List

I offer the following commentary in full solidarity and critical unity with Occupy Albany.

Early in the General Assembly meeting on Sunday, October 9, 2011, a woman took the floor and proposed that Occupy Albany take the position that “this is a non-violent movement.” I attempted to block this proposal. In arguing for the block, I mistakenly only addressed point #4 below, whereas the first two points are probably more important at this point and time.

There are five primary problems with this proposal: (more…)

12 Responses to “Occupy Albany’s First Critical Mistake: On the question of nonviolence”

  1. Chris A

    Interesting post, but there is evidence to disagree with your statement that nonviolence is inconsistent with the Occupy Wall Street Group. This is from Chris Hedges’ recent article:

    “But perhaps the most important rule adopted by the protesters is nonviolence and nonaggression against the police, no matter how brutal the police become.

    “The cops, I think, maced those women in the face and expected the men and women around them to start a riot,” Ketchup said. “They want a riot. They can deal with a riot. They cannot deal with nonviolent protesters with cameras.”

    http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/why_the_elites_are_in_trouble_20111009/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Truthdig%2FChrisHedges+Chris+Hedges+on+Truthdig

    It’s worthwhile to debate this point, but, books by fashionable radical academics aside, you have to ask yourself what is ultimately to be gained by considering mimicking a system based on violence. Countering violence with more violence, what do we get from that? A bloodbath, sorrow, shame, and the same brutal world system at the end of the day? No thanks.

    I suggest the Establishment loves posts like this because it provides a pretext for repressive and brutal methods to silence dissent. And it also provides fuel for their ‘realistic’ worldview, which is that there is no alternative to tyranny and violence, so they are justified in ruling with more of the same and competing as to who can dress it up in the best justifications.

    I sympathize with the desire to not see people beaten and arrested for empowering themselves with nonviolent protests, but I don’t believe that not ruling violence out will produce better outcomes. The Establishment has spent at least a decade preparing for just that kind of conflict with its own people in this milieu. It would be a foolish mistake to give it to them. The path to any kind of important action is to subvert their expectations and to ‘fight’ them on ground where they are woefully unprepared and completely ignorant of the terrain.

    I do no believe that is the ground of ‘violence’ as anyone would ordinarily use the term. They have prepared for that and want it because it speaks to their retrograde fusion of the medieval and social Darwinist mindset.

    What they do not understand is people refusing to cooperate or work within their established, approved outlets of dissent. That is what is starting to happen and it needs to continue, not get diverted into a physical struggle which is a losing proposition on all counts.

    Let me be clear, I am very sympathetic to your points, especially to the question of point #1. However, I simply think it is a losing proposition and will play into the hands of the powerful, and I do not want to see that happen. Even if it were to work, I would not want to be part of a new regime that established itself by violent resistance. Having established itself that way, it would inevitably take those lessons to heart and continue its violence by finding some new group(s) to oppress. I am thoroughly not interested in this tactic. Enough people are disenfranchised and becoming aware of it, and the total lack of representation within the current political system, that I think you simply cannot lose by continuing to perplex and frustrate the expectations of the establishment/elite, continue to raise consciousness, and resist in ways that do not give more power to your oppressors.

  2. Ben Brucato

    It’s interesting to me that any time the adoption of nonviolence as a principle (beyond an incidental tactic) is challenged, is it assumed that the challenger is advocating the adoption of a violent tactic or principle. I’ve done no such things, yet most of your comment is suggesting this. This phenomenon goes a long way toward establishing the incredibly dogmatic and authoritarian thinking nonviolence has inspired among progressives. Merely challenging the absolute legitimacy of the paradigm will lead to a host of assumed positions being packaged in with them. That this is so widespread, that the practice of painting critics with such a broad brush is accepted in progressive circles (saw it last night) is troubling.

    This tendency is precisely why a 5 minute tightly-controlled and abbreviated discussion is inappropriate – it should have been refused by everyone in the room, but it was not because of the pervasive influence of pacifist liberals, and of radicals who are too worried about how the media will portray them and cater far too explicitly to ‘civility.’ This is exactly how unpopular ideas get shut down when ideologies of a narrow set of politics are invoked: it violates the liberal sensibilities of people to even suggest that nonviolence as a universal and fundamental principle might be problematic.

