Last week, I wrote in anticipation of the Move In Day planned by Occupy Oakland. Yesterday was to have seen a music concert and an attempt to open a vacant convention center as a community service center.
It’s hard to say whether things went according to plan. What is clear is that things did not go well.
The Oakland police fired tear gas at Occupy Oakland, struck them with batons, and used other brutal techniques of “crowd control”. One young protester was sent to the hospital with internal bleeding as a result.
The police justified their violence by saying that, “acts of violence, property destruction and overnight lodging will not be tolerated”. It doesn’t make sense to say that you won’t be tolerant of violence if you’re acting violently yourself… and overnight lodging… why shouldn’t that be tolerated?
Back in October, Occupy Oakland gained nationwide support when the Oakland Police engaged in such brutal attacks. That’s not likely to happen this time.
This time, Occupy Oakland protesters were violently attacking the police. This time, Occupy Oakland protesters were destroying property – including artwork.
Just as the police can’t reasonably condemn out of control violence when they engage in it themselves, the Occupy protesters don’t have a solid basis for expressing outrage at police brutality when they have been brutal themselves. Occupy Oakland says that it’s against economic injustice, but it’s not justice to go smashing other people’s stuff. It’s economic vengeance.
Occupy Oakland protesters seemed to be reverting to stereotypes of radical activism, and not thinking through the consequences for the Occupy movement in general. They called police officers “pigs”, denying the humanity of their opponents. They established an “Oakland Commune”, though their organization clearly isn’t integrated into the community. They used tactics from the Seattle anti-globalization protests without considering whether those tactics brought any long-term success. They burned an American flag, which isn’t either illegal or wrong in itself, but will alienate all but the radicalized.
The Occupy Oakland protesters lost my respect this weekend. They’re not thinking wisely about how to solve the nation’s problems. They’re not protesting with integrity. Instead, they look like a group that just wants attention for itself, and is willing to hurt other people in order to get it.
It’s this sort of thing that just leaves me shaking my head. Throwing rocks? Shooting flares at police? Wrecking art installations? What is that?
You do realize, of course, that the police send their own dressed as protesters to start the violence and give them an excuse to beat down occupy protesters?
You do realize, that the protests’ bad ideas are probably led by cointelpro type ‘leaders’, just as they did in the 60s.
And talk about the definition of insanity , doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. These protests meet the requirements. No one in the larger public ever understands the real issues, because the corporate media lies and pretends the police are the victims and never shows the real messages or anger behind the protest.
The Occupy movement needs to try something different, GO DIRECTLY TO THE TV STATIONS whom we want to report the truth. The are the reason so many Americans are dumbed down. The corporate media is the reason it is impossible to discuss issues with many Americans because they have no freaking idea what is going on and believe the exact opposite of the truth because of the corporate media’s Orwellian reporting.
A Democracy cannot survive without a free media. The elite know this, why can’t Occupy figure it out?
We need to surround the TV stations, with signs that have the truth we want expressed like
‘ we are not jealous, we are angry the rich have not been held accountable for their crimes’
‘The 1% have stolen our social security trust fund for tax cuts and wars and created this debt on purpose to make themselves more money on interest’
‘They stole our social security trust fund for wars, now they want to cut SS and start another unnecessary illegal war’
”The 1% aren’t smarter- they are criminals that are not being held accountable’
The point would be to reach the masses right now, the rest of the 99% who do not understand the movement, have not been paying attention to realize how badly they too are being screwed.
What evidence do you have for your assertions, “common sense”? I looked through Occupy Oakland’s own publications, and nowhere did I see any statement either refuting responsibility or apologizing for the violence. What I saw were boasts that Occupy Oakland is going to blockade the airport.
I’ve seen a few videos online that I take as pretty good circumstantial evidence that undercover officers are infiltrating occupy movements and sometimes inciting violence. That’s not really surprising, given that police have used military tactics against occupy.
Whether someone who looks like a protester and is being violent is an “agent provocateur” or not, it’s important for other people in the protest to have the discipline not to join him (it’s almost always a him) in violent or destructive acts.
It’s hard to understand the strategy behind firing a flare gun at police. Does someone imagine they will really WIN against the Oakland Police Department with a flare gun? And it gives up a strategic advantage to non-violence, which is the ability to shame the target of the protest for ITS use of violence.
Occupy is supposed to be open and horizontally democratic. I hope violence as a tactic is being argued openly within Occupy Oakland. If anybody is in the area, I hope they participate and speak out in favor on non-violence. Those not in the area can communicate (as this article does) our opposition to the use of violence by occupy.
Chris Hedges has a good write-up of this:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_cancer_of_occupy_20120206/
You’re right, that is a good article.
I am strongly in favor of keeping Occupy non-violent, but I think that piece was one of Hedges’ more slovenly arguments.
Calling someone “adolescent” does not in and of itself constitute an argument. There are a lot of serious arguments to be made about violence and property destruction as tactics, and calling someone immature simply avoids the issues.
At one point, Hedges talks about violence, property destruction, and burning the flag as though these were essentially the same thing. They’re not. They are three different kinds of tactics, and the only real link between them is that Hedges doesn’t want them employed in Occupy. I don’t want them employed in Occupy either, but let’s be frank about the differences. There really IS an ethical distinction to be made between injuring a human being and destroying inanimate property–especially property attained through fraud, corruption and exploitation. I still oppose property destruction as a tactic, because I hold out hope for a rule of law that protects property and serves the greater good. As for burning the flag, I will not do it, but I support the right to do it. Burning the flag is a symbolic act, and when we start restricting people’s right to express themselves symbolically, we are eroding human rights.
Hedges also fails to point out the hypocrisy of accepting that Occupy will be judged by the actions of a few violent and destructive people, even if the participants are nonviolent and respectful of property. We don’t assume that every police officer pepper sprays 84-year-old women. We don’t assume that every marine pisses on the people he kills. So why assume every occupier is violent and destructive based on a few cases? There IS an interesting discussion to be had about the role of the culture of these groups in either fostering or suppressing these kinds of acts, but that’s a discussion–not a foregone conclusion.
Hedges at one point talks about Occupy as a movement that unites people of different ideologies, then he falls back to talking about “the left.”
There is also a real weakness to Hedges’ argument that a tactic should be eschewed because it will make a protest movement unpopular. Well, take that to the extreme, and you might as well just stay home. A protest that doesn’t offend anybody’s sensibilities isn’t a protest, it’s a pep rally.
By “adolescent,” Hedges refers to a mentally-underbaked idea, and I fully agree with him that the Black Bloc bullshit is underbaked, Talph.
You complain that Occupy is going to be judged by the numbers of people in the crowd in Oakland who acted violently toward people and wrecked art and property. Well, of course it is. That’s the nature of acting in public, just as Occupy participants understood when they used the pepper spray incidents over and over and over and over again, even though as you say not all, or even not most, police act in violence against occupiers. To act in a mature, non-adolescent way is to understand such things and then to use your understanding of that strategically.
I’m not sure what to think of this debacle at the moment, I still have a lot more reading to do before I make up my mind, but it looks like a categorical fail for Occupy Oakland in terms of public support. This time, it seems the public *is* on the side of the “pigs”.
This is what tends to happen to such protest movements. Is it a big conspiracy? I don’t know, but I doubt it. There are bad apples everywhere, and it only takes a few of them to incite a mob.
Besides, the fanatics – and others eager for violence – are attracted to such protests. It’s hard for the organizers of something as amorphous as this to keep firm control of such things.
But this will definitely benefit the right-wing.
From what I’ve been able to piece together, the “mob”–that is to say, the overwhelming majority of the participants in Occupy Oakland–was not incited, was not violent, and did not destroy property.
More and more Americans are going without food as we give billions to other countries. These protests will get more violent soon.
We’re not giving billions to other countries, as in we’re not giving away our food and resources to other countries. Where did you get that idea?