At the moment of writing this, I think I'm more frustrated with the anti-war movement than I have been in my whole entire time in it. That's quite a statement, given how long I've been around, and for what percent of that time I've been vocally frustrated. Where on earth do I begin?
Essentially, Connecticut has finally caught up to the rest of the country in terms of the Palestine/"Single Issue" split. It's been a long time coming, but it finally happened. CT now has two statewide coalitions. This would not be a problem, if it weren't for the fact that NEITHER poses any threat to the war, or the establishment for that matter. Despite my best efforts, the discussion has been framed in the worst imaginable way. On the one end, there's the Zionists and Democrats. The Zionists obviously want nothing to do with Palestine, other than bomb/bulldoze/carve it up. And the Democrats in the movement want to invite their favorite politicians to the rally and dress us up all pretty and presentable, instead of having a dirty rabble, demanding of all things, human rights for one of the world's most oppressed nations. A lot of these folks are basically pro-Palestinian/anti-Zionist, but sadly, politics make for odd bed fellows. Just how little this all has to do with keeping the movement "focused," and not confuse regular people with complicated things, like NOT committing ethnic cleansing on the Gulf Coast, is made pretty clear that this groups' demands include pretty much everything the "ultra-left" group is demanding, except for immigrant rights and Palestine. While I believe many of the Democratic-aligned folks are pretty reasonable, it must be said that their stance can only be compared to the moderate liberals of THEIR generation, who spoke against direct action in the Civil Rights movement. They are doing no favors to the Palestinian people, and the revolution will devour them for it.And on the other side of the brawl (connotation intended) are the International Socialist Organization and Socialist Action - both Trotskyist groups with significant differences. Now, before I go any further, before I unnecessarily alienate anybody, I have a lot of respect for the activists in these groups and the outstanding work they do. Sadly, these folks are in Marxist-Leninist organizations, so publicly airing independent thought is often a no-no. I am, however, grateful for the kindness these activists have shown me, despite my sometimes vitriolic rhetoric. So, thanks. The other thing is that I really believe that do a lot of great work, particularly the folks in Latinos Contra La Guerra, who know the true meaning of grassroots organization and coalition building, though I strongly disagree with their ends.
However, as a good militant anti-bullshitter, I feel it is imperative to call things as I see them. I may be politically shooting myself in the foot, but I take heart in the Christian saying, "Good people are never alone in this world," as has been exemplified by many a good comrade recently. The way I see it, the Trotskyists are basically the polar opposite of the Zionists. While the Zionists want to exclude the Palestinians and their supporters from the movement, the Trotskyists want to exclude the Zionists and anybody who will be working for the Dems in the fall, as they feel, correctly, that they drain the movement of vital resources. Don't get me wrong - I would be much happier if there were no Zionists or Democrats in the movement. But I'm not about to push them out! Not because I'm soft on Zionists, but because I think purges should be left to the last generation. Besides, liberals are often considerably more open-minded than Leninists, as they often don't have a party line to fall back on.
This accusation on my part is somewhat less cut and dry, but I am confident enough of it to state it in public. It's part gut feeling, part simply understanding how vanguardists operate, and part just listening to the language used in dialogue. Essentially, what happens at meetings when the Palestine demand is debated, is that they are antagonists. They use terminology that they know is much less than diplomatic, they stick to rhetoric and don't respond directly to legitimate, reasonable statements with which they disagree, and generally mis-represent what the other side is saying (as they often do to me). And, as a well-organized faction, they generally have the support of the few actual Palestinians and/or Muslims and their advocates in the room. I have a great deal of respect for Mazin Qumsiyeh, Stan Heller and the folks in the Palestinian American Congress, and we are pretty much always on the same page. I have only two negative things to say about Stan and Mazin. First, they are not good speakers. Stan is a crank, and Mazin tends to go on and on. I can understand where both are coming from in that arena, as Stan has much to be cranky about, and Mazin has a lot to say. I wouldn't want them to change for the world. The other thing, however, is that I feel that they are easily duped. I see them as being used as pawns by the Trotskyists, and I feel this is a genuine shame. Perhaps if the anarchists and anti-authoritarians in CT were better organized, we could be an alternative for them to ally with and in general be better advocates. For now, this is not the case, and I am sorry for it.
