errorThere are divisions among us when it comes to the question of tactics, but there is one group whose tactics we need to pay special attention to, and whose tactics we need to be very conscious about condemning in the press. That group is the police and the power structure behind them, and their tactic is to divide and conquer us. They're using the myth of "violence" to do it.

For those of us who have never been hit by a cop, who've never been in the midst of a police charge on horseback into a crowd, who've never seen a cop hit a woman behind the knees with a baton to drop her to the ground, or seen blood on a friend or comrade's shirt....

For those who haven't felt survivor's guilt for being one of the few not to get busted, still on the streets wondering who to call and what to do, for those of you who've not known these things, or who've not been in jail or faced felonies or $20 thousand bails or been busted on political charges, its hard to describe to you fully just how deeply we need one another and will need one another during and after the DNC.

The other side, the powers that be, need something, too. They need to divide us and isolate us, they need to use us one against another. They know that no one can discredit us better than we can discredit each other.

Now the terrain is getting tougher. In Seattle it was "broken windows". Today, after the events in Philly, its "assault against a cop". How will we deal with this? By chiming in on the system's attacks on our fellow protesters? (Not that whether or not one even touches a cop is relevant to these kinds of charges. In Houston at the RNC 8 years ago assault on a cop was the standard charge against large numbers of targetted activists in situations where there was no "violence" at all except by police. )

Recently I had the misfortune to see leading activsts from from CORE and another group that led an illegal march earlier in the week on a FOX national news program, and they were both busy condemning other Philly protesters.

The fellow from CORE was vicious, saying the radical protests on August 1st were an effort to gain media attention by a group too small to warrant attention by the press.

But in a way, the other person was worse. When asked specifically about the arrest of John Sellars of Ruckus and his one million dollar bail- she acted as though she knew nothing about the circumstances of the arrest, made no effort to support the leaders set up for pre-emptive arrest, said not a word about the brutal treatment of protesters in jail in Philly, and replied only that her group believed in "peaceful" protest. She did take the time , however, to condemn the "violent" protesters. She left the impression of trying to distance herself from "non-violent" direct activists - in just the same way some of the "non-violent" protesters try to isolate others for a broken window.

This woman was probably not a "bad person" or any kind of intentional "traitor". My guess is she was immobilized in the face of having to respond to the charges of violence, and had to fall back on the only thing she knew - rote defenses about "peace."

At one point in the discussion the hosts rolled some video showing a protester apparently spraying pepper spray in the face of a cop in a car, supposedly an "innocent" cop doing nothing. The cop leaps out of the car and starts chasing some people. A protester takes a swing at the cop, connects, and the cop goes down. He gets up pulling his gun. Some protesters are taken down and that's that.

So here they have incontrovertible "proof" of protester "violence" against a cop.

And if they rolled that video and you were there, what would you say?

Well let's look at it. Here you are on national TV. They run this footage, expecting you to be cornered into condeming other protesters.

The first thing you could say is this. "Why don't you role the footage of the helicopter shot of the Philly cops surrounding, kicking and beating a suspect Rodney King style side by side with this footage and let's talk about what it means and whether the protester taking swing at a cop armed with a gun and a baton even compares for "violence" with the other footage. Why didn't you bring me on the air to talk about and condemn THAT? Come on, run them side by side and then ask me your question again, if you have any interest in "balance and objectivity."

"And while you're at it, roll some footage of pepper spray guns in Seattle, then roll the film of one cop sprayed with one jet of something- apparently it wasn't pepper spray or it didn't hit the cop cause he sure wasn't impaired. It didn't stop him from running fighting or grabbing his gun."

The same kind of answers are possible here in LA, where there will be abundant police violence, and where the "outrage" of the media toward protesters will bear no resemblance to the calm they display about Rampart or other police crimes like the murders of Margaret Mitchell or Tyisha Miller.

A good example of this is a recent Daily News editorial that calls Tuesday's protesters a "vicious few." It also calls those being held on $1 million bail (including apparently John Sellars of Ruckus) the "worst of the mobsters" and condemns D2KLA for opposing police use of rubber bullets and tear gas, calling it an "outragous request that casts shadows over the organization's motives."

