Protests and Tactics

Two faulty assumptions persistently crop up when I talk to people about Seattle and about the impending events in DC.

First, most folk assume, because the mainstream media refuses to make clear distinctions, that everyone in the Seattle protests was an anarchist and that property violence was the aim of all the protesters. That's not true. There were (at least) three types of street-level activity going on: the 'mainstream' non-violent protest; the anarchist protest that employed politically-motivated property damage; opportunists who used the protests as a chance to steal stuff.

Second, people assume that violence against property, even if politically motivated, is only a kind of crime and not a form of political expression with criminal implications. Smashing a window to rob something is a property crime. Smashing a window because it represents a multi-national corporation that exploits child labor in the developing world is, or can be, a political act of dissent and protest.

I'm not arguing for or against a particular kind of protest or political expression (though I am willing to say that violence against persons, including institutional violence, is morally problematic in a way that violence against property isn't; the law and, more crucially, our enforcement of the law should more clearly reflect this moral judgment). I'm arguing for the recognition of these distinctions: non-violent protest and direct action; protest and direct action incorporating politically-motivated property damage; opportunistic property crimes.

We're likely to see some of all three in DC in the next few days, so watch your local and national media to see if they keep these distinctions clearly separated. If they don't, either they're stupid, or they're doing a disservice to democracy by spreading propaganda.