tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5148972.post4138277192728928642..comments2023-09-15T09:56:16.253-03:00Comments on Composing: Why The Violent Suppression Of OWS?Composinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01739889615635395138noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5148972.post-61612333372520014082011-11-27T17:31:45.331-02:002011-11-27T17:31:45.331-02:00Joshua Holland pushes back hard against Wolfe'...<a href="http://www.alternet.org/occupywallst/153222/naomi_wolf%E2%80%99s_%E2%80%98shocking_truth%E2%80%99_about_the_%E2%80%98occupy_crackdowns%E2%80%99_offers_anything_but_the_truth/" rel="nofollow">Joshua Holland</a> pushes back hard against Wolfe's piece.<br /><br />At my link blog I put up a quote from Wolfe's piece:<br /><br />"So, when you connect the dots, properly understood, what happened this week is the first battle in a civil war; a civil war in which, for now, only one side is choosing violence."<br /><br />That's been reblogged quite a lot for my low-activity blog. <br /><br />My sense is that the wider conflict that OWS represents will not go away. But I'm anti-war, I'm keen to find ways of thinking about reduction of violence.<br /><br />I think Wolfe is right that the state views Occupy in terms of war.<br /><br />David Keen has written about civil wars as "Complex Emergencies." It's an analysis questioning the view of civil wars as two sides vying for power. The opposition to state violence will do well not to fall into the 2-sides trap.<br /><br />Holland disputes Wolfe on the details, but I think he's wrong to dismiss Wolfe's point as a "feverish flourish." I think the state does frame the protest in terms of war and that's the frame I wish to reject.John Powershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17126222842766191343noreply@blogger.com