    This is why it would be inappropriate for me to take the floor and force a vote for Occupy Albany to take the position that this is “an anti-capitalist movement,” or “a movement against the state,” or any other potentially divisive politic that isn’t established through prolonged discussion and consensus-building. This position and any like it need to be avoided as a matter of principle in this stage of the Occupy movement. We need to avoid any absolute positions that defy tactical, strategic, or political flexibility, to exclude and close out different partisan interests. I don’t know of any truly revolutionary movement that is absolutely nonviolent in principle. So this statement excludes all revolutionaries. Not a good move for this kind of a movement.

  3. Talking about Occupy Wall Street « Aid & Abet

    […] Brucato, “Occupy Albany’s First Critical Mistake: On The Question of Nonviolence”: On the question of, should we declare the movement nonviolent? “We must ask, by nonviolence, […]

  4. agnosticnixie

    Actually, the tl’dr in the first comment is wrong on the premise: the occupation in NYC is not “non-violent at all costs”, we have a direct action working group, initially the tactical working group, and its position was to adhere to a diversity of tactics.

    Also I globally agree with your piece and would gladly retweet it.

  5. Barry Clemson

    Ben, It seems to me that you are mixing up two different points:
    1. should nonviolence be a guiding principle for OWS?
    2. how should discussions / decision making be handled?
    It sounds to me (not having been there!) that the discussion / decision making is being handled poorly, but the only “data” I have is what you reported so I can’t be sure of that.

    With regards to nonviolence, I personally have difficulty seeing that opposition to nonviolence as a guiding principle can be anything other than advocating the possible use of violence.

    I spent a year in as part of the SNCC staff doing voter registration in 1964-65. For most of that year, I was in charge of the voter registration efforts in Biloxi. We were committed to nonviolence. For many of us, that commitment was tactical / strategic rather than spiritual / moral. And many of the local people we worked with were not at all committed to nonviolence. For instance, when we went to some of the rural areas around Biloxi, the local people would not go with us without their guns. We got them to draw us detailed maps and went without them.

    Our nonviolence was a CRITICAL strategic issue. Without it, I seriously doubt that we would have had the sympathy of the rest of the world and eventually the political muscle to pass the 1965 civil rights act. By the spring of 1965 we had destroyed “the Mississippi way of life” that routinely brutalized blacks who got out of line. And we did it because we had substantial numbers of people who were absolutely committed to putting their bodies on the line … nonviolently.

    And by the way, I don’t remember ever getting hung up on discussions of exactly what nonviolence was or was not. We faced specific tactical situations and made specific tactical decisions to try to move forward within those unique, very specific circumstances.

    In my opinion, it is seriously self-defeating for any progressive movement to even mention the possibility of any tactics outside of the general bounds of nonviolence (however we interpret that term). There are several reasons for this:
    1. the other side has most of the guns and has trained to use them. It is stupid to pit our weakness against their strength. We need to use tactics they do not understand and are not trained to counter.
    2. violent movements are vastly more expensive (in deaths and every other way) than are nonviolent movements.
    3. “successful” violent movements typically replace one tyrant with another AFTER brutalizing the entire society
    4. nonviolence often succeeds in subverting the army / police forces of the state, thus converting them into allies. Violence always ensures that the army & police will support the state.
    5. Talk of violence scares the not-yet-committed into supporting the status quo. Nonviolence often recruits the not-yet-committed.
    6. Even when nonviolent movements “fail” they end up empowering a great many people, people who discover they are powerful and can conquer their fears.
    The critics of nonviolence, e.g. Gilderloos and Churchill, it seems to me are really criticizing the luke-warm commitment of the left in the Western democracies.

  6. Chris A

    Agreed with Barry… your points at the end succinctly echo and extended my own concerns.

