Yeah, lack of time.
>David writes:
>>In my opinion, it's far better to take a principled stance rather than
>>a dogmatic one on what folks "have to" or "don't have to" support. And it's
>>my understanding, based on the reading and studying I've been doing, that
>>unless the events that are now unfolding engender a strong workers'
movement that
>>does not cast its lot with the bourgeoisie in Washington, these wars will
>>continue, on and on.
>>
>David:
>Perhaps I should ask you where the impetus to physically stop the "war
>on terrorism" is going to "come from" within the context of the "anti-war
>movement" as it stands? Remember, 1.5 million Iraqis have already died
>from U.N. sanctions.... that's half the number of people who died in the
entire
>Vietnam war, and we're told that a war with Iraq hasn't even started yet!
Well, the war started in 1990. The impetus is clearly not going to come from moral outrage, primarily. A 'war on terrorism'? that would be nice, but I don't think that's what the U.S. gov't is engaged in. I think a lot of folks will refuse to go--more than in the first Gulf War. Others will be pretty unwilling to lie about what happens there. I think that quite a few people will get really angry and try to gum up the works here. Our role right now is to get as much info out about how it's not about terrorism (theirs) nor is it even about helping the U.S. economically (apart from a few oil barons).
In particular, one of the things anti-war people keep doing around here (in Gainesville, I mean) is blaming the folks who drive gas guzzlers for the war.
Or blame people for wanting cheap oil, cheap plastic, conveniences, and so on, really buying the line that people want war for economic reasons. My feeling is that people who are for the war are genuinely afraid and/or think Saddam is a dictator who should be removed and/or think that the U.S. represents the forces of enlightenment (you know, sorta like Hitchens.) There's not a whole lot of people who think, yeah, go kill so I can save money. Not working people anyway, frat boys might say that.
This line that we're privileged and stupid in America (a short-hand version of the line that the real contradictions are between the global north and the global south, and there is no working class in the U.S. except perhaps immigrants) is snobby and obnoxious, and buys into Bush's propaganda that this war really is to help most U.S. people and that we have a lot of common interests with the elites.
>The global capitalist economy is STILL
>based on wage-labor and commodity production.
But the opposed argument is that this is now no longer significant (or significant enough) within the U.S. So how come you think there's an organizable working class in this country, when so much of the left doesn't? I mean, I agree. (With the twist that I think of this as largely women, led by women, for various reasons I won't go into here.) What I I'm curious about is, what data or analysis or experience are you working from that you think others are not?
>Jenny:
>I'm not too convinced by the all-or-nothing rhetoric,
>
>David:
>All or nothing rhetoric?! That is exactly what Yoshie seems to be
>supporting-- casting one's lot without criticism or alternative into a
>popular front with Stalinists and "progressive" pro-war-anti-Bush Democrats,
>i.e., capitalists, in order to determine whether or not Bush shoots Saddam
>Hussein point blank or merely bombs Iraqi civilians!
Nah, by 'all or nothing' I meant when you say things like we'll have endless war unless we get our shit together as a class--I mean I think we could actually stop or slow this down or ameliorate it with our shit only half together, or less than that--given the splits in the ruling class, and other conditions. In other words, we shouldn't feel like we can't stop it unless some impossibly high preconditions are met, that leads to unwarranted hopelessness, if you look at history there is NO WAY some of the stuff we've won seemed like it could be won--the movement was so hopelessly unorganized, repressed, poorly funded, etc.
>David:
>Yes, like I said, I think we do agree on the causes of war. As for my
program, I've spelled
>it out several times on the list. In a word:
>to build the Labor Party into a genuine workers' party in the United States,
>a party that challenges the political power of Democrats and their
>strangle-hold on workers' rights. You are involved in the Labor Party,
>too, are you not?
Yeah, I'm co-chair of a local organizing committee in Alachua County, Florida. There's a quote from me on the back of the current Labor Party Press about our work here if you're curious.
>What are your objectives within it?
At this point getting some working class politics out there into the debate, raising expectations around the everyday issues that are biting us in the butt, winning some relief, building the movement.
Jenny