In Question of the “Peaceful Protest” (and in Defense of Violence): Part 2, Section ii

Part 2, Section ii

2b. The Function of Language in Rhetorical Strategies

The language used to describe rioting is sometimes similar to that used to describe warfare. In reality, the privilege of true “war” is given only to the elites whereas the riot is associated with the poor and otherwise powerless. If we look at labor movements in America, even these have used coercion to persuade, this being the “brawl” (another term for the riot). A cornerstone of American society has been to limit government, often by street revolt. This allows for checks and balances by the American people on their own government, simultaneously expressing people’s agency. What is this, if not the contemporary “riot and looting”?

Unfortunately, democracies have institutionalized protest and persuasion, so these methods alone — that is, without violence — may not be enough to counter the state, and this is a current dilemma being seen with the spread of “peaceful protests.” Labeling and enforcing peace at a demonstration detracts from and attempts to purify the sentiments that precede the protest itself.

The focus should be on the reason why people take action instead of how they are doing so, as this further demonizes protestors, especially Black ones. Mass media is also complicit in the perpetuation of anti-Black messaging by focusing on protest tactics instead of police tactics. All protest actions are inherently conflictual once the police arrive: the police arrive with the sole purpose of neutralizing resistance – physically, morally, and psychologically – and repressing protesters.

In the words of folks from the Youth Justice Coalition in Los Angeles: “Showing up to a conflict with the mentality that you’re labeling protesters as ‘peaceful’ totally erases the power dynamic between a militarized force and unarmed residents of color. AND even if people at protests are doing things that are deemed ‘not peaceful,’ it’s either as a response to systemic violence OR they’re police/agents themselves.”

An F.A.Q. on Local Protest for IE Folks

This post addresses common concerns and responses for the growing movement for abolition in the Inland Empire. Since we are trying to promote unrest and social change in the IE, we get a lot of questions about protests and actions. We put together this post for folks who are new to protesting and commonly asked the following questions. These perspectives can give us a sense of how to orient ourselves in our growing social movements. It is still only the beginning!

Who are the organizers?

95% of the time, this does NOT matter. We all know the stories of well-known and prolific organizers whose names were publicized and became targets of white supremacist, police, and FBI harassment. Knowing names and faces of those who organize actions not only puts them at risk, but has nothing to do with the REASONS people should be turning out to actions in the first place. If you agree with the need for social change, you don’t need to know who the organizers are because you are showing up for the what you believe in and not showing up for some social media celebrity with clout. In the almost non-existent cases where the protests may be organized by cops or sus people, still show up. Be cognizant of your surrounds and simply stay on the outskirts of the demonstration or in the back of the march if you are wary of who is there or who organized it.

Will it be peaceful?

This question also misses the point of actions and demonstrations, mostly due to the fact that this is impossible to guarantee. The only people who guarantee this are the police themselves which, in this case, are the very institution that people are protesting against. All other people who attempt to guarantee peace at actions are known as “peace police” because they replicate the actions of police themselves. They tend to be annoying people with vests and megaphones and should be ignored. Most importantly, the only way to guarantee your safety is for you and the homies you’re with to have each other’s backs because only we keep us safe. If you disagree with the abolitionist actions of property destruction, simply move out the way, but don’t act like the same police that you claim to protest – DON’T SNITCH.

Is this a permitted march?

This is also a question that misses the point: we roll out to the streets with the intention of shutting down this white supremacist system and all means are needed to accomplish that. Sometimes this means that actions transform and change moods, and actions are reflections of that. If the protest has the appearance of illegality – such as if people march without permits or begin to walk on the streets instead of sidewalks – these are only superficial appearances. Police act in illegal ways all the time and even following all of the “rules” at protests does not guarantee that the police won’t turn violent. The safety of those around you depends on your own boundaries, limits, preparation, and flexibility to respond to changing situations. Freedom is always risky and only your homies will ever have your back, not protest “leaders” or cops. The protest is ultimately about getting in touch with our own autonomy.

