Property destruction is usually the hottest topic at any nonviolence training, and it is especially hot after Seattle.

My personal opinion is that property destruction/enhancement is not in itself violent. Other nonviolence trainers might disagree with me. Keeping a genuinely open mind about the appropriateness of property destruction helps me to encourage debate about it in trainings, though. In one of our workshops in Seattle, a young woman argued passionately for property destruction. The damage we might do to a Starbuck’s or a McDonald's is insignificant, she pointed out, compared to the damage done by these same corporations to the lives of people in the southern hemisphere. I agreed that property destruction does indeed have a place in a nonviolent campaign. However, I maintained, public opinion must be fairly supportive of the campaign already, or property destruction will not gain much sympathy for the cause. My opponent pointed out that corporations are doing real damage to the world right now, and that they must be stopped in their tracks as soon as possible. That meant, in her view, pulling out all the stops while we had the corporate big-wigs right there in Seattle, and vulnerable. Seldom are the decision-makers so accessible! Her urgency certainly moved me.

In preparation for the IMF/World Bank protests, we addressed property destruction by using spectrums of opinion. I personally believe this is most effective if the trainers avoid an absolute dichotomy, such as "property destruction is always violent" and "property itself is violent, and destroying something violent is not violent." In my experience, it is rare to find activists who genuinely argue these absolutist positions. Setting up and doing battle with such straw figures is not nearly as productive, I believe, as exploring all the many varieties of opinion we really do have.

In my trainings, I used examples of different types and circumstances of property destruction. For instance, in the first spectrum we discussed changing an objectionable message on a billboard. I asked people who believed that nonviolence can include enhancing a billboard to stand towards one end of the spectrum. I asked people who believe that defacing property is violent to stand towards the other end of the spectrum. Those who weren’t sure, and/or thought it depended on the circumstances, and/or questioned the effectiveness of the tactic could stand someplace in the middle.

I allowed time for discussion, especially from those who placed themselves close to either end, and then went on to more controversial situations. What about destroying a piece of property that is in itself destructive, like a missile or a bulldozer or a log picker? What about destroying property because corporations only understand the language of profit and loss, and we have to speak to them in their language in order to get their attention? What about destroying a piece of property during a demonstration and running away from the scene? Again, the object of each spectrum was to promote discussion and frank exchanges of viewpoints. When it appeared to me that an opinion might not be coming out with enough force or clarity, I played the devil’s advocate by taking a spot on the spectrum myself. Overall, these discussions took some of the divisiveness out of the question, and established more mutual respect among activists.

Property destruction can be a real "wedge" issue. During the Persian Gulf War, the peace movement in the Twin Cities polarized over the action of a group called the Revolutionary Anarchist Bowling League, or RABL. RABL members threw a bowling ball into the plate glass window of a Marine recruiting office during an anti-war demonstration. Accusations, defenses, and polemics flew on both sides until finally people with strong opinions sat down to talk and listen to one another. As usual, once they started seeing each other as thoughtful, caring human beings, the most extreme accusations died down, and an uneasy truce was restored. I think nonviolence trainers have a responsibility to open the dialogue before such an explosion takes place, so as to minimize the damage done by this wedge issue.

In discussing property destruction/enhancement, as with every other aspect of nonviolence training, I try to stress to activists that nonviolence is our tool, and that we all together are in the process of working out our ideas and our practices. Each person, no less than King, Gandhi, Chavez, and the other giants of nonviolence, is moving this powerful political practice forward. As I think the Seattle and D.C. actions illustrate, what worked a decade ago can always be improved upon and freshened and made more inspiring. This already promises to be an exciting century!

Copyright © 2000 Betsy Raasch-Gilman