Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Pro-War Diane Feinstein, What Are The Alternatives?
Feinstein herself has directly profiteered from the U.S. imposed misery she voted for in Iraq. Her husband, Richard Blum, is a billionaire investor that together with CEO Ronald Tutor own investment companies that hold 75% of the voting stock in a company called Perini. On March 12, 2004 Perini was awarded a $500,000,000 contract for rebuilding the electrical infrastructure of southern Iraq. So Feinstein is profiting from the U.S. bombing of the Iraqi infrastructure as well as its inefficient rebuilding by private U.S. contractors.
Pro-War Diane Feinstein, What Are The Alternatives?
By Steven Argue
In California pro-war incumbent Democrat Diane Feinstein has a lead of around 20% over Republican challenger Richard Mountjoy. There are also three socialist candidates running in California for the Senatorial seat now held by Feinstein. Of these, the two that Liberation News is giving critical support are Jeff Mackler of Socialist Action and Marsha Feinland of the Peace and Freedom Party. In addition International Socialist Organization (ISO) member, Todd Chretien, is running as a Green Party candidate.
Feinstein has voted for every war the United States has carried out since she came into office in 1992. Diane Feinstein also voted to take away our civil liberties by supporting the “Patriot Act” and its renewal. She voted for the 1996 Anti-Terrorism Effective Death Penalty Act speeding up the government’s ability to carry out the racist death penalty and ignore evidence of innocence. And she has supported expanded wire tapping as well as a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning.
Feinstein is a capitalist politician, representing a capitalist party. She also has a personal net worth of 50 million dollars, so she benefited directly when she voted to eliminate the estate tax. Ironically Feinstein has also stated, “Food stamps for the poor are cut ... so that millionaires can have a tax cut.'' Indeed, while this statement was directed at the Republicans, it also applies to her. (Feinstein Urges Regime Change, San Francisco Chronicle, March 21, 2006)
Diane Feinstein, like many Democrats, has pounded the war drum of the racist Zionist state of Israel even louder than the Republicans.
And just as she is no defender of human rights in the United States she has voted for continued military support to the right wing death squad government of Colombia.
Diane Feinstein: Supporter of Imperialist War
In a press conference on August 21, 2006 George Bush Jr. finally admitted what Liberation News has been pointing out since before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. That Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th. Yet Bush had used a supposed connection as a pretext for the U.S.’s unprovoked aggression against Iraq. In addition, Bush Jr. also admitted that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.
All of the Democrats and Republicans in the Senate, Diane Feinstein included, supported going to war with Iraq. As anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan has pointed out, “She voted for the war. She continues to vote for the funding. She won't call for an immediate withdrawal of the troops." (Cindy Sheehan May Challenge California Senator AP, Jan. 26, 2006) Cindy Sheehan’s son was a U.S. soldier killed in Iraq.
In trying to let herself of the hook Diane Feinstein claims that Bush “did not fairly represent intelligence”. Feeble cries by these politicians today that their votes for war weren’t their fault because they were lied to by Bush not only make Feinstein look stupid, they are an insult to the intelligence of the American people.
While the Democrats helped promote the lie that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that Iraq had no right to defend itself, Liberation News pointed out that it is the United States that has the weapons of mass destruction. Instead we supported the right of Iraq to acquire the weapons necessary to defend themselves from U.S. aggression. There can be little doubt that if Iraq had acquired those weapons they may not be in the mess they are now.
Yet for Bush and Feinstein Iraqi weapons were never the real motive for mass murder in Iraq. The capitalist ruling class, and their Democrat and Republican representatives, thought that they could use their superior military power to quickly move into Iraq and establish by force a stable neo-colonial puppet regime, and then make massive profits from the privatization of the Iraqi economy, especially oil. It is the failures of this imperialist plan, in the face of Iraqi resistance and growing unpopularity at home, that has forced some Democrats and Republicans to try to rethink, or at least distance themselves from, the Bush policies they have supported.
Feinstein herself has directly profiteered from the U.S. imposed misery in Iraq. Her husband, Richard Blum, is a billionaire investor that together with CEO Ronald Tutor own investment companies that hold 75% of the voting stock in a company called Perini. On March 12, 2004 Perini was awarded a $500,000,000 contract for rebuilding the electrical infrastructure of southern Iraq. So Feinstein is profiting from the U.S. bombing of the Iraqi infrastructure as well as its inefficient rebuilding by private U.S. contractors. Perini also received the contract for the construction of facilities to support the First Brigade of the Afghan National Army. These include barracks, dining facilities, a power plant, a water treatment facility and a wastewater treatment plant. Diane Feinstein not only voted for the wars and occupations that made these contracts possible, she also sits on the Appropriations Committee and the Select Committee on Intelligence. (Perini Corporation, The Center For Public Integrity)
Just as Liberation News opposes the U.S. occupation and corporate looting of Iraq, we also denounced the starvation blockade that was carried out through the UN by the Clinton administration. That blockade, due to the capitalist nature of the Iraqi economy under Saddam Hussein, cost the lives of about a million people, many of them children. While a socialist economy like that of Cuba could have made sure that everyone in Iraq had food, blame for this mass murder should also be put on the Clinton administration. Likewise, it was this Clinton starvation blockade that also weakened Iraq for the Bush invasion.
Today, while the U.S. occupation of Iraq has murdered over 100,000 people and the U.S. starvation blockade of Iraq murdered a million or more, the U.S. government and its puppets in Iraq have the nerve to put Saddam Hussein on trial for propaganda purposes. Yet the worst crimes of the Saddam Hussein regime were also carried out when he was directly backed by the United States. In the 1980’s the U.S. was giving massive military assistance to Iraq to help Saddam Hussein commit genocide against Kurds and carry out a bloody war with Iran at a time when Saddam Hussein was used as an ally of U.S. imperialism in the Middle East. Likewise the CIA helped Saddam Hussein’s Ba’ath Party come to power supplying them with the names of 5,000 socialists and labor leaders that the Ba’athists subsequently rounded up and executed.
Yet to those who claimed that an invasion of Iraq would be a chance for the U.S. to finally set things straight and set up a democracy in Iraq, Liberation News responded before the U.S. invasion saying:
“In the 1970s Iraq nationalized its oil fields. This helped the Iraqi people by taking a chunk of the profits made off of oil out of the hands of the international oil monopolies and instead keeping them in Iraq. This money helped pay for free healthcare and education. As such this was a socialist measure carried out by Saddam Hussein’s capitalist government. It was also a measure that stood up to the interests of the rich and powerful nations. For both reasons socialists supported the nationalization of Iraqi oil while those measures infuriated the imperialists...
“While defending Iraq against imperialist attack and supporting their right to defend themselves socialists also recognize that Saddam Hussein is a capitalist leader and that the Iraqi people have their own scores to settle with him. Yet any government set up by a US occupation army will not be democratic and will only lead to the privatization of the resources that American oil monopolies intend to steal...”
“U.S. imperialism will never solve the question of women’s liberation in the Middle East. Unlike all of the US supported governments and forces in the Arab World, Iraqi women have many rights found nowhere else in the Arab World except in the Asian republics of the former Soviet Union. Over 50% of Iraqi doctors are women. Iraqi women are allowed to walk unescorted in the streets. They are allowed to drive. Iraqi women can even freely criticize men. In addition Iraqi women have the right to work and control their own funds. This is in stark contrast to the treatment of women under the repressive U.S. backed governments of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia where women have no rights what-so-ever.
“The U.S. ruling class hates governments like Iraq, Libya, and Venezuela who use the profits of their oil resources partly to benefit the people with social programs. Likewise they love governments like that of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait that strip the people of all their rights and keep the oil profits in the hands of the international oil monopolies and their corrupt local servants. Today in the United States we face unemployment, homelessness, and a lack of health care. The billions of dollars the U.S. will squander on killing Iraqis to steal their resources should be spent to benefit the working class and poor of the United States instead.” -From Liberation News: What Is Socialism, and Why We Oppose The Invasion of Iraq
What was predicted is reality. Those predictions were accurate because they were based on the past behavior of U.S. imperialism. The U.S. has set up a puppet Islamic government with functioning death squads and torture chambers. Socialists have been excluded from participating in elections and unarmed demonstrators have been shot down and murdered in the streets by U.S. troops. The puppet Islamic government also opposes women’s rights and women’s rights have deteriorated dramatically since the U.S. invasion. The rebuilding of basic infrastructure, such as electricity, has lagged way behind what was rebuilt by Saddam Hussein after the massive U.S. bombardment of Iraq in 1992.
With the exception of the privatization of Iraqi oil, all of the predictions have shown themselves to be true and the only reason that Iraqi oil isn’t completely under the direct control of U.S. oil monopolies now is because of the union resistance of 23,000 organized oil workers as well as the general resistance by the Iraqi people to the idea of Iraq’s resources being looted by U.S. corporations.
For the working class in the United States there is ever growing frustration with a war that is costing many lives and billions in dollars while needed programs for healthcare, jobs, the environment, and disaster relief do not get the funding they need.
Yet for the ruling class their failure in Iraq is not in the undemocratic and anti-woman nature of the puppet regime they have set up and the money that has been squandered in doing it, but in the failure of that regime to deliver the stability needed to acquire the oil loot. They complain that oil production in Iraq is below prewar levels and the occupation by U.S. and British troops serve as targets for the insurgency.
As a result some Democrats that voted for the war like John Kerry have called for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of this year. Yet the Kerry-Feingold plan actually calls for keeping troops in Iraq that are "critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces." The Kerry-Feingold plan also calls for "an over-the-horizon" troop presence in the region that could come to the aid of a failing puppet government in Iraq as well as intervene elsewhere in the so-called war on terror. (Lawmakers begin Bitter Debate on U.S. Troop Withdrawal Plan for Iraq, FOXNews, online report, June 2, 2006)
Senators Harry Reid and Carl Levin have put forward a similar proposal, rendered meaningless with similar loopholes to Kerry-Feingold’s, but their proposal calls for the [partial] withdrawal of troops by the end of 1997.
Diane Feinstein supported the Levin-Reid proposal. Defending the proposal Feinstein said, “Our amendment is not about cutting and running. Rather, our amendment acknowledges that staying the course is a strategy that shows no promise of success, and it is time to change that strategy.” (Video clip shown on CNN’s O’brien Show, online transcript, June 23, 2006)
Unlike Feinstein, Liberation News sees nothing good that can come from the Levin-Reid proposal of staying at full war with the Iraqi people for another year and then carrying out a possible partial Iraqification of the war the year after. We disagree with Feinstein when she says, "We all know we can't cut and run, what I'm talking about is changing the nature of this mission. We have to say to Iraq that it's time for your soldiers and police forces to take over.'' (Feinstein Urges Regime Change, San Francisco Chronicle, March 21, 2006)
The U.S. occupation of Iraq is doing nothing for anybody except the capitalists that are profiting from the war and the tax dollars of the American people. We demand: Iraq to the Iraqis! U.S. Out Now! On this issue we agree with the campaigns of Jeff Mackler of Socialist Action, Marsha Feinland of the Peace and Freedom Party, and Todd Chretien of the Green Party that are all calling for the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq:
“More than 2,250 young American troops and over 100,000 Iraqis have died with no end in sight. If we want to stop the dying and respect the Iraqi people's right to run their own country, then we must immediately withdraw all American military forces from Iraq and the surrounding countries.” -Todd Chretien, California Senate candidate of the Green Party
“Immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq, Afghanistan and the rest of the Middle East!”
Marsha Feinland, California Senate candidate of the Peace and Freedom Party
"Immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq! War is an inherent part of capitalism and the ultimate solution to the internal contradictions of the profit-driven and competition-driven system. The U.S. military-industrial complex is organized and designed to maximize profit rates for the corporate few and to serve the imperial economic and political interests of the war-making class—regardless of the capitalist party in power. Socialists acknowledge our fundamental obligation to challenge the U.S. war-makers and their twin parties and to defend the rights and struggles of all those who resist imperialist domination and oppression.” -Jeff Mackler, California Senate candidate of Socialist Action
Liberation news agrees with these calls for U.S. troops out now. In addition we call for the labor movement to break from the Democrat Party of war and exploitation and to end the war through building the mass movement in the streets; striking against arms producers; hot cargoing war materials on the docks, trains, and trucks; and building towards a general strike against the war. Likewise we support the right of military personal to refuse orders and resist this war. We support students, such as those at UC Santa Cruz that have repeatedly driven military recruiters off campus. And we call for building the socialist movement to end imperialism through socialist revolution.
The Role of Peace Action (Formerly Sane / Freeze)
Diane Feinstein has never seen a pending imperialist war she didn’t like. In her entire time in office she has voted for them all. Likewise Feinstein voted for the “Missile Defense System” and other “defense” boondoggles meant to line the pockets of the military industrial capitalists. Yet the group “Peace Action” gives Feinstein the passing grade of voting for peace 89% of the time.
“Peace Action” is deceiving the anti-war vote. Why? Because Peace Action is a pillar of the status quo that sees no alternative to delivering votes to what they see as the “lesser evil” Democrat Party, even when the Democrats are equally pro-war. This strategy has made “Peace Action” an obstacle to peace and a pillar of the status quo.
Every few years the ruling class of the United States parades its selected representatives in front of the American people to give us the chance to vote for their so-called “lesser” and “greater evil” representatives in the Democrat and Republican Parties. The corporate media and liberal pro-war groups like “Peace Action” ignore the anti-war candidates and back pro-war Democrats by misrepresenting their records to the people.
Liberation News urges all of the super-exploited workers that go door to door raising money for the Peace Action bureaucracy to quit your meaningless jobs and look for better work while looking for ways to hook up with the real anti-war/anti-imperialist movement that is marching in the streets. Likewise we urge all of the liberal and leftist minded people that give money to Peace Action to stop doing so and instead participate in the mass anti-war movement in the streets with your bodies, minds, and your money if you can afford it.
In response to the reformist call of, "Anybody But Bush," Socialist Action candidate Jeff Mackler aptly replied, "No to the twin parties of war and oppression!" and "Yes to the independent organization and mobilization of working people!"
Feinstein, Supporter of Racist Israel
Diane Feinstein, like many Democrats, has pounded the war drum for the racist Zionist state of Israel even louder than the Republicans. The U.S. gives Israel billions of dollars in military aid every year and Senator Feinstein’s vote backs that money for death. Israel is a racist settler state established in 1949 that has denied the original inhabitants, the Palestinians, all basic rights. Besides denying Palestinians the same rights to travel, jobs, housing, and education as allowed Jews, the racist Zionist State has used massacres and other forms of terror, wars, and torture to drive out the original Palestinian inhabitants.
Likewise Israel is always at war with its Arab neighbors. Israel’s recent attack against Lebanon where their aerial bombardment of the civilian population murdered 1,150 people and destroyed vital infrastructure is only the latest such terrorism by Israel. Yet when Senator Bill Frist introduced a bill backing Israeli / U.S. aggression in Lebanon Diane Feinstein voted for it along with Senate Democrat colleagues John Kerry (Mass.), Barack Obama (Ill.), Harry Reid (Nevada), Maria Cantwell (Wash.), and Edward Kennedy (Mass.).
Claims of Israel being the victim, bombing and invading Lebanon on the pretext of two Israeli soldiers taken prisoner do not hold water in light of the fact that Israel is holding 2,000 Lebanese prisoners in their torture chamber dungeons from their previous invasion of Lebanon. In addition numerous reports say those two Israeli soldiers were captured in Lebanon, not in Israel. Those reports are from such sources as AP, Hindustan Times, and AFP.
In contrast to Diane Feinstein and her pro-war Democrat colleagues, here is what the candidates to the left of her have to say:
“Israel is a racist state. It has separate laws for Arabs and Jews. The leader of the South African trade union COSATU recently stated that he thinks that the Palestinians face worse conditions than Blacks faced during South African Apartheid. There will never be peace in the Middle East as long as the Zionist state is given a blank check from the United States to treat the Palestinian people as less than human. Israel is part of the American empire and is key to US plans for permanent domination of the Middle East. If we ever want to see our troops come home from Iraq, then the anti-war movement must fight to cut off all American aid to Israel.” -Todd Chretien, California Senate candidate of the Green Party
“As a Jewish American, I chose to run for U.S. Senate partly as an act of conscience in support of the rights of Palestinians in Israel and the occupied territories. The wall which impedes people from conducting a normal life must come down. Israel should abandon the settlements and retreat to its pre-1967 borders. I do not condone any violence against civilians, and favor full rights for all people in any state…End U.S. aid to Israel until it withdraws to its 1967 borders.” -Marsha Feinland, California Senate candidate of the Peace and Freedom Party
“For a democratic and secular Palestine! End all U.S. aid to apartheid Israel! Stop the bombing of Lebanon and Gaza! For a united socialist federation of the Middle East! Socialists reject the legitimacy of the Zionist colonial settler state of Israel, just as we do all colonial settler states. We see no difference between the imperialist colonization of Africa, Asia, and the Middle East of yesteryear and today’s U.S.-backed Zionist conquest and occupation of Palestine. Israel today serves as the chief U.S. instrument for the imperialist domination and exploitation of the Middle East”. -Jeff Mackler, California Senate candidate of Socialist Action
All three candidates of the left take the correct and most important position of ending U.S. aid to Israel, but there are important differences in building an international movement.
While Todd Chretien holds a good position on Israel, the Israeli Green Party is a Zionist capitalist party that holds the position of deputy mayor of Tel Aviv. In a recent letter to the Green Party of the United States by Green Party chairman and deputy mayor, Pe’er Visner, the closest he got to recognizing any crimes by the Israeli government was saying, “We are “sorry” that the Israeli army prevents Palestinian suicide bombers from “expressing” their “human rights” to bomb themselves among Israeli citizens.” This racist response to the suffering of the Palestinian people should serve as a warning to Green Party members in the United States of what happens to parties that fail to put forward a revolutionary program for the overthrow of capitalism as well as fail to be a tribune for all of the most oppressed and exploited in society.
Unlike Marsha Feinland of the Peace and Freedom Party, Liberation News does not call for a withdrawal of Israel to its conquered borders of 1967. We instead call for pushing Israel back to its 1948 borders for a democratic, secular, and socialist Palestine within the 1948 borders with a separation of religion and state and equal rights for Palestinians and Jews including the Palestinian right to return, a society to be formed by the multi-ethnic working class through socialist revolution.
This is our context of demanding an end to U.S. military aid to racist Israel as well as to the repressive capitalist governments of Egypt and Jordan. Such a cut off is not intended to pressure Israel into a better two state “solution” as Marsha Feinland asks the U.S. government to do, but to allow the people of the Near East self-determination and revolution without the interference of billions of dollars in U.S. military aid to murderous regimes.
Jeff Mackler, in seeing Socialist Action as part of an international socialist movement with an international revolutionary program, has proposed a similar revolutionary program to that of Liberation News, but missing a key ingredient:
“Zionism is an ideology of racism and apartheid segregation. It is a deathtrap for the Jewish people, a central source of almost 60 years of war and oppression of the Palestinians. Socialist Action supports the creation of a democratic and secular Palestine, where Jews and Arabs can live together as equals in a new society, a society predicated on the immediate right of return of all dispossessed Palestinians. In this society, revolutionaries will fight for the construction of an egalitarian socialist state.” -Jeff Mackler, California Senate candidate of Socialist Action
Missing from this formula is the understanding that only socialist revolution, led by (a) secular multi-ethnic socialist party or parties will be capable of solving the national and democratic questions of Israel, Palestine, and Jordan. The capitalists and their parties, be they Kadima, Likud, Labour, Shas, Hamas, Fatah, or the Hashemite King Hussein of Jordan base their rule on capitalist exploitation and are incapable of providing any real solutions. Liberation News disagrees with the idea that democratic secular revolution should occur now and provide the basis for a later struggle for socialism, pointing out that this is the essence of Stalin’s Two-Stage Theory of Revolution when we instead hold high the banner of Trotsky’s Theory of Permanent Revolution.
It was this Stalinist Two-Stage Theory that provided the political basis for the Communist Party of South Africa putting all of their resources into building the African National Congress (ANC) as the democratic alternative to the racist apartheid government of South Africa. Yet by building a political party and movement that supported the continuation of the capitalist system they created a new capitalist party that now rules South Africa for the rich white capitalists at the continued expense of the super-exploited and poor black majority workers, minus overt racist laws. Strikes for healthcare and other workers’ demands have been broken by the ANC for the capitalists, HIV-AIDS goes untreated, and the massive mineral wealth of South Africa continues to go into the pockets of the capitalists instead of their potential of benefiting the workers, environment, and world revolution.
So when is the Communist Party of South Africa going to set about fighting for the next stage of the revolution? The answer is never. They are now part of the capitalist apparatus and part of the problem. It will take the other socialist parties of South Africa, the Trotskyist parties, to lead the socialist revolution.
While Stalinism has done much to stifle workers’ democracy in the deformed workers states under Stalinist control, it has also greatly sabotaged the world socialist revolution through Stalin’s Two-Stage Theory. Socialist Action is not a Stalinist organization, but they appear to have adopted part of their program.
So what would be Socialist Action’s ANC for Palestine? Fatah? They’ve already discredited themselves. They’ve sold the Palestinian people out with the Oslo Accords placing the Palestinian people on tiny Bantustan’s without a real basis for an economy. Would their ANC be Hamas? The imposition of Islamic law could hardly be considered a democratic secular revolution. Would they then suggest that Palestinian and Israeli socialists build a party with a purely democratic secular program, abandoning the socialist program as the Communist Party of South Africa did? Let’s drop the nonsense, build for the socialist revolution! For a democratic, secular, and socialist Palestine!
Liberation News rejects Stalin’s Two-Stage Theory of Revolution. We instead hold up the banner of Trotsky’s Theory of Permanent Revolution. It was through this theory that Trotsky explained that the democratic and the socialist revolutions are inseparably linked.
Yet the differences between Liberation News and Socialist Action as well as our differences with the Peace and Freedom Party on these questions do not prevent us from giving critical support to both in this election.
The Role of the Green Party
While Todd Cretien of the Green Party has good immediate positions on the war, Liberation News does not support Green Party candidates because the Green Party is a capitalist party. In Santa Cruz, where the Green Party has elected their party member Tim Fitzemaurice to office, Tim Fitzemaurice has backed the fears of local shop owners by voting for anti-homeless laws such as the law that makes it illegal for the homeless to sleep at night. While criminalizing those who cannot pay the high rent Fitzemaurice refuses to take a stand for rent control. Likewise Tim Fitzemaurice has refused to take any stand against police violence used against anti-war protesters in 1999 and other repressive measures against activists including my arrest and beating for distributing literature and the police murder of homeless activist John Dine. Recently Fitzemaurice did take a stand against police infiltration of the organizers of a Santa Cruz anti-war parade, but his stated reason for doing so was an attempt to maintain the credibility of the Santa Cruz police.
Tim Fitzemaurice is not a leader for change in Santa Cruz. He is instead a pillar of the status quo. This is the future of all political parties and politicians that do not have a clear program for the overthrow of the capitalist system.
The Green Party is clear in their program. They state that they are for a system of small capitalism. Yet the small capitalists commonly have a smaller profit margin and often exploit workers worse than the big capitalists. In opposition to such a vision of small and inefficient capitalist exploiters, Liberation News looks to labor struggle and the nationalization of industry under workers’ control as the way to fight and neutralize the corporate exploiters and bring justice for the working class.
On a national level the Green Party generally is not even seeking power, but pressure and reform of the Democrat Party. Yet the policy of many Greens in promoting votes for Democrats when the vote between the Democrat and Republican is close only promotes further illusions in the Democrats. Likewise promising votes to Democrats when it looks close does nothing to pressure the Democrats and their super rich backers to move to the left.
It was a massive and fighting labor movement led to large extent by socialists that forced the American ruling class and Franklin Delano Roosevelt to carry out the New Deal reforms in the 1930’s. This was out of fear of further unrest and potential revolution. It is the position of Liberation News that the most meaningful reforms do not come from reformism, such as that of the Green Party, but from revolutionary and working class struggle.
While making these criticisms Liberation News does recognize that there are differences between the program of Todd Chretien and that of the Green Party. If Todd Chretien was also speaking out for the Green Party to adopt a socialist program we could possibly give him support, but he is not. By running as a candidate and being a spokesperson for a party with a capitalist program Todd Chretien is helping build that capitalist party and program, so we must respectfully withhold our support.
Critical Support To The Socialist Candidates
Liberation News is giving critical support to Jeff Mackler of Socialist Action and Marsha Feinland of the Peace and Freedom Party. These are two socialist parties that hold socialist programs (for the most part) and are also active in the anti-war, free Mumia, and labor movements. To a large degree they represent the kind of political alternative that Liberation News promotes in opposition to the Democrats and Republicans.
Jeff Mackler of Socialist Action
Jeff Mackler is a long time socialist that has done much in organizing protests against imperialist wars, for the freedom of Mumia Abu-Jamal, for socialism, and other leftist causes.
Jeff Mackler and other expelled members of the Socialist Workers’ Party (SWP) were part of establishing new groups that continued on in some of the better traditions of the SWP, a party that led the 1934 Teamster’s Strike (a turning point in U.S. labor history), a party that was a major leader in the anti-war movement of the 1970’s and 1960’s, and a party that helped establish the world Trotskyist movement and expose the crimes of Stalinism.
Yet Jeff Mackler’s group, Socialist Action, was also born with a few programmatical errors. One was their abandonment of Trotsky’s concept of Political Revolution. The call for political revolution in the deformed workers states, such as the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, was a call for overthrowing the repressive Stalinist bureaucracy and institutionalizing workers’ democracy without overthrowing the nationalized planned economy itself. While Trotskyists call for political revolution in the deformed workers’ states, we also defend those socialist economies from imperialist attack and internal counter-revolution. The failure of Socialist Action to understand the true nature of the counter revolutionary movements in Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union, and Afghanistan led to important mistakes.
In supporting Solidarnosc in Poland Socialist Action backed a political movement that had a clear program for capitalist counter revolution and joined ranks with the CIA, the Pope, and Ronald Reagan in backing Solidarnosc’s rise to power. After taking power Solidarnosc’s program became even clearer with the outlawing of abortion (that used to be free on demand) and privatizations of the economy that led to 50% unemployment. Yet despite how clear it is today that Solidarnosc led a capitalist counter-revolution as opposed to a socialist political revolution (that would maintain the socialist economy, but oust the Stalinist bureaucracy and institute workers’ democracy) Socialist Action has not changed their position on Solidarnosc.
On Black liberation we at Liberation News advocate Richard Fraser’s Theory of Revolutionary Integrationism as opposed to the Black Nationalism promoted by Socialist Action. Socialist Action’s advocacy of Black Nationalism has brought them to the point of even promoting the religious and pro-capitalist Nation of Islam of Louis Farrakhan. Liberation News sees the promotion of Black Nationalism as a dead end. There is no geographical area that we can point to on a map and say by its demographics that it would make sense to set up Black nation there. Even if it were possible or desirable to set up a separate Black Nation in the United States the pain and suffering such an adventure would cause in terms of dislocations of the working class would not be worth the price. Liberation News, in contrast, calls for the overthrow of the racist capitalist system and the building of an egalitarian socialist society that guarantees racial equality, full employment, and access to health care for all.
