Re: [Marxism] Re: Anti-imperialism?

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

At Macdonald wrote:

> 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.


To the contrary. Politics is all about giving advice. For example, I plan
to continue to advise self-described socialists against supporting the
Democratic Party.

> 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.

Doing "provocative" things is understandable if you are an impatient
student. For those who have a grasp of Marxist strategy, it is unforgiveable.

> 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.

Thank goodness there is no significant sector of the anti-war movement that
is interested in "provocative" behavior. That is a sign of the continuing
decline of anarchist-style ultraleftism.

> 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.

I have no objection to people sitting in at a Congressman's office. But to
"take on the police" in the name of the anti-war movement will undermine
the movement. We are dealing with illegal constrictions on our movement as
it is, with bans on where and when a protest can take place. We don't need
to give the ruling class any excuses to hamper our movement. If some
impatient youths want to biff the cops over the issue of wearing  fur, I
will not say a word.

> 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%.

50 years ago? What was I doing then? I remember now. I was organizing
fellow students against participating in nuclear war civil defense drills.

> 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.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. The SWP was a Marxist
organization. SDS was for "participatory democracy" and backing LBJ. The
Panthers made ultraleft mistakes. The SCLC made reformist errors. The idea
is to sort out the politics, not take a detached Hegelian stance about the
"dialectic:.

> 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.

What about setting off bombs like the Weathermen did? Does that mess 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.

Let me repeat. 5000 people demonstrating under the slogan of "support the
resistance" has no impact on the capacity of the imperialist state to wage
war. 500,000 people demonstrating in Washington under the slogan of "Out
Now" does. Numbers count.

> 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.

I am primarily interested in persuading Marxists to avoid empty
"anti-imperialist" gestures. For those who have never understood Marxist
strategies of mass mobilization, I will not waste my time.

> 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.

This is the same logic as the anarchist anti-globalization protestors. They
thought in terms of physically shutting down hotels where the WTO was
meeting, as if that could prevent a new treaty from being hammered out.
Foolish, foolish, foolish.

> 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, you really have to make up your mind whether you are for Marxism
or anarchism.


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