Fw: David Corn: troubling origins of the anti-war movement

[Chuck0]

Doug Henwood wrote:
> Marta Russell wrote:
> 
>> Disabled people -ADAPT - have protests at least twice a year -- major 
>> ones and most groups don't come out in support of our demos. It is 
>> usually about 500 crips out in the rain, in the streets.  We don't 
>> even get mention in the "progressive" media. I guess we must be 
>> spewing out alienating rhetoric.  That is a joke. So this just 
>> reinforces my point -- where are the organizers whom all will follow? 
>> The mythical organizers?
> 
> 
> Nathan's talking about organizers - but on a specific issue, like 
> homelessness (as in his example). You're talking about diabled people 
> demonstrating for disabiility rights with no support. That's the 
> American left, such as it is, for you. No contact, no solidarity. 
> Against that, you can sometimes see the appeal of a Leninist party (ha, 
> just kidding).

I wrote an article today on homeless organizing:

D.C. Activists Win Victory for Homeless
http://dc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=37559&group=webcast

> All you anti-demo types in your diversity - Nathan, Thoams, Chuck0 - 
> what organizational/agitational strategy you proposing to stop the war? 
> Knocking on doors? Roving bands of masked persons?

How about we try everything? ;-)

Seriously, we should first look at the composition of anti-war dissent as it 
now stands. There isn't one movement that can be led by the WWP or anything 
else. There have been lots of anti-war protests and actions that have been 
organized locally. There have been protests in small cities and town, where 
you wouldn't think there would be much dissent. Students are organizing on 
campuses. The religious community is organizing opposition to the war. 
Socialist and communist groups have organized rallies. Artsy groups have 
organized creative actions. We anarchists are doing a variety of things. 
There are also liberals and libertarians and even conservatives protesting in 
various ways. There are former military people speaking out like Scott Ritter.

What we have is several anti-war movements and tendencies. There is unity in 
this diversity, but ham-fisted attempts by leftists to create ONE MOVEMENT is 
going to create more division than unity. Which is why it is so good to see 
so many anti-war protests happening outside of the orbit of individuals and 
groups who want to lead them.

You ask about strategy. Obviously, strategy is going to depend on the 
different movements and their goals. I think we should look back at history 
of American imperialism and war and the resistance to that. We can learn 
important lessons, such as the fact the accepted notions about how the 
"anti-war movement stopped the Vietnam War don't give the full picture. There 
was alot of resistance to the war that was organized by people working with 
enlisted soldiers. Their was mutiny in the military, fueled by underground 
"GI revolt" zines (see the Kevin Keating article I cited in the other email). 
Also, widespread revolt in American cities forced the U.S. to adopt a more 
conservative war strategy. Something like this could be encouraged this time 
by labor unions.

It's also important not to get fooled into thinking that this war is going to 
be like the last one, or that we should copy tactics that we used last time. 
I think the anti-war movement believed back in 1990 that the Gulf War would 
be a drawn out operation like Vietnam. This led to foolish and stupid 
tactics, such as in Madison, Wisconsin spent much energy in getting the City 
Council to pass a resolution declaring Madison a "draft free zone." Given 
that there was no draft, this was an incredibly out-of-touch strategy.

I'm not as against rallies and marches as you all think--they do have some 
useful purposes. But fetishing tactics to the point where they become the 
strategy is a huge mistake too. At this point in the build-up to war, rallies 
and protests help in showing that people oppose the war. But last weekend, it 
was the small town protests in Nashville and Taos and Maine that were much 
more effective than ANSWER's "boring picnic in the park without food." People 
watching the tube or reading the newspaper in Nashville, Tenn. can write off 
the Washington protests as "just those lefty Mumia folks," whereas a protest 
in Nashville shows that local folks oppose the war. Those kids from Berkeley 
certainly didn't come across country to Nashville!

If we want to be more effective in the long run, the anti-war movement needs 
to take some risks, be it civil disobedience at the cruise missile factory 
outside of St. Louis, or the trashing of the Army recruiting office in San 
Jose. We can't just get a permit to end the war.

There is also an opportunity for activists to reach out to National Guard 
families. Many of these families are pissed off that the Bush administration 
recently extended the tour of duty of NG "volunteers." Combine this concern 
about being out of touch with loved ones with worries about losing loved ones 
in war, and I think you have a group of people who could be organized to 
oppose the war.

Just a few thoughts,

Chuck0

------------------------------------------------------------
Personal homepage        -> http://chuck.mahost.org/
Infoshop.org             -> http://www.infoshop.org/
MutualAid.org            -> http://www.mutualaid.org/
Alternative Press Review -> http://www.altpr.org/
Practical Anarchy Online -> http://www.practicalanarchy.org/
Anarchy: AJODA           -> http://www.anarchymag.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)