Liberation News does, however, see Socialist Action’s campaign for Senate as a supportable campaign that, despite its mistakes, is promoting socialism as the alternative to the capitalist Democrats, Republicans, and Greens.
Here are some of the demands that Mackler is putting forward with his campaign:
1) Immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq! No U.S. aid to Israel! Israel out of Lebanon and Gaza! Shut down Guantanamo! U.S. hands off Cuba and Venezuela! End the Cuba blockade!
2) Tax the rich, not working people! Jobs at top union wages for all! Shorten the work-week with no cut in pay! For a revitalized and fighting labor movement! For a Labor Party!
3) Human needs before capitalist profits! Nationalize so-called bankrupt corporations under workers’ control.
4) Free quality health care and education for people of all ages! Build schools not jails! Quality affordable housing for all!
5) An emergency program to combat global warming! End our dependency on fossil fuels! No to nuclear power and weapons!
6) Stop the attacks on civil liberties! Repeal the Patriot Act! End police brutality! Support the right of marriage for same sex couples!
7) Defend a woman’s right to control her own body! Ready access to abortion is a fundamental right!
8) Immediate amnesty, legalization, and equal rights for all immigrants! No to La Migra! Demilitarize and open the border! Self-determination for oppressed nationalities! Affirmative action with quotas to remedy past discrimination! Support to Black and Latino independent political action!
9) For a government of, by, and for working people and the oppressed! For socialism!
While Liberation News agrees with many of these slogans we see a couple as too transitional. We do not see any good reason for limiting calls for nationalization to so-called “bankrupt corporations”. Perhaps this is in imitation of the economic crisis of Argentina and the many “bankrupt corporations” that have been taken over and run by workers as part of a miniature workers’ economy that employs about 10,000 Argentinean workers.
Liberation News sees no reason for limiting the nationalization of companies to those that the capitalists don’t want anymore, companies that the capitalists are no longer making super profits from. The exploitation of workers’ and the environment have produced all wealth, and the revolutionary movement of the working class wants it all back! We want the railroads, the banks, the health care industry, and of course oil! Only a society with a planned economy can meet the needs of the working class, can end war for capitalist profit, and can begin to save the environment. Revolution takes bold vision; we want it all; leave the conservatism to the Democrats and Republicans!
Imperialism has caused the poverty of Mexico, and an open border is the only right thing to do. Yet an open border would be coupled with a massive influx of immigrants and should be combined with the call for a socialist economy that guarantees jobs for all. Only socialism can solve the national question.
Jeff Mackler’s campaign for senate, despite its errors, does help show the way forward by pointing to socialist demands and solutions.
Due to the undemocratic laws of the state of California making it very difficult for third parties to gain ballot access Jeff Mackler will not be on the ballot so if you choose to vote for him you will have to write in his name.
Marsha Feinland of the Peace and Freedom Party
The Peace and Freedom Party (PFP) is the only socialist party in California that does have ballot status. Liberation News is also extending critical support to the PFP candidacy of Marsha Feinland. Here are key points of Marsha Feinland’s campaign:
1) Withdraw troops and advisors from Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti and Colombia
2) End aid to Israel until it withdraws to its pre-1967 borders
3) Raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour
4) Create universal health care with a "single payer" (Canadian type) system- no insurance company profits
5) Shorten the work week with no loss in pay and guarantee paid vacation time for all workers
6) Repeal the Taft-Hartley Act - restore the right to strike and end "right to work" laws
7) Abolish the death penalty
8) End the phony "war on drugs" - legalize marijuana and decriminalize drug use
9) Fully fund the U.S. government share of education costs, particularly special education
10) End the war on children - stop the government mandated testing craze in public schools
11) Protect the National Forests and other public and native lands from corporate exploitation
12) Abolish the Senate and the Electoral College - one person, one vote
In this platform Marsha Feinland raises a number of good points, including opposing the undemocratic nature of the Senate itself stating, "Abolish the Senate and the Electoral College - one person, one vote." This is in reference to the way that the senate has equal numbers of representatives from each state, regardless of that state’s population. On a similar issue Diane Feinstein has been criticized by activists in Washington D.C., a district where the people do not get representation in the Senate, for supporting Washington D.C. school vouchers that were undemocratically crammed down their throats.
In the United States more than 45 million Americans have no health coverage. These include 9 million children. Millions of others have inadequate coverage. It is a crime that the richest nation (rich due to imperialist exploitation of the world) leads in medical technology, but has the worst access to healthcare of any developed nation. Marsha Feinland’s call for single payer healthcare of the Canadian model, covering everyone and getting rid of the insurance industry middlemen would be a welcome change. And yes, despite the propaganda, government programs are always more efficient than private profiteering with its stockholders, overpaid CEOs, and advertising. But the Cuban model with nationalized healthcare and no private hospitals or pharmaceutical companies profiteering from illness works even better. It is this healthcare model that Liberation News advocates.
In fact Marsha Feinland’s platform is not just missing a full socialized medicine program, it is missing another key ingredient. Besides calling for eliminating the private insurance industry through single payer, nowhere in her platform or other materials does she call for the nationalization of the capitalist economy. She has no reference to the expropriation of big oil, industry, and finance capital or even any calls for the nationalization or municipalization of the generation, distribution and sales of electric power. Without such a socialist program it will be impossible to neutralize the power of the capitalist class and meet the needs of the working class.
Liberation News also strongly disagrees with the Peace and Freedom Party’s practice of endorsing Democrats in city elections. In Santa Cruz this has meant that the Peace and Freedom Party has helped elect some of the most anti-worker, anti-homeless, and pro-police oppression Democrats such as Mike Rotkin. Rotten Rotkin publicly opposed the bus drivers when they went on strike, is currently campaigning against a city initiative to raise the minimum wage, has voted for and supported every anti-homeless law in Santa Cruz, and has backed the police in every act of repression, violence, and spying that they have carried out against the left in the city. The local PFP may not support Rotkin anymore, but they did help get him elected, and they continue to help elect other Democrats and Greens in Santa Cruz that have virtually identical programs to that of Rotkin. Liberation News says: No to support for Democrats or Greens in local or national elections! Yes to the socialist candidates!
It will take a massive working class movement for good socialist candidates to actually win elections. An important element of this will be breaking the labor movement from the Democrat Party. By backing the candidates worth voting for today we at Liberation News feel that we are helping build the foundations of that movement today and into the future as people get more and more fed up with capitalist exploitation and wars. Ultimately the ruling class will use ever more violence to try to maintain their grip on power and a revolution will be necessary for the working class to actually seize power and transform society.
Liberation News:
http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news
Marsha Feinland, California Peace and Freedom Party Candidate for Senate:
http://feinlandforsenate.org/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1
Jeff Mackler, Socialist Action Candidate for Senate:
http://www.socialistaction.org/macklerforsenate/index.html
Todd Cretien, Green Party Candidate for Senate:
http://www.todd4senate.org/
By Steven Argue
In California pro-war incumbent Democrat Diane Feinstein has a lead of around 20% over Republican challenger Richard Mountjoy. There are also three socialist candidates running in California for the Senatorial seat now held by Feinstein. Of these, the two that Liberation News is giving critical support are Jeff Mackler of Socialist Action and Marsha Feinland of the Peace and Freedom Party. In addition International Socialist Organization (ISO) member, Todd Chretien, is running as a Green Party candidate.
Feinstein has voted for every war the United States has carried out since she came into office in 1992. Diane Feinstein also voted to take away our civil liberties by supporting the “Patriot Act” and its renewal. She voted for the 1996 Anti-Terrorism Effective Death Penalty Act speeding up the government’s ability to carry out the racist death penalty and ignore evidence of innocence. And she has supported expanded wire tapping as well as a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning.
Feinstein is a capitalist politician, representing a capitalist party. She also has a personal net worth of 50 million dollars, so she benefited directly when she voted to eliminate the estate tax. Ironically Feinstein has also stated, “Food stamps for the poor are cut ... so that millionaires can have a tax cut.'' Indeed, while this statement was directed at the Republicans, it also applies to her. (Feinstein Urges Regime Change, San Francisco Chronicle, March 21, 2006)
Diane Feinstein, like many Democrats, has pounded the war drum of the racist Zionist state of Israel even louder than the Republicans.
And just as she is no defender of human rights in the United States she has voted for continued military support to the right wing death squad government of Colombia.
Diane Feinstein: Supporter of Imperialist War
In a press conference on August 21, 2006 George Bush Jr. finally admitted what Liberation News has been pointing out since before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. That Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th. Yet Bush had used a supposed connection as a pretext for the U.S.’s unprovoked aggression against Iraq. In addition, Bush Jr. also admitted that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.
All of the Democrats and Republicans in the Senate, Diane Feinstein included, supported going to war with Iraq. As anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan has pointed out, “She voted for the war. She continues to vote for the funding. She won't call for an immediate withdrawal of the troops." (Cindy Sheehan May Challenge California Senator AP, Jan. 26, 2006) Cindy Sheehan’s son was a U.S. soldier killed in Iraq.
In trying to let herself of the hook Diane Feinstein claims that Bush “did not fairly represent intelligence”. Feeble cries by these politicians today that their votes for war weren’t their fault because they were lied to by Bush not only make Feinstein look stupid, they are an insult to the intelligence of the American people.
While the Democrats helped promote the lie that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that Iraq had no right to defend itself, Liberation News pointed out that it is the United States that has the weapons of mass destruction. Instead we supported the right of Iraq to acquire the weapons necessary to defend themselves from U.S. aggression. There can be little doubt that if Iraq had acquired those weapons they may not be in the mess they are now.
Yet for Bush and Feinstein Iraqi weapons were never the real motive for mass murder in Iraq. The capitalist ruling class, and their Democrat and Republican representatives, thought that they could use their superior military power to quickly move into Iraq and establish by force a stable neo-colonial puppet regime, and then make massive profits from the privatization of the Iraqi economy, especially oil. It is the failures of this imperialist plan, in the face of Iraqi resistance and growing unpopularity at home, that has forced some Democrats and Republicans to try to rethink, or at least distance themselves from, the Bush policies they have supported.
Feinstein herself has directly profiteered from the U.S. imposed misery in Iraq. Her husband, Richard Blum, is a billionaire investor that together with CEO Ronald Tutor own investment companies that hold 75% of the voting stock in a company called Perini. On March 12, 2004 Perini was awarded a $500,000,000 contract for rebuilding the electrical infrastructure of southern Iraq. So Feinstein is profiting from the U.S. bombing of the Iraqi infrastructure as well as its inefficient rebuilding by private U.S. contractors. Perini also received the contract for the construction of facilities to support the First Brigade of the Afghan National Army. These include barracks, dining facilities, a power plant, a water treatment facility and a wastewater treatment plant. Diane Feinstein not only voted for the wars and occupations that made these contracts possible, she also sits on the Appropriations Committee and the Select Committee on Intelligence. (Perini Corporation, The Center For Public Integrity)
Just as Liberation News opposes the U.S. occupation and corporate looting of Iraq, we also denounced the starvation blockade that was carried out through the UN by the Clinton administration. That blockade, due to the capitalist nature of the Iraqi economy under Saddam Hussein, cost the lives of about a million people, many of them children. While a socialist economy like that of Cuba could have made sure that everyone in Iraq had food, blame for this mass murder should also be put on the Clinton administration. Likewise, it was this Clinton starvation blockade that also weakened Iraq for the Bush invasion.
Today, while the U.S. occupation of Iraq has murdered over 100,000 people and the U.S. starvation blockade of Iraq murdered a million or more, the U.S. government and its puppets in Iraq have the nerve to put Saddam Hussein on trial for propaganda purposes. Yet the worst crimes of the Saddam Hussein regime were also carried out when he was directly backed by the United States. In the 1980’s the U.S. was giving massive military assistance to Iraq to help Saddam Hussein commit genocide against Kurds and carry out a bloody war with Iran at a time when Saddam Hussein was used as an ally of U.S. imperialism in the Middle East. Likewise the CIA helped Saddam Hussein’s Ba’ath Party come to power supplying them with the names of 5,000 socialists and labor leaders that the Ba’athists subsequently rounded up and executed.
Yet to those who claimed that an invasion of Iraq would be a chance for the U.S. to finally set things straight and set up a democracy in Iraq, Liberation News responded before the U.S. invasion saying:
“In the 1970s Iraq nationalized its oil fields. This helped the Iraqi people by taking a chunk of the profits made off of oil out of the hands of the international oil monopolies and instead keeping them in Iraq. This money helped pay for free healthcare and education. As such this was a socialist measure carried out by Saddam Hussein’s capitalist government. It was also a measure that stood up to the interests of the rich and powerful nations. For both reasons socialists supported the nationalization of Iraqi oil while those measures infuriated the imperialists...
“While defending Iraq against imperialist attack and supporting their right to defend themselves socialists also recognize that Saddam Hussein is a capitalist leader and that the Iraqi people have their own scores to settle with him. Yet any government set up by a US occupation army will not be democratic and will only lead to the privatization of the resources that American oil monopolies intend to steal...”
“U.S. imperialism will never solve the question of women’s liberation in the Middle East. Unlike all of the US supported governments and forces in the Arab World, Iraqi women have many rights found nowhere else in the Arab World except in the Asian republics of the former Soviet Union. Over 50% of Iraqi doctors are women. Iraqi women are allowed to walk unescorted in the streets. They are allowed to drive. Iraqi women can even freely criticize men. In addition Iraqi women have the right to work and control their own funds. This is in stark contrast to the treatment of women under the repressive U.S. backed governments of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia where women have no rights what-so-ever.
“The U.S. ruling class hates governments like Iraq, Libya, and Venezuela who use the profits of their oil resources partly to benefit the people with social programs. Likewise they love governments like that of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait that strip the people of all their rights and keep the oil profits in the hands of the international oil monopolies and their corrupt local servants. Today in the United States we face unemployment, homelessness, and a lack of health care. The billions of dollars the U.S. will squander on killing Iraqis to steal their resources should be spent to benefit the working class and poor of the United States instead.” -From Liberation News: What Is Socialism, and Why We Oppose The Invasion of Iraq
What was predicted is reality. Those predictions were accurate because they were based on the past behavior of U.S. imperialism. The U.S. has set up a puppet Islamic government with functioning death squads and torture chambers. Socialists have been excluded from participating in elections and unarmed demonstrators have been shot down and murdered in the streets by U.S. troops. The puppet Islamic government also opposes women’s rights and women’s rights have deteriorated dramatically since the U.S. invasion. The rebuilding of basic infrastructure, such as electricity, has lagged way behind what was rebuilt by Saddam Hussein after the massive U.S. bombardment of Iraq in 1992.
With the exception of the privatization of Iraqi oil, all of the predictions have shown themselves to be true and the only reason that Iraqi oil isn’t completely under the direct control of U.S. oil monopolies now is because of the union resistance of 23,000 organized oil workers as well as the general resistance by the Iraqi people to the idea of Iraq’s resources being looted by U.S. corporations.
For the working class in the United States there is ever growing frustration with a war that is costing many lives and billions in dollars while needed programs for healthcare, jobs, the environment, and disaster relief do not get the funding they need.
Yet for the ruling class their failure in Iraq is not in the undemocratic and anti-woman nature of the puppet regime they have set up and the money that has been squandered in doing it, but in the failure of that regime to deliver the stability needed to acquire the oil loot. They complain that oil production in Iraq is below prewar levels and the occupation by U.S. and British troops serve as targets for the insurgency.
As a result some Democrats that voted for the war like John Kerry have called for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of this year. Yet the Kerry-Feingold plan actually calls for keeping troops in Iraq that are "critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces." The Kerry-Feingold plan also calls for "an over-the-horizon" troop presence in the region that could come to the aid of a failing puppet government in Iraq as well as intervene elsewhere in the so-called war on terror. (Lawmakers begin Bitter Debate on U.S. Troop Withdrawal Plan for Iraq, FOXNews, online report, June 2, 2006)
Senators Harry Reid and Carl Levin have put forward a similar proposal, rendered meaningless with similar loopholes to Kerry-Feingold’s, but their proposal calls for the [partial] withdrawal of troops by the end of 1997.
Diane Feinstein supported the Levin-Reid proposal. Defending the proposal Feinstein said, “Our amendment is not about cutting and running. Rather, our amendment acknowledges that staying the course is a strategy that shows no promise of success, and it is time to change that strategy.” (Video clip shown on CNN’s O’brien Show, online transcript, June 23, 2006)
Unlike Feinstein, Liberation News sees nothing good that can come from the Levin-Reid proposal of staying at full war with the Iraqi people for another year and then carrying out a possible partial Iraqification of the war the year after. We disagree with Feinstein when she says, "We all know we can't cut and run, what I'm talking about is changing the nature of this mission. We have to say to Iraq that it's time for your soldiers and police forces to take over.'' (Feinstein Urges Regime Change, San Francisco Chronicle, March 21, 2006)
The U.S. occupation of Iraq is doing nothing for anybody except the capitalists that are profiting from the war and the tax dollars of the American people. We demand: Iraq to the Iraqis! U.S. Out Now! On this issue we agree with the campaigns of Jeff Mackler of Socialist Action, Marsha Feinland of the Peace and Freedom Party, and Todd Chretien of the Green Party that are all calling for the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq:
“More than 2,250 young American troops and over 100,000 Iraqis have died with no end in sight. If we want to stop the dying and respect the Iraqi people's right to run their own country, then we must immediately withdraw all American military forces from Iraq and the surrounding countries.” -Todd Chretien, California Senate candidate of the Green Party
“Immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq, Afghanistan and the rest of the Middle East!”
Marsha Feinland, California Senate candidate of the Peace and Freedom Party
"Immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq! War is an inherent part of capitalism and the ultimate solution to the internal contradictions of the profit-driven and competition-driven system. The U.S. military-industrial complex is organized and designed to maximize profit rates for the corporate few and to serve the imperial economic and political interests of the war-making class—regardless of the capitalist party in power. Socialists acknowledge our fundamental obligation to challenge the U.S. war-makers and their twin parties and to defend the rights and struggles of all those who resist imperialist domination and oppression.” -Jeff Mackler, California Senate candidate of Socialist Action
Liberation news agrees with these calls for U.S. troops out now. In addition we call for the labor movement to break from the Democrat Party of war and exploitation and to end the war through building the mass movement in the streets; striking against arms producers; hot cargoing war materials on the docks, trains, and trucks; and building towards a general strike against the war. Likewise we support the right of military personal to refuse orders and resist this war. We support students, such as those at UC Santa Cruz that have repeatedly driven military recruiters off campus. And we call for building the socialist movement to end imperialism through socialist revolution.
The Role of Peace Action (Formerly Sane / Freeze)
Diane Feinstein has never seen a pending imperialist war she didn’t like. In her entire time in office she has voted for them all. Likewise Feinstein voted for the “Missile Defense System” and other “defense” boondoggles meant to line the pockets of the military industrial capitalists. Yet the group “Peace Action” gives Feinstein the passing grade of voting for peace 89% of the time.
“Peace Action” is deceiving the anti-war vote. Why? Because Peace Action is a pillar of the status quo that sees no alternative to delivering votes to what they see as the “lesser evil” Democrat Party, even when the Democrats are equally pro-war. This strategy has made “Peace Action” an obstacle to peace and a pillar of the status quo.
Every few years the ruling class of the United States parades its selected representatives in front of the American people to give us the chance to vote for their so-called “lesser” and “greater evil” representatives in the Democrat and Republican Parties. The corporate media and liberal pro-war groups like “Peace Action” ignore the anti-war candidates and back pro-war Democrats by misrepresenting their records to the people.
Liberation News urges all of the super-exploited workers that go door to door raising money for the Peace Action bureaucracy to quit your meaningless jobs and look for better work while looking for ways to hook up with the real anti-war/anti-imperialist movement that is marching in the streets. Likewise we urge all of the liberal and leftist minded people that give money to Peace Action to stop doing so and instead participate in the mass anti-war movement in the streets with your bodies, minds, and your money if you can afford it.
In response to the reformist call of, "Anybody But Bush," Socialist Action candidate Jeff Mackler aptly replied, "No to the twin parties of war and oppression!" and "Yes to the independent organization and mobilization of working people!"
Feinstein, Supporter of Racist Israel
Diane Feinstein, like many Democrats, has pounded the war drum for the racist Zionist state of Israel even louder than the Republicans. The U.S. gives Israel billions of dollars in military aid every year and Senator Feinstein’s vote backs that money for death. Israel is a racist settler state established in 1949 that has denied the original inhabitants, the Palestinians, all basic rights. Besides denying Palestinians the same rights to travel, jobs, housing, and education as allowed Jews, the racist Zionist State has used massacres and other forms of terror, wars, and torture to drive out the original Palestinian inhabitants.
Likewise Israel is always at war with its Arab neighbors. Israel’s recent attack against Lebanon where their aerial bombardment of the civilian population murdered 1,150 people and destroyed vital infrastructure is only the latest such terrorism by Israel. Yet when Senator Bill Frist introduced a bill backing Israeli / U.S. aggression in Lebanon Diane Feinstein voted for it along with Senate Democrat colleagues John Kerry (Mass.), Barack Obama (Ill.), Harry Reid (Nevada), Maria Cantwell (Wash.), and Edward Kennedy (Mass.).
Claims of Israel being the victim, bombing and invading Lebanon on the pretext of two Israeli soldiers taken prisoner do not hold water in light of the fact that Israel is holding 2,000 Lebanese prisoners in their torture chamber dungeons from their previous invasion of Lebanon. In addition numerous reports say those two Israeli soldiers were captured in Lebanon, not in Israel. Those reports are from such sources as AP, Hindustan Times, and AFP.
In contrast to Diane Feinstein and her pro-war Democrat colleagues, here is what the candidates to the left of her have to say:
“Israel is a racist state. It has separate laws for Arabs and Jews. The leader of the South African trade union COSATU recently stated that he thinks that the Palestinians face worse conditions than Blacks faced during South African Apartheid. There will never be peace in the Middle East as long as the Zionist state is given a blank check from the United States to treat the Palestinian people as less than human. Israel is part of the American empire and is key to US plans for permanent domination of the Middle East. If we ever want to see our troops come home from Iraq, then the anti-war movement must fight to cut off all American aid to Israel.” -Todd Chretien, California Senate candidate of the Green Party
“As a Jewish American, I chose to run for U.S. Senate partly as an act of conscience in support of the rights of Palestinians in Israel and the occupied territories. The wall which impedes people from conducting a normal life must come down. Israel should abandon the settlements and retreat to its pre-1967 borders. I do not condone any violence against civilians, and favor full rights for all people in any state…End U.S. aid to Israel until it withdraws to its 1967 borders.” -Marsha Feinland, California Senate candidate of the Peace and Freedom Party
“For a democratic and secular Palestine! End all U.S. aid to apartheid Israel! Stop the bombing of Lebanon and Gaza! For a united socialist federation of the Middle East! Socialists reject the legitimacy of the Zionist colonial settler state of Israel, just as we do all colonial settler states. We see no difference between the imperialist colonization of Africa, Asia, and the Middle East of yesteryear and today’s U.S.-backed Zionist conquest and occupation of Palestine. Israel today serves as the chief U.S. instrument for the imperialist domination and exploitation of the Middle East”. -Jeff Mackler, California Senate candidate of Socialist Action
All three candidates of the left take the correct and most important position of ending U.S. aid to Israel, but there are important differences in building an international movement.
While Todd Chretien holds a good position on Israel, the Israeli Green Party is a Zionist capitalist party that holds the position of deputy mayor of Tel Aviv. In a recent letter to the Green Party of the United States by Green Party chairman and deputy mayor, Pe’er Visner, the closest he got to recognizing any crimes by the Israeli government was saying, “We are “sorry” that the Israeli army prevents Palestinian suicide bombers from “expressing” their “human rights” to bomb themselves among Israeli citizens.” This racist response to the suffering of the Palestinian people should serve as a warning to Green Party members in the United States of what happens to parties that fail to put forward a revolutionary program for the overthrow of capitalism as well as fail to be a tribune for all of the most oppressed and exploited in society.
Unlike Marsha Feinland of the Peace and Freedom Party, Liberation News does not call for a withdrawal of Israel to its conquered borders of 1967. We instead call for pushing Israel back to its 1948 borders for a democratic, secular, and socialist Palestine within the 1948 borders with a separation of religion and state and equal rights for Palestinians and Jews including the Palestinian right to return, a society to be formed by the multi-ethnic working class through socialist revolution.
This is our context of demanding an end to U.S. military aid to racist Israel as well as to the repressive capitalist governments of Egypt and Jordan. Such a cut off is not intended to pressure Israel into a better two state “solution” as Marsha Feinland asks the U.S. government to do, but to allow the people of the Near East self-determination and revolution without the interference of billions of dollars in U.S. military aid to murderous regimes.
Jeff Mackler, in seeing Socialist Action as part of an international socialist movement with an international revolutionary program, has proposed a similar revolutionary program to that of Liberation News, but missing a key ingredient:
“Zionism is an ideology of racism and apartheid segregation. It is a deathtrap for the Jewish people, a central source of almost 60 years of war and oppression of the Palestinians. Socialist Action supports the creation of a democratic and secular Palestine, where Jews and Arabs can live together as equals in a new society, a society predicated on the immediate right of return of all dispossessed Palestinians. In this society, revolutionaries will fight for the construction of an egalitarian socialist state.” -Jeff Mackler, California Senate candidate of Socialist Action
Missing from this formula is the understanding that only socialist revolution, led by (a) secular multi-ethnic socialist party or parties will be capable of solving the national and democratic questions of Israel, Palestine, and Jordan. The capitalists and their parties, be they Kadima, Likud, Labour, Shas, Hamas, Fatah, or the Hashemite King Hussein of Jordan base their rule on capitalist exploitation and are incapable of providing any real solutions. Liberation News disagrees with the idea that democratic secular revolution should occur now and provide the basis for a later struggle for socialism, pointing out that this is the essence of Stalin’s Two-Stage Theory of Revolution when we instead hold high the banner of Trotsky’s Theory of Permanent Revolution.
It was this Stalinist Two-Stage Theory that provided the political basis for the Communist Party of South Africa putting all of their resources into building the African National Congress (ANC) as the democratic alternative to the racist apartheid government of South Africa. Yet by building a political party and movement that supported the continuation of the capitalist system they created a new capitalist party that now rules South Africa for the rich white capitalists at the continued expense of the super-exploited and poor black majority workers, minus overt racist laws. Strikes for healthcare and other workers’ demands have been broken by the ANC for the capitalists, HIV-AIDS goes untreated, and the massive mineral wealth of South Africa continues to go into the pockets of the capitalists instead of their potential of benefiting the workers, environment, and world revolution.
So when is the Communist Party of South Africa going to set about fighting for the next stage of the revolution? The answer is never. They are now part of the capitalist apparatus and part of the problem. It will take the other socialist parties of South Africa, the Trotskyist parties, to lead the socialist revolution.
