Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
How Violence Protects the State
'Violence is the modus operandi of the State. To build a free society, we will have to use different means.'
On April 4, 1967, exactly one year before Martin Luther King Jr. was murdered, he spoke passionately in a sermon at Riverside Church in New York about the war in Vietnam. In this gripping speech about the hypocrisy of bringing democracy through napalm and the audacity of fostering a brotherhood through war and killing, he made a daring confession: “I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today —my own government.”
The most significant social movement in the US in the coming months will be the Occupy movement, as it returns in some numbers to the street. As the Occupy movement grows more polarized between strategies in light of its upcoming spring activities, it might do well to reflect on the logic of Dr. King’s brave statement. Contrary to what Peter Gelderloos and others have claimed, it is violence and the stasis of a dysfunctional system of oppression that protects the state, not nonviolence. How does violence protect the state? Do a few general internet searches on the Occupy movement in images to see how that movement is visually narrated (not to mention how it feels to see the portrayed reduction of a promising national movement into a series of police confrontations).
“I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today —my own government.”
- Martin Luther King Jr.Examining these images with some detachment, we might wonder how this civil war with police began. This examination might also give us some clues about the general population’s confusion about “what Occupy wants,” and the US citizenry’s preference for political candidates who do not create violence on the streets—even if those elected officials ultimately maintain systems of greater violence within our society and between it and other nations. If the choice is between unruly demonstrations and elections, Occupy risks becoming a reason to turn to politics as usual.
Paradoxically, while the public will be fascinated by police/Occupy confrontations, and while the media will mock activists’ lack of moral character and strength for accepting violence as an effective strategy, it will only make the way safer and clearer for greater state violence to be perpetrated in the name of national security. Who knows, we may be pulled into a new war with Iran in the coming year —what better way to stifle a movement: delegitimize it (through violence), and then unite us against a common enemy!
Violence in opposition to the State relieves the State and the citizenry of any guilt for a brutal response to all protesters—and it refocuses from the nominal issue to the issue of violence by protesters. Thus any violence by protesters serves the state well (just ask anyone employed by the government who has hired an agent provocateur). It is a weapon of mass distraction. Stop worrying about the uptick in home foreclosures, the dead being shipped back from Afghanistan, and the new increases in the Pentagon’s proposed budget—look at the violent window-breakers from Occupy who threaten us all!
Just a few weeks ago, I was in dialogue with an official from the Pentagon’s weapons acquisitions team. In his final assessment (the conversation was about the present year’s National Defense Authorization Act and our Metta Center advocacy of alternatives to killing), our organization’s proposal of a nonviolent policy—a new U.S. policy of deep reconciliation to combat terrorism— “creates guilt, which is not good.” In other words, by repressing guilt, we can continue killing people.
Keep in mind that soldiers are committing suicide in higher numbers than ever before, and therefore we should pay attention to what this guilt is telling us. This mindset of denial echoed by the Pentagon official, integral to waging war, is rooted in a belief about ourselves as separate from one another—in other words, that we should be able to kill one another without remorse, which is the supreme superstition of a violent system. On the level of the Occupy movement, we might formulate it as a principle: activists cannot harm the actors of the State without harming our movement. The more we fight against the police, the more we allowing ourselves to be seen as accepting violent tactics, the stronger we make the system we want to change, the deeper that system digs in its heels. The more we entertain the use of violence, or even create occasions where it can break out, the more violence is justified. Why? Because as Max Weber’s definition of the State suggests, it "upholds the claim to the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force in the enforcement of its order." Violence is the modus operandi of the State. To build a free society, we will have to use different means.
Nonviolence is not just protest, it is not simply occupying space and it is not just about adversarial confrontations; it’s about our humanity. Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan brilliantly document the power of civil resistance when it uses nonviolence as its means to replace leaders. We should read their work and others, but we should not be afraid of going deeper either; more than changing a certain regime at this time, we need to transform a culture.
In short, in order to delegitimize a violent system, we have to delegitimize violence. This change requires us to adopt a principle about human beings and human dignity: we will not use violence against others because we want to create a vibrant culture, a merciful culture, a generous culture because we as human beings have the potential to nurture these qualities within ourselves and each other. We will not degrade human dignity because it is not worthy of ourselves as people; let this be the motivation for our long-term struggle. The power of the violent State system would stand much less chance against a movement committed to this nonviolent, compassionate spirit of unity.
- Posted in
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...
130 Comments so far
Show AllVAGUE TERSE DISTORTIONS
No, although what you say is generally in a vague way plausible, it is hardly true, responsive, honest, nor responsible.
But it is simplistically terse and encapsulates a huge story, and that's difficult to rebut w/o going into details that you purposefully and advantageously (to deception) gloss completely over.
