Violence or property damage at protests II

If the demonstrators had chosen to occupy the bank...or blockade it, then I would be all in favour of that kind of action.

I might even support the "brick through the window", had it been part of a "collective action" to help protestors enter and occupy the bank.   Afterall many workers around the world have engaged in heroic workplace occupations...especially in Argentina.

There are all kinds of very militant but peaceful forms of protest.   Gandhi was non-violent but organized very militant actions in the struggle against British colonialism.

What I don't support is this kind of elitist individualistic "I'm more revolutionary than you" crap...show up at someone else's demo and out of the blue decide to smash a window.   That kind of stuff is bullshit.

"So some Marxists dislike notions such as "human rights" because they think those kinds of concepts prop of capitalism and interfere with the way history is supposed to occur.  Of course, that notion of history is tautological and thus generally useless."

In "The Shock Doctrine" Naomi Klein talked about the "human rights agenda" in places like Chile and Argentina under condiitons of U.S. backed fascism.   Publicly talking about any kind of social change would get you tossed into a torture chamber or you might just "disappear".    If you stuck to talking about human rights and only spoke about the very worst aspects of repression, you might possibly escape this fate.    You could also get middle class liberal types on board this agenda...folks who supported the neo-liberal economic agenda but didn't like the idea of torturing and murdering people.

The human rights agenda gave dissenters a little bit of breathing space in conditions of horrible fascist repression.

I fail to see how a world in which sufferring is increased for a few (Goodwin and his family, in this case) but is not lessened for [i]any[/i] could possibly be considered more just.

Quote:

Some worry about Goodwin's kids. Take a drive to Walkerton, Ontario, and visit the graves of the little victims of the violence of those who believed deregulation was a panacea for all ills.

Total straw man argument. Who here is worried about Goodwin's kids and is also in favour of deregulation of water testing?

"Total straw man argument."

Actually, someone made reference to that in the previous thread, of which this one is a continuation. So, it's not a "straw man argument" at all.

It is, however, close to a false dichotomy. One could be concerned about both.

This aside, I wanted to dramatically illustrate that the violence of people like Goodwin, and that champions of the now colapsing neo-liberal capitalism are in fact very violent people.

Tommy_Paine wrote:

This aside, I wanted to dramatically illustrate that the violence of people like Goodwin, and that champions of the now colapsing neo-liberal capitalism are in fact very violent people.

I concur they are, but yet people accept this as being nothing whatsoever.

"When the law break in, how you gonna go?

Shot down on the pavement,

Or waiting on death row?"

---The Clash "Guns of Brixton"

"I concur they are, but yet people accept this as being nothing whatsoever."

Well, calamities arising from these economic policies are usually presented to us as events similar to tornadoes-- no one's fault, just something that happens.

Or, that those who might be seen as responsible just made an "honest mistake", meaning, these highly educated people, with access to expert advice are allowed to plead stupidity to avoid consequence.

I don't buy it. Whether we are talking the current economic calamity, the Dzisanski murder, or the Smith Inquiry, (among countless other inquiries) these are not "acts of God" or the result of honest human error.

They are deliberate acts, conceived and perpetrated because the perpetrators have no fear of consequence.

Quote:

But I prefer it to no justice, which is what the British government, the American government and the Canadian government seem intent on delivering for their masters who have gleefully visited upon the public their own form of insidious violence, which they euphamistically refer to as "the free market" or "free trade" or "deregulation".

Has there ever been a vigilante who didn't say that he reluctantly did "what the law wouldn't do"?

Laws they have a creation and enforcement monopoly on.

"Obviously in that kind of situation what constitutes a "just response" is going to be different.   But we are not in that situation in this country ... nor is anyone in pretty much any advanced capitalist country at prsent."

Immigrant workers were rounded up in their homes and on their way to workplaces today and placed in detention centres. POC and the homeless are rounded up and detained on a routine basis, people are denied housing economic security and basic safety on a regular basis. The privilege and comfort that are experienced by some is being paid for by the majority both domestically and abroad. We are in the heart of the empire is the only acceptable response to wave banners and chant every couple of months?

Did I say that the only response should be to wave banners and chant?

