"Diversity of tactics" is an utterly stupid phrase, needing no rebuttal. A *tactic* as such can only be a measure for implementing a *strategy*. If there is no (at least implicit) agreement on strategy then what is pretentiously called "diversity of tactics" is nothing but implementation of *opposing* strategies. ---------
Maybe. What Graeber argues is that the goal is not to win a particular battle but to create a movement built upon consensus. And, rather than this movement splintering into diverse pieces at the moment when consensus cannot be reached, he suggests it is important to try and agree on something that "everybody can live with." Apparently "diversity of tactics" is one such.
I am not an expert in organizing political movements, so I cannot say whether this is a necessary step in a new kind of political process or whether it is a mistake.
Speaking from Oakland, I have to say that Oakland seems to be a magnet for folks who want to act out and earn their ghetto stripes. I would also say that the vandalism and some of the tactics I've heard of have not been a good thing. But that's Oakland, and my information might be far from complete.
It's certainly the case that putting together hamfisted/sadistic policing and unpredictable 'diverse tactics' makes me shy about marching. But I'm 57 and have an artificial hip. Those younger and more robust might feel different.
There is no question, of course, that 99% of the violence so far has come from the police.
Joanna