This is sad, but instructive.

When you reach my age, when a supposed male peer runs a choice by you between a) the 'wimpy social-pacifist' option or b) the 'real man revolutionary material damage to the enemy'' option, I have enough experience to laugh out loud, and say 'thanks, but no thanks. And what did you say your name and address was? And who told you how to get in touch with me?'

Hopefully, we'll develop a more rational culture among revolutionary youth so that this ploy is minimalized. But I fully expect to see it again.

I agree that my comment was over simplified. Whether it worker or not, it was for the sake of brevity.

But in educating around this, we have to aim our efforts at the militants over the police. We can have some effect on them; very little on the other, if any at all.

And I agree with you also on the government's unjust expansion of 'material support,' which is an outrageous attempt to attack and divide the entire peace and solidarity movement. My use of 'material damage' wasn't connected to this; it simply recalled old arguments with the WUO people, and a few anarchist youth I had argued with who picked up on them in more recent times.

In any case, I think militancy involves the artful combination of audacity with knowing how to fight 'on just grounds, to our advantage and with restraint.' There's a lot more to it than breaking windows or lighting garage cans.

The tatics of the government have not changed, remember John DeLorean?

http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2009/05/22/dossier-on-fbi-entrapment-in-war-on-terror/

[moderator note: Thanks Louis, we will post this separately here on kasama]

MikeE says:

<blockquote>My argument is that you seemed to asserting an approach that would blanketly targeting and demonizing militants who may advocate militant tactics. And I am against the implication that we should treat supporters of militant street tactics as the same things as suspect police activity.</blockquote>

I'm against demonizing militants. But I'm also against a liberal not countering foolishness when it arises among them. We, meaning we older veterans, owe them a straightforward exchange of views, neither putting ours heads above them nor theirs above ours. And the vast majority of those engaging in 'street tactics,' whether wisely or unwisely, have nothing in common with the police.

Then:

<blockquote>Second, I can’t help but notice that suddenly you think we can have very little impact on bourgeois politics (like police tactics). I thought your guys are in power? I thought you were an advocate of pressure on the authorities, and a believer in its efficacy. Why no, on this issue, are the police suddenly beyond pressure, and the authorities (like Eric Holder and Obama) beyond pressure?</blockquote>

Nobody is beyond pressure. But in order to bring pressure, you have to have something to bring pressure WITH--a network of organized voters, an alliance of disciplined and united trade unions, or community and youth groups who can fill buses and the streets, or even writers who can get into the mass media regularly. I think you know we have very little of this, especially any that can reach into the upper ranks of power. I've been preaching that one of our main tasks is to build these kinds of organizations, as well as revolutionary organizations, for some time now. It's one of the main reasons we engaged in some electoral work in the first place.

But in any case, you're right, we should press demands even if we have little influence. CCDS wrote up its solidarity statement on the FBI raids and made the same demands as those under fire. We urged others, like Pete Seeger and Angela Davis, to speak out independently, which they did. But I have no illusions about the relation of forces here. After the defeats and reverses it faced from getting off to a bad start, Team Obama is in the firm grip of finance capital, from the Blue Dogs to the DLC to the GOP and rightward. There won't likely be any attention paid to the progressive side of politics without a huge outburst of fierce class struggle in the streets.

It's building up--prepare for it, but don't hold your breath. It may take a while.

Mike asks:

<blockquote>So why are you inserting your intra-left tactical differences in a discussion of police entrapment?</blockquote>

Because police entrapment, in order to work, requires a certain naive mindset about tactical options on the part of the trapee. You started this off with the situation of the Somali-American kid in Portland. His entrapment is quite different than what you are now talking about, with international solidarity workers raising funds, taking trips, and so on. One is old as the hills, the other is new, I'd agree, and we have to deal with both of them.

But unless I'm missing something, I don't see any problem here between us, at least on how the matter has been framed.

@Mike, what I was trying to say is that they have not changed their tactics but technology and laws have advanced but the aim is the same. Enemies of the state will be entrapped and attempted to silence and discredit. It is a continuous process of learning from their tactics and adapting. The States aim is always to stifle but it is up to the dissenters to adapt to the changing rules of engagement.

The ruling class and it's national security state-
<b>They ain't fucking around!</b>

I'm not a big Michael Moore fan by a long shot.But I have to give him credit for showing in a very popular manner the dangerous and destructive face of the national security state..specifically post-911 Patriot Acts and other draconian laws which serve to widen and extend repression through harassment,intimidation and imprisonment.

