Red
Alert for CounterPunchers!
Annual Fundraising Appeal
We interrupt your regular reading
habits to bring you the following important announcement: CounterPunch
needs your financial support!
We're not in the habit of making
idle threats and this isn't one. Either we meet our fundraising
goal of $60,000 over the next three weeks or we'll be forced
to drastically curtail the operation of our website. It's near
the end of our year and the wolves are gathering at the door.
CounterPunch's website is supported
almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our newsletter.
We don't clutter the site by selling annoying popup ads. We tried
getting money out of Google, but they gave us the boot. We aren't
on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations.
George Soros doesn't have us on retainer. And we don't sell tickets
on cruiseliners.
The continued existence of
CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of
our readers. And we know there are a lot of you. We get thousands
of emails from you every day. Our website receives nearly 100,000
visits each day-and those numbers grow by the month. Of course,
all these readers chew up a lot of bandwidth and that costs money.
Through the Iraq war, the daily
traumas of the Bush administration, hurricanes, earthquakes and
the disappearance of the Democrats, many of you have found a
refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us
that you love CounterPunch because the quality of writing you
find here every day and because we never flinch under fire. We
appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles
to come as the Bush administration expands its wars abroad and
at home.
Unlike many other outfits,
we don't hit you up for money every month ... or even every quarter.
We only ask for your support once a year. But we when ask, we
mean it. Please, make a tax-deductible donation
to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription
and a gift subscription or a crate
of books as holiday presents.
To contribute by phone you
can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683
Onward,
Alexander, Jeffrey, Becky and Deva
November
2, 2006
Get Local, Stay Positive
Recharging
the Anti-War Movement
By ZOLTAN GROSSMAN
Across the country, actions and rallies
against the war in Iraq appear to have reached a peak, and membership
numbers of many peace groups has hit a ceiling. The main problem
is not that the U.S. public supports the war; polls show that
two-thirds favor a withdrawal. It is that this antiwar majority
has not been inspired to act. Even in most progressive communities,
it's almost impossible to tell that there's a war on, even as
our communities that have been hit by war-related budget cuts.
The main burden of this war within the United States has been
on youth who are losing their friends, and military families
who are losing their loved ones. No one has to tell them that
there's a war going on, but few people on the right or left are
listening to them (just as past generations of veterans were
initially not listened to). Instead, simplistic "Bush-bashing"
substitutes for educating and mobilizing the public against a
brutal war against that has now spanned three administrations.
Most U.S. citizens understand
that economic power is concentrated in corporate hands, that
the two political parties have merged, that presidents bomb foreign
countries to detract attention from domestic troubles. So why
aren't they joining peace and justice groups? It may be partly
that the insulated middle-class progressive culture creates a
political language that ordinary people cannot understand, and
cedes the majority culture to the conservatives. History confirms
that German progressives were making boring speeches in the 1930s,
while the Nazis were forming chorale groups, hiking societies,
and theater troupes. In the era of fast-paced corporate advertising,
we sometimes just chant slogans and send out mass e-mails. We
celebrate political folk musicians (some of whom I like a lot),
without remembering that hip-hop, metal and country music reach
far more people.
Many progressives understand
that the Iraq War is illegal and criminal, yet feel too disempowered
to act, or think they have nothing to offer. But being aware
without getting involved is like seeing smoke in a theater without
shouting 'Fire!' Just as Bush should not pass on this war to
the next administration, it is our responsibility not to pass
on this war to another generation. Here in Washington state,
Veterans for Peace members have reached literally thousands of
people this year through tabling at the state fair, marching
in community parades, and leafleting high school youth on military
recruitment. This kind of education may appear undramatic or
even mundane, but changing public consciousness (one mind at
a time) is the most important work we can be doing. The actions
of this and other groups inspired me to develop ten points on
possible directions in organizing and activism that the antiwar
movement can be taking to expand its base in the U.S., as a contribution
to a discussion that is growing across the country.
1.Reach new people
Both the antiwar and prowar
movements tend to preach to their respective choirs, and view
society as polarized between two binary black-and-white positions.
But on any issue, there are not simply two sides, but at least
four sides. Whatever your ideology, there are others who agree
or disagree with your position, but not always for the same reasons.
First, we tend to talk to the people that we see as taking the
right position for the right reasons (in this case,
opposing the war because it is an injustice to both Iraqis and
Americans). Second, we avoid talking with those who are wrong
for the wrong reasons (those who support the war because
they want the U.S. to dominate Iraq). The antiwar movement spends
far too much time talking to the first group, and complaining
about the virtually unchangable second group.
But there are two other groups
that are not as commonly addressed, who potentially could expand
the base of the movement if they are effectively engaged. There
is the third group of people who are wrong for the right
reasons. For example, they backed the Afghan war in order to
"liberate women," or back the Iraq occupation in order
to "prevent civil war." They take a position that we
disagree with, but have managed to convince themselves that they
are serving humanity in the process. If they can be convinced
that their premises are flawed, and if they truly have good hearts,
they may be moved into the peace camp.
Then there is the fourth group
of people who are right for the wrong reasons. For example, they
oppose the occupation because they see it as a "Jewish conspiracy,"
or believe that Iraqis are too "uncivilized" to rule
themselves. Similar people opposed the NAFTA or the Dubai port
deal only because they were bad for the U.S. Though it may be
difficult to dialogue with people having such a racist perspective,
a few of these people may also be moved closer to our views,
since they are already open to an antiwar argument. In both the
third and fourth group, we can open the door by starting where
we agree (such as discussing the Pentagon's unpopular "stop-loss"
policy). We can recognize that most North Americans have a split
consciousness that contains both progressive and conservative
impulses, and help direct their anger toward the structures that
really created their daily problems. Social change is all about
people changing their minds. If we assume their views are permanently
fixed, we have already given up on making change.
2. Tap into
creativity
Learning from the past is critical
to changing the future, but so is reinventing the present. Oftentimes,
the peace movement repeats the same tactics and strategies that
we have long been familiar with-such as lobbying, national demonstrations,
and civil disobedience. Although all of these are necessary tactics,
they have become old hat to many activists, and too predictable
(or even boring) to the public. Old-style tactics reach a certain
progressive audience, but does not succeed as well in reaching
the uncommitted. In this wired age, we should be using text messages,
sports, and catchy visuals, not just foreign policy analyses
and peace doves. Experienced activists should be listened to
for their knowledge of successes and pitfalls, yet they should
also listen to newer activists for their knowedge of how people
join the movement. Activist trainings do not need to convey organizing
formulas, but can encourage activists to create their own methods
appropropriate to their own generations. We should also be open
to entirely new ideas or tactics, especially from younger people,
instead of habitually adopting methods or slogans of the past.
As a New York activist once said, "A Slogan, Exhausted,
Shall Never Be Repeated!".
But ultimately, creating change
is not just about knowledge, but about action. Many people agree
that the war needs to be stopped, but don't see anyone actively
doing anything to stop it. Visible actions have a way of galvanizing
a response, and of bringing people out of the woodwork. Despite
the strong peace sentiment in Olympia, it was difficult last
year to tell that there was a war on. That changed suddenly this
Spring, when Fort Lewis began to ship Stryker armored vehicles
to Iraq through our port. Almost spontaneously, local students
and others blocked the Strykers in downtown streets, and rallied
at the port in the face of a harsh police crackdown. Instead
of waiting for a national network or party to develop a strategy
to end the war, the activists decided to focus on a local target,
and in doing so showed the global media that not all U.S. citizens
are apathetic about the war.
The Port protests were followed
by the refusal of Lt. Ehren Watada to deploy to Iraq. The same
protesters began to hold banners over Interstate-5 near Fort
Lewis to support Watada and other military resisters. In our
local area, we have an interesting and rare juxtaposition of
a strongly antiwar community next to a large military base community.
The purpose of actions at a military base should be not simply
to express our own frustration about the war, but to support
resistance in the ranks. Around the time of the court martial
this winter, supporters of Lt. Watada are planning a "Citizens'
Hearing on the Legality of U.S. Actions in Iraq" to put
the war itself on trial. A seemingly local conflict around one
base can have a national or even global impact.
3. Use both
activism and organizing
The terms "activism"
and "organizing" are usually used interchangeably,
though they are really quite different. The terms are also not
mutually exclusive. "Activism" is getting together
people who are already convinced, in order to act on their conviction.
It has the positive attribute of setting the agenda, and going
on the offensive, instead of simply responding to crises. "Organizing"
is building a movement by attracting new people, to keep it alive
and kicking, and to mobilize people to join an on-going campaign
on a continual basis. Organizing is the art of convincing the
unconvinced, and the science of building relationships with people
from different walks of life. Rather than externally exhorting
people to resist, we can get information to people so they can
internally reach the conclusion that they want to resist.
But what we often see today
is "activism without organizing": small groups of friends
taking on enormous institutions, failing to reach out to (or
even alienating) others, and risking social isolation, weakness,
and burnout. A non-organizer activist will travel many miles
to distant actions, but fail to build a movement at home (or
use group networking and inward-looking events as a substitute
for organizing.) They beat their heads against the wall, rather
than getting many people to hammer at the wall, or outfox the
system by finding ways around the wall. They feel they because
they are morally correct, they don't have to care as much about
being effective. A parallel problem is "organizing
without activism": educating and getting many new people
to join the movement, but not offering them anything effective
to change the situation, except the pressure politics of "advocacy"
(or begging those in office to listen). A non-activist organizer
ends up jumping through the system's political or legal "hoops,"
and expresses frustration or despair once those remedies have
been exhausted.
Peace groups need both "organizing"
to build the movement, and "activism" to deepen its
impact. A balance of organizing and activism can help avoid the
obvious shortcomings of both. A balance means getting outside
our usual circles of friends and reaching people who have not
been reached before. It means covering a wide range of effective
tactics--from letter-writing to creative direct actions-so everyone
can plug in where they can risk doing so. It means not overestimating
the factual knowledge that ordinary people have, but also not
underestimating their intelligence and wisdom once they have
the facts. Effective organizer/activists do not talk over people's
heads, or talk down to people. They have faith in the ability
of people to understand and change. Above all, effective grassroots
organizing in this era of corporate advertising means making
some real link to people's everyday lives (in a way they can
see, hear and feel), not just dry facts.
4. Get out
of the progressive ghettos
The white progressive/radical
movement has long been concentrated in particular urban neighborhoods,
and the "college towns" such as Madison, Berkeley,
Cambridge, Olympia, etc. On one hand, we may feel comfortable
walking around a neighborhood with anti-Bush bumperstickers and
Tibetan prayer flags. Yet on the other hand, we may come to realize
that capitalism needs these progressive ghettos. They keep radicals
isolated, talking only with each other, and not influencing or
learning from other people. (In these ghettos, we also think
we can buy our way out of corporate control--with organic food,
green energy, or bottled water--instead of organizing to change
poisonous conditions for everyone.) There are countless people
in these communities who are against the war for the right reasons,
but who are too busy or comfortable in the progressive bubble;
getting them involved may mean putting on creative/artistic or
kid-friendly events.
We are far more effective when
we make connections outside of these communities. Even at the
height of martial law in the Philippines, the dictator Ferdinand
Marcos held back his security forces from cracking down on leftist
students and faculty at the University of the Philippines. He
allowed them to organize protests on campus so
they could blow off steam, and so he could avoid negative global
publicity. But when the students started to make links with peasants,
workers, tribal peoples, and other sectors off campus, they suddenly
started "disappearing." The regime dealt harshly with
those student activists who became effective organizers, and
who networked with other grassroots organizers.
It is a huge mistake for urban
progressives to view smaller cities or rural areas as cultural-political
wastelands, and create a vacuum that cedes these areas to conservatives.
We can use our more open cities and neighborhoods as a base,
but support issues outside them. In particular, medium-size cities
are where the battle for the heart and soul of America is taking
place-cities such as LaCrosse, Wis., Yakima, Wash., or York,
Pa. They are not so small that people are afraid of rocking the
boat, and not so large that most people who have opinions have
already expressed them. There is room for the movement to grow
in these cities, but not enough outside support yet for local
groups doing the slow, unglamorous work of education and organizing.
