FEEL FREE TO DISTRIBUTE OR POST
Dear 9/30 discussion participants:
Please send this out far and wide to whatever lists or websites you think
might be appropriate.
Bob
October 5, 2001
Dear Friends:
As we immersed ourselves in the fightback to Bush's war against terrorism,
we felt the need to get our political bearings as leftists. So we organized
a discussion attended by 27 diverse left activists in the Bay Area on Sept.
30, the main points of which we share here.
Below are the main points and the presentations by Max Elbaum and Bob Wing
which kicked off a wide-ranging and open-ended discussion. We are interested
to hear your comments and to find ways to move this discussion forward
together. You can contact us at [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you wish, we can send you
the file as a Word attachment.
Ad Hoc Committee: Elizabeth (Betita) Martinez, Cindy Wiesner, Max Elbaum,
Edget Betru, Harmony Goldberg, Clarissa Rojas, John Trinkl, Roxanne Dunbar
Ortiz, Hany Khalil, Bob Wing
Main Hypotheses
1. September 11, and the Bush administration's reaction to it, is a
defining historical moment, ushering in a new and dangerous period in
international politics. Washington's agenda is to entrench the national
security state and a new level of international dominance on the basis of a
permanent war on terrorism--bringing the "new world order" to fruition.
2. The defining political axis of this new period is Washington's
international war on terrorism--and the fight against it. This is similar to
the central political role the Cold War played in earlier times. Other
struggles will certainly continue, even taking center stage from time to
time, but they will be reshaped and connected by the war danger. The
political and ideological balance of forces, demands, and outcomes of all
struggles will be affected by this central issue, to one degree or another.
3. Given this, the fight for peace should be the central demand for the
people's movements. The fight for peace can unite very broad and diverse
layers of the population. However, peace is not a centrist, liberal demand,
but in fact is central to an anti-imperialist agenda. Its main content is
that of staying the hand of imperialist war and fighting US militarism in
all its forms.
4. War and racism are the sharpest expressions of Washington's agenda in
this period. They are the principal features of the Bush program of
permanent war against terrorism at home and abroad, and the key
particularities of U.S. capitalism and American politics. The intersection
or relationship between war and racism, and between war and racism and all
other issues needs to be clarified in order to strategically guide ongoing
political work on all issues in the new period, and to link them together
into a powerful opposition to Bush's war drive.
5. The pressing need is for broad coalitions of everyone who is for peace
and freedom, against the racist war drive, the attacks on civil liberties,
democracy and social programs. To be most effective and lasting, these broad
fronts should be anchored by fighting organizations based in communities of
color, labor, women, lesbians/gays, and other oppressed sectors. Movements
among students, youth, seniors, and religious folk will also be critical in
this period, and may even run ahead of some of the oppressed sectors.
6. The U.S. left is politically endangered and ill-prepared for this new
situation, but has a critical role to play. We are challenged to reorient
ourselves to the mass politics of the current political situation, break out
of narrow strongholds and historically outdated fights, and build left unity
in the course of working in the broader fronts.
Presentation 1:
War and Peace as the New Axis of Politics
By Max Elbaum ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Max is a longtime activist and author of Revolution in the Air: Why Sixties
Radicals Turned to Lenin, Mao and Che forthcoming from Verso.
1. A Historical Turning Point
The attacks of September 11 and the Bush administration's reaction to them
mark a historical turning point. Washington's agenda is to entrench a
national security state and a new level of international dominance on the
basis of a long-term, open-ended "war against terrorism."
The "international war on terrorism" will be the axis that defines politics
and shapes all social struggles for many years to come. The contours and
demands of all struggles, the balance of forces waging them, and their
outcomes will be intertwined with this central confrontation between the
"war on terrorism" and the fight to end it.
In reality, this is not a "war on terrorism" at all. It is a war on whomever
Washington considers an enemy. Some designated enemies truly are terrorists
and reactionaries. But many on the US hit list will be progressive movements
for national liberation and/or social justice. And many terrorists - both
states that practice terrorism (Israel) and non-governmental terrorist
organizations - are already enlisted on Washington's side.
2. A Long-Term, Across-the-Board Program
The September 11 attacks were criminal terrorist acts of mass murder. Those
who perpetrated them should be brought to justice under international law.
Politically, the attacks handed Washington an opportunity to seize the
initiative. The administration is moving to set the "war on terrorism' in
place institutionally and in every aspect of economic, social, political and
cultural life. The Bush team and the ruling elite in general have been
up-front about this goal from day one, and they have conducted an all-out
propaganda campaign to imprint the "war on terrorism" framework in
everyone's mind.
But this ideological offensive is only one part of a multi-leveled program.
Other key features of which include: another leap in money and resources
going to the military; a largely successful campaign to integrate the
military and intelligence services of more and more countries into a US-led
global apparatus; a "homeland security office" and new repressive
legislation that pose a tremendous threat to democratic rights and civil
liberties; a complete turnaround on encouraging trends that had been
underway on immigration policy; massive regression on racial profiling; and
much more.
There is nothing short term about the new arrangements being put in place.
This is a long-term program, which will reshape politics and also transform
what is considered "normal" day to day life in the US.
It is also no surprise that in this new institutional/policy constellation,
the questions of war and racism come to the fore and stand at the cutting
edge of international and domestic polarization. This happens in every
crisis because it is built into the structure of the system we are up
against.
3. Similarities to the Cold War/End of a Transitional Period
With Bush's program taking center-stage, the coming period will resemble the
Cold War years more than it will resemble the last decade. During the Cold
War all struggles were waged in the context of - were affected and shaped by
- the deep, nuclear-war-threatening conflict of imperialism vs. the
Soviet-led bloc and the national liberation movements allied with or
supported by it. Since that period ended, things have been fluid, in
transition, with no single prism through which everything was filtered.
The new "war on terrorism" package builds on tendencies from the
transitional years since the end of the Cold War. But September 11 marks one
of those instances when "quantity goes to quality" and something new comes
into being. In that sense, September 11 will go down as the symbolic end of
a transition period that began, symbolically, with the 1989 fall of the
Berlin Wall.
Since 1989 Washington has been trying to set the terms of the post-Cold War
world. Beginning with the Gulf War Washington proclaimed its "New World
Order" and sought to legitimize US use of military force anywhere;
consolidate US economic hegemony via corporate-led globalization, the IMF,
World Bank, WTO and other institutions. It generally tried to create a
"fortress America," a "gated country", where at least the well-off and white
section of the populace is shielded by economic policies, resegregation,
military force and the "prison-industrial complex" from all the problems of
poverty, disease, misery and violence. These were foisted on "the other" -
the peoples of the Third World and the dispossessed inside the US,
overwhelming people of color.
But in the last decade the total agenda of the right - full-scale
militarization, unilateral bullying, repression and racial regression - was
not adopted by the entire ruling elite, and the majority of the US
population was opposed to the right's program. Now, in the wake of September
11, the main debates within the elite have been settled in favor of the
right (at least for the time being) and large sectors of the masses have
been rallied around the reactionary agenda. For sure the differences that
existed in the past period will resurface. But they will do so in this new
context.
4. Unfavorable Balance of Forces
As the "war on terrorism" begins, the balance of forces is extremely
unfavorable. A comparison with the Cold War period puts this into focus.
The Cold War was a straitjacket on social progress and revolutionary change,
but in that time there were powerful socialist countries, a strong
constellation of national liberation movements and, especially from the
1960s, relatively large workers and progressive movements in the imperialist
heartlands. Despite many tensions, conflicts, structural defects and policy
blunders, these mainly operated in tandem and acted as a counterweight to
imperialist freedom of action. But the main power centers opposed to
imperialism are now much weaker or altogether gone.
Further complicating the situation, in the prime region under imperialist
gunsights the main forces opposing US policy right now are regressive,
authoritarian groups, so-called "Islamic Fundamentalists." The region's left
has been shattered, much of it physically destroyed by some combination of
imperialism and these reactionary local organizations. The left is not quite
as weak in most other parts of the world, but almost nowhere does it hold
the initiative it held a few decades ago.
5. A New Kind of War - and What It Will Take to End It
Adding further danger, this "war on terrorism" will be a new kind of war -
"ongoing but not continuous" and, as Washington has already proclaimed,
fought largely "in the shadows." This war will see a new mix of military
force - air and missile attacks, commando raids, likely ground troops and
possibly tactical nuclear weapons - and it is not likely to be one
continuous campaign but a series of spurts. And military action per se will
only be one part. The war will also be fought by diplomats, financial
institutions, domestic police and intelligence agencies, and the media, all
of which will be brought under tighter government control in the process.
Arrests and assassinations will take place in secret, from New York to
Hamburg as well as in Cairo and Islamabad.
What will it take to bring this "war on terrorism" to an end? History shows
that when an across-the-board program like this is implemented, it is
stopped only when it results in undisguisable failure. In Vietnam, it took
military defeat on the ground, massive protest and the danger of even
greater disaffection at home, international isolation and economic decline
to force the US out.
What events might lead to US failure today? Washington getting bogged down
in a long, bloody ground war in Afghanistan? Inability to stop continuous
terrorist attacks inside the US? A massive economic downturn? Pakistan
falling apart with nuclear weapons spreading all over the place?
The administration is aware of these dangers and anxious to avoid them.
That's why it is being so deliberate before launching military assaults.
Washington wants to fight a focused and controllable war. But the rub is in
the law of unintended consequences, and especially the way that law operates
when imperialism goes to war. The point is, even beyond the death,
repression and heightened racism that will come from a "controlled"
offensive, the "war on terrorism" - like the Cold War - has the potential of
spinning totally out of control and leading to catastrophic human disaster.
To summarize so far: We've entered a new period, in which the "war on
terrorism" will be the centerpiece of an all-round, longterm program of the
US government to subordinate every force in the world to its will and to
beat back every struggle for democracy, equality and liberation. This
program threatens to bring worldwide catastrophe in the process. This war
and opposition to it will be the central axis of politics for years to come.
6. The Fight for Peace Is Central
To meet the threats of this new "war on terrorism" world, the fight for
peace - that is, opposing, limiting and ultimately stopping this war - must
be at the center of the left's agenda.
Effectively functioning in a period where the over-riding axis of politics
is war vs. peace is going to be hard for many of us to learn to do. For the
last ten years we've functioned in a very different kind of period.
Activists radicalized during the Gulf War or after don't have experience
with anything else, and the older veterans have gotten use to the absence of
one over-riding focus.
Further, many of us older folks who were activists during the Cold War
didn't understand the real nature of that period and the centrality of the
fight for peace during it. A big section of the '60s radical generation, for
instance, tended to see international solidarity with armed struggle
movements as what leftists were really supposed to do, and saw the fight for
peace as distraction from that: demanding peace was for liberals, demanding
revolution was for radicals. It's very common that leftists of all
generations who have been through numerous study groups or workshops on
racism, sexism, homophobia, imperialism, the state, and maybe even the
revolutionary party have participated in few if any theoretical discussions
on war and peace.
7. Why Peace Is Integral to the Left's Outlook and Program
The fight for peace has always been an integral part of the
socialist movement's aims. First, for the basic reason that we fight for a
better life for people, and war is always a humanitarian disaster, involving
tremendous suffering and death. It is always the laboring classes and the
oppressed peoples who supply the casualties - both military and civilian -
and who pay the heaviest human and economic consequences.
There is another level as well: the left is on the side of the majority, and
military force, violence and war are essentially weapons wielded by ruling
elites to keep the majority under their thumb. The more we can restrict the
use of violence and military force, the better prospects the majority have
to advance all our struggles, from struggles for democratic rights to
battles for national liberation to the fight to replace capitalism with
socialism.
