An Open Letter To All Those In Occupy/Decolonize Seattle
Who STILL Support This [Nonsense] Non-Violence Proposal.
The issue is NOT about "non-violence" per se, it is about adopting "non-violence" as a vague, quasi-religious political ideology, so that Occupy/Decolonize Seattle can recieve donations from liberal non-profit, governmental, and religious organizations. And pro-U.S./Demokkkratic Party forces and their most deeply committed supporters can, eventually, move in and take over.
First, let us review the history of "non-violence" in O/DS, based upon the ACTUAL practices and political moves made by those who today continue to support this twice defeated proposal:
1. Some of the strongest supporters of this proposal are the very folks who, after losing a vote in the General Assembly, moved to City Hall anyway. As it turned out, the only real consequence of that was for all to see what a sour clique of undemocratic, anti-revolutionary renegades looks like.
2. Some of the strongest supporters of this proposal are the very folks who threatened to "pull the plug" on the sound for "Oct22" @ Westlake due to demokkkrat King County Councilman Larry Gossett not being allowed to show up late, and un-invited, and share the stage with someone he himself ordered the police to attack in July of 1999 at the longest building occupation in U.$. history.
3. Some of the strongest supporters of this proposal are the very folks who showed us their non-violence in PRACTICE, injuring several in the camp and later on at the Chase Bank action.
4. Some of the strongest supporters of this proposal are the very folks who injured another camper with their demonstration of how they would handle a hypothetical attempted tent theft, "non-violently", during a Peace and Safety meeting.
5. Some of the strongest supporters of this proposal are the very folks who called upon the Anti-Fascist Working Group for help vs. a violent individual amongst the dictatorship of the self-medicated who invaded one woman's tent and shoved another. This group from within Peace and Safety then WOULD NOT ADMIT to asking for our help at the impromptu G.A. after the explusion event. They then had the nerve to send someone to summon us during our meeting, asking for help a month later. This time we video recorded him asking for our help, for our own protection from potential future false allegations and accusations.
6. Some of the strongest supporters of this proposal are the very folks who made threats to revolutionaries, specifically, during the G.A. Antifa was formed specifically as a protective alliance between the revolutionaries v.s. the dictatorship of the self-medicated and the "non-violent" Gandhian neo-fascists (refer back to #2) after we were ATTACKED PHYSICALLY BY BOTH SIDES at various times during the occupation at Seattle Central Community College. And all of these folks support this current proposal.
8. Some of the strongest OPPONENTS of this proposal are the people of color in O/DS. I take careful note that ALL but 2 of the people of color present at the 2nd voting G.A. featuring this proposal, voted the proposal down. To be in denial of the underlying racial chauvanism and privilege being resisted so fiercely by such a wide majority, as evidenced by the overwhelming vote against this proposal; TWICE, especially from amongst us so-called 'minorities', is a form of amerikkkan social fascism.
9. Who will MATERIALLY benefit? Again, this aspect was NOT mentioned in either version of the proposal. In discussions with others, I see that this aspect, the monied aspect, remains the 800lb gorilla in the room, and that others that I spoke with at the Occupy Seattle/D24 Dinner event also bear witness.
Again, the issue is NOT about "non-violence", it is about adopting "non-violence" as a vague, quasi-religious political ideology, so that O/DS can recieve donations from liberal and religious organizations, as well as the demokkkrats. Need I remind you all of a very basic rule of capitalist-imperialism: he or she who controls the gold, makes the rules. This is the root and the essense of all other arguments against this piece of kkkrap proposal, its equally wicked and monsterous twin, or the mildly humorous "pro-violence" proposal brought forward by [fellow Occupier].
Next, there are also folks who seek to control the resources, and thus the guiding politics of O/DS. [Fellow Occupier] was the first to attempt this. [fellow Occupier] and [fellow Occupier] are now part of a new breed of folks atttempting to use the promise of resources from bourgeois liberal sources as a political weapon against the revolutionary majority.
So silly is [fellow Occupier] that he puts forward a PRO-violence proposal, knowing that it would be voted down, so as to mock the entire process and debate. Sure, I added a 'friendly amendment' calling for naked jell-o wrestling to resolve inter-Occupy conflicts. I knew that it would be voted down; I did it to mock him and those who support the two kkkraptacular non-violence proposals and the "pro-violence" attempt at satire.
Now, [fellow Occupier] upholds my 'friendly amendment' to his sad attempt at satire as a violation of some cardinal principle or a personal afront. It is clear to me that he will use every tool at his disposal to attempt to destroy that which he views as a threat to his individual material interests, and thus his larger, more general political interests.
Thus, the call for a "transformative justice" meeting: he cannot win the line struggle with a weak and wicked, pro-kkkapitlaist, pro-imperialist, flagrantly undemocratic political line, so he will "tag" in an even more adversarial and reactionary liberal ideologue, since his liberal-amerikkkan populist 'puglism' cannot stand up to scientific, anti-kkkapitalist, dialetical 'jujitsu'!
