Forum Post: OWS's vulnerability of violence.

this was a reply given in another post was so complete and well written that i felt it warranted it's own post in hopes that more people are made aware of the achilles heal of the OWS.

This essay by G. William Domhoff explains why you are right about the need for OWS to condemn violence: http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/change/science_nonviolence.html I am very disappointed that the main page of this side says only "encourage the use of nonviolence" as in: "We are using the revolutionary Arab Spring tactic to achieve our ends and encourage the use of nonviolence to maximize the safety of all participants." It should say "insist on the use of nonviolence", and not just to maximize safety, but to ensure the OWS is effective for the reasons Domhoff explains. As it is now, OWS seems heading for more problems until that changes. And it better change fast, as stuff like this is destroying OWS credibiilty: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57319036/is-black-bloc-hijacking-occupy-oakland/ ""I see Black Bloc as a tactic, not really as a movement," said Ryan Andreola, an Occupy demonstrator. He said he believes in non-violence but is not ready to condemn the tactics of the Black Bloc. "As individuals," said Andreola, "we respect people's freedom to act they way that they feel they have to act to make the changes they wish to see."" Just read the comments there, which all echo Domhoff's points on why violence destroys the legitimacy of movements that do not distance themselves from it. This shows a failure of OWS to educate demonstrators in sanctioned demonstrations about the principles on non-violent social change and why violence is a non-starter in the USA and will only hurt OWS (let alone anyone else as it can quickly get out of hand -- see the history of Columbia for example of what can happen when violence spirals out of control even of those who called for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Violencia ). More on this in this thread: http://occupywallst.org/article/general-strike-shuts-down-oakland-watch-live/#comment-287121 OWS needs to build a movement assuming you'll have active disruption by the establishment and "agent provocateurs" and so on. And one way to cope with the threat of disruptive elements planted by any establishment is to be transparent and to reject any proposal for violence. It is harder for disruptive elements to function consistently in transparent organizations built on strong moral principles; it's kind of like how anaerobic bacteria can't function in the presence of oxygen. Build the kind of movement where a police officer or FBI agent would be proud to be part of it (off duty), and it will most likely succeed given the level of public dissatisfaction with the current status quo including the rich/poor divide and rising sense of precarity. Until OWS takes a stand as a movement against violence, it will lose a lot of support (both for moral and practical reasons). Which is part of the possible reasons for "agent provocateurs" -- precisely to discredit OWS. Someone should contact Ryan Andreola quoted there, ask Ryan to read what Prof. Domhoff wrote on non-violence, and then ask Ryan to consider making another statement about the situation. All GAs should make it a top priority to discuss this issue of non-violence, to learn about non-violence collectively (studying the history and principles), and after that consideration, to go on record condeming the violence (if so decided), and then actively exclude those who plan to resort to violence. If GAs can't commit to non-violence, then the rest of the GAs who do should consider disowning those other GAs. As it is now, the current policy and "diversity of tactics" is harming the OWS movement for all the reasons Domhoff outlines. After GAs commit to non-violence, then the front page of the website can be updated to reflect that.