I don’t like how others are doing it, can I just organize one myself?

Yes! The more actions the better. There is a role for everybody in our movements. Accessibility is key to freeing our communities and so, invention is also needed to figure out ways to fully involve everyone. The more people who organize projects and actions, the more people who will be pulled into the inspiring work of liberation and abolition. It is within everyone’s autonomy to take action for themselves and their loved ones, and you don’t need to be a celebrity or experienced activist to do so. The point is to begin anywhere with those around you; all we need to free ourselves is already in our midst.

Further Reading:

“Revolutionary Solidarity: A Critical Reader for Accomplices”

“Who Is Oakland: Anti-Oppression Activism, the Politics of Safety, and State Co-optation”

“Anarchism and the Crisis of Representation” by Jesse Cohn

In Question of the “Peaceful Protest” (and in Defense of Violence) Part 2, Section i

Part 2, Section i

2a. The Rhetoric of Nonviolence

Shon Meckfessel defines nonviolence as “a rhetorical strategy in which the very definition relies on calling violence into the speakers’ mind even as the speaker disavows it.” In other words, for nonviolence to exist effectively, violence also has to exist, even if just in theory. Nonviolence is not, however, an aversion to conflict. It is also obviously not an armed struggle. Instead, what makes nonviolence so powerful is the potentiality of violence.

Nonviolence advocates seem to confuse the dismissal of nonviolence with a commitment to direct force no matter its legitimacy, like the instilment of an illegitimate authoritarian government after a coup. The phrase “Fuck the police” has become inherently violent and has led to fear in those who oppose it, including peaceful protestors. But even if language is read as violent, does it deserve to be met with brute police force? The issue is that “violence” is harder to define than “armed.”

The term “strategic nonviolence” has been replaced by “unarmed insurrection,” but this creates a false dichotomy between “nonviolent” and “armed,” which further perpetuates a dualism and unnecessary revulsion towards “armed” conflict. People often confuse that false dichotomy of violence versus nonviolence by associating violence with revolution and nonviolence with reform when in reality, violence is congruent with action and nonviolence with inaction. The choice of violence versus nonviolence is actually a choice between action and inaction.

There is no set definition for “violence” and “nonviolence.” As mentioned before, words with no action can still be read as violent. We do, however, know that nonviolence does not mean passivity, and as such, a nonviolent protest at least demands intervention — crowd control, defusing of counter-protest, the list goes on — even if it does not demand being armed or physically violent. Violence and nonviolence are actually interdependent and can work together to achieve a set goal. If this is the case, then why do people insist on labeling protests as “peaceful” from the get-go? It’s important to look at the way language is being used in these conversations.

Four Fundamental Frameworks for New Organizing in the Inland Empire

Multiplicity — Initiative — Affinity — Conflictuality

As more and more people take to the streets in the Inland Empire, we want to break down a few frameworks to inform action and strengthen our movements. Given that the IE has experienced few social movements in the past, and with revolutionary lessons learned from other historical contexts, we feel that these frameworks can facilitate the transformations we wish to see in our communities. In particular, anti-police brutality uprisings and Black revolt in the 21st century have taught us that social movements cannot ever compromise with any kind of authority: we cannot settle for petty reforms, defunding of the police, or crumbs of justice. Our movements must exist in constant struggle against the entire system until we are completely liberated from all forms of authority and hierarchy, or else they are doomed to be crushed. These four frameworks are meant to orient folks new to grassroots street movements in order to foster long-term and sustainable autonomous movements for abolition.

  1. Multiplicity

Definition: the state of existing as or with multiples; the characteristics of diversity, range, and variety

Unity has historically suppressed real differences within movements — such those of class, race, gender, ability, etc. — and has itself become a form of oppression. The dream of unity is, in reality, a nightmare of compromise and suppressed desires: it is only a dream for those who wish to impose their experiences and desires at others’ expense. Intentions, beliefs, and motives will always be different; this is out of anyone’s control and not anyone’s fault, nor is it anyone’s responsibility to contain. This should be acknowledged as a matter of fact before you ever hit the streets.

