> I think this paragraph reveals a good deal about Chuck0 and his own
> particular brand of tunnel vision. Chuck0 is writing about the DC protest
> of Sept. 29, 2001. He discusses the organizing work that the ACC did, he
> mentions that 'other activists had pulled out' (referring to the MGJ etc.),
> he accuses ANSWER of 'stealing the spotlight', etc. Everything is portrayed
> as sort of a game of Diplomacy or Risk, where the gameboard is DC and the
> players are ACC, ANSWER, and other protest forces, competing for the
> 'spotlight'.
No, this isn't about competing for the spotlight. This is about a shitty group called the International Action Center which played a sectarian political game with the organizing coalitions for the September protests, engaging in actual disruption of these groups on several instances, and then opportunistically capitalizing on the work that these groups had done, and eventually passing off their protest as the work of their group.
If people want to understand how fucked up the WWP is, their actions around the Spetember 2001 protests are ground zero for understanding how they really operate.
> The two little elements that he leaves out of his picture are (a) the
> DESTRUCTION OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER and (b) the subsequent "WAR ON TERROR"
> / WAR ON AFGHANISTAN.
I've left a lot of elements out of my account, which I will address in more detail on my website.
It's absolutely typical for this WWP member to invoke greater geopolitical events to evade accountability for the actions of his group.
> Several times Lou Proyect, on his list, accused ANSWER of having a
> small-time shopkeeper's view of the movement. I intend to make sure that he
> sees this so that he can get a picture of what a narrow small-time
> shopkeeper's view of the movement REALLY looks like. The whole world is in
> convulsions outside Chuck0's window, and the only thing that he can see is
> his own circle, his own demonstration plans, the 'spotlight' that he is
> trying to get into, and the bad people who are 'stealing' the spotlight from
> him.
I really don't care what the king of rec.politics.socialism.trotsky thinks about me.
> The bourgeois media were very fond of telling us that 9/11 "changed the
> world". I will be the first to say that this was mostly a lie, but for
> heaven's sake, SOME things about the world changed in September of 2001.
> The 9/11 attack had an effect on people's beliefs, and the Bush
> administration's use of 9/11 as a pretext to roll out its full program for
> global domination and domestic suppression affected the world in a very
> direct way. I can hardly believe that I am arguing the position that
> 9/11 and the 'War on Terror' were important developments, against someone
> who argues that they were really inconsequential trivialities, and that the
> important thing is who did or did not get the 'spotlight' on Sept. 29, 2001!
The problem here is what Lou's group did after 9/11. They have created this mythology about how they were the ONLY group to organize anti-war protests after 9/11, conveniently ignoring the more dramatic and effective ACC protests that happened that same day. The IAC/WWP created a new front group, ANSWER, to capitalize on their understanding that an anti-war movement would start up, which would be more amenable to their sectarian agenda. On the other hand, the ACC went ahead with a militant demonstration when everybody said that we needed to be more peaceful and respectful after 9/11. Ou decision to get out on the streets gave more activists the backbone to protest the following month in Canada and several months later in New York City.
> "Don't you understand yet that you have to go MAKE history, not wait for the
> right historical period to come around?"
>
> To which I would respond that we DO have to MAKE history, but unless/until
> we have more forces in play than the US government has, we have to make
> history within a context of booms and recessions, wars, imperialist
> rivalries, periods of repression or relative liberty, etc., which is not
> under our control - WWP's OR ACC's - and to which we have to respond and
> adapt. It is not a case of 'waiting for the right period'. It is a
> question of doing things which make sense in the given period that you are
> in.
What does the ACC have to do with anything? You are caught up with representing my work with the work of one organization. My activism and resistance is tied into groups and movements around the world.
Again, you are making excuses for not taking risks to make history. But that is Ok with me, because it will be fun to watch the WWP and ANSWER decline to the level of historical footnotes.
> I regret the fact that history is not fair - that activists can work for
> months building an anti-IMF mobilization in DC, and that two and a half
> weeks before it comes off, WHAM! something happens in the world that
> completely changes the context. Chuck0 believes that the right thing to
> have done would have been to just go ahead as if nothing had happened -
> what's a World Trade Center more or less, an Afghanistan more or less? On
> with the protest!
The stock exchange re-opened a week after 9/11. The World Bank and the IMF were open within days. If one looks at these things in the context of being a privileged American leftist, then your assessment might be correct. But we took into account the big picture and world opinion. 9/11 changed things, but not so much that we needed to stop what we had been doing.
> However, the rest of the anti-globalization movement
> didn't agree with this. In fact, they believed that the context was SO much
> changed that nobody could go and demonstrate in DC at all for the
> foreseeable future. Or at any rate that THEY didn't want to. Well, whose
> fault is that? Is that my fault somehow? We said at the time that this was
> a mistake. It would have been much, much better if all the forces which
> were committed to the anti-globalization protest on Sept. 29 had stayed the
> course, redoubled their efforts, and incorporated opposition to Bush's war
> into the protest. They had more resources than we did. If they had done
> so, then there would have been a bigger protest. They, and not ANSWER,
> might have ended up in the spotlight. But it would have been better!
You are, of course, wrong about what the anti-globalization movement wanted to do. They supported the decision of the ACC to go ahead with protests. There were some chickenshit liberal NGOs and unions who ran and hid (the theme of a great cartoon by Mike Flugennock), but most of the movement wanted us to go ahead. This was even the case within the Mobilization for Global Justice, where most of the activists there had wanted to go ahead with protests, but saw everything "cancelled" thanks to the manipulation of a few individuals who were under orders from NGOs like Global Exchange and unions who were freaked out by 9/11.
> IAC believed that the thing to do in the changed context was to have an
> anti-war demonstration and to initiate an anti-war coalition.
Thanks for admitting that the IAC made this decision unilaterally. How many people were involved in this decision? Why didn't the IAC join in with the anti-war activists who tried to form a national coalition two weeks after 9/11?
The ANSWER, of course, is because the IAC made a vnaguardist, sectarian decision to try and control the emerging anti-war movement. After two years of failing to take over the anti-globalization movement, the IAC saw another opportunity. This had nothing to do with historical conditions and everything to do with political opportunism.
> Chuck0
> interprets this as 'stealing the spotlight', because in his view the
> 'spotlight' was the private property of the anti-globalization movement, and
> when the other forces pulled out of S29, the ACC should have inherited the
> spotlight.
No, this is about how the IAC conspired to fuck up the anti-globalization movement and how an opportunity presented itself where the IAC could kick other activists in the teeth.
This is about how the IAC doesn't play with others and then lies about how well it "works in coalition" with other groups.
>Well, Chuck, I'm sorry to tell you this, but the 'spotlight'
> doesn't belong to any of us, and the space in front of the White House isn't
> your private property even if you think you have a permitless permit for DC
> for that day, and if there is an imperialist war, then there is going to be
> an antiwar movement and an antiwar demonstration in Washington, on the day
> that is most convenient for that demonstration, regardless of whether you,
> the Sierra Club, the Rotary Club, or the Flat Earth Society think that you
> have turf rights for that day or not.
Right, the IAC will continue to organize its own demonstrations despite what other groups are doing. Given what Lou says here, we can expect a continuation of the IAC's practice of getting permits for spaces that other groups had planned to protest, thus setting up the IAC as playas for that given protest.
Lou, could you elaborate on the IAC's practice of seeking permits for spaces that other groups had planned to protest in? Care to elaborate on the IAC strategy of using the inevitable cop denial of permits as a publicity tool for the IAC?
Come on, Lou, I'm a longtime activist in DC. My comrade activists see how you guys operate. There is no big secret here.
> So what difference does it make if ANSWER came into existence and held an
> anti-war protest? How could this hurt the ACC or the anti-globalization
> movement? How did this obstruct the ACC from doing its own fuckign
> excellent successful thing and getting media attention? What prevented ACC
> from getting the spotlight on S29, and for that matter what prevents ACC
> from getting the spotlight today if it wants it?
If ANSWER had been just any coalition, there wouldn't be issues. But ANSWER was formed by the IAC in a context where the IAC had been fucking over other protest groups on the September protests. It has continued to do this with ANSWER, notably during the April 2002 protests outside of the AIPAC conference.
I'm pretty happy with the publicity that the ACC has gotten, so you are barking up the wrong tree on this spotlight thing. ACC's People's Strike last September got far more publicity than ANSWER October protest. On the other hand, the IAC shouldn't be left off the hook for the crap that it has done to other groups.
> Chuck0 sarcastically suggests that I never heard of the anti-globlization
> movement which had its coming-out party in Seattle. I have indeed heard of
> it. But since Chuck0 has more of a history with it than I do, maybe he can
> tell me what it has been doing lately in the US. Why haven't there been
> "two, three, many Seattles"?
Seattle 2, which was being organized by the ACC, MGJ and other groups, was disrupted by 9/11. Before 9/11, the police were predicting a turnout of 100,000 and the activist street gave every indication that this was going to happen. After September 2001, there were protests in Canada against the World Bank and IMF, and we organized a nice demo for the WEF summit in New York City.
> According to Chuck0's theory, (a) the politics, strategy and tactics of the
> anti-globalization movement before September, 2001 were fundamentally
> correct,
Yes, they were. We were kicking ass and you know it. Your group was desperately trying to get in front of the parade and everybody was ignoring you.
(b) these politics, strategy, and tactics are capable of exciting
> people, getting media attention, and actually effecting social change, in
> contradistinction from 'sectarian' politics, strategy, and tactics;
Yep.
(c)
> 'periods' are just a sectarian fantasy. It follows that (d) there could be
> another Seattle any time the anti-globalization movement wants to do one.
Yes.
> So go do one! What's stopping you, Chuck? Are you on sabbatical?
Nope. I'm working on the next Seattle.
Tell me something. What happens if the U.S. invasion of Iraq take 4 weeks and ends in a situation where the US can declare victory? What does ANSWER do then? There is no war on. Capitalism is still around and the globalization folks are still having their meetings.
See, ANSWER has no long term strategy. It has a shallow, opportunistic analysis of geopolitics. The anti-capitalist movement has continued with its work, putting some more effort into anti-war stuff, but don't compartmentalize our resistance. See, ANSWER is engaged in the old sectarian strategy of *reacting* to world events. It does this because it operates on the belief that it can gain recruits and power by sucking the life out of whatever protest du jour comes along. The anti-capitalist movements, on the other hand, are busy setting our own agenda and going on the offensive against the capitalists.
Do
> another Seattle! Make history! But IN FACT it is not happening. IN FACT
> the political climate is different. I'm not at all opposed to
> anti-globalization protests taking place and being successful, if they can
> be, but the numbers and energy have considerably fallen off, because people
> are thinking about other things, the war for example. Somehow Chuck would
> like to make this out to be ANSWER's fault, but it isn't.
Don't you have some newspapers to hawk today on some streetcorner?
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