[Marxism] Two gains US scored recently in Iraq
stansfieldsmith at yahoo.com
Sun Nov 28 10:51:31 MST 2004
In response to Intense Red on Fred Feldman, in 2002-3 most Americans got up and did something about the war when they thought there was a practical possibility of changing things. And remember, most Americans are not Marxists, so do not look at the situation as we do. They are pragmatic and look at what is the most useful choice among those various rather unpleasant choices they are given. First they thought if they protest to Congress and go to protest rallies, this will convince or put pressure on the government not to go to war. They were wrong, which shocked a lot of them, so after the war started, they were demoralized and angry at Bush - and most still do not see the efficacy of anti-war demonstations anymore.
Second, they thought working to vote Bush out of office was the most feasible thing to do after the war started. He didn't listen to them, so get rid of him. It became the most feasible way to register opposition to the war. His possible replacements did not appeal to people so much, so they just focused on getting rid of Bush.
I'm sure none of this is new to us. We all typically take the most feasible practical solution to a problem.
The real political disaster for us, and the great victory for the US bourgeoisie was that they got the overwhelming majority of the leaders of the anti-war movement to turn down the the movement and devote their time and money to getting rid of Bush. The leaders, and we most know most of them, are not unfamiliar with Marxism, do understand that it is American imperialism, not Bush imperialism, understood that Kerry was not their ally, but still, it was the leaders of the antiwar movement that really provided major assistance to the bourgeoisie in turning off the anti-war struggle. They abdicated their responsibility to lead and to educate the newly awakened millions of Americans about the role of Big Business in running this country.
So I do not agree with "Intense Red" when he states:
In summation, the anti-war movement -- which largely evaporated once the
shooting started and the "support the troops" propaganda kicked in -- was a
very minor (if any) consideration.
To me, UFPJ and the like reminded me of what happened with the international social democracy in World War I, though on a much less disastrous and horrifying scale.
I think this is a worthwhile analysis. It skillfully points out the present situation in Iraq re: the Shiite and elections -- that is important and is largely overlooked by many. And I think it strongly and correctly points out the demoralization of some of the peace movement for supporting what they considered a sure-fire Kerry win; but I do think overemphasis is place on the bourgeoisie's role of opposing Kerry because of his being "tainted" by the anti-war crowd. > They [the bourgeoisie] ended up tilting toward Bush partly because > Kerry had the burden of OUR SUPPORT AND WE WERE STILL > ACTIVELY AGAINST THE WAR -- as was shown clearly in the march > of 500,000 in August! I think this was a very trivial consideration on the bourgeoisie's part. As you point out: > The rulers were glad to see Kerry reel us in. Exactly. So what explains the bourgeoisie's support of Bush? It's simple: Tax cuts (versus Kerry's promise to roll back Bush's tax cuts), "free" trade support
(especially compared to Kerry's jumbled response on this issue), and the promise of privatizing social security and other New Deal social services. In summation, the anti-war movement -- which largely evaporated once the shooting started and the "support the troops" propaganda kicked in -- was a very minor (if any) consideration. In solidarity.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
More information about the Marxism