Re: Anarchists or agents provocateurs?

[Macdonald Stainsby <mstainsby@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I couldn't have said it any more clearly myself, Jay. Especially the
part of calling the anarchists both infantile AND Comrades. Lord knows
how many people there wanted to be in one or the other- had either been
systematically ruled out, there would have been a much smaller
demonstration, i.e the W.T.O. might have gone on for the day. At any
rate, part of DAN (not all) set up such "marshals" to make a line
between the cops and the people. They held arms and you had to try to
get through, even though there were at least 30 feet between them and
the riot cops. What made the junior cop action dissappear? The
appearance of the ILWU! I wandered in and out of that area all day,
then all of the sudden, the area was flooded with huge, angry men. Made
the cops sweat...




Jay Moore said:
> 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)
> >
>



--
Macdonald Stainsby

check the "ten point platform" of Tao at: http://new.tao.ca

"To give food aid to a country just because they are starving is a
pretty weak reason."
   Henry Kissinger, 1974
(former American Secretary of State)