---- Original Message ----- From: "Chuck Munson" <chuck at tao.ca>
Cian O'Connor wrote:
>
> Chuck, serious question. What does violence against
> property achieve that peaceful methods wouldn't achieve.
-You can't be "violent" against property. Property is an inert thing with -no feelings. The idea that one can do violence against property is a -tacit admission that capitalism is correct when it equates people with -property. It also cheapens the real nasty effects of violence against -people.
The equation of all property with capitalism is the key economic idiocy of the Left in the 20th century. There are all kinds of property, some of which promotes personal freedom against both government and criminals, and some of which just promotes raw corporate power to take away that freedom. The failure to distinguish between those different meanings of property to people is one reason the Right can play public relations games of equating democracy with capitalism.
And arguing that no economic action can constitute harm or violence is ridiculous. Taking away someone's health care, taking away their home, taking away their job is a form of attack that I fully recognize as violence. People understand that; when companies are threatening peoples livilihoods during strikes, its one reason there is often sympathy for union physical violence to defend themselves economically. It's also one reason the NRA maintains support in the idea of having a gun to protect personal property.
Now, when corporate opponents are clearly identified and property damage targets them in retaliation for their specific violence, physical or economic, that they may have done, you can often generate real public sympathy. But when such property damage appears to be indiscriminate, hitting small stores on the edge of financial survival (often true) as well,then that sympathy will disappear as fears lead the public to switch sympathy to property owners.
And the problem is that the damage done by these kind of protets is insignificant economically for the corporate giants we are talking about, so it fails on both levels. It fails to really deter corporate power by the big guys but inflames the fears of those small property owners for who the damage would be meaningful. The worst of all possible worlds.
It all goes to the issue of disciplined activism-- you celebrate "anything goes" networks and lack of strategic coherence, but that is what inevitably feeds the fears of the public over such property attacks, since they are perceptive enough to wonder if they might be next, since nothing would seem to stop escalation by any splinter group.
-- Nahan Newman