seattle indymedia center

What to do after J-20?

author: Frank
Jan 15, 2005 18:54

The ANSWER & NION leaders were only enthused for organizing rallies on J-20 (their own separate ones of course), while knowing the advantages of collaborating to organize something more politically powerful. They pitted themselves against the movement's interests.

Part I of this series ( http://seattle.indymedia.org/en/2005/01/243964.shtml) dealt with the fact that we cannot depend on the leaders of NION and ANSWER to lead the local antiwar and other progressive movements. They were only interested in having rallies for Bush’s second inaugural (their own separate ones of course), while they knew very well the advantages of collaborating to organize a big march, or marches: These included:

(1) More activists would be excited about doing the preparatory work (something that would have solved their excuses about not having adequate force to organized a march).

(2) The event itself would have attracted more people. Young people, working-class and other militants, and all people with great hatred of the imperialist occupation of Iraq and the entire reactionary Washington agenda would much rather be marching, rousing and enlightening people on the sidewalks with slogans, messages on signs, leaflets, etc., and calling them to join in, than going to a rally to hear some speakers and music.

(3) The event would have a bigger political impact on those participating and those who saw it (who would be more).

These leaders knew these things, but they threw themselves and all who they could attract into doing something else. Fortunately, after seeing what was up, other activists in the city took the initiative to organize marches for the 20th. The ANSWER and NION leaders promised to support these marches with a poster that would be put up alongside their own. But the fact that at this late date teams are STILL not doing this (while putting up plenty of the posters for their particular group‘s rally) testifies to the fact that they had no real enthusiasm for doing this, and therefore, no real enthusiasm for the marches. And this, dear readers, is a practical exposure of the fact that their enthusiasm is not motivated by seeing the needs of the movement, and acting as best they can to fulfill them. In practical life their real enthusiasms have pitted them against the interests of developing the movement. This is what sectarian enthusiasms generally do. (Meanwhile, activists with real enthusiasm for building the movement are advertising all of the rallies and marches scheduled for Jan. 20. As one example, the Seattle Communist Study Group added the information about the 12:30 march from SCCC to a new printing of its Jan. 5 leaflet  http://seattle.indymedia.org/en/2005/01/243909.shtml when the plans for this march were settled.)

Of course, most Seattle activists have never depended on the NION or ANSWER leaders (or their organizational forms) for their daily activity. Nevertheless, in recent times these leaders have called and organized for protest actions at some key times. So there were many who no doubt had false expectations about what they would do on the 20th. (ANSWER heightened such expectations with a poster boldly saying “Demonstrate!” on January 20. But read the small print and one found that the “demonstration” was really only a rally with ANSWER-approved speakers.) We should all now see that these people can’t be depended on to do what is needed even in this regard. An alternative way of organizing major demonstrations in the area must be found.

In Part I I suggested mass meetings of anti-war activists and those wanting to get active (no one else), the first of which will be called at the end of the second march on Thursday. (Of course, that should not be the only place it is called. We should spread the word widely.) Moreover, I spoke of getting a certain rhythm going in the local movement, i.e., following J-20 with a powerful manifestation on March 19, the 2nd anniversary of the imperialist invasion of Iraq. (National events have already been called for this day.) And March 19 could be followed by an event on May 1st (the day Bush gave his infamous “victory” speech, and also International Worker’s Day). In this way not only would activists be able to have their say on what should be done, but they would be more enthusiastic for it because they had helped shape it. More, they would also know what was coming up well in advance and could, therefore, have a focus for many daily anti-war organizing activities leading up to the major dates chosen. I think the whole outlook of this mass forum or spokes-council should not be lets work hard for March 19 (or whatever date), but lets work hard for March 19, May 1st, etc., etc., because this is a necessary part (but only a part) of building a movement that must be built.

This raises the subject I will take up in Part III: the orientation activists should have in their daily work, an issue much more decisive than whether marches, rallies or convergences are organized on any particular day.

add a comment on this article