{"article":{"id":44256,"heading":"How the Reformists attempt to liquidate the anti-war movement","author":"Ben Seattle","created":"2003-03-31 21:17:22","modified":"2013-11-10 23:51:55","last_modified":"Mon, 11 Nov 2013 06:51:55","article":"

> The procession was so orderly, a large group of

> police officers having breakfast outside a nearby

> bagel shop did not even budge as it passed.

--New York Times, March 29

> I guarantee that a thousand people registering

> new anti-war voters would get far more attention

> and respect, with more lasting impact, than last

> week's protests.

--Well known Seattle activist Geov Parrish, March 27

Hi everyone,

This recent New York Times article (see appendix 1 below)

outlines a well-organized, massive and concerted effort by the

reformist wing of the antiwar movement to derail the antiwar

movement and turn activists into election fodder for the

Democratic Party.

This is the same Democratic Party (motto: \"We are proudly owned

by the same corporations which own the Republican Party\") that

has just given rubber-stamp approval and a blank check to Bush's

imperialist adventure in Iraq.

This attempt to liquidate the antiwar movement is not unexpected.

On the contrary, it is the nature of the society we live in that

a section of progressive-minded activists will work their hearts

out in order to undermine any protest movement that shows a spark

of life and independence.

The reformists will always act like this at critical moments.

\"Politics stop when the shooting begins\" goes the catch-phrase

currently being repeated endlessly.

Translation: \"Hey, hey, ho, ho, the antiwar movement has got to

go!\"

The current efforts by the reformists to lead the antiwar

movement in the direction of being election fodder for

liberal-labor politicians serve two aims:

(1) it serves the career ambitions of a strata of politicians

and institutions that are within (or in orbit around)

the left wing of the Democratic Party, and

(2) it serves the interests of the bourgeoisie in liquidating

the antiwar movement.

These two aims, of course, are not independent of one another but

are bound up together with the entire history of the development

of the reformist (ie: liberal and social-democratic) political

trends as _instruments_ by which the bourgeoisie undermines

opposition to its rule. In particular, these trends exist (and

have _influence_, and are powerful in society) by virtue of their

alliance (a highly subservient alliance) with the bourgeoisie.

There is a \"quid pro quo\" here: \"Do your job in undermining

opposition to our rule and you will receive a share of the spoils

as compensation\". These spoils are frequently dispersed in the

form of jobs at institutions (labor, church, charity, journalism,

etc) with an agenda that is progressive--but subservient.

Of course, the progressive-minded activists who advocate the

liquidation of the antiwar movement do not see matters in such

stark terms. On the contrary they believe that they are simply

being \"realistic\". An excellent example of such \"realism\" is the

liquidation manifesto recently written by Seattle activist Geov

Parrish (see appendix 2 below).

Parrish compares the antiwar movement to a dog that cannot learn

and says he will \"guarantee\" that activists who register

voters--and work to elect a Democratic president in 2004 will

receive \"far more attention and respect with more lasting impact\"

than the recent week of protests in downtown Seattle (in which

Seattle police adopted the recent New York tactic of surrounding

hundreds of peaceful protesters and refusing to let them either

march or leave).

Translation: We should get down on our knees and beg for peace

from the gods of war.

This liquidation of the antiwar movement is, above all, aimed at

reducing the extent to which the antiwar movement is

_independent_ of bourgeois interests. The militancy of the

antiwar movement is a reflection of this independent character.

There is no escaping or resolving this fundamental conflict of

interest within the antiwar movement: The features of the

antiwar movement which the reformists most want to

liquidate are precisely those features of it which _threaten_

bourgeois interests.

This is why the reformists don't want our protests to be angry.

Their opposition to anger is a reflection of the bourgeois fear

that anger is contagious and will lead to the awakening of a

class that has, it must be said, a good deal to be angry about.

Hence when we read phrases about angry protests that \"alienate

the American public\" we should always translate this highly

political phrase into its real meaning:

translation:

. piss-off the bribed strata of liberal-labor politicians

. trade union bureaucrats, church officials,

. poverty pimps, media personalities and

. progressive 501(c)(3) organizations

. who are given the task (by the bourgeoisie)

. of keeping all protest movements \"under control\"

. (ie: small, passive, demoralized and disoriented)

One well-known antiwar activist, Chuck0, summed it up well:

> If we conducted our activism in a way that pleased

> the most vociferous anti-activism people, we would

> be reduced to writing letters to politicians and voting.

