Get News & Views Updates
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 AllGreat article. I, for one, am for a multi-pronged approach to revolution. That said, the "prongs" should be carefully well-thought out actions, not reactionary and not provocative without reason (and certainly doing no harm to the innocent). When fighting such an overwhelmingly powerful foe, strategy becomes important. So does solidarity... to a certain extent. Jensen has an excellent point about context (and I like what Jensen's had to say, in general, quite a bit). Strength lies not only in diversity of opinion, but also in tactic.
divide and conquer words are a waste of time and energy
Chris Hedges is wrong.
.
The Occupy movement will not be brought down by a few small, scary groups of anarchists dressed in nihilist black ... Sure, the corporate media will gladly embrace any opportunity to snarl and moan and generally look down their noses at the foul protestors and their infested tenements, and they will blame the violence that is the inevitable result of confrontation with a police state on the protestors ... like they always do. ...
.
And without doubt, the militarized police state will be given the green light to bring it's weight to bear, to unleash it's phalanxes of heavily armed and armored thugs with all their high tech liberty-supression devices ready for deployment.. Bones will get broken ... skulls will get cracked ... property will get damaged .... human beings will be thrown in cages for exercising their most fundamental rights .... people may die. That's hardly a new development.
.
But all that won't bring about the end of the Occupy movement. No ... the end won't happen until Occupy is co-opted into democrat party establishment. Like so many movements before it ... from labor to civil rights to environmentalism to feminism ... and that cancer wiill not simply kill it dead, but a will transform it into a zombified living-dead shell of itself ... able only to postrate itself before feet of it's new master and benefactor; the democrat party.
Wow. Thanks.
Right On!
Yes, yes. The real danger to the Occupy movement is co-optation by the MoveOn crowd, the DNC, and Big Labor.
As for Black Bloc, one thing we should be asking ourselves is whether this is an overwhelmingly male movement. If so (and Hedges implies it is), then we should have very big concerns. Any movement without the significant participation of women, either because they are discouraged from joining or because the approach is unappealing to most of them, is doomed.
One more thing. Some of the discussion here has been very depressing, very counter-productive. None of us know each other. This is an internet discussion forum, not a political party. There's no way for us to police the list by deciding who is and who is not an agent provocateur or troll. Can we stick to the topics that matter? The great thing about this article and much of the discussion that followed is that these issues (anarchism vs. organization; pacifism vs. justified violence/armed struggle) are of real concern to the left.
Hedges calls attention to the cancer of infantile leftist terror tactics; the other cancer, of course, is the part of Occupy leadership that is tempted to subordinate the movement to Obama 2012—both these tendencies—collaborationist and ultraleft—are an equal danger to a growing revolt. In fact, they mirror each other: each in its way is designed to short-circuit the possibilities of Occupy growing into a potent mass movement.
Good post!
As a particular stripe of Leninist, teddie's problem with the Black Bloc is simply that they aren't under the control of the (Leninist-approved) vanguard of the proletariat. It's an old and tired argument, and one that seems to have time travelled.
They're "premature" revolutionaries... it's like in 1968 when the French communist party hesitated to support the actual revolution taking place in the streets because it wasn't being led by them. How dare someone start the revolution and not consult the experts!
First of all, I'm not a Leninist--I do think, however, that he made some telling criticisms of free-lance ultraleftism in the work I cited.
Second--the French uprising of 1968 was about millions of people on general strike and taking to the streets--not a ragtag band of a few dozen adolescent macho boys throwing rocks at cops. The fact that you can attempt to equate these radically disparate phenomena--a true revolutionary mass movement and the impotent hissy fit of a few dozen bad boys--shows how breathtakingly ignorant and intellectually inept you really are.
Now why don't you try reading Hedges's book Death of the Liberal Class so you'll actually have some idea of what you're talking about--a course in logic and about five years of history courses wouldn't hurt either.
