This article is written in response to “The Limits of Peaceful Resistance.” I understand that not everyone that reads this is an anti-capitalist or anarchist, so bear with me while I use “we” and “us” frequently throughout this post to describe radical Left or post-Left movements. Also, this article is in reference to large-scale change, on a national and international level. My ideas about local protest and many other methods of local resistance are very different, though in many ways just as grim.
I believe that this question about the role of nonviolent/peaceful protest is a very interesting one. After much time spent studying and thinking about this issue, I have come to the conclusion that traditional protest—a march, sit-in, blockade, vigil, etc.—is essentially ineffective and almost always negative if it attempts to bring about radical change, regardless of whether or not it is violent. The tools used to counter, disseminate and terminate traditional protest used by those that rule over us, whether they be the government, the media, or giant corporations, have been sufficiently developed to defeat any possibility of major change through protest. That being said, I believe it can bring about some changes if your goals are not radically Left, or Right for that matter, and more in line with mainstream, feel-good politics. What I mean by that is you may be able to reach your goals if they focus on reform (which you should read as perpetuation of the same system but with a new face) and do not involve actually changing the system. To play devil’s advocate against the post “The Limits of Peaceful Resistance,” I will begin with an analysis of violent protest.
So what exactly happens when we use violence as protest? The response of the authorities is brutal violence and the response of the media is extremely negative coverage. I would argue against the author of “The Limits of Peaceful Resistance,” who claims, “This [violence] gets their message heard, albeit with some negative media spin.” Unless the message is simply that we should fight cops, the message is never heard. Or rather, a different message is heard than that meant to be spread. The media always portrays violent protesters as nothing more than anarchists (which is pretty much only a positive term among anarchists), anti-government, anti-America, etc. It is always framed as them being against authority and the government, and thus against the American way of life. While these things may be true, being framed as against everything our society stands for is counterproductive. No one will listen to these people except the minute population of radicals that already agree.
The true problem goes beyond this however. The aspects of the protesters’ messages that could be seen as positive are never heard. The media will never say that a violent response to the police is an attempt to put an end to police brutality (nor is it in reality an effective strategy to end to police brutality). Anti-capitalists will never be portrayed as struggling to create a more just economic system just as anti-globalization activists will never be viewed as trying to creating a sustainable way of living that puts emphasis on the desires of local communities (yes, I recognize these are not always the goals of these two groups). Essentially, any aspect of a violent protest that could potentially be viewed as positive in mainstream America is ignored and instead protestors are viewed as having neither a legitimate alternative nor any defined set of goals except destruction.
So what if you believe that we actually need to destroy society to create something better? I would say that you should pick a more effective method of destruction if you want your message heard. Bombings and assassinations get much more media coverage than any protest that has occurred in my lifetime. Remember how big of a deal 9/11 was or the DC sniper? Those were more effective methods than fighting police.
This brings me to my next point. Using violence, unless it is large-scale violent revolution (and this of course is very questionable), actually makes the authorities stronger. Violence is central to the most important instrument that the government and the media implement to control us. This method of control is fear. We need protection from the violent world of terrorists, nuclear capable non-Westerners, abortion, murderers, and, yes, violent protesters. While many (hopefully most) people believe that police do some bad, if not much more, most people unfortunately also believe that we need them to maintain society. An attack against them represents a crumbling of the protection provided by them and the social order in general. Thus almost any response by the police, with the exception of murder (and this is not even a golden rule), is deemed acceptable. This is particularly true when violent protest is directed at more than just the police, such as businesses, homes, or individuals. Furthermore, when a massive protest is planned and there is resulting anticipation of violence, police departments receive incredible amounts of funding for riot training, new weapons, armor, and even vehicles, among many other fun toys for beating protesters up. We continue to use violence in traditional protest, claiming to be fighting against the system while in reality we are simply increasing police budgets, legitimating the existence of the police and enforcing the perceived need of government for protection. If you’re hoping for revolution, you’re just making it more unrealistic.
It seems to me that violent protest is primarily used as a way for frustrated activists to release their anger and have some great stories to tell. I can say from experience that there is nothing quite like the high of kicking windows and pushing back the wall of cops with the help of a group of protesters screaming threats and chanting slogans about freedom or some other unrealistic goal. We did not save public housing that day, but we sure felt good about trying. You thought it was totally worth it when you threw that brick through that window right? It certainly helped reverse capitalism and overthrow the American political system. Thanks for helping lead the revolution!
“So what do I think about peaceful protest?” you ask. Well, for one thing, I think that we frequently consider violent inducing protest something that it is not: pacificism. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mohandas Gandhi are probably the two most famous “pacifists” taught in history classes in the United States. They were not actually opposed to violence though. For example, King consciously chose Birmingham as one of his major campaigns because Sheriff Bull Connor was a known racist that used excessive violence to suppress protest. He knew the violent and racist response of the police force would win sympathy from the Federal government and cause intervention on a national level. Yes, King’s side did not attack the police. However, they meant to be attacked by the police. That doesn’t sound like someone that is opposed to violence to me.
This example of King using violence to provoke Federal intervention is, however, an example of nonviolence used effectively. Well, at least in the sense that it definitely played a major role in turning Civil Rights into a national issue, not that the movement necessarily met its other goals, like stopping racism. The debate of the actual effectiveness of this violence is sort of irrelevant today, however, because of two reasons that have serious implications for modern nonviolent protest. The first is that the police have more or less stopped using what will be construed as excessive violence. They actually learned that lesson during the Civil Rights movement, something that was detrimental to the movement going into the second half of the sixties. The second reason is that if there is excessive violence it can either be blamed on the demonstrators or sometimes a few police officers are sacrificed to take the blame. These officers are exceptions and not representative of the police in general, often with the media finding some report from a childhood friend or relative claiming that the officer had been strange or problematic as a child.
Another problem with nonviolent resistance is the numbers of protester and the resulting amount of media coverage. It is hard to get media coverage with small numbers of participants, especially if violence is not a luring factor. Independent media sometimes eagerly covers these issues but small protests are lucky if they get any national coverage if they are nonviolent. The opposite is problematic as well. Highly attended protests always draw at least some national media coverage. Unfortunately for “pacifists,” large-scale protests very rarely remain nonviolent. If it is big enough to draw the national media, it is big enough to draw Black Bloc kids, which always leads to violent confrontation with the police. When the violence begins it usually spreads quickly. Even if it remains a small part of the demonstration, the media always focuses on the violent aspects of the event. If a big protest manages to remain peaceful, it will likely only be covered briefly in the news and in reality is just a bunch of people walking down the street with signs annoying politicians for a day by chanting outside their windows.
So what about the burning cop car as a powerful symbol? I like it. However, I do not think that most people want that to be the symbol of the world that they are struggling for (I also do not think that most people are actually struggling to change the world—this is a much larger discussion, but I think it is also an extremely important factor in examining the effectiveness of traditional violent and nonviolent protest). A burning cop car is also a negative symbol for many Americans. You should also ask yourself, do you want to use a symbol of violence to represent your opposition to a violent system? I am not saying that violence is not necessary for change (I am not saying that it is either) but that it should not be the leading image in a movement that hopes to create a more just world free of the violent State.
Ultimately, the powers that be are too prepared to handle traditional protest, violent or nonviolent, and radical change is not a feasible goal of this form of resistance. So what then? I think that activists need to completely change the way that they practice resistance and that it is time to more or less scrap traditional protest. I do not have anything to propose we put in its place, but I do think the Left has a lot to learn about creating strong social movements from the Tea Party movement and other radical aspects of the Right. I personally, however, do not think we can change this system beyond irrelevant reformism. My ideas begin post-collapse.
the GADFLY
No comments:
Post a Comment