[Marxism] On the antiwar movement

["Joaquin Bustelo" <jbustelo@xxxxxxxxx>]

Socialist Worker had written:

> One is that ANSWER's credibility as an antiwar force has been damaged 
> by its sectarian behavior toward other forces in the movement--and 
> more recently, its insistence in inflating the success of its recent 
> mobilizations and the potential for future ones.

To which Eli replied: "More nonsense. The first half of the claim may be
arguable; certainly there are many who see things that way. But the idea
that people don't want to work with ANSWER because they 'inflated the
success' of recent events or overestimate the 'potential for future ones' is
just bizarre. If that deters someone from participating in joint actions
with someone else, I'd have to say they weren't very motivated to
participate in any actions to begin with."

I think SW put it mildly: ANSWER'S "credibility" has been more than just
"damaged." In this context, their bullshit claims about turnout only serves
to underscore how manipulative and irresponsible the ANSWER leadership is.
You've got to look at the whole history and experience that people have been
through with them.

*  *  *

As for all the discussion around March 15, yes, there OUGHT to be a protest,
but, frankly, I think most antiwar people see that this problem is
political. If you can't get the politicians to change course, change the
politicians. The left needs to offer a political alternative.

Joaquin


________________________________________________
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