Yeah… I think that’s a salient concern. However I think in the practical sense it’s still unclear to me how that should inform my approach.
Personally, I already try and spend more time and effort promoting what I want to create then I spend fighting against what I don’t want. I see a lot of stuff and wish I could be doing more to obstruct ICE, for instance. But I remind myself that I have a plans and projects and while I should be aware of what’s going on and available to help, I need to entrust a lot of that to others while I focus on a lot of other stuff. Providing childcare to a DSA meeting and trying to make sure our school boards and rent boards are comprised of folks who are providing for people is stuff that needs done.
So if I don’t have enough time to confront ICE, I definitely don’t have time to squabble with other leftists. Is going on Bluesky to bicker with people who smash the windows of banks that fund genocide and climate collapse going to help me do the stuff I’m working on? I don’t see how, so I’m comfortable staying neutral.
Is going on Bluesky to bicker with people who smash the windows of banks that fund genocide and climate collapse going to help me do the stuff I’m working on?
I mean, I don’t know about that, but preventing them from becoming violent against ICE (which is what we were talking about) when you come into contact with them in your specific area, and in general talking about the inadvisibility of it on the internet and elsewhere, seems like a good idea. It’s actually specifically the fact that being vigilant about this will help the stuff you’re working on (by making it possible for you to do it without maybe getting shot) that make it specifically important.
Gene Sharp actually talked about this: The absolute necessity of maintaining discipline about nonviolence if that’s what you’ve decided is tactically necessary at the moment, or completely separating in a visible and public-relations-understandable way from people who are doing that if you’re unable to prevent it. It is one of the a few key elements which is both vital and a lot harder than it might seem. A lot of random people tend to show up with all kinds of vigorous personal ideas about what might lead to the movement’s success, including actions which will fuck things up for the movement on a truly catastrophic scale. (Again - this is why police tend to plant agitators who will deliberately take things in that direction. They wouldn’t do that if it was fine for it to happen.) This kind of “live and let live” approach as to whether or not to get violent against state forces is very specifically dangerous in a very specific way.
(They actually talked about this on the Gaza flotilla, too: They did drills and training for how to react when the Israelis were approaching to avoid giving them any kind of impression of violence or resistance, because it’s very easy for them to just start shooting and that’s not what is wanted. Part of the qualification process for even being allowed to be physically present was that you had passed some tests as far as your physical ability to get mistreated without reacting.)
Does that make sense? I feel like I’ve said this 2-3 times now and you keep rebooting back to square 1 of your side of the conversation, as if I hadn’t said it.
It makes sense. However I’m ambivalent on the matter. If I’m repeating myself it’s because I’m not debating, I’m just telling you how I think. But I appreciate greatly that you’ve given me some literature that I can digest. I try and pride myself on being responsive to new info and adjusting my position, and I think we’re already pretty close on this, so it wouldn’t exactly be a huge pivot.
Yeah… I think that’s a salient concern. However I think in the practical sense it’s still unclear to me how that should inform my approach.
Personally, I already try and spend more time and effort promoting what I want to create then I spend fighting against what I don’t want. I see a lot of stuff and wish I could be doing more to obstruct ICE, for instance. But I remind myself that I have a plans and projects and while I should be aware of what’s going on and available to help, I need to entrust a lot of that to others while I focus on a lot of other stuff. Providing childcare to a DSA meeting and trying to make sure our school boards and rent boards are comprised of folks who are providing for people is stuff that needs done.
So if I don’t have enough time to confront ICE, I definitely don’t have time to squabble with other leftists. Is going on Bluesky to bicker with people who smash the windows of banks that fund genocide and climate collapse going to help me do the stuff I’m working on? I don’t see how, so I’m comfortable staying neutral.
I mean, I don’t know about that, but preventing them from becoming violent against ICE (which is what we were talking about) when you come into contact with them in your specific area, and in general talking about the inadvisibility of it on the internet and elsewhere, seems like a good idea. It’s actually specifically the fact that being vigilant about this will help the stuff you’re working on (by making it possible for you to do it without maybe getting shot) that make it specifically important.
Gene Sharp actually talked about this: The absolute necessity of maintaining discipline about nonviolence if that’s what you’ve decided is tactically necessary at the moment, or completely separating in a visible and public-relations-understandable way from people who are doing that if you’re unable to prevent it. It is one of the a few key elements which is both vital and a lot harder than it might seem. A lot of random people tend to show up with all kinds of vigorous personal ideas about what might lead to the movement’s success, including actions which will fuck things up for the movement on a truly catastrophic scale. (Again - this is why police tend to plant agitators who will deliberately take things in that direction. They wouldn’t do that if it was fine for it to happen.) This kind of “live and let live” approach as to whether or not to get violent against state forces is very specifically dangerous in a very specific way.
(They actually talked about this on the Gaza flotilla, too: They did drills and training for how to react when the Israelis were approaching to avoid giving them any kind of impression of violence or resistance, because it’s very easy for them to just start shooting and that’s not what is wanted. Part of the qualification process for even being allowed to be physically present was that you had passed some tests as far as your physical ability to get mistreated without reacting.)
Does that make sense? I feel like I’ve said this 2-3 times now and you keep rebooting back to square 1 of your side of the conversation, as if I hadn’t said it.
It makes sense. However I’m ambivalent on the matter. If I’m repeating myself it’s because I’m not debating, I’m just telling you how I think. But I appreciate greatly that you’ve given me some literature that I can digest. I try and pride myself on being responsive to new info and adjusting my position, and I think we’re already pretty close on this, so it wouldn’t exactly be a huge pivot.