The Left shouldn't advocate the violent overthrow of the social-political order. That would be wrong headed, AND suicidal.
On the other hand, we should stop being stupid chumps, offering our skulls for all the abuse that the corporate state holds out for us.
When the system breaks its own rules and violates our rights, we should condition ourselves to mete out a proportionate retaliation.
I think it will be more effective than an angry letter to the editor or an article in a small circulation magazine.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Got something specific in mind?
Not really, but here goes:
When there's another non-democratic "leaders summit" where our government stooges plan some new advance of their elite agenda, protesters should go and attend and ask for some clearly achievable, democratic concession. Demanding a televised debate there and then at this summit (eminently justifiable I'd say) or failing that, their conference site will be besieged.
But the siege should be a peaceful, "people-power" non-violent sort of thing.
We don't even have to go that far though. We could simply insist on holding a counter-summit on the site.
However, the police will (if the past is any indicator) attempt to disrupt even the most peaceful, law-abiding form of protest. Further, as we saw at Quebec Montebello, they'll try create a pretext for suppression.
If that's the case, they can be given one warning that by their illegal, unconstitutional behaviour, they are renouncing all right to expect us to obey the law, and if they persist, then that conference site will become a "law-free" zone. And then all bets are off.
Following this, movement leaders will be marked individuals by the forces of authority, so they should be held to be protected by the movement in general. There must be no retaliation taken against the leaders of the protest in the future and any attempts at retaliation will also be met with justified resistance.
These scum-bags like Cheney, et al, won't surrender their power peacefully. We have to take that fact seriously.
First reaction: G8. Huntsville, Ontario. 2010. Be there.
Second reaction: I appreciate that the ritual of escalation that you suggest has a certain kind of political value, though I doubt that would be clearly visible in the media coverage even if it went exactly according to plan. But I'd suggest that disruptive but life-respecting direct action is justified even without the cops violating the peace at that specific moment. Despite the potential tactical value in doing so when appealing to particular constituencies, I think acting like we only see the state as violent at that moment when truncheons begin to connect with heads in a specific protest won't serve us well in the long run.
And I agree about protecting those who are targeted by the state, but unfortunately I think there's a lot of distance between the disarray of radical forces in Canada today and actually being able to offer substantial support to activists who have been thus targeted...not sure quite how to get from here to there.
Scott,
I don't think we disagree. By my logic, we don't wait for their truncheons to start flying. We act as if they could start flying at any moment.
But there are ways to make our escalations look like the justified acts they are to everyone except the most dense and/or deceitful.
There's nothing like being 110 percent right to make people stand up for themselves.
How we get from here to there has to start with getting everyone left of centre onside with this mindset. They don't have to participate, just stop doing the elites' job by condemning physical action always and everywhere.
Post a Comment