occupy seatle refuses to commit to non-violence, liberals leave in a hissyfit

[Sasha]

Just read the articles and the comments over the past week or so: http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/occupy/

Fuck them and the pacifist horse they rode in on...

[PhoenixAsh]

The link to the article: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/vacating-occupy-seattle/Content?oid=11589444

[Jimmie Higgins]

The lost 16-54! It wasn't even a consensus-loss it was a majority vote loss and suddenly the liberal free weekly paper is anti-democracy!:laugh:


Those voices won in a particularly heated 16-to-54 vote, thereby rejecting Occupy Seattle's attempt to declare itself a peaceful movement.This is the most ridiculous lines I read and I had to stop there. 16-54 don't sound too heated to me, and the actual language of the paragraph should be fixed to represent reality better:

"Those voices won overwhelmingly therby preventing 20% of the movement from forcing the majority to adopt non-violence as a principle in their actions."

I mean how are those 16 people "Occupy Seattle" and the majority somehow illegitimate co-opters! Ironically in Oakland, I'm pretty sure the non-violence people tried to organize some extra turn-out to sway the vote on their proposals - which also still lost.

All that being said, It's great that this was voted down, pre-emptive defensiveness and worrying about us being violent when it's the police who have initiated 95% of any physical altercations is a retreat and out of step with a movement that has been successful because it has refused to bow to the advice of establishment liberals or to the overt violence of the police - even in places like NYC where there is more of a liberal presence and stamp on the local movement. No so great if we can't win some of those other people to seeing why making a principle of non-violence is wrong - then again, if it's 16 people, it's not much of a loss at all.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Can we pass a resolution calling on the police to only use non-violent tactics?

[Sasha]

The link to the article: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/vacating-occupy-seattle/Content?oid=11589444

That one but also this one from today where they are having a cow over a torch/bandana/acab banner march to a police hq: http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/01/14/occupy-seattle-activists-hold-anti-cop-march

Only commenter getting it:


"travelling anarchists" ooooh when o when did we hear that the last time...? Oh right around 2000/2001, everywhere (The US, France, Northern Europe, Russia).

There are no travelling anarchist packs who fill up demonstrations. Seattle is big enough to have a steady stream of anarchists on its own and a steady stream of anarchists to cover the entire spectrum of what that word means ... all the way down to "angry kid with little media sense"


This is what happens when people get pissed off, they respond. That response is different depending on the person and some people think that

a) a demonstration is always good.

b) Im fucking furious so lets bring torches and scream things at them.


Since a demonstration is either a show of force or a populist form of media meeting means that you either need to have an actuall physical goal with it OR it needs to be trimmed to the media. This was obviously neither.


Some kids have their first run in with cops and they get shocked and furious and do things like this. This pops up the other end if they have read allot of Bakunin as teens.


What amazes me is that people (demonstrators and bystanders) seem to miss that demonstrations are actually quite hopeful events, even supportive when they are aimed at for example the police. The hope, no matter how "hostile" it was (its just damn torches) is that someone, higher up, will listen and say "damn those kids are furious, something must have happened. Lets help".

[Jimmie Higgins]

Oh, ok I had to keep reading that article:


"I would never consider putting my name on a document of an organization that would not disavow violence," says Jim Goettler, a member of the Occupy Seattle legal team. So you don't have a law-degree? Or did the police and courts disavow capital punishment and get rid of armed bailiffs?


"Instead of having the energy going into actually organizing, all the energy is going into the squabble," Goettler laments, citing general assemblies that continue to dwell on the violence versus nonviolence issue. "People are not participating until this is resolved." What hipocritical bullshit. They're the ones trying to make a new resolution - they're the ones causing the "squabble" and then they had a vote and the issue was resolved... now they want to take their toys and go home and pout that people won't do what the 20% tell them to after loosing an open debate and a vote!

[Sasha]

I would link them to the free version of "how non-violence protects the state" but that would probably useless as most would readily admit they are in the business of protecting the state...

[the last donut of the night]

liberals u mad

[ckaihatsu]

Best. Comment. Ever.








[G]et back to us when the Democratic Party adopts a policy of nonviolence.

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/vacating-occupy-seattle/Content?oid=11589444

[Lobotomy]

I'm excited to see that this Occupy has so many solid plans. And fuck The Stranger (except Dan Savage).

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'm excited to see that this Occupy has so many solid plans. And fuck The Stranger (except Dan Savage).

Is the Stranger a liberal free weekly paper? The "East Bay Express" has had some hilariously shit coverage of Occupy Oakland.

[Welshy]

This made my day when I read this.


I'm excited to see that this Occupy has so many solid plans. And fuck The Stranger (except Dan Savage).

Why except Dan Savage? The man is an arrogant biphobic asshole, I don't really find anything about him terribly likable, well except for the who santorum thing.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Well,at least there is some militancy left among the occupations and people who know what needs to be done.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I would link them to the free version of "how non-violence protects the state" but that would probably useless as most would readily admit they are in the business of protecting the state...

Can you give the link please? Thank you.

[Nox]

THIS IS WHY NOBODY LIKES LIBERALS!

The left hates them
The right hates them
The "third way" hates them

EVERYONE HATES THEM

[Minima]

what kind of violence are we talking about. class consciousness first. no property insurance advertisements and reconstruction projects for glass companies please...

[Jimmie Higgins]

THIS IS WHY NOBODY LIKES LIBERALS!

The left hates them
The right hates them
The "third way" hates them

EVERYONE HATES THEMThe bourgeois loves these ideas and politics though: mmm, yes, non-violence on principle no matter what we do to you; moral and individual solutions to social problems, delicious; Mmm, change comes from within the system, yes come to papa you discontents, I'll take care of you; lobby for change, yes gimme more!

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Just read the articles and the comments over the past week or so: http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/occupy/

Fuck them and the pacifist horse they rode in on...

I actually read the comments in the article, and some of those "liberals" said that the paper actually misrepresented their views. They were still going to GAs and were not as offended as the article makes it out that they were. I don't know if they were the actual people in question, but if that is the case then this sounds like a case of a shoddy journalist making a mountain out of a molehill to discredit the movement.

[Jimmie Higgins]

what kind of violence are we talking about. class consciousness first. no property insurance advertisements and reconstruction projects for glass companies please...

the vote wasn't to have principled violence, it was to mandate principled non-violence for all actions in the movement.

I don't favor small groups fighting police or braking some windows as the best tactic or most effective tactic at this time in the movement and I hope to convince people of more mass actions like the port shut-down and things like that. I'm totally against mandating that we are non-violent no matter what however because:

1. How do you enforce this? It would literally require activists physically confronting other activists and this plays into the hands of our enemies as much if not more than the way they spin a few broken windows. So that right there negates the argument that some side actions which result in a little graffiti or a couple of broken windows "make the movement look bad or chaotic". Pacifists fighting a group of insurrectionists would be used in exactly the same way by the media and politicians and the result would probably be worse too because fights among activists actually would be violence unlike breaking a window which is merely vandalism despite the media placing damage private property over injuries to humans in its definition of violence.

If someone doesn't think these are the best tactics the best thing to do is to try and convince other of what they see as a better way to go and a more effective strategy. 100% of people probably won't be won, it's a slow process and often frustrating and difficult but that's the process of building a movement rather than making demands on others to follow your tactic of choice.

2. For me violence or non-violence are not principles and it's disastrous to treat them as such. They are political and tactical questions that have to be answered out of the context and balence of forces at any given time. If non-violence is adopted, what happens if the majority of the movement wants to support a strike and wants to hold a picket line - do we give in and let scabs take people's jobs and smash the efforts of workers, or do we try and physically hold the line? What happens if we have an uprising like in Egypt and police or thugs want to remove us, if we had the numbers and a chance of winning, I would fully support physically defending ourselves from vigilante-thugs and the police.

[Sasha]

Can you give the link please? Thank you.

Foldable Printversion: http://zinelibrary.info/files/How%20Nonviolence%20Protects%20The%20State.pdf
Online text: http://agamsterdam.wordpress.com/teksten/how-nonviolence-protects-the-state/

Although peter (the writer) uploaded the text himself to reach more people I will encourage you to buy a printed copy if you can afford so, its only 10 dollars I believe:
http://southendpress.org/2007/items/87729

[Sasha]

This made my day when I read this.



Why except Dan Savage? The man is an arrogant biphobic asshole, I don't really find anything about him terribly likable, well except for the who santorum thing.

Dan isn't bi-phobic (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/bisexuals/Content?oid=8743322), he isn't transphobic either BTW. The only "your Xphobic" charge his detractors ever could make stick is that he's "vagina phobic" and while its not nice (though funny) to compare the female genitalia to a can of "canned ham dropped from a tall building" the guy is a mean queen, he is allowed to think lady bits are icky as long as he is cool with the ladies they are attached too.