Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Stalinisti per la pace?

Pare, lo dice il Washington Post, che le marce contro la guerra in
Iraq di San Francisco e di che si sono tenute alcuni giorni fa negli
usa siano state organizzate da una organizzazione (ANSWER ossia Act
Now to Stop War and End Racism) che e' una costola del Workers World
Party il quale e' un partito comunista distaccatosi dal Socialist
Workers Party sul merito dell'invasione dell'Ungheria del 1956.
Interessante, no?
L'articolo:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A25043-2003Jan21?language=printer
Il sito del WWP:
http://www.workers.org/
Ciao
Ale

 wrote in message news:b727e309.03012...@posting.google.com...


Tragicamente interessante...
Ciao
Ad'I

 cosa centrani gli stalinisti ?
Leggi l'articolo e dai un'occhiata al sito del partito, poi ne
riparliamo.
Ale
--
*La sconfitta reclama ad alta voce perche' esige spiegazioni; mentre la
vittoria, come la carita', nasconde un gran numero di peccati*
Alfred T. Mahan

 Workers Party sul merito dell'invasione dell'Ungheria del 1956.
Dimenticavo di dire che il Workers World Party si scisse perche'
*favorevole* all'invasione dell'Ungheria.



http://www.workers.org/
E il sito di ANSWER e' a 
http://www.internationalanswer.org/
Non vedo nulla ne' su Stalin ne' sull'Ungheria :-/

 Come le requisitorie di Joe McCarthy... :-/
di qualcosa si doveva pure accusarli questi (sudditi) americani che si
ribellano alle fregole da warmonger della cricca Oil Bush & co..
Santini ci ricorda che erano tutti stalinisti, altri invece, i vermi di
letame del ng, diranno che sono agenti di Saddam o di Bin Laden...
Digli di si. <g>
--------------------------------
Inviato via 
http://usenet.libero.it

 Non vedo nulla ne' su Stalin ne' sull'Ungheria :-/
Infatti l'articolo non dice che ANSWER si e' scissa dal Socialist
Workers Party in seguito all'invasione del '56, bensi dice che lo ha
fatto il WWP, perche' quindi ti aspettavi di trovarne traccia sul sito
di ANSWER?
Se tu avessi guardato sul sito del WWP avresti trovato chicche tipo: 
NEW YORK, August 22, 1968 -- Sam Marcy, chairman of Workers World Party,
announced the organization's support of the Warsaw Pact nations'
intervention into Czechoslovakia today and made the following statement
to the press:....
...As in Hungary in 1956, the liberal capitalists of the United States
have already begun to tell heart-throbbing stories about idealistic
people in Czechoslovakia, spiritually crushed by the Warsaw Pact
intervention
http://www.workers.org/marcy/cd/samczech/czech/czech03.htm
Se perdi un po' di tempo cercando qui:
http://www.workers.org/cgi-bin/search/search.pl
Scoprirai le posizioni del WWP su Stalin, la liberta' in Corea del Nord,
la primavera di Praga, etc.
Oh, intendiamoci, tutte posizioni degne come qualsiasi altra. Quello che
mi disturba e' che utilizzino espedienti tipici del pacifismo
eterodiretto dall'URSS come la creazione di organizzazioni di facciata
(su questo argomento cfr
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0340485612/qid=1043780256/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/103-6444200-1127820?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
)
In definitiva, ma mi pare impossibile che non si capisse, con il mio
post non volevo dire che tutti quelli che sono contro l'ipotesi di una
guerra sono stalinisti e, IMHO, nemmeno lo voleva dire il Post.
Ciao


 ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3E36D2BD...@yahoo.com...
[...]
Ricerca pulita e precisa. Complimenti.

 guerra sono stalinisti e, IMHO, nemmeno lo voleva dire il Post.
Il Post mi pare proprio di si.
Una risposta dei manifestanti (sai cosa significa Redbaiting, no?):
-----------------
How to Respond to New York Times Redbaiting of the Antiwar Movement
by Fred Feldman
(The author is active in the New York City coalition against war on
Iraq.)
________________________________________________________________________________
Last night (Jan. 23), about 160 activists met to prepare the February 15
march and rally to be held in New York City. The meeting decided to
include in the framework of our opposition to the war against Iraq a
clear statement of opposition to the threat of U.S.-backed ethnic
cleansing of Palestinians in Israeli-held territory. We expressed support
for proposals to have a speakers platform that would reflect the real
antiwar population of New York City and the powerful forces that need to
be brought into action to defeat the warmakers^×roughly 75 percent people
of color and 50 percent women. We formed committees and began the
distribution of leaflets and other materials to get the show on the road.
Precisely because of the inspiration and energy represented by that
meeting, I think it is very important that our movement respond very
strongly to the following article from today^Òs New York Times as what it
is^×an attempt to redbait the entire movement and disrupt the process of
building a genuinely united and truly massive action on February 15. The
article is an attempt to heighten the line of attack on the struggle
against the war that attempts to divide and conquer by selecting ANSWER
as a scapegoat.
Of course, as we all know, ANSWER, and the Workers World Party which
participates in ANSWER, have the right to take any positions they want on
any questions they want^×North Korea, Yugoslavia, whatever.
Right or wrong, these positions do nothing to illegitimize or throw into
question the tremendous work they have done for the fight against the war
in Iraq by initiating, building, and successfully involving broad forces
in the October 25 and January 18 protests. In building a united fight
against U.S. aggression^×that^Òs what ^Ópreemptive war^Ô is^×the antiwar
movement does not pretend to stand in judgment over its participants^Ò
political positions.
We unconditionally support ANSWER^Òs right to be part of the movement,
and we welcome its full participation at every level in building February
15.
The crookedest trick in the Times article is to present our coalition,
United for Peace and Justice, as some kind of ^Óokay,^Ô safe and sane
^Óalternative^Ô to ANSWER. Leslie Cagan^Òs statement, made repeatedly in
all kinds of contexts, that we assume speakers on February 15 will relate
their perspectives to their opposition to the war in Iraq is presented as
a kind of attack on ANSWER or criticism of January 18 or as indicative of
a desire to keep ANSWER at a remove from the February 15 action.
United for Peace and Justice is not an ^Óalternative^Ô to ANSWER but an
attempt to build a broad, united network of antiwar forces, including
ANSWER and anyone else who sees the need for broad united action.
The Times^Òs attempt to disrupt and divide a young and growing movement
needs to be firmly countered.
Among other things, this requires, in my opinion, firm action by United
for Peace and Justice to reach out to our sisters and brothers in ANSWER
and involve them fully in the preparation and building of a united
action. We have to take affirmative action right now to make it clear to
ANSWER that they are not merely free to join the action^×which they have
already endorsed^×but that we strongly desire their full participation at
every level. A deliberate and conscious effort to reach out to ANSWER is
also necessary to establish clearly in the public mind what UFPJ really
is^×an effort to strengthen the unity of the WHOLE antiwar movement^×and
also what it is not (a coalition of the, as far as I know nonexistent,
^Óright wing^Ô of the antiwar movement).
I know that we aren^Òt going to fall for the New York Times bait. That
goes without saying. But I think that we should counter the crude trap
set for us by moving aggressively to advance the perspective of including
ANSWER in a prominent, public, and, I might even say, defiant way in a
genuinely and fully united action against the war on February 15.