There are plenty of militant but  peaceful ways to challenge authority.   If folks are being evicted I see nothing at all wrong with a community taking collective action such as staging a blockade to prevent eviction.

There may be tactics that can be used to deal with situations such as happened today.

There are no doubt repressive actions taken in western capitalist countries.   But in no way is it in on the level of fascist terror unleashed in the death squad states of Latin America a decade or two ago.   People are not systematically being tossed out aircraft doors over the ocean as they were in Argentina.   There are no "mass graves" as was commonplace in El Salvador.

martin dufresne wrote:

The notion that some anonymous folks sitting behind a keyboard are entitled to dictate what is or isn't moral for the oppressed to do is a sick joke.

Heh.  Word, martin! 

avoir le dernier mot!

martin dufresne wrote:

The notion that some anonymous folks sitting behind a keyboard are entitled to dictate what is or isn't moral for the oppressed to do is a sick joke.

This is a discussion forum where people present their points of view...argue things out.   Nobody is "dictating" to anyone.  In fact if I were planning an action this would be the last place I'd come for advice.  (sorry mods!)   And I suspect that those planning things aren't pouring over babble threads.

Nevertheless some actions/tactics I think are good, positive and build the movement.   Others I think are just assinine and stupid.

Again, I come back to how this thread started...Judy Rebick's column on the window smashing by the dude in London.   She called the guy a "yahoo"...I'd use stronger language..."f*cking a**hole" is the term that comes to mind.

Maybe it's hard for Canadians to comprehend the scale of the economic collapse in Britain. We're talking about three collapsed banks: the equivalent of BMO, Royal Bank and Scotiabank going into administration and being bailed out by the taxpayer. We're talking about a smallish country that deliberately kept itself out of Europe (and so misses their support) and doesn't have the benefit of an economically  massive southern neighbour to lean on. The Royal Bank of Scotland, the fourth-largest bank in the world and a 200-year old institution--about as conservative an investment as you could find--was driven into calamity by Sir Fred Goodwin, the CEO, who then walked away from this record failure--a record, incidentally, in the midst of other massive, massive collapses--with a pension worth 16.9 million pounds. When this was pointed out as a gross overpayment for utter incompetence, when thousands lost their jobs and their homes, Goodwin responded with arrogance and entitlement. He refused to back down, pitting himself against the Prime Minister, parliament, his own shareholders and public sentiment. That in itself should be construed as a violent action. Indeed, where did Goodwin's violence start? Flagrantly and irresponsibly running a reliable company into the ground? Glorifying profit with no regard for workers, stability and longevity? Audaciously stealing a masive pension into his severance papers? Spitting in the face of the British public again, again and again? Where were his thoughts for his children then?

To then abuse the concerted action of vandalising his home and expensive luxury car--now retaliatory, now political--as that of a 'yahoo' or 'fucking asshole' is so disproportionate as to be absurd.

"yahoo" (Rebick)

"fucking asshole" (Radiorahim)

But they are attacking a brick thrower, not the billionnaire thief.

Cueball wrote:

On what basis do you assert that the world was not bettered for many because of this act? Not saying I approve of it, but the assumption seems pretty broad.

The only possible way I can see anyone's life being improved by that act is through schadenfreude, and if we're using schadenfreude as an form of justice we have some really serious problems with our definition of "just".

Quote:

Actually, someone made reference to that in the previous thread, of which this one is a continuation. So, it's not a "straw man argument" at all.

Who, in the previous thread, said that they were in favour of water deregulation?

Quote:

You see suffering. I see consequences.

And what are the consequences? Are the consequences sufferring?

Quote:

So, the police start asking for all the men on a street to come out of their homes, they are loaded into trucks, driven off, and don't return, you're street is next ... do you fight back? If you're a male, do you quietly go off becuase, well, that's the law and you've asked, "what would Ghandi have done?" If you're female, do you let your husbands, sons, and brothers be carted away because violence only begets violence?

You do understand the difference between directly resisting immediate violence and taking revenge on people who have previously committed violence against you, right? Breaking the windows of a bank or a banker's house is not resisting power. I'm really sorry if people have convinced themselves that it is and they take offence to being told that it's not, but it's not. As I asked in the previous thread, what are the specific goals that such an act seeks to accomplish? Because I can not personally see any way that it could possibly achieve anything productive.

