Very well. Perhaps there was violence on both sides. But here comes the hardest part, since judging one side or another simply on the use of violence is inadequate, though to a degree necessary. In short: Who should we side with? Here, it is necessary to look at the big picture, as opposed to this one night in Oakland. The Occupy Wall Street movement and their siblings across the US are a product of the financial crisis that culminated in the bailout of US corporations using public funds. The crisis itself was caused by the criminal greed of the American ruling class. But after the crisis "subsided", almost nobody was held to account besides scapegoats like Bernie Madoff. Obama, despite being elected as a liberal "antiwar" candidate, has largely continued Bush's policy of imperialist aggression and shielding the bourgeoisie's financial criminality. The US state has helped the bourgeoisie make more money than ever thanks to these policies. And by keeping unemployment low, they create the conditions for the the working population at large to accept massive cuts to both their pay, pensions, and benefits. This rampant corruption is bound to raise the public's ire. The Wall Street protests, inspired by the revolution in Egypt, were barely planned at all in the initial stages. They were at first thought to be a failure (I believed this as well) since at first did not reach their intended target number of protesters. To kill the movement in its cradle, the US media instituted a week-long blackout. But it failed, as they soon quickly grew. Movements wishing to follow both their example have sprouted in numerous US cities to protest the rapacious greed of the capitalist class. In sum, the Occupy movements represent the mass of the disenfranchised. They must be supported unconditionally, despite their political weaknesses.
The police, on the other hand, are the hired thugs of the bourgeoisie who enforce the structure of class society under a veneer of "legality". After all, the US constitution does not "legally" obligate them to protect anybody, save their employers and masters. They are an appendage of the very state that refuses to prosecute the crimes of the bourgeoisie. They represent the interests of capitalism and private property; their overall historical role can be no other. That is their only "duty". They are thoroughly racist, corrupt, and reactionary. They are are above the law especially in matters of police brutality, since attempts by state governments to prosecute them usually fail. In New York and Boston the police have attacked protesters with mace and worse and have received absolutely no punishment, or a caricature of one. And this was against peaceful protesters, by and large; they were using military tactics against civilians. The opposition to the protestors have implied that they are justified in "keeping the peace" and brutally repressing them, but this argument casually leaves out the fact that the eruption of these protests and their constant growth proves that there was no "peace" at all before; the class conflict hidden until these protests brought them into the open.
For the sake of keeping this shorter, the police and the protesters must be judged by the class interests they represent. There can be no question of who actually needs to be contained. Down with the police; they deserve no pity for protecting the robber barons of capitalism.
Edit: There might be responses to what I have said, but I won't be able to answer them, since my weekend is pretty busy. I have to leave this topic.
