Re: Response to Derek; and, Two Trends in the Antiwar Movement

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

Lou,

I know ANSWER is not the exact same thing as WWP. I
think the onion analogy that Louis gave yesterday best
fits the relationship of these two groups. But whether
WWP has total control over ANSWER, or whether it is
just an influential part of the selected coalition, is
not the real issue. The real issue is whether ANSWER
is going to continue to be a selected steering
committee, unaccountable to those who aren't allowed
in it's ranks, that tries to head the antiwar
movement; or, if it is going to make an effort to
become a part of a broader whole. WWP partly obviously
has a lot of influence in ANSWER, so it concerns them,
and what their vision is for an antiwar movement
capable of getting the job done.

I understand your concern about the two different
trends. But it's not like you have even reached out to
the rest of trend that you align yourself with! Sure,
you've gotten others to speak at, endorse, and attend
your events, but you haven't tried to include the rest
of our trend in a coalition effort, where we all work
and decide together in building the movement. So, in
this respect, your justication of "two trends" still
lacks.

But, I think Louis makes a good point when he says
that we need to have a movement with all types of
political elements, one which we operate in as the
left wing. As long as everyone agrees that we need to
stop the war and end the sanctions, I'm willing to
work with them, and I have total confidence that the
Left wing will be able to hold its own in an effort
like this. We will be the hardest working activists,
and have the most convincing politics. The Vietnam
antiwar movement is really a great example of all
this.

I know that, as you say, initiating and maintaining a
broad and democratic coalition is not a no-brainer. It
will take a tremendous amount of time, effort,
patience, and willpower. But it's what needs to happen
if we want to stop the war, and I think a lot of
people are willing to try to make it work. We will
need to work extremely hard to do this, but it can be
done. Vietnam validates this, and it should even be
easier for us in some ways since we have the lessons
of that struggle for our use today.

So, don't you think the priority right now should be
to try to get this type of force going, and try to
work through all the complications involved in doing
so? I think this is the priority because it is what we
really need to stop the war. ANSWER, NION, etc, can't
do it alone. The war won't be stopped if everyones
efforts are fragmented, and if the major organizations
putting on events (like ANSWER and NION) are selected
"steering committees" that simply invite others to the
actions they call, instead of organizing and making
decisions with and among them.

Anyhow, I think the focus of the discussion should now
switch to your "two trends" theory, since that is what
you now say is the main danger in regards to opening
the movement up, and which is what (as I interpreted
you saying) ANSWER's willingness to be a part of a
broader whole depends upon.

Derek



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

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