Re: Fighting about Saddam: materialism and emotionalism

["Julio Huato" <juliohuato@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Lou Palsen wrote:

> However, some of us, like Tahir, are so emotionally repelled by the idea of
> "defending Saddam Hussein" or "defending the Iraqi state" that it amounts
> in my view to a political neurosis.

Etc.

I have a different take on this -- addressing a concern Lou Palsen voices in
the second half of his posting.

It's not mere emotionalism.  The way we frame the analysis is tactically
crucial.

Of course, whatever we do has objective consequences that go beyond our
intentions.  That applies to our actions as much as it does to the rulers'.

At times, the dynamics of a struggle leads to a binary choice: For or
against.  To this extent, José Pérez is right: There are two camps only.
But the strategic and tactical discussion of these events cannot be, SHOULD
NOT BE, reduced to this single discrete choice.  The situation is complex.
There are more than one dimension to deal with.

So, I prefer to frame things this way:

"In deciding whether we should oppose the US invasion, the nature of the
Iraqi state and the character of Saddam Hussein is entirely irrelevant.  We
should oppose it."  And then we should go on to argue why we should oppose
it.

In framing it this way I have in mind first and foremost the need for the
movement to grow.  Only kids or mad people can be unconcerned about the
effects their choice of words and syntax has on others.

In the last few weeks I've had conversations with many "blue-collar" workers
from Brooklyn and Staten Island.  The views of those of Irish and Italian
ancestry can be summarized as follows: (1) They "like" Bush, (2) "yuppies"
oppose the war, (3) they have friends or relatives in the armed forces (as
well as cops and firefighters), (4) they do believe in 'patriotism', and (4)
they are VERY concerned about the state of the LOCAL economy.  The views of
African Americans and Caribbeans (English- and Spanish-speaking) are
remarkably similar, except that the latter are less into 'patriotism' and
MUCH more likely to dislike Bush.

While they find plausible the argument that the invasion is against their
interests, any hint of a DIRECT defense of Saddam Hussein turns off MOST of
them.  Ipso facto.

Anyway.  For what I observe, "blue-collar" workers like those in Brooklyn
and Staten Island I talked to may be more sensitive to a critique of
unemployment, domestic economic policy, the impact on the local economies,
etc. -- as they necessarily relate to the invasion and foreign policy --
than a DIRECT assault on the invasion.

Julio

_________________________________________________________________
Charla con tus amigos en línea mediante MSN Messenger:
http://messenger.yupimsn.com/