Re: a decent analysis, I'd say

[adrienne lauby <adrienne@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Clearly, the anti-war movement is alive and healthy.  The NYC protests
during the Republican convention showed numbers, depth of
understanding and the ability to get (at least some) media attention.
They were days to be very proud.

It would be excellent if the anti-war movement did nothing but electoral
politics for the next two months--whether travel and work in swing states
for Kerry or work for progesterone anti-war candidates in local & state
venues.

I believe that the anti-war movement contains the best and the brightest
of the U.S. population.  A two month practical tutorial would disseminate
a very good additional set of skills  -- too often we do the "organize
the protest march work" and forget the "knock on doors and talk to any-
one who answers" work.  We do the "post long e-mails and write opinion
pieces to newspapers" work but don't do the "put up yard sign, send a bulk
mail piece, organize a house party" work which challenges people
in their neighborhoods and homes.

adrienne

> Louis Proyect wrote:
>
> >  This is not true at all. I was heavily involved with the antiwar movement
> >  in 1968 and can attest to the fact that it basically came to a screeching
> >  halt as student youth and the CP and pacifist wings of the movement "got
> >  clean for Gene". The most visible protest that year was the actions at the
> >  Chicago convention which were basically an ultraleft attempt to influence
> >  proceedings within the convention--an exercise in futility if there ever
> >  was one.
>
> Is this really the case, Louis -- a "screeching halt"? I'm not asking this
> as a rhetorical question. Of course, you would expect an inevitable
> siphoning off of energy into the McCarthy and Kennedy campaigns -- that's in
> the nature of electoral politics -- but my imperfect recollection was that
> antiwar demos, strikes, and teach-ins still continued. Wasn't there also
> activity around the Tet offensive and wasn't this the year when Columbia
> University was occupied?
>
> Also, I'm not sure why you characterize the Chicago demonstration as
> "ultraleft", even though the actions of some of its leaders and participants
> undoubtedly were. Are you saying it was inappropriate ("futile") to have
> called for the demo at the DP convention in 1968 -- a call similar to that
> in connection with last week's Republican convention? If so, why? The fact
> that a police riot ensued? But maybe I'm missing something. Perhaps there
> were some compelling arguments against mobilizing for Chicago by Fred
> Halstead and others in the US antiwar movement that I have forgotten. But
> avoiding Chicago sounds more like something pro-war Democratic loyalists
> would have pushed to avoid being embarrassed at their convention. But did
> the McCarthy and other antiwar DP supporters argue against Chicago and avoid
> participating in the demo? They didn't seem reluctant to carry the battle
> right onto the floor of the convention, and I certainly don't see why the
> rest of the antiwar movement which wanted to "Dump the Hump" would have
> simply folded their tents at the behest of the party tops. Dellinger,
> Hayden, Seale, Hoffman, and others who held sway in the movement certainly
> didn't.
>
> MG