Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Cancer in Occupy
The Black Bloc anarchists, who have been active on the streets in Oakland and other cities, are the cancer of the Occupy movement. The presence of Black Bloc anarchists—so named because they dress in black, obscure their faces, move as a unified mass, seek physical confrontations with police and destroy property—is a gift from heaven to the security and surveillance state. The Occupy encampments in various cities were shut down precisely because they were nonviolent. They were shut down because the state realized the potential of their broad appeal even to those within the systems of power. They were shut down because they articulated a truth about our economic and political system that cut across political and cultural lines. And they were shut down because they were places mothers and fathers with strollers felt safe.
Black Bloc adherents detest those of us on the organized left and seek, quite consciously, to take away our tools of empowerment. They confuse acts of petty vandalism and a repellent cynicism with revolution. The real enemies, they argue, are not the corporate capitalists, but their collaborators among the unions, workers’ movements, radical intellectuals, environmental activists and populist movements such as the Zapatistas. Any group that seeks to rebuild social structures, especially through nonviolent acts of civil disobedience, rather than physically destroy, becomes, in the eyes of Black Bloc anarchists, the enemy. Black Bloc anarchists spend most of their fury not on the architects of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) or globalism, but on those, such as the Zapatistas, who respond to the problem. It is a grotesque inversion of value systems.
Because Black Bloc anarchists do not believe in organization, indeed oppose all organized movements, they ensure their own powerlessness. They can only be obstructionist. And they are primarily obstructionist to those who resist. John Zerzan, one of the principal ideologues of the Black Bloc movement in the United States, defended “Industrial Society and Its Future,” the rambling manifesto by Theodore Kaczynski, known as the Unabomber, although he did not endorse Kaczynski’s bombings. Zerzan is a fierce critic of a long list of supposed sellouts starting with Noam Chomsky. Black Bloc anarchists are an example of what Theodore Roszak in “The Making of a Counter Culture” called the “progressive adolescentization” of the American left.
In Zerzan’s now defunct magazine Green Anarchy (which survives as a website) he published an article by someone named “Venomous Butterfly” that excoriated the Zapatista Army for National Liberation (EZLN). The essay declared that “not only are those [the Zapatistas’] aims not anarchist; they are not even revolutionary.” It also denounced the indigenous movement for “nationalist language,” for asserting the right of people to “alter or modify their form of government” and for having the goals of “work, land, housing, health care, education, independence, freedom, democracy, justice and peace.” The movement, the article stated, was not worthy of support because it called for “nothing concrete that could not be provided by capitalism.”
“Of course,” the article went on, “the social struggles of exploited and oppressed people cannot be expected to conform to some abstract anarchist ideal. These struggles arise in particular situations, sparked by specific events. The question of revolutionary solidarity in these struggles is, therefore, the question of how to intervene in a way that is fitting with one’s aims, in a way that moves one’s revolutionary anarchist project forward.”
Solidarity becomes the hijacking or destruction of competing movements, which is exactly what the Black Bloc contingents are attempting to do with the Occupy movement.
“The Black Bloc can say they are attacking cops, but what they are really doing is destroying the Occupy movement,” the writer and environmental activist Derrick Jensen told me when I reached him by phone in California. “If their real target actually was the cops and not the Occupy movement, the Black Bloc would make their actions completely separate from Occupy, instead of effectively using these others as a human shield. Their attacks on cops are simply a means to an end, which is to destroy a movement that doesn’t fit their ideological standard.”
“I don’t have a problem with escalating tactics to some sort of militant resistance if it is appropriate morally, strategically and tactically,” Jensen continued. “This is true if one is going to pick up a sign, a rock or a gun. But you need to have thought it through. The Black Bloc spends more time attempting to destroy movements than they do attacking those in power. They hate the left more than they hate capitalists.”
“Their thinking is not only nonstrategic, but actively opposed to strategy,” said Jensen, author of several books, including “The Culture of Make Believe.” “They are unwilling to think critically about whether one is acting appropriately in the moment. I have no problem with someone violating boundaries [when] that violation is the smart, appropriate thing to do. I have a huge problem with people violating boundaries for the sake of violating boundaries. It is a lot easier to pick up a rock and throw it through the nearest window than it is to organize, or at least figure out which window you should throw a rock through if you are going to throw a rock. A lot of it is laziness.”
Groups of Black Bloc protesters, for example, smashed the windows of a locally owned coffee shop in November in Oakland and looted it. It was not, as Jensen points out, a strategic, moral or tactical act. It was done for its own sake. Random acts of violence, looting and vandalism are justified, in the jargon of the movement, as components of “feral” or “spontaneous insurrection.” These acts, the movement argues, can never be organized. Organization, in the thinking of the movement, implies hierarchy, which must always be opposed. There can be no restraints on “feral” or “spontaneous” acts of insurrection. Whoever gets hurt gets hurt. Whatever gets destroyed gets destroyed.
There is a word for this—“criminal.”
The Black Bloc movement is infected with a deeply disturbing hypermasculinity. This hypermasculinity, I expect, is its primary appeal. It taps into the lust that lurks within us to destroy, not only things but human beings. It offers the godlike power that comes with mob violence. Marching as a uniformed mass, all dressed in black to become part of an anonymous bloc, faces covered, temporarily overcomes alienation, feelings of inadequacy, powerlessness and loneliness. It imparts to those in the mob a sense of comradeship. It permits an inchoate rage to be unleashed on any target. Pity, compassion and tenderness are banished for the intoxication of power. It is the same sickness that fuels the swarms of police who pepper-spray and beat peaceful demonstrators. It is the sickness of soldiers in war. It turns human beings into beasts.
Losing this moral authority, this ability to show through nonviolent protest the corruption and decadence of the corporate state, would be crippling to the movement. It would reduce us to the moral degradation of our oppressors. And that is what our oppressors want.
“We run on,” Erich Maria Remarque wrote in “All Quiet on the Western Front,” “overwhelmed by this wave that bears us along, that fills us with ferocity, turns us into thugs, into murderers, into God only knows what devils: this wave that multiplies our strength with fear and madness and greed of life, seeking and fighting for nothing but our deliverance.”
The corporate state understands and welcomes the language of force. It can use the Black Bloc’s confrontational tactics and destruction of property to justify draconian forms of control and frighten the wider population away from supporting the Occupy movement. Once the Occupy movement is painted as a flag-burning, rock-throwing, angry mob we are finished. If we become isolated we can be crushed. The arrests last weekend in Oakland of more than 400 protesters, some of whom had thrown rocks, carried homemade shields and rolled barricades, are an indication of the scale of escalating repression and a failure to remain a unified, nonviolent opposition. Police pumped tear gas, flash-bang grenades and “less lethal” rounds into the crowds. Once protesters were in jail they were denied crucial medications, kept in overcrowded cells and pushed around. A march in New York called in solidarity with the Oakland protesters saw a few demonstrators imitate the Black Bloc tactics in Oakland, including throwing bottles at police and dumping garbage on the street. They chanted “Fuck the police” and “Racist, sexist, anti-gay / NYPD go away.”
This is a struggle to win the hearts and minds of the wider public and those within the structures of power (including the police) who are possessed of a conscience. It is not a war. Nonviolent movements, on some level, embrace police brutality. The continuing attempt by the state to crush peaceful protesters who call for simple acts of justice delegitimizes the power elite. It prompts a passive population to respond. It brings some within the structures of power to our side and creates internal divisions that will lead to paralysis within the network of authority. Martin Luther King kept holding marches in Birmingham because he knew Public Safety Commissioner “Bull” Connor was a thug who would overreact.
The Black Bloc’s thought-terminating cliché of “diversity of tactics” in the end opens the way for hundreds or thousands of peaceful marchers to be discredited by a handful of hooligans. The state could not be happier. It is a safe bet that among Black Bloc groups in cities such as Oakland are agents provocateurs spurring them on to more mayhem. But with or without police infiltration the Black Bloc is serving the interests of the 1 percent. These anarchists represent no one but themselves. Those in Oakland, although most are white and many are not from the city, arrogantly dismiss Oakland’s African-American leaders, who, along with other local community organizers, should be determining the forms of resistance.
The explosive rise of the Occupy Wall Street movement came when a few women, trapped behind orange mesh netting, were pepper-sprayed by NYPD Deputy Inspector Anthony Bologna. The violence and cruelty of the state were exposed. And the Occupy movement, through its steadfast refusal to respond to police provocation, resonated across the country. Losing this moral authority, this ability to show through nonviolent protest the corruption and decadence of the corporate state, would be crippling to the movement. It would reduce us to the moral degradation of our oppressors. And that is what our oppressors want.
The Black Bloc movement bears the rigidity and dogmatism of all absolutism sects. Its adherents alone possess the truth. They alone understand. They alone arrogate the right, because they are enlightened and we are not, to dismiss and ignore competing points of view as infantile and irrelevant. They hear only their own voices. They heed only their own thoughts. They believe only their own clichés. And this makes them not only deeply intolerant but stupid.
“Once you are hostile to organization and strategic thinking the only thing that remains is lifestyle purity,” Jensen said. “ ‘Lifestylism’ has supplanted organization in terms of a lot of mainstream environmental thinking. Instead of opposing the corporate state, [lifestylism maintains] we should use less toilet paper and should compost. This attitude is ineffective. Once you give up on organizing or are hostile to it, all you are left with is this hyperpurity that becomes rigid dogma. You attack people who, for example, use a telephone. This is true with vegans and questions of diet. It is true with anti-car activists toward those who drive cars. It is the same with the anarchists. When I called the police after I received death threats I became to Black Bloc anarchists ‘a pig lover.’ ”
“If you live on Ogoni land and you see that Ken Saro-Wiwa is murdered for acts of nonviolent resistance,” Jensen said, “if you see that the land is still being trashed, then you might think about escalating. I don’t have a problem with that. But we have to go through the process of trying to work with the system and getting screwed. It is only then that we get to move beyond it. We can’t short-circuit the process. There is a maturation process we have to go through, as individuals and as a movement. We can’t say, ‘Hey, I’m going to throw a flowerpot at a cop because it is fun.’ ”
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...




784 Comments so far
Show AllIt an established and documented faxct That Cass Sunstein suggested government agents frequent chat rooms and on line forums to spread disinformation and poison the waters of such so as to limit dialogue on "Conspiracy Theories"
It is also an established fact that the Pentagon itself inititaed such policies wherein persons using multiple screen names would be tasked with using the internet to spread disinformation .
It also an established fact that Government agents infiltrated AIM, the Black Panthers , Communist and Socialist groups and other such groups that were opposed to Government policies and encouraged those people to commit acts of Violence in order to achieve their goals.
None of this is speculation and I have seen enough examples of police officers dressed up as protestors and picking up rocks to throw through windows to know the tactic is rather commonplace.
Thus I am in full agreement with you. Any time I see people frequent forums such as this and encouraging people to commit acts of Violence I am suspicous of their motives. One can not be a person of violence and support progressive ideals.
You may not be correct in all your calls as to who is an agent of the Government but you are certainly right in calling them as you see them.
Who here is calling for violence? Are ploughshares actions (look it up if you don't know what they are) violence? How can damage to inanimate materials be "violence"?
I agree with your basic point, but as a matter of fact, the dictionary definition, as well as comman usage, of the words "violent" and "violence" is not limited to cases of violence against persons. The etymology is this: from Latin violentus, from vs, vi-, force. Force is the key concept. A storm can be violent. Someone's temper can be violent. Colors can clash violently. You can do violence to a text. You can do violence to someone's speech.
I'm just suggesting that an argument from the definition of "violence" might not be the most effective in this case.
You might be on firmer ground if you made reference to certain legal definitions of a "violent crime."
"One can not be a person of violence and support progressive ideals."
Nice of you too reduce a complex and challenging issue down to a categorical dictum, and one that places yourself in the high echelons of unimpeachable ethics and morality and gives you the perogative of judging everyone else.
What a steaming pile of moralistic egoism.
I agree with your statements about Sunstein and that undercover and uniformed police will goad people into violence in order to pop them, and have been doing so in an organized fashion for more than a century in the US.
From that true and important fact, you make a gargantuan and arrogant universal judgement.
Again I cite the StoneWall and White Night Riots as glaring and powerful contradictions to your oversimplified categorical thinking. Then there is a hundred years of US labor history.
Try dealing more with facts, less with overwrought moralism.
There is a scale of confrontational tactics. The dividing line between the acceptable and the atrocious contains a wide grey area that varies in scope with the circumstances of the struggle.
So the Warsaw Ghetto rebellion comes to mind also. Care to share your wise thoughts regarding the stance that all good progressives must have towards that violent protest rebellion?
"Siouxrose:..I am impeaching your testimony, and exposing you for the fraud I take you to be because your reaction to the 911 issue is so knee-JERK in support of the government's official storyline. That's pretty odd for a Leftist. "
Say what? Anybody who questions the official "truther" 9/11 storyline is a "mole" and not a "true" leftist? Nonsense. That's McCarthyism, pure and simple.
Siouxrose--who often has many insightful and intelligent things to say--sadly stoops to a low level with these attacks and does a great injustice to his/her own intellect.
I personally disagree with actualleftist on a number of points, but it would never occur to me to try to "impeach his/her testimony" by bringing up 9/11. That's a transparent guilt-by-association tactic indicative of an inability to deal with his/her arguments via rational, factual-based argument.
I have followed Sioux Rose for a long time and do not doubt her courage and conviction, I have seen her display it repeatedly. Is she always right in her aspersions? Of course not. Would she apologize if you had the guts to use your own name and she was proven wrong? I am sure she would. Do you have the guts to use your own name? Obviously not. I agree with her analysis about you. If I'm wrong I'm sorry. You can always leave the site. I'm staying. And I will continue to be suspicious of pseudo-progressive rhetoric. And I will continue to listen to Sioux Rose.
1. Uh? Actually miss, there are lots of studies and clinical data that shows when men (and women) are testosterone difficient they are more agitated, aggressive, angry, violent and depressed.
2. I'm new here so please don't curse me out if you don't agree with me :p
Thanks
Are you suggesting that there's some actual work, actual organizing, happening here that is worthy of interference by an agent provocauteur? If so, the warning comes too late because obviously he or she had his or her way with us.
I think any government agent reading this site would be laughing their head off.
Many are whacked out on Jesus, some on New Age, and fully half the commenters want to cut teacher salaries.
No threats to the establishment here!
Well, your ego has enough hot air to inflate a hot air balloon. No poster sought harder to seize control of this thread than you. That's right. You have the most posts. I wonder why it is, that a person with all the accomplishments, undocumented of course, that you posted about your self has devoted the entire day to discrediting Hedges, and/or speaking of the benefits of violence deployed in the Art of Protest? And if the "New Age" remark was aimed at me, astrology goes back THOUSANDS of years, pal. New Age may be the Madison Avenue co-optation of ancient, inviolate teachings. It doesn't define the timeless teachings.
Note to the forum's HONEST posters: Consider that the ones most quick to mock the idea of agents in our midst happen to be among that same ilk. Who else would make so much noise if their cover was being blown? During the wee hours of the night, these cowards will be back; and given the access they have to multiple screen names, they'll reply to their own posts and leave poison barbs for me... while I sleep. It's been done before, and I've reminded them of the way their acts show a moral equivalence with roaches. Both creep around late at night to leave crap behind.
One often has to wonder to what degree there is actual COINTELPRO-styled interference in progressive blogs to disrupt progressive communication. Much of the dialogue here seems designed to divide progressives in all their various forms and to attack the very idea of citizen solidarity. Let all you "actual leftists" out there know that when the fuzz need to find a reason to act like fascists, they dress up as anarchists and break a few windows. I guess that's when they can't call up and ask the real thing to do it.
You mean like dividing the saintly idealized Occupy protesters away from evil, naughty 'black blockers' who have no ideas and no foresight and ought not to be ever seriously considered?
Or, do you mean dividing spiritually enlightened folk (those, who, in Parson Hedges' mind, 'carry a cross', even atheists which says a lot about the degree of his malignant solipsism) away from those evil, naughty atheists?
Oh wait...
I mean like a tiny minority that stupidly and willfully goes ahead and commits a politically meaningless act like breaking windows that convinces no one of anything but provides an excuse for the authorities to crack down, defeating the efforts of 99% of the people demonstrating to have their efforts seen as non-violent. No need for police agent provocateurs dressed up in that asinine, juvenile black outfit when these fools are on the scene.
Tony Vodvarka
"Well, your ego has enough hot air to inflate a hot air balloon."
Could we at least specify the size of said balloon? As it is that's a terrible metaphor.
I can take political disagreement and I can take personal attacks, but making me read awful prose is a step too far.
Your arguments would be a lot more engaging, "Actual Leftist" if you didn't hurl insults at others so much. So you find God "silly," and think people who find value in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ are fools. Just who in the hell are you, Mr. Pompous, to lay such judgments on so many when you obviously quit thinking about anything but the material world and your own ego at age 13?
That kind of smug, moral superiority is immature and divisive, and I'm not so sure that SiouxRose isn't absolutely correct about what you are up to. If not, then maybe showing a bit more humility and less contempt for so many others might make it easier to listen to your many posts.
Christianity is immature and divisive. Chris Hedges is being immature and divisive in this article.
Just to be clear, you're proving to everyone that "hurling insults" is a bad thing - it's a bad thing, yes? do we have you on record for that..? - by calling me:
- Mr. Pompous
- smug
- immature
And then suggesting that "I'm not so sure that SiouxRose isn't absolutely correct about what you are up to", meaning that I'm a paid US government agent!
"So you find God "silly," and think people who find value in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ are fools."
Yes and yes. And this is the first short period in the past 1800 years or so that those attitudes aren't likely to get me MURDERED by the followers of gentle Jesus-meek-and-mild. I'm not sure which is the silliest group, the Christians, the astrologers, the Democrats or the 9/11 truthers, although some manage to be all four at once. What I wonder is what keeps these people from NOT believing everything they hear... the only skepticism I encounter with regularity is that I'm a, y'know, actual leftist.
Actualleftist:
I must say that in general I completely agree with your comments. This is quite a fucked up thread in that I see a lot of crazy divisions going on here. I've identified with anarchist principles and organizing tactics for a long time, and support anti-authoritarian organizing.
