely the first of many occupations in Oakland. The General Assembly passed a proposal that calls for the occupation of vacant housing and buildings. This country is full of foreclosed homes with people living in the streets or in their family members’ basements or on a friend’s couch; closed schools or under-funded schools and kids without hope; and empty factories whose disconnected workers are on the streets or in a cell. The public outcry for radical social change is no longer just a want but a need. It is no longer held by the few, but by the many. This many is steadily expanding what seems possible. The ascending nature of the movement and the fact that its ambitions have always been explicitly radical provides hope that it will overcome internal divisions and attempts to sow confusion and contention. Wednesday’s actions were a success. We have a choice to either overcome the differences that have arisen in this moment through even-handed debate, collective action and solidarity or we can let those differences divide and destroy us. I suggest building on our victories rather than disingenuously fighting over the tactics we used to achieve them.
Mike King is a PhD candidate at UC–Santa Cruz and an East Bay activist. He can be reached at mking(at)ucsc.edu.
fellow worker,
(As there was no “reply” link to your “full response” I reply to your first response.)
Thanks for the (long) response. I agree with almost everything you say contextually, but we differ on the crux of the exchange: support for diversity of tactics.
As you acknowledge that currently Occupy is “relatively popular” and seem to acknowledge that popular support is important if it’s to catalyze societal improvements, the key fact is its “declining poll numbers” (agreed: polls aren’t perfect, but, as long as they’re not done by an entity intent on biasing outcomes, they’re the best indicators). To catalyze change, Occupy’s support must be huge and include soccer moms, joe-six-packs, and the politically apathetic or disinclined. So highly unpopular actions, e.g. destructive behavior, camping where folks aren’t welcome, extremist statements, etc. have to be avoided or minimized.
Regarding your response about “homogeneity,” I qualified my comment that folks in India, South Africa, etc were “mostly” of the same background, but of the “same socio-economic background,” and you mischaracterized my comment: I didn’t say such commonality was “requisite,” but that it significantly aided in unifying the struggle. I lived in South Asia for four years, so am well-familiar with the region and am also aware of South African particulars. My point was the oppressors were uniformly hated, so folks had a common enemy. That’s not even remotely close to the situation here, as you mostly acknowledge.
Again, disagree with the inclusion of “tactics” in your statement: “diversity of prospective, tactics, back-rounds, abilities, etc., are necessary for any successful social justice movement.” Again, I believe Indian independence and civil rights gains were accomplished despite violent actions, not because of it. And it’s not about “imposing” a non-violent position on others, because forcing it is impossible, it’s about convincing folks it’s more effective (not likely, but you do what you can).
Obviously, the struggle against the elites is morally right, but discussing the morality of destructive behavior as a tactic is counterproductive because such discussions revolve in endless circles, morality can’t be measured. The discussion should be on a pragmatic level, i.e. destructive behavior results in more opposition than support. It’s measurable, been confirmed numerous times, and is common sense, which as I’ve said is one of the qualities lacking in OO.
When you say some folks believe “there will be no mass movement unless we reject violence/property destruction,” I don’t believe that’s entirely accurate. My sense is that folks believe if it was minimized, it would be much more likely to have significant positive impacts.
I agree that movement building isn’t just about tactics, it also includes “assumptions and privileges surrounding class, race, gender, sexuality, ablness, etc, we have to overcome educational-political-religious-cultural differences and divisions.” Those issues, however, are internal ones that are mostly not visible to the outside world and more manageable, whereas destructive behavior is completely visible and opposed by a significant majority, so is the most critical issue.
I totally agree that any proposal to oppose destructive behavior (or any even somewhat controversial one) is unlikely to be approved because of the 90% criteria, so it’s annoying when responses to my posts are “just put your proposal in the queue and fight for it…” as if OO’s processes will resolve issues. As an environmental activist, I’m used to fighting the good fight, but I don’t believe in banging my head unendingly against an unyielding wall.
