Not to mention the main streams of anarchism which are far more participatorily democratic than virtually any other ideology.
Smashing a window could be a fine symbolic act if you explain to people that owners of capital not only deface people's lives, but even their own capital and resources too when it suits them. (Like the perfectly useful factory or hotel which is torn down.)
You can also point out that the damage caused to an innocent country during an unjust war is a zillion times worse. ("Please imagine what that's like, the next time you feel so angry over a union-busting Whole Foods getting a cracked window.")
Or point out the spraypainted message: "Strike."
But the right wing exploits the fact that leftists will merrily infight, rather than take such obvious constructive action to partially mitigate the (real) problems.
All the best,
Tj
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Bhaskar Sunkara
<bhaskar.sunkara at gmail.com> wrote:
> People act like they never heard this critique of anarchism before. It's
> been the dominant one on the socialist left for over a century and it's
> fundamentally correct.
>
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 7:39 AM, Lenin's Tomb
> <leninstombblog at googlemail.com>wrote:
>
>> No, it isn't. Most of us don't have any experience with bloodshed, which
>> is a good thing. They're elitist because they act without accountability,
>> outside the democratic process, paying no attention to the needs of anyone
>> else in the movement, completely indifferent to any negative blowback their
>> actions may bring on other protesters.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>