View source for Ideas Working Group - Diversity of Tactics 3/21/2012

__NOTOC__ __NOINDEX__
= Ideas Working Group on Diversity of Tactics, Part II =

We had a good crowd tonight, at least 15 people.

== Particulars, Particulars, Particulars ==

The next ideas meeting would fall on April 4th, which is the same day
as the big MBTA rally at the state house.  Do we want to meet on the
4th, or change our next meeting date?  We decide to change the meeting
date; we'll ask BCNC if we can switch the 4th with the previous or
following week.  Steve will contact the BCNC and report back to the
group.

Should ideas have a presence at the Occupy Boston Open House on April
2nd?  The Ideas working group had a mission statement; things have
changed since then, and the mission statement doesn't accurately
reflect what we do today.  The Open House could be a good opportunity
for outreach.  We didn't come to a concrete decision; perhaps we
should have a follow-up discussion on the mailing list.

How do people feel about our meeting schedule?  Does 2x/month work, or
should we consider meeting every week?  We decided to play this by
ear; ideas provides an opportunity for people to discuss things that
need to be discussed.  Our meeting frequency should reflect the need
for people to have discussions.  (I suppose we can continue with
2x/month.  That seems like a reasonable balance between having
productive discussions, and having too many meetings.)

== Diversity of Tactics (Summary) ==

This discussion was motivated by Occupy Boston's [http://www.occupyboston.org/2011/10/07/statement-of-diversity-of-tactics/ diversity of tactics statement],
and by some of the events that happened in Oakland.  During tonight's
meeting, we focused on people's needs and concerns regarding diversity
of tactics.  We also discussed two documents contributed by a member
of a group: a proposal on Tactical Diversity (not yet brought before
GA), and a series of questions regarding the Diversity of Tactics
statement passed on Oct 7th.  These documents appear below.

<div style="background: #eeeeee;margin-left: 3em; margin-right: 5em; padding-left: 1em; padding-right: 1em; padding-top: 1ex; padding-bottom: 1ex">
'''3rd Iteration of T/J's Tactical Diversity Proposal'''

As a group, the Occupy Movement has employed a wide range of tactics
to express our dissent from the undemocratic, inegalitarian forces
within American society, and to contest inequitable ownership and
control of “property,” on behalf of the 99% and the human rights of
all people. Among these tactics, we are proud to be identified with
“Occupation”-- which we define as the non-violent holding of sites—a
tactic with deep roots in American popular protest movements. We seek
a society that prioritizes human over property rights. Nevertheless,
we respect “property”, insofar as it is a product of human labor and
needed for human survival.

Occupy does not impose ideological uniformity on its members. But,
Occupy, as a movement, does not endorse or aid in purposeful violence
against people, or the intentional destruction of property as a
protest tactic. We do, however, reserve the options of:

* reasonable action necessary to self-defense
* unintentional destruction of property in the course of protest and/or occupation
* actions with an expressive or symbolic rather than destructive intent.
	
It is our earnest desire that non-violent tactics succeed in realizing
the humane transformation of society we seek. But we also note that it
is an American tradition as old as the Declaration of Independence to
resist by force, at such time as the exhaustion of other means should
make it necessary, the tyrannical infringement of our inalienable,
inprescriptable human rights.
</div>

Someone suggested that we add "we want non-violent direct action to
succeed" to the end of this proposal.

<div style="background: #eeeeee;margin-left: 3em; margin-right: 5em; padding-left: 1em; padding-right: 1em; padding-top: 1ex; padding-bottom: 1ex">
'''Questions for "interrogating" the "Diversity of Tactics" statement'''

# re "diversity": Are all tactics acceptable? Are any excluded?
# Re "separation of time and space" ; Is the goal to protect "the safety of the movement", or to shield any action of any individual Occupier?
# re "debates within Occupy"; Do we accept that not all debates within Occupy are manufactured by our detractors to divide us, and that it is healthy for these legitimate differences to be aired openly?
# re "assisting law enforcement"; Does the prescription against aiding law enforcement apply in cases of individuals who violate laws in ways totally unrelated to the goals of Occupy?
# re "tactical diversity vs. tactical coordination"; As part of the original discussion on tactics last Oct., it was agreed that "diversity of tactics should not avoid accountability".  In light of that, is there room in Occupy for the collective assessment of tactics by the standards of effectiveness and mutual compatibility?  Will the effectiveness of various strategies be openly judged, debated, weighed? Will consensus judgments about the effectiveness and appropriateness of tactics be respected?
</div>


During our stack discussion (given in the next section) there were
a few themes that appeared several times.  These themes include

* As a movement, we need more ''shared values'', and a better sense of ''respect'' for each other.
* We need to focus on choosing tactics that are ''effective.''
* Violent confrontations may be inevitable, and we don't necessarily have control over when that escalation might occur.  We're not anywhere near that stage yet.

== Stack Discussion ==

Last week's discussion was based on Occupy Boston's Diversity of
Tactics statement; it's a very open statement.  Several weeks ago, one
attendee brought a non-violence proposal before GA; the proposal was
blocked, largely because it limited the use of certain tactics.

This discussion was largely motivated by events that happened at Occupy
Oakland.  We came to the conclusion that these events would have
violated the "time and space" portion of Occupy Boston's diversity of
tactics statement.  Diversity of tactics should not avoid
accountability; we are a horizontal organization, and there should be
room for discussion regarding what kind of tactics and beneficial, and
what kind of tactics are not.  Some tactics are incompatible; for
example, aggressive violence might hinder recruitment.

Revolution is not immoral; it's an obligation.  However, we shouldn't
go down that road until we're sure that it's necessary to do so.
We're not at that stage yet.

As a group, we need to have some long-term statements regarding choice
of tactics.  These can't be band-aid statements; they need to be
statements that can last.  We could elaborate on the original
diversity of tactics statement.  We should focus on reasons for
choosing certain tactics, rather than saying that certain tactics are
off limits.

Separation of time and space is an important aspect of the diversity
of tactics statement.  We should really be focused on keeping our
actions predictable, and on managing risk.  In the 60s, we did things
that we peaceful, and things that were very disruptive.  Some of those
actions grew the movement, and some shrunk it.  Ultimately, the
movement grew more than it shrunk.

At some point, things may become violent.  We are not ready for that
yet.  We should put our energy into getting everyone one our side,
before things turn sour.  The state has a monopoly on organized
violence, and when you lose, you have a civil war.  Any use of
violence should be productive.  We're trying to attract people.

We shouldn't say that we completely support non-violent tactics.
There are some non-violent tactics that would never go over at Occupy
Boston.  For example, endorsing a political candidate, or starting a
super PAC.  The separation of time and space is key.  Doing non-occupy
things at an occupy event does everyone a disservice.  You want to
vote for Obama?  Go vote for Obama on your own time.

By itself, separation of time and space may not be enough.  It's too
subject to opinion and interpretation.  People need to feel safe.  Our
goal should be to reach mutual agreements on working together.  My
concern is a lack of diversity.

We should avoid ''wanton'' violence.  "Wanton" is a good word to
describe what we hope to avoid.

When the Diversity of tactics statement was brought forward, we were
trying to make a normative agreement.  Diversity of tactics can give
an organization some claws.  Each of us should try our best to be
effective.

I'd like to us have some common values, and our Diversity of Tactics
statement could be one of those values.  We should exercise
self-discipline and restraint when needed.

I have a different perspective.  We've had debates, but I don't feel
like they were honest debates.  People discard our resolutions when
they don't agree with them.  We need to think more about shared
values, and get away from the dynamic were everyone goes off and does
what they want.

We need more agreement on shared values.  This is a real issue in
terms of what happens next for Occupy.  We should try to get more
people involved, rather than turning up the volume of existing
participants.

Some tactics are not compatible.  If we think that the system should
be put down by force, then we should just go ahead and advertise that.

We're a really diverse movement, and we need to spend more time
arguing about shared values.  We should do this before things get ugly
within the group.

Destructive tactics can push people away, but they can also bring
people in, and show them that we're serious.  However, we don't want
to put people in situations that they're not ready for.  Diversity of
tactics should respect this idea, and zoned protests are one way of
accomplishing it.

Acts of violence by us could bring down acts of violence by the
police.  We're better off maintaining a moral high ground.  If people
choose to engage in violence or property destruction, then they should
do that under a different umbrella.  I have trouble with the idea of
complete non-violence, even though some people (e.g., Gandhi) have
used it incredibly effectively.  I want to maintain the option of self
defense.

Gandhi's advantage came from being able to control the violence; he
could turn it on and off.  Nelson Mandela never disavowed violence,
and he went to jail for that.

