[Marxism] The POLITICAL focus of the antiwar movement [was: Goff analysis of Petraeus testimony ...]

["Joaquin Bustelo" <jbustelo@xxxxxxxxx>]

Eli writes: 

<<As exemplified by his close ("Misbehavior works.  Delegitimate.  Disobey.

Disrupt."), Goff seems to give disproportionate importance to people 
standing up in a Congressional hearing and shouting "Liar." Nothing wrong 
with that, or with occupying a Congressperson's office either. But 
suggesting that such actions,  as opposed to and even to the exclusion of 
other things like mass marches, are the key to stopping the war is 
misguided. >>

I'm also not comfortable with the seeming counterposition of mass
demonstrations to the kind of propaganda actions that Stan's rhetorical
devices imply, but I'm not sure there is much more there on Stan's part than
a rhetorical device to highlight the lack of clear political thinking on the
part of the left.

I think Stan's essential point is that after years of hiding behind the
"we're just a minority and can't do anything," the Democrats were made into
a majority by the voters in 2006 PRECISELY to do something about (against)
the war, and EITHER left/progressive forces PREFERENTIALLY target Democrats
NOW or they will be CONDEMNED TO IRRELEVANCE, to being the tail of the
Democrat dog in 2008. 

Tens of millions of people, ranging from those with massive illusions to
those making a conscious suspension of disbelief, voted for the Democrats or
sympathized with those who did in November 2006 so that the Democrats would
put an end to the war.

The Democrats HAVE TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE so that the 2006 electoral swing
can be made into a meaningful political experience for --we hope-- a broad
layer of people.

It is *essentially* what happened in 1964 and the following years, with
people voting for Lyndon Johnson against warmonger Goldwater and then
finding they had to fight war MAKER Johnson. Although an even closer
parallel, perhaps, is 1968, with young radicals going "clean for Gene
[McCarthy]" or enrolling massively in Bobby Kennedy's campaign, BOTH
Democratic Party efforts, and then not just being shunned and excluded, but
repudiated, beaten, arrested and framed-up at the Chicago Democratic Party
convention.

POLITICALLY --in other words, in terms of relating to people in motion-- the
most important thing right now is exposing the responsibility of the
Democrat majority in Congress for the War. Listen to how Bush's speech was
being spun today -- that his essential task was to keep enough Republicans
with him to PREVENT a veto override in Congress.

That's BULLSHIT. Come Oct. 1, Bush doesn't have ONE PENNY for the war in
Iraq UNLESS a MAJORITY in Congress gives it to him. A Congressional majority
has absolute, final and veto-proof CONTROL over what the government does at
such a moment. IF the majority insists that the ONLY money for the troops in
Iraq is that needed to get them all out, and sticks by its decision, there
is nothing the President can do except capitulate or stage a coup.

Stan's point is that the Left must not let the Democrats OFF THE HOOK by
focusing their fire against Bush or even "the war" or "the government" in
general. Congress --and its Democrat majority-- needs to be the focus/target
now, because that is the way tens of millions of regular people chose to try
to end the war, by voting for these Democrats.

I think --and suspect Stan would agree-- that the impact of such a POLITICAL
FOCUS for the antiwar movement would only be enhanced by an increased level
of overall antiwar activity and agitation, including marches on Washington,
local demonstrations, etc. But I think I would tend to agree with Stan that
mass demonstration tactics, in and of themselves, are no substitute for a
sharp POLITICAL approach in waging the fight against the war -- and that
means, right now, putting the heat on Congress and its majority, the
Democrats.

That's how I interpret Stan's counterposition of Congressional office
occupations to mass demonstrations. MORE demonstrations against the war IN
GENERAL, or worse, against "Bush's War" are not what's needed. Those events
start to slide into a tacit alliance with the antiwar posturing of Democrat
Congressional critics, preparing the way for craven capitulation to the
Democrats next year. 

I mean, does ANYONE on this list DOUBT that this is PRECISELY the intention
of Lesley Cagan, Judith LeBlanc and other UfPJ leaders in projecting "mass
actions" against the war this fall? Does anyone doubt that the MAIN
POLITICAL LINE projected at those actions will be that we "need" to elect
BOTH a Democrat President and a Democrat Congress? And that for the
doubtful, the argument will be, so that the Congressional Democrat majority
doesn't have a Republican president to hide behind, and so the President
doesn't have a Congressional Republican majority to capitulate to?

The mass actions we need are ones that take into account HOW millions of
Blacks, Latinos and other working people tried to use what they've been told
is their political power, the vote, to bring this war to an end,
specifically, by electing a Democrat majority in BOTH houses last November.
Actions that IGNORE how regular people acted on the basis of their antiwar
sentiment are likely to have contradictory political effects.

What the antiwar movement needs is a clear POLITICAL focus, and again,
political in the sense of relating to motion by masses of people. AT THIS
MOMENT, a central IDEA for the antiwar movement to communicate is that
Congress controls the purse strings, and it must USE that control to give
Bush money ONLY to GET OUT, not to STAY IN.

If that COMES THROUGH CLEARLY as the message of the antiwar actions of the
next few weeks, that CONGRESS holds in its hands the power to end the war
NOW, and MUST USE IT, THEN these actions, whether marches on Washington or
Congressional office occupations, will play a positive political role. 

IF INSTEAD they come across as saying BUSH must end the war, I'm not sure
I'd say they were entirely negative or mostly so (perhaps I disagree with
Stan on this as a matter of DEGREE), but they, at the VERY least, will have
a large negative element in contributing to people once again being sucked
in by Hillary, Obama and Edwards.

And, as a plain, vulgar tactical matter, I don't think you can mobilize
nearly as many people around the idea of pressuring BUSH or "the government"
as you can around the idea of pressuring CONGRESS. Bush plain ain't going to
be pressured, everyone understands that, CONGRESS (and its Democrat
majority, but not only) are the logical target for popular pressure now.

Joaquín


________________________________________________
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