It's one thing to use "peace cops" on people who agree to them. I have no problem with that. But using them to control people who have not agreed to them is self-defeating and wrong. Doing so will provoke fighting between your peace police and those who have not agreed to be controlled by them - thus a civil war. And people who are going to use PD aren't going to agree to an action with peace cops. If you were around in the 1770s you'd probably be whining about how violent the boston tea party was and want peace cops to restrain the revolutionaries. It's quite hypocritical that people who compain about "violent" PD to advocate peace cops - which would be far more violent then breaking a window. It's a good thing peace cops weren't able to restrain the people in Argentina, Bolivia and many other places where similar tacics have brought about victories.
> 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"?
Faulty analogy.
> This idea that movements should enforce no rules of behavior is just
> individualist scab ideology. It's the idea that democratic agreements
mean
> nothing,
"Democratic agreements"?!? There's no democracy in this, it's a proposal for your faction to impose it's will on the rest of the movement. How do you propose to structure and control these peace police? Who makes to decisions on what rules to enforce, how to enforce them, when, etc.? The spokescouncil method will see someone blocking consensus. Furthermore, there's a genuine danger of the peace police usurping the power of the spokescouncils (or whatever you put in their place). If your peace cops decide to impose different rules, who's to stop them? Who watches the watchers?
The kinds of strategies you advocate are responsible for the failure to end capitalism in the 20th century.