On Nov 5, 2011, at 4:36 PM, from_alamut at yahoo.com wrote:
> Non-violence is a tactic that usually is successful only when supported by accompanied violent acts. Ghandhi did not win independence just by non-violence, but was supported by a wave of bombings and assassinations (not that I am advocating these far from it). The Civil rights movements were accompanied with urban rioting. You cant separate the two or you'll loose. Black blocs cannot operate alone and non-violence is impotent without it.
As an abstract principle, I concur. But I don't know what violence accomplishes in this situation. It seems more like a form of self-expression for BB types to feel more righteous than all the liberal wimps than an actual strategy or tactic to change anything in the world.
Doug