I was interviewed last night by Susan Madrak for her Virtually Speaking Susie internet radio show. It was a wide-ranging interview with a primary focus on the respective roles of nonviolence and violence in the coming revolution.
Listen to internet radio with Jay Ackroyd on Blog Talk Radio
9 Comments.
I don’t get this. In a previous thread Ted questioned me saying he didn’t understand how, and I quote “people like me” (not sure what that means, people like me. An insult?) could expect to de-infest the corporations from our government without overthrowing the government itself.
In this interview, Ted and the host go on and on and on and on about how violence is a matter of self-defense and that no-one should be “doing something crazy”. They talk about how we have the right to self-defense. Over and over we hear this.
My question is, how can “people like Ted and the host” actually believe that a revolution can be successful when the violence is always a matter of self-defense, and that violence as offense is unacceptable?
In all seriousness, if this is the mindset of the revolutionaries – their revolution is D.O.A.
“WE NEED A REVOLUTION NOW!!!!” (psst …. “but don’t do anything crazy. Like, you know, go on offense”.)
I’m reminded of JFK’s observation: “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”
This assumes, of course, that revolution is *truly* desired by the oppressed.
One wonders whether many of the protesters are simply playing a protracted game of “Name Your Price” with TPTB, willing to return to their homes and mind-numbing forms of entertainment once they have extracted enough promises and goodies from the financial and political elite.
If the Occupiers, or any other would-be agitators, impose *any* limits on themselves at *any* stage of the conflict in regards to the use of violence – the violence that we know is necessary to eliminate the prevailing paradigm so that new and better ways of living can be enjoyed by all – then they are only hurting themselves, because their foes consistently operate without either limit or remorse. The one percent function in accordance with Machiavellian thought, which approves of evil acts for the sake of power preservation and which judges actions by their results, and not by their underlying ethics.
Bottom line, if you’re not willing to get down and dirty – every bit as down and as dirty as your enemies in order to achieve the victory you claim to want – you will lose *every* time. You might as well not even put up a fight.
Simple answer to your question, ex: He doesn’t.
Ted is on record as believing a revolution has “little to no” chance of success. He’s also on record as saying that he will still be glad the revolution happened, even though the next 100 years or so after its failure will suck for the general populace.
The right is salivating for an attempted revolution to give them the excuse they need to end any pretense of democracy and complete the transformation of this country into a fascist theocracy. That alone is MORE than enough reason not to have one.
A very good interview. I particularly like where Susie points out that a “friendly” cop will still shoot you in the back if he’s told to.
But you left out a crucial point the Movement is not using: A small group (maybe 100 people) could shut down any major city at any time, and they could do it day after day. Remember Rope-a-Dope? Any small group with a little organizational savvy could exhaust a city’s “authorities” to the point where the mayors or police chiefs or whoever would simply throw up their hands and scream, “Fine! You want us to arrest the Wall Street CEOs? Fine. We’ll give you a jumpsuit perp walk, but goddammit, stop it with all this hippie shit!”
In light of the recent events at Penn St., Ted’s comments in this interview are even more out of place. These conservative scum went on offense when what happened? Income inequality? Bailouts? Wall St. corruption? No. Their football coach got fired. Even though Paterno was completely in the wrong, his supports went on a violent offensive rampage.
Yet Ted talks about a “defense-only” approach. That idea, coupled with seeing what really drives Americans to violence (our pedophile-protecting coach was fired), demonstrates that OWS should be renamed DOA. It’s a joke.
Interesting interview and I agree with your assessment that a change of elites in America will require violence. One question: Ted, I remember back when OWS first started you wrote a column criticizing them for not wearing suits and presenting a media friendly face and also suggested they should seek help from Gen-Xers in organizing their movement. Has your think changed at all on these points?
Back on point, violence would be necessary to change the elites but do you think the way the constitution is written necessarily creates the elites we have? If the gripe is that rich people have too much power and we’re looking to history to judge the success of nonviolence, how about looking to history to judge the success of creating a government no run by the wealthy. Oh wait, that has never in the history of humanity happened! Maybe we need another strategy. Just saying.
@Alex, My thinking on OWS is constantly adapting to changing conditions, like OWS itself. Obviously suits don’t work when you’re camping, so forget that idea until there’s a dry-cleaning tent (j/k). I still think they could use some help from older activists with experience. Why reinvent the wheel?
I think the Constitution is a symptom of the way the elites rule, not the other way around.
OWS simply has to decide: fish or cut bait. Either they start actively disrupting things to force the issue or they settle down to spending the rest of their lives as working poor. I have no more patience for their brand of non-resisting resistance. Figure out who your enemies are, OWS. Here’s a hint: the police who are macing you, the police who are beating you, the police who will shortly be shooting you in the back as you try to flee (or as you’re handcuffed and face-down on the ground), the CEOs who wiped out the economy, the District Attorneys who are not prosecuting those CEOs, the newspaper reporters who are not filing stories about it, the editors who are not assigning those stories, etc.
Jesus Wept! WTFUA. Wake The Fuck Up, Already!
@Alex: Come on now, you should know what OWS is all about by now. It’s about ….. er ….. um ….. it’s about ….. uh ……. not having demands! Yeah, that’s the ticket!! Let’s stand around in the freezing cold and ….. er ….. um ….. demand that we have no demands!
I am starting to think these OWS people are just standing out there looking for sympathy, for someone to feel sorry for them. That perhaps the mega-rich bankers will start to feel remorse or something. It’s really pathetic.
The end is at hand for OWS. As the cold sets in, out not with a bang – but a whimper.