[Marxism] re: Supporting the resistance?

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

I want to answer Elizabeth's criticism of my position, and then
Joaquin's criticism of Elizabeth's  (and by extension, the ISO's)
position. This might appear strange since it is precisely where I
disagree with Elizabeth that gives me reason to agree with her
organization's political stance. I should note here, for clarification,
that I am not a member of any socialist group, but I am politically
active as co-editor of Left Hook, member of Campus Anti-war Network, and
currently helping out with some upcoming and exciting Monthly Review stuff.

Now on to the politics.

Elizabeth writes:

"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, andthis
will become relevant only when many more Americans have died."

Yes, that sums it up quite nicely, at least as far as the conclusions go.

"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."

But this is a non-sequitur relative to your previously-quoted summation
of my position. I did not say the decisive issue is switching from war
to occupation. The decisive issue is switching from a situation where
war can be prevented and has not yet occured, to one where the war is
already being mandated, underway, and is an existing fact. The reason
this is decisive I have already explained:

"...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...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."

When you offer your own explanation, you say the "political bar has been
raised", that there is "a lack of clarity around political questions",
that the problem lies in the "historical weakness of the US.S Left,
especially around imperialism." In my opinion, this is just a roundabout
way of saying what I have already said. All this lack of clarity and
weakness and so forth is not accidental; it is rooted in the objective
fact that we live in the center of reaction. In Rome, even the plebeian
feels like an emperor compared to the outlying barbarians; what's more,
the emperor will commision him to fight these barbarians to reinforce
this pride.

To elaborate: when you say, "what's been missing is the clear argument
that U.S. occupation can only make Iraqi and our lives worse," I would
respond that the reason it is missing  is not primarily because of the
liberal leadership. To me, that is merely a symptom of the larger
disease. It's like saying that 9-11 happened because planes hit
buildings. I believe the argument that the US occupation "can only make
Iraqi and our lives worse" is missing because it is making Iraqi lives a
hell of a lot worse than it is making American lives worse. The liberal
leadership reflects the general sentiment. Who feels on their skin the
direct effect of the war here? A few thousand military families bear
this sad burden. Most everyone else slaps a $2 sticker on the back of
their vehicle and that's the end of the story for them. You know this
just as well as I do. You are at NYU, and how many students are at NYU?
50,000? How many of them are anti-war activists right now? 5? 10? It's
pathetic. It's no different in Boston. And before anyone cries foul that
this is a "moralistic" objection, I interject: this is incorrect. It is
an immovable, undeniable fact. Whether one draws moral conclusions based
on this fact is another issue entirely.

With this understanding in mind, Joaquin's objections to the ISO
approach cannot stand. "Right to resist" may be poetry, but who are we
speaking to but poets? That is, we are not operating in the context of
mass mobilization against the war. And, as explained here and elsewhere
earlier, this is not because of whatever slogan we are chanting or not
chanting. Therefore, the comparisons with what the ultra-left groups did
in the 60's don't hold water because we're not in the 60's - there's no
upheaval against the culture, Jim Crow, or the war. So if those
ultra-left groups back then were doing stupid things like opposing mass
actions, today there are no mass actions to oppose in the first place.
So what is happening now in terms of militant ideas supporting the right
of resistance has to be understood in a *completely different framework.*

What is that framework? It is a prepatary one. It is about preparing the
most advanced sections, the "hard core" of leftists, ideologically and
theoretically. It is to beat the liberal-ness out of as many of them as
possible so that when serious struggle does develop in this country, the
politics of those people who will first assume some leadership role in
these struggles will be strong, not weak and wobbly - or at least, they
will be as "un-wobbly" as we can make possible by our continually
hammering away against their weaknesses. So if this is "ultra-leftism",
it is ultra-leftism" against a leadership with is too "anti-leftist",
and it is being conducted in a period where there is no "mass action"
going on that would make such a maneuver disruptive. Think of it as a
pit stop in the Indy 500 of class struggle. You want to make all the
tweaks you possibly can in the amount of time you have to prepare for
re-entry into the race.

What is required way beyond any specific slogan or even any particular
strategy for anti-war politics, in my opinion, is a strong and committed
effort to absolutely smash the *ideological hegemony* of the ruling
class in this country. That way, you could get people pissed off about
the war by connecting it to all the other problems in this country
people actually have to face in their daily lives. Problems like shitty
health care, rip-off debt schemes, unfair wages, sickening inequality
and grotesque levels of wealth and ostentatiousness at top levels of
society. We have to pierce and puncture the whole damned helium balloon
of lies and hypocrisy.

To adapt Marx, "the condition for the development of anti-war arguments
is the development of anti-capitalist arguments." Only on that basis
will we be able to cultivate and open up the necessary breathing space
for ideas which will lead to a question of the war and the system behind
it.

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