Harvard University students hold speak-out against the war

Cambridge, Massachusetts, October 25th--A newly 
formed organization called "Harvard Initiative
for Peace and Justice" held a speak-out
and flyering session running up to numerous 
anti-war events scheduled for October 27th. All 
members of the audience of 30 were allowed to have 
their say and MIM handed out MIM Notes to some of the 
hundreds of passers-by. Some student-age people 
went by and said, "nuke 'em." Others said the same 
thing more seriously: "I want them dead, nuked."

A Catholic priest spoke against the war: "we have 
to know who it is we are fighting," he said and 
explained why the war was too simple in approach 
to bring justice, including the poor in Afghanistan.
He also quoted from the World 
Council of Churches. The statement of the World 
Council of Churches is: "'This effort is intended 
to help to discern and interpret the signs of the 
times from perspectives different than the 
dominant discourse, in particular from the 
perspective of churches, ecumenical and interfaith 
partners,' explains Elizabeth Ferris from the WCC 
International Relations team. 'We want to nurture 
hope and strengthen commitment for peace and 
justice.'" 

The second speaker appeared to mix poetry and her 
own opinions in support of Palestine. However, it 
is certainly true that: "I'm looking for peace; 
I'm looking for compassion; I'm looking for life." 
Furthermore she said, "we all know who will pay, 
mostly colored and poor."

Another speaker spelled out the obvious: "Like in Vietnam
they are trying to identify who is military and 
who is civilian, but there is no such thing as strategic 
bombing. It's time to stop all bombing whatsoever."

A young Black man also spoke and said that the 
reason there is so much outrage about the World 
Trade Center but not other deaths is racism.

A Spartacist League (Trotskyists) member spoke and 
took the time to rip into other organizations, 
about their lack of support for the Soviet Union's 
invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. The Spartacist 
League and other Trotskyists have not yet learned 
that Maoism advanced China by kicking out 
imperialist invaders and then overthrowing 
agrarian feudalism. They apparently do not 
understand that China was better off that way than 
with the abysmal failure the Soviets left behind
in Afghanistan, not to mention blood sacrifices. 
The Trotskyists have advanced no country like 
Afghanistan through revolution in the last 75 years 
of their existence, but they do criticize those who have 
brought progress.

One womyn spoke for humanitarian aid and asked the 
audience to give money to relief for the people in 
Afghanistan.

A comrade spoke last at the rally in reply to the
previous speaker who spoke for a 
typical mistaken line that is always influential 
in any movement. The second-to-last speaker spoke 
against just talking "with the people who are 
already converted." He chastised the movement for 
"getting into details" amongst ourselves which by 
implication he meant socialism as an answer. He 
especially advocated convincing the media to 
change its coverage so the public would change its 
mind.

Of course, the comrade is right that anti-war 
activists should not be insular and shy. They 
should go everywhere aggressively to tell people 
that they are racist or national chauvinist if 
they do not value the lives of Afghani civilians 
as much as their own lives.

The reason that polls run 92 to 8% in favor of war 
is that previous political work by apolitical 
"moderates" such as himself failed to raise 
consciousness high enough. The 8% is the core of 
internationalists that we have to work with.

We cannot deny that the ruling class has managed 
to at least temporarily rally the population behind 
the U.$. Government more than at any time since 
World War II. Those deluded otherwise in our 
movement are a great risk to the movement's 
effectiveness. It means that some people in the 
past that we thought had high consciousness and 
belonged to the "already converted," did not in 
fact have high enough proletarian political 
consciousness. It may be very uncomfortable to 
tell people they have racist or national 
chauvinist ideas, but there is no alternative and 
certainly our discomfort in being forthright 
internationalists is not close to the discomfort 
experienced by those who are bombed to death in 
Afghanistan.

The apolitical and moderate members of the peace 
movement were reading too much "Cosmopolitan," and 
maybe saying they agreed with the anti-militarist 
movement in the past, but now they are liberals on 
the side of the Democratic Party for the war. It 
shows that movements are not a matter of quantity 
only. They are a matter of quality of political 
consciousness.

Criticizing those who say "we have to moderate our 
rhetoric, evade talk of solutions," a comrade 
spoke last. Speaking of the polls on the war, the 
comrade said, "we have to understand that we are 
dealing with a widespread and hardened racism and 
national chauvinism." "They see the photos of 
victims on television and Yahoo, the Internet," 
but they still support the war he said. "It's a 
hurdle we have to get over, a challenge," and he 
added that our strategy has to reflect the 
pervasiveness of hardened national chauvinism over 
decades of time.

Saying 80% of the public had previously "supported 
the bombing of Libya, the attack on Iraq and now 
this," the comrade said, "they know they are 
killing civilians in Afghanistan. They know they 
are probably killing millions in Iraq with 
sanctions, but the bottom-line problem is that 
they do not value the lives of others in the same 
way as their own."

"Without internationalism there can be no peace" 
was the concluding sentence. Participants 
applauded all speakers.

After the speech, a comrade from another 
organization very active in the 
anti-war movement approached and said, "You made a good 
point, I never really thought about it. . . that 
they know" (they are being racist and terrorist).

Note:
http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/news/press/01/37pre.html