Thoughtful piece but I want to push back on #5: "too much anti-war activity in recent years has leaned into alienating, excessively radical rhetoric and slogans." It's fine to be of the opinion that certain slogans are tactical missteps, but the impact of the messaging decisions of some outspoken activists is *vastly* outweighed by the organized influence of the pro-Israel opposition.
Zionists are constantly moving the goalposts. They were relentlessly focused on demonizing the benign "from the river to the sea" just as much as more controversial and fringe pro-resistance slogans. There will always be "provocative rhetoric that cynical opponents could easily misrepresent," especially when it's on a terrain biased so heavily biased against the activists (i.e., the pro-Israel media and government propaganda machine—for what issue is that more the case than for Palestine?!).
This relentless backlash from Israel supporters is part of what was so demoralizing to people and contributed to Americans feeling powerless (#1), as was the highly visible repression and police brutality faced by campus protestors. One could also argue that the campus protests were somewhat successful in terms of swaying public opinion, since they were still huge, widespread, and mobilized tens of thousands, even if just a few institutions adopted some of the divestment demands. And along with the repression, they faded in part because students went on summer break.
Thanks! I think those are fair points. That said, I think you left out the other thing I said, which is that the encampments didn't make a concerted effort to organize and mobilize the majority of campus; it tended to be a self-selecting crew of activists without enough broad backing to withstand the smears, etc. had there been more consistent and sytematic outreach and organizing the dynamics could have been different.
also, i think Zohran's campaign and the accessible and disciplined way he talked about Israel-Palestine is a useful counter-example showing that it *is* sometimes possible to out organize and isolate Zionists without compromising our politics. Zionists tried to mischaracterize all sorts of things he said and did, but he was very intentional about giving them the least amount of fuel as possible (e.g. by consistently denouncing the murder of civilians on October 7, by framing his opposition to Israel in universalist language about equal rights, etc.) Would the repression and isolation of the encampments have been as successful had the encampments done systematic majoritarian outreach and consciously did everything possible to make it harder for cynical opponents to smear us?
Good discussion. I would add one factor: the nature of the opposing parties. Anti-Vietnam War protesters (of which I was one) recognized that the Vietnamese were fighting a nationalist, anti-imperialist war. First against the French; then against us. They were the "good guys." Here, while I don't support this war, I suspect there are many on the left for whom it is not as clear that Iran is a "good guy" in the same way. If true, this would contribute to the difficulty of organizing.
Iran might not be "the good guy" but Israel, the country that started this is definitely the bad guy (invading most of their neighbors and killing 100s of thousands of Palestinians) and they attacked despite Iran not threatening anything making it a clear war crime.
If that's not clear enough reasons to be against this than were lost as a movement.
Also no kings protests are sponsored by a billionaire and demand nothing so are mostly a way for libs to feel like they did something useful. Organizers specifically banned talking about Palestine at the marches!
Any protest that gets mainstream media approval is pretty much worthless.
This is exactly right. The No Kings protests banning Palestine talk is the sorting mechanism in action — the centrist left decides which causes are "legitimate" enough to bring to the march and which ones are too "divisive." And then they wonder why people don't show up. You can't build a real anti-war movement by pre-emptively excommunicating the people most committed to opposing imperialism.
This is an important point and I think it cuts deeper than you might intend. You're right that the Vietnam-era movement had a clearer moral narrative. But I'd push back on the implication that the problem today is insufficient sympathy for Iran. The problem is that opposing *any* US war — regardless of who the target is — now carries the risk of federal terrorism charges. Last week eight anti-ICE protesters were convicted on terrorism charges for wearing black at a demo. The "good guys" framing mattered in the 60s, but what matters now is whether the left is willing to organize under conditions where the state treats organizing itself as criminal conspiracy.
Great analysis. Practically speaking, I think this is how labor unions can be powerful tools. They teach the skills of person-to-person organizing to bring in new people, as all the workers in a job site aren't going to necessarily have the same politics and perspective.