1) How do think '68 started, if not with a small ragtag bunch? The unions joined in later and the organized Marxist parties HAD TO BE DRAGGED INTO PARTICIPATION KICKING AND SCREAMING AGAINST IT.
2) So now we're back to me not being educated enough! The last time I was in a college history class I was the lecturer.
Earlier you criticized me for having a "bourgeois" education and now you criticize me for not having ENOUGH of one! Could you please pick one side of your own argument and stick with it?
3) I was wondering if you could suggest a REAL revolutionary and perhaps something this person wrote? You've been a bit obtuse on this thread as to who that might be,,,
The events of May 1968 in France were not triggered by tiny bands of roving anarchists throwing rocks at cops. They were triggered by massive student protests in the streets involving tens of thousands of people that spread to the workers, who then went on general strike. Are you always this brazen about your ignorance?
As for your personal background--it's really as irrelevant as Hedges's. You like to play this game because your lack of real knowledge and logical rigor makes ad hom jockeying your default position for your adolescent posturing. Here's the difference between you and Hedges--you both attended bourgeois colleges, but Hedges actually LEARNED something and has applied his learnings with rigor in important books.
You just jerk people off with your airhead pomposity on the Internet.
I think it's ludicrous that anyone would believe a few miniscule anarchist groups pose an "equal danger" to Occupy as the D party establishment, or the corporate controlled police state, or a lack of solidarity among the working class in this country, or an apathetic and bewildered general population, or a society that encourages (nay, requires) ignorance and submission, or a hundred other "cancers" that actually are far more dangerous than a few lawless windowbreakers.
.
Even if you believe the anarchists are a "threat" to Occupy, I'm not convinced that they are, but for the the sake of argument let's say they are a threat .... they are nowhere near being an "equal danger" to the movement as the D party establishment .. which has hundreds of millions of dollars at its disposal, tens of thousands of operatives and activists, and it's slick marketing propaganda machine.
.
If the D party is the cancer, and we seem to agree that they are .... then the anarchist windowbreakers are a little pimple ... at worst.
The problem with being a moralist, as Hedges seems to be, is that you have to be right. And here, he is just plain wrong -- and tends towards profound hypocricy, some of the stuff of us mere mortals.
Worse, his main metaphor -- cancer -- is incorrect. Cancer is generally defined as some sort of uncontrolled growth. Blac blocers and other vandals and provocateurs seldom grow in numbers. Actually, they tend to fade away numerically as their stupidities and motives (none of which have anything to do with the goals of whatever movement they have attached themselves to) become apparent.
Parasite, virus or toxic bacteria would be more accurate metaphors.
Many in this string who have defended Hedges' piece because he often does good work, drone (intended) on about vandals and provocateurs alienating the good public (including "progressives"). Supposedly, that is why so many of us sat on our asses while a carefully-coordinated federal/state/local police state effort swept Occupy communites from public spaces across the country in a matter of weeks.
That is pure, unadulterated, putrid b.s. and is simply a rationalization for our collective cowardice in a critical historical moment. Too many of us did too little to defend the Occupied spaces, period. And now we pay for that failure with the usual recriminations, an act that does not serve moralists like Hedges well.
And as for the matter of violence or non-violence, we should take neither word lightly. Every day, every minute, we all encounter numerous and horrendous violent acts directly and indirectly.
Less obviously, we also engage numerous non-violent or less-violent acts, which can be equally destructive. Failure to act in key moments can yield horrible results. Occasional acts of violence in legitimate self-defense can keep people and movements alive.
Witness the liberation struggles that occur throughout human history. Or more concretely, witness those Egyptians -- mostly young -- who took up pavement stones and a few molotov cockatails to fight off Mubarak's police and thugs and even the Egyptian military in the early days of Tahrir Square, when that occupation approached collapse under the weight of violent state attacks.
If the Egyptian Revolution collapsed in that moment, would we even be discussing the Occupy movements in the U.S. or the West? Ergo the ANC, Fidel and Che, the Zappatistas, the National Liberation Front of Vietnam, all kinds of European and Asian anti-fascist resistance movements and on and on.
