The April 29th United for Peace and Justice March
A large march against the Iraq war
By Stanley W. Rogouski
A large march against the Iraq was occupied most of lower Manhattan Saturday. Estimates ranged from 50,000 to upwards of 100,000.
*****
Matt
I read 300,000 in the Boston Globe...
*****
boggler
UFPJ is a liberal organization with Leninist politics. At the Left Forum, Cagan said that UFPJ doesn't have and doesn't WANT a seat at the table with the Democrats. Yet the entire point of yesterday's march was to help 'set the agenda for the congressional elections this fall.'
It all boils down to this.
The US is in Iraq to stay
UNLESS
a combination of four factors forces a humiliating withdrawal of the occupying troops.
A: a continued intensity of attacks by insurgents. There are literally dozens of attacks on US troops per day. The various factions of the Iraqi insurgency (Arab nationalist, neo-Baathist, Islamist, and leftist) are well funded, well organized, and relatively decentralized at the local level. They ain't going nowhere. If Iraq does descend into all out civil war, beyond the low level US sponsored civil war of the past 2 years, don't expect attacks on occupation troops to halt. If there was a equivalent of the Tet offensive, this would speed the process of anti-war mobilization at home.
B: a growing organized resistance within the military itself. This is what people like Murtha are so scared of. The faster the US military falls apart the better. We need the equivalent of the GI coffeehouse efforts during Vietnam. Conscientious objection, desertion, mutiny and insubordination should all be encouraged and supported. Grunts are already using pharmaceuticals to numb themselves. The anti war movement needs to be ready for thousands of returning vets by building support networks to help them. Groups like IVAW should not have to shoulder the load by themselves in this regard.
C: A nonviolent insurgency must develop within the US itself. Activists should be discussing and planning strategies of resistance. Counter-recruitment is a good example (but this needs to grow in the high schools, especially in more vulnerable communities). Student strikes, mass direct actions, etc...
D: Continuing international isolation of the US occupation.
Before the elections happen, we need a national direct action to REALLY 'SHUT DOWN THE WAR MACHINE.' A good model to think about would be the 'MAY DAY' actions of 1971 in DC. over 10,000 people were arrested during one day of action. Ideally this would happen at the end of the summer during a workday in DC. The so called 'militant minority'(Carl Davidson) needs to actually BE MILITANT. Raise the domestic cost of the occupation at home to the point where the ruling class divides over the war and its AIMS.
*****
May 01, 2006
kma
It boils down to the fact that Leslie Cagan and her organization can get 300,000 people out in the streets to demonstrate against the war.
*****
More than Leslie...
May 01, 2006
Carl Davidson
While it may seem odd in this venue, most, if not all, of us UFPJers actually LIKE Leslie Cagan. She's self-sacrificing, politically savvy, dedicated and very good at what she does. I'm sure she's made mistakes, but we want her to keep on keepin' on.
But when all is said and done, it was hardly just her and a few minions who pulled off last weekend. There are over 1000 UFPJ affiliates, with thousands of activist organziers, spread across the country. Not to mention the labor and other allies. They deserve the the main credit for April 29. And when you attack UFPJ and its leadership, this is where you're really aiming your blows.
Having said that, I don't have much quarrel with the other points raised above. I think the point about Murtha is a little off. He's really a voice for the top brass who want to oppose Bush on the war and find a quick way out, more than someone who wants to prevent an antiwar movement in the Army's ranks. It might even serve his purposes to see more antiwar GIs. In any case, a new GI coffeehouse effort is a great idea, but work with the military families as well.
The Mayday protest in the 1970s is being over-romanticized here. The moratoriums, for all their liberalism, were more effective, along with VVAW's actions and our draft resistance programs.
In any case, you have to develop militant direct action in tune with today's conditions, including what the 'militant minority' today is willing to do. Then it has to be ORGANIZED, not just 'called for' or used as a ploy to jack up more moderate groups, while you have nothing behind it except hot rhetoric.
But why ignore the elections? You can if you want, I suppose. Maybe you're just not good at registering people and getting out the vote.
But the rest of us are going to help the best antiwar candidates win and help defeat the worst prowar candidates. We don't really care what party they're in; we care want their individual stand is, and how they're willing to vote.
As for Seattle, Regis DeBray long ago elaborated on a point made by Che. The revolution not only revolutionizes the revolutionaries; it also revolutionizes the counter-revolution. All the cops and homeland security types have studied the Seattle-type tactics on film over and over, probably more than any of you have. Doing a rerun won't be easy, if you can do it at all.
Time for some fresh thinking, folks.
*****
Hundreds of thousands
May 01, 2006
bravo UFPJ
If you participated in Saturday's march and had looked up the street from Canal you would have seen Broadway filled with marchers from Union Square to Canal street. That's 18 blocks full of people.
*****
Webmaster
May 02, 2006
Holger Terp
If war is the answer, it's the wrong question.
Great demo.
Keep peace on moving.
With kind regards,
Holger Terp
Editor of the Danish Peace Academy
*****
18 blocks full of people
May 02, 2006
Kudos Indeed
That number translates out, depending on crowd density (2000-3000 bodies per block), to somewhere between 36,000-54,0000 revelers. Also please don't confuse last Saturday's block party with an effective political manifestation of popular resistance. It was not by a long shot (and that wherein lies the problem).
*****
The ball's in your court...
May 02, 2006
Carl Davidson
Well, 'KI', you must have some idea of what 'popular resistance' is, and your believe that this event doesn't count as popular resistance. Funny, most of the folks there loved the event, and believed they were resisting the war, but no matter.
But the ball's in your court. Don't just tell us how it should have been. Get your like-minded comrades together, get your own how-many-you-need tens of thousands out, and show us how its supposed to be done.
Then we can have an honest-to-goodness debate.
If you can't, because the consciousness of those willing to act is not where you think it needs to be, or you don't have the mettle or strength, then your assessment of political reality is off, and you're an armchair general without an army.
Nobody, not even UFPJ, is stopping you. It's not crowded up front. But if political reality is stopping you, I rest my case.
*****
re: '18 Blocks'
May 02, 2006
bravo UFPJ
Actually the march stretched longer than Canal to Union Square. That was a single vantage point. As far as turnout was concerned it was the largest event I've been to in NYC after the anti-Bush march at the RNC.
UFPJ did a remarkable job. Posters may be dissing the coaltion here but they'll be kissing its ass in person. They're going to have to.
Just as the media, politicians, labor, and the entire country is going to have to respond to the massive demonstrations across the country on May 1st.
So it turns out that successful mass demostrations and the coaltions that build them do send a signal to people who DON'T show up whether they are in another country or inside this country and fearful of their legal status.
The message is that it's okay to march. It's okay to stand up to the government. It's okay to make demands. It's okay to march for your and your childrens' dignity.
*****
Oh what a difference one word makes
May 02, 2006
An Omission
'effective'.
There is little point in dwelling on this. At one time I used to rack it up to incompetence, but I came to recognize it was a deliberate attempt to derail and divert.
As to 'debate', in dealing with the likes of you, 'words are cheap' and your words are cheaper still. So what is the point? (That is a rhetorical question).
*****
Lets be Honest
May 03, 2006
Matt H.
I can't stand UFPJ's politics or symbolic protest/block party mentality, but I won't blame them for the horrible state of the anti-war movement. Lets face it they are liberals, did you expect anymore? What we can hold them accountable for is there own lies about not having an affiliation with the D. party when I see Al Sharpton & Jesse Jackson standing up in front of the march!!! Then again liberals lie, thats how they get elected!
The truth is that the younger generation has not stepped up, and UFPJ is not to blame for that. We could get into a million argument/discussions about why this is true, but the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of 16-30 yr olds are ignorant about the Iraq War, have not seen the 4th WW, don't know about the Bolivarian revolution, don't get any info from Indymedia, and so on and so forth. Until 16-30 yr olds get politicized the only mass action against this war will be lead by liberal gatekeepers like Lesley Cagan (who can't stand me after I picked her apart on a phone press conference with members of the NY Times, ABC, NBC, etc.. there. After my questions the conference was shortly over, lol!)
So until the younger generation steps up these old, burnt out, useless peaceniks will not step aside. Lets hope that we do not carry their torch but bury it and light a new one!!!
Peace, Matt
*****
Al, Jesse, and Charles
May 03, 2006
up front
'What we can hold them accountable for is there own lies about not having an affiliation with the D. party when I see Al Sharpton & Jesse Jackson standing up in front of the march!!!'
Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Charles Baron were at the front of the May 1st march as well.
*****
Yes, indeed, let's be honest...
May 03, 2006
Carl Davidson
Well, Matt, I guess if 'affiliated with the Democratic Party' means you allow, or even encourage, well-known Democrats to join your march, under a slogan that opposes the official stand of the Democratic Party, then I would have to plead guilty, even though one of my tasks in life is to replace the Dems with something better.
The problem is, to end this bloody war, I would like to get a few Republicans to march and speak for 'Out Now' too, so does that affiliate me with Bush and the GOP?
But here's an interesting question. How would you enforce keeping Democrats away from your march? Make them swear an oath, 'Are you now or have you ever been (gasp) a liberal Democrat?' And how would the logistics of this work?
There's no lies here, Matt, unless you can't see the difference between 'alliance' with Democrats opposed to the war, on one hand, and 'affiliated' with the Democratic Party, prowar or antiwar, on the other. If you can't, well, I guess our schools are worse than I thought.
Now I'll grant you that in the youth constituency, since a big majority don't vote for anyone, for better or worse, you don't run into a lot of Democrats.
But one of the first tools of politics is learning how to count. And there are a lot of Democrats in the country, and a lot of people over 30, and it hardly makes sense to make enemies of all of them, especially when they agree with you on some important issues.
Good luck organizing the under-thirty folks. We need them, even if they think they don't need us at the moment.
*****
Shame the Democrats
May 03, 2006
Stanley W. Rogouski
One of the main reasons (in my mind) for marches like this is to define the options for the general public, to illustrate how the debate is framed.
The September 24th march shamed the Democrats, exposed them as a pro war party like very little I've seen before. Of course the ultra lefitst (or more likely right-wingers or cops posing as ultra leftists) will tell you that's useless but for most of us it isn't.
I'm not sure how the decision of those few good people in the Democratic Party (like Conyers or Sharpton) to participate affects this but I'm pretty sure most people don't associate Sharpton or Jesse Jackson with the innner circle of the Democratic Party.
But look at it this way. Russ Feingold writes for Counterpunch. Does that make it a 'Democratic' web site? Hardly.
*****
'ultra leftists'
May 03, 2006
Stan the Arrogant Oinker
If their is any pig posting here it is you. What's in your wallet, or more particulary how did it get there (who owns you)? Before you start throwing wild accusations about, you better be damned certain about whom you accuse.
*****
Ok lets be Frank!
May 03, 2006
Matt H. (and fuckin proud of it!)
Carl wrote 'even though one of my tasks in life is to replace the Dems with something better.'
How long have you been at that? Maybe it's time to change strategies!
Carl wrote 'I would like to get a few Republicans to march and speak for 'Out Now' too'
Sure why don't we also get some Wal-Mart CEO's and fully co-opt peoples anger! No thanks!
Carl wrote 'How would you enforce keeping Democrats away from your march?'
I wouldn't enforce a march like UFPJ working in conjunction with the NYPD to pen us in free speach zones and then act as crowd control when we want to go to central park. What I know I would do is not give them a microphone and a photo op!
Carl wrote 'well, I guess our schools are worse than I thought.'
Yes they are and you know why, because you and your generation never won universal education. Another failure!
Carl wrote 'And there are a lot of Democrats in the country, and a lot of people over 30, and it hardly makes sense to make enemies of all of them'
Your right I should just sit back and let them frame the parameters of debate, call me an extremist, or a cop, or uneducated (how liberal of you), or too young to understand.
Carl wrote 'Good luck organizing the under-thirty folks'
Thank you. Hopefully it will be with strategy and participation not luck.
Stanley wrote 'The September 24th march shamed the Democrats, exposed them as a pro war party like very little I've seen before. Of course the ultra lefitst (or more likely right-wingers or cops posing as ultra leftists) will tell you that's useless but for most of us it isn't.'
Yes I am a cop, right now I am eating donuts, I love Guilanini. You know what Stanley your tactics are slymy, and all you care about is controlling the parameters of debate. You will never achieve your goal you old commy!
Peace, Matt
*****
Face it You Got Owned Saturday
May 03, 2006
Stanley W. Rogouski
By constantly spamming the UFPJ threads with predictions that the march would be a dissappointment or with advice not to go, people set up expectations.
They were smashed on Saturday when the march was larger than anybody expected. If someone makes predictions and gets proven wrong, he/she takes responsibilty for it. Take it.
In case you didn't notice, the cops were very hands off on Saturday. Whether or not you approved of their presence, Sharpton, the Unions, some of the more mainstream people were able to hold the cops back for long enough so that the march was relatively pleasant, so it was allowed to swell to the full size it was capable of becoming.
Now you can question whether or not large anti-war marches do any good but there's no question UFPJ put on a very successful one last week, one that was much larger than expected and generally got good press.
Will that march alone force the USA out of Iraq? No. But will it keep it as part of the debate. Certainly.
BTW, by saying that the people who spams these threads with 'don't go to protests' messages are more likely provocateurs than actualy Trotskyists, I'm only giving the Trotskyists the benefit of the doubt. Most of them are basically good people and there were plenty of them at Foley Square last week.
*****
Some Do
May 03, 2006
Stanley W. Rogouski
'Carl wrote 'I would like to get a few Republicans to march and speak for 'Out Now' too'
Sure why don't we also get some Wal-Mart CEO's and fully co-opt peoples anger! No thanks!'
Republicans?
Joe Wilson, Ron Paul, Richard Clarke, Scott Ritter, Ray McGovern, dissaffected Republicans have hurt Bush more than any Democratic and certainly more than any 'anarchist'.
Joe Wilson was Bush I's ambassador to Iraq and he's done as much to expose the war as a fraud than anybody else I can think of.
I'd give you 20 liberal Democrats for one Joseph Wilson.
What's more, you may *think* you're being leftier than thou by advising people not to go to protests but that just puts you in the same category as Eric Alterman or Michelle Goldberg and every other Democratic Party hack who wrote againt protesting the RNC because they thought it would hurt Kerry.
Strange company we keep.
*****
300,000?
May 03, 2006
anton
Sorry - but UFPJ seems to have fallen prey to the ANSWER syndrome and overinflated their crowd count. More like 100,000 people - still a hell of a lot of folks. But consider the latest figures from Mayday - a million plus in LA, 400,000 by conservative police estimates in Chicago, a hundred thousand in NYC? Fairly safe to say that several million were out marching, in many cases boycotting, skipping work or walking out of school. In terms of public perception, the bar for this type of mass protest as a tactic for galvanizing resistance and support has been raised considerably.
*****
Raising the bar, several ways...
May 03, 2006
Carl Davidson
May Day was the best ever, a least in my lifetime.
About 1.2 million.
Yes, it raised the bar of 'resistance and support', but where does it go now?
Fascist reaction has also upped the ante, and the divisions are wide and deep, not only among 'whites', but African Americans, too.
'Street Heat' is not enough, folks. We need a counter-hegemonic plan and program for immigration and every other critical issue, plus the organization and alliances to give it force.
Otherwise, we've got 1.2 million for the McCain-Kennedy Bill. If you don't have a strategy, you're part of someone else's strategy. If they have a plan and policy, you need a counter-plan and counter-policy.
Time to get serious about serious dangers and opportunities ahead. Adolescent shit-talkin' won't get you over any more.
*****
No sale.
May 03, 2006
anton
In order to fairly evaluate - three years on - the efficacy of Davidson's and UFPJ's strategy for constructively engaging those Democrats in Congress, maybe he can start by naming those Senators and Congresspeople to date who have taken a solid position in favor of unconditional withdrawal now?
We're not talking about those Dems who pay lipservice to the Murtha redeployment scheme- just beyond the Iraqi borders, or those who support the Iraqization of the war and support US withdrawal in the future 'when the security situation allows'. Or those who might be amenable to calling for a partial withdrawal depending on how Iraq plays out in the midterm election polls. - but those who have actually call for immediate withdrawal now.
Jose Serrano. Cynthia McKinney. Who else?
How sucessful has his own local UFPJ group 'Chicagoans Against War and Injustice' been in actually helping to elect antiwar candidates in the Illinois Democratic primaries, or prevent Rahm Emmanuel from steamrolling at least one candidate in Illinois by enlisting both organized labor leaders and Democratic politicians in thrall to the Daley political machine to support an avowdly prowar candidate in the Illinois 6th Congressional District -- including several ostensible antiwar congresspeople Davidson has worked with in the past.
As an advocate of this type of strategy Davidson would be more convincing if he could actually deliver some evidence that it was working. Activists who embrace direct action - including folks like Sheehan, Code Pink and others have probably had more immediate impact in shifting public discourse on the Iraq war than MoveOn.org, NOW, the Rainbow Coalition - and yes, US Labor against the War put together. Public opinon has turned - now the question is how to translate this into real political muscle that can raise the costs of continuing the war to unacceptable levels for our rulers. Retreating into an ABB strategy when it comes to the Dems ain't gonna cut it.
*****
Unions Big Presence at NYC Anti-war March
May 03, 2006
Jo Freeman, Senior Women
Interesting observation about UFPJ's numbers claim.
Unions Big Presence at NYC Anti-war March
by Jo Freeman
Labor Unions made a strong showing at the April 29 anti-Iraq-war march in New York City. While the AFL-CIO, at its convention on July 27, 2005, called for a 'rapid' return of all US troops from Iraq, this is the first time so many unions have been so prominent in an anti-war protest. Contingents from the United Auto Workers, Unite Here, SEIU, (particularly NYC local 1199) and the United Electrical Workers joined in a march of about 100,000 people down Broadway from Union Square to Foley Square.
Although dozens of unions endorsed the march, these carried identifying banners surrounded by large numbers of members shouting anti-war slogans. Labor also had its own tent at the Peace and Justice festival which followed the march. Concern about a possible attack on Iran joined Iraq in the slogans and signs.
This march was organized by United for Peace and Justice, with major assistance from US Labor Against the War. UfPJ has organized most of the big marches against the invasion and occupation of Iraq, though the earliest ones were organized by ANSWER. The two competing anti-war groups jointly organized the massive anti-war march in Washington DC last September 24. UfPJ later announced that it was such a bad experience that UfPJ would never co-operate with ANSWER again. A few people carried ANSWER placards on Saturday, but there was no ANSWER contingent and information about the march was not posted on its webpage.
For this march UfPJ joined with a wider diversity of organizations, including labor unions, the National Organization for Women (NOW), Friends of the Earth, and Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Push Coalition. Heads of these groups marched in the front line. There was no rally, so none of these prominent people spoke, other than a few words at a pre-march press conference, which featured Daniel Ellsberg.
After labor, groups with the most identifying banners were the usual plethora of left-wing organizations (but not ANSWER), religious groups and those deriving from a military affiliation. Signs of course, don't tell you much about numbers, but do about organization and affiliation. There were a lot of women on this march - probably half - but not many distinct women's organizations. In addition to NOW, women's groups included the Code Pink, the Raging Grannies, and the Media Whores. There was a separate women's tent at Foley Square, but the last three groups had their own tables elsewhere.
UfPJ told the press that at least 350,000 people marched on Saturday. Some newspaper stories printed this figure; most just said 'tens of thousands.' I watched and photographed the event from Union Square before marching the entire length. My best guess is that it was closer to100,000 participants. By earlier standards, 100,000 is still a massive march. However, since there are no longer any official estimates, which
significantly underestimated attendance, the only public estimates come from march organizers, who significantly overestimate attendance. Indeed this march was smaller than most people thought it would be given that public sentiment against the war has increased and the cool, sunny weather was perfect for protesting. It was small because, apart from labor, mobilization was skimpy. Many people in New York did not even know it was being planned and anti-war groups in other parts of the country preferred to do other things than organize and pay for busses. Most anti-war activists I spoke to who didn't come seemed to think that mass protests have served their purpose and it's time for more grass roots organizing.
While protestors were marching down Broadway, the 2400th US soldier was killed in Iraq. Polls indicate that popular support for the war and for the Bush Presidency is at an all-time low. A Pew poll done in March found that half of the public believes that the US should bring its troops home from Iraq as soon as possible. A story in The New York Times on March 27 said 'Interviews with voters, elected officials and candidates around the country suggest a deepening and hardening opposition to the war' which may well translate into voting out incumbents.
Now that labor, always a big player in the Democratic Party, is mobilizing against the war, even Democratic incumbents may not be immune. At least one anti-war activist is counting on it. Jonathan Tasini, former President of the National Writers Union, is running against New York's Democratic Senator in the primary. His platform is Hillary Clinton's failure to support withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.
*****
An inside look at the immigrant rights movement
May 03, 2006
'd'
An interesting article about the debate between 'street heat'and and those who believe in the effectiveness of 'constructive engagement with the powers that be within the burgeoning immigrant rights movement. Many of the same organizational contradictions - major NGOs, professional advocacy groups dependent on grant funding, politicians on the hustle and labor groups with contractual constraints on their ability to use strikes and other forms economic direct action and those grassroots groups who actually who set the Mayday national mobilization into motion. ( ironically the only major antiwar coalition with any reach in this process - largely because of their connect the dots orientation and alliances with progressive immigrant groups like the Mexico Solidarity Network and the March 25th Coalition on the West Coast was ANSWER --- UFPJ's national role was nowhere to be seen )
Support Builds for Immigration Protests, Boycott
Author
-- Kari Lydersen, The New Standard
While the corporate-sponsored media report alleged splits in the immigrant-rights movement and dwindling support for a boycott and general strike, TNS found that solidarity and commitment are growing.
Chicago; Apr. 28 - In the 2004 independent film A Day Without a Mexican, Californians woke up and all the Mexicans had disappeared. Lawns went untended, hotel rooms sat uncleaned, and countless other jobs performed by low-paid immigrants were left undone.
Immigrant-rights groups have frequently mentioned this film and the larger concept behind it during the past six weeks of massive pro-immigrant marches. In Chicago, where the first of the large demonstrations took place, a central theme has been waking the American public up to the economic importance of immigrants. Organizers say they want to show how much immigrants, including close to 12 million undocumented ones, contribute with their labor and with their buying power.
At the March 10 Chicago demonstration, during which more than 100,000 immigrants and their supporters hit the streets, a group handed out flyers for a hastily organized boycott of Miller beer. Demonstrators targeted Miller Brewing Co. because the company's PAC had donated $2,000 to Wisconsin Republican Congressman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., sponsor of the harshly anti-immigrant bill that passed the House of Representatives last year.
Merchants on 26th Street, Chicago's main Mexican commercial drag in the Little Village neighborhood, said that by evening customers were refusing to buy Miller. The message reached beer distributors quickly, and by the following week officials from the company's Milwaukee headquarters had met with coalition organizers and put out a statement opposing the House's legislation.
'A lot of immigrants are not eligible to vote, but we have the purchasing power,' said Salvador Cervantes, a member of the Chicago organizing coalition.
The idea amplified on April 10, when immigrant marchers in scores of cities and towns across the country pledged to refrain from shopping, working or going to school, wearing white T-shirts to symbolize their unity in creating a 'day without immigrants.'
A boycott on May Day has likewise been called in many cities across the country as part of pro-immigrant demonstrations. Called a paro in Spanish, the term is generally understood to mean both refusing to buy and refusing to work or go to school.
But the plan for a paro is not universally endorsed by all immigrant-rights groups. In Chicago, the organizing coalition known as the Movimiento 10 de Marzo, or the March 10 Movement, decided not to call for a boycott or general strike in the city, largely because of the involvement of labor unions that said they could not legally endorse such an action because their contracts prohibit them.
The question of whether to participate in nationwide calls for a May 1 boycott was hashed out at a contentious April 22 meeting, where the local coalition decided to support calls for boycotts in other cities, but refrain from a boycott in Chicago.
'We consider it a matter of wording,' said Jorge Mujica, Illinois secretary general for the Democratic Revolution Party (PRD), a Mexican political party and one of the central coalition organizers. 'If people are marching all day, they're not working, buying things or going to school. But since we have the unions, we can't call a boycott or a strike. We'd rather have labor on our side than call for a boycott. As for the national and international boycott, we think it's beautiful.'
But some organizers described this as caving in to unions and politicians that were pushing for a more moderate stance.
'I wish the unions had stayed out of it and let people celebrate May Day the way they wanted,' said Rafael Cervantes, an activist from Monterrey, Mexico who has lived in Chicago for decades. 'The boycott was a symbol for people, an icon, a way to say we matter, we are an important cog in this machine, we produce and we consume. It's ironic that the unions are saying they could not support it because it would be illegal, but the whole reason we're marching is that people are here 'illegally.''
Tom Hansen, founder and director of the Mexico Solidarity Network, a grassroots organization working for social change on both sides of the US-Mexico border, said the boycott is only one example of the larger ideological battle that is going on in the immigrant-rights movement. 'The reformists want to 'manage' the movement with a lot of US flags and a discourse about family values, et cetera,' Hansen told The NewStandard. 'The more progressive elements want to move the discussion to one about exploitation, labor rights and the meaning of citizenship.'
