Re: Forwarded from Anthony (NYT)

["Henry C.K. Liu" <hliu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This post most likely will bring down another barrage of accusation of
counterrevoluationary error on me.  I assume that this list is not a
game show for the most radical views but a reasoned venue for advancing
a common cause. At this moment in history, particularly in the US, where
there does not seem to be any basis to assume that the time for general
uprising against the system is at hand, the only rational strategy for a
revolutionary cause would have to be inclusive, rather than exclusive.
The task of the revolutionary core is to win the masses and not to
alienate the masses by associating the revoltuion with extremists tactics.

"Naturally, it is not to be thought that all conditions for revolution
are going to be created through the impulse given to them by guerrilla
activity. It must always be kept in mind that there is a necessary
minimum without which the establishment and consolidation of the first
center is not practicable. People must see clearly the futility of
maintaining the fight for social goals within the framework of civil
debate. When the forces of oppression come to maintain themselves in
power against established law, peace is considered already broken.

"In these conditions popular discontent expresses itself in more active
forms. An attitude of resistance finally crystallizes in an outbreak of
fighting, provoked initially by the conduct of the authorities.

"Where a government has come into power through some form of popular
vote, fraudulent or not, and maintains at least an appearance of
constitutional legality, the guerrilla outbreak cannot be promoted,
since the possibilities of peaceful struggle have not yet been
exhausted."  Che Guevara

http://www.che-lives.com/home/guerilla.shtml

The US left must engage in civil guerilla warfare against the
establishment at this time.  There is no sense in mounting frontal
attacks on it, for the resources are so uneven.  The left needs to stop
talking from a purely ideological position, while it must take care not
to give up its ideological pasition.  The current task is to expose the
inconsistency and irationality of the established system in its own
terms, that capitalsim is not only immoral, it does not even work
according to its own values and claims.

"Showing each guerrilla the need for good behavior to win the support of
the population. Discussion guides should convince the guerrillas that
the attitude and opinion of the population play a decisive role, because
victory is impossible without popular support."

http://www.webcom.com/pinknoiz/covert/tacayan.html#3.%20Political%20Oratory

To attack the NY Time for being what it is serves no purpose. The NY
Times is proud to be a reactionary paper in liberal clothing.  Yet, a
large numer of the writers in the NY Times would write differently if
the editors would let them, and even editors would write differently if
the business dept will let them. To infiltrate the NY Time is a
worthwhile revolutionary task. To dismiss it is not.

 Many lists that profess to be on the left take pride in being truth
seeking.  No, revolutionaries do not seek truth.  They know the truth
already.  They seek to convince those who have not yet seen the light.
Lists like LBO-Talk and Pen-L, from which I was expelled for defending
China's developmental tactics, took the position that they, given a
choice between "democracy" and socialism, the will choose democracy.
The criticised the ugly realities of China as a diversion of their
frustration of powerlessness against the US system.  The attack on
Saddam follows similar lines.  I defended Pol Pot for the same reason.

To be further left than the person next to you is no big deal.  The big
deal is to push the revolution a step closer by whatever means you can
within your own cabilities.  Making the movement a popular pariah is not
moving in the right direction.

