Black Bloc Tactics Contaminating Occupy Oakland

[sandinista]

The phrase "useful idiot" comes to mind here...

comes to mind every time I read one of your posts...except for the "useful" part.

The "occupy" movement is a smoke-screen and shill, nothing more.

A smokescreen for what?

[Schneibster]

Tolja.

Violence is counter-productive. Thanks for fucking things up. /sarcasm

/occupy

"protests" are non-productive.

Children are impatient.

[sandinista]

Tolja.

Violence is counter-productive. Thanks for fucking things up. /sarcasm

/occupy

"protests" are non-productive.

Children are impatient.

or gullible and blind

[maiforpeace]

Tolja.

Violence is counter-productive. Thanks for fucking things up. /sarcasm

/occupy

"protests" are non-productive.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the eventual end of the Vietnam War, and increased rights for women and the poor came about because of protest...I don't consider any of those to be non-productive.

As for the violence...

Pregnant teen, elderly woman among pepper sprayed at Occupy Seattle

In an email to The Stranger, 84 year old Dorli Rainey writes:

Something funny happened on my way to a transportation meeting in Northgate. As I got off the bus at 3rd and Pine I heard helicopters above. Knowing that the problems of New York would certainly precipitate action by Occupy Seattle, I thought I better check it out. Especially since only yesterday the City Government made a grandiose gesture to protect free speech. Well free speech does have its limits as I found out as the cops shoved their bicycles into the crowd and simultaneously pepper sprayed the so captured protesters. If it had not been for my Hero (Iraq Vet Caleb) I would have been down on the ground and trampled. This is what democracy looks like. It certainly left an impression on the people who rode the No. 1 bus home with me. In the women's movement there were signs which said: "Screw us and we multiply."

Fuck, yeah Dorli! You ROAR woman!

[Schneibster]

Tolja.

Violence is counter-productive. Thanks for fucking things up. /sarcasm

/occupy

"protests" are non-productive.

Children are impatient.

or gullible and blind

So now we've got kiddie marxists to go along with the kiddie anarchists.

[sandinista]

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the eventual end of the Vietnam War, and increased rights for women and the poor came about because of protest...I don't consider any of those to be non-productive.

As for the violence...

The civil rights movement wasn't entirely non-violent, Vietnam was ended because of the Vietnamese, not "protests", although the protests were also not entirely non violent. Rights for the poor? Such as? Besides that, those were different times, different politics. The corporate oligarchy had begun to take over, but governments still had a slim say in matters, that's not the case anymore.

So now we've got kiddie marxists to go along with the kiddie anarchists.

That's all you can say, sad little troll.

[JimC]

A very interesting political dynamic, here. The occupy movement seems to be under attack from 2 of the forum's political heavwights...

From somewhat different directions...

Sandinista seems to view them as impotent neo-liberals, whose (relatively) peaceful protests achieve nothing; the only worthwhile thing being, it seems, the tearing down of the capitalist state and replacing it with...

Well, not quite sure what with, but it would have to be some variant of Marxism, one assumes...

Seth, on the other hand, detests them for being an easily lead rabble with a sinister cabal of Marxist revolutionaries as the unseen puppetmasters...

Is it not possible that they are a group of very disparate people, somewhat romantic and foolish perhaps, but generally with a leaning towards improving and humanising the current system? Not too sure they will be able to have a significant effect, but they have at least brought to the forefront of the debate the absurdly huge gap in wealth, the way that financial regulation is weighted towards the greedy desire of the few, and the excessive influence the big money end of town has on political decision making.

We don't need a revolution, we don't need the failed ideas of Marxism from the past, we need a way to combine the freedom and innovation of free enterprise with a better model for sharing the wealth it generates. Greed and excess power has distorted the current system...

[Warren Dew]

Is it not possible that they are a group of very disparate people, somewhat romantic and foolish perhaps, but generally with a leaning towards improving and humanising the current system?

It's possible, though the high violent crime rates would suggest otherwise.

It's also possible that both Seth and sandinista are correct: that they're ultimately motivated by Marxists, as Seth argues and sandinista does not deny, and that they're ineffective as long as they're peaceful, as sandinista argues and Seth does not deny.

[JimC]

Is it not possible that they are a group of very disparate people, somewhat romantic and foolish perhaps, but generally with a leaning towards improving and humanising the current system?

It's possible, though the high violent crime rates would suggest otherwise.

It's also possible that both Seth and sandinista are correct: that they're ultimately motivated by Marxists, as Seth argues and sandinista does not deny, and that they're ineffective as long as they're peaceful, as sandinista argues and Seth does not deny.

Well, the crime aspect simply comes with the fact of including a certain number of street crazies, I suspect; that and many of the rest being overly naive and lacking common sense...

As to your second point, I suppose it is remotely possible that there are a tiny group of true Marxists who think they have a chance to use the protests for their own political purposes. If there are, then they are living in a fantasy world; the whole "let's tear up society and rebuild" thing just ain't going to happen. Seth needn't fear it, and sandinista can only dream it...

What does worry me more is the likelihood of the movement being infested with the street anarchist thugs who are there purely for the thrill of violent and destructive behaviour, with no real interest in serious political change, Marxist or otherwise. They won't succeed in any serious way, but they will leave a trail of damage and injured people behind, as well as allowing the media to very effectively marginalise any real point the movement may have. I suppose sandinista will regard them as "the vanguard of the people" or some such twaddle, but adrenalin-junky thugs is more accurate...

[maiforpeace]

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the eventual end of the Vietnam War, and increased rights for women and the poor came about because of protest...I don't consider any of those to be non-productive.

As for the violence...

The civil rights movement wasn't entirely non-violent, Vietnam was ended because of the Vietnamese, not "protests", although the protests were also not entirely non violent. Rights for the poor? Such as? Besides that, those were different times, different politics. The corporate oligarchy had begun to take over, but governments still had a slim say in matters, that's not the case anymore.

I'm sorry Sandi, my post was unclear...here's how I should have posted:

"protests" are non-productive.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the eventual end of the Vietnam War, and increased rights for women and the poor came about because of protest...I don't consider any of those to be non-productive.

Tolja.

Violence is counter-productive. Thanks for fucking things up. /sarcasm

/occupy

Pregnant teen, elderly woman among pepper sprayed at Occupy Seattle

In an email to The Stranger, 84 year old Dorli Rainey writes:

Something funny happened on my way to a transportation meeting in Northgate. As I got off the bus at 3rd and Pine I heard helicopters above. Knowing that the problems of New York would certainly precipitate action by Occupy Seattle, I thought I better check it out. Especially since only yesterday the City Government made a grandiose gesture to protect free speech. Well free speech does have its limits as I found out as the cops shoved their bicycles into the crowd and simultaneously pepper sprayed the so captured protesters. If it had not been for my Hero (Iraq Vet Caleb) I would have been down on the ground and trampled. This is what democracy looks like. It certainly left an impression on the people who rode the No. 1 bus home with me. In the women's movement there were signs which said: "Screw us and we multiply."

Fuck, yeah Dorli! You ROAR woman!

I pointed out this story because I agree with Schneibster - violence IS counterproductive to the movement.

I do agree with you that these are different times. All the police need to do is announce "You are ordered to disperse" because the roads are blocked, and when people don't they have the order from Mayor Whoever to rush the crowd and toss some tear gas. Compared to the Vietnam protests there is clearly a much heavier, offensive style of police tactics being initiated at these Occupy protests. (both my parents were anti-war activists during the Vietnam war, and I was there...SF would be practically closed down due to the marches and protests).

The Vietnam protests were unpopular in the beginning, and protesters were accused of being Marxist, anarchist, hippy, riff raff. It took three years to win the hearts and minds of a majority of Americans.

[maiforpeace]

Is it not possible that they are a group of very disparate people, somewhat romantic and foolish perhaps, but generally with a leaning towards improving and humanising the current system?

It's possible, though the high violent crime rates would suggest otherwise.

It's also possible that both Seth and sandinista are correct: that they're ultimately motivated by Marxists, as Seth argues and sandinista does not deny, and that they're ineffective as long as they're peaceful, as sandinista argues and Seth does not deny.

Well, the crime aspect simply comes with the fact of including a certain number of street crazies, I suspect; that and many of the rest being overly naive and lacking common sense...

I disagree...I don't think they are naive and lacking common sense, I think they are unprepared and disorganized. Again, the movement is still young, give it some time.

As to your second point, I suppose it is remotely possible that there are a tiny group of true Marxists who think they have a chance to use the protests for their own political purposes. If there are, then they are living in a fantasy world; the whole "let's tear up society and rebuild" thing just ain't going to happen. Seth needn't fear it, and sandinista can only dream it...

We have a small percent of our population that sympathizes with those views but that's all it is...prolly a fraction of a percent. Because Marxists are more likely to ally themselves with a liberal movement the movement then gets associated with them.

What does worry me more is the likelihood of the movement being infested with the street anarchist thugs who are there purely for the thrill of violent and destructive behaviour, with no real interest in serious political change, Marxist or otherwise. They won't succeed in any serious way, but they will leave a trail of damage and injured people behind, as well as allowing the media to very effectively marginalise any real point the movement may have. I suppose sandinista will regard them as "the vanguard of the people" or some such twaddle, but adrenalin-junky thugs is more accurate...

Yes, they worry me a little too, but they are mostly at the protests in the big cities, which are also the places getting most of the media attention. Here in the Bay Area, San Francisco and Oakland are only separated by the bay, so SF protesters have gone to Oakland to support their protests, and vice versa. Most of the violence reported has occurred in Oakland, the more crime riddled city of the two.

Here in my small town of Santa Cruz, the Occupy movement is organized enough to take one of their battles to court, and has been very peaceful...the biggest issue we have is sanitation in the camp.

We shall see, we shall see.

[JimC]

maiforpeace wrote:

I disagree...I don't think they are naive and lacking common sense, I think they are unprepared and disorganized. Again, the movement is still young, give it some time.

I think one slides into the other, really. My point was to say that if the crime is elevated, it isn't to do with the real pupose of the meet...

Yes, they worry me a little too, but they are mostly at the protests in the big cities, which are also the places getting most of the media attention. Here in the Bay Area, San Francisco and Oakland are only separated by the bay, so SF protesters have gone to Oakland to support their protests, and vice versa. Most of the violence reported has occurred in Oakland, the more crime riddled city of the two.

Here in my small town of Santa Cruz, the Occupy movement is organized enough to take one of their battles to court, and has been very peaceful...the biggest issue we have is sanitation in the camp.

In Melbourne they have been mostly OK. There was a bit of a stoush when the police moved in to move them along, with a bit of fault on both sides, but nothing too bad...

[Warren Dew]

If there are, then they are living in a fantasy world; the whole "let's tear up society and rebuild" thing just ain't going to happen.

It has happened before - the Russian revolution being a good example. What makes you think it can never happen again?

Now, I do agree that the occupation movement is unlikely to have that degree of success, but only because it is a tiny movement with little popular support in the U.S. Mostly it's a pawn played up by the press to distract from the Tea Party movement, which is the U.S. movement that actually is heavily supported by the working class.

Compared to the Vietnam protests there is clearly a much heavier, offensive style of police tactics being initiated at these Occupy protests. (both my parents were anti-war activists during the Vietnam war, and I was there...SF would be practically closed down due to the marches and protests).

I don't remember the police using kid gloves at Kent State.

The real difference is that the Vietnam protests had huge amounts of popular support, enough that the police were heavily outnumbered.

[JimC]

Warren Dew wrote:

...a tiny movement with little popular support in the U.S...

If you wre referring to a true marxist revolutionary movement, I'm sure you would be right, and not just in the US. What makes me think that the whole Soviet style mass move into marxism won't happen again is simply that enough people know enough history to realise it is a dead end. Back then, it seemed like a new deal, worth trying; its almost ineviatable decline into authoritarian rule was yet to be seen...

But as for the Occupy movement, I would disagree. Many might be disparaging about its anarchist trappings, but the more sober message articulated by its more responsible proponents resonates with more people around the world than you think. At heart, is a reformist movement, not a revolutionary movement. In that, sandinista and I are in complete agreement. However, he would prefer it otherwise; not me...

[Robert_S]

The Occupy movement clearly needs a slick marketing company to come up with good soundbites, talking points and buzzwords.