Seven: Confrontation

Communique D-4 cont.

The following is an attempt to articulate the present case or arguments for confrontation tactics as some have offered it to this observer.

1) Confrontation and militancy are methods of arousing moderates to action. The creation of turmoil and disorder can stimulate otherwise quiescent grps to take more forceful action in their own way[s].

2) Confrontation and militancy can educate the public. Direct action is not intended to win particular reforms or to influence decision-makers, but rather to bring out a repressive response from authorities. When confrontation brings violent official response, uncommitted elements of public can see the alleged "true nature of the system." Confrontation, therefore, is a means of "political education."

3) Confrontation, militancy and resistance are ways to prepare young radicals for the possibility of greater repression. If a movement seriously threatens power of political authorities, efforts to repress through police state measures are inevitable.

4) Combative behavior with respect to the police and other authorities, although possibly alienating "respectable" adults, has the opposite effect on the movements relationships with student and non-student youth. Militant street actions attract a heterogeneous grp of non student youth participants who have their own sources of alienation from middle-class society and its institutions.

5) The experience of resistance and street combat may have a liberating effect on young middle-class radicals. Militant confrontation gives resisters the experience of physically opposing institutional power, and it may force students or disfranchised youth to choose between "respectable" intellectual radicalism, and serious commitment to revolution, violent or otherwise.

6) The political potency of "backlash" is usually exaggerated. Those who point to the possibility of repression as a reaction to confrontation tactics merely wish to compromise demands and principles and dilute radicalism.

It is difficult to assess and know just how many participants in such actions share these perspectives; many rank and file participants may engage in militant or violent action for more simple and direct reasons: they have been seemingly provoked to anger, or they may feel moral outrage. To a large extent, acceptance of the moral or practical validity of these arguments depends on ones view of the nature of American society and govt. and institution. Its like a negative faith in the repressive and illiberal character or American institutions (if actually perceived as 'repressive' and illiberal). The bottom line is this is a new age and era and police on the protest front lines ARE ALSO the 99% and are not the enemy but of the relatively poor working middle-class and simply want to get home to families at end of the day. Could you even begin to imagine of these riot police being so sympathetic to the cause and purpose that they would actually lay down their clubs and refuse orders to take brutal action against demonstrators. Well insults and combat sure won't win them to the side of liberation. But in the end only the demonstrators will control the course of events through whatever their commitment to whatever style, tactics and strategy among a unified movement will determine the ultimate outcome of events and its effectiveness in accomplishing whatever the goal.