Henry C.K. Liu

Walter Lippmann wrote:
> Anthony doesn't explain, specifically, what
> disturbs him about MY remarks on the NYT.
>
> We're all frustrated, I think, at the pace of
> developments and at the various obstacles
> which exist between current consciousness
> among the great majority, and what some of
> us Marxmail writers think about the world and
> the powers that be. But consciousness and
> its raisising is a process, not a single event.
>
> My article warned AGAINST what the New York
> Times is up to, yet noted that we cannot however
> AUTOMATICALLY put a plus everywhere our
> opponents put a minus.
>
> The power of the New York Times flows from its
> resources and its reputation as the "newspaper
> of record" for a wing of the capitalist ruling class.
> This is why we're all compelled to read and to
> relate to the paper: because of the audience it
> reaches, whom we, also want to reach.
>
> At times, the NYT publishes important facts
> which themselves become important by virtue
> of having been published in the NYT. (Think:
> Pentagon Papers, think Orlando Bosch's:
> admission of some of his terrorist acts.)
>
> The NYT has come to the conclusion that Bush
> is conducting the war badly, and so, in an effort
> to obtain a change in US policy, the Times is at
> this time revealing some of the facts on the
> ground, and reporting the growth of the anti-war
> movement. If it were up to Bush and his team,
> there would be little or no reporting on anti-war
> mobilizations. They pretend we do not exist.
>
> Naturally the NYT wants to channel anti-war
> sentiment toward safe directions for the owner-
> operators of the NYT. This surprises anyone
> subscribing to the Marxmail list?
>
> No one can guarantee the purity of slogans in
> a genuinely mass movement, which is what is
> occurring against this war. Thus it's silly to
> view these matters as if they were matters
> of absolute class principle, such as this:
> ---------------------------------------------------
> "Support the Troops, Bring them home Now"
> opens the door to the imperialist effort to coopt
> the movement. The next step from this slogan is,
> "Support the Troops, Send in More!" (just half a joke).
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Does anyone think that someone marching to
> protest this war today is likely tomorrow to
> turn around and support the war? Of course
> not, the very notion is absurd.
>
> Notions, both guided and misguided about
> patriotism play a complex role on social and
> political life. Are 100% of all statements of a
> patriotic nature wrong? Is patriotism the last
> refuge of a scoundrel 100% of the time, too?
>
> Should we ban people carrying the flag of
> the United States from the protests? That
> is just the kind of ultraleftist posturing that
> our Cuban friends might be trying to help
> us to understand, and to reject.
>
> Remember: this photo is being displayed
> on the website of the Central Committee
> of the Communist Party of Cuba, not the
> New York Times or The Nation, por favor.
> http://www.granma.cu/espanol/manifestaciones/california.html
>
> Those who object to such displays of a
> proud and unashamed patriotism might
> wonder about the Cuban Revolution and
> just why the July 26th movement adopted
> a patriotic, revolutionary and democratic,
> but consciously NOT Marxist or Leninist
> kind of approach. I haven't time to spell
> it all out here, but a good explanation is
> given in the wonderful book by
>
> Lionel Martin  called THE EARLY FIDEL:
> The Roots of Castro's Communism (Lyle
> Stuart 1978) (Lionel was formerly the
> Washington Post correspondent in Cuba.
> He has lived there for forty or more years
> and still lives there.) Enough for now...
>
>
> Walter
> ========================
>
> ANTHONY WROTE: (excerpts)
> Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 5:01 AM
> Subject: Forwarded from Anthony (NYT)
>
> The New York Times article about the antiwar movement,
> and Walter Lippmann's remarks about it are disturbing.
> =======================
> It seems to me that there is a very conscious attempt
> to coopt, sanitize, and derail the antiwar movement.
> =======================
> Their aim is to to gain support for the war
> against Iraq within the movement.
> =======================
> The way the NYT envisions doing this is by replacing
> opposition to the war, with opposition to the way
> the war is being conducted, opposition to Bush's
> unilateralism, etc. The well financed right wing of
> the movement is trying to impose censorship on the
> left wing of the movement by demanding that speakers
> limit themselves to opposition to the war in Iraq, and
> some try to go further.
>
> This effort to coopt the movement makes the issue of
> the key slogans of the movement, and of democracy in
> the movement central. Every revolutionary should be -
> in my not very humble opinion - fighting tooth and
> nail against the self appointed censors in the
> movement.
>
> And they should be fighting for slogans that will
> mobilize everyone who is against the war -
> but which do not in any way support the war.
>
> "US Out of Iraq Now!" is such a slogan.
>
> "Support the Troops, Bring them home Now"
> opens the door to the imperialist effort to coopt
> the movement. The next step from this slogan is,
> "Support the Troops, Send in More!" (just half a joke).
>
> And, while revolutionaries should put their main
> effort into building mass demonstrations that mobilize
> as many people as possible, they should not fall into
> the traps set for them in this endeavor. Those traps
> are all - in one way or another - based on the law of
> politics that money is the mother's milk of all
> poliltics.
> ======================
> No one should ever accept a pro-imperialist slogan
> just because they will get the cash to advertise the
> demo. No one should ever accept a pro-imperialist
> slogan just because somebody, or some organization
> that is important, will endorse the demo if you do.
> ======================
> At the same time we have to walk a very fine line
> about militant tactics. Civil disobedience tactics are
> legitimate and must be defended by revolutionaries -
> they should however be limited to demonstrations in
> which all of the people participating agree to them -
> They are not tactics for mass demonstrations that
> attract large numbers of people who are not already
> deeply involved in the movement. Including a well
> defined civil disobedience component that
> accompanies a mass demo is one good solution.
>
> US Out of Iraq Now!
>
> Fuck the New York Times!
>
> Anthony