Nonviolence

[Ele'ill]

http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20100715181517127


This thread is about violence in demonstration and not violence in revolution.

[Sasha]

weird that this article completly fail to mention peter gelderloos his excelent book on the subject: how non-violence protects the state (http://www.akpress.org/2005/items/hownonviolenceprotectsthestate yes now for only a tenner)

[Ele'ill]

weird that this article completly fail to mention peter gelderloos his excelent book on the subject: how non-violence protects the state (http://www.akpress.org/2005/items/hownonviolenceprotectsthestate yes now for only a tenner)

My position is that inaffective forms of violent demonstration are the same as inaffective forms of nonviolent demonstration. We need to find what works.

[ABCofcommunism]

my opinion we'll never get anything without violence, same with democracy, we'll never get a communist government by voting, captalism will never let it happen. Non-violent protest simply puts energy, resources, etc. to waste, cause we're never going to bring down the fortresses of capitalism by non-violence, with bullets and bombs yes.

[Ele'ill]

my opinion we'll never get anything without violence, same with democracy, we'll never get a communist government by voting, captalism will never let it happen. Non-violent protest simply puts energy, resources, etc. to waste, cause we're never going to bring down the fortresses of capitalism by non-violence, with bullets and bombs yes.

I'm not refering to violence in revolution- I'm talking about violence in demonstration.


I think it's safe to say that a lot of the violent actions at various demonstrations have proven to be putting energy, resources, etc to waste.

[ABCofcommunism]

so am i, because protest is if you think about it the early stages of revoultion.

[Ele'ill]

so am i, because protest is if you think about it the early stages of revoultion.

Depends on support. A handful of people breaking things in a city full of people isn't revolutionary.

Here's another of my positions- You are less likely to educate people on why violence is necessary as you are to educate them on why various institutions are harmful- get them acclimated with how severe the situation is and move from there. Otherwise they are going to see destruction- know people are angry- but hear why from the news.

Education before action.

[ABCofcommunism]

I think we are starting to digress to i'll promise not to say anymore than this, education is our most valuable weapon, but we shouldn't waste the time we've spent educating people by getting the idea that non-violence as a form of protest has any real outcome into their head.

[Ele'ill]

I think we are starting to digress to i'll promise not to say anymore than this, education is our most valuable weapon, but we shouldn't waste the time we've spent educating people by getting the idea that non-violence as a form of protest has any real outcome into their head.


Seattle was a successful demonstration- Its success had nothing to do with violent property destruction- although it did occur.

[ABCofcommunism]

And a soviet of Seattle was established? no, non-violent protest may work in small scale changes but if you really want to change the world, violence is the only way, the ruling class will only change anything when they know their going to get hurt if they don't. As Mao said "power comes from the barrel of a gun"

[Ele'ill]

And a soviet of Seattle was established? no, non-violent protest may work in small scale changes but if you really want to change the world, violence is the only way, the ruling class will only change anything when they know their going to get hurt if they don't. As Mao said "power comes from the barrel of a gun"

We're talking about demonstrations- violence at demonstrations- not violence as in militant attacks against military targets etc..

Stop flip flopping.


Also, I'd argue that more was accomplished at that non violent Seattle demonstration than any other demonstration since. What gives?

[ABCofcommunism]

you miss understand me, a demonstrations point is to change something, you cannot change things without violence, it would be nice if it wasn't but thats the way it is. If the ruling class see their lackeys (police, fascists, etc.) being attacked at demonstrations. It scares them and that's what makes them change things.

[Ele'ill]

you miss understand me, a demonstrations point is to change something, you cannot change things without violence, it would be nice if it wasn't but thats the way it is. If the ruling class see their lackeys (police, fascists, etc.) being attacked at demonstrations. It scares them and that's what makes them change things.


It scares the rest of the population- which makes up a kind of important demographic.


That isn't what they're afraid of- they're afraid of competent movement- I personally don't think the violence we've seen in the United States isn't worth a gram of fuck- perhaps it's different elsewhere.

There's no follow up to the violence- it serves no stragegic purpose- there's no long term goal- it happens enmasse once a year-

The little flecks of destruction here and there in between the enmasse events confuse people- push people away etc..

