What You Should Know about the Workers World Party and the International Action Center (and ANSWER)""War is not the Answer, but neither is A.N.S.W.E.R" " New Website: Authoritarian Opportunists Who Cozy Up To Genocidal Dictators - for Peace THERE THEY GO AGAIN! The authoritarians who run ANSWER (the IAC and WWP) are widely reviled in activist circles for organizing competing protests, with the intention of taking over a called days of protest. ANSWER has done it again, this time piggy-backing on the February 15th protests called by United for Peace. ANSWER distributed flyers on January 18th, calling for a vague "week of resistance" which happens to include the February 15th Day of International Action. If ANSWER actions follow what they've done in the past, expect ANSWER to pass itself off as the organizer of the February 15th protests as that date nears. This just goes to show that if you try to organize something autonomously from ANSWER, ANSWER will seek you out and assimiliate your event. The International Action Center is a prominent Left organization located in New York City which is known for organizing large Left protests. What most people don't know is that an authoritarian Left organization stands behind the IAC, an organization known as the Workers World Party. Both organizations have been criticized by Left activists for supporting unsavory leaders such as Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic. They support these unsavory rulers because they subscribe to a shallow version of anti-imperialism. Quite simply, they will support any regime, no matter how vile they really are, if that regime is opposed to U.S. imperialism and aggression.
The IAC and WWP have also been criticized for their authoritarian activist methods and for their cooperation with the police. The IAC are like the "Borg" of the Left. They always want to be friends with you and they want you to sign onto their projects. They get the momentum going for their projects by creating deceptive lists of endorsers and then they use this to manipulate other groups to sign on. A critical mass develops behind their event, which ends up being big enough to give the IAC the credibility that it is really interested in. As one activist recently explained: "The IAC made a point of contacting many groups to sign on to
International ANSWER. They immediately contacted various groups in the
New York area for support and got it. They got folks as individuals to
sign on and listing their organization (for informational purposes) which
gives the illusion that those groups were for ANSWER even if those groups
hadn't had time to even make a decision yet. They were willing to have
anyone sign on, no litmus test of political principles required.
Pacifists groups like the Jonah Catholic Worker House in Baltimore, or
WWP's ideological rivals in the Freedrom Road Socialist Party. For each
name they got added to their list of endorsers, that gave them more clout
as being the first big demonstration against the war." The WWP is an authoritarian organization. Decisions about when and demos are going to be held are made by a small group of leaders. The WWP expects endorsing groups to participate under the banner of one of its front organizations, frequently the International Action Center and currently through the International A.N.S.W.E.R. coalition. This goes clearly against the non-hierarchical and democratic organizing models that have characterized the anti-globalization and anti-capitalist movements. There is no spokescouncil in the IAC. The IAC is also known for the timidity of its protests, which are typically permitted, symbolic affairs that involve endless hours of speakers and a permitted march. The IAC actively discourages all forms of direct action, including civil disobedience. The IAC actively participates and cooperates with the police at all stages of protest organizing. One of their frequent tactics is to take out permits for all the public spaces that other protest groups might be using for a large mass action. They then play "permit broker" in order to gain influence among other protestors. New: Activists Speak Out About ANSWER Version 0.7 / October 24, 2002 This is mostly under construction. A "front" group is any group or organization which is created by a parent group, which subsequently hides its involvement with the front group. The reasons for creating front groups vary. Right wing political groups frequently create fake environmental organizations. In the case of the Workers World Party, they create front groups because they understand that their politics alienates many working people. It's easy to get involved with a benign group called "the International Action Center," which people don't associate with the Stalinist politics of the WWP. However, the IAC's ties to the WWP have become widely exposed, which perhaps explains why the WWP/IAC people created the A.N.S.W.E.R. anti-war coalition. The Worker's World Party is responsible for the following front groups: the International Action Center, A.N.S.W.E.R. anti-war coalition, Mumia 2000, Iraq Sanctions