Very clear about the problems to organizing, but no clue as to how to overcome them. The "No
Kings" nonsense will not mobilize workers. The focus needs to be on the war, not Trump, because there's no particular reason to believe we wouldn't be in the same place with Kamala Harris in the White House, given the obeisance of the Democratic Party to the same billionaire Zionists pulling Trump's strings. Non-partisan organizing needs to provide a concrete program and demands, unabashed criticism of all the political hacks willing to kill Iranians and Americans just because they are bloodthirsty, repudiation of our support for Israel (rather than the ideological buzzword "imperialism" which means nothing to most Americans, and wildly different things to some)
Its really amazing to see reference to the SDS for leadership, given its disastrous history. The prime mover in the Vietnam anti war movement was the massive American casualties, and the steadily growing cynicism of the working class youth who were drafted or volunteered, and whose direct experience put the lie to all the Washington propaganda.
This is a useful starting framework but I think it's missing something crucial. On the same day this piece was being shared around DSA circles, a federal jury convicted eight anti-ICE protesters on terrorism charges at Prairieland — including two sisters convicted for owning a print shop and a zine distributor convicted for moving a box of books. Meanwhile in Minneapolis, the "successful mass resistance against ICE" you cite is actually a city under siege — Phil Neel's account of what's happening there describes live ammunition, teargassed children, and community defense networks built by exactly the kind of radical organizers this piece dismisses as sectarian.
Any strategy for building an anti-war movement has to account for the fact that the state is actively criminalizing protest infrastructure — printers, zines, wearing black. I wrote a longer response here: https://substack.com/@veraphallax/note/p-191317553
I take issue with this analysis about the lack of an anti-war movement in the US. I've been organizing peace (or anti-war) events, standing out with my signs, writing articles and letters to the editor for decades. One: there are much better people to quote than former members of SDS who formed Weather Underground. It is arguable that they did not participate in the anti-war movement of their day as did the Berrigans, Leslie Cagan, Norma Becker, Grace Paley, Sid Peck, Sid Lens, Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden, David McReynolds and thousands of others. They should not be asked for comment today about the problems with peace organizing. Two: people to query include Medea Benjamin, Ann Wright, Phyllis Bennis, Matthew Hoh, Cornel West, Joseph Gerson, Jackie Cabasso, Terry Rockefeller and many others. Three: People don't acknowledge that civilians are the main victims - women, children, elders and it is not covered well in the straight media. Four: if there is not a strong anti-war movement it is because people are addicted to militarism and labor under the delusion that the US is the good guy. We are not. We wage wars with impunity, kill millions of civilians and there is never any accountability - "Impeachment is off the table," Nancy Pelosi on November 8, 2006. Five: Every congressional district gets some kind of benefit from military spending, every politician is bought off in this way, lest a campaign be mounted saying they are unpatriotic or worse, will make good jobs go away from the district and they lose their sinecure. Six: no major organizations or institutions give a hoot about peace. We went to every supposed peace church in my town during the years of the war on Iraq asking them to join our weekly standout calling for an end to the war. Every minister declined. That is just one example of institutional and organizational failure. Seven: No funding. Peace groups exist on a shoestring if that. Eight: People do not like peaceniks for the moral stand we take in opposition to militarized nationalism and intentional killing. Nine: People do not think nuclear weapons will be used. In the peace community there is a growing fear that they will be used. Ten: This past couple of years has seen a lot of public protest over the genocide waged on Gaza by Israel with US full support and armaments. Every major institution has supported the status quo, not the people speaking out against genocide. I could go on but you get the idea.
Obama smothered the left-wing antiwar movement in its sleep with a pillow, Cuckoo’s Nest style, In 2009 when he continued many of the Bush-era policies he ran against.
That leaves us today with the libertarians and an unprincipled right-wing Tucker Carlson version of an antiwar movement. At least the antiwar boomers gave us a great soundtrack.
Massive demonstrations had no impact on the Vietnam War. There’s no antiwar movement because there is no draft. During Vietnam there was an anti-draft movement masquerading. Start drafting young men and women and watch the fur fly.
I went to the largest anti-Vietnam protest in DC: an estimated half-million protestors. And many more in other cities. A protest in DC against the Iraq was drew “tens of thousands.” (AP)
There's no anti-war movement because you are not paying attention to what your local unions are doing. We passed this resolution last summer at our union's national convention.
