At this point, it strikes me that we're making a lot of large claims based on fairly flimsy and speculative information. There seem to be a lot of questions about what happened and when it happened. Were there any actual reports about violence? I haven't heard any, other than actions of the police. I don't count breaking windows in this, and there was a bit of kerfuffle on the anti-cap march, where some people opposed to property destruction threw chairs at people trying to break windows. robert wood
> 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
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>