Those who engage in violence, however “well meaning,” are the biggest gifts to the establishment since “trickle-down economics.” Make no mistake. Violent acts will DESTROY the Occupy movement. It is no accident that the elite send their agent provocateurs to incite such actions… and I will make a bet that the “Black Bloc” is littered with these tools.

As Gene Sharp said, “As soon as you choose to fight with violence you’re choosing to fight against your opponents’ best weapon... Psychological weapons, social weapons, economic weapons and political weapons are ultimately more powerful against oppression, tyranny and violence.”

The biggest problem in discussing the strategy and tactics of the 'Occupy movement' is that it is not really one movement. It is an umbrella under which are gathered, inter alia, right-wing 'Libertarian' reformers like the Ron Paul crowd, various liberal and pro-"labor" defenders of the vanishing (but not fast enough!) Middle Class and its American Dream/Nightmare, and various anti-capitalist currents, the best of which are trying to turn at least part of the 'Occupy' milieu into a genuinely subversive force.

For me, though, the litmus test is whether or not you give primacy to the defense of the great majority of the world's population against U.S. imperialism and its collaborators, over and above the defense of the interests of the middle sectors of the U.S. population, including the better-off waged and salaried people, in the struggle over the division of imperialist loot.

No, I'm not against movements that defend the majority of the U.S. population, including the middle strata, against the predations of the rich, but genuine leftists should always make sure that they are not supporting U.S. nationalism, such as by opposing the "export" of "American" jobs, or implying that the worst thing about the Empire's wars is that they waste money rather than they are crimes against (foreign) humanity, or that economic warfare by the empire to get its way, as with the 'sanctions' against Iran, is acceptable.

An interesting interview with some revealing comments. The issue of violence/nonviolence is a complex one and too often not given proper investigation. With the issue raised I think it important to dig deeper. I would recommend reading Peter Gelderloos’ Nonviolence Serves The State, PDF available from http://centreofthepsyclone.wordpress.com/2012/02/12/nonviolence-serves-t....

Also, I'm not sure that I agree with the notion that the timid, tradition liberal is someone that OWS should spend resources courting. I like better identifying that this group has been more of a problem than a help, which is the thrust of a lot of Chris' work.

Yeah, I general comment is that Chris Hedges' audience is and always has been the latte drinking, NPR-tote bag carrying, middle class liberal. I think he sees his role as challenging this group, but he doesn't see his role as going outside it. This is the fundamental limitation on his perspective.

It sounds to me like Chris and Kristof agree with each other. I don't think the article was anti-Occupy, rather a warning against letting it be hijacked by blac block. Just sounds like a misunderstanding to me.

