[Fwd: Jan Myrdal calls for a new Peace Front]

[Carrol Cox]

The call by Jan Myrdal fwd below was clearly intended specifically
for the Swedish left, but it is so clear in its summary of the 20th-c
struggle against imperialism and war, and of the primary obligations
of socialists in a world dominated by U.S. aggression, that it could
serve as a template for similar calls elsewhere. Moreover, Jan
Myrdal's call opens up a first crucial step socialists all over the
world can take to respond to the intermittent calls for unity, calls
that are usually empty and even counter-productive because they
fail to recognize that unity of principle and program must emerge
from a prior unity of practice. Opposition to the U.S. imperialist
project can form the basis for unity of practice among those
differing widely, even wildly, in theoretical loyalties.

Of course we who live in the belly of the beast have a special
responsibility, and just *because* we enjoy democratic rights
(in contrast to the German people of the 1930s) that responsibility
is all the greater. How difficult that task is we may know not only
from the waffling as well as outright support for U.S. savagery
on this list, but from the leftover mythology from the Vietnam War
which still dominates the media. In this morning's Chicago Tribune
the columnist John Kass, at the end of a column devoted to the
usual pro-war ravings about how terrible war was, writes as follows:

    "If we're going to fight, we must fight to win. We already fought to

lose once, in Vietnam." (Chicago Tribune, March 29, 1999, Sct. 1,
p. 3,  col. 1)

We must remember that a good deal of U.S. "anti-war" sentiment is
based on this myth of "fighting to lose" in Vietnam. It is one of the
myths which it is most important for a unified anti-imperialist movement

in the United States to fight to destroy, and it will not be easy.

One difficulty exists at the very beginning. No one in the United
States (and certainly no marxist) has the prestige that Jan Mydal
enjoys in Sweden, and a Call will have be issued by a collective,
a collective with non-Marxist leadership. The only two "names" I
can think of are Noam Chomsky and Manning Marable, but both
have other responsibilities, particularly the latter for there can be no

enduring progressive movement in the United States without a
strong and independent black movement.

Of recent posts on the overall issue, one by Doug Henwood suggests
one serious specific issue for a movement to focus on. He writes as
follows (on lbo-talk, Sun, 28 Mar 1999 19:06:48 -0500)

==============
But this is all perfectly consistent with U.S. bombing strategy, from
Dresden through Hiroshima through Iraq, to terrorize civilian
populations
in order to undermine popular support for and destroy the human
infrastructure of regimes the U.S. is at war with.

I love the propaganda parallel with the Gulf War - a demonized
"Milosevic"
just like the demonized "Saddam" - we're at war with the evil "Him," and

not the people we're actually bombing. At some level Clinton & Co.
probably
believe this.
============

To spread to a broader public this perspective on U.S. use of air power
would go part of the way towards undercutting the lies about the U.S.
"fighting to lose" in Vietnam. We can't do it however merely by arguing
with each other on e-mail lists. But the present moment does present
an occasion in which we can test the claims (often extravagant perhaps)
which have been made for the use to which the left can put the internet.

Clearly it can make instantly available to us the kind of necessary bank

of information and analysis which a number on these lists have been
providing these last days. But that is merely ammunition in the armory.
Can mail lists help in organizing to use it?

Carrol
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: Juan Fajardo <fajardos at ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Jan Myrdal calls for a new Peace Front
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 16:56:25 -0800
Size: 10516
URL: <../attachments/19990329/0f397465/attachment.eml>