Marxist Groups in the Anti-War Movement

CNSNews.com ^ | February 25, 2003 | Paul M. Weyrich

[Stand Watch Listen]

Some people on the far-Left have criticized my statements calling for an investigation of the neo-Communist background of some of the anti-war movement's organizers.

However, they have not taken the time to investigate International A.N.S.W.E.R.'s ties to the avowedly Marxist Workers World Party or Not in Our Name's ties to long-time Maoist Bob Avakian's Revolutionary Communist Party.

Village Voice columnist Nat Hentoff said my proposal asking Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, or Congress, to investigate the anti-war movement's ties to neo-Communist groups like the Worker's World Party and the Revolutionary Communist Party was un-American in an interview with the leftist website TomPaine.com.

Is it un-American to question where these groups, which routinely organize often-violent demonstrations against the World Bank, political conventions, or the looming war on Iraq, get their money?

I find it amazing that these groups are able to organize regular protests that bring together tens or hundreds of thousands of protesters on a rather regular basis, while we on the right can only organize one large demonstration against abortion each year.

It takes a lot of money and resources to pull off these protests. During the Cold War, we know that the Soviet Union gave millions of dollars to support the Communist Party USA, but where are these groups getting their funding?

Some groups on the far-Left, at least in the past, have supported the overthrow of our Constitution, but this is not to say that all of them have or continue to do. A lot of Americans, including myself continue to have reservations about the war, but we need to know which groups or individuals involved in the anti-war movement present a clear and present danger to our constitutional system.

Had the good folks at TomPaine.com or Mr. Hentoff taken the time to research the ties between the Worker's World Party and International A.N.S.W.E.R., they would have found the links are plain as day. The Worker's World Party website features prominent links to the International A.N.S.W.E.R. website and the International Action Center which established A.N.S.W.E.R. in late 2001.

Considering that TomPaine.com is financed by the Florence Fund, whose tax returns for the year 2000 show that it has financially supported socialist-leaning groups such as the Alliance for Democracy which participates in the Independent Progressive Policy Network along with the Communist Party USA and the Democratic Socialists of America, it is not surprising that they sought to tar me with a McCarthyist label.

Unlike the Left, which routinely and baselessly calls conservatives such as myself fascists or Nazis in an effort to stifle debate, the same baselessness cannot be said for A.N.S.W.E.R. and its cohorts who are avowed Marxists, at least behind the scenes.

The fact is International A.N.S.W.E.R. was established in part by Worker's World Party member, frequent Worker's World Party newspaper columnist and co-director of former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark's International Action Center, Brian Becker, according to a November 2001 entry in the IAC's web archive.

This is the same Brian Becker who once wrote in a November 1997 Workers World Party news service article, "...it is crucial that revolutionaries fight tooth and nail for their values, their principles and the revolutionary conceptions put forward by Marxism and Leninism," in reference to a speech given by Cuban dictator Fidel Castro to a global communist gathering on the island.

Mr. Becker provides the key link between the IAC, A.N.S.W.E.R. and the WWP, so there cannot be any doubt that the anti-war movement's key organizing group is a neo-Communist front.

The urgency needed in further investigating A.N.S.W.E.R.'s ties to the Worker's World Party takes on added concern because the WWP has posted a manifesto on its website entitled: "Bolsheviks and War: Lessons for the Anti-War Movement."

Communist ties to the anti-war movement do not end with the WWP. As I said before Not in Our Name, another anti-war front is an operation of the Maoist Revolutionary Communist Party.

If you visit the Revolutionary Communist Party's website, an organization that has supported the Maoist Shining Path guerillas in Peru, Not in Our Name is featured in a prominent place on its website. In fact, the party's news publication features numerous stories chronicling the anti-war group's activities.

Some Marxist groups, such as the Trotskyist Socialist Worker's Party are using the anti-war movement to exploit the naivet\'e9 and idealism of young Americans to recruit them into their Marxist cabal.

The February 3, 2003 edition of the Socialist Worker's Party newspaper, "The Militant," features articles entitled, "Young Socialists draw protesters interested in revolution" and "Young protesters interested in revolutionary ideas." The last article details the SWP's efforts to recruit young people to its cause during the January 18, 2003 protest in Washington, D.C.

Revolutionary Communist Party, Worker's World Party and Socialist Workers Party are avowedly communist and are integrally involved in organizing the anti-war movement. Therefore, my questioning the involvement of neo-Communist group in the anti-war movement cannot be considered a political witch hunt.

Perhaps if TomPaine.com, which bills itself as showcasing "the ideas, opinions, and analyses too often overlooked by the mainstream media," were true to its mission it would have investigated the anti-war organizer's true identities instead of castigating me for speaking the truth. I don't expect them to take my word for it, but anyone who is adept in using the Internet as a research tool will discover that I'm correct.