While Stalinism has done much to stifle workers’ democracy in the deformed workers states under Stalinist control, it has also greatly sabotaged the world socialist revolution through Stalin’s Two-Stage Theory. Socialist Action is not a Stalinist organization, but they appear to have adopted part of their program.
So what would be Socialist Action’s ANC for Palestine? Fatah? They’ve already discredited themselves. They’ve sold the Palestinian people out with the Oslo Accords placing the Palestinian people on tiny Bantustan’s without a real basis for an economy. Would their ANC be Hamas? The imposition of Islamic law could hardly be considered a democratic secular revolution. Would they then suggest that Palestinian and Israeli socialists build a party with a purely democratic secular program, abandoning the socialist program as the Communist Party of South Africa did? Let’s drop the nonsense, build for the socialist revolution! For a democratic, secular, and socialist Palestine!
Liberation News rejects Stalin’s Two-Stage Theory of Revolution. We instead hold up the banner of Trotsky’s Theory of Permanent Revolution. It was through this theory that Trotsky explained that the democratic and the socialist revolutions are inseparably linked.
Yet the differences between Liberation News and Socialist Action as well as our differences with the Peace and Freedom Party on these questions do not prevent us from giving critical support to both in this election.
The Role of the Green Party
While Todd Cretien of the Green Party has good immediate positions on the war, Liberation News does not support Green Party candidates because the Green Party is a capitalist party. In Santa Cruz, where the Green Party has elected their party member Tim Fitzemaurice to office, Tim Fitzemaurice has backed the fears of local shop owners by voting for anti-homeless laws such as the law that makes it illegal for the homeless to sleep at night. While criminalizing those who cannot pay the high rent Fitzemaurice refuses to take a stand for rent control. Likewise Tim Fitzemaurice has refused to take any stand against police violence used against anti-war protesters in 1999 and other repressive measures against activists including my arrest and beating for distributing literature and the police murder of homeless activist John Dine. Recently Fitzemaurice did take a stand against police infiltration of the organizers of a Santa Cruz anti-war parade, but his stated reason for doing so was an attempt to maintain the credibility of the Santa Cruz police.
Tim Fitzemaurice is not a leader for change in Santa Cruz. He is instead a pillar of the status quo. This is the future of all political parties and politicians that do not have a clear program for the overthrow of the capitalist system.
The Green Party is clear in their program. They state that they are for a system of small capitalism. Yet the small capitalists commonly have a smaller profit margin and often exploit workers worse than the big capitalists. In opposition to such a vision of small and inefficient capitalist exploiters, Liberation News looks to labor struggle and the nationalization of industry under workers’ control as the way to fight and neutralize the corporate exploiters and bring justice for the working class.
On a national level the Green Party generally is not even seeking power, but pressure and reform of the Democrat Party. Yet the policy of many Greens in promoting votes for Democrats when the vote between the Democrat and Republican is close only promotes further illusions in the Democrats. Likewise promising votes to Democrats when it looks close does nothing to pressure the Democrats and their super rich backers to move to the left.
It was a massive and fighting labor movement led to large extent by socialists that forced the American ruling class and Franklin Delano Roosevelt to carry out the New Deal reforms in the 1930’s. This was out of fear of further unrest and potential revolution. It is the position of Liberation News that the most meaningful reforms do not come from reformism, such as that of the Green Party, but from revolutionary and working class struggle.
While making these criticisms Liberation News does recognize that there are differences between the program of Todd Chretien and that of the Green Party. If Todd Chretien was also speaking out for the Green Party to adopt a socialist program we could possibly give him support, but he is not. By running as a candidate and being a spokesperson for a party with a capitalist program Todd Chretien is helping build that capitalist party and program, so we must respectfully withhold our support.
Critical Support To The Socialist Candidates
Liberation News is giving critical support to Jeff Mackler of Socialist Action and Marsha Feinland of the Peace and Freedom Party. These are two socialist parties that hold socialist programs (for the most part) and are also active in the anti-war, free Mumia, and labor movements. To a large degree they represent the kind of political alternative that Liberation News promotes in opposition to the Democrats and Republicans.
Jeff Mackler of Socialist Action
Jeff Mackler is a long time socialist that has done much in organizing protests against imperialist wars, for the freedom of Mumia Abu-Jamal, for socialism, and other leftist causes.
Jeff Mackler and other expelled members of the Socialist Workers’ Party (SWP) were part of establishing new groups that continued on in some of the better traditions of the SWP, a party that led the 1934 Teamster’s Strike (a turning point in U.S. labor history), a party that was a major leader in the anti-war movement of the 1970’s and 1960’s, and a party that helped establish the world Trotskyist movement and expose the crimes of Stalinism.
Yet Jeff Mackler’s group, Socialist Action, was also born with a few programmatical errors. One was their abandonment of Trotsky’s concept of Political Revolution. The call for political revolution in the deformed workers states, such as the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, was a call for overthrowing the repressive Stalinist bureaucracy and institutionalizing workers’ democracy without overthrowing the nationalized planned economy itself. While Trotskyists call for political revolution in the deformed workers’ states, we also defend those socialist economies from imperialist attack and internal counter-revolution. The failure of Socialist Action to understand the true nature of the counter revolutionary movements in Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union, and Afghanistan led to important mistakes.
In supporting Solidarnosc in Poland Socialist Action backed a political movement that had a clear program for capitalist counter revolution and joined ranks with the CIA, the Pope, and Ronald Reagan in backing Solidarnosc’s rise to power. After taking power Solidarnosc’s program became even clearer with the outlawing of abortion (that used to be free on demand) and privatizations of the economy that led to 50% unemployment. Yet despite how clear it is today that Solidarnosc led a capitalist counter-revolution as opposed to a socialist political revolution (that would maintain the socialist economy, but oust the Stalinist bureaucracy and institute workers’ democracy) Socialist Action has not changed their position on Solidarnosc.
On Black liberation we at Liberation News advocate Richard Fraser’s Theory of Revolutionary Integrationism as opposed to the Black Nationalism promoted by Socialist Action. Socialist Action’s advocacy of Black Nationalism has brought them to the point of even promoting the religious and pro-capitalist Nation of Islam of Louis Farrakhan. Liberation News sees the promotion of Black Nationalism as a dead end. There is no geographical area that we can point to on a map and say by its demographics that it would make sense to set up Black nation there. Even if it were possible or desirable to set up a separate Black Nation in the United States the pain and suffering such an adventure would cause in terms of dislocations of the working class would not be worth the price. Liberation News, in contrast, calls for the overthrow of the racist capitalist system and the building of an egalitarian socialist society that guarantees racial equality, full employment, and access to health care for all.
Liberation News does, however, see Socialist Action’s campaign for Senate as a supportable campaign that, despite its mistakes, is promoting socialism as the alternative to the capitalist Democrats, Republicans, and Greens.
Here are some of the demands that Mackler is putting forward with his campaign:
1) Immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq! No U.S. aid to Israel! Israel out of Lebanon and Gaza! Shut down Guantanamo! U.S. hands off Cuba and Venezuela! End the Cuba blockade!
2) Tax the rich, not working people! Jobs at top union wages for all! Shorten the work-week with no cut in pay! For a revitalized and fighting labor movement! For a Labor Party!
3) Human needs before capitalist profits! Nationalize so-called bankrupt corporations under workers’ control.
4) Free quality health care and education for people of all ages! Build schools not jails! Quality affordable housing for all!
5) An emergency program to combat global warming! End our dependency on fossil fuels! No to nuclear power and weapons!
6) Stop the attacks on civil liberties! Repeal the Patriot Act! End police brutality! Support the right of marriage for same sex couples!
7) Defend a woman’s right to control her own body! Ready access to abortion is a fundamental right!
8) Immediate amnesty, legalization, and equal rights for all immigrants! No to La Migra! Demilitarize and open the border! Self-determination for oppressed nationalities! Affirmative action with quotas to remedy past discrimination! Support to Black and Latino independent political action!
9) For a government of, by, and for working people and the oppressed! For socialism!
While Liberation News agrees with many of these slogans we see a couple as too transitional. We do not see any good reason for limiting calls for nationalization to so-called “bankrupt corporations”. Perhaps this is in imitation of the economic crisis of Argentina and the many “bankrupt corporations” that have been taken over and run by workers as part of a miniature workers’ economy that employs about 10,000 Argentinean workers.
Liberation News sees no reason for limiting the nationalization of companies to those that the capitalists don’t want anymore, companies that the capitalists are no longer making super profits from. The exploitation of workers’ and the environment have produced all wealth, and the revolutionary movement of the working class wants it all back! We want the railroads, the banks, the health care industry, and of course oil! Only a society with a planned economy can meet the needs of the working class, can end war for capitalist profit, and can begin to save the environment. Revolution takes bold vision; we want it all; leave the conservatism to the Democrats and Republicans!
Imperialism has caused the poverty of Mexico, and an open border is the only right thing to do. Yet an open border would be coupled with a massive influx of immigrants and should be combined with the call for a socialist economy that guarantees jobs for all. Only socialism can solve the national question.
Jeff Mackler’s campaign for senate, despite its errors, does help show the way forward by pointing to socialist demands and solutions.
Due to the undemocratic laws of the state of California making it very difficult for third parties to gain ballot access Jeff Mackler will not be on the ballot so if you choose to vote for him you will have to write in his name.
Marsha Feinland of the Peace and Freedom Party
The Peace and Freedom Party (PFP) is the only socialist party in California that does have ballot status. Liberation News is also extending critical support to the PFP candidacy of Marsha Feinland. Here are key points of Marsha Feinland’s campaign:
1) Withdraw troops and advisors from Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti and Colombia
2) End aid to Israel until it withdraws to its pre-1967 borders
3) Raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour
4) Create universal health care with a "single payer" (Canadian type) system- no insurance company profits
5) Shorten the work week with no loss in pay and guarantee paid vacation time for all workers
6) Repeal the Taft-Hartley Act - restore the right to strike and end "right to work" laws
7) Abolish the death penalty
8) End the phony "war on drugs" - legalize marijuana and decriminalize drug use
9) Fully fund the U.S. government share of education costs, particularly special education
10) End the war on children - stop the government mandated testing craze in public schools
11) Protect the National Forests and other public and native lands from corporate exploitation
12) Abolish the Senate and the Electoral College - one person, one vote
In this platform Marsha Feinland raises a number of good points, including opposing the undemocratic nature of the Senate itself stating, "Abolish the Senate and the Electoral College - one person, one vote." This is in reference to the way that the senate has equal numbers of representatives from each state, regardless of that state’s population. On a similar issue Diane Feinstein has been criticized by activists in Washington D.C., a district where the people do not get representation in the Senate, for supporting Washington D.C. school vouchers that were undemocratically crammed down their throats.
In the United States more than 45 million Americans have no health coverage. These include 9 million children. Millions of others have inadequate coverage. It is a crime that the richest nation (rich due to imperialist exploitation of the world) leads in medical technology, but has the worst access to healthcare of any developed nation. Marsha Feinland’s call for single payer healthcare of the Canadian model, covering everyone and getting rid of the insurance industry middlemen would be a welcome change. And yes, despite the propaganda, government programs are always more efficient than private profiteering with its stockholders, overpaid CEOs, and advertising. But the Cuban model with nationalized healthcare and no private hospitals or pharmaceutical companies profiteering from illness works even better. It is this healthcare model that Liberation News advocates.
In fact Marsha Feinland’s platform is not just missing a full socialized medicine program, it is missing another key ingredient. Besides calling for eliminating the private insurance industry through single payer, nowhere in her platform or other materials does she call for the nationalization of the capitalist economy. She has no reference to the expropriation of big oil, industry, and finance capital or even any calls for the nationalization or municipalization of the generation, distribution and sales of electric power. Without such a socialist program it will be impossible to neutralize the power of the capitalist class and meet the needs of the working class.
Liberation News also strongly disagrees with the Peace and Freedom Party’s practice of endorsing Democrats in city elections. In Santa Cruz this has meant that the Peace and Freedom Party has helped elect some of the most anti-worker, anti-homeless, and pro-police oppression Democrats such as Mike Rotkin. Rotten Rotkin publicly opposed the bus drivers when they went on strike, is currently campaigning against a city initiative to raise the minimum wage, has voted for and supported every anti-homeless law in Santa Cruz, and has backed the police in every act of repression, violence, and spying that they have carried out against the left in the city. The local PFP may not support Rotkin anymore, but they did help get him elected, and they continue to help elect other Democrats and Greens in Santa Cruz that have virtually identical programs to that of Rotkin. Liberation News says: No to support for Democrats or Greens in local or national elections! Yes to the socialist candidates!
It will take a massive working class movement for good socialist candidates to actually win elections. An important element of this will be breaking the labor movement from the Democrat Party. By backing the candidates worth voting for today we at Liberation News feel that we are helping build the foundations of that movement today and into the future as people get more and more fed up with capitalist exploitation and wars. Ultimately the ruling class will use ever more violence to try to maintain their grip on power and a revolution will be necessary for the working class to actually seize power and transform society.
Liberation News:
http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news
Marsha Feinland, California Peace and Freedom Party Candidate for Senate:
http://feinlandforsenate.org/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1
Jeff Mackler, Socialist Action Candidate for Senate:
http://www.socialistaction.org/macklerforsenate/index.html
Todd Cretien, Green Party Candidate for Senate:
http://www.todd4senate.org/
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
I do not know who Liberation News is; perhaps it is just the alter ego of this author. In any event, this little book posted here misses reality. A check of the Secretary of State's website at http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections.htm will show that Feinland and Chretien together may get a few hundred thousand votes, in a state with 27 million adults, of whom 12.5 million voted in the last high voter turnout election, November 2004. Write-in unknowns like Mackler might get a literal handful. Feinland got 243,000 votes in her run against Boxer in 2004. Medea Benjamin of the Greens got 326,000 votes in her run against Feinstein in 2000. The winners got around 6 MILLION votes. 50% of more of the adults not voting means, as usual in American elections, most of the workingclass does not vote, the workingclass being those of us who sell our labor for less than $76,000 a year, usually much less. Only when we have a serious labor movement will we see a serious workingclass vote; until then, we can only make a protest vote. I am voting for Feinland and the rest of the Peace & Freedom Party ticket, as usual, where they have candidates. Only the Greens have a candidate, Krissy Keefer, running against Pelosi, and so for that position, I will vote Green. All of these votes are protest votes as:
DIANE FEINSTEIN WILL EASILY WIN CALIFORNIA, INCLUDING SAN FRANCISCO AND LOS ANGELES.
NANCY PELOSI WILL EASILY WIN SAN FRANCISCO.
If that bothers you, than WALK PRECINCTS NOW. Talk to the average workingclass voter who blindly votes the Democratic Party ticket and knows nothing about Israel, Stalin, Trotsky, or any of the rest of the political jargon and is not at all interested in discussing any of it. They only care about their paycheck and so long as they get that, they vote for the incumbent unless you can somehow talk them into making a protest vote. ALL ELECTIONS ARE WON IN THE PRECINCTS. If you want to change things through elections, you have to walk precincts. Otherwise, spend your time doing labor organizing so we can actually make some change in this country, where it is needed, and then, and only then, will change come to the Middle East and the rest of the world, as only a labor movement can put an end to the private profit system, capitalism, and its final stage, imperialism.
DIANE FEINSTEIN WILL EASILY WIN CALIFORNIA, INCLUDING SAN FRANCISCO AND LOS ANGELES.
NANCY PELOSI WILL EASILY WIN SAN FRANCISCO.
If that bothers you, than WALK PRECINCTS NOW. Talk to the average workingclass voter who blindly votes the Democratic Party ticket and knows nothing about Israel, Stalin, Trotsky, or any of the rest of the political jargon and is not at all interested in discussing any of it. They only care about their paycheck and so long as they get that, they vote for the incumbent unless you can somehow talk them into making a protest vote. ALL ELECTIONS ARE WON IN THE PRECINCTS. If you want to change things through elections, you have to walk precincts. Otherwise, spend your time doing labor organizing so we can actually make some change in this country, where it is needed, and then, and only then, will change come to the Middle East and the rest of the world, as only a labor movement can put an end to the private profit system, capitalism, and its final stage, imperialism.
To the anonymous poster, thanks for voting socialist by voting for the Peace and Freedom Party.
On your announcement about Feinstein you use bold caps. Are we supposed to be surprised when you say Diane Feinstein is going to win? I think I dealt with that in the beginning of the article when I mentioned that she has a 20% lead over her closest opponent. The purpose of this article is to make people more aware of Feinstein and more aware of their alternatives so that some time in the future we will sweep the Feinsteins of the world out of power.
So the anonymous poster wants to tell us that the working class doesn’t care about Israel or revolutionary program. Well I’m part of the working class and I care and I know other working class people that care as well. Revolutionary program is an important component of building the kind of movement that can lead revolutions. Likewise what the U.S. government is doing to the Palestinian and Lebanese people with our tax dollars is a critical issue that I have discussed with truck driving co-workers and gotten agreement.
The anonymous poster thinks that walking precincts will change the world. Walking precincts can help, but what is more important is building a revolutionary movement.
You say you are unfamiliar with Liberation News. Liberation News is a news service with a political perspective found at:
http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news
We stand for the Liberation of humanity and a ravaged planet from the scourge of capitalism and its wars.
This group rejects both the Democrat and Republican Parties as capitalist parties of war, racism, union busting, sexism, homophobia, environmental degradation and corporate exploitation.
We instead seek to build revolutionary socialism as the working class alternative. In contrast to the Democrat Party, including its most left wing, we stand in firm opposition to all US wars. We understand that the US wages wars for one reason: empire and arms sales that equal corporate profit. The working class interests we represent are those that do not want our sons and daughters to be sacrificed on the alter of war for corporate profit and who want our tax dollars to be spent on social programs at home. In addition we want the people of the world to live in freedom from the terror and exploitation of U.S. imperialism.
We call for socialist revolution in North America and the rest of the world to end the dictatorial power of the wealthy, for a redistribution of the wealth, and for a planned economy run to meet human and environmental needs.
On your announcement about Feinstein you use bold caps. Are we supposed to be surprised when you say Diane Feinstein is going to win? I think I dealt with that in the beginning of the article when I mentioned that she has a 20% lead over her closest opponent. The purpose of this article is to make people more aware of Feinstein and more aware of their alternatives so that some time in the future we will sweep the Feinsteins of the world out of power.
So the anonymous poster wants to tell us that the working class doesn’t care about Israel or revolutionary program. Well I’m part of the working class and I care and I know other working class people that care as well. Revolutionary program is an important component of building the kind of movement that can lead revolutions. Likewise what the U.S. government is doing to the Palestinian and Lebanese people with our tax dollars is a critical issue that I have discussed with truck driving co-workers and gotten agreement.
The anonymous poster thinks that walking precincts will change the world. Walking precincts can help, but what is more important is building a revolutionary movement.
You say you are unfamiliar with Liberation News. Liberation News is a news service with a political perspective found at:
http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news
We stand for the Liberation of humanity and a ravaged planet from the scourge of capitalism and its wars.
This group rejects both the Democrat and Republican Parties as capitalist parties of war, racism, union busting, sexism, homophobia, environmental degradation and corporate exploitation.
We instead seek to build revolutionary socialism as the working class alternative. In contrast to the Democrat Party, including its most left wing, we stand in firm opposition to all US wars. We understand that the US wages wars for one reason: empire and arms sales that equal corporate profit. The working class interests we represent are those that do not want our sons and daughters to be sacrificed on the alter of war for corporate profit and who want our tax dollars to be spent on social programs at home. In addition we want the people of the world to live in freedom from the terror and exploitation of U.S. imperialism.
We call for socialist revolution in North America and the rest of the world to end the dictatorial power of the wealthy, for a redistribution of the wealth, and for a planned economy run to meet human and environmental needs.
This is an excellent article and a good overview of the Senate race, with some good critiques of all the candidates. Thank you for posting it; I hope it gets distributed statewide. To the previous poster, it's worth noting that the PFP and GP candidates received one quarter of a million votes, or more, with no media coverage, no campaign spending except for a few flyers, and within a system stacked against independent parties and candidates. A 250,000 or 350,000 vote total shows that in fact alot of Californians oppose the incumbent duopoly, and more would do so if the PFP and GP weren't shut out of 'debates' and censored by the media (mainstream and so-called alternative rags).
The only disagreement I have is the implication that it's safe to vote for a 'third party' candidate in part because Feinstein has a 20 percent lead and will win anyway, i.e. we don't have to worry about being spoilers. I think it's important to vote out the duopoly and build a strong force to oppose it and even if Feinstein was only polling 1 percent ahead of Mountjoy, we should get our 2 or 3 percent for the PFP candidate, even if it means electing Mountjoy. Feinstein needs to be retired and if the slightly more right wing republican gets elected because voters abandon her for the PFP, or Greens, then so be it.
The only disagreement I have is the implication that it's safe to vote for a 'third party' candidate in part because Feinstein has a 20 percent lead and will win anyway, i.e. we don't have to worry about being spoilers. I think it's important to vote out the duopoly and build a strong force to oppose it and even if Feinstein was only polling 1 percent ahead of Mountjoy, we should get our 2 or 3 percent for the PFP candidate, even if it means electing Mountjoy. Feinstein needs to be retired and if the slightly more right wing republican gets elected because voters abandon her for the PFP, or Greens, then so be it.
I am glad this author points out many of the challenges progressives face and the structural problems with our electoral system and the system of money power in Congress.
There's a common misconception that Peace Action's congressional voter record is a grade or some endorsement to vote for a candidate. It is an imperfect tool to compare Congressfolks votes on issues that Peace Action works on which includes nuclear abolition issues, human rights as well as the Iraq war.
We clearly spell this out in our record:
"this voter guide is a review of the most important votes on peace and
dissarmament issues in Congress in
a particular year. It is not an overall assessment of a congressperson
or senator, and it does not measure leadership on or co-sponsorship of
legislation. It does not track votes in congressional committees, only
recorded "floor votes" of the entire House or Senate."
which is available at:
http://www.peace-action.org/pub/votes/2005VR.pdf
It's also imperfect that many issues do not get a recorded vote. In general, as the author points out, many in congress are horrible on our issues. The average on our voting record was 33%. The percentage Sen. Feinstein received is not a "passing grade." The record is an informational tool that takes a fair amount of time and resources to produce and many in the movement find it useful.
Peace Action has not endorsed Feinstein. While we do endorse candidates, we generally prefer to creat voter guides that inform voters how candidates stand on issues. We usually include third party candidates in our guides.
As a registered Green, I can tell you that Peace Action is not "a pillar of the status quo that sees no alternative to delivering votes to what they see as the “lesser evil” Democrat Party."
Peace Action was an early endorser to the Declaration of Peace campaign and our chapters around the country have been involved in civil disobedience outside and inside Congressional offices.
I support indy media but I am disappointed that it seems with a bit more research or a phone call or two the author could have gotten a more fair representation of Peace Action.
In solidarity,
Paul Kawika Martin
Organizing Director
Peace Action
There's a common misconception that Peace Action's congressional voter record is a grade or some endorsement to vote for a candidate. It is an imperfect tool to compare Congressfolks votes on issues that Peace Action works on which includes nuclear abolition issues, human rights as well as the Iraq war.
We clearly spell this out in our record:
"this voter guide is a review of the most important votes on peace and
dissarmament issues in Congress in
a particular year. It is not an overall assessment of a congressperson
or senator, and it does not measure leadership on or co-sponsorship of
legislation. It does not track votes in congressional committees, only
recorded "floor votes" of the entire House or Senate."
which is available at:
http://www.peace-action.org/pub/votes/2005VR.pdf
It's also imperfect that many issues do not get a recorded vote. In general, as the author points out, many in congress are horrible on our issues. The average on our voting record was 33%. The percentage Sen. Feinstein received is not a "passing grade." The record is an informational tool that takes a fair amount of time and resources to produce and many in the movement find it useful.
Peace Action has not endorsed Feinstein. While we do endorse candidates, we generally prefer to creat voter guides that inform voters how candidates stand on issues. We usually include third party candidates in our guides.
As a registered Green, I can tell you that Peace Action is not "a pillar of the status quo that sees no alternative to delivering votes to what they see as the “lesser evil” Democrat Party."
Peace Action was an early endorser to the Declaration of Peace campaign and our chapters around the country have been involved in civil disobedience outside and inside Congressional offices.
I support indy media but I am disappointed that it seems with a bit more research or a phone call or two the author could have gotten a more fair representation of Peace Action.
In solidarity,
Paul Kawika Martin
Organizing Director
Peace Action
Chretin is such a ding a ling. It's pathetic that "leftists" like Argue argue that he has a good position on Israel. Chretin supports Hezbollah, which is a position that has absolutely zero traction among Americans in general and the American working class specifically. And that's good. It's a good thing that American's reject this nutty third world nationalism. The American left has been down this road before when it bent over backwards to support every national liberation (stalinist) movement in the 60's. Now some fools are calling for supporting Hezbollah and the Iraqi "resistance". The Iraqi "resistance" is basically a struggle between bloody struggle between sectarian fascists and fundamentalist kooks. People who have no problem murdering and torturing trade-union leaders, leftists, gays etc. Hezobollah has similar proto-fascist tendencies.
Of course critizing these leninist turds is enough to get you labeled a "zionist" or censored here because the indybay "anarchists" have never picked up a history book and have no idea what leninism, stalinism, Islamism, or fascism is.
And the left wonders why nobody is showing up to their lame protests despite 60% of America now opposing the Iraqi war.
Of course critizing these leninist turds is enough to get you labeled a "zionist" or censored here because the indybay "anarchists" have never picked up a history book and have no idea what leninism, stalinism, Islamism, or fascism is.
And the left wonders why nobody is showing up to their lame protests despite 60% of America now opposing the Iraqi war.
Hi, your comment will likely be hidden because you used words like turd-- not the most civil way of conducting a political discussion. But in case it's not hidden, could you explain the reasons why you made these statements?
"The American left has been down this road before when it bent over backwards to support every national liberation (stalinist) movement in the 60's."
"Now some fools are calling for supporting Hezbollah and the Iraqi "resistance". The Iraqi "resistance" is basically a struggle between bloody struggle between sectarian fascists and fundamentalist kooks. People who have no problem murdering and torturing trade-union leaders, leftists, gays etc. Hezobollah has similar proto-fascist tendencies."
please explain that one.
"Of course critizing these leninist turds is enough to get you labeled a "zionist" or censored here because the indybay "anarchists" have never picked up a history book and have no idea what leninism, stalinism, Islamism, or fascism is."
why do you put the word "anarchists" in quotes? Is it because you don't know what an anarchist is, you think that indybay's editors think they are anarchists although they are not, or "anarchist" is a convenient insult?
"The American left has been down this road before when it bent over backwards to support every national liberation (stalinist) movement in the 60's."
"Now some fools are calling for supporting Hezbollah and the Iraqi "resistance". The Iraqi "resistance" is basically a struggle between bloody struggle between sectarian fascists and fundamentalist kooks. People who have no problem murdering and torturing trade-union leaders, leftists, gays etc. Hezobollah has similar proto-fascist tendencies."
please explain that one.
"Of course critizing these leninist turds is enough to get you labeled a "zionist" or censored here because the indybay "anarchists" have never picked up a history book and have no idea what leninism, stalinism, Islamism, or fascism is."
why do you put the word "anarchists" in quotes? Is it because you don't know what an anarchist is, you think that indybay's editors think they are anarchists although they are not, or "anarchist" is a convenient insult?
It is a foreggone conclusion that Feinstein the war criminal and Pelosi the apologist will be "reelected" to their positions.
All you do by supporting other candidates is lend legitimacy to the "election." I have news for you, the USA has NEVER been a democracy - ask someone who is Native American.
When you support any candidate, you are legitimizing a system of genocide and theft known as "American Democracy."
You actions kill prople and ensure miserable lives or millions upon millions of people. You constitution was written by slaveowners and you still slavishly believe that you have a voice and a vote inside your incidious fascist government.
Well, you don't. If you would like to do something about it, stop the ridiculous "voting" nonsense and get on with the fucking revolution. Otherwise, you are just as guilty of murdering the world as every other piece of shit American.
To Luci
1. I think it's fair to criticize my lack of civility. But I'm pissed that I post stuff that gets censored usually in favor of some Stailinist outfit like the Worlds worker party. For example, I'm pissed that I was censored for criticizing "the free the Cuban 5 movement". I'm pissed that I've been censored for leninist dingbats like Chretin. I think my critiques usually come from a libertarian left perspective so since indybay "anarchists" seem puzzled by this and then censor me in favor of various authoritarians I get pissssssssssssssssed, which is why I put anarchist in quotes. If there is a policy here about civility (which I couldn't find) I'll follow it.
2. Maybe you could rephrase your questions so I can better understand what your asking.
1. I think it's fair to criticize my lack of civility. But I'm pissed that I post stuff that gets censored usually in favor of some Stailinist outfit like the Worlds worker party. For example, I'm pissed that I was censored for criticizing "the free the Cuban 5 movement". I'm pissed that I've been censored for leninist dingbats like Chretin. I think my critiques usually come from a libertarian left perspective so since indybay "anarchists" seem puzzled by this and then censor me in favor of various authoritarians I get pissssssssssssssssed, which is why I put anarchist in quotes. If there is a policy here about civility (which I couldn't find) I'll follow it.
2. Maybe you could rephrase your questions so I can better understand what your asking.
Thanks, I’m glad that you liked the article.
I mentioned Feinstein has a 20% lead because she does, not to imply anything else. I, however, thought I made the Liberation News position clear that under no circumstances do we support Democrats. In fact I took up this specific question when I stated, “The policy of many Greens in promoting votes for Democrats when the vote between the Democrat and Republican is close only promotes further illusions in the Democrats.”
I mentioned Feinstein has a 20% lead because she does, not to imply anything else. I, however, thought I made the Liberation News position clear that under no circumstances do we support Democrats. In fact I took up this specific question when I stated, “The policy of many Greens in promoting votes for Democrats when the vote between the Democrat and Republican is close only promotes further illusions in the Democrats.”
Paul Kawika Martin, Peace Action Organizing Director, thanks for your thoughts.
You say that your grade of 89% is not a “grade” of the congressfolks, but an “imperfect tool” to compare them on “nuclear abolition issues, human rights as well as the Iraq war.”
Given Feinstein’s votes for:
1) Every war presented to her since she was elected in 1992
2) Funding of the Iraq war
3) The “Patriot Act” and its renewal
4) The 1996 Anti-Terrorism Effective Death Penalty Act
5) The Death Squad Government of Colombia
6) Israel’s war with Lebanon
7) Billions of dollars in war funds to Israel every year
8) And the so-called “Missile Defense System”
I must say that your so-called “imperfect tool” is much worse than imperfect. I must respectfully ask how such a war criminal and human rights abuser as Diane Feinstein gets a passing grade of 89% while other pro-war candidates (when they are Republicans) get much lower grades. It seems that you are giving support to Democrats when neither Democrats nor Republicans deserve support. Show us your criteria.
You say that your grade of 89% is not a “grade” of the congressfolks, but an “imperfect tool” to compare them on “nuclear abolition issues, human rights as well as the Iraq war.”
Given Feinstein’s votes for:
1) Every war presented to her since she was elected in 1992
2) Funding of the Iraq war
3) The “Patriot Act” and its renewal
4) The 1996 Anti-Terrorism Effective Death Penalty Act
5) The Death Squad Government of Colombia
6) Israel’s war with Lebanon
7) Billions of dollars in war funds to Israel every year
8) And the so-called “Missile Defense System”
I must say that your so-called “imperfect tool” is much worse than imperfect. I must respectfully ask how such a war criminal and human rights abuser as Diane Feinstein gets a passing grade of 89% while other pro-war candidates (when they are Republicans) get much lower grades. It seems that you are giving support to Democrats when neither Democrats nor Republicans deserve support. Show us your criteria.
I asked for your criteria for these grades. A look at your link shows that you actually do give the criteria, another Peace Action site I had looked when researching the article did not. Given Feinstein's pro-war record these obviously are not good criteria that you are using to grade her. So here is the breakdown of some of the percentage points got:
She got 11% for the meaningless U.S. accountability in Iraq amendment calling for Bush to come up with estimated dates for withdrawal.
She got 22% for opposing nominations that are purely partisan issues that a pro-war Democrat like Feinstein has no trouble jumping into.
11% goes to Feinstein for voting for more funding for UN troops that you euphemistically call "peace keepers". Troops that play a role in such things as propping up the U.S. installed death squad dictatorship of Haiti by gunning down civilians in the street.
She lost 11% for voting to fund the war in Iraq.
She gained 11% for a bill on secret detentions, something she authorized in the first place with her "Patriot Act" votes.
And she gained 11% for voting for McCain's bill against torture, something that most Senators did with 9 voting against.
Most of these criteria are meaningless in face of her voting for:
1) Every war presented to her since she was elected in 1992
2) Funding of the Iraq war
3) The “Patriot Act” and its renewal
4) The 1996 Anti-Terrorism Effective Death Penalty Act
5) The Death Squad Government of Colombia
6) Israel’s war with Lebanon
7) Billions of dollars in war funds to Israel every year
8) And the so-called “Missile Defense System”
The points you give clearly ignore the bigger issues and the longer histories of these politicians. Neither Feinstein nor your grading system deserve a passing grade.
She got 11% for the meaningless U.S. accountability in Iraq amendment calling for Bush to come up with estimated dates for withdrawal.
She got 22% for opposing nominations that are purely partisan issues that a pro-war Democrat like Feinstein has no trouble jumping into.
11% goes to Feinstein for voting for more funding for UN troops that you euphemistically call "peace keepers". Troops that play a role in such things as propping up the U.S. installed death squad dictatorship of Haiti by gunning down civilians in the street.
She lost 11% for voting to fund the war in Iraq.
She gained 11% for a bill on secret detentions, something she authorized in the first place with her "Patriot Act" votes.
And she gained 11% for voting for McCain's bill against torture, something that most Senators did with 9 voting against.
Most of these criteria are meaningless in face of her voting for:
1) Every war presented to her since she was elected in 1992
2) Funding of the Iraq war
3) The “Patriot Act” and its renewal
4) The 1996 Anti-Terrorism Effective Death Penalty Act
5) The Death Squad Government of Colombia
6) Israel’s war with Lebanon
7) Billions of dollars in war funds to Israel every year
8) And the so-called “Missile Defense System”
The points you give clearly ignore the bigger issues and the longer histories of these politicians. Neither Feinstein nor your grading system deserve a passing grade.
This will be my last post here as it feels obvious that true dialogue will not occur.
As I mentionned before our voting record is not a grade. There is no grade involved. Peace Action does not give Feinstein a passing grade nor endorse her. I could give a long list of how we have opposed her policy of the years, but I doubt the time invested would make any difference to the views of the author.
As I also mentionned the Senate does not vote on a lot of issues that we would like them to vote on. That forces us to choose from slim pickings on votes to use in our voting record.
The record is a small snapshot of of a year of votes. It is not meant to be a long-term judgement of politicians nor address all the larger structural issues facing our society.
It's one publication among many that Peace Action produces.
As I mentionned before our voting record is not a grade. There is no grade involved. Peace Action does not give Feinstein a passing grade nor endorse her. I could give a long list of how we have opposed her policy of the years, but I doubt the time invested would make any difference to the views of the author.
As I also mentionned the Senate does not vote on a lot of issues that we would like them to vote on. That forces us to choose from slim pickings on votes to use in our voting record.
The record is a small snapshot of of a year of votes. It is not meant to be a long-term judgement of politicians nor address all the larger structural issues facing our society.
It's one publication among many that Peace Action produces.
Paul from Peace Action said, "I support indy media but I am disappointed that it seems with a bit more research or a phone call or two the author could have gotten a more fair representation of Peace Action"
Please note that the article above was not written by Indymedia editors- it was written by Steve Argue- he put his name at the top. On this site, Indybay, editors might choose to highlight a post by quoting from it, or they might pull together information from several posts or elsewhere on the web.
If you click around Indybay and the Santa Cruz page, you will certainly see that this one article does not represent all of the content on this site. I usually avoid the comments sections because there is not much positive debate here- rightwingers tend to dominate the comments, and that sucks, but I think that fighting them isn't the best use of our time.
And some of the people who regularly post articles to the newswire are "a bit off." And you can see that everyone from anarchists to socialists to "new lefters" to right wingers to zionists to bored students to progressives to nonprofit workers posts to and reads this site. Sorry that it doesn't reflect just one viewpoint. But if it did, you might not have found it.
Please note that the article above was not written by Indymedia editors- it was written by Steve Argue- he put his name at the top. On this site, Indybay, editors might choose to highlight a post by quoting from it, or they might pull together information from several posts or elsewhere on the web.
If you click around Indybay and the Santa Cruz page, you will certainly see that this one article does not represent all of the content on this site. I usually avoid the comments sections because there is not much positive debate here- rightwingers tend to dominate the comments, and that sucks, but I think that fighting them isn't the best use of our time.
And some of the people who regularly post articles to the newswire are "a bit off." And you can see that everyone from anarchists to socialists to "new lefters" to right wingers to zionists to bored students to progressives to nonprofit workers posts to and reads this site. Sorry that it doesn't reflect just one viewpoint. But if it did, you might not have found it.
You want us to think your percentages are not a grade, yet your over-exploited workers represent it as a grade going door to door. I remember Sam Farr's was being called a C a few years ago. You give 0% to a 100% when people look at your site. You can call it not a grade all you want, just as you call UN troops that are sent to places like Haiti to prop up the death squad government "peace keepers", and you can call Feinstein's vote for expanded funding for those troops a vote for peace, but the discerning here know the difference.
Dear Steven Argue, Paul Martin, and others,
First, let me congratulate you on your unequivocal condemnation of Senator Fenistein’s record on war. You may have missed this, but I watched her repulsive congratulations to Bush on t.v. the morning after the “shock and awe” phase of the Iraq war began. She is morally disgusting.
Second, I want to ask if you and peace-action and liberation news would either a. endorse the Network of Spiritual Progressives’ Spiritual Covenant with America (which you can read most fully in my book The Left Hand of God: Taking Back our Country from the Religious Right) or in summary form at http://www.spiritualprogressives.org; and/or b. let me write something to your networks to explain our strategy for challenging and changing American foreign policy, and its relationship to our larger enterprise of building a Network of Spiritual Progressives.
Warm regards.
Rabbi Michael Lerner
510 526 6889
First, let me congratulate you on your unequivocal condemnation of Senator Fenistein’s record on war. You may have missed this, but I watched her repulsive congratulations to Bush on t.v. the morning after the “shock and awe” phase of the Iraq war began. She is morally disgusting.
Second, I want to ask if you and peace-action and liberation news would either a. endorse the Network of Spiritual Progressives’ Spiritual Covenant with America (which you can read most fully in my book The Left Hand of God: Taking Back our Country from the Religious Right) or in summary form at http://www.spiritualprogressives.org; and/or b. let me write something to your networks to explain our strategy for challenging and changing American foreign policy, and its relationship to our larger enterprise of building a Network of Spiritual Progressives.
Warm regards.
Rabbi Michael Lerner
510 526 6889
thank you for this breakdown and its correlation with local politics.
1. Instrumental in crushing left wing of Students Against War at SF State through smear campaign labeling dissenters to ISO manipulation as Red Baiting McCarthyites.
Plus 50 points
2. Backed pro Stalinist British MP George Galloway
Plus 35 points
3. Is a "socialist" running on the small capitalist Green Party ticket
Plus 40 points
4. Disses people who disagree with him as "spending time on the internet" when he was at the important rally.
Plus 10 points.
5. Used the May 1st rally for workers and imigrant rights to pander for votes for his parliamentary campaign on indybay.
Plus 30 points.
6. Tells you how glad he is to be working with you then calls you a McCarthyite on the ISO internal listserv.
Plus 75 points
7. Is main West Coast organizer for a Trotskyist Vanguard party which sees itself as imparting revolutionary consciousness on the working class from outside of it because the workers need leadership to give them what they don't yet know they want.
Plus 50 points
8. Was speaker at Socialism 2006 which cost expolited workers $100.00 to attend.
Plus 50 points.
9. Calls for Unconditional support for all elements of Iraqi resistance whether or not they would slaughter socialists and Leftists.
Plus 75 points
Total 415 points (good but some room for improvement).
Candidate Grading System:
0-49 points: Anarchist Dumpster Diver
50-99 points: Kronstadt Sailor
100-199 points: Menshavik
200-350 points: pre-patriot Schactmanite
351-424 points: Cliffite
425-500 points: Lenin's Beard
The above is obviously an objective and scientifically socialistic grading system as it was devised by the ISO of which I am a member.
In total Solidariosity,
John Lenin
Response:
I believe that Todd's facial hair should earn him the extra ten points he needs to achieve "Lenin's Beard" status. Unless of course the grader is RED BAITING Todd!
Sincerely,
Jimmy Johnson, 18, Chicago ISO
Plus 50 points
2. Backed pro Stalinist British MP George Galloway
Plus 35 points
3. Is a "socialist" running on the small capitalist Green Party ticket
Plus 40 points
4. Disses people who disagree with him as "spending time on the internet" when he was at the important rally.
Plus 10 points.
5. Used the May 1st rally for workers and imigrant rights to pander for votes for his parliamentary campaign on indybay.
Plus 30 points.
6. Tells you how glad he is to be working with you then calls you a McCarthyite on the ISO internal listserv.
Plus 75 points
7. Is main West Coast organizer for a Trotskyist Vanguard party which sees itself as imparting revolutionary consciousness on the working class from outside of it because the workers need leadership to give them what they don't yet know they want.
Plus 50 points
8. Was speaker at Socialism 2006 which cost expolited workers $100.00 to attend.
Plus 50 points.
9. Calls for Unconditional support for all elements of Iraqi resistance whether or not they would slaughter socialists and Leftists.
Plus 75 points
Total 415 points (good but some room for improvement).
Candidate Grading System:
0-49 points: Anarchist Dumpster Diver
50-99 points: Kronstadt Sailor
100-199 points: Menshavik
200-350 points: pre-patriot Schactmanite
351-424 points: Cliffite
425-500 points: Lenin's Beard
The above is obviously an objective and scientifically socialistic grading system as it was devised by the ISO of which I am a member.
In total Solidariosity,
John Lenin
Response:
I believe that Todd's facial hair should earn him the extra ten points he needs to achieve "Lenin's Beard" status. Unless of course the grader is RED BAITING Todd!
Sincerely,
Jimmy Johnson, 18, Chicago ISO
For more information:
http://WWW.Todd4dictatoroftheproletariat.org
Silly anarchist, the article didn't even back Todd Chretien.
If you look through the archives Magon is clearly not to be taken at face value. He always enters the argument as a radical who just happens to disagree on a specific point but whether its on Israel, labor activism or antiwar activism he tends to side against the organizers of any sort of action in a way that suggests he is more likely a right-winger trying to undermine rather than someone trying to debate and build.
On this post he seems like a strong antiCommunist Anarchist
http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/02/1721548_comment.php
On this one he bad mouths the ISO but not for being too reformist but for supporting Tookie Williams (it also is prtety strongly against the Iraqi resistance) :
http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/12/1790710_comment.php#1790737
But then here he sounds like a Marxist:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/10/1779013.php#1780027
Here he is mainstream baiting radicals in a very strange way:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/04/1816167.php
Here is comes out strongly against Muslims protesting racism (maybe just a European style leftist hiding their racism behind a veneer of Marxist secularism?):
http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/02/1801679_comment.php#1802113
Here he comes out against Chavez:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/05/1744882_comment.php#1746691
Here is a rather strange post by him; it claims to be about Jews against Zionism protesting an antiSemite but it is slightly misrepresenting who Gilad Atzmon is (since he is Jewish and his politics is much more liike Ward Churchill than being openly antiSemitic):
http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/06/1748216_comment.php
Here he comes out against the death penalty against Tookie (maybe he disagrees with the detah penalty but still hates Tookie, the above post attacking the ISO for its stance of Tookie seem a bit strange considering this comment):
http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/12/1789566_comment.php#1789616
Here he again claims he thinks Tod supports Saddam Hussein for his opposition to the war in Iraq:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/04/1813879_comment.php#1814049
Then you have Magon on immigration issues:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/04/25/18179101.php?show_comments=1#18181151
He sees things in terms of an almost Marxist class formula where racism is secondary (and class conciousness exists except not between racial groups somehow without this being racism). His argument is consistent with those on other issues in that it essentially comes down to a statement of "I generall agree with you on most things .... but here is why I disagree with this specific action". If this wasnt Magon's consistent line of argument on all topics it would be a bit more believable.
etc...
Magon really might be a post-Left Anarchist who feels more radical than the rest of the left for standing up for a dogmatic interpretation of exactly how radicals should think, but he also sounds a bit like Christopher Hitchens, Todd Gitlin and Tony Blair.
I dont think it's bad for people to question how some radicals may apologize for fundamentalists who happen to be Muslim, but taking a strong line against the minority groups in Europe whenever they stand up for their rights (just because the message is mixed with a religious one) is a bit troubling. And of course Cuba really does abuse rights so its also easy to see how someone could be offended by ANSWER types always talking about Cuba... but take the sum total of the politics in the comments and you realize that even if Magon conciously thinks himself more radical than thow and a force for working-class change, he is much more in the line of a Gitlin or Hitchens (or even a Blair) who is trying to ballance radical identity (and years of reading Marxist analysis) with an internalization of conservative smears and mainstream chauvanisms.
I kinda hope Magon is a freeper or such pretending to be a leftist but I would suspect that in fact he is a former radical (probably Anarchist theorist type) who is integrating back into mainstream society and struggling to rationalize away a growing conservatism that is due to the same societal forces that make most middle-class intellectuals tilt to the right (and made many former radicals in academia and government support the Iraq war due to black and white thinking about good and evil and liberating the Iraqis from Saddam) There was something that always seemed elitist and snobish about the younger Hitchens and I think political theory tends to attract such types in a way that creates young uberradicals who pontificate on the evils of Capitalism and the righteouness of the working class before realizing that they hate the working class and really only value the company of other snobs ... and hence the eventual pull of the old aristocratic/paternalistic right (it takes a certain distance to argue so abstactly about issues that actually impact real people).
So go ahead and discuss politics with Magon and note that he does tend to be civil (to Anarchists at least) but dont hope for any major breakthroughs in strategy unless your strategy for change is to undermine the radical left in favor of a bland Blarish almost neocon self-righteousness (where spending a lot of energy undermining an antiwar protest because of past statemenst of a speaker is more important than actually working to end the war).
On this post he seems like a strong antiCommunist Anarchist
http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/02/1721548_comment.php
On this one he bad mouths the ISO but not for being too reformist but for supporting Tookie Williams (it also is prtety strongly against the Iraqi resistance) :
http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/12/1790710_comment.php#1790737
But then here he sounds like a Marxist:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/10/1779013.php#1780027
Here he is mainstream baiting radicals in a very strange way:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/04/1816167.php
Here is comes out strongly against Muslims protesting racism (maybe just a European style leftist hiding their racism behind a veneer of Marxist secularism?):
http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/02/1801679_comment.php#1802113
Here he comes out against Chavez:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/05/1744882_comment.php#1746691
Here is a rather strange post by him; it claims to be about Jews against Zionism protesting an antiSemite but it is slightly misrepresenting who Gilad Atzmon is (since he is Jewish and his politics is much more liike Ward Churchill than being openly antiSemitic):
http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/06/1748216_comment.php
Here he comes out against the death penalty against Tookie (maybe he disagrees with the detah penalty but still hates Tookie, the above post attacking the ISO for its stance of Tookie seem a bit strange considering this comment):
http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/12/1789566_comment.php#1789616
Here he again claims he thinks Tod supports Saddam Hussein for his opposition to the war in Iraq:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/04/1813879_comment.php#1814049
Then you have Magon on immigration issues:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/04/25/18179101.php?show_comments=1#18181151
He sees things in terms of an almost Marxist class formula where racism is secondary (and class conciousness exists except not between racial groups somehow without this being racism). His argument is consistent with those on other issues in that it essentially comes down to a statement of "I generall agree with you on most things .... but here is why I disagree with this specific action". If this wasnt Magon's consistent line of argument on all topics it would be a bit more believable.
etc...
Magon really might be a post-Left Anarchist who feels more radical than the rest of the left for standing up for a dogmatic interpretation of exactly how radicals should think, but he also sounds a bit like Christopher Hitchens, Todd Gitlin and Tony Blair.
I dont think it's bad for people to question how some radicals may apologize for fundamentalists who happen to be Muslim, but taking a strong line against the minority groups in Europe whenever they stand up for their rights (just because the message is mixed with a religious one) is a bit troubling. And of course Cuba really does abuse rights so its also easy to see how someone could be offended by ANSWER types always talking about Cuba... but take the sum total of the politics in the comments and you realize that even if Magon conciously thinks himself more radical than thow and a force for working-class change, he is much more in the line of a Gitlin or Hitchens (or even a Blair) who is trying to ballance radical identity (and years of reading Marxist analysis) with an internalization of conservative smears and mainstream chauvanisms.
I kinda hope Magon is a freeper or such pretending to be a leftist but I would suspect that in fact he is a former radical (probably Anarchist theorist type) who is integrating back into mainstream society and struggling to rationalize away a growing conservatism that is due to the same societal forces that make most middle-class intellectuals tilt to the right (and made many former radicals in academia and government support the Iraq war due to black and white thinking about good and evil and liberating the Iraqis from Saddam) There was something that always seemed elitist and snobish about the younger Hitchens and I think political theory tends to attract such types in a way that creates young uberradicals who pontificate on the evils of Capitalism and the righteouness of the working class before realizing that they hate the working class and really only value the company of other snobs ... and hence the eventual pull of the old aristocratic/paternalistic right (it takes a certain distance to argue so abstactly about issues that actually impact real people).
So go ahead and discuss politics with Magon and note that he does tend to be civil (to Anarchists at least) but dont hope for any major breakthroughs in strategy unless your strategy for change is to undermine the radical left in favor of a bland Blarish almost neocon self-righteousness (where spending a lot of energy undermining an antiwar protest because of past statemenst of a speaker is more important than actually working to end the war).
...or maybe Magon is just a cop or other form of right-winger trying to stir up shit and waste our valuable time with nonsense. That would just as easily explain the person's ignorance, rightwing views under what seems to be a fake anarchist cover, and the person’s hatred for socialism.
That could be true. I have heard enough red-baiting and indirect defenses of Israel's actions by many in the Anarchist/PostLeftist scene that I figured thats where he was comming from. Is nothing really specific to Anarchism or Anarachists but more a reflection of the vague nature of the label and how it allows many middle-class activists toying with radicalism to become actual conservatives in many ways without having to renounce their political grouping. Of course the British Labor Party contains many open Trots who support Blair so its not specific to Anarchists as a problem.
I think some of the rightward tilt is a function of real problems people like Magon confront within the radical scene (living under Castro or Islamic Fundamentalists as a free thinking hipster wouldnt exactly work) but it jumps over the more mainstream arguments against wars and the ballance of oppressions (Castro may not be great but the US alternative would be much worse) and goes straight into the demonization radical views. You can see this style of argument in the writings of Horrowitz when he still identfiied as a radical right before he spun into a fascist, of Hitchens in his last years at the Nation, in Gitlins, and probably even in the stated beliefs of others like Peretz and Mussolini who made the jump from Marxist thought to mass murder pretty quickly. I think a lot of it is a matter of those prone to simplistic true belief in group ideoplogies running up against contradictions (that exist in any ideology and more overtly in any group ideology) and wanting to purge themselves of the contradictions by devoting a lot of time and effort to confront the beliefs in others. One could perhaps guess that sectarian splits result in so much anger between radical groups for a similar reason.
I think some of the rightward tilt is a function of real problems people like Magon confront within the radical scene (living under Castro or Islamic Fundamentalists as a free thinking hipster wouldnt exactly work) but it jumps over the more mainstream arguments against wars and the ballance of oppressions (Castro may not be great but the US alternative would be much worse) and goes straight into the demonization radical views. You can see this style of argument in the writings of Horrowitz when he still identfiied as a radical right before he spun into a fascist, of Hitchens in his last years at the Nation, in Gitlins, and probably even in the stated beliefs of others like Peretz and Mussolini who made the jump from Marxist thought to mass murder pretty quickly. I think a lot of it is a matter of those prone to simplistic true belief in group ideoplogies running up against contradictions (that exist in any ideology and more overtly in any group ideology) and wanting to purge themselves of the contradictions by devoting a lot of time and effort to confront the beliefs in others. One could perhaps guess that sectarian splits result in so much anger between radical groups for a similar reason.
Response to "who is he really"
who is he.. really:
I have heard enough red-baiting and indirect defenses of Israel's actions by many in the Anarchist/PostLeftist scene that I figured thats where he was comming from.
Me: Post leftism is one small grouping associated in some cases with anarchism, but which is also critical of it. Anarchism is a broad classification. In the Bay Area there is an interesting mix of Left Communist, Situationist, Anarchist, Marxist influence on the community of people often simply labelled "anarchist". But I'd be curious which "anarchists" offered "indirect defenses of Israel's actions"? You seem unclear on the general philosophy which is anti-statist. That means that anarchists generally see nation states as the embodiment of the interests of capital and that means inherently against the working class. Perhaps you are mistaking a critique of ALL nationalisms, not ONLY Israeli nationalism or Zionism as somehow a validation of Israel's nationalism. As for Red Baiting, in my experience, the main critique from anarchists etc. is of vanguard parties, the Trots mostly, but also generally of the Bolsheviks crushing workers' control and installing a state capitalist system in the Soviet Union after the October Revolution. Many on the ultra-left are of course heavily involved in Marxist theories, while having incorporated the critiques, from Luxemburg to Debord and others.
