A variety of tactics refers to when one is trying to achieve a goal, it is most intelligent to approach achieving that goal with a variety of strategies and tactics. In the case of the current Occupy Wallstreet, specifically Occupy Oakland, a variety of tactics enters the realm of whether or not to use violent tactics or non-violent tactics or no tactic at all and allow for organic development (which in a way is a tactic).
GOALS: There are some very large and largely broad goals that the occupy movement is trying to achieve right now. Specifics tend to polarize people, so the responsible parties of the movement (however few there may be due to a more adhocratic model) have largely tried to stay away from specific targets. Of course the exceptions are there. Last tuesday during the general strike in Oakland, the Oakland Ports were targeted and occupied by an unknown number of people. Numbers are being thrown around in wild fashion. 3,000...5,000...10,000 and yes even 100,000 has been thrown around. I cannot comment on this matter. What I do know is that for one of two specific, publicized, and large events the Oakland ports were shut down and work was cancelled (the first coming a week earlier during the march on the jail and the reclamation of Oscar Grant Plaza and ending in one of the largest riots in downtown of the last 20 years after police began firing at the crowd unprovoked). Now what? Does this group of people have a developing vision of what to do? And if so, what tactics should be employed?
Before I get into this, I want to say that from what I've seen, Occupy Oakland's public and tactical discussions have seemed largely white and male. Whether or not they are aware of it (almost sure they are), the must remember to stop moving towards hierarchical structures of race, gender, and class, which are clearly at play.
Non-Violence: It's clear, most people who protest or occupy are non-violent. Non-violence has been a successful tactic in a number of different situations. Of course Gandhi's efforts were a part in the process of ending British rule in India, and in the 1960 and onward the non-violent actions of the "Civil Rights Movement" were successful in some arenas certainly, but in reality people of color are still systematically brutalized, despite being able to sit with white folks in restaurants and buses. Non-violence is generally favorable to most because it doesn't put them at risk, and most people don't want to be put at risk. It is inherently from a place of privilege that MOST non-violent practitioners come from. Non-violent practitioners in the US are usually not displaced, landless, starving, brutalized people, they are people who identify with the cause and movement against something, in this case the behemoth of corporate control in capitalism (which has many more cards in its deck). To non-violent practitioners, there isn't a great enough sense of urgency.
Sense of urgency is something I've written about in everything from my senior thesis to articles, etc (a pedestal of privilege I sit upon). Sense of urgency is a great motivator for humans to do otherwise dangerous or uncomfortable things because they sense the urgency of their and those they love's survival at stake. When you are displaced, landless (homeless more so in this country), hungry, brutalized, etc you sense that you could die, those you love could die, and you will do anything to fight back, even give your life to fight the source of what is causing you this pain. Take for example the Black Panthers, The FLN in Algeria, the folks who blow up oil pipelines in Nigeria, Slave revolts, or the folks who resist the Texaco/Chevron destruction of their lands and water supplies. These people were/are in a position of exinction, of death, of losing what they have. Not all of them are/were poor but many did not have much to hold onto. Many of them resisted violently, killing innocent people, soldiers, politicians alike, and were criticized for it. But when you yourself are about to lose everything, even your life, will you not do anything to survive or get revenge? Is it not human? At what point would it take for you to fight with violence? Anyways I'm getting off topic and I'm not in the violent tactics section yet.
So the folks who advocate the use of non-violence in the occupy movement have had the most support it's true. There has even been infighting between non-violent and violent folk in the occupy marches (refer to the second video
this article). The non-violent folk are doing a great job occupying in my mind, they are being careful not to bring the ire of a city that is sitting on the edge of forcibly evicting them (no matter how bad it would look) and they are doing a great job showing that their numbers are strong and that with those numbers they can accomplish a lot (non-violence needs strength in numbers). To what point will the non-violent folks go? Will they begin to occupy Sodexo buildings? The Office of Homeland security? Will they shut down banks? with sheer numbers? Will they shut down Walmarts and risk drawing the ire of people who are trying to be sympathetic but just want to buy their goods at an affordable price? When will demands be made with non-violence and will they have any weight? When a crowd of 10,000 demands the end of Chinese imported goods in favor of rebuilding American manufacturing economy will anyone in power listen? When those people march to BART and demand the disarming of the BART police, will BART comply? It will take a lot of work, a lot of disruption, and a lot of time. Something that someone who has a great sense of urgency does not have time for.