The beautiful terror of propaganda -- is that it artfully grabs hold of -- and then twistingly enfolds and warps one's mind into cancerous blooming.
=== === === === === ===
EXAGGERATIONS
Actually, that is a tempered distortion and purposeful exaggeration, as what I actually said, and that was specifically related to some particular comments that impacted me -- on another thread -- where you did attack me personally, for what I said and felt.
COMMINGLED CONFLATIONS
Your fallacious commingling and conflations of things clearly completely different is more proof of your manipulative distortions and intent, whilst attempting to portray yourself as balanced and sincerely concerned.
In that case, your misquoting, pretending not to understand simple things, and denying any empathy as how that was relevant, was when I explained that it was my personal and undeniable TRUTH to state how I felt about something, and that you had no right to censor how I felt or if I did feel hurt by your putting denigrating words into my mouth, and then adding insult to injury by claiming that you didn't misquote me.
HURTFUL MISQUOTING
How is your misquoting me -- and determining that truth -- entirely up to your self-righteous determinations and self-protective protestations ?
How is someone who has knowingly hurt another, and has been clearly proven and informed of such, completely unable to give even an oblique and insubstantial motion towards an apology ?
Perhaps because it was entirely purposeful to hurt and invalidate another (indirectly), and that maintaining an emotional distance was both a tactic and consequence of what it is that you likely really are committed to creating ?
How can we know (for sure) if you're really connected, empathizing, and committed to creating better lives for the common and working class, when you show us no emotional evidence of this ?
WHAT EMOTION
How come we see what emotion, enthusiasm, and passion -- that you do present -- primarily when loosing your staid composure, when angry and/or perturbed, and attacking others ?
-- -- --
It's your (new) pretense now, that I supposedly asked you not to "cause you any further distress" -- or that even less plausibly --that you personally are compassionate of further damaging my emotional state.
BRING IT ON
Go ahead, dude -- bring it on, ALL of IT -- as real truth cares not in the least, for doubts and challenges.
Let's be clear, if you REALLY sincerely wanted NOT "to cause you any further distress," then you'd stop posting lies, personal attacks, and discouraging us all through manufactured consensus mind warping memes.
Similarly, you's actually be HONEST and responsive to clarifying questions, that if sincere -- you should have nothing to hide.
You twist the reality in spades, to serve your desires to protect and cover-up your mistakes, and then to STILL appear to be cordial, understanding and responsive.
'Sorry Charlie,' we don't want your verisimilitude of 'good taste,' but do want what actually 'tastes good,' and is of authentic and consistent quality.
MY REAL COMPLAINT ?
No, this is a gross distortion of truth to claim "Yet now you complain about that," as you conflate a separate situation, when clearly HERE today -- that I DEMANDED your attention and response.
Let's be clear here, you REALLY expect people to BELIEVE that your condescendingly abrupt, dismissive, and terse comment, was meant to avoid hurting me ?
That insinuating that my comment was not relevant, not appropriate, and not wanted -- was a way for you to support and NOT HURT my vulnerable feelings ?
WHAT ATTACK
My comments and discussion about your postings, that is about the factual details -- are in no way possible -- a "continue[d]…attack" on your person.
If I mistakenly made any ad hominem attacks against you person, then I apologize for doing so -- in advance and profusely.
=== === === === === ===
HIDDEN CENSORING
I find the extremity of your dismissively inciting and inflaming the situation, beyond the pale of common decency and service to the common good and dreams of this forum.
Since when is this forum on CD limited to those postings that you feel appropriate ?
SELF - CENSORSHIP
The worse mechanism of censorship, is making the folks discouragingly feel that they must voluntarily self-censor, in order to fearfully survive, to avoid disdainful shaming, and to supposedly protect what they love -- whilst selling out their principles as if that were beneficial.
You said that I was causing you pain and distress. I think, from reading your posts, that you are in pain and are distressed. I do not intend to harm you. Therefore, I decided to stop arguing with you, and to not contradict, challenge or question any of the things you post.
Don't you see that's exactly what he wants, though? If he can drown everyone who challenges his jargon-laden, bizarre capitalization filled dogma out, then that helps to keep things just as they are right now-with discussion channeled into tangents that will never amount to much of anything.
Sorry to interfere with your gang-banging pretense of being dis-similarly not compassionate and not concerned for me.
Oh, the differences that make no differences …
You errantly and scurrilously ad hominem claim that I'm deceitfully attempting to :
"drown everyone who challenges his jargon-laden, bizarre capitalization filled dogma out"
This is especially noteworthy, to obfuscate the FACT that I'm the one revealing twisted propaganda and deceptions, FOR EXAMPLE my asking the hard questions of what is behind the conflations that represent nothing in the real world, but attempt to manipulate the otherwise open discussion.
