Corrections below...
jacdon at earthlink.net wrote:
> The following article will appear in the Nov. 4 email issue of the
> Mid-Hudson Activist Newsletter/Calendar, published in New Paltz, NY, by
> the Mid-Hudson National People's Campaign/IAC, via jacdon at earthlink.net
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> WHICH WAY FOR THE PEACE MOVEMENT?
>
> By Jack A. Smith
>
> A new and broad sector of the peace movement, with a strong
> anti-imperialist component, burst into the streets days after the Sept.
> 11 attacks last year, correctly anticipating that the Bush
> administration would exploit the tragedy to justify launching wars of
> conquest.
There was nothing new or broad about the IAC/ANSWER demonstration that was organized last year for Washington, DC. The IAC simply turned an anti-Bush demonstration that they had called months earlier into an "anti-war" protest. This event had been organized by the IAC to compete with anti-globalization/anti-capitalist protests that had been called 6 months earlier for the same weekend.
> Two weeks later, on Sept. 29, this sector -- led by the ANSWER coalition
The only thing led by the ANSWER coalition on this date was the usual coterie of IAC supporters and friends. The fact that there was another anti-war protest that same day and one the next day demonstrates that ANSWER never led anything.
This is historical revisionism mixed up with sectarian parasitisim.
> -- organized a rally and march in Washington that attracted 20,000
> protesters and a simultaneous demonstration in San Francisco that drew
> many thousands.
More inaccuracies by the boatload. The protest organized by ANSWER was attended by 8,000, tops. It's also part of ANSWER's official line on that day that they were the only group protesting the war. In fact, the Anti-Capitalist Convergence had turned their anti-capitalist protests into an anti-war march from the U.S. Capitol to the World Bank. This was an unpermitted march of 2000 people that was accompanied en route by a massive police presence.
This happened a full week before President Bush began a
> war against Afghanistan, at a time when many peace groups were
> cautioning that public protests were "inappropriate" during the
> temporarily prevailing climate of White House and mass media induced
> hyperpatriotism.
It is true that some peace groups and many leftists cautioned against confrontational public protests. The Mobilization for Global Justice called off its protests, despite a majority of its members who wanted to organize anti-war activities. The ACC conducted an anti-war march on S29 and a coalition of peace groups did a mass march the next day.
> The pace of antiwar protests and demonstrations continued to accelerate
> considerably this year. On April 20, a multi-coalition demonstration of
> up to 100,000 people was held in Washington.
Actually the turnout for the April protests was around 75,000, but I think we all understand how the WWP/IAC/ANSWER play fast and loose with numbers. It was indeed a multi-coalition protest, but ANSWER's involvement annoyed many activists. ANSWER had called for another anti-Bush protest for late April and then conveniently moved their protest to the same weekend in the interest of "unity." ANSWER did not join the other coalitions and continued the WWP/IAC practice of organizing competing demonstrations. They even went so far as to hijack the anti-AIPAC protest two days later.
> Now, on Oct. 26, ANSWER
> mobilized hundreds of thousands in Washington, San Francisco and well
> over 100 other cities in the U.S. and abroad against the Bush regime's
> intention to invade Iraq, a country not connected to the terror
> attacks. This happened before Bush even set a date for his new war.
> The phenomenal growth of this peace force may conceivably impact the
> administration's war plans.
I'm sorry, but I'll give credit to ANSWER for organizing 80-120,000 in Washington and tens of thousands in San Francisco, but it is crazy for them to claim that they organized protests in hundreds of cities around the world. Once again, ANSWER takes credit for the work of other groups.
> It is obvious to veteran observers of the antiwar struggles in the U.S.
> that today's movement is growing considerably faster, and with more
> savvy about Washington's real intentions, than the early years of the
> mass antiwar/anti-imperialist movements of the 1960s-'70s that
> ultimately helped stop one of the most shameful wars in American
> history.
More historical revisionism with a deceptive claim that there is ONE movement, which of course is being led by ANSWER.
> The first demonstration against the Vietnam war took place in 1963 when
> a group called Youth Against War and Fascism organized a small protest
> in New York City. It took over two years before the first demonstration
> of 25,000 people was held in Washington in the spring of 1965, organized
> by Students for a Democratic Society.
>
> To accomplish this breakthrough, SDS had to overcome obstacles thrown in
> its path by the leaders of the largest traditional antiwar organizations
> of the time who publicly demanded that the nationwide student group
> renounce its intention to allow communist and left socialist groups to
> take part in the projected protest. They even threatened to boycott the
> rally unless their wishes were heeded. To their enormous credit the
> students refused, and the subsequent rally excluded no one and included
> anti-imperialist as well as pacifist demands.
>
> The huge success of the SDS protest helped pave the way for the historic
> antiwar movements that soon followed, movements based on uniting all who
> could be united against the war -- from pacifists and anti-imperialists,
> to liberals and Democrats, to socialists and communists, to libertarians
> and anarchists, to war veterans and GIs on active duty. It took quite a
> while, however, before numbers of 100,000 or 200,000 or up to a
> million were registered -- numbers that, as they were compounded, helped
> to convince those who rule America that there was no alternative to
> extrication from Vietnam.
This is another deceptive exaggeration of the SDS's role in the anti-war protests. The purpose of these paragraphs is to suggest that a centralized organization should run the ONE anti-war movement. We can see where this is going...
> There were many struggles in the anti-Vietnam war movement, between and
> within the liberal and left camps, for the leadership and political
> direction of various coalitions. There were struggles over the
> political demands of rallies, over whether it was appropriate to carry
> the flag of the National Liberation Front of Vietnam, over whether to
> focus on winning over the politicians or the people, over the extent of
> anti-imperialist influence, and continual efforts by some to keep the
> reds away. But despite and because of these struggles, a mass movement
> for peace and against imperial conquest ultimately prevailed over the
> warmakers.
Why exactly is this paragraph included here? Is this an indirect response to David Corn and other critics who suggest that the anti-war movement(s) are harmed by radical politics?
I believe in putting forward a strong anti-imperialist message, but not the simplistic analysis cooked up by the IAC>
> The question before the antiwar forces now is whether they can maintain
> and accelerate the incredible momentum of the last year over the next
> months and years. Will today's movement be able to delay, deflect or
> even halt the right-wing Bush administration's enthusiasm for a "war on
> terrorism" composed of a succession of aggressive attacks on various
> countries?
Ever wonder why the IAC is so focused on Bush? Would they protest a war that was being organized by a Democrat?
> The movement has succeeded before, but can it do so again under the
> quite different circumstances of the Bush-era wars?
>
> For example, the left was large during the Vietnam era, and today it is
> relatively small. Similarly the socialist camp that served to restrain
> some of the more adventurous aspects of U.S. foreign policy no longer
> exists.
I'm not sure how Jack defines the Left. Sure, the WWP is a small and insignifcant organization, but as Chomsky has pointed out, there are more activists now than during the 1960s. If Jack is equating the Left with leftist activists, then he is wrong here.
> Also, while the Vietnam War was thousands of miles away, Bush
> administration scare stories and propaganda have convinced a large
> sector of the American people that their "homeland" is under attack, and
> that there is an imminent danger to themselves and their local
> communities from a ruthless "Axis of Evil." These may be lies intended
> to justify aggression to secure world political, economic and military
> hegemony for the U.S., but they are fervently believed by many millions
> of Americans. Further, despite a certain recent opposition to aspects
> of the "war on terrorism" manifested by a small minority of politicians,
> both the Republican and Democratic parties are committed backing
> President Bush's war plans.
I don't buy the argument that Bush has convinced the American people. Look at the polls and you see many people who are very skeptical these days.
> A major difference in the last quarter-century is the way Washington now
> conducts its wars, a product of the Vietnam Syndrome -- i.e., the
> disinclination of the American people to support a foreign war of long
> duration, with many U.S. casualties and fought by conscripts. Since
> Vietnam, the U.S. government only starts wars against small weak
> countries lasting weeks or months without significant Pentagon
> casualties and fought by a professional army bringing overwhelming
> military and technological force to the battlefield.
>
> Another difference is that reporters enjoyed more freedom during the
> Vietnam war. They could get to the front lines, interview soldiers,
> write about civilian casualties, and assess the situation for
> themselves. Today, all war news is funneled to reporters through the
> Pentagon/White House propaganda apparatus -- and the huge corporations
> that control today's profitable mass media are the last ones to complain
> that the government, in effect, is providing their war coverage.
>
> Despite these important differences, however, today's peace movement is
> displaying remarkable growth and political sophistication. In part,
> this too stems from Vietnam. Millions of Americans were active in
> opposing that war. Over the years, many have dropped out or have
> decided to support the deeds they once opposed. But many have remained
> active in various causes or are returning to peace activism in droves
> because they hate militarism and they know an unjust war when it is
> shoved in their face. Many also remember the need to fight imperialism
> as a key element of the peace struggle and understand that unity and the
> efforts of the political left were important ingredients for success.
This contradicts Jack's earlier assertion that the Left is smaller now than it was during the 60s. If many have remained active, then the numbers have to be higher now.
> There are other positive factors, as well. First of all, the left may
> be smaller today, but it is experienced and some groups are superlative
> at organizing.
By extension, the groups that are superlative are the ones that the WWP runs.
>The movement against corporate globalization and the
> neo-liberal free-trade sham perpetrated by Washington has educated
> millions of people in recent years, including workers and students. As a
> result -- along with the transportation of a large part of industrial
> America to low-wage countries and the corporate scandals at home -- that
> holy of holies, the free enterprise system, is no longer treated with
> quite the veneration of yesteryear. A number of union locals have joined
> the antiwar struggle in the last several months, another development
> taking place faster than it did in the '60s -- and the national AFL-CIO
> is hardly beating the war drums as it did in the past.