These movements, often violent because of the necessity of self-defense, at least continued to harbor the possibility that a better world exists. Without them, that idea would be long gone, whatever the currently realities of human life may be.
Great analysis!
Yeah, good one.
That's a lot of verbiage to illustrated a very simple point: that you can't distinguish between legitimate self-defense against violence and instigating infantile terror tactics that stunt rather than spur he growth of an independent mass revolt.
Only a mass movement can unseat the elite of corporate predators. Acting out adolescent fantasies of street fighting cannot substitute for the hard work of building that movement.
Perhaps you should consider what a REAL revolutionary, Lenin, had to say on this topic:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/
I was wondering if you could suggest a REAL revolutionary and where I might be able to read something by him? Thanks.
I would suggest you start out by reading Hedges--you're quite obviously grossly ignorant of his overall political perspective.
Do you commonly emit vast volumes of noxious gas about people whose books you have never read?
I'm guessing you do it all the time.
I think it's quite clear that actualleftist has read Hedges-and this is precisely why he criticizes Parson Hedges. I also criticize him for many of the same reasons.
I also think that this article is more than a bit manipulative in that he wants to try and use the black bloc (which apparently, a lot of the people that criticize them have never actually interacted with, but not all) as a strawman/rhetorical surrogate for attacking everyone that doesn't fit into a model of protest and dissent that up until about four months ago, he thought was going to fail anyways.
actualleftist--an oxymoron if there ever was one--has obviously NOT read Hedges, for he repeatedly accuses Hedges of failing to confront the treacheries of the Democrats--when that's precisely the main animus of Hedges' writings for the past ten years or so.
Moreover, Hedges is not trying to stereotype anyone or create a straw man. It's self-evidently suicidal for the left to be seduced into free-lance violence by rag-tag bands of adolescent fantasists. Those boys are just a gnat in the face of a giant monster--and give the monster a convenient excuse to snort and rage and crush everything in its path.
You posture as a leftist, but you endorse activities that make it harder for the left and easier for the right to function.
Hedges calls attention to the cancer of infantile leftist terror tactics; the other cancer, of course, is the part of Occupy leadership that is tempted to subordinate the movement to Obama 2012—both these tendencies—collaborationist and ultraleft—are an equal danger to a growing revolt. In fact, they mirror each other: each in its way is designed to short-circuit the possibilities of Occupy growing into a potent mass movement.
I find it hilarious that you think Hedges is a person one "reads", as if he's part of some canon.
He's a late-life moralist who split most of his life between the seminary and working for The New York Times. I was ahead of the curve on his conclusions about the general badness of the empire by the time I was 15; I find him depressing and defeatist and moralizing to all the wrong people and I don't see anything to gain by my lining his pockets with book sales.
That you hold Lenin and Hedges as two guiding lights is just bizarre. Why not Gandhi and Stalin? Why not Idi Amin and Fonzie?
You splatter names and endlessly attitudinize--what you never to is post a rational argument.
If you deem Hedges so inconsequential, why have you devoted several thousand words to attacking him in this thread?
And don't you have the intellectual honesty to actuallyl READ the works of the people you're criticizing so you can claim to know what you're talking about?
What a sad pompous fraud you are.
"Moreover, Hedges is not trying to stereotype anyone or create a straw man."
Actually, yes, that is what he's doing. I'll quote the first sentences of the relevant paragraphs to get around the 1000 character limits on responses:
"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. "
"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."
"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.”
There's one important point that I'm not sure that anyone has actually pointed out before now:
At no point does Parson Hedges actually support any of his statements. He just asserts all of these things to be true, but at no point of time does he interview any Black Bloc participants as compared to just speaking for them by his words. He tries to tie Zerzan to them in the later excerpt, but at no point does he demonstrate this. I might think that anarcho-primitivism is a disastrously awful idea, but I know that it doesn't represent all anarchists (and certainly haven't seen any proof that it does, and some of the harshest critics I've read against it were other anarchists) and I haven't seen any proof that its representative of Black Blockers either.