How about backing up your base-less accusations, with even a shred of data, evidence, analysis, or reason ?
So what if I accentuate certain words with what you assert is "bizarre capitalization," is that evidence of reprehensible and malevolent ideas and purpose ?
Most would consider indicting one's text formatting as clearly an ad hom attack, while ALSO completely ignoring the actual ideas and issues at stake.
What exactly to you mean by "bizarre … dogma," can you provide any examples of this ?
So my challenging attempts to twist and channel this forum away from cogent and salient issues, is now claimed to be the inverted opposite ?
So exactly where and how is what I do, "that [which] helps to keep things just as they are right now-with discussion channeled into tangents that will never amount to much of anything."
If I really was "channel[ing] into tangents" the forum, wouldn't that entail Two Americas' actually answering the challenges I made to his DOGMATIC inconsistent and suspicious divisive vehemence ?
In fact I do and did what you only claim that you did, I provided analysis and asked the questions, while I also sought a better understanding and clarity -- which is easily verified.
What'll actually "will never amount to much of anything," is deceitfully attempting to bully honest, encouraged, and concerned posters, while distracting and divisively mis-guiding well meaning folks toward self-destructive and oblivious points of view.
It wont happen, as long as we stand for the honest truth of things.
Please do attempt to have us better understand, how my asking questions for people to think for themselves, is proof of my being dogmatic and destroying beneficial discussion ?
Yes, your lies, distortions, misquoting, evasions, denials, and acting dumb -- were at one point historically acknowledged as being hurtful and distressing.
Today, I gave you permission to do whatever you may -- as your self-serving ploy, pretense, and tactic of complete oblivious inattention is HARMFUL to this forum, to everybody reading it.
How exactly, is that the end of things ?
How is your being even more hurtful, dismissive, and condescending -- somehow proof of your wanting to avoid -- causing me more pain and hurt ? That somehow proves that you are compassionate ?
All of a sudden the usual point of view of everything being merely honest "discussion" (no deceit or deceptions ever) -- now has its framing reversed -- to seemingly and supposedly sympathetically support avoiding dispute and argumentation, that just might be harmful.
Thanks for providing the appearance of being compassionate, as I requested an emotional response -- but then again -- I asked for a sincere one.
You are unbelievable on so many levels …
It's a shame that you write so much about straw-men arguments, made up entirely from your interpretations of what I said, clearly to again attempt to taint what I did say.
Of course violence and anger are potentially independent, and that you insinuate that I am unable to understand this is an ad hominem attack on my personality -- ignoring the actual discussion issues -- and essentially errantly (indirectly) putting words in my mouth.
I am aware and advocate this example of truth and reconciliation you provided of people :
"They will never COMMIT that act. They act it out. The anger is channeled out of the person and the other, the one watching that has wronged the person acting out the anger , will know the other angry and feels he has been wronged. The person who acted out the violence then goes home. purged of his anger"
Of course, we must dissipate the energy that arises from our ego's emotion reactivity, and acting that out publicly, and/or having our loved ones challenge us if our behaviors and intentions are based in love, or coming out of destructive fear -- is crucially important aspect of our growing consciousness and compassion for others.
This issue of violence against mere materiality is to me essentially a 'Red Herring,' as what matter most is the internal state of intention and what purpose those behaviors were dedicated to. What matters even more is how the PTB's media propaganda machinery then deceitfully makes use of those insignificant acts of property damage, to imply and insinuate a far worse situation.
This is about a champaign of massively warping people' minds and perceptions, into being disgusted with supposedly 'dirty hippies and malcontents' who seemingly act insanely against social order, dishonoring the American flag
Of course, a couple BBs busting a few windows is hardly going to warp and devastate their own emotional beingness -- but then the bigger picture issues intrude -- of what frame the devious media will encircle this with, which then makes and accentuates a destructive meaning to those millions of folks now falsely interpreting this as extreme violence against their society, by people that they no longer can identify with.
It is nonsense to claim that "the State elevates property above all else," as clearly profiteerism, deceptive manipulations, and control are several ELSES far above that.
Sure the PRB's media do all sorts of things to protect the wealthy's property, and violence is suffused in all of that, on way or another. This is about using violence to maintain the delusion of the status quo (memes), so at least we do agree about that.
You little exemplar, is actually scientifically inaccurate, or at worst simplistic :
"I have two cats sitting here. They are not part of human definitions of words. If I rip up a phone book even in anger they will simply sit and watch. If i committed an act of physical violence against the other cat, the remaining one will run. They know the difference.They dont read dictionaries."
