Charles Brown wrote:
> [SOMEONE WROTE]
> I assume that Carrol is advocating structure in the form of one big
> socialist party (democratic centralism). That's soooo old school. ;-)
It's bad enough to have the list crowded with liberal jargon without stuffing it full of middle school children's slang.
As a matter of fact I wasn't thinking of democratic centralism (which I'm not sure I support in any case -- but that's a long discussion in some other forum). If you read accounts of the various (usually transient) coalitions during the '60s you will see that there is no one formula. The biggest and most importnat demonstration of all (which succeeded in stopping Nixon plans to use the bomb) in November '69 roughly followed SWP suggestions, but it there was wild variety in it. I disagreed sharply with the SWP then and in hindsight, but really, we all owe them a big debt as well. The person I supplied with a Van and a credit card to drive himself and many others to D.C. then had one anecdote that should warm Munson's heart -- and it was an incident I had in mind when I said that though I thought large peaceful & disciplined demos were called for now there would be other tactics needed at some point in the future. He was with a large side demonstrtion near the Capital, facing a line of police. Some non-violent freak (not all those committed to non-violence are freaks, but this one was) got between the lines and pulled that old cliche, "If you want to brick someone, brick me." So the bricked him.
Carrol]
>
> ^^^^^^^^
>
> CB: Isn't anarchism just as old school , from the 1800's ? Anarchism was "invented" before democratic centralism. The difference between anarchists and Leninists is not that anarchism has not been tried before, and long ago.
>
> Can't we on the left get along, like the CP and Sacco and Vanzetti ? :>)