After all, it's in the freakin Bill of Rights. People do not seem to be offended by OWS taking over public spaces; they seem to support the actions. Civil disobedience, blocking streets, disrupting some kind of activity, or otherwise inconveniencing 'regular' people is a step further but worth consideration and of course has an honorable tradition.
Destroying property, much less assaulting people, crosses an important line. Context is everything. I would argue that for the OWS actions, the juvenile vandalism trivialized what had taken place to that point, distracted from the underlying issues, and empowered a bit more those who would repress the mobilization. And there is the small matter of harming innocent people, and the political perversity of those people being likely supporters in other circumstances.
What is incontrovertible to me is the disgrace of initiating actions that facilitate police attacks on those who did not choose to participate or in any way endorse such action. I am not saying that is what happened in Oakland, I wasn't there, but any apologies for such practices are beyond the pale.
We are not quite armed maoist guerrillas swimming in the sea of the people in opposition to a brutal dictatorship. We're not the French resistance under Nazi occupation. Anyone (again, not accusing anyone in particular) who relies on that sort of framing is just nuts.
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 1:43 PM, <wrobert at uci.edu> wrote:
> I believe that this response begins to interpret almost all political
> protest under the occupy phenomenon as provocation. I should also
> note that the experiences of the protests around the RNC (amongst
> other protests) prove that being a part of a protest, even a legal
> one, can provoke the police into arresting you. My friend Mike had
> his house raided by the police because he had protestors as guests at
> his house. Carrol's definitely got this one right. robert wood
>
> > If you commit an illegal act in front of a police officer, you are
> > inviting
> > a response. The more heinous the act, the more emphatic the invitation.
> > Now breaking the windows at Whole Foods is not up there with the
> > assassination of William McKinley, but it is not something you can expect
> > police to ignore.
> >
> > Of course police are always free to invent excuses for whatever they
> > choose
> > to do. They are less free to ignore the sort of thing BB was up to.
> >
> > The conduct of the police -- what they do and decide not to do -- is a
> > political decision. When you provide excuses for them to react, you are
> > giving them political ammunition. A demonstration or occupation is a de
> > facto statement in the public debate. There are ways to win this debate,
> > and ways to lose it. The authorities may try to win the debate by using
> > provocateurs. If you permit people to act in that role, whatever their
> > motivations, you free the authorities from the need (and possible risk)
> of
> > playing that card.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> Max Sawicky: . . .by provoking police
> >>
> >> The rest of your post is a reasonable position which may be debated
> >> reasonably. This phrase is lunacy. The police are never provoked unless
> >> they
> >> want to be provoked, and if they want to be, they will always find a
> >> provocation.
> >>
> >> Carrol
> >>
> >> ___________________________________
> >> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >>
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
> >
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>