> Organizing is all about recognizing that there are a whole range of
> different people in society, who will be moved to action and changes in
> social consciousness through a range of different tactics. If you are
> unwilling to go to jail for your beliefs, no radical change will likely be
> possible. But if you disdain letter writing campaigns and other tactics to
> reach and empower new folks, no radical change will be possible either.
Damn, I forgot! That letter writing campaign secured that pardon for Leonard Peltier.
It's funny that you should argue that if "we are unwilling to go to jail for our beliefs, then no radical change will be possible." I was reading a book today about Martin Luther King in which the author criticized the anti-abortion activists who were claiming that they were doing civil disobedience in the tradition of MLK. He argued that they didn't understand that King advocated the defiance of unjust law, which recognized that there still is a need for law. I understand this philosophy, but as an anarchist I reject all laws, not just the unjust ones.
When you argue this old liberal canard about the activists taking responsibility for their actions, you are using the nonviolence yardstick to measure the dimensions of our protest. We make no pretense of being law-abiding citizens who are using nonviolence to challenge unjust laws.
I don't know if you've ever been in jail for a political offense, but I have. I spent the night in a Chicago jail after an anarchist "riot" back in 1986, that was tame compared to just about any demo these days. I was threatened with prison rape by the jail guards, who were reminiscing about cracking heads back in 1968. That's not an experience I want to repeat any time soon.
Yes, a range of tactics can accomplish great goals, but I snicker when those who lecture about these historical lessons try to narrow the parameters of dissent. Those of you who were activists in the 1960s did some great things, but you guys certainly didn't invent mass resistance or civil disobedience, for that matter.
<< Chuck0 >>
Infoshop.org -> http://www.infoshop.org/ Alternative Press Review -> http://www.altpr.org/ Practical Anarchy Online -> http://www.practicalanarchy.org/ Homepage -> http://flag.blackened.net/chuck0/home/
INTERNATIONALISM IN PRACTICE
An American soldier in a hospital explained how he was wounded: He said, "I was told that the way to tell a hostile Vietnamese from a friendly Vietnamese was to shout ‘To hell with Ho Chi Minh!’ If he shoots, he’s unfriendly. So I saw this dude and yelled ‘To hell with Ho Chi Minh!’ and he yelled back, ‘To hell with President Johnson!’ We were shaking hands when a truck hit us."
(from 1,001 Ways to Beat the Draft, by Tuli Kupferburg).