> Nathan Newman wrote:
> I am a big proponent of "peace police"; every
> union rally has one. I think it is the responsibility of those advocating
> alternative social institutions to demonstrate that their alternative is
not
> a lawless one, but a more just and democratic vision.
-What a moronic idea. This would set off a civil war within the -anti-globalization movement and cause activists to fight each other & the -"peace police." That's exactly what the rulers would want. Plus the peace -police would eventually end up under indirect control of capitalists.
A load of crap-- rallies and movements have had marshalls controlling the fringe probably since Igor the caveman protested fire inequality. When groups agree on protest behavior democratically before an event, there is no "civil war" when groups violating that agreement get shut down, just a lot of whining by those who have little respect for others.
If someone decided that their "do you own thing" idea of activism was to take down names and hand them over to the police, I'd shut them down too. Or would that violate their anarchist rights to "multiplicity of activism"?
This idea that movements should enforce no rules of behavior is just individualist scab ideology. It's the idea that democratic agreements mean nothing, that if you think you are more righteous than everyone else, you can ignore their wishes and serve your own individual idea of what to do.
It's bullshit end to end. And to repeat, it's scab ideology.
-- Nathan Newman