From each according to his ability, to each according to his need....

[Versus]

The occupy thread pt. 2 eh?

[CuckooTuli]

Originally Posted by Versus

The occupy thread pt. 2 eh?

Haha, pretty much.

[Saya]

I think it again depends on what you consider nonviolence. Things like vandalism and sabotage to some wouldn't be nonviolence.

[CuckooTuli]

This is true. Ditto with things like the case of Jody McIntyre (which incidentally brought up some pretty uncomfortable truths about the way disability is viewed in the vile responses of both the Daily Mail and the BBC); if those watching and filming this incident had intervened using physical force to prevent the police from dragging a man from his wheelchair and across the floor, this could be considered violent obstruction of the law, especially if there had not been somebody around to film the incident. The complicating factor here is that violence doesn't always stay away from you, just because you stay away from it.

[AshleyO]

Originally Posted by Versus

The occupy thread pt. 2 eh?

It's interesting that you brought that up. A lot and I mean A LOT of protests in OWS are invoking mantras of non violence in the people's mic. I have to agree with Malcom X on this one. "By any means necessary."

And to that, I think to some extent as to what is necessary for I guess whatever it is that OWS is trying to accomplish, which I think for the most part is removing the corporate dominance in government.

They're always preaching about non-violence. But I'm always wondering if these corporations or if the establishment has anything to worry about if they know that there's a certain event horizon of action a movement wont touch.

I think there's still too much to talk about. There's still too many people condemning certain tactics out of hand. The black blocs have NO LOVE at all but then I have to wonder what will happen if there ever comes a time that we'd need the black blocs. Would these movements be "counter-revolutionary"?

I've never been too keen about trying to establish a dialogue that says some things are absolutely off limits. OWS is still very much just peaceful protesting with a few moments of direct action here and there, but the popular dialogue in it seems to be that you must obey the law, cause no "violence" at all, and I guess from that... the grinch will grow a heart?

[Versus]

Dude. Do you know what you're saying?

[Versus]

Also; Alan, I owe you an apology that I've been sitting on a while. It was exclusive and dismissive of me to say that I understand the minutia of violence more then you. I hadn't considered you at all, and it was fucked.

[AshleyO]

Originally Posted by Versus

Dude. Do you know what you're saying?

What? I guess I don't.

[Alan]

I completely disagree with black blocs. They call themselves anarchist but they act without the support of the masses. That makes them a vanguard, believers that they're the gatekeepers of the revolution.
Plus, in line with out discussion about violence, they're conscious they will perform tactics which are considered violent regardless of the context of the movement, most times in a very counterproductive fashion, and if there came a time in the near future where violence would be necessary for protests in the United States, they'd be the last ones to make a calculated understanding on the type of violence needed. It's ritualism, and there's a reason black blocs tend to primarily appeal to white teenagers.

[AshleyO]

Originally Posted by Alan

I completely disagree with black blocs. They call themselves anarchist but they act without the support of the masses. That makes them a vanguard, believers that they're the gatekeepers of the revolution.

Exactly. However, someone else who dismissed black blocs for entirely different reasons doesn't mean they actually have a good understanding of why they dismiss them and can thus disarm themselves of certain tactics and actions out of hand. Which is part of the point I was trying to make.

Plus, in line with out discussion about violence, they're conscious they will perform tactics which are considered violent regardless of the context of the movement, most times in a very counterproductive fashion, and if there came a time in the near future where violence would be necessary for protests in the United States, they'd be the last ones to make a calculated understanding on the type of violence needed. It's ritualism, and there's a reason black blocs tend to primarily appeal to white teenagers.

I agree. I think I may have not expressed my point too well as I suppose it did sound like I endorsed black blocs.

[Saya]

The issue I largely have with black bloc and like minded people is that they don't realize that being able to utilize violence (or vandalism!) can be a privileged thing too. I attended a conference about nonviolent tactics and I totally think things like sabotage are very valid, but the only thing that bugged me that the guy who presented was white, cis male and able bodied, and was saying how he's been arrested lots of times but never convicted and doesn't have a record, so we should worry about that. But lots of people can't afford a record due to their jobs or because of family members (I used to stay away from protests because if I ever got arrested, that could have damaged my sister's application to the RCMP. I'm really glad she didn't get in) or they're undocumented immigrants who could be deported.