Okay people, lets go for it. Time to hold the elite accountable.
 "There is nothing preventing those who want to from organizing non-violent direct actions..." It it time to form the Occupy National Assembly, and then form a Grand Jury to bring charges against this evil empire of globalists who have taken over our government and its military.
Because the Occupy movement is diverse, it can call to itself any and all testimony from any of the 9/11 groups,  and 9/11 was an inside job.Still thinking about the old fashioned grand jury, that essential process which the people created and will revive again as necessary, ... possibly under the auspices of the National Assembly...  precisely because it falls outside the prowess of government. The rights to procure a public space, to assemble, to associate, to voice opinion, to publish,  to make public the decisions of the group.. these are all permissible today.  We have this right today. These are the rights of a free people and do not need to be requested, or approved by anyone.  On a national scale, this provides the process for change. This is all within Constitutional rights. h--p://www.dcdave.com/article5/070119.htm (replace -- with tt )
The grand jury served the public in two ways. First, it limited the power of government to prosecute citizens by permitting the grand jury to vote for or against an indictment and second, it had the power to make a presentment. A presentment was a public report of the grand jury’s activity. Through a presentment, the grand jury could make criminal activity known to the public,..... including criminal conduct committed by government officials, judges, or prosecutors. 
It is significant that the grand jury is not part of any of the three branches of the U.S. government—it is a pre-constitutional institution. Washington attorney John H. Clarke wrote in a motion to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, “Although today the grand jury is more of a prosecutor’s panel, it is still a pre-constitutional institution, and is still a people’s panel, not captive or relegated by the constitution to a position within any branches… and it still serves as a vehicle for effective citizen participation in government.” It does not seem at all far fetched to imagine a grand jury functioning from the Nation Assembly, within the transparency of the very open Occupy movement and impartial internet media coverage.  Public investigation can take place outside of any of the 3 branches of government. It cannot be stopped, be it called a grand jury or by any other name.  Going the path of the appeal process to the Supreme Court is another means  that might work too, but who knows if the present Supreme Court is an honorable court?  NO, the federal courts and the Supreme Court are corrupt. They do not have a good track record and are a poor risk. The best thing going in the 9/11 case so far is that fact that the event happened, and there is an endless string of implausible or highly dubious accounts within the official story, but neat and systematically expected events consistent with the "inside job" explanation. This has nothing to do with whether or not a plane or a missile hit the Pentagon,  we know something did.  The best thing is in the judges decision:  the exclusion of testimony, the exclusion of the surveillance videos;  add to this the free-fall of the buildings, the explosives in the dust... pretty soon it starts to add up and require complete investigation. It is justified in the public mind.Those who should have been protecting the US against attack were busy with something else. That is clear in the situation as recording in the testimony, and in the evidence,  in videos ... including the WTC.  
A citizens grand jury investigation and a presentment via the Occupy National Assembly could be done.It would have the trust and support of the public.  It is practically being done now with the internet digesting and coming to conclusions just as a social phenomenon.  Mainstream media is losing it, and becoming hysterical.The process of forming the National Assembly is ongoing, an outgrowth of regional assemblies;  the conversations and developing agenda will naturally happen.  Reading the minutes of Occupy meetings, reading the blogs, reading the development of current thought ... demonstrates a fast growing awareness, an acceptance, and a transition toward a society of honorable people, seeking solutions,  seeing evidence,  and taking honorable actions  These are coming to the front.  There is a tide turning and it seems to favor good.The National Assembly will have lots of other issues to deal with as well.  9/11 is only one of many.  I think that there is a light at the end of the tunnel, and it is us, ... all of us.

Is it growing the movement?

No.

Is it attracting the 99%?

No.

Is it working?

No.

This debate may not be focusing enough on the stepping stones to an end game of making major changes in the system. We can debate the nuances of these terms and tactics endlessly but we need to be talking about metrics of success or failure that go beyond each of our own personal opinions. For example, one key metric could be the extent to which the strategies we develop and tactics we deploy are growing the movement or shrinking it.

Some think that OO's tactics are not effectively garnering support from tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of folks in the east bay (millions nationally) who would otherwise come out and participate in OO actions and support us in their conversations within their local communities. Sure some of this is due to biased media coverage and many people's over-reliance or complete reliance on mainstream media for information, but some is also due to genuine differences in opinion regarding core values and tactics. Yes, one can also argue that those who directly participate in any action with a police encounter get radicalized through their experience with police brutality and para-militarization, but many believe the likelihood that the movement will grow through that piecemeal strategy is pretty low, particularly if people outside the group of direct participants believe the encounter was intentional on the part of the movement (wrong or right, that is what many folks who are sitting on the fence think).

A related concern is that the Oakland GA has been very small of late. We need to continue discussing inside OO whether the tactics being picked and deployed are contributing to movement growth, shrinkage, or balkanization (e.g., splintering into sub-movements based on our differences in opinion about objectives, strategies, and tactics). Finger pointing and personal name calling using labels like "liberals" or "radicals" or whatever to put people in boxes will accelerate shrinkage and separation. We have to focus on how and whether the strategies and tactics deployed will grow the movement and lead to the changes sought or whether they are more likely to contribute to the movement petering out and being one of the many historic failures to truly change the inequities and violence of the system.

We should also take a breath and celebrate and remind folks that OO has a very thoughtful and respectful culture and set of processes for discussing these kinds of issues in ways that seek to maximize direct participation and opportunities for everyone to be heard. That doesn't mean we always get to a place of unity and agreement but it is something powerful and different about OO that many outside OO don't realize. Hopefully, we can keep getting the word out on that and increase participation directly in OO and OWS to help shape it toward being a successful mass movement.

