> The last sentence is an example of exactly what we were talking about -
> this bogus opposition between action (good) and talk (bad). How do you
> know what to do if you don't have some theory of power and how to resist
> it? I'd say that the fact that you think you could make a dent in the
> war machine with a handful of anarchists utterly lacking in popular
> support trying to disrupt the supply chain suggests that a little more
> talking might be helpful.
I never claimed that the supply chain would effectively be disrupted by a handful of anarchists. In a reply to another post, I was going to elaborate on possible strategies. In terms of a strategy to disrupt the supply chain, the anti-war movement has several million potential activists at its disposal around the country. A well-organized campaign of civil disobedience could cause significant disruptions, dramatize the fact that resistance is happening, and win a few small victories that are important to morale in the movement. This campaign could organize, for example, union members to strike at ports on both coasts. It could tie into the counter-recruiting that is going on independently of the main coalitions.
There is always an ongoing discussion about ideas, issues, and theory in the movements. The problem right now is a complete lack of action. No praxis, no movement.
Chuck0