whilst some of your comments are fair enough, this isn't a news story is it?

noel, it sounds as if you defend the imcuk's editorial guidelines which is very nice of you. but i wonder what your reason is to comment like this - do you want to make the impression that you are one of the imcuk collective? in the collective we had quite a few discussions about our guidelines and agreed to include a 'debate area'. we will pull articles with lots of comments in there, and actually need to rewrite our guidelines. we haven't done this yet but we will reformulate the bit with the 'news stories' as we want to encourage debates like this.

This is Lauri, the American IMC print coordinator who worked on Kontrast. I agree with Flaco's piece, almost completely. I think many of us Americans who were in Prague were privy to arrogance, that we acted like we were the leaders who had to make everyone else step in line, that we didn't take the situation earnestly enough when it mattered, and that we cared more about rationalizing our dissent than actually strengthening it. "We" includes me. It's hard to unlearn what you're taught.

But people change, or at least try to change.

The month I spent in Prague serves as a reminder of how cowardly, irresponsible and hypocritical I often am, that no matter how much of a dissenter I like to perceive myself to be, I'm still tied to the conventions of privilege. After the mass action, I felt like I had contributed little. Then I realized why: Compared to the people who literally set their lives on the line, I did nothing remarkable, and avoided taking such risky steps. I left the hard decisions up to other people.

For several days after S26, I too asked myself, "what happened? Why was S26 a disappointment? Was it a disappointment?" Then I realized that what I'd done, or rather hadn't done, was disappointing. But the protesters who took to the streets in a big way,big enough to end the summit a day early, scored a huge victory on my behalf. Not acknowledging this was stupid, stupid, stupid.

What happened post-protests with the jails, the droning INPEG "S26 evaluation" meetings, and the conversations I had with all kinds of people about the protester-police interactions made me reevaluate my position on the Molotov cocktails and their throwers. The people who threw the Molotovs weren't bullshitting around; they were acting honestly, which is much more than what many of us can say. Unfortunately, many of us who "took charge" set the tone for the rhetoric to follow by chastising the cocktail throwers from the start. I think some of us did so because it's comforting to take the moral highground, stand for half-solutions, or do nothing at all.

For the sake of specificity, I want to address several of Flaco's points as they appear chronologically:

***"Kontrast, the newspaper of the Prague Independent Media Centre (IMC), mouthpiece of INPEG and
self-appointed voice of the assembled masses"

This isn't completely true. Kontrast existed well before the Prague-IMC got underway. If it was the mouthpiece of INPEG, then it was because Kontrast's Czech staff were told they had to use INPEG's logo on the front; INPEG helped them fund the damned thing. IMC didn't have enough money to publish its own paper, so we took what we could get.

I expressed deep reservations about using INPEG's logo, because INPEG's US-imported, self-appointed "leaders" by no means represented everyone, including me and many of the writers who contributed to Kontrast. Several of us argued against using the logo, but when the IMC said we should accept the logo as an act of goodwill towards the Czechs, we compromised.

***Fair enough, you may think. Then they add: "If you threw a rock, firebomb, apple, bottle or anything else at a cop during yesterday's protest... you have betrayed INPEG?s commitment to non-violence, the movement and yourselves."

I'm the author of this sentence, as well as, " If you throw a rock at a foreigner, you are committing a hate crime. If you throw a rock at a cop, that's a hate crime too." I regret writing them; there's just no logic to these sentences.

As for "betraying" INPEG, I was referring to the Czech INPEG people, the ones who are probably still getting threats for their involvement in the protests. Many Czechs have sent letters to newspapers criticizing INPEG's Czech members as liars, calling for their arrest, and so on. Cops have visited their parents' homes. It wasn't a pretty picture for them.

zech INPEGers wanted the demos to come off without problems, probably because they knew they'd be blamed for whatever violence erupted. I wonder if any of the folks who came to Prague and left after the protests have done anything to protect them.