Kristof Lopaur: you are inspiringly eloquent and persuasive.

The making of synonyms of Violence and vandalism is the same as most people thinking that new and improved are equivalent in meaning. Vandalism is damage and destruction of things. Violence is damage and or destruction of humans. Of course none of us common and poor people want our paltry but beloved possessions vandalized. Or the hard work and little money to dress up lets say a little window in our humble abode a bit, giving us a little happiness. But the "black block" are not vandalizing the common person's windows,home, apartment or possessions. They "smash some serious glass". They vandalize various national and international corporate premises to make a statement. That statement is infinitesimal compared to the poverty, misery, destruction and death the US led western corporations( who run our governments, military and police) perpetrate on the world. Even though they are far removed from the elite, the lower level operatives and in denial that they definitely belong to the 99% and ows demographic, it is these misguided foot-soldiers and police who perpetrate violence on innocents. The fundamental problem is that the mainstream has been so brainwashed by the boob tube, that after another hard days work they watch fox or its liberal corporate alternative(not),major networks and blame the vulnerable scapegoats for their falling standard of living since the Reagan "revolution". It must be an Anglo-American thing this nail biting fear of vandalism against corporate symbols and buildings. In most of the world, including western europe most mainstream persons are very little disturbed by protesters vandalism on corporate establishments.

I wish KPFA would get away a bit from the progressive pundit of the week crap and have some meaningful dialogues that do more then glorify one or another overexposed voice. This is not about Chris Hedges. Kristof is a lot more interesting, honestly. If the elders can't help the youth, they need to get the fuck out of the way. Who the hell needs backseat driving? There is nothing violent about turning an abandoned building into a community center. There is something violent about a police state. Ask the residents of East Oakland. KPFA, stop aping the leftist intelligentsia and be the ones who tell the truth without lip service to idiots like Hedges and you'll do much better. Politically, logically and financially.

Can somebody give me one instance where the Ruling Class ever gave anything to the Lower Class without the threat of violence?

Just one?

Propaganda always lists the names of MLK, Gandi and South Africa, but nobody reads the historical content.

Demanding "Change" is far more complicated than we often admit.

There must be a "Good Cop" and "Bad Cop" routine and I view Chris Hedges as being a "Good Cop" and The Bloc as being the "Bad Cop". Each compliment the other.

When Martin Luther King was preaching peace, there were riots and violence happening all over the country.

Violence was used extensively throughout the course of the anti-apartheid struggle.

Gandhi famously called poverty “the worst form of violence".

Propagandhi
“In 1947, Gandhi said, “If we had the atom bomb, we would have used it against the British.””
http://www.gandhism.net/gandhi-propaganda.php

"More relevant are the facts of Indian history: non-violence worked only alongside widespread violence, including riots, across the subcontinent; and independence only came after mutinies within the Royal Indian Navy and the armed resistance of the Indian National Army (not to mention several world wars that overtaxed the British treasury and destroyed the fiscal basis for direct empire)."

"There were two main trends or tendency within the African-American Freedom Movement of the Sixties (and other Freedom Movements inspired by it).

One was the non-violent resistance exemplified by King and Rosa Parks.

The other was the militant, in-your-racist-face resistance of Robert Williams, Malcolm X and the Black Panthers (who, of course, originated in Oakland).

It's interesting but not surprising that the former gets all kinds of validation in the schools and holidays today while the other is scarcely mentioned or honored if at all.

I believe Malcolm said it straight-out in his visit to Selma speaking to the southern racists: "If you don't want to deal with King, you're going to have to deal with people like me."

And his words were already starting to be backed-up by urban rebellions."

"In any case, King and Malcolm, despite their different ideologies and approaches, appreciated the value of each other. They were like a "good-cop"/"bad-cop" routine against the ruling elite, without which the achievements in the ways of Civil Rights during that era would not have come about."

Calm

Can somebody give me one instance where the Ruling Class ever gave anything to the Lower Class without the threat of violence?

Just one?

Propaganda always lists the names of MLK, Gandi and South Africa, but nobody reads the historical content.

Demanding "Change" is far more complicated than we often admit.

There must be a "Good Cop" and "Bad Cop" routine and I view Chris Hedges as being a "Good Cop" and The Bloc as being the "Bad Cop". Each compliment the other.

