seattle indymedia center

It is good that ANSWER is calling for a rally and I will be there. ANd I urge everyone to come. But ANSWER should encourage a MARCH -- not just a rally.

This is a very good comment on this at:
 http://seattle.indymedia.org/en/2006/08/254223.shtml
concerning why the ANSWER coalition refuses to call a MARCH.

Ben Seattle  http://struggle.net/ben

As the U.S.-supported Zionist slaughter in Lebanon and Gaza continues, not just ANSWER, but several organizations and numerous individuals have been working to build the weekly events at Westlake, as well working to build for the August 12 rally (i.e., with leaflets, by word-of-mouth and email lists, with banners, etc.)

Through this work all of us are in fact “endorsing” the events by urging people to come. But, for my part, this does not mean that I endorse what the speakers ANSWER puts up on August 12 say, nor does it mean that I think there should only be a rally that day.

On the positive side, bringing people together at events like these helps them see that they do not struggle alone, helps raise spirit and determination, etc. Such gatherings are also a useful form for discussions or debate over what needs to be done next to build the movement, and build it better. And they’re also an activity that new people can attend to see what the various political trends present are saying, and link up with whomever they agree with (if anyone) as part of getting more active. But more than these things, these kind of activities can and should be political tools for reinforcing the consciousness of many people on the streets that THEY are not isolated in their oppositional views, tools for encouraging them to get politically active in their own right, and tools for raising a wider mass political consciousness.

It’s precisely in order to reach out to the masses with demonstrations (and to sense their own potential power) that thousands of people have in recent weeks been MARCHING in the U.S. and globally to denounce the Israeli aggression in the Middle East---shouting slogans, holding up signs and banners, and passing out literature along their routes. Moreover, last weekend in Tel Aviv, thousands of people had to defy abuse and hurled missiles, and physically beat back attempts by ultra-Zionists to seize their speakers’ podium…but this didn‘t stop them from marching. Yet in Seattle, ANSWER stops itself. Its plan for Saturday is to corral the movement into coming to listen to their chosen people make speech after speech after speech…and that’s it, no marching!

This is a very big downside of August 12, an infuriating shame that militant supporters of the people of Palestine and Lebanon are going to have to work to correct.

Certainly, depending on their political content, speeches (a few of them) can be a powerful tool for building the movement. But the ANSWER leaders know that forcing people to listen to a seeming endless list of speakers tends to dampen down the movement, and they know that more people are likely to turn out if a march has been called for. (If, for no other reason, they know these things because activists including myself have went to their meetings in the past to tell them so, as well as arguing this issue with them here on Indymedia.)

I don’t think the ANSWER leaders act this way (which is against the interests of the masses of workers and youth) because they’re stupid. No, it’s more because their kind of coalition building requires making sordid exchanges: i.e., guaranteeing slots on speakers’ lists in exchange for endorsements and support for an event. To them, this kind of coalition building with other groups is the only way to build the antiwar movement. But in the end it sacrifices the interests of the masses at the altar of coalition with the liberal-imperialist warmongers.

I think the ANSWER leaders’ opportunist dealings with Rep. Jim McDermott and the leftwing of the Democratic Party are most illustrative in this regard.

As opposed to Bush, McDermott & Co. want a more sophisticated and multilateral foreign policy designed to achieve the same imperialist aims. In Iraq, for example, they first wanted other countries to send troops through the U.N., and to have a “legal” stamp on this war for domination of oil resources Now McDermott favors Murtha’s “withdrawal” plan---a plan that would leave U.S. troops in Iraq for six more months to slaughter and rape, and then re-deploy them to the “periphery”, keep a quick reaction force in the region, and have an “over-the-horizon presence of Marines”. Thus this is only a plan to retreat (and perhaps only temporarily) on one front of a much larger battle-plan to militarily dominate the Middle East and Gulf States. In fact, McDermott says outright that it’s designed to “protect American interests in the Middle East”---“American interests” being the imperial interests of the U.S. monopoly capitalist class.

Imperialist politician McDermott and other left-wing Democrats have now been speaking at anti-war events for years, always working to channel the movement into supporting their brand of imperialism, and thus become a pro-war and pro-oppression movement. And in the course of this they’ve worked to pacify activists by fostering illusions that that they have friends in Congress. (Hey, taking political matters into their own hands may not be so important! The liberals will make things right.) They’ve also diverted activists into working for their election campaigns. (In 2004 a lot of anti-war activists campaigned for “anti-war” Kucinich…only to find that he delivered them to the hands of war-hawk Kerry at the DNC!)

So, if McDermott and the left liberals are such active saboteurs of the anti-war movement, how is it that we find them addressing rallies and demonstrations all the time? Well, ANSWER (among other coalitions) INVITES them to speak. Worse, ANSWER has absolutely refused to expose and oppose how these imperialist gentry are ideologically undermining the movement, and channeling it into dead ends. True, Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) has journals with some correct exposures of the liberal Democrats. But when it really counts, i.e., before crowds of thousands, its ANSWER members seal their lips and even applaud “Jim“.

To us this would seem to be blatant political cowardliness. But despite what PSL says in its journal about mobilizing and organizing the working masses, their real belief is that the masses of workers and youth cannot be roused and organized to fight in their independent class interests. So they don’t see themselves as cowards at all. To them it’s smart tactics to opportunistically strive for alliances with the liberals, sell-out trade union bureaucrats, and Democratic Party “community leaders” because it’s the only thing that can “realistically” be done, or done at all. Part of cementing these alliances involves offering speaking slots.

Now Rep. McDermott probably sees little percentage in speaking on August 12, especially because the crowd will not be large. But ANSWER continues to opportunistically give him a “platform”: their literature table at the Westlake events on Friday nights!

There, two weeks ago, I walked up to pick up their latest leaflets against Israeli state-terrorism. And among the leaflets (on a raised display shelf where they could hardly be missed) were reprints of McDermott’s speech explaining his vote against H.R. 921.

This was not a vote against the Israeli aggressors, or a vote against the Zionist state---U.S. imperialism’s pit-bull in the Middle East. But let’s let McDermott speak for himself. From
the ANSWER reprint :

McDermott:

“It was with unwavering support for Israel, its safety, security and right to exist, that I voted today against House Resolution 921. Hezbollah started this conflict with an ambush, and Israel has every right to defend itself. Of that, there is no doubt. Nor is there any doubt anywhere in the world about America's deep and abiding commitment to Israel.”

So the Israeli state, which could only be founded by killing and terrorizing the Arab population in order to drive three quarters of a million of them out, and which refuses to let them and their families return because if they were allowed to come back and vote they would vote the Zionist theocracy out of existence, and which by it’s nature has been driven to expand and practice genocide against the Arab Palestinians ever since…has a “right to exist”.

Clearly, McDermott’s kind of right is the kind that’s made by military might.

And it was really concerns about military might that caused him to vote against the House Resolution. He went on, “I am especially troubled by the fact that H.Res 921 goes far beyond reaffirming our unwavering commitment to Israel by declaring unlimited support for potential military action anywhere in the region.” (Translation: He’s worried over the fact that the Israeli war machine may get over-extended, resulting in the U.S. imperialists having to send troops to pull it’s chestnuts from the fire when they themselves are bogged down in Iraq.)

He continued by saying that the resolution “might encourage… a wider war with greater casualties, undermining fragile but crucial support for Israel among Arab nations, and further endangering Israel and other innocent civilians across the region.” (Only “might“ encourage, and do not McDermott‘s own declarations of unwavering support for Israel encourage the Israeli generals with the knowledge that the U.S. Congress to a person stands behind their racist state?)

In the end McDermott worried that raining down bombs on Lebanon would only incubate further violence and terrorism, inflame tensions, etc. His alternative is that the U.S. government engage in “vigorously pursuing an end to the violence, the resumption of a peace process and a commitment to unite the region to isolate terrorist groups and all who oppose a just and lasting peace for all people.”

What this really means is that McDermott would like to go back to low-intensity conflict by the Zionists against the Palestinian people, and against Lebanon and Syria. This would obviously be preferable to their present slaughtering, but there’s no justice in it, and it cannot bring lasting peace. In fact, McDermott is well aware that the Israeli government has always used periods of “peace process” to further arm itself for new aggressions, with the help of U.S. imperialism above all others. He’s also well aware that during the periods of “peace process” the Israeli government has constantly encroached upon the remaining lands of the Palestinians, killed resisters, continued with military occupations, etc. He knows the history of the past 59 years. So his talk of “just and lasting peace for all people” is a cynical charade.

The problem this defender of “American interests in the Middle East” confronts is that there can be no just and lasting peace in the Middle East as long as the racist, theocratic and settler-colonialist Israeli state exists. But, WITH THE HELP OF ANSWER he spreads the harmful illusion that there can be.

Contrary to McDermott, the first step to a just and lasting Middle East peace must be the building up of the secular and democratic trend among the Arab and Jewish masses of historic Palestine. And its aim should be to smash the Zionist state and replace it with a secular democracy that gives the right of return to the Palestinian exiles and equal rights to Arabs, Jews, and all others.

As a matter of fact, this “one state” solution was the overwhelming demand of the Palestinian masses for many decades. But the former leaders of the movement gave it up, opting to be authoritarian masters of a miserable Palestinian mini-state that the Israeli government has continually interfered in and repeatedly invaded. Today the Zionists just arrest its government officials at their pleasure, assassinate anyone they don’t like on its territory, etc.

Thus this “two-state” national-reformist compromise has proven to be unworkable. Yet revival of a revolutionary-democratic movement for a single state is proving to be difficult. It can’t rely on the old organizations because they are often mere shells, or are pretty corrupt. And founding new organizations can bring one into bitter conflicts with not only the Zionists, but also Hamas, Fatah, and others. Nevertheless, it remains in the vital interests of the Palestinian toilers and youth to find a way to do this.

Naturally, developing this movement brings the enmity of not just the Zionist overlords, but of the monarchial, semi-militarist and fundamentalist Arab regimes and movements in the region as well. In fact, throughout it’s history the Palestinian national movement has always had to fight on many fronts against all of them. Yet it has survived because the cause is just and is supported by millions.

Here we should again examine McDermott’s last words, i.e., those calling on the U.S. government to have “a commitment to unite the region to isolate terrorist groups and all who oppose a just and lasting peace for all people.”

By “uniting the region” he obviously means uniting the governments of Zionist Israel, militarist Egypt, monarchial and fundamentalist Saudi Arabia, etc.---all of which have their own torture chambers and terror squads, and, in Israel‘s case, repeatedly launch wars of terror---to isolate “terrorist groups”. So his just and lasting peace is in reality a U.S. imperialist-organized peace enforced by the guns and secret police forces of tyrants, generals and monarchs. And if the Palestinian, Saudi Arabian, or other oppressed peoples in the region rise up in a democratic struggle to overthrow one of these anti-democratic regimes oppressing them they become enemies of his so-called just peace.

Returning to where we started, I think all who want to support the Palestinian and Lebanese people against the terrible atrocities being committed against them by the U.S.-supported Zionist state should come out to the Friday night events, and attend the rally on Saturday. But I would hope the above shows that we need to express on signs, banners, and in leaflets our own political ideas, not those of ANSWER. *

Moreover, we should take these ideas to the masses on the streets. A militant and really anti-imperialist movement is not going to come from focusing on lining up groups to speak at rallies (as ANSWER has been focused on doing), but from taking anti-imperialist and revolutionary politics to the masses. And, when numbers are small, sidewalk marches are a good form through which to do this. The events at 5:00 Friday nights at Westlake are similarly a good form…and they should certainly continue after August 12.

*For those wanting to build a real fighting movement against imperialism I would suggest perusing the materials at seattleaic.org, as well as seeking out Seattle Anti-Imperialist Committee members this Friday and Saturday.

Hey Ben,

Why don't you and Frank organize a march? Why don't you and Frank organize anything more ambitious than a leaflet?

Hey Frank,
Maybe ANSWER had the McDermott statement available to expose his position, ever think about that?

You clowns are arm-chair anti-imperialists, sniping at whatever group has the initiative. You guys couldn't organize yourselves out of a paper bag.

I've been to a couple of the Fri. demos and you guys just stand around handing out your leaflets and don't even hold a sign or actively protest at all.

The ugly thing about the Fri. demos isn't a politically incorrect leaflet on the ANSWER table; it's all the commie clowns who just show up to sell their papers or handout their statements.

What follows is a point-by-point reply to so-called "Bob Seattle". "Bob"'s comments are in quotes, my reply follows.

"Why don't you and Frank organize a march? Why don't you and Frank organize anything more ambitious than a leaflet?"

This question is entirely besides the point, a red herring meant to draw attention away from the fact that ANSWER would rather we gather around an empty Federal building on a Saturday. Frankly, SAIC (in my opinion) does not have the resources to organize a march. ANSWER does.

"Maybe ANSWER had the McDermott statement available to expose his position, ever think about that?"

No. If they wanted to "expose his position" they would expose...his...position! Which isn't the same thing as reproducing his statement for mass distribution with no comment whatsoever.

In the past they've allowed him to speak at their rallies (again, without exposing his position). Rather than exposing him as a representative of the "left" wing of U.S. imperialism (which they are theoretically incapable of seing him as--and this is a fact), they promote him as an ally who "does some good stuff". (In fact, this was precisely the justification we recieved when we asked ANSWER why they'd promote this pro-imperialist Democrat at their rallies!)

No, your justification isn't fooling anyone who's not already fooled.

"You clowns are arm-chair anti-imperialists, sniping at whatever group has the initiative. You guys couldn't organize yourselves out of a paper bag."

Your unprincipled name-calling has nothing in common with anti-imperialism whatsoever. Sadly, this is the kind of thing that all to many opportunists (and that's an objective term, see above) resort to when cornered.

That said, the best organizing skills in the world are no substitute for a correct political line. The Democrats can organize, UFPJ can organize, WCW can organize, ANSWER can organize. Big deal. What are they organizing people FOR?

"I've been to a couple of the Fri. demos and you guys just stand around handing out your leaflets and don't even hold a sign or actively protest at all."

SAIC tends to concentrate on distributing our agitation and linking up with people, not just sign-holding, especially when only a few of us are able to make it to a given action. This way a more deeper analysis can be spread (as opposed to a placard slogan which, no matter how correct, is going to be pretty limited). As anyone who's ever passed out a leaflet before knows, it's pretty difficult to effectively do this with one hand (while holding a sign in the other).

Sometimes we bring signs, sometimes we don't. When there's "lively" protesting taking place, we participate. Oftentimes (we haven't at these small Friday rallies) we initiate it.

Again, this is just a completely baseless assertion that will not fool anyone who's 1. not already fooled or 2. really doesn't know any better. (And these are precisely the people that "Bob"'s post is aimed at consolidating.)

But if you are really worried about SAIC's lack of signs, worry no longer! We'll have a nice big red banner and some extra signs next Saturday.

"The ugly thing about the Fri. demos isn't a politically incorrect leaflet on the ANSWER table; it's all the commie clowns who just show up to sell their papers or handout their statements."

Actually, McDermott's statement was pretty ugly!

What should you do at a demo? I like yelling slogans, holding up signs, waving flags and I also understand the necessity for revolutionary propaganda and agitation. How else are people supposed to raise their consciousness? Where else are they supposed to read revolutionary analysis?

ANSWER, too, passes out leaflets that contain agitation against what the U.S. and its Zionist attack-dog does. Most every group has a leaflet. Do you oppose all leaflets or just the "communist" (presumably "Bob" thinks SAIC is communist...) leaflets?

Let’s not play games

ANSWER had no literature exposing McDermott’s position, nor do they generally expose how he and other left-wing Democrats are working to pacify and derail the anti-war movement, turn it into a pro-U.N. war movement, etc.

The simple fact is that distributing McDermott’s speech without comment was not a political act of denouncing his defense of the Israeli aggression, nor of exposing that his calls for “peace” and “justice” would be enforced by racists, monarchists and militarist cutthroats on behalf of U.S. imperialism and were fraudulent. Rather, it was a political act of HELPING the entire ruling class by adding to their propaganda that, in McDermott’s words (which are no different from those of Bush or Rice), “Hezbollah started this conflict with an ambush, and Israel has every right to defend itself. Of that, there is no doubt.” Additionally, it broadcast the liberal-imperialist pacifying propaganda that there can be a just and lasting peace in the Middle East imposed from Washington.

More broadly speaking, rather than helping people on the streets understand that there are no solutions from any of the bourgeois politicians, and helping them to understand that for there to ultimately be peace and justice they need take a hand in building a political movement that is independent of the bourgeoisie and which relies on organizing the masses, ANSWER in this case does the opposite.

You refuse to deal with this issue (or anything I raised), yet it must be dealt with constantly, and on a larger scale if the anti-imperialist movement is going to develop.