RE: [Marxism] re: Supporting the resistance?

[Joaquín Bustelo <jbustelo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Elizabeth Wrigley Field, who identified herself as an ISO member from NY,
writes, "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.'"

I've also talked recently and at some length with ISO comrades on the issue
of "support the right to resist," and they made the same kind of statements.
I don't at all question the sincerity of these statements.

However, there is something in the ISO's understanding of what this means,
or perhaps they have a spectrum of views on what it means, some shades of
which are at odds with the way many others of us would understand this.

Louis set off this thread by quoting a recent article in the Socialist
Worker. Here is another: 

"Some forces in the antiwar movement say that they agree with the right of
Iraqis to resist, but that we should stay quiet about it because our
potential audience isn?t ready for such an 'extreme' point of view.

"That shows a lack of faith in this audience to understand why a resistance
has developed--and pessimism about activists? ability to make our case by
asking people to imagine what they would do if the U.S. were invaded and
occupied, and their neighbors or family members killed by the tens of
thousands."

That's from the "Where we stand" editorial in the April 1 Socialist Worker.
The "we" in that first paragraph that is called on to hold up high the
banner of "the right ... to resist" isn't the ISO or revolutionaries or
socialists, but rather the antiwar movement in general.

So as to emphasize the point, those (like the majority of the Fayetteville
coalition) that disagree with the ISO are said to have "a lack of faith" in
the capacity of the audience to understand why a resistance has developed.

And the last paragraph in the editorial states unabashedly: "Being opposed
to the U.S. war on the Iraqi people must mean demanding the immediate
withdrawal of U.S. forces--and support for the right of Iraqis to fight
their occupiers and determine their own future."

I think this is a clear statement of what these comrades --or at least a
wing of them-- actually believe, that immediate withdrawal may be right as
the central demand of the antiwar movement, but it is insufficient, it must
be supplemented by "support for the right of Iraqis to fight their
occupiers," perhaps not necessarily formally in every last case, but at the
very least with a heavy propaganda intervention along that axis.

Elizabeth makes several arguments in this direction, saying that there is an
intimate interconnection between people supporting the right to resist and
supporting out now.

My experience in the antiwar movement of the 1960's and 1970's doesn't
validate this idea. There were tons of people who were for "Out Now" but
didn't view themselves as backing the NLF or the North Vietnamese or a
"right" to resist. 

And by and large, those who insisted in constantly raising support to the
NLF and so on were ultralefts who contributed little to building the bigger
protests. More often than not, these ultralefts and the reformists (i.e.,
the CP) would be in a bloc demanding things like "set the date" for
negotiations or for U.S. withdrawal. And they also tended to drag their feet
on, when they didn't outright oppose, large, visible public protests ("Mass
Action," as the lingo of those days would have it).

The "out now" and "mass action" wings of the movement were one wing. I don't
think this was a peculiarity that came from the role played then by the U.S.
Socialist Workers Party, but that flowed from the political logic of the
situation. I think a similar logic is in play today, though we should be
careful not to simply teleport tactics across time and space.

Out Now is the slogan that then as now represented the real solution to the
problem at hand. It is a principled slogan, founded on the bedrock of
self-determination for oppressed peoples, not viewed from some outer-space
perspective, but from within the belly of the beast. The problem is "our"
imperialism's invasion. The solution is for "our" imperialism to get the
hell out -- no ifs, ands or buts.

"Supporting the right to resist" is not politics but poetry. It extracts us
from our immediate political context, which is in the United States, a
United States which has embarked upon an imperialist occupation. 

I'm not even sure what the "right to resist" consists of. People who are
invaded and attacked invariably DO, in fact, RESIST, right or no right. It
seems largely an attempt to dress up as a slogan this observation, or
perhaps a quasi moral argument that the resistance is legitimate and
justified, that they're the ones with the white hats. 

I agree with the ISO comrades that it is important to *explain* that; I
disagree with how they are turning it into some sort of slogan.

And the proposition that the way people will come to anti-imperialist views
is by preaching "the right to resist" at them is IDEALIST. People will come
to more radical conclusions as they did in the 1960's, by becoming part of
the movement, engaging in action, and then reflecting on those experiences.

IF WE AGREE that being determines consciousness (although obviously not in a
mechanistic way) then the conclusion must be that the way to get greater
numbers of people to more consciously 
anti-imperialist politics is by involving them in an anti-imperialist
movement. And I believe yes, that a movement within the imperialist
heartland opposing an imperialist war and demanding out now while the war is
going on is, beyond any discussion, objectively anti-imperialist.

I said "support the right to resist" was poetry and not politics because,
what, concretely, does this "support" entail? Are we demanding the U.S.
government switch  sides in the war? Are we going to organize international
brigades, or set up gun-running operations to Fallujah? For a mass movement
in the United States, what does this "support" amount to, concretely?

That's one of the reasons I don't like this sort of slogan. Identifying with
the just struggles of oppressed peoples against their oppressors,
unconditionally, lies at the heart of proletarian internationalism in our
epoch. But such sentiments underlie an effective political strategy, they
cannot substitute for it. Not do I think "support the right to resist" is an
especially effective axis or starting point for explaining these concepts in
the U.S. population generally.

People under occupation DO resist. Pitching our explanations in terms of why
are Iraqis resisting is a more pedagogical approach, in my opinion. 

Elevating "the right to resist" or "supporting the resistance" to some sort
of catch phrase is turning a whole series of concepts that need to be
patiently explained into an agitational slogan for action. But viewed as an
agitational slogan for action, "support" in either variant is entirely
deficient. It has no CONTENT. "Support the resistance" or "the right to
resist" is not a demand aimed against OUR OWN imperialism. It lets them off
the hook. We must remember the enemy is at home, it is "our" government and
"our" ruling class. And it is at this enemy that we should concentrate all
our fire.

The way to really effectively support "the right to resist" and even "the
resistance" (the fight to drive out the imperialist occupation) from within
the United States is to fight like hell to build a mass movement that can
help tie the hands of the imperialists and eventually get them to quit Iraq.
That is what Iraqis in Iraq are fighting for, to get the U.S. out, that is
what we should also be fighting for here.

The presence of the imperialist occupation force in Iraq is THE issue. The
WAY those of us who identify with the just struggle of the Iraqi people to
rid themselves of imperialist occupation can actually support that struggle
is by making the objective of the Iraqi fighters OUR OWN objective. 

A huge movement demanding U.S. Out Now! That --and not some unfocused
"support the right to resist" or "support the resistance"-- is the aid the
resistance needs from us. What they want and need from us is to contribute
to forcing "our" government to pull out, not our moral blessing for their
effort to drive the imperialists out.

I've been told by ISO comrades that the next ISR, out shortly if it isn't
already, will have an editorial further clarifying their position, and I
look forward eagerly to reading it.

Joaquín

(full disclosure: I'm a member of Solidarity; I was in the YSA and SWP in
the period of the 1970's referred to above.)


-----Original Message-----
From: marxism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:marxism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Elizabeth
Wrigley-Field
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 12:58 AM
To: marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Marxism] re: Supporting the resistance?

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


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