I’m glad you referenced Williams, not familiar with him, but from your description I agree violence may be necessary if Occupy becomes overwhelmingly supported, has consistently peacefully advocated for change, and the authorities react with brutality, like what’s happening in Arab countries. Again, we’re far from that and, with declining public support, heading in the wrong direction.
Lastly, other Occupy’s: Wall St, SF, Cal, and others oppose destructive behavior, but OO refuses to. Why? My conclusion is OO has attracted a more hard core, less objective, and less savvy contingent because of Oakland’s reputation (after the Traveler’s building debacle, newspapers reported that most arrested that night weren’t from Oakland, many were from out of state), which easily undermines pragmatic decisions (from my GA experience, I believe a factor is folks who might vote otherwise are intimidated by the hard core’s energy, which is the strongest at GAs by far).
One other comment about this subject, which contradicts my admonishment about attacking others’ comments, but which I mention anyway because it may be indicative: the most dumb shit comments I’ve heard on the diversity of tactics issue (not the most charged, because there have been several on both sides of the issue) is from those who support the position. For example, a guest on a KPFA program said: “we break windows of businesses, to try and get them on our side;” a recent post on this forum: “if police point weapons at us, we should point weapons back at them;” a forum response to me was Gandhi and King were “skillful orchestrators of violence by others”; another person said “non-violence is racist.” With friends like that you all don’t need enemies.
If folks are to better understand one another, this is the type of exchange that needs to happen, but isn’t possible in the current GA format. Will things change with OO, we’ll see.
hi keith,
here’s my full response.
“Thanks for your perspectives supporting violence and property destruction.”
this is not actually what i was defending. what i was defending was a diversity of tactics – by this i mean combining “violent” (ie property destruction, self-defense) and “nonviolent” (ie passive resistance, making oneself a target for police repression) activist tactics – as the most desirable and effective form of resistance for a movement to take.
“I’m glad you took the time to do so. This is an attempt at “constructive dialogue.’”
like wise.
“The historical examples you cite as justification for violence and property destruction by Occupy are not valid because those contexts were radically different to the current one in the US. In South Africa, Cuba, and numerous other “freedom struggles,” the general populace was overwhelmingly supportive of the freedom fighters because they were mostly the same ethnicity and mostly from the same socio-economic backgrounds, and the oppressors were uniformly hated (no “data” cited, this is common knowledge if you know history, as you seem to).This was also the case in India,…”
first as I noted above my argument wasn’t in favor of “violence and property destruction” per se, but rather a defense of their use in combination with larger liberation movements and resistance struggles. This is important because my argument is not that violence is good or that we should start the rev by storming the Bastille or the Winter Palace, instead my argument is that over a long and continues struggle against oppression and exploitation we need a diversity of tools of/for resistance.
second your claim that the ruling class/elite were generally reviled in all of these instances is true and this was certainly a key factor in determining the outcome of these various resistance struggles. And this is reason why we should continue to point out the horrors of state repression (see Dorli Rainey, link and story below) much as the Original Post does.
I would add however that the ruling elites in the US are not all that popular currently (im not saying that rev’s around the corner). Now obviously this is taking multiple forms (occupy wall st, 99%, 53%, tea party, autonomous and invisible acts of resistance) and doesn’t necessarily point towards positive developments in the future. That said the occupy movement even w/ declining poll numbers (tracked over only a period of a month or two and which don’t reflect large constituents who are supportive of the movement – homeless, street kids, and those w/ only cell phone service, etc.) the movement is more popular than Washington/federal gov’t and Wall St./Corporations see for instance: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/07/occupy-wall-street-poll_n_1079089.html. Additionally this link (http://studentactivism.net/2011/10/27/ows-popularity/) provides some historical context on popular support for the civil rights and feminist movements compared to the occupy movement – and we’re relatively popular. The point of bring up this polling data (flawed as polls are) is to demonstrate that the movement is a.) more popular than the institutions we oppose. And b.) we’re on the right side of history w/ massive amounts of support compared to historical struggles that while under-supported in their day have been recovered by historical memory as some of our societies most worthy causes and highest achievements .
