[lbo-talk] Anti-Globalization and Anti-War Movements in the USA

Chuck chuck at mutualaid.org
Mon Feb 12 07:15:18 PST 2007


Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:


> Now we have an opportunity to compare anti-globalization and anti-war
> movements: the former's ethos, structure, etc. was informed by
> anarchists, and the largest national coalitions of the latter have
> been run by the current and former members of central committees.
> Both have failed, and neither has been fruitful in the USA. Movements
> here have been either episodic like the anti-globalization movement or
> ritualistic like the anti-war movement. After all is said and done,
> lots of people from both turned to the Democratic Party, too, or at
> least get stuck in electoralism. Is there any way to get out of these
> dead ends?

I have to take serious exception to your arguments here. As I see it, the anti-globalization movement was successful because it mostly relied on anarchist organizational methods and practice. The anti-war movement has been an irrelevancy, in part because it relies on the discredited top down model of authoritarian leftism. The anti-war opposition allows this to happen, in part because they erroneously believe that this model ended the Vietnam War and in part because many pace movement activists believe that only large centralized organizations can accomplish things.

The large anti-war coalitions have failed to get much media attention as a result of their disempowering, permitted spectacles. They have played little to no role in the national debate about the war. About the only person from the anti-war movement who has become a national figure is Cindy Sheehan and she became a star after the national coalitions had more or less ceased organizing demonstrations.

You don't have to be an anarchist booster to see that the anti-globalization movement has been successful while the anti-war movement has been a replay of the same old leftism that we abandoned with Seattle. The anti-globalization movement derailed the WTO, created a hostile climate against future trade deals, discredited large financial institutions to the point that one is now a "poverty-fighting" organization, empowered a new generation of activists, ignited an upsurge in anarchism, forced the police to spend millions of dollars to police protests, forced the ruling class to have financial meetings in places where the unwashed masses couldn't reach them, and on and on.

The anti-globalization movement trumps the anti-war movement with one hand tied behind our backs.

The anti-globalization movement owes its success, in part, to the anarchists and anarchist methods used in the movement. This is a lesson that was not learned by the current peace movement and in fact, was rejected by groups like ANSWER, whose leaders initiated ANSWER as a result of being shut out of the anti-globalization movement. 9/11 and the news wars were perfect opportunities for the authoritarians in the WWP/IAC to take the initiative in organizing a top-down movement that they could control. Since 2003, I think they've amply demonstrated the failings of their methods and politics.

It's really too bad, because the anti-war movement would have had more teeth if it had modeled itself on the successful and effective anti-globalization movement.

Chuck



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list