If you are tempted to answer the violence of the state with violence,

[rhett o rick]

think again, please. Violence is an authoritarian tool to terrorize We The People into submission. Any violence by us is welcomed by the state to justify much higher levels of violence against us. A goal of protests is to awaken the public to the inequities and corruption of the current political and economic systems. Being violent obscures this message. Currently the state is careful not to “unjustly” imprison protestors and thereby possibly produce sympathy for the protestors. If protestors are violent then the state would be justified, at least in the minds of the public, to imprison them longer, and treat them with more brutality.

There is an excellent article about non-violence in the book, “Occupy: Scenes from Occupied America”, by Rebecca Solnit. The article is called, “Throwing Out the Master’s Tools and Building a Better House”.

From the article:
"The powerful and effective movements of the past sixty years have used the strategy of people power. It works. I changes the world. It's changing the world now. Join us. Or don't join us. But please dont try to have it both ways."

[Edweird]

1. Respectfully disagree.

Non-violence has it's uses, but it eventually comes down to violence (expressed or implied)- the ones with the power aren't going to cede that power without a fight.

[izquierdista]

2. The real trick is to get them to fight themselves

Kind of like the Republicans are doing to each other. When one thug of the 1% pulls out his Taser and zaps another one armed with pepper spray, then you know you are winning.

[Edweird]

5. We seem to be talking about 2 different things.

Where would we be as a country if our founding fathers practiced non-violence?

[ZombieHorde]

23. We would probably have universal health care. nt

[gratuitous]

30. Oh come on

Only violence can drive out violence. Or at least, it has the salutary effect of being violent. And what's more red-blooded American than that?

[TheKentuckian]

6. I tend to agree, though at this stage the OP is correct. Eventually, though the game will not be

about "hearts and minds" and will move to those with power and resource control to give up their reins and then conflict is unavoidable because they will not be shamed into compliance and non-violence will run out of tools in its box because the circumstances demand an end game not in the discussion with Gandhi or King's movements (or alternatively we see how quickly King was killed and the mesage terminated when he switched that gear and focused on the roots).

Eventually, the mirage of popular sufferance will be removed and then they will be brutal and turning the other cheek will mean death, de facto slavery, and defeat because there will be no better angels to appeal to. We are still far from that point but eventually we will come to that pass, if we are to be a free people with anything like broadly shared prosperity.

[rhett o rick]

12. Well said. We well may end as you predict, however, we shouldnt start with

that assumption. But to completely subjugate us, they will have to use some of us as their police. These are the people we must appeal to. And I think this needs to be accomplished non-violently.

[Edweird]

13. Exactly.

[woo me with science]

3. One of their tactics is attempting to goad protesters into violence,

so they can use that violence as a justification for ramping up the police state tactics and legislation. I think Occupy is very well aware of that.

I was enormously proud of the protesters who were pepper sprayed. Their response at the time (and the chanting of the crowd, "Shame on you!&quot was exactly what we need to point out who are the thugs and authoritarians here.

[bemildred]

4. Wisdom lies in knowing how to pick and choose methods appropriate to the situation.

Violence is rarely the right answer, one ought to think long and hard and dispassionately first, but when it is the right anwswer, it is.

[woo me with science]

7. Excellent observation. nt

[99Forever]

8. I hope you are correct and ...

... try to live by that philosophy. I'm just not so sure that in the end it will be possible to effect real significant change in a system as corrupted as ours is with mere protests. As much as i admire absolute Pacifism, it tends to ignore some of reality's roadblocks and seems to think that at some point those that hold their boots on our necks, will have a sudden Epiphany and say "Okay, you're right and we're wrong, here's your fair share and we will be good guys and play nice from now on." because we held protests, no matter how massive the crowds. Reality says the greedy bastards have no consciences and won't ever give up a damn thing if they can find a way not to. My life experience tells me that there is a faction of the 1% that will do ANYTHING to maintain EVERYTHING they have, including killing each and every one of us, without blinking an eye.

As John F. Kennedy put it: " Those who make peaceful protest impossible will make violent protest inevitable."

It's somewhat curious to me, that just yesterday another poster found a need to reword a post that seemed to be saying that it was the "homeless peoples getting evicted from their tents because they didn't fight back. (Wasn't the poster's intention, but it came across as such. Later, re-posted another asking why We as a people are being so complacent and compliant to the crap being foisted on us. Somewhere between those two extremes, is where I'm at.

I don't advocate violence. I realize that if there is violence, that many innocents will get hurt along with the guilty. I also realize that "the authorities" have lots of fancy weapons at their disposal to do the bidding of the masters and no qualms about doing it. On the other hand, We are many and they are few. I also find it hard to believe that amongst the shock troops the 1% thinks will protect them from the coming storm, there won't be massive desertions and refusal of them to take arms against their own families and friends.

There will be revolutionary change, the only real question left is how it will come. As I said to start with, I truly hope you are correct that peaceful protests can get the job done, but the realist side of me won't be surprised but what is more likely to happen in the real world.

Just my view of it, your mileage may vary.