The bottom line is this: this war is about maintaining US dominance in the world today. It is being threatened by the rise of new industrial powers (China, Russia) and the consolidation of others (European Union). So to keep these powers in check, the US has made an example of what happens when governments step out of line. Iraq was targeted because it was a valuable asset that can be used as leverage on the geopolitical scale, and it was vulnerable to attack. Unfortunately for all parties, it has inevitably turned into a perpetual blood bath with no happy ending. What's worse, is that the US establishment will do all in its power to salvage the situation. This does not include pulling out and relinquishing control of the country or the region. Therefore, our goals are against the status quo, against what the establishment is willing to grant. Thus, normal channels of dissent and protest are void in this situation. What should be our reaction? Direct Action!
For me, here's what it comes down to. Reason with the reasonable, speak harsh truth to the unreasonable, and make the alternatives clear and visible. Our job, in my view, as anti-authoritarian direct actionists is to build our actions, our bases of resistance, and keep coming to the table to speak to all parties in this latest round of mud slinging and dishonesty. For me, taking the high road doesn't mean not speaking your mind; it means doing what you know is right.
Wed, 02/22/2006 - 7:14pm
In my opinion this is why we should be focused on organizing the worker...bottom line, thier so much shit going on we ( IWW ) need to be soley doing what the IWW was set out to do, Organize the worker and abolish the wage system! How do we go about doing this together?...working together across demographics and state lines. We need a plan.
Mike
- Login or register to post comments
»Wed, 02/22/2006 - 11:06pm
Hey Mike,
Thanks for replying. Your point is well-taken. Every day and every thing I plan I keep in mind doing just that. However, I do not believe we can cede the our responsibility to stop the war to the people I described above, nor can we ignore the historical importance of the war in Iraq. If we allow the war to simply run its course, the toll taken on working people here and everywhere will be, to put it mildly, catastrophic. I also believe there is great potential for beneficially alterning society in fostering an anti-authoritarian direct action mass movement againt the war.
"Change the world without taking power? It sounds ridiculous, but we have no other choice" - Holloway
- Login or register to post comments
»Thu, 02/23/2006 - 1:04am
I agree,as a prior service member I take to heart what you are saying. I guess their needs to be a way to show workers that the war in Iraq and U.S foreign policy in general is very close and conected with our daily lives, direct action is the only way in my opinion to have any positive impact on where, the ruling class, takes us as a country. Is their a way to build a workers movment that can effectivily change the war policy in Iraq? I think it would have to be done through the working class. Im not trying to be one sided I know that its more complex than that but it seems that the intellectuals seem to have knowledge and sound good but the same shit keeps going on and going on. Anyways have a good and give the boss hell!
Yours for the Cause
Mike B
- Login or register to post comments
»Thu, 02/23/2006 - 2:15am
I think that any viable movement has to at least have a base in the working class, if only for the fact that we're the majority. But I think France's May of '68 showed very clearly that workers aren't the only ones capable of turning the world upside down (in a good way).
But practically speaking, I think of building a decent labor movement as something of a very long term struggle, the extent of which we really haven't seen in this country since the days of the Haymarket Martyrs. The working class has been so de-organized and mis-organized that it feels like we're practically back to square one (though we still have a ways to go before we're quite to that point). So, I see it as a two way street between the labor movement and the antiwar movement (as it should always be). Yes, only an antiwar movement that has strong working class participation can be effective, for more reasons than one. But the labor movement can also strongly benefit from a successful anti-imperialist struggle, much in the way the movements against the Vietnam War and the Algerian occupation were clearly beneficial not only in the radicalization of labor, but also to other sectors of struggle, such as feminism, queer liberation, student power, and the liberation of oppressed races. As Lenin correctly asserts (not that I have any respect for the man) imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism, and often opens the flood gates of revolution. Just goes to show you that even the worst of us can be right once in awhile.
For the One Big Union,
m(A)tt
"Change the world without taking power? It sounds ridiculous, but we have no other choice" - Holloway
- Login or register to post comments
»Sun, 03/12/2006 - 10:56pm
- Login or register to post comments
»Wed, 03/15/2006 - 2:12pm
Workplace-based resistance isn't the only valid resistance. To believe so is to ignore the last forty years of direct action movements, from the Civil Rights movement right up to a few years ago with the anti-globalization movement. Direct action can be extremely effective, and while it is always a good thing to have an industrial base when carrying out actions, as our comrades did back during WWI, it is not a pre-requisite. Our current context does not allow us that privilege, so we've got to make due with what we've got. I do believe, however, that a successful anti-imperialist struggle can and will empower all other radical movements, including the labor movement.
