Re: [Marxism] The ISO and the antiwar movement

[DCQ <deeseekyou@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mar 9, 2006, at 1:13 PM, Louis Proyect wrote:

> There's a very good article titled "Leftwing Generals" by ISO'er Annie
> Zirin on today's Counterpunch that concludes as follows:
> [snip]
> Full: http://www.counterpunch.org/zirin03092006.html
>
> Unfortunately, these final two paragraphs are in line with previous
> "left opposition" statements by the comrades. While making
> well-deserved criticisms of the UfPJ either explicitly or implicitly
> as is the case here, there is never any concrete proposals in the ISO
> press about what the movement should do apart from abstract calls to
> "put forward an antiwar opposition on an entirely different basis."

Thanks for the comments. You raise some interesting points, and I agree
with some of what you say here Lou. But--and I'm being sincere
here--what concrete proposals should the ISO make? If you've got ideas,
bring 'em to the table. Please.

> There are 3 antiwar coalitions out there right now. 2 are led by rival
> Marxist-Leninist sects that derive their inspiration from the late Sam
> Marcy. The 3rd is led by the CP and the Committees of Correspondence,
> a Eurocommunist type formation that split from the CP. Meanwhile, the
> ISO leads its own formation called Campus Antiwar Network.

It's a bit of a stretch to compare CAN to ANSWER or UFPJ. They're about
as different as you can get. The latter two are major organizations
that have called out 100s of 1000s on multiple demos. As you point out,
both are controlled by tiny, rival "Marxist-Leninist" sects (although
you have to be a leftist or a far right-winger to know that). Both are
sectarian in their own ways (one in an ultra-left type way, the other
in an equally poisonous liberal way)--towards each other, as well as
towards "rivals" (perceived or otherwise). And--because of all
this--neither are capable of breaking the logjam currently allowing
Bush his free ride. CAN may have a preponderance of ISO members. But it
at least is open and democratic. It doesn't pretend to be more than it
is. But it does some good grassroots mobilization.

> There seems to be a radical disjunction between what the ISO thinks
> the antiwar movement should be doing and any practical steps they
> envision to rectify the situation. Do they expect Leslie Cagan or the
> Becker brothers to read their articles, slap their heads, and cry out,
> "Why didn't I think of that."

Of course not. But neither do we expect to clap our hands for
everybody's attention, publish our ten point program, and watch as the
anti-war masses rise up against their liberal misleaders, convene a
national council of worker's deputies, and call a revolutionary general
strike against the reactionary bourgeoisie.

> The ISO comrades are very much interested in what Barry Sheppard had
> to say about antiwar organizing in his memoir that they had the good
> sense to publish. Barry's perspective is in tune with what SWP leader
> had to say in "Out Now", which is a handbook for antiwar organizing.
> The antiwar movement of the 1960s took shape because of conscious
> *intervention* by people like Fred Halstead. Appeals to the existing
> antiwar movement to do something different than they have been doing
> will fall on deaf ears, I'm afraid. Things will change when there is a
> *vanguard* effort to change them. Deeds count more than words.
>
> I wish the ISO comrades every success in their efforts to lead the US
> left. Lord knows we need leadership. But if they can't step up to the
> bat and provide some leadership in the antiwar movement, other than
> sermons from their press, someone else will have to do the job.

I can't believe I'm arguing this with you of all people, Lou. But the
ISO doesn't see itself as a "vanguard"--not in the grossly
misinterpreted sense that various sectarians have used over the years
since Lenin, and not even in the sense that Lenin discussed the
vanguard (because such a vanguard doesn't exist, despite the fact that
we all very much wish otherwise). The ISO bases its actions on the
awareness that there are no shortcuts to the day-to-day work of
building up people's political and activist confidence in themselves to
fight. This is incredibly difficult when the disjunction between what
is and what is needed is so great. People quite naturally look for all
sorts of short-cuts (maybe Howard Dean, maybe John Kerry, Maybe Dennis
Kucinich, maybe voting Democrat, maybe PDA, maybe making a donation to
Moveon.org, maybe buying the DVD of Fahrenheit 9/11, (and most
ludicrously) maybe Hillary Clinton will beat John McCain in 2008,
etc.).

Does it suck that we have an anti-war movement led by self-proclaimed
socialists who can't pull their heads far enough out of their asses to
call a national demo along with the rest of the world? Of course. Would
it be better if the ISO were in charge of ANSWER or UFPJ? What would
have to change about the ISO's politics, approach, and practice for it
to run ANSWER? Wouldn't it just end up being another piece of shit sect
pretending to be more than it is? Would this really change anything?
Wouldn't all the decisions be left up to a few unaccountable folks with
their own prejudices and preferences and priorities?

I'm not saying the ISO can't use a kick in the ass every once in a
while. I know I look back and shake my head at my own stupid mistakes
and the opportunities I wasted. Groups depend on routines. Routines are
necessary to stably expand any group and any movement. But routines can
also stifle creativity, to the point where we forget to take the
initiative ("This won't work now, because we tried it last year and it
failed miserably.") So if you think the ISO can do something concrete
that will help break the mind-numbing stasis of the anti-war movement,
let's hear 'em. Or better yet, bring them to a local antiwar group
meeting, a CAN meeting, an ISO meeting, etc.

soli,
DCQ


________________________________________________
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