Gar Lipow wrote:
> To all Carroll and Bodi who responded to the article by Brian Dominick I
> forwarded:
>
> 1) Neither of you seem to be responding to Dominicks main points
> A) Some affinity groups at the upcoming demo are planning to ac
I did not respond to this main point because I do not think it is the kind of issue that can be fruitfully debated in the abstract. It has to be worked through (fought through) by those actively engaged in organizing and carrying out the demonstrations. I did focus on the issue which I think is fundamental to the demonstrations considered as part of a larger movement. A fight between two groups, one attempting to break and one attempting to defend a window will not have major consequences. The capture of the movement by the Democratic Party and the AFL-CIO bureaucracy (and the bureacracies of its constituent unions) will destroy the movement's political significance.
So yes -- I did respond "to Dominicks main points" -- I responded by saying (1) they were not points which could be discussed usefully on lbo and (2) that they were not really very important points anyhow.
Carrol
I think I did say (I haven't reread my post) that what we use to call "non-violent freaks" were mostly harmless except in so far as they cluttered debate on other issues. No amount of debate will make them go away. They are a permanent part of the political climate of capitalism. One doesn't argue with a thunderstorm, one attempts to allow for it in one's activity.