I would like to broaden the question to address the lack of an effective "Resistance" period. First, it is abundantly clear to me what that resistance should look like given what I believe is the unique and unprecedented nature of the threat:
The prerequisites for resistance are (1) Coalitions (obviously)- but exclusively focused on Pro-Democracy issues; (2) Response Speed is critical; (3) Security (mass/group communication with blockchain technology); (4) Multi-level (local, state and national); (5) There must be persistent memory of all abuses of power and mistreatment of individuals and groups- Never Forget. This cannot be relegated to the news cycle. People relate to human stories- not general statements of threat (6) Coordinated action (7) Fully participative. Technology can enable this. (8) Supportive. If you stick your neck out and act within the law- a group must be there to support you.
Why focus on the "pro-democracy issue?" Because this is one thing that most opposition groups regardless of their base and fundraising agree with. It is also fundamental to addressing all other issues- if one assumes that the people's voice can ultimately address the immediate and systemic issues we are facing.
To my mind, the central question is why this counter movement has not arisen. I can answer this literally a hundred ways- but the bottom-line is this: Resistance to what is taking place requires compassion- an ability to believe an injustice to oneself is not different in any way from that of the "other." I am not seeing this- and this more than anything else is the fertile ground of fascism. Also, we are seeing a pervasive, metastasizing denialism. Nuclear destruction, environmental devastation, gross global inequality and now fascism- have been present, encroaching and increasingly dangerous. Yet too many sleep or are lulled into passivity by lies. The arguments and rationalizations they make for their indifference- manifest in the dystopias they co-create.
The "elites" in the US have failed the country at a fundamental level. But why was there ever the expectation they wouldn't? And when are problems solved when people relegate governance to strongmen- rather than active participation. The answer to the last is NEVER.
Finally- emphasis to the threat to democracy doesn't mean not facing the other problems such as imperialism and war. It means understanding that these things manifest as they do because our democracy is being systematically destroyed.
Given the power establishment has no desire to have anyone setting up any kind of anti-establishment movement, and given they own the media, how would you know whether there’s an anti-war movement or not?
I'm literally attending a "No Iran War" protest today. Believe me, The Resistance is ramping up the anti-war efforts.
Thoughtful piece but I want to push back on #5: "too much anti-war activity in recent years has leaned into alienating, excessively radical rhetoric and slogans." It's fine to be of the opinion that certain slogans are tactical missteps, but the impact of the messaging decisions of some outspoken activists is *vastly* outweighed by the organized influence of the pro-Israel opposition.
Zionists are constantly moving the goalposts. They were relentlessly focused on demonizing the benign "from the river to the sea" just as much as more controversial and fringe pro-resistance slogans. There will always be "provocative rhetoric that cynical opponents could easily misrepresent," especially when it's on a terrain biased so heavily biased against the activists (i.e., the pro-Israel media and government propaganda machine—for what issue is that more the case than for Palestine?!).
This relentless backlash from Israel supporters is part of what was so demoralizing to people and contributed to Americans feeling powerless (#1), as was the highly visible repression and police brutality faced by campus protestors. One could also argue that the campus protests were somewhat successful in terms of swaying public opinion, since they were still huge, widespread, and mobilized tens of thousands, even if just a few institutions adopted some of the divestment demands. And along with the repression, they faded in part because students went on summer break.
Thanks! I think those are fair points. That said, I think you left out the other thing I said, which is that the encampments didn't make a concerted effort to organize and mobilize the majority of campus; it tended to be a self-selecting crew of activists without enough broad backing to withstand the smears, etc. had there been more consistent and sytematic outreach and organizing the dynamics could have been different.
also, i think Zohran's campaign and the accessible and disciplined way he talked about Israel-Palestine is a useful counter-example showing that it *is* sometimes possible to out organize and isolate Zionists without compromising our politics. Zionists tried to mischaracterize all sorts of things he said and did, but he was very intentional about giving them the least amount of fuel as possible (e.g. by consistently denouncing the murder of civilians on October 7, by framing his opposition to Israel in universalist language about equal rights, etc.) Would the repression and isolation of the encampments have been as successful had the encampments done systematic majoritarian outreach and consciously did everything possible to make it harder for cynical opponents to smear us?
Good discussion. I would add one factor: the nature of the opposing parties. Anti-Vietnam War protesters (of which I was one) recognized that the Vietnamese were fighting a nationalist, anti-imperialist war. First against the French; then against us. They were the "good guys." Here, while I don't support this war, I suspect there are many on the left for whom it is not as clear that Iran is a "good guy" in the same way. If true, this would contribute to the difficulty of organizing.
