> As a species of anarchist, I find this choice of opponent very dispiriting and
> all to familiar. Anarchists shouldn't fight weak sects and nutty wankers -
> though that is what they seem to always be doing. My comrades in Sydney spend
> so much time complaining about the trots and picking fights with the last
> remaining nazi in Australia...sigh... If you pick on the weak you become weak
> yourself.
>
> Institute representative limits per organization at meetings and some standing
> orders with which to boot truly disruptive people. End of story. It's just not
> worth the headeache.
Good suggestion, but they won't participate in meeting with other activists. They've set up their own "coalitions" so that they can avoid the messiness of democracy in the movement. Why do you think that ANSWER shifts direction so fast? Brian Becker writes up a call or proposal and it becomes an edict. In more democratic activist circles, it usually takes lots of meetings to decide things.
Chuck0
------------------------------------------------------------ Personal homepage -> http://chuck.mahost.org/ Infoshop.org -> http://www.infoshop.org/ MutualAid.org -> http://www.mutualaid.org/ Alternative Press Review -> http://www.altpr.org/ Practical Anarchy Online -> http://www.practicalanarchy.org/ Anarchy: AJODA -> http://www.anarchymag.org/
"The state can't give you free speech, and the state can't take it away. You're born with it, like your eyes, like your ears. Freedom is something you assume, then you wait for someone to try to take it away. The degree to which you resist is the degree to which you are free..." ---Utah Phillips