The HeartMath Institute (among many, see movie "I am") has proven that mammals are intuitively capable of picking up the level of one's anger, as that is modulated onto the signal that our hearts' energetic muscles electromagnetically broadcast, and that our minds receive. EEGs connected to both of us in the same room, will show your reception and detections of my heart beat, and vice versa. There is no doubt that having a deeper awareness and compassion for others, is what opens the door wider to increasingly and intuitively connect with others, and make better use of this type of non-verbal communication.
I suspect that some cats highly refined survival instincts and discernment, would have them running (or at worst hyper-aware), by your "rip up a phone book even in anger," perhaps not all cats or even kids.
My point is that any act of violence, internal or external has definitive emotional and psychological consequences, and not simplistically because the dictionary described it that way. You apparently are unable to grasp the fact, that what gets into a dictionary is a culling of millions of people's word use and implicit meanings used.
"you …suggested that the dictionary definition of a word is pertinent because it what our CULTURES have agreed upon. I can not subsribe to that theory."
In fact, a dictionary is a democratic enterprise, where people's votes really do matter in the results -- and certainly that my vote is relatively inconsequential as compared to everyone else's, including your own.
How is the way a dictionary is created, supposedly now some sort of "theory" to you, that you can either "subsribe to," or deny ? Is this your trivializing and demeaning attempt to reinforce this delusion that you've expressed, that wikipedia is MY PERSON DICTIONARY, only my own "theory" of meaning ?
I have and deeply share the compassion you express, for "being "angry" because I am opposed to wars and hate seeing children in Afghanistan killed by bombs dropped from airplanes."
But I cannot in my conscience accept or affirm your point of view, that if you "destroy an Jet Aircraft sitting on a tarmac, I have not committed "Violence"."
Even if you are dispassionate and running (meditatively) 100% alpha waves, the meme framing placed around the publication of your act -- when perceived by most others -- will necessarily be interpreted as violent. And thereby your protest will be marginalized, invalidated, re-interpreted as being terrorist (not pro-peace), attacking USA heartland security, and essentially erased from the public's consciousness as relevant and important.
Your "violence" will used to isolate you from the people that you so desperately wish to connect with, and waken to fight corporatist warmongering and relentlessly suffering
This is because the PTB control the media, and that is the message that they are committed to manifesting, reinforcing, and promulgating -- regardless of how you personally view (or feel) the acts and behaviors are intrinsically.
Personally, I'd love it if all of the planes, drones, computers, ships, subs, and boats all just blew up themselves (w/o killing anyone) -- but I know with a certainty eclipsing all doubt -- that even if this happened, that the result would be presented as another 911 pretense and attack against us folks (perhaps using innocent aliens as externalized enemies ?)
You claim to think for yourself. You should probably re-visit that claim, because the moment you assert the primacy of a dictionary definition, as though it were absolutely prescriptive rather than descriptive of a subcultural meaning, you've stopped thinking for yourself.
GWNorth's response is a very good explanation of why you're not doing what you think you're doing.
And it's not the phonebook-ripping-up that scares the child (if a child is scared) it's the heavy emotion being expressed. One could sit on the floor with the same child and jointly pull the phonebook to bits without provoking anything more than laughter.
Thanks we agree (mostly), even though you write using an abusive tactic that it is as though we have some huge chasm of unresolvable misunderstanding.
Your partial but twisted agreement, while bizarrely lambasting me, makes me especially suspicious of how obtuse you apparently want to portray me as being.
Perhaps it is you who is actually dedicated to maintaining exactly the socially conditioned habituation and adherence to structure, that you claim that I served ?
I have no patience for bullies who condescendingly act as though they know so much better than me -- while putting me down and obfuscating the other key issues -- when they end up essentially supporting what I say. This is a subtle form of characterization assassination and and an hominem attack, to make it appear that I'm clueless and then conclude much as I initially posted.
You boldly assert and claim that I'm being adamant having "stopped thinking for yourself," and somehow I'm being "absolutely prescriptive rather than descriptive," so it appears that you were unable to read or comprehend most of what I said.
Your main problem is that you can only make accusations, because there is no evidence of what you claim -- and if there were -- then please do provide chapter and verse.
You errantly claim that I'm authoritarian based in my thinking ("prescriptive") and even proselytizing something (unclear what that is) that may be dangerous, and somehow I'm interested in forcing people's adhering to something trivial and useless.
What I did say was quite the opposite (about personal awareness, not obsequious subservience to delusions), and you appear to not want that message to stand unobscured. I believe rather strongly that the author is completely correct, and that our so-called 'Western Civilization' (per Mahatma Gandhi's comment, it'd be a good idea) is based fundamentally upon violence, and that violent thinking has permeated every aspect of our lives
I stated very clearly that the dictionary was a social construct and that violence was an emotion affliction that impact both victims and perpetrators, that the violence that scares and scars is entirely different than making paper mache with a kid.
