Around Seattle, Prague or Gothenburg events, world leaders seemed rather agitated, something never seen since the disappearance of the USSR: Standstill summits, delegations being moved out and leaders being evacuated through the backdoor.
This came to pass because riots were to be performed not by hundreds, but thousands of people. The spread of the riots went beyond the police ability to suppress them. Therefore, it is a fact that actions carrying an outstanding load of violence play a special role within the resurgence of social clash lately.
But, ¿why comes up the need for violent direct action?
This need turns up in those cases in which means and procedures for protesting -which social movements have came to impose within the so-called parliamentary democracies- are exhausted. In these cases the system shows crystal clear its vision of these means as items with no other aim besides the maintenance of social balance and stability, avoiding the achievement of real successes.
Popular movement struggle, when extending and deepening its protesting actions, comes to confront the repressing system, and to infer that no partial solutions are worth -as ever, provisional-, but the destruction of capitalism and its replacement for social relations based upon equality and solidarity themselves.
In such a way, if by facing the lack of real solutions people take the streets by thousands in order to stop physically the wild policy developed by the FMI, the system will not consider this as "democratic" or "in order", since it is about a direct confrontation against the system itself. Therefore, repression is taken up.
Genoa was a clear example on this. Such was the denial in practice of the right to demonstrate during the G-8 summit, that even thousands of pacific demonstrators were forced to raise barricades and throw all kind of items in order not to be run over by the police.
Several left-wing groups argue that violent direct action can contribute to an increase in overall repression towards social movement. But we must not be confused about this matter: What in fact sparks off repression is the heightening of the clash, as a result of the organized struggle questioning the very basis of the system: the governments' ability to decide how to rule economy. And therefore, any kind of clash, though it may be pacific or even legal, will be crushed no matter what. Not because of direct violent action, since the main issue for the system here is to take political advantage of this state of disadvantage, launching an attack against the entire movement on the theoretical speech of "confronting the extremism of certain groups".
Violence is not being called forth by any particular organisation within the anti-globalisation movement. Violence belongs to the capitalist system's perpetuation process as a natural part, since it is continuous (being implemented upon people beyond any reason or justice: through over-exploitation or labour insecurity, housing shortage or social services denationalising) and able to be brought directly at any time, in order to keep action in check. The latter turns out to be the most common type, but should not outshine the daily violence held up by the ruling class.
Domination or control violence comes to fruition whenever the system intends to put a social group back into its previous state of passiveness. And whenever conscious commitment increases along with demand for solutions, violence is also to be increased in order to stop them.
In Genoa, while activists were arranging demonstrations pro peace and against economic genocide, the government was fixing up torture rooms within its police departments. While the former called up and coordinated people by thousands, the latter mobilised and organised armed policemen by hundreds.
The right to dissent in being surrounded by the rules of the so-called state of democracy. That is why the need for a spread of the riots and sabotage comes up. Because the system is not planning to dismantle itself, and because it does not leave any other chance to protest besides.
Next will be outlined how violent direct action is not only valuable, but also necessary, as a complement to pacific struggle, because of its connection to expression, disobedience and justice.
1. Stands for a way of expression.
Whatever we will not be allowed to express through their newspapers or networks, will be expressed by attacking their symbolic dominance. Our nonconformity and basic opposition to the neo liberal policy is expressed whenever we fight those repressive elements attending to protect that policy. Obviously, there is a clash.
In exchange, the media attached to neo liberal policies obtain a piece of news not only suitable for the information show biz context, but also desirable in order to criminalise social movements. But we ought to bear in mind that violent direct action and sabotage are also means to break the media blockage. The piece of news, still distorted, comes out in the media and, while we struggle daily in order to produce our own spreading channels (and to achieve self-management district by district, faculty by faculty), direct action stands out not only by making possible the expression of our discontent, but also by constituting the means for us to break the silence argued by the media towards our work.
It is not our responsibility to avoid facts from being twisted and commercialised by the official media, for that is its raison d'être. Our duty, in this case, is to denounce the purpose of banks and repression forces within society. Therefore, political actions against both previous become legitimate and essential, for it is about a will -physically asserted- to set up dissent, and to boost anti capitalist conscience by pointing at those responsible in fact for neo liberal policy.
