Strategy, Hegemony & 'The Long March'

STRATEGY, HEGEMONY
& THE ‘LONG MARCH’:

GRAMSCI’S LESSONS
FOR THE ANTIWAR MOVEMENT



By Carl Davidson

As we enter the fourth year of the war on Iraq, our grassroots antiwar movement faces a critical political conjuncture, here and abroad. How we respond to it means a great deal, most importantly to the people of Iraq, but also to all Americans touched by this unjust war.

There are four main factors of this turning point.

-- First, the U.S. invasion of Iraq is floundering, stalemated, and drifting toward defeat – but in a horrible way unleashing all the fury of sectarian violence and slaughter, and, beyond Iraq, a ‘Clash of Civilizations’ throughout the region that serves no one but reactionary zealots on all sides.

-- Second, the American people, in their majority, have turned against the war. Likewise, although not by exactly the same numbers, the American soldiers fighting the war in Iraq have also, in their majority, seen the futility of their mission and want to return home by the end of 2006, if not sooner.

-- Third, the American political class is more deeply divided than ever. The antiwar factions are emerging in the entire range – left, center and right – and are gaining in strength. A significant section of the Pentagon has even turned on the war policy of the White House, even if its rules of discipline require it to find others to serve as its voice.

-- Fourth, the critical leadership factions of the American political class–the GOP alliances making up the Bush administration and the DLC caucus in the Democratic Party–are still determined, however, to continue the war. They simply have greater fear of the cost of defeat now than the prospect of even greater defeat in the future. They are like an addicted gambler, still hoping that by ‘staying the course’ in the game and doubling their bets, they can regain their losses, if not come home winners.

The problem for the rest of us is that their deluded thinking is the cause of untold suffering.

But how can an unjust war be ended?

Apart from what happens in Iraq and the stubbornness of the White House, it requires three things:

-- First the antiwar insurgency has to expand, with majority support, until the streets are ungovernable.

-- Second, the antiwar views among soldiers and their families have to intensify to the point that young people refuse to join and soldiers refuse to fight.

-- Third, the antiwar bloc in Congress, which will grow in response to the growth of the first two, has to become a majority that will vote to cut off funds for the war, impeach the president, or both.

Our problem, as a grassroots peace and justice movement, is to develop an appropriate strategy, tactics and plan for getting from here to there.


Militant Minority, Decisive Majority

It won’t be easy. It’s one thing to mobilize the militant minority of activists, even a million of them, for another vigil, rally or mass action. It’s quite another to activate and mobilize the antiwar majority of everyday folks who have yet to take part in their first active protest. It’s one thing to get a union local, or labor council, or even the AFL-CIO to pass a resolution against the war. It’s quite another to organize workers to ‘hot cargo’ war munitions, realistically threaten a mass strike or even break with pro-war Democrats. It’s one thing to organize a small ‘Out Now’ caucus in Congress or get your city council to oppose the war. It’s quite another to develop the independent, grassroots electoral organization and strength needed to defeat the pro-war leadership of both parties or to impeach a president.

The common thread in all of these examples is the varying degrees of political understanding and commitment. The militant minority is in one place, while the antiwar majority is in another. It’s important to keep both places in mind when developing strategy and tactics. It does little good, for instance, to complain that we’re tired of vigils and marching, that they don’t do any good, when most of those now critical of the war have not yet gone to a vigil or rally. There’s no iron wall separating the two places, but it’s critically important to accurately assess both, especially if the links and transitions between them are to grow in a progressive, empowering way.

In short, just because a set of tactics or beliefs has become obsolete for you and your friends, doesn’t mean those same tactics or beliefs are also obsolete for the bulk of the country’s antiwar majority. In fact, the opposite is usually true.

So how does the passive sentiment of the majority against the war grow into active opposition? One thing is certain: it usually doesn’t happen because the militant minority increases the intensity of its rhetoric, the frequency of its media outreach or the militancy of its tactics. All these things play a role, but the main way new people become radicalized is the same way many of us did. They learn through their experiences, mainly through their experiences in carrying out mass actions or confronting institutions of power. We have all felt, in this kind of practice, the surge of solidarity, the widening of possibilities, and the potential for empowerment and changing an unjust order.

Our task, then, in the first place, is to listen to the antiwar majority, to learn how they frame the issues and express their concerns and priorities. Then, in the second place, we work with them to find the forms of protest and struggle most suited to their conditions and concerns, and work with them to deploy this new activity. People won’t take to the streets because the militant minority declares profusely that going through legislative or electoral channels is ineffective – they take to the streets because they learn, first hand through their own experiences, that legislative and electoral channels alone are ineffective. This way we bring forward new layers of practice that will provide the lesson plans for new levels of consciousness and radicalization.

A Long March Through the Institutions

There’s a name for this process. It’s called ‘the long march through the institutions.’ The phrase is often attributed the Italian communist and anti-fascist leader, Antonio Gramsci. While entirely consistent with Gramsci’s work, the term was actually coined and popularized in the late1960s by Rudi Dutschke, a leader and theoretician of the German SDS and founder of the German Greens, who had studied Gramsci’s work.

Both Gramsci and Dutschke focused on the problem of working in a revolutionary or radical way when conditions were not insurrectionary or revolutionary, but when reformist or even reactionary conditions prevailed. Gramsci spent many years writing in Mussolini’s prisons, where harsh conditions took a toll on his health. He died under confinement in 1937. Dutschke was severely wounded by an would-be assassin’s bullet to his brain. He continued working for several years, but died young in 1979 from the damage of the wound.

Both Gramsci and Dutschke argued that radical social change in highly developed societies would be the result of long, patient organizing inside and outside of key institutions, and not simply or primarily a quick, frontal assault through mass actions. This is Dutschke’s long march through the institutions, what Gramsci called the ‘war of position,’ a concept we’ll come to later.

In many ways, ‘the long march’ is already reflected in how our current antiwar movement has grown over the past four years. It started with small but insurgent actions centered in towns, cities, campuses and neighborhoods. It proclaimed opposition to impending war and captured a portion of public space, breaking a fear of public dissent in the post-9/11 period. Petitions were signed, email lists multiplied, and soon local churches and local city councils began passing resolutions against the onset of war. These efforts were linked into wider and larger actions and mass mobilizations, nationally and globally. Some took the issue to the trade unions; others to Congress where they formed a small antiwar bloc; still others to churches and community groups, often winning them over from the bottom up. In the 2004 elections, independently of the party organizations, many activists also trained election workers and registered massive numbers of new voters. More city councils again voted against the war, after it was well underway. Iraq vets and their families formed organizations.

At each step, what happens here is a portion of public space and the organizations of civil society and governing bodies are won over, ‘captured’ or simply express their solidarity with the antiwar opposition. In doing so, these same institutions, starting at the grassroots and working upwards, are then denied to the War Party and its defenders. Naturally, there are lots of forces in between, still in contested areas. But step-by-step, campaign by campaign, we expand the building of a counter-consensus, while the Bush regime’s consensus, such as it is, begins unraveling. This is the ‘long march’ and, to use the Gramscian language, it builds the counter hegemonic bloc to break up the political hegemony of our adversaries, and to accomplish our goals with a new, empowered, broad-based insurgent alliance.

War of Position, War of Maneuver

‘The long march,’ however, doesn’t proceed in a straight line or at a steady speed. Any mass insurgency is full of twists and turns, ebbs and flows. Sometimes changes are very rapid; other times they move at a snail’s pace. Gramsci dealt with this condition by advancing two concepts, ‘the war of position’ and ‘the war of maneuver.’ In doing so in the early 1920s, he was drawing on the powerful memories of ‘The Great War,’ or World War One, as we now call it. One of the first fully industrialized modern conflicts, it featured a long standoff between two sides, where they dug extensive networks of trenches and barriers, filled them with millions of troops, and kept them supplied through the growth of war industries in the rear. Building your strength this way was ‘the war of position.’ But when your troops climbed ‘over the top’ out of their trenches and made a frontal assault on the other side, this was ‘the war of maneuver.’

The concepts of ‘position’ and ‘maneuver’ could be either strategic or tactical. One could try to secure a series of entrenched strongholds, while still launching an overall strategic offensive, as in, say, the D-Day invasion of Normandy. Or, conversely, one could focus strategically on building a secure area, while still launching forays to eliminate or capture small groups of the other side, as both the Chinese and Vietnamese did in the early phases of ‘people’s war.’ Either way you look at it – in modern politics or modern warfare – capturing, holding, consolidating key positions and then exercising power depends on effectively waging the war of position.

Gramsci developed these ideas, first, by studying how the Italian fascists had gradually built their strength and come to power, and second, by trying to find ways successfully to fight them. Essentially, he took these military concepts and expanded their implications into the arenas of politics, culture and ideology. On one hand, he wanted to counter a one-sided ultra-leftism that stressed a head-on ‘class vs. class’ offensive. On the other, he opposed a capitulationist reformism that failed to develop the strength and vision of the working people and their grassroots organizations.

Gramsci also recognized the necessity of an ‘inside/outside’ approach to building a counter-hegemonic bloc. In addition to building new up independent, grassroots organizations outside traditional groups, a movement for radical change will only be successful if it also wages a long, careful war of position inside key economic, social, cultural and political institutions. A movement’s ultimate success will depend on its capacity to contend for power and hegemony, in an incremental, step-by-step fashion, inside key institutions while concurrently developing independent, grassroots organizations, or base communities.

Significance for Today

What are the implications of these ideas for us? First, from this strategic perspective, a number of traditional and often divisive debates—mass direct action vs. electoral or legislative activity, civil disobedience vs. legal protest, working within the two capitalist parties vs. working only for third parties or no parties, working only with one class or working with all classes—need not be seen as mutually exclusive options. In fact, their possible interconnections gain importance. Second, they give us a positive vision of how a mosaic of local constituencies and groups can grow into an instrument of popular political power.

Setting the growth of a counter-hegemonic alliance as a mile marker also serves to measure how far we have come and, more important, how far we still have to go. It compels us both to maintain our vision and to make utterly realistic assessments of conditions and our tasks.

For example, to address a question raised earlier, why has a majority of Americans expressed sentiment and opinion against the war, yet only a small minority has taken action against it? A critical reason is how the power of the hegemony of the current order is still reflected in their consciousness, keeping them isolated and divided. They may hate the war, but they believe they are powerless to do anything about it. Mass belief in powerlessness and the disconnectedness of individuals or small groups is required for the upper classes to maintain their hegemony. Some others may hate the war, but for reasons that are self-sabotaging. They may believe all Muslims are less than human, forever violent toward one another, and the whole bunch not worth a drop of blood of one more American soldier. Still others may hate the war, but fear ostracism for betrayal of the nation or religious faith, of being anti-patriotic, anti-Christian or anti-Jewish.

Each of these hegemonic elements in the thinking of the antiwar majority needs to be identified, exposed, neutralized and defeated. It requires a popular and democratic practice. From the perspective of individual people, it is important to provide them with opportunities for new experiences involving collective effort. In doing so, winning or losing this or that campaign is not nearly as important as gaining the experience of solidarity, of widening one’s experience beyond familiar comfort zones. To do so, one must frame campaigns or activities that require the new activist to stretch a bit, but not so much that remaining passive wins the day.

But even more important is winning over a critical range of the institutions of civil society. The power of the existing order is mediated, to a large degree, through these institutions. Gramsci wrote:

The massive structure of modern democracies... set themselves up as the trenches and permanent fortification of the front in the war of position: they render the element of movement, which before was the 'whole' war, only 'partial.’ (Prison Notebook 13, Essay 7)

If the War Party’s power is to be challenged effectively, it has to be undermined in civil society first, prior to any frontal assault. Since institutions are rarely won over all at once, they must also be challenged with new organizations created within their milieu, especially at the most basic levels.

A local Iraq Vets Against the War or Military Families Speak Out does wonders to undermine fear, isolation and jingoism in the military and the wider social base of the military-industrial complex among the people. Likewise for local churches: they provide social and moral authority, not only when they speak out themselves, but also when they build interfaith alliances, especially with Muslims. These are the experiences that challenge and undermine the ‘clash of civilizations’ notions reinforcing the prevailing hegemony.

Schools, workplace organizations, community groups, local political clubs, cultural and media venues – all are part of this contested terrain that the anti-war movement must win over if it is serious about moving from protest to power.

A good strategic orientation for this period, then, is the ‘war of position’ to build popular power. In culture, in the political arena, in economic life, we work to establish ourselves and accumulate strength, while disestablishing and weakening our adversaries. We start with building grassroots ‘base communities’ in insurgent constituencies, building organizations and coalitions outward and upward, in widening circles, into new constituencies that are not yet insurgent. At the same time, the anti-war movement needs to contend for power and influence inside key institutions, including the Democratic and Republican Parties.

The ‘war of maneuver,’ however, is required to make this process dynamic. In this context, this is comprised of the periodic ‘speaking truth to power’ mass mobilizations, direct actions and civil disobedience confrontations. These are both displays of the growing influence and creativity of the counter-hegemonic alliance, as well as a means for drawing in new forces.

One thing to keep in mind as the anti-war movement moves forward is something that Gramsci wrote cautioning that the war of position ‘… demands enormous sacrifices…’ and ‘… an unheard of concentration of hegemony… because, in politics once the ‘war of position’ is won, it is definitively decisive.’ (Prison Notebook 6, Essay 138)

Broader Alliances, Electoral Capacity

In the period ahead, then, we face two major tasks in the war of position: broadening our alliances for mass action and developing our capacity for electoral intervention. The two need not be opposed to each other, but are interconnected and enhance each other.

A case in point on the importance of new alliances is the recent upsurge in mass protests focused on the rights of immigrants, bringing nearly a million people into the streets in several cities. This is clearly an insurgent constituency with a great deal of potential for political power. Immigrant rights are also connected to the question of war and peace, since many of the new restrictions on immigrant rights are being tied to national security and ‘the war of terror.’ The same ‘America First’ jingoism is used to justify both, and many peace and justice groups have taken up the defense of democratic rights for Arab and Muslim immigrants from the beginning.

It would be a mistake, however, to see widening the alliance to other nationalities as automatic or taken for granted. Even though a considerable majority of this constituency is antiwar, it also has a sector that has yet to break with the war. Latinos are disproportionately represented, for instance, among military recruits and casualties in Iraq. Polish, Irish and Asian immigrant communities may also have different views of the war than Latin Americans.

Nor can these alliances be made simply from the top down. Of course it helps to adjust your slogans and speakers, and get endorsements from national organizations and leaders. But most important is building relationships and finding common ground, on the most local level possible, at the grassroots. This is where it counts most for accumulating strength and mobilizing forces.

From Protest to Power

A more difficult transition is getting local peace and justice groups to develop an electoral capacity. A critical component here is a nonpartisan and local, bottom-up orientation. Community based organizations develop their electoral capacity by registering new voters, developing lists of voters and where they stand on issues, getting their own donors and campaign chests, making assessments of officials and candidates, training their members as registrars, judges, poll watchers and other forms of electoral work. Nonpartisan means, in part, that this capacity belongs to the group itself, and not to the local branch or district of any political party. This way, on Election Day, the group has the ability to mobilize and deploy its own clout for whatever candidates or ballot propositions it chooses, if any.

This is not only important as an instrument of independent popular democracy. It also serves as a pole of attraction for more moderate forces within the two-party system, who would be more likely to break from the dominant political class if they had something to break toward and form an alliance with.

Another dimension of ‘nonpartisan’, moreover, is that none of those groups or individuals joining the alliance has to break, necessarily or immediately, with their current parties. Initially, they only have to break with the policies and programs we are challenging and contesting.

The nonpartisan alliance is a necessary starting point precisely because our country is currently saddled with a reactionary two-party electoral system, the worse in the industrialized world. The left and progressive movements have yet to create a mass struggle for electoral law reform, one that would establish instant runoff, fusion, preferential balloting and proportional representation. All these things are taken for granted in other capitalist countries of the West.

If you have these, you can make a multiparty system. If you don't, you're pretty much stuck with what we have -- a two-party system with a little safety valve that allows for marginalized minor parties as long as they remain minor and toothless. The third parties, under this setup, are thus usually part of the social control mechanism, too.

But the ball is in our court. It does little good to attack progressive elected officials simply for being within the two-party system without making an effective challenge to those conditions.

There's still another factor restricting progressive electoral options, although it is often unmentioned. Many progressive activists have been bought off, in a way, by 501C3 tax status. One of the first things said when starting a new group is often: 'Let's get a 501C3 and apply for a grant!' Fine, but what are the terms? Two things: your newly funded group has to agree not to support any candidate and not to support any particular ballot proposition. In other words, in effect, the IRS is indirectly funding an anti-electoral, anarcho-syndicalist approach to change among nonprofit, nongovernmental organizations.

Of course, there are ways around this by going through additional hurdles. But many don’t. They often say, 'Well it’s too involved, and we don't care that much about candidates and parties anyway.' But that's just the point. They've boxed you in, even if some like the box. You’re restricted to simple oppositionism.

Alternatively, if the approach outlined in this essay sounds like a plan for creating the building blocks of a new political formation—one that is popular, democratic and participatory—then you’ve got the right idea. This is what it means to move from protest to politics to power, from being an antiwar opposition to a counter-hegemonic force. Not only does it create the conditions for wider, systemic change, it is also arguably the most effective way to win a particular victory, such as ending the war and occupation in Iraq.

***

Carl Davidson is a co-author of ‘Stopping War, Seeking Justice: Essays in a Time of Empire’ (with Marilyn Katz) and ‘Cyberradicalism: A New Left for a Global Age’ (with Jerry Harris). Both are available at www.lulu.com/changemaker. He is also one of the founders of Chicagoans Against War and Injustice, as well as Peace & Justice Voters 2004. Read more!

Debating the 'Cartoon Wars'

Here's a condensed version of a week-long debate in mid February over the Danish anti-Islamic cartoons and the protests against them.

It started with a few comments on the Workers World Party position, then turned into a debate between myself and a few Trotskyists, with a few other comments added in. The main substantive comments were left in in their entirity, while a few side issues and gratuitous comments were left out.

The entire thread is at the www.nyc.indymedia.org site Five asterisks ***** separate one persons comments from the next and, save for myself, most people sign their posts with 'handles' rather than their real names.

Carl Davidson

*****

Starting Point

Workers World EDITORIAL
Denmark's racist cartoons
Published Feb 16, 2006

Text of Editorial

'Outrage continues throughout the world in response to the offensive, hate-mongering caricatures of the Muslim prophet Mohammad that were published first in the Danish publication Jyllands-Posten and later in newspapers around the world. Just between Feb. 9 and Feb. 14, protests were reported in Bangladesh, Canada, Kenya, Malaysia, Pakistan and Russia. A demonstration is scheduled for New York City on Feb. 17.

Throughout history, cartoons and illustrations have been used to demonize oppressed groups of people, from Jews in Nazi Germany to people of color-Native, Black, Latin@ and Asian-in the United States. Such depictions have simultaneously been a reflection of, and an attempt to justify, governmental policies of discrimination, exploitation and repression toward those people. And often the capitalist media joyfully assists.

In true form, reactionary government officials in imperialist countries have responded to the outcry surrounding the recent caricatures by whipping up even more animosity and hatred. Italy's Reform Minister Roberto Calderoli has produced t-shirts of the drawings; Reuters reports that leaders of his organization, the anti-immigrant Northern League party, 'say the cartoon violence shows the danger of allowing Muslim immigrants to settle in Italy.' In another article, Reuters paraphrased U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Europe Dan Fried, who said in Brussels on Feb. 14 'that the United States and Europe should respond to the row ... by intensifying efforts to nurture Middle East reform'-a euphemism for regime change.

Fried also told the press: 'Governments don't tell or shouldn't tell newspapers what to publish. In free societies newspapers work this out for themselves.' He seems to have so quickly forgotten the case of former New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who was spoon-fed fabrications to justify the war in Iraq by none other than Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political strategist.

Hand-in-hand with their governments, media outlets ... continue to unapologetically publish these images under the banner of 'free speech'-that is, freedom for the wealthy who control the capitalist media to put out whatever biased, racist, pro-imperialist propaganda suits their agenda...
The continuing protest over this injustice by Muslim followers and anti-racists is not just a response to the current images-it's a response to the collusion of imperialist governments with the media, time and time again, in seeking to legitimize oppression over resistance. What's clear is that more and more of the world isn't buying it.'

End Editorial

Add your comments

*****

In Solidarity


The issues here are imperialism and capitalism, not religion or 'free speech.'

Not 'free speech' for two reasons. One, because when one considers it, the only significant political speech in the USA is reserved for the few who control or own large media. Two, the First Amendment is a restriction on state powers over personal political expression and not on groups of concerned private citizens and residents going out and expressing outrage over some outrage.

The events in Europe are definitely a reaction to the chauvinist racist demogogery of the ruling elites there trying to stir up the waters, to cover their war criminal terrorist crimes, both present and future (planned).

Although, I will not be out for your demo for various reasons, don't let anyone discourage you from acting. Of course we must go beyond mere symbolic demos and take the war to the criminals themselves, where they live and sleep. We must also set the stage for the replacement of both them and their racist criminal political and economic order. Earth is no longer large enough for the both of us. They must go.

Concerning your demo, way to go! Don't let anyone tell you different.

*****

What Would You Have the Danes Do?

Carl Davidson

So what would you have the Danish and other Western governments do, WWP? Demand that they shut down the offending newspapers? Create a state-run censorship board for prior review of materials for hate speech? Put the editors on trial for publishing unpopular or hateful ideas and jail them if found guilty?

Be careful what you wish for. There's a slippery slope here that could trip up many newspaper publishers, including your own.

The First amendment, after all, wasn't insisted upon by early American radicals to protect popular or acceptable speech, which doesn't need much protecting. It's unpopular and unacceptable speech that needs protecting, and more often than not, that benefits the left more than the right.

*****

oh yeah...

the burningman

1) Denmark has a state Lutheran church, paid for by everyone whether they believe it or now. They include Christian indoctrination in their public schools and have a cross on their national flag. Denmark is not fully secular.

2) They are an imperialist country that regularly denigrates the people they profit from. These cartoons do not mock religion as such, just the religion of those 'inferior' to the 'enlightened' Danes.

3) Denmark is currently helping with the colonization of two predominantly Muslim countries and has the most vicious anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim (as opposed to anti-religion) governments in Europe.

4) I'm sure Carl will be running the complete Amos and Andy, along with Howard Stern highlights. Free speech, dude.

5) The right-wing assholes who published those cartoons do not represent Denmark. They aren't the Danes anymore than George Bush is us.

I'm not surprised Carl returns to his usual mishmash of imperial chauvinism, half-hearted leftism and total myopia about what's actually being discussed. Not at all really. He equates the Palestinian right of return with the physical extermination of Jewish people. (Really.)

*****


Why No Answer?

