this argument, usually framed as a call for democratic decision-making, is very common these days. the idea, i suppose, is that all decisions should be made democratically and collectively and not by “a handful of individuals.” that’s cool, but what does that actually mean? what is the collective body that is supposed to make these decisions? the general assembly? the GA does not plan actions; it delegates authority. SWAT? but it doesn’t include everybody either. however you define it, this formulation of democratic decision-making falls apart when its mechanisms have to be explained. also, this assertion reinforces an authoritarian power dynamic: there is a body (somewhere) that must approve of your action, and if that body does not approve of it then it is condemned. this, i think, backs up one of the arguments of the original post: that condemnation of certain protest actions can be problematic because it tends towards an authorizing or hegemonic discourse that, in this case, sides with the administration.

furthermore, what happened at the chancellor’s residence in no way “forced its politics” on anyone, and no “bystanders” were caught in it. unless by bystanders you mean people who were participating in the march…? again, this argument assumes that there is some coherent “movement” with clear and coherent rules of procedure — this most definitely does not exist. rather, there’s a variety of groups, organizations, individuals, and collectives that take it upon themselves to do certain things. while conceptually it can be grouped together as part of “the protests,” it in no way says anything about the GA that some people broke a planter pot and a light bulb at the chancellor’s house. or does it? if so, how? through the media? but the media is totally out of our control and is capable of doing poor (or no) reporting no matter what we do.

another (in my view more useful) way of thinking about democratic decision-making would be a decentralized model. certain bodies may exist for certain general coordinating purposes (e.g. the GA), but you can’t plan an action with 100-200 people. rather, using a diversity of tactics, groups plan and do actions based on their analysis of the situation and whatever that common interest is that ties them to other groups organizing around similar issues. thus, you get actions like the anthro library study-in, the (first) wheeler occupation, and live week, which all generated momentum and brought new people in. none of those actions were planned or voted on — much less proposed — by a collective organizing body.

none of this is to say that the action at the chancellor’s house was right or wrong; rather, it’s the way decision-making is imagined.

Again, there’s nothing in this article that talks about being ‘with us or against us,’ but it merely questions that base assumption that there is an objectively reasonable point of view. These are different assertions. But yes, there are ’sides’ in any struggle, and sometimes people actually have to pick one.

Where is there a false dichotomy? Hasn’t the UCB administration already responded with great force and violence to the most liberal demands and actions? People were brutalized outside of the 11/20 Wheeler occupation because they showed solidarity with the occupation. I maintain that attempting to achieve even modest change at UC will elicit violence, but I think that point is already proven. To stand up and blame students and workers for this violence is to condone that already perpetrated by UC as legitimate.

Even if the incident at the Chancellor’s mansion occurred as UCB described (which is highly unlikely considering countervailing statements and the lack of criminal charges from the incident), I still question the value of holding a state-wide student movement accountable for the actions of some 50 people. I also do not think that the worst accounting of the incident at the mansion rises to the level of sheer malice exhibited by UCB admin at the 11/20 occupation and during the Wheeler Hall arrests.

There was nothing militant about it, the acts of destruction were acts of adventurism couched in discourse of militancy that revealed the cowardice of those involved, if for no other reason than they let others go down for things they didn’t have the privilege of deciding on. I would even daresay that it reflects a neo-colonialist attitude, if not outright colonialist attitude, toward the problems we are all facing.

The article has absolutely nothing to do with nonviolence; it doesn’t even address nonviolence. The subtitle, “why nonviolence discourse is destructive” foreshadowed the straw man fallacy that was erected throughout the article. It defines nonviolence as an opposition to the violence of the mansion incident, and then proceeds to justify the acts as not-as-violent as what the university perpetrates as if that vindicates the actions taken. If anything, this article reflects the futility of violent actions in response to the multiple forms of violence that the university engages in: civil, political, economic, cultural, and social.

Does this author fancy himself a neo-con? I ask in all honesty, because the discourse of your with us or against us, you agree fully with us or you agree with them, is a tactic that was honed by neo-cons to the level of an art form. It is also false. It is extremely irresponsible and ignorant.

“To think differently is to not only misunderstand power relationships and structure of social regulation, it is to stand on the side of state violence.” What? What fantasy land do this author live in wherein they actually believe in false dichotomies?