In fact, much of Hedges' article is a gigantic steaming mound of unsupported assertions that a lot of people have been eating up like it was a gourmet meal.
If everyone wants to come down so hard on the anarchists (whom Chris Hedges misrepresents in at least half a dozen ways in his piece), perhaps we should hold every other tendency on the left to the same high standard. If you think that the black bloc's confrontational tactics are alienating and therefore want them purged from the movement, can we also purge those whom I find alienating?
For starters, let's get rid of the hippies -- they are so easily mocked by the general public because they actually are kind of smelly, and most of them don't have jobs. And that whole "peace and love" thing is so out of date and annoying. In addition to the hippies, I would like to see all the kumbaya peaceniks over the age of 50 expelled from the movement. I find them alienating, and don't see what they have to offer, so let's just get rid of them. And then of course there are the Trotskyists, Stalinists, Maoists and other commie sects hawking newspapers and trying to recruit members. Their beliefs are obviously wrong because just look at North Korea, and besides, they will never convince the American public that their ideas are right -- just listen to the Beatles song about carrying pictures of Chairman Mao.
The hippies, peaceniks and commies are all CANCERS on the movement and must be expelled! Only people who think and act just like I do should be allowed in the movement!
I'm half-joking here, but seriously, why do people zero in on the anarchists calling them a "cancer" (pretty harsh if you ask me), and ignore all these other tendencies that are arguably just as damaging. Personally, I am not alienated by the black bloc at all, and often think they bring a needed militancy to these demonstrations. The hippies on the other hand, I find extremely annoying. But who am I to say who is welcome and who isn't? Who are you? Who is Chris Hedges?
Duplicate.
I'm really not joking that much when I say that the thread in which all meat eaters were called daredevils and/or stupid was a real triumph of public relations for a certain strain of leftism. On the bright side, perhaps it hints at a way that some people can finally find that inner fire that they didn't have during the Bush administration, to do something about mass incarceration (which got 30 responses while that thread got 400+), and so on:
Just tell them that the opposition had hamburgers for lunch.
RE: ...perhaps we should hold every other tendency on the left to the same high standard [as anarchism].
The problem with anarchism is that THERE IS NO STANDARD. Therefore, there is no "high standard" either. A primary reason why anarchism is so popular is that for many people, anarchism means whatever you want it to mean. It would be fantastic if anarchists started developing some (high) standards! But standards would be, uh well, authoritarian.
tj,
i agree w/ your analysis.
"And as for the matter of violence or non-violence, we should take neither word lightly. Every day, every minute, we all encounter numerous and horrendous violent acts directly and indirectly.
Less obviously, we also engage numerous non-violent or less-violent acts, which can be equally destructive. Failure to act in key moments can yield horrible results. Occasional acts of violence in legitimate self-defense can keep people and movements alive."
...peace...
"That is pure, unadulterated, putrid b.s. and is simply a rationalization for our collective cowardice in a critical historical moment."
Thank you, this is exactly what I was getting at earlier -- that the intense hatred that pacifists demonstrate for their more militant comrades is not actually based on principle, but because militant self defense exposes their pacifist inaction for what it is: cowardice. It is so much easier to point the finger at the black bloc and say "They're destroying our movement," when in fact, THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES DEFENDING THE MOVEMENT AGAINST POLICE VIOLENCE.
I have heard Hedges state on numerous occasions that the best hope for democracy in the USA comes from non-violent civil disobedience, by which he means voluntarily going to jail in order to make a political point and maybe getting a dramatic photo in the newspaper. Well, this is a highly privileged point of view, and one that assumes that other people are as willing or able to go to jail and get a police record as he is. The 6,000+ Occupiers who have been arrested so far in this movement may find themselves regretting their choices in a few years when that arrest record of theirs comes back to haunt them when they are applying for a job somewhere.
