Re: Antiwar movement, WWP, Liberals et al

["Jose G. Perez" <jgperez@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Armand Diego wrote:

"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.)"

I would agree that this perspective presented by Jesse Jackson is
essentially a diversion and waste of time, but a "death trap"? Aren't we
perhaps exaggerating *just a tiny bit* the importance of an "off year"
bourgeois electoral farce that very few people are even paying attention to
anyways, and *most* of the adult population will decline to participate in?

More generally, you seem to misapprehend completely the kinds of concerns
Adam is expressing. They really don't have to do much with the liberalism of
this outfit versus the radicalness of that one, but with a lack of
transparency on the part of people who should know better.

It is not just a question of shifts in public opinion, but rather masses of
working people going into motion. So far, it is just a start, but an
extremely promising one. Under these circumstances, *of course* people are
going to look towards the existing organizations, institutions and
politicians they have been associated with or influenced by. If someone like
Rev. Jackson, who has the ear of much broader layers of society that the WWP
or anyone else on the left does, is willing to come in and become part of
the antiwar movement, so much the better. That because he remains in the
orbit of the Demcratic Party and project those kinds of politics is
inevitable.

It is, however, hardly a death trap. Many good activists will vote Democrat,
some will even be drawn into working on their campaigns. I would tell them
frankly and honestly that I think it is a totally wasted effort, but I'm
certainly not going to spend my last breath trying to dissuade them from
that course, but rather, trying to convince them that building the November
9th antiwar protest in Atlanta is a much more productive thing to do with
their activism.

The shape of American politics right now is such that the Democrats are
going to capitalize on any rise in anti-Bush, antiwar sentiment. *Despite*
their congresscritters support Bush's blank check resolution. This means
also that some Democrats will be clever enough to figure it out and they
will want to help promote antiwar activities, especially those most easily
diverted towards channelling people to their party.

What is needed is to draw together the broadest possible array of forces in
opposition to this war. Already, it is pretty clear that the stiffening
opposition has led Bush to tone down some of his rhetoric and do more
pussy-footing with the United Nations than he originally projected. Ruling
class circles are divided on the wisdom of Bush's entire Iraq initiative,
and if this motivates or makes it easier for prominent people or groups in
the orbit of the two party system to come out against the war, so much the
better for us.

José

----- Original Message -----
From: "Armand Diego" <causebellum@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 10:55 PM
Subject: Antiwar movement, WWP, Liberals et al



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