Like the author, I'm hard pressed to understand how you can have a movement "with teeth" if you don't make it clear to the people joining it that they are probably going to have to be willing to give it "teeth." In this case, there was a tactical decision made in the interest of two strategic ends: to highlight the fact that any just social future will require the destruction of the old and birth of the new out of that destruction.
thus: the destruction of property was symbolic but retaliatory. It wasn't just random, let's attack any store whatsoever, it was aimed at a Whole Foods b/c they were threatening employees, and at three banks for obvious reasons. I think the message is pretty clear. This movement is going to be about getting rid of capitalism and it is going to be about creating an alternative to it. I guess you could issue a statement in a press release instead, no?
The building occupation is discussed in more detail and, as far as I know, no one here has objected to it, although it is the building occupation and the fight afterward that was where most of the window breakage, etc. occurred. The small business owners, etc. I believe that, in the debates on line, there has been some complaining about that. But the context is very different considering. People who agreed with the use of tactical violence are mad at people who also agreed with the use of tactical violence. the former faction just didn't like 1. the dance party; 2. the tagging; and 3. the anger fueled mayhem after the cops showed up at 11:30ish
WRT to the "violence" and destruction connected with the building occupation, it is true: if the cops had stayed away, there would have been a big dance party while people set up a library, meeting room, and place to house sick people.
Zero violence would have occurred.
But it did, because cops showed up and decided to shoot people with less than lethal weapons, even though they were unarmed, and cops are suited up in gear that protected them from whatever bottles were hurled. They didn't shoot people in self defense. They didn't shoot people to restore order. Order was just fine until they got there. Unused, foreclosed property was being put to beneficial social uses.
They showed up to protect the interests of property.
<quote> If the Oakland Commune does not continue to accelerate the process of communization, it will fall back into either pure symbolism, or assume the counterrevolutionary form of reformism (two processes already in progress). The building was the next logical step, and the moment taken seemed to be the likeliest and also the safest for large numbers of people not involved, as the cops had not been seen in numbers at any point, until they appeared and massed up to put down the already accomplished building occupation. Had the same events occurred during the day, the disruption to the General Strike would have been much greater. </quote>
more at: http://libcom.org/library/oakland-general-strike-days-days-after -- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)