The anarchists reject the notion that there is some inherent morality in voluntarily going to jail to make a political point. Their goal is to stay out of jail, and to make sure that other protesters stay out of jail as well. This is why they dress the same -- it is a tactic to confuse police. BTW, the black bloc are the only ones who will actually come to your defense if the police are attacking you, so instead of denouncing them, perhaps some CDers should try thanking them.
The point you make that "this is a highly privileged point of view" gets to the very heart of the matter.
I watched this conflict played out in DC in October between OccupyDC and the October 2012 Freedom Plaza event. At McPherson Square Occupiers went out of their way not only to avoid arrest but to build a peaceful (if wary) relationship with the police: however, at Freedom Square the key organizers openly sought arrest. They managed to get news coverage basically asking "come and get me." OccupyDC for two months or more had a respectful, but firm disclaimer on their website to distance themselves from the arrest-ready crowd at Freedom Plaza.
I had (stupid mistake ---- don't ask why) attended a conference a few weeks before with some of those Freedom Plaza organizers and watched them preening and congratulating themselves on their numbers of arrests. More than once the "participants" ---- believe me, at these events there is an audience and there are performers, no democratic participation ---- were asked to stand up if they had been arrested. Naturally, they weren't talking about arrests for selling drugs or writing bad checks or domestic violence. This little show-and-tell provided a way of settling the dust right then and there about who belonged in the inner circle and who belonged outside that circle.
The Chris Hedges of the world consider those of us who are unwilling (or even unenthusiastic) to get arrested as cowards.
On the other side, the anarchists (of all stripes or blocs or whatever) are anarchists: that means no big conferences and no big names and no well-known writers and no self-promoters. No "highly privileged point of view" to be sure.
Oh, believe me, I've seen this dynamic play out my share of times as well. I think the most ludicrous example I witnessed was at the 2005 Inauguration protests, at which there were three distinct tendencies. One was the permitted demonstration on Pennsylvania Ave. (organized by ANSWER), one was the "arrest me please" civil disobedience "die-in" performed in front of the White House, and the other was the militant black bloc tendency, which attempted to break through police lines and actually disrupt the inauguration.
The civil disobedience group and the militants started off marching together from Malcolm X Park, but then split off in separate directions. I wanted to see this civil disobedience action, so I stuck with them for a while, watching these peaceniks lay down in the street in front of the White House, where they remained laying on the pavement for about an hour (in sub-freezing temperatures, BTW).
Well, the police weren't interested in arresting them -- so the civil disobedience group actually tried negotiating with the police to find out what they had to do in order to go to jail. The police just told them, "Sorry, but we're not arresting you today, we're under orders." So, the peaceniks got up from the pavement and meekly walked away, disappointed that their "nonviolent civil disobedience action" didn't end with them going to jail. Because they remained out of jail, they considered their "action" a failure. Talk about ludicrous. I couldn't help but think of the scene at the end of "Life of Brian" where the Judean People's Front Suicide Squad comes to the "rescue" of Brian and other people being crucified but instead of actually doing anything to get them down from the crosses, they just stabbed themselves in the hearts and died.
That's what these kumbaya peaceniks are like. Instead of actually seeking to strike a blow to the system, they are supremely satisfied with martyrdom. And anyone who calls into question their privileged, smug, self-righteous worldview earns their wrath and condemnation -- hence Chris Hedges' despicable hit piece on the black bloc.
BTW, another problem with the "nonviolent civil disobedience" approach is that it legitimizes police arrests of other protesters who do not necessarily wish to spend a day or two behind bars. I have been unlawfully arrested for exercising my First Amendment rights, and when I complained to the police asking them why they are throwing me in jail, I've been told that I was performing civil disobedience. Some of them actually think that everyone who protests must be comfortable with going to jail, and this is because of the "nonviolent civil disobedience" peaceniks who beg and plead with the police to be arrested.
"Life of Brian" should be required viewing, maybe at least once every five years. Thanks for reminding me, and thank you for the story of the inauguration protests. I could probably name at least a dozen of the players.
