Rallies are all very nice but the reason a 3/5th of Democrats voted no on war with Iraq is that average folks in their communities told them they don't see the reason for war. That probably comes far more from conversations with neighbors at the park than from inspiration from a few thousand people at a rally.
Rallies are to the left what war is to the right-- it's the hammer they are most familiar with, so they yearn that all solutions are the nail that it will solve. But rallies are pretty marginal to social change and political persuasion. They are useful for inspiring the troops and getting an occasional media splash, but they are far overrated.
And for that reason, subordinating serious political discussion in order to make a particular rally a "success" is the last thing I think makes sense. I happen to be in DC that weekend and will go down to the rally, but if anyone else spends the day knocking on neighbors' doors to discuss the idiocy of this war, their time will have been better spent than me.
-- Nathan Newman
----- Original Message ----- From: "Chuck0" <chuck at mutualaid.org> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 8:15 PM Subject: Re: from the nation
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>
> ***** Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 23:28:10 -0400 (EDT)
> From: DavidMcR at aol.com
> Serious radicals should forget about the fact that they have
> disagreements with Workers World or the RCP, and support October 26th.
> It isn't a matter of "endorsing" but of going down there if one's
> calendar makes that possible. And have our posters and/or leaflets there.
>
> I really think we are at turning point on the issue of Iraq, that there
> is very strong public anger at the Bush policies. In this context we
> should be responsible, serious, and avoid letting old quarrels (however
> valid) obscure the immediate reality. In short, if folks can get to
> Washington on October 26th, I think they should.
If the American "Left," however broadly you want to define it, wants to engage in some effective long term organizing, it needs to keep asking serious questions about our tactics, our organizations, and those wo pretend to lead us. It also must get over this constant invocation of "the immediate crisis" as a weapon against internal critics. If Brian Becker is going to lead the anti-war movement over a cliff into the Potomoc (which his organization practically did in June 1999), we had better ask some questions before we reach cliff's edge.
I'm going to go to the October 26 anti-war protests here in Washington, DC. This doesn't mean that I endorse A.N.S.W.E.R. or the WWP, but I will get out into the streets with other people. But what about after October 26? Are we going to be subject to the same "go along to get along" argument the next time that ANSWER calls a national demo? If so many activists have problems with ANSWER, doesn't it stand to reason that we might not want to get behind their banner every time they call a national protest (like every other week)?
We need to look at anti-war organizing in the context of the successful anti-globalization movement. That movement is really many movements which converges at big protests and which occasionally has a common agenda. The labor movement of that movement is different than the peace and justice movement. The "drop the debt" movement is different than the anti-capitalist movement.
The same thing can be said about anti-war activism. We are seeing anti-war protests breaking out all over, not because one group or coalition is organizing all of this, but because there are already many movements in place. There is the old guard peace movement. There are all of those student groups. There are the grassroots groups and there are the socialist and leftist organizations. And there is a growing anti-authoritarian anti-war movement, with which I am involved.
This diversity of movements is what makes us strong. There isn't this attempt to make all of the square pegs fit into somebody's round hole. The authorities don't know which group to disrupt. And we can avoid creating a few leaders who can sell us out for a nice job or a book deal.
I don't think that old quarrels are obscuring everybody's concern with war, the economy, and the fascist Bush regime. But we hurt ourselves when we shy away from having quarrels, disagreements, criticism, and debate.
Honk if you support regime change in Washington.
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)