Yoshie wrote:
> Back when I was active in Solidarity, I proposed that, after the 2004 > elections, we work with other socialists and leftists who believe the > Democratic Party will not help end the war and together organize a > national conference so we won't be so ill-organized and ill-focused. > For various reasons, internal and external, that didn't happen.
I don't understand why, for the left to act in concert in the face of this war, the litmus test has to be whether or not one "believes" that the DP will do X or Y with respect to the war. The issue is what *the left* needs to do with respect to the war. And if the left is serious about stopping the war, then it needs to join forces with those who oppose it. Are people in the DP (members or plain knee-jerk voters) opposed to the war in the sense of being willing to take action to stop it? Yes, there are. Many. In fact, arguably the largest contingent in the anti-war crowd coming from a single political formation is the Dems or people who consistently align themselves with the DP. How does the disunity in the anti-war movement help the working class? Beats me. Or, to flip the question: Does unity to stop the war, intra and inter-class, weaken the prospects for unity among workers? How? The exact opposite may be true. A popular multi-class movement to stop the occupation of Iraq is likely to weaken the unity of the rulers and strengthen the political self-confidence of the working people, the main constituency of the anti-war movement. Therefore, sectarian litmus tests of this kind are counterproductive. Just as important: Why do we need to act upon a belief, a preconception about the outcome of an ongoing struggle in the guts of a breathing political beast (the DP)? Why not let events sort things out. Or, better yet, why not support actively those on the left wing of the DP? They don't believe the outcome of the ongoing "battle for the heart and soul" of the DP, as some of them frame it, is predetermined. Why should we? I don't understand why we feel the need to cancel certain possibilities by decree. A few years ago, on this very list, some people were declaring Bush finished. Others thought that Bush was just looking for a face-saving way to pull the troops out. Etc. We get too carried away with anticipating, at the expense of acting now where we can make a difference. Don't we observe the ongoing struggle within the DP? I say we need to help the serious anti-war wing in the DP prevail by engaging in that struggle with well-reasoned arguments, appealing to large crowds in and out of the DP, giving them reasons to take action... but arguments about what? About the treacherous nature of the DP? About the class content of its program? About how we "believe" that they won't help end the war? No, arguments about the need for immediate withdrawal! That is the debate that, in practical terms, hasn't been settled. But, don't the polls show that most Americans opine the U.S. should leave Iraq? That's not what I mean. I mean *convinced enough to take action*, to pester the politicians, to bug them, to confront them, to make business as usual impossible, to force them to withdraw the troops. In practice, insofar as the U.S. troops are still there and the people haven't forced the government to withdraw, the debate is still ongoing. The U.S. people are not sufficiently convinced. Debates of this type have to be won over and over again. Arguments have to be repeated, and sharpened. We need to raise our voices over the cacophony of horse-race politicking in the media to emphasize *issues* -- those that matter to us, framing them in ways that appeal to the broader sectors of the working class and set them in motion and arguing for solutions that put the interest of workers first. That's what we are not doing. Instead, we look at the DP as if it the outcome of its inner struggles has already been decided by the gods. ravi wrote:
I think these efforts are commendable and necessary. What is also missing is for a way to get ordinary people to get involved in some way, if only to form a community. Not every one has the dedication (and in some cases, the time, money and/or energy) to participate in meetings and planning. The "netroots" (etc) provide a means for regular folks to congregate/communicate and in some cases even plan: MoveOn is a good example. In contrast, most of are holed up in mailing lists that have little visibility (no offence!).
Ordinary people (I'm referring here to those who are taking some sort of action) are serious about the goal of stopping the war. They don't look at stopping the war as a means to an end (the "strengthening" of the "anti-capitalist" agenda of the left). They look at it as a goal worthy in and by itself. Because there's loss of life, loss of public treasury, loss of international respect, etc. And that ought to stop. The position of the left about the war, if predicated on the exclusion of the DP, is akin to a kid saying: If I cannot have the toy, I'll break it. If we radicals in the left cannot steer the direction of the anti-war movement, "radicalize" it to suit our agendas, then we will break its unity and to hell with the consequences. Yoshie:
To make it possible to reach out to larger circles of people, you have to begin somewhere, but that beginning somewhere seems to me to be the most difficult. Socialism essentially remains an idea in the USA.
It is an idea, because we let preconceptions take precedence. The real starting point is collective action. It's not ideological purity. It's not "having the right position" on the war. It's *acting* to stop the war, regardless of motive and ideology, because the war -- in and by itself -- weakens, degrades, impoverish the U.S. working class. Forgive my preachy tone.
