RE: [Marxism] open letter from arab-american community (re:March 20 2004 )

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

 -----Original Message-----
 From:  David Walters
>
> This was symptomatic of the problem historically with the WWP and
> organizations and actions it influences. Over all I can't
> find anything
> to disagree with Louis' description of some of the problems with the
> anti-war movement.
>
> When that letter was written, under the initiation of and sponsorship
> by the pre-split ANSWER, I knew the movement then was going to split
> along these or *similiar* lines later.
>
> I completely opposed the method and ideas of that Open Letter.

But do you discount the issues they raise as invalid? This is the point.
Your opposition is tactical, but there is an opposition that isn't.

In the chessboard, you have to carefully choose to whom you give strength,
and to whom you don't. Now, some see ANSWER as the biggest obstacle to
growth and solification of the anti-war movement. I don't, I see the
Zionist/ABB wing of the UFPJ, the "Win With Out War" (the mother of
imperialist liberalist names!) crowd, the Move On crowd as the main obstacle
for growth.

ANSWER has an objective interest in growth and mobilization, while the
right-wing forces have an objective interest in demobilization.

By not figuring out creative ways of explaining and raising the view of a
unified slogan, or putting forth a strategy that both takes into account the
existing anti-war forces, and the existing anti-imperialist forces, and
mixing nauseous SWP-shit-lets-split sectarianism with arguments that are
superficially similar to those of the right-wing forces, you are weakening
not only the anti-war movement, but also the possibility of transforming the
anti-war movement into a further

In essence, commies in UFJP are playing the role of the old CPUSA organizers
in the CIO, being the hounds instead of the hunter.

You might say ANSWER is not an effective hunter, which is valid, but no one
can argue they play the role of hounds.

That is my common thread. The left must be hunters, not hounds, for the
strategy put forward by Louis and others to work, yet that is not the case.


> Instead of figuring out creative ways of *introducing* the issue of
> Palestine into the anti-war movement through articles, speakers, etc,
> they, ANSWER, in essence *handed* the semi-pro-Zionist wing of UfPJ a
> hammer to cudgel ANSWER into the ground with...and thus cement the
> split...and *prevents* the voices of Palestinians from being heard
> where it really counts, at the head of rallies and demonstrations
> against the occupation of Iraq.
>

I share this criticism, and have shared it with ANSWER, and can't say they
took it well. Yet, the Zionist wing of the UFPJ has been allowed to thrive
un-opposed since well before the Open Letter, in particular the rabidly
pro-Zionist, anti-semite baiting of Rabbi Lerner.

> I witnessed several socialist organization in the SF Bay Area cave to
> this sort of projected liberal-guilt baiting by the WWP and the
> Palestinians they influenced. It was very sad, especially by groups
> that knew better.

David, you my buddy, I love you, and all that, but you know there is no way
I would ever buy into the whole phantom "liberal-guilt baiting".

Just because you are of the truly race-blind, anti-nationalist people I
know, it doesn't mean the rest of the people are like that.

May be "liberal-guilt baiting" plays a role, but have you ever considered
that maybe there is a genuine, political thought process going on? That
maybe not all our leftists comrades are as blind to racial and privilege
issues as you are?

I think you are just plain wrong when it comes to racial questions, and I
believe it stems from the same place as my mother openly expresses: you are
simply too alienated from that reality as a person. Which makes you better
than the rest of us, but places a veil over observable reality, and what
objective data points to.

On the other hand, UFPJ has fallen prey to the same "liberal-guilt baiting",
except from the Zionist side. If you oppose the Zionist entity, then you are
an anti-semite, they argue. As a matter of fact, due to the ideological
anti-imperialism, and generalized support for the struggle of the
Palestinians in the USA, I would say that most of the "liberal-guilt
baiting" in the movement has actually come from the pro-Zinonist camp, not
the Palestinian camp. Left organizations refuse to pursue their previously
long held positions on Palestine in order to evade being called anti-semites
and sectarian wreckers.

>
> I would have to agree with Louis, also, that the ISO needs to get off
> their ass and start *acting* like a party that knows how to lead
> and...lead! They are so much into the anti-globalization
> groupee scene
> that they've lost themselves in their own milieu. Comrades, you KNOW
> what you have to do...


On this I agree with both Louis and you, the ISO's abstentionism from
leadership, their buying into the whole spokescouncil BS, etc has robbed the
anti-war movement a neccesary presence.

In Puerto Rico, we where engaged in leading a strike brought upon the
students largely due to the ISO's agitation, but that our comrades had to
lead (over their own objection) because the ISO refused to lead.

I don't understand this permanent opposition strategy, which is quite
different from previous ISO experience such as the Teamsters in the late
1990s, where they headed to the throat.

Of course, the ISO is problematic in other aspects, such as high turn over,
and their weak position on national liberation (surprising as they have been
among the loudest to exclaim "support the resistance", as if Iraqi religious
zealots are better than Cuban CDR cadre) etc etc etc.

But abstentionism or permanent opposition is an anarchist way of working...
Power must be struggled for and attained, and this is problematic. They are
not hounds or hunters, but ammo carriers.

sks


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