[Marxism] Things fall apart? was: Re: A Postmortem: The Anti-WarMovement, September 2001-March 2004

Yoshie Furuhashi furuhashi.1 at osu.edu
Tue Jul 20 14:22:29 MDT 2004


Lou Paulsen says

>This paragraph links to one of her own earlier pieces which cites 
>the piece from "Frontlines newspaper" at length.  But that piece, as 
>I said at the time, contained serious inaccuracies and was based on 
>rumors itself.  I don't know what "reports published here and there" 
>Yoshie is talking about, other than Chuck0's highly inaccurate piece 
>and Frontlines' highly inaccurate piece.

I'd love to hear formal explanations from Workers World members on 
both sides of the split and how they each evaluate what happened, but 
so far no official report has emerged from either side -- hence the 
link to Simon Morales' article, which is at least less sectarian than 
the piece at Infoshop.org.

As I said in my previous piece on the same question, I believe that 
the utter inability of any sector of the movement -- Global Justice 
movement activists, the Green Party, the Workers World Party, etc. -- 
to capitalize on the crisis like the one that we have and is still 
going through (from the end of neoliberal economic recovery, the 9/11 
terrorist attacks, the US invasion of Afghanistan, the US occupation 
of Iraq, etc.) is a problem that affects us all, as it simply has 
served to restore the Democratic Party's hegemony over the left side 
of the political spectrum.  That's what we need to analyze and 
discuss.

In any event, I agree with you on the composition of protesters, 
which probably radically differed from one anti-war movement to 
another:

>The question of what has happened to the antiwar movement is an 
>important one.  The way to start answering it is, in my opinion, to 
>begin with an understanding of what the U.S. antiwar movement 
>actually was, in, say, February of 2003.  It was not as if we had 
>taken the thousands of people who demonstrated against the 
>Yugoslavia war (for example) and multiplied each of them by 100; 
>which is to say that the movement of February 2003 was not the same 
>thing as the movement of May, 1999 only much bigger.  Nor for that 
>matter was it the same thing as the antiwar movement of May, 1970. 
>There were a lot of angry people, but were they radical opponents of 
>the system? Had they renounced their hopes in the Democrats?  Were 
>they taking a victory-to-the-resistance position?  I don't really 
>think so.

That's precisely the problem for us, though.  That means we aren't 
doing a good job providing historical knowledge and political 
education to folks who come to various protests with various 
motivations.

Yoshie







More information about the Marxism mailing list