That is really the whole idea. The social-democrats want us to

confine our tactics and activity to those actions which are

\"respectible\". And what is \"respectible\" always turns out to

be--whatever is _ineffective_.

So what do we do?

I have never been particularly enthusiastic about civil

disobediance. I have never been--and may never be--arrested.

But if I ever am arrested it is not my intention that it be while

I am sitting down.

Nor do I make a fetish out of blocking traffic. I have helped to

organize unpermitted marches in the street--but that is not

necessarily the same thing as focusing on disrupting people who

are driving to work.

There is a large universe of tactics and actions that are

possible. A certain amount of experimentation will be necessary

to make clear to serious activists what kinds of actions are most

effective.

But aside from individual actions we also must give thought to

longer term matters. Sooner or later a section of serious

activists will recognize that there are only two fundamental

paths forward:

(1) becoming election fodder for the Democratic Party

(or pseudo-independent parties, like Nader, the

Greens, or the \"Labor Party\") and

(2) creating a revolutionary mass movement that is

directed at eliminating the system of bourgeois rule

The 2nd path is difficult for many reasons. It is difficult even

to talk about or to think about. The low level of political

experience of many activists and the current existing _crisis of

theory_ makes it difficult for the most serious and militant

activists to even imagine what a revolutionary mass movement

would look like--much less how society will function when it is

no longer ruled by the bourgeoisie.

But we have many factors in our favor--not least of which is the

revolution in communications--still in its infancy and full of

immense potential to help activists link up with one another and

create revolutionary channels to and for and by the masses.

I support the call made by Chuck0 for an antiwar organization

that isn't interested in cutting deals with the liberals. But I

hope that if such an organization comes into existence--it will

be focused on more than blocking traffic or on actions aimed at

attention from the bourgeois press.

We must do more than create actions and provide examples of

militancy. We must participate in the coming period of

\"information war\" (defined not as stupid hacking tricks--but as

an organized struggle for ideas on a mass scale). The masses in

this country are being bombarded by the corporate media with

waves of stupid jingo nonsense and will have an interest

(particularly as Bush's excellent little war turns sour) in an

explanation of events that makes sense.

We must build our own press, both on the streets (in the forms of

leaflets which give ordinary people an understanding in _depth_

of what is going on in the world--and here at home) and on the

internet (in the form of news sites with articles, comments and

questions that are rated and filtered by readers).

We must create an organization that is politically transparent

(ie: political differences within the organization must be

public) democratic and accountable for its actions. If such an

organization makes efforts to be deserving of the respect of

serious militant activists--it could help to bring into existence

a mass movement that is independent of bourgeois influence. Such

a movement, here in the US, could and would cause more nightmares

for the bourgeoisie than the armies of Saddam Hussein.

Sincerely and with revolutionary regards,

Ben Seattle

----\/\/-\/\/ 30.Mar.2003

http:\/\/struggle.net\/Ben<\/a> (my elists \/ theory \/ infrastructure)

------------------------------------------------------------

Share your ideas, criticisms and questions

in the public forum at: http:\/\/struggle.net\/antiwar<\/a>

\"Which way forward for the development

of a powerful antiwar movement?\"

Calm, thoughtful and sober discussion is needed.

------------------------------------------------------------

(Appendices are long--you may want to print this out)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

-- Appendix 1 --

New York Times encourages liquidation of antiwar movement

-----------------------------------------------------------------

March 29, 2003

Antiwar Effort Emphasizes Civility Over Confrontation

By Kate Zernike and Dean E. Murphy

http:\/\/nytimes.com\/2003\/03\/29\/international\/worldspecial\/29PROT.html<\/a>

With the war against Iraq in its second week, the most

influential antiwar coalitions have shifted away from large-scale

disruptive tactics and stepped up efforts to appeal to mainstream

Americans.

One of the largest groups, Win Without War, is encouraging the

two million people on its e-mail list to send supportive letters

to soldiers. Other groups have redoubled their fund-raising for

billboards that declare \"Peace is Patriotic\" and include the

giant image of an unfurling American flag.

