> Chuck0, your own political stance is miles away from N+L's. Why, then,
> trust uncritically to their meeting reportage? The fact is that the meeting
> was run, or facilitated, by Direct Action Facilitators who were adhering to
> a consensus-based and anti-hierarchical style which was somewhat different
> from what the "vanguardists" including myself were used to. The N+L guy who
> made the motion and was standing directly behind me wasn't used to it
> either. When he wasn't recognized when he wanted to be, he got the floor by
> means of bellowing at the top of his lungs. Is this hierarchical or
> non-hierarchical? I'm really not sure. None of us from WWP got the floor
> during this whole discussion, because we were respecting the DAN facilitator
> who didn't call on us. We could have bellowed as loud as the N+L guy, I
> bet.
I don't know alot about the Marxist-Humanists, but I've found them to be likeable folks.
My comments were not directed at the WWP in this case. It was pretty clear from the account that the Chicago ISO was attempting one of their usual efforts to get rid of consensus decision-making.
See: "Many of the younger anti-globalization activists did not take the floor, even though the vanguardists were hijacking their efforts right before their eyes."
The ACC exists, in part, because the local political wrangling between Left sectarians, Greens, and professional NGO activists, alienated most of the young anti-capitalists.
It is my hunch that the current anti-war movement isn't haven't much effect because the usual Left sectarians are fighting over the new movement du jour. They never had much control over the anti-glob movement, because they hopped on the bandwagon so late. In fact, it can be argued that the Left didn't jump on board until after Seattle.
Chuck0