(forwarded from the pof-200 list)
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Ben Seattle
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 2:02 AM
To: 'pof-200'
Subject: [pof-200] WF # 45 -- Ulyanovist's criticism and leaflet
and Sept 24
-- Weekly Focus # 45 --
Ulyanovist's criticism and leaflet and Sept 24
Hi everyone,
The main thing on my mind right now is getting ready for Sept 24.
Ulyanovist's criticisms were very useful. Marik's comments were
also very useful. All of this is very encouraging to me.
I did not fully understand Ulyanovist's criticism of my leaflet
until I re-read the most recent leaflet of his group (the ALC).
His leaflet (I have included text below in appendix 2) was strong
in the areas that my leaflet was weak, and vice versa.
It is actually quite interesting. The leaflets from the CVO, the
ALC and me -- all have a very similar political line: (1) oppose
the undermining of the antiwar movement by the Democratic Party
and its liberal-reformist allies -- and (2) organize the masses
independently. The main differences between the leaflets were in
emphasis, approach and in relation to writing style and the
perceived nature of the intended primary target audience.
Basically my leaflet was written with a strong view to capturing
the attention of (and giving a quick overview to) some of the
younger activists who have a lot of energy but less political
experience -- while Ulyanovist's was written more for activists
with more experience and a longer attention span. But the
politial content of both articles is quite similar. My leaflet
would probably be easier to understand at a glance. Ulyanovist's
gives better examples of the treachery of the Democratic Party
and might be something that readers would understand and remember
better.
Developing a common article that overcame the various weaknesses
would be worthwhile -- but would require a lot of time and effort
-- and is probably not a practical thing to do at this time.
However I can do something which is easy and practical:
distribute a leaflet that contains both my article and
Ulyanovist's.
I have been considering doing a double page leaflet (ie: 11 by 17
inches folded -- for a total of 4 sides). I could xerox 1,000
copies for about 16 cents each, or $160.00 (the xerox shop I use
charges full price for the first 100 copies and half price for
all copies after that). If Marik is willing -- and can make it
to Seattle for the Sept 24 demo -- then the two of us could
probably distribute about that many leaflets together. There is
a possibility that one or more of the other local subscribers to
this list would like to help. But I am not counting on that.
Having a double page leaflet (ie: 4 pages or sides) with my
article as well as Ulyanovist's would combine the strengths of
our two approaches. Those with less experience and a shorter
attention span could read my article only. Those who wanted
something with a little more depth in describing the treachery of
the Democratic Party and the Trade Union Bureaucracy could then
read Ulyanovist's.
The disadvantage of having both my article and Ulyanovist's
together is that it involves repetition (because we are both
saying very similar things). But that is not really much of a
disadvantage -- because effective communication is often based on
the repetition of key concepts. And seeing the same basic
message expressed in more than one way can often be helpful.
So here is what I am considering in more detail. A 4 page
leaflet that would include:
(a) a lead article by me: "Hit them where it hurts"
(b) the March 2005 article by the ALC:
"Is there a way forward?"
(c) a 2nd article by me (not yet written) on the need
for a revolutionary mass organization
(d) a possible graphic or two -- either the diagram of
the left ecosystem that was in my March 2003 leaflet
and/or a cartoon that I may (or may not) be able to draw
(e) 2 or 3 short "joint statements"
(f) (if there is room) small "ads" for some of
my theoretical work
I should explain what I mean by "joint statements".
A joint statement is a public statement (often, for practical
reasons, short) that is signed by two or more activists or
groups.
In our situation the creation of joint statements would give us
an opportunity to develop a small amount of collectivity and
unity of thought. The process of developing joint statements can
be very useful since it involves a certain amount of political
discussion and sometimes new ideas. At the same time it is
easier to collaborate to create a short joint statement together
than an entire leaflet.
In particular I was thinking of joint statements that might be
agreeable to Ulyanovist and Marik and me (and possibly by others
here as well). Everyone on this list who wanted to add their
signature or pseudonym would be able to do so.
