Non-violence needs to happen NOW

Categories: Announcements, Discussion, Open Mic, Reflections

Open Letter to the Occupy Movement: Why We Need Agreements

This entry was posted by  on Tuesday, 8 November, 2011 at

From the Alliance of Community Trainers, ACT

The Occupy movement has had enormous successes in the short time since September when activists took over a square near Wall Street. It has attracted hundreds of thousands of active participants, spawned occupations in cities and towns all over North America, changed the national dialogue and garnered enormous public support. It’s even, on occasion, gotten good press!

Now we are wrestling with the question that arises again and again in movements for social justice—how to struggle. Do we embrace nonviolence, or a ‘diversity of tactics?’ If we are a nonviolent movement, how do we define nonviolence? Is breaking a window violent?

We write as a trainers’ collective with decades of experience, from the anti-Vietnam protests of the sixties through the strictly nonviolent antinuclear blockades of the seventies, in feminist, environmental and anti-intervention movements and the global justice mobilizations of the late ‘90s and early ‘00s. We embrace many labels, including feminist, anti-racist, eco-feminist and anarchist. We have many times stood shoulder to shoulder with black blocs in the face of the riot cops, and we’ve been tear-gassed, stun-gunned, pepper sprayed, clubbed, and arrested,

While we’ve participated in many actions organized with a diversity of tactics, we do not believe that framework is workable for the Occupy Movement. Setting aside questions of morality or definitions of ‘violence’ and ‘nonviolence’ – for no two people define ‘violence’ in the same way – we ask the question:

What framework can we organize in that will build on our strengths, allow us to grow, embrace a wide diversity of participants, and make a powerful impact on the world?

‘Diversity of tactics’ becomes an easy way to avoid wrestling with questions of strategy and accountability. It lets us off the hook from doing the hard work of debating our positions and coming to agreements about how we want to act together. It becomes a code for ‘anything goes,’ and makes it impossible for our movements to hold anyone accountable for their actions.

The Occupy movement includes people from a broad diversity of backgrounds, life experiences and political philosophies. Some of us want to reform the system and some of us want to tear it down and replace it with something better. Our one great point of agreement is our call for transparency and accountability. We stand against the corrupt institutions that broker power behind closed doors. We call to account the financial manipulators that have bilked billions out of the poor and the middle classes.

Just as we call for accountability and transparency, we ourselves must be accountable and transparent. Some tactics are incompatible with those goals, even if in other situations they might be useful, honorable or appropriate. We can’t be transparent behind masks. We can’t be accountable for actions we run away from. We can’t maintain the security culture necessary for planning and carrying out attacks on property and also maintain the openness that can continue to invite in a true diversity of new people. We can’t make alliances with groups from impacted communities, such as immigrants, if we can’t make agreements about what tactics we will employ in any given action.

The framework that might best serve the Occupy movement is one of strategic nonviolent direct action. Within that framework, Occupy groups would make clear agreements about which tactics to use for a given action. This frame is strategic—it makes no moral judgments about whether or not violence is ever appropriate, it does not demand we commit ourselves to a lifetime of Gandhian pacifism, but it says, ‘This is how we agree to act together at this time.’ It is active, not passive. It seeks to create a dilemma for the opposition, and to dramatize the difference between our values and theirs.

Strategic nonviolent direct action has powerful advantages:

We make agreements about what types of action we will take, and hold one another accountable for keeping them. Making agreements is empowering. If I know what to expect in an action, I can make a choice about whether or not to participate. While we can never know nor control how the police will react, we can make choices about what types of action we stand behind personally and are willing to answer for. We don’t place unwilling people in the position of being held responsible for acts they did not commit and do not support.

In the process of coming to agreements, we listen to each other’s differing viewpoints. We don’t avoid disagreements within our group, but learn to debate freely, passionately, and respectfully.

We organize openly, without fear, because we stand behind our actions. We may break laws in service to the higher laws of conscience. We don’t seek punishment nor admit the right of the system to punish us, but we face the potential consequences for our actions with courage and pride.

Because we organize openly, we can invite new people into our movement and it can continue to grow. As soon as we institute a security culture in the midst of a mass movement, the movement begins to close in upon itself and to shrink.

Holding to a framework of nonviolent direct action does not make us ‘safe.’ We can’t control what the police do and they need no direct provocation to attack us. But it does let us make clear decisions about what kinds of actions we put ourselves at risk for.

Nonviolent direct action creates dilemmas for the opposition, and clearly dramatizes the difference between the corrupt values of the system and the values we stand for. Their institutions enshrine greed while we give away food, offer shelter, treat each person with generosity. They silence dissent while we value every voice. They employ violence to maintain their system while we counter it with the sheer courage of our presence.

Lack of agreements privileges the young over the old, the loud voices over the soft, the fast over the slow, the able-bodied over those with disabilities, the citizen over the immigrant, white folks over people of color, those who can do damage and flee the scene over those who are left to face the consequences.

Lack of agreements and lack of accountability leaves us wide open to provocateurs and agents. Not everyone who wears a mask or breaks a window is a provocateur. Many people clearly believe that property damage is a strong way to challenge the system. And masks have an honorable history from the anti-fascist movement in Germany and the Zapatista movement in Mexico, who said “We wear our masks to be seen.”

But a mask and a lack of clear expectations create a perfect opening for those who do not have the best interests of the movement at heart, for agents and provocateurs who can never be held to account. As well, the fear of provocateurs itself sows suspicion and undercuts our ability to openly organize and grow.

A framework of strategic nonviolent direct action makes it easy to reject provocation. We know what we’ve agreed to—and anyone urging other courses of action can be reminded of those agreements or rejected.

We hold one another accountable not by force or control, ours or the systems, but by the power of our united opinion and our willingness to stand behind, speak for, and act to defend our agreements.

A framework of strategic nonviolent direct action agreements allows us to continue to invite in new people, and to let them make clear choices about what kinds of tactics and actions they are asked to support.

There’s plenty of room in this struggle for a diversity of movements and a diversity of organizing and actions. Some may choose strict Gandhian nonviolence, others may choose fight-back resistance. But for the Occupy movement, strategic nonviolent direct action is a framework that will allow us to grow in diversity and power.

From the Alliance of Community Trainers, ACT

Starhawk
Lisa Fithian
Lauren Ross (or Juniper)

 

5153

94 Responses to “Non-violence needs to happen NOW”

  1. GreenEngineer

    I would challenge anyone advocating violence to please describe what they hope to accomplish thereby.
    Do they really think they can start a Libyan-style (or even Egyptian) revolution here?
    Do they think that violent action will cause people to flock to their cause? Or do they think that support of the general public is irrelevant?
    Do they actually want to start a shooting war (I mean with REAL bullets)? If so, do they think they can win?

    As far as I can tell, most of the people cheering for violent action haven’t really thought through the implications and consequences of what they are advocating. Or they have a very distorted view of the values, priorities, and fears of the mainstream American public, and a very limited understanding of history.

