Gar Lipow wrote:
> It's unfortunate that so little progress has been made, in the wake of
> last fall's Seattle/WTO actions, on the front of bridging a perceived
> chasm between practicing "pure nonviolence" and "property destruction"
> as appropriate tactics for massive demonstrations.
This is the sort of conflict which (1) will not be resolved in theoretical debate and (2) isn't all that important. It will always be with us, but it tends to get washed out in practice. (The anti-violence people do their greatest damage as cluttering debate at mass meetings and forums.)
The real division is between those who want a mass movement to emerge from the November actions, with strong local roots, and those (like Sawicki, etc. on this list) who want to discipline that potential mass movement in the service of union and Democratic Party bureaucrats and their intellectual servants -- i.e., those who pretend (I can't imagine them to be serious) that the U.S. government can be persuaded to do good things.