The first thing to say is that it's important we have debates about the way forward for the anti-capitalist movement after Genoa. The article above is an important part of that debate, and this reply is offered in the same fraternal spirit.

The article is wrong to dismiss any form of legal forms of struggle against capitalism, and to place the emphasis on organising "disaffected elements" of society rather than the working class. Although those groups that the article lists, such as students, certainly have a valuble part to play in the anti-capitalist movement, it is only workers who can bring capitalism down. It is the working class who produce all the wealth (and so the profits) of capitalist society. That means there is the potential for workers to sieze control of the means of production and start organising society for the benefit of everyone - not just the rich. In other words, it is important for us to start organising in the working class now rather than wait.

The article says that workers begin to fight back when they "become bored with their role as consumers" because "goods purchased can never deliver upon the promises made in the advertisements". This analysis is particularly weak. Workers fight back not because of the failings of the advertising industry but because of the endless drive for profits under capitalism. This eats into the small gains workers have won in the past, and workers have to defend these. Initially this fightback can take the form of legal strikes against bosses or fights for reforms, but history has shown that these fights have the potential to spill over into revolutionary changes in society when there is a deep crisis in capitalism. Every anti-capitalist should support workers in struggle.

I felt the authors elevate street fighting and illegal activity to fetishistic levels. The rest of us are to serve simply as a backdrop as those engaged in 'confrontational direct action' (ie violence) take centre stage. I have no problem with street fighting or with defending ourselves against the violence of the state, but there is more to the movement than just this, as the Saturday march of up to 300,000 in Genoa showed.

The other question concerns agents provocateurs. The fact that the 'Black Bloc' were infiltrated by police at both Barcelona and Genoa are not "unproven accusations" as the article implies. In Barcelona there is photographic evidence of agents provocateurs dressed as Black Bloc enjoying McDonalds(!) with police. In Genoa there are many witnesses, including an Italian Communist MP, who saw 'Black Bloc' setting fire to property, passing through police lines, disembarking from police vans unmolested by the authorities. Personally I witnessed 'Black Bloc' running away and letting other protesters bear the brunt of police attacks in Genoa.

The truth is that the tactics of Black Bloc - masking up, attacking property (sometimes indescriminately) - mean they are especially vulnerable to police infiltration. I mean these comments in a fraternal way and I don't want to suggest that everyone in Black Bloc is in league with the police. There were moments of extreme heroism from our side in the face of police attacks in Genoa. But we need to have a serious debate about these tactics.

Can I firstly state that I think the analysis was a good one - the unions are virtually defunct vehicles for revolutionary change, the movement IS militancy, non-negotiable demand for a better world. I would like to comment mostly on CFs response:

Claiming that "workers...fight back when they "become bored with their role as consumers" because "goods purchased can never deliver upon the promises made in the advertisements" is a weak analysis, CF offers his own thoughts on this.

Expecting an interesting alternative to this seemingly realistic observation, CF states that "Workers fight back not because of the failings of the advertising industry but because of the endless drive for profits under capitalism. " Hardly a more likely option - this is abstract intellectualisation. The claim that profits "eat into the small gains workers have won in the past, and workers have to defend these" are unlikely. Workers have not ever had better rights - people are forced to do labour for the gain of a small minority; whilst we are enslaved in this cycle, miniscule detail over 'better conditions' mean virtually nothing. What CF suggests leads directly to reformism, and a watering down of demand.

The article gave a good analysis of infiltration in all types of organisation which was nice, seeing as the SWP and others seem to have a fetish for attacking non-hierarchical methods of organisation as 'easy to infiltrate'. Infiltration can take place in any organisation, and these need to be dealt with through vigilence by those involved in organisations.

Also, the Barcelona infiltration was not undertaken in the guise of black bloc actions. Those involved were not wearing black from the photos I have seen. Funny to see Trots comming to the defence of YaBasta! after they've been rather opposed to them in the past. If CF saw black bloc running away from the police it was probably because they had seen close-up the reaction of the Italian authorities. If he had joined the militancy himself he might have found himself doing likewise.

For libertarian unity.