[Marxism] Re: Anti-imperialism?

rrubinelli rrubinelli at earthlink.net
Sat May 7 22:42:48 MDT 2005


As much as I disagree with Macdonald's analysis of Iraq-- US can't walk
away from it; "it" is the control of oil; prices will go sky high and
that's not what the US wants-- it seems clear to me that all he is
referencing is a little bit of "uneven and combined development" in the
anti-war movement itself.

We, the Marxists we, should acknowledge that, welcome that, and find the
way to feed the transitions back into the movement itself, quicken the
pace, the combination so to speak.

What's the big deal?  I'll tell you where I think it is.... earlier Lou
said that, during the Vietnam war protests, the SWP never attacked,
always defended, demonstrations and occupations of ROTC buildings, etc.
Really?  How was that done?  Did the SWP/YSA use its influence in the
various Mobe committees to bring out demonstrators to support the
occupations, to oppose the arrest of the occupiers, to physically defend
the occupiers?  Did the SWP/YSA take that course itself with its own
members?  I don't recall that happening at any of the occupations I was
involved in.

Defending the actions by leaflet or newspaper two days later is just
that sort of support a movement does not need.  What's at stake?
Control.  Proprietary "ownership" of a "movement," not unlike cornering
delegates at a convention.  Thus the emphasis on "single issue"  "mass
base" etc. etc. and the antipathy to any group or manifestation outside
the control of the single issuers, mass basers..

rr
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Macdonald Stainsby" <mstainsby at resist.ca>
To: <marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 9:21 PM
Subject: [Marxism] Re: Anti-imperialism?






More information about the Marxism mailing list