[AshleyO]

That's an incredibly valid point. I appreciate that perspective as I've only ever heard of that just a little bit in passing.

However, I'm curious, Saya. What SHOULD that dude be doing?

If I understand you correctly, if he did anything that sabotaged something, it may have put some people at risk due to the system in place (I get that), however what does he do? Is it basically a complete hands off kind of thing for him? Perhaps his tactics CAN'T be used because they directly harm other people, so exactly what does he do?

Is it that all he can really do is JUST listen? If he only uses the tactics that the oppressed uses; can we find that it would be sufficient?

I guess what I'm asking is how does one engage?

I'm glad you brought this up because during the May Day march, there was supposed to be a strike in NYC across the board. But these tactics CAN'T be used. There was maybe... 20,000? But that's out of a population of 3 million. To my knowledge, it was done by a lot of people who I can understand could afford to do it.

I guess what I'm getting at is that I really have no idea how we as a society can even begin to shrug off the structures of this system.

[Saya]

Oh I think the dude SHOULD do what he does, but he shouldn't say no one else has anything to worry about because he's been able to coast on his privilege, you know?

If you're going to do illegal direct action things in general, you should have complete consensus with the group you're with. When you throw a brick through a window, the police are more than likely going to come crashing down on anyone who's around. Can everyone around you afford to be arrested? Are they okay with that risk? I'd feel like shit if someone got deported because I did something that I didn't even get charged with after.

[Versus]

AshleyO, I don't think reactionary violence is something you can plan or strategize. It's something you do, not something you think about.

[AshleyO]

Originally Posted by Saya

Oh I think the dude SHOULD do what he does, but he shouldn't say no one else has anything to worry about because he's been able to coast on his privilege, you know?

If you're going to do illegal direct action things in general, you should have complete consensus with the group you're with. When you throw a brick through a window, the police are more than likely going to come crashing down on anyone who's around. Can everyone around you afford to be arrested? Are they okay with that risk? I'd feel like shit if someone got deported because I did something that I didn't even get charged with after.

I got you.

[Despanan]

If you disapprove of what happened on Mayday Ashley, maybe you should have helped to plan Mayday, or at the very least actually gone outside on May Day.

If more people who thought like you actually got involved, instead of just complaining about it on the internet OWS might do more things that you approve of.

It also might have the numbers to bring about the kind of dramatic actions that you're demanding of it.

Just sayin'

[AshleyO]

I don't disapprove of may day.

But quick question.

What do you think it would have taken to get people such as... well, everyone who would basically lose their jobs and their livelihood with even ONE DAY of defiance?

It's necessary to do these marches and all. But you'd be hard pressed to see people such as my partner or anyone who literally lives and starves on a paycheck to paycheck basis just dropping everything for a wildcat strike.

I don't think people are just ignorant of the facts and I also don't think it's apathy. I simply think that right now, people think that it's improbable to change anything. They know that everything is unfair, but I don't think that just because the game is unfair, people are willing to really rock the boat just because their lives are generally a tolerable dull ache.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by AshleyO

I don't disapprove of may day.

But quick question.

What do you think it would have taken to get people such as... well, everyone who would basically lose their jobs and their livelihood with even ONE DAY of defiance?

It's necessary to do these marches and all. But you'd be hard pressed to see people such as my partner or anyone who literally lives and starves on a paycheck to paycheck basis just dropping everything for a wildcat strike.

I don't think people are just ignorant of the facts and I also don't think it's apathy. I simply think that right now, people think that it's improbable to change anything. They know that everything is unfair, but I don't think that just because the game is unfair, people are willing to really rock the boat just because their lives are generally a tolerable dull ache.

I'm actually going to go with what Smash from Occupy the Hood said to the Adbuster's dude when he came down to visit OWS.

Adbusters guy said he didn't approve of what was going on. He said that OWS should be overthrowing the government right now.

