What I intend is a network of movements that converge at times (say, for a big demonstration), but work autonomously of one another. Of course there would be discussion around common convergences, but there would
be much looser coupling.
Now, it is true, this is coming to pass in the anti-war movement, in spite of groups, whether it be ANSWER, NION or some other. However, when I learn that 4 groups decide that they will exclude someone from speaking if s/he has criticized one of them, that is the problem I have with the current state of affairs and with "coalitions". Mind you, I am still not clear on the Lerner affair. Perhaps you are right that this is some scheme he concocted. Nonetheless, that does not change my feelings about the above mentioned clause.
I dont see the need for "unity", because such calls for unity mean that some group in charge of deciding what should be united around gets to trot out its procrustean bed and amputate the desires and programs of other groups and individuals.
All of us at the marches this weekend will be against the war. That is all the "unity" we need. It does not matter that we criticize each other and that we raise our differences. We dont have to be like family members who yell at each other at home and then show up in public all hugs and kisses.
I have no problem with any group, including WWP, participating in such a movement of movements. I do have a problem with groups trying to impose their will on others, and trying to gain hegemony over others in that movement.
-Thomas
--- LouPaulsen <LouPaulsen at attbi.com> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Doug Henwood" <dhenwood at panix.com>
>
> > Chuck0 wrote:
> >
> > >How about a statement that people can sign that
> promotes the ideo of
> > >multiplicity and the idea of unity through
> diversity?
> >
> > I could sign something like that, but is your idea
> of diversity
> > diverse enough to include ANSWER?
> >
> > Doug
>
> Doug, Chuck0 has an even worse problem: -I- would
> sign the statement. THEN
> where would he be? I have been arguing for the
> whole last year that nobody
> is in control of the movement, nobody -can- control
> it, that's what a real
> movement is, it's very diverse, new people are
> coming into it all the time,
> and so on. If someone wants to say 'many movements'
> where I would say 'a
> diverse movement with a lot of currents', I have no
> problem, it's a semantic
> point as far as I'm concerned.
>
> The man is just as much hipped about ANSWER
> 'controlling the movement' as
> Bush is about Iraq's links with al-Qaeda, and with
> just about as much
> grounding in the real world.
>
> LP
>
===== <<Be like me! The Primal Mother, eternally creative, eternally impelling into life,
eternally drawing satisfaction from the ceaseless flux of phenomena.>>
-Nietzsche, "The Birth of Tragedy"
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com