From D to D, Chapters 8 & 9: Where Are The Carpenters?

This post is a continuation of my "study guide" and commentary on Gene Sharp's book From Dictatorship to Democracy (shortened in these posts to From D to D).  Recent posts in this series have dealt with the important subject of the strategy of nonviolent struggle. As I said in recent posts, strategic nonviolent resistance does not rely on the weapons and resources of the holders of oppressive power, and one big reason why is that those who are oppressed do not have access to the weapons and resources of the powerful. This is why strategy and strategic thinking is so important. If the strategy of a struggle group is solid, the struggle group can achieve great shifts in the balance of power between the powerful and those without power. If the strategy of a struggle group is weak, foolish or nonexistent, then that group will lose.

A key to the winning strategies of successful nonviolent liberation struggles of the past has been the achievement of shifts in the power balance between the oppressor and the oppressed which come about by the oppressed building the sort of righteous parallel society of self-government, communal self-determination and of communal self-reliance that displaces the society ruled by the oppressor. To quote Gene Sharp, "Combined with political defiance during the phase of selective resistance, the growth of autonomous social, economic, cultural and political institutions progressively expands the 'democratic space' of the society and shrinks the control of the dictatorship. As the civil institutions of the society become stronger vis-a-vis the dictatorship, then, whatever the dictators may wish, the population is incrementally building an independent society outside of their control..." - From D to D, Chapter 9.  This was, for instance, a key element of the strategy of swaraj employed by Mohandas Gandhi in the struggle to liberate India from the British empire.

As I mentioned in the most recent post in this series, this building of a righteous parallel society with parallel institutions that meet the needs of the oppressed was conspicuously absent from the so-called "resistance" against the Trump administration from 2017 to 2020.  And it seems to have been painfully absent from the resistance by the African-American community to renewed racist oppression over the last decade.  This absence has not escaped the notice of honest and trustworthy scholars of nonviolent civil resistance.  For instance, Erica Chenoweth commented repeatedly in YouTube interviews from 2018 onward that the "resistance" against Trump seemed to be too one-dimensional, too much of a one-trick pony whose participants spent too much time shouting loudly in the streets against the world they saw coming into being and too little time articulating - in word and action - the vision of the world they actually wanted to see.  The articulation of this vision - a "vision of tomorrow" as described by Srdja Popovic - is much easier for bystanders to see and to embrace when it is embodied in deep, strong organizing of righteous parallel institutions for meeting social needs.  (See "Protests in Perspective: Civil Disobedience & Activism Today, with Erica Chenoweth & Deva Woodly", and "Social Movements in the Age of Fake News with Erica Chenoweth."  Note especially that second citation.  In it, Chenoweth discusses the pivotal role played those who built parallel institutions in the Polish struggle against the Russian-backed Jaruselski regime.)  As I have also mentioned repeatedly in this series, the combination of over-reliance on hasty mass mobilization and hastily thrown-together mass protest, combined with the lack of deep, long-term organizing, has allowed the holders of concentrated wealth and economic and political power to frequently inject violent agents provocateurs into many of the mass protests and mobilizations that have taken place in the U.S. over the last five years.

It may well therefore be asked why this parallel institution-building, this parallel society-building, has been so frequently neglected over the last decade or so by those who call themselves activists and who consider themselves to be leaders of struggles for liberation.  The answer lies in part in the endemic laziness of us humans who tend to "demand" change rather than creating that change ourselves - both as individuals and as self-conscious, self-organized collectives.  (Organizing is hard work, lemme tell ya!  I speak from experience.)  But I would argue that part of the answer lies in the bad advice many of us have received in answer to our questions about how to create liberating change.  

Some of that bad advice was discussed in my post titled, "The Poverty of Pivenism."  In particular, I took aim at the teachings and intellectual legacy of Frances Fox Piven and highlighted the spectacular failures of many of the mobilizations of recent years which embodied a Pivenist strategy.  I also took aim at a book by Mark Engler and Paul Engler titled, This Is An Uprising, a book which claims to teach the principles of successful strategic nonviolent resistance.  The Englers' praise of Pivenism combined with their disdain for long-term deep organizing leads me to believe that they are, at best, rank amateurs.  And yet not all bad advice is given by the ignorant rank amateur.  Some bad advice is given by those who deliberately seek to mislead.

I am thinking just now of June of 2020, in which there were massive protests over the police murder of George Floyd, and in which agents provocateurs had already begun to make sizable inroads into these protests for the purpose of looting and vandalism.  During that month an article was published in a weekly magazine called the Nation, and the title of the article was "In Defense of Destroying Property."  The article was written by R. H. Lossin, a white woman with blond hair and blue eyes.    (At the beginning of this year, she also taught a course with an even more provocative title, namely, "Sabotage: Violence, Theory, and Protest.")  Her White privilege insulates her almost completely from the consequences of saying such things, as well as the consequences that people of color would surely have suffered for following her advice last year.  Yet from her position of privileged safety she was advocating that we who belong to communities of the oppressed should engage in violence.  And yes, my definition of violence includes sabotage and property destruction, for these activities have the same effect of weakening movements for liberation that would occur if movement activists physically attacked their opponents.

But I am also thinking of the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict (ICNC), and the difference between my first discovery of this group and my attitude at the final parting of our ways.  I go back now to the horrible and frightening days of the close of 2016, when many Americans discovered that our democracy had been broken and that we were getting a genocidal tyrant as the 45th President.  The discovery of the fact that Trump would be our next President combined with my anger and my commitment to Christian ethics moved me to seriously research what strategic nonviolent resistance had to offer.  So I discovered Gene Sharp and the Albert Einstein Institution, and I eagerly read How Nonviolent Struggle Works.  I watched a ton of YouTube videos which featured Gene Sharp.  I downloaded the audio of From Dictatorship to Democracy and listened to it over and over again while washing dishes, mowing the lawn, and doing whatever other mindless work was conducive to listening to audiobooks.  I discovered Jamila Raqib and her special emphasis on parallel institution-building and the constructive program as part of a successful nonviolent liberation struggle.