5. Organize
strategically
We are often told that the
path to political change winds through the halls of Congress
and the halls of justice. Although legislative and legal strategies
can bring about political shifts, it is almost always based on
begging someone more "powerful" to support our cause.
But who really has "power" in this society when it
comes to questions of war and peace? The path to change may wind
instead through the halls of our high schools and the halls of
our military barracks, and within the consciousness of our military
community and military-age youth. Some people have political
"power" far out of proportion to their numbers, but
most of them don't realize it yet.
Active-duty GIs, reservists,
veterans, and military families together make up the military
community. Just as women are the best people to organize women,
and immigrants are the best people to organize other immigrants,
the best people to educate and organize GIs are members of this
military community--now organized in groups such as Iraq Veterans
Against the War, Veterans for Peace, Military Families Speak
Out, and many more. During Vietnam, peace groups set up GI coffeehouses
near bases. Unlike in the Vietnam and Gulf wars, peace groups
can now reach GIs directly through the Internet. In the 21st
century, we can set up virtual GI "cybercafes"--websites
that provide information, resources, and a place for anonymous
dialogue among GIs (and their families) in a particular military
base, to make links between the military community and the peace
movement.
High schools have become the
other battleground for the hearts and minds of American youth.
Military recruiters have poured enormous resources into the high
schools to convince students to join the armed forces. By the
time they leave high school, students have decided whether or
not to enlist, or (in the case of 18-year-old males) whether
to register for the draft. Yet the peace movement has focused
much of its energies on university campuses, where important
and creative organizing is being done, but too late for many
military-age youth. Much of the focus of traditional peace groups
toward high school students and GIs has usually been to facilitate
open, individual resistance, such as Conscientious Objection
among draft-age youth or GIs. COs have played a heroic role in
the peace movement for many decades, but it may be more effective
to identify more low-level, discreet and collective means that
they can use to slow down the war machine.
6. Don't
wait for conditions to change
It often seems that antiwar
people are waiting for conditions to change-to dramatically improve
or worsen-before they seriously believe that peace is possible.
I often hear, for example, that a draft would equitably distribute
the burden of war, and increase resistance among students and
GIs. But during Vietnam there were plenty of loopholes for white,
upper/middle-class youth to evade the draft, and the most active
GI resisters were enlistees. Many progressives, disheartened
by Bush's two election "victories," assume that change
is only possible through a new president. One reason for the
lethargy in the peace movement is that so many antiwar people
put their eggs in the Kerry basket in 2004, and still can't get
over that election. Some young people (who have only known Bush
as president) even idealize Democratic administrations.
Yet it was Jimmy Carter who
declared an "energy war," established the Central Command
in the Middle East, accelerated the nuclear arms race, and revived
draft registration. It was Bill Clinton who repeatedly bombed
Iraq, enforced draconian sanctions on the Iraqi people, and bombed
Serbia and a few other countries. The new crop of candidates
include many familiar faces-Hillary, Kerry, Clark-who backed
those wars, or who voted for the Iraq War. While we may think
in terms of "red" vs. blue" counties, many
people view the dichotomy as between "elitist" and
"populist" candidates of both parties. We should support
populist candidates who support a withdrawal, but even then should
exercise caution. There is no "quick fix."
As we approach the 2008 races,
some activists are deciding whether to join electoral campaigns.
It is the kiss of death for any movement to drop issue-based
organizing for sake of a temporary fix in the next election.
Staying involved in peace organizing keeps the heat on Bush-and
whomever replaces him-more effectively. If we keep the Iraq War
as a central issue in our society (such as through local referenda),
we will have built a movement that will last even if an peace
candidate loses. If our preferred candidates win, a stronger
movement will be able hold their feet to the fire. The time to
build a movement is not after Bush stumbles or is replaced. The
time is now.
7. Watch
TV
I am baffled every time I talk
with a peace activist about a TV news interview or a critical
program, and the activist stops me to proudly proclaim that "we
don't have a TV." This is a sure-fire sign of an activist
who has no interest in being an organizer. How in the world can
we educate or organize people around an issue if we don't know
what bogus "facts" and myths that the people are already
receiving? How can we talk with them if we don't have an understanding
of mass culture as a common language? Joking about a TV drama
or comedy is often a frame of reference that can open a conversation,
and shows that we don't see ourselves as superior.