All great movements have extremists, agent provocateurs and those seeking to divide and conquer. Anarchy is the antidote. Maybe that's why power mongers demonize it.
Government by consensus is working well in Ecuador and other countries. The people lead by referendum and temporary spokespersons carry out consensus decisions. Their actions have to pass the people's muster.
.
Did anyone notice the illustration for this piece: of a SUICIDE BOMBER? Is this to equate property damage with Hezbollah extremists?
Have some perspective. Sheesh...
I noticed that, as well, and thought WTF?
Yes, well, one of the many ironies of Hedges...positions is that Hezbollah actually managed to keep Israel from occupying Lebanon (again) while Hedges would've been standing around holding up a sign pointlessly or leaving for a monastic community while the Israelis bombed their victims into oblivion as usual.
Yes, THAT!
Check out someone worth listening to, Norman Finkelstein:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDe65-nF3FQ
Tnx for the link.
Brutal truths there, from Norman Finkelstein, but very hard to dispute. Most of US don't want to know of the brutal realities he's referring to, but they're nonetheless real.
Resistance to Power isn't fun, resistance isn't glorius ( - until, if lucky, much later). History's full of unsung heroes, who resisted and failed. Finkelstein honors them by being uncompromising in his attitude to Power.
But although his claim that Israel's attitude is "Never forget, never forgive" seems true, it makes for such an eternally hard world it makes me pity the Israelis. Still, Finkelstein's 2008 claim that "Israel is preparing for another war" proved true, in 2009 with the assault on Gaza named "Cast lead" - 1.400 dead Palestinians, to 14 Israeli dead and 10 of them to "friendly" fire.
Israel's still preparing for another war with Lebanon/Hezbollah. Hedges would likely condemn that, from a high horse and safe distance, while depressingly lamenting the state of the world, leaving no hope. And in his view he's right - without forceful, to the point of violent, resistance to violence, there's no hope. Like it or not.
At the top of strength in the world today, the pinnacle of power, is a military force - US-NATO-Israel - that doesn't try to be fair, has no ethics of justice, and has egotism instead of the needed neutrality.
Listen to Hillary Clinton and Obama repeating: "No option is off the table", steadily referring to a possible use of the 5 - 10,000 nuclear bombs in the US arsenal: the judges of the world now work for the prosecution, and the defenders of sovereignty and the other values in the UN Charter and the UN Human Rights Declaration have no higher power to appeal to but their/our own strength.
The Powers in Place today have currently outwitted all established checks and balances. The fightback is hard, but it's the only option - because the one-sided suppression with force is not long-term sustainable.
The forces of the Biosphere are on the side of sustainability. That's how it's lasted for some 4 billion years. And we - her off-spring - wanting long-term survival, can only align ourselves to that premise. All else is folly, and self-destruction. In the not-so-long-anymore run.
I'll repeat: deep AN-ARCHISM amounts to the same as the Golden Rule of Ethics applied on politics, and presented as the inverse side of that Rule: Do what you please, but only to the extent it allows your surroundings the same privilege. That's balance. (The tacit secret is: you'll find out what you most "please" is to be in balance with your surroundings). That principle followed to the core of our being, each balancing ourselves against our surroundings, causes sustainability. That's peace.
The fight to get there from this current state of unbalance and unsustainability, OTOH, can not be peaceful - as there isn't a global political peace to start from.
The balance beween self and surroundings inherent in the Golden Rule of Ethics must be enforced, through self-defence and ever deeper search for balanced joy.
The greatest power in the world is the Will to Laugh. We all yearn for that laughing release of tension in our exchanges with our surroundings. When we're all laughed out, there's Peace.