And I discovered the ICNC and the many YouTube videos produced by them.  These videos, produced between 2010 and 2016, were a source of fascinating information, deep insight, and hope.  I am thinking especially of the videos from the yearly Fletcher Summer Institutes which were hosted by the ICNC, particularly the videos from the 2013 Fletcher Summer Institute.  That summer seminar featured seasoned veteran activists and leaders of liberation struggles from South Africa to Bolivia and beyond.  In watching those videos I got to (virtually) know such people as Oscar Olivera of Bolivia, who led the successful struggle of the citizens of Cochabamba against the Bechtel corporation in the Cochabamba water war.  And Mkhuseli Jack of South Africa, who played an integral role in the initial victorious anti-apartheid struggle there.  And the Reverend James Lawson, who played an integral role in some of the more coercive nonviolent boycotts which ended de facto segregation in the American South.  And Shaazka Beyerle, who has done extensive research into the use of civil resistance against state corruption.

Unfortunately, the ICNC stopped hosting its Fletcher Summer Institutes from 2017 onward.  (A rather interesting coincidence, given the start of the Trump presidency in 2017, no?)  But I was pleasantly surprised (or so I thought) when in 2018, I read on their website that they were hosting a free online course on civil resistance during the fall of that year.  I eagerly signed up, and was glad to be accepted.  What I thought I was getting into (even though at this time I had never heard of Zoom and did not know the role that videoconferencing would play in online instruction especially in the present moment) was an engaging, instructive, live series of videoconferences with renowned experts and practitioners.  In other words, I thought I had signed up for a chance to converse with and ask questions of people such as James Lawson, Mary Elizabeth King, Hardy Merriman, Jack DuVall, Peter Ackerman, Erica Chenoweth, Maciej Bartkowski, Shaazka Beyerle, and others who had become something of a constellation of guiding lights to me from 2017 onward.

Instead, I merely got to participate in a series of online forums which were moderated by people I had never heard of, so-called "activists" and academics who, it seems, had never led a successful movement in their lives.  One of the main moderators was a guy named Steve Chase, and another was a guy named Daniel Dixon.  Mr. Dixon is the gentleman I mentioned in an earlier post who suggested that sometimes violent and nonviolent movements can combine in ways which increase the synergistic effects of both.  As I mentioned in that post, all the available research strongly suggests otherwise!  When I mentioned that I disagreed, and that I wanted to learn how parallel institution-building works to strengthen a nonviolent movement, both Dixon and others kept mentioning the Zapatistas as an example of a struggle group which combined violence with parallel institution-building, and they suggested that I had much to learn from the Zapatistas.  They were right.  I learned that the Zapatistas lost to the Mexican army and had chosen to renounce violence.  End of discussion.

But the ICNC staffers kept throwing up the suggestion that there was some sort of room for violent actors in a successful strategic nonviolent liberation struggle.  An academic named Veronique Dudouet kept citing an article by some guy named Ben Case which suggested that "'...ignoring civilian violence or assuming that it is always and necessarily harmful to movements limits the analytical reach of civil resistance research'. He then uses the case of the Egyptian revolution to prove that sometimes the use of limited 'protestor violence' might prove beneficial to civil resistance..."  Not only this, but the focus of much of the discussion on these online forums was solely on protest as a resistance tactic.  (This was not surprising, since many of the forum participants who were Americans identified themselves with "Antifa.")  I expressed frustration at this, noting that relying solely on protests was leading to incidents of violence occurring every time people came together, and asking why this online "course" wasn't exploring some of the other 197 of Gene Sharp's 198 methods.  Steve Chase responded by suggesting that other tactics were not as "disruptive" as mass protest.  (I guess he never heard of the Montgomery bus boycott!)  And he held up himself as a good example of movement organizing in that he organized an anti-fascist rally which included some organizations that use violent protest tactics, but which were persuaded by him to not engage in violence during his rally.  As I wrote to him later, that move of his was like playing with matches in a paper house, since if the government had instituted a crackdown on protest groups, they could have arrested him because of his association with the violent group he worked with.

To make a long story short, I dropped out of this online "course" after about six weeks or so.  They had nothing to offer.  And later, in 2020, when I saw that ICNC staffers were teaching that there were situations in which property destruction could actually help a civil resistance movement, I was completely turned off to them (though not surprised).  (See also, "Civil Resistance Tactics In The 21st Century", pages 66-67.)  In short, if the ICNC staffers are genuine and sincere, they have to me become like a minor league baseball team run by toddlers.  Where are the heavy hitters of successful movement building whose faces I saw in those Fletcher Summer Institute videos?  Why is the advice of the ICNC so lame now?  Why does much of their most recent advice contradict the research, scholarship and guidance of successful practitioners of nonviolent liberation struggles over the years - including the advice which the ICNC used to give back when I regarded them with respect?

But perhaps the ICNC contains people who are not sincere.  Erica Chenoweth hugely popularized the application of scholarship to the study of civil resistance.  I still have great respect for her because her advice is most definitely not lame.  But in her wake, I am afraid that there are "scholars" who have arisen to study civil resistance not for the sake of helping the oppressed to liberate themselves, but rather to derail the liberation of the oppressed by misleading them.  In this, they are like many people nowadays who go to school in order to obtain advanced degrees in psychology and behavioral sciences - not to help those who are hurting, but to land lucrative jobs with tobacco companies, the Republican Party and other outfits whose success depends on misleading people and turning them into addicts.  Meanwhile, where are the builders who will construct a righteous parallel society in today's oppressive world?

The Tactical and Strategic Failures of Summer 2020

This post is a continuation of my "study guide" and commentary on Gene Sharp's book From Dictatorship to Democracy (shortened in these posts to From D to D.)  Those who have read previous posts on this subject know that the most recent posts discussed Chapters 6 and 7 of the book.  Those chapters deal with the important subject of the strategy of a nonviolent liberation struggle.  Strategic nonviolent resistance does not rely on the weapons and resources of the holders of oppressive power, and one big reason why is that those who are oppressed do not have access to the weapons and resources of the powerful.  This is why strategy and strategic thinking is so important.  If the strategy of a struggle group is solid, the struggle group can achieve great shifts in the balance of power between the powerful and those without power.  If the strategy of a struggle group is weak, foolish or nonexistent, then that group will lose.

