The Folly of Christopher Hedges

[N. Zero]

http://nihilo0.blogspot.com/2012/02/folly-of-christopher-hedges.html

The Folly of Christopher Hedges

Often, when describing the inevitable scenes of major protests in the
United States, I evoke the image of a person who has lost a brother in
Iraq, a person who has also lost a sister to the trumped up drug war,
whose father had his job outsourced, whose mother had her pension
gambled away by speculators, whose grandmother lost her home of 50
years because she missed a mortgage payment, and whose grandfather
died of industrial poisoning and couldn't afford health care. And make
no mistake... variants of such individuals readily exist. So when such
a person understandably shows up to protest the corporate oligarchy at
a G8 meeting (or the national conventions of the corporate parties),
they aren't there to sing kumbaya, march along a permitted path, or
have their head cracked by the brutal police. And if they get so angry
that they throw a brick through a bank window... I will be the last
person to condemn them.

I'm not giving the condescending approval of a social worker who
understands some flawed psychology behind such actions... I'm
suggesting that such rowdiness is perfectly human, rational, and even
inspiring. I'm not suggesting that any particular individual at any
particular event engage in such actions, but I fully understand some
of the motivation behind such actions and wouldn't condemn an
individual engaging in them. And I don't feel that condemnation or
further punishment of such individuals is beneficial to society. On
the contrary, such individuals may likely prove to be on the cutting
edge of actual change in this country.

Enter Chris Hedges and the privileged leftist elite trying to pacify
and reign in the righteous indignation of many abused Americans. As in
his latest article, they primarily prescribe as a method for social
change... accepting more punishment and self-sacrifice. But that's
easier to suggest for some than others. And why must they so often be
quick to condemn those who aren't willing to take anymore punishment?
I'd suggest this reflects a shallow understanding of the true pain
already administered to so many people and the sacrifices they've
already made.

Such a stance also often belies a hypocritical stance in regard to
revolutionary self-defense and aggression when it occurs in their own
backyards. For example... Chris Hedges in an earlier article about
Greece wrote:

"Here’s to the Greeks. They know what to do when corporations pillage
and loot their country. They know what to do when Goldman Sachs and
international bankers collude with their power elite to falsify
economic data and then make billions betting that the Greek economy
will collapse. They know what to do when they are told their pensions,
benefits and jobs have to be cut to pay corporate banks, which screwed
them in the first place. Call a general strike. Riot. Shut down the
city centers. Toss the bastards out. Do not be afraid of the language
of class warfare—the rich versus the poor, the oligarchs versus the
citizens, the capitalists versus the proletariat. The Greeks, unlike
most of us, get it."

But what has changed now that radicals in Oakland California have
called a general strike, incited to riot, attempted to shut down city
centers, and talked the language of class warfare? Why now condemn
them as "the cancer of the occupy movement," as Hedges has done? Why
are such actions in the U.S. "a gift from heaven to the security and
surveillance state," according to Hedges? To me, such conflicting
sentiments smack of the hypocrisy that comes about when one changes
their opinions with the shifting of political winds. Hedges is not
sticking to his proverbial guns, he is merely going with the flow to
appease the leftist sycophants who comprise his cult of personality.
It's sad, disgusting, and shameful.

In his recent article, "The Cancer in Occupy," Hedges proceeds to
pigeonhole all Black Bloc anarchists in a most inaccurate manner. He
claims, for instance, that Black Bloc adherents do not see corporate
capitalists as the real enemy. This would be laughable if it weren't
for the fact that he has such a wide readership that hangs on his
every word. Further... he claims that Black Bloc anarchists see
radical intellectuals and environmental activists as the real enemy. I
only wish I could more clearly articulate how absurd this is. It's
reminiscent of the way Trotsky used to slander the Makhnovists in the
Russian Revolution. Seriously... this is Bolshevik level
misinformation that he's offering.

As supposed proof of his misinformed statements he cites a single
article in the defunct Green Anarchy magazine which was somewhat
critical of the Zapatistas. That might be fair if that one article
from Green Anarchy surmised the whole of the anarchist position, but
it doesn't. Nevermind the fact that the Zapatistas should not be
beyond criticism, it was one article in a publication that presented
an incredible amount of content on a wide range of subjects. To use
this one particular article to discredit the entire movement of
anarchist militancy is, plain and simple, an intellectually dishonest
straw man.

Hedges then proceeds with his article to over-associate the anarchist
Black Bloc movement with John Zerzan, the editor of Green Anarchy. He
begins his attempt to discredit Zerzan by bringing up the red herring
of Zerzan's defense in regard to "Industrial Society and Its Future"
by the imprisoned Theodore Kaczynski. He makes no mention of any real
nuance in that defense, he doesn't have to, except to say that Zerzan
did not endorse Kaczynski's bombings. But again, I reiterate, this a
red herring. It really has little to do with Zerzan's overall position
and doesn't really speak to the issue at hand -- namely John Zerzan's
supposed influence in supporting the Black Bloc. He also brings up
Zerzan's criticism of Noam Chomsky, another red herring. All of these
things amount to an intellectually dishonest sidetrack in Hedges'
attempt to undermine and condemn militant anarchism in the United
States. Zerzan may be an overly-stoic curmudgeon, but he does not
deserve to have his ideas so poorly represented by Hedges as this
latter individual attempts to demonize something which he obviously
does not understand. If Hedges wants to have an intellectually honest
debate with Zerzan in an open public forum, I'd bet Zerzan would be
willing to oblige him -- but Hedges also knows that his wishy-washy
blend of bland leftist populism has garnered him a much broader
platform from which to spread his condemnation of those with a truly
deep-seated radical perspective.

Hedges concludes from a faulty interpretation of one single article in
Green Anarchy that, "solidarity becomes the hijacking or destruction
of competing movements, which is exactly what the Black Bloc
contingents are attempting to do with the Occupy movement." And yet...
what exactly is Hedges doing with the very article from which this
quote is taken?! As he maligns and slanders strong radical elements
within the Occupy movement he is doing the very thing which he accuses
them of! The absurdity of his blatant hypocrisy is profound.

When Hedges then presents quotes from a conversation between himself
and Derrick Jensen... I frankly have to question his level of
journalistic integrity. Maybe Jensen said some of the things Hedges
mentions, and maybe even in their full context they express the same
things, but it's not like Jensen is beyond questioning any more than
Hedges himself, Chomsky, the Zapatistas, Zerzan, or even myself.
Without a deeper and more clear understanding of where these
statements are coming from... they don't have much weight.

Then Hedges raises the spectre of a "locally owned coffe shop" that
had it's windows smashed and contents looted. I have no details on the
veracity of this claim. Maybe it happened, and maybe it was even done
by Black Bloc protesters, but even then it hardly tells me much about
the circumstances. As far as I know this coffee shop may have been
operated by the KKK or maybe the owners generally mistreated the
locals. I really don't know the details of this particular incident
beyond hearsay. But I do know, from a number of Black Bloc
communiques, that mom & pop shops are never their primary targets. And
only an infinitesimally small number of black Bloc protesters would
ever make such dubious claims along the lines of, "Whoever gets hurt
gets hurt. Whatever gets destroyed gets destroyed." Even in the most
militant insurrectionary anarchist tracts of Bonanno or Durruti you
will not find such sentiments. Perhaps some infiltrating provocateurs
mights suggest otherwise, but it is intellectually dishonest to paint
insurrectionary anarchists as holding these positions, or acting upon
them, beyond the most uncommon outliers.

In an attempt to divide by means of identity politics, Hedges proceeds
with his drivel to equate the Black Bloc with some ill-defined
"hypermasculinity" that is also found in the police forces or those
who engage in imperialistic wars. While simultaneously dismissing the
need for anonymity and the solidarity found in many Black Blocs,
Hedges seems to ignore the involvement of women with the Black Bloc
who organize to resist the brutality of police forces and
imperialistic wars. To associate the Black Bloc with inchoate
masculine rage is largely inaccurate and, therefore, intellectually
dishonest.

Next, Hedges presents some logical fallacies which should be
transparent to anyone who takes more than a passing moment to consider
them. For example... he mentions, earlier in his article, various
Occupy camps which were shut down because they were non-violent. Well,
this in itself should not be seen as a positive in my opinion, but the
point I want to make is that the police violently attacked and shut
down those camps. They did not need the pretense of a real excuse to
brutally attack people. To blame any escalation on those who would
defend themselves (or counter-attack) ignores the point that the state
will escalate its violence regardless of whether those people are
there or not -- and if it encounters no real physical resistance the
state will succeed by such means in shutting down the movement. This
can be seen again and again, throughout history, as labor movements
and civil rights activists did often defend themselves and the
movement with violence. To marginalize the role of those who fought
back in so many protest movements is ahistorical.

In a completely out-of-touch manner, Hedges suggests that chants like
“Fuck the police” and “Racist, sexist, anti-gay / NYPD go away” will
alienate people and lose hearts and minds. As if such sentiments are
unpopular to anyone beyond privileged academics and the petit
bourgeois. By marginalizing those who have uttered such chants, he
weakens the movement and the millions of people across the country who
strongly agree with such sentiments. Even to the extent that people
might burn the American flag... well guess what, that flag is a symbol
of incredible violence and oppression to a great many people -- both
in the United States and around the world. Hedges may not like it, and
it may offend his sensibilities, but any movement that would
marginalize that latter point is a weak one. The Occupy movement
should not be nationalistic and it should not apologize for, or
overlook, the brutality of the state's police forces. As for hearts,
minds, and popular opinion... NWA wrote one of the most popular songs
in the history of American music, and it wasn't apologetic or
dismissive of police brutality.

And then comes what amounts to a confession from Hedges... "Nonviolent
movements, on some level, embrace police brutality." Indeed. Well, he
should feel free to embrace that brutality until he ends up in the
same place that it's put so many other people. I mean... I'm sure
that's pretty easy for him to say. He's probably the first person the
police harass and brutalize on any occasion, and I'm sure that police
brutality has wrecked his life and destroyed his community. As if. And
like so many other idealistic leftists he talks about state brutality
delegitimizing it's own power and forcing a passive population to
respond. But he fails to note that, historically, the effective
response from the masses has often been violent -- as with the U.S.
civil rights movement, and in Indian nationalist movement -- and that
violence is what actually prompted the state to change its ways. I
don't mean to totally marginalize militant non-violence, it is ideal
and effective to a degree, but it's not intellectually honest to
overstate its historical role and remove it from the context of
broader violent militancy. And, in fact, the state loves non-violent
militants! That's why people such as MLK, Gandhi, and even characters
like Jesus, are effectively deified by the state. The state would
rather people forget the details about the likes of John Brown, Emma
Goldman, or Malcom (Shabazz) X.

At this point in Hedges' article, just when I thought it couldn't
possibly top itself in producing more guffaws, bursts of laughter, or
eye-rolls... Hedges criticizes the Black Bloc's supposedly "thought-
terminating cliché of diversity of tactics.” My first thought when
reading this section was that he must not be very aware of how that
term has often been used in recent American protests. "Diversity of
tactics" is not something solely promoted by Black Bloc protesters and
I am actually more familiar with it being used by other types of
protesters, militantly non-violent protesters, who engage in
activities like lock-downs to block an intersection or to close down a
particular corporate business. Therefore, his criticism of this
doctrine is potentially more impacting to them than anyone else. But
this characterization of "diversity of tactics" as being "thought-
terminating" is laughable in itself. What is the alternative? Only one
single accepted tactic? And, mind you, this critique of diversity of
tactics comes only a couple paragraphs before he describes the Black
Bloc as bearing "the rigidity and dogmatism of all absolutism sects."
Talk about the leftist pot calling the anarchist kettle black! Are you
kidding me?! Is Hedges being satirical when writing all this?! Let me
get this straight... according to Hedges no one in the Occupy movement
is to engage in any violence, even self-defence. Provocative public
critiques of the police state are taboo. Destruction of even corporate
property is a no-no. Blocking streets with garbage or debris is out.
Flag burning is unacceptable. And yet... Hedges is the one supposedly
condemning dogmatism and absolutism. Hedges is the one who describes
black Bloc anarchists as believing that "they alone understand. They
alone arrogate the right, because they are enlightened and we are not,
to dismiss and ignore competing points of view as infantile and
irrelevant. They hear only their own voices. They heed only their own
thoughts. They believe only their own clichés. And this makes them not
only deeply intolerant but stupid." Really? Who are you describing
now, Mr. Hedges? Everyone may not have went to Ivy League schools and
didn't always cut their teeth in the corporate press corps, but I feel
your analysis of Black Bloc anarchists is hollow and petty. And if
you, Christopher Hedges, want to march peacefully in to a charging
phalanx of riot cops, I won't condemn you, demonize you, or try to
stop you. You'll have to excuse me if I laugh up my sleeve a bit
though.

Hedges closes his ridiculous article with another quote from Jensen,
perhaps to draw attention away from his own inane sentiments. And if
the following really was the gist of Jensen's comments to Hedges then
he, too, should be ashamed. In closing, he quotes Jensen as saying the
following: “If you live on Ogoni land and you see that Ken Saro-Wiwa
is murdered for acts of nonviolent resistance, if you see that the
land is still being trashed, then you might think about escalating. I
don’t have a problem with that. But we have to go through the process
of trying to work with the system and getting screwed. It is only then
that we get to move beyond it. We can’t short-circuit the process.
There is a maturation process we have to go through, as individuals
and as a movement. We can’t say, ‘Hey, I’m going to throw a flowerpot
at a cop because it is fun.’” Is Jensen really suggesting that we
simply haven't worked with the system enough?! Really? Is this the
radical Derrick Jensen that so many have come to know and love?
Really?! And we haven't observed the land continuing to be trashed
after working with the system? Really? Come on. We still must continue
to go through the process of trying to to work with the system and
getting screwed?! This is a joke, right? I know of no one throwing
flower pots at cops simply because it's fun. And if DJ is spouting
such nonsense at the behest of Chris Hedges... then he has lost his
edge and is almost as worthless. Go join the Sierra Club DJ, and
Chris... you should stop trying to stir up infighting amidst the
Occupy movement -- you're not helping.