Regarding Ben Seattle's Weird Assertion that:

"Carl Davidson and his fellow former radical sell-out, Tom Hayden, argue that it is fine for "progressive" Democrats to vote for money and additional troops for the Iraq war. This is part of their plan to magically transform the imperialist Democratic Party into an antiwar party."

Reply from CarlD:

Now we see how Ben Seattle got to his odd conclusions that Tom and I are traitors to the antiwar cause. Following is his email response to me regarding my commentin the post prior to this one above. My comments in reply will be interspersed in his text, enclosed in square brackets. Readers can draw their own conclusions and add their own comments as they see fit.

From Ben Seattle:

How Carl Davidson promotes illusions
about the Democratic Party to defend
funding the war in Iraq

The web version provides links to:

www.net4dem.org/cyrev/editorials/carl_editorial5.htm

www.commondreams.org/views05/0120-20.htm

Text is below:

In a recent essay on the current orientation that activists should take today, "The Road Ahead After 2004: Building a Broad Nonpartisan Alliance Against Bush and the Far Right", Carl Davidson quotes approvingly from Tom Hayden who, Carl says, "recently summed up our tasks as well as anyone":

[So it seems Carl did't say these things Ben Seattle claimed he did after all; Carl just quoted Tom Hayden, noting that Hayden's piece, overall, was a decent summary of antiwar tasks. But even so, let's take a look at the points that Ben is upset about.]

Tom Hayden: "We need to build a Progressive Democratic movement which will pressure the Democrats to become an anti-war opposition party."

Ben: The sentence above is the key piece of the puzzle that exposes the nature of this political deception which is designed to suck the life and militancy out of the antiwar movement. The Democratic Party is imperialist to the core. Every bloody war and "intervention", large and small, that U.S. imperialism has waged against the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America has been made possible by the full support of the Democratic Party.

[CarlD: Everyone knows that Hayden has always been for encouraging the growth of a left faction in the Democratic party, as well as doing other work outside of it, while I have mainly stressed building independent local electoral formations outside the Democratic party in order to break up and replace it. No big news here, and Tom and I get along just fine these days, whatever shades of difference exist. But look at it this way, Ben. You can probably bet good money on the probability of either the Democrats or the Republicans being in power when the Iraq war is forced to come to an end. One or the other of them will respond both to what happens on the ground in Iraq and 'pressure,' in the streets and in the voting booths, from the mass antiwar struggle at home, including but not limited to progressives among Democratic voters, to end the war at some point. That's unless you think that the struggle against this particular war can't be ended without socialist revolution, which I don't think even you are silly enough to believe. Hayden calls for building a progressive democratic movement to pressure the Democrats, rather than simply targeting the Republicans, to throw out Bush's Neocons and end the war. How is that any different, in substance, from the antiwar movement's demanding that Bush and the GOP end the war? The GOP is just as imperialist as the Democrats, so are we sowing illusions about them, ignoring or supporting all the past wars they endorsed or started, by directly 'pressuring' them, the GOP, to end this war? In the same articles you refer to, and in many other places, I have always characterized Kerry and the Democrats he represents as 'another faction of imperialism' than Bush, that we, meaning our antiwar group here in Chicago, didn't endorse Kerry, even though we argued for an anti-Bush vote and that it would have been a good thing for the peace movement had enough people voted against Bush, as the current commander-in-chief, so he would have been defeated and removed from his post in the middle of a war. You don't have to agree with it, but does it mean everyone who cast an antiwar vote against Bush is a traitor? Most progressive voters don't think this way, so why is it so hard for you to figure out?]

Back to Ben: Yes, the day may come when the Democratic Party will parade itself as an "antiwar" party. But this will only happen once it is clear that U.S. imperialism has been soundly beaten by the Iraqi people.

[CarlD: Why just the Iraqi people, Ben? Don't we have a responsibility in being at least an important secondary factor here in ending the war? Aren't you abdicating something here?]

Ben: Then (once it is clear, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the war is a lost cause) the "antiwar Democrats" will swing into action to cut funds for the war and make it appear that a section of the ruling class can be relied on to oppose imperialist war.

[CarlD: This is almost comical in it's mechanical view of how things actually develop, but Ben's key phrase here is 'can be relied on.' But no one in this discussion, at least not Tom or I, is saying they, the Democrats or Republicans, can be 'relied on.' The main 'pressure' coming from the people in action, here and abroad, is what we rely on. If you can rely on anything about the ruling class, it is that in a crisis they can and will split, and the real forces among the people that we rely on can often take advantage on that split to weaken the enemy camp and end the war. Again, Ben, this is just the ABCs of Leninism as well as common sense.]

Ben: Activists who fall for this nonsense end up being either brain dead -- or -- treacherous opponents of the antiwar movement. Want proof? Take a look at another sentence from the same passage. I call this the "money shot":

Ben quoting Tom Hayden: "the first step is to build pressure at congressional district levels to oppose any further funding or additional troops for war. If members of Congress balk at cutting off all assistance and want to propose "conditions" for further aid, it is a small step toward threatening funding."

Incredibly, Carl Davidson and Tom Hayden are arguing that it is just fine for "progressive" Democrats to vote for money for the war in Iraq or send additional troops as long as meaningless conditions (such as a supposedly "realistic assessment of the situation" and a pledge to "make sure our troops have everything they need") are attached to the blood money! This helps to show how, step by step, these false friends of the antiwar movement work to convert antiwar activism into support for the war.

[Well, Ben, as Tom anticipated, a small group in Congress is currently moving to organize a bloc to vote 'No' on Bush's requests for war funds. I think it's fine for the antiwar movement to support this effort and encourage even more elected officials to vote 'No' on these requests, don't you? That's what I would stand for, as does most if not all of the antiwar movement. But it's also true that this is going to be a relatively small bloc, since many in Congress will cave in the the 'money to support our boys' demagogy. So in addition, other elected officials not yet willing to take a clear stand, will try to hamper Bush's bill by attaching restricting amendments of one sort or another, which Tom characterized as a 'step toward threatening funding.' That's your big evidence of treachery? Don't you think that's a bit over the top? Tom's phrasing is a rather optimistic, benefit-of-the-doubt way of looking at it, but I would also say, in warning, that this 'middle road' effort could also be used to isolate the smaller group in favor of voting 'No' straight up. But be that as it may, it's hard to second guess some of these maneuvers before they're closer to being played out. We'll see what happens, and how the pro-war, pro-Bush forces respond to them. But in any case, for the record, the bedrock position of the antiwar movement itself, should be to oppose any funding for the war, with the sole exception being funds to provide help for the wounded GIS and their families on their return and possible reparations to Iraq after it's over. I think even you would go for those demands, which are being raised by the antiwar soldiers and their families themselves. Finally, Ben, there are some forces in the antiwar movement with chauvinist and capitulationist lines, both on the 'left and right, that deserve some polemics, but you're so far off base you're not even in the same ball park.]