Of course, the intent (joyous/playful vs. angry/hateful) behind how the pieces of paper are separated from each other, is directly related to how others (especially children) perceive that behavior and action -- which I also mentioned initially.
How is it that you attempt to taint what I say, then re-package it as true and your own disparate point of view, and that I am thereby somehow demonstrably invalidated ?
Go play your scurrilous word games elsewhere -- I have no patience to suffer fools, or malicious prevaricators
You didn't get the fact that my criticism was limited and conditional?? I said that WHEN someone bases an argument on a dictionary definition being prescriptive, they're not thinking for themselves. That person is treating the dictionary as though it determines meaning rather than describes the meanings its compilers collect from the outside world.
I said nothing about the times the person doesn't make that mistake. I thought I expressed the conditionality clearly, but evidently not. Please tell me how I could have done it better.
Well, my initial reply to GwNorth, was apologetic, particularly at its beginning (Feb 18 2012 - 12:18am) :
"I'm sorry that you interpreted my posting as somehow threatening or any reason for you to get angry, and I apologize."
And my initial reply to your self-destribed "criticism," was balanced, at its beginning :
"Thanks we agree (mostly), even though you write using an abusive tactic that it is as though we have some huge chasm of unresolvable misunderstanding."
My skin is still very thin to withstand and vulnerably and engagingly receive criticism, especially the bizarre point of view as intrinsically beneficial and transformative.
I've grown today, elevating my awareness to things as yet seen only dimly or sometimes not at all.
I'm learning more about my shadow self, and therefore I doubt your being even more "limited and conditional" would have mattered much, as what I said was based mostly on where I was coming from, not where you were coming from.
At the core of triggers to my self-defensiveness, denials, and the repressions, are my shadow selves' many processes (injured ego, or pain body per Eckhart Tolle), built up to cover over and deeply hide and attempt to protect, the fear, hurt, and painful experiences (and judgments) that I've had all through my own life.
See the "The Shadow Effect: Illuminating the Hidden Power of Your True Self" by
Deepak Chopra, Marianne Williamson, and Debbie Ford
Google search of title at
http://bit.ly/x7RZb8
The Course of Miracles tells us that all emotions boil down to either moving towards love or fear.
This is quite similar to the simplified idea that we can either chose to be kind (kindred, as in family & children), or righteous (invalidated the other to embellish ourselves) in any interaction with another.
Can you guess which corresponds to love, and which one grows out of fear ?
Basically, "don't believe everything you think," needs to become transformatively married to us better learning (in the moment and retroactively) to deeply accept, acknowledge and fully experience one's feelings (our inner truth and guidance of this, and/or that moment).
When we live with resentment (reliving experience), we are merely reactivating repressed patterns of self-protection, attempting to side-step being hurt or afraid -- and that until broken through, to grieve through that hidden wound, and forgive -- one limits access to greater truth, grow, and personal power.
For most of my life, I'd been habituated to repress, deny, and fallaciously presume that my feelings and emotions were the greatest enemy of my peaceful and productive life -- and now I am convinced of the exact opposite (by many hundreds of actual and evolved experts)
"As the Occupy movement grows more polarized between strategies"
The Occupy Movement is NOT growing polarized. Rather, the movement is facing infiltration by Demok imperialists who want to defuse the movement. But they cannot succeed. The movement is absolutely resilient to corruption. The Demoks will be purged as quickly as they infiltrate. No problem here, for the people. Big problem here, for Demoks!
Thank You! You know the Way, stay the course...Be steady as peace makers are not passive but makers of peace. Therefore many of us will be in jails, private, state, military..all the same.
Go to the street, sit down, and shut up. Wrap yourself in white, close your eyes.
A quiet OM chant would be nice.
Rather than dividing into militant pro-dictionary and anti-dictionary camps, we should keep our eyes on what is strategic and pragmatic. I don't categorically rule out any and all violence to humans (or forks) because of some moral code; I rule out most violence, because it's usually strategically stupid.
Is violence strategic, pragmatic or efficient? How many successful non-state violent movements can we point to? Ruby Ridge? Waco Texas? Harper's Ferry? Weather Underground? Michigan Militia? How many successful non-state nonviolent movements can we point to? The civil rights movement, Caesar Chavez & the farmworkers, women's rights, gays rights… the eight hour work day… The afore-mentioned Gandhi's tactics in India, also Poland's Solidarity, Czechoslovakia's Velvet Revolution, the Philippines' People Power overthrowing Marcos, against Chile's Pinochet, in Serbia, Ukraine, Egypt…
If you're going to go up against the government of the United States of America -- which has a greater monopoly on violence than the world has ever known -- would you choose to use violence? or nonviolence? It's like asking, if you're going to go up against Tiger Woods, would you choose to compete against him at golf? or marital fidelity? I would not pick golf. State regimes know how to respond to threats of violence; it's what they're best at (why else would they use agents provacateurs?). They are much less good at responding to people not paying their taxes en masse, or staying home from work en masse, or boycotting government institutions, or setting up parallel institutions, or setting up independent communications the government cannot control, or many other means of noncooperation. Many mistake nonviolence for passivity; nonviolence seeks to destabilize one's enemy, and to survive without them. It's just that it tries to do its destabilizing without killing anyone or burning any buildings.
Even in the American Revolution, before the "shot heard 'round the world," Massachusetts was already largely independent, through largely nonviolent means of economic boycotts and noncompliance, boycotting the courts and keeping any business from being accomplished there, setting up their own parallel institutions, illegal public gatherings, (although some of these activities did involve less-than-nonviolent activities, like tarring & feathering, or showing up with axes & crow bars). The Brits were unable to govern, not because people were shooting, but because people were refusing to obey.
Sorry, but citing the example of the eight-hour work day as a success of nonviolence is just not accurate. US labor history is rife with violence, mostly instigated by the state, but militantly countered by workers, often in pitched armed battles. The year of 1877 was one of bloody class struggles across the country, and many other incidents over the years can be cited as well. Some good books to read on the subject include "Labor's Untold Story" by Richard O. Boyer and Herbert M. Morais and "Strike!" by Jeremy Brecher.
In actuality, most successful movements for change include some combination of revolutionary militancy and more non-confrontational reformism. This is true of the labor movement's victories, as well as the civil rights and gay rights struggles that you cite, which of course included their share of rioting and violence. When the powers that be are afraid of actual revolution, they are more ready to negotiate with the reformists.
And BTW, while the Harper's Ferry rebellion may have failed miserably due to John Brown's miscalculations and lack of planning, it did in fact precipitate the Civil War, which ultimately ended slavery. John Brown has also been considered a hero and an inspiration to the civil rights movement, which is why the NAACP held its founding convention in Harper's Ferry, WV.
Yes, the Harper's Ferry rebellion did precipitate the Civil War, which ultimately ended slavery.
The Civil War happened not because the Abolitionists failed to practice non-violence, but rather because the slave owners were willing to engage in violence in order to keep millions of human beings in bondage.
I'd also like to add that the issue with Reconstruction was not that it was brought about violently, but rather that the North basically gave up after some time on protecting black people from the Klan and other forms of organized violent bigotry through force. Without such protections those who desired nothing but harm and degradation against black people were basically assaulted without end and without possibility of peaceful recourse.
The article represents a nice thought -- "a victory obtained by violence is tantamount to defeat, for it is temporary" (Gandhi)
But it ignores several realities. First and foremost is that we all face a deadline. Noam Chomsky recently set 2017, I believe, as a tentative date after which we will be unable to "undo" the effects of carbon emissions.
Second, there is no "reasoning" with those in charge. They believe global warming is a hoax (partly because to believe otherwise would spoil their party). They will remain on their military edged plans for Empire/godhood until forced to do otherwise. When the author talks about non-violent protest (resistance) as a means of exposing the illegitimacy of their abuse of power, I find myself asking "to whom"? Certainly not the sociopaths themselves. Just check out DSM IV if you have not done so in a while. They are incapable. But beyond that, they have engaged in a systematic "dumbing down" of the population (through control of the media) such that the consensus needed (about their illegitimacy) is all but impossible to obtain.
It seems clear that the author is committed to "change from within" (she had a conversation with someone from the Pentagon about the NDAA). This would be consistent with someone advocating non-violent means. I cannot support this suggestion for the simple reason that I KNOW, as surely as I am typing this comment, that the sociopaths themselves were responsible for 9-11. Once you understand this fact, then the landscape takes on a different hue. I'm sure the person at the Pentagon told the author that the NDAA was necessary to protect against terrorists or some such rot (which is still believed by too many sheeple). But what is clear is that each "new" assault on our liberties -- the "Patriot Act" (which, BTW, was written 6 mos before 9-11), the NDAA, and now the drones -- are simply part of a grand plan from which the sociopaths plan no deviance. Hence the folly of choosing "political action over unruly behavior".
Of course I would prefer a non-violent solution to the problem. But I'm not sure one exists. OWS is doomed to having to fight off the cops AND the Tea Partiers calling for their arrests and deportation. I have always thought that this was the reason that promoting an understanding about the truth regarding 9-11 was so important. If enough people were sure (as I am) about those tragic events, then it might be possible to build the needed consensus. But without the Repugs and TPers, the non-violent resistance will never reach critical mass, I fear.