The non-activists that do come out and participate are either caught up in it and think it beats the hell out of anything else they would do that day or they genuinely care about the movement but are left out to dry for another year afterwards. This is why it doesn't hurt the state- if there were a riot in Oakland followed up by occupation of a school (with banners etc) and the other autonomous spaces in the city came together they could build for a weeks time- keep it going with the idea that they will never release control back over to the state. Greece anyone? (although Greece has since peaked in actions)

What the fuck are we doing?

[Jimmie Higgins]

We need to find what works.I think this is the best way to approach this question. Violence and non-violence are both means to an end, so if the end is served by violence, then it's a good thing, if non-violence gives us the end we want, then that's the best thing.

It's like being on a picket line. If strikers are not confident and a strike vote was low, then probably keeping scabs out by force will just end in injunctions against the union which will lead to confusion and demoralization among the rank and file. If the workers are confident and pissed then they are probably convinced and willing to risk doing "illegal" actions such as upholding a picket line and keeping scabs out by force.

There's a lot of violence in US society, so I can understand why many workers would be adverse to taking violent action ourselves. But since it is a violent society with a lot more repression than much of Europe or Japan - at some point, people are forced to take violent self-defense like hold a picket line or trying to stop police from ending a march.

[ABCofcommunism]

well maybe the violence doesn't go anywhere but neither does none violence all it does it give people the idea their is in the end a alternative to violence to make a real change/

[Sasha]

My position is that inaffective forms of violent demonstration are the same as inaffective forms of nonviolent demonstration. We need to find what works.

and i completly agree, and so does peter gelderloos.
but what he and i argue is that before we can have discussion on which tactics we should use when we should first put an end (especialy to the dogmatic form it has in north america) to the principle of non-violence.
Peter (and i concur) doesnt argue we should use violence, he argues, like is the title of his book, that principled/dogmatic non-violence serves only in the intrest of those who are in power.
Offcourse we should use diverse tactics, but we should state also explicitly that although at (most) times our tactics are non-violent we are not.
And that people who forces their dogmatic non-violence upon others have no place in our movement.

The articel "what to do about the anarchists?" posted elswere on this site speaks volumes about the reformist counter revolutionairy nature of these activists.

[Ele'ill]

I agree completely that the idea of non-violence being the only valid tactic is dishonest to the various situations we're confronted with.

I don't think there's enough understanding of the issues by the non-activist general population to use violence as the first on the list tactic. I think the manner in which- specifically- property destruction is being used in 'North America' is counterproductive because not enough ground work has been done before it. It is attracting the wrong types of people to various actions- I don't understand corporate property destruction at an action unrelated to corporate power as the idea of that action, march or demonstration should completely revolve around it's topic.

If there's a police abolition march, with flyers and banners giving info on police brutality as well as on how to build community- with people designated to talking with shoppers and families that the march passes on the street- and then someone smashes a starbudks window- it isn't that I don't think 'violence' is necessary it's that the people watching the march and taking in the information become confused and/or see the idea of police abolition as being confused, fragmented or as an excuse for some people to vandalize.


In regards to the 'what to do about the anarchist' type stuff- I hate it. It's assuming that anarchism can be summed up by a broken window. Like wise- anarchists should take this as a challenge and perhaps utilize other tactics.

I don't know if you all heard about the Toronto PD sending photos of people both masked and unmasked to all the banks so the banks can use their facial recognition software to try and identify the 'suspects'. There are pages with photos of demonstrators on various social networking sites with the intent of the page is to incriminate people based on viewer suggestion.

Facebook won't allow a BP 'info-out' type page but they'll allow one that criminalizes protest.

[Ele'ill]

The other problem I have with current (from about the mid 90's up till now) property destruction is that every single one of the videos I dig out of various archives has people on the street as well as people after the fact suggesting that there's an economic insentive for these corporations to not contribute money to the various summits and meetings.

I don't see an economic insentive type leverage gained by smashing their shit if they have an insurance policy that completely covers it. Let alone the fact that it only happens once a year.

Why is everyone on this forum saying it's not about economic damages while everyone else I've talked to or heard interviewed has said it is?

I can post the videos one by one if you all want evidence- there's like ten of them.