Brian Becker circulated that dreck because he wants to posit his group as the focus of some new movement. I've been a fucking activist for over 15 years and I've lost count of the number of times some large mobilization has been called "historic" or "a turning point for the new movement." Give us all a break! We understand that A20 was another big protest in a series of protests. It was a good sign that dissent is alive in America and that there are many people who are willing to do something.
> I agree with Becker that one of the reasons why April 20th was an historic event was the massive participation by the Palestinian and Arab-American communities and the solidarity and welcoming of these communities by the vast bulk of the rest of the demonstrators. Without question, this participation and this welcoming is important and must be built upon. The issue of Palestine, of the withdrawal of Israel from the Occupied Territories and the establishment of a Palestinian state, must be one of the top priorities of the new peace and justice movement that had its coming-out manifestation April 20th.
Yes, this turnout was very encouraging, but it was also very circumstantial. None of us should pretend to ourselves that we'll get 10,000 Palestinians to support the next anti-globalization protest. True, relationships are being built between groups that participated in A20. Hopefully it will overcome the predatory opportunism that the left sectarians will uses as they "build" on the A20 protests.
I also think that Glick is engaged in some shallow, fuzzy thinking to claim that some new "peace and justice movement" had a "coming out" on A20. I have news for Glick, the peace and justice movements have been around for a long time in the United States. The fact that we haven't even managed to slow down the rogue U.S. state is not a good sign, nor is the mood among activists who want to throw things. When I talk about activists who want to throw things, I'm talking about the moderates, not the black bloc. The "moderates" are starting to scare me.
Yes, the turnout *was* encouraging.
> But there are two other reasons for April 20th's importance that Becker completely misses.
>
> One is the coming together for the April 19-22 activities of five different national coalitions. Here is the history:
>
> In December of 2001 the groups which made up the April 20th Mobilization/United We March became aware that the Colombia Mobilization was planning actions over the 19th-22nd weekend. We had been thinking that we would be calling for our action on April 14th, but there was concern that if we did so either or both of our mobilization efforts would suffer because of the closeness of the dates and the travel conflict this would pose for some of the people who would want to come to both. This led to several weeks of serious dialogue within both the Colombia Mobilization and the A20 Mobilization and between these two coalitions which led to, by about January 22nd, a consensus agreement that we would join forces and work together for unified actions on the 19th-22nd. It was at this point, following this national dialogue process, that a public call was issued for A20.
>
Yup.
> Around the same time there were contacts being made with the Mobilization for Global Justice. We knew that the IMF and World Bank were going to be having their spring meetings sometime in mid-April. When it was announced in February that they would be happening on April 20th and 21st, discussions began to take place among all three national coalitions about how to coordinate our activities to be jointly supportive.
>
> Soon after this, toward the end of February, International ANSWER decided to move their planned April 27th anti-war demonstration to April 20th. ANSWER did so in a less-than-desirable way; as distinct from the respectful discussion process which characterized the interaction among the other three national coalitions, ANSWER made their decision essentially unilaterally. Despite a specific request, in writing, that they let the A20 Mobilization steering committee know their thinking on some possible ways we had put forward that unity might happen on April 20th, they instead put out a "unity statement" that was no such thing but, instead, an ANSWER statement falsely claiming a "unity" that had not been reached. This caused a great deal of anger within the April 20th Mobilization, including the National Youth and Student Peace Coalition.
>
This is the tip of the iceberg from what I've heard. I will be surprised if ANSWER or the IAC or Becker shows their face again in this town soon. One organizer from NYSPC contacted me privately before A20 to complain about what ANSWER was doing. He outlined for me what ANSWER had done and told me that my criticisms of ANSWER were right on target.
What's more, ANSWER went on to try and hijack the A22 protests outside of the AIPAC conference.
> Nevertheless, we decided to make the best of a bad situation, believing that the objective of the largest and broadest mobilization to D.C. on April 20th was a critical objective. And for the next seven weeks all four groups worked together as well as we could, joined in mid-March by the newly-formed Committee in Solidarity with the Palestinian People.
>
I can understand this, but we have to be more forceful in the future with parasitical sectarians like the IAC and ANSWER. It should be enough to note that they *moved* their A27 protest to *compete* with the existing protests. they *didn't* throw their resources behind any of the existing coalitions.
We know why they did that. They want to be seen as the group that calls the shots.
> It was historic that these five groups, with differing focuses and differing histories, were able to find a way to put forward a unified message to the broader movement and to the press. Despite tensions, and periods of time when the unity was severely tested, we held it together, culminating in an actual unity agreement between ANSWER and the A20 Mobilization on April 14th and a generally successful series of morning rallies and a unified afternoon march and rally on the 20th.
>
> This was historic, and it should be acknowledged as such.
Be careful what you label historic, because if the various movement continue to treat IAC and ANSWER as legitimate partners, the historic part will be seen as a juncture where the growing movements sold out and then became irrelevant.
> The other aspect of April 20th that Becker completely misses, indeed, that he distorts and attempts to undermine, is the important leadership given to this mobilization by young people, specifically the National Youth and Student Peace Coalition.
