5 ms·

It wasn't one space that was lost, it was hundreds of spaces all across the US, and hundreds more across the world. What occupiers have to deal with isn't "dog

by moxie 13y ago

It wasn't one space that was lost, it was hundreds of spaces all across the US, and hundreds more across the world. What occupiers have to deal with isn't "dogs and firehoses," but an extremely well equipped paramilitary force. Watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QngE6kKk8Lg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QngE6kKk8Lg Now imagine how difficult it is to wake up every morning and throw yourself into that all over again, particularly once you've been dispersed and have lost the tactical advantage of being garrisoned together in one space. The most hardcore people I know became afraid to go back into that, as were veterans of war. It is inevitable that the moment ruptured (as it was for the globalization, biotech, and war moments before this). However, I think this Zizek speech at OWS captures the value of that inevitability really well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu9BWlcRwPQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu9BWlcRwPQ

tptacek 13y ago
Is Occupy Oakland comparable, directly, to the Zucotti Park protesters of OWS? As I understand it, from friends who live in Oakland, the Occupy Oakland protests were marked by violence and vandalism; they broke glass windows, threw bricks, and destroyed ATMs.
- moxie 13y ago
  I think "The Illegitimacy of Violence, the Violence of Legitimacy" has the best analysis of what you're implying: http://crimethinc.com/texts/recentfeatures/violence.php http://crimethinc.com/texts/recentfeatures/violence.php
  - tptacek 13y ago
    I read that start to finish, since I'll generally read anything you tell me to, and the conclusion I drew from it is that if that piece is representative of your feelings about direct action violence (or "violence"), it's probably best you & I don't talk about the morality of violence. But that aside: I didn't ask the question because I wanted to condem Occupy Oakland. I asked because the thread started with the suppression of the assiduously nonviolent (or "nonviolent") Zucotti Park protests. But if our friends in Oakland are reporting those protests accurately, there was little chance of the Oakland protests not meeting a violent police response; Occupy Oakland was breaking windows, throwing bricks, destroying ATMs, and assaulting residents.
    - moxie 13y ago
      There were instances of property destruction (but not assaulting residents?) at actions organized as OO, but not at Oscar Grant Park, where the evictions happened. It's not as if the evictions were a situation where police were "responding" to property destruction. Occupations across the country and the world met similar evictions through the use of force, although the use of tear gas specifically has been rare in the US. If there was any qualitative difference in the police response, I think it has more to do with the character of OPD than the character of OO. The same thing happened at the port of oakland occupation in 2003 (where there was zero property destruction), which was equally brutal: https://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0407-07.htm https://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0407-07.htm

by moxie 13y ago

tptacek 13y ago

Is Occupy Oakland comparable, directly, to the Zucotti Park protesters of OWS? As I understand it, from friends who live in Oakland, the Occupy Oakland protests were marked by violence and vandalism; they broke glass windows, threw bricks, and destroyed ATMs.

moxie 13y ago
I think "The Illegitimacy of Violence, the Violence of Legitimacy" has the best analysis of what you're implying: http://crimethinc.com/texts/recentfeatures/violence.php http://crimethinc.com/texts/recentfeatures/violence.php
- tptacek 13y ago
  I read that start to finish, since I'll generally read anything you tell me to, and the conclusion I drew from it is that if that piece is representative of your feelings about direct action violence (or "violence"), it's probably best you & I don't talk about the morality of violence. But that aside: I didn't ask the question because I wanted to condem Occupy Oakland. I asked because the thread started with the suppression of the assiduously nonviolent (or "nonviolent") Zucotti Park protests. But if our friends in Oakland are reporting those protests accurately, there was little chance of the Oakland protests not meeting a violent police response; Occupy Oakland was breaking windows, throwing bricks, destroying ATMs, and assaulting residents.
  - moxie 13y ago
    There were instances of property destruction (but not assaulting residents?) at actions organized as OO, but not at Oscar Grant Park, where the evictions happened. It's not as if the evictions were a situation where police were "responding" to property destruction. Occupations across the country and the world met similar evictions through the use of force, although the use of tear gas specifically has been rare in the US. If there was any qualitative difference in the police response, I think it has more to do with the character of OPD than the character of OO. The same thing happened at the port of oakland occupation in 2003 (where there was zero property destruction), which was equally brutal: https://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0407-07.htm https://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0407-07.htm