Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- In Arkansas, Exxon Is Threatening to Arrest Reporters But Otherwise Telling Nobody Nothing
- It’s Official: A Democratic President Proposes to Cut Social Security
- Exxon's Unfriendly Skies: Why Does Exxon Control the No-Fly Zone Over Arkansas Tar Sands Spill?
- The Growing Campaign to Revoke Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize
- The Corporate Betrayal of America
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 AllMemory_Hole,
"I think we should all--whatever "side" you are on in this debate regarding tactics, let's try to remember that it is about taking our country back from the corporate criminals who now control it."
i agree wholeheartedly, which is why i've used the phrase 'diversity of tactics'. if people are uncomfortable about staying at demonstrations that are turning ugly, they have the choice to leave - on that score, i'm not judging anyone. as you know, i have the utmost respect for folks like bill “bix” bichsel and dan berrigan who are willing to go to federal jail for trespassing, property destruction and civil disobedience.
also petitions, jail support, trial support, communications are all critical (even medical support) to any movement. the victory in south africa (and i understand overtime the neo-liberals circumvented the ANC) took over 40 years of struggle and required international support (as did the truces in central america).
america has a lot of blood on it's hands, millions killed, and i just don't see the elites backing down w/out physical resistance. people are going to disagree over tactics - and that's understandable.
...peace...
Actually, people don't always have the "choice" to freely come-and-go re: demos. The cops usually strictly control movement and it is a standard tactic to seal off areas, arrest people, hit them with mutiple (usually false) charges and see what kind of a record they can smear them with. Not a lotta "choice" about it. It's a little different than buying toothpaste.
iowablackbird wrote --
"as to the canadians and the footage from toronto, i've watched the videos asserting that the police instigated violence. those assertions (videotaped) were made by a labor organizer who was a proponent of non-violent tactics. he never wanted to see property destruction - yet he's the one pointing at the '3 cops' posing as BB. interesting"
Actually, the Montebello police later admitted that the three individuals in question -- one of whom was holding a huge rock -- were indeed members of the police department. So it is an established fact that police departments use "black blocs" to justify the brutalization of protesters.
The black bloc tactic amounts to futile vandalism. It serves to alienate the public and strengthen the police state. In Germany, the original black bloc actually protected protesters from police; now, their modus operandi is to break windows, shed their black clothing, then leave comrades at the mercy of the police. It is both counter-productive and cowardly.
Your example of occupying buildings is completely different. Here, property destruction and even potential violence (in self-defense) can be viewed as a radical and potentially revolutionary tactic. During the COINTELPRO era, occupations were discouraged by FBI informants, while throwing projectiles was encouraged; such encouragement extended to the point where FEDS would actually supply the incendiaries. See the antics of Tommy the Traveler, for example.
Arguing about the morality of breaking windows vs. peaceful marching seems like a waste of time; the question should be -- is this tactic working? The black bloc tactic works very well for the police; for protesters, not so much.
The other problem -- ignored by Hedges -- is that it would be virtually impossible, even in the absence of provocateurs, to achieve 100% consensus on "strict non-violence", which is here meant to include property damage.
Frankly I think Hedges is way out of line accusing angry youth of being "cancers" upon OWS, and I say that as someone who is staunchly opposed to black bloc tactics, and who believes most "black blocs" to be provocateured.
If Hedges wants to rant about violence, he may want to ask why collective punishment of protesters is considered justified, when the vandals/rock throwers invariably constitute a tiny percentage of the whole.
