Does WWP "stifle" direct action?

Chuck0 chuck at tao.ca
Wed Oct 31 21:11:23 PST 2001


Lou Paulsen wrote:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chuck0 <chuck at tao.ca>
> >Gee, then you are saying that I shouldn't believe my eyes? I've been to
> >a few IAC/WWP demos over the years and I haven't see one that engaged in
> >militant action. I've heard that IAC/WWP events in other cities are
> >routinely described as "boring."
>
> Well, how about this one?
>
> http://www.iacenter.org/libbell.htm

The militant aspect of that action was spearheaded by Refuse and Resist. I know somebody who was involved in the protest.

Don't get me started on the IAC/WWP takeover of the Free Mumia movement.


> I notice that it's linked from this webpage which YOU designed :-)
>
> http://burn.ucsd.edu/~mai/gulag/mumia_news.html

True, but this militant action wasn't conducted by the IAC.


> As for the DC business, I wasn't in DC and I'm sure it was a difficult time
> for everyone, but really, in this sentence:
>
> "After months of courting us, the IAC decided the week before the actions
> that they wanted to have
> nothing to do with us."
>
> Doesn't this sort of skim over the fact that, starting two and a half weeks
> before the actions, several important things happened: the Sept. 11 attacks
> occurred; the IMF decided not to meet; the vast majority of the
> anti-globalization forces which had been planning to come to S29 decided not
> to come at all;

One of the coalitions here, the Mobilization for Global Justice, announced that *all* protests had been called off, which hurt the organizing for the protests that were put on by the ACC *and* the IAC.


>the IAC decided to proceed with S29 as an anti-war action;

I'll get more information about that meeting and relay it.


> numerous forces in the movement condemned the IAC's decision as insensitive,
> adventurist, and so on. In other words, both the IAC and the ACC were in an
> entirely new situation, not the situation they had expected to be in.

That is true. I'm not sure what the motivation was for the IAC to stop pestering the ACC, but they pretty much burned any bridge they had with us that weekend.


> Correct me if I'm misstating things, but you seem to be implying that
> basically everything should have gone on just as if September 11 hadn't
> happened, even though the numbers, the context, the public mood, the legal
> situation, in short everything were now quite different.

Nope, I never argued that. The situation had certainly changed--this was even reflected in our changed plans. But the IAC had been in contact with the ACC after S11, until they decided a week before to have nothing to do with us.

Chuck0



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list