At the time, I felt rock-throwing protesters were stooping to the level of the cops. Then again, I don't have to deal with cops in the same way as other people do. The cops aren't beating or arresting me, because when it comes time to lock down or confront them, I run off and write or do something else so I don't get arrested. For most of S26, I hid inside an office, which prevented me from being rounded up -- as well as seeing firsthand what was going on. Call it cowardice -- I often do.

After talking to people wiser than I, and thinking a bit more rigorously about the overall purpose of the police -- it's a choice they make to wear those uniforms every day -- my thoughts on cops are much different than they were on Sept. 26. They are, as you wrote, "the frontline of oppression." And when they go home after a hard day's work oppressing people who have a right to express themselves, they think nothing of it. That's also a choice they make. Their victims don't have a choice. How fair is that? Not at all. But many of us who pretend to understand what it's like to be oppressed to the fullest extent of the law just don't get it. Talking about oppression is so much easier than actually making sacrifices.

****"What if we tried to bring cops into the movement?" asked Kontrast. "After all, by serving as oppressors they are also oppressed. These folks have been working for the wrong cause all along. It's time they got liberated."

Kontrast didn't ask the above question; I did. But I hold firm to my assertion, however lofty it is, that cops should be liberated. Liberated, in the sense that they should one day realize who they're charged to defend, and how willingly they take that order and run with it, and stop themselves from doing it. It's shameful that people can be so brutal, robotic and oppressive. Cops serve no other purpose than to terrorize people who don't have the resources to fight back.

***Despite claims of "'non-heirarchical" decision making, those that came to Prague to take action were expected to adhere to these INPEG?s commandments.

Many people thought this was true.

***Put yourself in the (swoosh-free) shoes of a twelve year old girl, working on her feet, without a break, 18 hours a day, seven days a week, stitching Nike trainers in some shit-hole factory in Jakarta. Do you think she is "outraged" or "offended" when kids in the west recognise her predicament and take a claw hammer to the glass palaces that retail these fucking things for the equivalent of her annual salary.?

If we fail to even imagine ourselves as losing our privileges and access to basic needs, and dignity, we will never understand what we're protesting for. Since Sept. 26, I've started to think of things like this: People who are suffering don't have time to wait before they stop suffering. They need to stop suffering NOW. And the more we bicker and bullshit about how broken windows will appear on television, that little girl and millions like her will continue working in those factories. Right on, Flaco.

***Maybe if we stopped treating those at the sharp end of global capitalism like victims, but as equals - as people deserving of our fucking respect, instead of our salvation, (and remember this shit is going down in Kettering as well as Kinshasa), then maybe the odd cobblestone, smashed window, bloody-nosed cop or jailed activist would be less of an ideological sticking point for people who claim to care.

This is true. I think we would all do ourselves a great service by ending our whining about "not enough _____ (take your pick: Czechs, minorities, people from the Global South)" here to protest with us," and do something about it. That doesn't mean "extend an invitation," that means developing relationships with people who may have less privilege and letting them lead.

***"The mindless destruction of property in Prague were fruitless expressions of powerlessness and political immaturity," scolded the (by now metronomic) wagging finger of Kontrast

Not Kontrast -- a specific writer from Kontrast, a Czech guy who was not part of the IMC, who never attended a single meeting and even seemed to annoy his Czech colleagues. On the night of S26, he came into the office about two hours after the paper should have gone to the printer, and told the harried layout person (a Czech woman named Jana, who seemed to feel like she had to obey his orders) to put his editorial on the front page. Even the other Kontrast members in absentia had no idea that piece was going to appear on the front page; they probably didn't even see it until the next morning, when the paper came out.

****The spectre of Seattle seems to have clouded activist perceptions to the extent that no action is valid unless it follows a set US decree (we're mirroring the bloody globalisers again).

True, but if some people, Americans or otherwise, become self-appointed leaders, why is it that no one really intervenes? Why did we allow INPEG's US-imported media darlings to speak for us in the first place? Why didn't you, Flaco, volunteer to be print coordinator for Kontrast, or even write for it? Why have you waited until now to criticize it? Maybe you were doing something else, but still, it would have been nice to have had your thoughts in writing while the action was still happening.

