Occupy Oakland’s first attempt at a general strike began with press coverage that had supporters high-fiving across the country. Then came the hangover. Once again we watched as angry black bloc anarchists hijacked the media message. From the powerful pictures of protesters standing atop cargo vans, headlines of a shut down port and accounts of up to 10,000 peaceful marchers—including a children’s brigade of marching toddlers—we went to scenes of fire and chaos in the streets.
What is to be done? The story of black bloc anarchists swooping in like vultures to feed off the work and effort of peaceful activists, steal the media spotlight with angry displays and then disappear has passed the point of being tiresome. How can we use peer pressure to wage nonviolence within the movement? How can we be pro-active and take what we know about defusing anger with individuals and apply it to large out-of-control groups?
As a starting point, watch this video footage (above) of the attempted dialogue between volunteer peace keepers and rock tossing “enthusiasts” in Oakland.
First, hats off to the courageous people who stood up to this harassment and to the Occupy activists who helped city workers clean up the next day. But folks, this is a train wreck. The well intentioned effort to respect a “diversity of tactics” is an experiment that has failed. Miserably. The flipside of tolerance for others’ tactics was supposed to be an equal respect for a separation of activities in “time or space” (see for example the 2008 St. Paul Principles). From Seattle’s 1999 anti-WTO extravaganza to the 2010 G20 Meeting in Toronto and this year’s black bloc riots in Rome, we have a trail littered with broken treaties. It’s time to move on. Here are my best five ideas to chew on.
1. We need to be loud and proud about nonviolence. Every Occupy group should have a Principle of Nonviolence (like Occupy Chicago’s) clearly posted at their website and repeated daily like a mantra. The point is to give peace keepers firm ground to stand on if they have to face their anarchist colleagues. If I’m chucking rocks in the firm belief that a peace keeper confronting me needs to respect my “diversity of tactics” there’s no way I’m going to follow to his or her bourgeois ass. But if the drumbeat of nonviolence is being heard daily, there’s no ambiguity. As a rock thrower I’ll at least know I’m pissing on the movement’s carpet.
2. As we look longingly at the incredible nonviolent discipline in the Arab spring and the pro-democracy uprisings in eastern Europe and wonder how they did it, one factor stands out. Starting with Poland, then Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine, Tunisia and Egypt you hear repeated descriptions of the festive atmosphere in their protests and occupations. “It was like carnival in Rio De Janeiro,” says a Ukrainian activist of their occupation of Kiev. Occupy groups can choose that “vibe,” and find creative ways to sublimate the anger we all share or they can fill the air with angry speech after speech about Police Brutality, etc. That is a choice, but I strongly suspect the latter path sets the stage for a surge in broken windows.
3. A majority of people in OWS appear to be at a stage of expressing their outrage as opposed to thinking strategically. That’s probably a normal part of our grief cycle. If we are primarily expressing our feelings, then tolerance and solidarity with anyone’s expressions comes naturally. But at some point, we hopefully turn to a stage of strategizing about what game plan could actually dislodge the corporate stranglehold on our society. That’s a hard-nosed weeding out process and the most obnoxious, invasive, unnecessary, movement-throttling weed is street violence.
4. The move towards street fighting tactics was fueled by a perception that civil disobedience had become ineffectual. This view received its highest expression in Ward Churchill’s Pacifism as Pathology. Churchill argued that pacifism had become a “politics of the comfort zone,” a polite civic charade that allowed liberals to engage in moral posturing. That was written in 1986.
Three years later, the flood of pro-democracy uprisings began in Eastern Europe that led up to the Arab Spring. This happened after organizers evolved a wider repertoire of creative and even comedic nonviolent tactics. These peaceful victories from South Africa to Tahrir Square have been game changers that have left anarchist calls for violence at the level of climate change denial. We need to teach the stories of how those movements grew.
5. During the occupation of Kiev in Ukraine’s 2004 Orange Revolution, the government organized counter-demonstrations and a counter-encampment. Movement activists in the group Pora (“It’s Time”) responded by going over to the other camp with food and warm clothes, telling them, in our terms, “even if we disagree, you’re part of the 99 percent too.” Matthew Collin, in his book The Time of the Rebels, recounts these words from an activist:
When we started to give them flowers and sandwiches, they were astonished. And maybe that’s why, the next day, many of them didn’t turn out on the streets again, they just went home.
In place of the expected conflict script, Pora members went underneath the anger and emotionally co-opted their opponents. It suggests we stifle our natural impulses and not demonize our black clad comrades. Instead, let’s reach out and put them in charge of committees (that’s humor). For more ideas do take a look at Steve James and Alex Kotlowitz’s excellent documentary The Interrupters, about three very unique individuals intervening to stop gang violence in Chicago. A slightly more challenging job.
I understand that I am commenting on a site dedicated to nonviolence, however, I must ask if the author of this post has researched the motivations and literature about the black bloc tactic prior to writing this piece. Because of the discussion happening around the use of black bloc tactic in the so-called leaderless resistance protests of Occupy, I have personally made sure to understand this from their point of view instead of automatically assuming things about these people. How do you know these people have not been at Occupy Oakland and working with the movement? You assume they are vultures hijacking the movement, but you have no proof of that. At all. From what I have read, the black bloc tactic, specifically, property destruction, is part of deep resistance movement, a radical movement to thwart the so-called capitalist machine. I am still trying to understand this, but to completely dismiss these people and blame them for screwing the media message is misplaced. To quote Harsha Walia:
In terms of the media and law enforcement—this is probably a really obvious point— but we cannot let them mediate our debates […] And most of what I have seen is this idea that we have been denounced in the media, and therefore, we have lost our credibility, because of the media.
As far as I’m concerned, the media was never on our side, the media is not the gage of the success of our protests, and the corporate media and the police should not be let off the hook by us replicating their smears, by us replicating their denunciations! Instead we should be very, very clear and we should have some more nuance in denouncing our comrades as violent.
The fact that the media is not picking up on why there is property destruction […] is not the fault of the black bloc. Let’s be clear. […] Before we’re going to start denouncing our comrades, let’s be clear about who our allies are and who our enemies are. [Also,] the police state legitimizes itself. We cannot hold our allies accountable for the increased police.
In terms of coalition building and inclusivity, the author of this post (who I assume is invested in the opportunities the Occupy movement has created and continues to create) should, in my opinion, be more open and compassionate toward his fellow 99%ers, and engage with other perspectives before out-right dismissing them.
Michelle is right that, as I understand it, the black bloc and their sympathizers form not an insignificant part of the assembly at the Oakland occupation. There has also been some sympathy for these kinds of tactics at Occupy Wall Street since the beginning—though it has not resulted in actual acts of property destruction. However, there is also serious opposition to this kind of destruction in the movement, and that needs to be taken seriously as well. That is to say: a proposal to approve of property destruction would likely be even less likely to pass any assembly than one renouncing it. Remembering that one’s actions within the movement inevitably reflect on one’s comrades, Wayne’s sense of black bloc “hijacking” seems apt.
Michelle is also correct that black bloc folks see themselves as part of a “deep resistance movement, a radical movement to thwart the so-called capitalist machine.” Wayne’s response, of course, is that this sort of thing just doesn’t seem to be strategic in the long run, which many have argued is true. (He must recognize however that, whether or not it was strategic or necessary in the long run, property destruction did have some role in the movement against Mubarak.) Also significant is the Occupy movement’s insistence on trying to model the world they’re trying to create; I can only hope that this doesn’t include self-appointed masked vigilantes undertaking acts which they know a considerable number of their comrades are opposed to in the middle of a sensitive mass demonstration. “Deep resistance” requires being attentive to these concerns as well.
Michelle’s call for more careful terminology and dialogue seems wise. There are good reasons not to equate property destruction with violence. The two aren’t entirely unrelated, but neither are a SWAT team and a sit-in. The case of draft-card burning, which has been many times undertaken by advocates of nonviolence, is a case in point. If one is to insist on opposition to black-bloc-style property destruction, best to do so in a more considered way than simply equating it with violence.
I’d also like to see more care with the word “anarchist” in relation to these kinds of discussions. There are many more anarchists than there are members of black blocs, and some anarchists resolutely disavow this kind of activity. When we mimic the media’s common habit of using “rioter” and “anarchist” interchangeably does a disservice to the tremendous contribution of anarchists to this movement and others in peaceful and constructive ways, whether by providing food, training street medics, or, perhaps most importantly, fostering an open and horizontal decision-making process.
I agree with many of the comments from Michelle and Nathan. It’s not easy to traverse the continuum between violence and nonviolence; even more so when we are talking about resistance – which, btw, is language OWS, etc. has not yet embraced as a movement. Which might make sense, considering the author’s point that OWS has yet to really move into “strategic” movement.
