PERSONAL:

WHAT I LIKE ABOUT THE OCCUPY MOVEMENT PART 4:

As the various Occupy camps fall one after another (a proof of the need for organization ?) to the various authorities it is perhaps about time to reflect on why these protests have gathered the sort of support that "the left" has failed to gather for decades. There are a lot of reasons, and I hope to comment on them in the future. For now, however, let's examine one of the key factors behind the success of the protests.

One of the key reasons behind the success of Occupy is that they have chosen a path of non-violence. This doesn't mean that they are automatically morally superior. It does, however, mean that they are rational enough to chose the most effective tactics. This really comes under the heading of good advice such as, "don't fart loudly in Church". In other words there is a time and place for everything. It should be obvious, but for some it is not.

I only feel this is noteworthy because I have seen otherwise sensible people disparage the Occupy movement because (rhetoric coming now) "it can't defend itself, as evidenced by the police crackdowns". Such a statement ignores two things. One is the obvious structure of reality that some seem to have been detached from particularly in North America. The simple FACT is that the so-called "self defense" tactics as advocated by that defend the actions of something like the Black Block have failed every single time over and over and over. Not once, not twice, not even 50 times but 100% of the time every time they are tried. At its worst the police let the BB vandalize things for a short period of time for the necessary propaganda value. Then the BB disappears and lets their allies take the heat. At its "best" the BB always loses for at the end of the spectacle the police still control the streets. Proving that you're crazy and you want to lose endless fights is not "self-defense". Some have defined this sort of behavior as a characteristic of insanity.

This disparagement of the Occupy movement is written from an emotional viewpoint, and the best that I can do is advise holders of such opinions to go outside their social circles and see with their own eyes how the vast majority looks on those who appear to be innocent victims of police violence as opposed to gangs fighting the cops and always losing. To their credit the majority of people involved in Occupy recognize that they are doing politics and not psychotherapy. Some may be under delusions about how nasty the police can be. Others may have "moral arguments" for their non-violence, but I really think that at least a large minority and possibly a majority recognize that the picture of police attacking non-violent people is "the shortest way to the goal of gathering public sympathy".

MOUVEMENT ANARCHISTE DU CANADA/CANADIAN ANARCHIST MOVEMENT- QUÉBEC:

DÉBAT SUR VIOLENCE/NON-VIOLENCE:
@@@@@@@@@@
Les mardis de la Anarchie est un groupe de discussion régulier tenue à L'AgitéE au Québec tous les mardis. Voici le sujet de cette semaine. /// Anarchist Tuesdays is a regular discussion group held every Tuesday at L'AgitéE in Québec City. Here`s this week`s subject.

13 avril: Le fameux débat violence vs non-violence


Que ce soit aux mardis de l'anarchie, dans des réunions d'organisation de manifestation politique ou sur des blogues qui commentent les actions des mouvements sociaux, tôt ou tard, surgit toujours un malaise entourant la question de la violence. Cela révèle qu'un débat non résolu persiste: le fameux débat « violence » vs « non-violence ». Souvent évité ou contourné pour limiter les retraits de solidarité, ce débat est le plus souvent tenu à mots couverts et traité comme insoluble. En caricaturant à peine, on s'imagine que chez les activistes, il y a deux camps qui n'arriveront jamais à se comprendre. D'un côté les Blacks Bloc et les insurectionnistes qui n'hésitent pas à détruire ou endommager de la propriété privée pendant ou en dehors des manifestations, voir à s'en prendre aux flics ou même à prôner le sabotage, l'attentat à la bombe ou l'assassinat politique, se réclamant d'une tradition anarchiste violente lointaine ou contemporaine. De l'autre, les activistes non violents qui multiplient des tactiques qui peuvent être légales et illégales selon le contexte politique (marches, pétitions, tractage, sit-in, théâtre de rue...) s'inspirant beaucoup des mouvements sociaux des années 60 et 70. Non seulement la réalité n'est pas si tranchée, mais le caractère redondant de la question dans plusieurs discussions collectives démontre qu'il vaudrait peut-être la peine d'en parler autrement qu'en se campant dans une position et en la défendant.

C'est ce qui est proposé cette semaine aux mardis de l'anarchie. Inspirée par un chapitre du livre Anarchy Alive, une discussion sera animée autour des questions suivantes: qu'est-ce que la violence? Quelles sont les limites des différentes définitions qu'on peut en donner? Quels critères ou quels arguments nous permettent de juger si la violence peut être justifiée? Quelles sont les limites de ces arguments? Est-ce que l'expérience de la violence peut être en elle-même libératrice ou radicalisante? Quoi penser de la violence en contexte de révolution ou d'insurrection armée?

