Re: On Melbourne & S11 - a discussion??

[Carrol Cox <cbcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Macdonald Stainsby wrote:

> Carrol:
> >
> > The general impression [snip] I hope
> > I'm wrong.
>
> Yes, but I think this is one side of the developing movement. There is also
> an unplanned, "Better Fewer but Better..." aspect to it.[SNIP]  the
> understanding and militance of the organisers is going up, vis-a-vis the
> state. While on the one-hand the impetus of numbers dwindles (probably, in
> part, due to the now visible willingness of the state to inflict physical
> punishment on demonstrators), the initiative to keep up organising is
> becoming steeled and seen by many as the only route (A left TINA?). In other
> words, while the movement itself is shrinking, part of what is happeneing is
> that reformists are leaving.[SNIP] After all, this has gone from North America
> to a
> global, first World resistance movement. One can not yet call it a strategy,
> but those involved are radicalising fairly rapidly.

This is at least as reasonable as my doubts. One variable, unknown to me, is
what kind of organizing activity is going on in the localities when the
demonstrators
return home. To use the Vietnam movement as a touchstone again, it was less
the mass demonstrations that made the difference than the thousands of local
activities. (Those local demonstrations depended too much on the capitalist
media to link them, and when the media stopped, eventually after nearly a
year the demonstrations stopped. The Internet makes a difference there.) When
in a podunk town such as Bloomington Illinois the Secretary of Defense has
to be sneaked in through the kitchen entrance to give a speech at a banquet,
it reverberates. And according to the Haldeman Diaries, it was when Nixon
was meant by demonstrators at Ohio State (Woody Hayes territory) that
he really freaked -- and the road to Watergate opened up.

The anarchists have done well so far. We shall see if they (or other new
militants) can reach beyond their own ranks.

Carrol