At any rate, it seems to me that black bloc and and the mainstream will have to meet somewhere in the middle. Property destruction as violent/nonviolent depends wholly on one’s definition. And my experience – as a Christian Anarchist – suggests that nonviolence is a working definition in my life that does not preclude property destruction. Property destruction – a la black block style – operates out of a ethos of making capitalism as costly for itself as it can. Starbucks has to pay money to replace its windows, cutting into its own profits. It is a symbol to the powerholders that not all is well. And because the point is to make it as costly as possible, activists have no intention of being known or sticking around – it’s hit and run.
At the same time, though, there is a culture that runs deep in black bloc of an anti-authoritarian individualism. Under the guise of community, it can be a self-affirming of shared discontent that honors conscience and individual acts of protest/property destruction as “deep resistance.” Because the urgency of dismantling the police state, ending the ecological destruction, etc. is what is most important, the work of coalition building, movement action plans, dialogue with opponents (media, police, state, corporations) do not hold a central place in that culture. And, it should be noted, rightly so. Many from the black bloc scene have been outcast from society and told that if they want to get back on the train, that they should look/act/speak in a certain way. In some ways, this thread is perpetuating that outcast.
For me, reflection on tactics, goals, direction of Occupy and other related movement, needs better clarity: specifically with regards to power analysis that looks at state power, corporate concentrations of wealth, historical movements, political philosophy and the psychology/sociology of collective action. We also need to decide – at some point – where we want to go (or, at least, how we want to get there – as Nathan pointed out). Our means should reflect our ends, but I reckon our means will have to get much more radical for the ends we deeply long for. Black bloc tactics don’t make much sense to me as we live in the most militarized state in the world – King called it the greatest purveyor of violence. Military oaths swear to protect against enemies foreign and domestic and we should hold no reservations that the U.S. could not dissolve into chaos and more violent state repression if its existence feels threatened.
Occupy needs to realize this. And organize and train accordingly. The discussions need to get broader and deeper.
Two points:
Jake says damage to Starbucks means the company must pay out of its own pockets to repair broken windows. Ever heard of insurance? Furthermore, of all national corporations to attack Starbucks should be the last. At least they do things like provide benefits to their employees, sell Fair Trade Coffee. If I really thought this form of violence was productive – which I don’t since the long run is more important than short-term violence…I’d be very careful about letting elements like this gain the uppper hand or any hand for that matter. Kudos to the courageous demonstrators who tried to stop them!
Secondly, while its probably true the media is not on our side – with few exceptions – protecting or supporting the “black bloc” will make it even less likely that you will receive favorable media coverage and give the FOX-bought media more room to distort and disrupt the main message.
If you’re going to attract favorable media coverage doing things like the mock trial chaired by Chris Hedges and Cornell West did last week in NYC will be more productive because it highlights and educates the public about things generally suppressed in the main-stream media.
Relieved to see such thoughtful, generative discussion in the comment section after tensing up at a few points during the article (and, most particularly, at the headline–which I thought at first was parody!).
Two quick points, which have mostly been made:
1) Replicating the “violent/angry anarchist” stereotype increases violent/angry attitudes toward people who identify or might be perceived as anarchist. This hurts the movement. I feel we need to tirelessly reiterate a stance against redbaiting in the same way the author suggests we might reiterate messages against violence (or violence-against-people). Tactical & strategic & critical discussions about property damage (when/where/how/why//not) are, of course, great. Yay non-moralizing non-violence!
2) I hope we can continue to care less & less about how the mainstream news covers these kinds of events, and keep building alternative/independent media.
Love & severe canings to all,
A
As far as your humorous suggestion that we put people who use the black bloc tactic in charge of committees — that’s not actually a joke because I would wager money that is actually a truthful description of reality. While people who use the black bloc tactic do so to maintain anonymity — thus, speculation about particular identities would be tantamount to cooperating with the police — it is worth noting that anarchists have been primary organizers of Occupy Oakland from the very beginning. We are part of the medic crews, the kitchens, the security committee, the facilitation, the media working group, the free school and free library. The black bloc is a tactic, not a fixed group of people. Particular anarchists can and do take on a wide variety of roles to further struggle and resistance. We are not dumb enough to think that property destruction alone is sufficient to create revolution; thus, I know of no one who limits themselves exclusively to the use of the black bloc tactic. Just because people who participate in the black bloc do not announce themselves publicly does not mean they are not with us, organizing beside us, all the time. Anarchists have been at the forefront of developing and refining the very organizational forms being used by all the occupations: open, consensus-run, horizontal general assemblies. We have been a part of the occupations from the beginning. Do no assume that because we are not masked up, we never have been; and do not assume that because we may mask up, we are not doing a hundred other things to live out our ideals of mutual aid and collective liberation: direct action to provide for all of us what our imaginations most wildly desire.