Lectures suggérées
CHURCHILL, Ward (1998), Pacifism as Pathology, Arbeiter Ring Publishing

GELDERLOOS, Peter (2007), How non-violence protect the State, South End Press.

GORDON, Uri (2008). « Peace, Love and Petrol Bombs », Anarchy Alive. Anti-Authoritarian Politics from Practice to Theory, Chapter 4, London: Pluto Press, pp. 78-108.

1.6_-_Violence.pdf

KURLANSKY, Mark (2008) Non-violence: The History of a Dangerous Idea, Random House, 203 pages.

LAKEY, George (2001), Nonviolent Action as the Sword that Heals
@@@@@@@@@@
April 13: The famous debate violence vs. nonviolence


Whether it's anarchist Tuesdays organizational meetings for political demonstrations or on blogs that comment on the actions of social movements, sooner or later there always arises an uneasyness surrounding the issue of violence. This shows that the unresolved debate persists: the famous debate of "violence" vs. "non-violence". Often avoided or bypassed to limit withdrawals of solidarity, this debate is most often kept veiled and treated as insoluble. As a caricature one can imagine that among activists there are two camps who will never understand each other. On one side the Black Bloc and insurectionnists who do not hesitate to destroy or damage private property during or outside of events, to be seen to take on the cops or even advocate sabotage, bombings or political assassinations, claiming a distant or contemporary violent anarchist tradition . On the other, nonviolent activists use multiple tactics that can be legal or illegal given the political context (marches, petitions, leafleting, sit-ins, street theater ...) very much inspired by the social movements of the 60s and 70s. Not only is reality not so clear cut, but the redundant character of the issue in many collective discussions shows that it might perhaps be worthwhile taking about it other than planting oneself in a position and defending it.

That's what is proposed for this week's anarchist Tuesday. Inspired by a chapter of the book Anarchy Alive, a discussion will be moderated by the following questions: What is violence? What are the limits of the various definitions we can give? What criteria or arguments we can judge if the violence can be justified? What are the limits of these arguments? Can the experience of violence perhaps be liberating in itself or radicalizing? What to think of violence in the context of revolution or armed insurrection?

Suggested Reading
Churchill, Ward (1998), Pacifism as Pathology, Arbeiter Ring Publishing

Gelderloos, Peter (2007), How Nonviolence Protect the State, South End Press.

GORDON, Uri (2008). "Peace, Love and Petrol Bombs" Anarchy Alive. Anti-Authoritarian Politics from Practice to Theory, Chapter 4, London: Pluto Press, pp. 78-108.

1.6_-_Violence.pdf

Kurlansky, Mark (2008) Nonviolence: The History of a Dangerous Idea, Random House, 203 pages.

LAKEY, George (2001), Nonviolent Action as the Sword That Heals

AMERICAN POLITICS:

NON-VIOLENT RESISTERS REPORT TO JAIL:

Four people who participated in non-violent direct action against the School of the Americas last November are now either imprisoned or due to report to jail soon. Here's their stories from the School of the Americas Watch.

SOASOASOASOASOASOA
Prisoners of Conscience‏
You can jail the resisters... but you can't jail the resistance! .

The four courageous advocates who took action against the School of the Americas this past November are in sights of the U.S. Government.

Nancy Gwin, a peace activist from central New York, reported to Danbury Federal Prison in Connecticut. Gwin will serve 6 months in federal prison for her nonviolent action to protest the School of the Americas. Gwin said the school's closure would send a powerful message to Latin America. "To say, 'We are closing this school to make an equal relationship with you,'" she said. "It's a small step, but it says we're looking for a new future."

As Gwin reports, the fate of Michael Walli, remains unclear. Walli also participated in the action with Gwin and told Magistrate Faircloth that if he was released he would not return voluntarily to Columbus for trial this past January 25th. Faircloth issued a bench warrant for Walli's arrest and this past Tuesday, March 2nd, Federal Marshalls knocked on the door of Dorothy Day Catholic Worker House in Washington D.C. to take Walli into custody. After being held in the D.C. jail for three days, Walli was released on his own recognizance by D.C. Federal Judge Facciola. He was asked to return to court on March 12th to decide whether or not he will be transferred to Georgia to appear in front of Magistrate Faircloth. Faircloth is responsible for the harsh 6 month prison sentences of the other three advocates.

Franciscan Catholic Priest, Fr. Louis Vitale, was recently transferred from a county jail in Cordele, Georgia to the federal penitentiary in Atlanta. It is likely that Vitale will continue to be transferred, during his sentence, until he reaches a Federal Prison on the West Coast.

