> On Oct 6, 2006, at 10:44 PM, Carrol Cox wrote:
>
>> made it impossible any how to build much of an
>> anti-war movement,
>> but the desertion of so many to ABB made the
>> death of the movement
>> certain
>
> Yo, buddy, the election was two years ago! You
> got a more contemporary explanation than this?
> I realize its attraction for you - you get to
> promote your hobby-horse and absolve the movement
> for any of its problems - but public opinion on
> Iraq has moved a lot since 2004, and there's no
> movement at all to show for it.
I wouldn't call it "desertion to ABB," but I largely agree with Carrol on this one. Most people opposed to, say, the invasion and occupation of Iraq don't hit the streets just for the fun of it. They do it as a means to advance certain goals, namely change policy. If there are alternative, more economical ways to accomplish the same goals, people pursue them. If mass demonstrations fail repeatedly to alter policies in the short term and there are other, seemingly effective and direct ways to get things done, the choice is easy.
At some point, most participants in the movement realized that to make Bush change his policies, tighter institutional constraints were needed. At least, the mid- and long-term national political expectations had to shift to the left, as well as the actual legislative and local political landscape. So those people naturally defaulted to other ways to advancing same goals: electoral politics.
Superficial radicals may not see it or may not like it, but there has been and is an ongoing, relatively vigorous movement -- yes, movement -- to organize and advance locally, mostly through the Democratic Party. For obvious reasons, the Green Party and other formations are still on the fringes. In November 2004, this ferment was still too young and disorganized to bear fruit. But the process has continued. Howard Dean was elected to the leadership of the Democratic Party, a strong and influential liberal left-wing blogosphere emerged, Lamont defeated Lieberman in the primaries, the mass media was forced to change the tone, and the Republicans are on the defensive. As we speak, there are serious chances of changing the composition of the next U.S. congress come November.
Just to clear possible misunderstandings: I don't claim that Howard Dean or Ned Lamont or Arianna Huffington are champions of the proletarian revolution. It shouldn't be required to make this explicit. My (much humbler) point is that, if we take a broad look at the conditions of mass behavior of those in the U.S. who live off their work, if we try to understand the terms in which they may become more willing and able to coalesce as an active, organized, independent, and enlightened political force, capable of transforming the nation for good -- and evaluating this realistically, without conformist self-deception or morbid pessimism -- then these molecular political processes ought to be taken seriously into account. And I assume that people who view themselves as radical leftists are interested in the actually-existing workers' movement.
In short, if some leftists try to build an anti-war movement focused on street protests under ***these conditions***, they will end up with marginal groups of protesters. If some people value that alternative lifestyle for its sake, who am I to judge. But as far as building a mass movement, it'll be a largely artificial attempt. Whether we find it sexy or not, the anti-war movement today is built via electoral politics -- more local than national, more long term than short term. (And I place the emphasis on "these conditions", because -- e.g. -- an attack on Iran would definitely change the setting.)
Julio