[Peace-discuss] Rethinking Oct. 27

[Matt Reichel]

Well, as I said, I even have experience working within the decision-making process of UFPJ and, thus, saw first hand what a bunch of totalitarian bureaucratic idiots they are, who at the time were crazy for the then- candidate for the junior senate seat in Illinois . . . 
It was an absolute nightmare of an experience for any principled and intelligent opponent of the ongoing war.

-
mer

> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:04:59 -0500
> From: galliher at uiuc.edu
> To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Rethinking Oct. 27
> 
> It seems to me that the ISO people have got this right. I posted a while 
> ago (to some dismay among our colleagues) Alex Cockburn's comment that 
> "the mainstream anti-war movement, as represented by UFPJ, is captive to 
> the Democratic Party."  That seems borne out by the Oct. 27 demo.  --CGE
> 
> martin smith wrote:
> > Statement of the Chicago International Socialist Organization on the 
> > Chicago October 27th regional antiwar demonstration
> > 
> > Mass protests are desperately needed to galvanize a growing antiwar 
> > majority to end the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. More than
> > four years into the occupation of Iraq, upwards of 27,000 U.S.
> > soldiers have been wounded and more than 3,700 have been killed. One
> > million Iraqis have died. It is the hope of the International
> > Socialist Organization (ISO) that the October 27th United for Peace
> > and Justice (UFPJ) regional demonstration in Chicago will bring out
> > large numbers against this barbaric war. The ISO certainly intends to
> > mobilize and build for the protest.
> > 
> > Two incompatible political agendas
> > 
> > However, it is quite clear that there will be two incompatible 
> > political agendas present on October 27. On the one hand, people from
> > the various endorsing organizations and beyond will be present to
> > voice their opposition to the war. Many have worked tirelessly to 
> > oppose the war. On the other hand, Democratic Party politicians who
> > have repeatedly proven their fidelity to the Iraq War have been
> > invited to speak. This has become an even greater problem, as the
> > dominant forces in the leadership of the Democratic Party prepare,
> > not to end the war, but to "take it over" from the Bush
> > Administration after the 2008 election. These invitations only serve
> > to direct the energies and anger of the antiwar movement -— once
> > again -- into support for politicians who have no intention of ending
> > the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.
> > 
> > Withdrawing our endorsement
> > 
> > It has long been the ISO's policy to support any genuine antiwar 
> > protest. Nor do we oppose inviting politicians to speak if they have
> > shown themselves to oppose the war, whatever other, often very
> > significant, disagreements we may have with them. From the beginning,
> > however, we have had serious concerns about the way in which the
> > local October 27th antiwar demonstration had been organized. We were
> > told we could participate in organizing only if we did not raise any
> > meaningful disagreements. We, of course, decided that we could not
> > accept those limitations and have not participated in the organizing
> > meetings. Nevertheless, we eventually decided to endorse the event
> > and mobilize for it. While we intend to build and mobilize for the
> > protest, we must withdraw our endorsement of the Chicago
> > demonstration. This protest has been organized in such a way as to
> > freeze out left-wing organizations and individuals, under the false
> > assumption that the left or slogans around issues such as Palestine
> > or Afghanistan have "frightened" away ordinary people in past Chicago
> > protests. This is an elitist approach and a false assessment of many
> > past protests organized successfully, in part, by the left.
> > 
> > The problem with Durbin, Obama and Daley
> > 
> > We are not in disagreement with the main demands of the protest, 
> > though we would have wanted them to reflect more opposition to
> > broader issues of U.S. imperialism in the Middle East. The reason we
> > are withdrawing our endorsement is because of the invitations 
> > extended to certain politicians to speak, especially senators Richard
> > Durbin and Barack Obama. Over the summer a number of antiwar
> > protests were held at Senator Richard Durbin's Chicago offices,
> > organized by groups such as the American Friends Service Committee, 
> > Voices for Creative Nonviolence and the Campus Antiwar Network, among
