Thoughts on ANSWER from someone familar with them

[murdoch]

I am probably more familiar with ANSWER than a lot of people here. So I'll give my thoughts on them.

ANSWER and the people in ANSWER basically do one thing, and they do it well, depending on your point of view - they organize demonstrations. To say another nice thing about ANSWER, they're militant in, for me, the good sense of the word. They have backbone. They stick by their friends through thick and thin. No one can accuse them of being "flip-floppers", that's for sure.

Then there are the negatives. Since most people just use them for their demonstrations, I don't think they're beliefs or organization structure is as important as some make it out to be - it is a little important - but not as much as people say. I mean, I pay taxes to the US government that do all sorts of horrible things, and I buy products from corporations, whose management and stockholders use the money to do horrible things. So if someone in ANSWER visited Kim Jong Il or something, I'm not going to have a heart attack. I'm more interested in the readily apparent negative results of what they do are.

One problem with ANSWER rallies is some speakers are good, but then some come up and yell in a shrill voice "WE MUST SMASH CAPITALISM!!! WE MUST SMASH IMPERIALISM!!!" on and on for 5, 10, 15 minutes. Now for myself, I wouldn't mind smashing capitalism or imperialism, but I don't need to listen to someone SCREAMING into a microphone about it for 10 minutes. I don't see any point in this.

Then there's the question of ANSWER bringing issues other than Iraq into the rallies, like Israel. I've been reading recently about the anti-war coalitions from the 1960s and 1970s, and they had the same problem over single-issue versus multi-issue back then. They had that problem at the end of the Vietnam protests, as well as at the beginning (when anti-nuclear protestors began protesting Vietnam at anti-nuclear rallies). I don't know what the answer is to this. I myself think the US is too favorable to Israel over the Palestinians, but as someone said in another post, they think that too, but they think it is a tactical mistake to bring the Israel question into the demonstration. I myself don't know what to think, personally, my thoughts are a little bit of cross-over is OK, like saying we should be building levees instead of going to Iraq, or whatever, but too much crossover with too many different issues makes things muddled. My gut reaction is that it's OK for ANSWER to talk about Israel, but they push the issue too much, they're trying to push it onto people who don't want to see it that much there, even if they agree. On the other hand, I am not one of the people who thinks any posters or signs unhappy with how things in Israel should be cleared out of the demonstration. I think there's a balance. And I don't really have the "answer" to this.

I'll leave saying something positive about ANSWER - they planned the damned thing. It was their idea. Yes, other groups pitched in, but they got the ball rolling. So kudos to that. Everyone complaining about it should say hey, I am going to get involved with organizing something like this, and do it in a way that I think is better than ANSWER. I don't think factionalism is smart, I mean that old thing, "who is in charge? whoever shows up." If the ANSWER people have the initiative to do this, the backbone to have the rally even it doesn't necessarily mean it will help the Democrats in the next election, and do the work, then I think they deserve to have such a placement. Yes, other helped as well, but they got the ball rolling. If you don't like it, the solution is to go to your local peace group, and help out. And to stand firm against the DLC DINOs who are in a peace group but are against demonstrations or anything that might upset anyone - because if the normal grassroots groups listen to those people, then ANSWER will run EVERY anti-war demonstration. ANSWER plays the hippy-dippy UFPJ grassroot groups like a violin, because they are too much under the sway of DLC DNC DINO types, and ANSWER knows this and plays the game using this to their advantage. I appreciate ANSWERs work, and I don't want to tear them down, I would like to see a democratic, grassroots movement not take ANSWER down, but overtake them.

[Carolab]

1. As one of the speakers said, and I'm sorry, don't recall who...

"all of this divisiveness is silly" or something to that effect.

Really, LET'S ORGANIZE! We need UNITY.

ANSWER provided the opportunity for hundreds of thousands of people to speak out and that was absolutely amazing.

[expatriot]

5. another speaker said, i paraphrase:

quote: "You can not be anti-war unless..." (and I paraphrase the rest) you are against the war against black people being waged in New Orleans.

Is this in the spirit of unity? Is this in the spirit of getting middle class, centrist whites into the anti-war movement? Now I am pretty damn radical in my political theory and agreed wholly with the speaker's message... but I Bush has made me very politically pragmatic and that sort of talk will not win you middle America and isn't that the whole point of putting on the show?

[thebigidea]

6. as if protests were all about winning the hearts of centrist whites

that's what Joe Lieberman is for, dontcha know.

[Carolab]

8. Really. We need to stand up for what WE believe.

I'm a fiscal conservative and a social progressive, like Dean. Does that make me a "centrist" white?

[expatriot]

14. I used the term "centrist" as in relation to the revolutionary radicalism

of ANSWER. I am very radical in my theory but I also see the political pragmatism of forming a solid, united anti-war movement that where at major national rallies all segments of the anti-war community can feel represented and united with the cause. The radical positions of ANSWER and their parent organization, International Action Committee, represents a very small slice of the anti-war activist community, let alone Americans of anti-war sentiment. I do not believe statements such as "You cannot be anti-war unless you are also against the war being waged against black people in New Orleans." is a pretty divisive statement to bring to a national anti-war stage. Now I am not saying AT ALL that the speaker should not have been allowed to to speak on what he feels (and I feel) to be "a war against black peoplke" but the forced bridge that "You cannot be anti-war unless..." is not amiable to building a broad, powerful, effective anti-war movement. And I, also like the original poster, have had some experience in radical institutional radical politics in the U.S. so to speak and there is no way that ANSWER did not know what was in all of those speeches that they allowed on the stage.

[expatriot]

10. protests are about spreading your message, forcing your message into the

consciousness of Americans. The thing with ANSWER protests is they manipulate a rally advertised and "billed" as a single issue protest and turn it into a multi-issue protest. That is fine and dandy for most radicals (like me, my worldview is very radicalized) who see the connection between the issues but for many people it is seen as "whooaaa... so this is what anti-war people believe."

Not to mention the idea of unity within the anti-war movement.

[thebigidea]

12. so you get to define what other people's protests are for?

you want unity as long as it appeals to white centrists?

logic... does not... compute...

Let the Democratic party play the increasingly futile game of "winning swing voters" - that's not what protests are for. Which is why Evan Bayh doesn't organize them.

Because if you COULD make protests appeal to centrist middle class whites, don't you think the DLC would be all over it?

[expatriot]

15. no, anti-war protests are for people opposed to the war in iraq

there are more than revolutionary radicals in the anti-war movement (progressives, centrists, Libertarians, Democrats, independents) and there needs to be more than revolutionary radicals in the anti-war movement in order to be effective.

what is the goal of a protest?

It IS to get those who are not anti-war to be like.... "wow, those people over there sure are angry and there is a lot of them..... maybe I should listen to hear what they have to say..."

I know from my involvement with radical politics (SWP and then a breif stint with the ISO and then with some other radical action groups) that their motives for organizing a protest are about as underhanded as a fundamentalist church holding a fun-filled youth night at the local YMCA. There is a slogan... "Activate the radicals, radicalize the activists."


The question is, is the agenda of most of the people in the anti-war movement different than the agenda of ANSWER? Why do most people go to anti-war protests? I would guess to express their opposition to the war and to hopefully express that opposition to their fellow-Americans, etc. Yes there is politics involved in protest.

[LWolf]

18. I seem to remember a healthy number of other issues

on display during protests of the Vietnam War; Viet Nam was certainly not the only issue on the table at the time. Besides the end of the war in Viet Nam, significant progress was going forward on civil rights, women's rights, and more. MLK, Cesar Chavez, Black Panthers, Angela Davis....as someone who lived through those times, I don't separate one issue from another. They were all connected by common threads. The threads of social and economic justice; care for all the world's people, not the status of the "haves."

[The Traveler]

2. I don't want to smash capitalism

I just want to weaken it enough so I can keep it on a leash. :evilgrin:

[Qibing Zero]

3. Oh, that's gooood. ;) nt

[The Traveler]

13. Thanks!

Glad ya liked it.

Grover N. ... as a man, he is a waste of skin.

[BrotherBuzz]

7. This fellow traveler doesn't disagree

:thumbsup:

[dooner]

4. They definitely are excellent at organizing

They get the word OUT.

[Beam Me Up]

9. Would the Democratic Party ever build an INTERNATIONAL coalition?

That is what ANSWER is trying to do. It has a VISION of a WORLD (not just the United States) living in peace. It has IDENTIFIED a common threat to world peace: the elite of the developed nations: those who PROFIT FROM WAR and those who profit from usurping the resources of less developed nations: those who profit and maintain their structures of power by making sure that WE THE PEOPLE EVEREYWHERE always disagree about everything and never become a united force against THEM. ANSWER is building a GLOBAL movement, a people's movement, not just a US movement or a Democratic movement.

My 2 cents.

[murdoch]

11. I support workers internationally as well

I support workers internationally, the Democratic Party leadership sure as hell doesn't. John Kerry dumping on Hugo Chavez disgusted me, one of the reasons I voted for Nader. And I appreciate this about ANSWER.

I think ANSWER has its good points and bad points. I think UFPJ has its good points and bad points as well. One of UFPJ's good points is it really has the potential to be a mass movement in a way that ANSWER doesn't. What we must do is build a movement that contains the best of ANSWER (support of workers internationally, militancy) with the best of UFPJ (grassroots, democratic, mass movement potential).

[symbolman]

16. This is a PR WAR and ANSWER is losing it

I'm sorry, I've been at a few of their events and it's like the guy with bad breath that walks around clearing the room, but he bought all the wine so we'll stay at the party, just all the cool people will be out on the deck..

I'd love to organize something for the antiwar scene, like the original poster said, to Overtake them..

They have a right to speak out, but I think many people feel like they get a "bait and switch" with them..

I want to put something together where you have GREEN DAY playing American Idiot, and get actual Speakers and comedians, etc.. have a screen for video, make the march a real event that everyone can connect to and maybe watch online..

Not some screechy self serving poetress screaming for us for 30 minutes to save some guy most people never heard of, seriously, the whole "communist" whiff is bad too.. I actually had to deal with that on the Joe Scarborough show and waste my time on tv talking about "commies"..

They can be communists, but I don't want to associate with communists and neither does middle america, and THAT is where you WIN with protesting, Nam proved that, and I was there..

I'm going to get some of my work done and then start calling rich people and seeing if we can get a MILLION people there - Takebackthemedia as a name has been good to us and people know where we are coming from, so I'd like to take a swing at this from a PR WAR standpoint..

that means that you get "pretty" people to save the poor ones and not everyone gets to speak, some people want to order Mexican food in French Restaurants so someone has to be the one to tell them to take it elsewhere..

THanks for the intelligent savvy posting

[kentuck]

17. ANSWER is the diversity we should celebrate....

But they are not the entire anti-war group, perhaps not even the majority. We should accept all the voices.