Re: Notes on the US Left, Part [1] by Julio Huato

["M. Junaid Alam" <redjaguar@xxxxxxxxx>]

This analysis is utterly senile. Let's take up several points:

"Then, the words by the Bard College student: <"It's like pop culture,
concentrated teen angst," she said of the rally. "The rhetoric is too
heavy-handed. That's the problem with American activists. They need to
simplify." Someone on stage railed against police brutality and she rolled
her eyes.>

Actually, these two things go together: (1) our ability to actually change
US policy in a reasonable period of time and (2) the composition and tone of
the movement."

The "composition and tone" of the radical Left should readjust itself in
accordance with
the eye-rolling of one college student, reacting one on-campus anti-war
rally taking place
in the early stages of the movement--before the war has even started.

" But if we expect working-class and middle-class Americans to
shift on to the left and approach the views of dyed-haired,
pierced-and-tatooed college students about this matter of grave concern
then, indeed, the war will start and go on (and may even finish) before that
happens."

The majority of college students opposed to war are not "pierced" or
"dyed-haired" at all;
at last night's anti-war meeting at my college campus, one person had a
mohawk. Maybe
we should institute a universal dress code, pants for the boys and plaid
skirts for the girls, in order to
appeal to "working-class and middle-class Americans", none of whom,
obviously, pierce, tattoo,
and dye their hair.

"Iraq is not Vietnam.  In my view, the argument against the war on Iraq is
not that it will prove costly or impossible for the US to pull off.  I think
the US alone can win the war and overthrow Saddam at a relatively low cost.
The issue is not that the US cannot.  The issue is that the US should not!"

No one is arguing in such provincial and ridiculous terms about the
"impossibility"
of US success in annihilating the Iraqi army. The real issue lies with the
administration's
overall long-term plans in the region, the possibility of more
regime-changing and occupying,
and the inevitable backlash stemming from making deals with opposing forces,
ie. Kurds and
Turks, Arab monarchies and Arab masses, Israel and Iran, etc.

"To give an outrageous example of what I have in mind, consider
BusinessWeek.  In its last issue, the magazine ran an editorial criticizing
the US unilateralism.  It was not a very shy critique considering its
source."

What does this illustrate? Only that the ruling-class intelligentsia is
temporarily wavering and
divided. The real policy planners and decision makers--President, V.P.,
Republican Party,
Defense Department, etc.--have already made up their minds. The
intelligentsia
will undoubtedly fall into line as the logic of war and imperialism kicks
into high gear.

"But why should we try to attract people with liberal inclinations instead
of appealing to people with radical inclinations?  Shifting the tone towards
liberalism will put off the latter and it may not attract the former.  Well,
the left has to take the chances if it wants to get anything done."

"Anything" in this case is reduced to enticing a wavering section of
Business Week readers.
This kind of tactic is the absolute height of opportunism; any part of the
Left which wants
to play the proverbial Shimon Peres can go to hell.

This analysis totally underestimates the effect on consciousness that
upcoming events and
realities will present: the economy is in poor shape on an international
scale and there is no
sign of imminent high growth, and the war diversion intended to distract the
workers from
this reality is not only temporarily, but will backfire and produce its own
set of explosive
consequences.  Already it is obvious that al-Qaeda has not been smashed, and
all the while
Bush continues to maintain his fetish with Iraq.








~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.