Though I regret my editorial and the Czech guy's editorial appeared in Kontrast, I regret even more that my European friends contributed very little to the paper. Furthermore, if most of the IMC coordinators were American, that wasn't some planned-out thing. Every American IMC coordinator I talked to seemed to be uncomfortable with this set-up, but what could we do? We volunteered.

***[As per the Prague IMC] It is also difficult not to let the more confident/power-hungry folk involved in the movement take-over what are intended as hierarchy-free meetings. Admittedly, often nothing gets done, until someone gets up and does it. But again in Prague, discussions would often be steered in a direction that most of those present were either opposed to or disinterested in. Facilitators seemed to somehow morph into chairpersons.

Coming out now and criticizing the Prague IMC doesn't do much to reverse anything. And if people didn't agree, they had every right to speak up.

***The system we are up against is ingrained in every bleep of every checkout, in every crack of every rifle, in every price hike or tax cut, in every full tank and every empty bowl, in every white paper and every red river. It is backed by governments and money, and it will do everything within its power to defend itself. Yes the system is violent, the state is violent, the police, the armies, the industry, the agriculture, the distribution of land, the privatisation, the profit, the sham they call democracy and the garbage they all information - are all brutally fucking violent. Capitalism (under this or any other name), is not about to roll over because we can all stand out in the rain for an afternoon.

RIGHT ON.

I think the 'betrayed INPEG' etc etc bits in the prague paper were put in by an INPEG person and made to look like editorial when it should have just been a normal report quote - like ' an INPEG rep said blah'

a mistake indeed.

What are you talking about? I admitted above that *I* was the person who wrote the column condemning people for "betraying INPEG," and explained why I wrote it. No one from INPEG told me to write it. I was worried that the Czech INPEG people would be penalized and threatened on behalf of violent acts committed by others. And I think I was right when making that assumption, which is also explained above.

Just two points of clarification: By writing this response, I didn't mean to say that throwing stuff at cops is "right" or "wrong"; I'm not qualified to make such judgements, as I now realize. I've realized that judging such actions without knowing all the facts and context behind them 1. encourages self-righteous frivolity and a division of protesters into "good" and "bad" groups, and 2. is unfair to the people who threw stuff, because they haven't been heard (right? Please let me know if one of them has written something or appeared in an interview). As far as I know, none of the Molotov/rock people have come forth to explain who they are and what they were thinking on Sept. 26. Until then, who has the right to dismiss them as "wrong" protesters?

And the statement, "I regret even more that my European friends contributed very little to the paper." I should have written, "very little content." I think the first sentence mildly implies something negative, like "Europeans are not cooperative" or something, while the latter statement is factual.

Whilst confrontation is necessary to challenge injustice and exploitation, violent confrontation is not.
For there to be a hope in heaven of a brighter future, a safer more tolerant society for generations to come, then direct action must be non-violent. Intolerence, be it against cops or faschist bully boys, is still intolerence and is therefore coming from the wrong place. Any violence or essence of that is immediately used against the cause to the detriment of all.

Indeed the whole notion of a "global revolution" with its implicit bloodspilling and getting our own back, is part of the problem and not part of the solution. Putting it simply, it is using their methods to secure our agenda. Violence only begets more violence. What goes around comes around. Any violence in thought, word and deed is playing into the hands of the exploiters and oppressors (to use simple terms) and making us complicit in furthering their ideals of intolerence, might over right, inequality at all costs.

If there is to be any chance of the paradigm shift in the way that this planet governs itself and acts in the next century or so then it will only come from the existing democratic structures (admittedly built around a consensus framwork). This requires the political support of those who may not share the rage but may share the vision. In the UK, for example, that means women between the ages of 35 and 65. In really simple terms, there is no way that that political support can be harnessed to what is seen as an essentially violent cause. Mobilising the considerable power of grey haired old ladies may seem ridiculous but it was pivotal in 2 of the last centuries great human rights campaigns, in India (Gandhi) and in the deep south in the US (MLK). There are so many other people who are working towards a freer safer more just society who will not be joining the demos because at present they seem to be going the wrong way, a ruckus for the beer boys to have a bash with the rozzers, an opportunity to trash some shops, nick a few cars. That is the crowd that are being attracted to a lot of direct action at the moment. The converted will forgive a little agro with the police, but those who are undecided will never back the movement. If the security forces use excess force, then film it, write songs about it, books, photos, posters. Fighting back only makes you one of them.