"When will there be justice? When those who are not injured are just as indignant as those who are." -- Tolstoy --
It is only a matter of time before the violence (which of course may take the shape of imprisoning dissenters) perpetrated by the sociopaths touches every one of us more closely than we can abide. At which point, we may view those choosing an alternative to non-violent resistance as simply ahead of the curve, and may come to understand that "It is better to use violence, if there is violence in our hearts, than to wear the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence." -- Gandhi --
No, you'll be all right. They seem to allow a wide range of views from commenters, it's just that they don't publish anything but shallow nonviolence-uber-alles, anarchists-are-a-cancer and Dem-cooptation articles as features. I haven't read any articles about Occupy or movement strategy here that I agree with or even find useful for a while, but at least they generate some decent discussion. I find the comments to be much more interesting than the actual articles.
This one I found particularly weak. Upon reading the headline, I surmised it was a rebuttal of the "Nonviolence Protects the State" argument, so I was interested in reading her counterpoint with an open mind. Van Hook really drops the ball on this one though. As her "evidence" of how "violence protects the state", she suggests that we do a Google Images search of Occupy? Well, I actually followed her advice and did a search, and I honestly don't know what she is talking about. There are all sorts of images that come up related to Occupy, only a small fraction of which depict any sort of violence, and most of that is cop-on-protester violence, or police hauling people off to jail. So, what is Van Hook's point? If she has a point, it is a very, very weak one.
It's amazing though -- there really are so many better articles out there, particularly responses to Chris Hedges' recent hatchet job, that don't receive any coverage on this website. It would be nice to see the editors treat this subject with more of an open mind.
There is so much angst over a broken window. The capitalists smash up entire buildings, bulldoze homes, destroy the environment, all in the pursuit of profit. But the people decrying the "violence" of a broken window will not be seen at demolition sites protesting that "violence."
What if the so-called "anarchists" threw rocks through the windows of boarded up and abandoned buildings? I cannot imagine anyone calling that "violence."
What we can see is that this debate has nothing to do with "violence," it does not even have anything to do with "property." It is all about defending profit. You can smash up anything you want to smash up if that destruction leads to profits. You can smash up things, like abandoned buildings, where no ones profit making is at stake all you like. What you cannot do - lest you be called "crazy" or "violent" or "dangerous" or "anarchist" or "Black Bloc" - is interfere with profit making in any way.
Therefore, the breaking of even one window and so thereby causing an expense or some anxiety for someone who is in the pursuit of profits looms larger than entire neighborhoods being bulldozed and the people thrown onto the street. The first is seen as "violence" and the second is not.
Thank you Kathy2, and others finally responding to the neo-liberal apologists being published in Common Dreams and across the internet lately. They get the facts wrong, they get their history wrong, they get terminologies and philosophies jumbled, and they seem to be trying to INVENT some form of a non-violent protest movement in the image of Jesus Christ on the cross. WTF! ...this has been some of the worst journalistic integrity I could imagine as the "left" attacks Occupy and mostly Occupy Oakland, lumping into Occupy in general, in a seeming attempt to pre-emptively war on Occupy to keep it from even trying to shield itself from tear gas canisters, or bean bags, or rubber bullets, being fired at our heads. Scott Olsen was almost killed and may have brain damage for the rest of his life. There was a similar tear gas canister incident in Israel of a local activist and he is now back home damaged for life. Did Scott Olsen's selfless act bring a change in the police or others? Did authors such as these come out into the street to stand in the front lines of a march in front of OPD, without shielding to take a canister in the head for the cause? I dare them to back up their rhetoric with personal action instead of asking someone else to "die on the cross" for them. This neo-Christian-mythologizing reality has got to be exposed for what it is... denial and fantasy. It would serve all of us better to put the issue of state-violence-as-terror on the discussion table rather than try to fantasize a "TV vision of non-violent self crucifixion" that becomes the spectacle of an ultra-Ghandi movement...or something. Please, the issue here is the IMAGE OF VIOLENCE managed by the 1% to crucify every protest movement. They, the system, the 1%, are the ones with three shifts of paid employees wielding unconstitutional "laws" and high-tech weaponry that attack Occupy protests. If protesters attempt to shield themselves from bodily damage and throw back canisters to remove them to the only place they can safely be thrown (where the police have riot gear protecting them), is this violence?
Lots of comments on how breaking windows doesn't hurt anything or anyone. Can someone explain how its helps anything or anyone?
You are presenting a false choice and misrepresenting what many of us are saying.
I am saying that the argument against window breaking is a deception, a distraction, and a stalking horse for an effort to crush the movement and purge the strongest voices.
Now that's a totally unsubstantiated point, that somehow the violence advocating and acting BBs, are supposedly "the strongest voices" of OCCUPY.
Who could have guessed that Two Americas would sincerely think that this is so, but then I guess it matters how one interprets what "strongest voices" means.