Interestingly, even groups like the ISO have criticisms of communist parties in the U.S. and elsewhere, but they are never accused of red baiting. When someone to their left engages in criticism of anything involving communism, it is thought safe simply to smear them as McCarthyites first and ask questions later. But the term "ultra-left baiting" has not entered the lexicon.
who is he.. really:
Is nothing really specific to Anarchism or Anarachists but more a reflection of the vague nature of the label and how it allows many middle-class activists toying with radicalism to become actual conservatives in many ways without having to renounce their political grouping.
Me: The implication is guilt by association. You first associate conservative views with "anarchist/postleftists" and then lump them all together with a sort of vaguely conservative middle class, a connection which you have only suggested through innuendo.
Being a member of the "middle class" today does not change the fact that, usually, the person still has to work for a boss, for a wage, and is still in a precarious position, and most likely deep in debt. Many such people really are resentful of the system not just "toying" with radicalism. Also, there are many working class people who get suckered into the conservatism of the authoritarian left and their party hierarchies, "democratic centralist" facades, and peer pressure dumbing down of the history of the Left. Falling into distortions of radical ideas is not limited to the middle class. (Despite the constant white guilt tripping accusations by Trots, no one should ever assume that anarchists are somehow more "white" or more "bourgeois" than the membership of the Trotskyist groups in the Bay Area. But you see this card thrown constantly, and it may be true that anarchists are guilty of this tactic too.) Anyway, it seems to me that most people realize quickly that their views count for little in vanguard/authoritarian groups, and they become disillusioned, leaving for a more engaging experience.
who is he.. really
Of course the British Labor Party contains many open Trots who support Blair so its not specific to Anarchists as a problem.
Me: And lots of American Trots have backed George Galloway as a role model, but have you seen his views on Stalinist Russia, Castro, etc? They're easy to find, and they're not very critical or deep, in fact they're embarassing crude nationalistic "anti-imperialism".
who is he.. really:
I have heard enough red-baiting and indirect defenses of Israel's actions by many in the Anarchist/PostLeftist scene that I figured thats where he was comming from.
Me: Post leftism is one small grouping associated in some cases with anarchism, but which is also critical of it. Anarchism is a broad classification. In the Bay Area there is an interesting mix of Left Communist, Situationist, Anarchist, Marxist influence on the community of people often simply labelled "anarchist". But I'd be curious which "anarchists" offered "indirect defenses of Israel's actions"? You seem unclear on the general philosophy which is anti-statist. That means that anarchists generally see nation states as the embodiment of the interests of capital and that means inherently against the working class. Perhaps you are mistaking a critique of ALL nationalisms, not ONLY Israeli nationalism or Zionism as somehow a validation of Israel's nationalism. As for Red Baiting, in my experience, the main critique from anarchists etc. is of vanguard parties, the Trots mostly, but also generally of the Bolsheviks crushing workers' control and installing a state capitalist system in the Soviet Union after the October Revolution. Many on the ultra-left are of course heavily involved in Marxist theories, while having incorporated the critiques, from Luxemburg to Debord and others.
Interestingly, even groups like the ISO have criticisms of communist parties in the U.S. and elsewhere, but they are never accused of red baiting. When someone to their left engages in criticism of anything involving communism, it is thought safe simply to smear them as McCarthyites first and ask questions later. But the term "ultra-left baiting" has not entered the lexicon.
who is he.. really:
Is nothing really specific to Anarchism or Anarachists but more a reflection of the vague nature of the label and how it allows many middle-class activists toying with radicalism to become actual conservatives in many ways without having to renounce their political grouping.
Me: The implication is guilt by association. You first associate conservative views with "anarchist/postleftists" and then lump them all together with a sort of vaguely conservative middle class, a connection which you have only suggested through innuendo.
Being a member of the "middle class" today does not change the fact that, usually, the person still has to work for a boss, for a wage, and is still in a precarious position, and most likely deep in debt. Many such people really are resentful of the system not just "toying" with radicalism. Also, there are many working class people who get suckered into the conservatism of the authoritarian left and their party hierarchies, "democratic centralist" facades, and peer pressure dumbing down of the history of the Left. Falling into distortions of radical ideas is not limited to the middle class. (Despite the constant white guilt tripping accusations by Trots, no one should ever assume that anarchists are somehow more "white" or more "bourgeois" than the membership of the Trotskyist groups in the Bay Area. But you see this card thrown constantly, and it may be true that anarchists are guilty of this tactic too.) Anyway, it seems to me that most people realize quickly that their views count for little in vanguard/authoritarian groups, and they become disillusioned, leaving for a more engaging experience.
who is he.. really
Of course the British Labor Party contains many open Trots who support Blair so its not specific to Anarchists as a problem.
Me: And lots of American Trots have backed George Galloway as a role model, but have you seen his views on Stalinist Russia, Castro, etc? They're easy to find, and they're not very critical or deep, in fact they're embarassing crude nationalistic "anti-imperialism".
Magon (you?) is one example but I would also include some anarchist criticism of Cuba as indirect support for an invasion and much of the criticism of Galloway and ANSWER as indirectly supportive of the US invasion of Iraq.
Criticizing Hezbollah and Israel and placing most of the blame for civilian deaths in this latest conflict on Israel isnt indirect support of Israel. Labelling Hezbollah as so evil that anyone sympathizing with its popular support (due to a history of Shia poverty in S Lebanon that resulted in nationalism much more than any religious motivation) must be called out and demonized sounds like support for Israel hiding behind a cover of Islamofasict baiting. One telling sign of the motivation of those criticizing Hezbollah is the way it's done. Hezbollah is declared evil fundamentalists and terroristic without references to how they have treated those in areas it has governmed (have they been oppressive to women and nonMuslisms?) and what terrorist attacks did they carry out and how direct were the connections? (the bombing in Argentina after the leader before Nassralah was assasinated is the only case I can think of but its not clear if Hezbollah in Lebanon ordered the operation or not).
Asking why ANSWER doesnt criticize Saddam more when the US has already overthrown him sounds like its motivated by something other than concern for Saddam's victims.
Demonizing Galloway or ANSWER as Stalinists also sounds a bit like red baiting since that term has a very blurred meaning. Would Maoist groups that openly say Stalin's purges were good Stalinist or is the CPUSA Stalisnist since its from a strain of Marxism that never broke from the USSR (and adopted the ideology of Gorbechev before settling into views that are pretty much those of Social Democrats). Galloway has some conservative views that really do seem open to criticism but those also seem a bit like asides with them being thrown in as charges by someone who already hates Galloway (for his stance on Iraq? His fued with Hitechens?) since they dont really relate to what Galloway talks about publically. Galloway's views on abortion would be something I could see a justification for focusing on if they were either reflected in his voting record or his public statements but as things are it seems like a way to hide from one's real issues. Galloway's "support for Saddam" is something that I can see more justification for being troubled by (especially beforet he US invasion) but can easilly be seen as mainly a stand against sanctions (and then against the invasion). If he was not opnely critical you can be troubled but I doubt many of the Anarchists in relief groups going into S Lebanon to deliver aid are openly critical of Hezbollah while they are there (and not just for personal safety reasons; people who have been bokbed by Israel or are about to be invaded by the US are not going to take well to a middle-class American aid worker scolding them)
The typical Anarchist criticism of Todd I have heard essentially would be like critizing an Anarchist talking sympathetically about the Black Panthers for being a homophobe for not focusing on some of bad sides of the Panthers. In some contexts that may make sense but when the guild by association is done in the fasion one sees with Magon (and some notible self proclaimed anarchist leaders like Keeting and Chuck0) you really have to assume there is some other motivation (in their cases I think its a mixture of envy and Schaudenfraud )
Personally I would never want to live in Cuba and think N Korea is one of the most oppressive places on earth. But I would join an ANSWER protests against N Korea and it wouldnt bother me too much if part of their rhetoric against the invasion involved them saying N Korea isnt all that bad. Does that make me a Stalinist? If so it would make most of the population of S Korea and Japan (which would both be nuked in the case of a US invasion) Stalinists. If another activist groups were also trying to organize mass proetsts against a US invasion of N Korea and was capable of pulling in peopel and had a betetr line on the situation there, I could see criticism of ANSWER being legitimate (but "N Korea is bad but maybe we shoudnt invade" is an easy slogan for the conservatives to manipulate since in the demonization leading up to a war they can use any additional demonization they can get)
Criticizing Hezbollah and Israel and placing most of the blame for civilian deaths in this latest conflict on Israel isnt indirect support of Israel. Labelling Hezbollah as so evil that anyone sympathizing with its popular support (due to a history of Shia poverty in S Lebanon that resulted in nationalism much more than any religious motivation) must be called out and demonized sounds like support for Israel hiding behind a cover of Islamofasict baiting. One telling sign of the motivation of those criticizing Hezbollah is the way it's done. Hezbollah is declared evil fundamentalists and terroristic without references to how they have treated those in areas it has governmed (have they been oppressive to women and nonMuslisms?) and what terrorist attacks did they carry out and how direct were the connections? (the bombing in Argentina after the leader before Nassralah was assasinated is the only case I can think of but its not clear if Hezbollah in Lebanon ordered the operation or not).
Asking why ANSWER doesnt criticize Saddam more when the US has already overthrown him sounds like its motivated by something other than concern for Saddam's victims.
Demonizing Galloway or ANSWER as Stalinists also sounds a bit like red baiting since that term has a very blurred meaning. Would Maoist groups that openly say Stalin's purges were good Stalinist or is the CPUSA Stalisnist since its from a strain of Marxism that never broke from the USSR (and adopted the ideology of Gorbechev before settling into views that are pretty much those of Social Democrats). Galloway has some conservative views that really do seem open to criticism but those also seem a bit like asides with them being thrown in as charges by someone who already hates Galloway (for his stance on Iraq? His fued with Hitechens?) since they dont really relate to what Galloway talks about publically. Galloway's views on abortion would be something I could see a justification for focusing on if they were either reflected in his voting record or his public statements but as things are it seems like a way to hide from one's real issues. Galloway's "support for Saddam" is something that I can see more justification for being troubled by (especially beforet he US invasion) but can easilly be seen as mainly a stand against sanctions (and then against the invasion). If he was not opnely critical you can be troubled but I doubt many of the Anarchists in relief groups going into S Lebanon to deliver aid are openly critical of Hezbollah while they are there (and not just for personal safety reasons; people who have been bokbed by Israel or are about to be invaded by the US are not going to take well to a middle-class American aid worker scolding them)
The typical Anarchist criticism of Todd I have heard essentially would be like critizing an Anarchist talking sympathetically about the Black Panthers for being a homophobe for not focusing on some of bad sides of the Panthers. In some contexts that may make sense but when the guild by association is done in the fasion one sees with Magon (and some notible self proclaimed anarchist leaders like Keeting and Chuck0) you really have to assume there is some other motivation (in their cases I think its a mixture of envy and Schaudenfraud )
Personally I would never want to live in Cuba and think N Korea is one of the most oppressive places on earth. But I would join an ANSWER protests against N Korea and it wouldnt bother me too much if part of their rhetoric against the invasion involved them saying N Korea isnt all that bad. Does that make me a Stalinist? If so it would make most of the population of S Korea and Japan (which would both be nuked in the case of a US invasion) Stalinists. If another activist groups were also trying to organize mass proetsts against a US invasion of N Korea and was capable of pulling in peopel and had a betetr line on the situation there, I could see criticism of ANSWER being legitimate (but "N Korea is bad but maybe we shoudnt invade" is an easy slogan for the conservatives to manipulate since in the demonization leading up to a war they can use any additional demonization they can get)
Disclaimer: “Me” does not speak for anarchists anywhere and is only sharing what he has seen, experienced, and read about in regards to the following points.
who is he.. really
Magon (you?)
Me: No
who is he.. really:
is one example but I would also include some anarchist criticism of Cuba as indirect support for an invasion and much of the criticism of Galloway and ANSWER as indirectly supportive of the US invasion of Iraq.
Me: Maybe you need to give some examples of an anarchist giving indirect support for a U.S. invasion of cuba or iraq.
who is he.. really
Labelling Hezbollah as so evil that anyone sympathizing with its popular support (due to a history of Shia poverty in S Lebanon that resulted in nationalism much more than any religious motivation) must be called out and demonized sounds like support for Israel hiding behind a cover of Islamofasict baiting.
Me: From what I’ve seen, anarchism does not oppose fighting against invaders, as Israel is and has been in Lebanon. But anarchists, and many others warn against allying with the next boss, leader, party, that will take the reigns of the state (and it’s not clear Hezbollah could do that). Lenin took a page from the Russian Anarchists by stating the war could be transformed into a Revolution, and in so doing he did not support the Tsarist war against Germany. This did not mean he supported German nationalism if you see what I’m saying here. Many anarchists allied with the Bolsheviks in the Civil war against the Whites, and many clearly did not. In the end, the anarchists were cleansed, purged, executed by the Bolsheviks. In Iran, Khomeini’s forces who opposed the U.S. puppet Shah destroyed the Iranian left killing communists and socialists. It’s not constructive to “support” such forces that are against the kind of society radicals and anarchists are working for. Of course anyone fighting imperialist occupiers has the “right” to do so, but that is not the question.
who is he.. really:
Asking why ANSWER doesnt criticize Saddam more when the US has already overthrown him sounds like its motivated by something other than concern for Saddam's victims.
Me:
It is always the case that people on the right and the Left may criticize the same groups or ideologies, but lumping together those criticisms as if they were the same is a big mistake. It’s like saying anyone who criticizes Israel is anti-Semitic. To say someone who criticizes ANSWER “sounds like” some other conservative group is not an argument. It’s not just that ANSWER does not criticize Saddam. I was at a meeting where an ANSWER spokesperson praised Saddam’s Iraq, and stated that he should have been supported by the Left against the U.S. But of course it is not a matter of “which side are you on, Saddam’s or Bush’s?” That kind of thinking is what funnels in people who care into the rigidly ideological groups like ANSWER or the ISO, because “at least they are doing something.” ANSWER is beyond a doubt Stalinist in the ideology which forms the bulk of their stances (Cuba is a worker’s paradise, Saddam was worth supporting, etc. ) and a look at Trotskyist views on anti-imperialism shows many parallels, in supporting the lesser against the greater imperialist.
who is he.. really:
Demonizing Galloway or ANSWER as Stalinists also sounds a bit like red baiting since that term has a very blurred meaning.
Me:
Galloway in interview:
“I am on the anti-imperialist left."
[Interviewer] The Stalinist left?
"I wouldn't define it that way BECAUSE OF THE PEJORATIVES LOADED AROUND IT; that would be making a rod for your own back. If you are asking did I support the Soviet Union, yes I did. Yes, I DID SUPPORT THE SOVIET UNION, and I THINK THE DISAPPEARANCE OF THE SOVIET UNION IS THE BIGGEST CATASTROPHE OF MY LIFE. If there was a Soviet Union today, we would not be having this conversation about plunging into a new war in the Middle East, and the US would not be rampaging around the globe."
source:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,792765,00.html
Me: Sure, he cites anti-imperialist reasons for his Stalinism, but this seems a very clear statement that he is a Stalinist. Even the ISO, who vigorously championed Galloway says on paper that they oppose such views. This was one of their main campaigns in 2005, pushing Galloway as a hero. Call me crazy, but there are better approaches to being anti-war than the Stalinist one.
who is he.. really:
Would Maoist groups that openly say Stalin's purges were good Stalinist or is the CPUSA Stalisnist since its from a strain of Marxism that never broke from the USSR (and adopted the ideology of Gorbechev before settling into views that are pretty much those of Social Democrats)?
Me: Yes.
who is he.. really:
Galloway has some conservative views that really do seem open to criticism but those also seem a bit like asides with them being thrown in as charges by someone who already hates Galloway (for his stance on Iraq? His fued with Hitechens?) since they dont really relate to what Galloway talks about publically.
Me: No. Assuming that anyone who criticizes Galloway’s Stalinism, and there are other quotes available, is therefore in support of U.S. imperialism or the war on Iraq is the kind of reductionism that allows the ISO to manipulate their members, browbeating them into narrow views of the world, which if they step beyond, they are immediately ostracized for. I’ve seen it first hand, but I don’t assume my word alone is (or should be) enough to convince anyone. Some research, online, and talking to people who have left the ISO is enlightening. Galloway was the ISO’s thing, Todd Chretien being an important coordinator for him in the Bay Area. I personally liked Galloway’s anti-war views, but “supporting” him as speaking for me or anyone else is a mistake from a historical and from an anarchist’s or ultra-left position.
I really think the best place to start to understand why is looking at the Russian Revolution. Look at Sheila Fitzpatricks small book, and Avrich, Berkman, Goldman, Brinton, Chomsky, Mett, Debord, for starters, and follow their footnotes.
who is he.. really:
Galloway's views on abortion would be something I could see a justification for focusing on if they were either reflected in his voting record or his public statements but as things are it seems like a way to hide from one's real issues.
who is he.. really:
The biggest issue is whether or not to let Trotskyists, Stalinists, and authoritarian vanguards control things. It is a principled stand to avoid such groups because one disagrees vehemently with their theory and practice. There are also many “anarchists” or “left-communists” worth criticizing, and avoiding. I believe it is just as much a mistake to choose these groups as it is to vote for Kerry over Bush, thinking it would bring real change.
who is he.. really:
The typical Anarchist criticism of Todd I have heard essentially would be like critizing an Anarchist talking sympathetically about the Black Panthers for being a homophobe for not focusing on some of bad sides of the Panthers. In some contexts that may make sense but when the guild by association is done in the fasion one sees with Magon (and some notible self proclaimed anarchist leaders like Keeting and Chuck0) you really have to assume there is some other motivation (in their cases I think its a mixture of envy and Schaudenfraud )
Me: Whatever one thinks of Keating it’s clear he has a better grasp of history , and can elaborate a more critical assessment of history than Todd can. Todd’s writing and speeches are so constricted by the ISO play book, always with the fawning uncritical presentation of Lenin as an avatar of (counter)revolutionary wisdom. Keating is in my opinion a megalomaniac who lies about things he’s involved with to make them fit his views, but at least he can think for himself, and is interesting. He is critical of anarchists, in the Bay Area especially, and considers himself a Left Communist, not an anarchist.
who is he.. really:
Personally I would never want to live in Cuba and think N Korea is one of the most oppressive places on earth. But I would join an ANSWER protests against N Korea and it wouldnt bother me too much if part of their rhetoric against the invasion involved them saying N Korea isnt all that bad.
Me: But it is all that bad. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t the victim of U.S. bombing and devastation, but it’s not necessary to defend the leadership or system there just because one doesn’t like U.S. imperialism. That is an old trap that people need to move beyond in my opinion.
who is he.. really
Magon (you?)
Me: No
who is he.. really:
is one example but I would also include some anarchist criticism of Cuba as indirect support for an invasion and much of the criticism of Galloway and ANSWER as indirectly supportive of the US invasion of Iraq.
Me: Maybe you need to give some examples of an anarchist giving indirect support for a U.S. invasion of cuba or iraq.
who is he.. really
Labelling Hezbollah as so evil that anyone sympathizing with its popular support (due to a history of Shia poverty in S Lebanon that resulted in nationalism much more than any religious motivation) must be called out and demonized sounds like support for Israel hiding behind a cover of Islamofasict baiting.
Me: From what I’ve seen, anarchism does not oppose fighting against invaders, as Israel is and has been in Lebanon. But anarchists, and many others warn against allying with the next boss, leader, party, that will take the reigns of the state (and it’s not clear Hezbollah could do that). Lenin took a page from the Russian Anarchists by stating the war could be transformed into a Revolution, and in so doing he did not support the Tsarist war against Germany. This did not mean he supported German nationalism if you see what I’m saying here. Many anarchists allied with the Bolsheviks in the Civil war against the Whites, and many clearly did not. In the end, the anarchists were cleansed, purged, executed by the Bolsheviks. In Iran, Khomeini’s forces who opposed the U.S. puppet Shah destroyed the Iranian left killing communists and socialists. It’s not constructive to “support” such forces that are against the kind of society radicals and anarchists are working for. Of course anyone fighting imperialist occupiers has the “right” to do so, but that is not the question.
who is he.. really:
Asking why ANSWER doesnt criticize Saddam more when the US has already overthrown him sounds like its motivated by something other than concern for Saddam's victims.
Me:
It is always the case that people on the right and the Left may criticize the same groups or ideologies, but lumping together those criticisms as if they were the same is a big mistake. It’s like saying anyone who criticizes Israel is anti-Semitic. To say someone who criticizes ANSWER “sounds like” some other conservative group is not an argument. It’s not just that ANSWER does not criticize Saddam. I was at a meeting where an ANSWER spokesperson praised Saddam’s Iraq, and stated that he should have been supported by the Left against the U.S. But of course it is not a matter of “which side are you on, Saddam’s or Bush’s?” That kind of thinking is what funnels in people who care into the rigidly ideological groups like ANSWER or the ISO, because “at least they are doing something.” ANSWER is beyond a doubt Stalinist in the ideology which forms the bulk of their stances (Cuba is a worker’s paradise, Saddam was worth supporting, etc. ) and a look at Trotskyist views on anti-imperialism shows many parallels, in supporting the lesser against the greater imperialist.
who is he.. really:
Demonizing Galloway or ANSWER as Stalinists also sounds a bit like red baiting since that term has a very blurred meaning.
Me:
Galloway in interview:
“I am on the anti-imperialist left."
[Interviewer] The Stalinist left?
"I wouldn't define it that way BECAUSE OF THE PEJORATIVES LOADED AROUND IT; that would be making a rod for your own back. If you are asking did I support the Soviet Union, yes I did. Yes, I DID SUPPORT THE SOVIET UNION, and I THINK THE DISAPPEARANCE OF THE SOVIET UNION IS THE BIGGEST CATASTROPHE OF MY LIFE. If there was a Soviet Union today, we would not be having this conversation about plunging into a new war in the Middle East, and the US would not be rampaging around the globe."
source:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,792765,00.html
Me: Sure, he cites anti-imperialist reasons for his Stalinism, but this seems a very clear statement that he is a Stalinist. Even the ISO, who vigorously championed Galloway says on paper that they oppose such views. This was one of their main campaigns in 2005, pushing Galloway as a hero. Call me crazy, but there are better approaches to being anti-war than the Stalinist one.
who is he.. really:
Would Maoist groups that openly say Stalin's purges were good Stalinist or is the CPUSA Stalisnist since its from a strain of Marxism that never broke from the USSR (and adopted the ideology of Gorbechev before settling into views that are pretty much those of Social Democrats)?
Me: Yes.
who is he.. really:
Galloway has some conservative views that really do seem open to criticism but those also seem a bit like asides with them being thrown in as charges by someone who already hates Galloway (for his stance on Iraq? His fued with Hitechens?) since they dont really relate to what Galloway talks about publically.
Me: No. Assuming that anyone who criticizes Galloway’s Stalinism, and there are other quotes available, is therefore in support of U.S. imperialism or the war on Iraq is the kind of reductionism that allows the ISO to manipulate their members, browbeating them into narrow views of the world, which if they step beyond, they are immediately ostracized for. I’ve seen it first hand, but I don’t assume my word alone is (or should be) enough to convince anyone. Some research, online, and talking to people who have left the ISO is enlightening. Galloway was the ISO’s thing, Todd Chretien being an important coordinator for him in the Bay Area. I personally liked Galloway’s anti-war views, but “supporting” him as speaking for me or anyone else is a mistake from a historical and from an anarchist’s or ultra-left position.
I really think the best place to start to understand why is looking at the Russian Revolution. Look at Sheila Fitzpatricks small book, and Avrich, Berkman, Goldman, Brinton, Chomsky, Mett, Debord, for starters, and follow their footnotes.
who is he.. really:
Galloway's views on abortion would be something I could see a justification for focusing on if they were either reflected in his voting record or his public statements but as things are it seems like a way to hide from one's real issues.
who is he.. really:
The biggest issue is whether or not to let Trotskyists, Stalinists, and authoritarian vanguards control things. It is a principled stand to avoid such groups because one disagrees vehemently with their theory and practice. There are also many “anarchists” or “left-communists” worth criticizing, and avoiding. I believe it is just as much a mistake to choose these groups as it is to vote for Kerry over Bush, thinking it would bring real change.
who is he.. really:
The typical Anarchist criticism of Todd I have heard essentially would be like critizing an Anarchist talking sympathetically about the Black Panthers for being a homophobe for not focusing on some of bad sides of the Panthers. In some contexts that may make sense but when the guild by association is done in the fasion one sees with Magon (and some notible self proclaimed anarchist leaders like Keeting and Chuck0) you really have to assume there is some other motivation (in their cases I think its a mixture of envy and Schaudenfraud )
Me: Whatever one thinks of Keating it’s clear he has a better grasp of history , and can elaborate a more critical assessment of history than Todd can. Todd’s writing and speeches are so constricted by the ISO play book, always with the fawning uncritical presentation of Lenin as an avatar of (counter)revolutionary wisdom. Keating is in my opinion a megalomaniac who lies about things he’s involved with to make them fit his views, but at least he can think for himself, and is interesting. He is critical of anarchists, in the Bay Area especially, and considers himself a Left Communist, not an anarchist.
who is he.. really:
Personally I would never want to live in Cuba and think N Korea is one of the most oppressive places on earth. But I would join an ANSWER protests against N Korea and it wouldnt bother me too much if part of their rhetoric against the invasion involved them saying N Korea isnt all that bad.
Me: But it is all that bad. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t the victim of U.S. bombing and devastation, but it’s not necessary to defend the leadership or system there just because one doesn’t like U.S. imperialism. That is an old trap that people need to move beyond in my opinion.
"But it is all that bad. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t the victim of U.S. bombing and devastation, but it’s not necessary to defend the leadership or system there just because one doesn’t like U.S. imperialism. That is an old trap that people need to move beyond in my opinion."
The problem is that there is a time and place to say things. When the police go after one oif your friends via a grand jury one doesnt qualify ones support in a press conference by mentioning your pet peeves about your friend. When you see the police beating someone up and a mainstream reporter wants to hear what you saw it isnt a great time to mention that the person geting beat up refused to pay you rent last month. And when the US media is whipping the public into a frenzy against the new evil enemy it isnt a great time to qualify opposition to an invasion with condemnations that allow your oppition to come up of the spin machine as apezement of evil.
An example of Anarchists tendency to redbait getting used in a fashion similar to this can be seen in how the CIA used fake propaganda about the Sandanistas actions towards the Mosquito Indians help keep opposition to US support of the Contras from getting too strong.
The problem is that there is a time and place to say things. When the police go after one oif your friends via a grand jury one doesnt qualify ones support in a press conference by mentioning your pet peeves about your friend. When you see the police beating someone up and a mainstream reporter wants to hear what you saw it isnt a great time to mention that the person geting beat up refused to pay you rent last month. And when the US media is whipping the public into a frenzy against the new evil enemy it isnt a great time to qualify opposition to an invasion with condemnations that allow your oppition to come up of the spin machine as apezement of evil.