Durrutx
"Actually, the Montebello police later admitted that the three individuals in question -- one of whom was holding a huge rock -- were indeed members of the police department. So it is an established fact that police departments use "black blocs" to justify the brutalization of protesters."
my overreaching point wasn't that those three individuals weren't the police, but that they were conveniently outed by a labor organizer as a means of discrediting the "black block" (and this is a term ascribed to a group of individuals), very convenient. this tactic obviously worked, as left of center folks are now convinced that every person dressed in black is now an agent saboteur. ironic that they decry the media and their derision of dirty hippies as they swiftly paint all of the kids in that video as secret cops (talk about generalizations). oh right, i'm a cop b/c i've been reading about political theory for 27 years as well (god people are fucking dense).
i referenced the video in oakland several times now, i recommend people watch that video one more time. you'll see people leaving a building in mass armed w/ shields. ostensibly, they were participating in a demonstration w/ the explicit intent of occupying a building. based on police behavior towards demonstrations recently in the bay area (oscar grant demos and oakland police's evacuation of occupy at oscar grant plaza - video below)
- - - - - - - - - -
OWS: Occupy Oakland Violence - Police Shoot Veteran In The Face - Protesters In War Zone
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HequVgLRPUo
- - - - - - - - - -
Occupy Oakland Raid: Police Just "Following Orders"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NJXEsXlw7Q&feature=related
- - - - - - - - - -
anyone participating in the demonstration (again i wasn't there) knew that there was a potential for violence, considering the police had 1. shot a protester in the head and 2. repeatedly responded to the occupy site (just like everywhere else in america) w/ violence. therefore, people used shields (later identified as weapons) at the front of the march as the attempted to move towards a building w/ the purpose of occupying it. these sheilds were called weapons by the police (only other weapons found small pocket knives and a pair of scissors).
there signs said, 'cops move out' - 'commune moving in' , 'if it's vacant , take it'... the smaller shields had 'A' for anarchy and the famous peace symbol. watch the video, and then imagine the police firing into the crowd w/ out the people defending themselves w/ barriers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFaviIoy4rg
i've heard quite a bit of discussion on these boards about how wonderful it would be for OWS to reoccupying foreclosed properties . how in the hell are they supposed to get in the building ? especially when the crowd is afraid of standing up to armed police officers ? in fact based on the discourse on this thread, why even go to a demonstration if your just going to run away from the police the moment they say stop. occupy what, the park - the street - head space ???
look closely at those demonstrators - people on this thread believe all of these activists are either stupid and unaware of realpolitic and/or they're the police. why? b/c of memes spread by people like the labor organizer in toronto (who never appreciated physical resistance in any way shape or form) working w/ the police and a video crew (very convenient that they were right there next to the cops, huh ?) discrediting resistance to the police. psy-ops work both ways. and the peaceful protesters are so brilliant right ? that's why they managed to stop 2 wars in the past 10 years.
the fact is, the non violent movements are also infiltrated by the police (probably a lot easier to do) and every non violent mass movement (remember anti war demos against persian gulf and iraq war) recently has not achieved their objectives. this point has consistently been overlooked in this discussion. are paid lackeys spreading false memes ? - i don't think so, but several of the discussions suggesting posters defending the people who actually stood up to the police are cops - well its ludicrous. "good" demonstrator - "bad" demonstrator / pathetic.
OWS is running out of strategies. can't stay in the park, can't go in the streets - w or w/out black block, case in point 700 arrested on brooklyn bridge - and can't occupy buildings w/out encountering police.
the protesters (including hedges) are getting frustrated and a few (soon to be many more based on the police's behavior, not the exclusive illusive 'black block') are becoming more extreme. what the fuck did adbusters expect ? honestly. they created revolutionary conditions (consciousness) and now it's unfolding. there isn't a park to return to in NY..
everybody wants their own reigns on a movement that is 'evolving' (as one poster describes revolution). the masters fear an armed resistance more than anything else. their property and infrastructure are exposed (big time) and they will do everything to avoid that outcome, including paying liberals like hedges (who on any other day i would be supporting) to come here on CD and vehemently denounce resistance. he wrote a book for christ's sake called 'death of the liberal class' and now he tries to direct 'his' (he called it 'my' - they killed 'my' movement, how arrogant) movement. too bad, its everyone's movement (remember the 99%) not the exclusive domain of the intelligentsia that dreams power will be handed to them on a platter, because they asked for it in a park.
...peace...
I agree with much of what you say. Indeed, I find it bizarre that Hedges equates holding a shield with "violence". Would he rather people just stand there and have their heads bashed in? Easy to say from the comfort of one's living room, I guess.
I am decidedly NOT against occupations of buildings or other "radical" actions, up to and including actions involving property damage and armed self defense -- if the situation requires it. It depends on circumstance. In any case, I don't think I have the right to tell people in Oakland how they should or should not respond to the police.
My complaint with the "black bloc" tactic -- at least as it currently practiced -- is that it is a tactical failure. It is also harmful to other activists. I don't think everyone who engages in it is a provocateur, but the very fact that cops have been caught staging their own "black blocs" should at least give activists pause.
Durrutix,
i apologize for reading over your post and perhaps excessively ranting. i lost 2000 words before anyone ahhhm...commented (ce la vie). and i didn't sleep last night.
thank you for the correction concerning the 2 separate demos in canada, as well as the historical references to the BB tactic being employed in germany - while discouraged by special agents in america. i'll reference 'tommy the traveler' tomorrow.
and of course your last sentence above,
"If Hedges wants to rant about violence, he may want to ask why collective punishment of protesters is considered justified, when the vandals/rock throwers invariably constitute a tiny percentage of the whole."
which is a legitimate critique in and of itself. both memory hole and yourself employ a humble even handed approach to this discourse, w/out resorting to name calling and pompous posturing.
i appreciate that, this thread has taken a psycic toll and it doesn't feel good - to me. it feels alienating - like hedges just took a scalpel and botched a surgery. that's unfortunate, as i've heard numerous occupy enthusiast tell me, "the police" are part of the 99% - as they accuse the extremely disenfranchised homeless, the mentally ill and the anarchists of being problematic partners. frankly, i believe many aren't seeing the underlying class struggle. instead, old stereotypes are being reforged, just as 'dr' hedges imagined they would (using unnecessary hyperbole).
once more,
thanks for the civility and insightful posts,
...peace...
"I find it bizarre that Hedges equates holding a shield with "violence". Would he rather people just stand there and have their heads bashed in?"
It makes sense to me - Christians love abuse, eat it by the spoonful and lick the bowl. Cops and Christian pacifists are a match made in heaven - sadists and masochists. It's like they answered each others' personal ads.
What both groups really can't stand are people who refuse to play their assigned roles and refuse to be passively beaten. It seems to short circuit their minds.
RE: The other problem -- ignored by Hedges -- is that it would be virtually impossible, even in the absence of provocateurs, to achieve 100% consensus on "strict non-violence", which is here meant to include property damage.
The word "consensus" doesn't appear in the article. In fact the consensus model for decision making widely adopted by Occupy is a method preferred by the people Hedges is criticizing. Hedges does use the word "obstructionist" and consensus is easy to block as a small minority can stop any group decision and therefore any group action. It reinforces the power of the minority over the majority, which ironically or not, is what the imbalance of the juxtaposition of 1% to 99% was originally meant to fight. What we have always needed is democracy. What we don't need is minority rule - this time on the "left."
I agree that violence is a tactic and Hedges inclusion of Derrick Jensen's comments on violence indicates that he sees violence as a more complex issue, as a tactic and not rigidly as a moral issue. But Jensen is not arguing FOR violence, he is arguing for tactics and strategies appropriate to the particular situation that will bring success and built the movement.
At this time, with the Occupy "movement" still weak and small, the use of violence IS counter productive. If Occupy is to grow, it needs to attract people who have, up to now, been passive, to bring them into the movement. Violence will scare them away.
RE: ...who believes most "black blocs" to be provocateured.
He doesn't say that. However, you wouldn't know if people dressed as the black bloc were or were not provocateurs. But it doesn't really matter because the actions of the black bloc hurt the movement. Wittingly or not, they are serving the interests of the status quo. I doesn't matter what Hedges "believes", the effects are plain to see.
>>there is no such thing as a non violent revolution.
We do not need another revolution. We need an Evolution and in my opinion more violence is not an evolution. Just has it has not been an evolution for the past 2000 years. It just leads to more killing and every bigger killing machines.
Dang, every time I elevate some writer to Trusted Source status, they disappoint (i.e. Matt Taibbi mocks 9/11 questioners as 'Truthers'). Maybe there really aren't any heroes, and in this new age, we have to perform large or small heroic deeds ourselves.
At the very beginning of Hedges' diatribe is a Wikipedia link for "Black bloc" which includes:
""The Black Bloc" is sometimes incorrectly reported as being the name of a specific anarchist group. It is, rather, a tactic that may be adopted by groups of various motivations and methods."
And, "There may be several black blocs within a particular protest, with different aims and tactics."
Also, "Police and security services have infiltrated black blocs with undercover officers."
As a tactic rather than a group, the term is properly NOT capitalized although Hedges misleadingly chose to do so.
Hedges is tilting at windmills, lashing out emotionally at an unidentifiable enemy and totally obscuring any valid point he may actually have. Very disappointing.
Matt Taibbi is right about the 9/11 'truthers'. Chris Hedges is right about the Black Bloc'ers. Clearly, no heroes among those wackos and cowards -- both groups do serious harm to the OSW movement and we should "out" them -- not work with them.
Taibbi (and others) put all who question 9/11 into a group sneeringly called Truthers. It is ALWAYS 'okay' to question, and I, for one, do every chance I get. Hedges is way wrong about a Black Bloc group since there is no such thing. He wrote a meandering diatribe whose underlying message reveals that he's both angry and ignorant (of this particular topic).
"It is ALWAYS 'okay' to question"
9/11 people always say that until you question their bad science, fake math and elaborate fairy tales. Then all of a sudden it's most certainly NOT "OK to question", one has committed heresy and the only explanation is that the questionning party is a paid government shill.
Funny how that works...
Sadly, now we have to go there don't we? The science of the 911 movement is sound. What is not sound is the NIST science which has been widely and carefully discredited. Have you read Dr. Harrit's paper on nano-thermite? As a chemist, I find it sound. i have read it, so have many other scientists. It has been unchallenged in the literature now for over 2 years. Read it before you say ignorant things from a position of being clearly uninformed.
I really respect what you have written on this thread, but you are wrong about 911. Please open your eyes and mind about this and start by watching this video, which contains professional scientists, engineers, etc who work daily in the fields they are experts in, including the likes of Lynn Margulis who won the National Science Medal in 1999:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw-jzCfa4eQ
I don't organize around 911, but I have spent a considerable time understanding it in the context of Danielle Ganser's excellent book: NATO's Secret Armies, Operation GLADIO and Terrorism in Western Europe. Basically, it describes the operational manuals for false flag attacks, which the left is generally clueless about.
Ironically, the black block is a perfect vehicle for false flag attacks against the movement. This is coming from an anti-authoritarian organizer.
All I know is, the those who smashed windows in Seattle, or smashed windows in a coffee shop, are idiots, and indeed a cancer to any mass movement against the cancer of this emergent fascism.
All they want is disorder, and violence. That's how they get their rocks off. They are assholes of the first order, and it IS a problem.
But the ONLY reason you even ever heard about Seattle was because of the property actions!
If it had been only some kind of peaceful vigil, it would have been utterly ingored and the WTO would have said: "See? The public is entirely behind us!"
Bullshit. The astonishingly well organized and massive crowd of non-violent resisters had blockaded the streets and shut down the WTO. The story was hijacked by the police riot and the black bloc that was used in endless video loop to justify the police riot, which had already begun before the black bloc did their thing, and of course the police watched and did nothing while the black bloc did their thing.
The French 99% did very well by resorting to violence in 1789.
Too bad Americans have no stomach for a fight (unless it is broadcast on CNN).
dus7,
"As a tactic rather than a group, the term is properly NOT capitalized although Hedges misleadingly chose to do so."
3 reasons hedges will not embrace this tactic - all lead to prison. if i recall, hedges has young children. he will not emulate nelson mandela.
