RE: Antiwar movement, WWP, Liberals et al

[Armand Diego <causebellum@xxxxxxxxx>]

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.)"

Jose G. Perez:

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?

Armand Diego:

Sure, there will be ... what? 80-100 million voters?
Maybe 40 millions will be workers, would you say 10-15
millions will be under 25 and around 1 million
students?  Hey, and don't forget about 5-Millions
Latinos and about the same number or a little more of
African Americans ... Sure, is a farce ... read the
"Left Wing Communism" lately?

Jose G. Perez:

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.

Armand Diego:

Adam? I wasn't answering to Adam's points, I just made
a general statement. In general I agreed with his
statement.

Jose G. Perez:

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.

Armand Diego:

You're kidding, right? "masses of working people going
into motion?" I had been organizing and marching
against the war from day 1 since 9/11.  I helped ren
buses, prepared hundreds of banners, pushed every one
I know and I could into the demos and I have more than
little of experience in "working people" and "masses."
 These are not yet "mass of working people in motion",
otherwise we would have stopped Bush on his tracks.
This is a movement of a vanguard, mostly youth and
middle age, leftists and liberals, mostly whites.
There were workers in the last 6 demonstrations I
attended but they came mostly but themselves (few
exceptions, though).

Their organizations were not there, not even a
significant layer of the demonstrators were workers,
never mind Labor.  I agree with you that "it is a
start, but a promising one" and I sincerely hope for
the heavy batallions of our class and the bulk of
Latinos and African Americans will enter the movement.
But 200,000 (total, including DC, SF demos and those
in any and all other cities) is still an small,
vanguard movement for the US (remember, more than
300-Millions?)

An, of course, the natural first step for those coming
out now is to go to their traditional organizations,
including the Democratic Party.  But instead of
ignoring that fact, as you do, or underestimate it, we
should do our utmost to intersect those people befor
ethey get into the "death trap" of the Democratic
Party.  Hey, lots of people talks about Barbara Lee
voting against the resolutions about the "war on
terrorism" and the new one virtually declaring the war
on Iraq.  Somebody should say that, good for that, but
bad, very bad that she voted for the budget for the
war she did not support and the appropriations bill
for most of the money for the "homeland security."

I rather have a half antiwar than a pro-war Congress
person, but is nothing better to stop a war, that 100%
antiwar congress people, right?

Jose G. Perez:

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.

Armand Diego:

Agree in general with statement above.  But THAT is
the reason to have him and ALSO to counterpose a
CONCRETE alternative to his politics: on the streets,
the ballot box and the workplaces. Unity in action,
striking on different politics. Giving an alternative
to his suicidal proposal to the antiwar movement to
channel their energies through the Democrats.

Jose G. Perez:

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.

Armand Diego:

We did not learn much from the past, did we? "Sure,
son, go and campaign for Kennedy but don't forget to
come out on November 5th." I can hear the answer: "I
will be there, with my leaflets and signs calling for
the alternative, even the lesser evil, to the right
wing of Bush and CO.: the Democrats"  It is a death
trap, my friend.  Between elections activism, election
day the Democrats, and then we have to start all over
again and convince back those who we already had in
the past but we let slip because we told them that was
OK to vote and campaign for the Democrats.

Jose G. Perez:

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.

Armand Diego:

That will happen, no doubt where the antiwar and young
activists and the left are having the deterministic
attitude that nothing can be done.  But in some
places, where people had responded to that with some
kind of alternative, where they decided to fight on
their own terms both marching and voting, there will
be others who will compete with the Democrats to
capitalize the antiwar movement: the Greens for one,
and some leftists.  Watch November 5 in California and
elsewhere where independent campaigns got off the
ground.  Do you think is a coincidence that the
largest group of people in SF demo and a significant
layer in DC the last 10/26 were supporters of the
Green Party?

I have no problem with Jackson speaking about voting
Democrats at the rally.  Provided that we have someone
else speaking not to vote for the accomplices of Bush
in his war drive.  In DC, Jackson did not have a
counter argument.  In SF, Dolores Huerta from the UFW
said the same thing than Jackson and received a mute
response from the crowd.  But Camejo spoke as
candidate for governor for the Greens and got a lively
and good response.  Watch for his 10-12% of the vote
coming November 5th (he was even pressured to be more
radical that he had been in the recent past because
the crowd).  And THAT, my friend, will send a message
to the Democrats that they really have to watch out
what they are doing and is giving the activists an
alternative to work in the Democratic Party's
campaigns in between demonstrations.

It is very unfortunate that the socialist left has so
an idealistic and abstentionist policy tha allows
non-socialists to look like the radical alternative.

Jose G. Perez:

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.

Armand Diego:

Sure.  And we should work with them as well, but not
letting the field without the opposition team, without
alternatives.  They want to call for a vote for the
Democrats? Fine, let's call for massive demonstrations
AND present antiwar candidates in the elections.

Jose G. Perez:

What is needed is to draw together the broadest
possible array of forces in opposition to this war.

Armand Diego:

Agree, not objections from me on this one. That is
what I said in my first post as well.

Jose G. Perez:

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.

Armand Diego:

Yes.  Thanks to the actions, mostly, of the European
and Latin American mass movements, the protests of
other governments and so on.  So far, it came mostly
from outside the US but those movements outside are
also helping with the demonstrations here. People here
is trying to understand why there are so many opposed
to "their" government abroad and the media has to
reflect, even minimally those events outside, and that
makes people have second thoughts about the war here.

Jose G. Perez:

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.

Armand Diego:

Yes. But mostly the ruling circles here are at odds
with the ruling circles in other countries, but much
more important with the masses of working peoples, as
you would say, and youth around the world.  Those
masses are the most reliable ingredient and the ones
who are pushing the ruling classes in other countries
cases into a cautious position.  In the US, the
Democrats took for granted their voters and went along
with Bush BECAUSE the elections and because they did
not want to appear "unpatriotic." Why the Democrats
felt so confident supporting such war policies?
Because they though and they think there is not a
price to pay ... in the elections. There are plenty of
people in the movement that, like you, think that the
elections are not more, and only, a farce.

Lenin would have disagreed with you, vehemently. So
would be Trotsky that, by now, and the new growing
opposition, would have suggested raising the idea of a
referndum on the war ... through elections, of course.

Of course, special mention deserves the leadership of
the AFL-CIO, but that is another discussion.

Sincerely,

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.