Violence or property damage at protests

Snert wrote:

Missing entirely was any kind of analysis of strategies, outcomes or optics, unless someone criticized these actions, in which case the typical response was "don't tell me what to do, sell-out!"

Again, I think we have to be careful about applying our middle class judgment to people who may have very different life experiences than we do.

saga wrote:

I've had the opportunity to learn from some seasoned veterans of social action who, though they may not approve some of the actions of the anarchists, always speak respectfully of their right to do as they see fit, drawing the line at personal violence, of course.

I've had the opportunity to spend a lot of time with poor people

saga wrote:

Of course, another issue has arisen at times if the more 'active' say they are doing it on behalf of someone else who may not appreciate the negative attention. As long as they have their focus on an issue of their own and don't claim to speak for someone else, I think we have to respect their rights too.

I'm not sure its exactly what you mean but what sprang to mind was demonstrations against police brutality. Although themselves carried out almost universally by the victims of police brutality (because by and large no one else cares) they do not always take the form all victims of police brutality would choose. Since they invariably invite even worse from the cops; they can have serious reprecusions on a community, many members of which might have elected to avoid drawing attention (both good and bad) to the issue.

In his 2008 book Violence, Slavoj Žižek posits the theory that there are two kinds of violence: subjective violence, violent acts that incite our subjective outrage and ire; and objective or ’systemic’ violence,  the necessary violence that sustains liberal capitalist hegemony. More importantly, acts of subjective violence—the suicide bomber, the school shooting, particularly violent video games, movies or books—blind us to the systemic, endemic violence in which we are complicit. Žižek writes:

Quote:

Is there not something suspicious, indeed symptomatic, about this focus on subjective violence—that violence which is enacted by social agents, evil individuals, disciplined repressive apparatuses, fanatical crowds? Doesn’t it desperately try to distract our attention from the true locus of trouble, by obliterating from view other forms of violence and thus actively participating in them? According to a well-known anecdote, a German officer visited Picasso in his Paris studio during the Second World War. There he saw Guernica and, shocked at the modernist ‘chaos’ of the painting, asked Picasso: ‘Did you do this?’ Picasso calmly replied: ‘No, you did this!’ Today, many a liberal when faced with violent outbursts such as the recent looting in the suburbs of Paris, asks the few remaining leftists who still count on a radical social transformation: ‘Isn’t it you who did this? Is this what you want?’ And we should reply, like Picasso: ‘No, you did this! This is the true result of your politics!’ (9-10)

Saga: Hell yeah I'd have a problem with that. The situation I described was problematic, in that there is no easy answer. In the situation you just described it is easy to spot the problem! Solidarity is one thing but I'd have to wonder about anyone who would think doing as you described would help.

Well.

 I have enormous respect for Judy Rebick and her work. I even hear she created a pretty good web site that lets this sort of discussion happen. There's a clever gender spin in how she phrased her comment too:

Quote:

"Don't do it," she screamed. He did.

I'd bet she's rightly pissed at the male bravado and selfishness in the act she is talking about. I think a gender lens on this might be useful, although I don't think I'm qualified to really address it. 

 But.  

 I think she's painted it far too black-bloc and white. She's accepted the mainstream trope that the anarchists dressed in black are automatically "violent" based on how they present themselves. Their outfits are performance (drag, even). They are not the same as a bloc of violent people. Quite the reverse, they are banded together to resist police violence -- which is itself conducted in the name of an authority grounded in everyday violence, so banal and taken-for-granted we don't even see it as violence. Her distaste for the "yahoo" she identifies, I can't really take issue with. Her automatic displacement of that onto an entire group based on self-presentation, well, that's distaste grounded in fashion choices (NOT in a "diversity of tactics" at all) and that makes it elitist, as others have said.

Because ... what's violent about a group of anarchists scaling the fence at the APEC summit in Vancouver in 1997, and getting pepper-sprayed for their pains? What's violent about a cannon firing teddy bears? What's violent about using a megaphone? What's violent about trying to rescue a protester being beaten by cops, when there are no fists directed at the cops?

