AUT: Re: unions against the war??

["Harald Beyer-Arnesen" <haraldba@xxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "neil" <74742.1651@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "autopsy" <aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Robert" <rubik@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Christine & STeve"
<browningcm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 22. januar 2003 08.25
Subject: AUT: unions against the war??


"Truth be told, the Europen bosses support "stop the war"
until the US rulers agree to cut them in on a good share
of the loot."

That is part of the truth. But is it that simple? Is it not as much
that many European bosses --- apart from disliking U.S
unilateralism, and wanting "their shares," or at least to uphold
the deals already made with the present Iraqi regime -- tend to
find U.S foreign policies in general, and under the Bush
administration in particular,  to be both irrational and counter-
productive - too religious - from both a short and long-term
profit-making point of view, even if it might seem to have its
own blind logic. A negative perspective of the Bush admini-
stration, that too a certain point seem to be shared by part of
the U.S elites as well.
        That this war might prove very bad for profits, and that
the Bush administration is playing with high stakes combined
with little insight, seem to be a genuine concern among
many capitalist elites, who might also be more eager to
see George Bush removed than Saddam. Hussein. In
particular since they might find it easier to do business with
a weak Saddam than a strong George W. Bush tending
to confuse Texas with the world. On the other hand hand it
is correct that this greater degree of "rationality " in part is
derived from interest flowing from being in position of
relative weakness. But also, I suspect, some lessons and
memories of costs from colonial history.
        But it also point to the fact that profits is not alone
always the driving force. Power often has its own logic of
blindfolded madness, something that played a part of making
both the French and Russian revolutions possible.

It is neither so that all capitalist agree on that what is
good for the largest oil-companies also is good for capitalism.
Many might tend to regard the opposite often being nearer
to the truth.When "lib-labs" -- whatever that is exactly
supposed to mean, the lab¨part makes me thing of the
labatory -- starts comparing Bush with Hitler, as one --- a
T.V. star of "nice family" programs -- recently did at a mani-
festation here, and gets support by other "lib_lab" celebrities
for his "courage" in the aftermath, and the tabloids also
seem to generally back him up -- if not in direct support for
this comparison -- this to me also somehow reflects a
ecalating uneasyness within the ranks of
capitalist elites, as also refelcted in the many anti-war
voices coming from the Church, where the bishop of Oslo
have been the most prominent.

An important aspect of capitalism is that it is both contra-
dictory and gives rise to all forms of irrationality, and thus
also both profitable and unprofitable wars, or profitable for
some capitalists and desasterous others.
        It is not so that the ruling classes are always united,
even if our interest --- the interest of human emancipation --
is opposed to them all.


Be this at it is. It is overwhelmingly probable that if this
next war is stoppable at all, it will not be through anti-
capitalist forces. However that should be our field. Making
it so, will not end the anti-war stands of "lib-labs" and
parts of the capitalist elites in relation to this particular
war. The potential of the working class and social
revolutionary (and thus anti-leninist) forces does not primarily
lie in street protests and other such symbolic manifestations
but in the direct obstruction and sabotage of the capacity
to fight the war, or in other words within the field of
logistics. We are mostly far from reaching this level at
this point. Which is none the less the message we should
be sending, given also that it is not only a question of this
war but all the following ones.

This can only be obscured by all illusionary talk of United
and Popular Fronts from the "capitalist (Leninist) left." who
logically enough confuses the (dis)united sects with the
working class, and ends up claiming as some great victory the
adoption of such nationalist slogans,  lying entirely within
the "lib-lab" sphere of political thought, as "Stop Americas War",
to not talk about such idocies as "military but political
support" of particular expressions of despotic rule, taking
place on such a level of unreality that one cannot even see
the difference between words uttered or written on paper
far away, and military capacity and power in the air and
on the ground.

It is ridiculous to see it as a problem that the Pope and part
of the capitalist elites opposes this particular war. It is likewise
ridiculous to see it as a problem that many opposes this war
without taking a firm stand against capitalism as such. It is not
the greatest of problems that according to the last poll here
only 5.8 per cent supported an unilateral US-UK war on Iraq,
and that even with a  U.N. security council sanctioning of such
a war, those opposing it were still twice as many as those
willing to give their support -- 58.1 against 29.7, even if it would
be been better had the later figure been closer to 0. It is also
a fair assessment -- whether we like it or not - that many of these
have been more influenced by "lib-labs,"  priests and bishops
(though mostly not believers  themselves) than any claimed
revolutionary sect -- leninist or anti-leninist. This will of course
differ somewhat from country to country. Italy differs
positively from Norway or U.K. for instance.

The challenge is of course to once again make social
revolutionary anti-militarism a dominant force within the
working class and moving from the stage of protests to
industrial action and other forms of broadly based
obstruction and sabotage of war. Oddly enough it was a
one of the "lib-labs" here, and not any of the Lenist sects
that was the first to publicly suggest something at all to
this effect, even if within the realm of "civil disobedience"
and not posed in class terms. But it is no reason to not
use it for what it is worth, though I suspect at least in this
country, as, more far more importantly, in the  in the U.S.,
there is still a long way to go, even if "the times might be
a changing." In southern Europe and some other places,
the subjective conditions likely are more ripe.

Harald
















     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---