Quote:

The notion that some anonymous folks sitting behind a keyboard are entitled to dictate what is or isn't moral for the oppressed to do is a sick joke.

The notion that some anonymous folks sitting behind a keyboard are entitled to dictate what is or isn't moral for the military to do is a sick joke. See how silly that reasoning sounds now?

Quote:

Still, 43 unarmed citizens have been shot and killed over the last 22 years by Montreal cops, with none of the killers having suffered any significant consequences.

And smashing windows is intended to prevent this from happenning in the future in what way?

The brick thrower is merely an asshole, or rather, someone who acts without realizing the consequences.  The banker is far worse. You would think that no one on Babble needs to be told what devastation the greed of this banker and the rest his class has caused to the world.

In the previous thread, Statica, you pointed out the "Propaganda of the deed." The effectiveness of that as a tactic depends on our society having an active class consciousness. In spite of the anger directed at a small group of corporate executives, we certainly don't  in North America, and judging by voting results in recent elections, it at present is not strong in Europe.

"The brick thrower is merely an asshole, or rather, someone who acts without realizing the consequences.  The banker is far worse. You would think that no one on Babble needs to be told what devastation the greed of this banker and the rest his class has caused to the world."

-----------------------------------------------------

Yes, it's so obvious that perhaps something else is in mind. Winning by means of shifting public opinion, perhaps. Winning by demonstrating the principles that supposedly motivate one.

Winning this old battle would be good. 

"There are no doubt repressive actions taken in western capitalist countries. But in no way is it in on the level of fascist terror unleashed in the death squad states of Latin America a decade or two ago. People are not systematically being tossed out aircraft doors over the ocean as they were in Argentina. There are no "mass graves" as was commonplace in El Salvador."

As long as we don't do much digging around Residential Schools, I guess we can rest easy that there are no mass graves in Canada.

I would agree that our political situation in Canada is not what it has been in places that Radiorahim mentions, and many others. I think it should concern us all that this is where many Canadians would set the bar. And people have a habit of preforming to where they set the bar.

And, even at that, the evidence of late shows that the difference between Canada and those places is one of degrees-- and not principle.

Quote:

So I ask anyone, now show me who is responsible for the violence in this situation.

Yes, in that situation the police are responsible for the violence. There is, though, a difference between protecting yourself from a direct threat by combating that threat (in this instance, the police officer who is attacking you), and something like breaking the windows of a bank. Neither the windows nor the physical location of the bank are the threat; damaging them is not a form of self-protection. There is no sense in which you will be less exploited by capital because you have broken the window. If anything, people will simply be more exploited because the banks will use that property damage as an excuse to ramp up service fees.

Quote:

So maybe you can tell me, point to an example where the powerfull few have said, "oh, I see your point. Awfull selffish of us, here, help yourself." I can't think of a situation where the powerfull few have not kept power from others without bloodshed. And, I can't think where the powerless have accomplished power sharing without being forced to use violence, or deffended themselves from the same.

I don't think that's really the point. The idea isn't that peaceful protests are going to convince Harper to suddenly love immigrants. It's to attract a groundswell of public opinion so large that politicians [i]must[/i] come on side or lose whatever power they have left.

This has, by the way, worked in the past. England banned the slave trade largely as a result of pressure from Protestant religious communities who viewed slavery as a moral blight on the nation, for example. Women's rights such as the right to vote were gained primarily (though perhaps not entirely) through peaceful means. The civil rights movement in the U.S., which resulted in significant (though still incomplete) progress in the rights of black people succeeded largely because of a non-violent movement.

Right now, "the state" is represented by people who want to end state intervention (except for road building and police/military functions) in Canada

They got there by convincing the Great Unread that they would look after them, body and soul.

Labour got into that position at war's end in England b ecause they convinced enough people that the welfare state was viable.

Canada got there because the libs were counting heads and Britain and Europe were leading the way.

Tommy Douglas knew democracy was the only way.

We have to be better at organizing than they are as we reach the crisis points.

Check your history. Look around at your neighbours. 

Tell me they are ready to storm the barricades alongside the kids. 

Or is all that too much to imagine.

After reading earlier posts, it seems that some feel violence is a legitimate form of protest at gatherings such as the G20.  I suggest that the individuals that come to protest armed with hard hats, bandanas, baseball bats, bottles of bleach, etc. have little interest in the issues,rather they come with the explicit purpose of creating violence for their own gratification.  I feel sorry for the majority legitimate protesters that get lumped in with these thugs.

radiorahim wrote:

Did I say that the only response should be to wave banners and chant?

There are plenty of militant but  peaceful ways to challenge authority.   If folks are being evicted I see nothing at all wrong with a community taking collective action such as staging a blockade to prevent eviction.

There may be tactics that can be used to deal with situations such as happened today.

There are no doubt repressive actions taken in western capitalist countries.   But in no way is it in on the level of fascist terror unleashed in the death squad states of Latin America a decade or two ago.   People are not systematically being tossed out aircraft doors over the ocean as they were in Argentina.   There are no "mass graves" as was commonplace in El Salvador.

i think we need to be careful when making these kind of comparisons. In western capitalist societies there is continuous ongoing violence against marginalized people and their communities. First Nations, Black people and the homeless are routinely beaten on the streets or holding cells and sometimes killed, the violence continues throughout the criminal justice system in the courts and the atrocious level of violence that exists in jails and prisons. Most of this violence is not commonly acknowledged or witnessed by the majority but it is more than evident to its victims. The NDP's tough on crime stance is evidence there is little willingness to acknowledge this violence.

Physical violence is not only carried out by agents or the state, violence against women is not just the act of individuals but ultimately the expression of culturally sanctioned heirachies and operations of power.

Violence is not only physical either that is the insidious nature of social, economic and emotional violence, although the potential or threat of physcial violence is ever present. Racism by its nature is violence it is an act of negation and a denial of one's humanity it is an assault on the human spirit with consequences that are both physical and emotional in devastation. The systematic manner in which people are excluded from education, employment and housing are manifestations of power and expresssions of tyranny. Expulsions, evictions forced unemployment or exclusion from employment are all threats to survival. The willingness of the majority of Canadians to accept these condition are an act of violence in themselves. This is tryranny this is oppression.

It is also important to note that the state/ruling class is willling to utilize its apparatus of violence when it feels that it is threatened. The tyranny carried out in Latin America was carried out against an organized and functional left that threatened the mechanisms of power. There is no such threat presently exisiting in Western Capitalist countries. I would say the main reason that no such opposition to power exists is due to the operations and mechanisms of power that disenfranchise and disempower resistance. Considering that physical violence by state action generally occurs when power is threatened, one might argue that less physical violence is a function of the effectiveness of oppressive mechanisms of power.

Also as others have pointed out it is inaccurate to separate out Tyranny that occurs in other countries from the mechanisms of power that operate and exist in western capitalist countires. It is the operations of the financiers and corporations that support and maintain tyranny in other places and to which those of us who are privileged are complicit with to varying degrees.

Quote:

After reading earlier posts, it seems that some feel violence is a legitimate form of protest at gatherings such as the G20. I suggest that the individuals that come to protest armed with hard hats, bandanas, baseball bats, bottles of bleach, etc. have little interest in the issues,rather they come with the explicit purpose of creating violence for their own gratification. I feel sorry for the majority legitimate protesters that get lumped in with these thugs.

So you would argue the American revolution was an error and led by thugs? You would argue the Haitian slaves who rebelled and gained freedom were thugs and rightfully belonged in their chains until such time as their rulers democratically freed them? Just as two examples ...

"So you would argue the American revolution was an error and led by thugs? You would argue the Haitian slaves who rebelled and gained freedom were thugs and rightfully belonged in their chains until such time as their rulers democratically freed them? Just as two examples ..."

___________________________________________--

Of course not, FM. Neither would you advocate killing, eh? Or are you a rule utilitarian where it comes to that one? Never even in defense of hearth and home?

That's to retreat to reductionist absurdity in your argument. reductio ad absurdum