>I attended today's (Saturday) ANSWER march in San
>Francisco. I went because the Indymedia website
>offered only that rally point as a place for
>demonstators to convene. I went there hoping to find
>a break-away march (or an alternate march altogether).
>Indeed there later was a fine break-away march that
>closed down part of Market Street. This happened IN
>SPITE of ANSWER. Let me explain.
>
>The movement, or movements, here in San Francisco are
>in motion, as many of you know. I had hoped that the
>stage would be open for people to discuss strategies.
>In my opinion, we really need to discuss how to
>escalate the movement...take it to the next level.
>Instead, we were treated to ANSWERS standard fare.
>Richard Becker, Gloria La Riva, and the usual host
>of boring speakers (save for a couple of non-ANSWER
>non-WWP speakers)
>discussing in moralistic terms the tragedy of the war.
> No one attending this rally needs to be lectured on
>the war. Most of the people in attendance had just
>spent the past two days trying to shut down the war by
>shutting down the city!
>
>
Well, this speaks to the concerns about ANSWER that I have been raising
for the past year. If you just fall in step behind the first organized
thing that comes along that doesn't have a strategy, then you are going
to be screwed when the terrain shifts and the "leaders" are doing the
same old thing. Fortunately, most of the peace and anti-war movements
have been organizing shit despite ANSWER. If we had all simply created
ONE peace moeement around ANSWER (remember all those cries about unity),
we wouldn't have the unity through diversity we have now. The peace
moevement would be experiencing damaging splits and infighting, instead
of the mild political animosity that we see right now.
>ANSWER of course directed the demonstration into legal
>channels. First, they got a march permit (Remember
>San Francisco had been in revolt since Wednesday
>night..without any permits). At one point in the
>march, there was a breakaway...and the ANSWER people
>implored the crowd not to follow it or we could get in
>trouble with the police!!!
>
>
ANSWER has done that many times over the years. I've written about
incidents that I've experienced or witnessed. The problem here isn't so
much ANSWER, but protest that relies on a small group of leaders who
make all the decisions.
The funny thing about ANSWER's march here in Washington yesterday is that it got us all surrounded by the cops at one point.
>At the end of the march, we got the usual ANSWER
>request for money. I absolutely refused to pay a
>cent.
>Kids have been going out on the street all week to
>close this city down and they havent asked for money.
>I was so angry that I confronted a couple of the
>ANSWER people on this issue. We should not have to
>pay for the march permit, nor should we have to pay to
>watch the Becker Bros and Gloria La Riva pontificate
>on stage.
>
This speaks to the problem that many of us poorly-funded radicals have:
money and resources. Many would agree that we are effective and worth
supporting, but we always have one hand tied behind our back because of
not having resources. Give me the money that ANSWER has and I'll
organize a far larger and more effective anti-war movement. Or donate to
Infoshop, which a few LBOers have done this past week. There are also
folks I know who are kicking butt on local activism like housing. One
thing they could use are cars.
>
>ANSWER really showed their true colors today...Up
>until now, it was mostly their political positions
>that I found distasteful. Now I know exactly what
>Chuck0 is expressing about their opportunism. They
>are really the policemen's friend and create a sort of
>movement ghetto. Gilles Deleuze spoke of how we go
>from one enclosed controlling institution to the other
>in this society: the family, school, the military, the
>factory, the corporation. ANSWER is providing just
>one more god-damn enclosed control mechanism. But the
>movements in San Francisco, having at last experienced
>their power in the streets, are no longer likely to
>submit to ANSWER's constraints. And if by chance
>ANSWERS appeals for "legalistic" demonstrations are
>followed by some, it will be to the detriment of the
>anti-war movement in San Francisco.
>
>
If you want to create a different society, you should at least try to
model what you are fighting for in the struggle you articulate every day.
>I will not rant against ANSWERs political positions,
>but their tactics, especially in light of current
>developments, need to be throughly exposed,
>criticized,
>and swept into the dustbin.
>
>
I think every criticism that I and many others have made about ANSWER is
becoming crystal clear to many movement activists right now.
By the way, for all of ANSWER's talk about working with others in a coalition, Richard Becker wasn't in New York yesterday marching with UFPJ, he was leading a rather small ANSWER march out of Lafayette Park.
Chuck0