> OK, then let's talk about this 'real issue' rather than about the fake
> issues that Corn and Berubé are raising. Corn's article is entitled "let
> the rabbi speak!" It really should be titled, "LET THE MOVEMENT DIVIDE."
> You are arguing that, instead of a united demonstration on February 15,
> involving all sectors of the movement, UFPJ should have gone ahead with its
> own parochial affair. You are apparently arguing that we should go back to
> the two-demonstration scenario of 1991. Really, this is what the issue is.
Here Lou is illustrating WWP's avoidance of movement debate by making the usual tired appeal to "unity."
> I very clearly remember that when the two-coalition, two-rally scenario
> materialized in January of 1991, each side at least had the sense to realize
> that it was a bad situation and, when it came up in discussion, argued that
> it was the other side's fault. I don't want to go into the details of how
> it really happened, but my point is that nobody on the side we were in said
> "This is great, we have a separate rally" and nobody in the anti-Saddam,
> friendly-to-sanctions side said that EITHER. But today we see that some
> people look back on the 1991 scenario as halcyon days, and moves toward
> unity are denounced as bad things.
Thank you for bringing up 1991, which demonstrates the problem the WWP has been causing for the Left going back over a decade. Now, if we had had this discussion a YEAR AGO, right after the IAC and WWP formed ANSWER, then perhaps we wouldn't be dragging our dirty laundry out in public right before the US invades Iraq.
> For example, ANSWER had called for a DC action on April 27, 2002. "United
> we March" then called for an action on April 20. This would have explicitly
> re-enacted the 1991 scenario: two demonstrations a week apart! But in fact
> ANSWER then rescheduled its own action in midstream to April 20 to avoid
> that situation, and discussions were begun which eventually resulted in a
> coordinated activity. Every ordinary person in the left reads this and
> says, "Well, maybe these people have learned something in 11 years!" But
> this is anathema to people like Munson and Berubé, who would PREFER division
> to unity. Munson argues that when ANSWER reschedules its event so as to
> avoid the two-demonstrations-on-two-dates scenario, this is an evil trick!!
> "Stay on your own Saturday!"
Sorry, Lou, but I prefer to stick to the ugly truth in these matters. Once again, you misrepresent what took place in April of 2002. The WWP/ANSWER set the date of their April protest weeks after they had tried to take over (unsuccessfully) the WEF protests in New York City. I maintain that ANSWER set that April date so they could once again be sectarian players during the Spring World Bank and IMF protests. They planned to repeat the strategy they had used for WEF, the September 2001 protests, and A16. This strategy was to organize a competing, non-specific demonstration to the ones organized by the main anti-globalization coalitions. Since ANSWER/IAC are sectarians first and lousy coalition-builders, they steered clear of joining the existing coalitions. Another aspect of ANSWER's strategy is to take out permits in downtown DC, in the hopes that the permits will get denied, thus providing ANSWER with the opportunity to use the legal situation as the basis to set themselves up as players for the protests.
Now, I checked the World Bank and IMF websites as soon as ANSWER announced their April protests. The WB and IMF had not announced the date of their meetings as of that date, so ANSWER was taking a gamble. It so happened that a student anti-war group and a coalition working against the U.S. war in Colombia called for unrelated protests on April 20th. As April drew near, the dates of the WB/IMF meetings were announced for the weekend of April 20th. The Mobilization for Global Justice started organizing protests for the WB/IMF meetings. It became obvious to many that April 20th was the weekend to go to Washington for protests.
ANSWER, realizing that their gamble had failed, started making noises about moving their protest to April 20th. This was a unilateral move on their part, because the other coalitions wanted no part of working with ANSWER. See, ANSWER and the IAC have a bad reputation in this town. Of course, this didn't stop ANSWER from releasing one false press release claiming that the groups were all working together.
Lou is quite wrong when he says I seek to divide the movement. The people who are dividing the movement are the WWP, IAC, and ANSWER. They have a proven track record of competing with other coalitions in the dirtiest, most under-handed way. Why did the IAC call for an anti-Bush protest for October 2001, in May of 2001? Because they knew that the WB/IMF protests were happening around that time. There was nothing magical about the need to protest Bush in October 2001. The only reason the IAC organized this was for sectarian and vanguardist reasons.
> This current flap is a wedge to bust up any future alliances, tactical
> unity, etc., between ANSWER and UFPJ. On the one hand, ANSWER is pilloried
> by Lerner as anti-Semitic. On the other hand, UFPJ and Cagan are pilloried
> as unprincipled sell-outs. And yet the people who are doing this are so far
> as I know incapable and uninterested of organizing any anti-war coalition of
> their own. Cagan is a coalition leader. Doesn't Cagan have "elementary
> political intelligence"? What coalitions has Berubé led? I know that
> Berubé is willing to work with David Horowitz to put on a "symposium", but
> what else can he do?
Oh no! Another coalition has arisen to challenge ANSWER for hegemony over the peace movement!
This should be very fun to watch, as the WWP will be forced to come out in the open.
> The point is to stop the war, not split the movement.
Really? Then when is ANSWER going to start working with other groups?
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