[Marxism] Re: [ufpj-news] LA Weekly clip - peace movment indicted

["acpollack2@xxxxxxxx" <acpollack2@xxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for forwarding Cooper's latest drivel, Bill. I assume you did
so in order that all of us who supported the unity we saw at the 9/24
demo can think about how to respond to this red-baiting, pro-war jerk.

Cooper of course is factually wrong that the Dems didn't show up to
speak on 9/24 because they were afraid to be on the same platform with
people wearing kaffiyehs or because George Galloway was there or
whatever. They didn't show up because they're PRO-WAR.

Democratic politicians showed up during protests against the war in
Vietnam when just as radical folks were speaking -- because our unity
and numbers made them realize they were sunk if they didn't.

Cooper also lies about the basis of the unity on 9/24. The main point
of that unity was support for "Out Now." Dems -- and Cooper -- don't
support that because they want a better, cleaner, tougher occupation.

I look forward to a draft from you, Bill, to be cosigned by a couple
other people from UFPJ and ANSWER, telling Cooper to keep his advice
to himself, because we're going to build on the tremendous success of
9/24 and maintain our unity!

Andrew Pollack

-- "William K. Dobbs" <duchamp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


LA Weekly [Los Angeles, CA]
September 30 - October 6, 2005

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/05/45/dissonance-cooper.php

Dissonance
The War Is the Question
ANSWER is not the answer

by MARC COOPER

THE LARGEST ANTI-WAR DEMONSTRATION since the invasion of Iraq came and went
in Washington this past weekend, but the peace movement remains adrift.

The post-demonstration debate is all about media coverage. Were there
100,000 marchers or 300,000? Why didn't the networks show more aerial shots?
Why were the small groups of pro-war counterdemonstrators given so much
airtime? Those are the wrong questions.

What's missing in the debate is what is always missing: a focus on strategy.
Drum circles, bare-breasted guerrilla theater and giant puppets aside, there
are only two ways the anti-war movement can achieve its goals. Either by
what the Europeans call "extraparliamentary" methods - rendering the country
ungovernable. Or through a political/electoral strategy that reorders
national priorities. Going way out on a limb, I'd say the former option -
the collapse of the American government via street demonstrations - is
rather a long shot. The peace movement can achieve its goals only by
building a political coalition broad enough, forceful enough and credible
enough to provoke a policy sea change.

A huge proportion, if not the majority, of the Democratic Party has to be
onboard. Unfortunate but true. The war could be "nationalized" in the
November 2006 election if the movement were broadened sufficiently. An upset
in the midterms could force the Bush administration to change course or
could lead to a Democratic victory and a change in war policy in '08.

Yet not a single top Democratic official publicly came out to last weekend's
protests. Not just the Kerry and Clinton types were AWOL, but also outspoken
critics of the war like Howard Dean, Russ Feingold and Ted Kennedy.

One of the reasons that the peace movement's organizational logistics remain
tightly locked in the hands of shrill fringe groups like ANSWER is,
precisely, because they fill a gaping void left by more-moderate forces.
Democrats and liberals have not stepped forward - so they get trampled by
the few dozen fervent comrades from the fundamentalist-Leninist grouplet
that runs ANSWER, the exotically named Party for Socialism and Liberation
(no, I'm not making this up).

There is a competing coalition that helps organize the peace rallies, United
for Peace and Justice. Somewhat more moderate than ANSWER, UFPJ nevertheless
has few, and only tenuous, links with mainstream political forces. At
various times over the last few years, UFPJ has threatened to resist
bullying by the cultish members of ANSWER, but in the end it always
capitulates.

WHO COULD SO MUCH AS IMAGINE a nationally known Demo-cratic pol showing up
at one of last week's rallies unless moti-vated by some sort of electoral
death wish? Show up to be joined on the stage by Ramsey Clarke, reminiscing
about his new client Saddam? Or by George Galloway, wearing a Pales-tinian
kaffiyeh? Or by the kaffiyeh-draped leaders of ANSWER, shouting out how they
stand for the Cuban Revolu-tion? Indeed, the kaffiyeh was the de rigueur
accessory worn by countless speakers - speakers from little-known and tiny
solidarity groups loudly condemning U.S. policy not only in Iraq and Cuba,
but also in Afghanistan, the Philippines, Haiti, Puerto Rico and, alas, New
Orleans. This, along with an obsessive number of speakers slamming Israel
but omitting any criticism of suicide bombers.

You don't need so much as an abacus to figure out that with each of the
above-named planks, the anti-war platform receded rather than widened. As
discontent over the war grows, there ought to be one issue alone that admits
someone to this movement: You oppose Bush policy in Iraq. Period.

Instead, the organizers of the protests exploited the good faith of the
crowd and imposed upon it a narrow, dogmatic agenda that ordinarily wouldn't
get a nod from 500 followers, let alone a couple of hundred thousand.

The peace movement needs to be built from the sidelines inward, not the
reverse. I have no idea if under different circumstances, with a different
cast onstage, a few senators might have been lured into the mix. I do know
that the current configuration makes that impossible - for now and for the
immediate, crucial future.

This is a failure not only of the Democrats themselves, but also of the
clearer-thinking folks inside the peace movement who ought to know better.
These more-moderate voices need to resist the political blackmail of true
believers of the ANSWER variety and simply push them out of the leadership
of the movement. At least, they must if they want that movement to be
something beyond an impotent theater of self-expression.

I can anticipate some of the reaction. Stop the bellyaching, I'll be told.
Nobody really listens to those boring speeches, any-way. What matters most
is the fact that people showed up.

Indeed. But wouldn't it be nice if there were anti-war speakers on that
platform - just two or three instead of the usual cavalcade of 50 Nobodies -
whose words could not only inspire the protesters, but also move the other
millions watch-ing on C-SPAN into some deeper sort of reflection and action?

Wasn't that the case in the 1963 civil rights march on Wash-ing-ton? Have
you ever met a single person silly enough to say that the only important
thing that day 42 years ago was merely showing up in D.C., because it really
didn't matter what Martin Luther King Jr. actually said? That no one was
really listening?

Why do we accept such a miserably low standard for the anti-war movement?






------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Help tsunami villages rebuild at GlobalGiving. The real work starts now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/T8WM1C/KbOLAA/E2hLAA/nJ9qlB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

UNITED FOR PEACE & JUSTICE | 212-868-5545

This email list is designed for posting news articles or event announcements of 
interest to UFPJ member groups. It is not a discussion list.

To engage in online discussion of UFPJ matters, join our discussion list by 
sending a blank email to ufpj-disc-subscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ufpj-news/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    ufpj-news-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism