Why the 1% loves “anarchist violence”

3 Responses to “Why the 1% loves “anarchist violence””

1. fellow worker November 22, 2011

   Hi think!,

   “True, the article didn’t make as many historical references as you did– but then again, that wasn’t the point. The point was to remind us that the 1% will latch on to whatever they can to discredit and destroy the movement, whether it is an anarchist or an FBI provocateur using violent tactics.”

   sure. but the article tells this story through the myopic lens of the 1960s cointelpro, and as i;ve indicated this limited analytic lens is disabling because it fails to grasp changes in policing and the terrain on which political resistance takes place in the status quo or even historically w/ any degree of accuracy.

   additionally this fails to grasp the fact that historically even “violent” movements have succeeded and/or been judged historically as just and right (see for example everyone’s use of the civil rights movement as a model on these forums – it was a movement that was framed as violent even when it wasn’t and it was successfully divided along the lines violence/non, but it is now championed as the model for our movement – ive also made this argument all over the place on these forums w/ numerous examples and supporting analysis). my point all along has been that we can w/ stand the fallout from the “violence” and the knee jerk reaction to word of the presence of “anarchist” by staying unified and on message.

   we are not violent. the cops are violent. we are not violent the economic system of capitalist exploitation that consolidates wealth in the hands of the few, while billions are starving, homeless and dying at holocaust levels every year to preventable causes, is violent. The capitalist system of economic rationality backed by force that blackmails us all into submission that is violence that we become complicit in – lest we call their bluff and resist. knowing of course full well that that means repression.

   It is VERY relevant to our movement, because it is likely that the 1% will use Cointelpro-esque tactics. We all need to be aware of this, to prevent successful infiltration of saboteurs into our movement.

   yes but lets not get carried away and bogged down in cointelpro. i’ve identified at least 4 areas of police repression that are more contemporaneous and applicable to the occupy movement. which i’ve heard basically no discussion of on these boards and which you’ve not responded to. so while we should look out for Cointelpro tactics we also need to look at who The Global Convergence Protests that i list have been policed, how police departments have militarized and how public space is governed/policed, or how the use of terrorism legislation has been mobilized in the recent past against activist.

   for some sources on information regarding this:
   David Graeber has written about these topics in a number of places this link has a bunch of his writings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Graeber,

   or here is a link w/ a number of videos (http://crimethinc.com/movies/) there is one on the Miami Model (how miami police cracked down on a convergence there – the footage is crazy – cops repeatedly shooting well to do middle aged white woman alone in the middle of the street w/ rubber bullets as well as mass indiscriminate violence), one on the Battle of Seattle, and another insightful film about the defense of Warner Creek and Cascadia Free State (an occupation that last an entire winter in the mountains of Orogen, snow bound 5 miles from any passable roads)

   also check out what happened in canada over the vancouver olympics
   http://www.democracynow.org/2010/2/15/olympic_resistance_indigenous_groups_anti_poverty

   and the g20 summit in toronto in 2010. http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/28/toronto_police_arrest_over_600_in

   and yes we need to be aware and we are aware hence the public outing of known provactoure brandon darby. my argument has never been for people to be unaware but rather that we could be more aware by updating our reading materials and historical reference points, and by improving the quality of analysis vis-a-via historical examples like the 1960s/Civil rights.

   And the title is relevant to the article. The 1% loves violence within the movement because they can use it to undermine us. That is a fact.

   the only problem is that the article doesnt actually provide a single example or accompanying analysis to demonstrate that that’s the case.

   nothing in the example of oakland or rome is developed to the point where we could conclusively say that the smashing of the wholefoods, or burning of some cars will undermine the movement or even that the 1% has mobilized to such effect – the article just leaves us to fill in the blanks that of course the 1% is gonna try to use this against us. which is largley irrelevant because of course we all know that if threatened the 1% will respond w/ a hella of a lot of tools but in the end they will inevitably resort to overwhelming force.

   the examples about the FBI are not examples of the 1% using violence to undermine the movement – they’re examples of the STATE acting, in the first instance, to minimize the risk of an armed radical black power movement in the south, and in the second to potentially discredit anti-war protestors. while it could be argued that each of these struggles carried within it a class dynamic – this was in no way demonstrated in the article.

   and as i have pointed out it was the rising cost to maintain social order here in the US that caused the institutional elite to remove support for and finally bring an end to the war in vietnam – and yes it was vary much to do w/ the fact that armed confrontation was becoming more and more normalized (there were numerous and by that i mean hundreds of bombings, arsons, hijackings, bank robberies, street battles w/ police all across the US) in addition there were all manner of attacks on institutional norms and the everyday conditions that made the war and sexism and racism and classism possible and it was this that brought an end to the war.

   so the examples dont really even make much historical sense – fear of violent disruption to the american way of life caused the 1% to stop supporting the us war effort in southeast asia. this is an argument for raising the costs of maintaining the status quo. and the 1% may have benefited form jim crow segregation – but you wouldn’t know it from this article. hence my criticism – it’s shallow, lacks analysis, and is factually wrong about the influence of violence on the powers that be at least with regard to the vietnam war.

   oh and it says nothing about anarchist – thus the use of the term is a publicity ploy by the author to make it seam like they have something relevant to say when in reality they just want to talk about the good ol’ days. the title reinforces hurtful stereotypes and offers nothing by way of improving american political discourse. this article equals fail. why it was reposted is beyond me.