QUESTION:
Does it mean that the BB membership is publicly open and forthright in it's advocacy ?
ANSWER:
Hardly, when BBs cower in authoritarian masks and garb, and never say who they are in public, whilst secretly acting violently to accentuate that increasingly violence is the only viable solution, and the "strongest" response to ever growing usurpation and suffering.
QUESTION:
Does it mean so, because supposedly BB being the "strongest," implies the most effective and thereby the likelihood of eventually being successful, regardless of actual opinions of other participants and long term historical experts and observers ?
ANSWER:
Only apparently so, as real strength is connecting with each other ever more and more so, resonating in solidarity, coalescing the many into one voice, cohering like a laser focused burning through indifference and apathy, creating a wave of growing and transformational sympathy, and accentuating our common experience in being oppressed victims of a violently obsessed by govt/corporatist collusion.
How many of the masses are going to be inspired and beneficially seek to be identified with terrorizing violence of darth-like BB assailants, as starkly contrasted by the obvious ties created when peaceful completely non-violent grandmothers and vets (… etc), are attacked, suffering in our media, and violated unmercifully -- for merely exercising their rights to free assembly and speech ?
The real strength of OCCUPY is not violent opposition to police lines, or destroying property -- it's in forming deep sympathetic bonds with every Mr Joe and Jane America, who feel each other's pain and suffering, and aren't going to take it any longer.
T R U E _ S T R E N G T H
… is in combining the many compassionate into ONE undifferentiated whole, that has the force to demand change, per Frederick Douglass :
<<" Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what a people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. Men may not get all they pay for in this world; but they must pay for all they get.
…
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. ">>
QUESTION:
Exactly how is being non-violent and rejecting BB's self-destructive tactics (according to Hedges and others), representing a very small portion of the "movement," somehow tantamount to "an effort to crush the movement," as in undermining the entire OCCUPY "movement" ?
ANSWER:
Violence will likely lead to less people feeling positive connections and identifications with the movement, so it will weaken growing together as ONE. The PTB controlled media is very unkind to those burning American flags (as are most USAians) and acting violently breaking windows, as the BB act as secretive domestic terrorists and justify ever greater greater police reactivity to enforce the supposed "peace" of our dying society.
QUESTION:
Isn't it more likely that violence ITSELF, will crush the overall "movement," by severing the common folk's connection with everyone else suffering all together, as starkly contrasted to non-violence which enables even greater solidarity and creative collaborative energy to transform as ONE whole nation ?
QUESTION:
How are Two Americas' own words rebuking Maury's initial question, evidence that Two Americas himself, is "presenting a false choice and misrepresenting what many of us are saying."
ANSWER:
See above … … …
Maury,
Thank you. You pose a great and poignant question.
Perhaps the "breaking window" issue is, so to say, just 'window dressing' ?
The real swing issue, is if non-violent protests are strong enough and a viable long term strategy -- as compared to taking on the posturing and patterns of the violent suffused system we are committed to inexorably transform.
My suspicion, is that the "breaking window" issue, is a pretext of immunizing people to expect, project, and condone ever greater violence, as if an inevitably and definitively the only viable approach to inevitably regain our participatory representative democracy.
That OCCUPY moving toward more violent expressions, is more likely than not, what will weaken and/or destroy OCCUPY as a movement, until our collective awareness arises once again.
COINTELPRO is very much alive and present, and it is deceitfully advocating OCCUPY move increasingly toward violence. Sure, some folks might be sincere advocates of violence and not be agent provocateurs -- but why would they be so many very ACTIVE adherents of such, here on CD ?
Mere coincidence ?
Hardly likely.
Clearly, violence is not the only approach as non-violence is what got OCCUPY as far as it did, so WHY should we now believe those that advocate those initially successful tactics (are really failures now, and therefore) must be drastically and immediately reversed ?
Violence protects the state. In fact, the "state" is basically a body or bodies of organized armed people plus record keepers. Revolutionaries do not welcome violence but, if facing violence, have the natural right of self-defense. To ignore the need for a revolutionary party to lead the revolution and a revolutionary state to move forward is (1) idiotic and (2) probably food for all the pacifists/anarchists who populate this site. (Apologies to the Platformist Anarchists out there; didn't mean you.) This article leads us nowhere. Contemplate this instead: "Without a guiding organization the energy of the masses would dissipate like steam not enclosed in a piston box. But nevertheless what moves things is not the piston or the box but the steam."---Leon Trotsky (who knew a thing or two about social change)
So which party do you suggest leads the revolution? The PSL? WWP? SWP? RCP? ISO? Spartacist League? I've heard this so many times, that we need a revolutionary party to lead the revolution, and I just wonder why the Leninists don't pick one and be done with it.