On Tuesday, November 19, 2002, at 12:07 PM, Nathan Newman wrote:
> Actually, in substance nothing Corn said was wrong or inaccurate. The
> venue
> sucked, but as Chuck notes, the truth sucks more.
<snip>
> But it's far easier to trash Corn and Gitlin then deal with the
> problem.
> <snip>
i just don't understand how what corn is doing is supposed to actually help, either. seems to me it's far easier to trash the wwp than deal with the problem. and i told him i thought as much, for whatever that's worth.
j
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chuck0" <chuck at mutualaid.org>
> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 12:51 PM
> Subject: Re: Corn transcript
>
>
> Doug: I have alot of problems with Dvaid Corn's views and I have some
> big
> problems with him going on O'Reilly--which serves the interests of the
> right--but I have to say that this was bound to happen to a movement
> that
> silences critics and operates on the idea of "let's all go alonng in
> the
> interest of unity." If the anti-war movement refuses to look
> critically at
> who our would-be leaders are, then we are going to get painted by a
> broad
> brush wielded by our critics.
>
> 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)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>