What do you expect? Becker sees himself as the leader of the movement and apparently hasn't gotten the word that not only do people reject him as a leader, but they reject the undemocratic, hierarchical organizations that he leads.
I mean, the IAC is a group that moves in on other protests and then tries to take credit. Is Becker going to give the ACC credit for mobilizing tens of thousands of people for last October's protests (I'm talking the numbers of expected prior to 9-11)? Is Becker going to give the anarchists credit for out-organizing the IAC in New York City in January?
> The April 20th Mobilization consciously prioritized youth/student leadership in our coalition. We did this, first, in recognition and appreciation of the specific leadership role they played for this mobilization. We also did it because of a belief that young people must be major players, must be an absolutely critical part of any new peace and justice movement that develops in this country. History is very clear on the importance of this question for movements that wish to be successful.
>
That's really sloppy reasoning. It's also very ageist. It also sounds like every communist newspaper that has written crap about the "youth being the new leaders."
I'm sorry, but I want movements where more older people are involved. People my age. People who are older.
> Becker is right that it took some time for the NYSPC, a newly-formed coalition, to work through its position on the Palestinian question as that question came to the fore in mid-March. But work it through they did, and the fact is, as Becker acknowledges, that both the NYSPC and the A20 Mobilization did end up agreeing to the ANSWER proposal for a Palestinian co-chair for the concluding rally at the Capitol.
Oh fuck, so this is what the revolution is about, some fucking long discussion about who the co-chair is going to be at some next rally.
Don't you old left guard get it? Every activist I know is sick and fucking tired of rallies and marches as usual. They are tired of protests that suck. To them, ANSWER represents everything bad and boring about the old left. Boring speakers. Nothing creative.
>Prior to this we sent emails out widely and posted on our web site our position in support of the Palestinian people. It was the A20 Mobilization that drafted a proposed unity statement brought to the April 14th meeting with ANSWER where a unity agreement was finally reached, a proposed unity statement which included an up-front paragraph prioritizing the Palestinian struggle. And throughout the rally at the Washington Monument, as Becker acknowledges, many of the speakers specifically addressed this question.
>
Please, those of you who organize outside of D.C., do us local organizers a favor and take a more hostile attitude towards these vultures at IAC/ANSWER. We're sick of them and we don't want to work with them.
> So why does Becker try to imply that NYSPC and the A20 Mobilization are essentially backwards on the issue of Palestine? Part of the answer, if not a large part, seems to lie in his concluding "analysis" of what he calls "the decisive factor. . . the strategic orientation of some sectors in the progressive movement who are looking to forge a left-center coalition, sometimes called a coalition of 'broad forces' and the like. The goal is to reform the Democratic Party, to rebuild its so-called liberal wing in the national leadership."
>
>
>
> This is quite a jump, a leap that falls way short of even approaching the truth.
>
>
>
> It is possible that there are some organizations within the A20 Mobilization that might somewhat fit Becker's description. But to try to leave the impression, as he clearly does, that the NYSPC and the A20 Mobilization are, in his words, about "limit(ing) its political program in a way that is acceptable or non-threatening to the liberal wing of the capitalist establishment" is truly incredible (and that is a generous way to describe it). There are any number of participating organizations, mine among them, which are forthright and clear in our rejection of both the Republican and Democratic parties, which are consciously building an independent political movement outside the control or influence of either one. I am aware of no organized discussions ever taking place within either NYSPC or the A20 Mobilization along the lines of Becker's description.
>
Of course not, Becker is making shit up per usual.
> The fact is that the A20 Mobilization brought together, yes, "broad forces," united behind six demands and the belief that it was critical that we bring as many people as possible to D.C. in support of those demands, as well as other related issues such as Palestine, the need to cut the military budget and to repeal the Patriot Act. Those three issues were added to our agenda in early April as a result of a conscious decision processed internally within our coalition. This is why we were able to put out an outreach email about a week and a half before April 20th in which not just the six demands but these three additional demands, as well as the demands of the Colombia Mobilization and the Mobilization for Global Justice, were put forward as part of a call for a maximum mobilization effort in the final ten days.
>
>
>
> In might be more favorable for Becker and the IAC to attempt to distort the reality of the NYSPC and the groups which formed the April 20th Mobilization, but it is not in the interests of building, yes, a broad movement involving not just tens of thousands, a hundred thousand or more, but millions of people in political activity of some kind. Narrow approaches are a dead-end for our movement. Such approaches will ensure a continuation of U.S. actions that are deadly for the world's struggling peoples and destructive of our seriously wounded natural environment.
>
You are getting there, Ted. It's ok to say it: "The IAC sucks."
The movement will not spin apart if you speak the truth about this scumbag organization.
> What is needed is an approach that can appeal to millions of people, that connects with and draws strength from the deep-seated traditions of struggle for justice among the peoples who make up this country. This is what we need to fight against the sham "war on terrorism," U.S. support of Israeli occupation, attacks on our civil liberties and civil rights, racism in all its forms, and the economic terrorism experienced by people from Watts to the Mississippi Delta to Harlem to Colombia, Africa, Argentina, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world.
Sounds good to me, as long as we don't check our critical thinking skills at the door in order to preserve some illusion about movement "unity."
<< 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)