Radical philosophies, sectarian groups and learning from Reagan
Our Blue Voice partner Dave is good as provoking us to think about surprising topics. Also sometimes known as stirring up s***. But I prefer to think of it as provocative, because he brings a broad range of insights from his experiences in labor unions, antiwar activism, and Buddhism.
His recent post on a type of contemporary anarchism is one of those provocative types. Donald Douglas in comments dissed it. Which is unfortunately what most people would do, because anarchism is not part of daily political conversation in the US. And most people probably use it as a synonym for "chaos."
Now, my own political framework is more focused on everyday political assumptions than Dave's. But his post did make me think of my own contact with what is often assumed to be a variety of anarchism, the ideas of the late Christian philosopher Ivan Illich.
As I've described in a post on my own blog, I took place in a series of workshops in 2000-2001 sponsored by then-Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown (now California Attorney General) led by Illich and several of his collaborators. I don't know if we can say there's an Illich "school" of thought. Proportionalists, maybe?
I don't think Illich really qualifies as an anarchist, though anarchist publishing houses were known to publish some of his work. As far as his general reputation, he's probably best known as contributing to the altnerative school and home-schooling movements (the hippie-libertarian kind, not the Christian-fundamentalist brand) and to ideas of alternative medicine.
If there was anything "anarchist" about Illich - he's also been called Marxist and deeply reactionary, illustrating that people find it hard to pigeonhole him into familiar categories - it would have been his willingness to subject all social institutions to fundamental critical examination.
Even though his unusual intellectual outlook puzzled many observers, it was founded in Catholic Christian theology. Jesus' parable of the Good Samaritan played a key role in his worldview.
Like his friend and admirer Jerry Brown, Illich had a way of presenting issues in a way that opened up new perspectives and ways of thinking about them. It's a rare talent.
Dave also mentioned in his post the "World Can't Wait" group, which he says is a "front group" for Bob Avakian's RCP (Revolutionary Communist Party). Apart from the particulars of the latter group's ideology, the RCP has been trapped by the sectarianism that wiped out most groups which grew out of the "New Left" of the 1960s and 1970s. It has no electoral presence anywhere that I know of, and it's influence among even those who consider themselves radicals has always been marginal.
Rick DelVecchio of the San Francisco Chronicle reviewed Avakian's autobiography that was published a couple of years ago: Memoir follows author's road to communism 04/29/05. DelVecchio's review is surprisingly sympathetic.
The issue has been debated among critics of the Iraq War even in the runup to the war in 2002 whether it was acceptable to cooperate with radical groups on larger issues even when you disagree strongly with other parts of their politics. It came up in particular in connection with the International ANSWER group that was one of the organizing groups for the large antiwar demonstrations in 2002-3. Supposedly, it was a "front group" of the mainly New York-based Worker's World Party. The latter was often described by its critics as "Stalinist", although I believe it actually began in the 1950s as a Trotskyist party. (Not the same thing, for those who may be wondering.)
To me, the particular context matters a lot. Certainly, the significance of the big demonstrations of that period were that large numbers of Americans were opposed to the Iraq War. Although ANSWER was one of the sponsors and organizing groups, I know that at least in the marches in the weeks leading up to the war, a wide range of antiwar, labor and longtime peace groups were also sponsoring the marches. Most people coming to the marches at that time didn't care. They were just coming out to show their opposition to the Iraq War.
There is a wrong-headed assumption based on a strange misreading of the experience of the 1960s that says antiwar marches are counterproductive, that they actually increase support for a war. I doubt there has ever been a cause that led people to protest in which their opponents and whiners on their own side didn't say, oh, this is counterproductive, it's turning people off, it's alienating people who might support you. Just this past Friday, that clown David Brooks was there on the PBS Newshour saying that it was Harry Reid and the Democrats who were delaying antiwar measures from passing because they were, well, sponsoring antiwar measures. Somehow, if the Dems just folded their hands the Republicans who have loyally supported the war all along would suddenly push legislative proposals to oppose it. Or something like that. It was very silly.
People who still carry their (mostly figurative) scars from the sectarian battles of the 1960s are sometimes pretty caustic about their potential allies among leftwing groups and sects.
But it's not entirely without reason. One group can form another group with a particular purpose to make common cause with others who don't share the core group's full program. The term "front group" originated from the Popular Front strategy in the 1930s of the Soviet-line Communist Parties. The term is now used more generally for any group that is primarily directed by some other core group. Sectarian groups are also notorious for infiltating groups organized by others and trying to take them over and make them into front groups or something close to it.
But a big reason that such groups often have limited effectiveness and/or short lives is that the core group is often more interested in using the "front" group to recruit members or adherents for the core group than in the ostensible cause of the front group. And even if their intention is more issue-focused, the activists often carry over their sectarian habits into the work of the more mainstream group they are promoting.
International ANSWER got a high profile for itself in 2002-3 because they tapped into a strong, widespread public feeling that war with Iraq was going to be a big mistake. I doubt they won many longterm supporters for any core group, if there was one, or even that much for ANSWER itself after the invasion of Iraq. Because their action focus was those big marches. But they often made limited use of their opportunities by having many speakers expressing solidarity with a bewildering number of foreign opposition groups, some of them from countries lots of people in the crowd had probably never heard of.
I suspect that the same will be the case with the "World Can't Wait" group. Although impeachment is popular, its promotional material often seems to be preaching to the choir. And even then not too clearly. It's main logo that I've seen shows a graphic of the earth burning with the words "The World Can't Wait". The first time I saw, I thought it must be some religious group or some radical sectarian group or maybe an environmental group. Then when I looked at the smaller print and saw it was about impeachment, I was even more confused at the logo. Because a burning globe graphic with "The World Can't Wait" next to it doesn't shout "Impeach Bush". The graphic currently at their Web site shows the burning-globe logo with "The World Can't Wait! Drive Out the Bush Regime!" That's not really a broad-based appeal. And it still doesn't say at a glance "Impeach Bush". In fact, although impeachment is mentioned on the Web page, it's still not clear that impeachment is the focus.
I don't know if there's any hard-and-fast rule about cooperating with single-issue groups who may have some hidden agenda. It's part of that old saying, "Politics makes strange bedfellows".
Although the situations are different, there's probably something to be learned from Ronald Reagan on this. In his 1966 campaign for California governor, he was criticized because he was endorsed by the John Birch Society, a far-right group then known primarily for its dogmatic anti-Communism. He effectively dispatched that criticism by saying that if someone endorsed him, it meant that they were buying into his program, not that he was buying into theirs.
On the other hand, he did explicitly reject the endorsement of a Ku Klux Klan group in his Presidential campaign in 1980. Different group, different circumstances. So if there's any rule to be drawn from that, I suppose it would be, "It depends".