Iran might not be "the good guy" but Israel, the country that started this is definitely the bad guy (invading most of their neighbors and killing 100s of thousands of Palestinians) and they attacked despite Iran not threatening anything making it a clear war crime.
If that's not clear enough reasons to be against this than were lost as a movement.
Also no kings protests are sponsored by a billionaire and demand nothing so are mostly a way for libs to feel like they did something useful. Organizers specifically banned talking about Palestine at the marches!
Any protest that gets mainstream media approval is pretty much worthless.
This is exactly right. The No Kings protests banning Palestine talk is the sorting mechanism in action — the centrist left decides which causes are "legitimate" enough to bring to the march and which ones are too "divisive." And then they wonder why people don't show up. You can't build a real anti-war movement by pre-emptively excommunicating the people most committed to opposing imperialism.
This is an important point and I think it cuts deeper than you might intend. You're right that the Vietnam-era movement had a clearer moral narrative. But I'd push back on the implication that the problem today is insufficient sympathy for Iran. The problem is that opposing *any* US war — regardless of who the target is — now carries the risk of federal terrorism charges. Last week eight anti-ICE protesters were convicted on terrorism charges for wearing black at a demo. The "good guys" framing mattered in the 60s, but what matters now is whether the left is willing to organize under conditions where the state treats organizing itself as criminal conspiracy.
Great analysis. Practically speaking, I think this is how labor unions can be powerful tools. They teach the skills of person-to-person organizing to bring in new people, as all the workers in a job site aren't going to necessarily have the same politics and perspective.
Very clear about the problems to organizing, but no clue as to how to overcome them. The "No
Kings" nonsense will not mobilize workers. The focus needs to be on the war, not Trump, because there's no particular reason to believe we wouldn't be in the same place with Kamala Harris in the White House, given the obeisance of the Democratic Party to the same billionaire Zionists pulling Trump's strings. Non-partisan organizing needs to provide a concrete program and demands, unabashed criticism of all the political hacks willing to kill Iranians and Americans just because they are bloodthirsty, repudiation of our support for Israel (rather than the ideological buzzword "imperialism" which means nothing to most Americans, and wildly different things to some)
Its really amazing to see reference to the SDS for leadership, given its disastrous history. The prime mover in the Vietnam anti war movement was the massive American casualties, and the steadily growing cynicism of the working class youth who were drafted or volunteered, and whose direct experience put the lie to all the Washington propaganda.
This is a useful starting framework but I think it's missing something crucial. On the same day this piece was being shared around DSA circles, a federal jury convicted eight anti-ICE protesters on terrorism charges at Prairieland — including two sisters convicted for owning a print shop and a zine distributor convicted for moving a box of books. Meanwhile in Minneapolis, the "successful mass resistance against ICE" you cite is actually a city under siege — Phil Neel's account of what's happening there describes live ammunition, teargassed children, and community defense networks built by exactly the kind of radical organizers this piece dismisses as sectarian.
Any strategy for building an anti-war movement has to account for the fact that the state is actively criminalizing protest infrastructure — printers, zines, wearing black. I wrote a longer response here: https://substack.com/@veraphallax/note/p-191317553
I take issue with this analysis about the lack of an anti-war movement in the US. I've been organizing peace (or anti-war) events, standing out with my signs, writing articles and letters to the editor for decades. One: there are much better people to quote than former members of SDS who formed Weather Underground. It is arguable that they did not participate in the anti-war movement of their day as did the Berrigans, Leslie Cagan, Norma Becker, Grace Paley, Sid Peck, Sid Lens, Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden, David McReynolds and thousands of others. They should not be asked for comment today about the problems with peace organizing. Two: people to query include Medea Benjamin, Ann Wright, Phyllis Bennis, Matthew Hoh, Cornel West, Joseph Gerson, Jackie Cabasso, Terry Rockefeller and many others. Three: People don't acknowledge that civilians are the main victims - women, children, elders and it is not covered well in the straight media. Four: if there is not a strong anti-war movement it is because people are addicted to militarism and labor under the delusion that the US is the good guy. We are not. We wage wars with impunity, kill millions of civilians and there is never any accountability - "Impeachment is off the table," Nancy Pelosi on November 8, 2006. Five: Every congressional district gets some kind of benefit from military spending, every politician is bought off in this way, lest a campaign be mounted saying they are unpatriotic or worse, will make good jobs go away from the district and they lose their sinecure. Six: no major organizations or institutions give a hoot about peace. We went to every supposed peace church in my town during the years of the war on Iraq asking them to join our weekly standout calling for an end to the war. Every minister declined. That is just one example of institutional and organizational failure. Seven: No funding. Peace groups exist on a shoestring if that. Eight: People do not like peaceniks for the moral stand we take in opposition to militarized nationalism and intentional killing. Nine: People do not think nuclear weapons will be used. In the peace community there is a growing fear that they will be used. Ten: This past couple of years has seen a lot of public protest over the genocide waged on Gaza by Israel with US full support and armaments. Every major institution has supported the status quo, not the people speaking out against genocide. I could go on but you get the idea.