2. Stands for a way of reversing the establishment.
It is a disobedience procedure facing law, a way of doing "what you are not supposed to do" pervading actions with a full political sense.
But we must bear in mind that specific riots may be easily taken up by the establishment, for being understood as collateral damages, that is, the unavoidable results for neo liberalism policy: The same formula put into practice when is about the so-called delinquency, drug trafficking or raping. They all make up inherent issues to a society fueled by inequality, oppression and patriarchy.
With regard to anti globalisation movement, the Spanish government has often stated that "we are ready to hold talks with anti globalisation groups, but strictly with those which may condemn the usage of violence along with riots caused by radicals".
In spite of the establishment being able to absorb riots (whenever they come on small scale), it is fact that these collateral damages do mean harm to establishment's both harmony and stability. And that is why they attempt to condemn and isolate this practice.
And for this particular reason we ought to consider those "scratches" as potential means for destabilising, and to call forth an area for people's power out of this concept, that is to say, a right and a weapon achieved by struggling movements in order to fight injustice.
Even if it is not allowed to break, we break. But not just anything: we break the representation or samples of capitalist domination, which may be anti-riot police, bank branches, private operators phone-boxes, McDonalds joints, etc...
3. It stands for a way of doing justice.
It is fair to provide direct responses against the violent imposition of the establishment, its labour scarcity, criminalisation of dissent, pressure from the media and its propaganda, etc...
It is fair and legitimate to rebel against the unquestionable fact of violence monopoly held up by the system.
It is fair and essential to draw by ourselves an area for politics labour of our own, outside the law limits; limits which are nothing but a self-defence instrument developed by the system, which defines levels of confrontation in order to control it, and justifies repression inside this context.
Small successes have been achieved already within the complex and wide front against neo liberal globalisation on account of a method which, even though it might not be as fundamental as base work, is working out as a crucial supplement: sticks and stones.
Comments
Hide the following 20 comments
A counter argument
30.05.2003 15:49
LOOK, look damn it. You perceive that the few of you are up against the few of them. And it MAY well be that the vast numbers of people are currently "neutral". But do you imagine for one moment that your resorting to violent forms of direct action (and there ARE other forms of "direct") are going to convince these multitudes?
Or isn't it much more likely that forced to choose between the evil of the masters and what they will perceive is the mindless evil of you these multitudes will opt for the devil they know and you will have "everybody" against you. What then can your violence do? Create a nuisance. Damage like a freak tornado. Nothing like the scope of violence necessary. Come on now, you must have studied SOME history. What DO people do when somebody is using violence against them to force them to do something (even perhaps something they COULD be convinced to desire). They FIGHT! And they do NOT give in so easily. Talk to some of your elders who went through the "Blitz". Ask how come that didn't make them give in (I mean really, do you think you could create damage on THAT scale?).
FIRST you need to convince people. LOTS of people.
Mike
e-mail:
stepbystepfarm@shaysnet.com
agreed
31.05.2003 15:36
a typical protest goes ignored, not just by the media. we have seen protests involved direct action do something to world leaders and authorities that makes them stop ignoring us and go on the defensive.
since this type of action has died down (down to just limited window breaking and graffiti) in north america, we now see the world leaders ignoring protesters, and no one on the defensive.
the atmosphere was a hell of a lot different in genoa than it was in kananaskis and okinawa in our favor. same for prague, quebec, gothenburg, seattle, etc. we have seen a lot of protests between and since those but they have disappeared quickly.
i have more hope for those in europe (and much of the world) to keep this spirit alive, but i am not feeling good about things here in north america.
anon
LOTS of people
31.05.2003 17:01
Damn straight mike! violence may be a natural reaction to our relative powerelsness in this situation, but it won't convince those neutral masses. If it is so that governements will use direct action whether we do or not, then let them! it will politicise the masses, and then will be the time to fight.
patman p piddlesworth
e-mail:
pat_rolfe64@hotmail.com
interesting
31.05.2003 17:30
a yankee
Pacifists are dumb
31.05.2003 19:53
Of course not. It's not supposed to. It's supposed to actually change things, which your pacifist tactics do not. To change people's minds we need propaganda and popular education.
awsef
Violence Begats Violence
31.05.2003 22:41
911=war on terrorism, thousands of innocent Afgani's murdered. Thousands of innocent Iraqi's murdered. ad nauseum
The oppressed becomes the oppressor! Most obvious recent example: Israel
A friend in recent conversation with Congressional Representative: "But don't you see that what you're (that is, the Bush regime) is doing in these wars is creating more hate, more enemies?"
