> 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.
Then why are they organizing these mass, pointless spectacles? Since ANSWER, and by extension the IAC and WWP, have a track record of NEVER organizing confrontational protests, civil disobedience, or anything that pushes the envelope, it is reasonable to assume that they think that mass rallies and marches are enough to change government policy.
Well, they also organize stuff like "Impeach Bush," but that stuff is just to collect names for the WWP databases.
> 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.
It's reasonable to assume that ANSWER hasn't made any claim in this area, since ANSWER is an unaccountable organization that refuses to dialogue with other activists.
> 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.
I stand by my words. We should judge ANSWER by their practice. ANSWER only organizes permitted rallies and marches. Nothing else.
> 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.
I'm sorry, but I don't share your defeatist attitudes about what we can accomplish. If you aren't willing to risk anything, you will gain nothing. That's why you, ANSWER and the WWP are the losers of the Left.
I'm used to winning, so I'm going to pontificate on what I think should be done. ;-P
> 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.
The poverty of the reasonign behind these arguments is astounding. This is just a warm re-hash of the losing strategies that dominated the American Left before Seattle. We all know that a strategy of movement-building by relying on sectarian rallies and marches won't amount to a damn thing. The sectarian American left has been organizing this shit for years and they have nothing to show for it. This argument is also a deceptive excuse for the real agenda of the WWP, which is party-building on the back of some large social change movement. The goal isn't to stop the war, it's to build a movement that can be run by the WWP.
Your second argument is pretty hollow. OK, we know that the sectarian left fetishizes "youth" as the salvation of the left. We've been hearing about the magic of young people and their ability to affect revolutionary change for way to long. This argument is also offensive and ageist. I'm kind of tired of left sectarians disappearing my middle age anarchist friends when they talk about the "young black bloc."
Life-changing effects of mass rallies? Sure, that does happen, but people are more radicalized when they are involved in something empowering, like a direct manifestation of resistance and disobedience, even if it is as simple as marching down a street without a permit.
I won't soon forget the excitement I saw in the eyes of young liberal activists after they returned from Quebec City. Or the comments a younger friend made during the January 18th march here in Washington: "This sucks! It's nothing like Quebec City."
Oh, that friend is not some 21-year-old white male black blocker. She is a 30-year-old mom with a baby that is 4 months old.
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/
"The state can't give you free speech, and the state can't take it away. You're born with it, like your eyes, like your ears. Freedom is something you assume, then you wait for someone to try to take it away. The degree to which you resist is the degree to which you are free..." ---Utah Phillips