www.newsandletters.org
|
|
NEWS & LETTERS, December 2001Whatever happened to the anti-war movement?
Chicago - As the U.S. war in Afghanistan enters its third month, discussion and
activity around the war and Islamic fundamentalism continues in the Chicago
area. At the same time, there has been a marked decline in the size and number
of anti-war demonstrations. The reasons for this are worth considering.Anti-war activism seemed to get off to a promising start in September and
early October, when several rallies were held, involving as many as 500 at a
time. However, the protests were hobbled by a tendency to focus exclusively on
opposing the U.S.'s war on Afghanistan, without making any serious effort to
speak to the threat posed by the Sept. 11 attacks. The main anti-war coalition
decided not to condemn Sept. 11 or extend solidarity with its victims, on the
grounds that this would detract from the need to oppose U.S. imperialist
actions. This view was promoted by members of left "vanguard" parties (like
the International Socialist Organization [ISO]), who dominated the coalition
after it was formed by activists from the anti-globalization movement. However,
the narrow focus of the protests cannot be blamed on the ISO alone, since a
number of independent and anti-vanguardist activists agreed to limit them to
opposing U.S. actions in Afghanistan and at home. The basic argument went as follows: To build a large and broad-based movement
we need to unite around as few issues as possible, centering on a critique of
U.S. government policies. Just as the anti-Vietnam War movement succeeded by
uniting around simple demands like "Out Now," it was argued, so we can
win today if we avoid getting dragged into "contentious" debates about
the nature of Islamic fundamentalism or the Taliban. In fact, armed with this political perspective the anti-war rallies have
become progressively smaller. They have reached the point where only 50 came out
to the most recent one. The main anti-war coalition is now in tatters and on the
verge of falling apart. The problems facing the protests in Chicago are hardly the fault of
misrepresentation by the media. The CHICAGO TRIBUNE and SUN-TIMES, as well as
local TV news, have given considerable coverage to the anti-war rallies, often
OVERSTATING the numbers present in them. Nor is the problem due to the fact that
the war has just begun and it takes time to build a movement. After all, far
more attended the protests at the beginning of the war than today. The real problem was reflected in a recent rally sponsored by another
anti-war coalition, consisting mainly of pacifist and religious-based
organizations. To its credit, this coalition has included a condemnation of
Sept. 11 in its statement of principles. However, it has not gone further than
that in terms of integrating anti-war activism with opposition to Islamic
fundamentalism. At one rally the main chant heard was "one, two, three,
four, we don't want your racist war!" Several Black workers who were
passing by came over, with a puzzled look on their faces, and asked if the
demonstrators were supporters of the Taliban. The experiences in Chicago indicate that the crisis afflicting the anti-war
movement goes deeper than the dominance of one or another "vanguard"
party, though they have done plenty of damage. Rather, the problem is POLITICAL
and CONCEPTUAL: a failure to recognize that the present moment calls for a TOTAL
view, in which opposition to U.S. imperialism is made absolutely inseparable
from a critique of reactionary Islamic fundamentalism AND a projection of the
kind of new, human society we are FOR. In many respects today's protests are repeating the mistakes of the anti-Gulf
War movement of 1991. Many leftists then argued that the protests should focus
on a critique of the U.S., without explicitly condemning Saddam Hussein or
solidarizing with the victims of his rule. The anti-war movement of 1991-92
started with large demonstrations, only to quickly peter out. By the time the
Kurds revolted against Hussein at the end of the war, and the U.S. allowed him
to slaughter them for the sake of "maintaining regional stability,"
the anti-war movement was left empty-handed, with little to say. By focusing exclusively on U.S. actions in the aftermath of Sept. 11, today's
anti-war movement risks falling into a similar trap. The mantras against
"U.S. imperialism" (as if there aren't other forms of oppressive
capitalism in the world) has prevented it from either anticipating the refusal
of the Afghan people to fight for the Taliban or solidarizing with the women,
workers, and national minorities there opposing it. The movement comes off
looking insensitive to the victims of fundamentalism, whether in Afghanistan or
in the U.S. Ironically or not, the more the protests focus only on opposition to
U.S. imperialist policies, the less effective they prove to be in combating
them. Despite this, widespread opposition to Bush's war continues. Community forums
against Bush's attacks on civil liberties and the resurgence of racial profiling
are being held every week. As the 700 who turned out for a talk by the
Revolutionary Association of Women of Afghanistan showed, there is widespread
support for aiding the victims of Islamic fundamentalism and the U.S.
imperialist bombing of Afghanistan. It remains to be seen whether the crisis
afflicting the anti-war movement will lead to the kind of rethinking that will
enable it to connect up with such forces. Peter Hudis |
|
Home l News & Letters Newspaper l Back issues l News and Letters Committees l Dialogues l Raya Dunayevskaya l Contact us l Search Published by News and Letters Committees |
