[Marxism] Tariq Ali responds to aliens from outer space

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

Henwood just posted this to PEN-L. The prefatory remarks in brackets are
his own. Interesting that Tariq feels compelled to counter criticisms on
the Internet. You'd think that having loudspeakers on WBAI radio, mass
audiences on American campuses and the NLR bully pulpit would be
sufficient. Perhaps realizing that the Marxism list gets about 100,000
visits a month, including people who are underwhelmed by his NLR
credentials, might have stirred him to descend from Mount Olympus. I am
reminded by the way of an incident that took place last week. According
to Ahmed Shawki, after an ISO member raised the Kerry support question
with Ali at a big meeting in Madison, Wisconsin, the chairman went
ballistic and said that no more queries from the "Infantile Sectarian
Organization" would be tolerated. He not only cut off the ISO'er, but
everybody else in the audience as well. Sounds like a variation on Medea
Benjamin getting the hook at the Democratic Party convention after
holding up a peace sign. To Ali's credit, he answered his critic
respectfully. My response to Ali's response are in parentheses below. I
have not clipped his email.

====

[Tariq Ali asked me to circulate this. He sent it under the subject
heading "Rage from Outer Space." You can listen to the interview at
<http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Radio.html>.]

BUSH VERSUS KERRY: FOR THE RECORD

As I expected my interview with Doug Henwood on the US elections has
resulted in a flurry of e-mails and not a few distortions, which one has
come to expect from sections of the US Left. Not a single e-mail from
friends/comrades/acquaintances on any other continent. Outside the US
few progressives get agitated when one hopes in public that Bush is
defeated. Before the more virulent sectarians begin to choke in their
own bile let me set the record straight on what my views are and what
they are not. Soon the elections will be over and we can get back to
uniting against the war in Iraq and adventures elsewhere.

(1) A defeat for Bush would be a defeat for a war-monger President who
invaded Iraq and whose policies have left 100,000 Iraqi civilians and
over a 1000 US soldiers dead. Tens of thousands have been severely
wounded. Defeating a regime that has waged this war is not an abstract
question. It is real and should be a priority for everyone who was
opposed to the war in Iraq. A victory for Bush could have a demoralising
impact globally and in the US. In Iraq and Venezuela, Afghanistan and
Cuba, South Africa and China, people will think Bush has been re-elected
because a majority of the US electorate support his policies. The defeat
of the incumbent has to be de-linked from the political character of the
available alternative. Why? Because a defeat for Bush will mark a defeat
for his policies.

(But the defeat of Goldwater did not mean that his policies were
defeated. Such policies are made by the "invisible government" that is
responsive to the ruling class, not the electorate. Do I date myself by
putting forward a 1960s radical critique such as this? Guess I won't get
invited to the next Verso cocktail party where only the 'au courant' can
be found.)

(2) Defeating Bush, alas, means voting for Kerry in the swing states.
His policies, except on abortion and some other social issues, are
virtually indistinguishable from those of Bush. We can all wish there
was a better candidate, but there ain't one. And we do need a candidate
to defeat Bush. I agree with many of Alexander Cockburn's criticisms as
expressed in the latest New Left Review, while disagreeing with his
conclusions. Despite the pathetic nature of Kerry and his cohort
Edwards, the Left has no other choice IF it wants to defeat Bush. If it
regards the outcome of the election as irrelevant, then of course, I
understand the anger directed against myself. Rage from outer-space
leaves me unmoved.

(Agreed. The left has no choice if the goal is to defeat Bush. But for
the Quixotic among us who seek to wipe capitalism off the face of the
earth, it is necessary to maintain certain basic principles. Marx,
Engels and Lenin never advocated crossing class lines and voting for the
party of the bosses. If you want to keep the spirit of Earl Browder
alive, be our guest. But you don't think that you speak for the Marxist
left on this question.)

(3) A significant proportion of Democratic voters are opposed to the war
and if Kerry continues on the same trajectory in Iraq as he promises to
do then a section of his own base will detach itself and fight against
him from Day One. That is why I have argued that the Inauguration should
be an occasion for the largest national antiwar gathering possible
demanding the withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq. There is no
question of 'sowing illusions' in Kerry or the Democrats. The last
chapter of the paperback 'Bush in Babylon' makes my views on the US
Democrats very clear. So we will carry on fighting the incumbent if the
incumbent carries on the war in Iraq. And if he does then surely at the
end of four years he will go down as well and an intelligent third party
could have an impact. But four years is a long way away and the US
Empire is not as strong as it imagines. If they do not withdraw from
Iraq they will be humiliated. Which is why some real nutters privately
speak of nukes and killing a million Iraqis to calm the situation.

(You are not "sowing illusions" in the Democrats. You are quite clear
that they are greedy warmongers who would kick a puppy dog that got in
their way. That is not our problem. It is that you urge a vote for them
regardless of their overall shittiness. This lowering of horizons goes
hand in hand with the ideological retreat of NLR that you have only
partially detached yourself from.)

(4) I feel exactly the same regarding our local war-monger Tony Blair. I
am for his defeat, despite the backing he has received from the labour
movement. If a Liberal-Democrat candidate can defeat a pro-war New
Labour ghoul, then I will vote for the Liberal-Democrats, despite their
Kerry-like weaknesses. The reasons are the same. Politicians who deserve
to be tried as war-criminals should not be elected.

("I feel exactly..." I, I, I. Your email is stuffed with the
first-person singular but the *movement* needs strategic clarification
about what to *do next*. We need to construct a revolutionary movement.
That is our mandate. What you do as individual is your business. We have
ours.

(5) Many dear friends are committed to voting Nader/Camejo. On the West
Coast and in New York this registers a vote to the left of Kerry and
could add to the pressure but only if Kerry were elected. If the dynamic
duo help Bush win in the swing states, you can say farewell to the
chance of creating a meaningful Third Party for many, many years. I do
not live in the United States, but am reassured that Noam Chomsky,
Howard Zinn and other veterans hold a similar view.

(Why, thank you for giving me permission to vote for Ralph Nader!)

--
Marxism list: www.marxmail.org


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