Ideas Working Group - Diversity of Tactics 3/21/2012
Ideas Working Group - Diversity of Tactics (2) 3/21/2012
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 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.
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.
Someone suggested that we add "we want non-violent direct action to succeed" to the end of this proposal.
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?
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.