"Agit-Wank" seems unwilling to accept those who look only for reform as allies; to him/her reforms cannot be "end goals in themselves". This surely erects an unnecessary barrier between those who are, at least initially, looking for the same thing. When (s)he proceeds to say that reformists are almost beneficial to the system, I am reminded of the Stalinists who convinced themselves that the Trotskyists were objectively counter-revolutionary and therefore in all probability paid agents of imperialism.
"Anonymous Bob" goes almost as far in saying that "it is a favourite tactic of the cops" to split the movement into "nice" open people and "nasty" covert people, and that those on the "open" side of the movement are splitting it. It would make equal sense to say that those on the "covert" side were splitting the movement. The ecological movement doesn't belong to anybody and if two trends emerge in it neither are splitters: each simply has a different view of the most effective way forward.
He describes direct action as "making our individual and collective desires into reality, regardless of the laws that try to control us". Regardless also of morality, right? If I desire to be rich, can I take the direct action of stealing from the poor?
He regards the genetiX snowball campaigners as privileged middle-class people who "basically agree with the system" and "fail to see the state as our enemy". This might or might not be so; but it does not relate the debate to the question of whether their tactics build public support and tend towards the ending of genetically-modified crops.
It is a pity that this is so because it obscures the realistic arguments that both writers on the "covert" side are putting forward. Actions which are unadvertised, anonymous and not limited to a small size will, at any rate in the short term, succeed in destroying more crops. And if the destruction of crops is carried out in such a way as to minimise possible genetic transfer to bacteria and plants in the vicinity, this is as morally justifiable as destroying part of your neighbour's house in their absence in order to prevent a fire spreading to your own house.
The question really is which method will build public support to the point where corporations, farmers and government will realise that they have to yield. Either method will create publicity. Will the publicity generated by genetiX snowball convince people that here are some visible people putting forward visible arguments themselves and not through sympathisers who were not involved in the action? Will covert nonviolent action get pigeonholed into the category of eco-terrorism? Or will the open action be seen simply as another lot of protesters who weren't all that serious about changing the world?
John Goodwillie, Dublin, Ireland
email goodwill@indigo.ie
This site is hosted on the Free Range Activism Website