Smash pointed out that if you want to tear down the system you first have to have alternative structures in place so that people don't starve. Your partner has to know that she will have a roof over her head and food in her belly if she strikes. You have to do real community building beforehand - and you have go put in the work to raficalize that community as well.

In the end Adbusters guy accused Occupy the Hood of being reformist and said he didn't care about alternative structures - that it wasn't his problem.

Smash said "of course it's not your problem - you're priviledged" and then told him he could go fuck himself.

If you want a revolution you have to be willing to put in the work. That means gurilla gardening. That means community outreach. That means leaving your apartment and going to queens and Brooklyn and the Bronx and helping build a network where the community will care for people and is capable of providing them with food and shelter and water a month or more into a general strike.

During the Spanish Civil war the anarchists ate better than most everyone else because they had done this. You can't just tear things down without doing the non-sexy work of community building first and to think otherwise is priviledge talking.

[Saya]

So where are the OWS communes going to be?

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Saya

So where are the OWS communes going to be?

Well, you could say we've already got two, or at least the beginnings of them, for insatnce the Gil Tract and there's of course the Oakland Commune.

When we had Zuccotti, the park functioned like a commune, but as we all know the park was raided. Since then we've made multiple attempts to re-occupy the park or other property such as Union Square, and Trinity's abandoned lot on D17 which Mark Adams just got 45 days in prison for. However, unlike California, it's VERY difficult to hold property in New York since space is at such a premium and the Mayor uses the NYPD like his own, self-described "Private Army". Anytime we have an action the cops show up with at least 3 officers to every protestor, and start splitting skulls.

So a NY commune probably won't happen in Manhattan, as all the neighborhoods that people used to squat in have been gentrified, and the city treats all actions by OWS by marching their officers in. You'll most likely see one in the outer boroughs, but once again, that will take time and community building between the NYC occupations and the local communities. Right now OWS is concentrating on Occupying individual homes and afterschool programs installing homeless families in them, than large targets where Bloomberg can march in his storm troopers in anytime he likes.

The big news recently has been our attempt to blockade the forclosure of Riverdale Mobile Home Park which was to be closed so a company could frack on the land, but once again, police make things difficult.

Most of New York's resources are currently going towards solidarity marches with Quebec, Jail Support, Prison outreach, and of course Bum Rush the Vote.

[Saya]

I don't get Bum Rush The Vote as a radical action though. That is an action that suggests if the right people were in power things would be better, rather than challenging that anyone should be in power at all. Couldn't the money raised for that be better spent on community building?

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Saya

I don't get Bum Rush The Vote as a radical action though. That is an action that suggests if the right people were in power things would be better, rather than challenging that anyone should be in power at all. Couldn't the money raised for that be better spent on community building?

Well, a big part of the political campaign itself is community building.

The money George has raised does not come from Occupy. Occupy has been bankrupt for like 6 months, and occupiers largely have no money to donate.

The money he's raised has come from individual constituents and some of the wealthier occupiers, and once again he won't accept anything over $2012 no matter who gives it to him, and he uses that money to feed people and start things like the freedom school. A political campaign as direct action can be extremely useful, for highlighting just how broken the political system is, as well as getting less radical elements of the proletariat to interact with folks who are already radicalized.

In Anarchist Catalonia, you had Anarchists elected to public office, and many of them used the system's resources against itself. In fact, you had CNT-FAI collaboration with the government which, while controversial, was probably the best move considering the circumstances.

Like Malcolm X said, voting is one of the bullets in your gun. The problem is not using that bullet, but seeing that single bullet as your only shot when you have 5-15 others.

Besides, the point of Bum Rush the Vote is not to get the right people into office, it's a way to put power back into the hands of the proletariat by building an open-source way to bypass traditional political campaign structure.

The only danger is if people start seeing it as a totalitarian solution, as the ONLY means bringing about the world they want, and at this point I don't think that's a realistic danger for OWS.

[Versus]

From now on, Despanan, could you stop referring to the NYPD as shock troops or storm troopers?

[Despanan]

It's just that they happen to look somewhat similar, when they have their welder-helmets on:





Though granted the OPD take The Empire a bit further:

[Versus]

It's pretty dehumanizing, don't you think?