rioters bloc
13th June 2006, 03:25
another lil sumin sumin one of my friends wrote (printed in mutiny zine #2)
although i agree with most of her sentiments, i don't completely concur with some of her ideas and i'd like to know how others feel :)
peace out
Beyond Non-Violence
The ideas in this article have been going through my head for quite some time. The spark for their release was the May 12 student VSU/welfare demonstration, where the ‘official leadership’ of the student movement and sections of the so-called radical left actively discouraged collectively determined direct action, negotiated with police on behalf of the protest and denounced ‘violence’ from a soap box.
This article is not a personal criticism of those involved, or even of the student movement, but I think these examples are a useful springboard for looking at this broader political question.
The rally began at UTS politely listening to speakers where the Union President told us that we should make sure we are well-behaved at the demonstration and don’t let ourselves be triggered into violence. This was so we would not get ‘bad’ media coverage have our ‘message lost’. (We were also told “Student Unions built this country”… but I think that I just need to leave that alone for now).
These comments reminded me of being at primary school when we were told that if you are bullied you should not fight back because then you are just as bad as them. It’s as though if we resort to tactics thought of as ‘violent’, we are somehow reducing ourselves to a lesser form of resistance than if we were to stick to the standard respectable march down George Street.
There are two major strands - well maybe three strands - of criticism that I have about this way of thinking.
Firstly, when we disparage ‘violent protest’ we directly undermine a form of resistance that is the only avenue of resistance available to a number of oppressed groups across the world. The riots in Redern and Macquarie fields are examples where communities who have no access to the ‘legitimate means of change’ provided by the social democratic system resist through one of the only means they have available.
I’m not necessarily claiming these are ‘pure’ examples of highly politicised, democratic resistance, but are they are examples of people standing up together against systemic oppression. To undermine this form of resistance based on ‘violence’ I think illustrates confusion between violence as a means of domination; and physical resistance from oppression (whether in the form of a riot, direct action or defending yourself against police brutality).
Secondly, it illustrates a failure to acknowledge the success of movements for change, both contemporary and throughout history. If we restrict ourselves to the ‘legitimate’ forms of protest set out for us by the social democratic system, we will never get any further than a few short term concessions. We send a message that while we may be unhappy, we are prepared to keep our dissent within a framework decided by the system. This means we will only ever have wins when they sways the votes and pose no threat to the system at all.
This is particularly so when we compromise on collectively determined decisions under the pressure of the police. This can undermine an entire movement by suggesting that if we compromise on a rally route we will compromise on demands, and inevitably only push as far as the system lets us.
We end up supporting the system by providing the spectacle of democracy without any real pressure for change. This gives legitimacy to the system, enabling our protest to be used as an example of the success that social democracy can bring when people protest the ‘right way’. We are simply a vent to allow the stresses of social democracy to be relieved.
We contribute to this further when we cry that our legitimate, peaceful protests are hammered by the police. We leave space then to imply that if the demonstration was more violent or disruptive then police interference and violence may be justified.
This article is not claiming that the only useful form of resistance involves direct action or molotovs, but I wanted to get out that we need to think about our forms of protest and the associated language in the context of a broader struggle. This should mean that our means are much closer to our ends and that we build solidarity in the process.
although i agree with most of her sentiments, i don't completely concur with some of her ideas and i'd like to know how others feel :)
peace out
Beyond Non-Violence
The ideas in this article have been going through my head for quite some time. The spark for their release was the May 12 student VSU/welfare demonstration, where the ‘official leadership’ of the student movement and sections of the so-called radical left actively discouraged collectively determined direct action, negotiated with police on behalf of the protest and denounced ‘violence’ from a soap box.
This article is not a personal criticism of those involved, or even of the student movement, but I think these examples are a useful springboard for looking at this broader political question.
The rally began at UTS politely listening to speakers where the Union President told us that we should make sure we are well-behaved at the demonstration and don’t let ourselves be triggered into violence. This was so we would not get ‘bad’ media coverage have our ‘message lost’. (We were also told “Student Unions built this country”… but I think that I just need to leave that alone for now).
These comments reminded me of being at primary school when we were told that if you are bullied you should not fight back because then you are just as bad as them. It’s as though if we resort to tactics thought of as ‘violent’, we are somehow reducing ourselves to a lesser form of resistance than if we were to stick to the standard respectable march down George Street.
There are two major strands - well maybe three strands - of criticism that I have about this way of thinking.
Firstly, when we disparage ‘violent protest’ we directly undermine a form of resistance that is the only avenue of resistance available to a number of oppressed groups across the world. The riots in Redern and Macquarie fields are examples where communities who have no access to the ‘legitimate means of change’ provided by the social democratic system resist through one of the only means they have available.
I’m not necessarily claiming these are ‘pure’ examples of highly politicised, democratic resistance, but are they are examples of people standing up together against systemic oppression. To undermine this form of resistance based on ‘violence’ I think illustrates confusion between violence as a means of domination; and physical resistance from oppression (whether in the form of a riot, direct action or defending yourself against police brutality).
Secondly, it illustrates a failure to acknowledge the success of movements for change, both contemporary and throughout history. If we restrict ourselves to the ‘legitimate’ forms of protest set out for us by the social democratic system, we will never get any further than a few short term concessions. We send a message that while we may be unhappy, we are prepared to keep our dissent within a framework decided by the system. This means we will only ever have wins when they sways the votes and pose no threat to the system at all.
This is particularly so when we compromise on collectively determined decisions under the pressure of the police. This can undermine an entire movement by suggesting that if we compromise on a rally route we will compromise on demands, and inevitably only push as far as the system lets us.
We end up supporting the system by providing the spectacle of democracy without any real pressure for change. This gives legitimacy to the system, enabling our protest to be used as an example of the success that social democracy can bring when people protest the ‘right way’. We are simply a vent to allow the stresses of social democracy to be relieved.
We contribute to this further when we cry that our legitimate, peaceful protests are hammered by the police. We leave space then to imply that if the demonstration was more violent or disruptive then police interference and violence may be justified.
This article is not claiming that the only useful form of resistance involves direct action or molotovs, but I wanted to get out that we need to think about our forms of protest and the associated language in the context of a broader struggle. This should mean that our means are much closer to our ends and that we build solidarity in the process.