In a small sense, I feel somewhat vindicated by this mess. I have been an outspoken critic of ANSWER since Day 1 of their existence, mainly because we had negative experiences with IAC organizers in the lead up to last year's [cancelled] World Bank protests. I also have criticized ANSWER based on their practice as activists and on their politics. I remember too well their "anti-war" protest of June 1999. And some of us remember the WWP's shenanigans during Gulf War 1.
Had the American anti-war movement listened more closely to the critics of ANSWER, instead of berating them about "red-baiting" and the need to "have unity," we wouldn't be in this pickle today where right wing talk show hosts are painting the movement in red colors of communism. I'm sure that O'Reilly would have engaged in anti-communist rhetoric if ANSWER wasn't involved, but when we sit back and allow a questionable organization like the WWP to lead the movement, we are kind of leaving ourselves wide open for these sucker punches.
It's easy to berate Corn, Cooper, and Hitchens for the way in which they have framed their criticism of ANSWER. But I have to ask where the other leftist writers have been with a more constructive public criticism of ANSWER? The only person here who I know has engaged in this is Liza. There is widespread dissatisfaction in activist circles with ANSWER's vanguardism, so why aren't the writers for the Progressive, Z, In These Times, and other mags writing criticism about ANSWER? Why aren't our intellectuals and writers engaging in critical thinking about the anti-war movement? If we shrink from this needed public discussion then we will cede it to hacks like Hitchens who will frame it in a way that is harmful to all of us.
> CORN: Well, I may -- this may be hard for people to understand, but you
> don't need a lot of power, you don't need a lot of bodies to put on a
> march or a demonstration in Washington. You need several dozen people, a
> couple score maybe, who do the -- get the permits, get the buses, and
> devote their time and energy 20 hours a day to making this happen.
>
> It doesn't take a lot of people to do this, which is why they're able to
> sort of jump ahead of the more mainstream peace and religious
> organizations and get out in front and do this and get a response.
Corn is totally correct about this. It only takes a tight, small group of organized people to pull off one of these mass mobilizations. When your group eschews movement democracy in favor of centralized authoritarianism, it's even easier to put a mobiliation together. When Brian Becker is calling the shots, there is no need for the messy democracy of spokescouncil meetings.
And ANSWER was able to leap-frog ahead because they are opportunists of the most efficient kind. In September 2001, they capitalized on the buzz created by local anti-globalization organizations and stepped in to use their competing protest as a promotion vehicle to kick off their new front group, ANSWER. To hear ANSWER tell it, they were the only ones who organized peace protests that weekend in Washington. They like to ignore the fact that the Anti-Capitalist Convergence conducted a non-permitted march the same morning and that a true coalition of peace groups conducted an anti-war march the next day.
ANSWER is not the peace movement. ANSWER is not the answer.
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)