The media would never say such things about the Rampart scandal, calling Rampart CRASH cops the "worst of the mobsters" or the "vicious few." They would never think to say that police spying and pre-emptive arrests of protest leaders are "outrageous" or that such activities "cast a shadow over police agencies motives."

And all we have to do to defeat these kinds of spins is think in opposites and call out the questioner's hypocrisy. There is no need to defend ourselves or to attack other protesters, especially given that the LAPD is a sitting media duck with an international reputation for racism, brutality and corruption. We don't have to answer questions on their terms, we can answer instead with the truth about who the real criminals are.

The state is trying to sieze the high ground on the question of violence, and it is absolutely foolish to let them have it. Are we really going to let the government that bombs Iraq, that killed two million Viet Namese, that has 2 million of us locked up in prison, that sponsors death squads, torture, assasination, starvation and genocide throughout the world - are we really going to let them claim a few people breaking windows are "Violent" ???

But here's the icing on the cake. If we let the state paint some protesters as "violent" and beyond the pale, and we let them get by with it, if we chime in with our own condemnation, if we do not stand in solidarity against the state, then the government will get the message all right.

They will know that all they will have to do is arrest anyone of us on phony charges of engaging in some kind of "violence," and sheep-like, the rest of us will "distance" ourselves and the targetted activists will be on their way to prison, hell, or both, completely without respect to innocence or "guilt". And today's distancers will become tomorrow's victims, charged with the same "crimes" and doing the same time as the activists they distanced themselves from yesterday.

In a word, not standing with other activists as they are being attacked by the state is not only immoral, it' s political and tactical suicide.

Whatever we do, let's not do the cops job for them. Let's NOT help create a media atmosphere that helps the system send our brothers and sisters to jail or prison, no matter if we disagree over tactics- we are STILL on the same side, and the tale will still be told on the streets - we dearly need one another.

The powers that be can only divide and conquer us if we allow ourselves to be divided.

I want to mail my comment as an attatched file. Please send me your e-mail address.

So how is any focus on the police brutality going
to do anything but avoid the political message you
would want to put forward. And if you think that
police brutality is the real message you only serve to
create more chaos as you go into battle. But for
what purpose, only to raise anger?

"We want to be heard."

So say something worthwhile other than you
can provoke the cops into fighting. How about
elucidating on what change you want from the
DNC to fix the "system"?

The Bulletin Boards has a topic: Debating Non-Violence v. Violent Protest.
It would be a great forum for debate, easier to use than the newswire, I believe.
Come on over!!

First, I want to say what a great forum this, and the Internet are, we must guard these liberties against corporate destruction (i.e. Time-Warner's multi-tiered Internet plan), and government abuse (i.e. FBI's Carnivore)

I was first aware of Rafael's comments on another listserve, I will repost the debate here. A spirited debate among many listservers. I think it was appreciated by all.
Typing within {# xx #} are my current comments in retrospect.
*** denotes a new entry. There were other responders I don't feel it would be fair for me to include w/o their involvement here. (Personally, I don't think I would post any personal emails as a matter of course.)
I apologize for the length, but it is complete.
An area Rafael mentions here should be also debated, the dispicable use of high bail rates to quell speech!!
Next, I'll investigate the Bulletin Board!!

***Aug 6, 2000
Agreed, the terrain is more difficult, but it seems you are advocating {#I should have said something different, apologizing? ignoring?#} the same type of violence against the police as the police use on the people. I don't know if that is justifiable.

Sure, the media is being used to divide and dismiss protestors. Why give them the ammunition to do this? Isn't this just what agent provocateurs salivate over?

Greenpeace has used non-violent practices for years which garnish media attention. Half of what protestors need to think about is how the media will be able to use the image.

I can understand how Black Panthers, and IRAers would violently respond to police presence. They have a bit more justification, if only for self-preservation. These protestors at RNC have to be willing to take some lumps, just as the African-Americans did when they sat in on lunch counters in the South. Many of the lunch-strikers are forgotten, but their sacrifices helped pave the way towards integration. Dismissing those against non-violent {#error, should have been "violent"#} protest is disingenuous.

The police are just a distraction. They are the shield before the status quo. It is the status quo, and those wielding the power to maintain it, who need to be kept in mind above all.