third the claim that homogeneity resulted in the requisite unity for successful resistance campaigns in these instances is actually not historically accurate. Opposition to British Colonial rule in india was based in multiple ethnic and cultural source (hindu, muslim, as well as multiple tribal configurations) and was in no way politically homogonous (see the diversity of tactics I referred to in the first post). The partition of Indian subcontinent into essentially muslim and hindu nations around the time of independence demonstrates the ethnic divisions within the anti-colonial movement and the degree of violence and internal strife between oppressed groups divided and conquered by the british empire (vandana shiva has some good writing on this topic specifically india’s multicultural history/tradition the impacts of colonialism and the partition of the subcontinent – the name of the book escapes me at the moment). Additionally the resistance movement within Apartheid South Africa was not only based in the black south african population, there were plenty of white africaners who joined the movement. additionally the movement was not successful until it became a global campaign comprised of a diverse and varied multitude. and beyond these socio-economic-ethnic-national-cultural-political differences the movement was also beset early on (as we are in the occupy movement) by tactical and strategic differences – there were those w/in the ANC who advocated nonviolence and those who formed a military wing (see the sources in the previous post). these differences produced real divisions and probably resulted in extending the struggle against Apartheid longer than it would have lasted had they formed a more unified front from the beginning (just conjecture on my part). However it was group cohesion and unity within the anti-apartheid movement despite all of their differences and the recriminations of the state declaring the ANC and Mandela terrorist that eventually proved effective.
it essentially comes down to this: the anti-apartheid movement was morally right, apartheid was morally reprehensible and no amount of propaganda could conceal this. the same is true for our movement. we have morality on our side, and that’s what the original article rightly points out. The Cops have severely injured multiple people in the name of public safety, the city of oakland has wasted millions of dollars to repress popular sentiment and defend the 1% (literally their folding under the pressure of the chamber of commerce), they have destroyed and stolen our property, while defending large corporation’s property rights. And keep in mind police repression isn’t even what got people out into the streets in the first place – it has only strengthened our claims to the moral high ground. The fact that we are confronted by structures of power that respond to calls for accountability and economic justice w/ military tactics, chemical weapons, and mass arrests betrays where the moral compass of america lies. this is something that i believe is understood and supported by the vast majority of people who know firsthand that capitalism isn’t ethical. and the more we emphasize the rightness of our cause and wrongness of repression the more unified and strong we’ll become. i know im getting off track but bare w/ me.
“not so of course during the civil rights movement here, but those efforts succeeded, not because of violence, but despite it. If Gandhi had advocated and catalyzed violence, thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, more people would have died, and I believe (subjectively) that gaining independence would have taken longer. Regarding the civil rights movement here, what would have happened if MLK had advocated violence? It would have been portrayed as “wild, vicious Negroes running riot”. The Civil Rights Act would have taken longer to achieve (again no “data,” instead common sense instead).”
This is all good and well. I’m not saying they should have done what other cats were doing. My point is that we should respect and understand how a diversity of prospective, tactics, back-rounds, abilities, etc., are necessary for any successful social justice movement – instead of imposing our views on others. Additionally if we look at the Civil Rights Movement (or other struggles) I believe we’ll see that in fact there were a diversity of tactics deployed (see the examples provided in my last post identifying numerous self-defense and militant black power groups – I know some emerged post CRA – the deacons example however still applies and still further the FBI was saying MLK and the SCLC were stockpiling arms for the race war they were fomenting – thus perceptually there was a fear that they literally were “wild, vicious Negroes running riot”. See also the polling data above which shows most people opposed Brown v. Board of Edu and felt that racial integration was happening too fast back ‘59 and ’64 respectively). So my argument is a.) the impacts of being represented as at best marginal or worse dangerous is inevitable and applies to any popular social movement that has received mainstream press coverage – it certainly applied to the civil rights movement. b.) it is only diversity and strength in unity that has achieved the gains we myopically attribute to Ghandi or Martin Luther King, which conveniently conceals the complexity and messy reality that constituted these social movements – leaving nameless and invisible the countless multitude who would have been forgotten to history were it not for the mark they left on it by embodying the strength and diversity of the multitude.
