Robert's point about violence having historically been mostly carried out by labor is a good one, and one I hadn't thought of. If, today, violence were carried out primarily by unionists, would that be okay or should that also be subject to central committee approval? In other words, is the opposition here violence as such or is it anarchism? ***************************************************************
IMO, violence is something you use when you can win--par example: Mao tse-tung used violence when his troops could encircle and win, otherwise it was all slip away to avoid defeat. It's a tactical question, not a strategic one. The class war is a lot like a guerilla war. If violence becomes the general public's focus of a demonstration against a particular war or a strike for better working conditions and so on and, the protesters/strikers are beaten by the forces of the political State, the media does a beat up of the protesters/strikers and the 'cause' is lost in the haze of reportage on 'violence' and many of the protesters/strikers end up in seemingly endless court battles in the aftermath. IOW, the issue is changed from the 'cause' to the 'tactic' and the public, in its already existing conservative mind set turns on the perceived weakness of e.g. 'the hippies', 'the anarchists' and so on. This happened in Seattle where the BB stole the show (aka
battle for hearts and minds), so to speak and instead of the public mind focusing on the matters at hand (our rulers plotting how to get higher rates of profit through 'free' trade agreements and destroying Earth in the process), the issue became the tactics of BB McDonalds trashing etc.
Hi-ho, Mike B) ***********************************************************************
Wobbly Times
http://wobblytimes.blogspot.com/