> In a public sphere, when we criticize X, we might try, to the extent
> possible, not to inadvertently damage a broader
> cause/strategy/movement/etc. of which X happens to be a prominent
> promoter, unless we are also set on discrediting the broader
> cause/strategy/movement/etc. because X happens to be a prominent
> promoter of it. That's a question of tact -- regard for others.
A good point, but we're talking root canal here, not the isolated removal of a cavity. The WWP is an authoritarian sectarian group which has a hatred of open discussion in the movement. If any movement discussion of the WWP's role in ANSWER breaks out, the WWP is not going to directly ANSWER critics. What they do instead is rely on a back channel passive-aggressive strategy of playing the victim (we're being red-baited!) or attacking the critics (Chucko must be a cop).
The other junior partners in ANSWER won't engage in a public discussion either. ANSWER could turn into a good coalition without the involvement of ANSWER, but the other coalition members need to act together to promote debate, bot outside and inside of ANSWER. I'm skeptical that this will happen, since ANSWER's steering committee includes groups with long--standing ties to the WWP.
So it's hard to turn the flamethrower on the WWP's involvement in ANSWER without burning the entire organization.
As for any of this damaging the bigger peace and anti-war movements, there is little sign that this is the case. There is lots of dissent and protest out there. If criticizng and flaming ANSWER DID damage the greater peace movements, this would prove my charge that it is dangerous for any one group or coalition to have that much power in the first place.
> In Chuck0's case, his dislike of WWP appears to have spilled over, for
> instance, into his pooh-poohing of what he has called "mass spectacles"
> -- mass rallies and marches that initially come with legal permits -- in
> general, and most likely vice versa. Conflation of criticism of a
> particular organization with that of a particular tactic that any
> organization may use, IMHO, is very counter-productive, especially in a
> public sphere. When specifically confronted on this point, Chuck0 often
> concedes that mass rallies and marches indeed have their place in
> organizing, but, on balance, his expressions of contempt for them
> (colored by his dislike of WWP) have outnumbered such concessions ten to
> one, devaluing not just WWP but all other organizations and
> rank-and-file participants who may see more political value at this
> point in mass rallies and marches than Chuck0's preferred tactics. Even
> if Chuck0 were 100% correct about WWP, his mode of criticism would
> present a problem for the rest of us who are neither WWP members nor
> Chuck0's brand of anarchists.
Like many veteran activists, I have a visceral dislike for permitted rallies and marches. However, they do have their uses. I won't deny that. But the main point of my criticism concerning these methods of dissent is how they have become the sum total tactical strategy of the sectarian left. If you go to an event organized by the IAC, you can pretty much expect what it will be like. If the IAC was just another protest group, the monculture of their tactics would be tolerable, but when the folks involved with the IAC and WWP set the stage for the overall peace movement, simply by virtue of their will to lead it, that is a huge issue because their monoculture of dissent cannot even begin to provide an effective campaign of resistance to war.
There are some positive signs that even other sectarian groups are tired of those protest methods. I found out last night that our local ISO was really interested in the recent State of the Union concert that had been initiated by Greens and local anarchists. One of the other peace groups got involved too. It looks like people are getting the clue about the difference between the IAC style of protest and the more creative and fun style of anti-globalization movement protests.
> A debate between Chuck0 and Lou Paulsen is not unlike one between
> creationists and evolutionists (in the eyes of Chuck0, Lou represents
> something akin to creationism, and probably vice versa). In contrast,
> debates between Lou and Justin, you and me, Chuck0 and Brian, etc. are
> much more meaningful than the above. There should be enough political
> and other differences on a listserv for it to generate any engaging
> debate, but differences should not be so large as to make one side of
> the debate feel as if the other were an alien life form.
Good analogy. I see little point in debating Lou, because we subscribe to radically different political paradigms.
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