“The US context is radically different. Occupy is not overwhelmingly supported by the general populace, the US populace is mostly docile, the oppressors aren’t overwhelmingly hated, and the socio-economic conditions of the majority aren’t as awful as for the populace of the places you cited (at least not yet).
Therefore, the most critical need by far for Occupy is growing the movement (99% would likely agree), by bringing a mostly docile populace into the movement. That’s not accomplished by breaking windows and throwing things at police. On the contrary, such action results in people not supporting the movement and makes many already involved question whether they will continue to do so. Data: a Nov 3 Quinnipiac poll showed only 30% support the movement, 39% oppose it, whereas just weeks before various polls showed 2 to 1 support. Not all the shift is due to destructive behavior, but it’s a factor. That’s why so many people want Occupy Oakland to take a stand opposing destructive behavior, although generally it’s been poorly articulated and comments are often too charged.”
I understand the US is not (as far as we can tell) on the brink of a revolution. nor is that what I have advocated. Nor is that the intent of black bloc (see the black bloc papers) which clearly indicate the black bloc is an action tactic not a sustained military force.
additionally I think the response to the black bloc is very reactionary and fearful as if right now is the key moment to act and if we don’t save the movements image now all will be lost (and I don’t mean to be rude but this seams to be the tone coming from a lot of folks). And I don’t think this is true. I think the fact is there have been hundreds of black bloc appearances in the last decade (most of which have been ignored or forgotten) and that even given the worst of their actions we are still morally right and that we are on the right side of history. thus over the long term our movement, just as history has redeemed MLK form the smears of J. Edgar Hoover, and the Protestors of Seattle from those of the mainstream/corp media so to will our movement be remembered for taking the right stand and acting on just and moral footing. Historical narratives are a strange form of memory that are given legitimacy through their hold on the collective imagination but the fact is people forget how unpopular racial integration actually was and how violent the fight achieve the gains of the civil rights movement actually was (the same goes for the women’s and the labor struggles).
Now there has been some lag in the polls but as I pointed out above the movement is doing better than those we oppose (Washington and Wall st.), and it is relatively more popular than historical movements that are beyond reproach today, thus our movement judged over the long term has great prospects. The key is that we stay united and use all of the various tools we have at hand to organize and mobilize people behind the cause – and while window smashing may not attract everyone – it also doesn’t repel everyone either. Some people are inspired by such images, others aren’t. We don’t know what will motivate everyone to take to the streets – thus a diversity of options is potentially the best option – considering mass mobilization is certainly not as simple as declaring an end to all property destruction as an activist tactic. Building a mass movement goes far beyond just tactical differences and whether or not we agree to smash/not smash windows – we have to overcome issues of assumptions and privileges surrounding class, race, gender, sexuality, ablness, etc, we have to overcome educational-political-religious-cultural differences and divisions. So this is why I am hesitant to accept this line of argumentation – ie there will be no mass movement unless we reject violence/property destruction. There are too many alternate causalities keeping people away and in the big picture we’ve weathered this storm before and come out on the other end of history just fine (ever since Seattle WTO = Moribund).
“Another common justification for destructive behavior is basically: the system, including the police, home foreclosures, hunger, etc, is violent; therefore it’s justified to be violent back at the system. No question that the system is oppressive. Focusing discussion on that, however, is an unfortunate moral morass that deflects attention to where it should be: a strategic perspective regarding growing the movement. The original (long) post by Mike King wades into that morass, as well as into equally sticky philosophical issues. Not addressing those issues doesn’t mean folks are unsympathetic to such views or worse don’t care about whether protesters are brutalized by police as some have stated.”