- - - - - - - - - -
http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/incite-a-riot/
{Under federal law, a riot is a public disturbance involving an act of violence by one or more persons assembled in a group of at least three people. Inciting a riot applies to a person who organizes, encourages, or participates in a riot. It can apply to one who urges or instigates others to riot. According to 18 USCS § 2102 "to incite a riot", or "to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot", includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.” }
- - - - - - - - - -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act
{The Alien Registration Act or Smith Act (18 U.S.C. § 2385) of 1940 is a United States federal statute that set criminal penalties for advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government and required all non-citizen adult residents to register with the government.
The Act is best known for its use against political organizations and figures, with approximately 215 Americans indicted under terms of the legislation, including alleged communists, Trotskyists, and fascists. Prosecutions continued under the Smith Act until a series of United States Supreme Court decisions in 1957 reversed a number of convictions so obtained as unconstitutional. The statute has not been repealed.}
- - - - - - - - - -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012
{The most controversial provisions to receive wide attention are contained in Title X, Subtitle D, entitled "Counter-Terrorism." In particular, sub-sections 1021 and 1022, which deal with detention of persons the government suspects of involvement in terrorism, have generated controversy as to their legal meaning and their potential implications for abuse of Presidential authority. Although the White House[9] and Senate sponsors[10] maintain that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) already grants presidential authority for indefinite detention, the Act states that Congress "affirms" this authority and makes specific provisions as to the exercise of that authority.[11][12] The detention provisions of the Act have received critical attention by, among others, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and some media sources which are concerned about the scope of the President's authority, including contentions that those whom they claim may be held indefinitely could include U.S. citizens arrested on American soil, including arrests by members of the Armed Forces.[13][14][15][16][17]}
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_mandela
{In his statement from the dock at the opening of the defence case in the trial on 20 April 1964 at Pretoria Supreme Court, Mandela laid out the reasoning in the ANC's choice to use violence as a tactic.[52] His statement described how the ANC had used peaceful means to resist apartheid for years until the Sharpeville Massacre.[53] That event coupled with the referendum establishing the Republic of South Africa and the declaration of a state of emergency along with the banning of the ANC made it clear to Mandela and his compatriots that their only choice was to resist through acts of sabotage and that doing otherwise would have been tantamount to unconditional surrender.[53] Mandela went on to explain how they developed the Manifesto of Umkhonto we Sizwe on 16 December 1961 intent on exposing the failure of the National Party's policies after the economy would be threatened by foreigners' unwillingness to risk investing in the country.[54] He closed his statement with these words: "During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to the struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die."[39]}
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
...peace...
TY, iowablackbird, for the Wiki definitions/references. Hedges is ranting against a group that does not exist. If his commentary is compromised by judicious fears of government reprisal, then he shouldn't write it. A piece by him re Why I Think Non-Violence Is The Way (The Truth, & The Light) would have been more honest.
This thread has grown immensely since I commented, and I appreciate the thoughtful entries including yours.
I feel ya, dus7.
But this is why they invented the concept of "sadder but wiser".
I find that even the most impressive and admirable sources are best taken with a generous pinch of salt.
I generally respond favorably to Hedges' opinions, but he's far from infallible; I agree that the "black bloc" pushes his Buttons (with a capital "B") to a point that clouds his perception and understanding.
See Durrutix's excellent 3:40pm comment that nails down the questionable or dubious aspects of Hedges' analysis.
Thx, OS. :)
The lackeys, shills, and the 1% themselves have a title for the Black Bloc, 'Useful idiots.'
I agree with the essence of Hedges' article. The black bloc are not only a cancer in Occupy but in any movement for nonviolent change in the US. His characterizations of their thinking is substantially correct. There is not much "diversity of tactics" among them, just a lot of juvenile energy and unreflective cynicism. That said, while agree with the Jensen quote about the origins and problems of "lifestylism" in general, I disagree with lumping all vegans and vegetarians into that category. I've been vegetarian for 13 years and don't do it to be purist but to reduce the suffering in the world, both to animals and ecosystems generally.
Another great vegetarian: Hitler.
Galenwainwright: That is both a myth and irrelevant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_vegetarianism
It seems there is both document and dispute on the subject.
But I have personally encountered many VERY militant vegans and vegetarians, who are quite enthusiastic about imposing a vegan/vegetarian diet on those who have little or no interest. Do you consider such tactics/viewpoints 'non-violent'?
One word: Ghandi.
From the Wiki entry: "Adolf Hitler has been regarded by some as a vegetarian." Key word here is SOME. When there is consensus among historians (not just those predisposed to an anti-vegan agenda), then your comments may appear a little less specious.
No doubt, just as there are militant feminists and militant leftists and militant atheists, there are militant vegans and vegetarians. So what? My point is it is not right to disparage an entire group because SOME are "militant". And the Hitler reference has as much relevance to the discussion as saying "Stalin was a carnivore."
I would impose no diet on anyone. What I would mandate is an end to corporate media lies, mostly of omission, about the devastating consequences, environmentally, of factory farming. I would mandate that every high school student has to take a field trip to see how the chickens, cows and pigs they've been eating live on these factory "farms." That seems to me only fair and rational, that if one wants to support living through slaughtering other sentient beings, one should at least be willing to observe how such beings live, to consider them as something beyond "meat" in a plastic package.
To call Hitler's Vegetarianism a myth is highly innaccurate:
1. Hitler claimed that he was a vegetarian on many occasions
2. The basis for the myth claim is that Hitler - like many vegitarians today - was perhaps imperfect in his vegatarianism- apparently he occasionally ate sausage and caviar.
3. Hitler advocated vegetarianism
" November 11, 1941 Hitler said, "One may regret living at a period when it's impossible to form an idea of the shape the world of the future will assume. But there's one thing I can predict to eaters of meat: the world of the future will be vegetarian." On January 12, 1942, he said, "The only thing of which I shall be incapable is to share the sheiks' mutton with them. I'm a vegetarian, and they must spare me from their meat."[8]
4. The Nazis were animal rights advocates who passed animal protection laws still on the books today. This would be consistent with Hitler's vegetarianism.
wikipedia article on Hitler's vegetarianism.
Of course one way the Nazis "protected animals was to outlaw Jewish ownership of pets; so please do not mistake the arguments aboveto be an aapology for Nazism.
It was clear to me from the get-go that these folks are promoted and financed by the status quo and have been used to destroy the Occupy movement.
We forgot what we learned during the anti-Vietnam War movement. People can't just show up but must be in affinity groups where people know each other. This is the only way to keep out negative elements, agent provocateurs, and plants by the government.
cen·sor·ship/ˈsensərˌSHip/
Noun: The practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
i'm glad to see mr hedges is still able to express his opinion.
...peace...
The appearance of the Black Bloc is not a surprise to Bay Area demonstrators who have seen them turn peaceful demonstration after peaceful demonstration into violent confrontation.
I could be wrong...but I sincerely believe that the group is NOT as radical as they claim. II think that it is a highly organized para-military corporation whose products are chaos and violence, bought for/paid for by the persons holding power.
I find it hard to believe that effective law enforcement cannot discover who they are....and get them off the streets.
That leaves only the alternative...thay are a branch of enforcement providing the spark enabling any and all security to implement violent means of crowd control. Without them, the need for SWAT teams, truncheons and tear gas is mitigated - they provide the causus belli for police misconduct (and crowd control funding)
Think about it.
Anyone who vents against this article is suspect in colluding, a potential swift-boater type diverting attention.
Exactly. How naive do you have to be to think the same people can smash up public property week after week after week with zero infiltration or busts by the FBI? It's a fucking joke to believe the Blac Bloc are anything other than an arm of the national security apparatus, designed to scare the hoi polloi away from protests and to undercut any popular message and support. This was completely exposed years ago in Canada --with videos of the thugs being unmasked by protesters and hustled away under protection by fellow cops to waiting police vans-- and you can bet the idea migrated North from the good ol USA.
Support the Blac Bloc at occupy? I'm calling you an idiot or an agents provocateur or both.
"Anyone who vents against this article is suspect in colluding, a potential swift-boater type diverting attention."
Gee how open-minded of you.
actualleftist is correct in his assessments. This notion of pure non-violence achieving results is just ignorant. Beyond naive. Although the "black bloc" (which I never heard of before this piece) may be ineffective and childish, others on the left who think getting arrested and chanting "hey hey ho ho" will accomplish anything are just to dumb to be believed.