I'm gonna get loadsa stick for this but it needs to be said. Now. If, as a campaigning body, there are not the skills and qualities available to make non-violent direct action a reality, then let us learn those skills and qualities, We have examples galore on how to make change with peace,

The world's societies need non-violent confrontation against capitalism. Are we gonna help or hinder?

A while ago i instigated a debate with the guys running this site; they were pleaded with to become a little more open about things, and to see that this artificial division between news / comment is spurious. they must accept that if they want to take over a template which is essentially NORTH AMERICAN in inspiration, they should familiarize themselves with what the USA s radicalism means.
Some sites, such as WINDSOR and SAN FRAN BAY have already declared themselves for free speech within the terms of the site's objectives. Take it from moi, mon ami en Angleterre, they know of what they speak.

[see article 'make yourselves known more']

finewords, i'll try to clarify a few things:

indymedia may be a very successful 'global brand' these days but it is not the 'north american template' as you suggest. what is north american with the imc's is that the specific NAME appeared first in Seattle and has proved to be a powerful focus point for a wide range of people on the left. many in the group which now runs the imcuk were involved in running the J18 website and it was decided to join indymedia as it is a good global umbrella to BYPASS THE CORPORATE MEDIA.

a truly US-centric feature of indymedia is the fact that there is a central server in north america running the imc sites. but you are obviously not aware that the code which makes the instant upload from your browser possible was first developed in Melbourne for the reporting on the global protests on June 18th 1999.

speaking of J18 - check out bak.spc.org/j18/ and you will see that the actions on J18 were definitely not 'US centered'. you also must have missed the Global Street Party on May 16th 1998. have a look at www.gn.apc.org/rts/global3.htm

i acknowledge that the anti-capitalist movement has gained a lot from focussing on the 'global brand' indymedia. but why being so blasé, mon ami americain? resistance does not only happen in the US.

i welcome the combined efforts and resources of mainly north-american activists to offer webspace and advice to activists worldwide. there is a lot to learn from the north-americans on the technical side, but why should that as well be the adaption of the liberal concept of 'free speech'? rabble (himself a north american) has written a good piece about this but you probably have missed it when reading through our 'censorship debate'. have a look at uk.indymedia.org/display.php3?article_id=187, or alternatively at  http://process.indymedia.org/on_censorship_and_free_speech.php3

and lastly, when posting your story "make yourselves known more" which we actually have highlighted by pulling it into our debate page, you have not instigated a debate "to become a little more open about things, and to see that this artificial division between news / comment is spurious" - you have suggested we should advertise ourselves more. why do you try to manipulate things like this?

These matters were raised, if not by myself. And I am familiar with "Rabbles" thoughts on freedom of speech you mention- i found them rather alarming...

Not that I don't stand by my statements, but I'm glad it alarms you. Ideas and values taken for granted have a nasty way of acting as blinders when you look at the world.

Aside from the fact i agree with Flaco's overal statement there are a few bits i want to question - especially on the role of the Praha IMC - as a collective body or as a group of individuals.


The collective name given to all the views expressed in 'Kontrast' of being the voice of the Praha IMC is plainly wrong - many felt angry and let down when the final edition came out (the one mentioned above) purporting to be speaking on our behalf... Given the circumstances surrounding the paper - it started out as an Czech Anarchist paper that wanted to do a daily, covering S26, but they were short of cash - INPEG had the money and hence their part and the IMC wanted to do a paper but had no money. We joined together - 3 pages in Czech 1 in English.


This should have been fine but a lack of participation on our side meant a few people had a lot of say - especially in the writing - those mentioned above, and in previous days issues the UK based SWP flooded the paper with their copy, finding us an easy medium to be manipulated not knowing their political agenda. Obviously this is easy to say with hindsight and i should have got more involved myself - but i think it shows a lack of political awarness amongst many involved in the IMC - in critical organising/editorial positions, but that those involved must have an awareness of outside influences to prevent us being used - our open structure is particularly open to this abuse. I know other political IMC'ers were too busy laying it out etc.


This is to say that the IMC is a political medium - of course we have a subjective political stance - we are not objective truth givers, saving the world from evil liers. The mainstream has a political stance/bias that we diagree with - this can be done by exposing their bias/backing and providing an our own coverage. I see us as activists who chose to use the medium of the media - rather than fresh faced reporters trying to bring 'democracy' to the world.


As a group of 500 people (around 50 of which spent a lot of energy making sure the IMC worked well and missed out on the days/weeks events) we covered a wide spectrum of activists, media workers, supportive journalists all the way to devious professionals using the IMC name to gain access... It would have been hard to prevent this without cutting out all the new participants that brought so much to the atmosphere and coverage.


I hear alot of talk of the 'Europeans' and 'American' activists as if this is a clear line to show your way of thinking and reacting - It is so simplified it gets in the way of any understanding of what happened. It was true the some volenteers came earlier and got involved, making it unintentionally hard for others to participate and change strategy ('this is how it was done before...') i saw many fresh ideas get lost with this attitude. And it is true some were arrogant and elitist, but by no means all and their nationality is not relevant here. Many were inspired and from this the European scene will develop many new forms of media activism, building on their own experiences and actions and picking what they want from the IMC. The dominance of English was plainly bad in this situation, cutting out valuable participation with the speed of meetings and with chaos that surrounded the week.


I would like to think that although this was a positive collaboration as far as European/Western media activists are concerned - such a multilingual event won't be happening that often - i would like to see in future the local collectives running the show in the way they want, with help if/when needed.


I think that about covers it - i am starting to ramble...

I dont like to alarm, i prefer to challenge and enlighten where i can, or stand corrected where im manifestly wrong.
Where will Rabble claim his freedom of speech if the regime closes down the ISP he relies on ?

Iit seems that the debate on violence/non-violence goes round and round without resolution, because both sides only look at the problem in a one-sided way.

Ffirstly we must ask: what is Capitalism? It is not a thing but a SOCIAL RELATION, it is not a Mcdonalds window, or a line of cops, but a relationship of expolitation between one class and another.

It therefore follows that symbolic acts (which undoubtably can be important as a means to catalyse others) can only remain symbolic, unless they challenge these social relations.

To those who think that smashing a McDonalds window makes a difference, I would say it would be far more effective to get the workers in McDonalds to take control of the restaurant fro the bosses. That is what challenging social relationships means.

To those who admire Gandhi, maybe you'd like to explain the backing he had from not very peaceful industrial bosses, or why was it that Martin Luther King had to have armed police escort him into the deep south, and why after his assasination did US blacks turn to the much more radical politics of the Black Panthers???

Violence may have to be used in certain situations as a tatical measure, but similarly non-violent tatics may also be useful in certain situations, it is not either/or but a question of context,

Capitalists can always bring more police/army out onto the streets to crush insurrection, what they can't beat is thousands/millions of workers taking over production and taking direct control of society, a case in point (although the conclusion is not great so far) is how the serbian army gave in when confronted with thousands of ordinary serbians, and strikes in the major production industries.

To take one or other side is to fall into the trap of thinking their is an absolute answer, which there isn't but the one thing that marks most large scale revolutions is how bloodless they are, though of course the same can't be said for the possible counter violence that capitalists have used after, as in the paris commune, russian, spainish, portugese, and chilean revoltions/revolutionary situations.

We therefore must have the right to defend our selves, and that may unfortunatley violence, which is not something any genuine revolutinary is happy about- but capitalists just don't like giving up their power.

finally, in the interests of truth, luther's last comment re the Kontrast paper:

>This should have been fine but a lack of participation on our side meant a few
> people had alot of say - especially in the writing - those mentioned above, and in
>previous days issues the UK based SWP flooded the paper with their copy, finding
> us an easy medium to be manipulated not knowing their political agenda.

this is frankly bullshit, I have the paper, why the swp would need to 'flood' this while it has it's own press I don't know, but I heard this from someone else and all I can see are articles on the counter-summit which it is true mention people like Alex Callinicos, but they also mention all the other speakers too, I think people need to stop being so paraniod and sectarian and get on with buidling the movement.

laters,

noel

Does anti-globalisation mean only anti-capitalist?