Carl Davidson

It's interesting, Burningman, that despite all the rhetoric, neither you nor anyone else answered my question -- what exactly would you have the Danish government do to the publishers of the cartoons? Put them on trial and jail them? Shut down their newspapers? Would you want similiar legal and/or administrative measures passed here?

The Danes as an imperialist power? I suppose so. They used to own the Virgin Islands, the Faroes and still take a hand in running Greenland, make a small contribution to NATO and are part of the ever-dwindling 'coalition of the willing' in Iraq.

But the Danish MLs, at a Maoist Red Youth summer camp I attended back in the 1970s, used to have a chant about prowess of their army. It went something like, 'What do our soldiers do? Keep the enemy soldiers laughing until real soldiers arrive!' I'm told it was very funny in Danish.

I'm as steadfast and determined an organizer against the Bush regime and the war in Iraq as anyone, BM, even if we disagree about what's possible or not in Israel/Palestine. No handwringing liberal in this corner.

Nor am I anti-religious. I don't care for the three religions of The Book, since I think the Story of Abraham and God's ordering him to kill his son, a point of faith that the three all hold in common, is the root of both fanaticism and blind submission to authority in our overlapping cultures.

But I am a student of Zen and The Way, and find much to admire in liberation theology and the contribution people like the Quakers made to the struggle against slavery. As Marx so poetically put it, religious belief was the sigh of the oppressed creature and the heart of a heartless world, as well as opium for the masses.

But mostly I also understand the value of consistent democracy and civil liberty, even if it means tilting in the direction of the liberatarians. We surrender these propositions to the right at great peril to ourselves, believe me.

*****

Since you asked...

Hoipolloi Cassidy


'What exactly would you have the Danish government do to the publishers of the cartoons?'

The liberal-democratic (Lockean) theory of government holds that the Danish government should mediate among the competing interests of its constituents - and that the Jyllands-Posten, the newspaper that published the cartoons, has represented certain such interests, which it has. In fact, the Jyllands-Posten has represented the interests of Danish fascism, on and off, for almost a century. Because the swing votes in the Danish Parlement are held by the xenophobic far right, the J-P has been enboldened to exert tremendous pressure on the Danish Government to take repressive measures against middle-eastern immigrants and Danes of middle-eastern descent, of which the 'cartoon' episode is only one instance. Other such forms of pressure have included unsubstantiated accusations of terrorist plotting by muslims residing in Denmark.

Eventually, the representatives of Danish muslims, who were unable to stop the escalating provocations on their own, sought help among fellow Muslims, with the results that we all know, except that we seem less concerned with some results than with others. 'Cutting off the hands of the infidels?' Yadda, yadda, the real problem for the Danish government is the boycott of Danish goods throughout the Muslim World, and we're not talking Leggos, honey, we're talking of a huge dairy industry (mostly fake Feta, BTW) which had already projected losing 1,000 jobs within the first weeks of the boycott, and there's no end in sight. Kiss your cradle-to-grave social system good-bye, Bjorn. The irony here (or lack thereof), is that the Danes most likely to suffer from this are the fat farmers of Jutland, the ones who've been supporting the Far Right in Denmark anyhow.

Last I heard, the Danish Government was in negotiations with a couple of middle-eastern governments. Presumably the White Danes (as they style themselves) will offer to lay off the Other Danes, in exchange for which the Syrians and others will order everyone to buy Leggos. At this point, I don't think there's any chance of an agreement, because protests against the cartoons have become an outlet for a far wider, deeper resentment of Eurocentric high-handedness by muslims world-wide: you can order demonstrators into the street but you can't order them back home again that easily, especially not if they have reasons of their own.

Hope this answers your question.

*****

Some points

rose of the prophet

- None of the posters supporting this call have yet to answer what the Danish government should do with newspapers they consider fascist or racist.

- Not only fascist and racist newspapers have 'unapologetically' republished the cartoons. You can download the entire cartoon page on the fascist and racist Wikipedia.

- The boycott of Danish goods, happening primarily in the gulf states, does not mean that a similar boycott over the occupations of Iraq and Palestine or the potential invasion of Iran could work in the same way.

- Death threats towards the cartoonists, including today's promise of a one million dollar death bounty from a Pakistani cleric, continue to spiral out of control.

- In Iran the Danish pastry has been renamed 'Roses of the Prophet' proving that Islamists and Neocons love danish pastries and french fries so much that they will convert them to their respective belief systems to continue eating them.

See The Cartoons For Yourself

*****

What should Denmark do?

Leon Trotsky

The answer is so obvious that it illuminates the intellectual poverty of the fake-left chauvinists posing this question.

* Withdraw its troops from Iraq, stop aiding the US/UK 'war on terror', & pay reparations to its victims
* Grant full citizenship rights to all immigrants
* Eliminate Lutheranism as a state religion

Of course capitalist, imperialist Denmark will never do this, neither will any imperialist power. Only socialist revolution can solve humanity's burning crises.

*****

Think this over, folks...

Carl Davidson

The Daily Illini, the student paper at the University of Illinois, also printed the cartoons. The staff later made an apology, but is that enough? Should this paper be shut down and its editors put on trial for hate speech and jailed if convicted too? Where do you really want to go with this, folks?

*****

Revisionist Carl's Red Herrings

Leon Trotsky

Revisionist Carl Davidson, who substantially reflects the political orientation of the national-chauvinist clique that runs UFPJ, keeps throwing red herrings because he swallows the bourgeois propaganda that this is about 'free speech'. It's about imperialism, and the racist, chauvinist hate campaigns that are needed to sell imperialist wars to the public. The fact is that a minor college newspaper has joined in with it's big brother capitalist newspapers in a major campaign of racist propaganda against victims of imperialist war. And real socialists, unlike revisionists, say that muslims and their allies are right to demand that this hate propaganda campaign stop.

*****

What if?

What if?

I find Workers' World to be offensive. They should self censor themselves and close shop.

While the cartoons may be distasteful, it is still free speech. I know, I know, 'should we let fascist publish their hate fueled papers?' Well, frankly, yes. But we should meet them with stiff resistance. Censorship of any sort is unjust. Now, I know how you folks at Workers' World have all the answer and that anyone who disagrees with you should be censored. And in your perfect world, your little vanguard would have your Committee for Proper Revolutionary Rhetoric and Speech so none of those 'anti-revolutionary' ideas get out there. But guess what. You don't. What if a fascist party took control of the U.S. (a real fascist party, not the republicans) and shut down Workers' World, you guys would be up in arms about how that is unjust. Well, the world is filled with many ideas and, while some are just downright shitty, whose right is it to say what can be said and what can't.

Another thing that really bothers me is that so many people here are standing up for the religious 'establishment'. While people are free to believe how they wish, it is irresponsible not to look at the ills of ALL organized religions. Pat Robertson calls for Hugo Chavez's assasination and everyone throws a tiff. Muslim clerics are calling for the death of the artists and people are fine with that? Religion has been a cause for death, war and inequality for centuries. To ignore that, or condone it for one religion and not the other, is ridiculous. I guess what I'm saying is, get rid of organized religion all together. The world would better without it.

*****

More Artful Dodging...

Carl Davidson

Well, 'LeonT,' I would urge people to stop printing cartoons like this, too, if they asked my opinion. I would offer it even if they didn't ask.

I favor the deconstruction of stereotypes, especially chauvinist ones, as part of my spiritual practice of 'right speech,' 'deep listening,' and putting yourself in the other guy's shoes as a way of seeking liberation and spreading compassion.

You argue that:

'The answer is so obvious that it illuminates the intellectual poverty of the fake-left chauvinists posing this question.

* Withdraw its troops from Iraq, stop aiding the US/UK 'war on terror', & pay reparations to its victims

* Grant full citizenship rights to all immigrants

* Eliminate Lutheranism as a state religion

Of course capitalist, imperialist Denmark will never do this, neither will any imperialist power. Only socialist revolution can solve humanity's burning crises.'

But you dodge several points here. First, Denmark could do all these things and still be capitalist, your dogmas notwithstanding, and some publisher there could still publish nasty cartoons. Second, chauvinist cartoons could even be published under socialism, even a socialism that you would approve of, I suppose.

(But be careful here. Doing away with any 'state religion' as a demand may get you in trouble with some of your new allies, who may find it offensive.)

So call it a 'Red Herring' or whatever else you prefer, but you're still dodging or begging the question.

You're for 'demanding' that the state of Denmark 'stop' this, but you are apparantly too shamefaced about how YOU would handle matters like this to spell out exactly what you would have THEM do to the publishers, editors, cartoonists and their newspapers, not only in Denmark, but around the world by now.

And please, don't tell us only socialist revolution can cure nasty cartoons -- unless you plan on spreading a real wave of laughter across cyberspace.

But if you want to implement some real internationalism, I wouldn't worry so much about Danish imperialism, and instead urge getting a batch of American people who have yet to protest the U.S. war in Iraq to go to their first demo on March 18, when there will be a new wave of nationwide actions.

And finally, 'revisionist' doesn't bother me at all. These days it's a sign that you still know how to think, rather than parrot holy writ. Just stick 'neo-Bukharinite' in front of it to identify my particular flavor of revisionism.

*****

Revisionist Carl Davidson Doesn't Get It

Leon Trotsky

There he goes again, falling for and promoting the bourgeois propaganda line that this is about 'free speech' or 'censorship'. It's about imperialism.

* If Denmark, the USA, and the other European powes weren't carrying out genocidal wars of conquest and occupation against the world's oppressed people, many of whom are muslims, then these racist cartoons would not generate the massive protests.

* But if these countries weren't imperialist, the capitalist press wouldn't print the cartoons in the first press, because the function of the capitalist press is to justify the crimes of imperialism, usually using racism and other divisive ideologies.

If real socialists, unlike your chauvinist fake socialists were in charge of Denmark, we would withdraw all Danish troops from the 'war on terror' and pay reparations to the victims of Danish imperialism. This, along with the expropriation and workers control of Danish industry, would eliminate the material basis for racist cartoons in Jyllands-Posten. And most likely the workers would not choose to fund the publication of a racist, anti-worker rag. Now that would be the beginning of real 'freedom of speech', something which under capitalism is only a hypocritical slogan.

*****

Davidson burns Leon T.

Damn!

I am just reading these comments and the below struck me as funny.

Carl Davidson says in reference to 'Leon Trotsky',

And please, don't tell us only socialist revolution can cure nasty cartoons -- unless you plan on spreading a real wave of laughter across cyberspace.

*****

I rest my case...

Carl Davidson

Sigh....Well, 'LeonT', I think I'll just rest my case.

You've shown you can regurgitate the holy writ reasonably well, but your critical thinking skills leave a bit to be desired. Your screed hasn't changed a whit since, say, the 5th Congress of the Comintern back in the 1920s.

So your solution is a socialist Denmark, Trotskyist style of course, where the 'material base' of nasty cartoon making will wither away, and there will be no need to suppress the workers from expressing nasty thoughts, since they won't have any, at least any that won't be swept away by outbursts of pure proletarian solidarity that will past all tests of political correctness unrestrained. Of course, there are always us lingering petit-bougeois elements, and we can be 'dealt with' by the worker's state.

Of course, you still don't spell out how nasty cartoonists, petty bourgeois of course, might be dealt with, by the workers state or any other, so we're back to square one.

Truth be told, I don't think you really have a position on all this. All you really have is a puffed-up militant posture.

Nothing new here. We've been there and seen that, so to speak, and I seriously doubt if you'll find many takers, even among, say, West Virginia miners or Pittsburgh steelworkers, where I come from. And certainly not very many among the cyberradical denizens of the internet.


*****

Don't Waste Your Time Anymore Carl

Let it Go

I think you are arguing with people - one, or perhaps two people that are just trying to piss people off.