Challenge, National Peoples Campaign and the People's Video Network. Given that authoritarian sectarian groups tend to stay with the tactics that work for them, it's quite simple to trace the connections between the WWP and A.N.S.W.E.R. Sometimes this is as easy as looking at which groups are individuals are involved when a group starts. Another easy method is to look at who speaks to the media at A.N.S.W.E.R. press conferences. In the case of A.N.S.W.E.R., WWP member Brian Becker is frequently the spokesperson for A.N.S.W.E.R. at press conferences and in media interviews. The beauty of front groups is that they can establish media credibility for a leader who can hide their links with the more politically problematic parent group. You can also look at who speaks at A.N.S.W.E.R. sponsored events: you will find activists such as Larry Holmes, Ramsey Clark, and Leslie Feinberg who all identify themselves as being part of front groups run by the WWP. Feinberg has identified herself as being a member of the IAC, when in reality she is the editor of Workers World, the newspaper of the WWP. Another method of tracing these conenctions is to look at the addresses listed on websites and literature published by the front groups. For example, A.N.S.W.E.R. recently created the VoteNoWar.org campaign, which lists as an address where checks can be sent an address that corresponds to an existing WWP fundraising front group. It shouldn't surprise any veteran activist that Left writers are finally writing critically about the WWP and ANSWER. To a great extent, this kind of open criticism should be commonplace on the Left, but the extent to which leftists have knee-jerked to the criticis shows something about the authoritarian head-in-the-sand thinking practiced by some activists. Much of what these writers have written is on target, but the fact that these writers engage in some cheap shots should not blind people to the fact that many activists are critical of the WWP and ANSWER's role in social change movements. Don't dismiss the message because the messengers are imperfect. Yes, in fact, this was red-baiting. But this isn't as simple as it sounds, because people on the Left who seek to avoid public discussion of these issues at all costs will frequently accuse ANY critic of red-baiting. A democratic movement (or movements) should have room for internal critics and gadflies. However, several of these writers went beyond criticisms of the WWP and engaged in hysterical warnings about the presence of communists at anti-war rallies. There is nothing wrong with having communists, socialist, radicals, and ultre-leftists at rallies. What IS important to question is the existence of problematic groups and individuals at our events. Do we want to let ANSWER lead the movement, when it is a front group for an authoritarian organization whose practices are incompatible with movement values such as participatory democracy? No, of course not. These are authoritarians that we are talking about. They aren't interested in democracy and discussion. Have you ever been to an ANSWER spokescouncil led by Brian Becker? Of course not, that isn't how they operate. Not only do they refuse to debate their critics, but they dispatch their friends and supporters to do the dirty work of responding for them. Of course. This is a common tactic among left sects which don't enjoy the support of a mass base of grassroots support. Like other parasitical sects, the IAC has a history of taking credit for the hard work of other activists. Sometimes this is as simple as holding up several IAC signs at a demo and then claiming in the party newspaper that the IAC was involved in organizing the demonstration. (This is a common practice by sectarian groups--another favorite is to stage a pciture with young activists running, i.e. "charging forward for socialism.") Activists in the anti-globalization movement are upset at the IAC for organizing a competing rally during the September 2001 Washington, DC protests. Their actions can be seen in this press release, which presented the IAC as a significant player in the anti-globalization movement. This is, of course, false. Yes. Many of the activists and working people who support the WWP and its front groups are unaware of the full history and politics of the organization. The WWP uses its front groups and a concerted strategy of "famous" endorsements to create the illusion that they are a mass-supported organization. There is a reason why Ramsey Clark, Ed Asner, and a slate of person of color groups are highlighted in WWP/iAC communications, newspapers, and websites. The WWP is very concerned with maintaining activist credibility. They want to be seen as THE organizer of big protests. This is clear in their recent efforts to organize their own parallel protests to the World Economic Forum protests in New York City. They've repeated what they did in 2001, by organizing their own event, not joining with other groups, and then claiming that they are the organizers for all the protests. If the IAC is so interested in working with other groups, why did it decide not to join any of the coalitions that were organizing anti-World Bank protests? Dozens, if not hundreds, of other groups joined these other coalitions. Why? Because the WWP, through its front groups, is pursuing the same strategy that vanguardist left groups have engaged in for the past century. They are interested in one thing: ownership of dissent and protest. In a sad way, they are like the globalizing corporations that millions of people oppose. The IAC represents the monoculture of protest. That's a good question, since making estimates of big crowds is difficult. If you are familiar with events organized by the WWP/IAC/ANSWER and have seen their estimates afterwards, you'll notice that they create rosy estimates that go above and beyond the usual activist practice of rounding up numbers. In the case of the September 26, 2000 protests in Washington, DC, you heard crowd estimates that ranged from several thousand to 200,000. ANSWER seems to be sticking with the 200,000 number, so you can take that with a grain of salt. Local activists with more experience with Washington protests generally consensed on an attendance figure of around 100,000. One local activist said that the word on