The list goes on--why violence and war never work. Nonviolence takes patience, though. Being in it for the "long haul."
Actually, there is such a thing as creative nonviolent direct action. Creative actions get noticed, without violence. Anything from Guerilla Gardening to Street Theater, to . . . (make up your own!) Here in the U.S.A., arrests get noticed, but they can be done peacefully, not by actually fighting with the police or major property damage (the charges are usually trespass). Or numbers get noticed--for example, when thousands get peaceably arrested at the School of the Americas in Georgia.
Barbara Lee. September 14, 2001. "Let Us Not Become the Evil that We Deplore . . Our greatest memorial to our fallen bothers and sisters will be a world of peace, tolerance, and understanding." She cast the only dissenting vote in Congresses' rush to endorse President George W. Bush's use-of-force resolution.
Break the cycle of violence!!!!!!! Ghandi didn't give up. Neither did Martin Luther King.
Sarah
e-mail:
seasnun@aol.com
For Progress
31.05.2003 23:13
I say that these articles are shallow because they attack non-violence without explaining it or knowing what it is. I think the original article makes some attempts at this but does not suceed.
There needs to be some differentiation between types of action: direct and symbolic - between violent and non-violence - between legal and illegal. These are all different characteristics that can vary. Actions can be violent/sybolic/legal all at once. Lastly we try to see if the action is good or bad in acheiving our "goals".
Certainly also not all our goals are identical. Diversity is our strength. Also, personally, I think it is questionable whether we should have goals for the future that we acheive "at any cost" or we try to live in the moment our ideals. It is very complex. There is no sure answer. Also we can't be sure of what we are acheiving until it is over and even then...
[[[Also a lot of people argue, because they are so tied to the idea of private property, that vandalism and other "violence" against inanimate objects is the same as violence against a person or animal. No - it certainly is not. When I talk about violence here I am not talking about painting graphitti. That distinction is one of the law, and I think most reading this article [though not the general public maybe] would agree that the law is not our measure for good and bad. This issue is kind of a non-issue I think that gets way too much attention here in North America]]]
My experience in the places I've mentioned is that non-violent direct action is a very powerful tradition of protest action. My experience is that this is what scares the powerful most because it is a real threat.
I do not think we should condemn those who resort to violence in self defence, it is not our place to. The systematic daily violence cannot be denied and violent reactions are sometimes a legitimate result. However violence begets more violence - if we are violent then our "direct action" is to create force, coersion and hardship right now in this moment. It would be better if everybody could embrace non-violence, but we are not always rich enough to be. But we should be rich enough - it is diversity and solidarity that makes us genuinely rich. One day I hope we will be there.
I have only seen once violent action that I though was effective, that was in Quebec city where larger numbers of people [mostly young men] threw stones at heavily armoured riot police. This was effective at holding the police - stopping their advance. It was not very dangerous because the riot police had so much body armour. The Police used plastic bullets and tear gas heavily. This was nice for a short time but I don't know about the long term consequences. We still breathed a lot of poison gas and people still got shot. I think the rock throwing did not make it very much better but a little bit.
Mostly I think peaceful direct action is stronger because it can spread like wildfire.
The WTO in Seattle is a good example. This was a very big, publisised victory. Despite the images on TV this was not a violent protest action. Even many activists think is was because they were not there first hand and the lies of the corporate media are so subtle and effective.
The Blac Bloc phenomenon of Seattle is almost entirely a Corporate TV media creation. It was not a real wide spread idea at the moment, it was on TV, it was not a signifigant presence in the streets {In fact I, who was riding around the whole perimiter regularly on my bicycle all day, did not see any window smashing even, only some spray paint} We should not blame the small number of people who did that but we should also not think that they were signifigant on the street. They were the dominant media image.
I think media image is a waste of time. In seattle the police reacted only to the "non-violent" tactics with violence, they ignored the irrelevant [except to news cameras] vandalism.
It seems to me people who advocate more "violent direct action" are doing it out of a concern for media image. They are trying to take symbolic anger out on symbolic icons of oppression.
I strongly disagree with such "symbolic" action given the title "direct action"
I think violence and competition are much less radical than the non-violent tradition as a threat to systems of oppression.
I'm not saying we should be polite and smile for the cameras at all. I'm just saying that what we create in the moment of action is as important as long term ideal. I'm saying giving the finger to the camera is no more useful than any other symbolic image that is obsequious.
"The revolution will not be televised"
rusl from Canada
Homepage:
http://www.bikesexual.org
re: violence begats violence
01.06.2003 09:37
>Break the cycle of violence!!!!!!! Ghandi didn't give up. >Neither did Martin Luther King.
Gandhi "won" because the British did not want to rule an India that was increasingly spinning out of control (to a large degree through their own divide and rule tactics between Muslims and Hindus).
The Civil Rights movement won its most famous victory when the US Government put federal marshals, FBI agents and troops around the ballot boxes in the South, ensuring a fair vote for the first time since Reconstruction.
Non-violence didn't win these struggles. It mobilised millions, but it was the threat of greater potential violence to come that brought the state to heal in each case.
Dermot
Scope
01.06.2003 10:59
Understand that the government officials, in the ways they might actually be trying to do something good, (the extent of which might be discussed, and is logically as diverse as nations per se) will never remark positively on, or take political reference from a protest that puts human lives at risk.
Understand that the main scope of your manifestation should be the people around you - the general public, whose critical reasoning needs to be awoken and whose support is the only lasting manner of changing society.
Understand that by initiating violent conflicts (meaning self-defence and provocative non-violent action are separate issues) other humans, you are likely effectively incriminating yourself by the standards of the society you advocate.
Ahnìon
e-mail:
ahnion@ahnion.cjb.net
Homepage:
http://ahnion.centralen.net/
what they do in Iraq
01.06.2003 14:55
Now that's real "liberation"!
The lightly-armed Iraqis, whose chief weapon is their righteous anger, have no chance against the Americans militarily: So why did they do it? Here's what Esmaul Tabee, a construction worker, had to say:
"'They forced women and children to leave their houses. They violated the dignity and honor of our women. We won't accept this violation. The people will do more of this if the Americans come in here again,' he added, shaking his fist as those around him shouted approval. 'They showed no respect for our way of life.'"
anon
we have to be non-violent
01.06.2003 19:50
Violent action is an expression of anger and anger is no good, not for yourself and not for other people, because it is not a product of reason, but rather destroys rational thought. And it is only reason that can solve these problems we are presented with.
If you can, stop thinking about an enemy and try to feel sorry for the police and politicians who oppose us. I know sometimes it's hard not to get angry and hate people who have done terrible things, but that is judging them and we have no business to judge anybody but ourselves. If we act violently we frighten them more and they will listen even less. We need them to listen to our arguments because discourse is the only way to find out the truth about these things.
Silent protest is the most peaceful but the loudest form of protest. Of course people are justified in using violence in self defence, and these issues become more difficult when living in a repressive regime. It's also difficult when, as in Genoa, it seems that the police have deliberately sought out confrontation. But we must always try to resist provocation. If they tell us we can't gather in one place we ask them where we _can_ gather. Fighting over non-issues distracts from the real issues. The only action we need to take together is to stand visibly together, to show them how many people want change, and to draw comfort from not being alone.
The most important action of course is to live your life every day by what you believe, to change your lifestyle if it hurts other people and to try always to treat other people with respect. The most powerful action you can take is not to say what you believe, but to show it through your actions.
Eleanor
e-mail:
ejf79xxx@hotmail.com
a personal experience
02.06.2003 07:08
grandma
Not in demonstrations
02.06.2003 13:38
Demonstrations are there to promote and show what we want to achieve...its to convince ppl to join us and try to change something. But violence on demonstrations does not convince ppl, its scares them away...why do ppl think that anarchists are dangerous violent idiots? because of the way "anarchists" act in demonstrations. It is that image produced in demonstrations and confrontations which is shown to the "neutral" ppl. We cant allow this to continue. if we ever want to make a change, we need theri support. Therefore we should be peaceful no matter what in demonstrations.
Apart from that, we cant possibly defeat the "system" in open battle....how should violent demonstrators ever achieve a victory against trained and fully-equipped riot-police?
we all know that the laws only count as long as there is no threat for the system. therefore the "best" it could produce would be a violent defeat of our group. not to say massacre.
BUT VIOLENCE CAN BE PRODUCTIVE
only not in open battle...i promote small scale, small number, almost invisible violent actions: smash the windows of a Bank during a "normal" day for example...chop down hunters towers or whatever thing ur fighting against.(these actions are powerful signs and like someone else said symbolic but also very disturbing and threatening to the system itself) these actions cannot really be connected to the entire scene, cus not the entire scene is involved. Therefore, the only thing the media can do is blame individual, violent groups. they cannot blame the peaceful part of the demonstrators, which they do now.
therefore...i promote peace at mass manifestations (unless violence out of self defence), but do not denounce violence as a mean of changing things...
Peace and harmony,
Adarcar
Alex
e-mail:
adarcar@yahoo.com
anarchists Goldman, Bookchin against violence
02.06.2003 16:20
In this essay Bookchin, an anarchist, wrote something like this: "... in the age of chemical warfare, supersonic jets, sattelite surveillance and other weapons of mass destructions, the state has an absolute monopoly on violence." the anarchist went on to say that "given this fact, attempting to use violence against the state in our age will result in more repression and most likely death for most of those who attempt to use violence as a form of revolutionary struggle." He proposed an alternative of building the kind of society you want within the shell of the old decaying one. I've heard of the social centers in Italian slums where people could have the beginnings of something good as far as a post-capitalist future, for example.
Part of me feels like yelling at the advocates of violent direct action. The yelling part would go something like this: "This isn't Spain in 1936.Half the soldiers aren't on your side. Even then, when a lot of ordinary soldiers may have defected and joined the millions of workers on the democractic side of the Spanish civil war and revolution, Franco used Moroccan troops, German weapons and Italian money....etc. "
Before you even consider thinking of any sort of revolutionary violence, organize. Get the majority of ordinary people behind you first. Then there may not even be a need for violence because "the few" may have no choice. I believe it was Emma Goldman, the anarchist, who argued against the use of violence later in life. She said something like "the less organized a movement is, the more violent it is."
It seems to me, in my limited personal opinion, that the organizing work that you'd need to do before any sort of "force" can even stand a chance of success against a state simply has not been done in too many places around the world.
justthinking
Give peace a chance
02.06.2003 20:25
Sad to say, i think that many on the left who espouse violence simply like the idea. Those on the right are allowed to admit they enjoy it, those on the left have to justify it on behalf of the people. But i've seen the anti-nazi league outright provoking the neo-nazi's, and it was obviously all just an excuse for a good old-fashioned rumble. Many men enjoy it, hell, i think some women enjoy watching it (and maybe they'd enjoy doing it if they ever had a chance of winning). maybe it's a biological drive, maybe it's a result of these caged lives we lead. i do not condemn the enjoyment of violence, though i do not enjoy it. But like other vices it should be kept between consenting adults, and contained so that it doesn't harm those who are just trying to survive and continue the human race. If you want violence, go to a boxing match or a hocky game. Those guys get a ton of money to do that just for you.
Aside from my moral position, which is that violence should be restricted to those who like it, I think it should be kept out of left politics because it is profoundly unstrategic. When the other guy has all the strength, what is required is intelligence, agility, sneakiness, persistence, humour, creativity. Think of judo. Rather than trying to match your opponent's strength, you try to use his own strength against him.
Although it sounds New Age now because we in the US don't know much of the world's history, it's been a spiritual fundamental for thousands of years that we get back what we put out. Meister Eckhart said that when the soul wants to experience something, she throws an image of the experience out before her and enters into her own image. It is hard to throw an image of peace out before us. Our imaginations are stunted by tv and shopping malls. But if we throw an image of violence out before us, this is certainly what we will experience.
Violence is obsolete. We must begin to try to visualise something that has never been thought of before. We can never meet the challenge to our strength, so must try to meet the challenge to our imaginations.
xxx
When will this debate end?
02.06.2003 21:50
America seems inflicted by the same problem we are in Australia, dogmatic and entrenched pacifism. If the state is only ever confronted by singing hippies everytime it moves against us, it will laughingly continue to do so. If it is met with stiff resistance it will hesitate. We probably will not beat the state head on, but if we build a movement of meaningful and determined resistance we are certainly in with a good chance.
Aussie
You´re all pussies
03.06.2003 01:41
The "violent" ones are a bunch of typical angry boring leftist socialy retarded tennagers that dont have the balls to do shit except brake shit and throw shit at cops. I would like you idiots to go to China and throw shit at cops there.
Bunch of pussies. The NWO is comming...
Joey Six Pack
for diversity of tactics
03.06.2003 09:46
lots of different tactics. THAT is how we will win, by
uniting and refusing to be split.
Solidarity!
we're all on the same side
Scope, cont'd.
03.06.2003 14:12
Once again; you will not gain conscious and lasting support of the people around you by causing them harm. One would think this is painfully obvious.
Now, this might be news to some, but the movement -is- getting somewhere. Yes the media coverage shows an even worse image of the demonstrations than before, and continously ignores the radical left-wing organisations. To me, that's a sign that the corporations are beginning to see a threat. The manifestations and demonstrations are getting larger. The organisations are gaining members, or rather, the ones who aren't exclusive and alienating are. People -are- becoming politically aware, but not in great masses - as individuals, and that is what we want, isn't it?
I believe there might be reason to use violence in defence - sometimes in defence of others, but exclusively when a violent action has been instigated by the opposing party.
As for the "when the revolution comes" bit, I am fairly certain that we don't have to worry about instigating violence. We (or rather, likely, those who come after us) will be opposed by violence in every major gain of ground and we will, as a solidary people, have to defend ourselves.
Yes, aggressive, direct action changes things directly, short term, but then, you're fighting a war against someone who has all the means and all the time, as long as your actions do not gather consent and support of others, which in turn means that they have all possibility they need to act elsewhere. The corporations will not be bothered by aggressive action until it is heavy enough to create economical loss, and when that happens, you will find yourself seriously incriminated and probably imprisoned.
In the case of governments, and in situations like the G8 meeting, once again, no lasting headway will be gained by violent action, because the government officials will not take reference from violence, but might, in the extent they are still somewhat democratic, be affected by argumentative, united masses standing in their way and demanding to have their opinions considered.
Lastly, relating to the anti-parliamentary organisations who make up the larger body of activists, it seems to me that the main part of the exertions today are focused on the frontlines, and internal descriptions of the confrontations are becoming remniscient of those of bygone "glorious battles". It's easy to feel accomplished and useful after a pitched battle, especially since the actual political progress is slow and frustrating, but when the focus of an organisation is on confrontational fighting, the grass-root work and the home front cooperation will suffer. We cannot afford to lose the long term perspective. The very foundation of an extreme left-wing struggle is long term, whereas the corporations (and largely the contemporary governments) act by short term profit. We can not win a continous battle of short term gains. That will only perpetuate status quo.
There is no point in tearing down the corporations and goverments, should we be able to, if we have nothing to replace them with. In order for a solidary society to take form, the major part of people must be consciously willing to build it.
Ahnìon
e-mail:
ahnion@ahnion.cjb.net
Homepage:
http://ahnion.centralen.net/
Violence and the Out Come
03.06.2003 19:37
I plead with all of you to have patients. Keep the independent media movment alive and keep the movment peaceful. People will see and things will change. Let the police be the violent ones and let us keep our heads. Remember people like Ghandi, Dr. Martin Luther King and what they stood for. Everything can be resloved through peace, though it may take suffering on our part, it will be worth it. Peaceful protest is much better than continuing the cycle of violence that will occur if we resort to becoming what those people are, we are better than that.
Anthony
e-mail:
na
Homepage:
na