Antiwar movement, WWP, Liberals et al

[Armand Diego <causebellum@xxxxxxxxx>]

While the liberals and soft leftists were hiding under
the bed after 9/11, a handful of left wing
organizations come to the fore and started to oppose
Bush's actions: WWP, Left Party, SA (both, partially),
WSA, I don't know about Solidarity (I seen nothing
from them for the last two years since they do not
exist in the area I live), FRSO, etc

You may disagree with the way they did it, or the
language they used, etc, but it is true that they -
accomppanied by few, very creditable and consistent
pacifists and handful of reliogious, Quaker-type and
some Arab-American leaders and organizations - were
the ONLY ones from day one opposing the "unending war"
of George W. et al (included the Democrats).

Because the WWP had been involved in a 12-year old
campaign of political and activist support of Iraq,
and because of that they counted on resources lent to
them by supporters of various causes in the Middle
East (and Ramsey Clark) - something, be prepared, that
the government and liberals will bring up sooner or
later if the movement develops even further -, they
were better positioned to initiated the first, more
massive actions.  With some competition, is true, from
other left organizations who were responsible of some
organizing on their own and some sizable demos as
well.

More power to the WWP. And my salute to the few
leftists who did not run away after 9/11, during the
bombing of Afghanistan and now in the threatening
actions against Iraq.  Those kind of actions are what
really test and divide a socialist from a middle class
charlatan.

But then, a layer of public opinion is turning against
Bush's war drive.  Not the 8% that remained opposed to
the bombing of Afghanistan, but close to 40% that now
say to pollsters they oppose the war on Iraq (and I
suspect that where it counts, the big cities, the
opposition is larger.)  In view of this, some liberals
and more mainstream organizations and their
semi-liberal allies in the NGOs and the fellow
travelers of the type of MacReynolds are crying
"hijacking" to the efforts of the left groups to
resist.

It is good that Jackson, Medea Benjamin (who did not
campaign against the war until after her failed
campaign for a MUD board seat was over)and liberals,
religious types of many stripes and some softer lefts
are coming out and want to be part.  Of course, I
think is a death trap for the antiwar movement if we
heed the call from Jackson on October 26 that said
that "regime change" (meaning Bush and his right wing
zealots) was scheduled for November 5 (meaning the
elections and meaning voting for the Democrats across
the board.)

It is also a death trap if we leave the journalists
and liberals who are re-claiming the movement for
"multilateral agreements through the UN" to intervene
to dictate who should or who should not lead OUR (of
all of us) movement.

If you ask me, I would say that I would side with the
WWP if the option was between their politics (of
political support for Hussein, North Koreans which I
don't share) or the politics of calling the UN for
approval before bombing.  Why? Because the first will
not accept the excuse of the UN and the second would.
Therefore the latter is closer to become the "left
wing" of the pro-war movement and thus my opposition
to them.  But I have no problem with sharing the
streets and the platform with their followers while
they oppose the war - at any stage they are in their
consciousness - in order to convince their followers
that is no moral, political or social reasoning that
should lead us to support the war on Iraq, or against
Colombia or against Yemen or against anyone.

I also believe, however, that the antiwar movement in
the hands of few in the left is an artificial and
momentary phenomena given the relationship of forces
and the strenght of the consistent left at the moment.
It can also become its opposite and achieve nothing
but remaining smallish.  That will be a tragedy for
the movement, but more importantly for the peoples
that Bush has in his target list.

It is clear that the WWP and its allies cannot
guarantee more that they already did: relatively small
marches of 100,000 in DC, for example (small given the
tremedious size of US territory and population).
Those 100,000 are the equivalent to 25,000 in London
and the 400,000 that the Londoners were able to gather
few weeks back are the equivalent to 2-Million in the
US (Dig it?)

In order to stop the Bush war drive - the war for
empire - and broke the back of the duopoly of power
behind the war drive we will need demonstrations 6-7
times larger than the present ones, we will need
massive electoral defeats of the Democrats or at least
a big electoral scare and the intervention of the ones
with the muscle to stop the political regime - labor
and minorities, especially Latinos and African
Americans.

Obviously, the left, even if it was united in one
single organziation, cannot achieve this and the
liberals would be adamantly against such a movement.
What is the solution, then?

We should fight in the movement for unity in action -
march together, build together and demand the
democratic right of all tendencies in the movement to
express their point of view according to the weight in
the movement and the number of people they mobilize.

I think we need collaboration between
liberals-pacifists-leftists and trade-unionists to
organize much bigger actions; but we need to assure
the left that they will be heard on stage as well.

I think we need less sectarianism and more
collaboration between the Marxist left and the Green
Party to help the latter to split definitely from the
Democrats, develop more links with workers and people
of color and be the vehicle of the united left - as
the only legal left party in the country - to defeat
electorally the pro-war candidates and the hesitant
liberals.

Of course, in order to do this, we need to struggle to
minimize the bureacratic and obssessive mania of WWP
and others to control the smallness of things (like
the mike, the list of speakers, the site for tents and
tables) and the tendency of the liberals to exclude
the left and ridicule them.

Is this possible?  I recognize that is difficult.  But
be very wary of the attempts of replacing what we got
in the form of the existent antiwar movement without
having in place something better, not something worse.



Sincerely, as always,

DA






__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/

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