So we come to the events of the late spring and summer of 2020, those events connected with the police murder of George Floyd.  As an African-American, I stand with my brothers and sisters who are involved in the Black Lives Matter organizations, yet I feel the duty to point out some of the serious ways in which they dropped the ball last summer, as well as pointing out some of the political consequences of their failure.  (One consequence of that failure: their mistakes helped re-elect a certain two-faced gentrifying mayor of a supposedly progressive city on the West Coast.)  So here goes.  And I'm going to tell the story from the point of view of an observer who was only rarely near the center of any action.  If any readers have more expert knowledge or analysis, feel free to chime in with corrections as appropriate.

First, let's begin with the immediate consequences of the murder.  The first response seen by myself and most observers was the almost immediate arising of a wave of spontaneous mass protest, both in Minnesota (where George Floyd used to live) and elsewhere.  I would like to suggest that much of that protest originated outside of the Black community and outside any other communities of color in the United States.  I would also like to suggest, based on what I saw in the Pacific Northwest, that much of that protest originated outside of any Black Lives Matter (abbreviated in this post to BLM) organization.  However, the emergence of this protest thrust BLM movement organizations into the limelight, as many protestors who were not officially part of BLM chose to identify their actions as taken in support of BLM.  Thus BLM was offered a unique moment in which to take a leadership role, and BLM organizers initiated their own protests as a result.

But at almost the same time as the emergence of spontaneous mass protest came the almost immediate emergence of "spontaneous" violence.  I know of one white blogger who characterized it as "the emergence of the worst race riots this country has seen in decades."  However, he is exaggerating greatly what actually happened, and his reasons are dishonest.  For he does not want to face the fact that the incidents of violence were perpetrated almost entirely by white people.  (See this  and this also.)  An early case in point is the "Umbrella Man."  There is also Matthew Lee Rupert, as well as members of the Boogaloo Boys and other white groups who vandalized and looted minority businesses and attacked CNN journalism crews.  Moreover, this violence spread in ways that seemed designed to provoke outrage and strengthen the societal "pillars of support" of the police and of the regime of Donald Trump.  For the vandals and the violent targeted iconic statues and other monuments to the cultural heritage of the United States.  (See this, this, and this for instance.)  And in attacking minority businesses, the vandals sought to send a clear message that this is what happens whenever there is mass protest against established authority.

Other ways in which violent infiltrators sought to convey images of dis-order included the setting up of so-called "temporary autonomous zones" in city capitals by people who did not own property or have jobs in these so-called zones.  In essence, the people who set up these zones became squatters of the same sort that emerged in city parks throughout the United States during the "Occupy" protests.  And those who occupied these zones in 2020 were mostly white, just as those who "occupied" various public spaces in 2011.  The 2020 occupations ended just as badly as those in 2011 had, for the occupiers were rightfully seen as squatters.  But these squatters, along with the looters and the vandals of businesses and statues, served a useful purpose for the right-wing fascists running the Federal Government during Trump's last year - namely, that they gave him a convenient platform to portray himself as the sole upholder and defender of "law and order" against a crazed opposition movement who simply wanted to plunge American society into "chaos" and "anarchy."  In other words, they were the convenient foil in the continued re-telling of the myth of redemptive violence - the favorite myth of fascists and oppressors, by the way, and a myth that became part of Donald Trump's re-election campaign strategy.

I would like to suggest that in the violence, vandalism and squatting that took place, people who had no sympathy for the Black struggle in America managed to hijack the protests over the murder of George Floyd and to twist the message of these protests in a direction which has nothing at all to do with the Black struggle.  (As Marshall Ganz has repeatedly said, if you don't intentionally tell your own story, someone else will tell it for you - in ways that you won't like.)  That this could happen is due to the following failures of many in the Black community:

• A failure by the Black community to appropriately define our collective identity and the strategy of our struggle.  For at least four decades, we have been unconsciously following a rather limited "strategy" of the sort first articulated by Martin Luther King, namely, the strategy of trying to build a supposedly colorblind society in which our individual or historical identities are all dissolved in a "melting pot" to produce a so-called all-American alloy.  Thus we have tried to build "beloved communities" with people who ought not to be trusted because they have no good intentions, people who refuse to give up their dreams of total domination.  It is way past time for us to come together as Black people (NOT as part of some "rainbow coalition" alloy!) to decide who we are as a people and how we will struggle as a people.  In other words, it is way past time for us to self-consciously organize ourselves.  When white people who supposedly stand for "diversity" try to bring us as individuals into their "coalition", we need to say, "Not so fast.  We will decide as a group what we choose to support.  We will NOT allow ourselves to be turned into the foot soldiers of someone else's agenda!  Maybe we're not better together!"  Of course, to say such things might provoke the sort of reaction from certain white supposed "allies" that would show their true colors.

• A failure by the Black community to understand the methods by which unarmed people shift the balance of power between the powerful and the powerless.  In short, this is a failure to understand the methods of strategic nonviolent resistance, which has also become known as people power.  We have for too long allowed ourselves stupidly to believe that strategic nonviolent resistance consists of trying to love your enemy or to "rise above" the oppression dealt to you by your enemy (that is, to smile when your enemy serves you a sandwich made of excrement!), or to show how "spiritual" you are in the face of oppression.  Therefore, too many of us have understandably written off strategic nonviolent resistance.  It's time for some of us to start reading some books.

