Re: Legal? Peaceful?

["Jose G. Perez" <jgperez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>My own experience in the mass movement here in Brisbane has been that the
anarchists represented the pacifist tendency.  It is I suppose a comment on
Australian Anarchism, but it is shot through with Tolstoyanism, Ghandiism,
Dorothy  Dayism and all sorts of vegetarian non-violence.  <<

Puke!!! Even we YSAers (mini-SWPers) were more ultraleft than the folks you
describe circa 1970.

I think what passes for anarchism in Australia is badly in need of a blood
transfusion, or something!

José

-----Original Message-----
From: Gary MacLennan <g.maclennan@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, December 03, 1999 6:47 AM
Subject: Legal? Peaceful?


>Like Jay I have no interest in digging over this territory again. But the
>action in Seattle does raise interesting questions about the relationship
>between Marxists and Anarchists and the mass movement.  Before posting some
>random thoughts on the issue, let me point out how wonderful it is
>that  the issue has emerged once more.  Oh joyous days!  We are actually
>arguing over how 50,000 people should behave.
>
>My own experience in the mass movement here in Brisbane has been that the
>anarchists represented the pacifist tendency.  It is I suppose a comment on
>Australian Anarchism, but it is shot through with Tolstoyanism, Ghandiism,
>Dorothy  Dayism and all sorts of vegetarian non-violence.  It seems to me
>looking back on it over the years that they always seemed to pick on me as
>the most violent demonstrator. So at the usual rally not only had I to
>worry about the Special Branch wedge, but I would be surrounded and
>harangued by extraordinarily aggressive pacifists. It was very wearing on
>the spirit. I should hasten to add here that generally my 'violence'
>consisted of refusing to raise my hands in the air to make it easier for
>the police to arrest me.
>
>Re the looting of Nike. I do not have it in me to criticise anyone who
>loots Nike.  What is the crime of looting Nikes compared to the crime of
>owning it? (apologies to Brecht).  As for the idiot professor of theology
>who struggled to protect capital it is too kind to call him 'counter
>revolutionary'.
>
>I would also like to point out here that during the big MUA dispute in
>Melbourne the union bureaucracy used the discourse of non-violence to
>safeguard their collaboration with the police and to keep control of the
>mass movement.
>
>So of course we should by and large be non-violent in the current
>conjuncture.  But frankly this is a tactical rather than a dogmatic option.
>I know we would all generally subscribe to that but sometimes in our
>discussion of actual incidents we can forget who the real enemy is.  It is
>certainly not the looter in Nikes, downtown Seattle.
>
>regards
>
>Gary
>
>
>