[lbo-talk] Why people don't join the peace movement

Joel Wendland joelrw at hotmail.com
Fri Feb 25 10:35:29 PST 2005


It's not clear about what joining the peace movement means. It isn't like AARP. Here are some thoughts though (I work with four peace orgs and coalitions, just in case you are wondering who the hell am I):

1. The Sharon Smith article Cox posted is suggestive of a major problem. Some call it sectarianism. Smith's piece originally appeared in the Socialist Worker two days before the UFPJ assembly happened and "depressing" isn't its main charatceristic. It is an attack on the UFPJ leadership. It is compiled mainly from quotes from another newspaper story. A bad display of Smith's journalistic skills, which I am sure are usualy quite strong. It wasn't a display of critical engagement by a participating member, but the run-of-the-mill nastiness form the far left. In the article Smith argues that the peace movement should have used its influence and breadth to convince people to vote for someone other than John Kerry. Hmmm...Aside from being silly, this kind of unrealistic idea doesn't work for most of the groups in the UFPJ who can't do that kind of work.

2. People don't join because they've had fewer opportunities to something easy like a big demo. I think Yoshie is right there. Large demonstrations could bring more people into the movement, but to pull it off successfully, see point 1.

3. Also the work on the legislative and educational side could be tied more strongly to local issues: why the money for war cost area residents a hospital or 1,000 municipal jobs etc.

4. Clear arguments about how people can make it happen, without abstract references to mass mobilizations and people power (insert blah, blah, blah here) etc. are also helpful, I think.

P.S. I don't really buy the people work too much to get involved argument too much. Lack of urgency has something to do with it.

Joel Wendland



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list