On April 24 union leaders held a press conference supporting the march and framing it as not only about immigration but about rights for all workers. They said a boycott was beside the point for the labor issues they wanted to highlight.
'We're not even putting it into the equation,' said Moises Zavala, a Chicago organizer for the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW). 'This is the day to recognize our labor history and bring it full circle. In Chicago we're not endorsing a boycott; we're out to march to show our numbers and recognize the importance of May Day.'
Teamsters organizers said that rather than discussing a strike or boycott, they were trying to get employers on workers' side; helping employees petition their employers for time off or paid holidays to attend the demonstrations.
In Los Angeles, where other mass protests are planned, some groups will be carrying out work stoppages and boycotts and attending a daytime downtown march. Others who plan to go to work and school will attend a separate demonstration in the late afternoon.
Thousands of truck drivers working out of the Port of Los Angeles and cab drivers who serve Los Angeles International Airport are expected to strike for the day or possibly the week.
'If truckers aren't trucking, the port isn't working,' said Los Angeles attorney and organizer Jim DeMaegt. 'If cab drivers don't drive, LAX will be shut down. Nobody knows precisely what will happen, but there is a lot of support.'
DeMaegt thinks a massive strike would force policy change faster than some other types of actions. 'We say a day without shopping is good; going to speeches, going marches is good,' he told TNS. 'But stopping work - a day without workers will close the country. A day without goods going in and out of the ports and airports of the US, and we'll have a policy change within a week.'
The truckers and cab drivers are organized but are not members of official labor unions, giving them the freedom to strike without worrying about legal issues binding unions.
The truckers and cab drivers are protesting against rising fuel prices and low pay, along with calling for immigration reform.
DeMaegt said local Teamsters officials are not supporting a work stoppage but support the overall mobilization.
Aquilina Soriano-Versoza, executive director of the Pilipino Workers' Center, noted that many of their members are home-healthcare workers, so they don't want to endanger their clients by skipping work; but they will support the mobilization nonetheless.
'They can't leave their patients, but they're in solidarity,' Soriano-Versoza said. 'There are a whole range of ways people can participate.'
She noted that many employers, particularly in the Koreatown garment industry, have given their workers the day off thanks to organizing by community groups and employees.
Alexis Lanza, an activist with the Chicago group La Voz de los de Abajo (The Voice of Those Below) and an immigrant from Honduras, said he supported the call for a one-day boycott. 'I think it would have been good if the US united on that,' he said. 'But there are lots of interests, unions and different groups, and it's not easy to balance those things.'
Lanza would prefer long-term boycotts of products from companies that donate to anti-immigrant politicians or promote policies that hurt Latin Americans through international trade or employment policies. The Chicago committee discussed proposals for a long-term boycott of Coca-Cola, with its notorious human-rights record, and a local Mexican cheese company that buys from Rep. Sensenbrenner's state, Wisconsin. But those proposals were not adopted.
'Calling a boycott for just one day strategically doesn't have that big an impact; it's symbolic,' said Lanza. 'The next day you'll be buying the same products again.'
Lanza thinks even without an official boycott, the demonstrations will make immigrants' economic power clear. 'If you're calling on people to close their businesses during the march, that's like a boycott, except you're not calling it that,' Lanza said.
Some groups in other cities have not endorsed the boycott out of fear there will be a backlash against immigrants or that workers will lose their jobs for skipping work. But in Chicago, where many workers fired for participating in the March 10 demonstrations were reinstated after immigrant organizers threatened to protest workplaces, advocates say they are not that worried.
'I really feel this time around nobody is going to get fired,' said Mujica. 'We have prepared this so well with the letters for employees to give to their employers.' He noted the group is distributing letters in several languages for workers to download and use to explain their cause while formally requesting time off.
In Arizona, the coalition that organized a 100,000-strong protest on April 10 in Phoenix waffled about supporting a boycott. Last week, the Somos America (We are America) coalition announced it was supporting demonstrations and other forms of protest, but not endorsing the boycott due to fear of a backlash and concern for immigrants' job security.
But, according to the group's chairman, Roberto Reveles, who spoke to the Arizona Republic, the recent arrests of 1,187 undocumented immigrants in federal raids on pallet maker IFCO Systems locations in 26 states including Arizona, spurred the group to change its mind.
Reveles told the Republic that his group wanted 'to make a statement against the latest raids,' which came 'at a time when they should be working toward immigration reform rather than instilling additional fear in the lives of undocumented workers and their families.'
The success of the boycott, according to Hansen of the Mexico Solidarity Network, will depend 'on how many people participate, what the impacts are and, most importantly, the kind of political consciousness that accompanies the tactic.'
'The idea is to change hearts and minds,' he said, 'and to give immigrants a sense of their power. This is particularly important for a group that has been repressed and exploited for so long, on both sides of the border. A change in the collective appreciation of what is possible is the real goal of the boycott.'
-newstandardnews.net/
*****
Answering Anton...
May 04, 2006
Carl Davidson
The numbers in NYC are a non-issue, folks. Somewhere between 100,000 and 300,000, who knows? In any case, it was large and effective, and more than the 'direct action' crowd has mobilized, unless there's something I'm not aware of.
But to get to 'Anton's' questions:
'How sucessful has his own local UFPJ group 'Chicagoans Against War and Injustice' been in actually helping to elect antiwar candidates in the Illinois Democratic primaries, or prevent Rahm Emmanuel from steamrolling at least one candidate in Illinois by enlisting both organized labor leaders and Democratic politicians in thrall to the Daley political machine to support an avowdly prowar candidate in the Illinois 6th Congressional District -- including several ostensible antiwar congresspeople Davidson has worked with in the past.?'
Well, let's see. We helped launch a new project, 'The Antiwar Majority,' that had a hundred or so folks camped out at Emanuels and Hasterts offices eight hours a day for a week straight each, which got big play in local media. Interesting, though, that hardly any of our critics lent a hand, even as we piled 100 empty boots and taped antiwar manifestos on Emanuel's door.
Then we consolidated a lot of earlier work by launching a statewide federation of about 80 groups -- the Illinois Peace and Justice Coalition, check it out at www.ilcpj.org So far, working together with the Greens, its got the war on the ballot in several major cities this fall, including Springfield, the capital. We've also encourgaged a dozen or so state legislators to sign on to a call to impeach Bush for the war.
As for the 6th district, our ally there, DAWN, whom CAWI did the initial training in electoral work for, worked rather hard getting 40 percent of the vote for the antiwar candidate. Even if we lost to Emanuel's megabucks, we put up a decent fight and DAWN is far stronger for it.
I'll concede that the 'Out Now' bloc in Congress is small. But at least we work with them, and try to help them grow in strength. Plus we turn out for the street heat that our critics do too.
So we have our pluses and minus, but more pluses, I think, and we keep on keepin' on.
Now to your next point:
'As an advocate of this type of strategy Davidson would be more convincing if he could actually deliver some evidence that it was working.'
I just did, above. The measure of success, from a radical perspective, is expanding and building organization, which we have done, at least as well if not better than our critics. The time for electing OUR OWN candidates comes after building the base organization, not before. In between, we only have officials who are allies, for better or worse.
Next point:
'Activists who embrace direct action - including folks like Sheehan, Code Pink and others have probably had more immediate impact in shifting public discourse on the Iraq war than MoveOn.org, NOW, the Rainbow Coalition - and yes, US Labor against the War put together.'
Now we love Sheehan and Code Pink. Our Lincoln Park folks organized a huge meeting here for Medea, and our AWM project just organized a large turnout for Sheehan here as well, and Code Pink regularly has reps at our meetings, and we promote all their stuff. They've played a wonderful role, but I doubt that even they would make the claim you have here, and they would probably wonder why you were trying to pit them against their allies. The Code Pink women here are great, but a good bunch of them worked in our voter registration project, and one had me speak to her local Goose Island Democratic Club on the war.
Nice try here, 'Anton,' but no cigar.
Next:
'Public opinon has turned - now the question is how to translate this into real political muscle that can raise the costs of continuing the war to unacceptable levels for our rulers. Retreating into an ABB strategy when it comes to the Dems ain't gonna cut it'
Indeed it has, 'Anton', and it means many more moderate-minded folks are on the cusp of taking action, both direct action and electoral action.
But we're way past ABB. It's now work to elect the best antiwar candidates at any level and work to defeat the most pro-war candidates at any level. It's now get the war on the ballot anywhere we can, and take the war and impeachment to the state legislatures. All while keeping up the street heat. It's the 'long march through the institutions,' 'Anton.'
Now we all worked together and got 10,000 down Michigan Ave in March, thanks in good measure to the leadership that came from the Puerto Rican community. But want else can you put on your scorecard?
Now May Day has upped the ante for us all, 'Anton.' And I'm not stressing 'the broad front' so much as building 'the hard core' these days. You want to fight the liberals, but you have little, organization-wise, to fight them WITH. It's time for serious revolutionary-minded people to set aside posturing and make serious proposals for organization 'of a new type,' and I don't mean the PDA, even if they are a decent ally. It's a sign of how pitifully weak we are that you can't even use the 'P' word without causing too many militants to carry on like they were having puppies.
So the ball's back in your court. Tell us your plan.
*****
Your Politics Are Boring As Fuck
May 04, 2006
Luther Blisset
Carl, Carl, Carl. Your apologetics for Leslie Cagan and march-and-rally-as-usual has gone beyond annoying. You are boring us and you are making a foll out of yourself.
Carl writes:
'While it may seem odd in this venue, most, if not all, of us UFPJers actually LIKE Leslie Cagan. She's self-sacrificing, politically savvy, dedicated and very good at what she does. I'm sure she's made mistakes, but we want her to keep on keepin' on.'
I'm sure that Leslie Cagan is a talented activist, but what about the hundreds of other talented activists in UFPJ? Why is Leslie Cagan always the public face of UFPJ? Isn't this use of one face to represent an organization just more of the same old discredited leftism? After American social change movements have made so much progress in recent decades to flatten hierarchies and democratize, why are people IN an organization like UFPJ letting Cagan be THE LEADER?
Come on UFPJ, let's see a fresh face or two for a change.
'But when all is said and done, it was hardly just her and a few minions who pulled off last weekend. There are over 1000 UFPJ affiliates, with thousands of activist organziers, spread across the country. Not to mention the labor and other allies. They deserve the the main credit for April 29. And when you attack UFPJ and its leadership, this is where you're really aiming your blows.'
When people are attacking UFPJ and its leadership, they are criticizing UFPJ and its leadership, not a few hundred organizations which have some kind of formal relationship as supporters of UFPJ. One thing you learn about vanguardist leftist orgs like UFPJ and ANSWER is that they put great emphasis on endorsements and attendance estimates at their protests. The former is cultivated in order to give these organizations 'credibility' as coalitions. The latter is important to give the (often false) impression that these groups have widespread support. Those of us who are movement veterans who know a few things about tactics can see right through this nonsense.
People need to understand this fundamental criticism of the large mobilizations organized by UFPJ and ANSWER: they are not about ending the war, but they are about building recognition and support for the parent organizations. If these mass protests were REALLY part of a strategy to end the war, we would see these coalitions engaging in a variety of tactics in the streets. Can anybody recount a single instance of UFPJ or ANSWER organizing civil disobedience?
Why does UFPJ and ANSWER always organize marches and rallies (permitted most of the time)? In order to create a safe event for the event organizers where their leaders can talk to the protesters and the event can be used to claim that these coalitions have support.
'The Mayday protest in the 1970s is being over-romanticized here. The moratoriums, for all their liberalism, were more effective, along with VVAW's actions and our draft resistance programs.'
The funny thing is that the May Day mobilization of the early 1970s is more remembered and fondly recalled by the older generation of activists than any of the other mobilizations. I've talked to those older activists and they are always telling stories about the May Day mobe. My favorite story involves the blockade of the bridges over the Potomoc River.
'In any case, you have to develop militant direct action in tune with today's conditions, including what the 'militant minority' today is willing to do. Then it has to be ORGANIZED, not just 'called for' or used as a ploy to jack up more moderate groups, while you have nothing behind it except hot rhetoric.'
Uh, Carl, people are organizing this direct action all around you. It's an inconvenient fact for you, so perhaps you ignore this activity consciously?
'But why ignore the elections? You can if you want, I suppose. Maybe you're just not good at registering people and getting out the vote.'
Are you kidding us? You want people reading this board wasting their time registering people to vote for a system that has been rejected by a majority of working people?
'But the rest of us are going to help the best antiwar candidates win and help defeat the worst prowar candidates. We don't really care what party they're in; we care want their individual stand is, and how they're willing to vote.'
Does this mean that UFPJ is going to hold of on any new protests until after the elections, like they did in 2004 in order to please the Democrats?
'As for Seattle, Regis DeBray long ago elaborated on a point made by Che. The revolution not only revolutionizes the revolutionaries; it also revolutionizes the counter-revolution. All the cops and homeland security types have studied the Seattle-type tactics on film over and over, probably more than any of you have. Doing a rerun won't be easy, if you can do it at all.'
Seattle inspired movements. People around the world know about Seattle. People don't remember any of these mass anti-war marches, including people who participated in them!
'The numbers are a non-issue, folks. Somewhere between 100,000 and 300,000, who knows? In any case, it was large and effective, and more than the 'direct action' crowd has mobilized, unless there's something I'm not aware of.'
That's right, fuck the facts. Why don't you just claim that UFPJ organized 3 million people? Everybody knows that ANSWER routinely inflates protest estimates, so why can't UFPJ play the same game?
Oh yeah, it does hurt our credibility at some point.
*****
A little more truth in advertising
May 04, 2006
chi town lowdown
As usual Carl, you conflate liberal public relations stunts with direct action.
Case in point. The 'blockade' of Rahm Emanuel's office. Initially tendered to the local antiwar movement as a effort to 'up the ante and hold pro-war Democratic hacks like Emanuel accountable - it turned out to be little more than a AFSC public relations stunt and a faint shadow of the Congressional office occupations, CD's, and encampments conducted by other antiwar activists around the country. Scheduled from the beginning to end immediately after the Illinois Democratic primary. Nothing more than a symbolic sidewalk presence outside a locked door - and a sparsely attended rally in a local park. Rahm's operatives unfortunately were not in the office during this interlude - but in the field working to knock nominal antiwar candidate Christine Cegelis out of the primary in the 6th District. Nice photo ops, but hardly inspiring to the direct action advocates you disparage. No wonder the kids took a pass.
And despite your optimistic spin on CAWI's successes and contributions - the number of Democratic Congressional candidates who support an Out Now position in the general election has not increased. As for those sitting Congresspeople you've actively lobbied, who has shifted to a stronger antiwar position in the last year? Looking beyond the hype, this strategy has been less than a stellar success to date. Two notable exceptions here -- a local Chicago city council member Ricardo Munoz likely to make a congressional bid in the next several years has an unassailable Out Now position from the getgo, - making him popular both with CAWI and antiwar forces to left of CAWI in Chicago, and recently Illinois Congressman Luiz Gutierrez who spoke at a March 18 antiwar rally and endorsed an Out Now position - largely at the behest of his own constituents and allies in the Puerto Rican independence movement )
It's undoubtedly true that various city council resolutions and non binding ballot referendums conducted across the country have some shorterm antiwar publicity value - although and few if any have had any type of enforcement provisions attached that would make a material difference in impeding the war effort. The real objective value seems to be to collect email addresses and enhance networking. MoveOn.org has excelled in this type of 'sow the petitions'-' reap the contact lists effort. The question is what - once this has been accomplished - will the organizers do? If past practice is any indication, it'll be back to the polls again to vote for the lesser of two evils. A pathway for building the 'counter-hegemonic' plan and program? Hardly. Reminds me of that legendary quote from Malcolm X 'You can put a kitten in the oven - but it doesn't make it a biscuit'.
Finally, CAWI certainly can and should take credit for the inception of the Illinois Coalition for Peace and Justice, a loose network of suburban and rural antiwar groups with considerable potential. An important achievement. But as I recall, that body chose a model of decentralized participatory decision making actually rejecting the conventional coalition model you advocated - and embraced diversity of views and tactics - including direct action.
*****
Truth in advertising, indeed...
May 04, 2006
Carl Davidson
Well, 'Chi Town Low Down,' I suggest you bring your trashy summation of the AWM emcampments as an 'AFSC publicity stunt' to the next AFSC meeting here in town, or better yet, to the next meeting of the 20 or so groups -- including Christian Peacemakers, Kathy Kelly and Voices in the Wilderness, Vets for Peace, Military Falilies, etc. -- that make up AWM, and see what they think of your 'spin.'
Better yet, if you don't like how we handled things at Raum's and Hastert's offices, and how we related to ordinary folks in their neighborhoods, get your shit-talking 'direct action' crews out there and show us how its supposed to be done.
Somehow I don't think you'll do either, which makes my point about people who simply make 'assertions' and people who make 'arguments' with follow-through. Besides Code Pink disrupting a speech by Hillary, which we also promoted, your main action to date that I know of was a massive, legal, permitted protest we all worked on.
And CAWI is a long-time supporter of Alderman Ricky Munoz. He comes to our meetings, along with Alderman Joe Moore, and we worked with him twice to get antiwar resolutions through the city council -- a battle that your folks helped by pooh-poohing it from the sidelines beforehand, and now give a little grudging recognition to.
And I'm not the one who came up with the numbers on April 29. I'll let New Yorkers sort it out. I said it was huge and effective, and to say it wasn't an antiwar protest, well, take it up with all those who came out and protested the war that day. That 'spin' is just silly.
You don't like 'permitted' marches and want more civil disobedience?
Fine, get your crews together and organize a massive, unpermitted, illegal, and disobedient action, and show us the way. No one is stopping you, and you may even get a little encouraging and entrapping assist from some 'masked up' undercover types along the way.
Just be clear in your call (closed if you want) that that's what you're doing, and see who shows up.
But don't try to pimp off where the hundreds of thousands attending a protest want and expect an event that's peaceful and legal. Back in the 1960s, we handled it by having the more militant stuff take place after the main event was over, or on the next day, rather than carrying on in a way that would bring the cops down on moms with baby carriages, as police provocateurs often tried to do.
Now when you get busted for all this 'unpermitted' stuff, who are you going to come to for bail and lawyers and legal fees? Somehow I think you'll find a new appreciation for UFPJ types as allies than your average middle class 20-something Dumpster Divers.
UFPJ has nothing against civil disobedience, but not as the main thrust of its work. And I'm sure Leslie can compare her arrest record with any of you.
Finally, as I understand it, Indymedia is an open forum for all progressive trends. All you folks who hate UFPJ and think a majority of the working class hates elections and are nascent anarcho-syndicalists, fine, keep it up, but don't expect not to be challenged. I think it only shows you haven't a clue about the difference between political analysis and subjective posturing and shit-talking. But those of us who think otherwise are going to make use of this forum too, so get used to it. You're far from being the only game in town.
Time to get serious, folks. Ideas have consequences, and I'm sure we'll be calling each other out on them in the days ahead.
*****
Yes
May 04, 2006
Moderator
'Finally, as I understand it, Indymedia is an open forum for all progressive trends.'
Yes, this is true. It would be nice to see a little more journalism / media-making and a little less trash-talking however-- from all sides of this interminable debate.
Its easy to sit in front of a screen and talk smack. Its a little harder to grab a digital camera or a notebook and and talk to actual human beings about what they think about all these issues. But its still not all that hard.
(c) Independent Media Center. All content is free for reprint and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere, for non-commercial use, unless otherwise noted by author. IMC not for content (expand this). more...
*****
Down to it.
May 05, 2006
chi-town lowdown
Davidson writes '. Besides Code Pink disrupting a speech by Hillary, which we also promoted, your main action to date that I know of was a massive, legal, permitted protest we all worked on.'
Well, Carl, you need to get out more. CAWI to date has is involved in only a fraction of the antiwar organizing going on in metro Chicago.
The question is not whether to support permitted or unpermitted marches. Or to exclusively focus on direct action. Few would disagree that mass legal marches can have utility in movement building and broading support. So can direct action. ( witness the school walkouts, wildcat strikes, consumer boycotts organized around immigrant rights that helped propel momentum for the massive turnouts on Mayday ) The question is support around what?
The March 18 mass antiwar protest this year that Davidson refers to above occurred along Chicago's premier boulevard, Michigan Ave - and was the cumulation of a three year civil liberties battle waged to overturn that city's ban on public protest in high visability areas - and repeated efforts to reassert that right. This year, we won. Yet what also distinguished this year's march was the requirement the coalition organizing the action democratically established to have only speakers that were prepared to publically support an unconditional 'Out Now' position - a point of unity in that coalition. Conditions that UFPJ would never imagine imposing any on speaker lineup. And lo and behold, the one Congressman who did speak - Cong.Luis Gutierrez - did just that - for the first time at an mass antiwar protest in Chicago.
*****
Fight 'em everywhere, in the streets AND the voting booth
May 05, 2006
Carl Davidson
'Out Now' is fine with me, 'Chi Town', If you remember the March 18 coalition meeting, I gave one of the speeches for it.
Of course we're only a fraction of the movement and its activities, and never claimed to be the main show in town. We're a core group of 50-100, with a wider list of 1500, and about 20 close allied groups -- not even a third of the active and organized antiwar movement in our town.
But we've been there at all the critical events, working in a united front mode. But we also launched a number of innovative projects of our own, and with others, that those to our left have opposed or just thought a waste of time, such as those you saw fit to trash here. So be it, there's lots of room for everyone to try to do their stuff. If you've got some new and decisive ways to make some breakthroughs that your core group has come up with, show us the way.
Yes, we're the main UFPJ affiliate in town, and we generally like them, even if they're a tad too 'left' for us at times. I know that's a shocker on this list, but the anarchists and Trotskyists in UFPJ managed to bloc our voter registration program at their national meeting, but we did it anyway, on our own, as did a lot of other groups.
Our approach to this next election is rather straightforward and nonpartisan. If you break with Bush and oppose the war, either around 'Out Now' or the AFL-CIO's immediately commencing 'rapid' withdraw, you'll get some help from us. If you defend Bush and the war, we'll help defeat you if we can or ignore you if we can't. Your party doesn't matter, your stand on the war matters. Naturally, we can't do everything, so we'll pick the best and the worst where we have some resources. We'll also try to get out the vote everywhere we managed to get the war itself on the ballot.
But elections are hardly the cat's meow. We like mass and direct action, too, The planned long march from Springfield to Chicago that the religious folks are spearheading sounds pretty cool, and we'll do what we can to help that succeed, too.
But I'm really trying to get something going on 'the hard core' in this discussion, but not takers so far, it seems.
*****
Don't know you Carl
May 05, 2006
Citizen X
However, your postings seem rather pretentious and longwinded. And though I can't put my finger on it, I tend to distrust you.
Leslie Cagan is another matter. I have had dealings with her, the COC and Ms Mitchell. They have had not been pleasant ones. Political differences aside she can't be trusted. I will not go into specifics here, but readers would be well advised to go carefully into any activity in which she is involved.
Peace
*****
Reactive Politics As Usual
May 06, 2006
The More Things Stay the Same
'Few would disagree that mass legal marches can have utility in movement building and broading support.'
Guess I am one of those few, but I disagree. Their utility is questionable. These demos are reactive, and reactive politics is by its nature short term. By this time it should be rather obvious that going 'from crisis to crisis' leads one into the trap of being wholely dependent upon the actions of the opponent; and that leads to nothing but a dead end.
As to building 'coalitions,' one can do that around more positive/proactive events, as well.
-- endit --
Read more!
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Debate: UFPJ, and the Mass Mobilizations, April 29 - May1
Thursday, April 06, 2006
Strategy, Hegemony & 'The Long March'
STRATEGY, HEGEMONY
& THE ‘LONG MARCH’:
GRAMSCI’S LESSONS
FOR THE ANTIWAR MOVEMENT
By Carl Davidson
As we enter the fourth year of the war on Iraq, our grassroots antiwar movement faces a critical political conjuncture, here and abroad. How we respond to it means a great deal, most importantly to the people of Iraq, but also to all Americans touched by this unjust war.
There are four main factors of this turning point.
-- First, the U.S. invasion of Iraq is floundering, stalemated, and drifting toward defeat – but in a horrible way unleashing all the fury of sectarian violence and slaughter, and, beyond Iraq, a ‘Clash of Civilizations’ throughout the region that serves no one but reactionary zealots on all sides.
-- Second, the American people, in their majority, have turned against the war. Likewise, although not by exactly the same numbers, the American soldiers fighting the war in Iraq have also, in their majority, seen the futility of their mission and want to return home by the end of 2006, if not sooner.
-- Third, the American political class is more deeply divided than ever. The antiwar factions are emerging in the entire range – left, center and right – and are gaining in strength. A significant section of the Pentagon has even turned on the war policy of the White House, even if its rules of discipline require it to find others to serve as its voice.
-- Fourth, the critical leadership factions of the American political class–the GOP alliances making up the Bush administration and the DLC caucus in the Democratic Party–are still determined, however, to continue the war. They simply have greater fear of the cost of defeat now than the prospect of even greater defeat in the future. They are like an addicted gambler, still hoping that by ‘staying the course’ in the game and doubling their bets, they can regain their losses, if not come home winners.
The problem for the rest of us is that their deluded thinking is the cause of untold suffering.
But how can an unjust war be ended?
Apart from what happens in Iraq and the stubbornness of the White House, it requires three things:
-- First the antiwar insurgency has to expand, with majority support, until the streets are ungovernable.
-- Second, the antiwar views among soldiers and their families have to intensify to the point that young people refuse to join and soldiers refuse to fight.
-- Third, the antiwar bloc in Congress, which will grow in response to the growth of the first two, has to become a majority that will vote to cut off funds for the war, impeach the president, or both.
Our problem, as a grassroots peace and justice movement, is to develop an appropriate strategy, tactics and plan for getting from here to there.
Militant Minority, Decisive Majority
It won’t be easy. It’s one thing to mobilize the militant minority of activists, even a million of them, for another vigil, rally or mass action. It’s quite another to activate and mobilize the antiwar majority of everyday folks who have yet to take part in their first active protest. It’s one thing to get a union local, or labor council, or even the AFL-CIO to pass a resolution against the war. It’s quite another to organize workers to ‘hot cargo’ war munitions, realistically threaten a mass strike or even break with pro-war Democrats. It’s one thing to organize a small ‘Out Now’ caucus in Congress or get your city council to oppose the war. It’s quite another to develop the independent, grassroots electoral organization and strength needed to defeat the pro-war leadership of both parties or to impeach a president.
The common thread in all of these examples is the varying degrees of political understanding and commitment. The militant minority is in one place, while the antiwar majority is in another. It’s important to keep both places in mind when developing strategy and tactics. It does little good, for instance, to complain that we’re tired of vigils and marching, that they don’t do any good, when most of those now critical of the war have not yet gone to a vigil or rally. There’s no iron wall separating the two places, but it’s critically important to accurately assess both, especially if the links and transitions between them are to grow in a progressive, empowering way.
In short, just because a set of tactics or beliefs has become obsolete for you and your friends, doesn’t mean those same tactics or beliefs are also obsolete for the bulk of the country’s antiwar majority. In fact, the opposite is usually true.
So how does the passive sentiment of the majority against the war grow into active opposition? One thing is certain: it usually doesn’t happen because the militant minority increases the intensity of its rhetoric, the frequency of its media outreach or the militancy of its tactics. All these things play a role, but the main way new people become radicalized is the same way many of us did. They learn through their experiences, mainly through their experiences in carrying out mass actions or confronting institutions of power. We have all felt, in this kind of practice, the surge of solidarity, the widening of possibilities, and the potential for empowerment and changing an unjust order.
Our task, then, in the first place, is to listen to the antiwar majority, to learn how they frame the issues and express their concerns and priorities. Then, in the second place, we work with them to find the forms of protest and struggle most suited to their conditions and concerns, and work with them to deploy this new activity. People won’t take to the streets because the militant minority declares profusely that going through legislative or electoral channels is ineffective – they take to the streets because they learn, first hand through their own experiences, that legislative and electoral channels alone are ineffective. This way we bring forward new layers of practice that will provide the lesson plans for new levels of consciousness and radicalization.
A Long March Through the Institutions
There’s a name for this process. It’s called ‘the long march through the institutions.’ The phrase is often attributed the Italian communist and anti-fascist leader, Antonio Gramsci. While entirely consistent with Gramsci’s work, the term was actually coined and popularized in the late1960s by Rudi Dutschke, a leader and theoretician of the German SDS and founder of the German Greens, who had studied Gramsci’s work.
Both Gramsci and Dutschke focused on the problem of working in a revolutionary or radical way when conditions were not insurrectionary or revolutionary, but when reformist or even reactionary conditions prevailed. Gramsci spent many years writing in Mussolini’s prisons, where harsh conditions took a toll on his health. He died under confinement in 1937. Dutschke was severely wounded by an would-be assassin’s bullet to his brain. He continued working for several years, but died young in 1979 from the damage of the wound.
Both Gramsci and Dutschke argued that radical social change in highly developed societies would be the result of long, patient organizing inside and outside of key institutions, and not simply or primarily a quick, frontal assault through mass actions. This is Dutschke’s long march through the institutions, what Gramsci called the ‘war of position,’ a concept we’ll come to later.
In many ways, ‘the long march’ is already reflected in how our current antiwar movement has grown over the past four years. It started with small but insurgent actions centered in towns, cities, campuses and neighborhoods. It proclaimed opposition to impending war and captured a portion of public space, breaking a fear of public dissent in the post-9/11 period. Petitions were signed, email lists multiplied, and soon local churches and local city councils began passing resolutions against the onset of war. These efforts were linked into wider and larger actions and mass mobilizations, nationally and globally. Some took the issue to the trade unions; others to Congress where they formed a small antiwar bloc; still others to churches and community groups, often winning them over from the bottom up. In the 2004 elections, independently of the party organizations, many activists also trained election workers and registered massive numbers of new voters. More city councils again voted against the war, after it was well underway. Iraq vets and their families formed organizations.
At each step, what happens here is a portion of public space and the organizations of civil society and governing bodies are won over, ‘captured’ or simply express their solidarity with the antiwar opposition. In doing so, these same institutions, starting at the grassroots and working upwards, are then denied to the War Party and its defenders. Naturally, there are lots of forces in between, still in contested areas. But step-by-step, campaign by campaign, we expand the building of a counter-consensus, while the Bush regime’s consensus, such as it is, begins unraveling. This is the ‘long march’ and, to use the Gramscian language, it builds the counter hegemonic bloc to break up the political hegemony of our adversaries, and to accomplish our goals with a new, empowered, broad-based insurgent alliance.
War of Position, War of Maneuver
‘The long march,’ however, doesn’t proceed in a straight line or at a steady speed. Any mass insurgency is full of twists and turns, ebbs and flows. Sometimes changes are very rapid; other times they move at a snail’s pace. Gramsci dealt with this condition by advancing two concepts, ‘the war of position’ and ‘the war of maneuver.’ In doing so in the early 1920s, he was drawing on the powerful memories of ‘The Great War,’ or World War One, as we now call it. One of the first fully industrialized modern conflicts, it featured a long standoff between two sides, where they dug extensive networks of trenches and barriers, filled them with millions of troops, and kept them supplied through the growth of war industries in the rear. Building your strength this way was ‘the war of position.’ But when your troops climbed ‘over the top’ out of their trenches and made a frontal assault on the other side, this was ‘the war of maneuver.’
The concepts of ‘position’ and ‘maneuver’ could be either strategic or tactical. One could try to secure a series of entrenched strongholds, while still launching an overall strategic offensive, as in, say, the D-Day invasion of Normandy. Or, conversely, one could focus strategically on building a secure area, while still launching forays to eliminate or capture small groups of the other side, as both the Chinese and Vietnamese did in the early phases of ‘people’s war.’ Either way you look at it – in modern politics or modern warfare – capturing, holding, consolidating key positions and then exercising power depends on effectively waging the war of position.
Gramsci developed these ideas, first, by studying how the Italian fascists had gradually built their strength and come to power, and second, by trying to find ways successfully to fight them. Essentially, he took these military concepts and expanded their implications into the arenas of politics, culture and ideology. On one hand, he wanted to counter a one-sided ultra-leftism that stressed a head-on ‘class vs. class’ offensive. On the other, he opposed a capitulationist reformism that failed to develop the strength and vision of the working people and their grassroots organizations.
Gramsci also recognized the necessity of an ‘inside/outside’ approach to building a counter-hegemonic bloc. In addition to building new up independent, grassroots organizations outside traditional groups, a movement for radical change will only be successful if it also wages a long, careful war of position inside key economic, social, cultural and political institutions. A movement’s ultimate success will depend on its capacity to contend for power and hegemony, in an incremental, step-by-step fashion, inside key institutions while concurrently developing independent, grassroots organizations, or base communities.
Significance for Today
What are the implications of these ideas for us? First, from this strategic perspective, a number of traditional and often divisive debates—mass direct action vs. electoral or legislative activity, civil disobedience vs. legal protest, working within the two capitalist parties vs. working only for third parties or no parties, working only with one class or working with all classes—need not be seen as mutually exclusive options. In fact, their possible interconnections gain importance. Second, they give us a positive vision of how a mosaic of local constituencies and groups can grow into an instrument of popular political power.
Setting the growth of a counter-hegemonic alliance as a mile marker also serves to measure how far we have come and, more important, how far we still have to go. It compels us both to maintain our vision and to make utterly realistic assessments of conditions and our tasks.
For example, to address a question raised earlier, why has a majority of Americans expressed sentiment and opinion against the war, yet only a small minority has taken action against it? A critical reason is how the power of the hegemony of the current order is still reflected in their consciousness, keeping them isolated and divided. They may hate the war, but they believe they are powerless to do anything about it. Mass belief in powerlessness and the disconnectedness of individuals or small groups is required for the upper classes to maintain their hegemony. Some others may hate the war, but for reasons that are self-sabotaging. They may believe all Muslims are less than human, forever violent toward one another, and the whole bunch not worth a drop of blood of one more American soldier. Still others may hate the war, but fear ostracism for betrayal of the nation or religious faith, of being anti-patriotic, anti-Christian or anti-Jewish.
Each of these hegemonic elements in the thinking of the antiwar majority needs to be identified, exposed, neutralized and defeated. It requires a popular and democratic practice. From the perspective of individual people, it is important to provide them with opportunities for new experiences involving collective effort. In doing so, winning or losing this or that campaign is not nearly as important as gaining the experience of solidarity, of widening one’s experience beyond familiar comfort zones. To do so, one must frame campaigns or activities that require the new activist to stretch a bit, but not so much that remaining passive wins the day.
But even more important is winning over a critical range of the institutions of civil society. The power of the existing order is mediated, to a large degree, through these institutions. Gramsci wrote:
The massive structure of modern democracies... set themselves up as the trenches and permanent fortification of the front in the war of position: they render the element of movement, which before was the 'whole' war, only 'partial.’ (Prison Notebook 13, Essay 7)
If the War Party’s power is to be challenged effectively, it has to be undermined in civil society first, prior to any frontal assault. Since institutions are rarely won over all at once, they must also be challenged with new organizations created within their milieu, especially at the most basic levels.
A local Iraq Vets Against the War or Military Families Speak Out does wonders to undermine fear, isolation and jingoism in the military and the wider social base of the military-industrial complex among the people. Likewise for local churches: they provide social and moral authority, not only when they speak out themselves, but also when they build interfaith alliances, especially with Muslims. These are the experiences that challenge and undermine the ‘clash of civilizations’ notions reinforcing the prevailing hegemony.
Schools, workplace organizations, community groups, local political clubs, cultural and media venues – all are part of this contested terrain that the anti-war movement must win over if it is serious about moving from protest to power.
A good strategic orientation for this period, then, is the ‘war of position’ to build popular power. In culture, in the political arena, in economic life, we work to establish ourselves and accumulate strength, while disestablishing and weakening our adversaries. We start with building grassroots ‘base communities’ in insurgent constituencies, building organizations and coalitions outward and upward, in widening circles, into new constituencies that are not yet insurgent. At the same time, the anti-war movement needs to contend for power and influence inside key institutions, including the Democratic and Republican Parties.
The ‘war of maneuver,’ however, is required to make this process dynamic. In this context, this is comprised of the periodic ‘speaking truth to power’ mass mobilizations, direct actions and civil disobedience confrontations. These are both displays of the growing influence and creativity of the counter-hegemonic alliance, as well as a means for drawing in new forces.
One thing to keep in mind as the anti-war movement moves forward is something that Gramsci wrote cautioning that the war of position ‘… demands enormous sacrifices…’ and ‘… an unheard of concentration of hegemony… because, in politics once the ‘war of position’ is won, it is definitively decisive.’ (Prison Notebook 6, Essay 138)
Broader Alliances, Electoral Capacity
In the period ahead, then, we face two major tasks in the war of position: broadening our alliances for mass action and developing our capacity for electoral intervention. The two need not be opposed to each other, but are interconnected and enhance each other.
A case in point on the importance of new alliances is the recent upsurge in mass protests focused on the rights of immigrants, bringing nearly a million people into the streets in several cities. This is clearly an insurgent constituency with a great deal of potential for political power. Immigrant rights are also connected to the question of war and peace, since many of the new restrictions on immigrant rights are being tied to national security and ‘the war of terror.’ The same ‘America First’ jingoism is used to justify both, and many peace and justice groups have taken up the defense of democratic rights for Arab and Muslim immigrants from the beginning.