• This ignorance played out in 2020 in a failure to understand the impact of violence on a protest movement.  When violence began to erupt during the protests, I saw it as a clear indication of a lack of organization on our part, as well as a lack of training.  I saw it moreover as a clear sign of tactical and strategic misunderstanding and failure.  But in conversations I had with BLM organizers, both during the 2020 CANVAS Summer Academy and in 2021 with BLM organizers who were part of the Leading Change Network, whenever I pointed out these failures, the BLM organizers got really defensive.  Their response to my criticism was, "We were not the violent ones!  And you can't believe everything the media tells you!  Most of the protests were peaceful!"  In making such criticisms, they missed the point altogether.  That point being this: that if you engage in mass protests, and violent things happen during your protests, your protest movement will suffer, no matter who started the violence.  Erica Chenoweth explains this beautifully as follows: When a mass protest is peaceful, everyone who is an ally or potential ally is likely to show up.  This includes young families with small children and elderly grandmas with nothing better to do.  In such circumstances, it is very hard for the government to justify using violence to shut down your protest.  But as soon as the government is able to provoke or inject violence into the protests, the vulnerable - young families with small children and elderly grandmas - start to disappear until you are left only with athletic young men facing heavily armed cops.  In those circumstances it becomes very easy for the government to justify the use of violent oppression to shut down the protest!

• Having said that, I wonder why the BLM organizers did not shift from tactics of concentration to tactics of dispersion as soon as the violence began to appear!    (Pardon me - I shouldn't wonder.  It's because these fools did not read any books!)  For instance, why didn't one or more leaders immediately issue a statement saying, "We see that evil actors have shown up to inject violence and vandalism into our protests.  Therefore, we are switching to protest tactics that don't involve large groups of people coming together in the streets.  These new tactics will be legal, and will not be able to be hijacked by those who want to cause violence or to paint us as criminals." It shows a fatal lack of brains that not one of these leaders took such a step.  I remember reading the news reports of protest after protest in which a small group of agents provocateurs broke away from a protest march to go off and vandalize while the police "declared a riot", and I was shouting in my living room, "Please, wake up and shift tactics!"  (It felt to me very much like my experience as a kid watching Saturday Night wrestling and screaming at the TV whenever the "hero" made an obvious mistake.  Lot of good that did.)  I agree with BLM that there should have been protests.  Yet there are both smart and stupid tactics of protest, and BLM failed to understand the difference.  (Oh, look!  It's happening again.)

• A failure to see the limitations of mass protest.  Protest is not a viable single strategy of liberation.  At best, it's a single tactic.  A tactic is not a strategy.  And as we have considered strategy in the context of strategic nonviolent resistance, we have learned that the best strategy is a strategy which your opponent is not ready to meet, and for which he has no defenses.  Chapters 6 and 7 of From D to D have drawn heavily from the writings of a British man named Basil Henry Liddell-Hart, who in the aftermath of World War 1 advocated heavily that armies should adopt a strategy of indirect approach as the best means of meeting one's enemy in a place where he is not prepared to meet you.  I suggest that among the tactics of nonviolent action, mass street protest is now the tactic which most governments are most prepared to meet, and that these governments can short-circuit mass protest most effectively simply by injecting violence into the protests.  Once they do that, they can justify raising the cost which ordinary people must pay to participate in protest by using tactics of violent police repression of protest.  Mass protest is therefore not an example of the strategy of indirect approach.  And mass protest carries certain unavoidable costs even when the protestors do not have to face police repression.  I think of some of the BLM websites I saw last year in which organizers vowed to protest every day until their demands were met.  I guess they never heard of "protest fatigue"!  Moreover, as pointed out by Jamila Raqib, protest by itself does not alter the balance of power between the powerful and the powerless.

In their insistence on the same tactic of mass protest day after day, the BLM protest organizers reminded me very much of a Briton who never considered the strategy of indirect approach, namely Sir Douglas Haig.  I hope the man has no partisans, fans, or groupies who are still alive - otherwise, they might come to the USA to hunt me down and slash my tires - er, I mean, "tyres" - or threaten to give me "a bunch of fives."  But Haig is a man worthy of much criticism.  I think of his insistence on costly daily frontal assaults for three months during the Battle of Passchendaele in 1917, and how the Germans played rope-a-dope with him there.  I fear that here in the USA, should another outrage against African-Americans be perpetrated, and should that outrage spark mass protest, our enemies may play rope-a-dope again with us as they did in 2020.  

Navalny's Sentencing Speech

Those who have been following events in Russia know that Russian opposition figure Alexei Navalny has been sentenced to a prison term in a Russian penal camp for his defiance of the regime of Vladimir Putin.  At his sentencing hearing, he gave a hard-hitting speech which summarized a great deal of the sad reality of life for ordinary Russians under the regime of Vladimir Putin.  (Hint: they're not living in Paradise.)  Business Insider has published a condensed translation of his speech, but there are also Russian media outlets which have published what appears to be a full transcript of the sentencing hearing, including Navalny's remarks.  I thought it good to reproduce the full Russian version of his speech here, in case anything happens to those other outlets.  Also, if you want to hear audio of the proceedings, please click here.

And now, Navalny's full remarks (taken from tjournal.ru):

Я хотел бы начать обсуждение с правового вопроса, который мне кажется главным и каким-то упущенным из этого обсуждения. Потому что выглядит все немножко странновато, знаете. Вот сидят двое. И один из них говорит: а давайте посадим Навального за то, что он являлся [в исполнительную инспекцию] не по понедельникам, а по четвергам. А второй говорит: а давайте посадим Навального за то, что он, выйдя из комы, немедленно не приехал к нам отмечаться.

Обсуждают понедельники и четверги, когда он должен был прислать какую-то бумажку. Но хочу сказать о небольшом слоне в этой комнате. Пусть все — и пресса, и люди, — обратят внимание на то, что суть дела в том, чтобы меня посадить по делу, по которому я был уже признан невиновным и оно уже признано сфабрикованным. Это не моё мнение.

Если мы откроем любой учебник уголовного права (надеюсь, ваша честь, вы это делали) мы увидим, что ЕСПЧ является частью судебной системы России. И эти решения обязательны, потому что ЕСПЧ является частью Совета Европы. Я прошел все необходимые стадии судебного процесса, и ЕСПЧ написал, что даже состава преступления в этом деле нет. Дело, по которому я почему-то нахожусь здесь, полностью сфабриковано. Мало того, Россия даже признала решение — половинчато, потому что мне даже выплатили компенсацию. Несмотря на это мой брат 3,5 года отсидел в тюрьме по этому делу, которое еще раз напоминаю, было призанно сфабрикованным. Я просидел год под домашним арестом. Когда мой испытательный срок заканчивался, меня за неделю арестовали, привезли в Симоновский суд, и без защиты продлили еще на год испытательный срок.

