Terror etc.

Tahir Wood twood at uwc.ac.za
Mon May 6 03:03:52 PDT 2002


I have watched this debate repeat exactly the same rhetorical and ideological moves that it did 6 months ago. That should give us pause, I think, to consider that there are basically two general lines of thought that cannot be reconciled, that is, without a third to mediate them somehow. Both of these positions seem to me to operate along nationalist lines and that is why I think that they are both wrong from a communist point of view.

The message that sparked the present exchanges, if I recall correctly, did what many similar messages have done: it asked what should WE have done in Afghanistan, in response to 911, etc. This 'we' apparently refers to the US as a political entity not to we leftists or left-leaning people on the list. As someone who is no American I am automatically excluded from that 'we'. But I thought, as a communist, that I was included in the 'we' that discusses here. If anyone identifies themselves with the dilemmas of the US and its presidency then I wonder whether I have anything in common with them and whether I am part of any sort of 'we' with such people at all.

On the other hand we have the leftists who want to do the impossible: they apparently want to build a broad based coalition against war with people who are Democrats, etc. (why not Republicans I ask?) and want to do it ALSO on the basis of a critique of American imperialism. So in their leftist groupings they are a certain 'we' (leninists of some kind or other) who also want to be a part of a larger 'we' (peaceniks or whatever). This is simply nonsense. The only coherent critique of the American response is on the basis of a critique of imperialism, which is itself an inherent part of what we call capitalism. If you ditch that critique you are left with an impossible task of explaining to people why they should not make war against other people who have attacked their country. Anyone with any brains can tell that such a peace movement cannot succeed in preventing war. So what is it for then? To make 'us' feel that at least we are doing something? Doing what?

It is right from a communist perspective to wish the worst possible fate on the Taliban and lunatic religious movements of all kinds. It is also absolutely right to say that the US is a monstrous imperialist power and to say that it is only monstrous because it is inherently imperialist / capitalist. It could not be otherwise. And these two monstrosities arise from the same source, capitalist imperialism and its specific history. How do you explain this to your Democrat friends? I don't know and don't care because I think your anti-war movement is valueless and dishonest unless it is anti-capitalist. I know that this is infantile thinking to the 'strategy and tactics' crowd. But I also know that strategy and tactics will never make a jot of difference to the capitalist world order which produces imperialism and its discontents. The only thing that will make a difference is a higher degree of consciousness. That's what 'we' are trying to achieve isn't it? But how can we, if ! th! e basis of our coalition is the lowest common denominator, i.e. some original notion of the essential humaneness of the liberal mode of thought. And after your coalition has done all its feelgood stuff, it will have made a better, healtheir and more long-lasting capitalism for us to live in.

But hey, as long as we are 'doing something' ...

Tahir



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list