Doug's Nation article

[Chris Burford <cburford@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Possibly the title Ian gave his forward (Doug tells the truth) projected a
greater status on the article than it carried and also a status that people
from all different positions could read into it.

Doug was essentially raising questions. Whatever anyone might see as Doug's
position, rightly or wrongly, I suggest there is little doubt about his
comment that there are two largely separate left discourses: against the
war and against global capital. This is quite a serious problem.

However I think Susan George's attempt to bridge these is not as weak as
Doug suggests, considering it takes time and practice to synthesise
currents of opposition. Besides, and I note no one has criticised my
analysis, there are two deep questions that lie beneath surface reality,
both of which are difficult to analyse for the left: the important role of
the vacillating national bourgeoisie in third world countries, and the
transition from imperialisms locked together in both contension and
collusion dominated by US imperialism, to the politics of an emerging "Empire".

It is also a difficult aspect of the reality of any tactics in the real
world that you cannot direct the main thrust of your limited contributions
simultaneously in all directs unless it is to denounce sin. It is therefore
quite common that in directing strong criticism against aspect A, you leave
ambiguous whether you oppose aspect B on principle but do not think it is
the main point at present, or the most effective point of leverage, or
tolerate it as a lesser evil, or actively support it.

Doug made clear that considering that a US response to Sept 11 might be
justified did not mean endorsing Bush's version.


> some US response was inevitable and even justified. Recognizing
> that doesn't mean assent to Bush's version of a response, though lots
> of people in the peace movement seem to fear it does.


Nor am I aware that Doug has supported the bombing. It is a well recognised
style of argument to flush out an erroneous position by suggesting it is
fully in support of something that might accompany the main proposition,
when it is merely tolerated reluctantly.

The quickest way to criticise a suspected position is to quote a statement
by the author.

The sharpness of the argument on this thread illustrates the problem. If
one had a coherent world analysis of the current balance of forces that
isolated US imperialism, then progressives within the USA could be asked to
do everything against US imperialism. But unlike the 70's, there is no
realistic possibility of the third world countryside surrounding the
imperial cities. Nor is the late soviet model possible of an international
movement for peace and socialism that would target US imperialism.
Revolutionary defeatism is an arguable strategy at a time of an impending
revolution but not as an argument for pure isolation from the mass of the
people.

Therefore it is a more effective way of attacking us imperialism to
challenge whether its hegemonic actions are really those of a just
candidate for the role of world peace maker, than to oppose all its actions
outright as a matter of principle. Why? because the former has a greater
chance of allying with a significant body of opinion within the USA and
among its junior imperialist partners. That is more important in practice
than to be politically pure.

I would like to hear a serious strategic criticism of this view, because as
I say I find the most difficult thing about Empire (the book) the idea of
*not* targeting US imperialism. But that in fact may be the best way of
building a progressive international coalition that undermines US hegemonism.

Chris Burford

London