An example of Anarchists tendency to redbait getting used in a fashion similar to this can be seen in how the CIA used fake propaganda about the Sandanistas actions towards the Mosquito Indians help keep opposition to US support of the Contras from getting too strong.
You keep bringing up examples of how anarchists aided the cause of U.S. intervention and imperialism, but so far, no quotes or examples, and no names of anyone who held such positions that had the effect you say they did. I'm sorry, but I don't remember the link between anarchist views on the miskitu-Sandinista relations having helped keep contra aid flowing. I remember Ronald Reagan was definitely grandstanding the issue of the Miskitu, and simultaneously cheering on the genocide of indigenous people elsewhere in Latin America. But is there really a case to be made that the anarchists strengthened Reagan's hand on contra aid? That seems dubious.
Keep in mind, I understand your broader point, and no I would not say negative things if a friend was facing a grand jury. I just think it is counter productive to throw in with regressive authoritarians simply because they oppose the war. There are many on the right who now oppose the war, but the important thing is WHY, and the history of the organizations, what they stand for, what they do, how they treat others they interact with, and the substance of their theory. Do you honestly want to throw five bucks into an ANSWER garbage can, or legitimate the ISO by supporting their efforts even as they espouse a "defense of October" position? Why not aim for real anti-capitalist and revolutionary action and theory? Then you'll be able to defend something you actually believe in.
I've said pretty much all I wanted. If you want to say more, I probably won't respond. Thank you for your points.
Keep in mind, I understand your broader point, and no I would not say negative things if a friend was facing a grand jury. I just think it is counter productive to throw in with regressive authoritarians simply because they oppose the war. There are many on the right who now oppose the war, but the important thing is WHY, and the history of the organizations, what they stand for, what they do, how they treat others they interact with, and the substance of their theory. Do you honestly want to throw five bucks into an ANSWER garbage can, or legitimate the ISO by supporting their efforts even as they espouse a "defense of October" position? Why not aim for real anti-capitalist and revolutionary action and theory? Then you'll be able to defend something you actually believe in.
I've said pretty much all I wanted. If you want to say more, I probably won't respond. Thank you for your points.
In the case of the Contras I was thinking of Ward Chruchill and his faction of AIM more than Anarchists (Ward is of course not an Anarchist even though he seems to always speak at the bookfair) Th details of Ward's faction getting conned into helping the Contras is detailed in "Blood on the Border" by Roxanne Dunbar Ortiz (and she may make a few broader references to how more Anarchist members of the radical left were also conned in this way).
The reason I made the Anarchist connection is that Stalinist baiting (in the case of Galloway) and Fundamentalist baiting (in Hezbollah's case) creates a vulnerability to coopt some of the Left or at least in many cases use anti-Authoritarians as a mouthpeace for the US governments propaganda machine against the US governments enemies.
Your thing about Stalinism above also confuses me since you equate both Maoists and Social Democrats with Stalinists. If what you mean is that groups that historically at least were apologists for Stalin you are correct but that has little ideological meaning (since the Russian Revolution is about as relevent today as any other major event 100 years ago and you could then equate both Hitler and Rosevelt with Stalinists for their short term alliances)
If one calls N Korea Stalinist one usually means that it is repressive and acts like Stalin did. One could also call people Stalinists who support such actions today. The CPUSA historically supported Stalin but broke with him when he died and hasnt supported him since (something one can also say in some ways about Emma Goldman although that was more support for Lenin) Maoist groups do sound much more Stalinist in what they call for but in my opinion are more tied to a politics of flashy pop culture images that emerged in the late 60s than anything truely capable of oppression (with the Maoist books being at least uncounciously more fashion statement than anything else)
Movements that have divisions based around interpretations and moral views on a revolution in a society very different than any today almost 100 years ago have something wrong with them at their core. You dont hear too many groups divided over the positive or negative impacts of the French Revolution or the Peasant Revolts in Germany before that...
The reason I made the Anarchist connection is that Stalinist baiting (in the case of Galloway) and Fundamentalist baiting (in Hezbollah's case) creates a vulnerability to coopt some of the Left or at least in many cases use anti-Authoritarians as a mouthpeace for the US governments propaganda machine against the US governments enemies.
Your thing about Stalinism above also confuses me since you equate both Maoists and Social Democrats with Stalinists. If what you mean is that groups that historically at least were apologists for Stalin you are correct but that has little ideological meaning (since the Russian Revolution is about as relevent today as any other major event 100 years ago and you could then equate both Hitler and Rosevelt with Stalinists for their short term alliances)
If one calls N Korea Stalinist one usually means that it is repressive and acts like Stalin did. One could also call people Stalinists who support such actions today. The CPUSA historically supported Stalin but broke with him when he died and hasnt supported him since (something one can also say in some ways about Emma Goldman although that was more support for Lenin) Maoist groups do sound much more Stalinist in what they call for but in my opinion are more tied to a politics of flashy pop culture images that emerged in the late 60s than anything truely capable of oppression (with the Maoist books being at least uncounciously more fashion statement than anything else)
Movements that have divisions based around interpretations and moral views on a revolution in a society very different than any today almost 100 years ago have something wrong with them at their core. You dont hear too many groups divided over the positive or negative impacts of the French Revolution or the Peasant Revolts in Germany before that...
my comments currently are not uploading. this is a test.
One of the many problems with Magon is that this person wants us to hate those organizing and speaking out against U.S. and Israeli aggression in Iraq, Palestine, and Lebanon such as George Galloway, ANSWER, and Todd Chretien without offering alternative solutions.
I am proud to say that Liberation News has endorsed a good number of ANSWER demonstrations based on building a united front on united demands despite differences with the WWP/ANSWER. Likewise I have no shame in sharing these recent mailings of Liberation News on George Galloway:
“British parliament member George Galloway answers the lies of the corporate media on the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in the following video. Since George Galloway is subscribed to Liberation News we will also take this opportunity to thank him for his outspoken defense of the Lebanese and Palestinian people from Israeli / U.S. terrorism.”
”George Galloway on SKY News
9 min 18 sec - Aug 6, 2006
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9071731896689197790”
To better clarify the position of Liberation News on that video the following mailing was sent out the next day:
“VIDEO: Israeli Soldiers "Shoot to Kill" at Israeli Anti-war Demonstrators
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060816&articleId=2982
“More on George Galloway
“While the George Galloway interview was pretty good, Liberation News should have clarified with yesterday’s mailing that we do not agree with George Galloway's advocacy of a two state solution with 1967 borders. It is our position is that Palestine's borders need to be restored to the 1948 boundaries, the boundaries that were there before the racist state of Israel was set up. We call for a democratic and socialist Palestine that separates church and state and eliminates all special privileges for Jews and ends all racist discrimination against Palestinians including restoring the Palestinian right to return to their homeland. End all U.S. military aid to terrorist Israel!
“Cindy Pharmer for Liberation News”
Magon says "I think my critiques usually come from a libertarian left perspective"
I didn’t include the Libertarian candidate in my original critique because I consider libertarianism to generally be a rightist perspective. Capitalism would be much worse without any government regulation on things including the environment, labor, and even competition between capitalists. Without regulation of competition the capitalists put up armies against their competitors such as the capitalists of Sierra Leone have done to steal each other’s diamond mines, leaving hundreds of thousands of people dead.
In my opinion the ideas of libertarianism offer nothing but unbridled capitalist competition and exploitation. Socialism is an opposite outlook that offers a step forward for humanity.
Capitalism is a system of legalized exploitation, discrimination, war, oppression, and environmental degradation. In this capitalist world enough food is produced but people go hungry. We work if we are lucky, but the riches produced by our labor go into the pockets of the wealthy. Yet it is the working class youth that are sent to go fight and die so that U.S. oil monopolies can get direct control of 84 billion dollars worth of oil under the Iraqi sand. Meanwhile those same capitalists use their control of the government and the economy to keep the U.S. economy dependent on detrimental fossil fuels. In doing so the capitalists have brought on global warming, an environmental and human catastrophe that has only just begun.
Capitalism is guilty of many crimes, from the murder of 3 million Vietnamese with the U.S. war in Vietnam, to hunger, as well as the degradation of the planet itself. For many of us who recognize capitalism is the problem we see socialism as the solution, but what is socialism?
As I see it there are four main currents of socialist thought. There are those who are of the social democratic type who usually reject socialist revolution as impossible or counter-productive. Instead their leaders use toned down socialist rhetoric to fool workers and other progressive minded people into supporting them while the leaders get cushy jobs in the unions or capitalist government offices. In these offices they promote an agenda of class collaboration, masking the fact that they are betraying the interests of the working class with false arguments about the common interests of workers and exploiters and arguments about what the situation is rather than struggling for what the situation should be. Examples of these types of “socialists” are Prime Minister Schroeder in Germany, Former President Francois Mitterrand in France, and Mike Rotkin on the Santa Cruz California City Council.
The second kind of socialists are those who are uncritically inspired by the real gains of the socialist revolutions that created the Soviet Union, the Peoples Republic of China, and the revolution in Cuba that ended the U.S. backed Batista dictatorship. They point to how these revolutions freed their countries from foreign imperialist control; defeated Nazi Germany; eliminated barbaric practices such as the foot binding of women in China and racial segregation in Cuba; and overturned the capitalist system of exploitation making sure that everyone had work, housing, was fed, had healthcare, and free education. Yet these socialists (or communists as they are often called) often ignore the inequalities and repression faced by the working class from a privileged ruling bureaucracy that are real components of these systems.
The third type of socialist completely rejects both the pro-capitalist social democrats and the dictatorial communists and argues that the socialism they struggle for has nothing in common with either. In this respect part of their philosophy is very similar to that of the anarchists. It is a philosophy that is easily understood, but over-simplifies more complex realities.
There is a fourth type of socialist that I represent here. We recognize the gains made by the Soviet people in overthrowing the Czar and later smashing Hitler, but we do not forget the crimes of Stalin. Likewise we recognize the fundamental flaw made in that “communist” model in every subsequent socialist revolution since. That fundamental flaw is the lack of real workers democracy. To counter this flaw we struggle for socialism on a different model, socialism without capitalism yes, but also socialism with democracy.
For many this flies in the face of their simple concepts of the world where everything is either good or bad. When socialists point to the break down of the Russian economy with emergence of unemployment, homelessness, and a 10 year drop in life expectancy since the capitalist counter-revolution led by Yeltsin it does not mean that we supported everything under Soviet Communist rule, only that for the average person things were better than under capitalism.
Today in Russia where most Soviet youth once dreamed of being astronauts or doctors, they now dream of being a hitman for the mob or a greedy oil tycoon.
In opposition to the Russian model (that being the capitalist program of counter-revolution, privatization, and austerity against the working class being carried out now) we call for the preservation of the planned economy coupled with a political revolution that replaces the bureaucratic caste in power in Cuba, North Korea, China, and Vietnam. In doing so we recognize that this kind of political-revolution will only come from the people of those countries themselves and that the intervention of the governments of the U.S., Britain or any other imperialist country will only bring death, destruction, and all the miseries of capitalist counter-revolution. The American capitalist class has already murdered over 6 million people in its wars against the people these four countries, so the socialist movement stands uncompromisingly in total opposition to any continued intervention in these countries as well as standing in support of their right to defend themselves militarily.
While the working class of the capitalist countries around the world often face clubs, tear gas, and even bullets and torture chambers for organizing to assert our interests against those of the capitalists; So to do the leaders of the weaker capitalist countries face the wrath of the imperialist capitalist class when they try to assert their power to control their own resources.
Socialists of the stripe of Liberation News defend the right of the weaker countries, such as Lebanon, to defend themselves when they are attacked by U. S. / Israeli imperialism. We do this without giving political support to Hezbollah. Yet we support Lebanon's right to defend themselves from murderous attack and occupation.
I am proud to say that Liberation News has endorsed a good number of ANSWER demonstrations based on building a united front on united demands despite differences with the WWP/ANSWER. Likewise I have no shame in sharing these recent mailings of Liberation News on George Galloway:
“British parliament member George Galloway answers the lies of the corporate media on the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in the following video. Since George Galloway is subscribed to Liberation News we will also take this opportunity to thank him for his outspoken defense of the Lebanese and Palestinian people from Israeli / U.S. terrorism.”
”George Galloway on SKY News
9 min 18 sec - Aug 6, 2006
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9071731896689197790”
To better clarify the position of Liberation News on that video the following mailing was sent out the next day:
“VIDEO: Israeli Soldiers "Shoot to Kill" at Israeli Anti-war Demonstrators
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060816&articleId=2982
“More on George Galloway
“While the George Galloway interview was pretty good, Liberation News should have clarified with yesterday’s mailing that we do not agree with George Galloway's advocacy of a two state solution with 1967 borders. It is our position is that Palestine's borders need to be restored to the 1948 boundaries, the boundaries that were there before the racist state of Israel was set up. We call for a democratic and socialist Palestine that separates church and state and eliminates all special privileges for Jews and ends all racist discrimination against Palestinians including restoring the Palestinian right to return to their homeland. End all U.S. military aid to terrorist Israel!
“Cindy Pharmer for Liberation News”
Magon says "I think my critiques usually come from a libertarian left perspective"
I didn’t include the Libertarian candidate in my original critique because I consider libertarianism to generally be a rightist perspective. Capitalism would be much worse without any government regulation on things including the environment, labor, and even competition between capitalists. Without regulation of competition the capitalists put up armies against their competitors such as the capitalists of Sierra Leone have done to steal each other’s diamond mines, leaving hundreds of thousands of people dead.
In my opinion the ideas of libertarianism offer nothing but unbridled capitalist competition and exploitation. Socialism is an opposite outlook that offers a step forward for humanity.
Capitalism is a system of legalized exploitation, discrimination, war, oppression, and environmental degradation. In this capitalist world enough food is produced but people go hungry. We work if we are lucky, but the riches produced by our labor go into the pockets of the wealthy. Yet it is the working class youth that are sent to go fight and die so that U.S. oil monopolies can get direct control of 84 billion dollars worth of oil under the Iraqi sand. Meanwhile those same capitalists use their control of the government and the economy to keep the U.S. economy dependent on detrimental fossil fuels. In doing so the capitalists have brought on global warming, an environmental and human catastrophe that has only just begun.
Capitalism is guilty of many crimes, from the murder of 3 million Vietnamese with the U.S. war in Vietnam, to hunger, as well as the degradation of the planet itself. For many of us who recognize capitalism is the problem we see socialism as the solution, but what is socialism?
As I see it there are four main currents of socialist thought. There are those who are of the social democratic type who usually reject socialist revolution as impossible or counter-productive. Instead their leaders use toned down socialist rhetoric to fool workers and other progressive minded people into supporting them while the leaders get cushy jobs in the unions or capitalist government offices. In these offices they promote an agenda of class collaboration, masking the fact that they are betraying the interests of the working class with false arguments about the common interests of workers and exploiters and arguments about what the situation is rather than struggling for what the situation should be. Examples of these types of “socialists” are Prime Minister Schroeder in Germany, Former President Francois Mitterrand in France, and Mike Rotkin on the Santa Cruz California City Council.
The second kind of socialists are those who are uncritically inspired by the real gains of the socialist revolutions that created the Soviet Union, the Peoples Republic of China, and the revolution in Cuba that ended the U.S. backed Batista dictatorship. They point to how these revolutions freed their countries from foreign imperialist control; defeated Nazi Germany; eliminated barbaric practices such as the foot binding of women in China and racial segregation in Cuba; and overturned the capitalist system of exploitation making sure that everyone had work, housing, was fed, had healthcare, and free education. Yet these socialists (or communists as they are often called) often ignore the inequalities and repression faced by the working class from a privileged ruling bureaucracy that are real components of these systems.
The third type of socialist completely rejects both the pro-capitalist social democrats and the dictatorial communists and argues that the socialism they struggle for has nothing in common with either. In this respect part of their philosophy is very similar to that of the anarchists. It is a philosophy that is easily understood, but over-simplifies more complex realities.
There is a fourth type of socialist that I represent here. We recognize the gains made by the Soviet people in overthrowing the Czar and later smashing Hitler, but we do not forget the crimes of Stalin. Likewise we recognize the fundamental flaw made in that “communist” model in every subsequent socialist revolution since. That fundamental flaw is the lack of real workers democracy. To counter this flaw we struggle for socialism on a different model, socialism without capitalism yes, but also socialism with democracy.
For many this flies in the face of their simple concepts of the world where everything is either good or bad. When socialists point to the break down of the Russian economy with emergence of unemployment, homelessness, and a 10 year drop in life expectancy since the capitalist counter-revolution led by Yeltsin it does not mean that we supported everything under Soviet Communist rule, only that for the average person things were better than under capitalism.
Today in Russia where most Soviet youth once dreamed of being astronauts or doctors, they now dream of being a hitman for the mob or a greedy oil tycoon.
In opposition to the Russian model (that being the capitalist program of counter-revolution, privatization, and austerity against the working class being carried out now) we call for the preservation of the planned economy coupled with a political revolution that replaces the bureaucratic caste in power in Cuba, North Korea, China, and Vietnam. In doing so we recognize that this kind of political-revolution will only come from the people of those countries themselves and that the intervention of the governments of the U.S., Britain or any other imperialist country will only bring death, destruction, and all the miseries of capitalist counter-revolution. The American capitalist class has already murdered over 6 million people in its wars against the people these four countries, so the socialist movement stands uncompromisingly in total opposition to any continued intervention in these countries as well as standing in support of their right to defend themselves militarily.
While the working class of the capitalist countries around the world often face clubs, tear gas, and even bullets and torture chambers for organizing to assert our interests against those of the capitalists; So to do the leaders of the weaker capitalist countries face the wrath of the imperialist capitalist class when they try to assert their power to control their own resources.
Socialists of the stripe of Liberation News defend the right of the weaker countries, such as Lebanon, to defend themselves when they are attacked by U. S. / Israeli imperialism. We do this without giving political support to Hezbollah. Yet we support Lebanon's right to defend themselves from murderous attack and occupation.
Response to:
Libertarianism Equals Unbridled Capitalism
by Steven Argue
Steven:
Magon says "I think my critiques usually come from a libertarian left perspective"
I didn’t include the Libertarian candidate in my original critique because I consider libertarianism to generally be a rightist perspective. Capitalism would be much worse without any government regulation ...
Not Magon:
What we call “Libertarianism” today is a right wing pro-capitalist ideology with stars such as Ayn Rand and other elitists. But I think Magon may have been referring to a left-libertarianism sometimes also known as libertarian socialism, and or anarchism. It is an anti-authoritarian socialism. If that is what he was saying, your arguments against the other usage of the term libertarian are moot.
Steven:
...what is socialism?
The second kind of socialists are those who are uncritically inspired by the real gains of the socialist revolutions that created the Soviet Union... Yet these socialists (or communists as they are often called) often ignore the inequalities and repression faced by the working class from a privileged ruling bureaucracy that are real components of these systems.
There is a fourth type of socialist that I represent here. We recognize the gains made by the Soviet people in overthrowing the Czar and later smashing Hitler, but we do not forget the crimes of Stalin.
Not Magon: Notice you begin by criticizing the “second kind” of socialists for being uncritical of socialist revolutions in the Soviet Union and elsewhere, and then say that you, the “fourth kind”, criticize Stalin. But what about being uncritical of Lenin, isn’t that bad too? Are you going to have a critique of the October Revolution or just separate it out and blame Stalin for everything? Why is this important? Because you are defining socialism, and defining yourself. Yourself gives Lenin a free pass from the looks of your posts.
Lenin intentionally went back on his pronouncements in _State and Revolution_ in which he had said that ordinary workers were capable of running society. He crushed worker’s control, and put in place a “Council of People's Commissars” or Sovnarkom (the _day after_ the revolution!) made up of -Bolsheviks ONLY- to run the central government. Lenin called for one man management in factories, usually by bourgeois managers, retained piece work, and installed Taylorist methods. He banned not only parties outside the Bolsheviks, but also banned any factions within the Bolshevik party and carried out purges of factions, clearing away roughly 25% of the party, which is seen as the “death-knell” of internal Soviet party democracy (See Shiela Fitzpatrick-_Russian Revolution_-p.101-102). Such actions are usually associated with Stalin and “bad” Bolshevism. He crushed the popular Workers’ Opposition which reflected popular dissatisfaction with the Bolshevik regime which had sabotaged the Factory Committees and turned the soviets into state organs subservient to the Bolshevik party. This was not a dictatorship of the proletariat, but over the proletariat by one party, by default led by one man, Lenin. Even Noam Chomsky has stated “Lenin was one of the greatest enemies of socialism...”
(http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/9505-anarchism.html).
So how does this connect with all your claims of wanting socialism with democracy? Why are you telling us what socialism is? We need a more critical assessment if we are to learn from past mistakes.
Steven:
Likewise we recognize the fundamental flaw made in that “communist” model in every subsequent socialist revolution since. That fundamental flaw is the lack of real workers democracy. To counter this flaw we struggle for socialism on a different model, socialism without capitalism yes, but also socialism with democracy.
Not Magon: But the Bolsheviks, from the beginning, despite their rhetoric designed to bring workers under the control of the party, were anti-democratic:
-- What actually happened in this period was the replacement of all the organs of workers democracy and self-management with Bolshevik imposed state rule. One example of many is given by the factory committees. These were groups of workers elected at most factories before, during and after the October revolution. The delegates to these committees were mandatable and recallable. They were elected initially in order to prevent the individual bosses from sabotaging equipment. They quickly attempted to expanded their scope to cover the complete administration of the workplace and displaced the individual managers. As each workplace relied on many others to supply raw materials, power and to take their products on to the next stage of production the Factory Committees tried to federate in November 1917.
They were prevented from doing so by the Bolsheviks through the trade union bureaucracy. The planned 'All Russian Congress of Factory Committees" never took place. Instead the Bolshevik party decided to set up the "All Russian council of workers control" only 25% of the delegates coming from the factory committees. In this way the creative energy of Russian workers which would have resulted in a co-ordinating centre not under Bolshevik control was blocked in favour of an organisation the party could control. This body was in itself still born, it only met once. In any case it was soon absorbed by the Supreme Economic Council set up in November 1917 which was attached to the Council of Peoples Commissars, itself entirely made up of Bolshevik party members.--
source: Andrew Flood of World Socialist Movement. http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/talks/russia.html
Steven:
Socialists of the stripe of Liberation News defend the right of the weaker countries, such as Lebanon, to defend themselves when they are attacked by U. S. / Israeli imperialism. We do this without giving political support to Hezbollah. Yet we support Lebanon's right to defend themselves from murderous attack and occupation.
Not Magon: That’s great. Can you tell me who doesn’t believe in the right of the Lebanese to defend themselves? Anarchists? Come on! Your choice of words seems like you’re trying to confuse the issue. You support “Lebanon” but give no “political” support to Hezbollah.
Steven: The third type of socialist completely rejects both the pro-capitalist social democrats and the dictatorial communists and argues that the socialism they struggle for has nothing in common with either. In this respect part of their philosophy is very similar to that of the anarchists. It is a philosophy that is easily understood, but over-simplifies more complex realities.
...For many this flies in the face of their simple concepts of the world where everything is either good or bad. When socialists point to the break down of the Russian economy with emergence of unemployment, homelessness, and a 10 year drop in life expectancy since the capitalist counter-revolution led by Yeltsin it does not mean that we supported everything under Soviet Communist rule, only that for the average person things were better than under capitalism.
Not Magon: You like talking about how “simple” people’s views are and yet you seemed not to know the difference between “libertarianism” and “left libertarianism”. You site that many people simplify “more complex realities” but offer no explanation or elaboration of what those might entail. You say some people have a dumbed down view in which things are “good or bad” and then you call the Israeli state racist (it certainly is) without pointing out that all nationalism is inherently racist and inherently capitalist. You don’t bring up the state or capitalism in your moralizing on the Middle East, instead using hyperbolic imagery invoking some Manichean struggle where the only evil state seems to be Israel. You talk about the “socialism” of the Soviet Union with no mention of state capitalism where workers relation to the state is still a capitalist one, where surplus value accumulates to an elite class, and workers were still exploited by a wage system. And because things were better before Russia’s state capitalism was overtaken by external capitalism, that justifies the previous system as worth defending? It is obvious that if you took that as a principle, you could end up defending some horrible regimes, and that you’re arguing a lesser of two evils position.
And because you’re ok with the crimes of authoritarian regimes against workers (because it could be worse, so why not gloss over and minimize as part of your “complex” view?) we’re supposed to all feel ashamed if we criticize Cuba, North Korea, The Soviet Union, George Galloway, or Hezbollah, because we’re hurting the “anti-war” movement by doing so.
What is the “anti” movement FOR, and shouldn’t it matter? With your constant rationalizing of your “united front” with parties that carry the legacy of murdering anyone to their left, you wonder why some people object? You act as if the old left authoritarians are the only ones organizing against U.S. imperialism or Israeli aggression. You say we can’t oppose ANSWER, Todd Chretien, or George Galloway unless we “propose alternatives”. Well here’s an alternative. How bout the working class dumps all the Leninists, all the Trots, all the authoritarians who would crush us to preserve their own parties and organizations, and carries out wildcat action on our own steam and our own self-leadership. Howbout we learn from history what happens when you sell out your principles to social democrats, trade unions, and parties that put their own leadership above the goals of the workers. Then lets move forward from there. WE DON’T NEED YOU Steven, to tell us who we can and can’t be critical of, so cut the guilt tripping moralizing hogwash and stop boring us. There really are people who are anti-capitalist, oppose war, and engage deeply with theory and praxis (and history) who are not “Socialists of the stripe of Liberation News”.
Steven:
we call for the preservation of the planned economy coupled with a political revolution that replaces the bureaucratic caste in power in Cuba, North Korea, China, and Vietnam.
Not Magon: With what, the Leninist, top down, Taylorist, Party driven, one man management. bureaucratic, centralized model? No thanks.
Steven:
In doing so we recognize that this kind of political-revolution will only come from the people of those countries themselves
Not Magon: Like Lenin and Trotsky did? We’ve heard these promises before.
Short Reading List for those who would rather not follow ANSWER, ISO, Todd Chretien, Steven Argue vanguard leadership:
1. Paul Avrich: The Russian Anarchists (has the bonus of good critiques of anarchism, but elaborates Bolshevik actions during the Revolution.)
2. C.L.R. James: Facing Reality (on the outmoded tactics of Leninist parties)
3. Ida Mett: Kronstadt (See also Berkman and Goldman on this)
4. Maurice Brinton: The Bolsheviks and Workers’ Control
5. Sheila Fitzpatrick: The Russian Revolution (short, concise, illuminating, clarifies the direct line from Lenin to Stalin in policy.)
6. Fredy Perlman: The Continuing Appeal of Nationalism (online at: http://personal.inet.fi/private/nw/perlman.html)
7. For Communism: John Gray sitehttp://www.geocities.com/%7Ejohngray/
8. Ken Knabb’s Bureau of Public Secrets: http://www.bopsecrets.org/
Libertarianism Equals Unbridled Capitalism
by Steven Argue
Steven:
Magon says "I think my critiques usually come from a libertarian left perspective"
I didn’t include the Libertarian candidate in my original critique because I consider libertarianism to generally be a rightist perspective. Capitalism would be much worse without any government regulation ...
