> ...he's basically agreeing with you, though he's a bit less given to
> blunt statements of position than you are, Chuck. I know from having
> talked to him that he's no fan of sectarian parties.
I understand that David is being critical of them in his own way. I'm just being more blunt because my work has been negatively affected by their bullshit. I have strong feelings for good reasons.
Nathan Newman wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Doug Henwood" <dhenwood at panix.com>
> -...he's basically agreeing with you, though he's a bit less given to
> -blunt statements of position than you are, Chuck. I know from having
> -talked to him that he's no fan of sectarian parties.
>
> Absolutely-- anything David says I take seriously as an honest view of the
> factual situation.
>
> I've been embroiled on the National Lawyers Guild board with debates over the
> NLG's endorsement of the ANSWER rally, since the New York chapter of the NLG
> specifically voted against endorsing ANSWER events because of various aspects
> of the IAC's politics and practice.
The reason I've been outspoken about WWP/IAC/ANSWERis because I think that it is important for groups to be aware of what the WWP is up to. They rely on the movement having a short term memory, which has changed now that there are several of us who are publicly outspoken.
The NLG should simply ask around and find out why groups are signing up to support ANSWER. They should also look at the information coming from A20 organizers in Washington--this information contains no mention of ANSWER's events because nobody wants to work with them.
> I disagree with David on his "can't we all get along" position on ANSWER,
> since almost the whole democratic left is together in the A20 coalition and
> giving ANSWER status just perpetuates their undermining of real unity and the
> promotion of politics that alienates large numbers of people from antiwar
> positions.
Ahh, nice to find another thing that Nathan and I can agree on. It's important to have unity, but that should be with the right people. We don't seek unity with right wing groups do we? Some of them are opposed to the war.
It doesn't take a North Korean rocket scientist to point out that its ANSWER which is actually disrupting unity. There are many activist groups and organizations who have endorsed the main A20 mobilization. What is ANSWER doing? Organizing a competing event. Last year the Mobilization for Global Justice, Anti--Capitalist Convergence, and Latin American Solidarity coalitions organized protests against the World Bank in September. What did the IAC do? They organized an anti-Bush raly for the same weekend which gradually morphed into an anti-WB rally and, after 9-11, into an anti-war event. If the IAC/ANSWER is interested in unity, why don't they join one of the existing coalitions like other socialist groups? The ISO and RCP has joined those coalitions and done lots of good work. Why not the IAC?
Well, I think we know the reason why.
<< Chuck0 >>
Personal homepage -> http://flag.blackened.net/chuck0/home/index.html Infoshop.org -> http://www.infoshop.org/ Alternative Press Review -> http://www.altpr.org/ Practical Anarchy Online -> http://www.practicalanarchy.org/ Anarchy: AJODA -> http://www.anarchymag.org/ MutualAid.org -> http://www.mutualaid.org/ Factsheet 5 -> http://www.factsheet5.org/ AIM: AgentHelloKitty
Web publishing and services for your nonprofit: Bread and Roses Web Publishing http://www.breadandrosesweb.org/
"...ironically, perhaps, the best organised dissenters in the world today are anarchists, who are busily undermining capitalism while the rest of the left is still trying to form committees."
-- Jeremy Hardy, The Guardian (UK)