Gordon Fitch wrote:
> > Maybe the alleged race problem should be stated more precisely.
> > We have a particular view of a particular demonstration under
> > particular circumstances on a few particular days which is
> > supposed to show something significant about a large, widespread,
> > variegated movement that has been going on for several decades.
> > The steps to the conclusion, however, have not been shown, in
> > the absence of which the charges, if that's what they are,
> > sound mighty like some mainstream media hack's inevitable tale
> > of spoiled White upper-middle-class brats.
Chuck0:
> Well, this variegated movement only goes back 4 or 5 years. It really
> got started in January 1995 with the Chiapas uprising. Then came the two
> big meetings of "Encuentro For Humanity And Against Neoliberalism," the
> first of which was in Chiapas in 1996 and a second one which was held in
> Spain the following year. Also during this time we saw the rise of
> Internet-based activism, which dramatically helped people network
> (instead of joining organizations). In the late 90s we saw North
> American activists adopting more militant forms of direct action (i.e.
> Earth First! and animal rights actions) and the importation of tactics
> from Reclaim the Streets in the U.K.
>
> The first big networked international action against capitalism was J18
> last year, which was coordinated on the Internet and even utilized rave
> culture methods to get the word out. Then came N30/Seattle and so on.
>
> I think it was a really cheap shot for the boss media to pick on the
> racial composition of the A16 coalition. This was pretty dishonest,
> seeing how it was more diverse than they were saying. It was also
> hypocritical, given that the boss media does a crappy job covering race
> issues and the concerns of people of color.
I'm not really up on my radical history, but (for instance) Food Not Bombs started in 1980, and by 1992, when they printed their first (?) book, the idea of consensus had been so thoroughly conceptualized that they included a flowchart for it. ( http://www.etaoin.com/A/fnbcook/fnb1_pa7.htm#flowchart )
And I recall even more then a decade before that, when university buildings were being occupied, that consensual rather than democratic or authoritarian methods were being used to make decisions. But the "boss media" (in your apt phrase) tended to pull certain articulate and attractive persons out of the context and present them as leaders, which lent more of an atmosphere of caudillismo than I think was originally there. This procedure was also practiced on the Civil Rights movement -- as indeed has been the case with all movements which the bourgeoisie have not decided to crush: elevate, isolate, and buy off leaders, create a sub- bourgeoisie within the movement, and coopt both, giving the elect political and academic jobs and the followers images and symbols so that they, too, might identify with the State and the ruling class.
Tedious as it may be, freedom and the equality without which freedom is impossible require that all voices be heard, and that requires the abolition of class systems, including those of the Left. Especially those of the Left.