   “The 1% loves violence within the movement because they can use it to undermine us. That is a fact…”

   …that i have demonstrated numerous times over on these forums with examples and analysis (which have only been engaged on a substantive level once or twice), that can be overcome. as history demonstrates when we look at the civil rights movement and the anti-vietnam war movement, the feminist movement, the radical labor movement, etc. power repress the move for social justice, the 1% undermines our efforts violent or not w/ violence and more, but we struggle on and the more unified we are the stronger we become and the less relevant the bosses desires become. so even if its a fact – i don’t care what the bosses love or don’t – because our demands and our actions exceed their power – if they didn’t there wouldn’t be any point in struggling.

2. think! November 22, 2011

   True, the article didn’t make as many historical references as you did– but then again, that wasn’t the point. The point was to remind us that the 1% will latch on to whatever they can to discredit and destroy the movement, whether it is an anarchist or an FBI provocateur using violent tactics.

   It is VERY relevant to our movement, because it is likely that the 1% will use Cointelpro-esque tactics. We all need to be aware of this, to prevent successful infiltration of saboteurs into our movement.

   And the title is relevant to the article. The 1% loves violence within the movement because they can use it to undermine us. That is a fact.

3. fellow worker November 22, 2011

   this article is really lame. it’s not about what the title says it’s about – it’s just some dude who was active in the 60’s telling us what we need to do because he knows – he’s lived it.

   Too many people want to pretend that the 60s are the only reference point for anyone involved activism or social movements.

   COINTELPRO happened, but it’s not nearly as informative as the green scare, muslim scare, convergence policing (eg N30, S26, J20, Genoa, FTAA/the miami model), or the policing of public space (surveillance, military tactics, sensory deprivation and enhancement). if anything reference to CONITELPRO should disabuse anyone of the notion that they can “distance” themselves from the “bad” protestors and be fairly represented/recieved by the power elite as nonviolent/good protestors – the FBI actively sought to undermine and attack the SCLC and MLK specifically as well as the civil rights movement in general.

   History makes it clear nonviolence and goodness won;t protect anyone from police repression – let’s update and broaden our our analytical toolkit to see beyond Ghandi and MLK/1960s.

   everyday life is the terrain of resistance and it is only by grasping this fact that we can come to make use of our history in its fullest. “the long memory is the most radical idea in america” (the late radical wobbly folk singer utah phillips quoting a feminist thinker). unfortunately however this article does more to quash the long memory than it does to enliven it – it dams the stream of resistance and diverts into a single tributary leaving us w/ less than the sum total that we came w/. lost is the struggle for the 8hr day which was meant to continue to the struggle for 4hr day and from there to the abolition of the wage system – with production for use not for profit – and abundance for produces and nothing for parasites. lost are the sit down strikes of the 1930s. even the wildcat strikes and the massive wave of labor resistance in the late 1960s and 1970s are forgotten in this history. gone are the environmental struggles – the anti-nuclear movement of the 1970s and 1980s, the timber wars of the 1990s, the global rainforest action network etc. forgotten is the green scare and how nonviolent protestors were labeled domestic terrorist in the 1990s and were targeted as such by the state using a whole variety of tactics form bombing Judi Bari and Darryl Cherney to the use of torture tactics ie pepper spray applied directly to the eyes by forcing peoples eye open and dumping cups of pepper spray on the eyes or by using Q-tips, mass arrests, the acceptance of vigilante violence against protestors like the murder of david chains.

   The struggle against the imposition of capitalism around the world from the Diggers, Levelers and Ranters of England to the Multitude of Indigenous struggles against colonialism and assimilation.

   The Resistance against transatlantic African Slavery from the slave revolts of Nat Turner and Haiti, to run away slaves and the tri-racial maroon societies they helped form, to the moorish church and Noble Drew Ali, the rise of Marcus Garvey and his brand of black nationalism, to the harlem renaissance and numerous other cultural expression of the african experience in america, on to the rise of the civil rights movement and the black power movement of the 1960s and onto the rise of hip-hop culture,

   The full historical arch of anarchist struggle to create a new world in the shell of the old,

   The bohemians who’ve maintained their connection with Europe’s long lost tribe of traveling mystics – many of whom somehow made their way out here to the city by the bay to spread their magical elixirs capable of altering time and space (why else would this place be so full revolutionary zeal over the last 100+ years were it not for the magic of nomadic tribes who come with knowledge of the forbidden).

   all of this is ignored in the constant reference to myopic anecdotes from the 1960s.

   so yeah i have no rant control hence another long rambling post.