On Wed, 13 May 1998 13:53:25 -0400 Wojtek Sokolowski <sokol at jhu.edu> wrote:
> At 09:32 AM 5/13/98 -0700, Nathan Newman wrote:
> >>My orientation to these questions comes from experience in the Vietnam
> >>antiwar movement,
>
>
>
> What movement? Feel-good identity politics of middle class draft-dodgers,
> maybe, but movement?
Actually there were many attempts to build a movement. Many people in the antiwar movement attempted to link the antiwar movement with issues of racism and class and economic issues.
I suppose I need to validate my working-class credentials while saying this. I was the first, and so far, the only member of my family (including cousins, nephews, nieces, uncles, aunts, grandparents, etc.) to graduate from college. I could not have gone without winning a scholarship and working nights as a janitor so please, no class-baiting.
The fact that we could not build a broader attack on the system was the we couldn't convince all that many people that the war sprang from systemic issues. Many were "merely" outraged at the hypocrisy and violence of the war, others were motivated by self-interest, and still others simply because the war was "wrong".
The debate over why a more systemic analysis didn't succeed is still going on, but you certainly didn't see the working class rising up in opposition. We too were caught in the contradictions of American society.
>
>
> I think Nathan is correct linking the steady decline of the progressive
> power with the ascent of the me-generation of the baby boomers. They
> protested mainly because they did not want to give their privileged life
> style to fight in Vietnam, not because they opposed the war. When not
> threatened by the draft, they cheered the televised Persian Gulf war from
> the privacy of their living rooms and suburan drinking holes.
>
Funny, when I went to the demonstrations against the Gulf War I saw plenty of "old timers" as well as young people there. Many activists that came out of the antiwar and civil rights struggles stayed active, but as with many social movements, many became depoliticized or moved to the right. This is nothing new--take a look at France or Germany. The strongest support for the Gulf War was among 20-35 year-olds, people who grew up under nothing but Reagan and Bush. That's one of the important facts of controlling the ideological direction of a society.
> The myriad of voluntary organizations? If you are a self-centered
> college-processed brat, whom would you rather be, a leader or a foot
> soldier? Could not make it to the top in corporate America? Well, how
> about establishing your own tiny NGO where you can be the president or the
> board member, and wait for your second chance, even if that means joining
> GOP or the SOS campaign.
Wow, you've really got a thing for "college brats"! You might want to be a little more thoughtful in these comments. Perhaps you are suggesting that all the working-class youth who opposed the war are still active in radical politics? I'm sure some still are, but I'm also sure that many of them were also affected by the alienation and isolation that permeates modern capitalist society.
How to reach people with a "systemic" analysis is a tough one that many of us still active are working on. America has a long tradition of struggle around particular issues but a weak history of a more comprehensive and ideological critique. Perhaps the long dominance of "pragmatism" as a public philosophy plays a role here.
It's always great to "wish" that people had a stronger and more militant consciousness but we live in a real material world where many forces operate on us. Anger and frustration are a natural part of our experience, but the question is, where do we go from here?
>
> PS. From what I heard from a historian friend of mine, the only anti-war
> movement that really mattered was the opposition to the war within the
> military itself, that left the army deeply divided and demoralized.
I presume your historian friend isn't one of those "academics"!
:) :) By the way, if you have any doubt about the importance of the
antiwar movement, you might want to check with some of the Vietnamese or
visit the War Museum in Hanoi. They might give you a better picture.
One of the things the antiwar movement did in general was to create doubt among the GIs about the worth of it all and provided to many of them a source of support and encouragement.
The antiwar forces made many errors, but most of the people that made up that movement did not have a "revolutionary" analysis of the U.S., whether they were middle- or upper-class or working-class.
Was there a way to create one? Who knows. Most of the attempts failed. It's great to look at the past for lessons and suggestions for future action, but it's not healthy to spend a lot of time denouncing it.
It was a movement, but not a revolutionary one. There's a difference.
>
> Regards,
>
> Wojtek Sokolowski
>
Stephen Peter LaBash Head of Information Access Services Langsdale Library University of Baltimore "Be realistic! Demand the impossible!" 1420 Maryland Avenue French student slogan, June, 1968 Baltimore, MD 21201 voice: 410-837-4269 fax: 410-837-4330 e-mail: slabash at ubmail.ubalt.edu