the street was that the attendance was between 80,000 and 120,000. A very respectable turnout, but nowhere near the 200,000 number promoted by ANSWER. No. There never was any plan to join the ANSWER rally on 9.29.2001. The actvists in the ACC were very insistent on doing our own, non-permitted rally and march. This was successful and drew over 2000 participants. As the march was breaking up at a park across the street from the World Bank, the police surrounding a large group of people and held them for several hours. Eventually the cops forced this group to march to Freedom Plaza where the ANSWER/IAC rally had been going on for several hours. In fact, many of the anti-capitalists in this group thought they were being marched to arrest buses and their were several attempts to break through the police lines. When this group got to the ANSWER rally, some people stayed for the rally and march, but many left as soon as the cops allowed them to disperse. In typical fashion, the IAC is now claiming that they were the umbrella group that organized all of the anti-war protests in Washington that happened that day. This of course, is a fantasy. Quite simply, the IAC represents the centralized, authoritarian mode of political dissent that is ineffective and is easy to control by our class enemies. The anti-globalization movements is really a convergence of movements and organizations. It is very decentralized, diverse, egalitarian, and democratic. It doesn't provide a moncultural face to power, which is why the other side has had so many difficulties in oppressing it. On the other hand, the IAC represents the discredited Old Left, which attempts to "unify" all resistance elements into one party, which is controlled of course by their "leading cadres," i.e. central committee. Most Old Left groups scare away new recruits because they don't conceal their politics very well, i.e. support for Mao or Stalin. The WWP and IAC are much better at eliminating politics from their work, their goal being control over all dissent. "They're always very peaceful; you can work with them," [Police Chief] Ramsey said of International ANSWER demonstrators. "They just want to come in and protest. They don't want to cause any damage." [Washington Post, October 21, 2002] |
TOWARD A MAXIMUM ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT How to Write for Workers World "They're always very peaceful; you can work with them," [Police Chief] Ramsey said of International ANSWER demonstrators. "They just want to come in and protest. They don't want to cause any damage." [Washington Post, October 21, 2002] There They Go Again! One of the annoying things that the International Action Center does is to take credit for protests organized by other organizations and coalitions. Their anti-war front group, A.N.S.W.E.R., was recently caught lying about their involvement in the April 5th, pro-Palestine protests in New York City. Their website features an article that suggests that A.N.S.W.E.R. organized this protest of 10,000 people. In reality, A.N.S.W.E.R. held a small protest in Times Square and later joined the bigger protest. The picture on this webpage also suggests that A.N.S.W.E.R. was the main organizers. This is a typical tactic among sectarian left party groups. They will go to a bigger demo and arrange a few cadre members to pose with a sign in front of (or the middle of) a crowd. The signs have the name of the organization and they use these photos in their newspapers to lie to readers about their involvement in the protest. What's up with ANSWER and the A20 protests? ANSWER has been spreading false information that they reached a "unity" agreement with the other A20 groups. ANSWER is promoting a "united front" for the weekend of protests. The problem with their united front nonsense is that the other groups and local activists want nothing to do with ANSWER (and the WWP/IAC), because, once again ANSWER is trying to publicly deceive people that they are the primary organizers of the A20 protests. ANSWER had originally scheduled protests for A27, but moved them when several big protests were scheduled for the weekend of A20. Worker's World, the party organ for the WWP, has gone so far as to further this deception by telling its readers that ANSWER is working hand-in-hand with the other A20 coalitions. There is no such cooperation, which shows again why ANSWER, the International Action Center, and the WWP, are not to be trusted by activists. ARTICLES WHAT'S LEFT? July 2002 by Lefty Hooligan Strange Marchfellows WHAT'S LEFT? April 2002 by Lefty Hooligan WHAT'S LEFT? March 2002 by Lefty Hooligan WHAT'S LEFT? December 2001 by Lefty Hooligan Opposition to War and Racism Has to be Big, not Small The International Action Center:
"Peace Activists" with a Secret Agenda? "Lefty" Hooligan -- What's Left? The WWP - the Leftover Left The Mysterious Ramsey Clark Opinion of Former Attorney General  ENLARGE Gloria La Riva is one of the leading cadre of the so-called "Workers World Party," a.k.a. the "International Action Center" and the "All-People's Congress." Their politics are a hybrid of Stalinism and Trotskyism. She and her comrade goons act as unpaid police auxiliaries at large demonstrations and try to prevent unruly activity from taking place. We put these posters up in the fall of 1994, when La Riva was running for Governor of California. The worst thing you can say about most leftists is to attribute to them the opinions they actually hold. More posters from the Class War Poster Campaigns in San Francisco MORE BACKGROUND More background on IAC/WWP activity in the Bay Area
|
Directory |
Portals |
Features |
About us |
AnarchistFAQ |
Blogs |
Forums |
I-News |
What's New? |
