[Marxism] re: Supporting the resistance?

[Elizabeth Wrigley-Field <ewrigleyfield@xxxxxxxxx>]

A couple thoughts on some of the points raised by Louis and Junaid -- 

1. Why is defending support for the resistance important?
I agree with what Junaid said: there's a relationship between the
antiwar movement's attitude to the Iraqi resistance (whether this is
debated openly or not), and the strength of its support for immediate
withdrawal.

Louis seems to think that the ISO is fetishizing the question of the
Iraqi resistance. I disagree, because I think that, for the reasons
Junaid gave, just as hostility to the resistance is undermining
opposition to the occupation, having a larger anti-imperialist core
within the antiwar movement (that supports Iraqi self-determination
and completely rejects the chauvinism of the mainstream media's
characterization of the resistance) will help generate more consistent
support for the idea that the U.S. must get out now.


2. No one that I know of (certainly not the ISO) thinks support for
the Iraqi resistance should be imposed as a political demand on the
antiwar movement. I think we all want a broad, multi-current movement
around the demand "troops out now."

But some in the antiwar movement want to shut down a political debate
about the Iraqi resistance, because they believe that even discussing
the resistance will alienate ordinary Americans. (Meanwhile, they make
their own hostility to the resistance perfectly clear.) For this
reason, they have purposefully glossed over the distinction between
what gets discussed in the movement, and what its demands are. Naomi
Klein did this at the UFPJ national teach-in; today on Democracy Now
she also referred to elements of the resistance as "fascist." So we
have to fight for the principle of open discussion and debate in the
movement.


3. Why isn't the antiwar movement bigger?
I don't agree either that there is mass U.S. opposition to the
occupation just waiting for the right leadership to express itself, or
that most Americans don't care about Iraqis.

I don't understand Junaid's argument on this point. As far as I
understand it, it is as follows: before the war began, many Americans
were horrified by what would happen to Iraqis if the U.S. invaded, and
opposed the war on that "moral" basis. Once it becomes an occupation,
though, the moral basis of opposition ceases to be relevant; only
"self-interest" will produce mass opposition to the occupation, and
this will become relevant only when many more Americans have died.

But I'm not clear what it is about switching from a war to an
occupation that supposedly leads Americans in large numbers to stop
caring about Iraqis. It seems to me that something else is going on:
the occupation raised the political bar, so that opposing it required
more than opposing the war. After destroying Iraqi society, the U.S.
ruling class made the classic colonial argument that it needs to stay
to rebuild the country. The flaws in this argument are only clear on
the understanding that the U.S. can't do anything good for Iraqis, and
that Iraqis themselves are capable of rebuilding and running their own
society. The deployment of troops also allowed the government and
media to partially obscure these questions with exhortations to
"support the troops." It is lack of clarity around these political
questions, I think, that has hampered the movement the most.

In contrast to the views put forward either by Junaid or Louis, I
think the dynamic is something like this: The historical weakness of
the U.S. Left, especially around imperialism, means that most people
did not enter the antiwar movement with an understanding that the U.S.
will never do good in Iraq and Iraqis can fully run their own country.
The leadership of the antiwar movement then reinforced this
tremendously by failing to put out a clear argument for "out now" –
particularly in the election period, when most of the movement's
leadership was arguing that Kerry's occupation would be an improvement
over Bush's – and thereby helped politically disarm the movement. The
result is that most Americans have never *heard an argument* for
immediate withdrawal. So you have record numbers of people wishing the
war had never taken place, but very few thinking the troops can leave
now.

So I think there's elements of truth in what both Louis and Junaid
have said, but it's one-sided to see mass consciousness as either
clearly antiwar (but passive without the right leadership), or simply
apathetic. I would say that it's contradictory, but what's been
missing is the clear argument that U.S. occupation can only make Iraqi
and our lives worse.


In solidarity,
Elizabeth Wrigley-Field
(I'm in the ISO in New York)
_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism