it is, indeed, quite clear that the public attacks on aec and abm from the smi are highly raced. their whole position is premised on the assuption that poor black people couldn't possibly have thought or acted for themsevles when they challenged the donor funded power which the ngo networks that run the smi wield over movements. the white agitator thesis was rightly condemned as racist under apartheid and has rightly been condemned when it has been used against post-apartheid struggles. the fact that the smi is so fanatically committed to the idea that all and any critique of them must come from a white agitator who is 'manipulating' poor African people reveals a fundamentally racist (and classist) orientation.

i have also seen the film (but it was made by antonios vradis and not anthony collins). it shows quite clearly that the claims of criminality publically levelled against aec and abm by the smi are just blatant lies. the movements make a completely rational case - they are really just asking to be listened to. this was hardly a case of, as marcos recommends, the vanguards being shat on.

but maybe abm is right not to respond to the smi. when there is such a complete lack of integrity in a political space is it not better just to walk away from it and to concentrate your energies on the real work? if you step in dog shit you don't fight with it. you clean it off your shoes and keep walking. maybe that is what abm are doing.