I understand the desire to isolate issues of value/ethics (“moral morass”) and those of pragmatic/planning (“strategic perspective regarding growing the movement”). traditional schools of argumentation and rhetoric have differentiated between statements of Fact, Value and Policy or Is, Ought, Will. I however think that this is a false distinction and undermines our ability to articulate the morality of our position in relation to that of our opponents which is a strong argumentative tool that can be used to recruit people to our side. A couple of examples might help. The spark that has caused numerous uprisings in recent years has been moral outrage in response to state repression – for instance – in Tunisia police arrested a street vendor, stole his stuff, he set himself ablaze and the arab spring began as moral indignation boiled over and people took to the streets, in Egypt police beat a man to death continued repressing young people who spoke out then Tunisia went into revolt, tahrir square was occupied, police stations burnt down and street battles were fought until Mubarak was oustted, in France in 2006 there were riots in response to police beatings and related deaths of migrant youth, Bay Area v. the BART because of the multiple bart cop related murders, OWS NY grew because the police cracked down and people mobilized, this is also true of OO where the cop crackdown is what drew the crowd on oct 25th and then on nov 2nd. In each of these cases people spontaneously mobilized in response to immoral acts of police. Thus i believe that if we refuse to engage the issue of morality for fear of falling into a morass we will inevitably fall into a deeper morass by failing to moblize on the sense of outrage that has animated so many mass mobilizations recently. With regard to the moral indignation that the occupy movement can and should rally behind, beyond the stories of Scott Olsen and Kayvan Sabeghi, there is now the story of Dorli Rainey that has emerged out Seattle this morning (http://www.democracynow.org/2011/11/17/84_year_old_dorli_rainey_pepper) Dorli is an 84 year old women who was pictured with pepper spray dripping off her face after the police evicted the seattle occupy encampment where a pregnant teen was also sprayed. This is the kind of shit cops will do to people. It’s inhumane and I’m not okay with letting these kind of moral injustices go unnoticed. In short the biggest mobilizations have been in response to the kinds of violence Mike was referring to, and which he was emphasizing to re-cast and better frame what actually happened on nov.2nd/3rd likely so as to continue the growth of the movement building on what has fueled it thus far.
“I submitted a proposal seeking input for OO to oppose destructive behavior that attempts to address the issue only from the strategic perspective of growing the movement. I’ve received helpful comments, but the revision process is in limbo, because OO is in limbo with yesterday’s eviction. It may be appropriate to pick up that thread depending on what happens in the near future.”
Yeah, I understand the inclination and desire to try and get such a proposal passed through the GA, but it’s just not likely to happen. If it’s in the que I;ve heard it and it’s nice and short very to the point and that’s good. But given the composition of the camp before the 2nd eviction I don’t think this can get 90% of the vote because too many people in the camp have a personal vendetta against windows (joking). They hate capitalism.
I think the nonviolence/no-property destruction proposals are only going to engender further divisiveness those who were irreparably turned off by what happened on the 2nd have likely “left” the movement to the extent they were ever active participants and those who don’t like property destruction but are still around are exactly what the movement needs kind, courteous, accepting, and dedicated individuals who can achieve far more through their actions than through the proposal process which gets vary little done in terms of big philosophical issues like this one which has been debated in activist circles for the last 25 years (this is when according to the “black bloc papers” the black bloc 1st emerged, however this debate can be traced back even further for example 100 years ago feb 1911 Ben H. Williams wrote “Sabotage” for the IWW paper Solidarity in it he outlines the benefits and drawbacks of property destruction and making an argument similar to yours he advocated using legal means until the time was appropriate to diversify tactics once the movement was larger) so the fact that we’re having this debate in and of itself is a good thing – because it means the culture of resistance is expanding. Whether or not we come to any conclusion via a proposal is in my mind less important than the debate over these issues and the actions and the various stands people end up taking in relation to them. So right on for doing both, debating and acting on the principles your committed to, I disagree, but I support you and your efforts.
One other process issue: you seem to support constructive dialogue. If so, I agree, but would say it’s necessary if people are to understand each another and hopefully work through differences. Saying that another person’s comment is “fucked up” isn’t constructive dialogue.
Word.
