> There is nothing wrong with rallies and marches. I'm not arguing that
> everybody should go out and break windows. My complaint is with a coalition
> that seeks to lead a movement that will only do one form of protest. Then it
> claims that this one style of protest will change things.
Does it claim that? Who claims that? Where? Citation, please.
I would be surprised if you found very many instances of anyone speaking for ANSWER who claimed that non-confrontational marches in the US would 'change things', that is, stop the administration's war plans, in and of themselves.
I would also be surprised if you found very many instances of anyone speaking for ANSWER who argued that the movement should pursue only one form of protest.
There might have been such instances, since there are different currents of opinion within ANSWER, but I don't recall seeing any authoritative statement from ANSWER that makes either claim.
There is a big difference between "we are organizing a large legal protest" and "we are organizing a large legal protest, this is the only legitimate tactic, and it is sufficient to stop the war", and if ANSWER has ever made that jump, it's escaped my attention.
Furthermore, this business of 'what would change things' is sort of verbal sleight of hand, because in fact no antiwar force - not ANSWER, not the ACC, not ANYONE - has enough forces -in the U.S.- to 'change things' of this sort (that is, to stop an imperialist war drive which is central to the currently ruling elite's strategy for global domination) at the present time with ANY strategy.
The effectiveness of large demonstrations does not lie in the idea that Bush will be terrified by seeing a million peaceful people outside his window. It lies in (a) the fact that they are -part- of a global movement against war, each part of which emboldens and encourages all other parts, at a time when the US elite faces other obstacles to war including the economic crisis, European imperialists pursuing their own self-interest, the dangers of nationalist resistance in the Middle East, etc., and (b) the fact that these demonstrations bring hundreds of thousands of young people into the movement, excite them, inspire them [I know YOU think the DC rallies have been boring crap, but you are possibly a bit jaded, and I am telling you there are lots of people who went to them from Chicago who tell me that they were life-changing experiences], and start them on a trajectory which may lead them to study all sorts of new things and do all sorts of different things.
Lou Paulsen