Немножко математики: в 2014-м году меня осудили, дали три с половиной года, дали испытательный срок, а сейчас 2021-й год. Но меня продолжают судить по этому делу. Меня уже и невиновным признали, и то что состава преступления там нет, но с упорством маньяков наше государство пытается посадить меня по этому делу. Почему же по этому делу? Уж чего-чего, а недостатка уголовных дел в отношении меня точно нет. Тем не менее, кому-то очень хочется, чтобы я ни одного шага не сделал на территории нашей страны, вернусь, как свободный человек. И чтобы с момента пересечения границы оказался арестантом. Мы знаем кому. Почему это случилось. Причина — ненависть и страх одного человека живущего в бункере. Я нанес ему смертельную обиду тем, что я просто выжил.

Я нанёс смертельную обиду тем, что я выжил. Благодаря хорошим людям — пилотам и врачам. Потом я еще сильнее его обидел — тем, что, выжив, я не спрятался, живя где-то под охраной в каком-то бункере поменьше, который я мог бы себе позволить. А потом случилось вообще страшное. Мало того что я выжил, мало того что я не испугался и не спрятался, я участвовал ещё и в расследовании своего собственного отравления.

И мы доказали, что именно Путин совершил это покушение на убийство. И вот это сводит с ума этого маленького вороватого человека в его бункере. Нет рейтингов — нет поддержки. Этого ничего нет. Выяснилось, что чтобы совладать с оппонентом, нужно просто пытаться убить его химоружием. Все убедились, что он просто чиновничек, которого случайным образом поставили на этот пост, который не участвовал ни в дебатах, ни в выборах. И это его единственный метод борьбы — убить людей. Сколько бы он ни изображал великого геополитика, мирового лидера, его обида главная заключается в том, что в историю он войдет как отравитель. Был Александр Освободитель, Ярослав Мудрый, и будет Владимир Отравитель трусов.

Я здесь стою на этом месте и меня охраняет полиция, Росгвардия, а половина Москвы оцеплена, потому что маленький человечек в бункере сходит с ума. Потому что мы показали, что он не геополитикой занимается, а проводит совещания, как бы намазать трусы химоружием. Главное в этом процессе даже не то, чем он закончится для меня — посадят или нет. Это не сложно. Главное, для чего это происходит — чтобы запугать огромное количество людей. Одного сажаем, чтобы испугать миллионы. У нас 20 миллионов человек за чертой бедности, у нас десятки миллионов людей относятся к тем, о ком говорим — «в Москве еще более-менее, а выйдете за сто километров — там полный швах». Вот у нас вся страна живет в этом полном швахе, не имея ни малейших перспектив. Получая 20 тысяч рублей. И они все молчат, и их пытаются заткнуть вот ровно такими показательными процессами. Посадить вот этого, чтобы запугать миллионы. Кто-то вышел на улицу — посадить еще пять человек, чтобы запугать 15 миллионов.

И главное, что я хочу сказать. Этот процесс, я очень надеюсь, не будет воспринят людьми как сигнал того, что они должны больше бояться. Это же не демонстрация силы — Росгвардия и вот это всё. Это же демонстрация слабости. Просто слабости. Миллионы и сотни тысяч посадить нельзя. И я очень надеюсь, что люди будут все больше и больше осознавать это. И когда они осознают — а такой момент придет, — все это рассыпется. Потому что вы не посадите всю страну. Потому что всех этих людей, которых лишили перспектив, лишили будущего, которые живут в богатейшей стране и получают ноль от национальных богатств… Ноль получают все остальные. Мы только по количеству миллиардеров в мире растем, все остальное падает, понимаете? Я сижу в своей камере и слышу репортажи о том, как подорожало масло, подорожали макароны, подорожали яйца. 2021 год! Страна — экспортер нефти и газа. У нас вся страна говорит о том, что макароны подорожали, мы жить больше не можем. И вот вы этих людей лишили перспектив и вы этих людей пытаетесь запугать. Я призываю всех не бояться.

Судья: вы ничего не сказали по поводу представления.

Ваша честь, вы говорите, что я ничего не сказал по поводу представления. Вот это все представление и есть. И все, что я говорю, — это моё отношение к представлению, которое вы устроили. Бывает такое, когда беззаконие и произвол являются сутью политической системы. И это ужасно. Но бывает еще хуже — когда беззаконие и произвол наряжают на себя мундир прокурора или судейскую мантию. И в этом случае долг каждого человека — не подчиняться тем законам, которые обряжены вот в эти мантии. За вами там, внутри вас — это и есть произвол и беззаконие. Долг каждого человека — не подчиняться вам, не подчиняться таким законам.

Судья: У нас не митинг.

У вас не митинг, у вас моё выступление. Ваша честь, вы не беспокойтесь. Все будет очень хорошо. Вы не перебивайте, пожалуйста, давайте по очереди, пожалуйста. Я высказываю свое мнение. У меня сложилось мнение относительно этого представления, я вам его высказываю. Другого мнения у меня нет, и будьте добры, меня выслушайте.

Ещё раз хочу сказать, что когда произвол и беззаконие оделись в ваши мундиры и изображают из себя закон, долг каждого честного человека — не подчиняться вам и бороться с вами всеми силами. И я, как могу, борюсь. И буду продолжать это делать, несмотря на то, что сейчас, с учетом того, что я оказался полностью под контролем людей, которые обожают все намазывать химическим оружием, наверное, за мою жизнь никто не даст и три копейки. Но тем не менее даже сейчас, даже со своего места, я говорю, что буду с вами бороться, и призываю всех остальных не бояться вас и делать все, чтобы закон, а не ряженые в мундирах и мантиях восторжествовали. Я приветствую всех тех, кто борется и кто не боится. Всех честных людей.

