> I did not see Chuck mention the use of violence. But
> let's face it, channeling the movement into the ballot
> box and the walk-in-the-park-singing-kumbaya type
> demonstrations have their limitations. It's time to
> try direct action, instead of just symbolic indirect
> actions.
Your problem is that you're thinking solely in terms of "actions" (i.e., tactics) instead of organizing (i.e., strategy). So it turns out that stopping the war is hard? I'm so surprised . . .
US Labor Against the War -- which issued the call that started this thread -- is doing yeoman's work every day to broaden antiwar sentiment and organize ordinary people to oppose the war. To the extent that direct action works -- the way the Berrigans' direct action worked in the late Sixties, for example -- it will be because it occurs in a context of mass sympathy. The sort of lumpen adventurism advocated by certain certifiable idiots on this list will get us nowhere, and if slapping such fools upside the head would get them to stop being so dumb, I would definitely do it. So in that sense, yes, I AM in favor of violence.
- - - - - - - - - - John Lacny http://www.johnlacny.com
Tell no lies, claim no easy victories