Yes.
I love the crossover conversation that this comment demonstrates happening. As someone with a commitment to radical nonviolence and as someone opposed to most forms of sabotage and vandalism, I’ve still learned a lot from people who use black bloc tactics. There’s a lot of cross-pollination and consensus building that can happen here.
It should be noted that the bravest warriors of nonviolence often come to it from very violent places.
And if anyone’s committed, it’s the folks who are used to doing black blocs. If we step up and show them that this nonviolence stuff works, they will bring an extraordinary power to it.
Also, to echo: throwing a brick does not make you an anarchist. Being an anarchist does not make you want to throw bricks. I know at least one liberal who masks up when she goes out, and I guarantee you there are other political leanings under those bandanas as well. No ideology has a monopoly on breaking things.
This is especially important to me as an anarchist, because I feel I have a thoughtful voice to bring to these conversations. Having people attempt to sum up my political vision as vandalism doesn’t leave me much room to do that.
First off, you can keep pointing to the nonviolent Arab Spring all you want, but realize you are doing so from a place of ignorance. The nonviolent tactics used in Egypt included smashing hundreds of cars, street fighting, burning police stations and government offices to the ground, etc. Now, violent revolution was not the point, you are exactly right, the point was the carnival, but any attempt to equate a few windows broken and a street barricade with violence while praising a movement that engaged in far more self defense and “pro-active self defense” is hypocritical. If you are 100% committed to an ethos of non-violence that excludes property destruction, sabotage, and self-defense, then that it fine, admirable even, please be consistent and all out all the destructive forces in every other nonviolent revolution.
Second, any social movement big enough to do anything is going to have lots of folks doing stuff you don’t disagree with. Some will seem too militant, some not militant enough. Some working with people you don’t agree should be worked with. Maybe some advocating wholesale goals you do not share. That is to be expected. If it wasn’t there, infiltrators would put it there. We need to figure out better ways to disagree without the pejoratives. You don’t need to call street fighting “obnoxious, invasive, unnecessary, movement-throttling” and I don’t need to call smiling at a cop a form of Stockholm Syndrome.
Third, the media will choose whatever frame they want. If they don’t have it they will invent it. Media coverage will not get us anything. The cops will do what they are going to do, they don’t need an excuse. They don’t need an excuse. They don’t need an excuse. Those of us who have been on the street man times have definitely seen groups of masked up folks run to the front of a line, throw shit at the cops, and then disappear leaving the rest of the folks to be gassed. That’s despicable and should be called out. But we’ve also seen those same people willing to push a police line back for an extra two minutes to allow people to escape, brave the tear gas time and time again to pull people to safety, etc ,etc etc
Lastly again, you mention Tahrir Square, yet that movement engaged in tactics that not only would leave silly fire extinguisher graffiti in the dust but are still unthinkable here (whatever you think about the occupy movements, they aren’t going to start torching government buildings and destroying police cars anytime soon, for better or worse
Excellent points and ideas, Wayne, thank you for posting!
I have been to several occupations around the country- including a few days in Oakland. Oakland has a vibe and a feeling unlike any other occupation. There is a significant presence of black bloc people actively engaged in the daily life of occupy Oakland. I am not talking about folks who simply lurk around the edges and wait for a moment to act; it was my observation that these folks are engaged in some of the very real work (the kind of occupation sustaining work that does not get in the news: cooking, first aid, etc) happening at Occupy Oakland. They are a minority (my guess is they number 5-10% of the full time population).
I personally remain committed to non-violent tactics, but to dismiss these black bloc folks as thoughtless thugs (as many are wont to do) ignores the scholarship, deep thought and strategic use of individual I met who use this tactic.
I have been asking myself of late: was MLK so successful in spite of Malcolm X (and his “by any means necessary” ethos) or was MLK aided by the very real threat that the oppressed would rise up to do more that sit at lunch counters and get arrested?
To underscore: I don’t think that the movement benefits tactically from destruction of property (at this point)- but I hope we can approach this argument in a more nuanced way. Can we define violence as physical harm to another human being? If so, can we not agree that a broken window is in no way equal to a broken skull?
Just like Michael Moore stated “if violent it’s not Occupy protestors”
Then IMO, this violence seems to occur after cops behaved badly(fracturing Scott Olsen’s skull & then firing on his rescuers) & then trolly comments are what I observe in “charged” articles. I’m guessing somebodies are getting paid!
Turn to violence and you will loose this battle. This enemy cannot be fought violently. The issue is not whether one thinks it can be ideologically correct to use violence or not. the importance is what will work and be in the movement’s favor. Also, agent provocateurs always provoke violence. Please think about this. The use of nonviolence is a winning tactic. One of the community rules at OWS is to not be violent with each other or anyone outside. Demonstrations should be run the same way.
I was at an Occupy Orcas (small town in Washington State) event two weeks ago and EVERYONE I spoke with was insistent that The OWS movement was 100% Non-Violent (including 100% NO property damage) This included the groups moderator!
I don’t think that the 99% even understand the code words in this movement….Not a single person there had even heard of “Diversity of Tactics”.
I asked about property violence in the group circle and they were adamantly opposed to it and >>> Not A Single Person would have been there if OWS supported any form of violence.
You LOSE the 99% with violence! It is my opinion that the movement would lose over 80% of the national support that it possesses if the general populace understood what “diversity of tactics” means AND that OWS openly supports it.
Fine then, entertain these Black Bloc folks and alienate the majority of the 99%. This discussion of supporting violence is like debating the color of the curtains in a burning house. The incredible support that you see in mainstream America (I see in my small town) is waning with the violence shown in Oakland, the house is on fire.
Sorry, but I could give a fig about what motivates the black bloc kids, they’re stealing from the rest of us. Go organize your own events, you have no business taking away the message the 99% of the movement is trying to send to America. If I’m playing my banjo to an audience you don’t set up your amps right next to me and blast away. Thanks for a great article. But it was way too polite. Peace.
While I understand this websites premise. I do not agree that property destruction is violence. That elevates property up to personhood, just like the Corporations do. And what happened in Seattle and the follow up in DC the following year, as well as here and Rome is only violent if directed at people. Secondly, What about Police Violence? They are always the ones who initiate violence. The Police are a brutal occupying force. Ask anyone who has faced Polic Repression, including the Black Community in Oakland. Too often White Liberals/progressives define resistance according to White Priviledge without recognizing oppressed peoples right to define their own Resistance. The Police have a long history of Violence in Oakland. Lets not forget the many murders by the Police in Black and Latino Communities and the Police nearly killing to veterans at Occupy Oakland. Thanks, Rev. Bruce Wright
I greatly appreciate the thoughtfulness of this discussion. As I have watched energy shift in Seattle, I have been grappling with the fact that my desire to participate in a movement committed to non-violence seems to trump my desire to be compassionate and inclusive. This discussion has deepened my thinking, and for that I am grateful.
I would appreciate any links to resources / communities that are working toward keeping the movements in their Occupy “villages” non-violent. Here are some places where those “conversations” (on-line and in-person) are happening in Seattle.
Occupy Seattle Meditation
http://www.facebook.com/groups/215419145191153/
Occupy Seattle Chaplains
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Occupy-Chaplains-Seattle/297212383622559
Wow, very thoughtful postings here. Thank you. In place of a response, please just sit down and watch this superb news video from Al Jazeera on the behind-the-scenes organizing that went into Tahrir Square. It will at least make clear why so many of us have such a passion for staying on an upbeat, creative, nonviolent course and getting past the negative energy. Movements have narrow windows of opportunity, and I worry… Well watch…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CKFGC6v6Hc
And Nathan Schneider’s recent post:”Revolution in Three Easy Steps,” will give you the flavor of the “vibe” that many believe can build a successful movement.
http://dev2.wagingnonviolence.org/2011/11/revolution-in-three-easy-steps/
It sure is a beautiful thing that this passionate, critical, mostly empathetic and understanding conversation could happen between people with a variety of experiences and opinions. I think that is also a testament to this site, and the readers it garners. I’ve learned a lot by reading through all your comments.