Deconstructing memes: Resistance to oppression should always include a diversity of tactics

Recently, I came across a meme that comes out of the 50501 group, which, as I have written before, is pretty much a Democratic Party front group.  You can read the meme here on the right.

The meme is suggesting that Trump will have violent protesters come to “peaceful protests” and engage in violent behavior, with the meme including property destruction as a form of violence. The meme also suggests that everyone who is being “peaceful” should sit down when violent protesters do something, so that the cops will see who the bad protesters are. The meme ends with hashtags like #Gandhi, #passiveresistance and #pacifists.

This meme is rife with problems. First, there is no such thing as a peaceful protest. If there are police at a protest, this means there are people with guns, tasers, mace, clubs, tear gas, rubber bullets and a whole range of other high tech weapons. As anyone who has ever participated in a protest knows, it doesn’t take much for the police to use any number of these weapons. In fact, one could argue that the police are looking for a reason to use such weapons. However, even if they don’t use these weapons, there is always the threat of their use, which means that whenever cops are at a protest it CANNOT be peaceful.

Second, if people obtain a permit for a protest, that means you are giving consent to the state to not engage in disruptive protest. Obtaining a permit also means that the police are there to “protect” your right to protest, which means you have submitted to their authority and will only do what they sanction. The police are state violence workers, who historically prioritize protecting property and societal order over people being able to meet their needs. The police have always undermined and infiltrated protests, whether that has been against the labor movement, the anti-war movement or the Civil Rights movement. If there is going to be any agent provocateurs, it is usually the police.

Third, I get and support the choice of individuals and organizations to engage in non-violent protests. However, the history of non-violent protests, at least the ones that have been successful, also involves taking risks. The Civil Rights movement provoked structural racism to respond to their demands, which often led to people being arrested, beaten, jailed and at times killed by the state. The Civil Rights movement used sit-ins, un-permitted marches, freedom rides, shutting down highways and other disruptive tactics to achieve their goals. This was also the case of India’s satyagraha movement (a non-violent movement), it also used direct action tactics to provoke the British colonial government into responding to their demands. The satyagraha movement also involved serious risks, which were necessary to force the British to end their colonial occupation of India. 

Fourth, calling a protest peaceful, when protests are anything but peaceful, is a way for the system(s) to dictate the narrative about what is happening. When the police say a protest was peaceful, they mean that those protesting obey their orders, did nothing to disrupt business as usual and often it means that protest organizers cooperate and even collaborate with the police. In fact, one could argue that if this happens, then it is not really a protest, instead it becomes a performance. Such forms of “protests” are almost always organized by white liberals to make other white people feel good about themselves, without having to interrogate systems of power and oppression.

Fifth, there is also a long history of social movements in the US that have engaged in property destruction or the right to defend themselves against state violence. Some example are the US Labor movement, the Black Power movement, some elements of the Environmental Justice movement, the anti-war movement and the LGBTQ movement. Specific examples are: 1) workers attacking scabs who are meant to replace them at their jobs; 2) Black militants arming themselves against police brutality – people often think of the Black Panther Party for self-Defense, but there was also the Deacons for Defense; 3) environmental groups that have used monkey-wrenching tactics to dismantle machinery that destroys eco-systems; 4) anti-nuclear resisters using jack hammers to destroy the lids to nuclear missile silos; or 5) queer and trans activists fighting back against the police at Stonewall. Remember, Stonewall was a riot. An excellent book about the exclusion of property destruction and self-defensive within the history of movement is, They Will Beat the Memory Out of Us: Forcing Nonviolence on Forgetful Movements, by Peter Gelderloos. 

Lastly, it is important that we not demonize those who use force or engage in property destruction to achieve liberation. Too often, those who only engage in non-violence, risk-free protests will demonize people/organizations and movements that utilize disruptive tactics, property destruction or those who engage in armed resistance. Historically, non-violence, property destruction, community self-defense and forms of armed resistance have been successful against tyrants, dictators, totalitarian and fascist governments. Demonizing those who do not always practice non-violence only benefits the state and their ability to engage in repression. 

Like most forms of struggle, it is important that we not think in binary terms or see only one solution to achieving our goals of collective liberation. My experience in Latin America has taught me over the years that non-violent civil society groups have often supported armed revolutionary movements in places like El Salvador, Guatemala and in Mexico. 

Images used, from left to right – Chrysler workers threatening scabs, Earth First logo, which practiced monkeywrenching, and the Deacans for Defense, which had chapters throughout the US in Black communities to fight against the KKK and police violence.