However, there is a lot of truth in what Hedges is saying, but it is indeed reactionary and one sided. In every demo I have been on, the cops start the violence 99% of the time. Hedges should have criticized the tactic, should have contextualized the violence - many people don't want to get the shit beat out of them and want to fight back.
But, the Black Block is gift to the state because it's so easily infiltrated by agents. It is hyper-masculine, and it is against mass movement building. It is age-ist in that they really don't give a fuck about others in the crossfire. However, Hedges goes overboard in his absolutely divisive rhetoric. He should have been more careful. It's true what Jensen says about the Eugene anarchist types, they are fucking idiots, totally unstrategic and sectarian life-stylists.
What others on this thread don't understand it seems (like SiouxRose) is that this is a real long time debate, not in need of government agents, and that Hedges clearly lacks the history to discuss it. And it really SUX that 911 came into this thread. I am one of those leftist-anarchist-scientists that is convinced 911 was a false-flag terror operation along the lines of Operation Gladio, but this is not the place to discuss it..
I have lived in the bay area in the past, and there is a very strong, very white, tendency towards sectarianism within the anarchist movement, and it's definitely being played out in Oakland right now.
In your opinion, "Actual Leftist," everyone is "silly" but yourself. But your ego, and your attacking style, betray your motivations. I don't believe you, dude, or your sincerity. You are like others who simply believe in nothing. You despise everything and want to destroy it, but ridicule anyone else who espouses beliefs of any kind.
I'm a profound cynic, too. Belief systems of all kinds, including organized Christianity and organized Judaism and a whole lot of other isms. "God" to me is simply a three letter word for a mystery I don't pretend to understand. But that's what makes it so wonderful, the benevolence of the universe as manifested in many diverse ways is quite apparent to me, and I believe it is a manifestation of a great unseen source of immense creative power. It can, will and must remain forever mysterious, and that to me is a blessing. For you, "God" is still nothing but some silly superstitious belief in a man on a cloud somewhere. Once you have ruled that out as a possible reality, you evidently quit thinking about anything beyond physical reality.
When you contemptuously dismiss "God" and anything that smacks of spiritual beliefs, it simply means you believe in none of the things I mentioned. That's fine. I won't ridicule you for your non-belief. But I also don't respect your broadbrushed attacks on those who do have faith in something greater than themselves, nor the dismissive approach you take toward a broad array of people.
That kind of behavior doesn't further your cause and comes off as immature at best, extremely divisive at any rate.
Interesting thought. I would think it's more the opposite: that those who openly encourage people not to fight back and defend themselves from an obviously extremely violent and repressive regime are those who are working with the elite and attempting to block attempts at meaningful change. It should be more than obvious at this point that nonviolent methods of changing this system have not worked and will not work. That simply cannot be disputed at this point. So, now, the discussion should be on whether we wish to stand by and watch the elite steal everything they don't already own and destroy the country, or whether we wish to be responsible adults and confront a violent regime in the ways that history has long shown to be the only effective ways of confronting violent regimes.
It's also rather curious that people like Hedges and so many on the so-called 'left' who advocate nonviolence also openly support the extremely violent Hamas, a group whose only position is the exercise of violence for the sake of violence. Talk about hypocritical.
"the extremely violent Hamas, a group whose only position is the exercise of violence for the sake of violence."
Not true.
Wikipedia:
"In June 2008, as part of an Egyptian-brokered ceasefire, Hamas ceased rocket attacks on Israel and made some efforts to prevent attacks by other organizations.[32][33] After a four months calm, the conflict escalated when Israel carried out a military action with the stated aim to prevent an abduction planned by Hamas, using a tunnel that had been dug under the border security fence,[33] killing seven Hamas operatives. In retaliation, Hamas attacked Israel with a barrage of rockets.[33][34] In late December 2008, Israel attacked Gaza,[35] withdrawing its forces from the territory in mid-January 2009.[36] After the Gaza War, Hamas continued to govern the Gaza strip and Israel maintained its economic blockade. On May 4, 2011, Hamas and Fatah announced a reconciliation agreement that provides for "creation of a joint caretaker Palestinian government" prior to national elections scheduled for 2012.[37] As part of that agreement, Hamas' resistance would be peaceful and not military, according to Israeli news reports."
Hamas won control of the Gaza government because of its many humaitarian activities among the Palestinian people.
"It should be more than obvious at this point that nonviolent methods of changing this system have not worked and will not work. That simply cannot be disputed at this point."
I think your ignorant remark about Hamas gives us an idea of the reliability of this statement and of your judgment in general as well.
When I lived in the Middle East I once stumbled into a gathering of local Hamas officials, and I was struck by how interested they were in beer. They did hit the pitchers fairly "violently" on All You Can Drink night at the Doha Ramada. One of their positions was to insist on paying for my drinks, which was appreciated.