It would be a mistake, however, to see widening the alliance to other nationalities as automatic or taken for granted. Even though a considerable majority of this constituency is antiwar, it also has a sector that has yet to break with the war. Latinos are disproportionately represented, for instance, among military recruits and casualties in Iraq. Polish, Irish and Asian immigrant communities may also have different views of the war than Latin Americans.
Nor can these alliances be made simply from the top down. Of course it helps to adjust your slogans and speakers, and get endorsements from national organizations and leaders. But most important is building relationships and finding common ground, on the most local level possible, at the grassroots. This is where it counts most for accumulating strength and mobilizing forces.
From Protest to Power
A more difficult transition is getting local peace and justice groups to develop an electoral capacity. A critical component here is a nonpartisan and local, bottom-up orientation. Community based organizations develop their electoral capacity by registering new voters, developing lists of voters and where they stand on issues, getting their own donors and campaign chests, making assessments of officials and candidates, training their members as registrars, judges, poll watchers and other forms of electoral work. Nonpartisan means, in part, that this capacity belongs to the group itself, and not to the local branch or district of any political party. This way, on Election Day, the group has the ability to mobilize and deploy its own clout for whatever candidates or ballot propositions it chooses, if any.
This is not only important as an instrument of independent popular democracy. It also serves as a pole of attraction for more moderate forces within the two-party system, who would be more likely to break from the dominant political class if they had something to break toward and form an alliance with.
Another dimension of ‘nonpartisan’, moreover, is that none of those groups or individuals joining the alliance has to break, necessarily or immediately, with their current parties. Initially, they only have to break with the policies and programs we are challenging and contesting.
The nonpartisan alliance is a necessary starting point precisely because our country is currently saddled with a reactionary two-party electoral system, the worse in the industrialized world. The left and progressive movements have yet to create a mass struggle for electoral law reform, one that would establish instant runoff, fusion, preferential balloting and proportional representation. All these things are taken for granted in other capitalist countries of the West.
If you have these, you can make a multiparty system. If you don't, you're pretty much stuck with what we have -- a two-party system with a little safety valve that allows for marginalized minor parties as long as they remain minor and toothless. The third parties, under this setup, are thus usually part of the social control mechanism, too.
But the ball is in our court. It does little good to attack progressive elected officials simply for being within the two-party system without making an effective challenge to those conditions.
There's still another factor restricting progressive electoral options, although it is often unmentioned. Many progressive activists have been bought off, in a way, by 501C3 tax status. One of the first things said when starting a new group is often: 'Let's get a 501C3 and apply for a grant!' Fine, but what are the terms? Two things: your newly funded group has to agree not to support any candidate and not to support any particular ballot proposition. In other words, in effect, the IRS is indirectly funding an anti-electoral, anarcho-syndicalist approach to change among nonprofit, nongovernmental organizations.
Of course, there are ways around this by going through additional hurdles. But many don’t. They often say, 'Well it’s too involved, and we don't care that much about candidates and parties anyway.' But that's just the point. They've boxed you in, even if some like the box. You’re restricted to simple oppositionism.
Alternatively, if the approach outlined in this essay sounds like a plan for creating the building blocks of a new political formation—one that is popular, democratic and participatory—then you’ve got the right idea. This is what it means to move from protest to politics to power, from being an antiwar opposition to a counter-hegemonic force. Not only does it create the conditions for wider, systemic change, it is also arguably the most effective way to win a particular victory, such as ending the war and occupation in Iraq.
***
Carl Davidson is a co-author of ‘Stopping War, Seeking Justice: Essays in a Time of Empire’ (with Marilyn Katz) and ‘Cyberradicalism: A New Left for a Global Age’ (with Jerry Harris). Both are available at www.lulu.com/changemaker. He is also one of the founders of Chicagoans Against War and Injustice, as well as Peace & Justice Voters 2004.
Read more!
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Debating the 'Cartoon Wars'
Here's a condensed version of a week-long debate in mid February over the Danish anti-Islamic cartoons and the protests against them.
It started with a few comments on the Workers World Party position, then turned into a debate between myself and a few Trotskyists, with a few other comments added in. The main substantive comments were left in in their entirity, while a few side issues and gratuitous comments were left out.
The entire thread is at the www.nyc.indymedia.org site Five asterisks ***** separate one persons comments from the next and, save for myself, most people sign their posts with 'handles' rather than their real names.
Carl Davidson
*****
Starting Point
Workers World EDITORIAL
Denmark's racist cartoons
Published Feb 16, 2006
Text of Editorial
'Outrage continues throughout the world in response to the offensive, hate-mongering caricatures of the Muslim prophet Mohammad that were published first in the Danish publication Jyllands-Posten and later in newspapers around the world. Just between Feb. 9 and Feb. 14, protests were reported in Bangladesh, Canada, Kenya, Malaysia, Pakistan and Russia. A demonstration is scheduled for New York City on Feb. 17.
Throughout history, cartoons and illustrations have been used to demonize oppressed groups of people, from Jews in Nazi Germany to people of color-Native, Black, Latin@ and Asian-in the United States. Such depictions have simultaneously been a reflection of, and an attempt to justify, governmental policies of discrimination, exploitation and repression toward those people. And often the capitalist media joyfully assists.
In true form, reactionary government officials in imperialist countries have responded to the outcry surrounding the recent caricatures by whipping up even more animosity and hatred. Italy's Reform Minister Roberto Calderoli has produced t-shirts of the drawings; Reuters reports that leaders of his organization, the anti-immigrant Northern League party, 'say the cartoon violence shows the danger of allowing Muslim immigrants to settle in Italy.' In another article, Reuters paraphrased U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Europe Dan Fried, who said in Brussels on Feb. 14 'that the United States and Europe should respond to the row ... by intensifying efforts to nurture Middle East reform'-a euphemism for regime change.
Fried also told the press: 'Governments don't tell or shouldn't tell newspapers what to publish. In free societies newspapers work this out for themselves.' He seems to have so quickly forgotten the case of former New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who was spoon-fed fabrications to justify the war in Iraq by none other than Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political strategist.
Hand-in-hand with their governments, media outlets ... continue to unapologetically publish these images under the banner of 'free speech'-that is, freedom for the wealthy who control the capitalist media to put out whatever biased, racist, pro-imperialist propaganda suits their agenda...
The continuing protest over this injustice by Muslim followers and anti-racists is not just a response to the current images-it's a response to the collusion of imperialist governments with the media, time and time again, in seeking to legitimize oppression over resistance. What's clear is that more and more of the world isn't buying it.'
End Editorial
Add your comments
*****
In Solidarity
The issues here are imperialism and capitalism, not religion or 'free speech.'
Not 'free speech' for two reasons. One, because when one considers it, the only significant political speech in the USA is reserved for the few who control or own large media. Two, the First Amendment is a restriction on state powers over personal political expression and not on groups of concerned private citizens and residents going out and expressing outrage over some outrage.
The events in Europe are definitely a reaction to the chauvinist racist demogogery of the ruling elites there trying to stir up the waters, to cover their war criminal terrorist crimes, both present and future (planned).
Although, I will not be out for your demo for various reasons, don't let anyone discourage you from acting. Of course we must go beyond mere symbolic demos and take the war to the criminals themselves, where they live and sleep. We must also set the stage for the replacement of both them and their racist criminal political and economic order. Earth is no longer large enough for the both of us. They must go.
Concerning your demo, way to go! Don't let anyone tell you different.
*****
What Would You Have the Danes Do?
Carl Davidson
So what would you have the Danish and other Western governments do, WWP? Demand that they shut down the offending newspapers? Create a state-run censorship board for prior review of materials for hate speech? Put the editors on trial for publishing unpopular or hateful ideas and jail them if found guilty?
Be careful what you wish for. There's a slippery slope here that could trip up many newspaper publishers, including your own.
The First amendment, after all, wasn't insisted upon by early American radicals to protect popular or acceptable speech, which doesn't need much protecting. It's unpopular and unacceptable speech that needs protecting, and more often than not, that benefits the left more than the right.
*****
oh yeah...
the burningman
1) Denmark has a state Lutheran church, paid for by everyone whether they believe it or now. They include Christian indoctrination in their public schools and have a cross on their national flag. Denmark is not fully secular.
2) They are an imperialist country that regularly denigrates the people they profit from. These cartoons do not mock religion as such, just the religion of those 'inferior' to the 'enlightened' Danes.
3) Denmark is currently helping with the colonization of two predominantly Muslim countries and has the most vicious anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim (as opposed to anti-religion) governments in Europe.
4) I'm sure Carl will be running the complete Amos and Andy, along with Howard Stern highlights. Free speech, dude.
5) The right-wing assholes who published those cartoons do not represent Denmark. They aren't the Danes anymore than George Bush is us.
I'm not surprised Carl returns to his usual mishmash of imperial chauvinism, half-hearted leftism and total myopia about what's actually being discussed. Not at all really. He equates the Palestinian right of return with the physical extermination of Jewish people. (Really.)
*****
Why No Answer?
Carl Davidson
It's interesting, Burningman, that despite all the rhetoric, neither you nor anyone else answered my question -- what exactly would you have the Danish government do to the publishers of the cartoons? Put them on trial and jail them? Shut down their newspapers? Would you want similiar legal and/or administrative measures passed here?
The Danes as an imperialist power? I suppose so. They used to own the Virgin Islands, the Faroes and still take a hand in running Greenland, make a small contribution to NATO and are part of the ever-dwindling 'coalition of the willing' in Iraq.
But the Danish MLs, at a Maoist Red Youth summer camp I attended back in the 1970s, used to have a chant about prowess of their army. It went something like, 'What do our soldiers do? Keep the enemy soldiers laughing until real soldiers arrive!' I'm told it was very funny in Danish.
I'm as steadfast and determined an organizer against the Bush regime and the war in Iraq as anyone, BM, even if we disagree about what's possible or not in Israel/Palestine. No handwringing liberal in this corner.
Nor am I anti-religious. I don't care for the three religions of The Book, since I think the Story of Abraham and God's ordering him to kill his son, a point of faith that the three all hold in common, is the root of both fanaticism and blind submission to authority in our overlapping cultures.
But I am a student of Zen and The Way, and find much to admire in liberation theology and the contribution people like the Quakers made to the struggle against slavery. As Marx so poetically put it, religious belief was the sigh of the oppressed creature and the heart of a heartless world, as well as opium for the masses.
But mostly I also understand the value of consistent democracy and civil liberty, even if it means tilting in the direction of the liberatarians. We surrender these propositions to the right at great peril to ourselves, believe me.
*****
Since you asked...
Hoipolloi Cassidy
'What exactly would you have the Danish government do to the publishers of the cartoons?'
The liberal-democratic (Lockean) theory of government holds that the Danish government should mediate among the competing interests of its constituents - and that the Jyllands-Posten, the newspaper that published the cartoons, has represented certain such interests, which it has. In fact, the Jyllands-Posten has represented the interests of Danish fascism, on and off, for almost a century. Because the swing votes in the Danish Parlement are held by the xenophobic far right, the J-P has been enboldened to exert tremendous pressure on the Danish Government to take repressive measures against middle-eastern immigrants and Danes of middle-eastern descent, of which the 'cartoon' episode is only one instance. Other such forms of pressure have included unsubstantiated accusations of terrorist plotting by muslims residing in Denmark.
Eventually, the representatives of Danish muslims, who were unable to stop the escalating provocations on their own, sought help among fellow Muslims, with the results that we all know, except that we seem less concerned with some results than with others. 'Cutting off the hands of the infidels?' Yadda, yadda, the real problem for the Danish government is the boycott of Danish goods throughout the Muslim World, and we're not talking Leggos, honey, we're talking of a huge dairy industry (mostly fake Feta, BTW) which had already projected losing 1,000 jobs within the first weeks of the boycott, and there's no end in sight. Kiss your cradle-to-grave social system good-bye, Bjorn. The irony here (or lack thereof), is that the Danes most likely to suffer from this are the fat farmers of Jutland, the ones who've been supporting the Far Right in Denmark anyhow.
Last I heard, the Danish Government was in negotiations with a couple of middle-eastern governments. Presumably the White Danes (as they style themselves) will offer to lay off the Other Danes, in exchange for which the Syrians and others will order everyone to buy Leggos. At this point, I don't think there's any chance of an agreement, because protests against the cartoons have become an outlet for a far wider, deeper resentment of Eurocentric high-handedness by muslims world-wide: you can order demonstrators into the street but you can't order them back home again that easily, especially not if they have reasons of their own.
Hope this answers your question.
*****
Some points
rose of the prophet
- None of the posters supporting this call have yet to answer what the Danish government should do with newspapers they consider fascist or racist.
- Not only fascist and racist newspapers have 'unapologetically' republished the cartoons. You can download the entire cartoon page on the fascist and racist Wikipedia.
- The boycott of Danish goods, happening primarily in the gulf states, does not mean that a similar boycott over the occupations of Iraq and Palestine or the potential invasion of Iran could work in the same way.
- Death threats towards the cartoonists, including today's promise of a one million dollar death bounty from a Pakistani cleric, continue to spiral out of control.
- In Iran the Danish pastry has been renamed 'Roses of the Prophet' proving that Islamists and Neocons love danish pastries and french fries so much that they will convert them to their respective belief systems to continue eating them.
See The Cartoons For Yourself
*****
What should Denmark do?
Leon Trotsky
The answer is so obvious that it illuminates the intellectual poverty of the fake-left chauvinists posing this question.
* Withdraw its troops from Iraq, stop aiding the US/UK 'war on terror', & pay reparations to its victims
* Grant full citizenship rights to all immigrants
* Eliminate Lutheranism as a state religion
Of course capitalist, imperialist Denmark will never do this, neither will any imperialist power. Only socialist revolution can solve humanity's burning crises.
*****
Think this over, folks...
Carl Davidson
The Daily Illini, the student paper at the University of Illinois, also printed the cartoons. The staff later made an apology, but is that enough? Should this paper be shut down and its editors put on trial for hate speech and jailed if convicted too? Where do you really want to go with this, folks?
*****
Revisionist Carl's Red Herrings
Leon Trotsky
Revisionist Carl Davidson, who substantially reflects the political orientation of the national-chauvinist clique that runs UFPJ, keeps throwing red herrings because he swallows the bourgeois propaganda that this is about 'free speech'. It's about imperialism, and the racist, chauvinist hate campaigns that are needed to sell imperialist wars to the public. The fact is that a minor college newspaper has joined in with it's big brother capitalist newspapers in a major campaign of racist propaganda against victims of imperialist war. And real socialists, unlike revisionists, say that muslims and their allies are right to demand that this hate propaganda campaign stop.
*****
What if?
What if?
I find Workers' World to be offensive. They should self censor themselves and close shop.
While the cartoons may be distasteful, it is still free speech. I know, I know, 'should we let fascist publish their hate fueled papers?' Well, frankly, yes. But we should meet them with stiff resistance. Censorship of any sort is unjust. Now, I know how you folks at Workers' World have all the answer and that anyone who disagrees with you should be censored. And in your perfect world, your little vanguard would have your Committee for Proper Revolutionary Rhetoric and Speech so none of those 'anti-revolutionary' ideas get out there. But guess what. You don't. What if a fascist party took control of the U.S. (a real fascist party, not the republicans) and shut down Workers' World, you guys would be up in arms about how that is unjust. Well, the world is filled with many ideas and, while some are just downright shitty, whose right is it to say what can be said and what can't.
Another thing that really bothers me is that so many people here are standing up for the religious 'establishment'. While people are free to believe how they wish, it is irresponsible not to look at the ills of ALL organized religions. Pat Robertson calls for Hugo Chavez's assasination and everyone throws a tiff. Muslim clerics are calling for the death of the artists and people are fine with that? Religion has been a cause for death, war and inequality for centuries. To ignore that, or condone it for one religion and not the other, is ridiculous. I guess what I'm saying is, get rid of organized religion all together. The world would better without it.
*****
More Artful Dodging...
Carl Davidson
Well, 'LeonT,' I would urge people to stop printing cartoons like this, too, if they asked my opinion. I would offer it even if they didn't ask.
I favor the deconstruction of stereotypes, especially chauvinist ones, as part of my spiritual practice of 'right speech,' 'deep listening,' and putting yourself in the other guy's shoes as a way of seeking liberation and spreading compassion.
You argue that:
'The answer is so obvious that it illuminates the intellectual poverty of the fake-left chauvinists posing this question.
* Withdraw its troops from Iraq, stop aiding the US/UK 'war on terror', & pay reparations to its victims
* Grant full citizenship rights to all immigrants
* Eliminate Lutheranism as a state religion
Of course capitalist, imperialist Denmark will never do this, neither will any imperialist power. Only socialist revolution can solve humanity's burning crises.'
But you dodge several points here. First, Denmark could do all these things and still be capitalist, your dogmas notwithstanding, and some publisher there could still publish nasty cartoons. Second, chauvinist cartoons could even be published under socialism, even a socialism that you would approve of, I suppose.
(But be careful here. Doing away with any 'state religion' as a demand may get you in trouble with some of your new allies, who may find it offensive.)
So call it a 'Red Herring' or whatever else you prefer, but you're still dodging or begging the question.
You're for 'demanding' that the state of Denmark 'stop' this, but you are apparantly too shamefaced about how YOU would handle matters like this to spell out exactly what you would have THEM do to the publishers, editors, cartoonists and their newspapers, not only in Denmark, but around the world by now.
And please, don't tell us only socialist revolution can cure nasty cartoons -- unless you plan on spreading a real wave of laughter across cyberspace.
But if you want to implement some real internationalism, I wouldn't worry so much about Danish imperialism, and instead urge getting a batch of American people who have yet to protest the U.S. war in Iraq to go to their first demo on March 18, when there will be a new wave of nationwide actions.
And finally, 'revisionist' doesn't bother me at all. These days it's a sign that you still know how to think, rather than parrot holy writ. Just stick 'neo-Bukharinite' in front of it to identify my particular flavor of revisionism.
*****
Revisionist Carl Davidson Doesn't Get It
Leon Trotsky
There he goes again, falling for and promoting the bourgeois propaganda line that this is about 'free speech' or 'censorship'. It's about imperialism.
* If Denmark, the USA, and the other European powes weren't carrying out genocidal wars of conquest and occupation against the world's oppressed people, many of whom are muslims, then these racist cartoons would not generate the massive protests.
* But if these countries weren't imperialist, the capitalist press wouldn't print the cartoons in the first press, because the function of the capitalist press is to justify the crimes of imperialism, usually using racism and other divisive ideologies.
If real socialists, unlike your chauvinist fake socialists were in charge of Denmark, we would withdraw all Danish troops from the 'war on terror' and pay reparations to the victims of Danish imperialism. This, along with the expropriation and workers control of Danish industry, would eliminate the material basis for racist cartoons in Jyllands-Posten. And most likely the workers would not choose to fund the publication of a racist, anti-worker rag. Now that would be the beginning of real 'freedom of speech', something which under capitalism is only a hypocritical slogan.
*****
Davidson burns Leon T.
Damn!
I am just reading these comments and the below struck me as funny.
Carl Davidson says in reference to 'Leon Trotsky',
And please, don't tell us only socialist revolution can cure nasty cartoons -- unless you plan on spreading a real wave of laughter across cyberspace.
*****
I rest my case...
Carl Davidson
Sigh....Well, 'LeonT', I think I'll just rest my case.
You've shown you can regurgitate the holy writ reasonably well, but your critical thinking skills leave a bit to be desired. Your screed hasn't changed a whit since, say, the 5th Congress of the Comintern back in the 1920s.
So your solution is a socialist Denmark, Trotskyist style of course, where the 'material base' of nasty cartoon making will wither away, and there will be no need to suppress the workers from expressing nasty thoughts, since they won't have any, at least any that won't be swept away by outbursts of pure proletarian solidarity that will past all tests of political correctness unrestrained. Of course, there are always us lingering petit-bougeois elements, and we can be 'dealt with' by the worker's state.
Of course, you still don't spell out how nasty cartoonists, petty bourgeois of course, might be dealt with, by the workers state or any other, so we're back to square one.
Truth be told, I don't think you really have a position on all this. All you really have is a puffed-up militant posture.
Nothing new here. We've been there and seen that, so to speak, and I seriously doubt if you'll find many takers, even among, say, West Virginia miners or Pittsburgh steelworkers, where I come from. And certainly not very many among the cyberradical denizens of the internet.
*****
Don't Waste Your Time Anymore Carl
Let it Go
I think you are arguing with people - one, or perhaps two people that are just trying to piss people off.
I think you agree that the cartoons are bad, and must be looked at in context.
Anyone who can't agree that free expression and an independent media is a necessary predicate to a free society is a moron, and anyone who thinks that free expression should be trumped by the tenents of Islam because of the fact that people from predominantly Muslim contries have gotten the shit end of the stick forthe last 100 or so years is not thinking, or is not being honest with themselves.
It took a long time for this principle to work in the West, like more than 1900 years. So, whn the pope died, and the new pope took over, and commentators in both mainstream and alternative media demonsized the old pope and the new pope in words and with satirical cartoons, catholics, did not gather by the tens of thousands and attack embassies and buildings. I am not saying that catholics are 'better' than Muslims, but that the principle of free speech is embedded in the West to the point that nearly all catholics understand that they cannot engage in violent activity over even mean spirited attacks on their religious leader in media.
I am sure that in about 5 seconds, I will be labled a racist facsist imperialist petty bouegious etc. . . in a contentless post that ends with 'go and die now.'
The bottom line Carl, based on my conversations with people outside of the anon internet world, I am sure that most people in and out of progressive circles side with you on this issue.
*****
So it's freedom of expression in the West?
mark
Okay, so why aren't all the European papers publishing nazi images in solidarity with papers and groups in Germany or Austria that are charged for displaying nazi images, which is a crime in Germany and Austria? What about other European nations that have 'hate crime' legislation making such images or nazi-like speech criminal? There are plenty of European countries that have laws against CERTAIN types of speech and images considered hateful or 'inciting' hatred. Do any of you here, who are insisting the issue is merely 'the right to offend', feel that IMC should publish nazi images and racist cartoons to show solidarity with those in Europe imprisoned for using such images?
The idea that this is a matter of 'Western respect for freedom of speech and to offend' is b.s., because no such thing actually exists. There is censorship and there are laws governing many forms of speech and ideas, but just like the governments, some of you prefer to pick and choose what is protected and when.
There is a much deeper context involved here, but it continues to be ignored because the more simplistic notion that it's about 'free speech' and 'religious fanatics' makes it much easier for some people to hold myopic views.
*****
And how about some other 'censored' speech?
mark
How about all the people who protested the 'Dixie Chicks' for their remarks about Bush? How many conservatives held such deep respect for freedom of expression and freedom to offend when it was THEIR beloved president/religious leader who was the subject of ridicule? And what of Peter Arnet's statements which resulted in Freepers launching an online attack against him for speaking on Iraqi television, and he subsequently lost his job over the very limited campaign to smear him?
Angry Christians and rightwingers boycot and denounce free speech all the time and feel that the offending parties should be held accountable by loosing their right to earn a living. And, obviously, many on the left take actions to target offending persons or corporations through boycotts and protests. So we all feel that, when it's OUR sensibilities that are offended, it's perfectly acceptable to protest speech. We very frequently feel that editors or others in decision-making positions should be held accountable when they choose to carry out actions or speech we oppose. When you seek to use negative publicity and actions to adversely affect someone as punishment for their choices about speech, you can claim you aren't trying to 'censor' them, but in fact you ARE and more to the point you are attempting to send a message that anyone else who dares engage in similar offensiveness will be likewise targeted, so the end result is an attempt to limit future speech through intimidation. How can anyone fail to recognize and admit this is true?
In this instance, it was several MONTHS before Muslims finally took to the streets in protest, after months of attempting to have their grievances addressed through negotiation etc. And the protests REALLY took off only after a large number of other European papers responded to Muslim anger by once AGAIN publishing the same offensive images.
People have a right to publish offensive images, YES, that is not in question. The question isn't whether one has the RIGHT to do so, but whether it is RIGHT to do so. And, just as the papers have freedom of speech to publish, Muslims or anyone else have the right to freedom of expression through protest. That some protests resulted in property damage, as do many protests here in the U.S. or in Europe or elsewhere, is true but does nothing to negate the issue of whether Muslims are correct in assuming that the publication of the images was offensive and indeed INTENTIONALLY offensive. Or whether it was part of a broader climate of religious hatred and oppression directed against Muslims. And as far as the property damage and violence of the protests, keep in mind that for the first week or so, all the people being KILLED during the protests were PROTESTERS, killed by police or soldiers. Now, there are claims that bullets from protesters resulted in several deaths, but police were also present and engaging in gunfire at those places and the only source saying it was protesters' bullets are sources in the POLICE.
In the event, attempts to censor offending speech by using protests and intimidation has a long history in Europe and the U.S., it happens almost daily here, so the repeated comments posted here about respect for 'freedom of speech and freedom to offend' are a bit disingenuous, at best.
