> It was kick started by long some long standing MGJ people...those people in 2001
whose major focus was always on brick throwing and cop baiting and were
active with
unpleasent groupings like the Utopian Anarchist Party. Those MGJ people who focused on messaging and building larger coalitions have moved on to other things from what I've observed.
You aren't making alot of sense here. The activist community in D.C. has always involved lots of cross-pollination. There were people who were working with MGJ and the late Anti-Capitalist Convergence. I've seen MGJ people in black blocs and BB anarchists at MGJ meetings. There was always plenty of support (sometimes under the table) between MGJ (and NGO groups) and the more militant activists. There were (and probably are) plenty of people in MGJ who support brick-throwing and confronting cops. Hell, I distinctly remember a presentation by an NGO activist at an MGJ meeting on anti-IMF riots in the Global South.
Well, lot's of people have moved on from these groups. That's just what happens over time.
The Utopian Anarchist Party was a fake group run by a lunatic along with some of his friends. It was never anarchist or played any role in local activism.
> Talk about vanguardism...150 mostly young white kids dressed up like
members of Crass speak for the population.
Oh right, I forget that this list is currently populated by "you punks, get off my mind" types. It's pretty sad how some leftists give up on their ideas and settle for armchair bashing of kids who are out there trying to do something.
> When miners in WV throw things - including bullets- at scabs, the community gets it.
Guess what, Alex? When anti-capitalists throw bricks, the community gets it too. We are part of communities. We all talked to people in our communities who support our actions. Their most common complaint is that we hold back too much and stick with tame protests. People love hearing about yuppie chain stores getting bricked.
>Based on your inability to offer a coherent defense, I don't think you even get why tossing a
brick at a H and M (or whatever it was) and hurting a by stander does anything to advance a political movement.
Internet logical fallacy #34: If I diagree with you, your argument isn't coherent. I'll just point out that there are volumes of articles and editorials on the web that explain the strategies behind the anti-capitalist movement's tactics.
For some reason today, I'm having a flashback to early 2000, when I was reading the exact same stupid criticism about actions that happened during the Seattle protests.
> Ok, but what about people who aren't looking to get arrested (i.e. most people). People who
find crusty punks in masks yelling 'off the pigs" alienating?
Anybody who attends *any* kind of protest should understand that there is a significant risk of arrest. If you think that some protests are "safer" than others, you are delusional. I've witnessed plenty of incidents during "peaceful" protests where the cops attacked people in an effort to bait them into reacting. Like the time during an ANSWER march several years ago in DC when the cops were running their motorcycles into groups of people marching.
If you participate, or are around, and anti-capitalist protest, you should expect that there is more risk of arrest. And blaming protesters for other people getting arrested is just ridiculous. The protesters don't run the police force.
Why do you have a problem with crusty punks? Is there some kind of dress code for the revolution that I didn't get a memo about?
You know what, I'll take a smelly, travelling punk who knows how to organize and who is a responsible person over any of the armchair pundits here. In my experience, the grimiest, crustiest punks are the ones who are the best organizers.
Do you bother to look at the pictures of our new infoshop that I shared with the list. That space was put together by crusty punks who you'd dismiss in a second.
> Was Seattle interesting becuase some Starbucks got vandalized or because it brought
out tens of thousands in a very wide and diverse coalition? I'd vote for
the latter.
Seattle was interesting because both things happened, and much more. Seattle was interesting because several different factors synchronized in a very inspirational way. If you dismiss the property destruction at Seattle, then you just don't get how that played an important role in the overall success of Seattle.
Chuck