RE: [Fwd: AUT: Re: Perhaps Blissett Was Right]

[billbartlett@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Bill Bartlett)]

Paul Bowman wrote:

[...]

>the actions
>of the police on the day and the government in the whole Poll Tax
>strategy, represented a violent and injust aggression against which the
>line had to be "Self Defence is No Offence" (a strategy originating from
>the struggles of black organisations to defend themselves against
>fascist attacks in the 70s - e.g. Bradford 12, etc.). In the weeks that
>followed the Trafalgar Square clash the confrontation between our line
>and that of the Militant basically resulted in victory for the
>"unconditional support" line. So much so that the Millies began to deny
>that their leaders had condemned those who fought back in the first
>place.

Sounds like it was a good strategy to get support from the left, who were
clearly the only people targetted by the message. But does it appeal to
anyone except the converted? Or was it merely a selfish strategy designed
in the narrow self-interests of the defendants?
>
>As far as I can see the situation post-Seattle is pretty similar.
>Political support must be demanded for all those arrested on an
>unconditional basis on the grounds that it is not for the movement to
>raise itself as judge, jury and executioner seeking to impose division
>and excommunication on the basis of hearsay without evidence.

You prefer to leave such decisions in the hands of the state then? Or do
you insist on including *anyone* in "the movement", no matter how
outrageous and counter-productive their behaviour is?

> Further that in the context of the threat to life, limb and liberty that the
>WTO's corporate agenda represents to the working class and peasant
>peoples of the world, all activity is merely defensive.

"All" activity? You've got to be joking, the line has to be drawn
somewhere, how about if someone turns up with a machine gun and starts
firing at the cops from the middle of the crowd? Is that "merely defensive"
as well?

> Above all this
>media hype must not be allowed to serve the state's interest, namely to
>obscure the principal crime of Seattle - police violence.

If you don't want them to hang you, common sense dictates that you don't
supply them the rope with which to do so.

>Those within the Left who are serving the state's agenda by attacking
>the movement must be faced up to.

Those who supply the rope our enemies will use to hang us must also be
faced up to.

>Scabs must be confronted in such a way as they have
>to publically commit themselves to the movement or admit their
>allegiance to the state.

So, who's side are *you* on?

> Who are the enemy? The paramilitary and
>military servants of the state with their armour, dogs, guns, gas, APCs,
>and helicopters,  or young kids in hooded sweatshirts with whatever they
>can lay their hands on?

Neither. The enemy is the capitalist class. Those (on both sides) who dress
up in funny uniforms and fantasise about themselves as "warriors" are
merely servants of the state. Unwittingly in many cases, often with the
best of intentions, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell Tas




     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---