Dear Ben

The German Communist Party - in tune with the Comintern - made the same argument about the spectre of fascism and the rise of the Nazi Party - and used it to justify their refusal to work with Social Democrats and others as class collaborationists and social fascists in the early 1930's. The results were catastrophic.

people that are smart will understand that following a sect that supports cultural extirmination (aka Mao) and full dictatorship (aka Stalin) all sugar-coated and spewed out in a nice utopian manner (aka Marx/Lenin) - is a bad idea.
those who are ignorant/too confused/upper class confused youth/revuolutionaries too old to quit after all these years will stay and sell the paper, push their leaflets and will yell "power to the people" whenever they can.
It a simple concept, really.

Hi hmm,

Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

There is a ton of mythology concerning how Hitler came to power. Every political trend, whether reformist or revolutionary, has their own spin on this question. So it is important, in my view, not to accept at face value the common (and mistaken) assertion that Hitler came to power because the German CP failed to form a united front with the Social Democrats.

I think that it is far more accurate, and truthful, to say that Hitler came to power because the German bourgeoisie installed Hitler to power.

And it is important to recognize that the German bourgeoisie made their desperate gamble on Hitler because they were in crisis and were afraid that their class rule might be overthrown.

The current, concrete situation with the U.S. bourgeoisie is very different. Anyone who asserts that fascism (ie: a complete loss of all democratic rights) may be around the corner would need to address the 3 arguments I gave (above) for why fascism is, at this time, counter to the material interests of the bourgeoisie as a whole. These 3 arguments are as follows:

Such a desperate course of action by the bourgeoisie would:
(a) instantly politicize tens of millions of people,
(b) destablize the entire system of bourgeois rule and
(c) destroy illusions in the bourgeois political system that the bourgeoisie
. has carefully crafted and painstakingly cultivated over many decades.

One of the main problems with hysteria about impending fascism is that it tends to create great unclarity concerning what is politically decisive for the development of the antiwar movement today: turning our back on the Democratic Party and opposing the influence of the corrupt social strata that is in orbit around the Democratic Party. Only by opposing the influence of the Democratic Party (and its army of reformist apologists) can the antiwar movement become truly independent and powerful.

And understanding how our society really works (ie: the particular ways in which the bourgeoisie takes action to defend it material interests) is an inseparable part of undertanding why it is necessary to oppose the influence of the Democratic Party -- which is the imperialist party which specializes in sucking the energy and militancy out of the antiwar movement.

Once we understand how bourgeoisie society works -- then we can see where the bourgeoisie is weak -- and what the bourgeoisie is afraid of. The bourgeoisie is afraid of the antiwar movement (a) orienting itself toward the working class and (b) developing in a revolutionary direction.

Ben Seattle
struggle.net/ben

oops i guess RCP took down their discussion website 2changetheworld.info or something.
i guess enough of all that people disagreeing and stuff. just the pure party line. no need to list opposite sides of discussion.

Geez, I've completely lost my faith in the left - all of you dismay me!

Is it just the RCP? Are they crying wolf?

I'm not sure this is just a propaganda tactic. They clearly believe that something qualitatively different is happening in the US government -- and I share the fear.

Is it just "compelling material interest" that leads the ruling class to install fascism, or is it more complicated than that?

It can be argued that there are "compelling" interests that have unleashed the new war against everyone -- and the changes in legal structure, collapse of the Democrats as anything like an effective opposition and well-developed social base for fascism are all real.

Delay. Gonzalez. Rumsfeld. These are names we know. What about the Christian fundamentalists who are largely running the Pentagon? What about the purges of the CIA? What is the effect of media consolidation? And so on...

I think the RCP's analysis is correct in terms of the danger we are facing. I also think that radicals need to think through what the implications of it are for what they are doing now. The right isn't playing around. They are very focused and intent on putting this country together in a vastly more repressive and militarist way. They publically defend torture -- something the Nazis didn't even do!

The distribution of the RCP paper is also something to take note of. It's not enough to put flyers up in hip bars and East Village bathrooms. People need to be thinking in the millions with everything they do.

Paranoia Grips the U.S. Capital
By Eric Margolis
The Toronto Sun

Sunday 06 February 2005

The film Seven Days In May is one of my all-time favourites. The gripping 1964 drama, starring Burt Lancaster, depicts an attempted coup by far rightists in Washington using a top-secret Pentagon anti-terrorist unit called something like "Contelinpro."

Life imitates art. This week, former military intelligence analyst William Arkin revealed a hitherto unknown directive, with the Orwellian name "JCS Conplan 0300-97," authorizing the Pentagon to employ special, ultra-secret "anti-terrorist" military units on American soil for what the author claims are "extra-legal missions."

In other words, using U.S. soldiers to kill or arrest Americans, acts that have been illegal since the U.S. Civil War.

This frightening news comes as Washington is gripped by reborn, Cold-War-style paranoia, ominous threats of war against Iran from the real president, Dick Cheney, and a titanic bureaucratic battle just won by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Instead of being fired for the grotesque military-political fiasco in Iraq and the shameful torture scandals, Rumsfeld has just managed to create a new, Pentagon spy/special ops organization, blandly named "Strategic Support Branch," that will replace or duplicate many of the CIA's tasks.

The CIA has been sent to the doghouse. Too many CIA veterans criticized or contradicted Bush's and Cheney's phony claims over Iraq and terrorism. So Bush has imposed a new, yes-man director on the agency, slashed its budgets, purged its senior officers, and downgraded CIA to third-class status.

Rumsfeld's new, massively funded SSB will become the Pentagon's CIA, complete with commando units, spies, mercenary forces, intelligence gathering and analysis, and a direct line to the White House. The Pentagon has just effectively taken over the spy business.

Used Terrorism Hysteria

Mind you, the Pentagon and its Defence Intelligence Agency have been deeply involved in intelligence around the globe for 50 years. U.S. Army intelligence and its covert sub-branches have long conducted "black ops," including missions in the U.S. as well as assassinations and sabotage abroad. The Pentagon consumes three-quarters of the total U.S. intelligence budget.

Rumsfeld has skillfully used terrorism hysteria to wrest control of intelligence and make the Pentagon supreme in Washington's bureaucratic power struggles.

The Pentagon's new spy arm will be largely excluded from Congressional oversight or media examination. Its special operations teams will roam the globe, all under cover of "deep black" missions of which no records will be kept, and no questions asked.

Equally worrying, the Pentagon's new special-ops units are headed up by notorious religious fanatic, Lt. Gen. William Boykin, who calls the U.S. Army "the house of God" and Islamic insurgents "agents of Satan." He warned Muslims, "my God is bigger than your god, which is an idol."

Boykin's command will now dispatch post-modern Christian crusaders to cleanse the world of Satanic Muslims and other miscreants. The Pentagon's new special forces will be able to run operations of which the CIA knows nothing.

The 9/11 Commission called for improved intra-agency co-operation and data sharing -- instead, the U.S. will get far less co-operation, as the Pentagon goes its own, secret way.

Now, George W. Bush, who clearly believes he holds the mandate of heaven after being re-elected by the less mentally active half of American voters, has decided to "unleash" special forces and all sorts of irregular units, including mercenaries, uniformed bounty hunters, and mutants sporting t-shirts proclaiming "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out." These militarized thugs and video arcade Rambos are sure to run amok, dragging America's once good name ever deeper into the mud.

We have evidently learned nothing from the wars in Indochina and Central America.

Have we reached Seven Days in May?

Not yet, but the second Bush administration has been taking dangerous steps that continue to curtail personal rights, further emasculate the supine, cowardly U.S. Congress, and empower ideological or religious extremists and shadowy agencies with unrestrained powers that endanger Americans at home, and all abroad suspected of troubling the Pax Americana.
--------

Eric Margolis is Contributing Foreign Editor to the Toronto Sun.

-------

Jump to today's TO Features:

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. t r u t h o u t has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is t r u t h o u t endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

Print This Story E-mail This Story






© : t r u t h o u t 2005
| t r u t h o u t | issues | environment | labor | women | health | voter rights | multimedia | donate | contact | subscribe |


www.truthout.org/docs_2005/020705Z.shtml

The US is doing exactly what Soviet Union did from Lenin and beyond, what north korea is doing what every single dictatorship has ever done - eliminate any freedoms.
the fact that an organization that supports Stalin and Mao - two of the biggest dictators is now claiming US is becoming more fascist is laughable at best.

i had a talk with an rcp-er before the elections and they were certain fascism was coming a day after the election. being paranoid as hell like this just makes leftists look even more stupid than they already are, and yes i am a leftist anarchist, but once you get out of your small clique that agrees with you, average people just look at you like a fuckin freek, and many times rightfully so.

ben has a really good understanding of fascism and how it came to power.