The changed tone comes after a week of street protests marking

the start of the war that reduced San Francisco to anarchy,

turned Chicago's Lakeshore Drive into a parking lot and paralyzed

major roads in Atlanta, Boston and other cities.

This week, the nation's largest antiwar coalitions said they were

abandoning their plan to disrupt everyday life. Instead, they

said, they would direct protests at federal institutions,

corporations and media conglomerates that \"profit from war\" in an

effort to attract attention but not offend most Americans.

The shift reflects a tension that has existed within the nation's

antiwar movement for months.

Radical groups like those weaned on the antiglobalization

protests that disrupted Seattle four years ago sought more civil

disobedience. More mainstream groups like the National Council of

Churches were afraid that confrontational tactics would only

alienate the American public.

At least for now, the more mainstream groups have gained the

upper hand. They have sought to cast their movement as the loyal

opposition, embracing the troops but condemning the war. Within

the movement, which includes everything from small groups in

small towns to a large alliance of more than 200 organizations,

radical elements still exist. But the larger and more influential

groups have sought over time to sideline them, deliberately

excluding certain speakers, dismissing certain tactics,

marginalizing certain protests, in a determined effort to avoid

being dismissed as career malcontents.

The week before the war began, another major coalition, United

for Peace and Justice, declined to join in sponsoring a rally put

on by International Answer, a group whose names stands for Act

Now to Stop War and End Racism, saying its message was too

left-wing and alienating.

And even the umbrella organization that helped shut down San

Francisco's financial district last week began its more mundane

protests this week with an announcement that demonstrators

interested in thuggery should keep their distance.

\"If we're going to be a force that needs to be listened to by our

elected officials, by the media, by power, our movement needs to

reflect the population,\" said Leslie Cagan, co-chairwoman of

United for Peace and Justice, and a career political organizer.

\"It needs to be diverse,\" Ms. Cagan went on, \"it needs to be

large, it needs to include the people who could be described as

mainstream — but that doesn't exclude the people who are

sometimes thought of as the fringes.\"

Even the more mainstream groups are full of people who have spent

large stretches of their lives on the front lines of protest

movements, from the civil rights struggles to antiglobalization

campaigns. But they say they have learned from their own

mistakes. So while attacking corporate America for driving this

war, antiwar groups have co-opted corporate strategies, rolling

out media campaigns as if opposition to war were a new kind of

cola.

For weeks, public relations firms have sent news organizations

daily suggestions for interviews and \"great visuals\" that feature

protesters. Groups practicing civil disobedience make sure their

designated publicity person avoids arrest, to remain available to

television cameras. One organization even \"embedded\" reporters

among protesters the way the Pentagon did with its troops.

\"The great lesson from Madison Avenue is repetition,\" Ms. Cagan

said. \"If you get the same message out in different ways, you

begin to break into people's consciousness.\"

The New Era

Rallying Round the E-Mail Lists

The last time a vast antiwar movement took American streets was

during the Vietnam War, so comparisons between this movement and

that one are inevitable.

The new antiwar groups take pride in the size of the crowds they

have been able to mobilize. They have grown a protest movement

the size of which it took Vietnam-era organizers four years to

build — this time, without a draft and even before the first body

bags might shock people into the streets.

United for Peace and Justice, for example, says it took only six

weeks to get 350,000 people to a rally in New York in February,

and Win Without War says it took four days to set up 6,800

candlelight vigils the week the war began.

\"I am rather pleased with the way things have gone,\" said Michael

N. Nagler, the founder and former chairman of the Peace and

Conflict Studies Department at the University of California at

Berkeley. \"I have been monitoring the peace movement for almost

four decades, and often wringing my hands in despair for its lack

of savvy and lack of organization.\"

Still, it is a different era now.

Protest has become routine, no longer seen as an assault on the

country's values and culture the way it was when demonstrators

descended on Washington in the 1960's.

The Internet makes it far easier to organize swiftly and draw out

crowds.

In fact, some might say this movement — which unlike the one

during Vietnam began before the start of the Iraq conflict —

failed in its most important goal: to stop the war before it

commenced. Certainly the protesters say they have learned that

they need a long-term strategy.

\"It's tremendously saddening,\" said Eli Pariser, international

campaigns director of MoveOn.org, a member of the Win Without War

coalition, said of the start of the war.

\"At the same time, there still is optimism that in terms of our

larger goal, which is to end this foreign policy that is so

dangerous, there's still hope, and quite a lot of it.\"

The Mobilization

In Diversity There Is Strength

The antiwar movement is a set of diverse groups that often

overlap, swapping staff, money, and office space, acting in

concert and alone.

Some are offshoots of well-known national groups with

multimillion-dollar budgets, large paid staffs and other agendas:

The Sierra Club and the National Council of Churches, the

National Organization for Women and the N.A.A.C.P.

Others are more obscure or formed explicitly in the context of

the war: Code Pink, September 11 Families For Peaceful Tomorrows,

People for a Gasoline-Free Day. And many cities have their own

organizations with their own distinct local flavor.

Direct Action to Stop the War, with no paid staff, no offices and

no formal fund-raising efforts, dominates the protest scene in

San Francisco.

One of its leaders, Patrick Reinsborough, had led an effort to

pressure Home Depot to discontinue the sale of products made with

old-growth trees. Another, Mary Bull, is the coordinator of the

Save the Redwoods\/Boycott the Gap Campaign. She was once

arrested, dressed as a tree, outside the World Bank and

International Monetary Fund in Washington.

The coalitions against the war have drawn on the budgets and

staffs of the larger national groups that have joined in.

Many of the newer organizations are too fresh to have reported

finances to government regulators. But they say they have also

gotten money from various other sources, including the Barbra

Streisand Foundation; Ben Cohen of Ben and Jerry's; and Paulette

Cole of ABC Carpet and Home in New York City.

They say they have also raised significant amounts of money in

smaller increments online. Win Without War says it raised

$400,000 online in 48 hours, with an average donation of $35.

The Mainstream Shift

Opposing the War, but Still Patriotic

When the antiwar protests began to gather steam in the fall, the

large-scale rallies were being run by International Answer.

Answer brought together an amalgam of demonstrators, including

antiglobalization protesters and longtime Socialists. Some of its

chief organizers were members of the Workers World Party, a

radical Socialist group that has defended Slobodan Milosevic and

the North Korean and Iraqi governments.

In the protest community, the group was especially known for good

organization: in some cities, Answer would go early in the year

and snap up protest permits for the largest public places on the

best dates. Last fall, many smaller groups opposed to the war

were planning to attend the rally Answer had organized for Oct.

26 in Washington.

But the afternoon before the event, representatives of about 50

groups gathered at the Washington office of People for the

American Way, a liberal group that is known for causes like

opposition to conservative judges.

It was a diverse set, including Black Voices for Peace; the

Institute for Policy Studies, which is a left-leaning research

center; and the American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker

group. Many in attendance knew each other from past protests.

For nearly a month in private conversations, they say they had

been sharing their concerns that Answer's oratory was too

anti-Israel, too angry. They worried that its rallies were not

focused enough on the war: banners in the crowd were as much

about \"Free Palestine\" and \"Free Mumia\" — a reference to Mumia

Abu-Jamal, imprisoned for killing a Philadelphia police officer —

as they were \"No Blood For Oil.\"

\"Answer is a radical left group and not very mainstream in terms

of its image,\" said David Cortright, a veteran of the Vietnam War

and the protests against it, who attended the meeting as head of

the Fourth Freedom Forum, a research center promoting peaceful

resolution of international conflicts. \"It was not the kind of

movement I thought would be able to attract the kind of

mainstream support I thought was out there.\"

They decided that afternoon to form a new coalition that would

operate apart from Answer. They named it United for Peace and

Justice. It immediately began planning small actions for December

and January in various cities, and a large rally in New York City

on Feb. 15, where speakers would be told that their remarks had

to be about the war and nothing else.

Later that same October day, eight people from the meeting went

out for dinner, worried, some of them say, that even their new

alternative to Answer would not get the support of important mass

constituency groups like labor, veterans and churches.

Over Chinese food, those eight agreed to create another group,

calling this one Win Without War. To join, said Mr. Pariser of

MoveOn, one of those attending, organizations had to explicitly

sign on to the notion of being patriotic and taking a

\"reasonable\" stance toward a conflict with Iraq, which at that

time meant the continuation of weapons inspections.

