Re: [Marxism] Democrats call for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq

["Marvin Gandall" <marvgandall@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Lou Paulson wrote: "RITUAL" denunciations? If you're using the term
correctly, it means that you think we really like Kerry or are neutral
toward Kerry, and are merely mouthing denunciations which we don't really
believe?  Or perhaps you mean to say "ill-considered denunciations" or
"ultraleft denunciations"?



My reply: If I thought using the word "ritual" would be confusing, I
wouldn't have used it. I would have gone without an adjective. I alluded to
the denuciation of Kerry because my impression is that people think Kerry's
views are the end of the discussion about the Democratic party, whereas I
think it is largely irrelevant or at least the beginning of it. I wouldn't
at all characterize these criticisms of Kerry as "ultraleft" or
"ill-considered" ,including the ones you mention, because I agree with them,
with the caution that some of it is Kerry/DLC campaign rhetoric designed to
show he is not your typical "liberal" or "weak on defence". I think what the
Dems and Reps have in common is more important than what divides them, and
I've noted before that there it would be wrong to expect major differences
between the foreign or domestic policy of Kerry or Bush, because they are
both responsible to the US ruling class for administering the system.



But I've also noted in this connection that if a Nader or a Camejo - and I
think I also mentioned you in the same context - were allowed to take power,
you'd all be forced to govern like Bush and Kerry. But you know Nader or
Camejo or yourself would not be allowed to take power unless you accomodated
to the current system, which is precisely my point: personalties, as in the
case of John Kerry, don't count for much, so why dwell on them? My interest
in the Democratic party is restricted to the constituency it represents: the
unions and social movements. Absent those constituencies, I would still
follow the party, but it would have no more political interest for me than
the Republicans, the Greens, the SWP, or, with respect, the WWP.

---------------------------------



Lou: "Kerry might be a greater evil (than Bush) just because he is not yet
so discredited as a liar, is not such a right-sectarian, is smarter and is
literate, might be able to better mobilize an international imperialist
coalition again, and might be more effective."



Me: Carrol Cox made a similar point on another list last week, to which I
replied, so I'll draw on it for this discussion. Carrol wrote: "I still
think that it is really not possible to both support Kerry and continue to
build the anti-war movement. It is essential that we keep front and center
that Kerry will be a more dangerous imperial warrior than Bush."



My reply was as follows:



"Isn't this like saying a Republican victory in 1936 would have been
preferable to the relection of FDR and the Democrats because the latter, by
promoting social reform and collective bargaining rights, had a more
sophisticated understanding of how to save capitalism? Or the same as the
German KPD worrying that a "more dangerous" social democratic victory would
postpone the German revolution, which Nazi repression would hasten?



"Today, the Democrats and their European allies share a common liberal
political culture and, as such, can be said to have a more sophisticated
understanding of how to advance capitalism's interests in the international
arena than do the neoconservatives. Iraq has proved that in spades. The
Europeans tried desperately to prevent the Bush administration's adventure,
which has turned out to be very destabilizing not only in Iraq, but
globally, and has damaged US and Western interests. A Kerry administration,
in league with the Europeans, would not have invaded Iraq, but would have
used subtler methods to try and force internal regime change or, failing
that, would have been content to contain the Baathist regime, possibly
cutting a deal in exchange for loosening sanctions."



"I imagine in 2000, though, you would have been telling the Iraqis that it
is 'essential to keep front and center that Gore will be a more dangerous
imperial warrior than Bush'?"



"And in 1936, would you not have been telling trade unionists that 'it is
really not possible to both support FDR and continue to build the labour
movement'?"

-------------------------------------



Lou: "a) working for Nader allows me to tell more of the truth than working
for Kerry could possibly do."



Me: To whom? The rank and file in each party? What could you say to a Nader
partisan that you couldn't say to an honest Democrat, especially a Dean or
Kucinich supporter? I think they pretty much occupy the same political
space, with different views and/or emotions about being in the same party as
a Kerry or Lieberman. I expect if you expressed the truth about Kerry or
Liebermen to left Democrats, they wouldn't be especially offended. But I
think you're being a bit disingenous here; this is a matter of "pedagogy",
and you strike me as sophisticated enough to communicate with most any kind
of audience.