    You said there are members of the GA who do not believe in private property; therefore vandalism and destructive behavior are not concerns of theirs.: My response is to this is the same as my response to the larger issue of violence: the issue at hand is not a moral one, but a practical one. They can refuse to “believe in” private property philosophically – that’s fine. But refusing to believe in private property – pretending there is no such thing, or that it is irrelevant – in the current cultural context is like refusing to believe in gravity.
    Private property is a reality that exists in our culture. Those who oppose it don’t have remotely enough public support to change this fact through violent action. So they might as well grit their teeth and figure out how to work with that reality, to try to change it, rather than to blindly try to destroy it (because that will fail).

  2. keithnakatani

    I tried to respond to your 2nd response, but it doesn’t seem to have gone thru and is lost. Rather than trying to repeat it: agree, keep working on the proposal, operating principle keep it short and tight. Thanks

  3. GreenEngineer

    Last thought for now:

    It might be helpful to add a statement to the effect that those who wish to engage in destructive forms of protest show respect for the movement’s goals and desires by making an active effort to distance themselves from Occupy Oakland and the Occupy movement. At the very least, this means that they do their thing far away from camp, and away from any OO-endorsed actions.

    I’m of two minds about including this. It further reflects the fact that the purpose of this proposal is specifically to protect the strategic value of the public perception of OO and Occupy in general. Some of the pro-violence faction might be more willing to support this measure if they did not feel that their choice of tactics was being rejected on moral grounds. The difference between being told “that’s bad – period” and “please show respect and, if you’re going to do that, don’t drag us into it”.
    On the other hand, I don’t want a proposal that risks mixing up our message. And I don’t want to alienate the philosophical pacifists either. I may not agree with them altogether, but they are our allies in this matter.

  4. GreenEngineer

    Meant to say, I agree that it makes sense see how this weekend develops and wait on actually putting the proposal out there. But lets keep working on the proposal so it’s ready to go if we survive the weekend.

    I think it would make sense for you to revise the wording based on input you’re getting here, and then let’s take another pass at editing. IMO, this is the sort of thing where it is actually worth sweating out individual words, so that the proposal is as short and tight as it can possibly be. To paraphrase Twain, let’s take the time to write less. I’m more than happy to help with that process, and I’m pretty good at it, so let me know when you think it’s ready for that treatment.

  5. keithnakatani

    Tlahtolli,
    Thanks for the suggestions. Regarding “evidence to suport,” can add: “Three weeks ago, polls indicated more than two to one support; a more recent poll indicates more are opposed than support.” There were and are various polls indicating this, don’t think it needs to be more specific than that.

    Regarding provocateurs: clearly there are those that support destructive actions, that’s what this issue is. Although many folks know provocateurs are being used, I think it’s helpful to remind them, so suggest leaving it in. One of the saddest ironies is true believers of breaking things seem obliviously aligned with provocateurs whose masters know this is the best way to undermine the moverment. AAAARRGGGHHHHH!!!

    About your 3rd suggestion: how about only including this: “The purpose of addressing destructive behavior is to try and minimize it (because it can’t be completely stopped) so that it doesn’t result in OO being undermined…” The intent is to be explicit that we’re not deluded to think that an OO position resolves the issue, but that it’s strategically a necessary position. I don’t believe that weakens the proposal.

    About next steps, it seems appropriate to see what happens with tomorrow’s building takeover (I expect it to happen and to be ugly) and with Quan moving to evict the camp again. Depending on circumstances and forming a group (3 is the minimum) to revise this proposal, perhaps it would make sense to introduce it next week or soon after. Let’s see what happens. Thanks.
    Keith

  6. GreenEngineer

    Like I said below, I’d lead with the proposal points, and then follow with the preamble.

    I’m not sure that we want to include points 3 and 4. They are good ideas, but this is issue is such a big deal that just points 1 and 2 might be enough. We don’t want to weigh down the proposal with too much baggage. We could make a whole separate proposal out of 3, and 4. (which I would also support).

    I would strike the first sentence of the last paragraph of the preamble. It’s true enough, but better not to muddy the waters. I like the clear statement of purpose, though, and I might move that up in the statement closer to the start of the preamble.

    In the preamable (which becomes the postamble if you agree with my suggestions above and below), I would add a statement to the effect that embracing non-violence is the only way to truly embrace and allow for a diversity of tactics and participants. Violence and vandalism shut down the possibility of diverse tactics. I think this is an important counter to the (completely bass-ackwards) idea that respecting diversity means we must allow violent protest.

  7. GreenEngineer

    I agree with all of Tiahotolli’s comments, except maybe the second one. I agree that (some) people feel strongly about the “right” to be destructive, but I don’t think we do any favors by dodging that issue. That is exactly the core issue. Might as well meet it head on. Just because there are “real” protesters using violence does not detract from the possibility that there are also provocateurs.

    That said, I wouldn’t fight for this point either way.

    I do strongly endorse the idea that the proposal should start with a clear statement, and then move onto justifications/supporting ideas.

  8. Tlahtolli

    This is why it makes STRATEGIC sense:

    Something to think about as we enter the police violence stage of the movement.

    “Back in the day, civil rights workers were divided into two different camps on the question of non-violence — “philosophical” and “tactical.” For those who were philosphically non-violent, non-violence was their way of life in all aspects at all times in all ways personal and public. Dr. King and John Lewis are two of the best known examplars of philosphical non-violence.

    But the majority of civil rights workers were tactically non-violent. For us, non-violence was a strategy and tactic that we used becuase we wanted to win. Non-violent direct action demonstrations were the most effective tools we had. But outside of demonstrations, in our personal lives, in our travels, we would use either non-violence or self-defense as we thought appropriate to the circumstances.

    Our enemies wanted us to use violence, they did all they could to provoke us to violence because they were organized, equipped, and experienced in suppressing violence and they wanted to shift the public debate from their racism and segregation to our violence. The lessons were very clear to both sides — when we used non-violent tactics we won, when we allowed them to provoke us into violence they won. Non-violence was our weapon, not our creed, and in the long run it proved a far more powerful weapon than their guns and dogs and clubs.

    I remember during the Selma campaign we were face to face against the armed troopers and possemen hour after hour, day after day. We used to sing “We love every body, we love state troopers, we love George Wallace” at them. But of course, most of us really did not love them. Militant activists came down from the North to support the Selma Movement vowing “I ain’t going to sing no We Shall Overcome. I don’t love no crackers!” But within an hour you could find those same militants in the front line singing “I love Sheriff Clark, I love city cops,” right to their face because they could see how it drove the enemy crazy, how they gripped their clubs and whips and guns and tried everything they could to provoke us.”

    -Bruce Hartford, activist and veteran of the Civil Rights Movement

  9. keithnakatani

    GreenEngineer,
    Thanks for the reply. Please post your suggestions for interested folks to respond to. About next steps, it seems appropriate to see what happens with tomorrow’s building takeover (I expect it to happen and to be ugly) and with Quan moving to evict the camp again. Depending on circumstances and forming a group (3 is the minimum) to revise this proposal, perhaps it would make sense to introduce it next week or soon after. Let’s see what happens. Thanks
    Keith

  10. David Heatherly

    I have not seen any resolution from Oakland’s GA stating that violence is unacceptable. Love to see that. I realize that vandalism is a different issue. I oppose it on tactical grounds, moreso than moral grounds. It needs to be more carefully directed and more creative than it was. I do not trust the ability of our movement to do that at this point.

