The nature of the new war

David Walters dwalters at igc.org
Sun Sep 30 21:56:10 MDT 2001


Haven't said much on this debate so far but here goes...

> If the American bourgeoisie wants to cope with the terrorist menace, it must
> build up an anti-terrorist state. >>
>
> Not true, Nestor.  There is no terrorist menace.  There is a worldwide
> terrorist apparatus - of theirs.  It's their invention.  They sometimes use
> it to attack U.S. citizens - but NOT to attack "bourgeoisie".  Therefore THEY
> (the "bourgeoisie") do not NEED an anti-terrorist apparatus in the U.S.,
> though they may (for political purposes) create a phony one.

Not true, Jared. Politics, and world politics particularly, is far more
multi-faceted. Despite massive infiltration, I doubt any one can say the Red
Army Fraction did not exist. I doubt that anyone says the Weathermen didn't
exist or that the Militia movement doesn't exist. That last one is our
homegrown, USDA 100% prime terrorism here, BTW. Does the US build terrorist
networks? Yes, but to argue that "anti-USA" terrorism doesn't exist is plain
silly. It is YOU who will get no audience of consequence on this.

> Henry's statement that NOW terror is coming to American shores is mistaken.
> The mistake reveals an error of perspective.  9-11 is in fact just another
> example of the U.S. elite attacking "its own" people.  They have been using
> terror against people in this country for 300 years.  Ask the Indians. (Oops
> - can't.  They're dead.) Ask the army of people being murdered daily by
> Managed Care. Ask the million and a half young black men jailed for being
> black. And on and on. They have slaughtered "their own" soldiers/sailors for
> political affect many times.

Politics is an art, Jared, and you are finger painting like a child. If
there is someone who denies the US was founded without terror, let them
state so clearly now, but I don't think there are any takers. Capitalism is
as you describe. But to say that the "US is DIRECTLY responsible" without a
shred of evidence is absurd until you can prove otherwise. That the US is
responsible because of it's imperialist actions abroad is EXACTLY the
Marxist response (finessed a wee bit better than that I hope) simply because
it's true, just like a bombing by Hamas in Haifa is the direct response of
people who are only a few steps removed from B. Laden group to Zionism. I
guess in your opinion that Hamas are creations of Zionism and run out of a
back room in the Knesset?

> The view, apparently being put forward by most of the ""Left"" that the
> "chickens are now coming home to roost" in fact accepts as true the  claim
> which is increasingly absurd that 9-11 was the work of "enemies of the U.S.,"
> etc. That U.S. policies produced a violent reaction by the oppressed.

Not bad, but basically correct. It is the view, as far as I'm able to
discern of the ENTIRE US left, take or add a few lose screws...

> Ahh, the oppressed: middle aged guys in the Pink Lady strip joint, stuffing
> dollar bills down the dancers' panties while shouting anti-U.S. slogans as in
> "Oh, wait a minute honey - I gotta go pray to Allah cause I HATE AMERICA. So
> don't go away, I got LOTS MORE TERRORIST BUCKS!"  Right. Meanwhile the ISI is
> gonna be a key player in the anti-terrorist struggle.

You lost me here....

> Saying this was "understandably done by oppressed people and if the American
> people want to be safe they better stop their government's bad foreign
> policies" is the worst possible thing one can say.  You will NEVER organize
> people based on threats - moreover false ones.  .

I think this is a stretch. That it flowed from people who perceive the US in
total (and not just the US gov't) as the enemy is certainly true (assuming
it was the B. Laden group at all) but that it was by people certainly PISSED
at the US is without any doubt unless you have evidence otherwise. But, to
answer your last statement, we just had a mass rally of over 10,000 people
in the San Francisco demanding the US end it's war or aggression against the
people of Afghanistan AND against us here. So that's EXACTLY how we organize
thank you very much, and without the conspiracy theories...

> Such a line, which of course will spur an ultranationalist response, would
> give the forces of war exactly what they want. An ordinary person, hearing
> that "these acts by the oppressed bring the war to American shores" would not
> change his or her mind about US policies; but rather would think, "So!  Bush
> is right!  I guess we do have to bomb them!"  With '"them" sufficiently vague
> to give US leaders a free hand for the geostrategic assault they have planned
> behind the smokescreen of their phony assault on (their) terrorists.

You have a highly cynical and unrealistic view of politics dear Jared. The
line of action by ALL left groups is that this as a CRIMINAL ACT. That there
is NO EXCUSE for it. But that doesn't depreciate the underlying analysis
that IN FACT it's the chickens coming home to roost...either directly
through imperialist actions or US created terrorist groups such as the
Taliban (which haven't been accused, yet, of terrorism in this case).

> The key job is to expose the monstrous nature of US leaders because they
> created the forces - and almost surely directed them - who did this.

An how do you do this? Simply by stating it as you do here without
evidence??

David Walters,
Pacifica, California.

=======
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message



More information about the Marxism mailing list