On 2012-02-14, at 6:53 PM, Mike Ballard wrote:
> IMO, violence is something you use when you can win--par example: Mao tse-tung used violence when his troops could encircle and win, otherwise it was all slip away to avoid defeat. It's a tactical question, not a strategic one. The class war is a lot like a guerilla war. If violence becomes the general public's focus of a demonstration against a particular war or a strike for better working conditions and so on and, the protesters/strikers are beaten by the forces of the political State, the media does a beat up of the protesters/strikers and the 'cause' is lost in the haze of reportage on 'violence' and many of the protesters/strikers end up in seemingly endless court battles in the aftermath. IOW, the issue is changed from the 'cause' to the 'tactic' and the public, in its already existing conservative mind set turns on the perceived weakness of e.g. 'the hippies', 'the anarchists' and so on. This happened in Seattle where the BB stole the show (aka
> battle for hearts and minds), so to speak and instead of the public mind focusing on the matters at hand (our rulers plotting how to get higher rates of profit through 'free' trade agreements and destroying Earth in the process), the issue became the tactics of BB McDonalds trashing etc.
This is exactly right. It's a tactical question, but I'd also add that it's one which is only applicable at an advanced stage of a class conflict, when the masses are sufficiently politically conscious and aroused to understand rather than condemn aggressive action, and when such action is couched in terms of "self defence", as a response to official violence rather than a celebration of "violence" in itself.
For example, the Bolshevik takeover of the Winter Palace was not presented as an act of insurrection but as an act of "self-defence" against the Kerensky government which was alleged to be on the eve of forcefully suppressing the Bolshevik-dominated Soviets and other institutions of popular power. Many trade unionists supported as necessary the use of violence to defend their picket lines and sit-ins against scabs and troopers. Malcolm X, Robert Williams, and the Black Panthers all stressed the need to defend the black community against racist mobs and cops, but were not disposed to initiate violent acts. Same with Palestinians who supported rock-throwing and lethal ambushes against Israeli troops and settlers as legitimate acts of self-defence during the initifada. The Greek trade unions and political parties have condemned the attacks on property and cops by a minority of anarchists in Athens and elsewhere, but many of their members share their outrage and, while opposed to the anarchists, are still more understanding of where responsibility for the violence properly belongs.
But the extent of alienation from the system and political consciousness of the American people at the present time nowhere approaches these levels. That is why BB tactics are more likely to retard rather than have little effect on movement in this direction.
The big tactical breakthrough so far has been the exemplary Zuccotti Square and other occupations. These won widespread sympathy, some of which can be safely said to have been frittered away by the BB tactics. But deeper historical and structural considerations, not tactics, will determine the fate of the Occupy movement or its offshoots.