As a Republican, I am very happy that the RCP is so vocal. How odd! I actually agree with Mr. Anarchy himself, @.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. These are important
questions and all discussion is welcome.

> Is it just "compelling material interest"
> that leads the ruling class to install fascism,
> or is it more complicated than that?

99 percent of the complication lies in accurately
understanding the compelling material interest at
stake.

The changes we have seen since 9-11 (ie: the wars
in Afganistan and Iraq, the increasing repression
at home, the refusal of the Democratic Party to
lift a finger to oppose any of this) are a clear
reflection of the class interest of the bourgeoisie.

The Soviet Union collapsed. Now is the time for
U.S. imperialism to establish unrivalled hegemony
over the Middle East and the world's oil supply
in order to better compete against European
imperialism and what is left of Russian power
and to prepare for inevitable conflict with the
rising power of China. Oil is the most strategic
of commodities and control of the largest oil
reserves in the world (ie: permanent military
bases in the heart of the Middle East next to
Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc) will give
U.S. imperialism immense leverage for decades
against both India and China which need oil for
development.

But the bourgeoisie does not have a compelling
need for fascism at this time. Bush will push,
of course, but will not exceed the limits of
his leash. Bush is irritated at the confines
of his leash -- but if he failed to respect
this leash he would be bounced around like a
rubber ball.

The bourgeoisie has much to _lose_ by unleashing
fascism. I advanced three arguments in my essay
above. I repeat them here:

Such a desperate course of action by the bourgeoisie would:
(a) instantly politicize tens of millions of people,
(b) destablize the entire system of bourgeois rule and
(c) destroy illusions in the bourgeois political system
. that the bourgeoisie has carefully crafted and
. painstakingly cultivated over many decades.

We need to understand these arguments concretely.
A good start would be to recognize that they require
a reply.

> What about the Christian fundamentalists who are
> largely running the Pentagon? What about the purges
> of the CIA?

What about them? What do these things prove? Different
sections of the bourgeoisie will have squabbles with
one another. It is fine to be aware of these squabbles
but we should be careful not to exaggerate their
significance. The main thing to keep in mind -- is
that the bourgeoisie is united by its common class
interest -- and this common class interest requires
keeping society running in a smooth and stable way.
Fascism is notoriously unstable. Bourgeois class
interests are better served (under present circumstances)
by a system that keeps the majority of the population
complacent and under the illusion that they live in a
"democracy".

In my view, browser, your thinking tends to overlook
the fact that the bourgeoisie cannot rule by force
alone -- cannot rule without political deception.

If the Christian fundamentalists even thought about
slipping their leash -- they would be disciplined
and humiliated. The general who recently talked
about how much fun it is to kill people, for example,
was told to shut up. The bourgeoisie as a whole
(and in particular the section which specializes
in political deception -- the liberals) understands
that a ounce of political deception can be more
effective (and cheaper) than a ton of force -- and
that the fascist-minded who talk too loud must
have their mouths washed out with soap lest they
give the game away.

It is important to undertand how our society really
works and to understand that the bourgeoisie would
not be able to maintain their class rule for very
long without the effective use of political
deception. Understanding this will energize and
motivate activists -- because as we build a
conscious movement we will build with it an
increasing powerful weapon that will puncture the
political deception of the bourgeoisie.

And this will change everything.

> The distribution of the RCP paper is also
> something to take note of. It's not enough
> to put flyers up in hip bars and East Village
> bathrooms. People need to be thinking in the
> millions with everything they do.

Yes it is a very good thing that the RCP is
developing a machine that can distribute a
million leaflets independent of the mainstream
bourgeois media. But this cannot amount to much
if the RCP is unable to defend its views in forums
such as this one.

Finally, browser, since you have made the same post
in response to my article on Indymedia sites in
New York, Chicago, DC and Denver -- I will make it
easier for you if you want to expand your challenge.

I have posted on the following theads:

seattle.indymedia.org/en/2005/01/244358.shtml
portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/02/310064.shtml
la.indymedia.org/news/2005/02/122188.php
www.indybay.org/news/2005/02/1719881.php
sf.indymedia.org/news/2005/02/1710707.php
madison.indymedia.org/newswire/display/21620/index.php
houston.indymedia.org/news/2005/02/37243.php
colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/10161/index.php
boston.indymedia.org/newswire/display/33323/index.php
atlanta.indymedia.org/newswire/display/36407/index.php
buffalo.indymedia.org/display.php3
chicago.indymedia.org/newswire/display/52350/index.php
michiganimc.org/newswire/display/9305/index.php
dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/116938/index.php
nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/140883/index.php
cleveland.indymedia.org/news/2005/02/14568.php
www.phillyimc.org/article.pl

Go ahead. Reply to me elsewhere (I think that supporters
of the RCP may need a little help, if not adult supervision,
in Atlanta). I am in favor of wider discussion.

Sincerely and revolutionary regards,
Ben Seattle
struggle.net/ben

Ben:

Even though I am often at odds with the RCP, I think they are at least right to raise the danger of fascism and put it on the table. We can argue about its nature or how impending it is, but I agree the question is serious and worthy of more discussion.

As for your position. You say:

Query to Ben:

> What about the Christian fundamentalists who are
> largely running the Pentagon? What about the
> purges of the CIA?

You answer:

"What about them? What do these things prove? Different sections of the bourgeoisie will have squabbles with one another. It is fine to be aware of these squabbles but we should be careful not to exaggerate their significance. The main thing to keep in mind -- is that the bourgeoisie is united by its common class interest -- and this common class interest requires keeping society running in a smooth and stable way.

"Fascism is notoriously unstable. Bourgeois class
interests are better served (under present circumstances) by a system that keeps the majority of the population complacent and under the illusion that they live in a 'democracy'."

-----

My Point:

You belittle these divisions by referring to them as 'squabbles' that are more or less around all the time, while the class unity of the bourgeosie is fundamental. I think we need to look at each period of history concretely, in its own context first.

It's true that the bourgeosie prefers stability and, in most cases, bourgeois democratic forms of rule to mask their armed power--both the hangman and the priest, as Lenin said. They need both.

But I think you're missing two important points.

Part of the argument in the ruling circles at this point is precisely on the need for stability. the anti-Bush folks believe his unilateralist approach is bringing great instabilty to the world.

Which leads to the second point.

These 'squabbles' are taking place, not only within the US ruling class, but on a world scale. In the past, it was mainly between rival national bourgeosies, even if the bourgeosies in question spread their tentacles wide and had offices and plants in many countries.

But I would argue that there is something new on the rise, ie, a truly global capitalist class-in-the making, a force with no national loyalties. This rising global force finds itself in sharp conflict--not with every section of the US bourgeosie, since it has local representatives, here and in other countries--but mainly which the Bush hegemonists who still believe that this is their 'unipolarar moment,' rather than the more realistic view that this is a multipolar world.

This is why the like of Soros and other globalists worked so hard to defeat Bush, precisely because they see him and his particular sector of class forces, as a threat to the global stability they crave.

To defeat their effort to unseat him, Bush & Co. rallied the Christian Zionist right, which is now demanding advances on its own agenda, and posing threats to stability, both at home and abroad.

Therein lies the fascist danger. Not ready for a full fledged takeover imminently, but a danger we need to defeat nonetheless.

In brief, I think this is not the time to stress the 'unity' of the bourgeois' and to minimize their so-called 'squabbles.' A much different course and way of seeing thing is required at this time in our history.

Hi Carl,

Thanks for your reply. I believe it serves the movement to have our differences in the open.

> I would argue that there is something new on the rise,
> ie, a truly global capitalist class-in-the making,
> a force with no national loyalties.

This is an interesting analysis and it may even contain a particle or two of truth. However, George Soros notwithstanding, the bourgeoisie remains organized on a national basis and this is not going to substantially change within our lifetimes.

Lenin summed it up in his famous book on imperialism. National economies (and the ability to wage war) grow at an uneven rate and result in redivisions of hegemony over global resources (such as labor markets and petroleum). These redivisions sometimes take place without war -- but recourse to war is inevitable because there is no other way to determine, with certainty, which imperialist power is strong enough to win. The only way to end war is to overthrow the economic and political system of imperialism. And this means doing away with the class rule of the bourgeoisie. This is the bottom line and it will not be changed by fancy talk about the development of a global capitalist class. This notion was wrong when it was advanced by Karl Kautsky. Guess what? It is still wrong today.

> I think this is not the time to stress the 'unity'
> of the bourgeois' and to minimize their so-called
> 'squabbles.' A much different course and way of
> seeing thing is required at this time in our history.

For activists like you, Carl, there never is a good time to create clarity on the nature of our enemy.

I find it very enlightening that a social-democrat like you, Carl, defends the analysis of the RCP -- which holds that the fascist danger is so great that activists must give up a sober appraisal of the class interests and class forces which shape modern society and which enable Bush and company to carry our war abroad and to increase repression at home.

The bourgeoisie promotes the theory of "two power centers". The political trend of social-democracy (which is subservient to bourgeois interests) promotes the idea that we can ally ourselves to one of these power centers in order to defeat the other.

This is the biggest and oldest con game in the world.

This is the theory promoted by the Democratic Party and its army of reformist apologists. Instead of building a movement which is independent of bourgeois influence and oriented toward the working class, the reformists preach to us that we should unite with powerful forces who will supposedly help us "defeat Bush" if we only give up our independence and principles and allow ourselves to be blindfolded and lobotomised. This is the lie used by the Democratic Party to suck the life and militancy out of the antiwar movement.

My opposition to the main point of the RCP's leaflet (ie: the promotion of hysteria about impending fascism) was centered on the fact that this analysis tended to support the idea that we should unite with "powerful forces" to "defeat the fascist threat". The RCP did not spell this out in so many words. Nor does Carl spell it out in so many words. But this is Carl's line -- and it fits together with the RCP's line like two locking pieces of a jigsaw puzzle.

Ben Seattle
struggle.net/ben

See related article:
"How to build a powerful antiwar movement"
struggle.net/Ben/2005/0120-how-to.htm

Dear Ben:

You argue that the bourgeoisie remains organized on a national basis and this is not likely to change in our lifetime. You refer to Lenin's 'Imperialism' to back your argument up.

That's part of your problem, Ben. I've read Lenin's 'Imperialism' many times and it contains many fine lessons. But it was written more than 80 years ago, long before the recent revolution in the means of production, ie, the information revolution, that is assisting in the rise of the global capitalist class. In brief, things have changed a bit, Ben, and if you want to understand what's going on today, you have to supplement Lenin with a more up-to-date analysis. If he were around, that's certainly what he would do.

I figured you would come back with Kautsky and the theory of 'Ultra-imperialism.' That doesn't bother me; it might do us all well to take another look at some of his arguments. Just because he was wrong on the Russian revolution and WW1 doesn't mean everything he said was trash, especially in view of how the Soviet project eventually turned out. Even Lenin refered to him as a major theoretician at an earlier point, although Lenin certainly trashed the ultra-imperialism line, and rightly so, for his period.

But even so, I would suggest some of the more modern bourgeois writers like Wriston, Stiglitz or Svieby might help get you up to date with what's going on in the world today. Otherwise, just to limit ourselves to re-reading Lenin, we're left with the prognosis of a new round of inter-imperialist war, say, between the US and France? Or Russia? I don't think so.

You want us to be independent of the Democrats and become more oriented to the working class. But what does this mean, concretely? It's can't mean to adopt the views of most of the white workers, since they went for Bush. It can't mean most of the minority workers, since they went for Kerry. It can't mean the workers' organizations, the unions, since they are firmly connected to the Democrats, with some playing footsie with the GOP. It can't be the various socialist groups in the US, since you think they're all social-democratic or revisionist sellouts.

So it means one of two things. You have a metaphysical conception of what the working class, ie, sort of like Plato's forms, that we need to orient ourselves to. Or we need to orient ourselves to the true expression of the class line represented by the works of Ben Seattle. Thanks, but no thanks on both counts.

I do agree that we need to develop our own analysis, strategy and tactics for the mass struggles that are a counter-hemononic project not only to oppose the Democrats, but to replace them with a new organization that a majority of workers and others among the masses would see as their own. I would like it to reflect the market socialist ideas in Schweickart's book, 'After capitalism' for starters. And, finally on this score, I'm hardly a social-democrat; if you want to pin an old label on me, try neo-Bukharianite Gramscian revisionist instead. It's more accurate.

You probablt know where our views can be found, but in case others are interested, try

www.cyrev.net and
www.solidarityeconomy.net

But all this is beside the point initially raised, the current danger of fascism. I tried to take it seriously and suggest why it is rising at this time. I agree some of the RCP stuff is more than a bit hyper. But besides some old dogmas, you don't have much new and concrete to say, which would be much more interesting to hear from you about. I've read many of your works, appreciate some of them, and know you can do better.

Have you studied the new Christian fascists? What do you think of them? Can we just pooh-pooh and ignore them and aim our main blow at the liberals? Or do we have to counter them in some way, especially since they have some foothold in the working class?

All this is much more interesting than getting in a pissing match about who can better quote the classics written 80 to 160 years ago, which I can do just as well as you, but in the end is quite boring.

Seriously, Ben, let's try to get this discussion on a better level.

Hi Carl and everyone,

I will keep this short.

I added a section to my page at struggle.net/Ben/2005/rcp_cries_wolf.htm which shows 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. This treachery is really aimed at transforming the antiwar movement into a pro-war movement. Carl may not understand this even though he is now an instrument of this treachery because years of involvement with Democratic Party politics have destroyed much of the integrity and backbone that he may have once had.

Carl writes as though I am only concerned with matters 80 years ago. The simple truth is that I oppose the efforts of the flunkies of the Democratic Party, today, to liquidate the antiwar movement.

If Carl is sincere about continuing this discussion he is welcome to join the pof-200 email list which I maintain. The pof-200 list is focused on the crisis of theory that has paralyzed the revolutionary movement as well as other tasks which are decisive in the struggle to overthrow bourgeois rule. The pof-200 list allows all subscribers to post once a week.

More about the list can be found at: MediaWeapon.com

Currently the list includes about 70 subscribers. I would like to see the list include experienced activists with a range of political views. I would also like to see Carl on this list because I am working to help activists on the list to better understand the nature and results of reformist treachery. Carl would be a perfect example. I can tell Carl that, despite his treachery and the fact that his actions serve the bourgeoisie, he will be treated with respect on the pof-200 list. This is a reasonable and appropriate compromise since Carl's participation on the list would help subscribers there better understand the nature of our enemy.

Ben Seattle -- February 13, 2005
struggle.net/ben

Where in the world did you get this claim, Ben? I have consistently supported opposing the Iraq war, opposing any troops there and certainly not adding more, and voting against any funding for it, let alone any increases. I can't speak for everything Hayden has said, since I'm not familar with everything he has said, but did you get this claim about me from some third party or just make it up?

If we observe how Ben bashes CD for not being "radical" enough, then we shouldn't be surprised why the Right is winning elections.

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.]

出会い出会い系出会い系サイト出会い喫茶出会い掲示板ナンパ出会いカフェ人妻出会い無料系サイト優良出会い系攻略完全無料。アダルトビデオアダルト動画アダルトアニメアダルト画像アダルトサイト無料DVDアダルト風俗サンプル無料風俗優良アダルトサイト比較海外。人妻画像人妻パラダイス知合い人妻援護会人妻SMコレクション風俗告白。熟女画像東京熟女掲示板動画熟女ビデオおまんこオナニー。エロ画像エロフラッシュアニメエロ動画エロゲームエロ漫画無料エロサイト。エッチ画像エッチ動画エッチ小説写真エッチアニメエッチ0930。セックスアナルセックス画像セックス動画カーセックスセックスフレンドスワッピングSEX写真セックスボランティセックス体位東京セックス仕方SEX。おっぱい画像おっぱい村長おっぱい楽園掲示板おっぱい命おっぱいゲーム。巨乳動画巨乳画像アイドル巨乳掲示板風俗。セフレ募集セフレ掲示板セフレ画像掲示板セフレの作り方出会い無料素人セフレ。童貞狩りエロ漫画童貞狩り童貞喪失童貞オークション素人童貞逆援。不倫パートナー不倫出会い人妻不倫