There are and will be all sorts of interventions made by well and ill-intentioned people which will have the consequence of promoting tensions within the movement. That the "black block" in Genoa contained many agent provocateurs is now established, that fascists dressed themselves up in their favourite colour to take part is also reported by the Italian media, and we know that there were other well-intentioned genuine anarchists who thought a bit of destruction was not a bad thing. Let us use this information to prepare ourselves for the future. The real black block needs to think up a way of solving this problem: the space they give for policemen and nazis to act in ways which wound their friends : but they should not attack others. They are welcome within the movement, of which the SWP and other trotskyists are only a minor part. Keep a united front-- direct your energies towards advancing the cause of liberty and justice.

Iain, as I presume you weren't in Genoa let's get some facts straight:

the Black Bloc organised seperately from all the other groups demonstrating in Genoa.

the Black Bloc are undemocratic and unaccountable, this makes them easy to infiltrate with police provocateurs, this happened whatever you say to try and cover this fact, people saw it, photographs were taken, I know people who's lives were endangered by this. The police used the excuse of the Black Bloc for the horrific attack on the people's house on Satruday night. The State is not fucking about this is serious and rather than throwing stones at groups who criticise you maybe you'd like to think about your own tactics and how they are failing.

Of course many anarchists wouldn't dream of smashing working class property etc...etc..I know that and anarcho-syndicalists in unions are even better...

...But it seems that you fail to acknowledge that the black bloc's strategy not only plays into the hands of the mass media who just love pictures of peoples smashing windows and throwing stones, but more crucially allows police to use your groups to discredit the mass movement which you refuse to organise with.

There is NO WAY that small groups of violent demonstrators whatever there good intentions can take on the armed might of the State that we saw in Genoa, only a militant mass movement can do that, that is what we need to build.

Of course many young people want to take on the cops, who wouldn't with the shitty system we live under, so there is a responsibility on the left to provide a viable alternative, for many people on the demonstration the question of the 'real' black bloc as opposed to the 'fake' one is a life or death issue.

Your organising methods are elitist, substituionist and whilst I respect the anger and courage of some anarchists what they need now to do is to be with and help the rest of the movement grow so that it can REALLY beat capitalism and the state.

noel

>There are and will be all sorts of interventions made by well and ill-intentioned
> people which will have the consequence of promoting tensions within the
> movement.

That is true, its in the nature of any mass movement.

> That the "black block" in Genoa contained many agent
> provocateurs is now established, that fascists dressed themselves up in their
> favourite colour to take part is also reported by the Italian media, and we
> know that there were other well-intentioned genuine anarchists who thought a
> bit of destruction was not a bad thing.

As you say, its now established -- yet the SWP blur the issues, and as such it
should be noted. The fact that what happened in Genoa, as other activisits
(non-anarchists) have noted, has nothing to do with the Black Block tactic
should be stressed, not blurred. Instead, the SWP blur it and that should be
commented upon -- silence would hardly be right.

> Let us use this information to prepare
> ourselves for the future. The real black block needs to think up a way of
> solving this problem: the space they give for policemen and nazis to act in
> ways which wound their friends : but they should not attack others.

Again, I would agree. However, as other activists who were there have noted,
what happened in Genoa was not part of the BB tactic -- and the real BB's
tried to stop the fake BB, as did other anarchists and activists. And members
of the real BB stated afterwards their policy. Sadly the SWP, like the
capitalist media, did not mention this nor give an honest account of the
BB tactic -- they may not agree with it (and I have issues with it, to be
honest) but at least they could be honest enough to report what it is
rather than present a distorted account of it.

As such, the White Overalls have been an example to us all in terms of
their members responses to what happened and the attempted demonisation
of the BB (and by implication, all anarchists).

>They are
> welcome within the movement, of which the SWP and other trotskyists are
> only a minor part.

Yes, again I agree.

> Keep a united front-- direct your energies towards
> advancing the cause of liberty and justice.

Yes, I would agree -- but we also should point out the errors and sectarian
activities of those who claim to be on "our side." As I said, you can have
objections about a set of ideas or tactics, but at least you can have the
honesty to report them accurately. Similarly, to produce a "who's on the
Italian Left" and simply distort the Italian anarchist movement and its
nature is a disgrace. Sadly, this is not the first of the SWP's anti-anarchist
diatribes, nor will it be.