As opposed to the illusion of unity, multiplicity is a closer approximation to the real experiences encountered in the streets and at actions. The reality of multiplicity translates into a diversity of tactics and strategies, given the diversity of people and their motivations. The temptation of unity must be resisted at all times because it lends itself to burnt-out authoritarianism: people are not a monolith, and so the diverse reasons and desires for which they fight in the street must be conserved and not channeled for the ends of any so-called “leadership.”

Multiplicity in Action:

The late May protests in San Bernardino are a good example of multiplicity in action. People of all backgrounds showed up in the streets with very different goals. This manifested itself in the different actions that took place, ranging from the mask/water distribution, graffiti tagging, looting, and peaceful marching that took place interdependently.

All these things are just a matter-of-fact and they took place independent of anyone’s control or idealized images of protest. Multiplicity as a strategy allows for movements to become harder to be attacked by the state or repressed by the police. It also prevents state collaborators from taking over our movements: a diversity of methods and intentions for direct struggle will be too difficult to completely co-opt for their ends.

  1. Initiative

Definition: the quality of displaying self-motivation and capacity at one’s own discretion; acting out of one’s individual will or collective volition

Initiative — as opposed to following others’ orders — is how true uprisings begin: they are usually spontaneous and self-organized. Uncritically waiting for the right conditions is a constant deferral of action when it matters most: now, instead of tomorrow. This self-activity also functions as a balance of power to other formal organizations, vanguards, and self-appointed movement leaders.

For uprisings to become irreversible, anti-authoritarian initiative must be fought for and kept alive, free from the constraints of elitist leaders and other power-hungry actors that otherwise kill any movement’s diversity and spontaneity. Instead of following the commands and peer pressure of “recognized” or “legitimate” leaders, initiative is derived from within a community’s own impulses for self-determination. Initiative begins from trusting in one’s own truths and propensities. Our active powers are the key to our self-liberation. The secret is simple and it is to just begin from wherever we may find ourselves. From initiative, we find autonomy in the capacity to act for ourselves and with community who hold common truths, such as those of Black liberation and decolonization.

Initiative in Action:

After the first night of the Minneapolis uprisings, there were spontaneous protests happening in Downtown Fontana. The people present were primarily Black and brown youth, and reports show that they were mostly young people who lived around the block. Most of them learned about the gathering by word-of-mouth and through their friends’ Instagram stories.

The unruly, self-organized gathering happened organically and without direction, and its autonomous qualities were so surprising to everyone that Fontana PD brutally attacked the protestors that night. Autonomous initiative revealed the police’s fear of power so vividly. It takes the creativity of movement participants to keep the initiative to attack authority. Strategizing for the longevity of anti-authoritarian initiative brings community closer together, creating unforgettable moments and bonds between each other.

  1. Affinity 

Definition: a relationship existing by chosen kinship or natural connection; the fundamental basis for all inter-personal bonds and relations

Given the reality of people’s diverse desires and the existence of many autonomous initiatives, it is impossible to impose only one method or approach of achieving liberation. In contrast, affinity groups decide for themselves what they wish to do; they manifest the diversity of community truths. The bond and connection you feel to the people closest to you — and your collective desires — already hold the key to how you wish to collectively make your dreams of freedom into reality.

The common truths that we hold with those around us carry the meaning of our lives and are the basis of actualizing our own worlds. The affinity group allows for an unbreakable cohesion that has historically created the basis for powerful movements and revolutions. Because the affinity group acts of its own initiative and decides for itself how it wishes to make real their liberation, the creation of your affinity group — and coordination with other autonomous affinity groups — is foundational for social movements. Affinity resolves the problem of “how liberation must be done,” leaving behind the outdated question of “what is to be done.” The former emphasizes that the means of achieving liberation are already in our midst, while the latter emphasizes a pre-determined formula for struggling against oppression and a pre-determined outcome for such a struggle. We must pay attention to process and to our interpersonal dynamics and relationships as we fight for self-determination to ensure that we do not replicate oppressive habits and structures.