[rhett o rick]

20. Please read the essay suggested in the OP. nm

[99Forever]

24. Thanks for the one liner response.

Think I'll pass on finding the "essay" you referenced since you didn't feel it was important enough to link in the first place. Condescending dismissals don't really draw me into a conversation, but thanks anyway.

[rhett o rick]

26. Interesting reaction to a honest suggestion. The article I tried to suggest to you

is in a book. I have no link. The proceeds from the sales go to support the Occupy movement.

As far as "condescending dismissals", it certainly wasnt intended as such. Can you say the same for your ",but thanks anyway."

[99Forever]

27. With all due respect,

I took the time, energy, and thought to respond to you in my own words, to which you directed me to an "article" in a book I don't have nor am I likely go buy, whether the proceeds go to an unknown part of "Occupy," or not. (You do realize that there are literally thousands of Occupy Movement sub-groups scattered all over the globe, right?) Did you expect me to read your mind or what? I wasn't conversing with that author, I was speaking to you. I can't have a back and forth with that author, if I think differently about something (s)he says, nor can I share that with which we agree.

Books are great. But this isn't a book, it's a discussion board.

[rhett o rick]

28. I read your post and had nothing to add. I am sorry if I gave you

the impression I was being dismissive. It wont happen again.

[hobbit709]

9. That only works if the state has qualms about violence.

I for one will not be quietly herded into the cattle cars.

[EFerrari]

10. It might have been Stokely Carmicheal that said

in order for non-violence to work, your opponent must have a conscience.

[rhett o rick]

14. Gandhi appealed to the conscience of those carrying out the violence

not the authoritarian masters. Violence by WeThePeople at this point in the movement would be counter productive.

Even though I might agree that I would rather throw myself on the wire to be bayoneted than be under total subjugation, I dont believe it would affect the results.

[Paladin]

11. I Figured The Keyboard Kommandos Would Latch On To This Thread.

Looks like I was right.....

[socialist_n_TN]

15. What the hell does that mean?

Are you a pacifist who wouldn't use violence even in self defense? If you are, then more power to you, but most of us aren't. I come down on the side of self defense, both personally and for my class.

Now is it the time for violence now? Not nearly, but at some point it might be. The steps now are to show the rest of the people exactly how violent the capitalists are by using non violent methods. I also think that there should be other methods employed before actual violence. Methods like stikes, local, regional, national, wildcat and general. And repayment strikes. Of course then you're fucking with the capitalist's money and they won't allow that. When you get to that point, violence is guaranteed, but NOT from our side.

[Paladin]

16. It's Real Easy To Advocate Violence "At Some Point" On-Line.

And just for the record, I'm no pacifist. Never have been.....

[pinboy3niner]

25. Don't you know Paladin's motto?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Have_Gun%E2%80%93Will_Travel

[T S Justly]

17. "Currently the state is careful not to “unjustly” imprison protestors ..."

A portion of the OP appears inaccurate. For example: Previously serving Marine Corporal Scot Olsen is now
imprisoned in the wonderful world of life with head injuries. Brad Manning is imprisoned and getting tortured for his courageous protest. Other protestors who have or will have similar attacks carried out against them face the same prospects. Need I go on to other peaceful protestors who have been kettled, chemically sprayed, kicked, punched, slammed, cuffed, and then some? But, I'm glad to hear they're not being "unjustly" imprisoned - which they are on multipally erroneous charges.

Occupy will not go violent nor should it. That is not its purpose, as its every act and word proves.

Others who do will not be accused of having the consciences of those they defend themselves against - I know I won't - nor should anyone else. The OP opens a discussion worthy of discussion.

[rhett o rick]

18. I agree it was a bad selection of words. I do not mean to diminish

the atrocities that have occurred. My point was that had there been significant violence by the protestors, there would be a large magnitude of serious injuries and many more charged with felonies.

[tawadi]

19. When people feel they have nothing left to lose

they tend to turn to violence.

[sad sally]

21. A wolf kills for his own gains while a sheepdog stands ready to kill to protect the sheep from death

[rhett o rick]

22. I dont understand your analogy.

A wolf kills to protect the health of his cubs. I dont begrudge the wolf killing to survive. Capitalist kill to feed their greed.

[sad sally]

29. Should have explained more

The "wolf" is the evil tyrant, the demonic beings that rule by violence against those who want to live peaceful lives - with the "sheepdog" standing by, ready to protect them. The statement should have said that sometimes violence is necessary to stop evil; truly evil peple are seldom moved to stop violence inflicted on others by protests against their atrocities - it usually take removing them - many times thru violent means.

In reading my post, I see I've made the real wolf into a bad thing - was not my intent. Wolfs are an important long misunderstood animal. They absolutely have a right to kill to feed themselves and their pups. My apologies...it may be time (for me) to stop "spouting off" for awhile.

[rhett o rick]

31. Dont you dare stop "spouting off". I knew what you meant.

I happen to like wolves. I very much enjoyed a documentary I saw on how the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone helped so many other animals and the environment also.

please keep spouting.