While recognizing that consensus was not reached about the use of "nonviolence", the author praised the OWS activists for their lack of violence in recent actions which earned them wide sympathy among the general public and decent press coverage. Clearly the author's and this website's bias is unconditionally prohibiting any use of violence either in the form of property destruction or against people, especially authorities.
Consensus among OWS participants was reached concerning "diversity of tactics"; however the author argues, based on what actually happened recently, that this should mean the use of non-violent tactics. Also, he doesn't deal with the messy issue of police attacks on activists and how participants should deal with this.
If it is true, as I’ve come to think, that a diversity of tactics has been meaningfully practiced by the occupation movement even while remaining nonviolent, then a definition of the phrase like George Lakey’s is in need of revision. Rather than being merely a license to use violence, respecting a diversity of tactics is in its own right a robust approach to conducting resistance—and one that is arguably all the more powerful when it remains nonviolent.He then shows how the movement in New York City has been rewarded by good press coverage and public support. For people at this website, and the advocates of "non-violence" in general, obtaining positive mainstream press coverage always seems to be a prime consideration when discussing tactics. Others regard "non-violence" as almost a religion, and often cite Gandhi and M L King as saints in this religion. (See this article entitled, "Crunch time for Occupy Wall Street".)
A good response to such a position is provided by Peter Gelderloos in his book, How Nonviolence Protects the State, in which he writes:
The liberation movement in India failed. The British were not forced to quit India, Rather, they chose to transfer territory from direct colonial rule to neocolonial rule. ...The British authored the new constitution and turned power over to handpicked successors. They fanned the flames of religious and ethnic separatism so that India would be divided against itself...[by separating the mostly Muslim population in the north (Pakistan) from mostly Hindus in the rest of India].After citing the important roles of the Black Panthers and Malcolm X in the Civil Rights Movement, he concludes his argument:
...from India to Birmingham, nonviolence failed to sufficiently empower its practitioners, whereas the use of a diversity of tactics got results. Put simply, if a movement is not a threat, it cannot change a system based on centralized coercion and violence, and if that movement does not realize and exercise the power that makes it a threat , it cannot destroy such a system. ...The elite cannot be persuaded by appeals to their conscience. Individuals [among the elite] who do change their minds and find a better morality will be fired, impeached, replaced, recalled, assassinated.I think that OWS activists were correct in affirming only the diversity of tactics while affirming the right of subgroups to initiate independent actions. I think that this issue of tactics will take care of itself because the fundamental values of the movement promote respect for all people and the environment. People grounded in these values will respect the feelings of others, will refuse to use gratuitous violence against people or destroy property belonging to people. The movement will decide when and if their actions should be informed by the quality of coverage provided by ruling class media, and when such considerations are irrelevant.