How To organize for the next phase, Was: Who organized the anti-war movement?

[Craig Brozefsky <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

loupaulsen@xxxxxxxxx writes:

> At times it may look as if other forces are participating 'under
> Marxist leadership', that is, that Marxists may participate in the
> decision that a demonstration should be held, and then they decide
> to come to it.  This is a valuable card which absolutely must not be
> overplayed.  If we start acting as if all these forces have enlisted
> in our army and will do whatever we command, we will be generals
> without an army very fast.

I am under the impression that noone can start giving commands to the
movement as a whole.  There is a level of organizing that needs to
done, which I'll talk about later in this post.

> I hate to short-change the discussion, since I can see that my
> wisdom is greatly needed here ;-) , but briefly, I think we have to
> deal with the tensions within the movement very realistically.  On
> the one hand, there is a section of the movement which wants to move
> "ahead" tactically by doing more and more radical stuff.  Meanwhile,
> however, another section of the movement has been moved in the
> opposite direction, through intimidation, a sense of failure,
> wanting to stay in touch with the Democratic Party (taken as a
> whole), apprehensiveness about the 'support-the-troops' movement,
> and so on.  This creates a tension.

I have been looking for some concrete examples of these tensions.  So
far I have heard of some of those arrested deciding not to risk arrest
again, after having a bad experience in jail.  Chicago did not do well
on the jail solidarity front since M20's arrests took them by
surprise.  However, the organizers and general tone of the meeting of
arrestees with NLG and its cohorts had as its root statement, that
protests in the street will continue.

At the DAN/Labor training last Saturday there was some discussion of
"antiwar vs peace" movement, with an older women expressing concern
over the hateful rhetoric and cursing she witnessed.  Others in the
room pointed out that without the people who are more agressive and
angry play valuable roles in protecting the rest of the group, and
helping establish the space everyone else moves thru.  The events on
M20/LSD with several attempts by the police to block us being
overpowered and flanked by the agressive, yet mixed, front of the
march, are a prime example.

The Sparts are already going at the electorialists, insisting that
they are responding to the guns already leveled at radicals in the
movement.  This comes from a couple people I see at many events but
whom I have never seen organizing one, or passing out leaflets for
anything but their paper or SYL stuff.  Everyone plays a role, and
theirs seems to be the voice warning us all against watering down
messages or aligning with the Democrats.  If this expected split in
the movement occurs, we need to defend the Sparts and everyone else
who will be attacked.

Looking about nationally, I see that UFPJ, who according to the NYT
refused to endorse A12, is now listing the event on their website
front page.  They also are promoting A4-7 with the CAWN and the Direct
Action To Stop The War [DASW].  If there is a split going on between
these groups, it is not manifesting at this level yet.  DASW is a
major organizer for the disruptive activities in SF from what I have
been told by DAN people here.

I am seeing a call to reel in the anger that was unleashed over the
last few mass events, and to move into a new mode of organizing
against them.  I don't get the impression that large sectors of the
movement, or even the leadership of some of the larger groups, are
moving against DA/CD work.  Does anyone have concrete examples of such
conflicts which go beyond tactical disagreement?

There is a genuine feeling of exhaustion, as well as depression now
that the anger of the start of the war has subsided.  The sense of
intimidation and failure will pass unless the upcoming mass events are
horrid failures.  One problem these events will need to overcoming is
the "protest pit" effect of being surrounded by riot cops, which makes
it alot less fun and comfortable to protest.  There has been a
significant flood of new people into the movement, including DA/CD
sectors.

Chicago, unlike SF, will not have the same level of DA and CD, but it
is already occuring and people are organizing for more.  There has
been a significant flood of new people into the movement, including
DA/CD sectors.

> Since this whole war and everything related to it are running
> through the stages of Viet Nam at breakneck speed like an old DOS
> program running on a Pentium, maybe this stage won't last long
> either.  However, while it does, those of us who do not want to
> 'farcically' repeat the less pleasant features of the earlier
> movement should think about how we can deal with these tensions in a
> better manner than the last time around.  And a lot of people ARE
> thinking that way.

This is where my comments on listening came from, but let me go back a
few steps.

Here in Chicago, and I imagine in other places as well, new forms of
organizing are needed in response to increased police repression and
infiltration.  The Red Squads are back, and city halls are under
pressure to maintain control and intimidate.  Penalties for arrest are
increasing.  According to State prosecuters here in IL, no more
I-Bonds for protesters, $100 bond the first time, $300 the next.  The
fight against this intimidation is underway but occurs largely (tho
not exclusively) in the legal realm so it will take months.

We have large groups of people coming together in an attempt to
excercise their political power in a situation they know will bear
little tangible fruit.  One of the memes that has permeated the whole
of the movement is that the war in Iraq is connected to the war at
home.  For some it is put in terms of spending on education, for
others it is understood as a class war.

The war at home manifests on federal, state and local levels.  In my
experience, concrete political experience begins on the local level.
The time to familiarize oneself with the forces on the field, the
complexity of the issues and constituencies involved, and the
resources required to organize effectively are manageable.  Wictories
are possible, and measurable, as the aldermanic elections here in
Logan Square show.  Also, the city anti-war resolutions were a big
morale boost even if they have soft language.  They have given us a
useful tool in combatting city-hall directed police repression.

The connection between the war abroad and the war at home is critical.
It needs to be understand viscerally, as a tool for excercising
political power.  This level of understanding will not come from being
lectured from the podium at rallies, but from direct experience
fighting it.

It seems to me that a new level of organizing is needed.  It should
co-exist with the existing structures as needed.  It needs to satisfy
both the security and tactical scalability requirements of the new
police/state context of the movement.  It also needs to support local
political activism so that direct experience combatting the war at
home can be connected to the fight against the imperialism abroad.

I have a large context this fits into, but am running out of steam
this evening, so I will leave my sketch of the problem here.  What I
am investigating now as the solution for this problem are two forms of
organizing which have been deployed succesfully already, and have much
in common.

The first is the affinity-group/cluster/spokescouncil model, which has
IMO proven itself many times.  It does a much better job preparing
people for the police attacks and supporting them afterwards than the
current organizing structures here in Chicago (I could use opinions
from people on the ground elsewhere).  The political dynamics in terms
of building a diverse set of leaders, and a focus on inclusive respect
for various actions fits with our need for unity in the movement.

The second is the Bolivarian Circle.  I attended a forum this weekend
attended by one of the Venezuelan Bolivarian Circle organizers.  The
more I investigate them, the more fascinated I am.  Their distinction
from electorial politics, their empowering of the most disenfranchised
in Venzuela, and their role in returning Chavez to power, all appeal
to me.  They are expanding internationally, with a focused
anti-imperialist, participatory democracy message as their connecting
perspective, but they still retain their individual emphasis on local
political problems.

I would love some opinions on this.

> The situation on the ground (in Chicago anyway) is much more
> unified, and characterized by much more tolerance within the
> movement of each others' perceived deviations, than you would think
> by reading Mother Jones or the NYTimes or some posts here.

As a data point, a co-worker and fellow activist brought up that NYT
article and was excited about it, and thought it was a positive
development.  He did not have the same fixation upon it's red-baiting
that myself and others in this forum seem to have.


--
Sincerely, Craig Brozefsky <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
No war! No racist scapegoating! No attacks on civil liberties!
Chicago Coalition Against War & Racism: www.chicagoantiwar.org
Free Scheme/Lisp Software:  http://www.red-bean.com/~craig