[Marxism] Why the demonstration was so predictably small

[Anthony Boynton]

There were two obvious reasons that today's antiwar
demonstration had such an easily predicted low
turnout.

The most important is that most people in the USA who
oppose the war (e.g. most of the people) still believe
that the Democratic Party will end the war. The
consensus view is that they just need to win the White
House to do it, controlling congress isn't enough.
The practical conclusion for people who think like
this is that there is absolutely no need to
demonstrate against the war, just wait until November
2008 and vote for Hillary.

This leads to Joaquin's point,

"Tens of millions of people, ranging from those with
massive illusions to
those making a conscious suspension of disbelief,
voted for the Democrats or
sympathized with those who did in November 2006 so
that the Democrats would
put an end to the war.

The growth of Move.on is strong evidence of that these
illusions and this behavior have not subsided, but
will continue to grow until after the next president
occupies the White House. In other words, it is going
to be very hard slogging trying to mobilize people to
March between now and April, 2008.

Joaquin also wrote,

"The Democrats HAVE TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE so that the
2006 electoral swing can be made into a meaningful
political experience for --we hope-- a broad
layer of people."

What better way to hold them accountable than to run
anti-war candidates against them?

Getting into the candidates debates with them? The
antiwar movement would get far more press coverage
from this activity than it did from the demonstration
today, and even a few thousand votes would be a
victory in races where there had never been an antiwar
candidate before. Instead of demoralizing activists
(like the small demonstration almost certainly did)
this kind of campaign could energize activists.

The second reason the demonstration was so small is a
corollary of the first. The antiwar movement is
hopelessly split as has been pointed out on this list.
It is split because a very large part of the activists
support the Democratic Party! 

An Answer document quoted on the list said,

"Although the antiwar sentiment is growing among the
general population, the size and intensity of the
demonstrations, protests and acts of resistance does
not at all measure up to the vast magnitude of
feelings against the Iraq war among the general
population."

The reason for this is that people who are against the
war do not see any need to demonstrate because they
think the Democrats will end the war. This fact has
led to a split in the movement. What ANSWER sees as
the cause,

"The single biggest reason for this dichotomy is the
fact that the anti-war movement is badly splintered
rather than working together or in a united fashion so
as to marshal, stimulate and mobilize a truly massive
outpouring of the people."

is really the effect of something bigger.

There really is very little time to put candidates on
the ballot and organize election campaigns. The fact
that the real antiwar left, those who realize that the
Democrats WILL not end the war, have not seen the need
to run candidates, means that the one BIG opportunity
for the movement in the next year will not be taken
advantage of to its full extent.

But, there are always a few bright Green Spots, the
Reconstruction Party, maybe a few Peace and Freedom
Party candidates, and who knows who else will pop up. 

Anthony










       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.
http://sims.yahoo.com/