[Marxism] The 2004 London and NYC demonstrations against Bush

[Brian Shannon <brian_shannon@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Jan 8, 2006, at 6:03 AM, Jscotlive@xxxxxxx wrote:

> In a message dated 08/01/2006 04:35:54 GMT Standard Time,
> Brian_Shannon@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
> > The British antiwar movement of course hates Blair; nonetheless,  
> > in its
> > failure to put the greatest focus on the imperialism of "its own
> > country," it failed to deepen its struggle. Blair is the leader of  
> > the greatest
> > imperialist power before the domination of the United States and
> > remains the United State's lesser, but absolutely necessary ally-- 
> > not a puppy,
> > just a smaller wolf. At the end of the day, the masses  
> > demonstrating against
> > Bush could go home satisfied that they had opposed the wolf across  
> > the
> > sea--"Bush Go Home." Their understanding and resolve would have  
> > increased had
> > they put their focus on the lesser wolf.
>
> Reply:
>
> But surely this misses the point. Blair and British imperialism  
> would be
> nothing without US imperialism to latch onto. I disagree that the  
> British antiwar
> movement has not gone after Blair. A motion to impeach was recently  
> singed by
> over 100 MPs, and Rose Gentle and other Military Families Against  
> The War just
> had their first attempt to bring him into the High Court rebuffed.

It would be very useful for those of us in the U.S. to see more of  
what European comrades are doing. Because Marxmail is formless, it is  
often lopsided.

My post above refers to a demonstration in March of 2004, not to  
other actions.

The differences appeared when I pointed to the, in my opinion,  
entirely correct comment in the U.S. paper The Militant that the  
London demonstration's focus on Bush was in error. I was surprised  
that it prompted any disagreement at all. Those who argued against me  
had themselves participated in the antiwar movement in the United  
States and were educated in the spirit of Lenin's aphorism that the  
main enemy is in your own country.

Joaquin and others pointed out that The Militant accusations were  
entirely motivated to cover its own abstention in today's antiwar  
movement. Although I partially agree with this judgment, I think that  
emphasis on the printed word is often more useful for our literary  
discussion than attempting to plumb the motives behind it.  Joaquin  
used it to attack the U.S. SWP. I thought that The Militant contained  
information that I hadn't seen elsewhere. When I followed up by  
looking at photographs and statements of the demo's leaders I saw  
that the facts behind The Militant's article pointed to an important  
lost opportunity.

Later that year, there was a similar development here in the U.S. The  
truly massive demonstration against the Iraq war that was held in New  
York City during the Republican Party convention was a demonstration  
almost entirely against George W. Bush's war and certainly far from  
against the Democratic Party's co-responsibility for the war. It  
reflected an overwhelming desire to replace Bush with "anybody except  
him."

> Conference reaffirms the Party's commitment to waging the struggle for
> Scottish independence under the banner of anti-imperialism,  
> internationalism and
> republicanism. As a socialist party in the tradition of John  
> Maclean and James
> Connolly we uphold the aforementioned principles, and in so doing  
> recognise the
> common enemy of all humanity at this point in our history as US  
> imperialism
> and its allies.

There are interesting connections to U.S. history.

(1) Although it was the slave states that upon the election of  
Lincoln attempted to break away, there was also a similar campaign by  
the most prominent wing of abolitionists. Pointing to the U.S.  
Constitution's proslavery structure, William Lloyd Garrison called it  
a pact with the devil and a covenant with hell and once publicly  
burned a copy of it—shades of flag burning! He openly advocated  
withdrawing from the United States. Under his influence a  
Massachusetts convention of abolitionists called upon the North to  
secede from the Union.

(2) For the advocates of the U.S. Constitution of 1789, the example  
of the 1707 union of England and Scotland was a positive example of  
what could be accomplished by binding together in a unitary state.  
They feared that the increasing conflicts between the former separate  
colonies might break the weak confederacy apart. They also argued  
that foreign powers, including Spain and England, might encourage  
these divisions. This geopolitical argument was strongly emphasized  
in the earliest articles of the Federalist Papers.

All three authors of the Federalist papers used language similar to  
the Act of Union to argue in favor of a "more perfect" or "strict and  
indissoluble union"—Madison in Philadelphia and Jay and Hamilton in  
Federalist papers numbers 5 and 11. They emphasized that their  
contiguous land borders would likely lead to standing armies and  
conflicts that would be similar to those of Great Britain before the  
union. "Then would arise mutual restrictions and fears, mutual  
garrisons, and standing armies, and all those dreadful evils which  
for so many ages plagued England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, while  
they continued disunited, and were played off against each other."  
John Jay, "An Address to the People of the State of New York."

In today's age of imperialism, with the experience of two world wars  
and under the domination of a single superpower, border military  
conflicts have receded for the advanced countries. And the advantages  
of some forms of union have receded as well.

Brian Shannon





________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism