Antiwar movement losing steam?????

Nathan Newman nathan at newman.org
Mon Oct 29 19:54:41 PST 2001


----- Original Message ----- From: "Lou Paulsen" <wwchi at enteract.com>
>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.

Damn right! When rallies look the same as every other rally in the past, the message is that we treat US action in this case as unjustified and murderous as every other war we have denounced - which is of course the WWP position, so that's the message they want to convey.

But for others who recognize the justified anger of Americans but dislike the means used, it is not the message we want to convey, so a radically different form of protest is needed to convey a different message. Form is message.

As well, WWP rallies, heck most left rallies, are so repetitive of the past they have little effect in general. Boring as shit and therefore ineffective. The one thing Chuck O and I probably most agree on is the uncreative nature of most left protest actions. We have different solutions, but the WWP is the poster child for the fast food, stale form of protest that is pretty much worthless in any form.


>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.

Could be. Nothing wrong with American flags-- they were the flags that ended slavery and liberated the concentration camps. No reason to cede their meaning to the rightwing. "Wash the flag, don't burn it" as Norman Thomas once said. Or as Frederick Douglass argued, never cede the meaning of the US Constitution to the reactionaries.

As for vigils, if that works do it. The silliest thing to argue on this list is that I support one kind of action - if I have a track record, it's of supporting anything from NATO bombing in Kosovo to direct action in the streets to restrained lobbying as the occasion calls for it.

WWP does one thing well-- it prints up flyers, signs up cosponsors, and wheatpastes like hell, creating the same rally year after year in endless repetition. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. And the WWP bangs the same nail endlessly to the point of repetitive nausea. So of course you object to any variation in protest, since it wouldn't fit the machinery of mindless cookie cutter protest rallies you promote.

Creativity and variation is your enemy. But for anyone with even a clue about strategy (I recommend Sun Tzu), variation and suprise are the essence of success.

So yes, if the opposition doesn't expect flags, you bring out the flags. Whatever it takes.


>Maybe "Support our
>troops" signs, or signs showing Osama bin Laden in the electric chair.
>Signs reading, "Let's get Osama - the RIGHT way!"

Nah, "Let's get Osama- the LEFT way!" But yeah, that's the exact idea. As your comments reflect, you don't want to get him and the public knows it. That's why your rallies turn them off. It's obvious to anyone.


>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 they have that impression of your rallies, absolutely. The whole point is to reach that majority. The fact that doing so is not your goal is exactly why you are so ineffective in the broader political sense. And why the WWP is so toxic for the movement.


>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.

Yep, because it is so numbingly negative, like all WWP slogans. ANTI-war, ANTI-racism, US OUT of wherever. Never a positive goal, never a positive solution. Endless negativity and defeatism.

It's also ridiculous-- by the nature of global capitalism, the US is never out of anywhere just because troops aren;t there. The point is not the abscence of anything, but attaining the presence of justice, peace and tolerance.


>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?

If you want to march behind our sea of American flags and support our positive demands, your welcome to join. I doubt you will.

-- Nathan Newman



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list