David Graeber's rebuttal to Chris Hedges: Concerning the Violent Peace-Police
Definitely an interesting read. It's written as a rebuttal to Chris Hedges' article The Cancer in Occupy
http://www.revolutionbythebook.akpress.org/concerning-the-violent-peace-police-an-open-letter-to-chris-hedges/
The entire letter is at http://nplusonemag.com/concerning-the-violent-peace-police , but that site is down or slammed right now.
David Graeber
I am writing this on the premise that you are a well-meaning person who wishes Occupy Wall Street to succeed. I am also writing as someone who was deeply involved in the early stages of planning Occupy in New York.
I am also an anarchist who has participated in many Black Blocs. While I have never personally engaged in acts of property destruction, I have on more than one occasion taken part in Blocs where property damage has occurred. (I have taken part in even more Blocs that did not engage in such tactics. It is a common fallacy that this is what Black Blocs are all about. It isn’t.)
I was hardly the only Black Bloc veteran who took part in planning the initial strategy for Occupy Wall Street. In fact, anarchists like myself were the real core of the group that came up with the idea of occupying Zuccotti Park, the “99%” slogan, the General Assembly process, and, in fact, who collectively decided that we would adopt a strategy of Gandhian non-violence and eschew acts of property damage. Many of us had taken part in Black Blocs. We just didn’t feel that was an appropriate tactic for the situation we were in.
This is why I feel compelled to respond to your statement “The Cancer in Occupy.” This statement is not only factually inaccurate, it is quite literally dangerous. This is the sort of misinformation that really can get people killed. In fact, it is far more likely to do so, in my estimation, than anything done by any black-clad teenager throwing rocks.
...
= new reply since forum marked as read
Last edited Wed Feb 15, 2012, 06:33 AM - Edit history (1)
they are shocked -- shocked!! -- that anti-authoritarians and radical populists are at the heart
of the movement all along, and that "this needs to be exposed."
As if they are unfamiliar with how Occupy Everywhere got started...
As the video above demonstrates; Not all anti-authoritarians support this stuff. In fact the
people who "invented Occupy" are the ones who repudiated these tactics. Some are actual
populists who have no problem working with anypony that wishes to be part of the movement.
After all, the central value of anti-authoritarianism is NOT wishing to co-opt and control other
people's efforts -- UNLIKE the values of the hard left, many of whom are seeking to divide the
movement by red-baiting. Not all left-libertarians are anarchists, either. The 60s was a
left-libertarian movement at heart.
That being said, while I realize it was Anon's strategy to not use public anonymity when
operating in the Occupy movement or anywhere off net for that matter (if you meet anon at an
occupy he/she will be the person least likely to be masked up -- the popularity of the Mask is a
side bonus as it diverts attention) it is kind of silly of them to call out anyone wearing a mask
as "pretending" to be Anonymous. Anonymous is not a membership organization... in fact they've
had lots of internal conflict, so I hear, between anons who feel that anyone who self-identifies
and engages anonymously (while online) is anonymous.
They should be more clear about the distinction between anti-authoritarian populism or libertarianism
(basically the ethos of Anon -- mostly left-libertarianism these days -- given the moral bankruptcy of
Ron Paul and his ilk is finally being seen for what it is) vs. the pointless antinomianism of most
self-proclaimed blackbs. (which also originated as merely a tactic, to avoid being photographed and
put in an activist database) but as (this?) Anon points out, a tactic that is not very useful to the aims
of the Occupy movement which is to build a broad-based populist uprising where there is nothing
to be gained from singling out individuals because there are too many of them to single out.)
Anon seems to be primarily concerned with saying that they are nopony's personal army. The purpose
of the Occupy method being anti-authoritarian in the first place is that it is self healing. If a group of
kids insist on masking up to engage in disorganized property damage, as opposed to obscuring their
faces simply to avoid being photographed or peppersprayed (which is what MOST people wearing
bandannas are peacefully trying to do), all it takes is another group of people (ideally anonymously,
instead of grandstanding) to call them on it. It doesn't require all the pointless circular firing squads
by self-appointed leaders who insist on putting their name out there, and [font color="green"]round table discussions[/font].
Keep in mind that none of these are elected leaders, so it serves no purpose to have self-appointed
leaders of a populist movement just so they can claim to have leaders, especially when such leaders
have been traditionally ineffectual or lightning rods for criticism (just look at Kevin Zeese).
What's my beef in all this? Basically neither side has a monopoly on idiocy. Picking a fight with either
side is arguing over narrow leftist turf that should not interest Anonymous or true populists. Although
it's right for them to call these people out and put a check on such nonsense. I'm a pretty moderate
left-libertarian more into the '60s tradition. I recall the recent campaign by people to provoke
Occupier's into physically assaulting masked individuals (or people wearing anon masks!)
on the theory that they were all undercover cops. Smart. 