It has been extremely illuminating, observing recent exchanges on this site and subject.

Does a desire for a more enlightened system of individual, social and collective governance, through the transformation of existing systems of thought, have to manifest itself through traditional and established political ideologies? Are there no other ways of thinking and action?

Oppression and exploitation of people and the planet is the natural outcome of either end of the political polarity.

Capitalism is first and foremost a political and economic system. It does also act as a social relation if proponents forget their humanity and start expressing their identity (who they are) through their ideology. Communism is another political and economic system, which also acts as a social relation in exactly the same way. The latter has equally been responsible for untold human rights abuses, environmental destruction and the misuse of power. Also, communist regimes have been equally able "to bring more police/army out onto the streets to crush insurrection" and the last decade or so have shown us this in glorious technocolour.


There seems to be a lot of stuff going on on this site that the majority of us are not party to (pun intended) in terms of group/ political/ ideological allegiances (and I was naive enough to think that the site was about impartial alternative media coverage of important issues!) Indeed a casual interested observer such as myself could be forgiven for getting the impression that the real debate (about the future of life on this planet) has been lost in the clamour to identify the enemy.

Let's come from a different place altogether … the enemy is us. There is no one else. Meaningful positive change comes from the changing of the interior individual not from changing any external factor.

Hence the absolute necessity of a non-violent approach.

OK, so we overthrow capitalism and install something else as the alternative. If the method for change has had any violent elements, then in no time at all (say, a couple of centuries or so) then the 'new' system is going to be the new enemy. It will use its inherent violence to, for example, quash dissent, ensure unequal distribution of resources etc. … Indeed, it will have become that which it sought to replace.


Gandhi's backing from wealthy and powerful industrialists came about as an explicit result of taking non-violent direct action against them through satyagraha in order to resolve the concerns of employees. Not only did he succeed in having the employees issues heard (and resolved to the satisfaction of those employees) but he also won over the industrialists through his deep personal integrity, peace and commitment to non-violence. The psychologist Erik Erikson covers the Ahmedabad confrontation in great detail. The recent biography of Gandhi ("Rediscovering Gandhi", 1997/8) by Rajesh Choudhouri (I think - I am not at home so I can't check!) also explored in detail many of the lesser known successes where Gandhi (and his team) confronted a perceived injustice with satygraha, only to have the 'oppressor' renounce his or her exploitation and join Gandhi's movement.


Martin Luther King had armed police escorts on his tour of the deep south at the request of the local administration who feared social unrest if an assassination attempt was made and security wasn't provided. This is suggested in his own work "Strength to Love". MLK knew (like Gandhi) that he was going to be killed, and was ready and prepared for that to happen. The ultimate affront to violent confrontation!

I suggest, tentatively, that black people in the US turned to the radical politics of the Black Panthers after MLK was shot for a variety of reasons. Firstly, many people were grieving, hurting. It is a normal response (although not necessarily natural) to seek to fight back, the Panthers offered the promise of that. Also violence is easier than non-violence. It is easier to market and sell, it is easier to undertake. Identify the enemy, and strike back. Perfectly normal. Non-violence involves seeing in the oppressor, the oppressed. Seeing in them, us. (There is only one of us). Respecting the humanity in all there is. Not only for the cops on the frontline, but also the corporate directors making the decisions we object to so much. For Rupert Murdoch, Bill Gates or any other corporate hate icon. They are us, magnified. Secondly, without the inspiring and empowering leadership figure of MLK, many people were then looking for leadership and guidance. To fill the void of grief. Both MLK and Gandhi will be remembered for walking their talk from the front. I'd recognise that in this day and age we now know that we don't need leaders. Thirdly, the Panthers and activists associated with them such as Malcolm X directly attacked MLK and his methods. Indeed they used the (capitalist) technique of 'conversion marketing' to seek to enlarge their numbers. There was also an issue of religious clash here too, with X stating that "Islam is the religion of the black man". So many black people (and white people too) heard the message of X in different ways, as political, as social, as religious. The irony of course is that Malcolm X himself renounced violence completely on his return from pilgrimage to Mecca. This latter point is described beautifully in his autobiography (ghost written by Alex Hailey, late '60's). Of course, the same forces that previously supported him then killed him for this.

Finally, if a revolution leads to a violent counter-revolution then the revolution itself is violent. You cannot separate cause from effect.

As a "grey-haired lady" I agree with Robert. As someone who took nonviolent direct action against nuclear weapons in the 1960s, and was jailed for occupying the Greek Embassy when the Colonels' tanks entered Athens, I am appalled that our message about not using violence to counter violence is apparently not being understood by all those young people who obscure their excellent message through their violent behaviour and aggressive language. I am as angry as they are about corporate oppression of the poor and the ruining of the environment, but I would rather take action which is more likely to achieve its goal. Do I have to wait for these people to grow up and educate themselves about the real world? I'm not giving my address or phone number in case someone takes it into their head to take action against me for my bourgeois attitude!

Lauri Apple gets the brownie points for a change of heart -but misses the point. 'Why have the molotov/rock brigade not written any articles to explain their position or what they stand for' she asks. Because our rock throwing is all the critique of capitalism we wish to or make. Not everyone has the desire to write long articles or position papers or the access to the media she has. We do the damage and stop the IMF then parasitic media specialists come along and moan for months about what we did. They are generals without armies but slag other people off for actions they are too scared to do themselves. They are the ones who take advantage of our actions to pontificate and get themselves a hike up the ladder to Naomi Klein or George Monbiot level.
NaomiKlein interviwed in the Groucho Club in todays Observer parasiting off the backs of the black blocers in Seattle and Prague who made her views newsworthy.Now after all the damage her Kontrast article has done Lauri Apple continues in traditional u.s.a. therapist style by repenting of her views and seeking forgiveness and asking all of us to hold hands with her. And won't it be just too ungracious for some of us to keep our hands in our pockets till we pick up the next rock.

Four points about the first article:

Firstly - my experience of Prague was that everyone was able to contribute equally to the spokeseperson meetings in prague and to contribute to the agenda setting. The only things INPEG laid down were decisions made BY CONSENSUS at earlier times - all the decisions can't be made the day before the action, just so that everyone would be there.

Secondly - I don't think that its necessarily wrong to use violence against cops, but the question is what will be most strategic - and that isn't an ideological question but one about facts of human psychology, etc. Perhaps in the future (when we're bigger) violence may be more strategic, but at the moment nonviolence seems much more likely to help us top reach critical mass in the way tha Gandhi used it so successfully. Perhaps the MD of Nike does deserve a petrol bomb, but if nonviolent resistance is in the long term more likely to stop Nike being so evil then surely we should pursue nonviolence for the sake of those who are suffering from Nike's exploitation.

Third - A violent revolution will breed a violent state, and we'll all have to live with it and maybe find ouselves as the victims of it later on.

Fourth - We're never going to reach agreement about violence-nonviolence, so surely the question we need to debate is how we're going to continue struggling as a unified movement using different strategies that don't interfere with each other (e.g. the different strategies used at different blockade sites with the intentions announced in advance).

On the issue of violence and non-violence, it seems to me that those who are calling for non-violence at all costs have been fooled by the system we're trying to smash. I don't like violence, and I'd rather it wasn't neccesary, but we're not the people who are being truly violent. The violence of the capitalist system is protected by yet more violence on the part of the police etc... if they will use everything they have to mantain an exploitative relationship, we have to use everything we have to end it.

I do think that violence against MacDonalds and violence against the pigs are 2 different things. I'm not condeming either, I think that the smashing of banks and MacDonalds is exciting symbolism and I can see the temptation, but i think it would be more useful to turn that anger on the police. In Nice, on Thursday, I think the energy put on smashing banks while we were being gassed would have been better used on trying to break through the police lines to close down the conference centre.