I think you agree that the cartoons are bad, and must be looked at in context.

Anyone who can't agree that free expression and an independent media is a necessary predicate to a free society is a moron, and anyone who thinks that free expression should be trumped by the tenents of Islam because of the fact that people from predominantly Muslim contries have gotten the shit end of the stick forthe last 100 or so years is not thinking, or is not being honest with themselves.

It took a long time for this principle to work in the West, like more than 1900 years. So, whn the pope died, and the new pope took over, and commentators in both mainstream and alternative media demonsized the old pope and the new pope in words and with satirical cartoons, catholics, did not gather by the tens of thousands and attack embassies and buildings. I am not saying that catholics are 'better' than Muslims, but that the principle of free speech is embedded in the West to the point that nearly all catholics understand that they cannot engage in violent activity over even mean spirited attacks on their religious leader in media.

I am sure that in about 5 seconds, I will be labled a racist facsist imperialist petty bouegious etc. . . in a contentless post that ends with 'go and die now.'

The bottom line Carl, based on my conversations with people outside of the anon internet world, I am sure that most people in and out of progressive circles side with you on this issue.

*****

So it's freedom of expression in the West?

mark

Okay, so why aren't all the European papers publishing nazi images in solidarity with papers and groups in Germany or Austria that are charged for displaying nazi images, which is a crime in Germany and Austria? What about other European nations that have 'hate crime' legislation making such images or nazi-like speech criminal? There are plenty of European countries that have laws against CERTAIN types of speech and images considered hateful or 'inciting' hatred. Do any of you here, who are insisting the issue is merely 'the right to offend', feel that IMC should publish nazi images and racist cartoons to show solidarity with those in Europe imprisoned for using such images?

The idea that this is a matter of 'Western respect for freedom of speech and to offend' is b.s., because no such thing actually exists. There is censorship and there are laws governing many forms of speech and ideas, but just like the governments, some of you prefer to pick and choose what is protected and when.

There is a much deeper context involved here, but it continues to be ignored because the more simplistic notion that it's about 'free speech' and 'religious fanatics' makes it much easier for some people to hold myopic views.

*****

And how about some other 'censored' speech?

mark

How about all the people who protested the 'Dixie Chicks' for their remarks about Bush? How many conservatives held such deep respect for freedom of expression and freedom to offend when it was THEIR beloved president/religious leader who was the subject of ridicule? And what of Peter Arnet's statements which resulted in Freepers launching an online attack against him for speaking on Iraqi television, and he subsequently lost his job over the very limited campaign to smear him?

Angry Christians and rightwingers boycot and denounce free speech all the time and feel that the offending parties should be held accountable by loosing their right to earn a living. And, obviously, many on the left take actions to target offending persons or corporations through boycotts and protests. So we all feel that, when it's OUR sensibilities that are offended, it's perfectly acceptable to protest speech. We very frequently feel that editors or others in decision-making positions should be held accountable when they choose to carry out actions or speech we oppose. When you seek to use negative publicity and actions to adversely affect someone as punishment for their choices about speech, you can claim you aren't trying to 'censor' them, but in fact you ARE and more to the point you are attempting to send a message that anyone else who dares engage in similar offensiveness will be likewise targeted, so the end result is an attempt to limit future speech through intimidation. How can anyone fail to recognize and admit this is true?

In this instance, it was several MONTHS before Muslims finally took to the streets in protest, after months of attempting to have their grievances addressed through negotiation etc. And the protests REALLY took off only after a large number of other European papers responded to Muslim anger by once AGAIN publishing the same offensive images.

People have a right to publish offensive images, YES, that is not in question. The question isn't whether one has the RIGHT to do so, but whether it is RIGHT to do so. And, just as the papers have freedom of speech to publish, Muslims or anyone else have the right to freedom of expression through protest. That some protests resulted in property damage, as do many protests here in the U.S. or in Europe or elsewhere, is true but does nothing to negate the issue of whether Muslims are correct in assuming that the publication of the images was offensive and indeed INTENTIONALLY offensive. Or whether it was part of a broader climate of religious hatred and oppression directed against Muslims. And as far as the property damage and violence of the protests, keep in mind that for the first week or so, all the people being KILLED during the protests were PROTESTERS, killed by police or soldiers. Now, there are claims that bullets from protesters resulted in several deaths, but police were also present and engaging in gunfire at those places and the only source saying it was protesters' bullets are sources in the POLICE.

In the event, attempts to censor offending speech by using protests and intimidation has a long history in Europe and the U.S., it happens almost daily here, so the repeated comments posted here about respect for 'freedom of speech and freedom to offend' are a bit disingenuous, at best.

*****

Are we for death warrants for nasty cartoonists?

Carl Davidson

If it were just protests, even militant ones, they could be responded to positively -- dialog, negotiation, learning from each other. But yesterday, we had an Imam putting a price on $1 million on the head of the Danish cartoonist, for anyone who would purge him from the earth. We're back to Salman Rushdie, but on a wider scale. Puts things in a different light, I'd say.

*****

Carl Davidson makes this a 'free speech' issue

Not a Member of the Fake Left

It is not. Rather it is a political empowerment issue. For decades the racist coprorate media have been villifying the Arabs, Muslims and 'peoples of the east' while western armies have invaded and occupied their lands, murdered them in masse and stolen and exploited the resources on and under the lands in which they have lived for millenia. Also eastern peoples (the 'wogs' as British racists used to refer to them) are discriminated against and oppressed when they immigrate to western countries. These demos are a reaction to that and as such fall within the rubric of political expression (and speech).

Also it is unacceptable that posts taking Carl Davidson to task for his racism concerning the Palestinian people (apologizing for zionist ethnic cleansing) are removed from New York Indymedia, undoubtedly at his urging.
The sheer hyprocrisy of that is only matched by New York Indymedia's complicity in such shameful acts. It is a insult to all New York Indymedia readers (they are intelligent enough to decide for themselves the merits of such postings) and an abridgemnt of the the 'free expression' rights of the posters.

*****

More foolishness...

Carl Davidson

I have long opposed Zionism and its ethnic cleansing and supported self-determination for Palestine, and need make no apologies to anyone, except for not doing more, which applies to many of us.

Perhaps perhaps my views or activities regarding Israel/Palestine are not to your satisfaction or in your variation, but that's another matter. Readers who what to see the debate in question, with 'burningman,' can go to carldavidson.blogspot.com and read it for themselves and make up their own minds.

If any posts here or anywhere critical of me were trashed or put in the hidden bin, it was entirely without my knowledge. I have never tried to censor any critiques of me, whether serious or otherwise. If fact, I'd love to see them and respond, if appropriate.

I understand the conflict between oppressor and oppressed, and how these conditions fuel these incidents.

But I also understand fascist and theocratic demagogy, and that there are forces on both sides of the global divide that want to egg on a 'war of civilizations' that serves neither the interests of people in the Islamic world nor those anywhere else.

A few on the left here, unfortunately, cannot or will not. But greater numbers every day in the Islamic world do not want to see the self-defamation of their faith by reactionary zealots, as well as by imperialism and backward-thinking, short-sighted cartoonists. Unfortunately, they will not have the cheerleaders here of the zealots elsewhere on their side.

And when $1 million 'death warrant' price is put on the head of cartoonists for their execution, however nasty or misguided, I'd say, yes, this is certain a matter of free speech, and we surrender to the demagogues at our peril. The kindest thing I can say about your denial here is that it's foolish.

You want to fight ethnic cleansing? We've plenty of it right here at home, in the struggles of the native Americans. Go and take up their battles for land, water, mineral and other rights to their 'white' neighbors.

As for the conflict between imperialism and the Islamic world, if you really want to do something useful, bring new batches of ordinary Americans who are critical of this war but have yet to take an action, especially among vets, soldiers and their families, to the next round of antiwar actions March 18 demanding 'Out Now'. That's the test of real internationalism today, not posturing over the cartoon wars.

*****

Where to draw the line

Leon Trotsky

Will you stand with oppressed people when they resist the racist propaganda used to justify their oppression?

Or will you attack them, pretending that you are only defending the right of imperialist corporate monopolies to 'speak' war propaganda with impunity?

The fake left is showing its true colors: the bloody banner of national chauvinism.

*****

With the oppressed? Or with the Zealots?

Carl Davidson

Where to draw the line, indeed, 'LeonT?'

Standing with the oppressed?

Who are you standing with in Nigeria? The oppressed Muslims burning the churches of oppressed Black Christians and murdering them to protest the cartoons? Or the oppressed Black Christians defending and counter-attacking?

How long do you want this slaughter, that you've become a cheerleader for, to go on? How much more blood of the oppressed, of whatever religious beliefs, do you want to see spilled?

Now they're again debating whether to confine the women to the burka and the house again in Afghanistan. Your oppressed anti-cartoon zealots are on one side, and the oppressed of the oppressed, the women and girls, are on the other. Who are you standing with there?

The problem for you is one of setting aside some idiotic and dogmatic formulas and slogans, and instead begin learning to actually think critically and affirm some radical and democratic values, and growing some compassion for all those truly suffering in this turmoil. It's not, after all, the families of Europeans grieving for their dead in these clashes, and if it does come to slaughter in the capitals of Europe, what follows then?

In principles or values are beyond you, 'LeonT,' look at it in purely practical terms. When this ends, and it will, who will come out ahead? Will there by greater solidarity between the masses of the Islamic world and non-Islamic peoples, in the third world or in the West? Go out in the streets of your city and talk to ordinary people. Are they gaining respect and understanding of other peoples and faiths? Or are we being pushed backward? Most Muslims I know, whatever they thought of the cartoons, think this is an utter disaster for the standing of their faith in the eyes of the world, and more are calling for an end to it. Do you stand with them?

But in one round-about way, I would guess that you really don't give a damn about that prospect; you're just interested in third world masses rising up against symbols of the West, and fanning the flames, under whatever leadership, with whatver politics. If Islam becomes more divided and hated around the world, you really don't care. In a way, that's a stand far more contemptuous of the Islamic faith than anything some Danish cartoonists came up with.

As I said before, if you want to stand with the oppressed where it counts, get some new folks out to the upcoming 'out now' demos, and work on defeating Bush and the war, and preventing wider war on Iran. Set aside this cartoon diversion, a spectacle creating and sustained by reactionaries on both sides of it, and do something serious instead.

*****

And There We Have It

When Harry Met Sally

By the last posting Carl, one gets the impression that your heart is not in this. Maybe its a time for a [long] rest... perhaps at that 'radical summer camp' to which you have referred?

*****

Both Sides Are SHIT!

redstar2000
http://www.redstar2000papers.com

'Set aside this cartoon diversion, a spectacle creating and sustained by reactionaries on both sides of it, and do something serious instead.'

It's indeed a strange feeling to find myself in agreement with Carl...but he is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT on this one!

Both sides are SHIT and the idea that we 'must choose' between them is simply disgusting.

I will only add that even if you can only do 'something unserious', that would STILL be better than getting embroiled in a SQUABBLE AMONG REACTIONARIES.

*****

Revisionist Racist Carl's Cheap Debating Tricks

Leon Trotsky

Popular resistance does not spring fully ideologized from the pages of 'What Is To Be Done' and the Communist Manifesto. It begins in partial, incohate, and self-contradictory forms. The capitalist media is exaggerating and caricaturing the righteous resistance of muslims to its own exaggerated, racist caricatures. And Carl, who cares most for the free speech of racist millionaires, joins right in with them and smears all anti-racists and anti-imperialists with the same brush.