Retaliatory strikes against the staus quo's shield only reduces our ability to educate those in the "mainstream". The mass protest movement is just starting to get legs, we shouldn't provide the opposition such an easy way to derail us via their spin machine. Let's give non-violence a chance first.

Rather than breaking windows, why not wheat paste them with hand bills describing one's argument. Rather than burning police cars, why not place "slip covers" over them in the shape of a school bus, detailing the amount of money spent on the "War on drugs" versus the "peace of education".....Rather than spray a cop in a car, why not plaster it with bumper stickers saying "CS gas is a known carcinogen" ......and on .... and on.... Creative "destruction" of the status quo. We've got to out-think the opposition.

Peter.

***Aug 6 +
In a message dated 8/6/00 3:26:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
peterthomas_2@y... writes:

> Agreed, the terrain is more difficult, but it seems you >are advocating the same type of violence against the >police as the police use on the people.
>I don't know if that is justifiable.

Please don't paint me with the brush of advocating violence. That can help lead to conspiracy charges and I simply have done no such thing.

That said, all of us have to confront the question of whether we will help create an atmosphere which supports fellow activists Going to Prison. The debate isn't abstract, it has very concrete implications for real people's lives.

Helping to create an atmosphere that favors the police siezing the initiative on these questions isn't justifiable under any ciurcumstances. It isn't about how we feel about each other's tactics. None of us would volutarily send
another to prison over these differences. Let's not help the police do it either.

Rafael Renteria

***Aug6++
Renteria22@aol.com wrote:

"It isn't about how we feel about each other's tactics."

O.K., let's break it down a notch. What tactics are acceptable in your view?

I apologize if you think I painted you incorrectly. I realize most of your post is regarding post-arrest support for protestors. But, personally, I think that is somewhat dependent on how the first question is answered.

Pedro.

****Aug 6th+++
In a message dated 8/6/00 4:23:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
peterthomas_2@y... writes:
> Renteria22@a... wrote:
>
> "It isn't about how we feel about each other's tactics."
>
> O.K., let's break it down a notch. What tactics are acceptable in your
view?

That's the same question Peter, and it isn't about what tactics we support and which we don't support. It's about opposing the tactic of the powers that be, which is to divide and conquer us.

I specifically don't want to divert from that subject. Here's why. Because the issue of "violence" vs "non-violence" is a false one.

Because the media has been steadily painting the movement as violent no matter what people do or don't do, ever since Seattle. And if Philly taught us anything it should be that the ruling class media aren't listening to what
we say on any subject unless it supports their line and enables them to divide and further attack us.

It's not like they're suddenly going to give up painting us with the violence brush and start listening to our message. They learned some things from the 60's and from Seattle, and ever since the early 80's official policy has been
to discourage media from giving protesters a voice or taking our issues seriously. It's ONLY on faultline questions that we are able to break thru, like the death penalty, for example, or police brutality or racial profiling.
In Philly, leading activists were run absolutely ragged doing media interviews and virtually None of it got in the media.

Further, if the police want to , they will simply invent what we are doing. In Houston at the RNC several years ago the standard arrest was for assault on a cop. No one DID it of course, but it was handy for them. I faced three
counts of the charge, the charges were completly false, and if people had been spreading this whole anti-violence line then as they are now, I might well have gone to prison for something I didn't do, or even think about doing.

This points to the central problem. If we give in to them on the question of "violence", then all they have to do is charge any of us with a "violent" "crime" and then they can rest assured that there will be no one to defend us. And I guarantee you that that will be their next step. They know no moral bounds.

That's why they can do what they are doing to John Sellars of Ruckus, with their millon dollar bail. Him today, you and I tomorrow. The "anarchists" today, and once they've established the divide and conquer paradigm, they can
pin anything on any of us. And will.

Rafael Renteria

***Aug 7th [Responding after R's reply to another, which I largely don't refer to, but mainly prior issues]
Rafael,

I will go back to my original argument regarding your position on responding to the Corporate media who "trapped" fellow protestors on the (truly horrendous!) Fox Net News channel.

Your listing of responses connotes condoning the actual event videotaped-- "protestors spraying fluid at a police officer." This does not play well in Peoria, or many other places.

For a populace whose consciousness has just been raised via witnessing one too many Rodney Kingesque police beatings, any actions which allow the Corporate media to reduce public outrage hurts our non-violent efforts for change. There have been great strides through the years via non-violence, I submit that the early stages mass protest is in needs nothing to derail this effort.

Also, mimicking tactics which many bad cops use against us is not a mature response. Condoning this action only provides more 19 year-old, testosterone-raging kids an excuse to participate in what will produce no beneficial outcome.

Your argument re:Iraq, et. al., is preaching to the choir. Some would say the tactic, such as bombing a Federal building is an option. A pretty extreme option, but, definitely a violent protest. We're not fighting the Redcoats, at least yet. The Internet has provided a much needed new tactical avenue. The more the major media is forced to admit to police rioting as it happens (not months later via some "truth" commission), the more untenable are the positions held by whatever group is the target...be it, IMF, WTO, Corporate Convention #xxxx, etc.--and the less distraction from the real story--what the issue generating protest!! If only agent-provocateurs are engaging in violent actions, the truth will come out, and much sooner than if a bunch of copy cat kids are doing this "cop-in-car spraying." The less copy-cat kids, the more unlikely the general populace will believe these ridiculous preemptory police strikes; looking for explosives at a puppet factory. We have to frame this fight for the reality believed by the general public, those on this listserve realize the tragedies of our system, our best behavior will educate the rest. {As an aside, I am curious how many people saw the actual footage of someone spraying something into a cop car, personally, I only saw a cop racing from a car with his nightstick, etc...please provide any links if possible}

Hey, the outcome of public skepticism regarding kid-spraying cops could be a bumper sticker, "Kids don't spray cops, cops spray cops, Film at 11"

That's pretty much all I have to say.

Keep fightin' the good fight.

Pete.

This movement is great. I'm here in Australia and we are gearing up for the World Economic Forum on September 11th. But I have a few points on the topic of violence.
-> Firstly, while all of our blockading is good, I think most of us understand that some kind of social revolution is needed. And that since Society's real power lies in economics, then it is those who produce societies wealth that must be central to the fight i.e. Workers. They must learn to fight back through industrial action that works for both economic and political goals, eventually evolving into the fight for self-management of production and society.
->Of course the elites that control society would never allow this to happen, so they will always fall back onto violence by the police and military. So to eventually win, the forces of progress will have to violently defend themselves from the forces of the state. So if non-violence is the key philosophy, then we have lost already.
->So is violence during blockades a bad idea? Well, as I've already said, we must move beyond blockades anyway, Blockades will not change the world- be they violent or non-violent. However, I don't think its doing any harm to the movement. The movement continues to expand, and gain confidence, regardless of bad press. It continues to spread around the world (although mainly in industrialised nations).
->Ironically, regardless of anti-violent debate from within our own ranks, the violent actions of an extreme few actually legitimise the civil disobedience of the majority: by widening the scope of debate into the realm of violence, those who are non-violent become moderates, thus more acceptable to Media coverage. If the violent few were not active, perhaps those non-violent protesters would be the radical few and the accepted moderates would be further to the right (not that non-violent activists are necessarily less radical than violent ones).
->Let me emphasise however, that any violent action is only useful if connected to the social movement. The isolated riots of a few anarchists, or terrorist organisations like those that surfaced in the 1970's do not work towards social change. They isolate people from the cause. The Capitalist system will not collapse by killing any individual or group of individuals, only STRUCTURAL CHANGE will work. Bombs will not break the system, only structural redistribution of power will do that.
->While the movement continues to grow, I must admit that reformist organisations like unions are often afraid to be associated with the violence. Here in Australia the Unions have refused to take part in the September 11th protest. However the growing social movement has still drawn them in and they will have their protest on the next day. Many unionists will, however, still go to the main protest and as they radicalise will bring their unions with them.
->I agree totally that non-violent protesters should not denounce their violent conrades. A united movement is a confident one, and will continue to draw people in, if we denounce each other for differing tactics then it will work to our downfall.

David

Fellow activists:

You are invited to join a new email list for discussion of activist
"violence" and "nonviolence" at the current large mobilizations (J18, S26,
J20, etc). All perspectives are welcome.

You can subscribe by sending a blank email to

v-nv-mobilize-subscribe@egroups.com

or by visiting

http://www.egroups.com/group/v-nv-mobilize

(eGroups has been bought by Yahoo, so don't be confused when you see the other name.)


GENERAL INFO
WHY THIS NEW LIST?
SECURITY
FORWARDING THIS INVITATION


GENERAL INFO

The goal of v-nv-mobilize is to facilitate a respectful, international dialog on activist "violence"/"nonviolence", in which people of differing views can learn from one another, and people of similar views can discuss how to act on them. (Quotation marks are used here for the sake of openness, to recognize the many uses of these words. This is not a convention others need follow.)

This invitation is being sent to over 400 people, lists, and organizations, representing a wide range of:
* geographical locations
* issues of primary focus
* political views
* positions on "violence"/"nonviolence"
* types of involvement in the mobilizations.

The list is unmoderated -- which means self-moderated -- with an open subscription policy. Its primary language is English.

v-nv-mobilize is for examination of activist "violence"/"nonviolence" as a movement issue, across different mobilizations. Practical applications will hopefully be discussed, but this is not the primary organizing list for any mobilization.

v-nv-mobilize focuses on the "violence" and "nonviolence" of activists, because it is a list for activists (in the broadest sense), and aims to help us direct our own movement. The "violence" or "nonviolence" of police and the prisons are uncontroversial among activists, and are widely addressed on the internet. The same is not the case with our own behavior.


WHY THIS NEW LIST?

There have been all kinds of activist "violence" and "nonviolence" at the mobilizations of the past two years. v-nv-mobilize was inspired by -- but is not limited to! -- some of the events at S26 Prague: activist/independent media reports were that a small minority of activists threw cobblestones and Molotov cocktails at police, and similarly attacked delegates, injuring tens of people, at least two seriously.

Research for this list turned up numerous accounts of and reactions to these events, but hardly any extended discussion, especially of activist "violence"/"nonviolence" as a general issue for the movement.

During that research, another example of "violence" occurred at N30 (2000) Nice, where activist/independent sources reported that some activists started a fire at a bank, and then drove off firefighters by throwing rocks.

Note: v-nv-mobilize is not concerned only with these potentially lethal actions; they serve as dramatic examples to argue that we activists should be talking more about the whole spectrum of our "violence"/"nonviolence" at the mobilizations.

And to repeat, the goal of v-nv-mobilize is to bring all sides together, not to advance one view of the issue. All perspectives on activist "violence"/"nonviolence" deserve public discussion in depth, due to their significance in:
* movement strategy and tactics
* mobilization organizing
* media and other outreach
* (for some people) morality and spirituality.

(By the way, if you are aware of such a dialog already occurring online, please post its location to v-nv-mobilize.)


So why are these matters not more talked about? To be sure, each mobilization is different, and where there is less likelihood of serious "violence", it is understandable that there is less attention paid to the issue. But these mobilizations are part of a common movement, however it is understood: what happens in Prague affects what happens in Washington DC and vice versa, on the streets and in the conference rooms.

Three other reasons to avoid this challenging topic come up often:
1) "Let's not divide ourselves."
2) "Let's focus on the practicalities of organizing, not on abstractions."
3) "Our view on "violence"/"nonviolence" is settled. There's no need for dialog with other groups."

Each of these points may be valid for some people and some forums. But v-nv-mobilize is a list for people who feel differently.


SECURITY
v-nv-mobilize is essentially public, as is its archive. Eddresses will be concealed in the archive and the members list, but not in the "From" field of postings. This will hopefully prevent people's eddresses from being "harvested", but it will not provide real "security". Bear this in mind at all times.

The lack of security does favor people of the "nonviolent" view, especially among those who live under more repressive states, because they may feel more free to express themselves. But the research for this invitation turned up many groups whose websites or lists approve of or advocate revolutionary "violence", so hopefully these people will feel just as free to express themselves on this list.


FORWARDING THIS INVITATION
Please forward this invitation to anyone you think would be interested. But many people, lists and organizations have already received it. So you will minimize cross-postings by forwarding only to the following: people you know personally; organizations or lists you're involved with which have not received the invitation; organizations which have no website.


Thank you for reading.

May this list serve us well -- and the movement.

alyosha Witness
listworker