A very interesting article — though not without its issues — on the decline of the anti-globalisation movement, the rise of the anti-war movement, and the politics of confrontation/maximal demands versus the united front/minimal demands, from a Canadian perspective (though with many resonances with the South Pacific too): http://auto_sol.tao.ca/node/view/2458
United front politics – as they have been constituted by the current anti-war movement – deliberately limit the possibility of developing anti-imperialist or anti-capitalist consciousness. By rigidly limiting its slogan to “stop the war” or “troops out now,” it produces a mass movement that can and will be easily recuperated by social democratic forces and even ruling class elements who believe that particular military initiatives have been tactical mistakes. Meaningful anti-war movements should not focus on trying to formulate a better imperialist foreign-policy.
…
Despite the logic of the united front, flattening out political demands yields lack of interest as often as it yields conversions to radical politics. However, as the US continues its attempted military remaking of the Middle East, and as the Canadian body count (not to mention the scores of murdered civilians) in Afghanistan continues to rise, it seems inevitable that the sections of the North American anti-war movement that have not forgotten the lessons that stood at the heart of Québec City will come to the conclusion that a positive orientation to direct action, direct democracy, and coherent and explicit anti-capitalism is needed once again.
…
The resolution to this problem cannot be found in efforts to reestablish the hegemony of the pedagogy of confrontation. We musn’t forget that the innovations of the anti-globalization movement rested on mass mobilizations that had much in common with the logic of united front work. Even the “anti-capitalist” wing of the movement constituted itself around a minimal self-definition aimed at allowing a diversity of “anti-capitalisms” to co-exist and cross-fertilize more or less uncomfortably. Moreover, without implantation in a movement with a minimal mass character, these innovations are like fish out of water. The way forward lies in recognizing, synthesizing and transcending these seemingly antithetical terms on a mass scale.
anarchafairy 
17 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 7, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Mary
Finally, someone speaking real talk about the stupid slogans prepared by an infiltrated peace and anti-war movement…. Its so bad here, no one has actually been able to capture a description of the humans an dtheir condition here… Call it trance on the most major scale that it hasn’t even been conceptualized yet, like how natives may have seen ships for the first time and just could click into a conscious understanding that they were about to be killed by the white man.
July 8, 2007 at 7:32 am
Gavin
Moral of the story… Understand your audience, and creativity gets the goods.
By the way, I like the new blog layout (I use the same one); did you want to go with something less grimacing than all black?
July 18, 2007 at 2:06 am
omar
or was the united front politics of the large anti-war coalitions successful?
…
take new zealand the large “stop the war” movement that evolved before, during and after the attack on iraq can be credited with the reason why nz doesnt have soldiers in iraq.
after iraq and without a clear and tangible target or goal those coalitions became fragmented and weakened. they never made huge attempts to get troops out of afghanistam, or the pacific which seems the logical extension.
another question: was there ever an anti-globalisation movement in nz outside of already established activists?
i dont know the answer to this one either. i think the reality is that the movements in nz-socialist, anarchist, green, trade union etc incorporated tactics and campaigns from the anti-globalisation movement without ever being part of it -with the possible exception of APEC 1999.
another question: what would a “quebec city” for the anti-war movement look like in nz?
my feeling is that the weapons conference at te papa in 2006 was as close as we have gotten.
which leads to what i feel is the whole point of the UTA editorial-how do activists catalyse the “revitalization of radical anti-capitalist politics” amongst a contemporary political movement? or how do we build a movement based around anti-capitalist poilitics parallel to a broader anti-war, anti-imperialist one?
so maybe some of the revolutionaries who read this blog can answer this last question cause i’m stumped….
…and that pomo stuff aint helping
July 18, 2007 at 10:07 am
anarchafairy
take new zealand the large “stop the war” movement that evolved before, during and after the attack on iraq can be credited with the reason why nz doesnt have soldiers in iraq.
I’m not quite sure how you make the leap that these marches had anything to do with stopping troops going in Iraq at the initial stage. Indeed, 3 weeks before the first big Chch march the government had already confirmed it would not be sending troops in, and that was well before any “movement” had developed.
Moreover, NZ DID sent troops, armed ‘reconstruction’ engineers and others, who did the job that ie. Blackwater and other contracters are doing today. So in that respect we failed utterly (indeed, most of the so-called anti-war movement didn’t really care about that deployment).
another question: was there ever an anti-globalisation movement in nz outside of already established activists?
There was something that would have called itself that. APEC was pretty big, but also other anti-globalisation demos and marches occurred like the 2001 Tour of Greed in Chch, and the anti-Nike and anti-McD protests were also considered part of this. It certainly wasn’t as big as elsewhere, but there was a sense of connection with other “anti-globaliation” movements that doesn’t exist anymore.
July 18, 2007 at 10:30 am
omar
there is an interesting article about the NZ anti-war movement 2001-2004 in the latest red and green, that details the perceived effects of the mass anti-war movement. its well worth reading as it chartsthe effect this movement had. im not sure when the chch march was but in aucklnad the anti war movement had been building aganst the war in iraq since 2001.
you could also argue that those engineers were withdrawn because of public sympathy against the war.
“also other anti-globalisation demos and marches”
were these truly anti-globalisation or just anti-globalisation themed. having a themed march doesn’t in itself point to the existence of a movement.
July 20, 2007 at 2:36 am
Scott
That’s a shocker of an article in R and G, Omar, full of what are either honest blunders or deliberate falsehoods. I reckon this gives a better picture of the tensions in the movement:
http://readingthemaps.blogspot.com/2007/02/rewinding-to-2003.html
Despite the problems that existed, though, I’m for broad UFs all the way. No pain, no gain and all that.
August 5, 2007 at 2:52 am
benjamin rosenzweig
Was there an ‘anti-globalisation movement’ in NZ? Well, not as a carbon copy of Seattle, certainly, and maybe not enormous…but I think in some ways NZ radicals were ahead of the game in this area. Does anyone else remember a big protest against an Asian Development Bank conference in the mid-nineties? (Or a pub crawl in defence of pub crawling at around the same time, which turned into an impressive riot…a de facto alliance between student lefties and engineering students, amongst others…) I was in NZ a couple of times in the mid-nineties and participated in a couple of dramatic actions…a maoist-influenced student group I think called Radical Society seemed to be doing some things around what now would be called ‘anti-globalisation’ issues (and a kind of third-worldism/nationalism seemed to have greater influence within the NZ non-Labor Left than was the case in Australia at the time – also NZ lefties seemed, at least some times, a bit more up for, or sometimes able to find a constituency for, ‘militant direct action’ of various sorts that would have been effectively resisted and violence-baited almost out of existence by many lefties in Australia back in the pre-S11 then).
I’m sure my ignorance of NZ is showing through, my comments/impressions based on contact with a few NZ lefties and a couple of visits over a decade ago.
August 7, 2007 at 8:52 pm
omar
“Was there an ‘anti-globalisation movement’ in NZ?”
OR was there a convergence of movements over different issues. i.e. the anti-globalisation movement being a “movement of movements”?
the upcoming mobilisation in Auckland against the USNZ Partnership Forum is a case in point. no organisation, or activist involved could fairly be labelled as from “anti-globalisation” movement. rather, they are there because of being in the union movement, anti-war movement, anti-capitalist movement, local social justice or environmental movement.
ANYHOW: on the big protest against an Asian Development Bank
around ?300? at the protests, except for the huge student march of 2000 or so that was steered into the barricades outside the convergence.
more info here:
http://aspaceinside.googlepages.com/radhistoryofauckland
again maybe more of a simple convergence of activist causes around a shared goal.
anyway building a movement capable of shutting down these sorts of instituions, conferences is important, but is it best to be a movement of movements or a Anarchist movement.
i don’t know…
come to auckland in september and find out
http://aspaceinside.googlespages.com
August 13, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Cameron
In the late 1980s and 1990s there were fairly big protests in Aotearoa against the the neo-liberal reforms being forced on the country. There were huge marches against the 1991 Employment Contracts Act and direct actions against the benefit cuts. Students occupied their campus registries against fee increases. In small communities people rallied to stop their post offices, libraries and other services being closed.
Also as a poster says above there was a fairly big demo against the Asian Development Bank in May 1995 in Auckland. I think Aotearoa did have a fairly big “anti-globalisation movement” but it just was around before the term was even used.
August 20, 2007 at 2:57 am
benjamin rosenzweig
Hey Omar, I looked at that link and that is sort of how I remember it, though the three hundred being beaten without mercy in the alley – which was really horrible actually – I seem to remember that quite a few of the people there were primarily protesting the banning of pub crawling? Didn’t we start at the Aucklnd Uni pub and move to some pub across the road from some police station before we got attacked by cops?
August 21, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Renegade Eye
I’m not an anarchist, but I do political work on the ground on the ground with anarchists. I don’t want to join the IWW, that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t support a union drive by them. I certainly would demand they be freed if arrested for union work.
Tha antiwar movement should be a united front, based on principled slogans, and not endorse any electoral candidate as an organization.
August 23, 2007 at 3:38 pm
ourworldisnotforsale
Hi ben, i have no idea what actually happened as i was 7 at the time. most of my report was based on what others wrote.
omar
August 31, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Cameron
Hey Ben
I was just looking at some craccums from 1995. It appears there were several pub crawls during that week, so your memory is most likely correct 🙂
I was 8 years old in 1995.
August 31, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Cameron
Oh yeah it said in the craccum that they were ‘wild cat’ pub crawls, hinting that someone was trying to ban them.
November 29, 2007 at 1:51 pm
disco kid
Maia is a police informant
July 22, 2008 at 12:53 am
Rex Hydro
you’re against everything, get a life
December 10, 2009 at 5:08 am
TarkPapePar
Awesome, kinda interesting issue. I will blog about it also!!