When Martin Luther King was preaching peace, there were riots and violence happening all over the country.

Violence was used extensively throughout the course of the anti-apartheid struggle.

Gandhi famously called poverty “the worst form of violence".

In 1947, Gandhi said, “If we had the atom bomb, we would have used it against the British.”

"More relevant are the facts of Indian history: non-violence worked only alongside widespread violence, including riots, across the subcontinent; and independence only came after mutinies within the Royal Indian Navy and the armed resistance of the Indian National Army (not to mention several world wars that overtaxed the British treasury and destroyed the fiscal basis for direct empire)."

"There were two main trends or tendency within the African-American Freedom Movement of the Sixties (and other Freedom Movements inspired by it).

One was the non-violent resistance exemplified by King and Rosa Parks.

The other was the militant, in-your-racist-face resistance of Robert Williams, Malcolm X and the Black Panthers (who, of course, originated in Oakland).

It's interesting but not surprising that the former gets all kinds of validation in the schools and holidays today while the other is scarcely mentioned or honored if at all.

I believe Malcolm said it straight-out in his visit to Selma speaking to the southern racists: "If you don't want to deal with King, you're going to have to deal with people like me."

And his words were already starting to be backed-up by urban rebellions."

"In any case, King and Malcolm, despite their different ideologies and approaches, appreciated the value of each other. They were like a "good-cop"/"bad-cop" routine against the ruling elite, without which the achievements in the ways of Civil Rights during that era would not have come about."

Calm

One simple remark. The word militant or militancy is a bad word to use in any respect as it makes people think immediately of violence. To connect ows with militancy will only push the mainstream public away.

With people like Mr. Chris "contributing" to Occupy in this fashion, I can tell you right now that the entire project is dead and over. Period. Once this kind of ludicrous, petty sniping starts in a political formation, there is no where else to go but to hell. It was a nice idea for a while, but when natural allies start slitting each others throats for the sake of delusional moral posturing the game is up. Mr. Chris darn well ought to know better. Despite assertions of credibility, his observation of protests and revolutions obviously took place well within the material and mental bubble of western privilege. Freud described the process of psychological projection. It seems to apply here. People in America still exhibit a poverty of radical analysis towards the system that enthrones them, as well as an overwhelming desire to have a revolution from the conform of their suburban TV room. (read: a reform of the existing order which means strengthening of the status quo). Good Luck in wonderland, kids...I'm going to Disney World.

Chris, the very first sentence of your article was about Oakland, "The Black Bloc anarchists, who have been active on the streets in Oakland and other cities, are the cancer of the Occupy movement." Please don't try to backpedal, it only makes you look worse. Shame on you Chris.

The buzz I'm hearing on various websites and blogs is that the "black bloc" are "anarchists" or people who want to smash the state (as if they could) and may even be "agent provocateurs" who infiltrate movements to incite violence (the masks serve them well), destroy property and scare away the people who are drawn to the nonviolent principle and OK with confrontation, but who'd rather not be swept up in a "domestic terrorism" crackdown. I wish there could be more discussion of this, esp. after pledge drive when people can call in with comments.

As a first night Zuccotti occupier who was also booted out of DC and is now occupying in Asheville NC I am tired of people who never actually Occupied a site like Hedges becoming national experts and policy wonks on OWS. I don't know the other person but I hope he at least spent one night in an occupation. No one but those of us who really went through it know the real deal. By the way people fought back at Mcpherson in DC and at OWS NYC on new Years Eve and I love them for doing it.

RE: Chris Hedges and Kristof Lopaur of Occupy Oakland debate black bloc, militancy and tactics.

Hedges says the civil rights movement wasn't confrontational. That is totally off the mark. What did he think Dr. King was doing in Birmingham? He was being CONFRONTATIONAL!

Without confronting the existing status quo you get nowhere.

the Occupy Movement, has been using the "cops and robbers" approach, since blocking traffic in New York....it worked.......but now it is being used over and over, and is draining energy from the real message......to continually force a public showdown with the cops...is a shallow way of getting your message across, and is starting to look very planned. Know when, to pull back from a battle, in order to "win the war".