Re: Anarchists or agents provocateurs?

["Jay Moore" <research@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I don't know if I want to turn over this rock.  But what I remember about
the behavior of the SWP in the antiwar marches is that they often acted as
surrogate cops keeping people within acceptable bourgeois bounds of
behavior.  I remember at Nixon's inaugural in 1973 having with my buddies to
push through a cordon of these "marshals" in order to get over to
Pennsylvania Avenue in order to confront Agnew and Nixon directly.  There
was quite a lot of action going on there.  I think big "peaceful"
demonstrations have their place (then and now) but so do more militant
smaller-group actions.  Why do these have to be pitted against each other,
pray tell?  Don't they support each other symbiotically, allowing people to
plug in at whatever level of their development?

Look at other revolutions from the Russian to the Iranian, and you will see
that kind of combination, too.

Lenin criticized "infantilism" on the part of the anarchists and others.
But he treated them as comrades.

Best,
Jay



----- Original Message -----
From: Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 1999 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: Anarchists or agents provocateurs?


> Ron Jacobs:
> >ON anarchists and "bad" protestors--there is a phenomenon in western
> >capitalist societies that Herbert Marcuse labelled repressive tolerance.
> >Basically, this means that the leites allow a certain amount of proetest
> >that is legal and civil, then they do what they want, sometimes even
> >coopting certain elements of the protest movement with some empty
promises
> >or minimal concessions (we'll let you sit at the table guys).  This
dynamic
> >is very similar to what "enlightened management" does in workplaces--they
> >ask for your opinion and maybe even let a worker sit on the board.  It
> >doesn't matter thoug because they have six members on the board, so your
> >vote is mere tokenism.
>
> This is silly. The mass demonstrations against the Vietnam war had bad
> reputations among the anarchist/punks of those days, who thought it was
> more "radical" to wave NLF flags and yell "pigs" at the cops. In reality,
> the right to demonstrate peacefully was won over a prolonged period. The
> first march in Washington in 1965 called by SDS was held against the will
> of the liberal and social democratic godfathers of the SDS'ers. It was the
> first demonstration against an imperialist war WHILE IT WAS IN PROGRESS in
> 20th century history. What was not widely understood at the time is that
> the SDS leader Clark Kissinger (now a leader of Avakian's cult) would have
> buckled under the pressure and called the march off, but SWP'er Jack
Barnes
> put enormous pressure on him to go ahead with the protest. The march was
> universally condemned in the bourgeois press as pro-Communist. This is how
> Marxists organize. In contrast, anarchists are skilled at disorganizing.
>
> >The only proetest that makes any real effect is that which steps out of
the
> >legal and civil bounds that the elites and their police set (and hope the
> >protestors will self- enforce).  The anarchists, like radical union
> >ranknfile and anti-imperialists and militant african-americans, etc in
> >history, say screw civility and go for the jugular.
>
> Pure nonsense. It was massive, peaceful and legal demonstrations which
> inspired thousands of active-duty GI's in Indochina to challenge the brass
> and refuse to fight. 500,000 people in Washington united around the slogan
> of "Out Now" has power. A thousand yippies in Washington Square Park
> marching around with a pig's head and NLF banners is a demonstration of
> frustration. As it turns out, the leader of these demonstrators--one Adam
> Fouratt, I believe--was a NYC undercover cop.
>
>
>
>
> Louis Proyect
>
> (The Marxism mailing list: http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
>