Understand: Wall Street is literally laughing at you, using Occupy as fodder for comedy skits at their conventions and get-togethers. You must be truly insane to think these people are going to stop deterring democracy simply because they are asked. Until you get that through your heads, expect not only more of the same but a continued consolidation of control by corporations (food, water, etc ...) until every last thing in your life is dictated by an permanent and unelectable elite.
If Wall Street is laughing at us, I'm not seeing any evidence of it. WS pays "cops" to turn down non-violent protests and when that doesn't work, they hire phonies such as BlackWATER Blockers to distort the movement. I think they're scared of us for once and they'll do anything to shut down OCCUPY. As far as OCCUPY is concerned, only time will tell if OCCUPY succeeds in ridding this crumbling empire of corporate fascism.
Alinsky taught that, insofar as we can, we should *always* go outside the experience of the opposition but *never* go outside the experience of those from whom we want support.
Many people have experienced vandalism, or are close to someone who has. Thus they automatically identify with the victims, even if those victims are otherwise their oppressors. Which makes it shortsighted (I'm being kind) to commit vandalism against corporate property.
As Alinsky also pointed out, along with Orwell, Gandhiji's non-violent tactics would have gone nowhere against the Gestapo, the KGB, or for that matter the FBI/CIA. They worked only because his opponent was Britain, with a long history of bloody-minded support for underdogs.
So we should perhaps think in terms of a disease model, where we let our bodies take care of most things using their own resources. For those occasions where the disease's resistance is too strong, we bludgeon it to death with anti-biotics.
What we DON'T do is trickle in a little antibiotics every day or week. All that does is acclimate the disease and make it stronger. We either do nothing and trust our immune system, or we "carpet bomb" the disease until it's totally gone. All or nothing.
Same with the fight for democracy: we keep the peace --no assaults, no vandalism-- and see how well that works. If and when we see conclusively that peaceful, democratic tactics aren't being respected, then we accept that the disease is too strong and we begin doing whatever we must to get rid of it once and for all.
And which federal security force is respecting peaceful opposition? Ask MLK! We are in a totalitarian state. Executive execution and detention. All opposition peaceful or not has been infiltrated by the state. Those who call people cowards who destroy property used for oppression have obviously never, done such.Stop with this nice British Empire BS too many hundreds of thousands of Asians and Africans have been intentially slaughtered by British to propose such audacious rubbish.
Fine. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you're absolutely right. How does adding minor vandalism to the mix help?
I'll argue that it doesn't, that peaceful protest + minor vandalism is no more useful, and possibly less, than peaceful protest by itself.
For vandalism to be helpful, it has to be a credible proxy for all-in revolution. If it's nothing more than an occasional expense --some new windows, a few new cars-- then it's like tornado damage in Missouri: a line item in the budget.
"How does adding minor vandalism to the mix help?"
- if targeted it threatens there sense of security, it also lets the bourgeois elite understand that the police are incapable of protecting their property (which is why the police exist). it's clear the police don't give a damn about your privacy or property (they can search your home and remove evidence when your not present). why extend the same rights to corporate monsters. if i recall the symbolic act of the boston tea party was property destruction.
the ELF destroyed property (targeted - no people harmed) and were promptly labeled domestic terrorists. the elites recognize the danger here - which is why they cracked down so hard on the activists who engaged in property destruction. americans value stuff more than they value ideals.
...peace...
Yes, quite right, ELF were labeled terrorists. And nothing changed--except for them.
That kid who bid on land without having any money--he went to prison, and nothing changed. Oh sure, his LIFE changed, and very much for the worse. Can you even remember his name? I can't, and possibly wouldn't have been able to even when younger. He paid a lot for that gesture, and got nothing back that he wouldn't have been happy to decline.
Non-false-flaggers who do minor vandalism are not completely unlike those who want to be rock stars without the slog of learning to play guitar. They're looking for a bargain-price revolution --major changes in return for little effort or risk.
