Re: Legal? Peaceful?

[Gary MacLennan <g.maclennan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

My dear Jose,

I forgot to add and this was not a trap but the historical truth of
Brisbane 1975-85 was that to the right of the Ghandiites were the then
Barnesites of the now DSP.  They refused to confront the state at any
level.  But of course this was only a cynical manoeuvre designed to destroy
the last of the Mandelites. Would any one from the current faithful of the
DSP like to deny the maneuvering of the late Jim Percy?  Of course the
clone from Toowomba was not then born, so maybe someone from the present
day Central Committee would come forth and admit to how their great leader
wiped out the Fourth International in Australia.  I am not holding my breath.

But I would like to say that today when the DSP come forward and talk about
confronting the state, I have to think back to when they for their own
internal reasons decided that this was not a wise thing to do. So Jose we
should think twice before throwing up over the actions of the
veggiewobblers.  In all truth the Trots have been there before and to the
Right.

comradely greetings

Gary








At 11:07  3/12/99 -0500, you wrote:
> >>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
> >
> >
> >