Re: [Marxism] Slogans and strategies, victories and defeats

["acpollack2@xxxxxxxx" <acpollack2@xxxxxxxx>]

Thank you Comrade Stephens! I admit I've been so angered at the ABB crowd that 
I've overlooked the far more fundamental forces at work -- both our early 
strength and its legacy, as well as how far the ruling class has come in 
overcoming that strength and how far they still have to go!

By the way this ability to sense in such a situation latent forces that are not 
so visible without serious analysis are also found in Peter Camejo's 
"Liberalism, Ultraleftism and Mass Action", a commentary on a parallel debate 
in the movement during Vietnam. See the text at:
http://www.geocities.com/acpollack2/LUoMA.htm

P.S. Just one addition to what Eli said: when he says "whether those social 
services would be restored is irrelevant" is not entirely accurate -- because 
if the war were to end and services, jobs, etc. were not to be restored, that 
would further consciousness about the system's exploitative nature both here 
and abroad and how their inevitably and dialectically linked. That would put us 
in a position to say, "OK, we forced them to pull out of Iraq, but only a 
similar mass movement will force them to spend money on us -- and on their 
victims in Iraq."

-- "Eli Stephens" <elishastephens@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Let me see if I have this straight. I shouldn't try to win people to the
antiwar movement with the slogan "Money for XXX not for war," because it's
either a "lie" or else "doing the Democratic Party's bidding." I must have
missed where the Democrats voted en masse against those $80 billion
"supplemental" war budgets. Instead of trying to convince them that they
themselves are paying a price in lost social services (and whether those
social services would be restored if the war ended is irrelevant; the only
thing that matters is whether it is plausible to people that they would), I
should try to win people around the slogan "smash the state" or "imperialism
is the root of all evil," even though, when asked, I'll have to tell them
that they themselves are the trickle-down beneficiaries of the exploitation
of their third-world counterparts by imperialism. Let me know how that goes,
will you? I'll pass.

It seems to me some of this comes down to how you view the significance of
the antiwar movement. If you think that helping to bring about the defeat of
imperialism in Iraq would be of historic significance, and would hasten the
day of socialist revolution (regardless of the political character of the
Iraqi resistance), then building the antiwar movement is an imperative, even
if it means that you have to work with liberals, Democrats, maybe even
Republicans, even people who supported the invasion. If you think that the
only thing on the agenda is socialist revolution, and the only significance
of the antiwar movement is a place to find recruits, you'll have a different
approach.

I think one thing that people haven't come to grips with, or even mentioned,
is the huge VICTORY that was scored by Bush and the U.S. ruling class with
the invasion of Iraq. Not a victory over Saddam Hussein (although that
happened), not a victory over the Iraqi people (because that didn't happen),
but a victory over the left and the antiwar movement. The antiwar movement
had tremendous success in the months before the war, mobilizing literally
tens of millions of people worldwide, and being called a "superpower." That
movement prevented the U.S. from accumulating significant international
support for the invasion, prevented the U.S. from obtaining U.N. endorsement
of the invasion, and created a situation where the U.S. had to invade with
just one significant partner, Britain. It was clear to the entire world that
the world was opposed to the invasion. Yet, in the face of all that, the
U.S. invaded anyway, and in so doing dealt a crushing, utterly demoralizing
blow to the antiwar movement, who had to come to grips with the fact that
their (our) best efforts simply weren't enough.

Now since then, all sorts of scapegoats have been found. Lots of people
blame the ABB phenomenon, which certainly had an effect in keeping the
movement from regrouping, no doubt about that. Others have taken to blaming
non-profit careerism. Now on this list we have people blaming the slogan (or
perhaps the strategy) of "Money for XXX, not for war." I don't agree with
the last of these at all, but in my opinion none of the other reasons
(primarily the ABB one) were nearly as important as the demoralization
created by the defeat which was the invasion.

Now I don't mean to be totally negative. Although I believe the invasion WAS
a huge defeat, I noted above that the movement scored important successes,
and those successes carry though to this day. It's easy to think that the
prime reason there is dissention in the ruling class ranks is because of the
success of the Iraqi resistance. That's true, but one of the reasons that
have had such success is precisely because of the insufficiency of the
American (and allied) military forces, which is in turn a direct outcome of
the antiwar movement. Why did the invasion (and especially the occupation)
occur with insufficient (from the imperialist point of view) forces? On an
international scale, because the antiwar movement prevented key countries
from joining in the effort, and limited the participation of others. On the
national scale, because they had to sell the war "on the cheap," because
agreeing with Shinseki before the invasion that hundreds of thousands of
troops were needed for the occupation would have increased the opposition to
the invasion.

And that imperialist weakness continues to this day. Countries (most notably
Spain) have pulled their forces out, and not a single country has added
significant forces (or any forces?) to those in Iraq, not even Berlusconi's
Italy. That is a testament to the continuing antiwar movement in those
countries, AND to the legacy of the pre-invasion antiwar movement, and the
knowledge on the part of the rulers of those countries of the domestic
consequences of sending more troops to Iraq. The same is true in the United
States. Everyone knows they need more troops. Why won't they do it? Because,
especially if it involved a draft but even if it didn't, they fear the
consequences of doing so in terms of revitalizing the antiwar movement. So
let's not sell ourselves short, even if the actual activity level has been
low of late.

Eli Stephens
  Left I on the News
  http://lefti.blogspot.com



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


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