Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 16:44:15 -0800
From: Tom Messmer <messmer-AT-endpage.com>
Subject: AUT: SF March/extended rantoid


Ok, here's my post that goes beyond lurking and occasional sniping, 
sorry its a little schizo but you gotta start somewhere.

Many marching and doing other stuff here in the Bay Area. Most people 
here with the "No Blood for Oil" type signs, also saw some "Support 
Hans Blix" signs.  Crowd seems to be largely white, middle class 
liberals(and their children), some labor contingents, including the 
Labor For Peace and Justice coalition, of which my local(SEIU 790) was 
a part. Some I didn't get a chance to really take in the whole crowd 
because it was very large(who cares how large, theres alot of people, 
ok?) There are also the usual sectoid groups with tables and shitty 
newspapers, being totally ignored. I think that the ANSWER people 
pretty much just happen to have offices and some sort of permanent 
organization and I doubt very seriously whether many at least in the 
Bay Area pay them much attention at all beyond being dimly annoyed by 
their shrillness. 

According to Indymedia there is a "Breakaway March"/Black Bloc underway 
at this moment doing the usual spraypainting and bashing out of 
Starbucks windows. There was a friendly group selling Anarchist 
oriented literature from City College and lots of black hoody lurky 
turkeys with bandanas and Flux of Pink Indians patches. 

I don't have much further to add w/r/t the oil/sloganeering 
conversation besides a sense that this entire thing is many faceted. I 
think oil/regional domination does play a part tho they are seperate 
things really. I've read about rumblings in Saudi Arabia about 
extending some "democratic rights" to segments of the population, I 
wonder what internal pressure in Saudi society led to this (minor) 
consession. I heard Ahmed Rashid  analyze the Bush administration's 
stance the other day and he seemed to feel that while there is a 
component related to Oil, Iraq is already ready and willing to sell us 
all the oil we'd ever want, its not as if the Iraqi regime has ever 
balked at selling anything to anyone! He felt that there was a faction 
within the Bush administration who advocates aggressive military action 
to further US domination, and that our relative hegemony has been 
slipping ever since Vietnam, and that countries such as France, 
Germany, Russia are might "catch up" or something, and that a conquest 
and regime chance in Iraq would make us look like badasses and give us 
some sort of regional advantage.Its hard to believe that grown men in 
control of the most powerful nation in the world would think in such 
middle school terms, but there you have it...I don't know if a long 
discussion about the extent to which the impending war is about oil 
would be useful or interesting. Is there anyone who thinks it has 
NOTHING to do with oil? It might be fruitful to acknowledge that oil is 
a factor and then go on to discuss other factors that are being 
ignored. 

 It doesnt seem to me that occupying an Arab country is in anyones best 
interest, least of all the US ruling class' Does anyone have a 
differing opinion? Is it possible that the US could occupy Iraq without 
massive consequences around the world? Would there be some advantage to 
the administration and/or ruling classes if there WAS massive 
consequences such as acts of terrorism, huge street demonstrations, 
etc? Might they not use these to justify further repression, etc? On 
the other hand could all this be the result of varying and conflicting 
pressures within the administration/ruling class? Are we missing an 
opportunity to take advantage of a split within these groups?

It seems early to guess what might come out of this peace movement. My 
experience with the last Gulf War leads me to guess that once military 
action begins, some of the wind will disappear from the US peace 
movement's sails as the public is bombarded with the Support Our Troops 
messages. How might we start to argue for the alternatives we want 
given the current situation? One really frustrating thing for me is 
that when I articulate autonomist ideas to people they usually get a 
gleam in their eye and nod alot but say things like "that would be 
totally great, but it'll never happen so I'm going to stick with my 
union/party/windowsmashing work...why the hell don't we develop some 
organizations and why aren't there already existing ones? It seems as 
if you try to start something like this everybody's like "Yeah! Sign me 
up!" until theres work to do and you wind up having to do everything 
yourself if you want to get  something done.  Beyond just bitching 
about this, what is this about? Anybody have an analysis that goes 
beyond a gripe? I happen to think that large segments of American 
society want desperately something better to strive for but lack the 
confidence in the current choices, in fact I personally fall into this 
category. 


     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---