> maybe i'm dense, but what does this have to do with anything. perhaps i
> should have skimmed further than the first, but i don't see how what
> this has to do with anything that's been discussed. It's not an issue of
> violence v non-violence. that's chuck's red herring.
>
> as far as I know, the people who object to chuck's version of propaganda
> of the deed are not opposed to violence in principle. what most people
> find repulsive his tendency to flat out deny that peaceful protests are
> of any value whatsoever, that anything Nathan-types do is useful, that
> the work Lacny does is useful, that the stuff Yoshie does is useful. All
> of it, except what he advocates, is worthless.
>
> Maybe that's unfair but that's what I get from his posts: if it ain't
> something he approves of, it sucks.
I post often on this list, so I'm mystified that my actual positions are constantly misrepresented. I chalk up most of this misrepresentation to sectarian pettiness.
So let me give everybody a concise run down of my *actual* position vis a vis tactics:
I support "diversity of tactics" as a tactical strategy. That means I support the use of a wide range of tactics. I support the use of civil disobedience. I support nonviolence. I support violence and property destruction. I support people giving speeches, doing childcare, and editing magazines (go Yoshie). I think that this take on tactics is the most realistic given what activists do and what the state does against us. People should have the freedom to do the tactics that they want to do. People should use tactics that advance their interests and goals. I know of plenty of "black bloc anarchists" who use traditional civil disobedience for various projects and campaigns.
By the way, let's go over this again: the black bloc is not a roving band of teenagers looking to fuck shit up. The black bloc is a tactic used by anarchists, anti-capitalists and our friends, mostly to demonstrate group solidarity on the streets and our radical politics. In many ways, the black bloc is a militant form of civil disobedience, in that the bloc is primarily an illegal march. In an era of protest permits and constant police repression, sometimes the black bloc is the best and only way to fight for your rights collectively with other people.
I don't recall ever flat-out denying that peaceful protests have value. I think that your standard leftist rallies and marches have their usefulness, by my chief criticism is aimed at groups who *only* use these tactics. For example, I would have more respect for UFPJ and ANSWER if they also organized civil disobedience in addition to their rallies and marches. But their only tactics in public are marches and rallies--almost always permitted--hence the ineffectiveness of their wing of the movement. I would also be critical of somebody who argued that the black bloc is the only way to go.
And I certainly don't believe that the black bloc will bring about some revolution. It's just a tactic.
Chuck