    I also agree with what Ben is saying about the procedural decision making point. It does sound dubious. However, your conflating that issue with writing a lot about why it should have been considered at more length, suggests a counter response to the points you made is not a non sequitur. I’m in no way saying we should have only 5 minutes discussion on the matter before calling for consensus. I’m simply exploring the issue since you seemed to think it warranted more consideration. Those are my considerations.

    agnosticnixie, not that you’d read this far in a comment: thanks for both insulting me with e “tl, dr” – and putting words in my mouth I didn’t say. I never claimed that everyone at OWS is agreed to be nonviolent at all costs. I merely quoted one person’s statement of their impression that people at OWS had agreed not to get into a violent confrontation with the police.

    If this is the attitude of people who favor “direct action” – saying other people’s comments are too much to wade through, dismissing relevant points they make by mischaracterizing what they said… you have merely reinforced my impression that folks who favor the use of violence to defeat a violent system are only more of the same tyrants (only of the frustrated, non ruling variety) as what they claim to oppose.

  7. occupt confusion

    Another reference, this from the Occupy Together field manual, seems to discredit the idea that OWS is not decided to be nonviolent… this from the direct action group pixie claims to be part of.
    http://occupytogether.wikispot.org/Direct_Action

    I support 100% your questioning of the decision making procedures and protocols of Occupy Albany and will fully support all efforts to enact a fair, inclusive, and intelligent process. I would rather see consensus gained than to see the movement fragmented. If it means things move slower, so be it. For now, we still have time. Better to be slow, unified, and strong than to be quick, divided, and dead.

  8. Jsens3

    Nonviolence as employed by Ghandi and King is effective because it turns public opinion by demonstrating gross injustice. It is necessary because those opposing the established powers do not have sufficient arms to violently enforce their will. If they had such power they would simply use it. If “Occupy” groups turn violent, start burning buildings, killing police, and terrorizing the populace with armed attacks, they will be met with overwhelming force, and lose public sympathy. Isn’t this obvious?

  9. Josh

    Sounds to me like people have read too much Simon Critchley

  10. Josh

    Ben,
    I take it you have read a bit of Badiou or at least know a bit about his work.
    You are like Badiou, you are aware that one should not renounce violence, but should reconceptualize it as defensive violence — a defense of the autonomous space of substraction.

    Albany has read to much Critchley! In Infinitely Demanding, page 125, Critchley: “Anarchic political resistance should not seek to mimic and mirror the archic violent sovereignty it opposes.” Perhaps people have adopted such a position – democracy is only possible at the ‘interstitial distance within the state?’

    Zizek is critical of this position: what Critchley offers, perhaps like those who have automatically opposed standing up for themselves?, is liberal-capitalist-democracy with a human face. These people are still within the Fukuyamaist universe.

    I’m sure people want to withdraw from the domain of a corrupt state to create a space of their own – this has been the goal for sometime is Leftist politics. Although, to me it seems they remain stuck in this ‘capitalism with a human face.’ They think that Gandihism, appealing to the dignity of human beings, is going to work against a corporate fascist government that doesn’t care about human dignity!

    By refusing the right to defend oneself they are refusing the reduction of the hegemonic field to its minimal difference – they want to have their cake and stay in multiplicity, without moving into the basic antagonism that draws the line of true separation. I can only assume that many of the councils have taken this position.

    They have not taken into account the (necessary) Badiouian subtraction – subtraction of the subject from the hegemonic field that simultaneously intervenes into this field and affects the field itself, and the necessity of defending oneself in subtraction.

    Albany and others have confused things – they fail to recognize that there is a MAJOR difference between proper democratic subtraction, which has its own destructive potential, and mere destructive terrorist negation.

  11. Ben Brucato

    I have no problem with a commitment to nonviolent tactics being a primary element of the occupation strategy. I think nonviolence as a strategic commitment at this point – and at any foreseeable point in this movement – makes good sense.

    I have never made an argument that “violence” (or property damage, or whatever) should be part of our strategy for this occupation. I can’t imagine a situation that would likely arrive early in the occupation when it would make any sense. I’m very ambivalent on the idea as a principle, and tend to rarely see a point in any violent tactics. I’m only suggesting we have a degree of organizational ambivalence at this point, while being very careful of the tactics we employ.

