The October 25 march and "single-issue-ism"

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Many thousands of people participated today in a very important antiwar
protest in Washington, DC.  They gathered around the Washington Monument,
and, after a rally, marched to the Capitol Building to demand "End the
Occupation of Iraq" and "Bring the Troops Home Now." The very large student
participation was very exciting to see. Clearly scores or even hundreds of
campus organizations and youth-based political groups had thrown themselves
into building the action. In addition to thousands of students, there were
many trade unionists and Blacks.  A busload of Puerto Rican activists came
from New York City.

This was the first public national protest against the Iraq war as an
ongoing project of the administration, both parties in Congress, and the
ruling class (which seems to be more united on the importance of not giving
up now than they were on getting into the war in the first place).  The
rulers will pay a price for this demonstration even though it is highly
unlikely that they will heed its demands at first.  They are still paying
for the massive February 14 antiwar protests around the world in terms of
the consciousness of sections of the US politicians, the political awareness
of  the troops of the kind of situation they are really in (translated into
military lingo as "low morale"), the activism among military families, the
impact of the exposure of the lies about weapons of mass destruction and
other ways.  They went to war without heeding the protests. (Would they have
heeded a general strike at that point? Who knows?  The Spanish government
didn't heed an antiwar strike by 4 million workers.)  But they have paid a
price for not doing so, and this protest signals that the price can rise
again if  united protests of this type can consider and broaden.

The size estimate  given from the platform was 100,000.  My own estimate was
much lower, perhaps as low as 20,000.  I have never claimed expertise in the
area of crowd counts because I have none, and my estimates are often
conservative.  I don't plan to debate this issue with anyone who saw it
differently.  But whatever the size, the importance and positive character
of the protest was clear to me.  I came back very upbeat.

The only presidential candidate I heard was Dennis Kucinich, the most
antiwar of the Democratic contenders, who issued the call,. "US out! UN in!"

Interestingly, the spokesperson for Military Families -- parents and
relatives of GIs in Iraq -- stressed the importance of NOT attempting to
replace US GIs with cannon fodder from other countries.  She said that US
and all foreign troops must leave now, and Iraq must have the right to
determine its own future.  She showed how the US policies attack both the
Iraqi people and the GIs.  A very internationalist talk, in my opinion.

I think it is clear that the single overarching issue in this movement is
opposition to the occupation of Iraq by US forces.  In that sense I think
Jose is nitpicking with Robin Maisel a bit when he talks about "relating the
war to other issues," something he admits the anti-Vietnam war movement did
and which the Socialist Workers Party agreed with.  I don't say we never got
rigid or anything, but basically we were interested in doing that especially
where the Black struggle -- a movement based in the working class -- or
events like the Postal Workers strike were involved.  Similarly, noone that
I know of has resisted relating the war to other issues in this struggle.

But the fact is that a class and national upheaval against the government,
such as began in Bolivia around the single issue of the gas sales to the US
by way of Chile, tends to take on the character of a struggle for a broad
counterprogram against the government -- in this case, anti- imperialist,
anti-privatization, anti-IMF and WTO, antiracist, Indian nationalist,
proworker and so on.  This is not something  the antiwar movement today can
do, because of its composition and character, and because of where politics
is in the US today.  The point Robin made about the complete absence of
independent working class political action (viewed in its broadest sense,
not just electorally) is very important.

There is a big difference between the kind of class (which in this case also
means NATIONAL  and NATIONALIST) movement that took place in Bolivia and the
protest movement that we have the potential to organize against the war
today.  The movement we can organize today cannot STOP the imperialist war
by itself -- the imperialists can ignore it, although not free of charge --
but it does contribute to the overall class struggles including in Iraq that
can force them to make the decision to get out.

It is not accidental that the multi-issue proposals we get in the antiwar
movement aside from those that come from ultraleft sects, invariably tend to
push the movement to the right, and back toward capitalist politics.
Weinberg's complaints against the Workers World Party were a clear example
of this dynamic, which is still the dominant one.

It turns out from reading his post to the end and reading Louis Proyect's
letter to him, which I did not do in my rush to get to October 25, that
Weinberg regards himself as an anarchist of some sort and a conscious foe of
imperialism -- and considers himself more advanced than many in UFPJ as a
consequence, and therefore eminently entitled to lecture the UFPJ on the
dangers of associating with the incipient mass murderers he suggests are
gathered around ANSWER.  I don't recognize his qualifications.

There is no doubt that accepting his proposals to exclude ANSWER based on
its positions on the war in Yugoslavia, for example, would push the movement
far to the right of our current preoccupation with the war with Iraq,
regardless of  Weinberg's personal leftist views.

I have actually listened to the Moorish Orthodox Radio Crusade a couple
times and found it entertaining, although I did not recognize Weinberg's
name.  I first tuned in because I thought it might represent a remnant of
Noble Drew Ali's "Moorish Science" Islamic Black nationalist movement from
the 1920s, which was a predecessor of today's Nation of Islam.

As far as Weinberg being an anarchist is concerned, I don't know what that
means anymore.  This used to designate a revolutionary working class current
involving people like the organizers of the 8-hour day movement in Chicago
who were framed for the Haymarket bombing,  Vincent St. John of the
Industrial Workers of the World, and the martyred Italian-born anarchists
Sacco and Vanzetti.

Now it seems to range from antiwar and antiglobalization youth to people who
consider themselves anarchists because they smoke in New York bars or refuse
to drive within the white lines on the highway.
Fred Feldman


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