*****
Are we for death warrants for nasty cartoonists?
Carl Davidson
If it were just protests, even militant ones, they could be responded to positively -- dialog, negotiation, learning from each other. But yesterday, we had an Imam putting a price on $1 million on the head of the Danish cartoonist, for anyone who would purge him from the earth. We're back to Salman Rushdie, but on a wider scale. Puts things in a different light, I'd say.
*****
Carl Davidson makes this a 'free speech' issue
Not a Member of the Fake Left
It is not. Rather it is a political empowerment issue. For decades the racist coprorate media have been villifying the Arabs, Muslims and 'peoples of the east' while western armies have invaded and occupied their lands, murdered them in masse and stolen and exploited the resources on and under the lands in which they have lived for millenia. Also eastern peoples (the 'wogs' as British racists used to refer to them) are discriminated against and oppressed when they immigrate to western countries. These demos are a reaction to that and as such fall within the rubric of political expression (and speech).
Also it is unacceptable that posts taking Carl Davidson to task for his racism concerning the Palestinian people (apologizing for zionist ethnic cleansing) are removed from New York Indymedia, undoubtedly at his urging.
The sheer hyprocrisy of that is only matched by New York Indymedia's complicity in such shameful acts. It is a insult to all New York Indymedia readers (they are intelligent enough to decide for themselves the merits of such postings) and an abridgemnt of the the 'free expression' rights of the posters.
*****
More foolishness...
Carl Davidson
I have long opposed Zionism and its ethnic cleansing and supported self-determination for Palestine, and need make no apologies to anyone, except for not doing more, which applies to many of us.
Perhaps perhaps my views or activities regarding Israel/Palestine are not to your satisfaction or in your variation, but that's another matter. Readers who what to see the debate in question, with 'burningman,' can go to carldavidson.blogspot.com and read it for themselves and make up their own minds.
If any posts here or anywhere critical of me were trashed or put in the hidden bin, it was entirely without my knowledge. I have never tried to censor any critiques of me, whether serious or otherwise. If fact, I'd love to see them and respond, if appropriate.
I understand the conflict between oppressor and oppressed, and how these conditions fuel these incidents.
But I also understand fascist and theocratic demagogy, and that there are forces on both sides of the global divide that want to egg on a 'war of civilizations' that serves neither the interests of people in the Islamic world nor those anywhere else.
A few on the left here, unfortunately, cannot or will not. But greater numbers every day in the Islamic world do not want to see the self-defamation of their faith by reactionary zealots, as well as by imperialism and backward-thinking, short-sighted cartoonists. Unfortunately, they will not have the cheerleaders here of the zealots elsewhere on their side.
And when $1 million 'death warrant' price is put on the head of cartoonists for their execution, however nasty or misguided, I'd say, yes, this is certain a matter of free speech, and we surrender to the demagogues at our peril. The kindest thing I can say about your denial here is that it's foolish.
You want to fight ethnic cleansing? We've plenty of it right here at home, in the struggles of the native Americans. Go and take up their battles for land, water, mineral and other rights to their 'white' neighbors.
As for the conflict between imperialism and the Islamic world, if you really want to do something useful, bring new batches of ordinary Americans who are critical of this war but have yet to take an action, especially among vets, soldiers and their families, to the next round of antiwar actions March 18 demanding 'Out Now'. That's the test of real internationalism today, not posturing over the cartoon wars.
*****
Where to draw the line
Leon Trotsky
Will you stand with oppressed people when they resist the racist propaganda used to justify their oppression?
Or will you attack them, pretending that you are only defending the right of imperialist corporate monopolies to 'speak' war propaganda with impunity?
The fake left is showing its true colors: the bloody banner of national chauvinism.
*****
With the oppressed? Or with the Zealots?
Carl Davidson
Where to draw the line, indeed, 'LeonT?'
Standing with the oppressed?
Who are you standing with in Nigeria? The oppressed Muslims burning the churches of oppressed Black Christians and murdering them to protest the cartoons? Or the oppressed Black Christians defending and counter-attacking?
How long do you want this slaughter, that you've become a cheerleader for, to go on? How much more blood of the oppressed, of whatever religious beliefs, do you want to see spilled?
Now they're again debating whether to confine the women to the burka and the house again in Afghanistan. Your oppressed anti-cartoon zealots are on one side, and the oppressed of the oppressed, the women and girls, are on the other. Who are you standing with there?
The problem for you is one of setting aside some idiotic and dogmatic formulas and slogans, and instead begin learning to actually think critically and affirm some radical and democratic values, and growing some compassion for all those truly suffering in this turmoil. It's not, after all, the families of Europeans grieving for their dead in these clashes, and if it does come to slaughter in the capitals of Europe, what follows then?
In principles or values are beyond you, 'LeonT,' look at it in purely practical terms. When this ends, and it will, who will come out ahead? Will there by greater solidarity between the masses of the Islamic world and non-Islamic peoples, in the third world or in the West? Go out in the streets of your city and talk to ordinary people. Are they gaining respect and understanding of other peoples and faiths? Or are we being pushed backward? Most Muslims I know, whatever they thought of the cartoons, think this is an utter disaster for the standing of their faith in the eyes of the world, and more are calling for an end to it. Do you stand with them?
But in one round-about way, I would guess that you really don't give a damn about that prospect; you're just interested in third world masses rising up against symbols of the West, and fanning the flames, under whatever leadership, with whatver politics. If Islam becomes more divided and hated around the world, you really don't care. In a way, that's a stand far more contemptuous of the Islamic faith than anything some Danish cartoonists came up with.
As I said before, if you want to stand with the oppressed where it counts, get some new folks out to the upcoming 'out now' demos, and work on defeating Bush and the war, and preventing wider war on Iran. Set aside this cartoon diversion, a spectacle creating and sustained by reactionaries on both sides of it, and do something serious instead.
*****
And There We Have It
When Harry Met Sally
By the last posting Carl, one gets the impression that your heart is not in this. Maybe its a time for a [long] rest... perhaps at that 'radical summer camp' to which you have referred?
*****
Both Sides Are SHIT!
redstar2000
http://www.redstar2000papers.com
'Set aside this cartoon diversion, a spectacle creating and sustained by reactionaries on both sides of it, and do something serious instead.'
It's indeed a strange feeling to find myself in agreement with Carl...but he is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT on this one!
Both sides are SHIT and the idea that we 'must choose' between them is simply disgusting.
I will only add that even if you can only do 'something unserious', that would STILL be better than getting embroiled in a SQUABBLE AMONG REACTIONARIES.
*****
Revisionist Racist Carl's Cheap Debating Tricks
Leon Trotsky
Popular resistance does not spring fully ideologized from the pages of 'What Is To Be Done' and the Communist Manifesto. It begins in partial, incohate, and self-contradictory forms. The capitalist media is exaggerating and caricaturing the righteous resistance of muslims to its own exaggerated, racist caricatures. And Carl, who cares most for the free speech of racist millionaires, joins right in with them and smears all anti-racists and anti-imperialists with the same brush.
The position and demands of the fake left keep changing, although they orbit erratically around the refusal to solidarize with the resistance of the oppressed. What should Denmark to? What about 'free speech' (for racist millionaires)? What if the resistance against racism is violent, and isn't precisely directed as we would do it (if we weren't abstaining from the struggle because we value the 'free speech' of racist millionaires above all else)?
The position of the revolutionaries is clear: Oppressed people have a right to resist. Denmark & all imperialists out of the middle east & hands off the world. Open the borders and give full citizenship rights to all immigrants. Stop the racist demonization of oppressed people. Workers and oppressed peoples of the world, unite!
*****
ya but
the thing is
Yeah but the thing is muslims already have their own ideology and morals and view of the ideal state. They don't want liberalism, they don't want communism and they certainly don't want anarchy.
It's one thing if it's just some random people rioting. Fine, they aren't going to have some grand theoritical narrative guiding them.
But muslims, by definition, already have their own ideology, and it is in complete contradiction to any 'leftist' ideologies. It's not like you are going to pass out a leftwing pamphlet to them and suddenly they are going to turn leftist.
*****
unfurl your banner
local
Is the 'partial, incohate, and self-contradictory' rage of white nationalists in the u.s. anti-imperialist? Many of these men and women come from the poorest sections of the country. Is their rage anti-imperialist because it is directed against global power systems even if they are perceived to be under the control of shadowy non-aryan forces? Are they potential revolutionaries after we, the vanguard, educate them in true internationalism? How about those Christian fundamentalists who come from poverty? Is their rage against the godless corporate media and companies that support abortion potentially revolutionary? Or the mobs of Nigerian christians who just murdered six muslims and burned their mosques over the past weekend? Are these victims of western oppression anti-imperialists?
The old internationalist left is in serious need of troops so they adopt the same trick they use at marches where two internationalists run up to the front of the crowd and unfurl their banner to give the illusion that a sea of internationalists is marching with them down the street. They are doing the same thing with the mobs of religious intolerance. You'd think the internationalists would fare better in latin america with Chavez, Morales, etc. but those countries don't want the old red banners speaking for them either. The new left of latin america is engaged in domestic struggles that have global implications not the other way around.
*****
Again with the Islam-Bashing
Leon Trotsky
Muslims in general are as set in their ways ideologically as believers in any other religion -- that is, not much. If you say the left can't reach out to them in solidarity, then there is really no hope. Thankfully, you're wrong.
*****
'Cheap Tricks'? What a Hoot...
Carl Davidson
Whenever I hear 'cheap debating tricks' as a rejoinder, I figure I've won the argument.
Whenever I hear 'free speech for racist millionaires' (or 'equal rights for bourgeois women like Jackie Kennedy,' -- Bob Avakian used that one against me when we were debating the Equal Rights Amendment back in the 1970s -- he opposed it, I supported it), I know the accuser doesn't understand anything about consistent democracy for the working class or anyone else, and is clutching at straws.
And you, 'LeonT', still can't answer a simple question: If you were a Danish communist, at a mass meeting of Danish printers and newspapers workers, what would you have them specifically demand that their government do to these cartoonists and the publications concerned, besides more general matters like getting the Danish troops out of Iraq?
As I said, you don't have a position. You have a posture, one of a cheerleader that you think is going to win friends for you in the Islamic world. Genuine progressives among Muslims will see through your rhetoric, while the theocrats will see you as a foolish but useful infidel.
If you really want to help Muslims, work on the 'Out Now ' demos March 18. Bring some new faces. If you have time left over, organize a meeting in your neighborhood of opened-minded Jews, Christian, Muslims and secular humanists for a joint discussion as to how they can promote tolerance and mutual understanding in the midst of this reactionary spectacle.
That would be real internationalism and anti-chauvinism, not your silly leftish posturing.
*****
Answer the question
Reader of this thread
'And you, 'LeonT', still can't answer a simple question: If you were a Danish communist, at a mass meeting of Danish printers and newspapers workers, what would you have them specifically demand that their government do to these cartoonists and the publications concerned, besides more general matters like getting the Danish troops out of Iraq?'
Leon T,
I have been reading this thread and am a non-affiliated leftist. I don't know Carl Davidson or yourself, but I think Davidson has a point, which is WHAT WOULD YOU DO IN THIS SITUATION? Please respond.
*****
Answer the question
Reader of this thread
On line it is very easy for people to make big claims, personally attack others and act differently than they would if they had to actually face up to what they write.
So I am just asking for a little accountability here. Leon T. answer the question, what would you do if hypothetically speaking, the CP had control over a country and a paper released those racist cartoons?
Simple question, lets see what Leon T has up his/her sleeve.
*****
Bravo Carl
Nice Job
It is refreshing to see insight and honest analysis. LeonT and the idiot who posts flames under various idiotic tags such as 'The Only Good Imperialist is a Dead Imperialist' 'Scab Busters' 'Working for a Scab Free World' 'Viva La Falluja' etc. . . are really revealed for what they are here - dead wrong and deadly wrong.
I tend to disagree with you Carl, on many issues, but you couldn't be any more on the money on this one.
*****
Carl and his ilk are a waste of time
Its Time to Say Sayonara
They are what happens to a thing after the vultures have flown in and the last bits of flesh lie hanging from the bones.
Carl's postings are neither inciteful or intelligent, they are pathetic.
*****
Veiled Threats?
Sheeesh
'are really revealed for what they are here - dead wrong and deadly wrong.'
Save us the fawning. Carl's remarks are neither incitefully or particulary intelligent. For decades people like Carl have been spewing out by rote the same unimaginative musings and pronouncements that have taken anyone fool enough to believe them nowhere. By accident or design? It little matters.
Its time to give Carl and his ilk the credit that they deserve... pay them no heed. Its time to move on and develop strategies that will actually lead to something.
Read more!