I understand if progressives
are protecting their kids, but the kids eventually go to bed.
I also understand if they don't want to sacrifice their souls,
and turn their brains into mush with overly large doses of TV.
But thousands of people have gone to jail (or even died) to fight
war and injustice in this country's history. Why can't we make
the sacrifice of laughing at an episode of Barbershop on
Showtime? Not every program is like Survivor or Deal
or No Deal; some programs actually try to critique society,
and are probably safe to consume in small doses.
Many progressive activists
attack "mainstream" people as nothing but consumers
and TV watchers, without recognizing that people are passive
because they feel powerless, and feel they have limited choices
in their lives. Television is a critical part of shaping collective
consciousness in the U.S. Just as the Latin American rebel has
to know the rainforest, and the Middle Eastern rebel has to know
the deserts or mountains, the North American rebel has to know
television. It is our wilderness-our jungle-that we ignore at
our peril. It may make us uncomfortable, but we must not become
so isolated that we can only talk with others who don't have
a TV.
8. Don't
get overwhelmed by the odds
The occupation of Iraq has
been going on for more than three long years, run by a president
who has prevailed in two elections. Civil liberties have been
limited, and with each terrorism scare, state repression and
media hysteria grow more intense. In the face of these seemingly
unshakeable realities, many progressives either throw up their
hands in despair, become obsessed with the backlash they face
when they speak out, or assume that a greater amount of repression
will generate a greater amount of public resistance.
Yet elsewhere in the world
(and in other periods of U.S. history), political organizers
faced far greater obstacles and far greater repression,
yet persevered by not letting it limit their resistance. In the
Philippines, for example, dissenters during martial law faced
media censorship, torture, disappearances, and a rubberstamp
parliament-the Patriot Act pales in comparison. Yet by creatively
organizing at the grassroots, and focusing not just on ending
repression but on more positive, inspiring visions of the future,
they formed powerful issue-based movements. I saw activists repeatedly
winning victories against the dictatorship-stopping nuclear plants
and hydro dams, and eventually closing huge U.S. military bases.
It is not the level of resistance or repression that determines
a movement's success, but the level of empowerment and powerlessness.
Any successful movement should
expect repression, and defend everyone's civil liberties. The
worst mistake to focus only on the repression of one part of
society, such as academics. It is elitist to assume that academics
have an "escape clause" that other activists do not
have, or that white activists should be protected from government
abuses that have long targeted activists of color. As the Native
American poet John Trudell once summed up the situation: "When
I go around in America and I see the bulk of the white people,
they do not feel oppressed; they feel powerless. When I go amongst
my people, we do not feel powerless; we feel oppressed."
9. Look
at the positive
George W. Bush is crashing
and burning. Not only are his poll numbers at the lowest ever,
but 73 percent of U.S. troops in Iraq told the Zogby Poll that
they want a complete withdrawal within one year. The Iraqi Shi'ites
(Saddam's foremost enemies) are increasingly turning against
the occupation, which may begin to collapse not gradually but
catastrophically--like a house of cards. The so-called "War
on Terror" does not elicit the same U.S. public reaction
as the so-called "Cold War" did for four decades. Bush
has to lie so much about the Iraq War precisely because he understands
that the U.S. public would oppose the war if it knew the truth.
We may often see the public as naïve and gullible, but the
right-wing understands it has to spend billions of dollars to
keep it that way-which actually says something good about our
people.
The U.S. peace movement often
underestimates its own potential. The movement (and GI resisters)
helped to shorten the Vietnam War, by recognizing that our military
could not defeat the Vietnamese. The peace movement prevented
a full-scale invasion of Nicaragua and El Salvador in the 1980s,
as it helped to end apartheid in South Africa. It mobilized
the largest peace protests ever before the Iraq War, and now
is regrouping on a global scale to demand an end to the occupation.
Why are the grassroots movements such a challenge to the empire?
Because they talk about democracy not simply as an exercise in
voting, but as increasing our direct control over our economy,
our culture, our land, our daily lives. Because instead of simply
begging political officials to change their minds, they initiate
change themselves at the base of society, within culture and
consciousness. Political leadership does not create this change;
it is generally the last to be affected by it. The movement starts
the snowball rolling in order to create the avalanche, and then
politicians and judges take credit for the very avalanche they
are buried in. Political party programs mean very little; President
Nixon spent more on social programs than President Carter, not
because he intended to, but because there were marches in the
streets creating fear within the elite. The fear of social instability
is what causes the elites to shift their thinking, not petitions
from a tamed, loyal opposition.
It is becoming clear that although
the U.S. is the undisputed military superpower, it is declining
relative to the growth of the European Union and East Asian economic
blocs.
Its onetime puppet governments
in Latin America are being replaced one-by-one with elected left-leaning
governments, or toppled by indigenous revolts. This process has
become nearly as dramatic as the Soviet Union losing its Eastern
European satellite states in a "domino effect" in 1989.
Just as the Roman Empire became militarily overextended, the
American Empire is winning its battles but losing its war to
dominate the world economic and political system. It may not
collapse as dramatically as the Soviet Union, but may end up
looking more like Britain-a former imperial lion now licking
its wounds. It is up to us to decide if the collapse of our empire
will continue to be much more violent than the collapse of the
British or Russian empires.
10. Make
changing society part of our lives
Any American working for peace
or social change (against great odds) is invariably asked the
same questions: "How do you keep going, despite discouragements?
How do you keep your spirit and emotions up? Isn't it too much
of a sacrifice to get involved?" Personally, I usually have
the same response: I see activism and organizing as a gift that
has greatly enriched my life, and provided an incredible learning
experience that I did not get in school or on the job. I've met
fascinating and kind people, visited beautiful places I would
not have otherwise seen, and been welcomed (and fed!) by communities
I would not have otherwise known.
Working for peace and social
change is not so much a sacrifice, as a commitment of time and
energy that can have great returns-but only if it is done right.
Doing it right means making social change a part of our lives--not
apart from our lives, or dominating our lives. It means
building a sense of community (respectfully introducing ourselves
and getting to know others), rather than separating ourselves
from our communities. Though it may mean sacrificing our own
well-being, it should not mean sacrificing our families or loved
ones--as I have had to be reminded.
Integrating social change into
our lives means working with other of different ideological factions,
rather than trashing people or expecting them to fit into Marxist
or anarchist or Gandhian pegholes. There is a place in our movement
for different ideas, and most people don't care as much about
ideologies as they do about stopping the war. Instead of battling
over tactics, we should constantly be thinking of the society
we want to create, and prefiguring it in our actions. Even the
progressive notion of "justice" implies that someone
else holds the power, and we want him or her to decide matters
in a just way. We should start thinking rather about other people
gaining the power to make those decisions. Grassroots organizations
can begin to think of themselves less as pressure groups to influence
government, and more like parallel institutions that function
as the real representatives of our communities. That is the real
meaning of "people power." At the same time as we "tear
it down," we can also begin to build a different community
and a better world.
Zoltan Grossman is a faculty member in Geography and
Native American Studies at The Evergreen State College in Olympia,
Wash., and a longtime peace and justice organizer. His website
is at http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz
or contact grossmaz@evergreen.edu
What
You're Missing in Our Subscriber-only CounterPunch Newsletter
A Special Investigation:
China's Mass Murder for Body Parts
CounterPunch
outlines the terrible evidence that thousands of Falun Gong members
have been killed to supply China's body parts trade with the
West. Larry Lack reviews
the evidence and explains why the US government is keeping its
mouth shut. CounterPunch
Online is read by millions of viewers each month But remember, we are
funded solely by the subscribers to the print edition
of CounterPunch.
Please support this website by buying a subscription to our newsletter,
which contains fresh material you won't find anywhere else, or
by making a donation towards the cost of this online edition. Remember contributions
are tax-deductible.Click
here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please:Subscribe
Now
CounterPunch
Speakers Bureau Sick of sit-on-the-Fence speakers, tongue-tied and timid?
CounterPunch Editors Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St Clair
are available to speak forcefully on ALL the burning issues,
as are other CounterPunchers seasoned in stump oratory. Call
CounterPunch Speakers Bureau, 1-800-840-3683. Or email beckyg@counterpunch.org.
