[Marxism] Disjunction between antiwar sentiment and size of protest

[Jscotlive@xxxxxxx]

Walter Lippman writes:
 
This is a response to LOUIS THE RED-BAITER who couldn't wait to  write:

Reply:
 
Walter then goes on to provide a sharp, lucid and excellent analysis  of the 
moribund state of the US antiwar movement and a fine rebuttal of Louis  
Proyect's latest anti-ANSWER tirade
 
Bravo, Walter, good for you. I couldn't have said it better myself.
 
I worked as an organiser with ANSWER LA from 2001 to 2004. I was at  the 
massive demo, 100,000 plus, in San Francisco on Oct 26 2002. I was also  
present 
at the biggest demo in the history of LA on Feb 15 2003, when over  70,000 
turned out, this on the same day as an est 10-15 million marched and  
demonstrated 
across the globe, inc some 3-4 million in the US alone.
 
Like everyone who was involved at that time, we all felt we were on the  
verge of something special. We knew that we wouldn't be able to stop the war  
going ahead, but we did feel that we delayed it, that we frightened the ruling  
class (remember the NYT's coverage of Feb 15 and its description of the antiwar 
 
movement as the second superpower?).  We also felt, every one of us, that  
what was being laid by the breadth and depth of the movement was the foundation 
 
of what would become a new political movement in the US, joining people  of 
every demographic whose revulsion against Bush and the neocons was  motivated 
both by their foreign and domestic policy. On the demos back then the  myriad 
banners and placards were testament to the breadth composition of the  
movement, which comprised socialists, communists, environmentalists, left  
liberals, 
religious groups, anarchists, Greens, Democrats, Vietnam Vets, and so  on. The 
vast majority of those taking part, however, of those who  packed out meeting 
after meeting at our little office in Koreatown, were just  concerned 
citizens. In LA luminaries from the world of Hollywood marched  alongside 
immigrants 
and blue collar workers, and this is what gave us all so  much cause for hope.
 
What we didn't realise, and what nobody could foresee at the time, was that  
rather than the BEGINNING of something, Feb 15 was in fact the END of  
something. Those that weren't demoralised at the fact they'd failed to stop the 
 war 
succumbed to the killer blow delivered by the ruling class as soon as the  
bombs began to fall. This came in the form of the 'support the troops' mantra  
which they've used ever since to equate opposition to the war to the 
undermining 
 of the troops in the field, conjuring up in the process memories of Vietnam 
and  protesters and citizens abusing and spitting on returning troops, which 
to my  knowledge is more urban myth than concrete fact.
 
Of course there are always subjective factors involved in the failure of  
movements and political formations. But the fact that the antiwar movement is 
in  
a moribund state in the UK as well as in the US indicates that objective  
factors weigh far more heavily. 
 
In the US the Democrats have helped to destroy what antiwar movement there  
was left. Kerry in 2004 became the hope for millions searching for meaningful  
opposition to Bush and to the war. As such he had a fantastic opportunity to  
reach and inspire millions across the country who hated the neocons and  
everything they represent. Instead he too succumbed to the 'support the troops' 
 
mantra of the govt and the mainstream media and he pitched the banner too  low 
to put any meaningful distance between the Democrats and the  Republicans over 
the war. The fact is, as many on this list have pointed out,  there is NO 
intrinsic difference between either Democratic or Republican  parties. Both are 
pro-imperialist, both are committed to US global hegemony. The  only difference 
is in method for achieving this aim, with the Democrats  traditionally a lot 
more subtle how they set about the same aims and  objectives.
 
Ultimately, though, the War hasn't hit home with the broad mass of the  
population and therefore they are inured to its effects and implications. There 
 is 
no draft, it has not yet resulted in economic recession, and there are no  
images of the war and its horrors on the TV news. This is where the ruling 
class 
 have been most successful. Until these things occur the antiwar movement 
will be  made up primarily of those already in possession of an advanced 
political  consciousness and awareness, combined with those who are motivated 
by a 
sense of  moral outrage. What the movement needs are people who are in it out 
of 
material  necessity, and this requires that certain objective  factors are met.
 
As for ANSWER, when the history of this period comes to be written, they  
will rightly be given the credit they deserve. They do not have vast sums of  
money and resources at their disposal, they do not enjoy access to the media,  
yet through the tireless and dedicated work of their organisers and activists  
they have continued to build and mobilise in the face of the huge obstacles  
placed in their path. There are deficiencies, of course there are, but the  
stance they have taken on Palestine, on Cuba, on Haiti, and so on, the 
education  
they have sought to provide, and most importantly the space they have provided 
 for people all over the US to come together in opposition to the status quo 
in  what is a time of reaction has been exemplary. 
 
Louis slates them. He does so without ever having been involved in the  
antiwar movement, in any movement for that matter. There is nothing more to be  
said. Marxist theory employed solely as a way to interpret the world is a  
distortion of everything Marx stood for. He was first and foremost a  
revolutionary. 
His theory was and is designed as a guide to action. 
 
Action Louis. Remember that?
 
J   
 
 



   
________________________________________________
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