For most of the left this basic framework hasn't translated into complete
pacifism. In many situations most anti-capitalists have seen the need to
resort to armed rebellion or war in order to combat the use of force by
imperialist, capitalist or fascist states or their contra armies. But the
traditional position of Marxist and socialist forces has been that the more
struggle can be moved out of the realm of military force and violence into
the realm of peaceful and political struggle, the better. The fundamental
radical posture is against war and for peace.
In different periods, this posture has translated into different
practical policies. The history of the left's concrete policies regarding
war and peace is too long to go into here. But because the Cold War period
and the "war on terrorism" period have significant similarities, it is
helpful to examine a few features from that time.
8. The Fight for Peace in the Cold War Era
The Cold War era was also the nuclear era, and the main thrust of the fight
for peace was to check and reverse the imperialist-driven arms race,
particularly the nuclear arms race, stave off nuclear war, and generally
fight for the settlement of all conflicts between states by peaceful means.
This fight for peace could potentially enlist all those interested in human
survival, since in Cold War/nuclear conditions, all wars had the potential
to escalate into a species-threatening conflagration.
Peace also set the best conditions for the victory of national liberation
movements, for economic development in Third World and socialist countries,
and for advancing democratic and working class struggles everywhere. The
reason is that militarization, military interventionism and the threat of
massive war was one of imperialism's main weapons, if not its main weapon,
against these struggles. Thus, the mainstream of the revolutionary movement
held that there was a close and essential link between the fight for peace
and the fight for social progress and revolution.
In the US and other imperialist countries, this stance translated into
efforts to build the broadest possible fronts for peace, anti-militarism and
anti-intervention. The "independent revolutionary line" focused on
solidarity with the revolutionary forces whom imperialism was intervening
against. At periods when escalation and world war threatened imminently -
which were latent at every point during the Cold War - the centrality of the
fight for peace was very clear, for example during the Cuban Missile Crisis
or Reagan's deployment of Euromissiles in the early 1980s.
But a lot of the time the danger of world war seemed very much in the
background, especially to US youth radicalized beginning after 1963 and who
were focused on the civil rights/anti-racist struggle and then the war in
Vietnam. This was a key reason many of us from the '60s generation ignored
or downplayed the fight for peace and focused only on solidarity with armed
national liberation movements and advocacy of revolution, even though many
revolutionary parties - the Vietnamese in particular - told us this was
one-sided and wrong.
This legacy must be overcome because now the fight for peace comes to the
fore perhaps even more than during the Cold War. Even the mainstream press
has reported on the dreadful consequences likely to flow from even "limited"
use of military force in the Middle East: millions of refugees, starvation
on a massive scale and environmental catastrophe. And the conflict may
spread, involving military action in a host of countries, small-group
terrorism everywhere that is capable of mass murder, and the use of nuclear
or other weapons of mass destruction.
The other side of this tremendous danger is that the demand for peace can
attract extremely broad support. Millions from all over the world, of all
classes and strata, are sympathetic to the idea that in today's "global
village," "there will be security for all or security for none." That in an
era where a handful of individuals can wreak mass destruction. Where we have
"war without borders," no one is safe unless there is global peace.
9. The Fight for Peace and the Overall Anti-Imperialist Agenda
In and of itself, then, raising the demand for peace is integral to the
anti-imperialist agenda and a key aspect of defending the interests - and
very lives - of the majority. But it is also the left's entryway to explain
that the way to achieve global peace is to ensure global justice, to
eliminate the exploitation and misery that leads to conflict, war - and
terrorism. Further, as long as the "war on terrorism" locks down struggles
all over the planet, no struggle for social progress, against racism, or for
national liberation is likely to get very far. And the odds that any
revolution anywhere could succeed while Washington has a "war on terrorism"
blank check to use military force are virtually zero.
A knottier issue is how to formulate the left's "independent"
anti-imperialist perspective. In the past a key focus has been concrete
solidarity with revolutionaries in other countries and advocacy of
revolutionary change at home. But this is extremely hard to do when there
are few strong revolutionary forces out there to be in solidarity with. Of
course we are in solidarity with the peoples of the rest of the world, but
this is largely abstract in the absence of strong left movements actually
leading the peoples' struggles.
Another complexity is that many of the worst instances of killing and
oppression in today's world, such as so-called "ethnic conflicts" - while
having roots in the relations forged by imperialism, colonialism and
neocolonialism - are not directly carried out by imperialist or even
pro-imperialist forces. Many feature several varieties of "bad guys" and few
if any "good guys," And we are nowhere near revolution here; indeed, we have
been set back further and face the protracted task of weakening and then
defeating an aggressive right wing that has just gained new confidence and
initiative.
Under these circumstances, we need to be as creative and skilled as possible
at taking advantage of the openings that exist on the "why is America so
hated" question, and the "why is there so much conflict in the Middle East"
question. We need to draw out the links between US foreign policy, Israeli
apartheid, and the underlying structures of imperialism, white supremacy,
sexism and all forms of oppression. The special challenge is to make such
arguments as concrete as possible, link them to ongoing struggles abroad and
at home, and steadily widen the base for the left as we widen the broader
front for peace.
To summarize: the fight for peace - the fight to check, limit and end the
"war on terrorism" - is now thrust central to the agenda of every left,
progressive and democratic force. That fight is an anti-imperialist,
revolutionary task in itself, and being in the forefront of the fight for
peace is crucial for step-by-step advancing the entire democratic and
anti-imperialist agenda.
Presentation 2:
A Talk about War, Racism, United Fronts, and the Left
By Bob Wing ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
*Bob is a longtime activist and the former editor of ColorLines magazine.
1. Of War and Racism
In our other paper, we argued that the struggle for peace--to stop Bush's
war on terrorism--will be the overarching political issue of this new
period. That struggle will reshape and be connected to all other ongoing
fights for economic and social progress. However, it is crucial to recognize
that the war program cannot be effectively combated without identifying the
intimate connection between war and racism. Bush's program is a racist war
against terrorism.
It is racist in at least the following ways.
The brunt of attack is aimed at and will be borne by innocent people of
color, especially in the Arab world and South Asia. They are being demonized
as "terrorists" and "fundamentalist Muslims" whose lives are dispensable.
Bush's New World Order is clearly based on supremacy of the white west, led
by the U.S., against colored enemies, even though the alliance includes some
third world governments as junior partners. Had the U.S. been attacked by
the Irish Republican Army or the Italian Red Brigades, it would never have
declared war against Ireland or Italy. The war on terrorism is "justified"
by the government and in public opinion because its targets are countries
and peoples of color.
Bush is also waging his war inside the U.S. It is already marked by curbs on
civil liberties, democratic rights, and social programs in order to build
and finance the national security state. However, it is politically critical
to see that the sharpest attacks are purposefully targeted at people of
color--that it, too, is thoroughly racist. Already, racial profiling is
being openly justified. Immigration policy is being rolled back. Police,
military, security, and intelligence agencies are being expanded and given
new authority, resources, and freedom of action to detain, spy upon, and act
against "enemies." And many people of color, especially those who appear to
be Arab, Muslim or South Asian, are being attacked verbally and physically
by citizens.
Bush's redesigned military industrial complex is giving fresh impulse to the
already out-of-control prison industrial complex. Just as the War on Drugs
was finally being slowed, the war on terrorism is taking its place. Bush's
anti-people program is being justified and disguised by targeting people of
color first and foremost, gating the affluent white communities, and
appealing to racist patriotism.
