RE: It becoming He and the Holy Family (was RE: [Marxism] Far-left groups swing wrecking ball against unitedactionon Sept. 24

["Carlos A. Rivera" <cerejota@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: marxism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:marxism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> Louis Proyect
> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 8:15 PM
> To: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition
> Subject: Re: It becoming He and the Holy Family (was RE: 
> [Marxism] Far-left groups swing wrecking ball against 
> unitedactionon Sept. 24
> 
> 
> Carlos wrote:
> 
> >In exactly the same manner that Louis argues that raising 
> the "right of 
> >return", I quote Louis on this, "is objectively pro-imperialist".
> 
> God all fucking mighty. This is more exasperating than trying 
> to convince 
> my father back in 1965 that marijuana was not addictive. 

So much for not throwing ad hominems around.

> I 
> didn't say that 
> raising the right of return is pro-imperialist.

Don't get your underwear all in a bunch and don't decontextualize (you seem
to be an expert at it, become a lawyer, its never too late!). I obviously
meant raising it as a demand of the anti-war movement. I am not in the habit
of contradicting people's records, as I don't like debating strawmen.


>  I am in favor 
> of the right 
> of return. I am also for communism. But I wouldn't impose the 
> slogan "For 
> Communism" on the antiwar movement. Carlos, you have a sterile 
> propagandistic idea of politics. You compare Nader to Lula on 
> the basis of 
> what they *say*. My god, you might as well say that James 
> Robertson is to 
> the "left" of Lula. So what? Rhetorical bombast is not what is needed.

Who says this is rhetorical bombast? Such paternalism!

The Arab and Muslim American communities represent along with service
people, the only section of US society that is directly affected as a whole
by this endless war on terror. We cover the troops by BTHN slogans. 

What about them?

It is not about empty sloganeering, it is about what I (and others) identify
as a glaring political error of the wide movement. Say what you will about
ANSWER, but they are doing their homework, and instead of the "sensible"
left doing it, they whine about ANSWER being sectarian.


> You think that it might be a good idea for the slogan of "For 
> a socialist 
> Palestine" to be introduced into the antiwar movement.

It seems irony and sarcasm are to be the sole purvey of those you agree
with.

> You 
> really have very 
> little sense of the dialectical interaction between the word 
> and the deed. 

I do not. Again, so long for no ad hominems.

> Revolution will not come to the USA because of an adroitly 
> worded leaflet 
[...]
> and with the minimal cost to life and property. 

As I have said before, I agree completely with what you say in the above
snipped part. 

Your continued paternalism in not realising that our disagreement stems from
another root it what irks me, and what lead to
what-I-can't-mention-lest-you-ban-me-again. I am not some naïve sectarian
kid, but rather a red diaper grandchild who has things like negotiating with
police chiefs under his belt (sorry for the continued self-agrandizement,
but paternalism simply invites boasting).

Hell, my real life political involvement has included things like
encouraging comrades to write back-cover articles for Labor Notes (current
July Edition by Cesar Rosado on the AFT v FMPR struggle) and both processing
raw budgetary data in support of the Student strike movement against tuition
increase and writing polemics against the ISO's ultra-left line in that
struggle. So spare me the classes on political reasonability. You will never
meet someone my age as jaded and as experienced (althought a bit less
efective than if I where less honest and raw) in political strategy. 

I have been part of struggles that have been *won*, which is more than any
of you can say.

The problem is Louis, is that I believe that for some reason you and others
we agree with you seem to ignore what has been the history of the anti-war
movement to date. And understimate completely the objective need for the
left to bring Arab and Muslim Americans on board into the political
struggles of the USA.

Your strategy, under other circumstances, would be a valid one. 

As a matter of fact, it was a valid one on the vietnam war in the mid to
late 1960s. 

But when you had the black panther party losing a comrade to police every
other week, and you had Duke U, and you had Search and Evade, Salt n Peppa,
organized and paid for fragging, and all the other pretty hardcore stuff
that happened, not going Bolivian on their ass was criminal and set up the
basis for the structural weakness of the left that allowed Reaganism to go
unchallenged.

You identify the weakness of the previous radical moment as being a result
of the left not doing what the CPUSA and the SWP told them to do, I identify
the weakness in that they did what the CPUSA and the SWP told for too long,
and when they didn't, it was too little too late.

As of today, for some reason, you ignore the actual history of the movement.

In all of the demos, including the most massive ones, multi-issue slogans
have been raised, and have been part of the call, without a single group,
except for Rabbi Brenner & Co., raising any objections to this approach. You
yourself admit to the palestinian cause being a single identifiable cause
raised by both crowds and platforms. Multiple requests for significant
groups who have lef tin disgusts over such displays have gone unanswered.

This has been the history of the movement. As late as March 20th 2004 the
Anti-war movement united around the same slogans ANSWER is still raising. 

What has changed so significantly from March 2004 that requires a 180 degree
turn? That is the un-answered question, no pun intended...

And strategically, the most bitter enemies of the Anti-war struggle have
been the Zionist/ABB crowd, who have from the start, without regards to
strategic thinking but rather by ideological motivation, have been
interested in demobilizing and coopting the movement from the start. It is
not in our interest to purge the movement of a significant chunk of the Arab
American and Muslim American movement and of those groups deemed too radical
by the "sensible" left, if by doing so we would be able to unite with those
demobilizing elements.

This reminds me keenly of the pro-union democracy comrades who opposed the
ISO's work in the Teamsters because they "where too radical" and then paved
the way for Junior to win.

It?s the Law of Unintended Consequences, which is uniquely relevant
everytime you engage in any strategy that requires forefeiting the political
gains already conquered in order to attract those uncommited to the cause
into it. Seen it happen time and again, and for some reason, the lesson is
not learned.


sks


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