I find it interesting to read these comments from people who so vehemently malign black bloc, the tactics of which have not resulted in any deaths or serious injury, yet praise, apologize for, and even vote for Barack Obama the Child Slayer. Everyone knew that Obama was helping to slaughter innocent Iraqis and destroy their country, yet there was no outrage, only tears of joy! Where was the outrage then? Obama and his ilk are far worse and far more evil than any black bloc anarchist window smasher. Why doesn't Hedges write an article claiming that people like Obama, Tom Hayden and Tod Gitlin, and other apologists are cancers killing our movement? To be sure, he has railed against the fake liberals, etc. - and I appreciate him so much for it - but he didn't go to the lengths he does here against the black bloc. Possibly, he sees Occupy as people driven and therefore more worthy of protection and mainstream politics as sheople herders that are best ignored.
I appreciate this discussion. It's necessary and, from what I've read here so far, enlightening. I see value on both sides of this argument. Even Gandhi said that violence is sometimes the only way forward - it's either that or complete annihilation. I'll wager this: until you have faced violence to yourself or a loved one, you have no idea what you would do if a baton was swinging towards your head or the head of your daughter or son. But violence as a tactic rather than a defense, in my view, is counter-productive. I may change my mind about that as this country crumbles into greater mayhem and repression.
Thank you, thank you, for such a fine capsulation of this dilemma. This has been an interesting discussion which has hooked me in like few others. Hedges' articles often have that effect... you gotta give him credit.
I just wish those with the strongest opinions would actually study the history of anarchist struggle. It's obvious from their remarks ("I've been to South America..."; "Go back to your college dorm") that they are out of their depth. I don't support Black Bloc or promote lawlessness... but I would have to own up to the charge of 'anarchist' (or 'an-archist' as the sage David Ker Thompson puts it) based on my values.
Hedges sounds like the sort of tired old Liberal he's declared dead. The comments by tj, Durrutix, actualleftist, and Franciszek2 are excellent, while many seem to have left their critical reading skills somewhere else since Hedges is the item's author.
He's trying to be an "old conservative".
Do you mean Plato, Hobbes, Taft, or someone else?
The problem I have with Hedges' complaints here is that he himself exudes boozhiness, at this point in his life at least, so he doesn't have much cred to be telling economically or politically disaffected and angry people what they should or shouldn't be doing.
He dresses well. He occasionally alludes to his young children back home with the wife, whom we easily imagine ensconced in a suburb or safer upscale urban area. He's probably not rich, but he's definitely comfortable. He's not shy about whipping out his warzone-journalist credentials, his past stints in foreign jails and so forth, which comes off as dissonant with the book discussions, tv interviews, and protest ops that characterize his current life. The two main vibes I get from him are earnestness and comfort.
Jensen disappoints me more here. Who the fuck appointed him lord judge of when oppressed people have the right to move from symbolic to violent protest? What gives him the fucking right to judge that we haven't been screwed ENOUGH by the system YET?
I respect much about both of these people. But this piece, and the attitudes they expose here, really give me pause. It seems like they've anointed themselves to be some kind of wise leaders of social unrest which they themselves don't have to participate in as much anymore, nor with the same urgency as ordinary people, because they've got a little bit of comfort or elevated status.
What does "the right to move from symbolic to violent protest" have to do with whether or not we have "been screwed enough by the system yet"?
I'm responding to Jensen's comments in the article. See what he says about our insufficient "maturation" with regard to fighting the system, which he says is necessary before we can "escalate" (to more violent methods).
"Maturation" as a prerequisite to escalation is not the same thing as "the right to move from symbolic to violent protest," and neither has anything to do with whether or not we have "been screwed enough by the system yet."
Explain why you think that, because that's what I clearly read from Jensen's statements.
I think that because that is what you said. I am asking you to reconcile the various statements you made. I don't see the basis for your leaps.
I am asking you about your statements, not Jensen's.
What does "the right to move from symbolic to violent protest" have to do with whether or not we have "been screwed enough by the system yet"?
Explain your thinking in your words. How is "maturation" as a prerequisite to escalation the same thing as "the right to move from symbolic to violent protest," and how does either have anything to do with whether or not we have "been screwed enough by the system yet."