Obama smothered the left-wing antiwar movement in its sleep with a pillow, Cuckoo’s Nest style, In 2009 when he continued many of the Bush-era policies he ran against.
That leaves us today with the libertarians and an unprincipled right-wing Tucker Carlson version of an antiwar movement. At least the antiwar boomers gave us a great soundtrack.
It’s depressing.
Massive demonstrations had no impact on the Vietnam War. There’s no antiwar movement because there is no draft. During Vietnam there was an anti-draft movement masquerading. Start drafting young men and women and watch the fur fly.
There was a serious anti-war movement against the Iraq war and there was no draft then either!
I went to the largest anti-Vietnam protest in DC: an estimated half-million protestors. And many more in other cities. A protest in DC against the Iraq was drew “tens of thousands.” (AP)
There's no anti-war movement because you are not paying attention to what your local unions are doing. We passed this resolution last summer at our union's national convention.
What's next is we need everyone to look at the newly passed demilitarization policy and have these conversations with our colleagues on how we can start implementing some of the proposals in our own work spaces. https://www.ueunion.org/ue-policy/for-peace-jobs-and-a-pro-worker-foreign-policy
And yet quite a few (disproportionately elite) campuses were shut down by activists protesting another country's war on Gaza.
Curious.
I would like to broaden the question to address the lack of an effective "Resistance" period. First, it is abundantly clear to me what that resistance should look like given what I believe is the unique and unprecedented nature of the threat:
The prerequisites for resistance are (1) Coalitions (obviously)- but exclusively focused on Pro-Democracy issues; (2) Response Speed is critical; (3) Security (mass/group communication with blockchain technology); (4) Multi-level (local, state and national); (5) There must be persistent memory of all abuses of power and mistreatment of individuals and groups- Never Forget. This cannot be relegated to the news cycle. People relate to human stories- not general statements of threat (6) Coordinated action (7) Fully participative. Technology can enable this. (8) Supportive. If you stick your neck out and act within the law- a group must be there to support you.
Why focus on the "pro-democracy issue?" Because this is one thing that most opposition groups regardless of their base and fundraising agree with. It is also fundamental to addressing all other issues- if one assumes that the people's voice can ultimately address the immediate and systemic issues we are facing.
To my mind, the central question is why this counter movement has not arisen. I can answer this literally a hundred ways- but the bottom-line is this: Resistance to what is taking place requires compassion- an ability to believe an injustice to oneself is not different in any way from that of the "other." I am not seeing this- and this more than anything else is the fertile ground of fascism. Also, we are seeing a pervasive, metastasizing denialism. Nuclear destruction, environmental devastation, gross global inequality and now fascism- have been present, encroaching and increasingly dangerous. Yet too many sleep or are lulled into passivity by lies. The arguments and rationalizations they make for their indifference- manifest in the dystopias they co-create.
The "elites" in the US have failed the country at a fundamental level. But why was there ever the expectation they wouldn't? And when are problems solved when people relegate governance to strongmen- rather than active participation. The answer to the last is NEVER.
Finally- emphasis to the threat to democracy doesn't mean not facing the other problems such as imperialism and war. It means understanding that these things manifest as they do because our democracy is being systematically destroyed.
'a new concept of revolution must be thought of, that is, one that does not use the logic of the promise (better tomorrow) of capitalism itself' - todd mcgowan https://thedangerousmaybe.medium.com/summary-notes-on-todd-mcgowans-capitalism-and-desire-3f749be0526d
Given the power establishment has no desire to have anyone setting up any kind of anti-establishment movement, and given they own the media, how would you know whether there’s an anti-war movement or not?
Thanks for flagging! Just fixed that