> Some carpings about WW/IAC/ANSWER deserve to get dismissed. It is not
> surprising that folks just ignore complaints from loose cannons -- those
> without any organization behind them -- who can't actually turn out a
> sizable number of activists to *any* action, not just to WW/IAC/ANSWER
> actions. Why? Because their opinions only affect their own actions,
> not even their friends' and families'.
Are you talking about loose cannons like David Corn and Marc Cooper? I'm kind of annoyed that they decided to engage in this because it makes it easier for WWP/IAC/ANSWER to dismiss activist critics who have an intimate understanding of what it means to work with them.
> There *are* serious criticisms of WW/IAC/ANSWER, but those tend to come
> from "hard core lefties" of one kind or another, be they from ZNet or
> Marxmail.
Yes, and there have been some godd criticisms of them on this list. I've engaged in serious, detailed critiques of them also.
> If you think that WW/IAC/ANSWER organizing mass rallies and marches in
> DC/San Francisco is not good for the anti-war movement, the only
> practical remedy is for you to organize bigger and better ones, instead
> of dismissing them. We have seen that it is not as easy to do so as you
> make it sound like; recent anti-war and other left-wing mass rallies and
> marches organized by other outfits -- NNEWAI, NION, etc. -- were all
> smaller than Oct. 26; Mobe on Sept. 25-6 was a disappointment.
I understand what you are saying, but I would point out that there are many local protests happening every day and these actions have more of an impact than a big rally in Washington. Yes, we could arrange an alternavie big spectacle to ANSWER, but I argue that this would be a mistaken strategy.
Criticisms of the ANSWER events *is* a form of practical organizing, because it raises questions among activists and other concerned people about things like strategy and tactics.
> In this and related threads, however, critics of WW/IAC/ANSWER tended to
> dismiss or severely discount the value of mass rallies and marches
> altogether, offering local rallies and marches, door-to-door campaigns,
> direct action and civil disobedience, etc. as superior alternatives. It
> appears that such critics have already ceded one tactic of the anti-war
> movement to WW/IAC/ANSWER, for they have neither capacity nor
> willingness to organize the sort of action that WW/IAC/ANSWER has.
Sure, but why should we waste our resources and time trying to outdo WWP/IAC/ANSWER? As I've explained previously, part of IAC/ANSWER's hall of cards relies on the work of other groups who aren't part of ANSWER's pretend coalition. They rely on the activism of other activists and leftists to create a critical mass of attention that the can come in and exploit.
It's not that hard to organize buses, but last time I checked, the IAC was not a bus company. It looks like the IAC and ANSWER are these great organizers, but this illusion is based on a hall of carefully placed mirrors.
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)