Я приветствую и благодарю сотрудников ФБК, которые сейчас сидят под арестом. Всех остальных по всей стране, кто не боится и выходит на улицы, потому что у них есть такие права, как у нас. Потому что наша страна принадлежит им в той же самой степени, как и вам, как и всем остальным. Мы такие же граждане. И мы требуем нормального правосудия, нормального отношения к нам, участия в выборах, участия в распределении национальных богатств. Да, мы всего этого требуем.

Я хочу сказать, что в России сейчас много хороших вещей, а самая хорошая вещь — это вот те самые люди, которые не боятся, которые не опускают глаза, которые не смотрят в стол и которые никогда не отдадут нашу страну кучке продажных чиновников, которые решили обменять нашу родину на свои дворцы, виноградники и аквадискотеки…

Моё мнение заключается в том, что я требую немедленной свободы для себя, для других арестованных. Я не признаю ваше представление, оно полностью лживо, оно не соответствует закону, и я требую своего немедленного освобождения.

The Shaking of Vladimir Putin?

I've been loosely following the events in Russia over the past week.  For those who don't know, Russia has been rocked by anti-Putin protests sparked by the arrest of Alexei Navalny upon his return to Russia from Germany, where he had received treatment for a poisoning attempt undertaken by Russian agents.  The resulting protests have been so widespread that Russian jails are now running short of space to contain newly arrested protestors.  

Navalny has turned out to be an interesting character.  He and others like him are the inevitable grassroots response to a regime dominated and ruled by parasites.  As scholar Shaazka Beyerle has documented in her book Curtailing Corruption, it is the corruption practiced by the rulers of a crooked regime which frequently opens the door for the kind of effective nonviolent civil resistance that brings in much larger democratic social change.  Navalny has exploited that open door.  But it is important to note that Navalny does not represent a merely reactive response to social injustice.  Rather, he has been proactive - patiently building up organizational capacity over a period of many years in order to wield the organizational power that is now on display in Russia.  Remember that there are only two kinds of nonviolent resistance struggles: the spontaneous, and the successful.  Or, to quote an ancient Internet proverb, "The best time to plant a tree was twenty years ago.  The second best time is today."  Waging a successful liberation struggle requires a willingness to play a long game.

So what shall we make of Navalny's struggle?  There are some encouraging signs.  A movement that can continue even when its leaders have been jailed is a movement that has built strategic depth.  That depth is on display now in Russia.  It should also be noted that the protest movement has achieved one of the hallmarks of backfire - namely, that increased repression by Putin's agents has led, not to a decrease, but to an increase of public expressions of outrage against the Putin regime.  There are, however, some areas for concern.  Navalny's movement will do well to emphasize the need to maintain nonviolent discipline in its protests.  Otherwise, Putin can use protest violence to bolster his claim to be the bulwark of law and order in the same way that Trump tried to make a similar claim during the Black Lives Matter protests in 2020.  Second, Navalny's movement will need to guard against infiltration by agents provocateurs.  The BLM protest organizers failed to adequately guard against such agents in 2020.  Third, Navalny's movement must stand for something more than just Navalny himself.  Rather, his movement must articulate a clear vision of the future that can survive and inspire even if Navalny himself does not survive.  Lastly, Navalny's movement can greatly amplify its power if it strategically adds methods of economic and political noncooperation to its primary methods of protest.  For those methods of noncooperation (especially economic noncooperation) are far more powerful than mere mass protest, even though mass protest is a flashy, attention-getting tactic.  My advice to movement participants would be to not rely on the West to apply this sort of economic pressure.  As Gene Sharp says in From Dictatorship to Democracy, "Usually no foreign saviors are coming."  A liberation struggle is a time for self-reliance.

This week, I have also done some further reading on Putin, especially as a rather large bit of his dirty laundry is being hung out on the washing line.  For instance, I learned that he (paragon of moral virtue!) has been divorced since 2013, and has had a few mistresses since then.  Makes the stories of Putin's palace more plausible...  (How's that for alliteration?)

The Tribes of the Agents Provocateurs

In a number of posts (here, here, and here for instance) I have asserted that the majority of violence which has taken place at Black Lives Matter protests in the United States over the last two months was caused by White infiltrators.  I have therefore argued that basing a nonviolent resistance struggle solely on the tactic of mass protest rallies and marches is a dangerously short-sighted strategic approach.

But some may wonder whether my assertion that mainly White actors have been responsible for the violence is accurate.  Therefore, I'd like to share the following news stories:

• "‘Umbrella Man’ went viral breaking windows at a protest. He was a white supremacist trying to spark violence, police say", Washington Post.  Note that the "Umbrella Man" made his appearance at one of the first Minneapolis protests against the murder of George Floyd.
• "White Women Tagging ‘Black Lives Matter’ On Starbucks Caught By Black Protestors", BET.
• "Nearly two dozen arrested in Richmond as weeks of peaceful protest turned violent over the weekend," Washington Post.  Note that the mayor of Richmond identified the violent instigators as White supremacists who were outsiders to the community.
• "Why are white supremacists protesting the deaths of black people?", The Conversation.
• "A white supremacist channel on Telegram encouraged followers to incite violence during police brutality protests by 'shooting in a crowd,' according to internal DHS memo," Business Insider.
• "Violence mars Portland protests, frustrates Black community," AP.  Note that the troublemakers are not content to limit themselves to causing trouble at protests, but are part of the White violence against minority businesses and neighborhoods in the aftermath of the murder of George Floyd and the ensuing protests.
• "Finley: Violent white protesters hurt cause of racial justice," The Detroit News.
• "Meet the ‘Boogaloo boys,’ the violent extremists attracting members of the US military," Task and Purpose.
• "As Trump warns of leftist violence, a dangerous threat emerges from the right-wing boogaloo movement," Washington Post.  Note that members of the Boogaloo movement have been linked to the shootings of police and Federal security guards that took place after the murder of George Floyd.
• "Far-right groups like the “Boogaloo” and “O9A” continue to attract troops and veterans," Military Times.  Note that the senior officers of the U.S. military recognize the presence of a far-right element in the U.S. military as a serious problem.  Note also the link between these far-right elements and Satanism.
• "A woman accused of throwing Molotov cocktail at a police car suggests a protester gave her the device," CNN.  Note that although this woman claimed that Black protestors gave her the Molotov cocktail, the police who investigated her discovered that she was lying.  What gave her away was the presence of her fingerprints and the fingerprints of a friend of hers on a note about glass bottles...

