[Marxism] Re: Anti-imperialism?

[Macdonald Stainsby <mstainsby@xxxxxxxxx>]

> Ron Jacobs asked me to forward this reply to something Louis said.
> jay
>
> **********
>
> With all due respect, Louis, I think you miss my point.  I state quite
> clearly that I believe UFPJ and ANSWER have roles to play in the antiwar
> movement.  However, (and one would have to be completely out of the loop to
> not see this) there are many many people who oppose the war because it is
> an imperial war.  Furthermore, these people are frustrated with UFPJ's
> rightward drift and fascination with the democrats just as they feel
> frustrated with what they perceive to be ANSWER's dogmatism.  I believe
> that the best thing we can do as activists is expand the movement and do
> what it takes to end the war.  UFPJ and ANSWER rallies (and UFPJ lobbying
> and electoral campaigns) are not working.  This does not mean that they
> shouldn't do this work--it only means that something more needs to be
> done.  Furthermore, I agree that US OUT NOW is the best organizing
> slogan.  However, it is important that the activists use anti-imperialist
> analysis to inform their actions.  I don't see this anti-imperialist
> grouping as a competing organization (to use your term) because UFPJ is not
> anti-imperialist and ANSWER is organizing amongst a different
> constituency.  I do think the idea of trying to convince the current
> organizations to change their strategies is a diversion from the task
> ahead--ending the war.  What I foresee instead of just a mass rally every
> few months followed by another one  is a situation similar to that which I
> describe--constant actions large and small with occasional massive rallies,
> direct action, CD and lobbying--a la Mayday 1971.  If anti-imperialism
> informs a decent-sized part of the movement, than that understanding will
> make the stakes clear and consequently keep the pressure on.  The time for
> being polite is way past.  This isn't ultra-left, it's proactive.
>
> ron jacobs

I'm so gald that Ron Jacobs wrote in with these essential points, becuase
two days ago I narrowly avoided making a similar post but for lack of time.

Trying to tell the movement what their politics ought to be, what the should
be composed of, is like telling the weather when it should rain. You deal
with what comes because you have no choice.

Frankly, responding to a call for anti-imperialist to join together with
"you should all just say out now" is simple idealism. When you have 200 000
in the streets pushing strollers and demanding an immediate withdrawl at a
demonstration that includes next to no confrontation and has a bland list of
speakers who tell you that you most surredly must come back to the next
demonstration, at the same time that arrives you have seveal thousand who
want to try something more provocative and hundreds who are willing to do
something to risk arrest and all that comes with.

To deny this will split the movement negatively; to accept that rain falls
on your head is to accept that the movement "splits" (though "split" is
entirely the wrong term) positively-- it accepts the basic humanity of
difference of opinion, and tactics drawn therefrom, and acts on them
accordingly.

When a movement reaches 200 000 people demanding out now without any means
but being in the streets to demand so, there are probably a good 5 000 who
are willing to do a sit in at a congressmans office, another 400 or so who
will try to take on the police. Are any of these points valid? It is
somewhat silly to argue this-- unless the merits of snow vs hail; river vis
creek make a lot of difference to you. I love rivers myself.

Though it is somewhat heretical to say that the movement is composed of what
it is, I'll point to how most of the debates of this nature, for the last 50
years, completely miss the mark-- 100%.

When the Balck Panthers made their mark, it was because the movements around
the SCLC did what they did; What makes the SWP of yesteryear look "tame" is
the SDS. We could play this game forever, but the role of this or that
ideology has a dialectical relationship to the other-- and all only have the
relationship they do to one another because of the dialectic-- that oft
invoked, seldom understood concept.

While we argue which of our ways are better, the fact that we wield all of
them is what really messes up the imperialist state.

And to provide a place where people who consider themselves anti-imperialist
to go and plan along anti-imperial lines being called sectarian? Only those
who have a stake in the "mass movement" portion of the anti-war movement
could ever possibly see this a threat; the imperialist state, meanwhile has
its hands full trying to figure out which of us to attempt to neutralise.

Apparently the better option would be to incorporate those who have differnt
politics into another movemen all together and have long, alienating
arguments. Naah, been there done that. Let's accept that some will fight on
differnt levels, perhaps (but perhaps not) composed of youth, adn support them.

if 200 000 oppose the war doing nothing but marching, and 5 000 attack the
recruiting centres and shut them down, or close off weapons manufacturers,
then the second is actually more progressive. On the other hand, in times
like now, where you might get 3000 out to oppose the war or 100 to *attempt*
to "force" something, the first is far better.

Yet, in both cases, one side will castigate the other for betraying the
"line", as it were. And that's just boring. It's also a clear betrayal of
the dialectic.

Truth is, to invoke an ol' saying:
"It takes all kinds"
Celebrate diversity!

--
Macdonald Stainsby
http://independentmedia.ca/survivingcanada
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green
In the contradiction lies the hope
        --Bertholt Brecht.

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