The position and demands of the fake left keep changing, although they orbit erratically around the refusal to solidarize with the resistance of the oppressed. What should Denmark to? What about 'free speech' (for racist millionaires)? What if the resistance against racism is violent, and isn't precisely directed as we would do it (if we weren't abstaining from the struggle because we value the 'free speech' of racist millionaires above all else)?

The position of the revolutionaries is clear: Oppressed people have a right to resist. Denmark & all imperialists out of the middle east & hands off the world. Open the borders and give full citizenship rights to all immigrants. Stop the racist demonization of oppressed people. Workers and oppressed peoples of the world, unite!

*****

ya but

the thing is

Yeah but the thing is muslims already have their own ideology and morals and view of the ideal state. They don't want liberalism, they don't want communism and they certainly don't want anarchy.

It's one thing if it's just some random people rioting. Fine, they aren't going to have some grand theoritical narrative guiding them.

But muslims, by definition, already have their own ideology, and it is in complete contradiction to any 'leftist' ideologies. It's not like you are going to pass out a leftwing pamphlet to them and suddenly they are going to turn leftist.

*****

unfurl your banner

local

Is the 'partial, incohate, and self-contradictory' rage of white nationalists in the u.s. anti-imperialist? Many of these men and women come from the poorest sections of the country. Is their rage anti-imperialist because it is directed against global power systems even if they are perceived to be under the control of shadowy non-aryan forces? Are they potential revolutionaries after we, the vanguard, educate them in true internationalism? How about those Christian fundamentalists who come from poverty? Is their rage against the godless corporate media and companies that support abortion potentially revolutionary? Or the mobs of Nigerian christians who just murdered six muslims and burned their mosques over the past weekend? Are these victims of western oppression anti-imperialists?

The old internationalist left is in serious need of troops so they adopt the same trick they use at marches where two internationalists run up to the front of the crowd and unfurl their banner to give the illusion that a sea of internationalists is marching with them down the street. They are doing the same thing with the mobs of religious intolerance. You'd think the internationalists would fare better in latin america with Chavez, Morales, etc. but those countries don't want the old red banners speaking for them either. The new left of latin america is engaged in domestic struggles that have global implications not the other way around.

*****

Again with the Islam-Bashing

Leon Trotsky

Muslims in general are as set in their ways ideologically as believers in any other religion -- that is, not much. If you say the left can't reach out to them in solidarity, then there is really no hope. Thankfully, you're wrong.

*****

'Cheap Tricks'? What a Hoot...

Carl Davidson

Whenever I hear 'cheap debating tricks' as a rejoinder, I figure I've won the argument.

Whenever I hear 'free speech for racist millionaires' (or 'equal rights for bourgeois women like Jackie Kennedy,' -- Bob Avakian used that one against me when we were debating the Equal Rights Amendment back in the 1970s -- he opposed it, I supported it), I know the accuser doesn't understand anything about consistent democracy for the working class or anyone else, and is clutching at straws.

And you, 'LeonT', still can't answer a simple question: If you were a Danish communist, at a mass meeting of Danish printers and newspapers workers, what would you have them specifically demand that their government do to these cartoonists and the publications concerned, besides more general matters like getting the Danish troops out of Iraq?

As I said, you don't have a position. You have a posture, one of a cheerleader that you think is going to win friends for you in the Islamic world. Genuine progressives among Muslims will see through your rhetoric, while the theocrats will see you as a foolish but useful infidel.

If you really want to help Muslims, work on the 'Out Now ' demos March 18. Bring some new faces. If you have time left over, organize a meeting in your neighborhood of opened-minded Jews, Christian, Muslims and secular humanists for a joint discussion as to how they can promote tolerance and mutual understanding in the midst of this reactionary spectacle.

That would be real internationalism and anti-chauvinism, not your silly leftish posturing.

*****

Answer the question

Reader of this thread

'And you, 'LeonT', still can't answer a simple question: If you were a Danish communist, at a mass meeting of Danish printers and newspapers workers, what would you have them specifically demand that their government do to these cartoonists and the publications concerned, besides more general matters like getting the Danish troops out of Iraq?'

Leon T,

I have been reading this thread and am a non-affiliated leftist. I don't know Carl Davidson or yourself, but I think Davidson has a point, which is WHAT WOULD YOU DO IN THIS SITUATION? Please respond.

*****

Answer the question

Reader of this thread

On line it is very easy for people to make big claims, personally attack others and act differently than they would if they had to actually face up to what they write.

So I am just asking for a little accountability here. Leon T. answer the question, what would you do if hypothetically speaking, the CP had control over a country and a paper released those racist cartoons?

Simple question, lets see what Leon T has up his/her sleeve.

*****

Bravo Carl


Nice Job

It is refreshing to see insight and honest analysis. LeonT and the idiot who posts flames under various idiotic tags such as 'The Only Good Imperialist is a Dead Imperialist' 'Scab Busters' 'Working for a Scab Free World' 'Viva La Falluja' etc. . . are really revealed for what they are here - dead wrong and deadly wrong.

I tend to disagree with you Carl, on many issues, but you couldn't be any more on the money on this one.

*****

Carl and his ilk are a waste of time

Its Time to Say Sayonara

They are what happens to a thing after the vultures have flown in and the last bits of flesh lie hanging from the bones.

Carl's postings are neither inciteful or intelligent, they are pathetic.

*****

Veiled Threats?

Sheeesh

'are really revealed for what they are here - dead wrong and deadly wrong.'

Save us the fawning. Carl's remarks are neither incitefully or particulary intelligent. For decades people like Carl have been spewing out by rote the same unimaginative musings and pronouncements that have taken anyone fool enough to believe them nowhere. By accident or design? It little matters.
Its time to give Carl and his ilk the credit that they deserve... pay them no heed. Its time to move on and develop strategies that will actually lead to something. Read more!

Veteran's, Soldiers, War and Antiwar: A Debate

From Chicago.indymedia.org

Re: Honor the Warrior, Not the War
by Makhno

18 Oct 2005

While I empathize with those families, spouses, children, friends and loved ones who have lost someone in Iraq or Afghanistan, I have to ask, what are we expected to 'honor' them for? For invading someone else's country and killing thousands of people? For rape, looting, torture, and the daily oppression of the Iraqi people? For their efforts, knowing or not, to protect the interests of corporate capitalism?

*****

Honor the Warrior?
by Bob Schwartz

18 Oct 2005
I agree with Makhno. Last night I viewed the 'Two Days in October' program on WTTW. A portrayal of US government lies in Vietnam and cop repression of student-led dissent at the University of Wisconsin, it showed among other things how working class guys were used to kill peasants in Vietnam and bash and even kill protesters in the US.

One thing we need to make clear is that our friends, sons, daughters, sisters and the like are not fighting for 'our' interests but the interests of the Haliburton's and Bechtel's of this nation.

This won't happen if we continue to 'honor' the warriors, thus blurring the lines between the class interests being defended and sacrificed by war criminals on Wall Street and on Capitol Hill.

*****

Re: Honor the Warrior, Not the War
by Carl Davidson

19 Oct 2005

'Honor the Warrior, Not the War' has been one of the main banners carried by VVAW in every antiwar action since Vietnam.

I'd put on my thinking cap, guys, if you can't figure out why this slogan is a good one. I would NOT start lecturing the vets on the evils of imperialism and its wars. Believe me, they know far more than you do about it -- what they did, what was done to them, and what they had to do to survive. Arrogant diatribes from those who have never smelled the stink of war and all its horrors are not appropriate.

Back to the issue.

Who is the slogan aimed at?

First all of, the warmakers. It says we soldiers won't honor or support your wars. There is nothing the ruling class fears more than that emerging sentiment in the ranks of their army. Second of all, it's aimed at all the sunshine patriots who like to think soldiers don't do things like speak out against wars while the wars are being fought. It says, wake up to the truth of this war.

Second, honor the warriors -- who is that aimed at?

First of all, other soldiers and their families. And by putting honoring themselves in the context of dishonoring the war, it says we are in solidarity, we have suffered and caused suffering together at the hands of these warmakers, we are now affirming our humanity in the midst of inhumanity, and we are affirming a bond AMONG us and AGAINST them.

Second, it aimed at others in the antiwar movement. It says, deal with us, we are your allies, but you can't pigeon-hole us with a one-dimensional moralism. We don't want your petty bougeois contempt or your liberal sympathy. We want your solidarity. We are the section of the antiwar movement in uniform, and if you can't figure out the importance of that, then you have a lot to learn.

I've gotten behind VVAW's 'Honor the Warrior, Not the War' banner every year for more than 30 years, and I'll keep on doing it.

Usually 50 or 100 folks show up at Wacker and Wabash on Veterans Day and Memorial Day each year. Why don't we make it 500 or 1000 this year? You can talk with the vets and exchange views on the matter, and we'll all learn a few things.

*****

Honor the Warrior?

by Bob Schwartz

19 Oct 2005
problematic.

...Carl's patronizing lecture to those who haven't participated in US imperial wars cannot change the fact that 9-11 was a consequence of US imperialism and that the attack on Afghanistan was not a 'necessary war' any more than was Vietnam or Iraq.

'Love of country' is, after all, patriotism which is held by Marxists to be intrinsically reactionary in the imperialist states, as Carl recently reminded me in another matter. Remember Lenin's 'Great State' chauvinism, Carl?

What I hear in the WAW slogan is a liberal critique of policy rather than a radical critique of the system that promotes a necessary policy. In other words, imperialism is not a policy.

While I may march with vets who oppose particular wars like Vietnam and Iraq, I do so with the consciousness and critique that I have advanced, and will continue to advance.

*****

Re: Honor the Warrior, Not the War
by Carl Davidson

19 Oct 2005

I wouldn't try to frame VVAW as 'liberal' and yourself as 'true anti-imperialist,' Bob. It's just wrong and you'll get yourself in a mess.

But then, you're a 'white mother country radical,' to use the old Panther Party term, who frequently lectures Black leaders for not being sufficiently antiracist, so I guess you're used to it.

Also, if you want to take on VVAW, why not criticize them directly rather than their ally, whom you quote?

And besides, while we're 'revolutionary defeatists' on the war in Iraq, do you really want to take the same stand vis-a-vis bin Laden and his gang? Don't you also want to see him captured, brought to justice and his group put out of business?

Perhaps you just don't want the U.S. and a war to do it. If so, then how and by whom? Or would you just go along with a few more 'victories' like 9/11 for al-Quada, and blame them solely on Bush?

I think Bush lost half the battle with bin Laden the next day after 9/11 when he called for a 'war on terrorism.' But that doesn't mean a worldwide campaign to bring bin Laden and his group to justice should be dropped. Or do you think it should?

The world gets complcated, a little beyond a few slogans sometimes. As Lenin was fond of saying, quoting Goethe, 'Theory is grey, but life is green.'

As for 'intrinsically reactionary,' you seem to have ignored my answer to you on the topic, so here's the repost:

'You got part of it right, Bob, except for the word 'intrinsically.'

'The chauvinism and nationalism of the Great Nations is reactionary for all practical purposes in this day and age. But I'd watch out for 'intrinsic' or 'in essense' -- these are terms that can drag you into idealist metaphysics, a la Plato.

'But Lenin also upheld what he called the 'national pride' of the Great Russian workers, and opposed the petty bourgeois 'national nihilism' of the Great Russian and European intellectuals.

'But you're also right that there is a slippery slop from chauvinism to patriotism, especially among the 'Great' or oppressor nations.

'The way I tell the difference is to ask 'Who is it aimed it?'

