-----Original Message----- From: Max Sawicky <sawicky at bellatlantic.net>
>One tiny addendum to peaceniks of all stripes.
>The idea of the movement--however you want to
>characterize it--as losing steam at this point
>is ridiculous.
>
>The anti-Vietnam war movement took years to get
>going, with its initiators in quite a bit of
>isolation for some time. Anyone who is put
>off at this stage of the game doesn't have
>the patience for this type of hobby.
Max is right here. And if you want a more recent parallel, look at the Gulf War. The major demonstrations in DC took place in January of 1991, 5 months after the outbreak of the war crisis. Today the whole process has moved much faster. Here in Chicago we have had five separate major downtown marches since the war buildup began, a major teach-in, and a host of local actions and teach-ins. Not to mention an anti-bashing demonstration, the October 22 demonstration against police brutality, and a Palestinian demonstration just tonight. It's just not realistic to think that the same level of all-out mobilization can be maintained throughout. Furthermore there have been meetings all the time, both of the overall coalition, the AFSC-led coalition, neighborhood committees, student committees, and then there is a big student conference next weekend.
People are just fatigued. Some people have been doing anti-war stuff 24-7 for a month now, and after a certain point you need time to come up for air and do your laundry. It's unrealistic to think that everyone who came to the -first- demonstration will come to -all- demonstrations.
That being said, I think it's true that the movement has to go into a new phase of outreach and recruitment. So far there has been a lot of activity by people who were already anti-imperialist, and a lot of work putting the structure of the movement together, but now a lot more work has to be done reaching the people whose e-mail addresses we do not already have. Not just staging the teach-ins, but leafleting for the teach-ins and putting up posters everywhere for them. Not just doing the demonstrations, but making sure there are good mass leaflets on hand for the demonstrations. It's hard to do this when you are going to three meetings a week, but if you can bring it down to one meeting a week you have time to do the other stuff.
--------------------------------------------
As an alternate hypothesis, Seay, Newman, and ChuckO decry the evil influence of WWP, although ChuckO accuses WWP of lame demands and timid tactics, while Seay and Newman pillory us as co-thinkers of Mohammed Atta and declare that we turn people off by our refusal to get on the ladder of force. This is a divergence of opinion, and makes for a bad bloc. Note to ChuckO: before you sign up as a recruit in their anti-WWP crusade, ask if they are going to make you carry a flag. See below.
As for Newman and Seay, what is -really- underlying this?
I don't think the slander about how we "don't care about the WTC victims" is worth as much as a minute of my time. It's a deliberate smear. Seay and Newman know what we've written in our press and what I've written here. In form and content, it is no different from anti-death penalty activists being told by right-wing operatives that they don't care about Matthew Shepard or the victims of Gacy or McVeigh.
Furthermore, this idea that it's all about whether or not an 'international tribunal' gets voted up or down by one or another anti-war coalition is ridiculous. It's true that a layer of resistance to anti-war demonstrations is beginning to emerge. But it's silly to say that the presence or absence of "magic words" about tribunals, internation law, "condemnation", "crimes", etc., is going to have any effect on that resistance. There were a few people who came by the rally in Chicago on Saturday and gave us the finger, and it had nothing to do with whether Justin was talking about international tribunals. When people see us in the street, IF they are disposed to categorize us as traitors, enemies of the people, and so on, they will make a snap judgment and do so, and it has nothing to do with some demand.
I don't believe that Nathan is stupid enough to believe that magic words in the principles of unity would have any effect, but what does he really want? Tell us, Nathan! But let's see if I guess right: I predict that he wants the whole look and feel of our anti-war activity to change. Where there are banners and signs and chants of 'Stop the Bombing!', he would want something different. Maybe a forest of American Flags. Maybe no march at all, but only vigils and scholarly and 'serious' meetings. Maybe "Support our troops" signs, or signs showing Osama bin Laden in the electric chair. Signs reading, "Let's get Osama - the RIGHT way!" Anything to get the message over to the "patriotic majority" that "hey, this is not one of those awful peace creep demonstrations, this is something different." If he had his way he would rigorously exclude all signs that said anything like "US Out of the Middle East" or anything like that. It's not just the wording of demands at all. He would keep me, and my party, and the ISO, and YOU, ChuckO, and all your anarchist friends, a mile away from the action by force if necessary. OK, Nathan, how close am I?
Lou Paulsen member, Workers World Party, Chicago www.workers.org