Apparently Hamas has an insidious plan to attack the livers of unsuspecting Americans.
To: "Siouxfake, Feb 6 2012 - 2:15pm"
What B.S. - from the house-astrologer.
( "Would you buy a used star from this man-iac?" ;-)
It is a pen name, as you well know. I use it as you seem free to use the word Smarter, when you're just a thug who seems to get off on calling me a fake in post after post. You're not smart, and you're just another ten-cent creep or one-trick pony.
Is this another example of how name-calling is naughty? Funny how that seems to run in only one direction.
If we're going to go that route can we at least do it well? "One-trick creep" and "ten-cent pony" sound worse to me. Feel free to use those in future without attribution; you're welcome.
It's always a privilege to be disparaged by the Siouxfake. :-)
Thank You Smarter. :wink:
Hey idiot, what does her job have to do with occupy or black block?
SR as gracious and as insightful as you may be at times, you definitely have a streak of paranoia. State/Corp agents are always found on threads relating to simultaneous zionist atrocities and often on Fukishima threads. But no one posting today indicates anything other than sincere beliefs as sincere as your own. But sincerity does not rule out paranoia the step child of THC. If not THC then self reflection is in order. You are doing a disservice to the necessary discussion of when it is necessary to harm animals ( I say never, my 2 cents) when it is necessary to destroy property of oppression ( I say always, my 2 cents) and when one must limit oneself to witnessing ( as Hedges claims). MLK did not attempt to hinder the Black Panthers.
The Black Panthers didn't show up at other people's organized protests and "fuck shit up."
IF you note my earlier post I stated the BB should initiate their own separate actions. Also when fighting a superpower it is non productive to spend energy tearing down others doing the same except that it is a definite fact that the other is preventing revolutionary success. Often an extreme group gives power to a less extreme by making the less extreme a more attractive choice. To claim someone is a government agent simply because they support any form of violence during a revolution is absurd to the extreme.
First of all, thanks for referencing history, especially recent history, to make your point.
There were other reasons MLK type tactics worked. The establishment preferred them over the alternative. MLK or Malcolm, for instance? But I'm not sure they "worked." How much was truly gained? It looked like a lot at the time, but in perspective, I'm not so sure. They survived, which is different from working. I've often wondered what could have been gained if we had gone in a different direction.
It should be mentioned that even the peaceful protest need not necessarily be a vulnerable protest. I once heard Ward Churchill say that the peaceful protests led by MLK were ringed by "deacons" who were armed. Our memory has a bad habit of losing facts along the way.
Now that I've mentioned Churchill, I'll add that his little book The Pathology of Pacifism offers a healthy counterpoint to this piece by Hedges. Actually to all recent work by Hedges.
I would not credit Mr. Churchill with much in the area of civil rights.
The mysterious "armed deacons" would have been a red flag to the Bull Connors of the world and you can bet that would have ended in a blood bath.
They were not mysterious. I didn't intend to give that impression. You can easily research them; just look up Deacons of Defense and Justice. Your prediction about what would have happened is incorrect.
It's interesting, though, this sort of mystic romantic veil we've draped over the activism of the past, trying to ignore historical facts such as the Deacons. I guess we've wiped out of our memory people like Stokely Charmichael? In a way that veil covers most of our history; we try to create some ideal past for ourselves. I don't think that sort of activity is at all helpful.
“And who says their tactcs are not effective? The ONLY reason the G20 resistance got any media attention at all was the non-permitted march and the carefully targeted corporate property actions by the anarchists.”
Hedges doesn’t argue that militant actions are never effective. He quotes the following:
“I don’t have a problem with escalating tactics to some sort of militant resistance if it is appropriate morally, strategically and tactically,” Jensen continued. “This is true if one is going to pick up a sign, a rock or a gun. But you need to have thought it through. The Black Bloc spends more time attempting to destroy movements than they do attacking those in power. They hate the left more than they hate capitalists.”
“Their thinking is not only nonstrategic, but actively opposed to strategy,” said Jensen, author of several books, including “The Culture of Make Believe.” “They are unwilling to think critically about whether one is acting appropriately in the moment. I have no problem with someone violating boundaries [when] that violation is the smart, appropriate thing to do. I have a huge problem with people violating boundaries for the sake of violating boundaries. It is a lot easier to pick up a rock and throw it through the nearest window than it is to organize, or at least figure out which window you should throw a rock through if you are going to throw a rock. A lot of it is laziness.”
“And, when the pacifists turn in those they disagree with to the police, as actually happened at Pittsburgh's occupy camp, (which is peacefully packing up and going home under a judges order as I type this), they are no longer even nonviolent, but are outsourcing their violence to the police.”
