>Actually, Nathan, small guerilla actions will get us somewhere if we use
>the right strategy. My understanding is that we anarchists will be
>unveiling a new strategy for the GOP convention. Of course, I can't talk
>about it. ;-)
>Ten thousand cops will not be enough.
Ah can't talk about it-- I love how such tactics feed democratic debate on the progressive side on strategy. Aside from the fact that I think a lot of modern direct action is ineffective and alienating, the need for secrecy just encourages centralized undemocratic leadership-- oh yeah, it's all "non-hierarchical" but in practice it's a small group scheming and a bunch of folks implementing as directed at the last moment.
All I can say is that if you do stuff that a la Chicago 1968 helps Bush, I hope some Teamsters and Firefighters kick your ass :)
> That was the lesson from the large antiwar marches-- when the numbers hit
a
> few hundred thousand, the cops would rather cooperate with protests than
end
> up with total chaos.
-Any veteran street activist should understand this phenomenon. This is -where I part company with many of my fellow direct actionists. They tend -to think that we can do cool stuff with a limited amount of protesters. -My goal is always to put as many people on the streets as possible, -since the presence of sheer numbers pacifies the police and ties their -hands.
But your need for secrecy mitigates against large numbers, unless the movement is completely undemocratic.
I like the basic Gandhi approach-- pick strategies that mass numbers can participate in and that will mess with the authorities even if they know exactly what you plan to do.
Nathan Newman