Affinity in Action:

Almost every action and demonstration in the Inland Empire was visibly composed of small crews of homies, siblings, neighbors, couples, and childhood friends that decided to roll up to the street together. Each crew had their own reasons for being in the streets and their own goals for the night. These things are discussed prior to and decided upon through affinity, whether or not folks are aware of it.

The IE has never seen so many people in the streets until now. This is because we all secretly had an affinity in common the whole time that we have only now begun to actualize: our desires for freeing our loved ones and communities. The affinities and community that we build right now are the entire reason for why we struggle against oppression in the streets at all. For this reason alone, we must be intentional and as communicative with each other as possible, especially if there is conflict between our truths or experiences. Our ability to uproot hierarchy and authority is only as good as the relationships that make such struggles possible in the first place.

  1. Conflictuality

Definition: an ongoing state of conflict or opposition between opposing forces; an irreconcilable and permanently antagonistic situation

Affinity groups’ active initiative and the ensuing autonomous measures they circulate could instigate permanent conflictuality, or permanent revolution. Struggles should never turn to mediation, bargaining, or compromise with authorities. Our liberation must constantly be regained by taking initiative and maintaining momentum. This perpetual conflict means that our movements must be prepared to make quick decisions and not get tied up by rigid structures. The self-organization, then, has to take on an informal character because it can’t be determined by recognized organizations or pre-determined answers. Waiting for others to represent you ensures that initiative gets lost.

The concept of the affinity group is the basis of this initiative-based, flexible, and informal association of determined communities. Permanent conflictuality means that self-determining communities should not wait for orders from leaders or organizations who — by nature of their role — aim to control our rebellion and thus, alienate or extract our active powers for other ends that we may not consent to. Affinity groups and networks must spread the initiative and methods for self-liberation instead of trying to lead communities themselves. The ability for everyone to attack the system and achieve true liberation is contingent on the autonomy of all of the most oppressed groups. Thus, conflictuality is a constant and effective struggle towards cooperative aims mutually decided upon by autonomous networks and clusters of coordinated affinities.

As social movements in the Inland Empire remain at a nascent phase, we have yet to see if or when this cycle of uprisings will transform into an irreversible, sustainable conflict with the powers that be. Right now is the time to create affinity groups and link up with other crews in the area who are interested in keeping the momentum alive.

By going to the protests and getting to know other autonomous groups who are present — as well as by organizing more actions, creating long-term projects and community infrastructure — we can establish the networks needed to keep the fight going. By refusing to vote for crumbs or bargain with politicians, we can eventually realize strong autonomous movements that will accomplish our wildest dreams.

In Question of the “Peaceful Protest” (and in Defense of Violence): Part 1, Section i

Part 1, Section i

  1. Introduction

The latest public discourse surrounding methods of nonviolent and violent protest pits these two strategies against one another, but fails to acknowledge what each truly means. Definitions of either are non-specific and have typically led to the condemnation of violence in all its forms. In particular, rioting and looting have been denounced as methods that supposedly counteract the initial message that the “peaceful protest” hopes to accomplish. The riot is often seen as “the voice of the voiceless” and as a symptom of political injustice when in reality, the “voiceless” are consciously articulating their sentiments.

Structural change necessitates conflict: effective change is dependent on how debilitating the conflict is to the institution. When people’s peaceful protests are ineffective, people come not to expect justice from nonviolence, and rightfully so. In fact, even the success of the “peaceful protest” is dependent on the possibility of violence against the institution. Is the threat of violence not a violent act in and of itself?