This is certainly troubling, if it happened. Considering the damage mindless violence can do to the Occupy movement, it’s understandable, but probably the wrong thing to do.
Sorry but a million people in the streets holding signs that say "PEACE NOW!" could NOT be ignored due to the influence of YouTube (or the Pony Ex-Freakin'press!!!)!
Those of us who are "intellectuals" MUST think ANEW!
A simple, non-violent message must now be sent via every world- wide medium at our disposal:
"PEACE NOW!" is the message. With the whole internet world on the same page we will not be ignored!
So Sorry but 13 Million worldwide marched on 2/2003 against the Iraq invasion and they were ignored even with Utube functioning. Criminals ONLY repress opposition.
I was there too and saw two exceptionally well built and clean cut super stereotypical 'Black Block Hooligans' hop out of the back of a big black van in an alley and jog into the protest.
The whole thing was a set up.
There were *hundreds* and *hundreds* of cops on every street intersecting with the south side of Queen Street (I just finished walking past them all) and they let a little gang trash the neighborhood and set two cop cars on fire. The cops could have snuffed the Black Block out in a moment if they had wanted to.
Here's a little poem I wrote on that experience:
------
The Hijack
The cops were not smart
but old enough to know
how to lead zealots by the nose
of their righteousness and rage.
They Trojan Horse gifted them
the irresistibly delicious storefronts of Queen St. and Yonge,
far from the real fences and gates.
Soft Starbucks and Scotiabank targets,
then threw in plump cop cars, as bait.
O, and the zealots did their duty,
instinctively,
like dogs chasing a frightened thing,
smashing and burning and breaking,
setting the fattened decoys ablaze.
And so, like dominoes,
inexorable links in a causal chain,
like moths to flame -
havoc junkies, conjurers of emergencies -
the press descended like rain.
Like flies to shit they must cover it,
there were ten cameramen to every one ‘hooligan’,
and as their chattering clicking snapped,
the trap shut.
Rather than 10,000 clearly protesting the G20 peacefully,
or the issues of climate debt, or maternal health care, or global poverty
being heard or viewed,
the cops and the zealots and the media collude:
today it’s a burning cop car
on the cover of The Star.
Thank you, that's exactly how they use those idiot members of the Black Block (not the leaders, who work for cointelpro).
"actualleftist": You apparently haven't read much of Hedges if you think he means by "organized left" the "MoveOn/DLC sheep". And who are the "radical elements"? The black bloc? Please. Do you really want to create that sort of simplistic dichotomy? The black bloc are not "radical elements" except to people who are either puerile or want to see genuinely radical movements for progressive change destroyed. Which are you?
As to the baby stroller bit, we're in agreement. But that really has nothing to do with anything in Hedges' article.
"And they were shut down because they were places mothers and fathers with strollers felt safe."
That's what Hedges wrote - how does my stroller comment have nothing to do with that?
"You apparently haven't read much of Hedges if you think he means by "organized left" the "MoveOn/DLC sheep". "
Most of what Hedges has written is his career was the usual nonsense for the The New York Times. Later in life he's decided to retire from that and become a left leader, and for some reason has been allowed a primary position in the leftie blogosphere despite a professional career that would normally disqualify one from that immediately. Why don't you tell us what the "organized left" is to which Hedges refers?
Oh, I see I missed his reference to baby strollers. His point there was that the black bloc folks are playing into the ruling class's agenda by scaring ordinary working families away from demonstrations. The more violence and property destruction there is, the easier it is for police to be violent, and them more people recoil and don't want to join a demonstration. So, the "baby stroller" is just a metaphor for ordinary folks with families.
As to the organized left, how about OWS itself? There are also other groups that are way to the left of MoveOn, but OWS is the mainstay for now.
"the black bloc folks are playing into the ruling class's agenda by scaring ordinary working families away from demonstrations"
To the contrary, the RIOT POLICE and media propaganda scared 'ordinary working families' away from the protests and the radicals are the only ones left. This has been the case in city after city after city.
"As to the organized left, how about OWS itself?"
How about OWS itself? The anarchists have been a major part of OWS, including a disproportionate number of the people sleeping in tents. You're not/ Hedges isn't seriously going to argue that there's an OWS which is the "organized left" that the anarchists haven't been a part of, are you?
"The anarchists have been a major part of OWS, including a disproportionate number of the people sleeping in tents. You're not/ Hedges isn't seriously going to argue that there's an OWS which is the "organized left" that the anarchists haven't been a part of, are you?"
How about some references for this.
So anarchists aren't part of OWS, and haven't been? They haven't been a part of OWS Oakland since the start?
You're the one making the positive assertion, you need to provide the reference.
"The anarchists have been a major part of OWS, including a disproportionate number of the people sleeping in tents."
I'm not buying it. Source? The black bloc are always the johnny-come-lately ones who start showing up at demos after the peaceful nonviolent folks have done all the work getting the movement going. The first OWS were totally peaceful, no property destruction, then there came predictable police violence. Then the "black bloc" started showing up, as they ALWAYS do, wanting, in the immortal words of one of them, to "f*ck sh*t up."
I have only been involved in OWS Philadelphia. Anarchists were well represented there since it began, and once the police presence began to get menacing they were about the only ones left.
I disagree with the anarcho crowd on a number of things and find process with them to be maddening, but they are first ones there, last ones to leave and very committed. I find the Hedges attacks on them to be sickening frankly.
Of course this is also a forum where stories about the crushing of public school teachers' unions get 20 posts (this one is over 300), and 10 of them are in favor of crushing the unions!
That's Philadelphia, it doesn't translate to many other cities. Philadelphia is "rich" in anarchists like Oakland.
Ugh.
People need to educate themselves about the fact that anarchist politics, strategy and organizing tactics are at the core of OWS, and have been from the start:
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/11/2011112872835904508.html
The black block are generally a bunch of white males not interested in building mass movements, this is true. And the tactic is ridiculous. Just the fact alone that it is so easy to infiltrate is good enough reason to dispose of it, and I basically have to assume that anyone who is involved in it is a cop.
Excerpts:
How, then, did OWS embody anarchist principles? It might be helpful to go over this point by point:
1) The refusal to recognise the legitimacy of existing political institutions.
One reason for the much-discussed refusal to issue demands is because issuing demands means recognising the legitimacy - or at least, the power - of those of whom the demands are made. Anarchists often note that this is the difference between protest and direct action: Protest, however militant, is an appeal to the authorities to behave differently; direct action, whether it's a matter of a community building a well or making salt in defiance of the law (Gandhi's example again), trying to shut down a meeting or occupy a factory, is a matter of acting as if the existing structure of power does not even exist. Direct action is, ultimately, the defiant insistence on acting as if one is already free.
2) The refusal to accept the legitimacy of the existing legal order.
The second principle, obviously, follows from the first. From the very beginning, when we first started holding planning meetings in Tompkins Square Park in New York, organisers knowingly ignored local ordinances that insisted that any gathering of more than 12 people in a public park is illegal without police permission - simply on the grounds that such laws should not exist. On the same grounds, of course, we chose to occupy a park, inspired by examples from the Middle East and southern Europe, on the grounds that, as the public, we should not need permission to occupy public space. This might have been a very minor form of civil disobedience but it was crucial that we began with a commitment to answer only to a moral order, not a legal one.
3) The refusal to create an internal hierarchy, but instead to create a form of consensus-based direct democracy.
From the very beginning, too, organisers made the audacious decision to operate not only by direct democracy, without leaders, but by consensus. The first decision ensured that there would be no formal leadership structure that could be co-opted or coerced; the second, that no majority could bend a minority to its will, but that all crucial decisions had to be made by general consent. American anarchists have long considered consensus process (a tradition that has emerged from a confluence of feminism, anarchism and spiritual traditions like the Quakers) crucial for the reason that it is the only form of decision-making that could operate without coercive enforcement - since if a majority does not have the means to compel a minority to obey its dictates, all decisions will, of necessity, have to be made by general consent.
4) The embrace of prefigurative politics.
As a result, Zuccotti Park, and all subsequent encampments, became spaces of experiment with creating the institutions of a new society - not only democratic General Assemblies but kitchens, libraries, clinics, media centres and a host of other institutions, all operating on anarchist principles of mutual aid and self-organisation - a genuine attempt to create the institutions of a new society in the shell of the old.
Thank you Malatesta, for explaining how Anarchy and OWS is one in the same. There is room in the revolution for other movements and tactics but of a group that is a majority security forces should not be tolerated. Also one most keep in mind that the USA security forces attempt to infiltrate every opposition and environmental group and as well as many ethnic groups.
"... I feel safer when I know that the people around me are willing to defend themselves against police violence, rather more so than when people show up to be martyrs and get billyclubbed on both cheeks."
I'll agree with you there.
If people are defending themselves against police aggression and brutality, that is natural and should be applauded -- as well as recorded and shown to the world. But, when people occupying a city block begin to destroy or damage area businesses and property in the vicinity, that is unacceptable. Want to tear down a police-erected barricade? Fine. Want to throw a brick through a storefront window? Go home and beat your fist against a tree, instead.
The best to drive home to the nation the message that the corporate elite and bankster's are a ruthless, greedy, murdering, hoarding, raping bunch is to show sustained resistance and watch closely as they commit crimes against individuals in their attempts to silence the resistance, demonstrating clearly for all to see what they really represent.