Not for nothing but prison sucks, detention sucks, and i often think about both encouraging people to be rowdier, being rowdier myself, and also what that means for their/my future in this hellscape. Is it better to have more people in prison or less? Inshallah no one should be, but this is often on my mind.
I would say that in the end, we can be careful or careless when doing risky things (obviously careful is better), but we're not the ones who decide how many people are in prison. States decide that based on their own interests. And often, the cops and courts are happy to imprison people who had nothing to do with any illegal actions, in order to sow terror and spread the idea that those who break laws (especially as an act of struggle) will be caught and locked up.
‘All of these entities have discouraged people from taking adversarial actions labeled as "violent": smashing banks or corporate stores, standing up to the police by disobeying their orders or de-arresting people they try to snatch. This happens in organizing meetings as well as on the streets’.
This critique mixes property destruction with disruption, confuses (as do most liberals, sadly) what nonviolence is all truly about — as a political strategy and in-the-streets tactic, nonviolent methods absolutely include (and always have!) *fundamentally disrupting* everyday life, trying to bring it to a grinding halt in order to make everyone come to terms with the cruel immorality and brutality of the state and corporations - this is precisely what sit-ins and building takeovers and street blockades (which all require disobeying police orders btw) all try to do; they all make life hard if not impossible for people to carry on unaware, never having to confront their own silence — there is no need to smash banks and stores (even though the ‘violence’ of these actions of course has no comparison to the murderous slaughter of innocents by Israel, using US weaponry, is carrying out in Gaza), as these tend to be politically ineffective (even if for some emotionally satisfying) at getting majorities of people to come to terms with their silence, their inability or failure to recognise the horrors being inflicted by the state (maybe even their own complicity insofar as they remain silent)
I said they *tend* to be ineffective at getting *majorities of people* to come to terms with their silence. And obviously, violence has been ‘effective’ historically in terms of overthrowing regimes or contributing to fundamental change (e.g., in our own political history, the American Revolution); and certainly, there will be acts of violence in/by any movement for radical change. I am talking about a strategy, not individual acts - if progressives seek to build a *mass* movement, to win over *majorities* of people to our side, smashing up stores is not going to do it.
And look, be realistic: no radical movement in an advanced industrial society with a large military force at the disposal of the state will succeed in building mass support through something like urban guerrilla warfare, bombings, and the like. Just ask the Weather Underground (and believe me, I was there for all that shit). Or the Provisional IRA.
excellent piece
This should be required reading for anyone identifying as an activist
Not for nothing but prison sucks, detention sucks, and i often think about both encouraging people to be rowdier, being rowdier myself, and also what that means for their/my future in this hellscape. Is it better to have more people in prison or less? Inshallah no one should be, but this is often on my mind.
I would say that in the end, we can be careful or careless when doing risky things (obviously careful is better), but we're not the ones who decide how many people are in prison. States decide that based on their own interests. And often, the cops and courts are happy to imprison people who had nothing to do with any illegal actions, in order to sow terror and spread the idea that those who break laws (especially as an act of struggle) will be caught and locked up.
‘All of these entities have discouraged people from taking adversarial actions labeled as "violent": smashing banks or corporate stores, standing up to the police by disobeying their orders or de-arresting people they try to snatch. This happens in organizing meetings as well as on the streets’.
This critique mixes property destruction with disruption, confuses (as do most liberals, sadly) what nonviolence is all truly about — as a political strategy and in-the-streets tactic, nonviolent methods absolutely include (and always have!) *fundamentally disrupting* everyday life, trying to bring it to a grinding halt in order to make everyone come to terms with the cruel immorality and brutality of the state and corporations - this is precisely what sit-ins and building takeovers and street blockades (which all require disobeying police orders btw) all try to do; they all make life hard if not impossible for people to carry on unaware, never having to confront their own silence — there is no need to smash banks and stores (even though the ‘violence’ of these actions of course has no comparison to the murderous slaughter of innocents by Israel, using US weaponry, is carrying out in Gaza), as these tend to be politically ineffective (even if for some emotionally satisfying) at getting majorities of people to come to terms with their silence, their inability or failure to recognise the horrors being inflicted by the state (maybe even their own complicity insofar as they remain silent)
What is your source for your claim that combative actions are "politically ineffective"?
I said they *tend* to be ineffective at getting *majorities of people* to come to terms with their silence. And obviously, violence has been ‘effective’ historically in terms of overthrowing regimes or contributing to fundamental change (e.g., in our own political history, the American Revolution); and certainly, there will be acts of violence in/by any movement for radical change. I am talking about a strategy, not individual acts - if progressives seek to build a *mass* movement, to win over *majorities* of people to our side, smashing up stores is not going to do it.
And look, be realistic: no radical movement in an advanced industrial society with a large military force at the disposal of the state will succeed in building mass support through something like urban guerrilla warfare, bombings, and the like. Just ask the Weather Underground (and believe me, I was there for all that shit). Or the Provisional IRA.