> Last time you wrote on this topic, I commented: "Over the years I've
> read or heard many variations on this theme - about 'cowardly' or
> co-opted organisers trying to repress militant civil disobedience or
I think you are reading something into Harris's comments that just isn't there. I've seen the "cowardly" thing thrown around, and that's not what Harris is doing here. I wouldn't even say that he's particularly advocating or defending, e.g., window breaking.
> But I've read very few good statements
> about what it's supposed to achieve, even though this strategic gap
> has been a much more common criticism of black bloc or
> 'insurrectionist' antics than that they are just too militant or
> radical."
This demand that one justify one's actions continues to amaze me, particularly its selective enforcement. Why should one have to know the effects of one's actions beforehand? Aren't we all experimenting here?
> And now here we have yet another displacement of the argument. It's
> just not true to say that 'Reluctants' are liberals and
> window-smashers are 'anti-capitalists' or 'communist invariants'.
This is a non-sequiter. Nothing in Harris's article implies this.
>If you think
> it is, tell us how. It seems to me that if you think a few masked
> people "smashing up a bank" is a threat to capitalism, or even to the
> bank, you don't have a good understanding of how capitalism works.
Ah, here we go. The appeal to provincial knowledge. I think you are missing the point. You think there can be an economic solution to this economic crisis. Fine, you are free to believe that (though I'd point out that bond traders concur 100%). But other people disagree with you and think the crisis can only be, or is best, addressed by political and social action. There are many different ways to carry that out.
>It's the
> deliberate escalation of conflict with police that seems stupid.
>From everything I've read, the building occupiers underestimated the
police response. They didn't intentionally escalate the conflict; they
miscalculated. And this miscalculation can't be attributed to naivete.
They assumed the police, post-Scott Olsen, would be on a shorter
leash, and their presence during the day was microscopic, so if
anything it seemed like a safe move. Obviously they were wrong.