Unity, yes, but we cannot let the SWP get away with distortions on others in
our movement. They have been doing it long enough, its time that other
activists make their voices heard and state what is and what is not
acceptable reporting. Given the distortions against anarchism the SWP
is infamous for producing, we see the results of the "keep quiet" approach
-- they keep doing it, time and time again.

So, yes, the BB should be critiqued and discussed, but let us do so honestly
and accurately -- something the SWP seem impossible of doing if it
involves anarchists (visit www.infoshop.org/texts/iso.html for replies to
recent SWP distortions on anarchism).

I agree entirely with the last post; the evidence of police infiltration of the Black Block seems clear, and certainly many of the protestors in Genoa (including myself) had quite legitimate concerns about the activities of some apparent Black Block members. That's what I thought the article was trying to address - we should not be afraid of criticism, even sharp criticism, within the anticapitalist movement; without debate and dissension, any movement dies. I do think the Black Block needs to re-assess its methods after the events in Genoa; but I suspect something similar may apply to us all.

Iain, I agree with you in that loads of smearing and mis-information has been done over the BB and their tactics.

I, for one (and if you'd keep an eye on italia.indymedia.org you'd find that many, one way or the other, have the same thoughts) don't share their (or your) same ideas: I don't believe it's alright to use violence if it's targeted, 'cos I'm absolutely convinced that, as effective as it may be, it's undeniable an open invitation to those who'd be more than happy to join in and go far beyond, hitting outside the targeted list, and, more importantly, is a perfect opportunity for undercover operation to bring denigration on the movement.

also, you can call me a coward, but to fight with violence thousands of coked-up psycopaths in uniforms, armed with guns, missiles, choppers, secret services and arselickers media doesn't strike me as a brilliant idea...

so, can you really, honestly be surprised that the media and all those who would like to stick their label onto the movement were more than happy to jump at this opportunity?

I think it'd be more cleaver if these actions can be envisaged in advance, and the chance not given.

but if BB really believe that's the way to go, then they should at least have the decency to find a way not to attract brutalities onto the peaceful part of the movement, 'cos that's in short what happened in Genoa.

Noel writes:

>the Black Bloc are undemocratic and unaccountable, this makes them easy to
>infiltrate with police provocateurs, this happened whatever you say to try and cover
>this fact, people saw it, photographs were taken, I know people who's lives were
>endangered by this.

As I said, there were two Black Blocks, one real, one fake, I am hardly
denying that infiltration happened. As for undemocratic, well that is good
coming from the SWP…

>The police used the excuse of the Black Bloc for the horrific
>attack on the people's house on Satruday night. The State is not fucking about this
>is serious and rather than throwing stones at groups who criticise you maybe you'd
>like to think about your own tactics and how they are failing.

I have no problem with criticism, I have problems with dishonest criticism.
You fail to understand the point of my article. Similarly, I am in favour of
analysing, thinking about all tactics -- including the BB tactic, which I should
point out I do not actually support -- yes, I don't actually support it, but I am
prepared, like the comrades in the White Overalls, to draw a distinction between
the aims of the BB and what happened in Genoa.

>Of course many anarchists wouldn't dream of smashing working class property
>etc...etc..I know that and anarcho-syndicalists in unions are even better...

You mean the thousands of anarchists in the base-union demo which the SWP
failed to mention? Funny, that the only anarchists which are deemed worthy of
note in the SWP's article (and their "Whos on the Italian Left" piece) are the
Black Block, so ignoring the vast majority of anarchists in Genoa, Italy and
across the world. Hardly honest, now was it comrade?

>...But it seems that you fail to acknowledge that the black bloc's strategy not only
>plays into the hands of the mass media who just love pictures of peoples smashing
>windows and throwing stones, but more crucially allows police to use your groups to
>discredit the mass movement which you refuse to organise with.

I refuse to organise with? Funny, but I would have been with the FAI and other
anarchist groups in the base-union demo, if I had been in Genoa. Like the vast
majority of anarchists there, the ones the SWP don't mention. Can anyone really
claim that the SWP is giving an accurate account of what happened and about
anarchism? DO anarchists "refuse to organise" with the mass movement? As
Genoa shows, no, we do not -- not that the SWP will let you know that.

Oh, btw, what about Prague, when the SWP put themselves down for the Pink
block and changed, without telling anyone, to the Yellow one? Is that organising
within a mass movement? Being accountable? No, I don't think so.

