Of course, on another topic, not wholly unrelated, there is (to repeat my cliché) a sliver of hope for a mass movement in the u.s. in opposition to the attack on the world's peoples under the heading of "austerity." Now we don't have a lot of experience with mass movements, or perhaps I should say, "The Mass Movement." There have been United Fronts and Popular Fronts and Populist Movements, but I think we now need to think about The Mass Movement (a new political term I'm introducing here). Populist movements are non-class, and ultimately tend towards racist politics of some sort. Both the United Front and the Popular Front reflected the existence of powerful left parties contending for hegemony over the working-class movement. At least provisionally, I am assuming that there cannot be and will not be (and certainly is not) a _single_ or hegemonic working-class mass party in the U.S. There will continue to be various parties, unions, leagues, organizations, etc etc. But they will all _tend_ towards a center, a center defined by the needs of the u.s. working class. There will be (this is all sort of thinking out loud and provisional) multiple political perspectives within such a tendency, there will be individuals and groups entering & leaving, and reentering, and there will not even be unanimity on some major actions. And, as the current idiocy re West on lbo-talk shows, almost everyone or every group in that baggy monster of a movement will consider other elements as "beyond the pale." That will be silly. As is the carping at West's style. That carping ignores the fact that he and Pliven have a concrete goal: they desire, with a National Teach-in, to trigger a national movement, or at least an embryonic national movement against the Austerity Policy. And carping at West is idiotic (private, apolitical in the original Greek sense of the word) in two ways.
First, it breaks solidarity. It proclaims that "We will not march with anyone who does not meet our aesthetic standards." I assure them, that if this movement _does_ emerge, and if they do stick with it, they will have far cruder or "inauthentic" comrades than West to work with. (And you will note that I have already drawn back from the dogmatism of the post you are responding to: Those who debate the u.s. aggression are wobblers, rather than flatly non-leftists. I presume most of them will wander back to the core left. Just as those idiots (still original Greek sense) who at the beginning of the invasion of Iraq argued that the anti-war movement needed a more "complex" or "complicated" line than "Stop the war. Bring the Troops Home," eventually wandered back to the fold, covering their retreat with the balm of "When the facts change, I change my mind." The relevant facts, of course, had always been the same. But the central point remains: people do wander (especially leftists infected with moralism and "Progressiveism"), but most do wander back as well. And I expect that those who have broken unity with West & Pliven on the flimsy point of West's style will get over their little hissy fit and be part of the Anti-Austerity Campaign if it does emerge.
Incidentally, Jan tells me that Mike Yates gave a rather rip-roaring, take the gloves off, go to war against capital in the panel which she attended. We want _all_ styles, because we want all who will join, and their tastes in style will differ.
Carrol
-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of Marv Gandall Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 9:04 AM To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Libya
On 2011-03-22, at 9:20 AM, Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> FWIW, my own take on the events, part of a lively discussion on Louis
> Proyect's Marxmail list which has reflected the deep divide within the
> international left on this issue.
>
> I would deny that there is a divide on the left. Anyone who approves of
U.s.
> aggression is simply not a leftist.
Agreed, but who are you accusing of "approving" of US aggression? Who do you think is unaware of the US and EU motives in moving to "support" the democratic movements by force or guile in the Mideast? The young front line fighters in Libya who told a Western reporter a couple of days ago that "we've seen what they do in Iraq, and we don't want that in Libya" and "...we worry about foreign intervention and sending in ground troops"?* The Arab masses who have experienced imperialism first-hand and already have qualms about the bombing, but who have yet to raise the slogan Hands Off Libya? Your fellow Americans in Madison who took inspiration from the Libyan uprising? I don't particularly care whether those who solidarize with the Libyan insurgents call themselves "leftists" or not; the great majority don't. But it grates on me when comfortable leftist know-nothings who well outside the struggle characterize them as apologists for imperialism, as you do - "in the objective sens!
e", of course.
>From my own far off perch in Canada, I think that it might have been better
- and I would have preferred - for the Libyan democratic opposition to seek
a negotiated solution or to go underground when the military balance turned
sharply against it, rather than inviting foreign intervention which has
compromised and may, if the war is protracted, potentially shatter its
fragile unity. But I can understand that when finally backed into a corner
and threatened with extermination like rats and cockroaches, the opposition
combatants willing accepted NATO air support, as I would have done too in
similar circumstances. Anyone with half a brain knows you first deal with
the immediate threat to your own survival before you can deal with your
other enemies.
*http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-21-Benghazi21_ST_N.htm ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk