Occupationist Clique Supports Violent Activism?

[Kléber]

http://uncivpro.com/2009/12/21/the-emptiness-of-liberal-morality/#more-144

I noticed this when it was quoted at OccupyCA (http://occupyca.wordpress.com/2009/12/25/the-emptiness-of-liberal-morality/) and I was very disappointed to learn that the ultraleft grad students have decided to repeat the mistakes of the Weathermen. Or at least they hint, bluntly and repeatedly, that they wish to do so.

I don't know where to begin criticizing this article. The fact that it supports the T-word precisely when we are combating such assertions? The fact it doesn't clearly state its position, but instead dodges around the point like a Glenn Beck or Thomas Friedman? The prevalent assumption that the proletarian struggle can be won on the University of California campus, the actual proletariat be fucked?

The whole thing appears to be calculated to piss off the author's bourgeois parents and/or invite crackdowns from Uncle Arnold.


There is a growing commentary critiquing the blind discursive commitment to non-violence that permeates many aspects of on-campus resistance in California.
Is the administration at UC Berkeley really committed to violence? Of course it is. The modern University system is fundamentally a system of political control. If human existence in the United States is structured through power relationships that originate in language, law, family, and other social constructions, then the University is strongly implicated as a powerful institution that defines these structures and enforces the interests of capital and the state.
Another great harm in this ridiculous focus on non-violence is the tacit approval of all kinds of state-sponsored brutality that slink below the high-minded and privileged pacifist discourse.
Truly remaking the UC system into a public and open institution will require great risk, great expropriation of space and property, and will elicit the most violent reactions from the UC Administration and the State of California generally. To think differently is to not only misunderstand power relationships and structure of social regulation, it is to stand on the side of state violence.(emphasis mine)

WITH US OR AGAINST US!
http://homepage.mac.com/cptchaz/iblog/C1200806250/E20070501214913/Media/osama-mission-accomplished-01.jpg
The environment the becomes one where true resistance is crushed from all sides as students wonder how they can produce a response commensurate response to UC violence without breaking the unwritten rules of proper protest. The answer, of course, is that they cannot. The UC is proven to be just as volatile and violent as any other state apparatus, and any real confrontation can only devolve to violence. What is missing, however, is a true commitment to opposition as UC brings all of its resources to bear on crushing individual students in the hopes of crushing resistance in general. The UC is showing great skill at splitting and co-opting the different groups engaged in organizing against its policies. Allowing this to continue is a sure route to defeat.

[bcbm]

I was very disappointed to learn that the ultraleft grad students have decided to repeat the mistakes of the Weathermen.

how are they suggesting they want to repeat the mistakes of the weathermen? the article isn't a defense of non-state violence, or a call for more specialized forms of violence to be committed by exclusive groups, but a critique of the narrative surrounding the use of violence by some protesters v. the use of violence by those with power.


The fact that it supports the T-word precisely when we are combating such assertions?

terrorist is only mentioned once, in passing, as an absurd label used by the governor in ignorance. it isn't supported.


The fact it doesn't clearly state its position, but instead dodges around the point like a Glenn Beck or Thomas Friedman?

i think the position is made pretty clear throughout... the movement needs to reject dividing labels and the efforts of the administration to divide the movement based on those labels or other false divisions- violence/non-violence in this case- in order to overcome the administration and remake the university.


The prevalent assumption that the proletarian struggle can be won on the University of California campus, the actual proletariat be fucked?

i think they view what is happening in california as a laboratory to experiment with forms, as well as an inspiration for those outside the university in their struggles.


Here are some of the more ridiculous sections,

what is ridiculous about them? i don't want to make assumptions from such a vague label.


calculated to piss off the author's bourgeois parents and invite crackdowns from uncle Arnold

:rolleyes:

[Revy]

Ever heard of the Russian student strikes of 1901?



February - March, 1901
Mass revolutionary actions of students and workers—political demonstrations, meetings, strikes—that took place in February and March 1901, in St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kiev, Kharkov, Kazan, Yaroslavl, Warsaw, Belostok, Tomsk, Odessa, and other cities in Russia.


The student movement of 1900-01, which began with academic demands, acquired the character of revolutionary action against the reactionary policy of the autocracy; it was supported by the advanced workers and it met with a response among all strata of Russian society. The direct cause of the demonstrations and strikes in February and March 1901, was the drafting of 183 Kiev University students into the army as a punitive act for their participation in a students’ meeting. The government launched a furious attack on participants in the revolutionary actions; the police and the Cossacks dispersed demonstrations and assaulted the participants; hundreds of students were arrested and expelled from colleges and universities. On March 4 (17), 1901, the demonstration in the square in front of the Kazan Cathedral, in St. Petersburg, was dispersed with particular brutality. The February-March events were evidence of the revolutionary upsurge in Russia; the mass participation of workers in the movement was of tremendous importance.

[BobKKKindle$]

What is wrong with violent activism? Or, to look at the same issue from a different point of view, closer to some of the ideas that are raised in this article, how satisfactory is a sharp divide between violence and non-violence, in light of the fact that violence assumes subjective and objective forms, and that acts of violence are frequently hide behind the veil of legality and the alleged prerogatives of institutions like university administrations?

[the last donut of the night]

What's the situation over there in CA? I've heard the students' movement is becoming more radicalized. Can any comrades there confirm this?

[Kléber]

My criticism here isn't of violence being carried out by mass movements in defense of democratic rights, but rather, when leftists try to jump-start the movement with acts of individual violence. The Russian student strikes of 1901 were mass actions involving majorities of student bodies (correct me if wrong) and linked up with the working class struggle outside the university. There is a big difference between that and a tiny group of people derailing the movement by firebombing some bureaucrat's house, which is what happened in Berkeley recently and what this article is defending.

[bcbm]

nobody was trying to jump start anything, the minor bits of violence that occurred were a direct response to violence undertaken by the administration. whatever your position on that, the article wasn't trying to defend it explicitly, but expose the hypocrisy of the university administrators and the weak positions put forward by some parts of the movement that made an equivalency between one minor act by some students and the mass violence that the administrators have fallen back on in response to the crisis. also, nothing was "firebombed."

[Comrade Ian]

Update from Santa Cruz:

Student movement here is becoming more radicalized, though it's hard to say what will happen after Schwarzenegger made his speech announcing the plan to hyper-privatize prisons to guarantee funding for Universities. On the one hand it's acknowledged the protests brought it about, on the other hand it's essentially proposing to make life worse for Prisoners to fund the University.

As for the politics, here at UCSC a significant number of students involved in the occupation are taking a class I'm in with Gopal Balakrishnan, in which, upon recieving the syllabus a couple days ago, I was pleasantly surprised to learn we will be reading among other texts

Luxembourg's Reform or Revolution
Lenin's State and Revolution
Lenin's Left Wing Communism an Infantile Disorder
Trotsky's The Revolution Betrayed.

The Teacher Assistants are mostly self proclaimed "Ultralefts" so it will be interesting to see how the discussions around those works go, but it will be interesting to see how people's politics develops in reaction to being forced to actually read and engage with Leninism rather then just read what infoshop has to say about it.

There's another class I'm taking with Barbara Epstein on Social Movements that has more of a, less politicized audience, but I notice people in the class who were around the occupations if not directly involved in it. In this class we're basically reading about what the Communist Party did in the 30's up through the New Left's attempts at Party building. Among other things we'll be reading...

Hammer and Hoe
Revolution in the Air
When the Old Left Was Young
And a number of selections focusing on Communist Party Activities in the 30's

Personally I'm quite hopeful about the direction things might take politically among the students here. I'm not going to deal with silly nonsense being peddled by Kleber, I have better things to do, like read the first chapter of History and Class Conciousness on Orthodox Marxism that's our assigned reading for tomorrow.

[cyu]

My criticism here isn't of violence being carried out by mass movements in defense of democratic rights, but rather, when leftists try to jump-start the movement with acts of individual violence.


Personally, I'd support and encourage violence / force even by individuals if it is done in self-defense or defending others.

For example, during a factory occupation, if the capitalist's minions are sent in to attack the employees, then I'd support any and every employee or anybody else who stops the attacks using whatever means necessary - if would be nice if defense didn't result in injury, but if the employees are in immediate danger, then necessary force is justified in their defense.

[rebelmouse]

hope authorities will never succeed to control people, every individual is worth, especially when he/she is ready to take a risk and attack those who attack society everyday. even those who are non violent, they should help when someone needs help (hiding, etc), rather than to spread stories against revolutionaries who use violent methods of fight. such stories are trying to bring people under control and control is good only for authorities.