Who's Behind the Mayhem at the Occupy Oakland Protests?

[xchrom]

http://www.alternet.org/occupywallst/153053/who%27s_behind_the_mayhem_at_the_occupy_oakland_protests/

During an Occupy Oakland camp meeting on November 3 – the morning after a boisterous but peaceful day of protests in Oakland devolved into a barrage of teargas and “less lethal” bullets after nightfall -- about a dozen “occupiers” expressed their frustration with the vandalism that had marred the evening; acts of mayhem committed by a small number of people among the thousands who took part in the protests.

“Who are these people?” asked one protester who would only identify himself as Dave. “They're not staying here with us, they're not participating in the GAs and as far as I'm concerned, they're not a part of this movement.”

Another protester spoke of how the broken windows and spray-painted graffitti had overshadowed the “beautiful thing” they'd accomplished during the day. “We shut down the fucking Port of Oakland,” she said, “and all the news is talking about today is this bullshit that went down last night.”

[midnight]

1. It does seem that an element not connected to the protesters is taking

away from the wonderful work these people are doing...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

2. The Black Bloc(k) was there at one point.

There are also usual collection of outliers at the encampments. Not much can be done about those in the immediate under the current non-structured approach we are using at OWS

[valerief]

3. Probably goons hired by the banks to discredit the movement. Par for the course. nt

[socialist_n_TN]

5. You're both probably right. BUT........

aren't both groups (Black Bloc and undercover cops) part of the "99%"? I'm not even sure if that statement was :sarcasm: or not.

This does show the inherent inconsistencies of both the concensus model the horizontal leadership structure.

[valerief]

7. Yes, and old-fashioned bank robbers (not the Wall St. kind) are part of the 99%, too.

I don't get your point. What inconsistencies? That consensus is never 100%? I think that's a given.

[socialist_n_TN]

16. Inconsistencies like striving for consensus in the first place

What level of consensus? 100%? 90%, 80%? If you try to reach this level of consensus, you might as well be the US Senate. IOW, you'll never get anything accomplished on ameliorating your list of abuses when a hard block of SUPPORTERS of the 1% can block your every move.

Inconsistencies like counting supporters of the 1% as part of the 99%. A cop that busts heads at a demo is NOT part of the 99% no matter what his paycheck says. A supporter of libertarianism that wants ALL regs against businesses overturned and outlawed is NOT part of the 99% no matter what his/her paycheck says. A member of the Republican Party who supports the current "trickle down" economic theories that have played havoc with the 99% is NOT part of the 99% no matter what his/her paycheck says. These people are NOT part of the 99% because they don't support POLICIES that benefit the 99%.

OTOH, a true anticapitalist member of the Black Bloc IS part of the 99% BECAUSE HE/SHE DOESN'T SUPPORT THE CURRENT POWER STRUCTURE that benefits ONLY the 1%. As is a member of MoveOn because he/she want changes to the power structure that ONLY benefits the 1%.

It's inconsistent in and of itself to try and outlaw and banish certain people from a movement that claims to be FOR the 99% and who are AGAINST the current system, while welcoming with open arms those who SUPPORT the current system and even want to make it worse FOR the 99%.

Those inconsistencies.

[Vincardog]

11. Did you think the 1% would actually do any of the dirty work themselves? If so you are showing a

lack of critical thinking

[socialist_n_TN]

15. Of course not. I'm one of the ones who has criticised the

concensus model all along. A majority should be good enough.

And I've also had problems with the 99% slogan. It works as agitation AND as a truism if you ONLY count the benefit side of the equation. BUT, the "99%" will ALWAYS be riven by divisions, not the LEAST of which will be the worker who sides WITH the 1%. Of course, as Trotsky said, that's "...not a worker, but a bourgeoisie cop." My personal opinion is that these people should NOT be considered part of the 99%, but as part of the 1%.

Taking a firmer stand on demands for a socialist system to replace what we have will of necessity, narrow the appeal of the movement, but at some point it WILL be necessary if anything real is to be accomplished. We must all DEMAND some sort of socialist reform or nothing gets accomplished.

Is it time for those militant demands yet? I really don't know, but the time is coming.

[Vincardog]

17. Now is still the time for ALL the 99% to stand up and say that THIS IS WRONG

I don't believe that this is the time we should be throwing anybody out.
When we have the MAJORITY of people standing with us loudly saying
Corporations are NOT PEOPLE and
that MONEY in not Speech
WE can let the POLITICIANS suggest that we have
1) Public financing of elections
2) Universal single payer health care
3) Guaranteed transparent fair elections
4) Free University education for everyone
5) Full employment at a living wage paid for by Tariffs a Financial Transaction Tax and A REAL PROGRESSIVE income tax on people and CORPORATIONS.

[socialist_n_TN]

18. "NOW is the time for ALL of the 99% to stand up and say

THIS IS WRONG". I agree with the sentiment, but that ain't gonna happen. TOO many of the 99% are capitalist toadies. As to throwing people out, does this include the anarchists? And yes, even the Black Bloc anarchists? How about MoveOn? BOTH groups are closer in tune with the 99% than are the 99%ers who are Paulbots and Republicans in support of the neoliberal "austerity" agenda. And BTW, I'm definitely NOT an anarchist myself. In fact to the anarchists, I'm a "filthy Trotskyite".

I guess what I'm saying is that if you're going to be consistent with "inclusivity", be inclusive. Don't try to banish groups that are close in tune with your ideas while opening your arms to those who are diametrically OPPOSED to your ideas simply because their paychecks make them part of the "99%".

[Vincardog]

19. Who did I try to banish?

[socialist_n_TN]

20. Sorry that was the "inclusive" you.........

Not specifically aimed at you as an individual.

[bemildred]

4. They are not friends of OWS, whomever they are.

And there are many possibilities.

[xchrom]

6. yes. and i think more than one is at play. nt

[a simple pattern]

8. They should be isolated, disarmed, unmasked, photographed, and identified.

Let them press assault charges if they want.

[Vincardog]

12. OWS should just move away from them and point at them till the police can do their jobs

[Dover]

9. From a Reuters article

"Everything went beautiful until these guys (came) with scarves around their mouths, and then all hell broke loose. Our city just got demolished," said Johnny Allen, 60, a health-care provider sweeping away debris in front of City Hall.



http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/04/us-usa-protests-oakland-idUSTRE7A06KH20111104

[xchrom]

10. Breaks my heart . Until a year & half ago I spent

Most of my life there.

I love Oakland.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

13. Agents Provocateurs ...

No anarchist worth his salt would do something so stupid and counter-productive.

[Remember Me]

14. Exactly -- and WHY would they do it?

One need only read this thread, starting with the first post, to see the EFFECT these actions caused. Other reasons are to justify a police crackdown on the protestors which would also help discourage others from protesting or send some home for good.

Michael Moore warned not long ago to ALWAYS suspect law enforcement infiltrators (seems an oxymoron to me) when stuff like that happens.

ALSO remember that we've seen actual proof that these activities have gone on in other places in recent years thanks to videos everywhere. But its been going on at least since the 60s-70s if not well before.

ALWAYS SUSPECT AGENTS PROVOCATEURS FIRST, until it's well-established (proven beyond any reaonsable doubt) that some of our own went off the reservation.

In fact, look, here are some recent examples --

Cop disguised as a protester was the loudest person at Citibank.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2145578

Conservative Magazine Brags of its Agent Provacateur's Role in Provoking Police Action in D.C.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2084473

and here's the Black Block caught in the act of actually being Agents Provocateurs in 2010
EXPOSED! - G20 Police in Black Bloc Anarchist Gear @ 0:45 - Toronto
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x480166#480169

[socialist_n_TN]

21. VERY much agree with the "always suspect agents provocateurs

first" strategy. In fact I'd go with it in generic terms pretty much at all times. It's good counter-propaganda if nothing else. Because in a LOT of cases it's going to be true.

[shanti]

22. cops, most likely

the very cops that are doing the arresting. there was a photo floating around recently showing a couple of them in their black tee shirts, along with them in a police uniform.