Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> Nathan Newman wrote:
>
> >But as far as Seattle (and this applies even more to later protests) I think
> >the vast number of activists are peaceful, disciplined fighters for
> >justice-- and they have refused to restrain the small number of vandals and
> >violence-freaks who give the police the excuse to arrest and beat the shit
> >out of the rest.
>
> First of all, people who smash windows aren't "violence freaks." You
> may not like what they do, but it's pretty minor league stuff. By
> using that phrase, you're accepting the ruling class's perception of
> things. I can understand how the ruling class might, in their
> demented fantasies, see any challenge to their rule as a form of
> violence, but we don't have to play along. And second, what do you
> want "the vast number of activists" to do? Surround the
> window-smashers? Call the cops? And third, don't you agree that it
> helps the "vast number" of activists that there are some crazies
> around, to whom they can seem like reasonable alternatives?
Doug's argument seems reasonable here. I wrote the following on a different list:
*****
Alice Zillah wrote:
>
> While it's certainly not a moral crime to damage
> corporate property (to my mind), it does ensure
> that 95% of the public will fixate on that damage
> to the exclusion of the message you are trying to
> get across.
The property damage (rioting actual or only created in the media) was useful the first couple of times (Seattle and one or two subsequent ones). It caught people's attention -- and catching attention has to be prior to conveying any content. But window-smashing etc. gets boring very quickly. And it's essential to remember that these "battles" are battles only metaphorically. The enemy cannot be harmed by anything the demonstrators succeed in doing physically.
The movement has to grow _and show that it is growing_ -- and show that it is growing not only to "the public" but to itself, or it will peter out. Hence at this stage sheer size, no militancy, counts. And size depends not on what is done at the demonstrations but on what is done in localities for months before the demonstration.
That's hardly a concrete strategy or set of tactics -- but it does, I think, sum up the parameters for any tactics that are to be developed. Carrol*****
A couple points to add. In reacting to various ultra-left or plain silly trends in any movement it is essential to remember that they are part of the scenery, regardless of how one may rail against them. A movement that can't grow regardless of the uproar created by anarchists, super-maoists, window-smashers-for-the-hell-of-it, moralizing non-violent carpers, right-wing mimics, etc etc etc isn't going to grow under any circustances. Railing against window smashers or dogmatic splinter groups or sectarian interlopers etc is simply wailing about the weather.
Carrol
>
> Doug