Chris Hedges: The Cancer in Occupy

[marmar]

from truthdig:



The Cancer in Occupy

Posted on Feb 6, 2012
By Chris Hedges


The Black Bloc anarchists, who have been active on the streets in Oakland and other cities, are the cancer of the Occupy movement. The presence of Black Bloc anarchists—so named because they dress in black, obscure their faces, move as a unified mass, seek physical confrontations with police and destroy property—is a gift from heaven to the security and surveillance state. The Occupy encampments in various cities were shut down precisely because they were nonviolent. They were shut down because the state realized the potential of their broad appeal even to those within the systems of power. They were shut down because they articulated a truth about our economic and political system that cut across political and cultural lines. And they were shut down because they were places mothers and fathers with strollers felt safe.

Black Bloc adherents detest those of us on the organized left and seek, quite consciously, to take away our tools of empowerment. They confuse acts of petty vandalism and a repellent cynicism with revolution. The real enemies, they argue, are not the corporate capitalists, but their collaborators among the unions, workers’ movements, radical intellectuals, environmental activists and populist movements such as the Zapatistas. Any group that seeks to rebuild social structures, especially through nonviolent acts of civil disobedience, rather than physically destroy, becomes, in the eyes of Black Bloc anarchists, the enemy. Black Bloc anarchists spend most of their fury not on the architects of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) or globalism, but on those, such as the Zapatistas, who respond to the problem. It is a grotesque inversion of value systems.

Because Black Bloc anarchists do not believe in organization, indeed oppose all organized movements, they ensure their own powerlessness. They can only be obstructionist. And they are primarily obstructionist to those who resist. John Zerzan, one of the principal ideologues of the Black Bloc movement in the United States, defended “Industrial Society and Its Future,” the rambling manifesto by Theodore Kaczynski, known as the Unabomber, although he did not endorse Kaczynski’s bombings. Zerzan is a fierce critic of a long list of supposed sellouts starting with Noam Chomsky. Black Bloc anarchists are an example of what Theodore Roszak in “The Making of a Counter Culture” called the “progressive adolescentization” of the American left.

.....(snip).....

Solidarity becomes the hijacking or destruction of competing movements, which is exactly what the Black Bloc contingents are attempting to do with the Occupy movement. “The Black Bloc can say they are attacking cops, but what they are really doing is destroying the Occupy movement,” the writer and environmental activist Derrick Jensen told me when I reached him by phone in California. “If their real target actually was the cops and not the Occupy movement, the Black Bloc would make their actions completely separate from Occupy, instead of effectively using these others as a human shield. Their attacks on cops are simply a means to an end, which is to destroy a movement that doesn’t fit their ideological standard.” .................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_cancer_of_occupy_20120206/

[xchrom]

1. Du rec. Nt

[snagglepuss]

2. I didn't realize the Black Bloc had a leader. Very interesting insights into the Black Bloc.

k & R

[MNBrewer]

4. Now will the "concerned" DUers who are whining about OWS not "renouncing violence" stfu?

I doubt it. Would be nice though.

[patrice]

5. Uses Occupy-memes to justify fragmentation of the movement . . .

a model, while not birthed on the internet, that has certainly been fully developed here.

The corporate state understands and welcomes the language of force. It can use the Black Bloc’s confrontational tactics and destruction of property to justify draconian forms of control and frighten the wider population away from supporting the Occupy movement. Once the Occupy movement is painted as a flag-burning, rock-throwing, angry mob we are finished. If we become isolated we can be crushed. The arrests last weekend in Oakland of more than 400 protesters, some of whom had thrown rocks, carried homemade shields and rolled barricades, are an indication of the scale of escalating repression and a failure to remain a unified, nonviolent opposition. Police pumped tear gas, flash-bang grenades and “less lethal” rounds into the crowds. Once protesters were in jail they were denied crucial medications, kept in overcrowded cells and pushed around. A march in New York called in solidarity with the Oakland protesters saw a few demonstrators imitate the Black Bloc tactics in Oakland, including throwing bottles at police and dumping garbage on the street. They chanted “Fuck the police” and “Racist, sexist, anti-gay / NYPD go away.”

[hootinholler]

6. I wish Hedges would get it right

Black Bloc is a tactic adopted by a number of groups for various reasons.

If I wanted to hurt a movement, that is the tactic I would use to infiltrate and disrupt it.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

24. That tactic has been used for a very long time.

[JDPriestly]

31. The Black Bloc inflitrates and disrupts. Precisely. Worthless sneaks.

[Remember Me]

38. Seems to me he did get it right

I haven't read the whole article, but the quote at the bottom of the OP certainly expresses the VERY same sentiment you do.

[mulsh]

40. so why is it that these folk consistently dress alike? It is merely a tactic?

Do they all get discounts for black shirts, pants, boots and scarfs at some national faux anarchist outlet store?

Black Box have been at every protest I've been involved in since the first Gulf War march in the 80's. They are easily identified since these folk always dress a like. look for the black scarf and handkerchiefs dashingly tied around their necks./

[The Stranger]

7. The phenomenon described here aptly describes the anti-Obama DU crowd:

“Once you are hostile to organization and strategic thinking the only thing that remains is lifestyle purity,” Jensen said. “ ‘Lifestylism’ has supplanted organization in terms of a lot of mainstream environmental thinking. Instead of opposing the corporate state, [lifestylism maintains] we should use less toilet paper and should compost. This attitude is ineffective. Once you give up on organizing or are hostile to it, all you are left with is this hyperpurity that becomes rigid dogma. You attack people who, for example, use a telephone. This is true with vegans and questions of diet. It is true with anti-car activists toward those who drive cars. It is the same with the anarchists. When I called the police after I received death threats I became to Black Bloc anarchists ‘a pig lover.’ ”

[patrice]

9. Bing-fucking-go!!! Which is sad, because it disqualifies what would otherwise be a relatively valid

critique.

[Doctor_J]

11. But Hedges' writings echo the "anti-Obama DU crowd"

So now you're on Hedges side, but not ordinarily?

[patrice]

13. That WOULD seem to at least corelate with the definition of freedom - AND - just like some here who

have worked AGAINST Senator Sanders's analysis of the health care debate.

[TheWraith]

16. Hedges' reasoning in this case is valid; he just fails to extend it properly.

He is, in short, engaging in more than a little hypocrisy, being himself a puritanist while--rightly--condemning others for the same.

[The Stranger]

18. I'm not sure if I'm on Hedges' side ordinarily, or not.

But here he really hits upon a phenomenon on the Left (and perhaps the Right as well, but I have not thought it through as well) wherein the perfect becomes the enemy of the good. And we all lose.

Time and time again we see the Left elect someone to office, then tear him (or her) down because they fail to meet perfect (or imperfect) expectations. Almost like an abandoned child, some on the Left defeat their purported cause by inveighing against the Leftist they elected because everything doesn't go exactly according to plan. Thus giving the Right the initiative and opportunity to come back into power.

All of this happens with everyone fully knowing that the Leftist leader is orders of magnitude better for the struggle than the Rightist leader that has been inadvertently brought to power.

Yet when confronted with this possibility, these "abandoned child" Leftists appear to have developed some bizarre Puritanical fundamentalism that is abhorrent to practical progress and real-life politics. They shriek that one must never vote for "the lesser of two evils" (as if their own had somehow (bizarrely) become "evil&quot and as if real life wasn't almost always a matter of the lesser of two evils.

[Remember Me]

39. It all depends on whether you wnt to continue to support the status quo

or build something different. Voting to keep (and reward!) the same firmly entrenched system time and again, while may be seen as practical, doesn't EVER change anything, despite seductive slogans to the contrary.

And yes, perish the thought that anyone should object that the Leftist Leader get criticized for bashing his base and keeping the previous Leader's fascist, totalitarian policies in place while adopting yet more. Yeah, downright self-destructive if not evil of the Left to complain at all.

This "real life politics" has dragged us so far to the right that I yearn for the good ole days when Nixon was President. SERIOUSLY.

[The Stranger]

41. Not whether you want to continue to support the status quo . . . .

. . . but whether you have the vision and maturity to apprehend that it changes slowly, and any real change often occurs slowly.

[Remember Me]

44. I think you're quite wrong -- on both counts

First, the change issue. Change can happen very quickly. We've all seen quite startling -- tho positive -- change in the Middle East. Who could have predicted Mbuarek would step down in just a few months? And that the Revolution would spread elsewhere? Further, I've actually lived long enough to see societal changes I hoped for but never thought possible in my lifetime. Technologically-driven social change is especially fast, as a rule. And so forth and so on.

For example, I haven't yet gotten over my whiplash from how quickly things -- so MANY things -- changed as soon as Bush took office. Day after day after day, it was one jaw-dropping, knee-capping assault after another. And believe me, all those were real changes.

The other thing I think you're quite wrong about is your self-congratulatory (not to mention condescending) tone: wisdom and maturity indeed. But no matter.

[The Stranger]

45. In Thomas More's Utopia, the protagonist and his interlocutor, Raphael Hythloday, have

. . . this debate.