  11. ukemike

    Finally someone talking sense. I am the natural constituency of this movement. I have participated in movements before. I have spent time in jail after being arrested at protests. I have helped build community organizations based on consensus. I am a professional with a family and a job. I am disgusted with the way our society is rigged against me and all of the rest of us. I want so much for this movement to succeed.

    BUT I WILL NOT BE INVOLVED UNLESS THERE IS A FORCEFUL CONDEMNATION OF VIOLENCE AND DESTRUCTION. I WILL OPPOSE THIS MOVEMENT IF VIOLENCE AND DESTRUCTION ARE TOLERATED.

    When I see statements about “diversity of tactics” I am filled with disgust. I know what it means. It means that the Occupy movement has no moral backbone. It means that the Occupy movement is willing to accept, in it’s own ranks the tactics of the police state. It means that any future built by this movement will be a future where strength, intimidation, and the willingness to be violent are the paths to power. Don’t we live in that world already? Isn’t that exactly what we want to replace?

    In my mind, and in the minds of clear thinking people, property destruction is violence. Imagine you are having an argument with your spouse and he/she starts smashing dishes and kicking over furniture. That is violent behavior, it is abusive, and it is terrifying.
    Now put yourselves in the shoes of a bank teller at one of the bank branches that were vandalized on Nov2. You make about 40% more than minimum wage, hate your job but don’t dare quit because you have rent and bills, and child support to pay. One day an angry mob surrounds your building and hangs a banner. It’s a bit exciting and a bit intimidating. You want to root for the protesters but you don’t want to piss off the boss. The mob leaves and a little later a smaller mob of men in black semi-military clothing and masks show up and start spray painting. Then suddenly rocks are shattering the huge glass walls. You are terrified. Are they coming in? Where are the police?

    The thugs in masks have made enemies of everyone inside the bank and everyone who sees the results of the temper tantrum in the next day’s news. And was one single 1%er frightened? No, just a bunch of low paid bank drones, who might have been allies.

    I was there. I saw beautiful, peaceful, and powerful people. We were betrayed by kids throwing a temper tantrum. These black-block types are not allies. They provide the excuse to crack down. They provide perfect raw material for the propaganda machine to vilify the movement. They alienate the very people the movement purports to represent. They alienate me.

    The Occupy movement is supposed to be about the 99%. But if you don’t condemn violence and destruction then you will never gain more support than you already have. You’ve already begun to loose support. You’ve lost mine.

    November 2 could have been a glorious demonstration of how a broad cross-section of society can come together and peacefully make a difference. Instead a tiny number of thugs ruined that. They managed to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. They gave the moral high ground to the Oakland Police Department. I hoped that the Occupy movement would condemn the violence and destruction, but instead all we got was a simpering justification of brownshirt filth.

  12. David Heatherly

    Thanks. The GA was just a useful tool that was developed by people @ Occupy Wall Street. It is very useful in some situations, just like the human microphone is helpful, but it is just a tool and not the purpose of OWS imho. The purpose is to hold the 1% accountable for crimes and to establish economic justice again (or arguably for the first time ever) in America. Direct democracy is a very ineffective way to govern a large body of people. If you study the Federalist and the anti-Federalism papers you will see how the debate over how much populism is beneficial and how much is destructive goes back to the birth of this Republic. And it is the reason we are a Republic and not a Democracy.

  13. drwxrxrx

    Anyone up for some devil’s advocate?

    “At this point in time, to employ Black Bloc does not make strategic sense within the context of the larger Occupy movement.”
    Who or what decides what makes sense? There are many different visions for long term goals of “the larger Occupy movement”.

    “Making sure the movement succeeds as a whole is more important than forcing an ideology down the throats of a body politic that will not vote to support the measure.”
    What does success mean for you?

    “Please note: to get this passed at GA, we would need 1000+ attendees all prepared to vote for this (or similar) agreement, because apparently there is a core of 100-150 GA participants who will vote against it, and any GA statement requires 90% approval. If you do the math, this is what it would take. ”
    You are outlining a gross abuse of the democratic process.

    “this “vote for violence” by the General Assembly”
    What vote for violence?

    “it seems that there are people aligned with OO who feel very strongly about their right to use destructive behavior. Provocateurs may have started it, but people are going along with it. I would strike this.”
    Just pointing out: there are members of the GA who do not believe in private property; therefore vandalism and destructive behavior are not concerns of theirs.

    “No violence period shall be tolerated by anyone. It damages the movement.”
    What is your definition of violence? How do you define “damaging” the movement? There are people who believe that the destruction of property actively supports the goals of “the movement”.

  14. David Heatherly

    What “vote for violence” are you talking about? I have been to all GAs this week and no such thing took place. If it had, I would be right with you. Although basically I do agree that in its present form, Occupy Oakland is hurting both Oakland and OWS.

  15. drwxrxrx

    I believe the point that’s hiding in that sentence is that the GA previously voted to support autonomous actions; thus there isn’t anything the GA can really do to prevent people from acting autonomously. Mizpat apparently conflated that with the rejection of proposal 4, which did not pass. Note though that the proposal was not about the occurence of the building occupation, it was to endorse a statement in support of that occupation (which is presumed to happen whether the GA likes it or not).

  16. Tom Joad

    Well, personally, I think the solution to the bad press is by going out on more actions in a non-violent way and demonstrating to the public as much as possible that we can lead by example. Unfortunately, way too much GA time has been wasted on this issue lately when it could have been spent discussing and ratifying more actions. My thesis is essentially the sooner you give the media something different to say about you, the sooner people will forget all this negative press.

    To sum up, we should be out in the streets more and farting around debating policy less… Hell, up until the tragic shooting last night, the only reports I’d seen in the local media about OO were about its internal divisions. We need to focus on the propaganda of the deed in a peaceful manner, let the chips fall where they may in terms of police response, and let that be the narrative. Besides, as disappointing as it may be to some people responding to this board, Oakland isn’t the center of the universe. Last I checked, there were 2000 cities or so participating… So the movement ain’t gonna live or die on whether or not this or that proposal gets passed.

  17. think!

    I agree that starting with a statement may be best. A statement of nonviolence goes a long way to protect our credibility.

  18. Tlahtolli

    Keith, I support this, but I have a few suggestions that would make the proposal stronger:

    “This is already happening: public support for Occupy is decreasing. Therefore, destructive behavior is single biggest threat to the movement and should be addressed.”
    – Do you have evidence to support this? It’s not that I don’t believe you, but a few numbers (and sources from where you got those numbers) would definitely help your argument.

    “The forces opposed to Occupy are well-aware that inciting destructive behavior is the best way to divide the movement, turn the general public against it, and undermine it. That’s why they’ve inserted provocateurs.”
    – This was my assumption when I proposed on Wednesday, but it seems that there are people aligned with OO who feel very strongly about their right to use destructive behavior. Provocateurs may have started it, but people are going along with it. I would strike this.

    “Even if Occupy Oakland takes a position against destructive behavior and encourages ongoing dialogue between supporters and opponents of such behavior, and even if opponents of such behavior intervene non-violently at actions, destructive behavior will still happen. The purpose of addressing this issue is to try and minimize it so that it doesn’t result in OO being undermined and doesn’t undermine the greater Occupy movement.”
    – I made more or less the same argument on Wed. It weakens the argument.

    As far as the proposal goes, I would just stick to the one point of taking a position opposing destructive behavior. It’s much stronger that way and less prone to attack. What we want is a statement. Once that is in place, then we can propose the rest.

  19. think!

    I respect your pov, Tony. However, media analysts and social psychologists (myself included) would disagree based on decades of statistics and in-depth study of historical events.

    Public support grows in response to police attacking unarmed protesters. The public actually is not responding well to the vandalism and throwing things.

    Numbers grew after the brutal and vicious police attacks because they empathized with protesters who were being unfairly treated, not because they were inspired by protesters being violent themselves.

    All media attention is not equal. We do not want the negative media attention, as this has a directly negative impact on our numbers nationwide. We need to keep the movement as a whole in mind, not just our community. We want people in middle America to join us, too! We actually need them. And trust me, the vast majority of this country is not ready for violent revolution at this point in time.

    Again, I still respect your pov and hope those of us within the movement who disagree can be respectful of eachother. We are on the same side. And whatever our differences, we need to come together or we will never prevail over our true adversaries.

  20. Tony

    So far in the scope of the Occupy Movement, the protests that have been the most radical or resistant to police are the ones getting media attention and more support in numbers. Occupy Seattle got more numbers after more people saw that they were not backing down in face of riot police. Protesters threw objects back at police the night Scott Olsen was severely injured. The next week saw OO numbers grow exponentially despite clashing with police a few nights before.

  21. think!

    This is not Syria. This is not Egypt. America is a completely different culture and country with different needs. The American public, at this point in time, will be less likely to join violent protesters than peaceful ones.

    I have studied it. For years.

  22. Tony

    Syrian protesters that have for the most part remained non-violent while their government massacres them don’t seem to get public or media support. However when Libyan protesters dropped non-violence and took more threatening measures, global support erupted. Support from people and government in the form of demonstrations or weapons. I would suggest studying history a bit more. Even Pearl Harbor was condemned as a violent act, but a large amount of the American public also wanted to commit greater violence in retaliation.

  23. GreenEngineer

    I’ve got some suggestions/ideas but basically I totally endorse this. How can I help?

  24. think!

    Are you really saying that good will was lost by seeing ONE individual being a hypocrite? So now everyone who advocates a nonviolent policy is suspect because ONE person among thousands was caught on tape doing something stupid? Talk about myopic and narrow-minded.

    1. No one said anything about “forcing” a vote. Those advocating nonviolence are going through official OO policy and process, just as you are advocating. There is nothing we are doing in opposition to the OO policy and process. The very process precludes anything ever being “forced.” It is not partisan politics, it is the OO process of consensus. Put a proposal before the GA, and vote. Nothing devious, nothing underhanded.

    2. No one said anything about “winning” a single vote. Who are you answering when you say this?

    3. No one said we are “assuming” we are “right” or that we will “obviously win.” Where did that come from? What are you referring to?

    4. Everyone in the 99% has equal rights in this movement, regardless of how much time they have spent at GA’s. One person, one vote. People participate in the ways they can. It may not be the same as you, and they may not fit into your definition of a “staunch supporter from day one,” but if you are truly honoring the OO process of consensus, you can’t say your vote or anyone else’s is worth more than, say, a disabled elderly person who has never been able to attend a GA.

  25. RevolutionaryIsMyMiddleName

    You are misreading my tone entirely. I hope you will look at the following words as coming from a place of sincere communication.

    What I said was that there is a goodwill campaign that must be won before any resolution of this kind has the hopes of being passed. While it may have been caused by a single person, that person was caught on camera (much like the way property destruction was focused on by MSM). Further, even if you can muster the necessary bodies to vote for it such a resolution would only create division if, FIRST, you do not win over the goodwill lost by those claiming “non-violence” who then employ violent tactics.

    Also, it is questionable to come from a place of assuming you are not only right but in such a majority that you will obviously “win” (if only everyone who agrees with you would show up). But this is a participatory process. If you don’t participate you are by definition not part of it. While you may not agree with a minority opinion many people holding that minority opinion have been staunch supporters (in time and materials) of the occupation from day one. I would love to see this be embraced as a non-violent movement. However my personal opinion is, by necessity, subordinated to the will of the group. That is the nature of this process. Trying to “win” your position is not respecting the process. That is classical partisan politics. That is the very system many of us are trying to envision a way out of because it is inherently divisive.

    The question of can you win a single vote or not is taking a severely myopic view at a process that is truly radical and revolutionary if you allow it to be what it is. Rather than try to win I will, once again, encourage you first to engage in dialogue. Be patient. It may take a few days, or weeks, or months. Gandhi may have been a misogynistic prick, but he did have patience. Forcing a vote will earn you and your cause no good will.

  26. think!

    Revolutionary, you don’t sound respectful of those who advocate a policy of nonviolence.

    To use one example of one hypocritical protestor as a representative of tens of thousands of nonviolent protesters is insulting. Why do you think that just because we are advocating peaceful nonviolent action we are not on the same side as you? I thought you believed in honoring and respecting all human beings? How about respect those with different opinions than you?

  27. bayareajoe

    No one supports violence against people to stop violence against property. Your point is not valid. Please quit trolling.

  28. bayareajoe

    I am for this. Please post the date when you will bring this up at the GA. I will try to rally all my friends and family who aren’t regularly able to attend every GA due to commitments with work and family.

  29. RevolutionaryIsMyMiddleName

    “Tom, I didn’t see the protester throw the chair, so I didn’t realize (s)he was claiming to be nonviolent.
    A protester throwing a chair at someone is a violent protester.”

    This is the goodwill campaign that needs to be won. Even after tonight’s unfortunate events. One thing that is certain is that OO will not tolerate hypocrisy. So before you go “rallying the troops” to “win” a vote, you need to prove, in action, that you are serious and committed to more than mere protection of private property.

    I would suggest a series of teach-in on what non-violence truly means. Attacks on another human being are always more important to protect against than destruction of property. Before you can ever hope to win a vote you must win the hearts of those voting. Otherwise you are just engaged in a fight where the iron fist in masked in velvet gloves.

  30. Simcha

    This is unnecessarily complicated.

    No violence period shall be tolerated by anyone. It damages the movement.

    It’s short, sweet, and to the point. The “resolution” above is a pseudo-inellectual treatise rationalizing the option to commit violence.

  31. jimmyrunsdeep

    It’s not just the media but more that we lost a ton of support in the community and we’d like to make sure we don’t lose any more.

  32. think!

    We need more people to join this movement. We don’t have nearly a big enough army to fight the corrupt powers that be.

    Strategywise, we need to inspire more people to join us.

    Fact: The majority of Americans get news from mainstream television.

    Fact: We need a lot of those people to join us… eventhough they may be very different from us in some ways, we need them nonetheless. They are still the 99%

    Fact: The majority of those 99%ers who haven’t joined us yet are going to see media images that the corrupt mainstream media chooses to show them. They will not see a successful movement, they will see people in masks destroying their own city.

    Fact: Most people will not join a movement if they think that’s what it’s about.

    Result: WE LOOSE.

    This is not about ideology, opinions, or beliefs. It is about the 99% winning, and the defeat, once and for all, of corruption of this country.

  33. think!

    Tom, I didn’t see the protester throw the chair, so I didn’t realize (s)he was claiming to be nonviolent.

    A protester throwing a chair at someone is a violent protester.

    A protester throwing a chair at someone and claiming to be nonviolent is, indeed, a hypocrite… and “peace police” is a perfect nickname.

  34. Tom Joad

    Am I the only one who thinks that the people trying to push this agenda are allowing themselves to be manipulated by the media too much? Think about it. 100 or so people do some things that overshadow the PEACEFUL actions of 100,000 people in the eyes of the media… And now you’re taking up all this time with debate that could be spent on what actions to take next?

  35. Tom Joad

    It’s not about what I or you or RIMM would consider a non-violent protestor, it’s what those protestors claimed themselves. They claimed they were doing what they were doing in order to keep the protest non-violent. There’s a reason we gave those hypocrites the nickname the “peace police” after all.

  36. Tom Joad

    David – I think that’s a dangerous conflation you’re talking about and a completely absurd comparison… But I know from previous conversations with you that getting rationality from you is like getting blood from a turnip so I’ll just leave off here.

  37. Tom Joad

    think! – I agree completely, but how do you plan to do that? I’m not trying to be a jerk, I’m just wondering how we’re supposed to do this sort of thing ‘on the fly’ and in the middle of a march where the cops are shooting shit at us, lol.

  38. jimmyrunsdeep

    Smash up Oakollective you hurt the owner, you hurt the artists it supports and you do a great deal of damage to the movement a lot of people care about. All this hurt is against the victim’s will. THAT IS VIOLENCE.

  39. jimmyrunsdeep

    That proposal last night was not a non-violence proposal. It was an attempt to appease both sides that didn’t satisfy either. Peaceful people were upset that it seemed to say vandalism might be useful in the future and only avoid local businesses and respect diversity of tactics. Were you not listening to most of the questions or something? The majority were from peaceful people that didn’t think it went far enough.

  40. think!

    Revolutionary– I am not opposed, in principal, to violent revolution either.

    But I agree with Green Engineer… that is not the proper tactic for this moment in time. It will fail, because WE DONT HAVE ENOUGH PUBLIC SUPPORT… yet.

    We are talking strategy here:

    Step 1: Mobilize the 99%. We are very far from doing even this very first step. What is the best way to enlist them? To inspire them to join?

    This is what we need to focus on now. Building mass approval.

    We will never get the numbers we need to join us with media images of masked, violent protesters. NEVER.

  41. think!

    Revolutionary, you are misunderstanding us. We are not trying to force any particular ideology upon you or anyone else. We are trying to agree upon a strategy that will ensure the success of the 99%. Most of us believe that we are much more likely to succeed by making a statement of nonviolence. Everyone will continue to believe whatever they want, but a free-for-all of tactics is less likely to be effective against the real enemy.

    The majority of other Occupy camps have already done so, and it has been effective.

    Finally, it would not be forcing anything to approve a nonviolence statement at the GA. Everyone has a vote, and majority rules.

  42. GreenEngineer

    Please understand, ideology has nothing to do with this. I am not a pacifist. I may stand with them on this issue, but not for their reasons. I am not in principle opposed to violent revolution. Certainly much violence has been done against us. Morally, we would be in our rights to meet violence with violence.

    BUT
    IT
    WILL
    NOT
    WORK!

    To overthrow a government by violence requires a VERY high level of public support. We do not have that currently. We’re not even close. Most of America is busy trying to hang onto whatever remains of their middle class lifestyle, and sees violence as yet a further threat. They’re scared of losing whatever they have left. Maybe in another 10 or 20 years, when most of those folks are living on the street as well and have nothing left to lose, you’ll have the army you would need for a violent revolution to happen. But that’s not now. Nor is it any time soon. And if we do manage to win the support of the 99% we claim to represent, maybe it doesn’t have to come to that, because we could in fact reform the system peacefully if we had enough public support and engagement. But regardless, if we jump the gun and go there now, all we do is marginalize ourselves.

  43. think!

    The divisions already exist. And from what I can see, the majority of the “heavy lifters,” as you call them, are aligned with the overall Occupy movement’s message of nonviolence.

    Nonetheless, this is about the 99%, not only about the “heavy lifters.” Every member of the 99% has an equal vote. There are many who are unable to attend every GA for various reasons, perhaps working hard to put food on the table for their kids, or the elderly or disabled who physically don’t have the physical strength to do what you do. Sorry, but every vote is equal, heavy lifter or not.

    THIS IS DEMOCRACY.

  44. dpagano

    I left this reply to another message, but perhaps it would be better left here.

    The 90% threshold has quite a dark side. It is a barrier that those who *came first* can erect to demand that those who come later cannot make change to the desires of those who came first. There is no requirement at all for those who came first to merge and amalgamate with wave after wave of arriving participants. There is no system that holds them accountible, They get to justify the early decision as *direct democracy* As if overcoming a barrier 9 times the MAGNITUDE of those who came first is somehow comparable. With a very small group (10% +1 of those assembled) those who arrived first can maintain their control of the entire body and tell all others to take it or leave it. Their 10%+1 is counted as MORE controlling than everyone else’s combined 90%-1 share of community.
    (and in the process claim MINORITY STATUS, besieged minority as well) Controlling the system of governance means controlling the majority of participants civic/community input. Small dedicated groups intent on their focused agenda can always be overwhelming to much larger groups who have a broad and diverse agenda.
    Sound familiar.

  45. Urs

    Long discussion! Perhaps some pragmatism: watch the corporate media and figure out what makes OO relevant and successful. Violence is not one of them. Also violence in any form is the preferred method of the 1% – they will be winning any violent contest in any form, especially in convincing normal Americans as to who is the enemy – it will be OO. Provoking police to do their job (protect private property) will not bring them to our side. There is a choice: violent confrontation or non-violent persuasion?

  46. think!

    Who says there isn’t outrage about the police brutality? It is horrible and inexcusable! No one is ignoring the injustice. That’s why we are all here, on the same side, fighting the same enemy, remember? We have different beliefs about how to fight that same enemy, but your accusing those advocating nonviolence as being insensitive to injustice and part of the problem is counterproductive.

    The purpose of this conversation is how to make this movement a success so we can fight the REAL enemy, not eachother.

    The real enemy is corrupt corporations, politicians, and a broken government. Those with all the power. We need to work together and use POWER IN NUMBERS to fight the 1% who have all the financial power. The only way to do that is to work together.

    A small percentage of protesters breaking windows and throwing shit isn’t going to disarm the police. It’s going to take much, much more than violent acting out. It’s going to take strategy and smarts.

    Public support has diminished since the General Strike, not increased. Why? Because the public doesn’t like to see masked people destroying their own city. WE NEED PUBLIC SUPPORT TO BE SUCCESSFUL AGAINST THE REAL ENEMY. We need eachother.

    Those promoting nonviolence are not your enemy, Revolutionary.

  47. GreenEngineer

    Nope. That’s not violence. That’s politics. Nominally, politics is what groups of humans do as an alternative to violence.

    But don’t be absurd, talking about creating divisions “that don’t exist”. They do exist. I saw them last night at the GA. They’re real, and for good reason. The issue of accepting or rejecting violence is the most critical issue that faces the movement at this time. This will make or break us.

  48. dpagano

    The 90% threshold has quit a dark side. It is a barrier that those who *came first* can erect to demand that those who come later cannot make change to the desires of those who came first. There is no requirement at all for those who came first to merge and amalgamate with wave after wave of arriving participants. There is no system that holds them accountible, They get to justify the early decision as *direct democracy* As if overcoming a barrier 9 times the MAGNITUDE of those who came first is somehow comparable. With a very small group (10% +1 of those assembled) those who arrived first can maintain their control of the entire body and tell all others to take it or leave it. Their 10%+1 is counted as MORE controlling than everyone else’s combined 90%-1 share of community.
    Sound familiar.

  49. RevolutionaryIsMyMiddleName

    Do you not recognize the inherent violence in the act of creating a coalition of people who do not regularly attend GAs to come so you can get one measure passed that will do nothing but alienate large portions of the heavy lifter day to day supporters? Why are you trying to create divisions that do not exist?

  50. think!

    Again, I don’t know why you categorize someone who throws a chair at a person as “nonviolent.” That person is not a nonviolent protester.

  51. RevolutionaryIsMyMiddleName

    Should read “forcing non-violent ideology through a General Assembly…”

  52. RevolutionaryIsMyMiddleName

    Then it seems to me far more productive to organize a group of truly non-violent people to be at all Occupy Oakland events and lead by example. Forcing ideology through a General Assembly is no more productive than if someone tried to force a pro-violence resolution through.

    The fact that this movement is, at least so far, non-ideological is its greatest strength. It is also the thing that confounds the media and many ideologues. Ideological Anarchists, Gandhists, Marxists, and Republicans alike all seem to have the same difficulty recognizing that this is not “their” movement in the sense of it supporting their ideology only. Fighting to make it ideological only creates struggle and strife. If you want to organize a white-bloc who march with pillows and throw feathers at the people with bricks(as a clown friend of mine suggested) GO DO IT.

    It i precisely the diversity that makes this movement strong. It is heterogenous and non-hierarchical. As soon as you start passing ideological resolutions you risk making it hierarchical as you then need to enforce your ideology.

  53. think!

    I agree that everyone should protect themselves from teargas and pepper spray.

    We need to be certain, however, that those employing black bloc tactics are not cops or otherwise planted by an undermining entity who wants to dessimate the movement. This is not far-fetched. Corporations and the powers that we are fighting against know about public opinion. And they know very well that media images of masked and violent people will decrease public support of the movement.

    We must know the identities of those undermining the credibility of our movement, to be assured that they are not hired saboteurs.

  54. RevolutionaryIsMyMiddleName

    The only advocates of violence against another HUMAN BEING that I have seen (besides the police, certain city council members, and business people) are those who advocate “non-violence”. The only times I have seen violence perpetrated against another human being WRT this movement has been a cop or a “non-violent” protester protecting an inanimate object.

    Your example of the old lady is a red herring and has no relevance to the topic at hand. HOWEVER… The GA has passed a resolution which specifically states that violence against a person is not tolerated. So you would be wholly in the right and be supported by the resolution passed by the GA to protect your mythical old lady.

  55. keithnakatani

    I appreciate and support the intent of the open letter (and this ongoing discussion) and agree with much of it, but strategically I don’t support introducing it as a proposal, because it’s overly philosophical, which I believe provides ample opportunities to attack it (so to speak) and undermines it chances of passing. It also ignores the most basic argument against destructive behavior, which I believe offers the best (relatively speaking) chance for approval and which is described below.
    _____________________________________________________________________________________

    The significant amount of discussion about destructive behavior clearly indicates that it’s a critical issue; many of us believe it’s the most critical issue.

    Yet, I believe the discussion isn’t focused sharply enough on the most important point, so more easily gets sidetracked:
    • Significantly growing the movement is critical to its success and destructive behavior results in large numbers of people viewing the movement negatively, not getting involved in or dropping out of it, and opposing it (Occupy is losing support: two weeks ago polls showed significantly more support than opposition; a recent poll indicates more opposition than support). Therefore it’s the biggest threat and should be addressed by OO. This includes taking a position against it, having discussions between supporters and opponents of destructive actions, people non-violently intervening at actions, paying for the damages to local businesses, etc. Even with all that, destructive actions will still happen, but hopefully they would be minimized so that the movement isn’t undermined.

    Currently, the Oakland discussion is too focused on and gets bogged down in philosophical issues (moral justifications for and against destructive behavior, definitions of this and that, etc).

    Although, it will be difficult for any proposal opposing (or supporting) destructive behavior to be approved because 90% approval, or 80% after amended, is required, there appears to be enough interest to continue trying. Perhaps the best chance is a proposal that’s simple, short, and sharply focused on the rationale described above to try and contain the discussion.

    Although this may be too late because the City is planning to evict the campers again and a vacant building will be taken over on Saturday, which almost certainly will result in more physical aggression on both sides and more people turning against us, I submit this draft proposal for input and further discussion.
    ________________________________________________________________________

    Title: Prevent the Undermining of Occupy Oakland and the Movement

    Preamble
    To be successful, the broader Occupy movement must increase its numbers significantly beyond those who currently support it and are involved.

    Success means reversing current trends so that ordinary people are better fed, housed, cared for, educated, and employed. Success ultimately means dismantling plutocracy and cannibalistic capitalism, and building a system based on participatory democracy and economics that is humane, equitable, and ecologically sustainable.

    This proposal is offered with the hope that it’s judged while putting aside whether the tactic of destructive behavior is morally right or wrong, but rather is judged on the statement that destructive behavior results in large numbers of people viewing the movement negatively, not getting involved in or dropping out of it, and opposing it. This is already happening: public support for Occupy is decreasing. Therefore, destructive behavior is single biggest threat to the movement and should be addressed.

    The forces opposed to Occupy are well-aware that inciting destructive behavior is the best way to divide the movement, turn the general public against it, and undermine it. That’s why they’ve inserted provocateurs.

    Even if Occupy Oakland takes a position against destructive behavior and encourages ongoing dialogue between supporters and opponents of such behavior, and even if opponents of such behavior intervene non-violently at actions, destructive behavior will still happen. The purpose of addressing this issue is to try and minimize it so that it doesn’t result in OO being undermined and doesn’t undermine the greater Occupy movement.

    Proposal
    OO should:
    1. Take a position opposing destructive behavior, which includes damaging property, throwing or shooting objects, and lighting fires.
    2. Conduct trainings and discussions about civil disobedience without instigating or being provoked to commit destructive actions.
    3. Use its funds, if affordable, to reimburse local businesses that suffer property damage.
    4. Develop and implement a plan to increase business in the downtown core.
    5. Develop and implement an outreach plan to local authorities, local businesses, and the media about these actions.

    ______________________________________________________________________

    I’m interested in hearing what folks think about this proposal and whether there’s interest in getting it, or something like it, heard at the GA (if there still is a GA) in the coming days. Thanks

  56. Tlahtolli

    If anyone is interested in collaborating with the wording of this proposal, and helping getting it passed, please send me a private message.

  57. rhapsode

    Tom, I don’t think Starhawk et al. are saying you can’t put on a mask if the cops attack with teargas. Obviously people should mask up if that happens. I think they’re arguing against *initiating actions* masked–as in hoodie-and-bandana masking, which is clearly for identity concealment.