A few comments.  First, I am extremely grateful for the many White people who have shown themselves to be both decent and moral in their support for communities of color during the evil reign of Donald Trump.  I am grateful not only for those White people who are sincerely standing for Black lives, but also for those White people who were sincerely revolted by the news that Donald Trump's goons were ripping Latino children from the arms of their parents at the southern border and putting these children into cages and detention centers.  I am a Christian, but I am grateful for those White people who sincerely opposed Donald Trump's attempts at a Muslim travel ban.  I am grateful for the Wall of Moms, the Wall of Dads, and the Wall of Vets.  When I think of the Wall of Vets, I am especially grateful for its founder, a White vet who allowed himself to be beaten by Trump's Homeland Security goons in order to stand against racism and fascism.  I am grateful for those members of the dominant culture who refuse to enjoy the passing pleasures of the sin of being made great at the expense of their fellow human beings on the earth.

However, it must also be noted that there is a deeply dysfunctional element in the American dominant culture.  This element consists of people who have based their entire lives and their entire identity on the power they have been able to exercise in order to dominate, bully and ruin the lives of their intended victims.  They are the forever "Cowboys" - unreconstructed, unreconstructable, and unrepentant - who demand that the rest of us play the role of the forever "Indians" or the forever "slaves".  A woman I recently heard in an online workshop said that bullies have thin skins.  I would also add that bullies are not really sure they exist in the world.  Being afraid of their own ghosthood, they can only reassure themselves of their existence by trashing someone else's life.  The Boogaloo movement, for instance, is one of those far right movements who are trying to push society into chaos so that they can build a fascist, White supremacist empire out of the ashes.  These are the Elliot Rodgers of the world, who seek to ruin in order that they may possess.  Rather like Satan, aren't they?  And if communities of color base their struggle solely on the tactic of mass protest, guess who will come in to hijack the protests!

Therefore, a key response of the historically marginalized, of the communities of color, of the communities which have not been historically dominant must be a response of collective self-organization.  By organizing ourselves to meet our collective needs, we build our social power - power which is to be used not to dominate others, but to help ourselves fulfill our own ontogeny, and to help other afflicted communities fulfill their ontogeny.  And it is collective and sustained self-organization that is the foundation of successful nonviolent resistance movements - not mere protest.  Study Gandhi for instance, and you will discover not only the acts of mass noncooperation against the British, but also his insistence on what he called the constructive program - a key part of an oppressed population liberating itself from oppression by learning to rule itself.

So this brings me to my last comment.  Given the weakness of struggles that rely solely on mass protest, and given the ease with which both State and non-State opponents can hijack such struggles, I once again urge the Black Lives Matter organizers and the organizers of the struggles of other communities of color to look beyond mass protest as your go-to tactic.  Broaden your knowledge of strategic nonviolent resistance.  Please read some good books on the subject.  (Maybe one of my future posts will be simply a list of recommended good books!)  And please learn the art of strategy!

I leave you with one comparison from military history.  World War 1 was almost lost by the British because of one man, Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig.  Haig assumed command of British troops in 1914, and proceeded to launch a number of offensives against the defensive German lines.  For over three years, his go-to strategy was to try to wear the Germans down by attrition, and to try to punch a hole in German defenses so that his horse-mounted cavalry could charge to victory.  Such a strategy might have worked in the 1800's...but by World War 1, there were these inconvenient little things called barbed wire, machine guns and heavy artillery.  The Germans also used a tactic known as defense-in-depth.  Haig became highly predictable in his tactics, in the same way that having mass protests day after day for over 60 days in the U.S. in 2020 has become highly predictable.  Therefore, the Germans played rope-a-dope with him, costing him several hundred thousand men.  Britain was saved from defeat by the entrance of the United States into the war.  But did Haig learn from his mistakes?  Not at all, according to a quote of his from 1926.

Basing a strategic nonviolent resistance or liberation struggle solely on spontaneous, poorly-planned mass protest rallies in these days should therefore seem about as stupid as relying on horse-mounted cavalry in modern warfare, shouldn't it?

An Open Letter to the Black Lives Matter Organizers

I am writing as an African-American who really wants us to win our struggle for liberation and who really wants us to succeed in removing Donald Trump from office.  But I am afraid that events that took place yesterday in Seattle may make it more likely that we will lose.  This is why I am writing today.

You know, I am sure, that the world is watching the ongoing protests against the murders of unarmed Black Americans in this country and in Portland.  These protests fall within a certain category of tactics of nonviolent resistance.  (By the way, when I talk about strategic nonviolent resistance, I am not talking about Martin Luther King!  Rather, I mean what Jamila Raqib of the Albert Einstein Institution is talking about in her TED video.)  In the literature on strategic nonviolent resistance, nonviolent resistance actions can take two forms: tactics of concentration and tactics of dispersion.  Tactics of concentration include mass rallies and street protests.  One problem with street rallies is that they can be hijacked by agents of the State who incite violence (including property destruction) in order to discredit the protesters by claiming that they are anarchists.  Thankfully, that narrative had begun to shift because of the Wall of Moms in Portland (joined lately by the Wall of Dads and the Wall of Vets).

But in Seattle yesterday, violent infiltrators disrupted what should have been a peaceful protest and instead provided the world with images that play right into the hands of Donald Trump.  Those images make us look like criminals and undermine our attempts to discredit the system that is oppressing us.  Note also that the NAACP has commented on how what started as a Black expression of struggle against White oppression has been dangerously hijacked.  The protests are no longer really about Black lives, but about attention-seeking White people.  As I said above, I support the Wall of Moms - especially because they have put themselves at the service of their Black and Brown neighbors.  But I agree 100 percent with the NAACP condemnation of the anarchists and other agitators.