---------------------------------------



Lou: "b) the Kerry organization is firmly in the hands of loyal servants of
imperialism, whereas the Nader organization has people who are more worth
talking to



Me: I think there are many more trade unionists, blacks, Latino(s), women,
gays, solidarity, and other activists in the DP than in the Greens, whom
neither of us would consider "loyal servants of imperialism" and would
clearly consider "worth talking to", so I don't get your point.

------------------------------------------



Lou: "c) the Nader organization is also more democratic and allows for more
local initiative."



Me: Almost certainly true, but so what? Is this a reprise of your point
above that you couldn't - or wouldn't be allowed - to talk to Democratic
party members? Further on in your reply you also note: "In view of the fact
that the structure of the presidential campaign of the Democratic Party is
absolutely closed to left influence, either in process, or in politics, or
in terms of any kind of organization, WHY do you believe that it is POSSIBLE
to do any "mobilizing" from within the Democratic Party?  After all, the
Democratic Party is not like a union local.  There is no monthly Chicago
meeting of the Democratic Party where I can go and introduce some
resolution."



You know the DP better than I, but I don't find your plaintive expression of
powerlessness in this context convincing. I think you'd find a way to make
your points to DP workers as I have in the NDP, despite a party political
culture which is only slightly more conduicive to internal party debate.
Your point can be made by anyone operating in a labour or social democratic
party to justify abstention - and has been in the past, including by those
Lenin polemicized against in Left Wing Communism. I've noted before that
these contemporary parties are largely dead between elections. But we both
know elections are ideal venues for raising political consciousness, and
you'd have a hard time convincing me that you and others would not, if you
were oriented in this direction, do effective political work in the caucuses
and campaign offices - and in the Dean and Kucinich campaign offices, in
particular - but I don't need to belabour the point.



Nor is such involvement in contradiction, as you suggest, to what we in
Canada call "extraparliamentary" work - talking with people "about political
matters at all times on the street, in their workplaces, in community
organizations, churches, etc.". It is complementary to it. We're neither of
us anarchists who don't understand the importance of work in the political
arena as well as outside of it - meaning the electoral arena in peaceful
times - and how each reinforces the other. Marxists have, in fact, argued
that, unlike the single issue movements, the political arena is where the
question of power is posed, although I will grant you that was when labour
and socialist parties had more life in them. But I can't believe you don't
know this, as well



You do raise a point which is worth considering  when you write about the
accusation levelled against Marxists and others who are not perceived to be
authentic party members but "entrists": "You are just a wrecker and splitter
within the Democratic Party!  A covert Naderite!"  And then we would get
expelled and denounced as bad Democrats!    Since we are going to get
denounced by Kerryites as soon as we open our mouths about our real
politics, wouldn't it be less shameful and degrading to be denounced as the
socialists we are, rather than as bad Democrats?"



I remember having long debates about this issue, as I'm sure others who came
out of the Canadian Trotskyist movement do. It would take a separate post to
do this discussion justice. Suffice it to say for now that the reception you
will get when you signal your politics will depend on the level of dissent
within the party and how sensitively you conduct yourself. This is not a
problem unique to the DP or social democratic parties. We're vulnerable to
the same accusations within the unions or any of the single issue
organizations for expressing dissenting positions or being identified,
rightly or wrongly, as members of a disciplined caucus with a "hidden
agenda". That has not, to my knowledge, deterred us before from
participating in these forums under adverse circumstances, and from thinking
about how to go about it in the most expeditious way.

---------------------------------------



Lou: Instead of trying to figure out what to do when there is no credible
alternative on the left, would it not be better to try to BECOME the
credible alternative on the left?



Me: Another huge discussion topic, and we've already had lots on the list.
My position is that forming an independent party or league or group, call it
what you want, is a tactical not a principled question, and is related to
the nature of the period. I don't think we're in such a period now.



Marv Gandall




_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism