Occupy Oakland protestor
(This is the first of three posts regarding the “diversity of tactics” debate raging in the Occupy movement. Contrary to the myth promoted by the corporate media, the Occupy movement is alive and well and engaged in a multiplicity of creative movement building activities. The term “diversity of tactics” is used to distinguish tactics that include property damage and armed retaliation against the police from nonviolent direct action and extremist tactics such as planting bombs and armed insurrection.)
By now several thousands progressives and liberals have read the article The Cancer in Occupy Chris Hedges published on Truthdig on February 6th. It was subsequently reposted on a number of other sites. In the article, Hedges condemns the so-called “Black Bloc Movement” and “Black Bloc anarchists” for a variety of sins that include breaking store and car windows, burning flags, and swearing and throwing tear gas canisters at the police. There is a major problem with the whole premise of the article. As Hedges’ critics are quick to point out, “black bloc” (lower case) refers to tactics – there is no such thing as a “Black Block Movement” or “Black Bloc anarchists.” However unless they are regular readers of anarchist and left libertarian websites and blogs, activists are unlikely to have seen the numerous critiques of “The Cancer in Occupy” that correct this and other factual errors in Hedges’ article.
Hedges’ Numerous Critics (Besides Me)
The longest and most comprehensive critique of Hedges’ article, The Folly of Chris Hedges, appeared on Infoshop News later the same day. Infoshop News provides links to other excellent critiques of “The Cancer in Occupy.” Two of the best (IMHO) are an article by Don Gato on the AK Press website entitled To Be Fair He is a Journalist: A Short Response to Chris Hedges on the Black Bloc and magpie’s I am the Cancer (or ArmchairsGTFO).*
For me the major problem with “The Cancer in Occupy” is Hedges’ failure to acknowledge that 1) the debate over “diversity of tactics” (i.e. incorporating tactics other than exclusive nonviolent resistance) has been raging for months in local Occupy groups and 2) his views represent only one side of the debate. Contrast his Truthdig article with more objective articles in the Occupy Wall Street Journal and on the Occupy Oakland website that present both sides: Diversity of Tactics or Divide and Conquer and The Revolution Will Be Strategized: Reflections on Diversity of Tactics From NYC.
A Generational Split Over Diversity of Tactics
I first became aware of the “diversity of tactics” debate when Making Contact radio played excerpts from the December 15th forum “How Will the Walls Come Tumbling Down: Diversity of Tactics vs Nonviolence in the Occupy Movement.” (http://tunein.com/radio/Making-Contact-p1028/) There has been an erroneous assumption by many armchair liberals and progressives that commitment to exclusive nonviolent resistance is a basic tenet of the Occupy movement. Nothing could be further from the truth. Although the vast majority of occupy protests have been nonviolent, Occupy movements in different cities have taken very different positions about their willingness to engage in corporate property damage and retaliation against police violence. As the WAMMM (Women Against Military Madness blog describes, diversity of tactics advocates are more likely to be young, newly recruited activists. Those favoring exclusive nonviolence are more likely to be older activists who have engaged in civil disobedience in the antiwar or nuclear movement.
A Range of Positions on Diversity of Tactics
Both Occupy Boston and the original Occupy Wall Street encampment in Zuccotti Park adopted statements in October 2011 endorsing a “diversity of tactics,” as opposed to exclusive nonviolence (see Boston statement of diversity of tactics and Occupty Wall Street Library).
In contrast, both Occupy Los Angeles and Occupy DC began with a commitment to exclusive nonviolence. However after the extreme police violence that accompanied the police crackdown on Occupy sites in many cities, both groups are revisiting this stance (see LA debates diversity of tactics and Should the Should the Occupy Movement Adopt Strategic Non-violence?
Prior to the December 15th public forum, Occupy Oakland had no formal position either way. The outcome of their “How Will the Walls Come Tumbling Down” forum was a refusal to endorse exclusive nonviolence. Occupy Seattle, which held similar internal discussions in December, took a similar position (see http://www.realchangenews.org/index.php/site/archives/6173/). Occupy Portland held a similar debate four days ago (see http://www.supportows.org/blog/occupy-oregon/important-to-attend-diversity-of-tactics-discussion-feb-21-tuesday-7pm-at-st-francis/).
* “Armchairs” refers to armchair liberals who critique activist efforts without ever becoming actively involved. GTFO translates to “Get the Fuck Out”
To be continued.
Share and Enjoy:
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Jill Cloutier
cheshyre grin
al mariam
Patrick D Hahn
Jan Sand
Arthur Louis
Salon.com
Comments
Month after month the entire left-wing blogosphere and whatever passes for old-media leftists obsessed over Occupy This or That, while Obama raised hundreds of millions of dollars and now runs unopposed in the Democratic primaries.