'When Lou Dobbs or Pat Buchanan wave the flag, it's usually aimed at 'Jose' -- immigrants and undocumented workers -- and thus divisive and reactionary. But when Woody Guthrie says 'This land is your land, this land is my land...' it's aimed at the rich and welcoming to all working people, whatever their nationalities.

'One patriotism hates internationalism; the other, like the Abe Lincoln contingent in the International Brigades that fought in Spain, defends Internationalism and sees itself as one part of it, but without repudiating its own country's democratic tradiitions and values.

'Nationalism will eventually go the way of the Dodo bird, as will classes. But I'd bet that classes and class identity dissolves and withers away before nations and national indentity does.

'As someone who studies Zen, I think these are all social constructions, including our notions 'masculine' and 'feminine,' or even constructed self identities like 'Bob Schwartz' and 'Carl Davidson.' They're always changing, and the point is neither to cling to them nor to repulse them, but to let go of either approach to identity, step by step, in favor of awakening to the interconnectedness of all things.

'But the time frame for this process is probably longer than this life.

'In the meantime, we should contest the right over patriotism, first, because the large majority of folks we need to stop the war see themselves as patriots even as they are coming to hate the warmakers. And second, because we shouldn't hand the right anything on a silver platter.'

*****

Jackson and bin Laden: reply to Carl D

by Bob Schwartz

19 Oct 2005

Carl wrote, 'But then, you're a 'white mother country radical,' to use the old Panther Party term, who frequently lectures Black leaders for not being sufficiently antiracist, so I guess you're used to it.'

This I have not done, Carl. What I have written you seem to have ignored: I have opposed the antigay lectures of Jesse Jackson, most particularly his statement that, 'Some slave-owners were gay.' And his opposition to marriage rights for same-sex couples. I have also written that Jackson has said and done little or nothing about racist cop attacks IN CHICAGO.

And now a question for Carl: Do you really want Osama bin Laden hunted down and killed or tried under the bloody banner of US imperialism? That's worked out reallly well in Iraq with Hussein, hasn't it? There you have the Bush gang arrogating to itself the right to try a former ally who fell out of grace, while they continue their global rampage of destruction and death, with victims numbering in the hundreds of thousands.

We need to keep our perspective: Bush and the rest of the mob in the White House, on Capitol Hill and on Wall Street are the enemy. Not bin Laden.

*****

Re: Honor the Warrior, Not the War

by J.

19 Oct 2005

I'd say both the Bin Laden gang, and the Bush gang, are enemies.

It's not an either/or proposition.

*****

Re: Honor the Warrior, Not the War

by Carl Davidson

19 Oct 2005
I rest my case, Bob, your remarks on Jesse and police brutality prove it.

On the other matter, if you'll notice, I said I wanted to see bin Laden brought to justice and his group put out of business, not slaughtered. But maybe it's all the same to you.

As for bin Laden not being an enemy, I suggest you make the case to his victims -- the 3000 families at the WTC, the families of Africans slain on the street at the embassies bombings, the families of subway and train riders in Spain, the tourists and hotel workers in Indonesia, the Shia and Kurds beheaded or just blown up in markets or mosques, and more I've probably overlooked.

But then, if you want to make an ally of billionaire Saudis into restoring a theocratic fascist Caliphate via the slaughter of innocents, why don't you ponder what that means for gays and lighten up of Jesse?

*****

Re: Honor the Warrior, Not the War
by Joshua

19 Oct 2005

You don't have to 'honor' them. But you can give them credit for having the guts and the testicular fortitude to do what a lot of people won't.

While people sit in coffee houses sipping lattes and espouse the 'greatness' of communism, anarchism and socialism, these people got off their asses and served their country.

Granted military service is not for everyone. I suspect a goodly number of people who hate the military would piss themselves or start crying if they found themselves in bootcamp. I was in Marine Corps bootcamp and I've seen the people that weren't cut out for it.

As a Marine Corps vet I think Afghanistan was a good idea. Let's hope that the earthquake over there dropped several tons of rock on top of Bin Laden and his cronies.

Iraq is another story. Bush has been trumpeting for a while about 'the march of freedom'.

Sorry W, but I don't give a damn about the Iraqi's freedom. If revolution was good enough for the U.S. then it should be good enough for other countries.

Quit pissing American money and lives away on these people.

Not worth it.

*****

Re: Honor the Warrior, Not the War
by Ernst Thalman

19 Oct 2005

I don't know if Mr. Schwartz's characterization of VVAW as 'liberal' illustrates the scope and power of the ideological blinders he has chosen to impose upon himself or just sheer ignorance.

VVAW's actions during the last years of the Vietnam War were a radical and POWERFUL challenge... it may not look like it from our contemporary perspective but as an observer AND participant I can tell you it was. Enough so that the organization was targeted by the Nixon administration for COINTELPRO actions similar to those experienced by the Panthers, SWP, et al.

For example:

'In May 1972, Bill Lemmer, Southern Regional Coordinator of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), a key group in the convention protest coalition, surfaced as an undercover FBI operative. Lemmer's false testimony enabled the Bureau to haul the VVAW's national leadership before a grand jury hundreds of miles away during the week of the convention.'

There was even an attempt during the 2004 elections to use kerry's brief association with VVAW in 70 and 71 to 'smear' him as a 'radical'.

A purer than thou or more anti-imperialist than thou approach to ideological debate and organizing is no way to build a mass movement. The histronics remind me of Pavel Antipov/Strelnikov in Pasternak's famous novel (and not the cheesy movie)

*****

Vietnam Vets Against the War Have Played a Significant Role

by Bob Schwartz

19 Oct 2005

Mr. Thalman, I do not mean to suggest that WAW have not shown courage and played a significant role in challenging US government policy in Vietnam and in Iraq.

Of course they garnered the wrath of the Nixon crowd in the 1970s. Nixon, like Bush and almost all of the Democrats today, brooked no opposition to US war policy, even if aimed at only particular wars. Former military men and women attacking government war policy is especially troubling to the war makers.

That a gang of right-wing extremists charged Kerry with being a 'radical' in 1970-71 does not make it so. The right-wingnuts chant a mantra about a 'liberal' media, but you and I probably agree that it is not.

If we don't get underneath the idea that bad leaders (Nixon, Bush, maybe Johnson) sometimes get the US into 'mistaken' foreign wars, we'll be back here a few years from now to challenge the next 'mistake.' Maybe even sooner, if the Bush criminals attack Iran, an attack that(liberal Democrat)Barack Obama has already OK'd.

The ideological debate that you say you support is exactly what I'm trying to promote.

*****

Re: Honor the Warrior, Not the War

by Carl Davidson

19 Oct 2005

Can't resist, can you Bob? No matter what you're talking about, you've got to find a way to take a shot at a Black guy -- Obama, Jesse, whoever...

But more to the point, I don't think you know much of anything about VVAW or its history in the left, and I suggest you take a little time to bone up on it. You'll find their anti-imperialist creditials, in both theory and practice, second to none on the left -- and probably considerably deeper and more nuanced than yours. Better yet, just give Barry Romo or Bill Davis or Dave Cline a call and tell them you have a critique of their 'particular war' liberalism and their lack of understanding of imperialism and how it works, and then come back and tell the rest of us how it went...

Meanwhile, I'm serious about Vets day this Nov 11. Let's all make a united effort to get 500 or 1000 folks down to Wabash and Wacker at 11am

*****

Re: Honor the Warrior, Not the War
by H.G. Flynn

19 Oct 2005

I don't agree with you often Carl but I have to give you props for your last comment. Bravo.


you may just have convinced me to join you on 11/11

In my opinion Bob's attempts to twist the history of VVAW to make a 'political point' puts him in the camp of such 'historians' as david irving

--end-- Read more!

Privilege, Weather Underground, Science, Postmodernism: Another Round with Anarchism

[This thread, starting with queries about white-skin privilege and the Weather Underground and ending with a science vs postmodernism exchange, took place October 2005 on Chicago Indymedia]

By Makhno

I would like to point out that the Weather Underground was an extremely authoritarian group, and the Prairie Fire Organizing League's politics seem to be in the same vein. When revolutionaries start calling for a 'united front' against 'white skin privilege', fascism, or anything else, watch out. That is an old tactic that has been used since Stalinist times to take over movements.

*****

By Carl Davidson

If you really want to get into this, why not go to the source? Read Ted Allen's essay, 'Can White Radicals Be Radicalized?' He was the father of the term 'white-skin privilege' in the 1960s, and all factions studied this piece as a starting point. I have a hard copy if you can't find it on-line.

The Weather Underground didn't have the best line on this; instead I'd look to writings that came out of the RYM2 faction, which tried to implement it more seriously, along with Sojourner Truth Organization and Harper's Ferry Organization (of which I was a member).

Later, of course, the line was developed further by 'Race Traitor' journal, Noel Ignatiev and others.

But the mother lode is Ted Allen's 'Invention of the White Race' (two volumes, Verso) and WEB Dubois's 'Black Reconstruction in America' Re: Discussion on 'Racism and White Skin Privilege Politics'

*****

By Makhno

My interest here is not so much in the idea of 'white skin privilege' per se (although that concept is of very questionable usefulness, as Alan Spector points out); so much as in the way such a notion has been used as an organizing tool by authoritarian political groups such as the Weather Underground to further their agenda.

*****

By Carl Davidson


Naaaw...The idea, as one of the original people put it, is that 'treason to whiteness is solidarity with humanity.' 'White race' doesn't exist biologically (ask a biologist); it's a social construction that makes some ordinary folks feel more solidarity with their rulers than other ordinary folks. If you could truly get beyond thinking you're white, you could see the world more clearly.

But if you're in love with your special privileges and cling to them come what may, you'll love to discredit it however you can. The privileged often use the term 'underprivileged,' but you rarely hear them say 'over-privileged', do you?

And Makhno, if you're looking for the seeds of authoritarianism in the notion, I don't think you'll find it. If anything, it's biased toward leveling us all to our common humanity, albeit with all our glorious diversity.

*****

By Makhno

Carl, again, it is not the specific ideology of 'white skin privilege' which I am critiquing here, but rather, its use by authoritarian political groups to further their agenda of gaining control of organizations and movements. The Weathermen's takeover of SDS is a perfect example of this, but the whole 'united front' concept goes back at least to the 1930s, with its use by the Communist Party in its Stalinist glory days. In addition to 'white skin privilege' other buzzwords used in calls for 'united fronts' these days are 'anti-imperialism' and 'anti-fascism'.

*****

By Carl Davidson

I guess I'm just not in the same 'universe of discourse' here, Makhno.

Or I'm too far removed from the youth. When I was an anarchist in my 20s, when we chanted 'down with patriarchy,' we all thought 'right on!' because we had our fathers in mind. Later on, after we were parents -- and fathers ourselves with responsibilities to care for our young ones, well, it didn't seem quite so simple.

To me, who saw and participated in all this first hand, well, I could easily accuse the Weathermen of many sins, but 'authoritarianism' would be way down on the list, if I put it there at all. Hell, when I and my partner decided to get married in 1969, Bernadine and Mark Rudd sent us a post card threatening, partly in jest, to picket us at city hall for capitulating to monogamy and the state. Or when they stormed high schools, encouraging kids to walk out and rebel against the 'pig principals and teachers,' weren't they being more anarchist than authoritarian?

But some people think that if a group discusses a project, takes a vote on whether to do it, and the project gets a majority, then expecting everyone to lend a hand in carrying it out, no matter which side they voted on, well, that's somehow 'authoritarian.' They don't ever want to be obligated to do anything.

Besides, the Weather people hardly 'took over' SDS. When they were finished drawing their 'You're either with us or against us' lines in the sand, and precious few followed, there wasn't anyone left but them, so they just turned out the lights. You see, they hated the notion of the 'united front,' too.

Any united front, coalition, even mass organization itself, requires cooperation where everyone's interest is respected and everyone gives up a little autonomy in order to work, i.e., for everyone to gain a lot more than they would working alone. The authoritarian mindset wants everyone subordinated except oneself.

I guess I just don't see authoritarianism as a big problem in the left. First, no one has all that much authority on the left, and how does one go in for authoritarianism without much authority? That's what's so silly about the 'Chairman Bob' weirdness in the RCP. He's got some authority within its ranks, but hardly any on the outside. Yet they carry on as if he did, and just look foolish in the process.

Now on the right, authoritarianism is alive and well, since its core program is to restore the patriarchy and structures of privilege, white and male, that have been challenged and weakened over the last few decades.

If you want a fruitful place to harvest on the matter, I'd start there.

*****

By Makhno

Carl, Your fond personal memories of the Weathermen aside, the fact remains that they espoused a rigidly authoritarian political line, as can be seen from the article I posted a link to earlier in this thread:

The last sections [of the Prairie Fire Statement] dealt with the necessity of building a new Communist Party based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism. The tactics for building such a party were to be divided into two parts. The first part was the formation of underground cadre organizations that would begin attack against imperialist power positions within the US. These cadre organizations would weaken the government and inspire the people. The second part was the formation of above ground organizations that would lend support to the cadre groupings and educate the general public. As time went on and processes of internal criticism were carried out, the correct revolutionary position would manifest itself. With this position, a Party could be formed to lead the revolutionary War.

And furthermore:

Other sections of the Weatherman position paper dealt with what it called 'United Front' politics. It stated that the revolutionary situation in the United States would necessarily be different from situations in the 3rd world colonies due to the fact that the United States was the homeland territory of imperialism. It stated that Class politics were different in the United States due to the spoils of imperialism; crumbs of which kept otherwise potentially revolutionary segments of the population from revolting. This section laid out which classes in the United States would be potential friends to the revolution and which class groups would necessarily be enemies. These enemy groups were marked for destruction.

As this article makes clear, the Weathermen made use of both the ideologies of 'white-skin privilege' and 'anti-imperialism' to further their authoritarian political goals, and did advocate a type of 'united front' strategy. While right-wing authoritarianism is a given, left-wing authoritarianism is all too often ignored or excused.

*****


By Carl Davidson

Again, Makhno, I don't see from these quotes what you're driving at, unless it's the revolutionary process itself you find 'authoritarian.' In that case, it applies not just to Weatherman, but any socialist or communist. Google Engels 'On Authority,' where among other points, you'll find the following:

'But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon -- authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?' And, yes, the 'white-skin privilege' analysis, while no one has a monopoly on it, is rooted in and consistent with an orthodox Leninist analysis of the relations between class and nation, oppressor and oppressed. Both Ted Allen and DuBois were communists and members of the CPUSA at one time or another.

*****


By Makhno

Carl, It's funny you should use that quote from Engels, since it is the same one I posted on another site recently to support my point about the authoritarian nature of the concept of the 'dictatorship over the proletariat'. Yes, the revolutionary process is inherently authoritarian, if one accepts the traditional paradigm of revolution used by such groups as the Weathermen; however, one of the great advantages of the anarchist critique is our relentless challenge to that very paradigm, our rejection of political power, and all the hierarchy, bureaucracy, and mediation that comes with it.

Of course, not all Left groups subscribe to quite such an authoritarian ideology as the Weathermen did, although all of them, by definition, accept some form of State authority or political power as a given.

*****

By Carl Davidson

Yes, Makhno, but this gets back to our old debate.

For me and at least every other Marxist of any sort, politics is about the 'Who: Whom' ,i.e., 'Who Can Do What to Whom.' In this sense, your revolution is non-political or anti-political. It's really a spiritual quest. Which is fine, but don't mix them up, or have one try to accomplish the tasks of the other.

*****

By Makhno

It's too bad that the only alternative you can see to 'political' is 'spiritual'. As an anarchist, I'm not particularly interested in either option; what I am interested in is creating a society where people relate to each other and work together in a non-political, non-coercive, non-hierarchical way. Revolutionary violence, if there must be any, would only be a means, not a permanent condition, as it is for authoritarian leftist groups that believe in nonsense like the 'dictatorship over the proletariat'.

I do want to thank you for pointing out the Marxist-Leninist roots of such notions as 'white skin privilege' and 'anti-imperialism'.

*****

By sabate

Carl, It's funny that you mention that anti-Imperialism is consistent with Marxist ideology. I can't necessarily say that you're telling the whole truth, though.

Especially due to Marx's support for 'civilizing' the indigenous people of the Middle East, at the objection of his contemporary mainstream liberals. Also, the Stalinist USSR taking over neighboring countries is pretty indicative of this as well.

I can say, however, that your statements are true for many Marxists, especially later--after the USSR was done being a 'defunct worker's state,' as well as some people from the pre-Stalin era.

*****

By Carl Davidson

Reply to 'Sabate.' First, Marx considered his work science, not ideology. When he used the term 'ideology,' it was a put-down. He would have distanced himself from anything like the frame of 'proletarian' ideology vs. 'bourgeois' ideology. He preferred science vs. ideology, if it had to be framed.

Second, there's no doubt Marx was considerably Eurocentric, although in a very critical way for his times. If you want to get at the heart of internationalism, though, read him and Engels on the Irish Question vis-a-vis the English. And remember, he was writing in an era before imperialism was full blown, which rose mainly after the U.S Civil War.

Lenin mainly defined the politics of anti-imperialism, enhanced later by Mao, the Cubans and the Vietnamese. Here the main art of politics is creatively combining national liberation with the project of class liberation.

Stalin's party was primarily a disaster for the Soviet Union. And Trotsky didn't offer anything realistic or better. The one who did was Bukharin, but Stalin put a bullet in his head. As for the 'deformed' and 'degenerate' workers state stuff, I never went in for it all that much. States are states, and they all have warts, even if they're needed for a while and no matter what 'class' they supposedly serve.

Finally, we now live in the era of globalization, and it's best to bracket all the old dogmas and take a fresh look at the world. Some of the old lessons will apply, some will not. Mainly, we should seek truth from facts, not from quotes.

*****

By Vigilante

I really do have to laugh when orthodox Marxists like to claim Marx was free of ideology or idealism for that matter.

There does indeed need to be a critical analysis of anti-imperialism and white skin privilege as it has been painted by a Marxist brush. The brush is usually an economic class reductionist one. Anarchism has always been better in that it was a power and domination critique as opposed to class and economics.

And you're not the fist to talk about 'objective' thinking and seeking facts. The fact is everything we know is constructed through discourse and linguistics.

*****

By Carl Davidson

Vigilante says:

'The fact is everything we know is constructed through discourse and linguistics' Yes, Vigilante, 'everything we know,' plus everything we fancy, dream, and lie about. Wisdom lies in a method to sort them out. I'll stick with pragmatism and science over POMO any day of the week, especially, say, when choosing a doctor or a plumber or someone to help me troubleshoot computers.

As for Marx and ideology, my point was not that he was 'free' of it, but that he opposed it as best as he could, and better than most in his day. He was hardly free of Eurocentrism, as I pointed out.

I also don't think you'll find most Leninists 'class reductionists' when it comes to anti-imperialism, either. Lenin's whole point was to begin from the analyzing the world from the perspective of oppressor and oppressed nations, then bring in the matter of class and other factors. That was also part of the reason for the split between the 2nd and 3rd Internationals, where those in the 2nd International tended to be 'class reductionists' of a sort, but eventually capitulated to their own nationalisms.

As for the Weather Underground, they tended to be reductionist in favor of nations rather than class. They considered US workers counterrevolutionary and were nihilists towards their own nationality. Prairie Fire later backed away from some of this, but that was the core of it.

*****

By Vigilante

CD: 'Yes, Vigilante, 'everything we know,' plus everything we fancy, dream, and lie about. Wisdom lies in a method to sort them out. I'll stick with pragmatism and science over POMO any day of the week, especially, say, when choosing a doctor or a plumber or someone to help me troubleshoot computers.'

Well the fact that you stick with such blind faith in specialists really says something. There's certainly nothing wrong with pragmatism and science so long as it is always decentralized and contextualized and not put in overly materialist/economic shades.

CD: 'As for Marx and ideology, my point was not that he was 'free' of it, but that he opposed it as best as he could, and better than most in his day. He was hardly free of Eurocentrism, as I pointed out.'

He gave the world a grand narrative. That kind of says it all doesn't it.

CD: 'I also don't think you'll find most Leninists 'class reductionists' when it comes to anti-imperialism, either. Lenin's whole point was to begin from the analyzing the world from the perspective of oppressor and oppressed nations, then bring in the matter of class and other factors. That was also part of the reason for the split between the 2nd and 3rd Internationals, where those in the 2nd International tended to be 'class reductionists' of a sort, but eventually capitulated to their own nationalisms.'

The problem with anti-imperialism as defined by orthodox Marxists is that it was never multi-dimensional. The fact that the state was never seen as an imperialist project in itself from the Marxist perspective is proof of this. As a result you back Vietnam regardless of what the 'oppressed' might be doing to the indigenous peoples in that area. Things were not helped by the idiot vanguards redefining communism as state collective. Fundamentally anti-imperialism is way to narrow, and way to Manichean. It needs a good old fashioned anarchist style redefinition which looks at things from a more ubiquitous non-Manichean power analysis as opposed to economic.

*****

By Carl Davidson

'Vigilante' says:

'Well the fact that you stick with such blind faith in specialists really says something. There's certainly nothing wrong with pragmatism and science so long as it is always decentralized and contextualized and not put in overly materialist / economic shades.' I don't think so, Vigilante. Blind faith is the postmodernist's or POMO's cup of tea, as in their effort to get rid of the rigors of science for the 'narrative' where everyone gets to be an expert, whether they know anything or not. They just have to be glib and against modernity.

And as for materialism, I'm more of a devotee of instrumentalism and the metaphysics of quality or The Tao, than the more 19th century notions of dialectical materialism.

Specialist? Goodness, I don't have blind faith in them, I AM one. That's how I make my living, troubleshooting networks and fixing computers. Faith has nothing to do with it. You have to suffer and sweat through mistakes, plenty of trial and error, and a little studying to get to be any good at it.

But back to the main topic, 'anti-imperialism.' I have my own issues with the term, in the sense of how it's used in the mass movement. It's at once both too 'left' and too 'right' -- too 'left' in its use as a way to narrow the antiwar movement into a left bloc, but too 'right' as a negative substitute or diversion from ones own's strategic goal, as in socialism or whatever post-revolutionary alternative you want to pose.

But have you guys seriously gone over the classical literature on the topic, rather than just listen to someone give a dogmatic speech or argue with you? It's hardly one-dimensional and has plenty to do with the state, from Marx and Lenin on the emergence of the labor aristocracy and the 'thousand threads' tying it to the state, to Seymour Melman on the Garrison state.

But if you want to add something new, go for it. Negri and Hardt certainly tried a neo-anarcho-syndicalist perspective, although you practically need an MA in philosophy to wade through their stuff. Don't go that route.

The orthodox, little-has-changed-since-Lenin Monthly Review crowd certainly needs a little shaking up. Some of us have been doing just that at the www.cyrev.net site for 10 years now. Our focus is on globalization, InfoTech, and the emergence of a truly global or transnational capitalist class, as opposed to an American multinational with lots of overseas branches. It has plenty of implications for the state, especially if the components of a truly globalized state are emerging. It adds a whole new level to the hierarchies, and weakness some of those underneath.

