What is a diversity of tactics? Put simply, it is the principle that allows all affinity or more formal groups with compatible objectives to choose the strategies and tactics they prefer, without denouncing or discrediting one another.
Within the same struggle, the principle of diversity of tactics may lead to certain groups preferring tactics such as petitions, popular education, and cultural events to raise awareness about the issue, while others may opt for more intense forms of action (often referred to as "violent" - we will revisit this term later), such as blockades, occupations, acts of sabotage, or other forms of direct action. By respecting the diversity of tactics, all these groups and individuals engaging in different actions acknowledge that other tactics have their place. Over time, this approach is more likely to maintain the cohesion of their struggle.
Of course, when groups agree on the principle of diversity of tactics, it doesn't imply that criticism is unwelcome. In fact, giving constructive criticism and expressing concerns among different groups when necessary is healthy. However, things don't always proceed smoothly, and tensions often arise between groups employing different tactics.
These tensions often arise when a group firmly believes that nonviolent tactics are the sole path to victory. They may fear that any so-called "violent" action, such as a broken window, fireworks, or acts of sabotage, will discredit the demands of a social movement, divide it, and escalate repression. To address this form of purism, which is the dogma of non-violence among certain activist groups, and to equip ourselves to engage in discussions about more intense forms of action with our non-militant allies, we will explore the concept of violence in this text. We will also briefly examine the history of some social struggles and demonstrate that movements described as non-violent or peaceful are, in reality, more complex. Additionally, we will advocate for the strategic relevance of embracing a diversity of tactics. Finally, we will explore what this principle can look like in practice, first within a demonstration, and then within a coalition of groups employing diverse tactics.
What is violence?
Defining violence can be a complex task. Is violence strictly limited to causing physical harm to one or more individuals, or does it encompass damage to material property, such as breaking a bank branch window? Psychological violence is undeniably real, but is it considered violence to subject a police officer to psychological stress, perhaps through insults or throwing tomatoes? Is systemic violence, such as police killings or injuries, comparable to the violence employed in response to such acts? Does violence only encompass hate-fueled attacks against marginalized individuals, or does it also include the Islamophobic and queerphobic content published in the Journal de Montréal that preceded the physical attack? What criteria determine whether one form of violence is morally more acceptable than another?
The objective here is not to provide exhaustive answers to each of these questions but rather to illustrate the challenges of arriving at a universally agreed-upon definition of violence. Additionally, it is important to initiate discussions regarding the power imbalances that come into play when violence is present. Labeling an action as "activist violence" simply because a demonstrator throws a can of soup at police officers, who are equipped with full protective gear, batons, rubber bullets, pepper spray, tear gas grenades, a 9mm pistol, and the authority to use violence as sanctioned by the State, can seem absurd.
Let us condemn the hypocrisy that involves singling out acts of resistance as violence while downplaying and legitimizing the violence exercised by the Canadian and Quebec states through their military, police forces, and legislative and judicial systems. This includes deportations of migrants, repression against Indigenous people defending their land and the well-being of all against oil and gas projects, inaction on the issue of thousands of murdered or missing Indigenous women and two-spirit individuals, neglect of the housing crisis, the unfortunate reality of people living on the streets, the precarious conditions of sex workers, the escalating poverty affecting the majority of the population while the wealthy become wealthier, Law 21, which has fueled Islamophobia in the province, the tax benefits that result in over 75% of mining companies having their headquarters in Canada – some of which are connected to the killings of activists in the Global South,1 and the alarming levels of arsenic near the revered Horne Foundry, just to name a few. These are all forms of violence that may not be as overt as a physical assault but are profoundly destructive to the lives of people and ecosystems, both locally and globally, often in a much more insidious manner. We view any violence employed in response to or in defense against the systemic and potent violence mentioned above as justified.
A little historical commentary
Groups advocating nonviolence as the sole effective tactic in the face of the sixth mass extinction, such as Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil, tend to overlook the inherent heterogeneity of actors and a diversity of methods within all social movements. While this text does not delve into an exhaustive historical analysis, it's worth noting that even movements often cited as examples of nonviolence are more complex than conventional narratives suggest. Suffragettes, for instance, engaged in acts like smashing windows, blowing up mailboxes, and setting fire to municipal buildings. Martin Luther King Jr., a staunch advocate of nonviolence, carried a rifle for self-defense wherever he went. Gandhi, too, had support not only from peaceful activists but also from armed guerrilla groups.
When discussing history, it's important to note that opponents of social movements, including the State, private companies, property owners, and the media, often exploit disagreements and tensions that arise from the choice of tactics used. Their aim is to create a division between the "good demonstrators" advocating nonviolence and the "bad demonstrators" employing violence, with the goal of fracturing social movements and undermining their legitimacy. A clear example of this occurred during the 2012 student strikes when the media suggested that individuals breaking windows or clashing with the police were not students but rather undercover "thugs" infiltrating the movement to disrupt the peace. In reality, it's entirely possible for someone to be both a student opposed to tuition hikes and to engage in property destruction; the person engaging in such actions and the student can be one and the same. To prevent our adversaries from exploiting divisions within our groups, we should embrace the principle of diversity of tactics. Diversity of tactics entails recognizing that different groups and individuals, facing similar circumstances, may choose various resistance strategies, driven by their political considerations. Ultimately, we all strive for social change.
Diversity of tactics is more than a principle: it is strategic
Diversity of tactics should not be seen as an endorsement of violence by certain groups, but rather as a demonstration of confidence in their ability to strategize. Instead of framing the discussion as violence versus non-violence, it is more constructive to consider our actions in terms of tactical harmony. In any movement, both well-established and emerging groups can take action and organize activities based on their judgment of what is most relevant. Communication between these groups doesn't necessarily have to be explicit; each organization pursues actions it deems suitable. This concept underlies Climate Rage Week, which aims to provide a platform for a variety of activities that can address multiple needs within the current environmental movement.
There are several essential needs that can be addressed through these diverse tactics. Firstly, there is the need for collective strength, often fulfilled by large demonstrations where people feel supported by a significant portion of the population. Secondly, there is the need to disseminate the message and reach beyond traditional activist circles. This can be achieved through symbolic and visibility actions, as well as popular education efforts like training camps and publications, such as this newspaper. Lastly, there is the need to exert pressure on capitalists and the state through disruptive actions, blockades, and sabotage. Given the current era of global boiling, the violent nature of these actions pales in comparison to the immense violence of the climate crisis, which is intricately tied to the violence of capitalism and colonialism. These actions are, in essence, acts of self-defense against a system that is causing widespread destruction. None of these tactics are inherently contradictory, and we are stronger when these strategies complement one another.
This diversity offers numerous advantages to our movements. Firstly, for individuals who may be uncertain about taking any action at all, it is much more beneficial for them to engage in some form of action, even if it seems modest, as it allows them to grasp the limited relevance of their contribution. Whether it's participating in a playful action, like dressing up as bankers and staging a mock scenario of polar bear harm in front of a bank for Instagram photos, or engaging in a container port blockade, these softer actions often serve as an entry point into our movements. This inclusivity is essential for maximizing participation. Additionally, by dispersing organized actions and activities across different groups, we prevent any single organization from consolidating power. This also complicates the efforts of law enforcement, as they can no longer simply focus on targeting a central group within the movement.
Non-denunciation in practice
During COP15 in December 2022, Bloquons la COP15 (“Let's block COP15”) – the precursor to Climate Rage – circulated a non-denunciation agreement, which several activist groups were invited to endorse. Non-denunciation is the foundation of the diversity of tactics, aimed at preventing harm among groups; it's the bare minimum. As the term implies, it involves strategically refusing to denounce the actions of other groups to the authorities and refraining from criticizing these actions on our platforms – be it social networks, newspapers, radio, TV, and so on. But can we go further? Can we not only abstain from denunciation but also decide to strengthen each other, recognizing that our goals are compatible? While we may not have definitive answers, we encourage contemplation. Groups and individuals with media visibility can discuss the intense actions taking place, amplify them, and contribute to a greater understanding that the situation is dire and that such actions may recur. NGOs and other well-funded organizations can find ways to provide financial support to groups with fewer resources.
Collaboration can also extend to the realm of demands and actions undertaken. Why not engage in dialogue and consider how our diverse messages and actions can complement each other, even if they vary in intensity?
Of course, there is a danger that groups without a revolutionary perspective may give visibility to revolutionary struggles but dilute their message. Similarly, there's a risk that financial resources might be granted in exchange for changes in the angle of demands or the nature of actions. These phenomena must be absolutely avoided. The most crucial aspect is that groups maintain their autonomy. Otherwise, it ceases to be a diversity of tactics and becomes co-optation, which is always detrimental to social change. Co-optation occurs when a dominant group wishes to preserve its power and takes actions that may initially resemble revolutionary efforts but strip away their transformative potential. As illustrated by Dean Spade in "Mutual Aid: Building Solidarity During This Crisis (and the Next)," a perfect example of co-optation is the breakfast program initiated in the 1970s by the United States Department of Agriculture. This program aimed to undermine the Black Panther Party's initiative of providing breakfasts to children in working-class neighborhoods. Unlike the emancipatory program of the Black Panthers, which empowered black families in working-class communities to feed themselves, build community bonds, and develop a shared analysis of racism in the United States, the state-run program was, and still is, discriminatory. To access the service, individuals had to meet specific criteria, and it lacked the revolutionary political education aspect while stripping communities of their autonomy. This is why there may be a need for distrust on the part of revolutionary groups and why allies within resource-rich groups, if they genuinely want to support revolutionary efforts, must align with these initiatives without co-opting, altering, or overriding them.
Conclusion
We could exhaust ourselves in the fight against the principle of diversity of tactics, but we must face the facts: it is impossible to control what other people or groups will do. Even David Suzuki declared in 2021 during an interview that "people are going to start breaking pipelines" in a calm manner. He didn't denigrate this type of action but acknowledged that it will inevitably happen. Faced with the destruction of life and the increase in forest fires, floods, tornadoes, and heat waves caused by climate change, more intense actions are on the rise. Let's work to ensure that this inevitable diversity empowers our movements, and let's not allow rigid conflicts to destroy them.
Notes
1. https://www.cdhal.org/ressources/exploitation-miniere-et-droits-humains/