Re: Antiwar Effort Emphasizes Civility Over Confrontation

["lvnadal" <lvnadal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

From: "Walter Lippmann"Subject: Antiwar Effort Emphasizes Civility Over
Confrontation:
--------------------------------------------------------
While I have great respect for Comrade Lippmann's work in providing
information about Cuba and the Cuban Revolution to all, his points and
politics are represented in
his submission are fundamentally mistaken.

1. At core, linking peace with patriotism fundamentally obscures the nature
of this war and the requirements for organization against this war.
All"patriotic" blather is simply an attempt to make protest acceptable to
those who would like to see a more democratic, international, exploitation
and destruction of the less developed world.

2. The issue indeed is not peace at all, since peace can be obtained through
the barrel of the US guns (as France hopes), through the barrel of UN guns
(as Hillary Clinton Hopes), through some sort of negotiated occupations,
etc.  Peace has no definition and no meaning.  All the more important then
is it for the left to define the terms of the war, and the meaning of the
war, to take it back to its source-- and that is  the organization of
capital as capital, and from that source begin to construct the demands
leading the movement into a transition from anti-war to anti-capital, i.e
"Troops Out,"  "Withdrawal of all US overseas military bases," etc..

3. Comrade Lippman talks about the "good" the NYT contributes and the bad,
as if these were two separate, distinct things.  They are not.  They exist
on in each other-- the NYT is against the war to the degree that it can
recuperate the movement into acceptable terms, "civil" terms, "non-class"
terms.   The opposition of the NYT to the war is no more significant that
its support thereof, and of no importance, in either case, to the
determinants of this war and the wars to come.




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