  58. David Heatherly

    “My favorite “non-violent” protester was the guy who threw a chair at another human being to stop them from breaking a window. When I can understand the moral universe where it is acceptable to harm a human being in the name of protecting an inanimate object I will mourn the death of my soul.”

    I personally would condemn that action for the same reasons. I believe in using non-violent resistance against the black bloc, which means putting our bodies in the way and embarrassing and shaming them into behaving in a way that won’t alienate the whole rest of the 99%. Personaly I don’t give a shit if Wells Fargo gets smashed up. But neither do they; they have insurance.

  59. David Heatherly

    I will be there and I will bring as many as I can. I was there last night hoping to get a chance at a real referendum on this but we putzed around with that crap proposal that both sides opposed.

  60. David Heatherly

    Tom Joad — I am responding to my post since this program won’t let me respond to your post. Thank you for reminding me that the thing about kidnapping bank execs was in the clarifying questions… that proposal just was very confusing for everybody, seemed too open-ended for us to know what it really meant. Most post was in objection to the statement that characterized it as a vote against non-violence. That is all. As far as my previous comments about MLK and the KKK: yes, in fact, when I try to march for peace and an end to war, and I end up being surrounded by people who want to hurt other people, it is a direct contradiction to my values and morals and it is just as reprehensible to ask me to march with those people as if you were to ask MLK Jr. to march with the KKK out of “solidarity” or “inclusiveness.” Some ideas are in diametric opposition, and pacifist values are in opposition to black bloc tactics.

  61. Tom Joad

    I just want to add that if this gets on the agenda, I’m voting against it specifically because of the mentioning of masks. That’s dangerous wording if you ask me. Will someone please explain to me how I or more importantly an asthma sufferer is supposed to protect themselves against teargas and pepper spray without some kind of facial coverage? It’s absolutely ridiculous and leads me to doubt all this so-called expertise the OP claims to have.

  62. Davis Straub

    I am completely opposed to “diversity of tactics” i.e., code for “permission to commit vandalism and violence”.

    Having marched with Occupy Oakland peacefully and without vandalism during the General Strike I am so disappointed to see this “vote for violence” by the General Assembly. I will not be involved in any more Occupy Oakland demonstrations as they appear to me to encourage and support vandalism.

  63. Tom Joad

    David – You’re hilarious, bro. The other day I saw you (absurdly) characterize this disagreement as one between Ghandi vs. the KKK. Now you’re telling us that the proposal that failed mentioned the kidnapping of bank executives.

    The people submitting had no such intent when wording their proposal. And, as a matter of fact, the kidnapping issue came up during the clarifying questions segment following the proposal reading. Some guy stood up and said, “When you say ‘we want to be all inclusive’ does that mean including bombing buildings or kidnapping bank executives?” which was a reducto ad absurdem just as farcical as the one you made above… In the answers to questions, the people who made the proposal said (and I’m paraphrasing here), “No, when we say ‘all inclusive’ we mean being all inclusive in terms of different people and different opinions.”

    Here’s an idea for a proposal to be submitted to the GA: David Heatherly must always tell the truth FOR A CHANGE.

  64. David Heatherly

    I agree mizpat; I had so much hope for this movement, and now it is being destroyed by people who just want to feed their ego by playing dress-up revolutionary. The fact that they seem to believe many Americans are ready to follow that course shows how little they understand mainstream American culture and the 99% they claim they want to help.

  65. David Heatherly

    “FTR, Last night a “non-violence” measure lost with only 15.8% support. Another was removed from queue when the proposers realized they would not have the votes to pass it. What did pass (and passing means 90% or more) was a resolution asking to respect diversity of tactics.”

    We keep hearing about that, people keep posting about a resolution for diversity of tactics, but nobody has posted the actual proposal here or when it passed the GA. I would like to see that so that I can make my own decision about whether to continue supporting Occupy Oakland.

    But I just want to object to you characterizing the vote last night as if it was an “anti-violence” proposal. Many of us who want to pass a true anti-violence proposal did not support it because of the poor wording, and because it was seen as tacitly supporting diversity of tactics (it included a phrase “there is a time and a place for everything” and it mentioned kidnapping bank executives…). Since I voted against it and I despise violence, I do not want you to pretend that last night’s vote represents anybody in particular’s feelings about violence or non-violence. It was about that specific, very poorly phrased, proposal.

  66. David Heatherly

    ” I would never personally participate in destruction of property or an attack on another human. But I would not censor someone who chose to do so.”

    The fact that you used the word “censor” is kind of ridiculous. What if I were to observe some punk trying to rob an old lady, punching her in the face? Would I be “censoring” the person if I attempt to stop them?

  67. David Heatherly

    I full respect and would support an agreement based on this working plan to use direct nonviolence without advocating any kind of “nonviolent regime” that would be unchangable in the future. What is necessary is that we be clear about what tactics are and are not acceptable. Otherwise conflict between ourselves will continue to occur on all marches and actions, our action won’t be co-ordinated or effective enough, etc.

  68. Tlahtolli

    RIMMN: The same can be said of the contingent set on using physical attacks on property as a tactic: making sure the movement succeeds as a whole is more important than forcing an ideology down the throats of a body politic that will not vote to support the measure.

    Look, at least we can agree that we want the movement as a whole to succeed.

  69. rhapsode

    “Making sure the movement succeeds as a whole is more important than forcing an ideology down the throats of a body politic that will not vote to support the measure.”

    It is precisely because we want to make sure the movement succeeds as a whole that we are opposing–by reasoned argument, which you have not much bothered to address–the “diversity of tactics” approach *if* it includes destruction of property or violence against people (note the distinction I am making here). Instead, you accuse us of “McCarthyism,” as if those of us criticizing a tactic were smearing all anarchists. Then you smear Starhawk, who has been arrested and jailed and roughed up more than once for nonviolent civil disobedience and whose vocation is training people in how to do NVDA, accusing her of being some kind of rich liberal, which she is not. In fact, your smear/sneer tactics bear a much closer resemblance to those of the MSM than Starhawk’s plea or the expressions of honest disagreement I am seeing in this thread. You should really re-read what you write, and you should engage directly with our central argument, which is that property destruction and reactive counterviolence hinder the growth of the movement and lose us popular sympathy.

  70. think!

    The protester who “threw a chair at another human being” was NOT a nonviolent protester! That makes him a violent protester, as he committed an act of violence.

  71. rhapsode

    Hear! Hear! This is about strategy, not about what’s more outrageous to us as individuals or about capitalist property rights. To revert to my ethnic heritage, I don’t give a toss in a dirty hanky about capitalist property rights, personally. But Property is the American religion, and most Americans are are still believers up to a point. Defenders of property destruction as a tactic always fall back on moralistic arguments, which frequently devolve to the kindergarten level of “he hit me first!” What matters is growing the movement and expanding the scope of occupation, for example into abandoned or foreclosed properties and empty lots (aka tax deduction farms). This must be done using nonviolent direct action techniques.

  72. RevolutionaryIsMyMiddleName

    The occupations are and must need be local. This is Occupy Oakland. I’m sure the good people of Kensington (or is it El Cerrito) dearly miss the organizing efforts of Starhawk in her community. Occupy the Hills!