Finally, Bush's program rests on the politics of racism. To keep political
and ideological momentum for his program, Bush must effect a decisive shift
rightwards in the electorate and public opinion, a task that his father
failed to accomplish. He must strengthen the Republican right, win a
significant section of the "middle ground" of white suburban voters, and
split off at least 5-10% of people of color, labor, and women--his strongest
opponents. His main card to do is racist patriotism. Bush lost the popular
vote and his approval rating was languishing prior to September 11. Now the
Administration is riding high by whipping up a paroxysm of fear and
patriotism, centered among but not limited to white people, to support its
program. Those who oppose the Bush program will be labeled un-American and
anti-patriotic, if not outright enemies. That ideological campaign, combined
with coercion and bribes, will be used to try to split communities of color
and will present a formidable challenge to progressives of color and all
anti-war forces.
At times of political lull, politics tend to flatten out and all issues
start to look equal. But almost invariably the sharpening of political
struggle in the U.S. focuses on war and racism. This is because war and
racism are the sharpest expressions of the historical contradictions of U.S.
capitalism: it was founded on war against Native peoples, expanded by war
against Mexico, and built on racist slavery and coerced labor. Moreover, a
cross-class white consensus, legalized until the 1960s but still powerful
thereafter, has been the political basis of capitalist rule in this country
from its origins. War and racism are twin pillars of U.S. capitalism,
historically and today.
2. New Links, New Intersections
This does not mean that other struggles and issues will somehow disappear.
At times, issues of the economy, gender, health care, or the environment may
regain center stage. But they will all now be inextricably connected to the
fight over the racist war on terrorism. The war issue will affect the
ideological fights, political balance of forces, and tactical terrain of all
social and political struggles, to one degree or another.
This challenges all progressive fighters to understand the concrete
intersections, links, and relationships between war and racism, and between
war and racism on the one hand, and all other issues. Issues like how gender
violence is linked to war and racism, how war and racism destroy the
environment, the effect of war and racism on the economy, etc. will become
crucial. We need to restrategize the ongoing struggles so that they become
part of the fight against Bush's program, and also so that the fight against
Bush's program strengthens the fights on all the various issues. For
example, pundits are already setting about trying to blame the end of the
unprecedented eight years of economic prosperity on the September 11 attacks
and to link an economic recovery to funding the war on terrorism.
3. Broad Coalitions Anchored by the Oppressed: Strategic Challenges
Above all, we urgently need to build broad coalitions of all who desire
peace and freedom and against the attacks on civil liberties, social
programs, women, immigrants, economic and social security, that can check
and ultimately defeat the Bush program. These coalitions will be strongest
and most lasting to the extent they are anchored by communities of color,
labor, women, lesbians/gays and other oppressed sectors. Building the unity
and fighting capacity of these sectors is critical. However, students,
youth, religious folk, and intellectuals also have key roles to play and
their movements may sometimes be more advanced than others, as we saw
especially during the early phases of the anti-Vietnam War movement.
One of the key strategic challenges we face will be to
restrategize/politicize the fights in each sector and issue around their
intersections (back and forth) with war & racism. This will be incredibly
challenging, as up to now the fightbacks in different sectors and issues are
narrowly focused on their unique angle and isolated from one another. The
struggles for peace and those for racial justice, for example, tend to be
completely separate--domestic and international/foreign policy issues are
virtually "foreign" to each other.
Few racial justice groups deal with "foreign policy," and most are
ill-prepared to do so. Careful and protracted educational work and
reorientation of work is urgently needed. Moreover, many racial justice
groups, as well as many other progressive formations, are dependent on
funders who may not be so progressive and who will undoubtedly come under
political pressure to defund "non-patriotic" groups. That tangle must be
negotiated according to the conditions of each group, but negotiated with
political courage and conviction. Fighting pro-war patriotism, a trend that
has always existed in the communities of color, will not be easy. Racial
justice activists will also be challenged to take on the task of organizing
in churches which are perhaps the largest organizations in the black and
Latino communities.
