I offer the following commentary in full solidarity and critical unity with Occupy Albany.

Early in the General Assembly meeting on Sunday, October 9, 2011, a woman took the floor and proposed that Occupy Albany take the position that “this is a non-violent movement.” I attempted to block this proposal. In arguing for the block, I mistakenly only addressed point #4 below, whereas the first two points are probably more important at this point and time.

There are five primary problems with this proposal:

1) It’s too early in the emergence of Occupy Albany to be taking any positions, making very definitive statements, and making statements of a politics. The politics of this group of diverse people’s will need to evolve through the practice of occupation. There are many people involved in this movement that need to get involved, interact, communicate and do political work with one another before we can all know what’s appropriate. The prolonged and sustained occupation will be the optimal point to hash out these kinds of issues. Of all the positions we could take, why this one? Wouldn’t there be far more appropriate ones to take early in the process, if any?

2) Nonviolence has not been defined. I attempted to offer an addendum, that we are a nonviolent movement that affirms a people’s right to self-defense. (This unfortunately contributed to the issues addressed above and #3). It also would qualify what is meant by “nonviolence,” which unqualified refers to a very particular historic and ideological tradition, not simply a tactic of choice. We must ask, by nonviolence, do we mean:

Destroying property is violence?

Resisting arrest is violence?

Unarresting our fellow occupiers is violence?

Defending ourselves against attacks from counterprotestors is violence?

Defending ourselves against brutal police is violence?

In the tradition of nonviolence, one is supposed to allow oneself to be beaten, abused and even killed without responding defensively. One is supposed to accept arrest. One must not attack property as a symbolic action.

Furthermore, expressively nonviolent protests are ubiquitous for dividing the movement, not only ideologically, but when pacifists turn on their fellow protesters who they feel aren’t toeing the nonviolent party line enough and help police identify and arrest them. It dictates the range of expression not only of protesters, but of publics that join in – policing the movement by quelling the rage of joiners-in.

3) The policy was discussed and determined through incredibly divisive and authoritarian means. This is an important position that requires extensive debate and discussion. The General Assembly was given only 5 minutes to discuss this item and then put to a vote. The mechanism for discussing the points was unclear (i.e. were we talking about the initial proposal, my counter proposal? which one are we voting on?). Only 5 people spoke on the item, and all were white. All people who spoke in favor of the position eluded to how the media would interpret a position affirming self-defense. This allowed the media to define our politics for us. Who decided that 5 minutes would be an appropriate time to deliberate this item? Who decided to vote on this item right away, while other items were pushed into working groups to be decided a week later?

These above three issues are contrary to the spirit of Occupy Wall Street, the movement that inspired Occupy Albany.

Additionally problematic are:

4) Nonviolence is contrary to community self-determination, and thus is racist, sexist and supports the hegemony of state power. Is assumes a tabula rasa, an abstract state from which to do politics, as though we don’t already live in an extremely violent society. Without posing a significant challenge to the violence that flows down the hierarchy from the more institutionally legitimated powers to the public, and while condemning any acts of self-defense, it serves to encourage this ongoing power imbalance.

5) Nonviolence is tactically and strategically ineffective. Any movement requires tactical and strategic flexibility, and particularly an Occupy movement.

For more on these last two items see How Nonviolence Protects the State by Gelderloos, Pacifism As Pathology by Ward Churchill, and Violence by Slavoj Zizek.

Ultimately, we’re best off to have no position addressing the issue of violence. Occupy Albany would be best served to vocally disavow this position, not as a statement against nonviolence, but in affirming the commitment to process, openness and flexibility, and in deterring divisiveness and firm statements of ideology. That’s what Occupy is all about.





