Re: Brief response ro Armand (WAS: Re: Antiwar movement, WWP, Liberals et al

["Derek S." <derektheredrebel@xxxxxxxxx>]

> Then I woke up and sort of decided that I was
> wasting my time.  Anyone who
> can look back at the demonstrations that took place
> 60 hours ago, and can
> see any merit in the charge that ANSWER is excluding
> people and viewpoints
> and "giving the finger" and so on, is not going to
> be convinced by anything
> I might say.

I don't think it's so much that you're excluding
viewpoints. You definitely invite representatives from
other groups to speak. The real issue is that since
ANSWER is not a broad coalition in whose
decision-making process the entire anti-war Left can
democratically participate in, you really have a
monopoly on who you choose to allow to speak, endorse,
or invite. Naturally, you then flood the speakers list
with WWP members, albeit allowing some other non-WWP
speakers that you approve of to speak. Sure, there are
non-WWP members that have a say in ANSWER, but the
point is that you get to select these people.

If this is not the case, and it is a real coalition
where anyone who is anti-war and anti-sanctions can
come to your "coalition" meetings and have a vote on
all the fundamental issues at stake, then by all
means, I'll try to get to the next meeting, and I'll
try to get everyone and every group I am in touch with
to go them. So answer this question for me: if ANSWER
is a public coalition, like you say, than I, my
friends, Greens, other socialist groups (ISO, Left
Party, Socialist Action, etc.) can surely come to
"our" next meeting and decide, with you, what the next
steps are for "our" coalition and for the movement?
And if you are a true coalition, wouldn't it be in
your interest to issue this call out yourselves? It
sure would be in the interest of the anti-war movement
and the Iraqi people who are going to get the shit
bombed out of them.

> I don't think I made myself clear then.  I didn't
> mean to say that we would or wouldn't do any
> particular thing, or to offer "excuses".  I only
> meant that I don't think anyone can guarantee to
> bring into existence a coalition with any particular
> makeup of forces.  I take what you're saying very
> seriously, actually.

Okay, fine, no one can "guarantee" to bring into
existence the type of real coalitin that we're
discussing. No one can "guarantee" that will be able
to overthrow capitalism and replace it with socialism
either. But we still need to make every effort we can
to bring this change about, however unsure is it's
success.

But the fact is, the prospects for forming a broad
coalition, like the one I, Louis, and others are
advocating, are anything but unsure right now. In
fact, the anti-war sentiment throughout the country
and the craving from a broad section of the Left for a
coaltion like this is very high. Conditions are ripe
for a broad coalition.

Why don't you just answer this question for me:
What do you think will be more effective for stopping
the war: (a) a "coalition" controlled by WWP and those
other non-WWP which WWP chooses to allow some decision
making power, and which organizes events which it
allows other groups to endorse, attend, and speak at;
or (b) a broad, massive, democratic coalition of the
anti-war section of society, from the Greens to the
far Left, in which ANSWER has a say just like every
one else, but in which we all collectively make all
the decisions and organize the anti-war movement.

So, what do you think, (a) or (b)?

If you say (a), I disagree, and I think that road
stands in the way of organizing a movement capable of
stopping the war. If you say (b), than I agree with
you, and I advise you to pressure your party to do
what ever is necessary to initiate and particpate in
this type of coalition. Instead of saying that the
possibility of a coalition like this coming into
existence is uncertain, why don't you use the
authority you now have to do everything in your power
to get it started, since this will be the most
effective thing in stopping the war. If you do, it
will be embraced by the Left, and we will all work
TOGETHER to make this movement a success. If you don't
than, well, you'll still have my endorsement for your
events, but I will try to build the type of coalition
necessary, and I think it will arise despite you.

I do appreciate that you're taking what I say
seriously. I think honest communication is what the
Left really needs in order to cut to the real issues
at stake.

Be well,
Derek




__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/

~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.