Some of the possible topics might be:
1) We oppose and condemn the efforts by the Democratic Party and
its allies to undermine the antiwar movement -- and the way
forward is to organize the masses.
The conclusion of Ulyanovist's leaflet might, by itself, be
suitable for a joint statement:
> The major anti-war coalitions, ANSWER, NION, UFPJ etc.
> have pursued a policy so far of giving Democratic Party
> politicians ample speaking time at demonstrations. But
> the price to be paid for obtaining such speakers is the
> muffling of any criticism of the Democratic Party. The
> anti-war movement cannot afford to continue with this
> policy. It has been a disaster, and will continue to be
> a disaster. It's time for the anti-war movement to
> break its ties with the Democratic Party and pursue an
> independent policy of struggle.
2) A statement of support for the Iraqi resistance which
would also explain that there are many different
currents of struggle within the resistance and not
all of them deserve support -- and some (for example
those which engage in the indiscriminate bombings of
civilians) we condemn
3) A statement encouraging activists to join the pof-200
list as a small step to getting organized.
I am very interested in any comments on my suggestion.
Ben Seattle
http://struggle.net/ben
Isolated from one another we are easily defeated.
Connected to one another no force on earth can stop us
http://MediaWeapon.com
============================================================
Appendix 1 -- Some quick comments on Ulyanovist's critique
============================================================
-------------
CVO leaflets
-------------
> I believe that many, if not most, of the people who
> attend demonstrations already know that the war in
> Iraq involves all manner of brutality against the
> Iraqi people, that Bush lied about the causes of war,
> and so on. If there are any gaps in demonstrator's
> knowledge of these things, it is likely that the
> speeches at a demonstration, or the leaflets and
> newspapers which are distributed at a demonstration
> will fill those gaps. I think this is true to an even
> greater extent when we consider, not demonstrators in
> general, but the more politically advanced demonstrators.
> The more general knowledge of the latter group is also
> likely to render any gaps in knowledge about specific
> events, specific details of oppression etc, less
> important to their political orientation.
> Thus, I think it is somewhat wasteful of effort to
> repeat many of these details, except where such details
> are used to support or illustrate a specific point or
> argument. Actually, I think it is somewhat harmful as
> well. Demonstrators are bombarded with leaflets,
> newspapers, speeches etc. If, when reading a leaflet
> it begins to sound very familiar, they are more likely
> to tune out. Repeating what others say in abundance
> tends to hide or submerge one's own more unique
> contributions.
I have many times had similar feelings. In particular I have
sometimes read CVO leaflets that offered more advice on how to
build the movment in Iraq then here in the U.S. (which is
strange).
I think the reason the CVO leaflets place so much emphasis on a
summary of news events -- is that the leaflets are often written
with a view to distributing ahead of time in the days or weeks
before the demo -- in order to help mobilize the masses to go to
the demo. And they are also written to be passed out to people
on the sidewalks who watch the demo go by. So for these sections
of readership -- the "news first" method is useful.
Another factor here is that the conclusions are based (and
explained by) an analysis of the news. This approach is often
helpful to the reader. When done right (and the CVO often does
it right) this can be very effective.
But having a "one size fits all" leaflet can be problematic for
the reasons that Ulyanovist lists. Too much news/analysis can
detract from the conclusions and the parts of the leaflet which
are deserving of greater attention.
Possibly some of the weaknesses of my approach originate in
reaction to the weaknesses of the CVO approach. And also -- I
feel like I can leave out much of what the CVO says because
activists at the event are likely to get a CVO leaflet as well as
my own -- they don't need to get it all from me.
It might be better for the CVO to have more than one leaflet (ie:
for different readerships) or to break their leaflet up into more
than one article or have "sidebars" (ie: short, standalone
articles that explore tangents that are mentioned in the main
article). But, then again, it might also be useful for them to
have someone on this discussion list and talk to us -- but they
are not ready for that.
> In a similar vein, it *might* be helpful to the Iraqis
> for US radicals to express an opinion regarding issues
> such as autonomy for the Kurds. Unfortunately, I
> personally don't have any clear answers on this yet.
