AUT: Reply to Nate: "Diversity of tactics"

["Harald Beyer-Arnesen" <haraldba@xxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nate Holdren" <nateholdren@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 10. juli 2002 16.40
Subject: Re: AUT: Re: Re: THE ANTI-G8 PROTESTS IN CALGARY


Nate, I suppose I never get around to answers your questions
concerning "diversity of tactics."

I am generally not too fond of the term tactict in itself, but
that is another issue.

First, diversity of tactics implies that there is a common
strategy. I would also say it would imply that there are
some fundamental commons understandings, both as
reagards means and ends. No such things exists within
summit-protest movement.
        Diversity of tactics would also tend to imply different
tacticts to different contexts, which seems a reasonable
approaoch, but that is not what has been implied by the
catch-word  phrase "diversity of tacticts" within the summit
protest environment. Rather the same procedure as last
time, the same procedure everytime. Though the record
in parts of Canada and U.S seem to have been better.

Now can you tell me, if you were a principled believer
in non-violence, is their any logical reason at all that you
should defend a "diversity of tactics" that includes
molotow-cocktails and the throwing of cobble stones?
>From those for whom this is integral part of what they
believe in, such a "diversity" would always involve
a defeat. However you bend and twist it, this is a "diversity"
that is imposed on them. It is a real confict of intererest.
And I never was very enthusastic for covering up things
with pretty words.
        The same logic would of course would apply for the
majority of those who protest to reform the system but still
basically believes in the rules of bourgeois democracy.

(There is also often much hypocrisy around this issue.
Many "hate" the pacificsts, liberals, reformists etc., but
get desperate if they do not show up to make up the
"critical mass".)

But the above logic even largely applies in situations
where non-pacifist and non-reformists are deeply con-
vinced that non-violent means are by far the most
sensible. If a far smaller group then disagree, what you
will most often -- if not always -- have then are "tactics"
that defeat each other. To put in tall letters, if one
brings a machine gun and all the other white flags, it is
the action of the former that almost certainly will define
what happens next. And even if the person with the
machine gun carry out his or her action on a different
location, his or her action none the less will have
consequences beyond him or herself.
        Of course following a policy of always abiding with
the law also has consequences.

Anyway, what ever type actions we might find the most
approriate in a short and long term perspective in
relation to our ends. We should argue why we find this
a good thing to do, and not that the acts adds to the
diversity. So does rape.
        Diversity can be great but is still depends on the
concrete content of the diversity, if it is a mutally reinforcing
diversity or not. I don't particularily see it as end to to
preserve lobbyism and leninism, even if this is a de
facto part of the existing diversity. I muched preferred
that it was not though.

Personally  I find the "black bloc tacticts" to be mostly
extermely idiotic, useless and elitistic, and a part of the
diversity I would rather do without. Some of the "black
blockers"  in Canada seem to make far more sense.
Though it should be asked, do we need a self-appointed
elite corps? This dangers very much remains, even if
they from afar appear far more aware of the critical
importance of communication and the need to diversify
their tactics than what mostly has been the situation
elsewhere.

A whole other question is how you relate to a de facto situation.
It has been changing and is almost bound to continue to do
so though. Where to, I don't know.

Harald























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