Ever read about the Detroit Hunger March in '32? Ford goons with and without badges used teargas, firehoses, and a tommy gun on the crowd of peaceful, union marchers, killing 5 and wounding 19. *That* event radicalised a helluva lot of people, as did the historic Flint sit-down in '36 where cops shot at the strikers and the strikers shot back.
Compared to events like those, torching cars and smashing windows are counter-productive kids' stuff.
Mairead,
his name was tim dechristopher and here is his comment at sentencing... no regrets.
http://oneutah.org/utah-politics/tim-dechristophers-invitation-to-judge-dee-bensen/
{"And this law is not a trivial regulation about crossing t’s or dotting i’s to make some government accountant’s job easier. This law was put into effect to mitigate the impacts of catastrophic climate change and defend a livable future on this planet. This law was about protecting the survival of young generations. That’s kind of a big deal. It’s a very big deal to me. If the government is going to refuse to step up to that responsibility to defend a livable future, I believe that creates a moral imperative for me and other citizens. My future, and the future of everyone I care about, is being traded for short term profits. I take that very personally. Until our leaders take seriously their responsibility to pass on a healthy and just world to the next generation, I will continue this fight."}
if you don't understand what he 'got' out of it then there's nothing i can say to you to make you understand. perhaps you could send nelson mandela a letter and ask him what the time spent in prison meant to him. think he has regrets ? think dan berrigan has regrets ? send him a letter - ask him...
"Ever read about the Detroit Hunger March in '32? Ford goons with and without badges used teargas, firehoses, and a tommy gun on the crowd of peaceful, union marchers, killing 5 and wounding 19. *That* event radicalised a helluva lot of people, as did the historic Flint sit-down in '36 where cops shot at the strikers and the strikers shot back."
that's the point, and that's where this could be headed. it's also why hedges is taking cover.
...peace...
Tim DeChristopher is a hero, he peacefully exposed OilyBomber for who OilyBomber is. As ELF persecution starkly reveals the values of the bloated .1% As Food not Bombs exposing the corruption of the USA power structure. Exposure and education are the first steps to mass opposition.Causing the Bloated to be fearful can be useful in that actions motivated by fear are often not the wisest possibilities.
You say that "targeted (minor vandalism) threatens their sense of security" and "lets the bourgeois elite understand that the police are incapable of protecting their property."
Let's say that is true. Is threatening the sense of security that the ruling class has a constructive goal? How so? Is letting them know that their property is in danger, and the police are inadequate a constructive goal? How would that play out?
Why are we playing to the ruling class at all? Is that not the position of unruly adolescents trying to get the attention of the parental figures so as to win favors? Should we not instead be building working class solidarity and organizational strength?
Should we not be playing to the working class?
I think that the "speak truth to power" idea - regardless of the tactics used to get the attention of those in power - has been demonstrated to be ineffective.
I do not care what people in the ruling class think or feel. Why should we? I do care what people in the working class think and feel.
You express an important core idea here, that I agree with. Please Master Please was a great erotic Ginsberg poem. In politics, it's a self defeating mindset.
But from a tactical POV, knowing the enemy is important in order to exploit weaknesses and blunt strengths. That's been a key aspect of winning union campaigns in which I've participated
this article is pointless, as the entire scenario ~ protesters facing off against police to force political change ~ is misguided...
politics is not the guiding force on this planet, violence is...
the politics follow the violence...
therefore, nonviolence will not answer...
Kennedy was nonviolent, the shooter was violent...
Kennedy is gone, the shooter in power...
the Kennedy shooter is still in power, ruining the entire planet...
Your argument leaks and so simplistic it smacks of dumb.
Kennedy tried to blow up the planet and kill the Cuban Revolution with violence and sent troops to Vietnam. That's "non-violent"?
Oswald was probably the most effective direct action leftist of the past several decades.
I was referring to George Bush, Sr., not Oswald...
I meant at the moment...Kennedy's skull was the non-violent component...the bullets, the violent part...
the violent part rather blew the brains out of the other...
this is still an incredibly relevant, and timely, occasion...