> Chuck0 wrote:
>
>> Doug is just wrong when he claims that "the prospects for an antiwar
>> movement are brighter."
>
>
> Antiwar movement <> ANSWER. Sorry, don't have a not-equals sign in this
> all-text font.
I agree that the Antiwar Movement != ANSWER.
However, those who profess an interest in building an antiwar movement, or peace movement, have been curiously quiet concerning this vanguardist group that has situated itself as the spokesperson for antiwar activists. To the outside world, the antiwar movement = ANSWER or sometimes Leslie Cagan.
But my point was really not another excuse to bash ANSWER for the usual good reasons. Even if you eliminate ANSWER from the picture, you have to ask what the so-called antiwar movement has accomplished. You have to ask if movement-building is the right answer to the question: How do we end this war and the overall Military-Industrial Complex? Antiwar activists and leftists always make assumptions about their methods. It is assumed that the way to end the war, for example, is to build an anti-war movement. Yet there is little historical evidence to support this strategy.
What then is the strategy of the antiwar movement? Is it hoping that things continue to get worse so more people will oppose the war? Isn't this a comfortable middle class liberal strategy? Who in the anti-war movement is implementing a multi-faceted strategy using a variety of tactics? Or is it just a fact that what we really need is a multitude of movements which allow for greater diversity of tactics, methods, and strategies?
Chuck