“I’d be interested in your (and others’) response. Thanks”
I hope this will suffice and now I to await response w/ excitement. Thank you.
fellow worker,
I’m glad you took my comments in the spirit that they were offered.
Regarding GE’s response, I doubt they were “blaming the victim of police brutality” and they did say “We do not condone or excuse the actions of the police.” I do believe, however, that GE’s comments were overly charged and therefore counterproductive.
Lastly, a correction, when I wrote: “Focusing discussion on that (meaning a moral justification for violence), however, is an unfortunate moral morass that deflects attention to (“to” of course is incorrect, that should be “from’) where it should be: a strategic perspective regarding growing the movement.” Sloppy editing on my part. Cheers
keith,
thank you. i dig your post… i lack time to respond in full now but i want you to know w/out delay that i appreciate your response.
“Saying that another person’s comment is “fucked up” isn’t constructive dialogue.”
fair enough. that doesn’t mean i won;t say it if i think it’s true. and while it might not be constructive i think its something we can abide – even if it doesn’t get us to where we want to go. for instance my tone may make it so GE doesn’t clarify or retract their statement but that doesn’t change the fact that if my inference was correct (ie that they were blaming the victim of police brutality) than that statement should be called out – and though calling it “fucked up” may not be constructive it may be right – and perhaps someone like yourself who is a bit more diplomatic could raise the same issue in a less offensive manner reminding someone like myself (as you have) we’re all in this together and then we’ll form like Voltron … and … and … and everything will be all peace and gravy.
fellow worker,
Thanks for your perspectives supporting violence and property destruction. I’m glad you took the time to do so. This is an attempt at “constructive dialogue.”
The historical examples you cite as justification for violence and property destruction by Occupy are not valid because those contexts were radically different to the current one in the US. In South Africa, Cuba, and numerous other “freedom struggles,” the general populace was overwhelmingly supportive of the freedom fighters because they were mostly the same ethnicity and mostly from the same socio-economic backgrounds, and the oppressors were uniformly hated (no “data” cited, this is common knowledge if you know history, as you seem to). This was also the case in India, not so of course during the civil rights movement here, but those efforts succeeded, not because of violence, but despite it. If Gandhi had advocated and catalyzed violence, thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, more people would have died, and I believe (subjectively) that gaining independence would have taken longer. Regarding the civil rights movement here, what would have happened if MLK had advocated violence? It would have been portrayed as “wild, vicious Negroes running riot”. The Civil Rights Act would have taken longer to achieve (again no “data,” instead common sense instead).
The US context is radically different. Occupy is not overwhelmingly supported by the general populace, the US populace is mostly docile, the oppressors aren’t overwhelmingly hated, and the socio-economic conditions of the majority aren’t as awful as for the populace of the places you cited (at least not yet).
Therefore, the most critical need by far for Occupy is growing the movement (99% would likely agree), by bringing a mostly docile populace into the movement. That’s not accomplished by breaking windows and throwing things at police. On the contrary, such action results in people not supporting the movement and makes many already involved question whether they will continue to do so. Data: a Nov 3 Quinnipiac poll showed only 30% support the movement, 39% oppose it, whereas just weeks before various polls showed 2 to 1 support. Not all the shift is due to destructive behavior, but it’s a factor. That’s why so many people want Occupy Oakland to take a stand opposing destructive behavior, although generally it’s been poorly articulated and comments are often too charged.
Another common justification for destructive behavior is basically: the system, including the police, home foreclosures, hunger, etc, is violent; therefore it’s justified to be violent back at the system. No question that the system is oppressive. Focusing discussion on that, however, is an unfortunate moral morass that deflects attention to where it should be: a strategic perspective regarding growing the movement. The original (long) post by Mike King wades into that morass, as well as into equally sticky philosophical issues. Not addressing those issues doesn’t mean folks are unsympathetic to such views or worse don’t care about whether protesters are brutalized by police as some have stated.
I submitted a proposal seeking input for OO to oppose destructive behavior that attempts to address the issue only from the strategic perspective of growing the movement. I’ve received helpful comments, but the revision process is in limbo, because OO is in limbo with yesterday’s eviction. It may be appropriate to pick up that thread depending on what happens in the near future.