And meanwhile what good did those aimless little mobs do for anybody? The war-machine just keeps grinding forward, hundreds of thousands of homeowners default, and millions of US citizens have been relegated to the status of permanent unemployment, and meanwhile...
A few aimless little mobs with no definite agenda and no leadership appear here and there, and then...
And then nothing.
Absolutely fucking nothing!
He's just looking for an excuse for OWS to fail, because he can't admit (even to himself) that it failed already.
To be fair, I think expecting any resistance movement to bring down global capitalism in five months is pretty unrealistic, no matter how clear and focused their goals. In my mind the failure of OWS wasn't their lack of leadership or agenda, it was their failure to attract the traditional working class, disadvantaged minorities and women.
But simply to demand of those who are prospering via the present set-up, that they throw down this system, is truthfully ridiculous. So too are demands that they make changes that will not be to their advantage in their own eyes.
The majority of citizens, dimly aware of what might be wrong with the present system, still think that it's a pretty good system but may need a few "adjustments"; to be "tweaked" a bit. They are convinced that there is no viable alternative to this system. Occupy might well occupy its time and efforts in enlightening the mass of citizens of the true state of affairs, and of any alternatives that might serve the population much better than our present system.
Until you have the majority of citizens fully aware of what the problems are and what your proposed solutions to those problems are, you have nothing.
All across the US there are co-ops in existence and being formed by people who see the value in co-operation for their well being and survival. The "grey market", an economy of barter and skills trading, is alive and well.
There is also a growing underground labour market. I'm told that only about 10% of the population earns its living in this way in the US. This percentage is much higher in other countries. In some countries it is actually the way that the majority of the population lives and works.
I mention this because this underground economy presents no organized leadership for the official governments to attack and destroy. Neither can the wealthy elite buy off a leadership that doesn't exist.
The people who are engaged in this underground economic system have not ever had to face the government in battle. They just quietly go on living their lives all around that government, its elite, and its minions, ignoring them for the most part. This is, in my opinion, the path to bloodless revolution. Build an economy of the people, by the people, and for the people. Do not engage in violent war against those in power. They will likely win. Modern weapons in the hands of their police and military are too powerful for the people to face them on the field of battle. But where there is no organized, led, and direct military attack on them there can be no battle won by them. In fact there cannot even be a battle fought by them - there is no apparent enemy.
This is surely not as quick as military action, if military action were possible to the citizens. Perhaps quick is no good thing if it leads to violence and massive deaths, on both sides. This is a very slow method, to be sure. Yet, as slow as it might be, it is far more sure, in the end, than military action could ever be.
Remember too, no regime that ever came to power through violence has ever failed to use violence to solve other problems once in power. None. Ever.
Violence simply doesn't work for the people, in the end. It's time to try another route to a decent society based on an equitable system.
.
As for the bickering that is going on about disinformation and other bureaucratic waste, it is all an enormous amount of stupidity that won't do anyone any good in the long run but until those in power at least try to implement some fairness it has to go on. The only question is how much of this insanity the most authoritarian people will insist on carrying out before they can be removed from power.
There is no doubt that short of submitting to virtual slavery that it can't end any other way if they continue to take such insane positions.
I'm not sure we need a majority of the population to strip the corporate elite of power - just a lot more people than we have now.
Personally, I am not a big advocate of violence as a solution. Moreover if the Occupy movement decided to get into bomb making or assault rifles, they couldn't do it publicly. They would have to go underground.
That being said, I'm a strong opponent of the dogmatic nonviolence that dominates the progressive movement in the US (this is in marked contrast to grassroots resistance in Europe or even Canada). It's a major turn-off for potential working class and minority recruits to the Occupy movement and other left of center organizing. I personally feel it's a big reason white working class males flock to the Tea Party instead.
It's never going to make sense to working class and minority activists that they should react passively when the police beat them bloody and attack them in the face with pepper spray. The argument that this makes them "morally superior" to the police-security state just won't wash.
I too am not dogmatic about non-violence. That being said, let me clarify.
Violence is only justified where NO OTHER viable option exists; and the search for a non-violent option must be conscientious and thorough. Obviously being violently attacked leaves little recourse, in most cases, but to respond to violence with violence. Yet we must beware at all times, that a powerful enemy will do his best to entice us into resorting to violence so as to "get us on his home ground" so to speak.
It must always be crystal clear to us and to any impartial observer that we eschewed violence until at the point of death or enslavement; that it was indeed a last resort.
Given those circumstances, although too old and gibbled up to partake of the violence myself, I'll be there to pass the ammunition.
.