UCSC - Liberate the University - Occupation and Actions

I feel it is very important that this compelling information be discussed and talked about but I am curious why there was this reference to "non-violent" actions? It is apparent that the occupations are non-violent but is it really necessary to indicate that they are non-violent? Why can't we just say the "wave of actions that took place in Santa Cruz"?

Sometimes I feel it is important that we take notice of these little details because it is almost as if the actions were not explicitly non-violent than people wouldn't support them. That is to say, people would find themselves in the debate that has taken place in the past about "good protesters" (pacifists) and "bad protesters" (those that destroy property), when in reality people are going to engage in a diversity of tactics to protest in general and we are all on the same side. What I find really significant about the actions at Santa Cruz and other campuses is that although they are using occupations as a tactic, they are also engaging in general assemblies, marches, shut downs of campus, and other forms of resistance. Let's not exclude anyone from the struggle here by presenting these struggles as if they are bound by some sort of dogma that is acceptable to the current tone reflecting the "mainstream" representation of these student struggles.

When doing non-violence to make the organizational programme known to both sides, it is not necessary to tell the side bringing the new points forward to be what they are by tradition. The reactionary side of the establishment, however does need to be told, because they gained their state power by violence and they continue their power with the most technologically sophisticated violence in the world, and they never stop preaching non-violence to the workers, students and farmer-peasants when they present their needs for immediate consideration. Its like they always pass laws against the peoples who seek change based on their needs for a larger piece of the pie. They never pass laws against their own reactionary violence when the oppressed classes demand change for themselves. Even their preachers never tire of explaining the 'turn the cheek' parable, but never mean that for themselves as they gorifiy their unjust wars of aggression against the workers of the world from uniting. Watch out for their hypocracy on the question of violence will leave the insurgent classes impotent and suppressed of their legitimate goals for their liberation. That is deliberately done so they can milk the cream off for themselves, while forcing a work for them policy. Their violence is based on greed not need. The fight back for needs is railed against.

tho haven´t heard the whole radio bit, well said my boy...interestingly, i read some ghandi some time ago and i remember him saying somethin about property destruction not being violent. violent is what people do to one another. elevating property destruction to that level is quite materialistic, tho of course not saying that destroying things willy nilly the way to go neither. just let there be a point to it. a well thought out, reasoned point.