If the St. Marks or Jams For Justice folks are no longer interested in funding us, due to our refusal to submit to what is essentiallly bourgeois, kkkapitalist ideology manifested as magical thinking on a rickety bed of patently false historical revisionism and imposed from above and from outside by God's self-appointed local representitives on earth, then why would the pastor at St. Mark's attempt to enter the ideological fray, with a letter full of mostly unsubstantiated dogma that only lightly touches on the crux of the issue: the monied aspect.
And why is it that there are others who support this proposal who are still speaking on it as a path to resources as recently as the Occupy dinner at Gasworks Park on December 24th? Clearly, this is NOT a 'dead' issue, since the proposers and their supporters have yet to come all the way clean on why so little attention has been spent around the monied aspect of this proposal (or rather, set of proposals) and how this effects the larger ideological and philosophical questions posed by those who still advocate for this liberal-reactionary political direction.
Our desire for freedom is stronger than any individual's political ambitions. Therefore, you must be an 'honest broker' in front of the G.A.
Yes, you have to. Yes, you do. It's either full disclosure in front of the G.A. or get fully heckled at the G.A., by a majority of the G.A.! You know it's true. We've all seen it happen.
9. All kinds of forces are now coming out of the woodwork, working overtime, trying to convince me that co-optation of Occupy/Decolonize Seattle is not occuring.
This is bulls**t. The co-optation attempts started on DAY ONE. It is the radical self-activity of the astute amongst workers and revolutionaries that keeps Occupy/Decolonize Seattle moving forward generally and the co-opters stuck on the sidelines, trying to dictate the guidelines.
All they have are potential purse strings...maybe...and their public/private army of local, state, and federal law enforcement; also informants and 'good' amerikkkans, the 21st century updated and upgraded 'good German', like the folks who called the police on the 19th and Spruce house and reported the one at 12th and Jefferson before that. And what did they report? People going in and out who "didn't look like they were supposed to be there".
Similarly, there are voices within O/DS who say such things about myself, the PoC Caucus, the anarchists, and revolutionaries generally. To hear them tell it, their failure to pass these two ridiculous proposals is all due to "provacateurs", "people with hate in their hearts", "anarchists", etc, as opposed to the dishonesty, material interests, and ideological blindspots of both proposers and supporters, at last exposed for all to see.
10. This is why genuine people's movements find creative ways to seek out and sustain independent money! But this CANNOT happen until transparancy, process, and most importantly, CLASS, is put up front and center!
11. Genuine global equality is NOT in the MATERIAL interests of most amerikkkans (not yet, anyway), and thus not on their mind. This is a FACT. Most amerikkkans don't want to be broke, to be homeless, to see their kids killed overseas on another imperialist military adventure, or in their own neighborhood. Usually, they could careless about their neighbors next door, let alone their neighbors across the 3rd world.
Of course, if we so-called 'minorties' speak or move in a direction of seriously addressing our collective self-interest as colonized people and as workers, and our parallel struggles in relationship to the larger global revolutionary project, and how the liberal politics of amerikkkan social fascism, like this non-violence proposal, and the most reactionary aspects of it, are an impediment to building the necessary global unity, then we are usually denounced and slandered....as being against "unity"!
We are against UNPRINCIPLED, oppressive, neo-colonial, master/slave, victim/victimizer, "unity"...with ANYONE, regardless of skin color!
13. There are two super-obvious general political paths in this movement at this moment:
a. Reform: To seek concessions from the existing government, class structure, and economic system by way of protests, "non-violent" direct action, begging bureaukkkrats, the occasional strike, and voting; so as to defend basic civil rights, as defined under this system, from the perspective of the political and economic elite of amerikkka; but at the same time, challenging those very same upper classes to 'trickle down' a little more as far as jobs, 'progressive' legislation, and the creation and funding of social programs.
b. Revolution: To seek and struggle for [revolutionary] regime change: the overthrow of amerikkka, specifically, so as to play our position aiding and assisting in the global overthrow of capitalism, imperialism, and oppression[s] generally, to create the political space for a radical restructuring of the world on the principles of genuine solidarity (NOT "charity", like liberals offer; plus the iron fist) and a global economy built upon the principles of "from each according to ability, to each according to need"; by way of protests, "non-violent" direct actions such as, but not limited to, mic checking the rich and powerful (the most decidely awful, in particular) if they dare show there face anywhere in Seattle for any reason, seizing foreclosed properties, re-taking stolen native land, port shutdowns, general strikes, evolving workgroups into community-driven counter-institutions that can provide basic services and assist with day-to-day survival needs, and growing the G.A. into an institution of dual-power vs. the existing capitalist government(s); local, state, federal; and to encourage other G.A.s across amerikkka and the world to do the same, until we can effectively join with existing and future 3rd world revolutionary forces in forcing the global 1% and their lackeys to stop what they are doing and, hopefully, slow and /or repair the damage to the planet before we all go extinct; begining with our food sources and water becoming genuinely scarce, as opposed to scarcity due to market spectulation and unfair trade agreements.