If we care about democracy, then ideas are powerful, and reason is
powerful.  We should stress ideas, reason, and values.

There are times when revolution is necessary.  Perhaps we need a
statement of tactical coordination, to spell out what's going to
happen during a protest or rally.  We can have diversity and
coordination; diversity should not completely trump coordination.

I have two main issues.  First is the separation of time and space.
That's intended to make people feel safe when they're at an action.  I
also support tactical coordination.  If people support what's
happening in an action, then they're going to participate.  Certain
acts (which could be perceived as violent) could bring in as many
people as they turn off.

We should be mindful of undercover cops.  We need to support each
other.  I can't completely sign on to the third iteration of T/J's
tactical diversity proposal, because I feel that doing so would be a
betrayal to my comrades.  We need a shared value of not turning each
other in to law enforcement.

Something to keep in mind regarding zoned protests: the police may not
see "zones" the same way that we do.  And we have no control over
whether the police will try to come down hard on us.  How do we ask
people to be non-violent in the face of the US government -- the most
violent organization on the planet?

Anything beyond taking to the streets should be done under a different
movement.  Occupy should be a safe place, where we can all go and give
it our best shot.  Occupy should be a place for the 99%.  People
should not make choices for other people.

It's easy to break a window, but it's very hard to make the world more
equal.  We're not at the point of breaking windows.

I was down in Zuccotti park last weekend.  It was a very different
environment.  The NYPD has no civility, and they have no problem with
using indiscriminate force.  Things in NYC will escalate on a very
different time scale than things in Boston.  If our city decides to be
really repressive, then we'll have no choice but to change our
position.

In Oakland, police show up in riot gear.  In Boston, police show up in
vests and bicycles.  I think that affects the officer's mindsets.  If
you're wearing riot gear, you expect to beat somebody's head in.  If
you're riding around on a bicycle, then you have a very different view
of things.

Another important question: what do we do if the police decide to
become violent?  Look at the Paris Commune.  The time for fighting in
the streets is over.  The people in Paris couldn't match the firepower
of their police, and we can't match the firepower of today's
paramilitary police force.  On the other hand, the force of order is
pretty powerful.  Having a larger base will make it more difficult for
the police to violently repress us.

People speaking and acting in the name of occupy shouldn't be
exclusionary.  We can, and should be more organized.  We should get
away from autonomous actions that disrespect the 99%.

I kind of like Anonymous's tactics.  There's not really property
destruction involved, but there's a lot of humiliation.  Okay, maybe
there's a little property destruction.  But look at how DHS treats
Anonymous -- like they're stateless terrorists.  Our government's
reaction seems completely blown out of proportion.

During the eviction, there was a big debate about barricades.  One
group of protesters was building them up, and another group of
protesters was tearing them down.  These two groups had no respect for
each other, and their efforts were wasted.  Bad actions come from
mutual disrespect, and a mutual lack of trust.  How do we bring more
mutual respect and trust to our community?

Intentional actions -- actions done with a purpose -- are what brings
people into a movement.  We should have more conversations about what
we're here for, and actions that fit those purposes.

We should talk more about actions that would be effective.  We
shouldn't make choices for other people.  We should talk about
positive, effective things that we can do.

In the early days of Occupy Boston, there was a big struggle between
the cops and us.  We should be pushing boundaries; if succeed in
pushing a boundary often enough, then it becomes accepted.  For
example, there was a time where we couldn't get away with marching in
the street.  Now, we can get away with marching in one lane, and
marching with traffic.  Every time we succeed in pushing a boundary,
it's a victory for us.

We should have these kinds of conversations amongst ourselves, rather
than fighting in front of the neighbors.  Zoned protests should not
involve machismo.  We should also have more conversations about
security culture.

So far, the level of violence we've experienced is really low.  It
could go up at any time, and once it's gone up, it probably won't come
back down.  There will be times when we can't control the level of
violence; we can only control our response to it.  Think of Jesus,
Gandhi, and MLK.  These three people were non-violent, and all of them
were killed.  We should talk more about this.  Even if we don't bring
a proposal to GA, we can still ask people to think about it.

There's a huge silent majority who aren't involved, but are out there
following along.  Occupy is very exciting, especially for activists.
We have lots of opportunity to get people to listen and participate.
We shouldn't waste this opportunity.  We need to appear to as many
people as we can, and we have to be able to keep the moral high
ground.

[[Category:Ideas WG]]