Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 15:29:50 +0200
Subject: R: AUT: Can We Throw The Vanguardists Out?
From: "Laura Fiocco" <fiocco-AT-ccusv5.unical.it>


> QUESTO MESSAGGIO E' IN FORMATO MIME. Poich^Î il sistema di messaggistica non riconosce
questo formato, il messaggio o parte di esso pu^Ø non essere leggibile.

--MS_Mac_OE_3086090990_1274881_MIME_Part

I think that the question is to stop thinking that:
- somebody  has the right answer (vanguardism);
- not to participate in somebody else actions or exclude other groups
because their positions are "limited" (sectarism);
           - the movement, to be a movement, has to have an homogeneous
position (party-tism).

           Both the sixties movement and the one growing in the last decade
in Italy show that the redefinition of the composition and of the goals is a
process that can come out only being (acting and feeling) inside the
movement(s), confronting the different tactics and re-shaping the goals on
the road. Maybe, is this the reason why the movement(s) in italy is larger
than in others countries? Any sectarism and party-tism are threats
(disruptive) to the growing of the movement (as a whole force against power)
ciao laura

----------
Da: Montyneill-AT-aol.com
A: aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Oggetto: Re: AUT: Can We Throw The Vanguardists Out?
Data: Mar, 16 ott 2001 3:37


As you noted in the first post, what the WWP and IAC also don't do is
present a radical social alternative, nor do they connect to the actual
anti-capitalist-globalization movement that was continuing to grow and which
would now perhaps be in crisis, esp. in US. As George Caffentzis pointed out
in his comment to the anti-globalization movement, that movement must make
clear its views and the connections to the capitalist global infrastructure
and how the Bush regime will use the Taliban etc war to justify not only
repression in US but furtherance of things like Free Trade Act of America.
How to do this is the question. There was little of this at demo yesterday
in Boston, that I heard, tho I'll confess to not listening to very many
speeches, so some of that conclusion is definitely second hand.
On the other hand, the demo in Boston yesterday was not organized by IAC, so
I was told, but by another coaltion which the IAC did end up endorsing, but
they were not much of a presence. But the rather liberal peace/anti-war,
anti-racism, pro-civil rights tone of IAC dominated events (I was at one in
San Francisco), was pretty much the same at this demo. The problem is not of
course what has been raised, but the limitations of what has been raised.
Still, if most sectors now active stay confined to the terrain they have now
occupied, it may not matter if it is IAC or another, and in any event won't
go very far or I fear be very successful.

Again, How is the question, and I don't have much of an answer but would try
to muster energy when I am at email (only occasional) to participate in
discussion.

Monty Neill  

--MS_Mac_OE_3086090990_1274881_MIME_Part

HTML VERSION:

I think that the question is to stop thinking that:
- somebody  has the right answer (vanguardism);
- not to participate in somebody else actions or exclude other groups because their positions are "limited" (sectarism);

As you noted in the first post, what the WWP and IAC also don't do is present a radical social alternative, nor do they connect to the actual anti-capitalist-globalization movement that was continuing to grow and which would now perhaps be in crisis, esp. in US. As George Caffentzis pointed out in his comment to the anti-globalization movement, that movement must make clear its views and the connections to the capitalist global infrastructure and how the Bush regime will use the Taliban etc war to justify not only repression in US but furtherance of things like Free Trade Act of America.
How to do this is the question. There was little of this at demo yesterday in Boston, that I heard, tho I'll confess to not listening to very many speeches, so some of that conclusion is definitely second hand.
On the other hand, the demo in Boston yesterday was not organized by IAC, so I was told, but by another coaltion which the IAC did end up endorsing, but they were not much of a presence. But the rather liberal peace/anti-war, anti-racism, pro-civil rights tone of IAC dominated events (I was at one in San Francisco), was pretty much the same at this demo. The problem is not of course what has been raised, but the limitations of what has been raised. Still, if most sectors now active stay confined to the terrain they have now occupied, it may not matter if it is IAC or another, and in any event won't go very far or I fear be very successful.

Again, How is the question, and I don't have much of an answer but would try to muster energy when I am at email (only occasional) to participate in discussion.

Monty Neill