[Marxism] Redbaiting on the left
meisner at xs4all.nl
Sat Mar 21 10:50:55 MDT 2009
At 08:20 21/03/09 -0400, Joaquin wrote:
>A meandering, moralizing article dumped on the list by Louis
"Dumped?" Is that to say that it was inappropriate for this list? (Surely
not). Or that Louis was wrong for agreeing with every word of it? (Which he
never implied). Or that Louis was wrong for agreeing with the main point of
it? Which I had thought almost everyone on this list would be, but Joaquin
just proved me wrong.....
>"....Which side are you on? That of the Obamanation
>and the Democrat Party version of war and empire? Or on the side of public,
>mass opposition to the war?"
Well I think that's an extremely good question to pose to people in the US.
It points out to the (near-) majority of the American population not that
they voted for the worse of the 2 major candidates, but rather that they
were not given a choice among the "winnable" candidates of one who would
end these wars as they would have wanted.
>Right, so either you're with the sectarian jerks from ANSWER
Many many of us feel disgust at the stalinistic politics of groups behind
ANSWER, but that isn't the issue. And there's no justification for calling
ANSWER itself "sectarian" (which Joaquin doesn't do, with a careful
reading). I support the public positions of ANSWER and yes, I might also
make some criticisms of them or their members. But I don't raise those
criticisms to the general public for (hopefully) obvious reasons, and I
don't even need to raise them in this context in order to answer Joaquin's
> that have just spent the LAST six years PROVING
>they're incapable of building a serious opposition to the war in this
Wait a minute! Are you saying that something in particular that ANSWER does
or says (and if so, pray what?) is responsible for the lack of a wider
antiwar movement in the US?? That if ANSWER ("and similar
sock-puppet "coalitions"") had just disappeared then there WOULD have been
"a serious opposition to the war"?? That somehow not only was ANSWER unable
to build a much stronger movement, but that they PREVENTED one from taking
Well that is just SO silly that I won't even bother responding to it.
Unless Joaquin can present an iota of evidence/analysis to that effect
(which he accidentally omitted from his post). There are lots of possible
explanations for the failure of the antiwar movement to grow in the US and
we could discuss and disagree about those in long exchanges. But I doubt
the existence of one or another militant organization would even enter into
such a discussion. I doubt that many would stoop to the position that the
far left has somehow "pushed" the population away from protesting against
the wars. We sometimes hear such charges from social-democrats etc. who
want to monopolize a social or union movement. But that's not something I'd
expect to receive a warm reception among the readers of this list. If that
is the actual opinion of Joaquin, then I would like to hear his arguments,
not just name-calling.
> "..... a war undeclared by Congress,
>therefore unconstitutional and the basis for an impeachment."
Yes, Joaquin, this is indeed a "petty-bourgeois, liberal and formalistic"
position BY THE AUTHOR OF THAT ARTICLE. It was tangential to the point of
the article and more importantly it was NOT the position put forward by
ANSWER (let alone a reason for the weakness of the US antiwar movement). So
a rather irrelevant point to attack.
>And the 20%-25% "nobama" wing of the population are --let's be honest--
>rabidly racist Republicans
>Thereby CONFIRMING what is FOR SURE the line of the Democratic Party hacks,
>that these protests aren't really antiwar, but anti-Obama.
Excuse me, but I must absolutely defend ANSWER in this case. They have been
organizing protests against the occupations consistently demanding
immediate withdrawal of the imperialists, and nothing changed when Obama
came in. If their current demonstrations "aren't really antiwar, but
anti-Obama" then that must have also been true about their similar
demonstrations 5 years ago. Right? Please!
It wasn't my main intention, but I will completely come to the defense of
ANSWER when they are subjected to this form of attack. Not because I like
who they are, but because I agree with organizing mass demonstrations (or
as "mass" as possible) against imperialist war, which ANSWER has done to
their credit. I am sorry if some people are uncomfortable with continuing
that after a liberal democrat becomes president. :-(
More information about the Marxism