Nothing.

I hate to always harp on this, but way too often the cops get a pass for their violence. Dominant groups get a pass for the violence in (let's use an example from the Center of the Universe) demolishing Toronto's Tent City. Those who strike back in small ways, usually the most marginalized people, often racialized people out in "Detroit" or "Oakland" or "Jane and Finch" (images to scare the comfortable, more than real places) get tagged as "violent." The biggest cases of violence are so routine they get called normal. And violence gets equated with the wretched of the earth, simply for resisting.

I do take Joey's point about hijacking of protests, though. I'm pretty hardline about the organizers of a protest having "ownership" over it, and a right to tell others to take their tactics elsewhere. Ownership is fairly easy to assign in first nations struggles, harder in things like a protest against the G20. 

-- 

"One law for the lion and the ox is oppression" - Blake

I have a real problem with folks who hijack demonstrations/protests with random acts of vandalism or violence.

IMHO it's an elitist kind of action.

It says I'm too damned good to do the hard day to day slogging work to convince very large numbers of people of the importance of an issue and to organize them into taking collective action.

So instead, I'll show up at an event where others have done all the hard organizing work.

I'll show all these folks that they're a bunch of wimps, and show everyone how "uber militant" I am...how much more committed I am to the cause than everyone else is.

If the horses, the billy clubs, pepper spray, tear gas, rubber/plastic bullets come out I've shown everyone the repressive apparatus of the state...woken all of these "wimpy" demonstrators out of their slumber...

All because I'm an "elite militant"...and elite militants don't get their hands dirty talking to "icky" ordinary people.

Quote:

The initially peaceful protests turned violent as the police penned thousands of citizens who marched against the G20 policies into "corrals," preventing them from moving for hours.

Activists interviewed by Pueblos sin Fronteras condemned the officers who for hours blocked men, women, and children from moving, denying them access to food, water, or restrooms.

The clashes with the police were concentrated in the financial center of London. Environmentalists, students, workers, and pacifists denounced the governments for continuing to bail out the banks, which caused the global economic crisis, and ignoring the poor.

A group of youths smashed windows of the Royal Bank of Scotland, the banking institution that caused popular anger when the news of its former president receiving an annual pension of over a million dollars became public, at a moment when the economic crisis is hitting Great Britain hard.

Later, the police beat up a group of students who were engaged in an act of peaceful civil disobedience, holding a sit-in in the middle of the street.

[url=http://www.monthlyreview.org/mrzine/london020409.html][color=mediumblue]...

I'm really enjoying this thread, including arguments that I don't support.

I think of the state's violence as a bubble prison. You don't know it's there until you bump up against the sides. Some people can/do live their lives never bumping against the sides, and don't see what the problem is. Do as you're told, be good, don't throw things, sit in the street for a non-violent sit in, be peaceful, and nothing will/should happen to you. It's the surprise that's surprising.

Some people, as mentioned by saga and It's Me D, bump into the sides all the time. Some people's very existences are "illegal" or "problematic" as far as the state's control  mechanisms are concerned. They live in the place where violence against them is invisible to others.

To be clear, I'm not one of those people. I have a rather privileged bubble. I try to work in alliance, and know that there is daily violence or threat of violence, whether an organized protest is going on or not.

One thing these protests do is make visible the "bubble" for those of us who mostly can choose not to see it. Then we wonder how could we have not seen it all this time.

And, yo, Catchfire, I need to make up a term for anyone who talks about Slavoj Žižek in the middle of a tactics discussion. Something akin to "Godwin's rule".

P.S. Can you explain why, having never heard of Žižek a year ago, I've now encountered in the past 7 or 8 months a zillion people who read him and talk about him and name-drop him? Does he have a new reality show or something?   

P.P.S. He seems to be a smarty pants I should read, btw. 

You're right radiorahim, sorry for my contribution to the drift.

As for Slavoj Žižek, Maysie, I have checked out his Wikipedia entry and feel tempted to give him a very wide berth...

radiorahim wrote:

Yes riot cops are shithead fascist pig thugs and always will be.   What else is new?