One other process issue: you seem to support constructive dialogue. If so, I agree, but would say it’s necessary if people are to understand each another and hopefully work through differences. Saying that another person’s comment is “fucked up” isn’t constructive dialogue.
I’d be interested in your (and others’) response. Thanks
what do you mean by this?
“It will give angry people a chance to vent their spleens and aggrandize themselves as if they were some kind of freedom fighters or warriors.”
are you trying to imply that Kayvan Sabehgi is/was angry? that he is/was to blame for his lacerated spleen? that his “anger” justifies the beating he received? or that he was just seeking aggradizement?
because if so that’s pretty Fucked up and shows how divisive representational politics of nonviolence can be – he was one of the passive nonviolent protestors who risked his body to witness and resist (however passively and unfortuantely) the police state. but because he was there it appears he’s just another radical adventurist antagonizing the good honest police of oakland/alameda.
Hi Green Engineer,
If people, like yourself, want to have a constructive dialogue it would help to go beyond righteous indignation and move onto a plane of more qualitative analysis and dialogue that builds the movement instead of tearing it down.
an argument consists of at least 3 parts:
A CLAIM (this is a declarative sentence). A WARRANT (this is an implicit assumption that grounds and connects ideas) And DATA (this is evidence which can take many forms such as statistics, eye witness accounts, empirical examples, etc). After one has made an argument it is also help to engage in comparative analysis between ones own argument and that of their interlocutor.
none of your arguments are backed up by any data/evidence, nor do you make any qualified comparative statements grounded in anything other than your apparently incontivertable assertions.
so here’s an example
when you say “What we know is this: violence and vandalism will not help…claim…claim…claim…claim”
and i respond by saying
a.) in numerous historical instances violence and property destruction, along with peaceful nonviolent civil disobedience (ie a diversity of tactics), have been effective forms of resistance.
b.) For example we can look at basically every decolonization movement, all of which, including India’s, and the fight against Apartheid in South Africa, involved violent and nonviolent tactics.
c.) with regard to India there was a long history of violent and nonviolent resistance to British colonial rule. The rebellion of 1857, the rise of Indian nationalism around the turn of the century (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_independence_movement). or see the following video (at minute 54:00) for some context on the violent tactics of resistance in India’s decolonization movement (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGG0n3-d-g4).
d.) in South Africa the ANC did engage in sabotage and vandalism, they rioted and even tried targeted assassinations. They had a military wing called “Umkhonto we Sizwe (or MK), translated “Spear of the Nation’” (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_National_Congress or for more info see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umkhonto_we_Sizwe) The Cuban Regime also supported Angola and fought a war in opposition to Apartheid South Africa’s aggression (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_intervention_in_Angola).
e.) This is also true of the civil rights movement which is reductively characterized as nonviolent despite the active participation and influence of those who advocated armed self-defense. See for example the Nation of Islam, Malcolm X, The Black Panther Party, The Black Liberation Army, The Africa Family/Move and The Deacons for Defense and Justice – for more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacons_for_Defense_and_Justice
f.) This means the three examples that are commonly used on these forums by those advocating “nonviolence” are not actually examples that support the claim that strict nonviolence will “help” or produce “social change”, they are instead examples that support the alternative perspective/claim that a diversity of tactics and a divers culture of resistance has historically been the ONLY means of altering the socio-economic and political conditions that produce exploitation, oppression and real violence in peoples lives. It is only by confronting and dismanteling the structures that perpetuate violence in all their complexity – this requires diversity and dedication – that we can change the conditions of our lives.
g.) One could also bring up the various national liberation movements that were “successful” and which deployed massive levels of violence and force – Vietnam, Algeria, Kenya, Cuba, etc., etc., many withstood overwhelming force and overturned the colonial regimes in power that were backed by the military might global super powers (US, Britain, and to a less extent France). Organized and divers people power generally beats technological and military supremacy (Howard Zinn makes this argument in a people’s history of the united states of America in the chapter on Vietnam).
