-----Original Message----- From: Chris Burford <cburford at gn.apc.org>
Chris very much wants to see a 'serious plan' get put together, and he writes:
>The obstacle to a serious plan actually above all comes from
>ultra-leftists who imply that any plan would be a compromise with the
>existing power structures. Of course. But a strategy of "No Compromises" is
>also a plan that is not there.
I think he is scowling in my direction when he writes this. I will get back to the misconception in this paragraph later, but first let me ask, what does he think a 'serious plan' is? Let's look at it:
>This must include an
>active postive and radical agenda for the emerging Empire that is of course
>not just an endorsement of US hegemonic action.
What does Chris mean by 'an agenda for the emerging Empire'? Does this mean (a) an agenda which he wants the emerging Empire to follow, or does this mean (b) an agenda for the "not-Empire", whoever he thinks that is (I would of course include the working classes in the Empire countries), to follow in defending themselves and attempting to defeat the Empire, or does this mean something in the middle, (c) an agenda which he wants the "not-Empire" to impose upon the Empire so as to muzzle it and make it less dangerous and more benign?
I suspect that Chris means (c), which, however, is the least realistic of the three, in my view, because I think it is EASIER to destroy imperialism than to make it do what you want. It's like smallpox. It is easier to eliminate smallpox than to transform it into a benign and helpful micro-organism like brewer's yeast.
Let's look at just the first step of Chris's "serious plan":
> It must emphasise
>accountability to the United Nations.
OK: the "serious plan" includes a provision that the United States will be -subordinated- to the United Nations. Of course the problem is that at the moment the United Nations is subordinated to the United States! I assume that Chris doesn't just mean that the USA will be subordinated to the rest of the permanent members of the security council - what good would that be, it would just mean passing the crown of empire to another imperialist (leaving the China question aside for the moment), so I gather that he means that the USA is supposed to be subordinated to the General Assembly - to the votes of Fiji and Indonesia and Pakistan and Algeria and Cuba and so on.
Now my "ultra-left question" about this "serious plan" is simply: what military force is Chris counting on to defeat the US and humble it and subordinate it to the votes of the General Assembly? What revolutionary development is he counting on to destroy the global economic and military power of the US which at present subverts and buys and strongarms the small and oppressed countries and subordinates the United Nations to the United States? Or is he counting on a socialist revolution inside the US which will wreck the power of the capitalist class and make it possible for the US to deal in a non-ravenous way with the rest of the world?
Or is he just counting on the "miracle of democracy", whereby we, the people of the United States, go out and subordinate the Empire to our will through our mighty ballots? Or what? What are the nuts and bolts of this serious plan? How long is it supposed to take? Isn't it rather ambitious, when you think about it?
Has Chris really thought through the fact that making the US "accountable" to the UN, although it sounds like a modest enough goal at first glance, would require nothing less than a global revolution. with all the convulsions that would entail, if it were to have any real meaning and not just be an empty phrase? That if you take the unwillingness of the U.S government to immediately give up its war against Afghanistan, and multiply it by ten thousand, you would get an approximation of the Empire's unwillingness to permanently and sincerely bind itself in subordination to the majority of the nations of the world?
Turning this last clause around: isn't it clear that, IF we of the 'left' have no power to force the US to get out of Afghanistan today, THEN we also have no power to impose a U.N. yoke upon the U.S. in any real or lasting way which is not a charade?
Now let me get back to the fundamental flaw in Chris's opening paragraph. Chris says, in so many words, that the only way a plan can be "serious" is to be a compromise with "existing power structures", which is to say, with the oil companies, the big banks, the Pentagon, the big-business political parties, and all the other institutions which make up imperialism. And he implies that we of the "ultra-left" reject compromises with imperialism out of principle. That's actually a misconception, though. I don't think all "compromises" with imperialism are bad. A compromise is an agreement, after all. Like a treaty, or a trade deal, or a union contract. I believe that there can be agreements with imperialists. I don't oppose "compromises" on principle. But I DO oppose CAPITULATING to imperialism and PRETENDING that it is a compromise. And I also oppose EMPTY TALK of compromise when we do not have any POWER in hand to induce them to make any compromise IN FACT, so that any supposed compromise must actually be a snare and a delusion.
The provisions of contracts and treaties between enemies reflect the results which have been obtained on the battlefield, or which would be obtained on the battlefield in the absence of the treaty. If you are strong, you can make an advantageous agreement. If you are weak, less so. If you are powerless, then the only 'agreement' you will actually be permitted to sign is an unconditional surrender. That's why it is very dangerous for the powerless to think of compromises.
Let me give a low-level illustration of what I mean. Let us suppose you have some workers in a factory where conditions are miserable and dangerous. In fact, let's suppose that the workplace is so unsafe that the workers literally are not sure that they will come home alive from their shift. It is an immediate crisis. Let us also suppose that there is no question of government stepping in and compelling the company to take any action. Finally, let us suppose that the workers are disunited and unorganized and dispirited.
In response to this crisis, an 'ultraleft' comes along and says, "We, the workers, are in a terrible pickle. The only way we can protect ourselves is to do the difficult work of organizing ourselves into a union so that we can credibly threaten to strike and actually force the company to improve conditions. This will take a long time and will be very difficult."
A "serious planner" responds, "You are not being serious. We need to do something now! It does us no good to talk of striking and such, because we don't now have the ability to do that, and who knows when we will. We need to make a serious and practical plan right now, and this must involve making an agreement with management which will make management accountable to the workers! Now let's talk about what the terms of that agreement should be. The only obstacle to this plan is the ultra-lefts who are opposed to any compromise with management. That's the same as having no plan."
But what happens on the day the "serious planner" walks into the company president's office and says, "Here I am! I am here with a friendly compromise, whereby the company will be made accountable to the workers." The president will have the security guard throw the serious planner out of the office, saying: "I don't want to make the company accountable to the workers. I never will make any such agreement, unless I am forced to. You have no power to force me to make such an agreement, so there is nothing to talk about! I'm sorry that you have been wasting your time and the time of everyone who has been helping you draw up thoroughly speculative agreements. Actually, that's a lie, I'm not sorry, because you have been a hindrance to the "ultra-leftist" who is trying to organize a union which actually could force me to compromise! So you have done me some service, but I am still throwing you out of my office!"
At least, that's one scenario! Another scenario is that the president welcomes in the serious planner with open arms, and shakes hands with him, and says, "We must indeed have a long discussion about how to make a real compromise!" And he says to the workers, "See, this is the kind of serious planner I will listen to! Don't put your trust in the ultra-leftist, who never wants to sit down with me in a friendly way, man to man, and talk business!" So a "process" is instituted whereby they talk for months about "accountability", while the workers die on the job as before. Then at length an agreement is signed, but there are "problems of implementation", and the workers die as before. Meanwhile the president is summoned to meet with the corporate board, and they ask him, "What's this we read in the papers about your making an agreement with the workers?" The president explains, "I signed a piece of paper. But it is only a ruse to fool the workers. In fact the workers are completely subject to our will, as they always will be unless they organize themselves. Somehow the 'serious planner' ignored the obvious fact that, if we are willing to take their lives for our advantage and profit, we are not going to be restrained by morality alone from breaking agreements and turning all 'compromises' into traps." The board chuckles and gives the president a raise.
It is the same thing with the war. It is true that we ultra-leftists (if that's what we are) who demand "Stop the War! US out of the Middle East!" will not be treated by the media and the intellectuals and the Democratic Party members of Congress as 'serious people', and we will not be invited on talk shows, or given op-ed space in the newspapers, or invited to lunch with government officials; in fact, we will be denounced and derided and perhaps even imprisoned. And it is true that the people with "serious plans" about accountability and international institutions and so on may be given more of a platform, and be treated with respect, and have 'access to lawmakers'. But I do not believe that this means that the 'serious plans' actually accomplish anything toward reducing the number of Afghans who get blown up, or for that matter that our work does not.
Of course I don't mean that Chris is merely seduced by the prospect of bourgeois acclaim. I believe it is a matter of frustration. Indeed, as with the factory workers in my example, we face a very daunting task. The Pentagon is saying that the "war against terror" may last our entire lifetimes. Certainly the "war against imperialism" has lasted several lifetimes already. "Public opinion" has been mobilized against us, and imperialism is formidable and enraged. Faced with this rampaging dragon, and with the certainty that we will not for a long time be strong enough to slay it, there is every incentive to suspend one's understanding of physical and social laws, and to believe in the power of some magic charm. "Weakness takes refuge in a belief in miracles" - Marx said that, and Lenin quoted him. But it's not a lasting or real refuge.
Lou Paulsen member, Workers World Party, Chicago www.workers.org