Galloway deserts constituents to chase Jane Fonda's.....autograph!

[Groucho]

No-one's mentioned Barbarella

I should have known that the bizaareness of the opening post would be surpassed in the debate what followed.

Some people think that the primary role of the anti-war movement is to propagandise for a consistant anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist understanding of the world, cold shouldering all but a self selected educated intelligensia. Others (sometimes the same people) believe it should mention the war and only the specific war as a self limited single issue ignoring obvious generalisations such as the attack on civil liberties that forms part of the war on terror.

The aim has to be to mobilise the broadest possible numbers of people in opposition to the war and it's immediate consequences. Therefore using anti-war celebrities to assist in that is sensible. The net should be cast far and wide drawing the line only at those who would propogate a reactionary message. If jane fonda started harping on in defence of Israeli aggression she should be dumped off the platform (I do not necessarily mean there and then and physically...) but this is highly unlikely.

The broader the movement the bigger. The bigger the movement the more effective. Arguments against Imperialism, for a militant anti-war strategy, against capitalism etc then have a far bigger audience. The two are not mutually exclusive.


She was cool in Barberella, no?

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Good post from Groucho.

The building of the broadest possible coalition against the war is the right lesson from the Vietnam war period in the USA. The movement that was built in the 1960s and the many strange bedfellows that got together is incredibly well-documented in Fred Halstead's "Out Now!" published by Pathfinder Press. In a weighty 759 pages, Halstead traces the origins of the movement from tiny beginnings to the mass movement it became. The book is subtitled "A Participant's Account of the Movement in the United States Against the Vietnam War" and Halstead was at the centre of the organisation of the mass demonstrations and actions that did so much to bring the war to a close. He explains in meticulous detail how there were many attempts to divert the movement into blind-alleys of multi-issue politics or support for electoral tactics of the Democratic Party, to the individualistic violence of (some) libertarian elements.

Here's a good article from the USA that looks at the lessons and recapitulates Halstead's arguments for today:
http://www.geocities.com/mnsocialist/anti-war1.html

There are also some interesting reviews on the US Amazon website:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/cu...22843-1048927?_encoding=UTF8&n=283155&s=books
Even those who disagree with Halstead's politics say it is a good book. Certainly it's one of the best political books I've ever read and despite its length it never fails to keep you interested.

 

[Random]

If jane fonda started harping on in defence of Israeli aggression she should be dumped off the platform (I do not necessarily mean there and then and physically...) but this is highly unlikely.

Given her past support for US and Israeli aggression I'd say this is highly likely -- and therefore we need to watch people like her very closely, and if neccessarily lend a hand to do some dumping.

 

[Udo Erasmus]

It's a shame that she has decided to rejoin the anti-war movement two and a half years after the invasion - and when she has a book to promote too

But I can't help thinking that perhaps her decision to finally speak out against the warmongers should be welcomed, regardless of her motives (her attitude towards Israel leaves a lot to be desired though from what has been mentioned here...)

Having said that, her decision to finally speak out ties in nicely with the suggestion from some that the foreign policy elite in America are now quite split on Iraq, (hence the reason for Cindy Sheehan receiving so much coverage recently, for example). Maybe it is finally 'safe' for Fonda to air her anti-war views again..?

Fonda herself suggests that when promoting her recent autobiography, she met many Vietnam veterans whose support for her stance in the 60s persuaded her to take a stance on Iraq - she also implies that the personal strain of her high-profile opposition to the Vietnam War had made her reluctant to involve herself in political activism again - one has only to read the testimony of people like Tariq Ali, Arthur Scargill etc. to see how the media go for the throats of anyone who steps out of line.

On Israel, she seems to have moved to a more progressive position - though I suspect she takes the classic liberal approach that "there's bad on both sides, and people on both sides who want peace", rather than identifying unequivocally that their can be no evenhandedness between the Palestinians under occupation and the Zionist state founded on ethnic cleansing and racism, anyway she obviously doesn't seem to have a problem with appearing on the same platform as George Galloway, possibly the most militant advocate of the Palestinian struggle in the British parliament.

She was quite cool as a fighter for justice in Cat Ballou, no?

 

[X-77]

She was quite cool as a fighter for justice in Cat Ballou, no?

don't worry, I never would have voted to kick her off the platform anyway - the more anti-war voices the better imo

 

[London_Calling]

Yep - it was a bit shocking that she still had some respect for Christopher Hitchens - few other anti-war people still do.

To be fair, there's the old Hitchens, and there's the newer Hitchens.

Even if the new one was coherent (which he wasn't, imo) he's still a drunk, unfortunately.

So it's a bit like respecting George Best for what he could do 30 years ago.


Anyway, back to George; Isn't Fonda divorced . . . anyone offering a price on him getting his leg over ?

Peace, maaaaaaan

 

[Pickman's model]

i see fonda's pulled out of this.

 

[Udo Erasmus]

i see fonda's pulled out of this.

You see where?

 

[TeeJay]

Not *entirely* on topic but...

http://www.socialistworker.org/
"Socialist Worker is published weekly by the International Socialist Organization. The ISO has branches and members in about 40 cities across the U.S."

Is this the same bunch as the SWP?
If not why do they use all the same logos etc?
Are they as equally fuckwitted as the SWP (UK branch)?

 

[TeeJay]

I've found this link which has details of his "gigs": http://www.mrgallowaygoestowashington.com/

Sep 13 Boston
Sep 14 New York (Galloway v. Hitchens) + live webcast
Sep 16 Toronto
Sep 18 Madison, Wisconsin (w/Jane Fonda etc)
Sep 19 Chicago (w/Jane Fonda etc)
Sep 20 Seattle
Sep 21 SF
Sep 22 LA
Sep 24 Washington D.C. (w/Cindy Sheehan etc)