*****

By Vigilante

It's late but why not.

CD: 'I don't think so, Vigilante. Blind faith is the POMO's cup of tea, as in their effort to get rid of the rigors of science for the 'narrative' where everyone gets to be an expert, whether they know anything or not. They just have to be glib and against modernity.'

Rigors of science! lol. Perhaps monsieur Davidson can try and conceive of these rigors for 30 seconds without using language or discourse.

CD: 'And as for materialism, I'm more of a devotee of instrumentalism and the metaphysics of quality or The Tao, than the more 19th century notions of dialectical materialism.'

Instrumentalism is certainly another cup of piss that needs to be thrown.

CD: 'Specialist? Goodness, I don't have blind faith in them, I AM one. That's how I make my living, troubleshooting networks and fixing computers. Faith has nothing to do with it. You have to suffer and sweat through mistakes, plenty of trial and error, and a little studying to get to be any good at it.'

Well if you like doing things with those hands of yours fine, just don't construct an economic system where people are forced to service others.

CD: 'But back to the main topic, 'anti-imperialism.' I have my own issues with the term, in the sense of how it's used in the mass movement. It's at once both too 'left' and too 'right' -- too 'left' in its use as a way to narrow the antiwar movement into a left bloc, but too 'right' as a negative substitute or diversion from ones own's strategic goal, as in socialism or whatever post-revolutionary alternative you want to pose.'

First of all the fact that mass movement figures in anything is problematic. 2nd, it should not be enslaved to leftist or rightist ideological discourse, and 3rd, the goals should be in the means.

CD: 'But have you guys seriously gone over the classical literature on the topic, rather than just listen to someone give a dogmatic speech or argue with you? It's hardly one-dimensional and has plenty to do with the state, from Marx and Lenin on the emergence of the labor aristocracy and the 'thousand threads' tying it to the state, to Seymour Melman on the Garrison state.'

The problem is the state is subordinate to you overly narrow view of capitalism, and as a result many orthodox Marxists end up backing countries like Cuba and Venezuela. This shows a fundamental denial of the anarchist critique of the state as such. And what makes it one dimensional as I said is you will support the new rulers of Vietnam while ignoring what they do to the indigenous people in that region. As Nietzsche put it 'Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster...for when you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.'

*****
By Carl Davidson

Vigilante says:

'Rigors of science! lol. Perhaps monsieur Davidson can try and conceive of these rigors for 30 seconds without using language or discourse.'

You miss a subtle point here, V. Science is something you have to DO first, (as in examine, investigate, experiment, test, etc.) then 'discourse about' what the doing has revealed. It's not the same as criticizing literature, where all you have to 'do' is read a text and deconstruct it in any way you please.

You think the 'rigor' of science is funny?

Fine, you can choose your doctors on whether they're into POMO discourse or not. That's make the ones' who sweated a little rigorously in the lab more available for the rest of us still stuck in the Enlightenment.

You want to throw out instrumentalism?

Fine, but then just how do you determine whether any given anarchist theory or the state is 'true' or workable or even desirable? Taking a vote would be a tyranny of the majority.

No, once you get rid of these things, then, like Makhno, your politics is collapsed into a spiritual quest at best or nihilism at worst.

Also, most, if not all, of us would-be Marxists know the state, like the market, have been around a long while before capitalism and will undoubtedly be around for a while afterwards. So it's intertwined with capitalism today, but hardly a subset of it. Among other things, the state's a function of scarcity and class divisions, and will leave the stage of history when they do.

As for the Vietnamese and their minorities, I know a bit about it, and had a long discussion with a Vietnamese general and some other cadres about 'Kinh chauvinism' toward the Mountain tribes back in 1969. They were quite self-critical, explaining how Uncle Ho used the negative example of the KKK to help them get their heads straight. And I and others didn't ignore it, but wrote and spoke about it over the years.

But my support for the Vietnamese people and the groups leading them was based on the justice of their cause and my internationalist duty, not on whether they had a 'state' or not, or on whether they were free from sin. You can distance yourself from that stand if you want, but you won't be in very good company. You find yourself lined up with a bunch infested with superpower arrogance.

It gets back to the original topic of this thread. The end game in Vietnam, according to Nixon at the time, was 'to change the skin color of the corpses,' sort of like what Bush wants to do in Iraq. It was a white supremacist war, and in that conflict, I'll side with the people of color with a just cause in defeating my 'own' bourgeoisie, whether the oppressed have a state or a party or not.

*****

By Vigilante

CD: 'You miss a subtle point here, V. Science is something you have to DO first, (as in examine, investigate, experiment, test, etc.) then 'discourse about' what the doing has revealed. It's not the same as criticizing literature, where all you have to 'do' is read a text and deconstruct it in any way you please.'

I know it's hard for Carl to admit this, but everything down to the concept of science as we know it is shrouded and social constructs. The examination, experimentation, and testing is based on these social realities and can never be separated.

CD: 'You think the 'rigor' of science is funny?

'Fine, you can chose your doctors on whether they're into POMO discourse or not. That's make the ones who sweated a little rigorously in the lab more available for the rest of us still stuck in the Enlightenment.'

First of all to begin with doctors are based on specialization to begin with. In a free society a combination of old and new forms of more natural health care should be administered in a more reciprocal way in relation to social and individual. The arrival of the doctor is part of the alienation of are own health and direct sustenance.

CD: 'You want to throw out instrumentalism?

'Fine, but then just how do you determine whether any given anarchist theory or the state is 'true' or workable or even desirable? Taking a vote would be a tyranny of the majority.

'No, once you get rid of these things, then, like Makhno, your politics is collapsed into a spiritual quest at best or nihilism at worst.'

Your first point is like instrumentalism itself is based on a more centralized view of society. I want a world where many worlds fit, and it need not have a blue print of any kind. Primitive society lasted over a 100 000 years without this.

And a bit of spiritualism and nihilism are not bad things to incorporate into ones subjectivity at all.

CD: 'Also, most, if not all, of us would-be Marxists know the state, like the market, have been around a long while before capitalism and will undoubtedly be around for a while afterwards. So it's intertwined with capitalism today, but hardly a subset of it. Among other things, the state's a function of scarcity and class divisions, and will leave the stage of history when they do.'

And equally speaking class divisions and scarcity are predicated on the state. The development of these things was reciprocal in nature. Thus the need for a revolution that destroys capital, state, along with work, industrialism and other oppressive things equally (some easier then others but non the less important)

CD: 'As for the Vietnamese and their minorities, I know a bit about it, and had a long discussion with a Vietnamese general and some other cadres about 'Kinh chauvinism' toward the Mountain tribes back in 1969. They were quite self-critical, explaining how Uncle Ho used the negative example of the KKK to help them get their heads straight. And I and others didn't ignore it, but wrote and spoke about it over the years.'

The 'meowist' self criticism I take with a grain of salt. This has not stopped the continued suffering of those peoples.

CD: 'But my support for the Vietnamese people and the groups leading them was based on the justice of their cause and my internationalist duty, not on whether they had a 'state' or not, or on whether they were free from sin. You can distance yourself from that stand if you want, but you won't be in very good company. You find yourself lined up with a bunch infested with superpower arrogance.'

LOL, Internationalist duty! What Leninist trash. The only duty one should have is too ones self or affinity. This is a perfect example of separating means and ends and the fucked up results that come of it.

CD: 'It gets back to the original topic of this thread. The end game in Vietnam, according to Nixon at the time, was 'to change the skin color of the corpses,' sort of like what Bush wants to do in Iraq. It was a white supremacist war, and in that conflict, I'll side with the people of color with a just cause in defeating my 'own' bourgeoisie, whether the oppressed have a state or a party or not.'

While fighting white supremacy is important, one must remember that a given race depending on the material situation could easily have made it Asian supremacy. Manichean binaries need not apply. And why side with the people of color who did the same thing to the mention indigenous peoples.

*****

By Carl Davidson

Ah, Vigilante, what are we going to do about you...

Science and instrumentalism, like any other human endeavor, is connected to social constructs, but hardly reducible to them. Of course you can separate the accomplishments of science out. Otherwise, how would you ever make something like, say, a windmill, that works?

But with your romanticization of primitive society, maybe that's not your concern. But we needed a little instrumentalism, even at the dawn of our species, to avoid being eaten by the other carnivores, if nothing else.

Some doctors are specialists, but some are generalists, and study the earlier healing arts too. But if you have a youngster that gets appendicitis, I hope you bracket these notions and get him or her to a hospital licketey split, and find a resident who did well in the lab over literary criticism.

Internationalism is Leninist trash? Thanks for the backhanded compliment -- I'll plead guilty to such trash any day. But I thought you guys were into mutual aid and solidarity. But I guess it's only for your friends and your local affinity group, not of the 'an injury to one is an injury to all' variety.

Besides, my politics are value-centered, especially the core values of liberation and compassion. I try to start and end with the 'ends', with 'means' making the bridge, as in the impermanence and interconnectedness of all things.

And of course, in theory, any nation or people might think itself the dominant one, but that's beside the point. Which one has plundered most of the world's resources and practiced lording it over all the rest for the past several centuries? Or is it too 'practical' to deal with the matter at hand?

*****

By Vigilante

Well Carl, first of all the so called accomplishments that you speak of has always been part of abstract ends for civilization. The one thing that the early 20th century scientists such as Einstein and Heisenberg did was to demystify science from what it was, and what many people fell for (including Marx)

And I am hardly one to call primitive society perfect; however it has been the most egalitarian model that humans have operated on thus far. And hunter-gathering is hardly instrumental; it is more a spontaneous thing much like other forms of life.

On the point of doctors, in a future egalitarian society, I am hopeful that there can be more individual and reciprocally way of healing ourselves.

And as far as international solidarity goes, there is certainly nothing wrong with it. But an international system is what is hegemonic. The best thing we can do for each other internationally is to let communities exist locally with at the same time acknowledging a sense of oneness. Immanent multiplicity Agamben calls it I believe.

And just because the US is the baddest monster in the world at the moment is no excuse to support other states. All you do with that compromising attitude is give others room to rise.

*****

By Carl Davidson

Well, vigilante, I suggest you take a look at 'Blood Rites: Origins and History of the Passions of War' by Barbara Ehrenreich, in order to get a better take on the situation of our species in the hunter-gatherer days. If their mode of staying alive in the face of their predators of other species was largely spontaneous rather than creatively instrumental, I doubt we would be here now. You might consider why old sabre-tooth is extinct, and not us.

As for Einstein and Heisenberg, I don't think they 'demystified' 19th century science, as much as they pushed the envelop to explain phenomena far from equilibrium and resistant to the Newtonian paradigm.

But if you're maneuvering curves on the freeway, Newtonian physics works just fine. Ignore it at your peril. Besides what would either of our quantum heroes done without Newton's calculus? I don't think science has to be demystified; rather, it's the universe that's the locus of mystery, and science helps push back the Veil of Maya, so to speak.

Your global localism, with all localities doing their own thing, wouldn't help much, say, in dealing with new emergent strains of influenza, would it? Or in the anarchist future, do even viruses and bacteria limit themselves to mutual aid?

We all support states these days, vigilante, if not directly then indirectly. You might gripe about it, but you go along with the program in the daily practical sphere with the rest of us nonetheless. Unless you're writing from prison for non-payment of taxes? So I certainly wouldn't make the fact that a liberation movement established governance in their liberated areas into a black flag that would signal me and others to withhold our support. Their values and practice within that governance, and where they aim their fire, is far more important, at least to me. Read more!