Forwarded from Anthony (idle speculation)

Louis Proyect lnp3 at
Sat Sep 15 09:09:33 MDT 2001

Re: idle speculation

I strongly agree with Lou's view on idle speculation. He wrote,
"...why do we waste time in idle speculation about the "necessity"
for explosives to have been planted in the WTC beforehand, or the
inability of Arabs to fly jumbo jets without CIA pulling their
strings, etc."

While I am not an expert on aviation or structural engineering, I
have spent the week talking to people who are both: commercial
airline pilots, airline executives, airline regulators, engineers and

The pilots and airline people believe that - on a clear day flying by
sight - pilots who was familiar with the controls of those planes,
even if they had never actually flown a 757 or 767 could have flown
the courses those planes did. They pointed out that flying a plane is
relatively easy - except for take-off, landing, and flying on
instruments. They argued about whether or not two of the turns and
the steep dive could have been made by inexpereinced pilots, but in
the end agreed that if the pilot had practiced those turns and dives
on smaller planes and in a simulator they would have had a good
chance of being able to execute those maneuvers in the large jets.

They also pointed out that only two of the four attempts were
completely successful. The plane that crashed in Pennsylvania did not
hit its target, and the plane that damaged the Pentagon actually fell
short of its target. They all agreed that this could be evidence of
inexperienced flyers.

The engineers and architect thought that whoever was flying the
planes must have studied the buildings in question to choose the
correct points of impact: lower impact might not have brought the
buildings down, higher impact also might have failed. But, they
thought that any competent engineer could have figured out where to
aim the planes, and that those planes alone would have been enough to
bring down the buildings.

Having said this, I do not disgard the idea that the attackers might
have been trying to whip up war hysteria - and in fact, they probably

This doesn't make them pawns in a CIA conspiracy, and it also doesn't
prove that they were not. It proves that there are very brave,
audacious, intelligent people who want to blow up the current world
status quo - want to do it so badly they they sacrifice their own

They may have succeeded.

Our task is to fight the war hysteria, to fight imperialism, to fight
racism - but not to defend the world status quo.

This is a diffiuclt task, especially in New York City right now, I

How can we fight the hysteria?

Not by concocting unbelievable theories, that's certain.

We need to convince people in the USA to listen to us, and vast
unsupported conspiracy theories are designed to do the opposite -
make us appear like real lunatics (even if the conspiracy theorists
are not always lunatics.)

We should stick to the facts that are easily supported, and we should
begin with arguments that address self-interest, and follow them with
bigger ideas.

1. A war will be very dangerous to the people of the world, including
the USA. e.g.Israel and Pakistan have nuclear weapons.

2. Millions of people around the world hate the United States, and
for good reason. A war will set them against the United States, even
if their governments do what imperialism tells them to do.

3. The war began a long time ago, and the United States and Europe
started it, not the other way around. You can go back in history as
far as you like.

4. The United states can not rule the world. It is undemocratic, and
the attempt is bound to increase - not decrease - hatred of the USA.
The people of the USA, and the rest of the world will be the ultimate

I think a new antiwar movement needs to be built in the USA.

This movement should concentrate on opposition to war, and opposition
to racism. The ruling class is afraid that the racism inherent in
their actions will undermine the social unity they need to prosecute
war. Bush and Colin Powell - among others - ;have spoken against
racism. It is their Achilles heel, I believe.

This time, people will have to be more careful than the last time.
The people of the United States are more united behind their ruling
class than they were during the 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's.

Even than during the 1950's, when the witchhunts were terrorizing the
left into silence, the left really had far more support than was
obvious - demonstrated by the power of the civil rights movement and
the quick emergence of the New Left in the 1960's.

But now, the left begins with very little in the way of organization
or popular support. What we have going for us are the partial
victories that we won in the 60's and 70's - against racism in the
USA, and against imperialism in Viet Nam. We should base ourselvs on
those victories.

The bourgeoisie on the other hand is self confident, and has popular
support, the generation of youth in the USA was not raised on
Vietnam, but on desert storm and the US victory in the cold war.
Their consciousness is in many ways closer to the youth of 1914 than
to the youth of 1974.

I think this is a good time for a discussion of organization,
strategy, and tactics.

The people on this list, now bear a heavy responsibility. I hope we
are up to it.

All the best, Anthony

Louis Proyect, lnp3 at on 09/15/2001

Marxism list:

PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message

More information about the Marxism mailing list