Jose has been good enough to splice together most of what we’ve come up with for this project thus far. I encourage anyone and everyone to feel free to add and express editorial suggestions to the already gathered material and to continue to contribute to the remaining couple topics in the next few days. We’ll put together what we’ve got and email it to the ‘anti-war movement’ for consideration at the end of the month.
Again, the project’s reader addresses:
“The purpose of this reader is to stimulate a discussion on movement
theory and practice because a better movement is possible. We
especially want to hear the voices of activists on the front lines as
we combine theory, politics, analysis, and stories of experience and
application of various movement principles to form a body of work that
can move us foreword.”
Here’s what we’ve got so far.
1.? Centralization vs. de-centralization in social movement organizing.
2.? Transparency, openness and accountability in coalitions and networks.
3.? Bureaucracy and hierarchy in national coalitions.
4.? The antiwar movement’s relationship to socialist and communist
parties and vice-versa.
5.? The effect of the mainstream antiwar movement has had on the global
justice movement and vice-versa.
6.? The meaning of “mass” and its implications.
7.? Movement strategy and tactics, as well as antiwar stories and experiences
1.? Centralization vs. de-centralization in social movement organizing.
‘Strategies for Peace: Locations Theory’
“Regional groups dedicated to the control of peace and against any movement that will mean an infringement of the people’s rights as these have been defined by the chart of the UN. Altogether gathered in a supra-regional assembly where each and every component will have exactly the same rights and obligations in accordance with what will be agreed upon after the separate conclusions from the various proponents will have been read, discussed and eventually incorporated in a definitive wording in the final conclusions.”
2.? Transparency, openness and accountability in coalitions and networks
‘Transparency and Openness’ are the concepts to highlight as keystones of an organization’s mandate. Accountability pre-supposes corrupt leadership. If there is equal and participatory membership in a de-centralized coalition, in theory, there should be no person or group that would exercise a lack of accountability.
The ideal organization is one with clear motives and objectives in which all subject matter is discussed and debated in an open and transparent manner. All topical information is ‘public’ to all members of the organization in a spirit of honesty and full disclosure so as to be an advantage for the whole of the movement and its objectives.
The ’spirit’ of the the peace movement is to promote honesty and open discussion. Without transparency and openness of objectives and theories within this movement there is no hope to realize cohesion and strong solidarity.
3.? Bureaucracy and hierarchy in national coalitions.
An elected cyber round table is what we think about this point. A moderator who in principle occurs to us should be a rotating post, and the whole concentrated in a forum which would hold the archives and where the discussions might take place. This is better than a blog and all members could intervene in the discussions.
Bureaucracy to be assumed by all the components of the round table, depending on the issues being discussed and agreed upon by them.
Copy of everything to be kept at one or two other forums.
4.? The antiwar movement’s relationship to socialist and communist
parties and vice-versa.
Peace is the plan, a plan that can be incorporated and encouraged by all stripes equally.
There are as many variations on the theme of the socialist and communist party as there are variations on Goldberg’s theme by Bach. Promote one agenda of peace and non-violence that will inspire cohesion between all parties and spin offs, sign the Declaration of Peace and Humphrey’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights and pledge to uphold the objectives stated there in and ALL are united.
We must stress that it is peace, not pacifism, that must be pursued.
And the remaining topics for discussion are:
5.? The effect of the mainstream antiwar movement has had on the global
justice movement and vice-versa.
6.? The meaning of “mass” and its implications.
7.? Movement strategy and tactics, as well as antiwar stories and experiences
6 responses so far ↓
Jose // May 27, 2007 at 6:54 am |
5.? The effect of the mainstream antiwar movement has had on the global justice movement and vice-versa.
As far as it can be seen there have not been tangible effects derived from this movement. All that has been done was so through the institutional channels, such as the UN, after lengthy and tedious debates. And the solutions given have, evidently, not been the most satisfactory ones.
Perhaps the public movement has been “heard” by the members of the UN, but it has not been listened to and acted upon as it was demanded.
It does appear as though the UN members have not wanted to proceed in the most correct way to deal effectively with the threats of war, and in this connection we have plenty of examples of countries which have ignored resolutions regarding when war is or is not the right solution to a problem.
And those countries have not in all cases been penalised for it.
1loneranger // May 28, 2007 at 7:12 pm |
I agree with you Jose.
A massive and united citizen anti-war movement with focused and explicit criteria which demands of international justice organizations such as the U.N. to effectively uphold its charter language and spirit must be developed. Not surprisingly the separate public anti-war movements all across the world have a difficult time perceiving tangible solidarity support from large justice organizations such as the U.N. but that doesn’t mean that support is not there.
The challenge for today’s broad and disjunct peace movement is multi-layered. How does the anti-war movement persuade bodies like the U.N. to enforce its charter’s language effectively and demand that it hold western leaders to the same standards as third world leaders? And, how do the representatives of justice organizations effectively communicate with the greater anti-war movement? The solution is to create a powerful and legitimate and formalized public peace movement with elected representatives that can put real pressure on bodies like the U.N. when they don’t hold up their end of the deal.
Large organizations such as the ACLU, Amnesty International, Human Rights First and Human Rights Watch offer legal support and guidance for anti-war protesters and victims of human rights violations however when we’ve got peaceful dissidents all over the world being plucked out of demonstrations by riot police and hauled off to jail and held without access to counsel it creates nothing but disillusionment in the mind of the average peaceful citizen wanting to make a difference through non-viloent protest and puts into question the actual effectiveness and objectives of the groups such as the ACLU.
The goal is to successfully establish fluid networking and accessibility between all these different groups and organizations which hold similar desires and fight for similar causes so as to promote fair and peaceful foreign policy measures and demand stronger multi-lateral negotiation. It should be clearly understood that there are many groups and individuals that work tirelessly to disrupt these connections and these groups and individuals must be brought out into the spotlight with more regularity.
1loneranger // May 28, 2007 at 7:49 pm |
6.? The meaning of “mass” and its implications.
Easy, nothing to do with wine and wafers, matter and energy, and everything to do with you, you and me and our grandkids’ grandkids.
If the great unwashed, rabble, mass of humanity, and citizens of all stripes can’t come together under a common anti-war banner in, I dare say, today’s age of reason, enlightenment and globalization through technologies like the internet there will be no “mass” to speak of in 100 years.
“Mass” implies, in this instance, humanity and its salvation.
1loneranger // May 28, 2007 at 9:07 pm |
7.? Movement strategy and tactics, as well as antiwar stories and experiences.
In regard to practical strategy and tactics which promote the ambitions of the anti-war movement’s ethos; nothing can be left off of the table. I think it is necessary to clearly state that all options, from demonstrations/protests of all sorts to boycotts to withholding taxes to occupying the halls of government to support of conscientious objection to general abstinence of local and federal elections, must be ready to be performed to achieve the goal of a world without war. Mandela never thought violence was necessary but he also never ruled it out.
The more elusive and most important strategy is the one which develops a “better anti-war movement” and unites all people who oppose those who support and promote the concept of war. That strategy is pragmatic communication and open discussion in the mainstream media outlets of the topics discussed here in this reader.
Jose // May 29, 2007 at 5:31 am |
100% agree with you, 1loneranger. That’s it. Now you have it all and you can go ahead and send these conclusions to the concerned party.
Not that we have received much support but I think we have done our best. And this makes me think, indeed, on why the problems we are facing occur.
No.5 should contain what you say. 6 and 7 are given the right responses by yourself.
Do what you think best.
In case I can be of any further help, don’t hesitate to let me know.
1loneranger // May 29, 2007 at 4:05 pm |
Jose-
OK, if you don’t think you’d like to add any more I’ll collate and put up a last post on the topic before I email it out tomorrow. I didn’t mean to hog the topics one after another like that, I just got on a role yesterday. Feel free to inject anything you’d like in there.
If anyone would like to act as ‘editor’ (Richard) before we send it off speak now or forever hold your peace. Otherwise I’ll clean up and splice together bits at will with what I think holds true to each individual thought.
It is indeed a shame Jose, that we didn’t get more input from the regulars on this stuff, but we did get some and that was valuable to me. Thanks EP, Anti, Boldscot, Merkin, Richard, Winter Patriot and everyone else I happen to be forgetting at this time for helping put these ideas together.
I do share your fear Jose, perhaps given the low turnout on this project as well as the ‘anti-war petition’, it is a sign of the mass disillusionment. Don’t know.
Peace.