summary: -------- The development of an anti-imperialist pole of attraction within the antiwar movement requires an "open politics" organizational model that will allow activists to "see inside" our organization and participate and intervene in the struggles that determine our direction.
posted at: http://seattle.indymedia.org/en/2005/10/248928.shtml http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/10/326798.shtml Hi folks, It must be stated clearly: the antiwar movement is paralyzed. The key to understanding this paralysis -- is the internal war within the antiwar movement. On one side of this war is a section of the bourgeoisie and its allies -- clustered around a section of the Democratic Party. These forces have immense social, media and money resources to promote their agenda. The most recent reminder of this is an article in the October issue of "Rolling Stone" magazine which gives "advice" to the antiwar movement. What kind of "advice" does Rolling Stone give the movement? Rolling Stone tells us that to be "effective" we must be "responsible" -- and support a phony "exit plan" in Iraq that would reduce troop levels a bit while leaving behind permanent U.S. military bases and a puppet government. Nor is this all. Rolling Stone also tells us that the antiwar movement must endorse the plans of various generals and support a U.S. "victory" in Iraq. I am not making this up. Now Rolling Stone is nothing like what it used to be. Many of the baby-boom generation can remember a time when this magazine was once something of an arbitar of what was "cool". But the significance of this article is that it demonstrates that the liberal wing of imperialism has a thousand channels to promote the liquidation of the antiwar movement. If it was not Rolling Stone -- then some other bourgeois mouthpiece would have been tasked with trying to float this crap. And no peace can be possible with this liberal wing of imperialism. They wage war against our movement -- and then ask us to "forge a united front" with them on _their_ terms (ie: that we demand "victory" for U.S. imperialism in Iraq). Now the other side of this war within the antiwar movement -- is composed of the overwhelming majority of activists -- who would actually like to see U.S. imperialism remove its claws from Iraq. This is our side. The problem is that our side is not organized. Nearly all of the organization within the antiwar movement is done by the liberal-reformist coalitions (like UFPJ, ANSWER and NION) who promote Democratic Party politics or illusions in one way or another. More than this -- our side is weak in terms of its _consciousness_. Most activists do not understand that there is a war within the antiwar movement. Most activists see the liberal movers and shakers as an "ally" of the antiwar movement. Most activists do not understand how imperialist society works -- how an entire corrupt social stratam (ie: the trade union bureaucrats, liberal-labor politicians, religious misleaders, poverty pimps, "progressive" media personalities and professional "opinion leaders") -- which is small numerically but immense in terms of influence -- is waging a systematic war to degrade the consciousness of activists and step-by-step pacify and liquidate the antiwar movement and turn it into a prowar movement -- a movement for "victory" in Iraq. I would estimate that less than one in fifty of the quarter million or so activists who marched in the September 24 antiwar actions has a clear understanding of the war of ideas that is taking place within the antiwar movement. This section of activists, the most conscious section, will surely grow. But it is not enough to wait around until more activists see and understand the kind of treachery that appears on the stage at antwar rallies as much as in the pages of Rolling Stone. If we want to be effective in terms of building an antiwar movement with the power to shake society and mobilize millions -- then those of us who understand (ie: that the political and economic system of imperialism generates one imperialist war after another -- and must be eliminated) -- must get organized. What does it mean for the most conscious section of activists to get organized? It means we must learn to recognize one another: it means we must communicate on a regular and long-term basis and gradually find methods to combine our actions and collaborate in a principled way. This will not be an overnite process, because there are many obstacles. But the principle that the most advanced section of activists has a special responsibility, a solemn responsibility, to find one another -- and to develop channels of communication and collaboration with one another -- stands out -- and will continue to stand out -- as one of the most decisive tasks of our time. It is in the spirit of encouraging communication and collaboration between advanced activists -- and overcoming obstacles -- that I describe the current state of relations between a small group of anti-imperialists in Seattle who are struggling to find ways of working together on a principled basis in spite of the fact that many of us basically do not trust one another. ------------------------------------------------------------ Are we accountable to activists? ------------------------------------------------------------ On October 9, eight local activists got together at a public meeting to discuss ways in which they might combine their efforts for the purpose of building an anti-imperialist pole of attraction within the antiwar movement. Most of the activists present had been involved in the recent successful effort to build an anti-imperialist feeder march on September 24 that marched on Capitol Hill before joining the reformist ANSWER rally at Westlake Square. We all agreed that the concept of imperialism was central for the development of a powerful antiwar movement and decided that we would collaborate, under the name "Seattle Anti-Imperialist Committee", on a leaflet about imperialism that we could distribute at the upcoming local November 2 events. Disagreements have emerged between us. Whether or not we will be able to overcome these disagreements and find ways of working together in a principled way is unclear at this time. My conviction is that the project which unites us (ie: building an anti-imperialist pole of attraction within the antiwar movement) must be accountable to antiwar activists. This means that antiwar activists must have a meaningful window into our disagreements -- so that they can play a role in helping us resolve our disagreements and encourage us to continue to struggle to find principled methods of working with one another. When a group of activists decide to work together -- it is usually the case that they do not make their disagreements public. Making disagreements public can be a messy and inconvenient process. Why air your dirty laundry before friend and foe alike? Because it is the salvation of our movement. We cannot enlist the intervention of activists (which we need) if we keep secret the struggles over principles that are taking place between us. On the contrary, we must find ways to tell activists that we believe that what we are attempting to do is so important -- that they must have the _right_ to know about the clashes of principles which are taking place as we stumble forward. Now I must introduce a warning to all readers: What follows