Read the last paragraph--I clearly state that the grassroots will decide
the makeup of the movement. My criticism of Gitlin regarded his (and
others who toe his liberal line) attempts to define the antiwar movement on
their terms (which they developed in the early 1960s)and labels all those
to the left of him as communist dupes. This is not only an ironic echo of
the relationship between the LID and SDS, but is objectively helping out
the prowar forces. I am not questioning Gitlin's particpation. I am
challenging his (and those like him) attempts to decide what the make up of
the antiwar movement should be. It ain't up to him, me, ANSWER, or you.
It's up to the masses who organize in their hometowns and go to the
demonstrations, no matter who calls them.
As I understand it Gitlin spoke at anti-war rally at the UN. I assume that
he did it on his own volition; he wasn't coerced. But, alas, poor Todd
isn't pure enough
for Counterpunch. Maybe all participants at anti-war rallies ought to be
screened, like at airports. Instead of looking for weapons, our screens
would look for incorrect thinking. For what it's worth, I'd never pass
Jacobs' -- or happily, Counterpunch's screening --for the anti-war
movement. Still I attend rallies, write articles, organizing in my local
Alas, I want to build the biggest and broadest movement ever -- even
including Pat Buchanan's isolationist conservatives -- agreeing to disagree
on every issue but stopping the war on Iraq.
I assume Ron and his friends at Counterpoint would prefer to remain small
and irrelevant, but pure.
Gitlin's should be debated and criticized if people disagree. His
participation in the movement should not be questioned!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Nov 24 2002 - 18:00:59 EST