> On a historical level, I support the right of nations
> to self determination. However, the Kurdish question
> today is complicated by the fact of the US occupation.
> The calls for "autonomy" today can't be separated from
> the imperialist tactic of divide and conquer. We need
> only look at the former Yugoslavia to see how pitting
> one ethnic group against another can serve the interests
> of imperialism. So what *exactly* should be the
> orientation of revolutionaries in Iraq on this question?
> I think a correct and *convincing* answer to that
> question might be very useful to the Iraqi's. I'm not
> sure we have the expertise to give such an answer.
That's how i see it also. It is very easy to say the wrong thing
on something this complicated -- for the reasons which Ulyanovist
mentions. We are better off focusing on the more important
issues.
Also -- over time we can develop a website with articles that go
into greater depth on issues like this. What we distribute on
paper would be the most important things that serve as a gateway
to a large number of articles on the web that explore many
different issues.
============================================================
Appendix 2 -- The March 2005 ALC leaflet
============================================================
Is There a Way Forward?
The Anti-war movement seems to have come to an impasse. There are
periodic demonstrations, but the war, the occupation, the carnage
and destruction of whole cities, the torture and the lies
continue. Is there a way forward?
The US eventually pulled out of Vietnam, and we think it is
important for anti-war activists today, to gain a solid
understanding of why that happened. Of course the US suffered
losses on the battlefield, but the Vietnamese suffered even worse
losses. The economic costs of the war were great, but from a
purely economic point of view, the US had the resources to
continue the war for many, many more years. What was decisive was
the attitude of the GIs in Vietnam themselves. GIs in World War
II suffered huge casualties, but because they by and large
supported the war against Nazi controlled Germany, they remained
a solid fighting force. The a large section of GIs in Vietnam
lost their belief in the justice of that war. That, combined with
the casualties, led to the US army in Vietnam becoming an
unreliable fighting force. The killing of officers, or "fragging"
became a regular occurrence. The US rulers pulled out of Vietnam,
not because 50,000 US dead was too many. Kissinger is reported to
have referred to GIs as "dumb, stupid animals to be used" as
pawns for foreign policy. The US rulers pulled out of Vietnam
because there was widespread rebellion in the ranks and a threat
that the army would completely collapse.
We have seen the faint beginnings of this in Iraq. Tens of
thousands of GIs have escaped the nightmare of Iraq through
"psychological" ailments -- read that as they just couldn't bring
themselves to participate any more. Hundreds of GIs have gone
AWOL while on leave in the US. A few have committed suicide. But
a telling sign is that of 19 members of the Army's 343rd
Quartermaster Company who refused orders to haul fuel. These GIs
did not make a clear stand against the occupation. Rather they
claimed that they would be exposed to unnecessary risks. But we
should look deeper into the meaning of that attitude. Individual
soldiers may naturally be reluctant to undertake dangerous
missions, but when soldiers are politically convinced of the
righteousness and importance of a war, discipline and a sense of
duty more often than not outweigh physical fear. However, when
soldiers are not convinced of the importance of their sacrifice,
they are much more likely to be undisciplined. During the war in
Vietnam, the brass sent GIs into the jungle as bait, to lure
attacks, so that air gunships could mow down the attackers. As
the GIs in Vietnam increasingly understood that their sacrifices
on the battlefield had nothing to do with anything virtuous, they
increasingly disliked playing the role of bait, and in increasing
numbers refused such missions. Taken in that light, the refusal
of the members of the 343rd to obey orders on the grounds of
safety is a sign that conviction among the troops as to the
justice or importance of their mission is flagging.
But while there are definite signs of dissatisfaction within the
army, they are not of such proportions that US ruling class fears
that it will lose control of the army if it does not withdraw.
That is the chief reason why the US pulled out of Vietnam, but
has not yet pulled out of Iraq.
The GIs in Vietnam became radicalized not only by seeing the
imperialist policies of the US first hand , but were also
influenced by the growing social struggles state-side. The
struggle for Black equality, the development of a militant wing
of the labor movement (exemplified by organizations such as
DRUM--the Dodge Revolutionary Union Movement-- and others), the
student radicalization, and the anti-war demonstrations all
played a part, all contributed to GIs becoming increasingly
opposed to the brass and to the ruling class.
Social struggles in the US, and radicalization of the GIs in Iraq
are the things needed to end the occupation of Iraq. However,
instead of the mass mobilizations that were needed, social
struggles were largely sabotaged during the US presidential
election campaign. The Million Worker March was one of the few
significant demonstrations to be held during this period, but it
was purposefully knifed by the top AFL-CIO bureaucrats. At the
behest of John Sweeny, Marilyn Sneiderman, Director of the Field
Mobilization Department of the AFL-CIO, sent out a Memorandum to
"All State Federations and Central Labor Councils of the AFL-CIO"
referencing the "Million Worker March," and directing them "not
to sponsor or devote resources to the demonstration in
Washington, D.C." This memorandum argued the case for sabotaging
the mobilization of organized labor as follows. "We encourage our
state federations, area councils and central labor councils not
to sponsor or devote resources to the demonstrations in
Washington, D.C. but instead to remain focused on the
election..." Outrageous!
This same scenario was played out over and over again in many
other organizations which might loosely be called "progressive"
or "liberal". Wherever the leadership of these organizations had
strong ties with the Democratic Party, they opposed mass
demonstrations against the war.
It is time that the labor movement, and the anti-war movement
learn what the Democratic Party is all about. The people who
really control the Democratic Party are not working people who
vote Democratic, but a small layer of millionaires and
billionaires. The millionaires and billionaires who control the
Democratic Party may not always be the same individuals who
control the Republican Party, but they belong to the same class.
Those who control the Democratic and Republican Parties agree on
all fundamental issues that are importance to the very top, the
very richest layer of the capitalist class. At times it appears
that the Democratic Party is open to maverick politicians,
especially on the local level. Those who control the party allow
these mavericks into the august chambers of government as a
fig-leaf, to obscure who is really pulling the strings.
The fundamental agreement between the rich who control the
Democratic Party and the rich who control the Republican Party is
shown by their attitude towards mass mobilizations. Sure, they
spar with each other at election times, but that sparring does
not extend to mobilizing the masses to struggle for various
concessions which would be in the interest of the masses. The
Democratic Party machine never calls for mass social struggle. It
never organizes social struggle. It never puts its resources into
social struggle. But if a mass movement is large enough, the
Democratic Party machine will allow a few maverick politicians to
speak to it, to corral the masses back into the fold. Further, as
soon as the masses are back in the fold, the Democratic Party
machine goes into action sabotaging the mass movement, putting a
damper on it. That is why we saw the AFL-CIO tops, who are
beholden to the Democratic Party machine, sabotage the
independent mobilization of labor for the Million Worker March.
The major anti-war coalitions, ANSWER, NION, UFPJ etc. have
pursued a policy so far of giving Democratic Party politicians
ample speaking time at demonstrations. But the price to be paid
for obtaining such speakers is the muffling of any criticism of
the Democratic Party. The anti-war movement cannot afford to
continue with this policy. It has been a disaster, and will
continue to be a disaster. It's time for the anti-war movement to
break its ties with the Democratic Party and pursue an
independent policy of struggle.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
--------------------~-->
<font face=arial size=-1><a
href="http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12h9he1r4/M=362329.6886306.7839
369.3040540/D=groups/S=1705060375:TM/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1124535728/A=289
4321/R=0/SIG=11dvsfulr/*http://youthnoise.com/page.php?page_id=19
92
">Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk
back!</a>.</font>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---~->
Yahoo! Groups Links
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/B140lB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
(This is not a discussion list--the discussion list is pof-200)
THEORIST LIST
--------------
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archive: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theorist/messages
Info: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theorist/
POF-200
-------
home page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pof-200/
to subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theorist/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
