Hello Mr. Fish et al in this discussion…All hail the 1st Amendment which still tenuously allows for this somewhat heated but still polite debate amongst fellow Fish and Hedges fans or “haters.” After careful consideration and reading of Mr. Hedge’s article I can find something to agree with and adamantly disagree with about the conversation. But I find I cannot put it anymore succinctly than Kozandaishi.
With all due respect to Disappointed…frankly, YES, “any and all articles broaching a contentious subject” should absolutely be applauded for “merely existing.” Just as any vapid piece of joirnalistic pablum should be applauded for merely existing. But not necessarily because they are contentious or mind-numbingly insipid, but because the right to create and publish them still exists. The day when that possibility disappears is all too close.
What’s so funny ’bout peace, love and understanding….
Disappointed
I’m not a fan of the black bloc tactic myself, but I’m sad that you attached your name and artwork to this misinformed, anti-anarchist trash.
To Disappointed – I may, in fact, lean more towards being a fan of the black bloc tactics than most, including you, and certainly Hedges. However, I also acknowledge the importance of trying to organize a mass movement around non-violence and quiet dignity. It is a messy conversation to have; one that really points out how circumstantial truth and righteousness can be. I applaud Chris for broaching the subject and engaging in the debate and offer my artwork as a visual designed to illustrate the questions raised rather than to champion the answers given by the author.
leo
Care to lend your talents to the other side of the conversation?
Doesn’t publicly calling for the expulsion of individuals who have a more militant definition of nonviolence limit debate? Why should the debate be between violence/nonviolence instead of ineffectiveness/effectiveness?
The debate is limited only when the calling for the expulsion of individuals who have a more militant definition of nonviolence is left unanswered and permitted to remain as the final word. My saying that the Moon is made out of green cheese is not an attempt to limit a debate about astrophysics. In fact, your comment, by really being a pair of conversation-spurring questions, is actually stoking the debate and deepening the purpose for it having been started.
leo
Why level attacks on the anonymous participants and not solely on their tactics? Corporate media and politicians love to create the dichotomy between “good protestors” and “criminal protestors.” So when leftist intellectuals publicly denounce militant protestors and not their choice of tactic in a certain context, while championing the organizing of others (many of whom are the same that mask up or support them) it plays into that narrative.
Leo, shouldn’t the debate rather be about organising versus refusing to organise ? As you indicate, neither violence nor non-violence is an end ; both are means, strategic and/or tactical. But, I submit, in either case organisation is necessary ; against a well-organised repressive force, with little compunction about resorting to violence «spontaneity» is unlikely to cut the mustard….
Henri
Disappointed
Hedges is not merely broaching a contentious subject, he’s calling a particular group of people a cancer. This is not good faith debate. His broad, hateful brush seems intended to cause a rift among what has so far been a surprisingly productive alliance between anarchists and progressives.
And look how many people in the comments section at Truthdig agree with him. Best to hear the language, ill-faithed though it may appear, of the other side if, for no other reason, a tactic for engagement can be concocted for future, perhaps more productive, conversation. Specifically, it isn’t Hedges’ job to argue against himself, nor is it his job to temper his passion so much that he masks his true feelings. If he sees anarchism as a cancer within the Occupy Movement he should embrace the metaphor. And if you see his metaphor as some sort of proof that his logic is faulty, then you should be thrilled to have the example from which to prove the superiority of your logic.
leo
If citizen Hedges has an idea of what direction the occupy movement should take, he is free to participate in the general assembly of his local. So far this is nothing but armchair activism.
Disappointed
Fish — Are you saying that any and all articles in any way broaching a contentious subject should be applauded for merely existing? Would you, for example, provide a neutral illustration for an article arguing that young black men are a cancer to Oakland?
Hedges has failed to introduce anything new or helpful to this oft-debated, difficult topic other than name-calling and misinformation.
Disappointed – not applauded, but tolerated. Encouraged, even, if only for the purpose of giving us good reason for having drafted the 1st Amendment, yo.
kozandaishi
No different than the “Peaceful Violence” practiced by Abrahamic Monotheists demanding literalist adherence to their books of fairy tales.
