Re: [Marxism] Goff analysis of Petraeus testimony (and my comments)

[Marvin Gandall <marvgandall@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Fred wrote:

> Although I disagree with Goff that a frustrated antiwar population should
> now focus their attention on angry protests against the Democrats.  I
> think
> there is a need to FOCUS on the real possibilities of mass action against
> the government that is waging the war, not primarily against individual
> 0oliticians who have disappointed the ex0ectations that
> Goff and I, for good reaons, did not have.  Although I admit that the
> Democrats went even further toward embracing the war as their own than I
> expected.

This would be a good point, if Goff were, in fact, counterposing protests
against Democratic politicians to larger protest actions against "the
government that is waging the war". But is he? I didn't see anything at all
in his article to suggest that he is recommending that "a frustrated antiwar
population should now focus their attention on angry protests against the
Democrats." I expect he sees very public local actions against DP
politicians as complementing rather than undermining the national protest
actions which being planned.

Unless Fred can show otherwise, why discourage Goff and others like him from
trying to bring maximum rank-and-file pressure to bear against the DP
leaders? This dispel illusions at the base rather than reinforces them. Fred
disagrees, but even from a distance it strikes me a more relevant strategy
than the propaganda campaigns run by the SWP between 1960-84 which Fred
offers as a superior model for breaking DP supporters away from the party in
the current context .

> Also I thin that Goff may underestimate the savagery of the blow that the
> Democrats have succeeded in dealing the antiwar movement, with their
> election campaign against the war followed by total capitulation.

Fred admits to being surprised by how far the DP leaders have swung, but
should he have been? It was never in the cards that the DP politicians would
tack to the left rather than to the centre - least of all, by trying to
mobilize their base in the streets in the context of an election campaign.
As always and to be expected, they're taking their base for granted, and
trying to reach out to the "independents" by sounding tough on national
security and gushing over the troops.

Fred believes the the antiwar ranks have not reacted because they are cowed
by the leadership which has dealt them a "savage blow". In fact, from here
it appears that they are reacting angrily and publicly, but have not yet
taken their online protest into the streets. Goff's article and further
evidence from the DailyKos and other liberal sites suggests to me that
Goff's more confident view of both the degree of discontent at the base of
the party, and the potential for organizing it against the party leadership,
is closer to the reality than is Fred's disheartening view. Their
conflicting strategies arise from these conflicting perceptions .

> It is quite clear that aside from a few individuals afraid of losing their
> places in Congress, the Congressional interrogation of Petraeus showed
> clearly that THE WAR WILL CONTINUE UNDER THE NEXT ADMINISTRATION, NO
> MATTER
> WHICH PARTY IS IN CHARGE.

There will be US troops on the ground when Bush leaves office, but how many
and for how long and how much fighting they will do and against whom are all
questions which are still unclear. There are still deep internal divisions
at the top over Iraq and US foreign policy, and a Vietnam-style withdrawal
remains as much a possibility as Fred's no-change-in-direction uppercase
certainty.

These issues will be settled in accordance with the evolving political and
military situation in Iraq and US domestic politics, so I'd be wary of
interpreting the opportunistic electoral manuvering of DP politicians as
evidence they've "embraced" the occupation and that there will not be a
policy change under a new administration. It won't necessarily even have to
be Hillary Clinton; the Bush administration has also been under fire from
important sectors within the Republican party and the military high command
for a long time over the fiasco. A Rudy Giuliani could also, as Nixon did
earlier, affect a strategic withdrawal.

> So one question to be asked is: Yes, the Democrats' victory expressed
> positive developments in the consciousness of the masses, and opened the
> door therefore to deeper exposures of both parties.  But I would like
> someone to explain to me how support of the Democratic party by conscious
> revolutionaries like Goff, Joaquin, or myself could have or did advance
> this
> change in consciousness, which in my opinion took place at a much deeper
> level. How does this process advance because we, who have gone through our
> own ex0periences that convinced us of the nature of the Democratic Party,
> have decided to support it in order to expose it.

The development of consciousness is mostly spontaneous and occurs at a
"deeper level", as Fred suggests, in response to changing objective
circumstances. But Fred least of all needs to be reminded that the
development of consciousness is not entirely spontaneous and the experience
and influence of persons like himself, in these contexts, can be helpful.
There are likely very few on this list who did not move to socialist
politics after passing through liberalism and who were helped in that
passage during those politically charged times by the presence of veteran
activists who were already socialists.

> What is the evidence that support for the Democrats, rather than saying
> what
> one really thinks about this 100 percent imperialist party. helped advance
> the  positively changing consciousness of the masses rather than
> reinforcing
> the underlying illusions (which are not new, of course)?

If Goff calling for "support for the Democrats"? I didn't read his article
that way. He sharply distinguishes between the DP leaders and the DP ranks,
who he sees going in different directions. Fred doesn't draw the distinction
because he tends to see the parry more as a monolith, with the ranks blindly
following where the leadership goes. Fred may be proved correct, but people
like Goff, it seems to me, should be supported for trying to test that
proposition.


________________________________________________
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