It’s a terminology issue. Technically, yes. Technically, insurrectionary anarchism has run with leftist movements for years. It is a scourge and largely masturbatory self gratification with no strategic planning-what-so-ever.

These are not the same as all anarchists, however. There are variances…but that doesn’t matter. It’s a greater extrapolation of societal fears: a tendency to paint the brush on a blanket group of individuals. Anarchism is a big idealogical block, moreso when you consider it’s many permutations: anarcho-primitivists, anarcho-syndicalists, mutualists, egoists, etc….

…But to the society at large, the “a” word dredges old, tainted, associations. They will never shake. Ever. It may as well join the other “Taboo” idealogies insofar as smear is concerned [IE:Nazism, Communism has similar trappings]. In many ways, they are all viewed as “demons of the old world” to the elite.

In many ways I am glad to be a Sorelian in such times. It is suitably obscure to evade scrutiny and profound abuse at the hands of corporate media. Insofar as I am concerned anarchists need a new word — call if horizontalism if you must — but aside from that statement, there is little else I can suggest.

My critique of the stuff that’s been happening in Oakland is hard to talk about because the status quo has framed and controlled the conversation. You either hate anarchists or you hate O.O. or (now the latest) you hate both. Anarchists = violence and violence = our biggest enemy. This is the conversation of the status quo.

First of all, I want to say that throughout OSR’s lifetime, there have been people who have used the concept of nonviolence as a way to control other people’s behaviors, expressions, and speech. I for one believe that, up until now, because of the Oakland conversation, talking about nonviolence in OSR in the way that it was being talked about was largely a distraction. Can you point to me all of the times in US history where someone used violence as a political tactic against their political enemy? Can you point to me all the times in the history of the US Occupy movement where this has happened? All the times this has happened in Sonoma County in general? All of the times we have been dangerously close to this happening in Sonoma County? My point is, that we as OSR have never been in any serious danger of becoming violent. In fact, the times that I can think of where violence was potentially caused by OSR was when a rogue OSR member publicly accused another of wanting to be violent, therefore making that person a target for the police (and Homeland Security for that matter). Or the time that one of our “security” team members threatened to call the police on me for wanting to have a philosophical discussion about police with him. In other words, OSR protesters using violence as a political tactic against their political enemies is something that has such a low chance of happening that the amount of time, energy, ageist accusations, threats, interruptions, dismissals, and passionate outbursts that is spent on talking about “noniviolence” is a distraction and a waste of time.

Now that we are faced with addressing the Oakland situation, I can see how the topic may be a bit more relevant. But not really. Only because the status quo has framed the conversation and we have put ourselves on the defense.

Burning a flag, which a couple rogue Oakland Occupiers did, which was a relatively small part of a large action, is not an act of violence. It is a symbolic act of speech that has a tradition behind it. To label this as an act of violence is to (successfully, apparently) derail the conversation about Occupy, nonviolence, and police brutality. It is like labeling it an act of violence when they have those crazy funerals for military personnel where they fire off the rifles in ceremony. That is a traditional symbolic ceremony. It is not an act of violence. They are not firing off rifles for the same reasons that people usually fire rifles, which is to kill things. To label this as an act of violence would be to take it COMPLETELY out of context for your benefit. Their intentions are not to kill anything. Their intentions are to invoke a symbol. Burning a flag is not the same as burning random shit to scare your enemy. If you burn down a car or a house, you are probably doing it to threaten your enemy and strike fear into them, which makes this a violent action. If you burn a flag, you are not doing it for this reason. You are doing it because it is a symbolic ceremony. It’s no more violent than lighting a cigarette. If you burn a flag, and then throw it at your enemy so that they catch on fire, this would be an act of violence. Burning a flag to make a point is an act of speech, a symbol, like lighting a candle.

I have issues with some of the things Oakland has done, as we all do. Their decision to put a lot of focus on police brutality is strategically questionable, as it puts us on the defensive and lets those in power guide our conversation. For this same reason, actions which are partly intended to cause clashes with the police to “call out” police violence are misguided. It’s a way of letting them control the conversation. All of a sudden we are now talking about how outraged we are that the police would protect wealth, when we should be saying that this is actually exactly how capitalism works.

Notice I didn’t use the words right or wrong anywhere. That’s because my analysis is based on strategy. And here’s the point: imagine if your grandpa, your grandma, your uncle and aunt, your parents and you had all been harassed and abused by SRPD throughout your life. And let’s say SRPD murdered a good friend of yours from elementary school. And let’s say now that you’re an occupier, SRPD fired tear gas canisters at you and your children. And let’s say you used the F word in response to this. And then someone from Marin went on the internet and said “ummm please don’t use the F word, that alienates the police, thanks.”

You would think that person was a dumbass.

They might make a good point about whether you should watch your language as a strategy, but if they tell you that you “shouldn’t antagonize the police,” then….well, refer to the above. Don’t tell people what to feel about the police. Tell people your opinion on strategy and tactics. And if you think that it’s the F word that antagonizes the police, well you just have no idea how police work. They literally get paid to destroy the Occupy movement in Oakland. I mean literally. If you gave them valentine’s day candy, this would still be the case and they’d still try to choke you using chemical weapons, and they’d still be the foot soldiers for a racist economic system that ensures that the relationships of wealth remain intact.

also i’m the biggest critic of the US anarchist movement in my group of friends.

First of all, I don’t know who you are, brokenrecord, but damn, I loved your comment!

Second, here is a short piece on “How not to block the black bloc” by long-time Quaker activist George Lakey, who offers a different way of talking about violence and nonviolence in Occupy:

http://wagingnonviolence.org/2012/02/how-not-to-block-the-black-bloc/

http://www.truth-out.org/interview-chris-hedges-about-black-bloc/1328799148

Follow up. Interesting read.

Wow. Anarchists are sure in the news these days. This was posted by OSF:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy#Kropotkin

http://jdeanicite.typepad.com/i_cite/2012/02/david-graeber-concerning-the-violent-peace-police-a-response-to-chris-hedges-nplusone.html