Hello Mr. Fish et al in this discussion…All hail the 1st Amendment which still tenuously allows for this somewhat heated but still polite debate amongst fellow Fish and Hedges fans or “haters.” After careful consideration and reading of Mr. Hedge’s article I can find something to agree with and adamantly disagree with about the conversation. But I find I cannot put it anymore succinctly than Kozandaishi.
With all due respect to Disappointed…frankly, YES, “any and all articles broaching a contentious subject” should absolutely be applauded for “merely existing.” Just as any vapid piece of joirnalistic pablum should be applauded for merely existing. But not necessarily because they are contentious or mind-numbingly insipid, but because the right to create and publish them still exists. The day when that possibility disappears is all too close.
What’s so funny ’bout peace, love and understanding….
I’m not a fan of the black bloc tactic myself, but I’m sad that you attached your name and artwork to this misinformed, anti-anarchist trash.
To Disappointed – I may, in fact, lean more towards being a fan of the black bloc tactics than most, including you, and certainly Hedges. However, I also acknowledge the importance of trying to organize a mass movement around non-violence and quiet dignity. It is a messy conversation to have; one that really points out how circumstantial truth and righteousness can be. I applaud Chris for broaching the subject and engaging in the debate and offer my artwork as a visual designed to illustrate the questions raised rather than to champion the answers given by the author.
Care to lend your talents to the other side of the conversation?
http://www.revolutionbythebook.akpress.org/to-be-fair-he-is-a-journalist-a-short-response-to-chris-hedges-on-the-black-bloc
http://ola-asm.tumblr.com/post/17189347129/colonizerchrishedges
http://www.birdsbeforethestorm.net/2012/02/i-am-the-cancer/
http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=beyond-black-blocs
Doesn’t publicly calling for the expulsion of individuals who have a more militant definition of nonviolence limit debate? Why should the debate be between violence/nonviolence instead of ineffectiveness/effectiveness?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQk_7FvmZjA
The debate is limited only when the calling for the expulsion of individuals who have a more militant definition of nonviolence is left unanswered and permitted to remain as the final word. My saying that the Moon is made out of green cheese is not an attempt to limit a debate about astrophysics. In fact, your comment, by really being a pair of conversation-spurring questions, is actually stoking the debate and deepening the purpose for it having been started.
Why level attacks on the anonymous participants and not solely on their tactics? Corporate media and politicians love to create the dichotomy between “good protestors” and “criminal protestors.” So when leftist intellectuals publicly denounce militant protestors and not their choice of tactic in a certain context, while championing the organizing of others (many of whom are the same that mask up or support them) it plays into that narrative.
Leo, shouldn’t the debate rather be about organising versus refusing to organise ? As you indicate, neither violence nor non-violence is an end ; both are means, strategic and/or tactical. But, I submit, in either case organisation is necessary ; against a well-organised repressive force, with little compunction about resorting to violence «spontaneity» is unlikely to cut the mustard….
Henri
Hedges is not merely broaching a contentious subject, he’s calling a particular group of people a cancer. This is not good faith debate. His broad, hateful brush seems intended to cause a rift among what has so far been a surprisingly productive alliance between anarchists and progressives.
And look how many people in the comments section at Truthdig agree with him. Best to hear the language, ill-faithed though it may appear, of the other side if, for no other reason, a tactic for engagement can be concocted for future, perhaps more productive, conversation. Specifically, it isn’t Hedges’ job to argue against himself, nor is it his job to temper his passion so much that he masks his true feelings. If he sees anarchism as a cancer within the Occupy Movement he should embrace the metaphor. And if you see his metaphor as some sort of proof that his logic is faulty, then you should be thrilled to have the example from which to prove the superiority of your logic.
If citizen Hedges has an idea of what direction the occupy movement should take, he is free to participate in the general assembly of his local. So far this is nothing but armchair activism.
Fish — Are you saying that any and all articles in any way broaching a contentious subject should be applauded for merely existing? Would you, for example, provide a neutral illustration for an article arguing that young black men are a cancer to Oakland?
Hedges has failed to introduce anything new or helpful to this oft-debated, difficult topic other than name-calling and misinformation.
Disappointed – not applauded, but tolerated. Encouraged, even, if only for the purpose of giving us good reason for having drafted the 1st Amendment, yo.
No different than the “Peaceful Violence” practiced by Abrahamic Monotheists demanding literalist adherence to their books of fairy tales.