Violence: Let me be clear, violence for violence sake is senseless. Violence is one of the most effective areas you can use for tactics, but it must be directed at something and that something has to be specific. Otherwise people will have carte blanche to go nuts. Now one thing that always irked me, is how violent practitioners get attention (as well they should) but that for some reason the non-violent people get roped in and have to answer for their decisions, held responsible, and ultimately suffer the consequences for things they didn't do. When a whole movement is destroyed over the actions of a few (many of whom could be undercover saboteurs and instigators) it's ridiculous! If someone in your neighborhood commits a crime, do you have to get arrested and held responsible for it when a cop breaks down your door and tells you to leave? Hell no. So why a movement? Not everyone is responsible for the action of other people. It's one of the only situations where that flies and it drives me nuts.
I mentioned sense of urgency plenty of times already, but I feel violence is a logical and acceptable tactic for someone who is truly feeling it. A lot of the folks who have employed violent tactics in this current situation are not people feel urgency, but people who want to play "revolutionary." People who act on behalf of the displaced, landless, starving, and brutalized without being it themselves. Now I respect someone who wants to empathize for people being fucked with elsewhere, but does throwing chairs in the street and trying to break a whole foods window accomplish something for those people? It seems like misplaced rage and heroism to me. I believe smashing big banks and financial institutions is great, but there's a direct correlation between their actions and a violent response. Breaking ATMs and the like is good because then you disrupt the flow of economic capital. Another way to stop a bank from doing its business would be to take up the space completely and fill it beyond capacity so that no one could go in. Don't beat up the employees damnit, they are just doing their jobs, they don't make choices. You want to fuck someone up, fuck up the CEOs and shareholders. Gotta find them first of course.
I suppose what it looks like is violence against things and violence against people are serious lines to cross. I'm in favor of violence against objects, violence against people is sticky and I'm fully for it in cases where you are in the situations I mentioned previously, but in the Occupy movement, the goal is too broad and fighting violently against people in specific who are not making decisions is too far for this moment in time. If the situation should change I'd be ready to change my mind. It's like saying a gas station attendant is responsible for the actions the company they works for does globally. We can't hold them accountable like that. We can however hold their gas pumps accountable and I encourage to in fact do so if we can correctly connect our cause to the action.
I guess what I'm saying to wrap all this up is that a variety of tactics is necessary. We are in a sort of war. A war where few people are running the show and innocent people worldwide suffer the brunt of the punishment so stocks go up in value fractions of points.
Here are some tactics I feel would be useful in our current situation:
Non-Violence: Occupation, civil disobedience, and blocking are great tactics. I.E.
Whirlmart OccupationsViolence: Destroying property, sabotage, distruption, blockades, barriers are all good tactics for this particular time. Don't go head to head with the police, it's a fight we won't win. Violent self-defense however is not only intelligent but necessary if the folks in blue are trying to fuck you up. Sense of Urgency for example.
Touching on the idea that anarchism is the driving force of this movement. It's out of line to think or say so for now because the general understanding of anarchism as a mechanism for governing people is flawed. It is seen as letting chaos rule, which in effect can be a catalyst for ending a capitalist system of democratic rule, but chaos is not anarchism. I always credit the Black Panthers for doing many great things in the anarcho-localist idea (Like adding stop lights to busy streets so children didn't get killed, organizing their own food system programs to alleviate hunger, medical care, education, stopping drug use, and of course policing themselves). In their situation of systematic brutality, they worked endlessly for creating their own help with their own resources because it was clear that the government wasn't keen on helping them out. If the government ignores you, pool your resources, and ignore it. Get your own rule where you can. That's where I feel Occupy is succeeding in actually being anarchist. Engaging in consensus process for decision making, feeding ourselves, caring for ourselves medically, educating ourselves, policing ourselves (albeit not very well sometimes). Whether or not the people who are engaging in the smashing are anarchists is irrelevant. Anarchism doesn't thrive on violence, it just means that these folks who believe in anarchism are employing violent tactics to ensure the continuation of their existing structure (or lack thereof as some folks would say). Let's keep up the sustaining of our own system.