Violence

For the most part I am going to address this essay on violence from the voice of the intellect. Mind you, I am the first to tell you that my gut screams “get the bastards!” I understand the frustration. I understand the motivations of the Black Block (the real ones, not the police provocateurs). I understand that there may be some cause for which the universe demands the blood of the guilty to be spilled. However, not here; not now.

Benedictine University released the survey results of Occupy Chicago on Thursday, November 24, 2011. One of the things it found is that, “58 percent agreed that violence against government can be justified.” Historically, that is understandable.

The U.S.A. was born of revolution, and there is no shortage of burning quotes from the past to stir the soul to grand deeds of true bravery in the face of a tyrannical foe. I’ll leave you to look those up for yourself. Sociologically, it is understandable as well. Chicago is a twin fisted city that works. It is a city with tough blue collar ethic; it is a city with little patience for unending dialogue. Manuel "Mannie" Garcia O'Kelly-Davis, of Heinlein’s The Moon is a Harsh Mistress would feel right at home in Chicago – if it weren’t for Earth’s heavy gravity. Being those factors, history and sociology are both aligned to justify violence, why denounce it? Basically, violence does not work.

On September 11, 2001 nineteen hijackers flew three airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Their rational was to teach America a lesson for the corporate games the U.S. allows in the Islamic World. The immediate aftermath left 2,996 dead. Since then, in retaliation to the event the death toll in Afghanistan and Iraq is arguable exceeding 100 times that number. Most of them are civilians; many of them non-combatants. Whatever the lesson was that the hijackers wanted to teach the U.S., another lesson has been learned. Violence is not going to work when it comes to the unseating the 1% who have usurped control of the United States, and the rest of the Western Developed World.

I don’t say this to denounce violence. I’ve been trained in it.

As I stated long ago in acute situations violence may be necessary. That acute situation is when there is no alternative in an open field of combat. If someone is going to kill you and there is no alternative but to disable them, then the action is justified. I know there are those who would decry that statement out of some mythical vision of Ghandi who walked on water, but even Ghandi was a pragmatist, and his revolution was not bloodless.

I am pointing out that violence in an otherwise political debate only leads to more violence, and violence is a game that the U.S. forces play all too well. We have seen that in the heavy handed crack-down, sanction by the highest offices in the U.S. government, against the peaceful Occupation protestors. Any direct violence against the forces of the U.S. oligarchy will leave our children dead, and ravaged on the street. That is not something that you really want.

We don’t fight against flesh and blood. We are fighting the inane idea that we are owned. In that fight there is room to impose economic loss upon the 1%ers. There are many ways of doing just that. Strikes work. Boycotts work. Sabotage works. I have pointed this entire line of reasoning out before the occupation began. Violence is the 1%’s game, however, and they know it all too well.

Besides, you don’t have to resort to their game when you are already winning at yours.

Solidarity.