> > others. These protests included sit-ins, and some included
> > non-violent civil disobedience and arrests. Unmoved by these actions
> > or the seventy percent of the state that opposes the war, Dick Durbin
> > voted once again to fund the occupation on September 27 —- and again on 
> > October 1 —- along with the vast majority of the Senate. Barack Obama
> > could not be bothered to show up for that vote. However, there should
> > be little doubt at this point as to where the junior senator's 
> > sympathies lie. At the Democratic primary debate on September 25,
> > Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards all refused to entertain the
> > idea of a full withdrawal of U.S. troops by 2013. Obama made his
> > position regarding a promised pullout by January 2013 clear: "I think
> > it would be irresponsible. " This is not to mention Obama's saber-
> > rattling against Iran and Pakistan, or his "senatorial" support for
> > Israel's crimes against Palestine. Earlier in the year, even
> > mainstream Democratic Party politicians took a more oppositional
> > stand around the war. However, with the 2008 elections approaching,
> > more and more politicians are not appealing so much to antiwar
> > voters, but to the establishment, trying to prove they will be
> > "responsible" administrators of the war itself. It is unconscionable
> > to invite as antiwar speakers those who continue to fund the war, and
> > those who publicly plan to continue the war for years. 
>  >
>  > Also worthy of
> > criticism is the speaking invitation for our "illustrious" mayor.
> > Putting aside his pursuit of rampant gentrification, complicity in
> > countless cases of police brutality or his large role in covering-up
> > the Jon Burge torture ring, Richard Daley has proven he is no friend
> > of the antiwar movement. As bombs fell on Iraq in 2003, it was
> > Daley's police department that arrested hundreds of peaceful antiwar
> > activists. Under Daley, the Chicago Public Schools (CPS) became the
> > most militarized in the nation. It was Daley's cronies in the CPS
> > that installed a naval academy at Senn High School over the protests
> > and opposition of students, faculty and community members. No matter
> > how many antiwar resolutions Daley's city council might pass -— and such
> > resolutions are welcome —- these students are to be used as the
> > occupiers and cannon fodder of Bush's wars. An uncritical approach to
> > these pro-war politicians politically disarms the antiwar movement.
> > The Illinois senators have made it quite clear that they are not
> > against the war. They may mouth criticisms and may at times vaguely
> > speak of withdrawing "combat troops" at some future date. But this
> > will not bring the war to an end —- and Obama and Durbin have proven it
> > with their actions over the past two weeks. Their empty promises
> > mirror the countless and never-materialized withdrawal schemes
> > hatched during the Vietnam War. That war did not end until a 
> > confluence of resistance in Vietnam met mass antiwar protests in the
> > United States, which in turn gave confidence and support to a wave of
> > antiwar activity in the armed forces itself. That can be built today,
> > but Durbin and Obama are not allies in that project. Instead, they
> > have proven themselves to be obstacles.
> > 
> > Don't boycott
> > 
> > At the same time, we believe it would be mistaken, as some have 
> > argued, to boycott this protest. The vast majority of organizations
> > and individuals who will attend this demonstration are antiwar. They
> > are open to discussing a different strategy to ending the war, and a
> > discussion of why a strategy of courting warmongers -— in whatever
> > partisan clothing -— is a strategy doomed to failure. Instead, antiwar
> > individuals and organizations need to mobilize all the more, to begin
> > to organize opposition to this war in a different way -— one that is
> > open to the left, and one that does not rely on Democratic Party
> > politicians who continue to enable the war. Instead of inviting them
> > to speak for us, the antiwar movement must hold Durbin, Obama and
> > Daley accountable for their complicity in the murder of one million
> > Iraqis and nearly four thousand U.S. soldiers.
>  >
>  > 	###
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss

_________________________________________________________________
Climb to the top of the charts!  Play Star Shuffle:  the word scramble challenge with star power.
http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_oct
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20071010/af0ee6dd/attachment.htm