What kind of 'anti-war movement'?

Chuck0 chuck at tao.ca
Wed Oct 31 11:22:02 PST 2001


Pretty fucking typical. Why in the hell should anti-capitalist organizers like myself not criticize sectarians when they continue to do the same shit that has screwed up movements for the past half century? I've seen these groups pull this shit in the past, which is why I've been so outspoken during the current situation. Most of the younger and newer activists have never had to deal with Left opportunism like this...

Chuck0

Michael Pugliese wrote:
>
> Chicago Contradictions
> http://www.newsandletters.org/redesign/Issues/2001/Oct/anti-war_10-01.htm
> Chicago-The effort to oppose Bush's drive to war seemed to get off to a good
> start in Chicago on Sept. 18, when 400 attended a meeting at the University
> of Illinois. The event was called by the Direct Action Network. The small
> group formats and report-backs allowed for a lot of discussion. The general
> sense was that people didn't want a typical anti-war coalition but a
> "movement for human dignity" that opposed Bush's drive for war, the Sept. 11
> bombings, and all efforts to take us backward on racism, sexism, and civil
> rights.
>
> However, at the end of the meeting-after half had already left-a member of
> the International Socialist Organization proposed that the group constitute
> itself as an "anti-war coalition" and meet the next Saturday to make plans
> for a city-wide action.
>
> The meeting the next Saturday, attended by 200 and dominated by members of
> vanguardist leftist groups, had a very different tenor than the Sept. 19
> event. DAN proposed an agenda starting with a discussion of "principles of
> unity." Before there could be any discussion of this, however, many insisted
> that the group first set a date for a demonstration.
>
> When the meeting finally got around to discussing "principles of unity," it
> settled on three slogans: oppose Bush's drive to war; oppose racist attacks;
> and oppose attacks on civil liberties.
>
> A member of News and Letters Committees then took the floor to say that
> there is one "principle" we must include or else whatever we do will come to
> naught: namely we have to "unequivocally condemn the Sept. 11 attacks." This
> was voted down-on the grounds that such a statement would "dilute" the
> group's anti-imperialist message!
>
> Even more incredibly, another motion saying "we mourn the victims of the
> Sept. 11 disaster" was also voted down, though at least a third there voted
> for it (the majority of the youth, independent women, students, and people
> of color voted for both motions).
>
> Many of the younger anti-globalization activists did not take the floor,
> even though the vanguardists were hijacking their efforts right before their
> eyes. In the end, an "anti-war" coalition was created that couldn't even
> bring itself to condemn the bombings or even extend sympathy to the dead!
>
> The demonstration held the next Monday, Sept. 24, was hardly inspiring. Only
> 250 were there, and virtually no passers-by joined the demonstration.
>
> The limitations of this effort to narrow the opposition to Bush's drive to
> war to a handful of slogans against U.S. imperialism was not lost on the
> Tribune and Sun Times, which ran articles trying to ridicule the
> demonstration for not mentioning the need to solidarize with the victims of
> the Sept. 11 disaster.
>
> Despite this unfortunate turn of events, many activists and thinkers in the
> Chicago area are now discussing taking actions to ensure that opposition to
> Bush's drive to war will not be separated from a movement for human dignity.
>
> -Anti-war activist



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list