[Marxism] re: Supporting the resistance?

["M. Junaid Alam" <mjunaidalam@xxxxxxxxxx>]

"Millions marched against war with Iraq before a single American had been
killed. If anything, opposition to the war is far greater now than it was
before the war was launched. Abu Ghraib, false claims about WMD,
Halliburton scandals, etc. have opened the eyes of ordinary people...

Before we blame ordinary  Americans for not caring enough about the situation
in Iraq, we have to figure out a way of creating a nation-wide organization that
can call for mass actions that are geared to their consciousness. Then, and 
only then,
if they refuse to respond, we might decide that it might be necessary to
dissolve the people and elect another, as Brecht put it."
"

I don't think developments on the ground bear out this kind of assessment.

First of all, before the war, millions around the world protested the invasion. 
But
barely even 1 million of those protesters were Americans. Actually, population-
proportionately speaking, protests numbers in America looked pretty pathetic 
compared
to the ones in Europe. But never mind that for our purposes: yes, "many" people
in America protested the war before it happened.

However, it is not at all clear how this proves Louis' political point. I think 
it
actually disproves it. After all, if we had a number of very large marches 
against
the war before it happened, and we have no large marches against the war after 
it
happened, then how is this the fault of UPFJ and ANSWER and the ISO and whoever 
else?
After all, these groups are no more and no less "inadequate to the task" today 
than
they were before February 15, 2003. They're the same groups with the same 
politics.
So, if, as Louis claims, people's eyes are more open today than they were 
before the
war, then why is it that *these same people* who showed up in droves when they 
were less
enlightened about imperialism are now *almost entirely absent* from the streets 
after
2 years of a most thorough education?

The truth is that the only changing element here is the responsiveness of the 
masses
themselves, and that the bankruptcy of the leadership to a large degree 
honestly reflects
this weak level of responsiveness.

In my opinion, the reasons for this are not difficult to understand. During the 
pre-war protests,
as Louis said, not a single American had died. The pre-war protests then, were 
*moral protests*.
This was not a protest linked with self-interest. It was a moral outcry against 
the indignity and
immoralityof launching a war of aggression. It was borne out of concern for the 
horrible consequences
of war for Iraq. That's all well and good as far as all that goes. But a moral 
protest, a feeling
that is rooted in concern for someone else's plight, and not in anything that 
is happening to you,
has its obvious limits.

Those limits became painfully clear when the war was launched. Now, it made no 
sense to lodge
claims of indignation. The deed had already been done, the decision had been 
made. The
fundamental reality is, a moral protest dissipates precisely to the extent that 
those
protesting are not going to be the victims of the assault which incenses their 
moral standards.
If you cannot stop the act from taking place, once the act does take place, you 
are not
going to step up your protests as long as you are not actually affected by that 
act. The
anti-war movement would have moved forward if the war entailed Boston or New 
York being bombed
by  the Republican Guard, or an invasion by the Iraqi Army. But all the bombs
were landing on Iraq, and all the people being killed were Iraqis. The liberal
leadership of the anti-war movement did what the liberal "masses" who were the 
numerical
backbone of those big protests did - they moved on with their lives.


So post-invasion anti-war politics is an entirely different beast than 
pre-war.
Now, the only real way to mobilize anybody, aside from the hardcore of 
committed people, is to
show that their self-interest is at stake. This assessment is borne out by the 
fact that
the movement completely disappeared until the Iraqi resistance first raised 
hell. It was
only when Americans started dying did any kind of political heat on the 
administration and
a semblance of a reawakening occur.

Still - and this is why the movement is so small - even with the Iraqi 
resistance and
trickling of soldier casualties, it is a profoundly unequal war. 0 Americans 
died pre-war,
but the decisive factor for people was the notion the crime could be stopped; 
now you can
have several thousand of dead Americans, but the crime is already underway, as 
long
as that number doesn't get too high or out of control, the situation will be 
contained domestically.

The rhetoric (which I myself employ) invoking imagery about "the war abroad and the 
war at home",
notwithstanding, let us be honest with ourselves: no American is going through 
anything approaching
Fallujah, anything approaching bombing or torture or occupation. A good chunk 
of America actually
delights and savors this grossly unequal gladatorial contest, with their asses 
parked firmly in the
stadium seating, or equipped with far better weapons on the field of slaughter.

Granted, this evaluation makes me guilty to some degree of "blaming ordinary 
Americans."
It makes me appear to be the elitist who in Brecht's aphorism wishes to 
"dissolve
the people and re-elect another." But the inelcutable truth is that the 
"ordinary
American" is in the global scheme a rather *extraordinary* figure: one afforded 
power
and security as a resident in the cidatel of world imperialism. Yes, it is 
eroding,
yes it is contradictory, but it is still true. This is the massive objective 
impediment
to created a meaningful anti-war movement in this country.

The ISO - all of us - would have to be a group of real morons if things were 
just as simple
as a failure on our part to create some kind of structure for the hordes of 
people
to vent their anger and become radicalized. The people themselves would also
have to be morons if they were so pissed off but nothing came of it unless a 
few radicals
set up some structures for them. I think the problem is far deeper.







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