And I know very well that cops are most likely to beat the crap out of anti-poverty activists, young people and minorities.

But the question at the beginning of the thread is acts of vandalism and/or violence by activists at demonstrations...and how movement destroying it can be.

 

Actually it wasn't a question it was a statement and one that some of us are questioning and challenging.

Good post, Cueball.

I see mythological Gandhi has surfaced in discussion piece by Rebick, and I think it would be wise to point out that the Gandhi movement existed against a backdrop of a great deal of violence directed at ending British rule. In fact the Japanese got a great deal of milage our of supporting and fielding a 50,000 strong anti-colonialist all volunteer puppet army during WWII led by Chandra Bose, who is still hailed as a national hero in India to this day, even though he fought on the side of the Axis during the Second World War. Gandhi himself put forward the position during WWII that the people of India should not join the British army and fight the Japanese.

I am not sure where people sit with the idea of India being a Japanese client state during WWII, but that seems to have been the counter-historical narrative, supported directly by militant Indian nationalists and tacitly supported by the Congress party, (in charge of the colonial parliment by free vote under a British Governor General) that refused to declare war on India's behalf against the Axis when hostilities broke out.

The British Governor General, predictably, deigned to do it for them. The fact is that the British had been trying to disentangle itself from direct rule of Indian affairs for quite some time, and the first elections for an all India parliment were held in the 30's.

The writing was on the wall as far as the British Raj was concerned, and had they not assented to full Indian independence after 1945, it is very likely that things would have gotten pretty bloody pretty fast, and everyone knew it. 

The lesson to be learned from Gandhi, is not that "Gandhi taught us not to use violence", but that non-violence is preferable. It can be very powerful force in the hands of adroit political leadership, but there should be no absolute prohibition against its use in the face of tyrrany.

Just so, organizers should have no qualms about ejecting provocateurs and hotheads from a demonstration, by force if necessary, if the police wont do it for them.

So when violence is used at a demo what is its purpose(s)?

Caissa wrote:

So when violence is used at a demo what is its purpose(s)?

Well, I assume, Caissa, that the purposes are the same as non-violent protest: a statement against some form of oppression. Like statica says, it is a 'diversification of tactics'; that is, a different way of manifesting the protest statement. I think it's interesting that it's mainly these anti-globalization, or anti-capitalist demons that most often result in violence, because they are direct responses to the violence enacted and enlisted by capitalism to promote its well-being. Anti-war protests, even anti-occupation protests (in the West--i.e. not by those being occupied) rarely escalate to violence.

That is not to say that the violence isn't occasionally or simultaneously satisfying to the actors in and of itself--as peurile retaliation or thrill-seekin--but contrast this with the fun many peaceful protestors enjoy at demonstrations: witty slogans, drum circles, artistic political expression, etc.

Michelle wrote:

I agree with you about that, ElizaQ.  And I think people who are against destruction or violence at protests make a distinction between that and blocking roads or railroad tracks.  Certainly I do.

I also agree with you about calling destruction of property "violence". 

 Along with property destruction, there are also tactics such as occupations, sit ins, etc, where a crowd of people rush through a door and suddenly are taking over someone else's space for political purpose: no business as usual concept.

Let me forward the example of an unfair/illegal eviction of a woman and her children from a apartment for illegal reasons. As a response, a political/social justice group might occupy the landlord office in response to eviction.

Now, one side could call it an just occupation. The other side could consider it an act of violence.

another example is one that Michelle pointed out with OCAP:

her quote: "For instance, that eviction of the Harris Tory politician's constituency office (forget his name) is an action I support, even though I realize it probably scared his office staff.  Well, that's what an eviction is like.  Scary.  I totally support OCAP's action in that matter."

Michelle wrote:

I've drawn her attention to this thread, so she'll most likely read it at some point, but she's out of town at the moment (in Edmonton tonight for her book tour if anyone is interested!) so she probably hasn't had a chance to read yet.  She has an account here but she hardly ever uses it.  Probably because she has a calendar/schedule that would daunt 3 people.  I don't know how she does it, frankly. :)  I just posted it here because I wanted to see what babblers would have to say about it, and I knew I'd hear another perspective here - and I think that's really important and great. If you want to draw her attention to something and make sure she sees it, the best place to do that is a comment on her blog.

I'm not wedded to either position in the absolute, nor am I dogmatic about non-violence.  I lean towards Judy's point of view on it, but I do see where "violent" protest is acceptable.  For instance, that eviction of the Harris Tory politician's constituency office (forget his name) is an action I support, even though I realize it probably scared his office staff.  Well, that's what an eviction is like.  Scary.  I totally support OCAP's action in that matter.  Not sure whether Judy would agree with me or not on that one.  I also think that the action in London, attacking that banker's house after he made off with all that money, is laudable.  Violent?  Yes, I suppose, but it was strategic and got the point across, and furthermore, it got good press, which is a bonus.

So I'm not a total pacifist.  I think there's a time and a place.

laudable? What about children or other family in the house? What the hell does attacking his house accomplish? It is definitely violent and I don't think it results in good press.  There are lots of rich people still making millions during this crisis, is attacking all of their homes laudable?  I'm sorry, I don't support attacking someone's home or a place of business.

 Sit-ins, demonstrations, etc. are all peaceful and a completely different situation. Lumping all of this together is playing right into the MSM's hands in terms of what is defined as violence. Attacking a private residence where children may be present is definitely a category that should be characterized as violence by both.

I hope Judy does come into this thread and make some much-needed comments.

Goodwin didn't give a fuck when he gave a giant two-fingered salute to the entire British population with his 16-million-pound pension after taxpayer bailed out his calamitous spell as CEO of the Royal Bank of Scotland. How much responsiblity does he bear to people (and their children) who lost their homes or jobs because of mismanagement like Goodwin's? I agree that Goodwin is largely suffering because of the picture-perfect symbolism his greed effects, but his absolute antipathy for the plight of the British un- and under-employed is shocking.

It's like poking a hornet's nest and then complaining when you get stung.

ETA: By the way, Goodwin's house was empty when it was vandalized. It was his second home here in Edinburgh, poor chap.

To what extent do we care if our tactics get "good press" in the National Pest or other bastions of the establishment? I would think that this would indicate a problem with them.

Beside, whenever it suits the system for you to get bad press, rest assured that you will get it in spades.

You can choose to ignore all the philospohical underpinnings throughout this thread and reduce it to vigilantism if you like, Snert, but that's just intellectual dishonesty. It's also reactionary, elementary contrarian stuff. But knock yourself out.

Snert makes a good point though.  Should a raped woman be justified in attaching the home of the rapist (or the judge that let him off too easily...or the police that did not believe or or treat her with a respectful investigation)?  I understand and have studied the philosophical underpinnings of anarchism and I still believe in the rule of law and democracy. You can argue that it is severely flawed in its current formation in Canada, but also argue that extremely positive changes have happened while respecting the rule of law and working democratically.

Pressuring politicians to ensure companies receiving corporate welfare cannot lay people off and working to bring public attention and outrae to this issue seems the way to go. Trashing the CEO's house is a crime and should remain a crime.

martin: I wasn't arguing that activists should strive for "good press" from a biased MSM (or that this should be valued) I was arguing Michelle's contention that those trashing the Brit bankeer's house did in fact receive "good press" (however you define it).

Gandhi was a winner.

He was killed by a rock thrower without an understanding of humanity.

I just think people need to get over the hang-up of automatically thinking "violence = evil; non-violence = good".

To call something violent is not necessarily to condemn it. Violence is a fact of nature and of life; its moral dimension depends very much on the circumstances in which it occurs.

Except that there comes a time in history (and we are very far from that time as yet) when "average citizens" are so desperate and angry at the state that they will embrace social movements who demonstrate they are not afraid to take violent measures if necessary in [b]defence[/b] of their rights as against the violence of the state.

Violence and non-violence are tactics, not eternal moral principles.