Meatspace,

[Faustine]

Jim wrote:

>Ghandi. Womens Sufferage (US). Jim Crow Laws (US). Vietnam. Civil Rights
>in the 60's.
>The point being, there are plenty of historical precidence where this sort
>of behaviour has led directly to the change desired by the protestors
>against a much better armed and entrenched foe.

It depends on which sort of behavior you mean--none of these causes 
believed in violence at all! Back in the day, anarchists used to assasinate 
people. What came of it? The Sacco and Vanzetti case. Here's an 
uncomforably familiar bit on that--just fill in new details and it's as 
contemporary as ever:

"The arrest of Sacco and Vanzetti coincided with the period of the most 
intense political repression in American history, the "Red Scare" 1919-20. 
The police trap they had fallen into had been set for a comrade of theirs, 
suspected primarily because he was a foreign-born radical. While neither 
Sacco nor Vanzetti had any previous criminal record, they were long 
recognized by the authorities and their communities as anarchist militants 
who had been extensively involved in labor strikes, political agitation, 
and antiwar propaganda and who had had several serious confrontations with 
the law. They were also known to be dedicated supporters of Luigi 
Galleani's Italian-language journal Cronaca Sovversiva, the most 
influential anarchist journal in America, feared by the authorities for its 
militancy and its acceptance of revolutionary violence...

During this period the government's acts of repression, often illegal, were 
met in turn by the anarchists' attempts to incite social revolution, and at 
times by retaliatory violence; the authorities and Cronaca were pitted 
against each other in a bitter social struggle just short of open warfare. 
A former editor of Cronaca was strongly suspected of having blown himself 
up during an attentat on Attorney General Palmer's home in Washington, D.C. 
on June 2, 1919, an act that led Congress to vote funds for anti-radical 
investigations and launch the career of J. Edgar Hoover as the director of 
the General Intelligence Division in the Department of Justice. The Sacco-
Vanzetti case would become one of his first major responsibilities. 

In 1920, as the Italian anarchist movement was trying to regroup, Andrea 
Salsedo, a comrade of Sacco and Vanzetti, was detained and, while in 
custody of the Department of Justice, hurled to his death. On the night of 
their arrest, authorities found in Sacco's pocket a draft of a handbill for 
an anarchist meeting that featured Vanzetti as the main speaker. In this 
treacherous atmosphere, when initial questioning by the police focused on 
their radical activities and not on the specifics of the Braintree crime, 
the two men lied in response. These falsehoods created a "consciousness of 
guilt" in the minds of the authorities, but the implications of that phrase 
soon became a central issue in the Sacco-Vanzetti case: Did the lies of the 
two men signify criminal involvement in the Braintree murder and robbery, 
as the authorities claimed, or did they signify an understandable attempt 
to conceal their radicalism and protect their friends during a time of 
national hysteria concerning foreign-born radicals, as their supporters 
were to claim?"


Ouch. There's a real lesson there!

Besides, I think a lot of the success of the symbolic protests you 
mentioned were actually a logical result of what was going on behind the 
scenes--sure, they protests functioned as a PR-strategic push, but without 
very intelligent and dedicated people interfacing with the power structure, 
nothing ever would have happened at all. You remember the people who 
conceptualized, organized and signed the treaty, not the ones who threw the 
bombs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton didn't *need* the Pankhursts, if you get my 
drift. 


>Highly heirarchial defence mechanisms, such as you tout as invincible,
>work just fine when faced with that sort of competition. When faced with a
>more distributed and idealistic confrontation they eventualy fail.

Maybe, but keep in mind asymmetry and idealism don't always go together. 
Also, define "idealistic". For instance, Mao appealed to the idealism of 
his followers, but his tactics were as hardcore as they come. And what 
happens when a repressive state starts to adopt asymmetric strategies to 
overcome asymmetric threats? That's the way it's moving, slowly but 
surely...

>The question is not one of tactics, but of spirits.

Hm. I still think you need both.


>Sun-Tzu should be added to your summer reading list.

Yep, it's certainly worth another look. Meanwhile here's a relevant quote 
of his I do remember: "The worst policy is to attack cities. Attack cities 
only when there is no alternative." So there you have it... ;)

~Faustine.