Can a Global Revolution Be Non-Violent?
September 17, 2012 was the one-year anniversary of the Occupy movement, and sadly enough it was a sentimental fare illustrating not only the good intentions but also the enormous limitations of the movement. In New York, Occupiers got pushed around by the NYPD without much resistance; 200 of them got handcuffed in plastic ties and briefly arrested applying, above all, their golden rule of peaceful non-violent protest. While the strategy of “turning and giving the other cheek” is a cornerstone of the Christian faith, it is not exactly a very useful tool for a revolution in progress.
January 2, 2015 | Source: Counter Punch | by Gilbert Mercier
Turning the Other Cheek or an Eye for an Eye?
September 17, 2012 was the one-year anniversary of the Occupy movement, and sadly enough it was a sentimental fare illustrating not only the good intentions but also the enormous limitations of the movement. In New York, Occupiers got pushed around by the NYPD without much resistance; 200 of them got handcuffed in plastic ties and briefly arrested applying, above all, their golden rule of peaceful non-violent protest. While the strategy of “turning and giving the other cheek” is a cornerstone of the Christian faith, it is not exactly a very useful tool for a revolution in progress. Jesus’ rejection of “an eye for an eye” to favor offering the other cheek indicates a submission to oppressors. Such calls to submit to total non-violence become, in fact, calls for complete non-resistance, facilitating aggressions from police-state governments bent on using police or military force. But ultimately, what made the non-violent message of Jesus so powerful was his own sacrifice in the extremely violent act of the crucifixion. Martyrdom is what gave Christianity its political power, and how it eventually sapped the Roman empire. Strangely, a political protest by self-immolation from a modest Arab street vendor is what started the Arab spring last year.
The Emasculation of Occupy by the “Left” Intelligentsia
The beauty of Occupy was its genuine grassroots birth: its horizontal structure. One of the main problems of Occupy was when intellectuals and pundits started telling the “base” what to think from the comfort of their respective ivory towers. Even though they did not originate the global movement, some quickly started to pretend they did for the sake of their over-inflated egos and/or, more prosaically, to sell books or TV appearances. Considering everybody knows who they are, why not name the usual suspects of this so-called “radical left” intelligentsia: it is, in no particular order, Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein and, last but not least, Chris Hedges. Hedges, in particular, quickly made it his business to tell Occupiers what to do and think. Occupy was always a patchwork of different ideologies, from peace movement activists to neo-Marxists and Anarchists. By calling anarchists the “cancer of Occupy”, Hedges drove a wedge in the movement and did the bidding of the Obama administration. His action to drive the Black Bloc out of Occupy completely emasculated the movement in North-America.
Revolution: What Fuels the Fire is Anger and Rage
Even so, Occupy still has a lot of “chapters” all over the world. Some have decided to re-brand the movement: it is the “Indignados” in Spain, and the “Indignés” in France. But maybe, just like Occupy, the branding is still weak, a bit scared. To occupy public places or to be “indignant” is unlikely to be efficient enough to move the dial. If they want a much needed global revolution, the Occupiers and Los Indignados have to “crank up the volume” and must call themselves by what they have to be: revolutionaries. For the past two weeks, the Middle-East and most of the Muslim world has erupted in violent demonstrations against the United States, Israel and the West. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said a few days ago that “The Arab Revolutions did not trade the tyranny of dictators for the tyranny of the mob”. First of all, is Hillary Clinton the spokesperson for the Arab Revolution? Secondly, she failed to mention that the dictators in question were supported by the US, and that some of the “revolutions”– Libya — were military interventions by the US and NATO.
So yes, Hillary Clinton, Arabs are mad as hell that their revolution was stolen by the West with the help of Saudi Arabia; Afghans and Pakistanis are mad about being invaded, exploited and killed by American drones. It is an healthy dose of anger and rage that is propelling Greeks and Spaniards to take over the streets in protest against the tyranny and slavery imposed by the IMF and the global banking system through austerity policies. Today, a general strike turned violent in Greece, with police using tear gas. The demonstrators fought back using stones and Molotov cocktails. What were they supposed to do? Listen to the pontiffs of US Occupy such as Mr. Hedges and reject violence to “turn the other cheek”?