Ken Hayes, an SOA Watch National Council member, has also heard from the federal government and is scheduled to report to prison on March 16th. Hayes, 60, is a long-time peace and justice activist from Austin, Texas and a leader in the local Austin SOA Watch group.The action of the SOA Watch 4 gives us hope and inspires us to do all we can to close the School of the Americas once and for all.

CZECH REPUBLIC:

HUNGER STRIKES AND OTHER PROTESTS AGAINST US PLANS FOR MISSILE INTERCEPTORS IN EASTERN EUROPE:

Over the past two years the US government, in cooperation with the governments of Poland and the Czech Republic, has moved slowly and inexorably towards the stationing of an anti-missile system in the territories of the two east European countries mentioned. This project has proceeded much more quietly than the Reagan area 'Star Wars' circus- which amounted to nothing substantial-, and the Bush administration has probably been wise to move via stealth rather than rhetorical fireworks in this case. For an overview of the Reagan era 'Star Wars' overhyped project see THIS WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE. Also consult 'National Missile Defense' for an overview of the general subject.

The present plan is that the radar station for the project will be situated in the Czech Republic while the interceptor missiles themselves will be situated in Poland. The location of the installations makes it quite obvious that they are aimed as a threat towards Russia rather than what the US government claims- that they are meant to intercept missiles that might be launched from so-called "rogue states". To date only North Korea has demonstrated both missile and nuclear capacity. The idea that interceptors based in Poland could overtake missiles launched from North Korea eastwards is, of course, ridiculous. Iran presently has neither nuclear capacity nor missile capacity to reach western Europe. Of course the interceptor missiles involved will not be anywhere near as capable as their proponents claim them to be. What they are,however, is a device to "thin" any Russian launch, perhaps even- perish the thought- simply a retaliatory strike against the only state which has both used nuclear weapons in warfare and threatened to use them on many other occasions. Perhaps the missiles that would be launched from Russia wouldn't be aimed at western and central Europe at all but rather at some unnamed "rogue state" that has demonstrated its willingness to both use and, especially, threaten nuclear annihilation numerous times in the past.

But if these installations are built they will automatically become necessary targets. This project hasn't been without opposition in both Poland and the Czech Republic. It is certain that the majority of Czechs oppose the construction of the radar base on their territories, and it is probable that the majority of Poles oppose the location of the interceptor missile on theirs. Presently some of the opposition to this "Star Wars Version 2" has taken the form of a series of hunger strikes carried out by Czech citizens to bring the world's attention to the situation. Ongoing news about these protests can be found at the Europe for Peace website. These hunger strikes are undertaken by humanists who hold to the philosophy of "non-violent direct action". Molly might quibble about whether their self-applied description is indeed "direct action". To my lights it is merely another form of "petitioning", just as pointless riots at economic gatherings are. Neither tactic directly changes the situation. Both merely try and force the hand of established power to comply with ethical demands. Both are protest rather than "direct action", but the tactics of the hunger strikers at least have the advantage of occupying the moral high ground.

In their own words, here is the underlying philosophy of the humanist protesters against the location of tracking radar in the Czech Republic, from The Strength of Non-Violence website.

What is active non-violence?

Non-violence generally refers to some or all of the following: a system of moral concepts that disavows violence; the mass movement led by Mahatma Gandhi in India in the first part of the twentieth century; the struggle for civil rights by African-Americans in the United States under the leadership of Martin Luther King; and the activities carried out by Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana. The activities of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Andrei Sakharov, S. Kovalev, and other famous dissidents opposed to Soviet totalitarianism are often included as well.

The idea of non-violence is expounded in the Bible and the writings of other religions in the exhortation not to kill. This idea has been developed by numerous thinkers and philosophers; Russian authors Leo Tolstoy and Fyodor Dostoevsky expressed it in profound formulations. Tolstoy's formula proclaiming the supremacy of love and the “non-use of violence against evil,” or better, the impossibility of fighting one evil with another, found worldwide resonance, inspiring a somewhat singular sect of “Tolstoyists.”

The non-violence movement developed by Gandhi prepared the ground for Great Britain to renounce its supremacy in India, though Gandhi himself was killed by a paid assassin. Also M.L.King's struggle ended without victory. He was assassinated in the balcony of his hotel in Memphis, while assisting a protest which denounced the low salaries of the black people who collected the trash. Nonetheless, the concept of non-violence , including non-violent forms of protest, continues to be a vital, evolving force in the world. Daily mass actions by lower strata of workers, meetings and protest demonstrations, strikes, women's and student movements, farmworker and peasant demonstrations, leaflets, neighborhood newspapers and periodicals, appearances on radio and TV, all these constitute the contemporary forms of the ethic and practice of non-violence.

New Humanism, developed by Silo(Who???-Molly) since the 1960s until today, strives to reduce violence to the greatest extent possible, to create perspectives which go completely beyond violence , and to use all possible methods and forms of bringing resolution to conflicts and dichotomies along the path of creative non-violence.

Non-violence is frequently equated with pacifism , when in reality the latter is neither a method of action nor a style of life but rather a sustained protest against war and the arms race. From the above it follows that non-violence and active non-violence (1) consist of a personal commitment, a style of life and a methodology for social change.

The two pillars of the methodology of active nonviolence are civil disobedience and non-participation.

Civil disobedience has the following ideological and philosophical justification: If the State imposes laws which are violently unjust, discriminatory, etc. and the application of such laws affects people negatively because it transforms people into agents or receivers of injustice or discrimination, then people have the right and the moral obligation to not comply with such laws. Civil disobedience and non-cooperation intentionally break the unjust law and accept the punishments, for example imprisonment, as a dignified consequence of their actions.

Non-participation or vacuum towards violence implies avoiding involvement in violent situations – which usually has a negative economic effect to the transmitter of violence – proclaiming publicly the moral posture of both parties.

In the cases of Gandhi and M.L.King, the interest was in changing unjust laws or social realities, and only when the searched for steps could not be achieved through negotiations and persuasion, direct action with planned activities was used. (Examples of Gandhi, Salt Law and Salt March; Martin Luther King, state laws of racial segregation, bus boycott, sit-ins, marches, etc.).We can see that these predecessors of active non-violence, and many others, were people who also had a strong and vital spiritual and religious feeling. This shows that historical moments of great changes have been accompanied by new feelings of religiosity. They are moments of hope. In such moments a great moral force is put into motion and the human landscape changes.
(1) ACTIVE NON-VIOLENCE: The strategy for struggle of New Humanism, which consists of the systematic denunciation of all the forms of violence exercised by the System. Also, a tactic for struggle applied in specific situations in which discrimination of any type is occurring.

About us
What is active non-violence?

History of non-violence

New Humanism

Videos
Campaigns
No Star Wars campaign

Supporting Bolivia

Europe for Peace

World without wars
News
Messages of support

News
Situation in the world
About NMD system

Growing Peace or growing destruction

Europe for Peace

There is presently an international online petition, which has so far gathered over 100,000m signatures, against the US plans for this project. The following, from the Europe for Peace site gives the text of the petition and a backgrounder. If you'd like to read more and sign the petition go to the EfP site.

Petition Text:
"I do not agree with the installation of a US military base on Czech Republic territory, as part of their NMD (National Missile Defense) project. The implementation of this project is increasing international tensions, generating a new arms race and is the first step towards the militarization and control of space. Since more than two thirds of the Czech population are against this project, I think it is only fair that the Czech people have the right to decide on such an important question by means of a referendum."
Declaration
The NMD project of the United States – their national missile defense system, is a very complex project which involves the production of new weapons, and the installation of US military bases in different parts of the planet. In particular, in Europe, the first step is the installation of a radar system in the Czech Republic, as well as a base for interceptor missiles in Poland.

This plan has divided Europe, which at the moment is not able to give a united, coherent and nonviolent response to the United States’ aggressive policies. The reaction of Russia and China has created a “cold war” atmosphere. International tensions are increasing, and the crazy arms race (both conventional and nuclear) has restarted. Above all, the bases are being installed to militarize and control space. More than two thirds of the Czech population are against the presence of United States military on Czech territory. Despite this, the Czech and US governments are continuing the negotiations which are, by now, reaching their concluding phase.

The Czech people will declare that any contract that the Czech government may sign with the US Government concerning the project to install US military bases on Czech territory will have no legal value. And so the Czech people will not feel in any way bound to any type of commitment. The formal respect for laws passed in Parliament by a relative majority is not enough to be considered as real democracy. When a Government takes a decision which clearly goes against the will of a majority of its citizens, it is not respecting either the spirit or deepest essence of democracy.

The US government must clearly understand that it is not carrying out a dialogue with the Czech people, but with a minority that does not represent the will of the majority of Czech citizens. For this reason, any agreement will have no legal value. Our American friends must clearly understand that their government’s policies are generating a widespread feeling of “anti Americanism” which was not present before in Czech culture, and in this way, their aggressive policies will only turn against them. We know that a nonviolent action to boycott American products has already begun, and that this phenomenon could quickly spread beyond the boundaries of the Czech Republic.

The majority of Czechs do not want foreign military bases on their territory.

The majority of Czechs want to decide these problems themselves by means of a referendum: a fundamental instrument of any democracy.

Jan Tamáš

Nonviolent Movement against US bases in the Czech Republic

Dana Feminová

Europe For Peace