> There are times in the development of a movement when left-opportunism is
> more dangerous than right opportunism. But some self-proclaimed marxists
> disdain to analyse the balance of forces on principle. As Lenin pointed
> out, that has nothing to do with Marxism.
I'd like to see some examples of this "left-opportunism." I gather that Burford is referring to anarchist elements such as the black bloc, who simply operate on the principle of self-organization. If Burford bothers to do any research on the black bloc, such as talking to non-anarchist radicals who participated at A16 or Quebec City, he'll discover that most folks had a positive view of our work and our mutual aid towards fellow protesters.
> On the practical issue that Monbiot raises, I suggest the single most
> effective tactic for the progressive majority is to denounce demonstrators
> who are masked as in a conspiracy against the movement and as potential
> provocateurs.
Wow! Doing the work of the cops already. Anarchists have been very open-minded about working with Marxists in the anti-globalization movement, but it seems that the old back-stabbing tactics of old are being brought out.
If Burford is going to denounce demonstraters who are masked, I suggest that he start with the Zapatistas. Masking up at a demo offers several advantages, the most important one being leaderless anonymity. On Sunday, at the World Bank demo here in DC, I spent a few minutes harassing an undercover Fed who was videotaping us. You would think that an intelligent guy like Burford would look back at COINTELPRO and the Palmer Raids and figure out that we need new ways to protect folks from being put easily into the files of the State.
This is an incredibly sectarian statement that goes beyond anything I've seen lately. Conspriacy against the movement? You wouldn't have a movement if it wasn't for the hard organizing work of those who Burford condemns.
The charge of "provocateur" is a serious one. At least, it's an ideological blinder which prevents an ideologue from understanding why some resort to property destruction and violence as tactics. At worst, language like this promotes paranoia and suspicion in the movement. It's not a constructive way to discuss these issues;--it is divisive.
> But theoretically the battle between marxism and anarchism must be taken up
> in ideological argument, not least first with those left opportunists who
> proclaim themselves, often very loudly, as marxists, but are anarchists,
> certainly in terms of global politics.
I don't know what this is about, but I certainly see many Marxists as allies, especially the anti-authoritarian variety. The rest I judge by their actions.
<< 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).