at the end of the day any radical reform/revolution that doesn't come from the current government is going to need 'substantial' public support. with the way the anti globalisation movement is portrayed/stigmitised by the media and governments of europe/america at the moment that is NEVER going to happen. ask yourself this, when was the last time you saw a mass media broadcast or publication that actually discussed the issues we stand for and not just how much havok 'we' are causing? we need public support and to get public support we have to get into the public view. some of us think civil disobedience is the answer. granted it does gain us attention but what sort? the negative kind which lets the politicians get off talking about the real issues because they get to talk about the distruction we cause. to get in the public view we need people on the inside, a friendly face of anti-globalisation. we just have to have faith that they wont get corrupted and just absorbed into the system. 'you may walk with the devil untill you cross the bridge my sons' or something similar, kind of sums up what im trying to say.

In out in out shake it all about.

And remember that 'isms' is 'wasms'. Thanks Abbie.

trotsky (?) wrote

"we just have to have faith that they won't get corrupted and just absorbed into the system."

I wonder if we can do better than that - considering the evidence of how many do.

maybe there's a need to establish some sort of mechanism for keeping connections between the 'professionals' on the inside and tha 'passionates' outside on the streets.. it's already there for a lot of people but maybe we need to promote such communication/realitychecking a bit more thoroughly?

if the arrangements didn't become too formal or worse, stagnant tick box stuff, maybe it would help for key insider people to have mentoring teams or councils of their friends and compadres whose duty it is to keep their feet on the ground and the principles true... perhaps monthly meetings where the insider would set out their current interests, priorities, and potential deals they are thinking of making and with whom... and if their mentors did not jusdge them right on enough then the insider would have to change their ways or be deemed a sell out...

might such an arrangement have helped the German Greens stay truer? would certainly be good for some of the smug NGO types some people I know have been turning into...

but would it also run the risk of becoming an unhealthy ideological inquisition? Hmm....