|
leonine -> RE: Making the case, FOR violence in OWS (11/6/2011 7:46:48 AM)
|
Non-violence works if (a) there is an alternative, a violent movement dangerous enough to scare the authorities into looking for someone nice to talk to, and/or (b) there is an international audience being favourably impressed by the non-violent protests and bringing pressure to bear on the government to listen and to stop violently suppressing it.
The most successful have both. Ghandi, MLK and Mandella had big fanclubs abroad, but they were talked to because the authorities were afraid the alternative was the fire next time. If there hadn't been any threat of violent uprising, and if there had been the sort of media blockade that Syria is using and that Israel clamps on Gaza when things get hairy, the police would have happily gone on clubbing and shooting them till they ran out of protesters.
This gives OWS a problem. Here in the UK we've had some brief but scary popular riots, which is one reason our authorities are walking very carefully around the Occupy camps, but there is no comparable threat of popular violence in the US to make OWS look good. And since it's an international movement by intention, no government is going to speak up for another country's Occupy movement when they've got troubles with their own. Cynically, the best strategy for OWS would be to continue holding to non-violence, but to moonlight as some kind of undercover terrorist movement, sending letter bombs and such, to convince the authorities that there are worse alternatives. (OK, that wouldn't work because the camps are undoubtedly thick with undercover cops, so they'd never get away with it, but it's a thought.)
|
|
|
|