    FTR, Last night a “non-violence” measure lost with only 15.8% support. Another was removed from queue when the proposers realized they would not have the votes to pass it. What did pass (and passing means 90% or more) was a resolution asking to respect diversity of tactics.

    Making sure the movement succeeds as a whole is more important than forcing an ideology down the throats of a body politic that will not vote to support the measure.

    Move on to the next topic.

  73. GreenEngineer

    All initiation of violence by protesters – including your example – is counterproductive. That’s my point. Violence pushes out the possibility of non-violence, and marginalizes our movement.

  74. think!

    Yes, we need to move forward on a coalition asap. Get all of the nonviolent protesters to enlist friends, family, and others to come to a specific GA when we will get this passed once and for all.

    WE CAN NOT LET THIS MOVEMENT BE UNDERMINED! DON’T GIVE UP!

  75. think!

    WE are not even close to the critical mass of support we need to fight the powers that be. The only way to reach that critical mass is to have more people join the movement.

    Do you think the average 99%er will more likely join a movement of nonviolent acts of civil disobedience, or a movement where there are people in black masks randomly smashing things?

    Do you want to make the changes needed in this country so we don’t all drown, or would you rather just let people randomly vent their frustration and get nothing done?

    It’s not a matter of imposing one’s will on others– it’s a matter of thinking strategically as a group, and having a game plan that is most likely to work. Some people will have to compromise a little in order for that to happen. And if you look at the 99% Movements around the country, the consensus of the group is nonviolent action. Those who believe in violence and vandalism as a tactic are far outnumbered in the movement at large.

    Making sure this movement succeeds as a whole is more important than individual beliefs about violence or nonviolence.

  76. think!

    The division of “violent” and “nonviolent” is not an illusion in the public mind.

    Historical evidence proves that the public rejects acts of violence in general– whether it’s on the part of police or protesters.

    If the police continue to commit aggressive acts, and the protesters don’t, guess who gets more support?

  77. RevolutionaryIsMyMiddleName

    My favorite “non-violent” protester was the guy who threw a chair at another human being to stop them from breaking a window. When I can understand the moral universe where it is acceptable to harm a human being in the name of protecting an inanimate object I will mourn the death of my soul.

  78. RevolutionaryIsMyMiddleName

    Nor does continually pushing an issue like this. Why not just side step it by proposing specific actions that in the proposal accept only non-violent tactics. I guess that might include dressing up in riot gear and beating the shit out of US Veterans, so excuse me if I am confused about the purpose of this conversation. But if there were even HALF the amount of outrage at the beating of the Army Vet last week as there has been over a couple of broken windows the police would be disarmed by now. If the “non-violent” camp would condemn throwing chairs at another human being in the defense of inanimate objects there would be a lot more sympathy for the calls to “non-violence.”

    Ignoring an injustice is no less violent that perpetrating it yourself. Clean your own house first

  79. Tlahtolli

    RIMMN: At this point in time, to employ Black Bloc does not make strategic sense within the context of the larger Occupy movement.

    Previously, I had advocated tolerance for all tactics, but it really doesn’t make sense to smash windows and tag Wells Fargo, if that’s what individuals want to do. It harms the larger movement as a whole and angers many people who would otherwise support Occupy Oakland.

  80. RevolutionaryIsMyMiddleName

    There is nothing that stops any group from making a proposal for an action which acknowledges diversity of tactics and CHOOSES to take the specific action in the proposal as one wholly embodying non-violence (whatever that means). Forcing your opinion on the group can only cause divisions. Why not respect the diversity of opinions and tactics and take your own action in your preferred manner?

    The division between “violent” and “non-violent” is an illusion. I would never personally participate in destruction of property or an attack on another human. But I would not censor someone who chose to do so. I also have a hard time respecting the advocates of “non-violence” resolutions who would allow for physical attacks on human beings in order to save an inanimate object.

    Be accountable in YOUR ACTIONS and YOUR PROPOSALS. It is absurd and farcical to try and force an ideology on an unwilling group. That only leads to repression of the minority and neo-McCarthyism this time with “Anarchists” in place of Communists.

  81. mark

    Completely agree. OO needs to clearly renounce violence. And embrace real transparency. (which means open discussion and not moderating into oblivion even slightly critical opinions)

    Non-violence and transparency have to be the key tenants. History shows us again and again how easy it is to become what you are struggling against. This is a moment in time with great potential that hangs in the balance.

  82. jimmyrunsdeep

    “Also, even without 90% approval, the GA has endorsed and encouraged “autonomous actions,” as they did last night when proposal 4, to occupy an unnamed building this Saturday, got only 68% of the vote and thus did not pass.”

    How does voting down a building occupation endorse autonomous actions? Also the proposal that endorsed autonomous actions with a “please use restraint though” thing got voted down hard last night.

  83. Pirate

    I was really bummed out that the third proposal wasn’t even given a vote at the GA last night. In the name of solidarity? I’m an Oakland resident for nonviolent direct action. We didn’t need black bloc tactics to raise the city to shut down the port, yet they cause all the ruckus and grab all the headlines. I’d be curious to know how many #OO black bloc supporters are imports and how many actually live in this city

  84. ghostoftherobot

    Tlahtolli, Thanks for posting this. Let’s get a coalition together and do what we need to do to get this thing passed. It is the only hope for OO.

  85. mizpat

    Please note: to get this passed at GA, we would need 1000+ attendees all prepared to vote for this (or similar) agreement, because apparently there is a core of 100-150 GA participants who will vote against it, and any GA statement requires 90% approval. If you do the math, this is what it would take.

    Also, even without 90% approval, the GA has endorsed and encouraged “autonomous actions,” as they did last night when proposal 4, to occupy an unnamed building this Saturday, got only 68% of the vote and thus did not pass.

    So even if you were to bring out 1000+ supporters of your proposal to a GA meeting, the “autonomous actions” endorsement/encouragement would negate any progress you would make.

    I don’t know why they bother to vote if they’re going to allow undermining of votes this way. It’s absurd and counterproductive.

    I have lost hope for OO and by extension all of Occupy, because OO’s “anything goes” endorsements will bring down the entire Occupy movement. It’s only a matter of time.

    I am so disappointed and so sad, because we’re all back where we started: struggling on our own.

  86. GreenEngineer

    Yes, thank you.

    But let’s stop using the “diversity of tactics” meme. Let’s call a spade a spade: the phrase “diversity of tactics” is used as code for “permission to commit vandalism and violence”.

    And it’s bullsh*t, because there are many, many ways to protest non-violently. But violent protest has only one ultimate outcome – the further repression of the protest movement as a whole. Initiating violence leads inevitably to escalation, and to having all Occupation protesters being painted with the same broad brush in the public mind. The fact is that violence and vandalism DESTROY diversity of tactics because they they give the authorities an excuse to shut us down, leaving no room for non-violent approaches.

  87. nishneb

    I support this and will vote for it at GA. We need education and the educated to train others on this.

  88. think!

    This is it. We have to get this in front of the GA. Maybe the pro-“diversity of tactics” gang will respect the wisdom of those who have done this before.

  89. john seal

    Thank you, ACT. Key sentence: Just as we call for accountability and transparency, we ourselves must be accountable and transparent.

  90. jss

    Thank you for expressing the nature and importance of nonviolence to the moral, political and physical survival of this movement.