Ian Murray wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chuck Munson" <chuck at tao.ca>
[CLIP]
> This is why I advocate that peace marshalls not be used in
> demonstrations, since they mainly exist to help the cops
> punish those who don't go along with the party line.
>
> =============
> [IAN:]
> This assumes all non-black block activists and CDer's
> are pacifists, a dubious proposition.
There is no use complaining about the likes of Munson -- capitalism
throws up innumerable varieties of dregs of the system. "Party Line"
(not the most accurate label, but let's use it) has to be hashed out in
advance, and if necessary beat those who violate it to mush. Munson is
simply fucking up English when he refers to all who disagree with him as
"pacifists." But one must also remember that there usually does come a
time as a movement develops (as its base grows and as there is wider
support for it outside its own ranks) when the peace marshalls have to
be passed by. There is a time for a sidewalk demo to stick peacefully to
the sidewalks, and there is a time for the marchers to say fuck you to
both cops and marshalls and take to the street without the benefit of a
parade permit. There is no absolute way to determine this "time" in
advance.
>
> [CLIP]
[CLIP]
MUNSON:
>
> It never ceases to amuse me when I hear of pacifists
> who turn other
> activists over to the cops.
> ===============
> [IAN]
> Again the dubious use of the term pacifist.
This misuse of the term "pacifist" seems to a favorite of those who want
to suppress mass movements. (Munson will deny this, but that is the
essential funciton of politics such as his -- suppress mass movements in
the name of "super democracy."]
>
> [Ian clipped]
MUNSON:
> I have two things to say to this. One is that you are
> assuming that activists who organize outside of a "protest
> guidelines" structure don't have principles and guidelines
> of their own.[CLIP]
Everyone has principles and structure of their own. It just so happens
that some principles (like those Munson is expressing in this post) are
detestable principles.
>
> << Chuck0 >>
>
> ==============
>
> The times ain't enjoyable when avoidable violence is
> one of the results......
>
> Ian
Munson, of course, simply raises a tactic to the level of principle, which is always foolish and/or vicious. But there is of course a time and place for the kind of tactics he supports, just as there is a time and place (and that time and place is now) for the tactics that supporters of non-violence hold. But non-violence _as a principle_ is ultimately as unsatisfactory as Munson's "militancy" as a principle.
Carrol