Therefore, I am begging you as a fellow African-American to shift your resistance to tactics of dispersion.  I'd also like to ask that you please stop holding mass rallies and protests unless you create a system to make sure that everyone who shows up will remain nonviolent.  This applies especially to White people who show up at a protest, because most of the violence (including property destruction!) that has been perpetrated at protests over the last two months was done by White people.  If you want to see why nonviolent discipline is so important, please watch this video by Professor Erica Chenoweth (and this one also).

I would also ask that you all study not only the literature on strategic nonviolent resistance, but that you also study the literature on effective community organizing.  This falls right in line with what the family of George Floyd asked of us all in the aftermath of his murder by the police.  Note that George Floyd's brother condemned the violence that had erupted even in the early days of the protests over George Floyd's murder, and he demanded that those who want to see changes happen work in a positive manner to make those changes happen. 

I have not suffered like George Floyd's family (or Tamir Rice's family, or Michael Brown's family, or Stephon Clark's family, or Breonna Taylor's family).  But as a kid I was exposed to a lot of intense racist physical bullying.  I went to White churches where the racism was more subtle, yet just as damaging.  I've been followed by police and even stopped by police simply because I am Black.  I've suffered workplace harassment.  To me, it seems that Donald Trump wants to bring back an America in which it's okay for white supremacy to treat us all like trash.  Trump has been losing this year because of his incompetence.  But if he wants to try to rescue his reelection by picturing himself as a law-and-order president protecting the world from chaos, why do you want to hand him situations where he can "prove" his claims?  I don't want to suffer another four years of his garbage.  Do you?

And if you are White and you are reading this, please stop showing up to BLM protests unless you know that you can control yourself and not vandalize property or provoke law enforcement officers by stupid stunts like throwing firecrackers or other objects at police.  You're not the heroes you seem to think you are when you pull such stunts.

Thanks to all who take the time to read this.

Matthew Lee Rupert

As I mentioned in my last two posts, for communities of the oppressed in the United States, protest is not a good method of nonviolent resistance at this time.  The reason is that members of the dominant culture (as in, violent radical white supremacist and anarchist groups) are infiltrating protests by dark-skinned communities of the oppressed in order to incite violence.  Lest anyone think that this is a baseless accusation, here's proof:

Image retrieved from WCBU on 1 June 2020.

See this also.  These people have nothing in common with the communities they are infiltrating - neither goals, nor values, nor morals.  Yet another example of nihilism...

When Counting to 100 is Not Enough

The Kremlin is finding itself in a bit of a sticky situation this week.  You know how some people advise that if something makes you mad, or you smash your thumb while doing work, you should count to 100 before you say anything?  Waiting before talking is supposed to increase the chances that whatever does eventually come out of your mouth won't reflect badly on you.  But such advice doesn't always work.

After the "illegal" anti-corruption protests in Russia this weekend conducted by predominantly youthful demonstrators, Putin waited...and waited...and then said some things that added a great deal to the evidence that he is, in fact, a dictator and not a democrat.  According to one source, he accused "political forces" of using the issue of Russian government corruption for their own benefit.  He also compared the weekend protests to the Arab Spring protests that began in 2010, and hinted that if such protests were allowed to continue in Moscow, the result would be "chaos."

After these remarks, there were attempts both in Russian media and in sympathetic Western media (such as this) to deflect some heat away from Putin by suggesting that the real target of protesters' anger was Dmitry Medvedev.  One polling agency suggested that most Russians are not actually angry with Putin - believing instead that Putin is trying to fight corruption, but that he may not be successful.  And Putin also professed his dedication to fighting corruption, saying that "Personally, I am in favor of having questions about the fight against corruption always at the center of public attention."

So - if it's so that Mr. Putin is in favor of placing the fight against corruption at the center of public attention - why the crackdown on last weekend's protests?  Why have Russian prosecutors moved to block Internet calls for more protests?  Why were many protesters beaten while being arrested?  Why were even bystanders arrested?  Why did Putin show solidarity with Medvedev afterward?  Why is participation in "unsanctioned gatherings" punishable by up to five years in prison under Russian law?  (For that matter, if a man won a U.S. presidential election fair and square, and was himself the living embodiment of American democratic ideals, why would he be afraid of a vote recount?  But I digress.)

Honest people have a very powerful way of showing their honesty: namely, by allowing free and open examination of their deeds, including constructive criticism by others as necessary.  If Mr. Putin is really a champion of honesty and the elimination of corruption, how could he possibly be hurt by a free and open discussion of corruption in Russia - a discussion that included free, unconstrained, nonviolent protest?  Instead, what Russia is doing is seeking to "cure" the wave of protest by state-sponsored education about the Russian government's anticorruption efforts.  At least one Russian teacher is taking this "education" to a whole new level.  You can watch a video of this teacher here.

Problems that are constantly swept under a rug eventually become a tripping hazard.  One of the ways that tripping hazard may grow in Russia could be that the civil resistance that manifested itself last weekend begins to move beyond the methods of protest and persuasion to the methods of non-cooperation (especially economic non-cooperation), and to the methods of nonviolent intervention - including beginning to construct parallel institutions.

The Resistance Heats Up In Russia

I had been thinking a lot about Russia last week, as shown in my last post. But today I just found out that there were massive anti-Kremlin protests in Russia over the weekend. (See this also.) The vast majority of protesters were youths from middle school age to early adulthood. Как сказать, “Things are getting rather interesting in Russia!” по-русский?

The recent history of Russia is punctuated by several periods of civil resistance, such as the three-year wave of protests that erupted in response to Putin "winning" the 2011 Russian elections under circumstances that smell about the same as the circumstances under which President Chump won the recent U.S. elections. The trouble now is this: it is not very easy for Putin and company to claim that last weekend's protests were the work of some "Deep State" bogeyman, as they have seemingly captured the one nation that could have been blamed for harboring such a "Deep State" - namely, the U.S.A. Yet they have been making the claim that the demonstrators against the Kremlin were paid by outside agents, as some Kremlin mouthpieces also made claims over the last month or so that this "Deep State" is trying to sabotage Chump. But a person who has bad body odor and no manners shouldn't blame a conspiracy for the fact that people don't want to be around him. Will Russian leaders be willing to engage in frank and open dialogue about the grievances of their citizenry? Or will they resort to scapegoating as they have so often?