    Just as the politics of OWS is about openness, flexibility, process, practice, etc., so should be our tactics.

    This is not an armed struggle, and I can’t imagine it ever turning into something like that. I have no delusions of this being in any way consistent with that, nor would I entertain the idea of promoting this.

    I’m merely opposed to an absolute position that would lead to inflexibility in tactics. I’m also opposed to a position that would result in policing of the movement. Already, someone in Occupy Albany has said:

    “If I am at any OA event and some angry kids or grown ups start to destroy propert [sic] or hurt someone, If I think I can talk them out of it I will try. And if I cannot, I will leave and if they are hurting people, I will to stop them and if i cannot I will, yes point them out to the cops.”

    I’m far more concerned about other occupiers collaborating with the police to the point of working to help them identify and arrest people than I am of any problems that might arise from random, unplanned and isolated acts of violence. These kinds of positions welcome this kind of behavior, and it’s the main reason I’m opposed to them.

    Another has said:

    “By attacking you will just give them the press support they are looking for. Consider our own media coverage as our attack on brutality. Accept your beating for now and you will have the sympathy of the world.”

    As a victim of police brutality, I take great offense to someone demanding I “accept my beating.”

    In an attempt to be more proactive and affirmative, I suggested that if we absolutely MUST take a stand on this issue, we should have a properly worded statement. I would prefer we have no position, but if almost all think we should…. How about something like this:

    “Occupy Albany is a peaceful movement. Our actions will not directly initiate harm being inflicted upon any persons. We oppose the violence that sustains the current global economy and the policing of dissent through violence.”

    I’ll dissect this to explain the wording.

    1) “peaceful movement”: this is positively stated, rather than the negative “nonviolence.” “Peace” also has a different and unique history from “nonviolence.” It conveys a more global expectation (a peaceful community/world) rather than personal commitment (do not engage in violence/allow violence to be done to you).

    2) “our actions”: eludes to officially consensed actions done as a group. This does not address the issue of what community members who join us do as their own prerogative – and this is something we should permit them to decide for themselves. Our actions, however, will be peaceful.

    3) “not directly initiate harm”: we will not instigate violent confrontations. This is a way of not taking a position on self-defense that still permits individuals to defend themselves. This fulfills the softer requirement for nonviolence as a strategy and tactic, but not the absolute ideological version of nonviolence that demands all participants submit to violence being inflicted upon them without any response. It also allows the addressing of the issue that we live in a violent society, in which violence is routinely done upon us, and especially when we engage in dissent… see #5 and #6 below.

    4) “inflicted upon persons”: this clarifies that we will not initiate violence done to living human beings, and leaves unaddressed the question of “violence” to property. To me the idea of “violence” to property is an anti-humanist position rooted in the extreme ideologies of capitalism, in which property has the same value as life. But we don’t have to agree on my last statement – we just don’t take a position on it as a group.

    5) “We oppose the violence that sustains the current global economy”: I am absolutely opposed to a position of Occupy Albany on the issue of “nonviolence” without this recognition. We need to realize that we benefit from, are privileged by an economy that persists through massive amounts of violence. To say that we are “nonviolent” is false. Living in the United States, you would have to be homeless and engage in no economic activity at all to be “nonviolent.” Private property is sustained through the violence of the state. Resources and labor are taken through violent force, locally and globally. All our money, the gas in our cars, the products we buy are dripping with blood.

    6) “the policing of dissent through violence”: If we are to take a stand on the issue of “violence,” we almost must recognize that our occupation will be surrounded by people with guns. This will not be a nonviolent movement – it will be policed through the constant threat of violence. Sometimes that threat will transfer to action by police who initiate acts of violence upon occupiers. If we are to take a stand on the issue of nonviolence, we need to also preemptively condemn police brutality. We may even want to modify this to simply say: “We oppose … police brutality.”

  12. Ben Brucato

    Thanks all for your comments.

    Josh: I have not read Badiou on this issue. What should I read?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *