> 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.
Gandhi is overrated and was a unique example in a historical context that has been oversimplified by nonviolent activists who don't want to understand the big picture of the Indian fight for independence.
Given the police state that is set up in New York City, we have to resort to some level of secrecy in order to implement direct action. Otherwise people will be herded into pens where our dissent will effectively be dissipated!
Secrecy has always been an important component of direct action that confronts a repressive state. You don't expect us to mail our membership lists to the police, do you? It's bad enough that activists stupidly help the police by applying for protest permits. The main reason for secrecy in this case is to maintain the element of surprise so we can implement our strategy!
And your comment about hoping that the Teamsters beat up my friends is truly despicable. Blaming protesters for Bush getting elected is about as ignorant as blaming Nader for Bush getting elected.
Thanks for confirming for me why radicals can't work with liberals on the streets. If you don't beat us up, you are out there urging the cops to beat us up!
Chuck0 Anybody but Kerry or Bush in '04