[lbo-talk] On vandalism and violence

[ken hanly]

  The question seems to be wrongly framed. The question is not whether generally violence or non-violence is a superior method of protest. The question should be IMHO: What tactics are most effective in this particular concrete situation and what tactics are harmful to the movement. Some of the tactical violence employed in Oakland just seems counterproductive and effective only in negating the positive effects of the non-violent strike that was helping to build the movement's strength and broaden its appeal.

Cheers, ken

________________________________
From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
Sent: Saturday, November 5, 2011 4:34:53 PM
Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] On vandalism and violence

On Nov 5, 2011, at 4:36 PM, from_alamut at yahoo.com wrote:


> Non-violence is a tactic that usually is successful only when supported by accompanied violent acts. Ghandhi did not win independence just by non-violence, but was supported by a wave of bombings and assassinations (not that I am advocating these far from it). The Civil rights movements were accompanied with urban rioting. You cant separate the two or you'll loose. Black blocs cannot operate alone and non-violence is impotent without it.

As an abstract principle, I concur. But I don't know what violence accomplishes in this situation. It seems more like a form of self-expression for BB types to feel more righteous than all the liberal wimps than an actual strategy or tactic to change anything in the world.

Doug
___________________________________
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk