Dwayne Monroe wrote:
>
>
> In any event, although it's certain we'll get an ocean's worth of
> "abstract anti-imperialist posturing" what we need - and I think you'll
> agree - is a set of demands created from, as Doug reminds us, the wishes
> of the majority of the Iraqi people and a realistic analysis of the US'
> policy objectives in Iraq now that it has positioned itself there.
There are problems here.
Q. Who is "we" in the phrase, "what we need"? A. Those actively engaged in organizing the anti-war movement.
Q. Who needs to grant the demands? A. An administration (regardless of who wins in November) committed to permanent U.S. control of the government of Iraq.
Q. How can we deliver those demands? A. Through the mass actions of the anti-war movement.
Q. What demand can be useful in mobilizing mass action against the war? A. Out Now!
Q. How can the Iraqi people express their demands in such a way that they will be heard in the U.S.? A. By killing u.s. troops.
Q. How many americans will ever know what the responses of the Iraqi people to polls? A. Probably not much more than 5-10%.
Q. Can Iraqi poll results be incorporated into the process of mobilizing masses of people? A. No.
Q. Would it be nice if the answer to the preceding question were "Yes"? A. Yes.
Q. Can Iraqi response to polls (or Iraqi election results) be a practical consideration for the anti-war movement? A. No.
I have argued these kind of points within anti-war organizations for almost 40 years. I have never lost one of those arguments in an actual organizing context. I have never won one of those arguments in a purely academic context such as lbo-talk.
Perhaps the following analogy will make this clearer. In the coming election the voters will have an either/or choice: Bush or Kerry. It would be nice if a more nuanced choice were available: e.g., if the voters could choose among (say) 10 detailed sets of legislation, and the president would be elected who had committed him/herself to the winning nuanced position. That procedure clearly belongs in never-never land.
In respect to the anti-war movement, each person has an either/or choice: Remain on the sidelines or support the non-nuanced demand, "Out Now."
My suggestion to those who want the anti-war movement to have a more nuanced position is that you forget about lbo-talk and begin a new organization. Then you must go to work recruiting several thousand local organizers who will successfully oppose the Carrols and Yoshies, dissolving the current local organizations and creating new ones.
I don't think you can do it.
My point is that this debate on lbo-talk may be interesting in various ways, but it cannot have any impact on the actual anti-war movement. Within that movement the debate was definitively settled before the movement ever came into existence, because there is no other practical way for a mass movement to operate.
Carrol