One of the most powerful movements, the labor movement, has moved leftward
over the past decade (even though the percentage of workers it represents
has declined), but can it sustain that motion in the face of Bush's war? The
issues of war and racism have always been the Achilles heels of the labor
movement. Although this is not the same backwards labor movement whose
mainstream supported the Vietnam War almost to the end, the left and
progressives in labor will face a bitter fight on these issues. Undoubtedly
the Administration and its corporate allies will be major factors in that
fight. Even before Sept. 11, Bush and his allies had taken dead aim at
labor, understanding the key role it plays in the popular opposition,
especially in politics. An anti-war labor movement is critical to defeating
the Bush program.
Some other strategic challenges are:
How do we simultaneously massify ongoing fights on particular issues at the
same time that we build a united movement for peace and freedom? We must
continue to work on all fronts and take advantage of the new circumstances
to broaden and enlarge those fronts. At the same time, we want to link into
a united movement against Bush's program. However, some who support our
ongoing issues may not be ready to take on war and/or racism. How do we
handle the political problems that come up?
How do we continue our ongoing fights yet prepare for lightning, emergency
anti-war mobilizations? Bush has promised a constant but not continuous war.
We must learn to move back and forth as needed, and to prepare our
supporters to do so as well.
How do we become a force in actual (electoral) politics? We cannot check,
let alone defeat, the war drive unless we can become a real factor in the
political equation, just as we did during the Vietnam War. Moreover, if the
powers that be remain united behind Bush, they cannot be stopped. We must
learn to encourage splits among our opponents, to win allies, and to bring
an anti-war base into politics.
4. Of United and Popular Fronts
Historically, much of the left has relied on the concepts united front and
popular front to strategically orient their work. In Marxist lexicon, the
united front means the uniting of different political forces within the
working class on a common program. The popular front has meant organizing a
multi-class front. Traditionally the united front has politics to the left
of the popular front. In my opinion, these concepts have limited use today
in the U.S.
Since the 1950s progressive politics in the U.S. have no longer been
concentrated in the trade union movement. Instead, multi-class movements
like the movements of peoples of color, the women's movement, the anti-war
movement and others have come into being and generally had more progressive
politics than the trade union movement. In this situation, the concepts
united front and popular front, as traditionally understood, do not help.
On the other hand, a different understanding of united front has come into
being since the 1960s, one which simply means to unite all who can be united
to fight the enemy. This is still an important concept and is not unlike the
traditional concept of popular front. At the same time, perhaps a concept of
uniting the oppressed, which includes lesbian/gays, women, people of color,
workers, etc., might be more useful than the old united front concept.
5. Can We Rebuild a Viable Left?
The left needs to reorient itself to the current political situation if it
is to break out of isolation, contribute significantly to the fightback, and
build any unity as a left. If it can do this, it has a vital role to play in
undertaking many of the tasks outlined above.
There are many times more self-identified leftists working full time in
political work than ever before, mostly in non-profit organizations and the
labor movement, some in academia. Many more work unpaid in the social
movements. Many make important contributions, but their ability to move a
left agenda is limited by the fact that they usually act as individuals.
There are a much smaller number of leftists organized in Marxist groups,
anarchist formations, the Green Party, or in groups like the Black Radical
Congress. Some of these make important contributions (though some are
downright destructive), but most retain strong sectarian tendencies (in
politics and organization) and few have any real operative strength.
Hopefully the new context can help reorient the left to mass politics, out
of narrow strongholds, to play some of the critical roles outlined above.
Indeed, the strength of the left is its multi-issue, holistic approach, its
internationalism, its ability to grapple with intersectionality, its wide
ties, and its strategic political sense. We absolutely have an important
role to play in reorienting ongoing struggles and of linking different
struggles to the anti-war movement. But we can do so only if we can get
ourselves reoriented to the current, very pressing political tasks at hand
and deal with the questions that are actually on peoples' minds and in
language that they can relate to. It will in fact be downright dangerous for
us if we remain as isolated as we now are. In fact, a much broader sense of
who the left is and a creative sense of how to work together should be one
of the outcomes of this process. We hope these presentations are a
contribution to that process.
_______________________________________________
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