>There is NO WAY that small groups of violent demonstrators whatever there good
>intentions can take on the armed might of the State that we saw in Genoa, only a
>militant mass movement can do that, that is what we need to build.

Yes, as the vast majority of anarchists would agree -- as would the anarchists in the
two Italian anarchist federations would agree with, and the other groups, you know,
the anarchists the SWP strangely fail to mention….

>Of course many young people want to take on the cops, who wouldn't with the shitty
>system we live under, so there is a responsibility on the left to provide a viable
>alternative, for many people on the demonstration the question of the 'real' black
>bloc as opposed to the 'fake' one is a life or death issue.

What is that "viable" alternative? Working in the radical unions like the COBAS? Like
the anarchists the SWP strangely fail to discuss in their article? Surely not.

>Your organising methods are elitist, substituionist and whilst I respect the anger and
>courage of some anarchists what they need now to do is to be with and help the
>rest of the movement grow so that it can REALLY beat capitalism and the state.

Firstly, "your organising methods" is bloody rich, as the SWP fail to mention the
thousands of anarchists in Genoa who were not in the Black Block and were
marching with the radical base-unions. Thank you for proving my point on now
the SWP distort the position of others.

Secondly, "elitist, substitutionist"? That is good coming from the SWP, part of a
political tradition whose leaders (Lenin and Trotsky) argued on many occasions on
the need for party dictatorship and ignoring the democratic decisions of the masses.

Thirdly, in order to help the movement grow, then we need to be honest. As the
article (and our comrade here) shows, the SWP cannot be honest about anarchist
movement. Which was the point of my article, a point which has been ignored.

So, comrade, please explain why Socialist Worker made no mention of the vast
majority of anarchists in Genoa, the members of the Italian Anarchist Federation
and Italian Anarchist-Communist Federation, and other international groups,
who took part in the base-union demos? Are these organising methods "elitist"
and "substitutionist"? An answer would be nice.

okay here's my main point again because it actually is the most important crticism, and hasn't been addressed.

You cannot take on the violence of the state with small groups of determined activists (of whatever politics) this is what I mean by substituionism and elitism. If the 300 000 on saturday were militant, discplined and determined they could have shut down the G8, this is what I'm aiming for. And in situations when the masses are there the army and police can be one over.

If you do not work with the masses, argue with them and convince them that militant action is required (which means some hard work) then you will go one of two ways, and Italian politics in the past shows this clearly

1. Reformism or 2. terrorism

Only mass movements create real change, not small groups and I'm sorry but the anarchists did organise seperatley from the GSF, if we are to win the lessons need to be learned, and the police did use the cover of the black bloc to create havoc. If I was involved in the Black Bloc this would seriuosly concern me.

Capitalism will be destroyed by the majority or it will not be destroyed simple as that.

noel

This is laughable...

...are you the Judean People's Black Block or the Black Block of the Judean People???!!

Bunch ofsplitters!!!!!

I know what I saw and wrecking relatively poor neighbourhoods is about as political as fucking football hooliganism. The behaviour of the Black Block (real, fake, nice or nasty Judean or otherwise) is just adrenaline/alcohol fuelled macho bullshit. Go away, go underground, go organise Baader Meinhof type urban guerilla warfare. But please just fuck off from the rest of us.

I've re-read the article, Anarcho: as far as I can tell, the main section of it is an honest account of the available information surrounding the Black Block and the claims of police infiltration. It relies to a large extent on the evidence presented in the Italian press which most people in Britain will not have seen. This was the purpose of the article: to cut through the gossip and innuendoes of the British press; I think it is also pretty clear from the paper that in no way do the Black Block represent the entirety of anarchist opinion. I am an SWP member; I do not support what the Black Block do - but can see where they're coming from, and the "real" Black Blocksters out there did a pretty efficient job of targetting (as they said they would) "banks, multinationals and the police." Who, out there, is going to shed tears over a Bancomat? However, their legitimate anger and their courage are severely undermined by their methods.

Principally, this is about accountability; I disagree (obviously) with comrade Anarcho's claims that the SWP is not democratic: we are, we do what we do in public, and so - critically - we can be held to account for it. The Black Block - like any other group involved in the anti-capitalist movement (including, I might add, the SWP) - allow freedom of discussion within their groups. We - all of us - could not build a movement any other way. The difference with Black Block is that their anonymity removes any accountability: members/supporters dissenting from the consensus can in principle do what they wish, without even the potential of being held to account for their actions. For genuine Black Blocksters, this is not a problem: however, it is clear that this opens the door to police infiltration. If any re-assessment is to take place, perhaps this should be one area to look at.

Simple solution to this shit. DONT READ SOCIALIST WORKER!! I dont understand why some anarchists get so worked up about what is ultimately a propaganda sheet. The authoritarian left are never going to give a decent account of anarchists; they would not have a job if they did! Even the corporate press today (The Guardian) gave a more accurate account!

more of the same:

>Only mass movements create real change, not small groups and I'm sorry but the
>anarchists did organise seperatley from the GSF,

So the GSF = the protestors? Sorry, no. As I indicated, the majority of anarchists
were within the radical base-unions demonstration. Are the base-unions a "small
group"? Sorry if working within in mass working class organisations means
being "elitist." Perhaps you could explain how?

Its amazing, even though I have indicated that the vast majority of anarchists
in Genoa were working in the radical base-unions, the SWP members are
still claiming that anarchists don't think "mass movement create real change,
not small groups"! Says alot about the SWP, that does.

> if we are to win the lessons need
> to be learned, and the police did use the cover of the black bloc to create havoc. If I
> was involved in the Black Bloc this would seriuosly concern me.

As I said, I do not support the BB tactic. I hope that those involved will
reflect and discuss what happened and learn from it -- just as they have
in the past. Honest debate and critique is essential, which is not what
Socialist Worker provided, imho.

As I have stressed, we most draw a clear distinction between what happened in
Genoa and the BB tactic -- as the White Overall made clear. Harman's article
did not do this. Similarly, the pathetic "Who's on the Italian Left" totally
ignores the ideas and activities vast majority of Italian anarchists! How is that
possible, comrade? But then again, you have just done so in your reply. Its
pretty sad that even when the facts are right in front of them, the SWP keep
repeating the same old nonsense.

So comrade, answer the question. Is working in the base-union demos "elitist"
and "substitutionist"? Does it suggest a lack of understanding that "mass
movements create real change"? That was what the vast majority of anarchists
in Genoa were doing -- why did Socialist Worker not mention that?

What the fuck are we all talking about? This is exactly what the big commercial world want's, we are starting a fight among SWP and BlackBloc how can we ever fight a big enemy if we can't even get ourselves straight!, I am a joiner of blackbloc's. Blackbloc is not a organisation, but a group of people comming together at a public meeting to share their ideas and opinions, and fight for that cause (not nessecarely violent) But if we ever wan't to succeed in tearing down capitalism we should stop fighting each other and form one fist, A

To the last comrade, capitalism is my enemy, not anarchists BUT it is important to debate strategies and tatics in a fraternal way ;-)

On the subject of base unions, I think there is some confusion here, my criticisms are aimed at what I would regard in my experience as the Black Bloc, young kids of the kind who marched behind me on the Refugee march on Thursday who are not explicity organised and I don't doubt there intentions but as I say the left has a responsibility to show to them in practice that street fighting can only go so far without the masses.

Now on the subject of the base unions, which to me is Anarcho-Syndicalism, I have no problem fighting alongside comrades from these groups as we did in Nice for instance in December with the COBAS and other groups. I see there politics as very close to my own and the SWP's

The problem with the splinter rank and file unions is that I think the strategy of splitting from what seem conservative big unions doesn't understand the potential to radical these main unions. We as a party push to get rank and file committees set up (for instance on the tube and post here in London) to fight the bosses and the union leaders, and radicalise the mass, the splinter unions have a tendency in periods of patchy struggle to splinter more which has happened with a lot of the those unions and therefore weakens the struggle, so I suppose what I'm arguing is that as revolutionaries you have to be patient but consistent in arguing for revolutionary politics within the mass organisations of the working class.

But as I said before this seems to me to be a different case to the black bloc I've witnesses in Prague and Genoa which is more disaffected young people.

hope that clears things up a bit.

noel

I will have to note that our comrade has still not answered the question, why did
Socialist Worker fail to mention the vast majority of anarchists in Italy and in
Genoa? Why did it equate the Italian anarchist movement with the Black Block?
However, I must admit that I don't expect a reply (none has appeared so far)
But I will say it looks bad for our comrades from the SWP that they continually
avoid the questions...