\"Right from the beginning we tried to frame it as a message that

would go down well in broader communities than just the antiwar

crowd,\" said Mr. Cortright, another of the eight. \"The average

labor guy out there wants to be seen in that mainstream,

patriotic light.\"

Win Without War announced itself in December with a news

conference and a Web site identifying itself as the \"mainstream\"

voice against the war. Doing so allowed it to win members like

the N.A.A.C.P., the National Organization for Women, the Sierra

Club and the National Council of Churches and gain access to

their mailing lists and memberships.

\"Affiliating with other organizations that don't normally get

involved in peace movements gave us a way to appeal to middle

America,\" said Bob Edgar, general secretary of the council of

churches.

Answer itself continued to organize rallies. Mara

Verheyden-Hilliard, a steering committee member, said her group

took the \"most progressive stand.\" She said the other coalitions

included elements \"far more to the right.\"

And other smaller groups would spawn, local groups in various

cities and towns, national groups like Code Pink, which appealed

to women, and the Iraq Pledge of Resistance, which signed people

up in advance to commit nonviolent civil disobedience the day the

war began.

But most of those groups affiliated in some way with one of the

two large national groups — if only to list their events on the

national Web site.

As time went on, United for Peace and Justice took on the job of

organizing rallies. Win Without War's task focused on the news

media. It took as its national director a former Democratic

congressman from Maine, Tom Andrews, who had been working with a

public relations firm hired by the coalition.

The Internet would prove crucial to both organizing and media.

United for Peace and Justice said 40,000 people signed up for

e-mail bulletins about actions against the war. Win Without War

says its e-mail list includes more than two million addresses.

Earlier this month, Win Without War created a worldwide

candlelight vigil online, allowing people to enter their ZIP

codes to find the nearest one.

A crucial player in Win Without War's campaigns has been MoveOn,

an organization originally started by two Silicon Valley

entrepreneurs to provide a way for voters to go online to express

their opposition to the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.

In January, Mr. Pariser sent out an e-mail message saying that

the organization wanted to buy a newspaper advertisement, and

could raise $27,000 privately if it could raise the same amount

online.

The Debate

Civil Disobedience Is Toned Down

Within two days, Mr. Pariser said, online donors pledged

$400,000, and the group bought several newspaper advertisements,

a radio commercial, and ultimately, several television spots.

One, in which a scene of a small girl plucking daisy petals

morphs into military images and a mushroom cloud, borrowed

heavily from the \"daisy\" commercial that Lyndon B. Johnson's

campaign used against Barry Goldwater in 1964 to stir fears about

nuclear Armageddon.

When the war started last week, United for Peace and Justice and

Win Without War were split over civil disobedience, the tool that

many in the antiwar movement had been saving for the start of

hostilities.

United for Peace said it supported nonviolent civil disobedience,

while Win Without War said it did not. But as the general shift

in strategy swept the peace movement over last weekend, United

for Peace and Justice scaled back its advocacy of civil

disobedience. Its Web site now encourages those against the war

to light a candle for peace, to wear a black armband, to display

a yellow ribbon. Smaller regional groups seemed to take the cue,

trading sit-ins for bike rides for peace.

In New York, antiwar groups called for mass civil disobedience on

Thursday. There were more than 200 arrests but most protesters

remained orderly. They specifically fixed on Rockefeller Center,

because it is the home of General Electric, its NBC subsidiary

and The Associated Press.

Organizers say news media companies and companies like G.E. will

profit from the war, whether from high ratings, newspaper sales,

military contracts or payments to rebuild Iraq after the war. The

most notable example of the new tone came in San Francisco, which

had emerged early on as a hotbed of the antiwar movement.

Last week, the goal of the San Francisco umbrella organization,

Direct Action to Stop the War, had been to disrupt the city's

everyday life. Twenty intersections and thoroughfares were picked

as places to stop traffic, with demonstrators sitting on the

asphalt and refusing to budge.

More than 2,300 people were arrested in three days, the largest

number of arrests in such a short time period in decades, the

police said.

The civil disobedience achieved its main goal of attracting

attention around the world.

But it also annoyed a good number of San Franciscans, most

notably Mayor Willie L. Brown Jr., a Democrat who is sympathetic

to the antiwar cause. At one point he urged the demonstrators to

leave San Francisco and converge on Crawford, Tex., where

President Bush has a ranch.

So at a meeting Sunday night at San Francisco's St. Boniface

Church, some of Direct Action's most active supporters, joined by

members from many other groups, including United For Peace and

Justice, decided to accommodate the mood of a city — and

country — at war.

\"We agreed to a change in tactics,\" said Renee Sharp, who when

not protesting the war works as an analyst for an environmental

advocacy group in Oakland.

\"We no longer need to disrupt business as usual; we've made that

point. Our goal isn't to make life difficult for everybody living

here.\"

The shift was swift.

At a training session for protesters early Monday morning near

the San Francisco waterfront, a young woman in a knit cap took

the microphone. As had been the routine at other gatherings, she

led the crowd of 300 or so in a recitation. \"Repeat after me,\"

she said. \"I do not want to answer questions. I want to talk with

my lawyer.\"

But the script then deviated markedly from that of the weeks

before. After people pored over a poster board map and got their

assignments — most were told to block entrances to the

Transamerica Pyramid building — they were sent marching in a

fairly obedient form of disobedience.

They headed down the sidewalk alongside the streets that last

week they had mobbed. This time they were in neat double file led

by a Franciscan priest holding two church candles. The procession

was so orderly, a large group of police officers having breakfast

outside a nearby bagel shop did not even budge as it passed.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix 2 -- Geov Parrish's Liquidation Manifesto

-----------------------------------------------------------------

> I guarantee that a thousand people registering

> new anti-war voters would get far more attention

> and respect, with more lasting impact, than last

> week's protests.

--Well known Seattle activist Geov Parrish, March 27, 2003

http:\/\/www.workingforchange.com\/article.cfm?ItemID=14739<\/a>

-----------------------------------------------

Post D-Day depression

-----------------------------------------------

Antiwar movement marginalized by its own over

the top rhetoric; activists need to speak with

audience, not each other

-----------------------------------------------

This week is when it really hits.

After the initial wave of 24\/7 news coverage and

demonstrations in the streets, the reality

remains. The Bush Administration defied logic,

international law, and the wishes of virtually

all humanity, and launched an unprovoked and

unnecessary military invasion of a country

halfway around the world. The shock, horror,

grief, rage, sputtering impotence all finally

echo away into silence. And still the pundits

chatter and the bombs fall.

What to do?

For me, in many ways, the U.S. street

demonstrations of the last week have been nearly

as depressing as the invasion itself. They have

been primal screams, by definition

unsustainable, when what is desperately needed

is sustainable responses. They have been

expressions of what protesters have felt they

need to say, rather that what protesters felt

other Americans needed to see or hear. They have

been reactions to what has been done, rather

than demands for what should be done now. They

have used the shopworn tactics, iconography, and

slogans of 40 years of left street protest,

which by definition are going to seem knee-jerk

and irrelevant when what is being undertaken is

in many ways so new and so dangerous we don't

have words to do that danger justice.

And, by this conduct, they have turned their

backs on the far broader segment of Americans

who have in recent months also been alarmed by

this government's direction, but who have over a

matter of decades expressed quite clearly that

they find the activist left's tactics,

iconography, and slogans to be profoundly

unappealing.

This past week's protests were nowhere near a

scale needed to have an impact through (to use

the more extreme rhetoric) \"shutting down the

country.\" Any remotely thoughtful organizer knew

this, yet still, the tactic persists. My dog

does the same thing; she'll leave my home office

ahead of me, and then look over her shoulder to

make sure I'm coming where she wants me to

(i.e., to take her for a walk). She does it

every time, even though, when working, I never

follow her. She never learns.

This is what powerlessness does. Primal screams

(or canine begging) happen when there is nothing

else left, when citizens feel not only that they

have not been heard, but that by definition they

will never be heard. It's barely removed from

simply giving up and tuning out -- which is what

more people in America than in any other Western

democracy choose to do, and what many current

activists, in this war as in past ones, will

also choose to do.

