"We would like to support Iraqi trade unionists and others with agendas we can understand and relate to and who prefer peaceful marches. But it so happens that al Sadr, taking into account all the unsavory things we think we know about him, is the one who stepped up to the plate and confronted imperialism head to head. And yet, even so, we cannot support him in good conscience.
So here we are, opposing imperialism, hoping for its relatively gentle end yet stuck with a queasy feeling about the very people on the front lines against it whose goals, if realized, would present the world with no improvement.
This is a true dilemma. We need to recognize it and deal accordingly." xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dwane has provided a sober reflection of a current issue he thinks the left must deal with. I like the tone of Dwane's post. It stimulated several questions: Must the left take positions on all or most issues? Is there a main topic for left analysis and activism (including goals, tactics, and strategy) and what should it be?
I'm reminded of several things. Just as the right must do, much of the left feels obliged to make support-reject decisions on most every issue it confronts. Much of the left feels a strong need to be "correct and pure" on all topics, all struggles, all situations. This is a horrendous task and impossible to achieve. Just making the effort to be correct on everything is all-consuming, and may distract from or replace other important things such as strategizing and organizing for change in the domestic political situation, which logically is the first step toward change in imperial policy.
Even though some of my best friends are Greens, I think so many in that party (and allied groups) unduly focus on their personal purity; almost religious in zeal. The harder left has always been burdened with a perceived need to support tendencies or states or whatever that appear to be progressive or potentially supportive of a particular line. I suppose that's from a Leninist-like legacy coming out of the responsibilities of revolutionary leadership. Analyses must be made and lines must be changed to meet the exigencies of changing conditions. Well, many misjudgments were made because conditions always change. And sometimes the left was quite ignorant of the situations being evaluated. Nevertheless, a judgment was required.
In Condi Rice's three hour testimony to the 9-11 Commission today she harped on strategy and tactics that clearly were in support of imperial policy. She engaged in her mission professionally. But I was struck with certitude that the left must also engage in strategy and tactics to change the very structure of power right here at home. Some change may come from the mass persuasion of street actions, but I believe the task is much more fundamental and difficult.
Regarding the specifics in Iraq, U. S. Labor Against the War decided to support Iraqi labor. Since labor is basic, preceding before and continuing after al Sadr and others step up to the plate, USLAW put forth both a long and short-range principle. Whether Kurd, Sunni, or Shia, survival and freedom require making a living. That's labor. The left must find common dimensions to work with that apply across the board. Labor is a good beginning.
Bob Mast -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20040408/46fc6029/attachment.htm>