> Actually there is a world of difference. I interviewed Bove for quite a
> while. His action in France was a mass action supported by the overwhelming
> majority of those who were organized to turn out against McDonalds. The
> protesting farmers came with the clear understanding of what and why it was
> going to happen.
I don't see much difference. The anarchists agreed among themselves what they were going to do and they expressed their intentions to the folks involved in the planning of the street occupations. Other people joined them when they started their actions.
> There is no way that the vandalism in Seattle was agreed to by more than a
> corporal's guard. Bove also spoke against breaking the windows at the
> McDonalds when he led a protest in Seattle.
I saw that and instantly lost some respect for him.
> I should also point out that it was those participating in the ageed upon
> civil disobedience that were trying to stop the vandalism.
But this was CD that was agreed upon by its participants. This "agreement" doesn't mean that they had an exclusive protest franchise for the entire city of Seattle. People should be free to organize their own actions in conjunction with other actions. That was the spirit of Seattle; it was very much a DIY protest. Some folks marched with labor, other sat in the streets, some dropped banners from buildings, and a few smashed windows.
I know from
> talking to them that they felt betrayed by the "do your own thing"
> individualism of those tiny few who decided to break class. Kinda
> libertarian anarchists.
"Libertarian anarchist" is a redundant phrase. The Eugene anarchists run something called the Anarchist Action Collective. This implies they make their decisions collectively, not as individualists.
The real individualists are so-called leaders like Michael Dolan and Medea Benjamin.
> Actually the lesson is bring masses prepared to take agreed upon action. If
> bulldozers are agreed to then bring bulldozers.
I find the use of the word "masses" to be an objectifying, Stalinist term. It denies the individuality and idiosnycrisy of the those attended a huge action. When you start talking about masses, you start forcing a straightjacket on what is possible. If anything was clear in Seattle it was that a wide range of people could get together peacefully to protest a common enemy. This diversity of resistance refuses to conform to the parameters of a well-defined "mass movement," which is what frustrates those who wish to *lead* any post-Seattle "movement."
It's a waste of time, because as they say, you can't herd cats.
-- Chuck0
Mid-Atlantic Infoshop http://www.infoshop.org/
Leonard Peltier Freedom Month Executive Clemency For Peltier! http://www.freepeltier.org/lpfreedommonth.html
Free Mumia Abu-Jamal Now! http://www.infoshop.org/gulag/mumia_idx.html
"A society is a healthy society only to the degree that it exhibits anarchistic traits."
- Jens Bjørneboe