The thing is, I don't want to be heard. I want

the policies to change, the killing to stop, the

living to start. If going mute would do that,

I'd happily go mute. Policy change isn't simply

a function of decibel level or of number of

heads counted at a march; it's also a function

of having clear policy alternatives, and putting

into power people willing to enact those

alternatives. Chanting \"no justice, no peace!

(Until we go home in an hour)\" is easy; building

long-term change is much harder. And \"The

People\" know it.

Until two weeks ago, there was a clear

alternative to war: the inspection process,

which at minimum bought time, at best was a path

out of an artificially induced, but nonetheless

real, crisis. When that was lost, so too were

many members of the new anti-war movement,

because there was no \"next step,\" no contingency

plans in the peace movement's demands beyond

lame and hypocritical calls to \"support the

troops.\" Possibilities abound, from a movement

to have the U.N., rather than United States,

take part or all of the post-invasion

administration of Iraq, to a concerted push to

unseat Bush in 2004. Yet at the moment more

protesters are trying to impeach Bush (which is

not, repeat not, repeat NOT going to happen)

than to elect a Democratic president in less

than 20 months.

This isn't simply a matter of pragmatism; it's

also earning, in the public's eyes, the

legitimacy to make moral as well as pragmatic

demands. In modern American politics, the

messenger is as important as the message, and

one does not gain moral legitimacy simply by

having one's policy preferences ignored. I

guarantee, for example, that a thousand people

registering new anti-war voters would get far

more attention and respect, with more lasting

impact, than last week's protests -- from the

public, from decision-makers, and from those

numbers opposed to the war and to freeway

blockades.

You're an anarchist and hate electoral politics?

Fine. Don't just sit down in front of cars

because we're waging a war to feed our SUVs and

everyone should abandon theirs, and then wonder

why people who could be on your side but need to

get to work are angry at you and vote for Bush

next year. Teach tax resistance (and

redirection); start some alternative community

institutions that meet a need other than your

own. The socialist and anarchist movements of a

century ago had some traction because they

started with the community's needs, not their

own ideas. Take some risks that mean something

to other people, not just to you and your

friends. For goodness sakes, even take some time

to study something about political science,

military science, communication, mass

psychology, something, anything more

goal-oriented than what most of the protest left

has over the past 30 years ossified as.

Long-term or even short-term organizing is not

as much fun as marching on a freeway, but then,

the people on the front lines waging this war

probably aren't having much fun, either. A lot

of them probably don't want to be there; some

probably don't even like the orders they're

getting. But they signed on to do what was

necessary, up to and possibly including death,

for a larger cause. That's a major reason why

virtually every segment of American society

gives them respect. Religious figures, until

proven otherwise, command the same respect for

much the same reason.

In the public's eyes, the average demonstrator,

and the theoretically moral movement he or she

represents, has done nothing within light-years

of that level of moral legitimacy. Protesters

may disagree, but if you want to change policy

in this country, whose opinion is more important

-- that of the advocate, or the advocate's

audience?

The United States, at the moment, is careening

away wildly from all but one country -- Israel

-- in terms of how its public views the world.

Israel is for many reasons a special case; born

of the Holocaust, surrounded by countries that

for decades were intent on its destruction, it's

easy to see (though not to condone) how the

Israeli public could embrace its current

fortress mentality, and its attendant abuses.

America has no such claim; 9\/11 was not the

Holocaust, and this country, far from being

threatened, has lived an existence of remarkable

isolation and ease. Before the Cold War, it

hadn't faced any meaningful external threat in

over a century; even after a planet's worth of

abuses inflicted in the name of that Cold War,

it took another half-century before anyone

caused harm on U.S. soil, and even then, it was

a single act (so far) by an illegal private

organization, not the army of a nation-state. To

many around George Bush (and probably Bush

himself), America's charmed history is a sign of

America's unique partnership with Providence.

That sort of talk, and the power abuses now

accompanying it, scare and enrage even

traditional U.S. allies, who see it as evidence

not of the moral authority of democracy and

freedom, but the \"might makes right\" attitude of

a bully. Among allies and around the world,

people wonder why so few Americans seem willing

to challenge this mindset from within, using a

different type of moral claim.

For those of us who do want to challenge it,

there's much we can't control. Barriers to such

changes in U.S. public perception are

formidable. The military complex in this country

has enormous money behind it, enough to employ

millions of people earning (except for the

soldiers) a comfortable living building pieces

of a repugnantly deployed whole. Mass media is

currently dominated by a range of political

opinion that makes Genghis Khan a centrist, and

that acknowledges dissent usually only in the

course of ridiculing it. Both major political

parties are corrupted by corporate money almost

beyond redemption.

But what we can control is what we say (and

hear), how we act, who we appeal to and work

with, and to what ends. Much of the political

rhetoric in this country -- with or without a

war in progress -- is so over the top and

intolerant as to be anathema to a secular

democracy, and many Americans know that, too.

What is lacking is a coherent, appealing

alternative. Times of crisis and maximum dissent

are precisely when those alternatives should be

on display -- not when they should be abandoned

for the protest equivalent of comfort food.

Many of us who have opposed this war feel

frustrated and powerless; it is an emotionally

charged time. Remember this sensation. Remember

how unpleasant it is. Then resolve to do what

you can to ensure that neither you nor future

generations of people who care about their world

will be put in this place again. And start

working to do something about it.

-----------------------------------------------

Geov Parrish is a Seattle-based columnist and

reporter for Seattle Weekly, In These Times and

Eat the State! He writes the daily Straight Shot

for WorkingForChange.

<\/p>\n","contact":"","link":"http:\/\/struggle.net\/antiwar","address":"","phone":"","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"text\/plain","summary":"Recent New York Times article outlines a well-organized, \r\nmassive and concerted effort by the reformist wing of \r\nthe antiwar movement to derail the antiwar movement and \r\nturn activists into election fodder for the Democratic Party.","numcomment":5,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/","filesize":null,"article_url":"\/news\/2003\/03\/44256.php"},"attachments":[],"comments":[{"id":44301,"heading":"Against All the Guethos","article":" Please, you that want liberty and respect don't make guethos.\r\n Contact the people of the underdevelopment Countries. Its Has the struggle, the Knowleged and the experience to fight against opressive regimes, dictadures and the poverty in general. Think about it, we aren\u00b4t just particles floating alone in the space, we\u00b4re parts of the same organismus. Just unite we do our time and Now it\u00b4s the time. Non-conformists of Latin America, Africa, Europe, Asia and USA against The Fucking Global Corporate Machine. ","author":"Remozo","parent_id":44256,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2003-04-01 00:52:07","modified":"2013-11-10 23:51:55","fileurl":""},{"id":44337,"heading":"Like the Mothers of the Disapered.","article":"Excellent!\r\nWe can finally learn the hell we have brought to\r\nyou and not wonder why they are now roosting\r\nin our homes here and now.\r\nFear is a good thing if you know what you are confronting\r\nif it makes you wary and alert.\r\nThe sleeping sheep will be stampeded, but the resistance will not be forced by the enemy to move with ignorance\r\ninto the shoot. We will awaken them, it's too late for them\r\nto stop it. Too many of us know about the design. The truth\r\nis not able to be hidden as its lies and obvious evil make\r\nitself know to more and that they share this feeling with each other. \r\nTo the roach droppings everywhere:\r\nWe are\r\ncoming together, your worst nightmare, the awakening of the \r\nreal beast. Back down now.","author":"A15m","parent_id":44256,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2003-04-01 01:35:37","modified":"2003-04-01 01:35:37","fileurl":""},{"id":44347,"heading":"well, what then?","article":"\r\nok, good critique of "the anti-activists". but your proposal lacks any serious alternative. \r\n\r\nWhat is an "antibourgoise" movement. What does that look like? How does that organize? How does it affect change? If your going to critique one route for "change", your criticism will fail unless you can point to other concrete steps. You say your against CD. What techniques do you propose? What actions make sense to you.\r\n\r\nOtherwise, keep thinking.","author":"irpy","parent_id":44256,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2003-04-01 01:53:51","modified":"2003-04-01 01:53:51","fileurl":""},{"id":44354,"heading":"Bush Admirer","article":"Way to go, Bush Admirer. Whenever we conservatives don't have anything intelligent to say, we can always resort to juvenile name-calling. We distort, you comply.","author":"Fox News","parent_id":44256,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2003-04-01 02:01:21","modified":"2003-04-01 02:01:21","fileurl":""}]}