[Marxism] (no subject)

[Fred Feldman]

Tens of millions of people, ranging from those with massive illusions to
those making a conscious suspension of disbelief, voted for the Democrats or
sympathized with those who did in November 2006 so that the Democrats would
put an end to the war.

The Democrats HAVE TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE so that the 2006 electoral swing
can be made into a meaningful political experience for --we hope-- a broad
layer of people.

It is *essentially* what happened in 1964 and the following years, with
people voting for Lyndon Johnson against warmonger Goldwater and then
finding they had to fight war MAKER Johnson. Although an even closer
parallel, perhaps, is 1968, with young radicals going "clean for Gene
[McCarthy]" or enrolling massively in Bobby Kennedy's campaign, BOTH
Democratic Party efforts, and then not just being shunned and excluded, but
repudiated, beaten, arrested and framed-up at the Chicago Democratic Party
convention.

POLITICALLY --in other words, in terms of relating to people in motion-- the
most important thing right now is exposing the responsibility of the
Democrat majority in Congress for the War. Listen to how Bush's speech was
being spun today -- that his essential task was to keep enough Republicans
with him to PREVENT a veto override in Congress.

That's BULLSHIT. Come Oct. 1, Bush doesn't have ONE PENNY for the war in
Iraq UNLESS a MAJORITY in Congress gives it to him. A Congressional majority
has absolute, final and veto-proof CONTROL over what the government does at
such a moment. IF the majority insists that the ONLY money for the troops in
Iraq is that needed to get them all out, and sticks by its decision, there
is nothing the President can do except capitulate or stage a coup.

Stan's point is that the Left must not let the Democrats OFF THE HOOK by
focusing their fire against Bush or even "the war" or "the government" in
general. Congress --and its Democrat majority-- needs to be the focus/target
now, because that is the way tens of millions of regular people chose to try
to end the war, by voting for these Democrats.

I think --and suspect Stan would agree-- that the impact of such a POLITICAL
FOCUS for the antiwar movement would only be enhanced by an increased level
of overall antiwar activity and agitation, including marches on Washington,
local demonstrations, etc. But I think I would tend to agree with Stan that
mass demonstration tactics, in and of themselves, are no substitute for a
sharp POLITICAL approach in waging the fight against the war -- and that
means, right now, putting the heat on Congress and its majority, the
Democrats.


Fred responds:
Joaquin makes some sound points here.  Although I still fear that Stan's
proposal can turn into an ultraleft tangent, the basic moral and political
justification is there.  Certainly, I am as outraged as anybody at the
Democrats' performance of their long-standing social function in this
instance, where as Joaquin says tens of millions of people (of all colors
and nationalities, I might add, as well as all classes) voted for
theDemocrats in the hope they would do something to stop the carnage at
least in Iraq.  WE, of course, must never forget Afghanistan or even
Somalia, where the carnage ALSO continues.

This was a progressive step by these voters, to merely vote on the basis of
progressive issues. Why shouldn't they be angry that they seem to have
accomplished NOTHING.  (This too is an illusion, by the way.  Their action
did deal a blow to the war, REGARDLESS of how the Democrats responded.  It
deepened the downhill curve of the imperialist operation).

Hell, I'm angry and I expected BASICLY) what the Democrats did and you
couldn't get me to vote Democratic or Republican if it would win me the
lottery.

The fact that the antiwar movement has been institutionalized,
bureaucratized, sand absorbed into the system as the organic and structural
opposition to the war is also a fact.  And, in my view, this does not just
apply to UFPJ.

In a period where antiwar opposition among the people of all classes and
nationalities is greater than ever before and largely unyielding, the
demonstrations are smaller than at the various highpoints (all of which, by
the way, were not ineffective -- they weakened the position of the rulers in
pursuing their criminal war).

So Goff's proposal could be useful, and is not likely to make things
substantially worse.  I admit this is a very conservative endorsement.

Among other things, if the national question is ignored, the effects could
be extremely diversionary. I am referring here to the sit-in at Conyers'
office by Sheehan and others. This was a mistake, even though I am convinced
there was notbing racist about it.  It just reflected white ignorance, not
white supremacy, about the political and social realkities in the Black
community,

This important matter aside, I see no likely harm if Goff's tactic is given
a try.  It will certainly express a vital part of today's real antiwar
sentiment.  We, however, should not have illuisions that thisd will really
change the stance of the Democratic Party. I don't think it is likely to,
since the imperialist paries are basically multii-billion dollar fund
raising sdcams today.  Winning elections important because it creates more
fund-raising potential.  And the donors whose contributions determine policy
are not you and me, although anything we throw down the shithole will be
willingly accepted.

Also, the Democrats have learned some lessons from the backing they got from
the ruling class for helping them bring an end to the losing Vietnam war.
They are unwilling to put their careers on the line even for billoionaires
who think the war is lost, for fear that when they really want wars (against
Iran, for example), they will turn to the Republicans as the party that can
follow through.  This is a time of war for US imperialism, and the Democrats
are determined to drive home to them that they can serve as a war party.

This is the real meaning of the Hilary Clinton campaign, which is headed
toward victory in the convention and the election, unless the Republicans
can forget their factionalism and rally behind their only viable candidate
(one whom the Democrats could not dare to oppose.  I mean, or course General
Petraeus.

In any case the two party system is an imperialist prison for all the
oppressed and exploited, including those of us who oppose it and will not
give it our votes. Certainly, a prison riot -- and that is what, to me, Stan
is basically proposing. With the strategic concerns I have raised kept in
mind (THE PROTESTS AGAINST BLACK DEMOCRATS MU8T COME FROM WITHIN THE BLACK
COMMUNITY, NOT FROM WERLL-INTENTIONED WHITE ANTIWAR PROTESTERS) Stan's
proposals are unlikely to do harm and may do some good.
Fred

Fre