While Americans have a constitutional right to oppose the war or ask for a redress of their grievances, we need to be on guard against those groups who wish to exploit anti-war sentiments to undermine our Constitution.

(Paul M. Weyrich is chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.)

Free Congress Foundation

[Stand Watch Listen]

Related Articles

Anti-war Protestors: Shades Of Stupidity
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: February 21, 2003; Author: Rachel Marsden

Who's Paying for It All? [re: anti-war demostrations]
Source: INSIGHT magazine; Published: February 18, 2003; Author: J. Michael Waller

Anti-War Protestors Are Warmongers for Our Enemies
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: February 11, 2003; Author: Alex Epstein

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

I found how the World had been misled by prostitute Writers, to ascribe the greatest Exploits in War to Cowards, the wisest Counsel to Fools, Sincerity to Flatterers, Roman Virtue to Betrayers of their Country, Piety to Atheists, Chastity to Sodomites, Truth to Informers.

Still valid even tho written in early 1700s
by Swift

[gregwest]

When all the war talk began, I initially opposed the war. As I have watched the various parties begin to align themselves, I've had a change of heart. Originally, my objections were these:
1. The war on terror should take priority.
2. Iraq still didn't pose a credible threat compared to our Cold War adversaries. (China is still the biggest threat and I'm still wary of Russia).
3. The aggressive posture of the United States in taking offensive action was contrary to our historical willingness to respond only when provoked.

My mind has changed because of the following observations.
1. The war on terror still is the number one priority and it is being effectively waged in the manner described by the President and SECDEF. I believe that they have quietly and secretly disrupted many terror networks both inside the US and abroad. Otherwise, we would have had more attacks since 9/11. I am convinced that way more is going on behind the scenes than we would want to know about. I am confident that, although it's not in the headlines, it still is mission #1.
2. I think the focus on Iraq is only the beginning of something much larger and that's what scares our "allies" and enemies. The push towards a transnational world order has been underway at least since WWI. The theoretical argument among the advocates of globalism is the character of world government. Will it be modeled on the US-UK model going back to Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights or will it be modeled on a Marxist/socialist paradigm? The advocates of these movements are moving beyond mere theory and globalization is moving forward rapidly. The US and UK together oppose the rest of Europe and the world, who have opted for the Marxist/Fabian socialist model that the EU is based on. This war will go far beyond Iraq and will ultimately settle the question of what kind of global government we'll have one day.
3. The United States has been provoked, not only by terrorists, but also our faithless allies, who now wish to reduce the greatest hope of human freedom to a servile state in a European-dominated transnational federation based on socialism. That's why France and Germany oppose us in the Security Council. The outcome of this war will determine much more on who has oil and who controls the Middle East. It will be the deciding factor on whether the American dream endures beyond the 21st century. Not only does Iraq and al-Qaeda threaten our way of life, but Germany, France, Russia, and China do also.

In liberty's cause, I support President Bush. It is no surprise that all the protest groups are leftists. The 43% of the United States that voted for Bill Clinton twice are also leftists. That means there are only half of the American people left to stand for freedom's cause. It's time to stand up and be counted. (Sorry for the melodrama there, it's schmalzy but heartfelt. Patrick Henry, I ain't!) When you go to war, you have to go for the right reason. I can't attest to the motives of his advisors, but I think George Bush's heart is in the right place. I think, for whatever reason, God has granted him a clarity of vision about the threat and the course of action he must take. I give him my support.

Greg

[Abcdefg]

Try this: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/828043/posts

[Stand Watch Listen]

Thanks for the link...appreciate it. Will add it to my compendium of anti-war links.

[HighRoadToChina]

BUMP!

[Tailgunner Joe]

bttt

[U of IL Conservative]

From a student site:

Communists and Socialists support the war against Iraq

(Scroll down to second part of that blog entry...)

[DPB101]

Good for Weyrich. The Federal government has an obligation to investigate the antiwar movement. There is enough information in the public domain about Becker and Ramsey's ties to North Korea, Libya, Cuba and Iraq that not to investigate would be a dereliction of duty. The days of tagging such investigations with the term "McCarthyism" are over. That worked in 1954 before we had a controled media and no internet. Few were aware the term "McCarthyism" was coined by the Comunist Party USA and first appears in the party's newspaper before CBS, NBC and ABC picked it up and ran with it.

[jjack]

As a card-carrying communist I am glad to say that your theories about Marxist infiltration of the Anti-War movement is indeed true, although our ideological reasons for participation may be different from your average aging liberal hippie.