Liberals tend to walk down path A. Anarchists, Marxists, revolutionary anti-colonialists/3rd worldist and/or indigenous national liberationists tend to walk down path B. See where I stand for yourself by reading the "What I Want, What I Believe" section of allpowertothepositive.blogspot.com
Conservatives, 'Objectivists'/Ayn Randists, Fascists/neo-nazis, and LaRouchists seek point C., as in CRUSH both sides; fascists/neo-nazis are especially adamant about that.
Opportunists claim to have no general affinity, but gravitate from one political 'extreme' (lol) to another based upon individual material interests and who, organizationally, seems more politically and numerically powerful for achieving their selfish goals at a given time.
Newbies are recruited by whoever can connect with that particular person. Not everyone is attracted by the spectacle of 'non-violence'. Many don't even initially come to O/DS on too deep of a political level, but more on a social one; showing up with friends, college class field trips, saw it on t.v./live stream/you tube/fb and came thru, etc.
Tell you what: if we revolutionaries become entirely too much and over-the-top at actions/demonstrations, we'll put ourselves in jail...but only if you liberals agree to self-emulate (i.e. - sit down and torch yourselves in public) if you and your crew become problematic.
I'll leave you with some seperate, yet related quotables that sum up some of the recurring themes in this writing. I believe passages are to be studied, not taken as gospel. Effectively praying to a particular theorist offends the religious, the atheistic, and the astute, so I don't do it . What I have underlined I view as important to emphasize in each.
No, it is not the same.
(1) Economically, the difference is that sections of the working class in the oppressor nations receive crumbs from the super-profits the bourgeoisie of these nations obtains by extra exploitation of the workers of the oppressed nations.
Besides, economic statistics show that here a larger percentage of the workers become “straw bosses” than is the case in the oppressed nations, a larger percentage rise to the labor aristocracy. That is a fact. To a certain degree the workers of the oppressor nations are partners of their own bourgeoisie in plundering the workers (and the mass of the population) of the oppressed nations.
(2) Politically, the difference is that, compared with the workers of the oppressed nations, they occupy a privileged position in many spheres of political life.
(3) Ideologically, or spiritually, the difference is that they are taught, at school and in life, disdain and contempt for the workers of the oppressed nations."
-V.I. Lenin; A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism: (#5.) "Monism And Dualism”.
To let things slide for the sake of peace and friendship when a person has clearly gone wrong, and refrain from principled argument because he is an old acquaintance, a fellow townsman, a schoolmate, a close friend, a loved one, an old colleague or old subordinate. Or to touch on the matter lightly instead of going into it thoroughly, so as to keep on good terms. The result is that both the organization and the individual are harmed. This is one type of liberalism.
To indulge in irresponsible criticism in private instead of actively putting forward one's suggestions to the organization. To say nothing to people to their faces but to gossip behind their backs, or to say nothing at a meeting but to gossip afterwards. To show no regard at all for the principles of collective life but to follow one's own inclination. This is a second type.
To let things drift if they do not affect one personally; to say as little as possible while knowing perfectly well what is wrong, to be worldly wise and play safe and seek only to avoid blame. This is a third type.
Not to obey orders but to give pride of place to one's own opinions. To demand special consideration from the organization but to reject its discipline. This is a fourth type.
To indulge in personal attacks, pick quarrels, vent personal spite or seek revenge instead of entering into an argument and struggling against incorrect views for the sake of unity or progress or getting the work done properly. This is a fifth type.
To hear incorrect views without rebutting them and even to hear counter-revolutionary remarks without reporting them, but instead to take them calmly as if nothing had happened. This is a sixth type.
To be among the masses and fail to conduct propaganda and agitation or speak at meetings or conduct investigations and inquiries among them, and instead to be indifferent to them and show no concern for their well-being, forgetting that one is a Communist and behaving as if one were an ordinary non-Communist. This is a seventh type.
To see someone harming the interests of the masses and yet not feel indignant, or dissuade or stop him or reason with him, but to allow him to continue. This is an eighth type.
To work half-heartedly without a definite plan or direction; to work perfunctorily and muddle along--"So long as one remains a monk, one goes on tolling the bell." This is a ninth type.
To regard oneself as having rendered great service to the revolution, to pride oneself on being a veteran, to disdain minor assignments while being quite unequal to major tasks, to be slipshod in work and slack in study. This is a tenth type.
To be aware of one's own mistakes and yet make no attempt to correct them, taking a liberal attitude towards oneself. This is an eleventh type.
We could name more. But these eleven are the principal types...."
- Mao Tse-Tung "Combatting Liberalism".