>Now on the subject of the base unions, which to me is Anarcho-Syndicalism,

You can be an anarchist and in favour of working with base unions and not
be an anarcho-syndicalist. Its the usual SWP-line -- class struggle anarchists
are anarcho-syndicalists, even when they are not. And, of course, the SWP's
definition of syndicalism is a bit out of date and inaccurate as well, which
does not help.

Looking at Italy, we see two national anarchist federations who specifically
marched with the base-unions -- specific anarchist federations are not pure
anarcho-syndicalism. Also, just to hammer home the point, why did the
SWP not mention these anarchists and organisations? I'm still waiting for
some kind of answer... (or even an acknowledgement that Socialist Worker
misinformed its readers on the anarchist movement in Italy).

>I have
>no problem fighting alongside comrades from these groups as we did in Nice for
>instance in December with the COBAS and other groups. I see there politics as
>very close to my own and the SWP's

Given that the SWP's political tradition is the Bolshevik one, and both Lenin and
Trotsky argued that the dictatorship of the party was inevitable during a
revolution, I would say that anarcho-syndicalism and the SWP's politics are
pretty far apart...

Anarchists stand for workers power and socialism from below, the Bolshevik
traditions stands for party power (which it equates with workers power) and
socialism from "above" and "below."

Now, I'm sure that you personally reject party dictatorship and socialism from
above -- sadly, the Bolshevik tradition does not (and by Bolshevik tradition I
mean the writings of Lenin and Trotsky).

The fact that trotskysts will never be fair with anrachists is known by all since nearly 80 years.

The fact that anarchism can be a convenient cover for people who think little and just like violence is known too..

But there is another fact which is more important: the 300 000 people in Genova were not all Trotskysts and never will be, no matter how hard the SWP ot the tute try. And they will not become all anarchists neither.

We must all work together ! No matter how big are the differences between us. Nobody must create divisions by accusing others of this or that, and those who do so will be remember forever as traitors ,cowards and selfish.

95 % of the young people who were in Genova don't give a damn about Trotsky or Bakunin. But they will all watch closely who creates divisions and tensions, and who spreads lies. Ant the Internet is very useful in keeping track of what's happening.
Almost everybody already understood that 1. some trotskyst organisations
seem to be unable to change their "way" of doing things and that 2.Anarchism and anarchists are unfairly treated by many just because some BB guys did stupid actions.

20 years ago, the tute bianche strategy of suddenly accusing their black partners of all the mistakes would maybe have work, but fortunately it doesn't work today ! Even among the "followers" of the tute, many people disagree with the accusations spread by their "leaders" !

Catholics, anarchists, BB,tute,Trotskysts, greens, and all the others, we all have different ideas and there is no way that everybody will ever become of one color !

the only solution is simple: let's stop accusing each other , let's stop
reproducing old "tactics", let's stop lying, let's stop bullshitting, and let's all work together !! Catholics and BB Greens and blacks and reds !

And if we don't do it....well it's a century old story...we already know the result

We're all to the left of centre. Right? Lets not throw stones.

Genoa Actions.

I was in Genoa & tried to with the help of a black masked & dressed individual stopped two other black masked people smashing some small cars.
I am sure that some of the fake black block were either police, nazis or even criminals looking for the chance to rob.
If the sum of your political theory is that you agree that you like to end up on demonstrations & fight police or fascists then you will find it is very easy to get infiltrated by cops & lunatics.
At least the German anarchist black blockers had some literature & made a good case for there actions with them some of the English ones I met at Prague were just into violence for fun.

SO if you count the success of a demonstrtion in how much property damage you did well black block were good at Genoa
But did they help the general march I don't think so.
Stuart

"Strategy"? What strategy? The only written document specifically dealing with Genoa's fake Black Bloc is the one I wrote myself and posted on Indymedia. It was titled "The Magical Mystery Tour of Fake Black Blocsters in Genoa". There was absolutely no sectarianism in it, no intention to smear anyone.

Wu Ming writes:

> "Strategy"? What strategy? The only written
> document specifically dealing with Genoa's
> fake Black Bloc is the one I wrote myself
> and posted on Indymedia. It was titled "The
> Magical Mystery Tour of Fake Black Blocsters
> in Genoa". There was absolutely no sectarianism
> in it, no intention to smear anyone.

Yes, that was an excellent article and I think
the level is that which any debate should be
based on. It clearly stated that what happened
in Genoa was against BB policy
(see www.infopshop.org/blackbloc.htm).
Well done!

Sadly, the SWP cannot reach this level -- their
article was ignorant, inaccurate and sectarian.

As for "Another SWP member", Stuart Sweden

Firsly, perhaps you will answer my continually
ignored question -- why did Socialist Worker
ignore the vast majority of the Italian (and,
indeed, international) anarchist movement in
its account of Genoa and its "Who's on the
Italian Left"?

The fact that *none* of the SWP members will answer
this simple question is extremely revealing, I
think.

As is the following comments by Stuart:

>If the sum of your political theory is that you
> agree that you like to end up on demonstrations
>& fight police or fascists then you will find it
> is very easy to get infiltrated by cops & lunatics.

why are you talking about? anarchists in general or
the BB? Such blanket comments are just silly. And,
of course, ignores (yet again) the vast majority
of anarchists in Genoa who were in the base-union
demo and handing out their leaflets, etc. For one
such leaflet:

 http://struggle.ws/wsm/statements/genoa_platform_jul01.html.

>SO if you count the success of a demonstrtion in
>how much property damage you did well black block
>were good at Genoa

Who is arguing that? Sorry, comrade, irrelevant
aside. Perhaps you will explain why the SWP have
ignored the vast majority of anarchists in Italy
in their article?

One last point on elitism and substitutionism. I
would argue the following quotes by Trotsky indicate
why Bolshevism (the tradition of the SWP) is far
more elitist and substitutionist than the BB tactic
could ever be:

"The revolutionary dictatorship of a proletarian party
is for me not a thing that one can freely accept or
reject: It is an objective necessity imposed upon us
by the social realities -- the class struggle, the
heterogeneity of the revolutionary class, the
necessity for a selected vanguard in order to
assure the victory. The dictatorship of a party
belongs to the barbarian prehistory as does the
state itself, but we can not jump over this chapter,
which can open (not at one stroke) genuine human
history. . . The revolutionary party (vanguard)
which renounces its own dictatorship surrenders
the masses to the counter-revolution . . .
Abstractly speaking, it would be very well
if the party dictatorship could be replaced
by the 'dictatorship' of the whole toiling
people without any party, but this presupposes
such a high level of political development among
the masses that it can never be achieved under
capitalist conditions. The reason for the
revolution comes from the circumstance that
capitalism does not permit the material and
the moral development of the masses."
[_Writings 1936-37_, pp. 513-4]

"The very same masses are at different times inspired by
different moods and objectives. It is just for this reason
that a centralised organisation of the vanguard is
indispensable. Only a party, wielding the authority
it has won, is capable of overcoming the vacillation
of the masses themselves." [_The Moralists and Sycophants_,
p. 59]

for more on anarchism and marxism visit:

www.infoshop.org/texts/iso.html
www.infoshop.org/append3.html
www.anarchistfaq.org

Okay, this has turned into the predictable 'life of Brian' argument where ex-trots (born again Anarchists) pick a fight with the SWP (is my guess close).

I'll answer the question by quoting noel.

>Now on the subject of the base unions, which to me is
>Anarcho-Syndicalism, .... I see there [their?] politics
>as very close to my own and the SWP's

The reason that the SWP did not refere to the Anarcho-Syndicalist movement is *because* the SWP is (in its everyday politics) very similar to Anarcho-Syndicalism. The well educated marxists who write for Socialist Worker and who form the political leadership want to protect their membership from making the obvious conclusions about political activity and (like so many other ex-members of the SWP) leave to become political anarchists (or worse still criticise the politics of the SWP and generate a 'genuine marxist' split).

The SWP is in many respects an Anarcho-Syndicalist organization (the way they organize in trade unions at least), and more crude 'green anarchism' among many of their youth/student members. The SWP's political mantra is to gain size enough to forment 'The revolution' so having members bugger off to join other organizations pushes 'the revolution' further away. So it is necessary to educate (i.e. confuse) members about what anarchism is (and incidentaly about what marxism is).

To forestall the inevitable flames: am a libertarian Marxist (whatever that means) who is a member of a (self defined) trotskyist alliance.

A genuine Marxist split

the gibberish at the bottom of the last post should be this link:

A genuine Marxist split

I dont believe that the point is if thjey were provocators or not.Dont forget that the police split the demo in the points that some comunist blocks guard their groyps.How can u shout "SOLIDARITAT"in one moment and in the other when some people try to hide u give them to the police?