[Marxism] Good news! UFPJ also calls antiwar protest for DC September 24.

Carlos A. Rivera cerejota at optonline.net
Mon May 23 17:00:45 MDT 2005


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Louis Proyect" <lnp3 at panix.com>



> We don't look very effective when we can't come to terms around the need 
> to meet at site a and march to site b under the banner of immediate 
> withdrawal from Iraq.

On this we agree, but I don't find it outrageous. Maybe is a thing of 
degrees.

People see disaster were I see opportunity.

I agree fully with Feldman on this one:

This presents a unique opportunity to those of us who honestly believe in a 
united anti-war movement, and are not preoccupied with the questions of 
leadership or funding or platform, to demonstrate IN PRACTICE that:

1) Having "Out Now" as a single unifying slogan is not so bad, and its not a 
capitulation (a message to ANSWER)

2) That allowing other slogans to exists, right or left, as long as they 
agree on the "Out now" slogan (a message to UFPJ)

In practical terms, I believe critizicing the UFPJ more than ANSWER because 
say what you will, ANSWER folks are alredy convinced, firmly, on "Out Now" 
as a slogan. The same cannot be said of the UFPJ, who while decrying 
anything to the left of "Out Now" allow, and even embrace, the "white man's 
burden" bullshit of "wait until the security conditions are better".

I draw my single line at that. The DEMAND *must* be "Out Now!" nothing less, 
anything to the right of that is a deal breaker. And UFPJ, in spite of their 
disingenious denials, are not that solidly behind that demand. The 
coalitions define themselves as what they are, one firmly subjectively 
anti-imperialist the other broad-based. But I don't think socialists can 
continue to call themselves socialists when they allow imperialist troops 
breathing room in their colonial occupations. Trotsky said such socialists 
"deserved to be branded with infamy, if not a bullet" and I think he was 
right, and I am pretty far from a Troskyite, mind you.

The problem I have with socialists critics of ANSWER is that they are being 
even more sectarian than ANSWER itself. I refer you to Joaquin Bustelo's 
ultra-sectarian outburst when ANSWER first laid out their call. Such is the 
type of BS socialists have to endure from other socialists for simply 
claiming to be red-as-baboon's-ass?

I know there is history, but Coalition Building must be about burying 
hatchets, not throwing new logs into the fire!

And I have friends and comrades on both sides, even at the leadership level, 
so I can say there are good people at all levels of both. As I said, both 
suffer from unrepentant sectarianism, yet I feel that socialists within UFPJ 
do a diservice to socialism when they engage ANSWER (with whom they are 
really closer ideologically than to the Demohack-NGOists wing of the UFPJ, 
even if their own sectarianism won't allow them to see it) at this 
vituterative level. Likewise, I think they do a diservice to socialism by 
allowing and even uncritically supporting the right-wing of the UFPJ when 
they red-bait and Demohack.

Sure, we can question the tactics of ANSWER, or the ISO or whoever, and we 
have done so. But one must separate the wheat from the shaft, the strategic 
from the tactical.

I said it before and will say it again:

The greatest enemy the anti-war movement has is not the slogans of the 
ultra-left, but the practical capitulation of the right-wing on the very 
question of "Out Now". Its the conveyor belt to the right that is wrong, not 
the one to the left.

sks 





More information about the Marxism mailing list