"Change the world without taking power? It sounds ridiculous, but we have no other choice" - Holloway
- Login or register to post comments
»Wed, 03/15/2006 - 7:08pm
I don't down play down the importance of "civil" disobedience. We have the responsibility as citizens to do those types of things. But I do believe you are misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that marches, parades, protesting the WTO etc are not a valid form of resistance. More power to you Matt. But what I am saying is that the IWW is not primarily a "civil" organization nor a political one. It is primarrily an "industrial" organization. Its focus is empowering workers at job sites and when enough workers are unionized then real change, both civil and economic can occur not only at places of work but around the world. If we don't have an "industrial base" then we need one and you get one by unionizing. If your focus is a "successful anti-imperialist struggle" then you are talking about political acts and not neccessarily a industrial act. You might be better served by joining a political party more to your liking than a "industrial union". Please read the Preamble to our Constitution and see what our organization really stands for.
Solidarity Forever,
Andrew
- Login or register to post comments
»Thu, 03/16/2006 - 4:19pm
Andrew,
I joined the IWW because I wanted to organize my workplace, and because I support the work the IWW does. But I also disagree with the assertion that the IWW is not a political organization. It certainly isn't in the old sense of the word, where "political" meant you ran candidates and lobbied the employing class's union (i.e. government), but in the modern sense where broader issues, not just workplace issues are addressed. This is historically true, be it the IWW's cooperation with Earth First!, its constant presence at antiwar protests, among many other progressive and radical causes. Besides, as an anarchist, I am also opposed to political parties. I think old dichotomies like that need to be broken down anyway.
Now, I certainly agree the IWW's focus ought to be unionizing, obviously, as it is after all a union. But personally, I find it very irritating when other unions refuse to get involved in important political issues, as if those issues do not affect their membership.
And just to clarify, I'm not much one for civil disobedience, let alone parades and rallies and such. I find them all usually impotent and useless. What I advocate, civil resistance, is fundamentally different from CD, in that its aim is to disrupt the daily functioning of society in a sunstained fashion. This can include a lot of things, from blockades, street fighting, strikes, war tax resistance, and many other creative tactics, and not just sitting down in front of a building and allowing oneself to be carried off by the police; that makes no sense to me.
Peace and Solidarity,
m(A)tt
"Change the world without taking power? It sounds ridiculous, but we have no other choice" - Holloway
- Login or register to post comments
»Thu, 03/16/2006 - 10:48pm
Matt,
I think we are talking past each other. The final triumph of labor over the capitalist system is going to be when there are enough workers unionized to enact a general strike. You want to talk about disrupting society? That is the ultimate besides civil war or any war for that matter. Now from what I can gather from your responses you want to change the system through many different modes. I understand that and appreciate your frustration. I too want to change the system of inequality in all its forms yet I tend to be a little more cynical as to method. Personally, I don't see anarchical actions leading anywhere until labor disrupts society enough to allow different types of anarchy time to grow and be accepted. Having a few collectives here and there, protesting neoliberal policies at WTO functions, painting Hummers with graffiti, placing iron spikes in old growth trees, hanging out in a tree house...all these actions I respect yet where are we now? Has anything changed that has not been changed before and for the worst? I want real results. I want lasting results. If we don't start motivating people to see an alternative to the current wage slavery, degradation of the environment, and corruption etc we are in for a long dark night. In a word if we workers don't start seeing our power in solidarity we are in trouble.
Solidarity Forever,
Andrew
- Login or register to post comments
»Thu, 03/16/2006 - 11:20pm
Andrew,
Nothing I can disagree with there. But I'm not talking long term - I'm talking what are we going to do about THIS war, here and now, that will bring it to an end, before the costs go from catastrophic to cataclysmic. In the long term, yes, organize the working class into one big union so we can more effectively deal with wars and other problems capitalism causes, and eventually do away with capitalism altogether. But this war needs to end YESTERDAY. And without our direct intervention, it won't. There's just way too much at stake for the US to just say, "okay, this isn't working, we're leaving." What we're looking at here is the US's global political position in the world on the line. So as far as the US government is concered, we're in for the long haul, for as long as it takes! Now isn't that frightening? I hope that clarifies my position a little better.
Paz y Solidaridad,
m(A)tt
"Change the world without taking power? It sounds ridiculous, but we have no other choice" - Holloway
- Login or register to post comments
»