Trash talkin’

People are now begining to talk about a political campaign to defend those that are being hunted by the police for ‘violence’ during the G20 protests.

This is the most recent post on indymedia in relation to these happenings.

An indignant idiot states:

…The people who endorsed the attacks on police lines at the G20 defend the actions under the banner of “diversity of tactics” yet they continually bag out non-violent demonstrators as ineffective. I empathise with those being caught up in the crack down by the state after the G20 protests but if supporting the solidarity campaign means rejecting the power and effectiveness of non-violence as a form of social change then its not going to be a campaign with broad support.

These comments made me think a little about ‘non-violence’ and ‘diversity of tactics’…

First this is a comment that I put on the indymedia page…
what exactly is the “power and effectiveness of non-violence”?
why should it be valued?

…’Non-violent direct action’ seems to simply refer to activity that exists in the intersect of masochism and obedience to some abstract other… its ‘power and effectiveness’ are the result of media attention which strengthens one faction of capital against another. Thus it is a strategy that is tactically dependent upon the continued existence of violent authorities. It is a strategy that not only limits resistence but actually represses it. Paradoxically, all this carrys force continues ‘non-violence’ is an ideology that is seen as somehow counter to authoritarianism and capitalism.

…the actions of states, the status of laws and the normative values that are adhered to are simply the manifest balancing point between private property’s violent efforts in constantly reproducing capital and humanities resistance to that…

all efforts should be made to defend (ameiolerate the effects of repression) those protestors arrested because this will make future conflict against private property easier. To fail to do this means we compromise, unnecessarily, with capital on empty ideological grounds thus making our lives worse – directly through the intensification of work.

Practically – IR relations will only be changed favourably as a result of confrontation that needs to be quelled and can only be quelled by a compromise on capitals behalf. Non-violence and the abandonment of G20 protestors only make this task harder.

then this is a comment I was going to post but didn’t… i put a link on the indymedia comment to it…

Respect for diversity of tactics seems to mean ignoring the problematic aspects of activism. It is foolish to be uncritical of those shouting from the banner of ‘non-violence’. The only reason for this uncritical attitude seems to be a (false) belief that the support and solidarity of these people is important or necessary. This respect for non-violence only ever garners rhetorical support and sometimes material support if people are ‘lucky enough’ to be reduced to the level of only numerical significant pawns in the ideology of some aspirationals using the non-violence ideology. At most all those that seek to challenge capital get out of this respect is the knowledge that they were useful as part of the activities of some bourgeois to get a ‘community contribution’ certificate.

But – what the hell does non-violence refer to anyhow? And how the fuck has ‘non-violent’ resistence been powerful and effective? When talking about “the power and effectiveness of non-violence as a form of social change” what is actually being referred to?

Is it offensive people like the Christians who with some cardboard boxes, plain rice and placards proclaiming their status as ‘third world solidarity embassy’ sat outside the Hyatt until moved on? There are definitely questions of power and effectiveness there – as well as questions such as ‘why are you being racist?’

Or is it more broad than that is it simple passivity and obedience to some idol. Does non-violence mean turning up to staged events as a moral imperative connected with some abstract idol/ideal? Does it mean reducing yourself to the status of numerical significant pawn for the leadership of some organisation?

Perhaps non-violence means masochism. Are they referring to actions such as a sit down – refusing to move until the cops physically move you on. Where the effectiveness is entirely dependent on the ‘non-violent’ protestors ability to procure a violent response from the cops for cameras? This is certainly powerful and effective – those monks that burn themselves alive sure do have a spectacular an affect – and as some say death is ultimate liberation.

Is non-violence something other than obedience to an idol or masochism? I have seen nothing which suggests otherwise. It seems that the use of the catchphrase ‘non-violent direct action’ is simply a mystification of activity based in self-sacrifice and obedience to an abstract (and alien) idol. ‘Non-violence’ is certainly not the most accurate term to use to refer to that kind of activity, how can something so dependent on the maintenance of a society based on violent enforcement be the antithesis of violence?

How can any form of activism that adheres to what ‘non-violent principles’ are be in any way empowering, how can it be anything but a force of control and suppression of dissent?

It is about time people started to attack those that demand ‘respect for non-violence’ and demand that they put forward suggestions as to why the statement: ‘non-violence is a form of ideological control’, is not true. The principle of non-violence has no relation to the improvement of people’s conditions under capital, it is an ideological force that ensures obedience and masochism for an abstract idol. In this way it is an integral part of the repressive ideological apparatus of capital and therefore those that stand behind this idol should be made to justify the alienation and violent exploitation that they play an integral part in protecting.

Solidarity is not possible from those who’s concept of support is bound up with the continued atomisation and alienation of individuals, which is what non-violence seems to actually mean. Instead of hoping to be used by these people in their ideological games anti-capitalist should attack these people and the ideology of ‘non-violence’ for what they really are, because this would constitute a victory against the apparatuses that sustain capital. Those that uphold non-violence as an abstract ‘good’ should be made to justify themselves for their repressive and sometimes offensive attitude at the G20 protest. Sure the Arterial bloc did not change anything but that is because of their blind assault against imaginary structures, something all the stopG20 participants fell for, at least they can be differentiated by ideas of social participation which contain some seeds of resistence to the social relations that are capital as opposed to being bound up with repressive activities.


About barkingcoins
This author is just another fucking dickhead.

2 Responses to Trash talkin’

  1. a says:

    a blog has been set up with articles reflecting on the g20 weekend, and exploring issues that come out of it, hopefully eventually leading to publications. i was wondering if you might want to put some of this up on it. the blog is to post something, email to

  2. anarchafairy says:

    Really good analysis. Please continue with the blog! I will link to you. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: