Abstract
This paper will explore the conditions that have led the ‘occupy’ movement to embrace a more radical and anti capitalist message, and the police violence that has accompanied the movement since the global date of occupation on October 15th. This paper will examine the police tactics used against occupy across the country and will also examine how these tactics have played out in the past, particularly the anti war campaign in the 1960s that spawned legendary, radical groups like the weathermen, and others.
Why have police departments throughout the United States resorted to such brutal methods to stomp out the “occupy” protests?
The "Occupy" protests started in September in New York City at a little known park tucked away in the financial district of new York called Zucotti park and spread like wildfire across the United States, and on October 15th (declared a global date of solidarity and protest) went international. The protests were met, on that date, with violent police repression across the globe from police shootings at anarchists in Rome which left 70 injured, to Phoenix where hundreds of riot police marched on the local encampment and shut it down, arresting 50 in the process. Since that time, even more daring tactics by the occupy protests have been met with even heavier police repression. In Oakland, officers nearly killed an Iraq war veteran, Scott Olsen, with a teargas canister, and prompted occupy Oakland to call a General Strike which culminated in fiery clashes between protesters and officers in the night (in which the protesters won). The tactics used by the police seemingly culminated when Predator Drones were used against protesters in Los Angeles during a port shutdown in December, and rubber bullets, tear gas, and explosions (captured in an iconic image) used on shielded black bloc protesters in Oakland on January 28th in a protest day that left 3 officers injured and hundreds arrested. (Nir, 2012) In a country where protest is allowed, if not encouraged, why have the police met this movement with such violent repression and seeminly targeted the 'occupy' movement for violent tactics, as compared to other protests. Why has occupy been met with police attacks and not on other protests like the Westboro Baptist Protests or the Tea party (which are infinitely more militant than the occupy movement). The nature of the occupy protests may have something to do with this, however, and it could be that the anti capitalist protestors are up against the state itself in their protests and have been treated as such. This begs the question whether the state itself has a vested interest in dropping this movement before it becomes more mainstream and what underlying reasons the state has for doing this. The state, when confronted with anti-capitalist or anti-establishment protest will always respond in a violent manner in order to fight for its preserval.
The social and political forces that manifested themselves in 'occupy' are seemingly grounds for the movement taking a platform recently than can be characterized as anti-state, and anti-capitalist. The forces that led to the conception of occupy include, but are not limited to, the ailing economy, the wars overseas, unemployment rates, increasing wealth inequality, and a disenfranchisement with the mass produced world of the corporations. These forces saw themselves come under attack with a mass denunciation by occupy, as a whole, against corporate tax loopholes, corporate personhood, and wealth disparity. As time went on, though, the attacks against pinpointed targets went macro, with an entire movement, it seems, now calling for an end to capitalism. As the movement has increased in its anti capitalist message, so has the police violence. The police violence at the occupy movement has come under much scrutiny as living in the days of smartphones, and cameras everywhere, no violent police act goes unrecorded. With the police violence has come the strengthening of the movement and a refusal of 'occupy' to die. As was commented by a Forbes contributor, Erik Kain, "If you want to make the protests more poignant, more profound, if you want to swell the ranks of the protesters and give them even more legitimacy, attack them with tear gas and flashbombs. Arrest them en masse." (Kain, 2011) This seems to be the trend of what occupy has become: a movement living off of the stupid mistakes of officers who attack the movement in violent fashion. It has been seen time and time again, from when officers attacked Scott Olsen prompting the 2011 Oakland general strike, to more recent beatings of protestors at Occupy Wallstreet which has resurged the occupy movement back into public consciousness.
A certain contingent, mainly from the right wing opposition base, have led those in opposition to occupy to believe that the police are simply doing their job (to protect and serve) in stamping out the occupy movements. Sometimes, these detractors can go so far as giving excuses to law enforcement about their brutal tactics. This defies logic, as police departments are meant to be the protectors of free speech, which is why it makes it such a question as to why the movement has been stamped out by those police departments that swear to uphold the constitution. Much speculation has occured over whether park laws about closing times subvert the constitution in the right to protest and assemble peacefully, which no law, or agency, has the right to take away. The protestors have been beaten, and maimed since the movement began and it seems nearly ludicrous that any opposition would jump on the side of those who were doing the beatings at a peaceful movement. It goes, again, without saying that the hypothesis that the police are there to protect the state, and not the people, is proven with the treatment of the anti establishment protesters, and defies explanation at the present moment as to why the movement is being stomped out using brutal force when the police are supposed to be there to make sure rights are protected. Why are they the ones violating? It is spelled out that the police are attacking the movement with relentless force for the sole purpose of protecting a state which has seen its legitimacy crumble in recent years, thanks to its own negligence of the population that now is fighting back and finding their own way.
The occupy movement is not, by any means, a homogeneous movement. There is no ideology, no leaders, and no real political affiliation other than it is centrist and left. The occupy movement is dominated mostly by liberals but has its share of political radicals, and revolutionaries amongst its ranks. There is no real message that the occupy movements give out to the public, but lately, it seems more common that anti capitalism is becoming the clear message that the occupy movement is doling out to the public, which is a change from when the movement started with messages of fair taxation and closing corporate loopholes. Does the anti capitalist message have anything to do with the violent police repression of the movement? Since “occupy” had its global date of occupation on October 15th, images of violent police treatment have filled the news and micro blogs as well as social networking sites like twitter and facebook. These images have depicted police attacking non violent protesters with batons, tear gas, physical force, and rubber bullets. So far, these protesters have remained peaceful through it but does a future of violence lie ahead? Have we seen this movie play out before? It may be inevitable that a much more radical future lies ahead for “occupy”.
In the 1960s very similar Gandhian style self ‘defense’ methods were used by protesters in the face of violent police forces. What inevitably occurred was a radicalization of a lot of protesters due to the mistreatment of them and their rights, which led to armed militant groups sprouting in the movements themselves, and adding a new dynamic to the struggle. In the United States, the far left student group Students for a Democratic Society spawned out of violent police mistreatment and a disenchantment with the old methods of protesting which were not putting an end to the war in Vietnam or social inequality. The weather underground was formed out of the SDS and partook in bombings throughout the United States of the capitol building, the pentagon, police stations, and other landmarks. In Germany, militant groups killed police officers, robbed banks, and killed high ranking members of the financial system. With violent police repression occurring in the occupy movement, are we doomed to see a similar, violent, and bloody fate?
Does the relation of anti capitalist sentiment and occupy being seen as a breeding ground of mass dissent that threatens the survival of the government and the existing capitalist order filled with inequality, foreclosure, and profit driven immorality mean that occupy was doomed from the start to experience police violence when unprovocative to those very police? It would be smart to guess yes. In November, a nationwide crackdown centered on Occupy in which police departments all over the country in the same week shut down almost every encampment from the occupy movement and it was later revealed that the department of homeland security, the FBI, and police chiefs from many cities were behind this. (Wolf, 2011) With obvious state repression of the dissenters, why does that happen is the question? In a truly free society, aren’t anti-establishment protests supposed to be allowed? This begs further questions over how free we really think we are here, and why protest is encouraged on a right wing basis but not a left wing basis. This can be seen by the way that the tea party (a right wing movement) never experienced any sort of police contact, whilst occupy has exclusively received just that, night after night. This phenomenon can best be explained by the state trying to hold onto credibility in a time of having no credibility, and a fear from the state that it can possibly be overthrown. Right wingers tend to defend the state, whilst left-wingers tend to state it needs reformation, and hard leftists advocate for the destruction of it. But why does it make sense for the state to crackdown on protests that will only radicalize and alienate the center left to further left ideology that advocates the removal of the state altogether? Where is the state heading with its treatment like this? It seems that the state is asking for a radicalization of the left that could possibly lead to enough anti-state sentiment to overthrow it.
In conclusion, the state and the police are building themselves an opposition base on the left side of the aisle by its treatment of the occupy protesters into a base that could be ready, and soon, to overthrow the state and bring change about if the state is not willing to comply. The police have not done the job they have of protecting rights, and it will come back to them. Those on the opposition will point out that the campers are violating arbitrary laws at parks and other public spaces, but those were never meant to subvert the right to peacefully assemble, and protest. The police have made their stance clear as to who they protect, and who they serve by their smashing of those rights and lack of respect for basic human rights or safety. Already, occupiers are seeing the police, which have beaten, peppersprayed, and gassed them for so long, as an 'emerging enemy'. (Lennard, 2012) Electing to engage in brutal treatment of the peaceful, the police have gained an enemy. President John F. Kennedy once said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable." President Kennedy was in office during a time of mass social upheaval that ultimately brought forward a more progressive world, out of the shadows of a generation that was scarred by world war 2. Using that quote in the context of 'occupy', it is clear what the state has chosen for itself, and has possibly already sealed its fate as one that will be violently remove by the very people that they indiscriminately tear gas, shoot with rubber bullets, and bludgeon in the streets. Perhaps that is why the crackdowns continue on the protesters, perhaps the state fears for its survival. The subversion of rights to protect the state is a sign that occurs when a state is losing credibility and fears for its own safety. Perhaps it is time to overthrow the state who refuses to defend basic liberties of its people and to bring about true freedom to its citizens. It is only inevitably at this point that tactics from both sides will escalate, and with the Mayday general strike, as well as the G8 and NATO summits approaching, it is almost a given that things will get out of hand. It may draw the state that much closer to its ultimate removal for equality, peace, and freedom in a stateless society.