Bob Avakian- It's Time to STEP UP, Not Water Down, the Opposition

[Chiang Ching <chiangching@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Now that the War Is Going On...
It's Time to STEP UP,
Not Water Down, the Opposition
by Bob Avakian Chairman of the RCP,USA

Revolutionary Worker #1194, April 13, 2003, posted at http://rwor.org

If you try but fail to stop a monstrous crime before it is committed, should 
you support it, or be more "restrained" in opposing it, now that it is being 
committed?

In the March 29 edition of the New York Times there is an article whose title 
is a tip-off to its purpose: "Antiwar Movement Morphs from Wild-Eyed to Civil." 
The heart of this article is its claim that the antiwar movement is becoming 
more "moderate" now that it has failed to stop the war.

What is done with this article is very similar to what is done with the 
never-ending, ever-present polls: people are told what to think by telling them 
it is what they already do think--or what they ought to think because most 
everybody else thinks that way. (If there had not already been literally 
millions of people in the U.S. itself, as well as millions more around the 
world, protesting the war, even before it began, is there any doubt that those 
who are running this war-- and running "the polls"--would be claiming that 
something like 90 percent of Americans support this war? But in the face of the 
massive opposition, they couldn't get away with a blatant lie to that degree, 
so instead we are told that "the polls show" that something like 60 or 70 
percent support the war.) As the Chuck D/Public Enemy song says: "Don't Believe 
the Hype." And don't believe it when things like this Times article tell the 
antiwar movement what it should do by pretending to "report" what it is
 doing.

One of the great strengths of this movement has indeed been its tremendous 
breadth--involving huge numbers of people of many different viewpoints. But 
that breadth and diversity has had strength exactly because it has been united 
in clearly opposing the war, in rejecting the government's rationalizations for 
this war, and in its determination to stop this war. Now, just at a time when 
it is becoming evident that this war will not be the quick and easy victory 
that the government/media led people to believe it would be, things like this 
Times article are attempting to influence the movement to "water down" its 
stand, and to slide down a slippery slope into a position of basically 
accepting this war, with whatever horrors it brings, and at most engaging in 
weakened rituals of protest.

Think about the title of this Times article in light of the reality in Iraq: 
There is nothing whatsoever "civil" about the war that the U.S. government is 
waging on Iraq, and the continuation of this war will mean even greater death, 
destruction and suffering for the people of Iraq. So why should the antiwar 
movement tone down and water down its basic stand and its determination to stop 
this war?

And what is the logic that this Times article is attempting to promote? Well, 
the antiwar movement did not succeed in preventing the war from happening...so 
therefore it should be less firm and resolute in its opposition, now that the 
war has started? Huh?...what kind of logic is that! Of course, this is said to 
be necessary in order to appeal to, or not to alienate, the "mainstream." Once 
again, the fact is that the movement which aimed at stopping the war, before it 
started, was truly massive--it was unprecedented in the outpouring of people 
from all walks of life-- precisely on the basis of its clear and firm stand of 
opposing and resisting this war . The problem, the reason this movement did not 
succeed in preventing this war, is clearly not that the movement was not broad 
and large- scale.

The reason and the problem is that decision-making in the U.S. does not follow 
the popular will but is dominated by a small group of people--heads of 
corporations and their political representatives--whose interests are 
fundamentally different from, and opposed to, those of the masses of "ordinary 
people." This ruling class of capitalists not only monopolizes and controls the 
economy but also the politics and the key institutions of American society and 
government. They preside over a network of global exploitation, which has to be 
maintained through threatening to use, and actually using, massive military 
force.

As the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has bluntly put it: the hidden 
hand of McDonald's cannot prosper without the fist of McDonnell Douglas. And 
the fact is that the clique now sitting at the core of power in the U.S. has 
been planning to wage this war on Iraq and determined to wage it for 
years--going back well before September 11, 2001...well before the "election" 
of George W. Bush. This war is part of a whole strategy of extending U.S. 
imperial domination in the world through massive military force--a strategy 
that Cheney and others like him have been working on since "the end of the Cold 
War."

To stop this war of mass destruction on Iraq and turn things away from this 
whole course will require not lowering but raising the level of the opposition. 
It will require mobilizing even more massive outpourings of protest and 
resistance, of many different kinds, in unity with people all over the world 
who are opposing and resisting this war. The aim must be nothing less than 
transforming the political terrain and the terms of things in society, so that 
continuing with this war, and with this whole direction, would land the ruling 
class of the U.S. in a profound political crisis.

This does mean that even greater numbers of people need to be won over. But 
that is just the point-- they need to be won over . The way the movement will 
become even broader, and at the same time more powerful , is not by watering 
down its basic position of opposition and not by trying to avoid "offending 
anyone": To win people over means challenging them. It means reaching out to 
them, yes, but also struggling with them, in a good way. It means explaining, 
with concrete facts and meaningful analysis, what is really going on--exposing 
the lies that the government/media repeatedly drum at people, and bringing them 
the truth of why this whole war of mass destruction is being waged on Iraq, why 
the U.S., and the world, is being dragged in this whole direction, whose 
interests this does and does not serve, and why this must be firmly opposed. 
And it will be more possible to continue winning over more people if at the 
same time the great numbers of people who already are against t
 his war continue to mobilize in powerful opposition to it.

In the face of the determination of the "rogue state" in Washington to proceed 
with this war and this whole course, what is needed is for the movement of 
opposition to be not "wild- eyed" but clear-eyed , and to be even more 
determined .