OK, Jack, who comprises the anti-globalization movement? Are anarchists involved, or does your organization write us off as "disaffected youth?" Is it possible that we anarchists are "superlative" at organizing and are a primary reason that the anti-globalization movement has been successful?
> A further factor involved in today's movement is that the American
> people not only learned from Vietnam but they have not forgotten the
> revelations and scandals from the 1970s to today, from Watergate and
> Contragate to this year's Corporategate. Today, many people know that
> the government lies. They know about CIA dirty tricks. They know about
> FBI killings of activists, invasions of privacy and political
> prosecutions. They know some of the truth about the U.S. role in
> overturning democratically elected governments, about the Pentagon's
> "secret wars" and support of death squads in Latin America, about the
> deadly effects of economic sanctions, and about how a right-wing
> Supreme Court gave the presidency of the most powerful country in the
> world to one George W. Bush -- a man they recognize as a liar, as told
> in the old joke, because his lips are moving. And "W's" lips are going
> rapid-fire these days, selling another war of aggression to the
> American people.
> These conditions appear to be favorable for the continued
> growth-to-relevance of the antiwar movement, but that's not all it is
> going to take to throw the decisive wooden shoe into Bush's war machine.
>
> The movement being built today must be more open to unity-in-action
> between the diverse political and ideological components that compose
> the whole. This writer is a supporter of the ANSWER coalition and
> wishes it continuing success, but of course there may be two, three,
> many large coalitions from the left to the center that are required to
> prevent or stop a war. To be effective, they must dispense with
> sectarianism and work more closely together. The recent willingness of
> ANSWER and the Not In Our Name coalition to support each other's actions
> is a step forward.
But as we have seen, ANSWER is the sectarian organization here, with a track record of not working well with other groups.
I'm in favor of a unity in diversity between different movements. I'm not going to dispense with sectarianism when it means not working with groups like ANSWER that don't have our best interests at heart.
I'm not going to join ANSWER simply because they can make the protest run on time.
> It is well known that there are wide differences in the long-range goals
> of many groups in the antiwar movement -- from electing liberals to
> office, to making minor repairs in the present system, to working toward
> green democracy, social-democracy, pacifism, nonviolence, spiritualism,
> socialism, communism, and anarchism. The issue, however, isn't unity
> on the level of ideology but on the common objective of stopping wars
> and imperial aggression. The quest to attain final goals is an entirely
> different struggle, although it continues from time to time to interfere
> with unity among the peace forces.
>
> In this connection, there has been a revival of red-baiting from some
> liberal and progressive quarters, an endeavor as counterproductive today
> as it was when the House un-American Activities Committee established
> itself as the arbiter of political correctness in the United States.
> This practice -- and some of it rivals the worst pronouncements of Joe
> McCarthy -- is most evident just after ANSWER organizes a successful
> antiwar rally. It's been very intense in the last week in one or two
> publications and on the internet -- a tribute in an odd way to the
> organizers of the largest peace protests in nearly 30 years.
Accusing critics of "red-baiting" is simply an evasion of the obligation to respond to critics directly. Some have accused me of "red-baiting" in my criticisms of ANSWER, but that doesn't make sense because I am in many respects, a "red" of the anarchist variety.
> In another area, considering Washington's unilateralist, empire-building
> ambitions, any effective movement must contain a prominent
> anti-imperialist thrust and an internationalist outlook. This
> strengthens traditional peace concerns by clearly identifying the source
> of much of the violence and military aggression in the world today.
>
> Finally, we cannot expect immediate results or give way to pessimism
> because the struggle is long and progress may be slow. A demonstration
> of 200,000 or a million won't end wars right away, but that doesn't mean
> activism has failed. It means the process is cumulative, and that
> numbers (as well as the appropriate political thrust) really do count.
>
> As such, it must be recognized that street action, rallies, marches,
> educational meetings, discussions at the workplace and in school,
> speaking up at community meetings and sending letters to the newspapers
> are the most effective tactics we have to bring our case to the American
> people and our opposition to those who rule the state. Our movement has
> hardly any support in the political system and none in the mass media --
> so we have to reach to people in our own way. Arguments intended to
> debase the importance of demonstrations by suggesting they accomplish
> nothing but "preaching to the converted" are not situated on reality.
> Every demonstration brings out people new to the struggle and reaches
> many more people through and word of mouth, leaflets or media coverage,
> scant as it often is.
Actually, our movement(s) have more support in the mainstream media than Jack thinks.
> Given the antiwar movement's great advances in the last 13 months, it
> seems entirely possible for it to win some victories in the coming
> years, assuming the various groups unify in action, avoid sectarianism,
> focus on the real targets, reach out to ever wider constituencies
> including the unions, and work ceaselessly to organize for a world free
> of war, violence and their blood brother, modern imperialism.
That's funny, that the anti-war movement is only 13 months old. Here I thought I've been fighting the military for the past 20 years of my life. I guess those IAC demonstrations I attended against the Kosovo War and Iraq sanctions had nothing to do with an ongoing movement against war?
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)