is my view on the issues and principles at stake. Others involved in this will have very different views. Other participants in this project may have time to post their views here -- but they also may not have time. So what you hear from me may be only a one-sided and highly biased view of a complex story. It is my responsibility to present matters in as objective a way as I am capable. Whether or not I am successful at this may only become clear with time. ------------------------------------------------------------ The necessity of "open politics" ------------------------------------------------------------ My conviction is that an anti-imperialist pole of attraction can only be built on the basis of what I call "open politics". Many readers may be familar with what is called the "open source" software movement -- where anyone has the right to "look under the cover", so to speak, of the software they are using. Open politics is analogous to this in certain ways. Any political organization that has a mass character will include within it different political trends which contend with one another over the nature and direction of the organization. Unfortunately, this struggle, which takes place in one form or another inside _any_ political mass organization -- is usually kept somewhat hidden. Often even the members or supporters of the organization do not understand the nature of the struggles which are taking place as different trends fight for the organization's future. This is what has to end. ------------------------------------------------------------ Will readers have the right to post public criticism? ------------------------------------------------------------ The main disagreement that has emerged concerns whether or not the leaflet we distribute will link to a website where readers can easily post their comments, questions and criticisms. I am of the view that this is necessary. And I have made clear that I will not support with my actions a mode of literature distribution in which readers do not have the right to post public comments, questions and criticisms. What this means is that if readers cannot post their criticisms -- then I will not distribute the leaflet. ------------------------------------------------------------ Will members have the right to a public listing on the group's website? ------------------------------------------------------------ I have also made clear that I will not be a formal part of any organization which does not give all of its members the right (if they so choose) to a public listing on its website. I believe that this is essential for any mass organization in which the struggle between trends will have a public and open (ie: rather than a private and secret) character. ------------------------------------------------------------ I will keep this short because I know that readers have limited time. ------------------------------------------------------------ There are other things that might be said -- but the two points of disagreement above are probably the most important. ------------------------------------------------------------ The proposal to ban me from public meetings ------------------------------------------------------------ In response to this, one of the participants in this project (who has a lot of influence with many activists and whom I greatly respect) has proposed that I be banned from all meetings (including "public" meetings) of the Seattle Anti-Imperialist Committee. Obviously I believe that banning me would be a mistake. I have, as I noted, great respect for the comrade involved. I understand, on the basis of long expereince, that the political disease of sectarianism can distort the thinking of even the best, most determined, militant and principled activists. ------------------------------------------------------------ Looking good vs. being good ------------------------------------------------------------ I fully understand that making our differences public may invite ridicule from our political opponents. They may be able to point to us and say that this is what happens when you try to build a movement that is independent of the kind of liberal-reformist influence that appears in Rolling Stone and a thousand other sources which pump sewage into the movement. "Look," they may say, "even such a small and experienced group of activists cannot talk about distributing a leaflet without attempting to ban one another from the public meetings of their common effort. How ridiculous and ineffective they are. They are acting like a bunch of amateurs." And it would be the truth. We are acting like a bunch of amateurs. But we cannot be afraid of looking foolish in public. If we look foolish in public -- it is because we are foolish. However, as long as we are committed to working with one another while continuing to make our differences public, I believe this will change. Activists will help us overcome our errors. This is far more important than any ridicule we may experience. We will gradually become less foolish. We will eventually be able to overcome our amateur behavior. The ridicule will be a temporary thing. But overcoming our amateur behavior may have a long-lasting impact. This is what stands out above all else. If a small group of activists could successfully organize an anti-imperialist feeder march of more than 60 people last month -- imagine what we will be able to do as we struggle to discard the blindfolds which stand between us and the challenge of building an anti-imperialist pole of attraction? ------------------------------------------------------------ What do we need from you, dear reader? ------------------------------------------------------------ Most of what I write gets very little response from readers. I don't know if this post will be any different. There may be the usual ridicule and sarcasm from sideline critics. But that is not important. What is important are comments from the more serious readers -- who may believe that there is a need for an anti-imperialist organization which does not hide or keep secret its internal struggles and which recognizes that it cannot be effective without a constant stream of criticism from serious activists everywhere. If you are one of these readers -- then I hope that you will say something. Until the more serious activists find principled and effective ways of organizing ourselves -- we are going to live in a world dominated completely by imperialism. Sincerely and revolutionary regards, Ben Seattle http://struggle.net/ben Isolated from one another we are easily defeated. Connected to one another no force on earth can stop us http://MediaWeapon.com Hit them where it Hurts! and related articles ... Agitation for the Sept 24, 2005 antiwar march http://struggle.net/ben/2005/924.htm ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/B140lB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> (This is not a discussion list--the discussion list is pof-200) THEORIST LIST -------------- To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archive: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theorist/messages Info: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theorist/ POF-200 ------- home page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pof-200/ to subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theorist/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