In his documentary Farenheit 911 Moore presented actual cases of FBI intimidation-
cookie baking grannies,weight lifters,sewing and social groups,book stores and other people-just "regular folks" who dared to question imperialist war and authority- do their own research.

This type of popularization educated many of the basic people.It brought to the screen burning questions of repression by the state,brought it directly to their own doorsteps-into their lives.Farenheit 911,far from perfect in the way communists imagine nevertheless in it's limited way educated the people in greater numbers than the revolutionary left has been able to do for a long,long time.
<i>This should be a lesson for us..</i>

Recently,I have taken notice of something relatively new-a qualitative expansion/enforcement of the national security state against wider segments of the people.

Historically,most vicious-violent law enforcement has been carried out primarily on people of color.Beatings,arrests,humiliation,imprisonment,assassinations are things we people of color have known all too well.Such things being part of our lives and of our history.We live with these things every day.

I have observed the national security state broadening their attacks to include greater numbers of white workers and even middle class types...men and women..young and old…worker and professional.

Police meting out insane humiliating sadistic beatings-injuring –killing people over routine traffic and other violations.

The police have taken to savagely intimidating,terrorizing white drivers and others in much the same fashion as they have historically drivers and people of color.We see the police beating,injuring,killing anyone of any age..older men and women,teens...workers and professionals.The state attempting to beat the people into submission.To break their resistance.

I think this is by design,
The ruling class senses a loss of power and control over the working class,over increasingly large numbers of white people.They sense their loss of political-social credibility and authority ..being questioned and doubted.Combine this with imperialist wars and other world events,the objective obstacles it faces with global rivalry-fierce international competition.

We see the state gradually removing the "velvet glove" exposing within it's "iron fist" to the working class.The ruling class is in trouble and has deepened it's policy of "cracking down".."restoring law and order".Like I said above..
<i>”They ain’t fucking around”</i>.

Needless to say,the ruling class-it's national security forces have a million and one ways to fuck with us.They in a destructive sense are very creative this way.They have at their disposal an almost endless pool of resources from which to draw.I leave it to your imagination to figure out the many ways they go about doing this.

No doubt,in time,the ruling class will "go after" the leadership of popular resistance (especially the revolutionary left and people of color).

I am sure many leaders of the revolutionary left are resigned to the fact that there exists a very real possibility that in the course of the revolution many will be either imprisoned or assassinated by the national security state....
<i>"dare to struggle,dare to win"</i>...This is the choice we have made..

Broaden and deepen popular resistance in an inclusive manner to oppose the ruling class and it's criminal national security apparatus and policies of war and imperialism.

This requirement must be recognized and addressed by the left in order to meet the challenge of resisting opposing the brutal tactics of a state which aims to instill fear and intimidation into the hearts of the working class,break their will,pound them into submission and acceptance of their rule.

<b>"The house is starting to burn down"</b>

We see the left(revolutionary left too) continuing in it's old ways remaining divided and scattered-arguing and fighting over questions of ideology,tactics and strategy in the face of a potential monstrous killing police state.This is to be expected of course.
<i>I think it is a question of how to handle these contradictions at certain particular stages of history. </i>


IMHO,The revolutionary left has been practicing political cannibalism for some decades now.
Constantly at each others throats,fighting for leadership,recruits and resources they rarely come up for a breath and take the time to look around and see what's going on beyond the dust of the dog pile.I know why this has taken place.


I believe in principled debate and struggle around questions of ideology,direction and issues of the revolution.
This is both inevitable and correct.No true communist would oppose this.

<i>BUT</i>,there are certain times in history when issues of basic survival and security,becoming almost matters of life and death to the progress of revolution,
require the revolution stay alive (physically) by uniting with greater numbers of the people in a united front.
(An old saying..<i>"there is greater safety in numbers"</i> ..is still valid to this very day.)



I am suggesting this is a time in history which calls for a sense of heightened urgency.the national security state we face today is a high tech monster of unimaginable terror and capability.

IMHO,we should unite in broad coalitions in order to better deal with some very real aspects,questions of survival,so that the revolution may live to fight another day,to struggle,to provide leadership to the people.

Now,I believe,we should try to form a broad united left front with the people in order to more effectively oppose the state and defend ourselves against the national security apparatus.