Chris Hedges’ recent articles starting with “The Cancer in
Occupy” (Truthdig, Feb. 6) have created quite a controversy
among supporters of the Occupy movement.
The article came out in the aftermath of an incident in late
January when Oakland police attacked protesters who were trying to
occupy an abandoned building to use as a community center and new
space for the movement. Police kettled and arrested 400
demonstrators, and at various times used tear gas and rubber bullets.
During one standoff, members of Occupy Oakland defended themselves
with makeshift shields and tossed tear gas back at the police.
Hedges calls the Black Bloc tactic the “cancer” of the
movement and “a gift from heaven to the security and surveillance
state.” The movement is tolerating wanton violence, according to
Hedges, and in doing so is inviting repression and negative press
attention, thereby failing to win over more people. His essay has
touched off a wide-ranging debate about the philosophy of nonviolence
and if violence has any potential legitimacy in the movement.
Making a non-issue
The problem is that this is largely a straw-man—it is inventing
a controversy, and the Black Bloc tactic is far from the most
pressing issue for Occupy. In fact, the Black Bloc tactic—in which
groups of masked activists dress in black, and without announced
plans, attempt to escalate marches, directly confront the police and
destroy property, usually that of corporations—has been an
extremely minor aspect of the Occupy movement as a whole.
What took place on Jan. 28 in Oakland was principally an act of
collective self-defense against police repression. When protesters
pulled down the fence surrounding the building they sought to
occupy—or months earlier when New York marchers seized the orange
nets the police used to box them in—these represented not
purposeless and reckless Black Bloc violence but the maturation of
street tactics. The same can be said in the instances in which groups
of protesters, masked or not, have spontaneously intervened to pull
those facing wrongful arrest out of the arms of the cops.
The rare use of the Black Bloc tactic in Occupy is not the cause
of its problems, nor is it the main challenge. As Hedges admits, the
“security and surveillance state” did just fine in repressing
entirely nonviolent Occupy encampments from coast to coast.
This is not to say that the movement must now escalate towards
violence—in fact, no one is arguing for this. But it shows that
with or without Black Bloc tactics, the state will move aggressively
to silence those who challenge its rule.
The same is true of the media, despite its initial coverage—and
to some degree, promotion—of the Occupy movement. For Hedges, a
properly nonviolent movement must “on some level embrace police
brutality” because it makes for a better media clip to have people
sustain injury instead of standing up for themselves.
While it is crucial that we seek and use positive media coverage
whenever possible, the media in general belongs to the 1 percent. The
media’s demonization of the movement is bound to increase as it
becomes more anti-capitalist and more successful in challenging Wall
Street.
To embrace police repression so that it leads to more outrage
reduces these protests to a marketing campaign, in which participants
are largely passive and defenseless. Our tactics become oriented
towards being “media friendly,” as if the problem is how to
conduct ourselves in front of the cameras, not the nature of the
corporate-owned media itself. This tactical view reflects a broader
strategy aimed at winning enough public sympathy until the government
finally reforms.
The real issue: creating a strategy to move forward
Instead, it is better to view Occupy as part of a resurgent
fight-back movement, which has the potential to inspire action and
confrontation against capitalism on many different fronts, and
ultimately aim for its overthrow. We are still a long way from there.
That will require taking on the hard strategic questions: how to
revive a fighting labor movement of organized and unorganized
workers; how to build organization and leadership in the most
oppressed communities; and how to take the “occupy” idea into the
struggles at the workplace and against evictions and foreclosures,
budget cuts and school closures.
In an article last year, Hedges told his readers to “not be
afraid of the language of class warfare,” and called for people
here to follow the Greek workers and youth who called a general
strike and “shut down the city centers.”
Yes, but none of this happens without resistance. In fact, for
such actions to take place, and this has been proven in Egypt, Greece
and elsewhere, the people must also begin to lose their fear. That
idea—that you can fight back and you do not have to run—might not
always play perfectly for the cameras, but is a critical part of the
process of building a revolutionary movement.
The Black Bloc tactic should be criticized when it is clearly
being harmful to the Occupy movement. There is certainly room to
critique it, especially when it is used offensively.
The action of a
few is substituted for—or is even in direct confrontation with—the
initiative and organization of the many. It can put people at risk
who often have far more to lose from police repression. In its spontaneity, it is typically disconnected from a broader
strategy. It often induces fear rather than confidence among those
who are entering political life. It can provide an easy entry point
for police provocateur activity—as we saw in March 2009, when
several masked individuals posing as part of the Black Bloc helped
disrupt an anti-war march on the Pentagon before discreetly walking
behind police lines.
But all such actions—which, again, have not been seen broadly in
the Occupy movement—must be distinguished clearly from
self-defense, which is an inviolable right.
The debate about tactics should not revolve simplistically around
interpreting the Civil Rights movement (often by omitting those who
did ascribe to self-defense). While recognizing how the Occupy
movement grew as a result of the heavy-handed police response to
peaceful protest, the discussion should instead focus on when certain
tactics are appropriate or not.
How do we plan protests that dramatize our cause, exert our rights
to the streets and at the same time keep our participants safe? How
do we occupy a site when there is a police fence in the way? How do
we occupy an apartment building or a workplace when the landlords and
capitalists call in the police to enforce their property rights? How
do we do all these things in a way that take us forward, giving
people more confidence to struggle?
