I'd say that desire for conformity to "neo-Politburo" prescriptions has been, instead, expressed by those who, like Corns and Coopers, think that anti-war activists should clearly dissociate ourselves from any idea, individual, or group that is or may be controversial:
>The Nation - December 9, 2002
>
>Antiwar Labor Pains
>by MARC COOPER
<snip>
>That's a reference to discomfort with those currently orchestrating
>some of the highest-profile antiwar protests. While demonstrations
>in Washington and San Francisco brought out scores of thousands with
>an eclectic range of politics, the protests were organized and the
>podium dominated by a small, sectarian Stalinist group, the Workers
>World Party. Consequently, while much of the demonstration rhetoric
>was against the war, it was also tinged with an anti-Americanism and
>loaded down with ancillary issues ranging from support for convicted
>murderers Mumia Abu-Jamal and H. Rap Brown to sometimes paranoid
>condemnations of Zionism that in no way resonate with the bulk of
>organized labor. No doubt the rally crowds were peppered with
>hundreds, if not thousands, of union members and activists, but
>there was no institutional representation of Big Labor, as there has
>been at numerous antiglobalization events of the past few years.
>
>"John Sweeney is no George Meany," says the AFL official, referring
>to former federation president Meany's aggressive support for the
>Vietnam War. And he notes that significant participation by labor in
>the peace movement would, indeed, aid in broadening and
>mainstreaming the antiwar message, pushing some of the sectarians to
>the side. But, he added, that moment is not yet upon us. "It's not
>at all unthinkable that in the weeks to come we will see Sweeney
>speaking out more against the war. But you can be sure he isn't
>going to be speaking from the same stage as the Workers World Party."
The idea suggested above is that Big Labor would be institutionally represented in an anti-war movement purged of WWP and "an anti-Americanism and...ancillary issues ranging from support for convicted murderers Mumia Abu-Jamal and H. Rap Brown to sometimes paranoid condemnations of Zionism."
Now, surely Cooper is entitled to his opinion that an anti-war movement could get Big Labor institutionally on board if it severed any link to WWP and "convicted murderers Mumia Abu-Jamal and H. Rap Brown," whether his opinion comes across as "neo-politburo"-like or not. That's a matter of political judgment (on which I've already commented), rather than accuracy. His article, however, certainly is not without a little credibility problem, when he accuses the demonstration rhetoric of being "tinged with an anti-Americanism and loaded down with...sometimes paranoid condemnations of Zionism." What's his evidence for such a claim? Amazingly, he doesn't even _bother_ to provide any, _not_ even an isolated anecdote of the sort in which neo-cons specialize! -- Yoshie
* Calendar of Events in Columbus: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html> * Anti-War Activist Resources: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html> * Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osu.edu/students/CJP/>