----- Original Message -----
From: "Yoshie Furuhashi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>This may be unfair and illegal, but we aren't living in a fair and legal
>world on those terms, so the nonviolent wing of the protest movement will
>have to, out of self-defense, isolate the non-violent wing.
-How do you plan on doing the "isolating"?
That depends on the collective decision of a movement organizing a protest.
Simply separating away from the most violent protesters denies them
protection in the mass of non-violent protesters. They can then try to take
on the cops by themselves, but without the ability to then "melt" back into
the non-violent group, they won't last long and most will not then do the
acts endangering the non-violent protesters.
There is the more active alternative of shutting them down physically, since
the non-violent protesters outnumber them. This blocking need not be
violent, since unlike assaults on cops, if they then assault the non-violent
protesters blocking them, they won't have the moral sanction even of most of
their compatriots. Most will not do it, especially if confronted with
sufficient numbers.
Shutting down the violent protesters is relatively simple technically. The
question is the political will to do it, given the individualistic rhetoric
of those saying they have the right to do whatever they want, no matter what
the collective will of the rest of the protesters. All this posturing of
the "right" to commit violent acts despite the wishes of the vast bulk of
democratic organizations protesting is all just bourgois individualist
hedonism masking itself as revolutionary rhetoric.
Nathan Newman