h.) I hope that when confronted by these two competing perspective people see that the argument I have presented is more nuanced, goes into greater depth, provides sources (I know wiki’s not the best – but it’s quick and if you find any inaccuracies than bring ’em up), and numerous examples across space and time, with comparative analysis, and thus, on the basis of reasoned analysis, the argument for a diversity of tactics and unified movement resisting real violence in our society is a better argument, than the one that is underdeveloped, incoherent, historically inaccurate and increasingly lending itself to becoming a divisive wedge issue based on a small but vocal minorities dogmatic ideology that appears to exceed any attempts at rational dialogue or thoughtful reflection.
You have completely, utterly, and as far as I can tell intentionally mischaracterized the position of your opponents on this issue.
We are interested in seeing OO be effective at creating social change and supporting the larger Occupy movement. We are interested in preventing OO from eclipsing and ultimately destroying the Occupy movement, by allowing itself to become associated with violence.
We do not condone or excuse the actions of the police, and it is absurd and insulting for you to suggest that we do.
What we know is this: violence and vandalism will not help. It will not protect the protesters from harm (quite the opposite). It will not generate support among the public at large (again, it will do the opposite). It will not advance the goals of Occupied Oakland. It will lead to all-out full-scale warfare and further repression. And we, the good guys, will lose because at the end of the day, the establishment still has way more weapons and training, and also (more importantly) they still have the support of most of the public.
Here’s what violence and vandalism WILL do:
It will give angry people a chance to vent their spleens and aggrandize themselves as if they were some kind of freedom fighters or warriors.
It will make you and people like you feel righteous and powerful.
It will sacrifice the larger goals of the movement for the sake of your own ego gratification.
It will play right into the hands of those in the establishment who really do want to send in the troops, with live ammo, to drive out the protesters. Those people exist. Currently they are restrained by public opinion and the knowledge that to take such actions without provocation would cost them politically.
And it will set back the cause of progressive social change for years.
Very thoughtful piece. I respect your message and point of view. All I can say is that in my opinion any property damage or violence directed at the police (throwing paint, rocks, etc.) will mean the demise of Occupy Oakland. No one condones police violence, but the best defense against the police is not to go on the offensive–it’s peacefully standing our ground. If that means taking a beating, so be it. It only galvanizes support for the movement, which is exactly what drove myself and thousands over others into the streets last Wednesday after the ill-advised and violent eviction at the encampment days earlier.
I also agree with the comment above where he says that “Occupy Oakland is the ONLY camp that cannot distance itself from vandalism/violence.” That’s a shame! And furthermore, it is a disservice to people all over the globe committed to Non-Violent Protest against the 1%. I hope people will commit to peaceful demonstrations for the good the larger movement, and that those who seek confrontation with the police, want to break things, and otherwise commit acts that tarnish OWS, go their own way. At least don’t use those of us committed to peaceful demonstrations as cover.
It will be a tragedy if the momentum generated as of late behind getting people back to work, addressing rising income inequities, fighting for gender equality, LGBT equality, our environment, immigrant advocacy, calling out Big Business and Big Banks, etc. is brought to a halt b/c a few dozen people can’t contain their urge to destroy property and confront the police. Again, NON-VIOLENT demonstrations are the ONLY way forward.
It is not a question of “allowing” ourselves to be divided. The issue is divisive and SHOULD be divisive. It is not merely a matter of “tactics” — most people in this country and around the world are opposed to destruction of private property and violence. Occupy Wall Street is a non-violent movement; as far as I know Occupy Oakland is the ONLY camp that cannot distance itself from vandalism/violence.
I didn’t see masses of people rising up to imitate the vandalism practiced by Occupy Oakland. It is not inspiring the rest of the movement, it is dragging it down. To accuse those of us who will stand up against the violent and destructive of being insensitive to the violence and brutality of the police is to show disrespect to our dedication and our purpose. Just because I don’t like seeing random destruction, does not mean that I condone police brutality.