Forum Post: Italy, what part of non-violent don't you fools get!
Posted 12 years ago on Oct. 17, 2011, 4:40 p.m. EST by frankchurch1
(839)
from Jersey City, NJ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I'm an anarchist, most of us are non-violent. We think violence is immoral, plus it is a bad tactic. Breaking windows, lighting fires, that only hurts your cause! No matter what the cops do, we have to be always, all the time, non-violent. The violence of the cops will offend the public, instead of us offending the public, who we need on our side.
If you see someone advocating violence, stop them!
......HOPE Humans On Planet Earth ...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QrDLwSgg24
Just a supposition, I don't know about Italy.
I am a french activist. I have been in many demonstrations in France. Peaceful and non-violent demonstrations. It is quite aknowledged that undercovered cops (dressed as civilians) have been starting to smash glass and act violently to see if that can unleach activists contained violence. In any case, it makes good pictures for the evening newscast.
Perhaps, Italian cops have applied the same methods ? It is difficult to prove. And if it happens it is dificult to fight against it.
We had police infiltrators during cointelpro, in the 60s. I think it is possible, except the black block has done similar things here.
It is either failure in 'ALL GO AWAY' or success in 'GO ALL THE WAY'! Which will it be?
Why do you call yourselves anarchists if you don't want to be associated with all of the most commonly recognized traits of anarchy? Seems a little counterproductive not to pick a different word to describe yourself.
1.a person who advocates or believes in anarchy or anarchism.
2.a person who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed.
3.a person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against any established rule, law, or custom.
Anarchism has many different factions. I tend to follow anarcho-syndicalism, which is community ownership of production and and end to the state by having community councils replace the state. It's pure democracy. Violence is done by boneheads who know next to nothing about real anarchism. Noam Chomsky is a leading anarchist and he has always been for non-violence.
Doesn't anarchy usually become totalitarian? And isn't anarcho-syndicalism from Monty Python and the Holy Grail? Real questions, btw.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism
I think you may find that these people in power have nothing but contempt for those that 'don't fight back'. They expect you all to go away after a while. At worst, they can shoot a few of you, like Kent State and then you all will run away and the 'revolution' will be over.
Appeals to Gandhi-like non-violence only work in governments that are civilized. The Indian Raj was British and essentially civilized. Imagine Gandhi trying something like non-violence in Stalinist Russia or Pol Pot's Cambodia! Politicians in the US think the same way...."nobody messes with their gravy train!" and they will kill to preserve it. In my opinion, ultimately, the only thing they will respect is other armed people. It will focus their attention on the gravity of their situation wonderfully.
As Noam Chomsky has said, we have the most freedom of any country on the planet. We can change anything, as long as it is done non-violently. Every change has to involve good and bad tactics.
So America is not civilized?!
A few hundred rioters joined the protest and then got destructive in Rome. Out of thousands of peaceful protesters.
Look around you. You think everyone is like you?Thinks like you? Have the same values as you? The movement has a mix of crazies in it. At some point one or more is going to go off the rails.
This is a free land, we cannot stop the crazies from being part of it. Maybe the nuts will learn something. Especially the silly 9/11 truthers.