More feels that real change comes slowly, through hard work and organization, perhaps he even believes that institutions can change; Hythloday, on the other hand, feels that that sort of change -- "working within the system" -- actually supports the status quo. How they end their debate is even more fascinating.

I suppose the changes Bush made when he took office were quick, but perhaps (thankfully) not permanent. The changes I am talking about are longer term, in any event.

[patrice]

12. The point needs to be made that, whereas groups should not coerce individuals, by the SAME right,

individuals should not coerce groups.

Which brings me to something else I have been thinking about: becoming aware of a lifetime of vertical habits of thought necessitates particular and disciplined focus on what horizontal thinking/doing is and how it works - BUT - if freedom is essential to functionality, we also need to become aware of how horizontal thinking/doing can become as oppressive as vertical. The result is that we need to be appropriately horizontal and appropriately vertical; that can only evolve out of full, clear, honest, courageous understandings of the group and of the individual, each of its own self and each of the other.

[JoeyT]

15. Just once it would be interesting to read comments on a thread

and not have someone whining about how mean people are to Him within the first ten comments.

Especially since they have to twist themselves into pretzels to make the comparison.

[Bluenorthwest]

28. That was a Stretch Armstrong Award winner for sure....

[The Stranger]

42. Thank you for the award.

And I want to thank all of my adoring fans.

[JDPriestly]

32. Who is in the anti-Obama crowd?

People who think for themselves?

People who disagree with him on some issues?

Or the Republicans.

There is no connection between those of us who find Obama to be too easy going, to weak on human rights and too ready to compromise on a lot of issues and the Black Bloc. The comparison does not hold up at all. Criticizing someone is very different from destroying property or human life. There is no similarity whatsoever.

As for not wasting paper including toilet paper and composting? What great ideas.

[chervilant]

33. hmm...

I am reminded of the timeless words of the inimitable Teddy Roosevelt:

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

(emphasis mine...)

Broad-brush bigotry is hurtful and divisive. Denigrating, demeaning, or dismissing the concerns of Mr. Obama's critics is both disingenuous and offensive. Please commit your energy toward finding solutions, rather than indulging in caustic and judgmental posts.

[Surya Gayatri]

35. +1,000 ! n/t

[patrice]

8. The only functional response I can think of is the "Block with Intent to Leave". Yes, that's fragmen

tation too, but at least it is strategic fragmentation that CAN propagate the movement, because anyone who puts up issues in a GA, with whatever kind of support s/he may have within the group, can work with the process to resolve the issues, until they become un-resolvable, at which point that cohort can block-with-intent-to-leave and the rest of the group either signs on with them, or they fail and if they fail they CAN always go become another instance of the occupation organized around whatever the issue was.

Thinking this through here: but then the problem would be that the new instance of the movement, organized around that point of difference with its predecessor, doesn't actually have to re-locate; if the predecessor occupation is on public land the dissenting (new instance of the) occupation doesn't HAVE to go anywhere.

They also don't have to tell you if they are anything or not, or they can lie about whatever on the issues and in a confrontation/crisis event, you wouldn't know what you'd need to know about any of this, so the whole group would not be able to adapt appropriately.

I have been saying on this board and elsewhere, for a few months now, this mask thing is dysfunctional.

I agree with Theodore Roszak's use of the word "adolescentization" of the movement, not necessarily that all dissenters are in regressive mode, but more that within that cohort, the lowest common denominator would have statistically higher probability and would, thus, be more probable than the Progressive mode - AND - that the critical mass for that regressive mode is probably significantly smaller than the critical mass for the progressive mode.

[Doctor_J]

10. Occum's Razor

they are a "gift from heaven for the security...state"

any chance they're being encouraged by the PTB?

rec

[hay rick]

14. Black ops, not Black Bloc.

These people are likely saboteurs. Treating them as followers of a philosophy, even an adolescent one, is giving them more respect than they deserve.

[On the Road]

20. I Know Saboteurs Exist

but if you think the majority of the Black Bloc types are agents provocateur, spend some time at Indymedia and sites further to the left, go to some anti-IMF protests, and just generally listen to people. There are a lot of people who have a philosophy of anarchism that is sometimes hard to distinguish from vandalism.

There are even clips of an individual trying to coax OWS people into breaking some windows. To their credit, the protesters did not bite and generally shouted the guy down.

[Octafish]

17. Black Bloc = False Flag

Gives the group a bad name, wot?

[mojowork_n]

19. They don't even qualify as a "group."

The wiki page that Chris Hedges linked to, right at the top, sez:

"The Black Bloc" is sometimes incorrectly reported as being the name of a specific anarchist group. It is, rather, a tactic that may be adopted by groups of various motivations and method...."

So, in other words, the S*** that happens when the PTB want to shut something down?

[99th_Monkey]

23. What is PTB again? nt

[mojowork_n]

30. That would be

"The....Powers That Be."

Also: the Oligarchs, the Archons, the Plutocrats. (The One
per centers.)

Is the 99th_Monkey the one holding the Red Balloon?

[99th_Monkey]

34. Ahh ... as in "The Man" I see. Thanks.

No silly ... The 99th Monkey is the monkey right after the 98th Monkey. geesh.

I salute you though, since I've been using this handle for like 3-4 years I think,
and you are the very first DUer to find something snarky to say about it.

Gold Star for you

Or maybe that was not the intent; in which case

[mojowork_n]

37. No, I just like the Lufte Ballon song. (Old, from 1983)

I am a not-quite native born American so I suppose I look
for ways to inject all that multi-culturalism and polyglot
mixing of languages, cultural traditions and what all,
whenever possible. (With or without exchange of actual
body fluids or DNA. It's all Good.)

I like your handle, and it's a prescient one, too. Look
how popular that "99" number has gotten, in the last
half year or so.

[99th_Monkey]

43. Thank you

I know sometimes i take things the wrong way, so glad I checked in and nice to know
your intent was friendly .. it's actually a reference to a supposedly "scientific" study
of monkeys on an island, where once the 100th monkey learned something new, the
whole island of monkeys somehow telepathically "learned" it too. I didn't want to be
so arrogant as to call myself the 100th monkey, so settled for 99th.

Hope you're having a great day. take care.

[sulphurdunn]

21. OWS needs an enforcement

arm to deal with those using their movement as a cover to be violent. If it seems incongruent for a non-violent movement to have a security arm, well...life is full of contradictions that work. Better OWS enforcers should beat down black block thugs on live TV than that police thugs should beat down OWS demonstrators while beating down black block thugs on live TV.

[99th_Monkey]

25. We pretty much do that in Occupy Portland

still, it isn't able to stop it altogether. but I remember one instance in particular, where there were
about 600 protesters boxed into a city block, by a line of police, and some idiot started shoving
other protesters INTO the police line, thus provoking the police. Protesters around this guy acted
in unison to put him out front for police to deal with, and they did. I saw this happen couple of times,
in the other instance it was someone who threw something at police, and the same thing happened.

We've also had marches where the police just allowed Occupy to "police" itself, all too few, but still,
it happened and it worked quite well... to not even have any police there to provoke.

[knowbody0]

22. I blame them for the battle in seattle

they were violent, they were aggressive and where ever they could, they destroyed property. we thought they were "plants" paid by the police to shut down demonstrations.

[99th_Monkey]

26. Yeppers. I was there too, and thought the same thing

except I happened to know personally some of those involved and that
they were part of the Eugene Anarchist crowd. Which still may mean
that they are working long-term underground to provoke Anarchists to
violence, which would not surprise me in the least. See Cointelpro.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

27. So the question to Occupy is, how do they neutralize these groups

and their negative effects on the movement and use nonviolent means to achieve it?

[limpyhobbler]

29. This whole two-page article should be required reading for all Occupy supporters.

But here is the summary:

Violent protesters, cut it out.
This is a non-violent movement, your violent acts are screwing it up.
This is not a war. This is a political resistance, we want to win the support of the majority.
There may in theory be situations where violence is justified, but we are not even close to that situation now.
We must exhaust all means of peaceful resistance before violence can even be considered.

===

Follow up questions:

Can Hedges be considered the top intellectual voice of the OWS-style movements?
Will his words have the effect of actually reducing violence at protests?
Is Mr. Hedges right to rebuke the black bloc?
Will they listen?
If the violent acts are being carried out by provocateurs, why will it matter what Mr Hedges says?
Are Black Block being douche bags for using other protesters as human shields?
Will Occupy grow in 2012, or will it die?
Who does Chris Hedges think he is, and why should anyone care what he says?
Is Chris Hedges willing to take a baton to the face?
Does Occupy need a "leader" ?
Who should be the leader?
Should they have a national convention and elect a leader?
What is an anarchist and have you ever met one?

[90-percent]

36. Thom

Thom Hartmann mentioned on his show yesterday that he read a post about Chris Hedges and Occupy at democratic underground.

This is probably the post he was referring to.

I'm a fan of both and it's nice to know Thom reads DU!

-90% jimmy