Not Magon:
What we call “Libertarianism” today is a right wing pro-capitalist ideology with stars such as Ayn Rand and other elitists. But I think Magon may have been referring to a left-libertarianism sometimes also known as libertarian socialism, and or anarchism. It is an anti-authoritarian socialism. If that is what he was saying, your arguments against the other usage of the term libertarian are moot.
Steven:
...what is socialism?
The second kind of socialists are those who are uncritically inspired by the real gains of the socialist revolutions that created the Soviet Union... Yet these socialists (or communists as they are often called) often ignore the inequalities and repression faced by the working class from a privileged ruling bureaucracy that are real components of these systems.
There is a fourth type of socialist that I represent here. We recognize the gains made by the Soviet people in overthrowing the Czar and later smashing Hitler, but we do not forget the crimes of Stalin.
Not Magon: Notice you begin by criticizing the “second kind” of socialists for being uncritical of socialist revolutions in the Soviet Union and elsewhere, and then say that you, the “fourth kind”, criticize Stalin. But what about being uncritical of Lenin, isn’t that bad too? Are you going to have a critique of the October Revolution or just separate it out and blame Stalin for everything? Why is this important? Because you are defining socialism, and defining yourself. Yourself gives Lenin a free pass from the looks of your posts.
Lenin intentionally went back on his pronouncements in _State and Revolution_ in which he had said that ordinary workers were capable of running society. He crushed worker’s control, and put in place a “Council of People's Commissars” or Sovnarkom (the _day after_ the revolution!) made up of -Bolsheviks ONLY- to run the central government. Lenin called for one man management in factories, usually by bourgeois managers, retained piece work, and installed Taylorist methods. He banned not only parties outside the Bolsheviks, but also banned any factions within the Bolshevik party and carried out purges of factions, clearing away roughly 25% of the party, which is seen as the “death-knell” of internal Soviet party democracy (See Shiela Fitzpatrick-_Russian Revolution_-p.101-102). Such actions are usually associated with Stalin and “bad” Bolshevism. He crushed the popular Workers’ Opposition which reflected popular dissatisfaction with the Bolshevik regime which had sabotaged the Factory Committees and turned the soviets into state organs subservient to the Bolshevik party. This was not a dictatorship of the proletariat, but over the proletariat by one party, by default led by one man, Lenin. Even Noam Chomsky has stated “Lenin was one of the greatest enemies of socialism...”
(http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/9505-anarchism.html).
So how does this connect with all your claims of wanting socialism with democracy? Why are you telling us what socialism is? We need a more critical assessment if we are to learn from past mistakes.
Steven:
Likewise we recognize the fundamental flaw made in that “communist” model in every subsequent socialist revolution since. That fundamental flaw is the lack of real workers democracy. To counter this flaw we struggle for socialism on a different model, socialism without capitalism yes, but also socialism with democracy.
Not Magon: But the Bolsheviks, from the beginning, despite their rhetoric designed to bring workers under the control of the party, were anti-democratic:
-- What actually happened in this period was the replacement of all the organs of workers democracy and self-management with Bolshevik imposed state rule. One example of many is given by the factory committees. These were groups of workers elected at most factories before, during and after the October revolution. The delegates to these committees were mandatable and recallable. They were elected initially in order to prevent the individual bosses from sabotaging equipment. They quickly attempted to expanded their scope to cover the complete administration of the workplace and displaced the individual managers. As each workplace relied on many others to supply raw materials, power and to take their products on to the next stage of production the Factory Committees tried to federate in November 1917.
They were prevented from doing so by the Bolsheviks through the trade union bureaucracy. The planned 'All Russian Congress of Factory Committees" never took place. Instead the Bolshevik party decided to set up the "All Russian council of workers control" only 25% of the delegates coming from the factory committees. In this way the creative energy of Russian workers which would have resulted in a co-ordinating centre not under Bolshevik control was blocked in favour of an organisation the party could control. This body was in itself still born, it only met once. In any case it was soon absorbed by the Supreme Economic Council set up in November 1917 which was attached to the Council of Peoples Commissars, itself entirely made up of Bolshevik party members.--
source: Andrew Flood of World Socialist Movement. http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/talks/russia.html
Steven:
Socialists of the stripe of Liberation News defend the right of the weaker countries, such as Lebanon, to defend themselves when they are attacked by U. S. / Israeli imperialism. We do this without giving political support to Hezbollah. Yet we support Lebanon's right to defend themselves from murderous attack and occupation.
Not Magon: That’s great. Can you tell me who doesn’t believe in the right of the Lebanese to defend themselves? Anarchists? Come on! Your choice of words seems like you’re trying to confuse the issue. You support “Lebanon” but give no “political” support to Hezbollah.
Steven: The third type of socialist completely rejects both the pro-capitalist social democrats and the dictatorial communists and argues that the socialism they struggle for has nothing in common with either. In this respect part of their philosophy is very similar to that of the anarchists. It is a philosophy that is easily understood, but over-simplifies more complex realities.
...For many this flies in the face of their simple concepts of the world where everything is either good or bad. When socialists point to the break down of the Russian economy with emergence of unemployment, homelessness, and a 10 year drop in life expectancy since the capitalist counter-revolution led by Yeltsin it does not mean that we supported everything under Soviet Communist rule, only that for the average person things were better than under capitalism.
Not Magon: You like talking about how “simple” people’s views are and yet you seemed not to know the difference between “libertarianism” and “left libertarianism”. You site that many people simplify “more complex realities” but offer no explanation or elaboration of what those might entail. You say some people have a dumbed down view in which things are “good or bad” and then you call the Israeli state racist (it certainly is) without pointing out that all nationalism is inherently racist and inherently capitalist. You don’t bring up the state or capitalism in your moralizing on the Middle East, instead using hyperbolic imagery invoking some Manichean struggle where the only evil state seems to be Israel. You talk about the “socialism” of the Soviet Union with no mention of state capitalism where workers relation to the state is still a capitalist one, where surplus value accumulates to an elite class, and workers were still exploited by a wage system. And because things were better before Russia’s state capitalism was overtaken by external capitalism, that justifies the previous system as worth defending? It is obvious that if you took that as a principle, you could end up defending some horrible regimes, and that you’re arguing a lesser of two evils position.
And because you’re ok with the crimes of authoritarian regimes against workers (because it could be worse, so why not gloss over and minimize as part of your “complex” view?) we’re supposed to all feel ashamed if we criticize Cuba, North Korea, The Soviet Union, George Galloway, or Hezbollah, because we’re hurting the “anti-war” movement by doing so.
What is the “anti” movement FOR, and shouldn’t it matter? With your constant rationalizing of your “united front” with parties that carry the legacy of murdering anyone to their left, you wonder why some people object? You act as if the old left authoritarians are the only ones organizing against U.S. imperialism or Israeli aggression. You say we can’t oppose ANSWER, Todd Chretien, or George Galloway unless we “propose alternatives”. Well here’s an alternative. How bout the working class dumps all the Leninists, all the Trots, all the authoritarians who would crush us to preserve their own parties and organizations, and carries out wildcat action on our own steam and our own self-leadership. Howbout we learn from history what happens when you sell out your principles to social democrats, trade unions, and parties that put their own leadership above the goals of the workers. Then lets move forward from there. WE DON’T NEED YOU Steven, to tell us who we can and can’t be critical of, so cut the guilt tripping moralizing hogwash and stop boring us. There really are people who are anti-capitalist, oppose war, and engage deeply with theory and praxis (and history) who are not “Socialists of the stripe of Liberation News”.
Steven:
we call for the preservation of the planned economy coupled with a political revolution that replaces the bureaucratic caste in power in Cuba, North Korea, China, and Vietnam.
Not Magon: With what, the Leninist, top down, Taylorist, Party driven, one man management. bureaucratic, centralized model? No thanks.
Steven:
In doing so we recognize that this kind of political-revolution will only come from the people of those countries themselves
Not Magon: Like Lenin and Trotsky did? We’ve heard these promises before.
Short Reading List for those who would rather not follow ANSWER, ISO, Todd Chretien, Steven Argue vanguard leadership:
1. Paul Avrich: The Russian Anarchists (has the bonus of good critiques of anarchism, but elaborates Bolshevik actions during the Revolution.)
2. C.L.R. James: Facing Reality (on the outmoded tactics of Leninist parties)
3. Ida Mett: Kronstadt (See also Berkman and Goldman on this)
4. Maurice Brinton: The Bolsheviks and Workers’ Control
5. Sheila Fitzpatrick: The Russian Revolution (short, concise, illuminating, clarifies the direct line from Lenin to Stalin in policy.)
6. Fredy Perlman: The Continuing Appeal of Nationalism (online at: http://personal.inet.fi/private/nw/perlman.html)
7. For Communism: John Gray sitehttp://www.geocities.com/%7Ejohngray/
8. Ken Knabb’s Bureau of Public Secrets: http://www.bopsecrets.org/
Magon is obviously to the right of many anarchists; in ignoring this “Not Magon’s” defense of “Magon” discredits itself. “Magon’s” so called “left libertarian” outlook is a good example of the kinds of anarchist oversimplifications that have aligned many anarchists with U.S. imperialism against the people of the world. To avoid having words put in my mouth again perhaps it will help at this point to point out that I did not just now say that all anarchists are aligned with imperialism.
“Not Magon” says, “Can you tell me who doesn’t believe in the right of the Lebanese to defend themselves? Anarchists? Come on!"
In the United States a good percentage of people do not believe in the right of Lebanon to defend themselves. This is the official line of the corporate press and is not an unusual political position at all. Of your anarchists, “Magon”, from what has been written here, also doesn’t support the right of the Lebanese to defend themselves. So far “Magon” has attacked those opposed to the war and attacked Hezbollah without mentioning the crimes of Israeli aggression against Lebanon. Given the official line in the United States this equals support for imperialism.
Likewise “Magon” attacks the Cuban revolution without mentioning the crimes of U.S. imperialism against Cuba that include the imposition of the bloody Batista dictatorship, the Bay of Pigs, numerous acts of terrorism, the occupation of Guatanamo, and a horrible economic blockade. Also not mentioned are the many gains the Cuban people have made as a result of the Cuban revolution.
Yes Cuba has problems, but listening to “Magon” on Cuba or Lebanon sounds more like FOX “News” propaganda than someone actually interested in a better life for the people of the world.
Not Magon continues on against my defense of Lebanon saying, "Come on! Your choice of words seems like you’re trying to confuse the issue. You support “Lebanon” but give no “political” support to Hezbollah.”
In this particular case the military defense of Lebanon was by Hezbollah so I’m sorry if this confused to you. Yet part of "Magon's" repeated confusion is in having no understanding of the concept of defending a people from foreign military intervention without necessarily giving political support to the leadership fighting off that imperialist attack. Magon even supports the unjust jailing of the Cuban five by the imperialists. I support Lebanon’s right to defend themselves from Israeli aggression which means supporting Hezbollah’s military defense of Lebanon from murderous Israeli attack and occupation. I do this without giving political support to Hezbollah. If "Not Magon" agrees with this point that is good, but you cannot say that all anarchists do and your friend "Magon" is a good example.
On many issues, over and over again, “Magon” and “Not Magon” ignore the crimes of imperialism in favor of attacking those who are making a difference. Likewise “Not Magon” often ignores what I actually wrote and tries to put words in my mouth. Since at this moment I do not have time to do a point by point refutation, I urge people to read what I actually wrote as compared to what “Not Magon” claims I said.
“Not Magon” says, “Can you tell me who doesn’t believe in the right of the Lebanese to defend themselves? Anarchists? Come on!"
In the United States a good percentage of people do not believe in the right of Lebanon to defend themselves. This is the official line of the corporate press and is not an unusual political position at all. Of your anarchists, “Magon”, from what has been written here, also doesn’t support the right of the Lebanese to defend themselves. So far “Magon” has attacked those opposed to the war and attacked Hezbollah without mentioning the crimes of Israeli aggression against Lebanon. Given the official line in the United States this equals support for imperialism.
Likewise “Magon” attacks the Cuban revolution without mentioning the crimes of U.S. imperialism against Cuba that include the imposition of the bloody Batista dictatorship, the Bay of Pigs, numerous acts of terrorism, the occupation of Guatanamo, and a horrible economic blockade. Also not mentioned are the many gains the Cuban people have made as a result of the Cuban revolution.
Yes Cuba has problems, but listening to “Magon” on Cuba or Lebanon sounds more like FOX “News” propaganda than someone actually interested in a better life for the people of the world.
Not Magon continues on against my defense of Lebanon saying, "Come on! Your choice of words seems like you’re trying to confuse the issue. You support “Lebanon” but give no “political” support to Hezbollah.”
In this particular case the military defense of Lebanon was by Hezbollah so I’m sorry if this confused to you. Yet part of "Magon's" repeated confusion is in having no understanding of the concept of defending a people from foreign military intervention without necessarily giving political support to the leadership fighting off that imperialist attack. Magon even supports the unjust jailing of the Cuban five by the imperialists. I support Lebanon’s right to defend themselves from Israeli aggression which means supporting Hezbollah’s military defense of Lebanon from murderous Israeli attack and occupation. I do this without giving political support to Hezbollah. If "Not Magon" agrees with this point that is good, but you cannot say that all anarchists do and your friend "Magon" is a good example.
On many issues, over and over again, “Magon” and “Not Magon” ignore the crimes of imperialism in favor of attacking those who are making a difference. Likewise “Not Magon” often ignores what I actually wrote and tries to put words in my mouth. Since at this moment I do not have time to do a point by point refutation, I urge people to read what I actually wrote as compared to what “Not Magon” claims I said.
"You say we can’t oppose ANSWER, Todd Chretien, or George Galloway unless we “propose alternatives”. Well here’s an alternative. How bout the working class dumps all the Leninists, all the Trots, all the authoritarians who would crush us to preserve their own parties and organizations, and carries out wildcat action on our own steam and our own self-leadership. Howbout we learn from history what happens when you sell out your principles to social democrats, trade unions, and parties that put their own leadership above the goals of the workers. Then lets move forward from there."
I have heard this line from Anarchists and others I assume to be Righties trying to undermine protest movements. The fundamental logical flaw to the whole thing is that it assumes there can only be one group at a time organizing things and thus to have a nonCommunist mass antiwar protest the first thing that must be done is to undermine and subvert existing antiwar groups. ANSWER didnt organize any major antiwar protests in SF over the summer until the Lebanon protest, yet in that time I didnt see groups stepping in to fill the void and organize mass Iraq war protests. Why? Could it be that the desire to bring down ANSWER is exactly that and not a desire to organize anything new?
There are huge protest movementst that are not ANSWER. On Labor Day the immigration rights protests are organized outside of the traditional US Communist/Socialist community (of course many immigrants are themselves Marxists). As with any protest movement one has to compromise; I support immigrant rights but dont like seeing people waving American flags, but that doesnt mean Im going to go to an immigration rights protest and burn flags, diss the organizers or propagandize on how the real goal of immigration rights activists needs to be to undermine the power of the the groups organizing the protests so we can have an ideologically pure protest movement free of my pet peeves (and red-baiting in a world without the USSR is pretty much that)
Modern Communists didnt kill modern Anarchists 80 some years ago at Kronstadt. I may view Stalin as close to Hitler in the horrors he comitted but I also view the same about the Catholic Church during the Inquisition and during the various Crusades. If the Quakers organize an event, does this mean I need to denounce their religion since its Chritisan and Christians did bad things a long time ago? If Trots organize a protest should I hold them guilty for the actions of Stalin? You can say there is a difference in that some Maoist groups do openly praise Stalin but some Catholic groups still openly praise the Crusades so.... do I go organize teams of people to focus on yelling at the evil Catholics at a Tookie death penalty protest where priests have taken a lead (some who do death penality work are even antiabortion but shoudl I yell at them at a death penalty protest about that ....)
You can blather on about how solidarity is bad since appeasing the few hardline Communists will doom us all, but what imagnary world do you actually live in? Hardline Communists will never take over the US and pose a danger of being annoying at most. Most of the Anarchist/Communist theoretrical history blather is just blather and may be a wonkish way to show off how smart one is but doesnt relate to the real world where the threat of the Communists is pretty much the same as the threat of the Prussians or Ottomans. You can argue that it doesnt serve activist movements well to have leaders who believe in religious myths like Marxism but you could make the same argument about any religion and purging all such people doesnt make a protest any more mainstream since the public at large is full of people holding strange and intersting views that would alienate people when spoken from stage.
On another note, you state:
"You say some people have a dumbed down view in which things are “good or bad” and then you call the Israeli state racist (it certainly is) without pointing out that all nationalism is inherently racist and inherently capitalist."
I think that statement captures both a problem with simplistic words like racism and also seems to be a dodge from the actual issues with Israel.
No matter what happens in terms of solutions to the Israeli/Palestinian problem the state of those in the West Bank and Gaza who are non-citizens (who will never be given citizenship rights) within a greater Israeli state will lead to wars. This isnt true in any other country in the Middle East I can think of. Its possible to see Kurds comming to live in peace with Turks in Turkey; much of the oppression would need to end but the equivalent of what would be called the one state solution in Palestine is what Turks even claim to want. Saudi Arabia oppresses women and religious minorities worse than in Israel but there isnt anything fundamental in the way of it stopping doing that. In the case of the West Bank and Gaza there are fundamental problems with the occupation that make it so any idea of a gradual solution or a solution due to a change in leadership (as people could hope for in Iran or Syria) isnt realistic. A one state solution would make Israel majority nonJewish and perhaps one could call the Israeli fear of that racist (but its a bit more subtle than that since you can also tie it to a fear of becoming an oppressed minority group themselves and being treated the same way by the new leaders as they currently treat the Palestinians) A two state solution means relocating the settlers (unless they would become Palestinian citizens I guess) and dealing with the future of Jerusalem.
Israel is central to problems in the Middle East partly because of refugees and partly because the idea of what is seen as a European colonial state oppressing Arabs and Muslims has a significant psychological impact on people in the region (in a way not quite mirrored in the other oppressive actions by other states).
With all that said does anything justify support Hezbollah? Maybe. For many in S Lebanon they seem to care about the plight of the poor more than other political parties (and the government's Constitution gives most power to the Christian minority).
In this latest conflict with Israel much of the popular regional support for Hezbollah came out a desire to see Israel hurt; that isnt exactly a moral motive but if an Israeli military loss could force the Israeli public to see that refusing to engage in regional dialogue and unilitarelaism wont work (Israel isnt pwoerful enough to just impose a solution and force others to live within it like Sharon and Olmert has wanted) perhaps the Israeli losses could lead to change.
The war also exposed the double talk of Jordan and Egypt and it wouldnt be too surprising to see at least one of those two governments collapse as a result of the impression given off by this latest war that they really are US puppets. Interestingly the statements by the governments that turned popular opinion strongly against the Egyptian and Jordanian governments is almost the same as the rhetoric by supposed Anarchists in this thread...when push comes to shove both Mubarek, Hussein and many Anarchists will spend more time scolding those fighting for freedom from opression than actually giving them support.
Anarchism has a bit of a strain of Stalinism in it in the sense that forcing atheiesm on Russia isnt that different from forcing all revolutionary (and protest) movements to renounce nationalism, Trotskyism, Maoism, Leninism, and of course Islam (and demand that nobody speak who reflects such views). The USSR's early efforts to force Socialism on Central Asia is something many Anarchists (and Communists) should look at. It obviously didnt work but beyond that it was oppressive even though some of the immediate goals of the drive sounded good (preventing the oppression of women by banning arranged marriage and polygamy, allowing children real education rather than religious indoctorination etc...)
Anarchism obviously has a trick esape from any argument in that as an openly anti authorian ideology that opposes states how can it support opression. I guess the idea is that everyone will naturally be drawn to the one true religion through conversion and there wont have to be oppressive measures used, but thats about as silly as many dogmatic Marxist beliefs (and many Christian groups that assume the future will be an 100% Christian world).
The general public who one hopes to organize en mass once groups like ANSWER are purged of the Reds isnt a blank slate ready to be told the truth of Anarchism. Most people follow religions, and even have political ideologies of their own (and the greater power of various Marxist groups in third world countries compared to the US exposes the almost racist/religious missionary type view of many Anarchists that one can reach out to POC groups by enaging in the good works of community organizing and the heathen masses who have never heard of Marxism or Anarchism will be drawn to the one true belief once the hear of Anarchism) At the last ANSWER demo many Lebanese in the crowd cheered whenevr anything positive about Hezbollah was said from stage... I guess Anarchists could get some Lebanese middle-class hipsters and a mainly white crowd to denounce Hezbollah and Israel at an Anarchist protest but protesting a war but excluding those effected due to ideological differences seems paternalistic an elitism (for all I may disagree with Tod and ANSWERs open support for many nationalist groups fighting the US its because of that unquestioning support that they can draw in the direcly effected communities without looking as much like paternalistic caring white middle-class liberals who care about the victims of wars but dont really support any group of victims fighting back)
What a group like ANSWER provides is the free time and knowledge of permit processes and logistics (how many portopoties to get, how many food stands are needed ....) to get a large demo groing. There isnt anything preventing a hardline ANarchist group from organzing something similar but there are logistical problems in the Bay Area for several reasons. The most important reason is that sectarianism and dogmatic hatred of views different from their own would prevent any mass Anarchist demo (since people would openly say they dont want Communists attending, probably wouldnt want groups like the Nation of Islam, might want to prevent Democratic Party linked groups from having banners etc... ) . But almost as important is the logistical problems and lack of willingness to provide an alternative structure to ANSWER to get people into the streets.
Of course protests are not everything but when wars come along mass action is much more effective than most small scele actions (with the possible exception of media events like Sheehan and some of the attempts to organize within the military)
I have heard this line from Anarchists and others I assume to be Righties trying to undermine protest movements. The fundamental logical flaw to the whole thing is that it assumes there can only be one group at a time organizing things and thus to have a nonCommunist mass antiwar protest the first thing that must be done is to undermine and subvert existing antiwar groups. ANSWER didnt organize any major antiwar protests in SF over the summer until the Lebanon protest, yet in that time I didnt see groups stepping in to fill the void and organize mass Iraq war protests. Why? Could it be that the desire to bring down ANSWER is exactly that and not a desire to organize anything new?
There are huge protest movementst that are not ANSWER. On Labor Day the immigration rights protests are organized outside of the traditional US Communist/Socialist community (of course many immigrants are themselves Marxists). As with any protest movement one has to compromise; I support immigrant rights but dont like seeing people waving American flags, but that doesnt mean Im going to go to an immigration rights protest and burn flags, diss the organizers or propagandize on how the real goal of immigration rights activists needs to be to undermine the power of the the groups organizing the protests so we can have an ideologically pure protest movement free of my pet peeves (and red-baiting in a world without the USSR is pretty much that)
Modern Communists didnt kill modern Anarchists 80 some years ago at Kronstadt. I may view Stalin as close to Hitler in the horrors he comitted but I also view the same about the Catholic Church during the Inquisition and during the various Crusades. If the Quakers organize an event, does this mean I need to denounce their religion since its Chritisan and Christians did bad things a long time ago? If Trots organize a protest should I hold them guilty for the actions of Stalin? You can say there is a difference in that some Maoist groups do openly praise Stalin but some Catholic groups still openly praise the Crusades so.... do I go organize teams of people to focus on yelling at the evil Catholics at a Tookie death penalty protest where priests have taken a lead (some who do death penality work are even antiabortion but shoudl I yell at them at a death penalty protest about that ....)
You can blather on about how solidarity is bad since appeasing the few hardline Communists will doom us all, but what imagnary world do you actually live in? Hardline Communists will never take over the US and pose a danger of being annoying at most. Most of the Anarchist/Communist theoretrical history blather is just blather and may be a wonkish way to show off how smart one is but doesnt relate to the real world where the threat of the Communists is pretty much the same as the threat of the Prussians or Ottomans. You can argue that it doesnt serve activist movements well to have leaders who believe in religious myths like Marxism but you could make the same argument about any religion and purging all such people doesnt make a protest any more mainstream since the public at large is full of people holding strange and intersting views that would alienate people when spoken from stage.
On another note, you state:
"You say some people have a dumbed down view in which things are “good or bad” and then you call the Israeli state racist (it certainly is) without pointing out that all nationalism is inherently racist and inherently capitalist."
I think that statement captures both a problem with simplistic words like racism and also seems to be a dodge from the actual issues with Israel.
No matter what happens in terms of solutions to the Israeli/Palestinian problem the state of those in the West Bank and Gaza who are non-citizens (who will never be given citizenship rights) within a greater Israeli state will lead to wars. This isnt true in any other country in the Middle East I can think of. Its possible to see Kurds comming to live in peace with Turks in Turkey; much of the oppression would need to end but the equivalent of what would be called the one state solution in Palestine is what Turks even claim to want. Saudi Arabia oppresses women and religious minorities worse than in Israel but there isnt anything fundamental in the way of it stopping doing that. In the case of the West Bank and Gaza there are fundamental problems with the occupation that make it so any idea of a gradual solution or a solution due to a change in leadership (as people could hope for in Iran or Syria) isnt realistic. A one state solution would make Israel majority nonJewish and perhaps one could call the Israeli fear of that racist (but its a bit more subtle than that since you can also tie it to a fear of becoming an oppressed minority group themselves and being treated the same way by the new leaders as they currently treat the Palestinians) A two state solution means relocating the settlers (unless they would become Palestinian citizens I guess) and dealing with the future of Jerusalem.
Israel is central to problems in the Middle East partly because of refugees and partly because the idea of what is seen as a European colonial state oppressing Arabs and Muslims has a significant psychological impact on people in the region (in a way not quite mirrored in the other oppressive actions by other states).
With all that said does anything justify support Hezbollah? Maybe. For many in S Lebanon they seem to care about the plight of the poor more than other political parties (and the government's Constitution gives most power to the Christian minority).
In this latest conflict with Israel much of the popular regional support for Hezbollah came out a desire to see Israel hurt; that isnt exactly a moral motive but if an Israeli military loss could force the Israeli public to see that refusing to engage in regional dialogue and unilitarelaism wont work (Israel isnt pwoerful enough to just impose a solution and force others to live within it like Sharon and Olmert has wanted) perhaps the Israeli losses could lead to change.
The war also exposed the double talk of Jordan and Egypt and it wouldnt be too surprising to see at least one of those two governments collapse as a result of the impression given off by this latest war that they really are US puppets. Interestingly the statements by the governments that turned popular opinion strongly against the Egyptian and Jordanian governments is almost the same as the rhetoric by supposed Anarchists in this thread...when push comes to shove both Mubarek, Hussein and many Anarchists will spend more time scolding those fighting for freedom from opression than actually giving them support.
Anarchism has a bit of a strain of Stalinism in it in the sense that forcing atheiesm on Russia isnt that different from forcing all revolutionary (and protest) movements to renounce nationalism, Trotskyism, Maoism, Leninism, and of course Islam (and demand that nobody speak who reflects such views). The USSR's early efforts to force Socialism on Central Asia is something many Anarchists (and Communists) should look at. It obviously didnt work but beyond that it was oppressive even though some of the immediate goals of the drive sounded good (preventing the oppression of women by banning arranged marriage and polygamy, allowing children real education rather than religious indoctorination etc...)
Anarchism obviously has a trick esape from any argument in that as an openly anti authorian ideology that opposes states how can it support opression. I guess the idea is that everyone will naturally be drawn to the one true religion through conversion and there wont have to be oppressive measures used, but thats about as silly as many dogmatic Marxist beliefs (and many Christian groups that assume the future will be an 100% Christian world).
The general public who one hopes to organize en mass once groups like ANSWER are purged of the Reds isnt a blank slate ready to be told the truth of Anarchism. Most people follow religions, and even have political ideologies of their own (and the greater power of various Marxist groups in third world countries compared to the US exposes the almost racist/religious missionary type view of many Anarchists that one can reach out to POC groups by enaging in the good works of community organizing and the heathen masses who have never heard of Marxism or Anarchism will be drawn to the one true belief once the hear of Anarchism) At the last ANSWER demo many Lebanese in the crowd cheered whenevr anything positive about Hezbollah was said from stage... I guess Anarchists could get some Lebanese middle-class hipsters and a mainly white crowd to denounce Hezbollah and Israel at an Anarchist protest but protesting a war but excluding those effected due to ideological differences seems paternalistic an elitism (for all I may disagree with Tod and ANSWERs open support for many nationalist groups fighting the US its because of that unquestioning support that they can draw in the direcly effected communities without looking as much like paternalistic caring white middle-class liberals who care about the victims of wars but dont really support any group of victims fighting back)
What a group like ANSWER provides is the free time and knowledge of permit processes and logistics (how many portopoties to get, how many food stands are needed ....) to get a large demo groing. There isnt anything preventing a hardline ANarchist group from organzing something similar but there are logistical problems in the Bay Area for several reasons. The most important reason is that sectarianism and dogmatic hatred of views different from their own would prevent any mass Anarchist demo (since people would openly say they dont want Communists attending, probably wouldnt want groups like the Nation of Islam, might want to prevent Democratic Party linked groups from having banners etc... ) . But almost as important is the logistical problems and lack of willingness to provide an alternative structure to ANSWER to get people into the streets.
Of course protests are not everything but when wars come along mass action is much more effective than most small scele actions (with the possible exception of media events like Sheehan and some of the attempts to organize within the military)
Response to
No To Imperialist War!
by Steven Argue
Magon is obviously to the right of many anarchists; in ignoring this “Not Magon’s” defense of “Magon” discredits itself.
Not Magon: Can you show me where I’m “defending” Magon? I have no idea who she is, and I don’t care. My post was pointing out the weaknesses in YOUR positions.
Steven:
“Magon’s” so called “left libertarian” outlook is a good example of the kinds of anarchist oversimplifications that have aligned many anarchists with U.S. imperialism against the people of the world.
Not Magon: So far you have listed one stance of one non-anarchist to support this preposterous idea. If you had ANY theory under your belt you would have known what was meant by left-libertarian instead of going off on a comical tangent about capitalism (and you don’t seem to have read any Marx either). You also could have parsed from Magon’s post (and no I’m not defending him, just pointing out you drew fallacious conclusions) that he never said anything about Lebanese or Iraqis having no right to resist, he was saying that the people that “leftists” choose to align with are often brutal anti-left authoritarians. Please get a minimal grasp of nuance and try to understand this is not “aligning with U.S. imperialism against the people of the world” any more than acknowledging the crimes of Lenin is siding with the Tzar. You’re ridiculous Steven.
Steven:
In the United States a good percentage of people do not believe in the right of Lebanon to defend themselves. This is the official line of the corporate press and is not an unusual political position at all. Of your anarchists, “Magon”, from what has been written here, also doesn’t support the right of the Lebanese to defend themselves.
Not Magon: Show me where he says that here. Talk about putting words in peoples’ mouths. His post didn’t say that. Again, I’m not defending him, but pointing out how you have to resort to straw men arguments to win a point.
Steven:
So far “Magon” has attacked those opposed to the war
Not Magon: I’ve only seen him on this line of posts, but in this line he was attacking authoritarian groups associated with the “left”. I think it might help you to conceptualize it if you thought of it this way: Authoritarian opportunist groups attack the Democratic Party for being weak on opposing the war. This does not make them Republicans. Anarchists, Left-Communists, Ultra-Leftists, and others criticize authoritarian groups for being controlling, self-serving, and for having platforms that have historically resulted in antidemocratic despotisms by parties and bureaucracies. This does not make the Ultra-Left “in league with imperialism.” On the contrary, it is the authoritarian groups which openly side with ideologies that justify crushing dissent and controlling people through the state.
Steven:
and attacked Hezbollah without mentioning the crimes of Israeli aggression against Lebanon. Given the official line in the United States this equals support for imperialism.
Not Magon: This is a real “boner” of a logical fallacy. Your whole set of assumptions seems to be based on gross misunderstanding of what people write, of history, and on this guilt by association fallacy. “If the U.S. criticizes Hezbollah, and an ‘anarchist’ criticizes them too, both are equivalent.”
Response to:
false logic
Sunday Sep 3rd, 2006 10:02 AM
"You say we can’t oppose ANSWER, Todd Chretien, or George Galloway unless we “propose alternatives”. Well here’s an alternative. How bout the working class dumps all the Leninists, all the Trots, all the authoritarians who would crush us to preserve their own parties and organizations, and carries out wildcat action on our own steam and our own self-leadership. Howbout we learn from history what happens when you sell out your principles to social democrats, trade unions, and parties that put their own leadership above the goals of the workers. Then lets move forward from there."
False Logic:
I have heard this line from Anarchists and others I assume to be Righties trying to undermine protest movements.
Not Magon: That really IS false logic. You jump right into your guilt by association argument. Are we to assume anyone criticizing authoritarian leftists is working to undermine the anti-war movement? Why associate them with the Right? It’s a cheap rhetorical tactic and does not help us understand the situation.
False Logic:
The fundamental logical flaw to the whole thing is that it assumes there can only be one group at a time organizing things and thus to have a nonCommunist mass antiwar protest the first thing that must be done is to undermine and subvert existing antiwar groups.
Not Magon: No. It states that we don’t need the “leadership” of self-appointed ideological stewards of “the movement”. Nowhere does it say “one group at a time” should be “organizing” (organizing in quotes, because much of what the authoritarian groups consider organizing is counter productive, such as forcing members to focus on the sale of papers that have only the party line, recruitment drives and so on). The opposite is true. If anything, the working class as a whole should be coming together in their own groupings of their choice for an internationalist position to oppose all wars and to stand up for their own self-control over their production and lives. But when the authoritarians take the lead, we end up having to back all manner of nationalist, pro-party positions that have nothing to do with working class solidarity or liberation, and are often harmful to the working classes in other countries.
False Logic:
ANSWER didnt organize any major antiwar protests in SF over the summer until the Lebanon protest, yet in that time I didnt see groups stepping in to fill the void and organize mass Iraq war protests. Why? Could it be that the desire to bring down ANSWER is exactly that and not a desire to organize anything new?
Not Magon: Fallacy: EITHER we all have a march, OR we are not doing anything constructive. So a march is the only political action that can make a difference. I’m not opposed to marches, and believe they do send important messages that may sway history, but there have been many many forms of resisting the war, and resisting capitalism that have been ongoing around the world and in the states. Get out into the community more often, and you’ll find vast networks of resistance. And doesn’t it matter what the content of ANSWER rallies is? Or will any old “anti-imperialist” position do?
False Logic:
There are huge protest movementst that are not ANSWER. On Labor Day the immigration rights protests are organized outside of the traditional US Communist/Socialist community (of course many immigrants are themselves Marxists). As with any protest movement one has to compromise; I support immigrant rights but dont like seeing people waving American flags, but that doesnt mean Im going to go to an immigration rights protest and burn flags, diss the organizers or propagandize on how the real goal of immigration rights activists needs to be to undermine the power of the the groups organizing the protests so we can have an ideologically pure protest movement free of my pet peeves (and red-baiting in a world without the USSR is pretty much that)
Not Magon: But you are criticizing the immigrants for carrying the flags (American flags only). Good for you for being critical. I assume you don’t like seeing the American flag because you know about U.S. imperialism and are critical of it and oppose it. Great! Would you have a problem with someone waving a Mexican flag or is Mexican nationalism ok with you? Of course we understand the people waving the flags have different reasons, but we can also see the problematic nature of flag waving: It implies loyalty to a country. This implies loyalty to a police, a ruling class, and so on. Nationalism is a trap that sets up loyalty to rulers instead of to each other.
Organizers with horrible ideologies SHOULD be dissed. Groups who work to take over other groups should be dissed and avoided. You know who they are. That does not mean anarchists and others don’t go to anti-war rallies, they do. But on their own terms. Debating THEIR tactics is also complex and worth doing. A visit to anarchist listservs reveals vigorous debates (on most of the ones I’ve looked at, which I won’t list because I don’t want to make a target for hackers).
And speaking of the socialist groups in regard to the immigration rallies, did you catch Todd Chretien trying to give the ISO props for organizing a large part of the rallies? Did you see him using it to tell people to vote for him? Talk about diverting people from the struggle, which is precisely the ISO criticism of the Democrats. Rightfully so, but they’re no better in this sense!
False Logic:
Modern Communists didnt kill modern Anarchists 80 some years ago at Kronstadt.
Not Magon: But Leninist/Trotskyist communists believe in most of the same ideology that necessitated the Tenth Congress to carry out that action. Modern Nazis didn’t carry out the Holocaust, but does that mean they would not do it if they could? (No I’m not equating communists and nazis. That would be reductionist and silly. I’m using the structure of your argument to point out it is not defensible). There are a lot of communists in the group in the Bay Area that gets labeled anarchist. But they are Left Communists, Anarchist Communists, and so on.
False Logic:
If the Quakers organize an event, does this mean I need to denounce their religion since its Chritisan and Christians did bad things a long time ago?
Not Magon: If you believe that the ideology of Christianity is inherently counter-revolutionary, than perhaps you should avoid them. If on the other hand you believe their (I assume you mean the American Friends Service Committee) beliefs and actions are acceptable to you, and that historically their record is mostly positive, you could compromise on your distaste for Christianity and what it entails, and work with them in some way. Similarly, when we look at the stances authoritarian groups have taken and the way in which they interact with the community, we have to decide whether we want to work with them. If we believe they are not working for a society where workers control their own lives, and are instead focusing on strengthening their own ranks, and apologizing for horrible crimes against the working class, we most likely don’t want to work with them. But you can decide for yourself of course!
False Logic:
If Trots organize a protest should I hold them guilty for the actions of Stalin?
Not Magon: This has never been the point! The point is holding them accountable for the crimes of Trotsky, Lenin, and the Bolsheviks for taking over the Russian Revolution and turning it into the party run antidemocratic nightmare it became within days of their coup. I provided a reading list and I suggest you look into this if you want to avoid future embarrassment over your defense of authoritarian groups. It’s not that I think I’m “smart” but that I think if you had read any critical histories on the ideological underpinnings of these groups, you couldn’t see them as a positive.
False Logic:
You can say there is a difference in that some Maoist groups do openly praise Stalin
Not Magon: A good critique has been written: http://www.worldcantwake.org/
False Logic:
You can blather on about how solidarity is bad since appeasing the few hardline Communists will doom us all, but what imagnary world do you actually live in?
Not Magon: Solidarity is good. Solidarity of workers against tyrants, against snitches, police, capitalists, opportunists, state coercion, bosses, trade union and party bureaucracies, and against manipulative authoritarian vanguards. It’s simple. I would say it is you who is being unrealistic if you think united fronts with authoritarians will change anything.
False Logic:
Hardline Communists will never take over the US and pose a danger of being annoying at most. Most of the Anarchist/Communist theoretrical history blather is just blather and may be a wonkish way to show off how smart one is but doesnt relate to the real world where the threat of the Communists is pretty much the same as the threat of the Prussians or Ottomans.
Not Magon: The reality is that authoritarians have become very organized and have succeeded in taking the lead in many aspects of the Left. The ISO alone has at least five or six front groups, from CAN, to SAW, to Campaign Against the Death Penalty, and others. Anyone who has attended a CAN regional gathering has seen the naked manipulation by the ISO (you’d be amazed what a Robert’s Rules and Snehall with a gavel combo can do to crush dissenting opinions). It is totally alienating and disempowering to have the prerequisite to participating be submitting to the ISO party line and agenda. Of course no one has to do these things, but they are the most visible for young people and many others. A real problem is that they consciously work to keep tight control over groups they interact with. CAN did not start as an ISO front group, but became one over time.
False Logic:
You can argue that it doesnt serve activist movements well to have leaders who believe in religious myths like Marxism but you could make the same argument about any religion and purging all such people doesnt make a protest any more mainstream since the public at large is full of people holding strange and intersting views that would alienate people when spoken from stage.
Not Magon: What are you talking about? Marxist theory is just as valuable and essential as anarchist, situationist, ultra-left theory to understanding the world. All were influenced in part by Marxism. But the key is avoiding ideology (in the Marxist sense) where beliefs go unquestioned, and practice doesn’t form any part of what goes back into theory. This is where you start seeing the stifling centralized party lines that dictate authoritarian groups must control the groups they participate in, as they believe they are imparting wisdom on the workers rather than being in real solidarity with them. This is not to say we can’t share book ideas with each other, but I do so in the hopes you might think critically about the scene in the Bay area (and you already do that, to be fair), not subscribe to a doctrine.
Not Magon: I’m not going to argue with your sections on Israel, or anarchists looking at history, because I think they were critically done and thought provoking.
False Logic:
The general public who one hopes to organize en mass once groups like ANSWER are purged of the Reds isnt a blank slate ready to be told the truth of Anarchism.
Not Magon: But as everyone constantly states, the revolution has to come from the workers ourselves, and we have a lot of revolutionary consciousness from our participation as wage slaves. It’s not about the “truth” of anarchism, there isn’t one truth. Each situation has to be analyzed, and sometimes we workers don’t know everything we need to as far as analysis of our own situations, but we keep trying. The recent immigrant rallies, the Muni-Fare Strike, the anti-minutemen organizing done by working class groups have all been positives in my view. While much of the anti-war actions have had positives, they’ve been marred by the controlling presence of the various leftist sects who want the kind of participation from their “members” that doesn’t further liberty, freedom, critical thinking, revolutionary analysis, or much of anything else. A lot of the anger you see toward these groups comes from horrible first hand experiences with having campus groups infiltrated and taken over, and by having sections of the movement taken over and riddled through with authoritarianism. This history is there for the reading if you look for it. It’s not just whacky paranoia, red-baiting, or self-serving egoism.
False Logic: At the last ANSWER demo many Lebanese in the crowd cheered whenevr anything positive about Hezbollah was said from stage... I guess Anarchists could get some Lebanese middle-class hipsters and a mainly white crowd to denounce Hezbollah and Israel at an Anarchist protest but protesting a war but excluding those effected due to ideological differences seems paternalistic an elitism
Not Magon: I’m unclear on why everyone tries to smear anarchists as white middle class (as if either precluded revolutionary consciousness).
1. Anyone who has ever seen the various anarchist contingents at marches sees a broad mix of ethnicities. Sorry to get hung up on ethnicity, but my impression has been that there is a huge latino segment of the Bay Area anarchists. Of the three anarchists I worked with on the Fare Strike at City College, one was “white”, one Middle Eastern, and one African American. I don’t have the data, but my personal observation and experience goes directly against this idea that the anarchists are white middle class. If anything, I would guess the ISO is far more white, and I’m almost certain more middle class than the Bay Area anarchist movement. I think one reason is that they recruit on college campuses, not because they intentionally discriminate (I’m sure the opposite is true). But I could be wrong that college campuses are more white than anywhere else as far as who gets recruited. There are a lot of working class, and people of color on campuses, working their way through school. But I stand by my observation that the Bay Area anarchists do not seem more white than other groupings.
False Logic:
What a group like ANSWER provides is the free time and knowledge of permit processes and logistics (how many portopoties to get, how many food stands are needed ....) to get a large demo groing.
Not Magon: But there is a lot more. They exert a limiting of theoretical range. They put forward a lot of nationalistic propaganda, and this means anti-working class positions. They operate as any centralized party apparatus tends to, with all the negatives this brings. There is nothing wrong with groups federating in solidarity to put up mass resistance, but when a group operates in a top down centralized manner, the problems are too numerous to include here, but have been touched upon in my posts and thousands of others over the last ten years.
False Logic:
There isnt anything preventing a hardline ANarchist group from organzing something similar but there are logistical problems in the Bay Area for several reasons.
Not Magon: Anarchists have been instrumental in organizing quite a lot in the Bay Area. Some of the most successful (and even high profile) food aid to the homeless has been carried out by food not bombs. The Muni Fare Strike, which was at least a partial success despite many faults, was mainly organized by anarchists and ultra-left types, and saw the participation of tens of thousands of people standing up in their own class interests. (For some context, look into the Italian self-reduction movement.) The week long anti-war protests when the war started was not led by ANSWER or any other authoritarian group, and yet it was among the largest and most radical, even though it could have been far more effective and smart about its attempts to “shut down” the city (I include myself in this critique).
False Logic:
The most important reason is that sectarianism and dogmatic hatred of views different from their own would prevent any mass Anarchist demo
Not Magon: There is sectarianism in anarchist circles, but also some of the most authentic diversity of ideas and tactics you’ll find anywhere. The anarchists and left-communists that run in the same circles encompass a much broader range of historical influences than the party line authoritarian groups. You may find it’s a really interesting mix if you ever decide to look into your community.
False Logic:
(since people would openly say they dont want Communists attending, probably wouldnt want groups like the Nation of Islam, might want to prevent Democratic Party linked groups from having banners etc... )
Not Magon: Communists and anarchists work together all the time in the Bay area. But most in this milieu avoid getting caught up in authoritarian socialist activities as they are seen as counter-revolutionary to put it mildly.
False Logic:
But almost as important is the logistical problems and lack of willingness to provide an alternative structure to ANSWER to get people into the streets.
Not Magon: Part of it may be money too. I know that the ISO and RCP have deep pocket donors who enable much of the organizing they do. This is not a judgment necessarily, but I don’t know of any anarchist organizations receiving funding from millionaires, but maybe I haven’t looked hard enough. There are good anarchist presses though, AK being the one that comes to mind. There is a lot of effective anarchist organizing going on. I’ve cited a few examples.
Anyway, thank you False Logic elaborating some interesting positions. To me, they seem far more honest and critical than the clownish ideology of Steven Argue's thimble deep "anti-imperialism".
Sincerely,
Andrew Eldritch (Ooh! What a give away!)
No To Imperialist War!
by Steven Argue
Magon is obviously to the right of many anarchists; in ignoring this “Not Magon’s” defense of “Magon” discredits itself.
Not Magon: Can you show me where I’m “defending” Magon? I have no idea who she is, and I don’t care. My post was pointing out the weaknesses in YOUR positions.
Steven:
“Magon’s” so called “left libertarian” outlook is a good example of the kinds of anarchist oversimplifications that have aligned many anarchists with U.S. imperialism against the people of the world.
Not Magon: So far you have listed one stance of one non-anarchist to support this preposterous idea. If you had ANY theory under your belt you would have known what was meant by left-libertarian instead of going off on a comical tangent about capitalism (and you don’t seem to have read any Marx either). You also could have parsed from Magon’s post (and no I’m not defending him, just pointing out you drew fallacious conclusions) that he never said anything about Lebanese or Iraqis having no right to resist, he was saying that the people that “leftists” choose to align with are often brutal anti-left authoritarians. Please get a minimal grasp of nuance and try to understand this is not “aligning with U.S. imperialism against the people of the world” any more than acknowledging the crimes of Lenin is siding with the Tzar. You’re ridiculous Steven.
Steven:
In the United States a good percentage of people do not believe in the right of Lebanon to defend themselves. This is the official line of the corporate press and is not an unusual political position at all. Of your anarchists, “Magon”, from what has been written here, also doesn’t support the right of the Lebanese to defend themselves.
Not Magon: Show me where he says that here. Talk about putting words in peoples’ mouths. His post didn’t say that. Again, I’m not defending him, but pointing out how you have to resort to straw men arguments to win a point.
Steven:
So far “Magon” has attacked those opposed to the war
Not Magon: I’ve only seen him on this line of posts, but in this line he was attacking authoritarian groups associated with the “left”. I think it might help you to conceptualize it if you thought of it this way: Authoritarian opportunist groups attack the Democratic Party for being weak on opposing the war. This does not make them Republicans. Anarchists, Left-Communists, Ultra-Leftists, and others criticize authoritarian groups for being controlling, self-serving, and for having platforms that have historically resulted in antidemocratic despotisms by parties and bureaucracies. This does not make the Ultra-Left “in league with imperialism.” On the contrary, it is the authoritarian groups which openly side with ideologies that justify crushing dissent and controlling people through the state.
Steven:
and attacked Hezbollah without mentioning the crimes of Israeli aggression against Lebanon. Given the official line in the United States this equals support for imperialism.
Not Magon: This is a real “boner” of a logical fallacy. Your whole set of assumptions seems to be based on gross misunderstanding of what people write, of history, and on this guilt by association fallacy. “If the U.S. criticizes Hezbollah, and an ‘anarchist’ criticizes them too, both are equivalent.”
Response to:
false logic
Sunday Sep 3rd, 2006 10:02 AM
"You say we can’t oppose ANSWER, Todd Chretien, or George Galloway unless we “propose alternatives”. Well here’s an alternative. How bout the working class dumps all the Leninists, all the Trots, all the authoritarians who would crush us to preserve their own parties and organizations, and carries out wildcat action on our own steam and our own self-leadership. Howbout we learn from history what happens when you sell out your principles to social democrats, trade unions, and parties that put their own leadership above the goals of the workers. Then lets move forward from there."
False Logic:
I have heard this line from Anarchists and others I assume to be Righties trying to undermine protest movements.
Not Magon: That really IS false logic. You jump right into your guilt by association argument. Are we to assume anyone criticizing authoritarian leftists is working to undermine the anti-war movement? Why associate them with the Right? It’s a cheap rhetorical tactic and does not help us understand the situation.
False Logic:
The fundamental logical flaw to the whole thing is that it assumes there can only be one group at a time organizing things and thus to have a nonCommunist mass antiwar protest the first thing that must be done is to undermine and subvert existing antiwar groups.
Not Magon: No. It states that we don’t need the “leadership” of self-appointed ideological stewards of “the movement”. Nowhere does it say “one group at a time” should be “organizing” (organizing in quotes, because much of what the authoritarian groups consider organizing is counter productive, such as forcing members to focus on the sale of papers that have only the party line, recruitment drives and so on). The opposite is true. If anything, the working class as a whole should be coming together in their own groupings of their choice for an internationalist position to oppose all wars and to stand up for their own self-control over their production and lives. But when the authoritarians take the lead, we end up having to back all manner of nationalist, pro-party positions that have nothing to do with working class solidarity or liberation, and are often harmful to the working classes in other countries.
False Logic:
ANSWER didnt organize any major antiwar protests in SF over the summer until the Lebanon protest, yet in that time I didnt see groups stepping in to fill the void and organize mass Iraq war protests. Why? Could it be that the desire to bring down ANSWER is exactly that and not a desire to organize anything new?
Not Magon: Fallacy: EITHER we all have a march, OR we are not doing anything constructive. So a march is the only political action that can make a difference. I’m not opposed to marches, and believe they do send important messages that may sway history, but there have been many many forms of resisting the war, and resisting capitalism that have been ongoing around the world and in the states. Get out into the community more often, and you’ll find vast networks of resistance. And doesn’t it matter what the content of ANSWER rallies is? Or will any old “anti-imperialist” position do?
False Logic:
There are huge protest movementst that are not ANSWER. On Labor Day the immigration rights protests are organized outside of the traditional US Communist/Socialist community (of course many immigrants are themselves Marxists). As with any protest movement one has to compromise; I support immigrant rights but dont like seeing people waving American flags, but that doesnt mean Im going to go to an immigration rights protest and burn flags, diss the organizers or propagandize on how the real goal of immigration rights activists needs to be to undermine the power of the the groups organizing the protests so we can have an ideologically pure protest movement free of my pet peeves (and red-baiting in a world without the USSR is pretty much that)
Not Magon: But you are criticizing the immigrants for carrying the flags (American flags only). Good for you for being critical. I assume you don’t like seeing the American flag because you know about U.S. imperialism and are critical of it and oppose it. Great! Would you have a problem with someone waving a Mexican flag or is Mexican nationalism ok with you? Of course we understand the people waving the flags have different reasons, but we can also see the problematic nature of flag waving: It implies loyalty to a country. This implies loyalty to a police, a ruling class, and so on. Nationalism is a trap that sets up loyalty to rulers instead of to each other.
Organizers with horrible ideologies SHOULD be dissed. Groups who work to take over other groups should be dissed and avoided. You know who they are. That does not mean anarchists and others don’t go to anti-war rallies, they do. But on their own terms. Debating THEIR tactics is also complex and worth doing. A visit to anarchist listservs reveals vigorous debates (on most of the ones I’ve looked at, which I won’t list because I don’t want to make a target for hackers).
And speaking of the socialist groups in regard to the immigration rallies, did you catch Todd Chretien trying to give the ISO props for organizing a large part of the rallies? Did you see him using it to tell people to vote for him? Talk about diverting people from the struggle, which is precisely the ISO criticism of the Democrats. Rightfully so, but they’re no better in this sense!
False Logic:
Modern Communists didnt kill modern Anarchists 80 some years ago at Kronstadt.
Not Magon: But Leninist/Trotskyist communists believe in most of the same ideology that necessitated the Tenth Congress to carry out that action. Modern Nazis didn’t carry out the Holocaust, but does that mean they would not do it if they could? (No I’m not equating communists and nazis. That would be reductionist and silly. I’m using the structure of your argument to point out it is not defensible). There are a lot of communists in the group in the Bay Area that gets labeled anarchist. But they are Left Communists, Anarchist Communists, and so on.
False Logic:
If the Quakers organize an event, does this mean I need to denounce their religion since its Chritisan and Christians did bad things a long time ago?
Not Magon: If you believe that the ideology of Christianity is inherently counter-revolutionary, than perhaps you should avoid them. If on the other hand you believe their (I assume you mean the American Friends Service Committee) beliefs and actions are acceptable to you, and that historically their record is mostly positive, you could compromise on your distaste for Christianity and what it entails, and work with them in some way. Similarly, when we look at the stances authoritarian groups have taken and the way in which they interact with the community, we have to decide whether we want to work with them. If we believe they are not working for a society where workers control their own lives, and are instead focusing on strengthening their own ranks, and apologizing for horrible crimes against the working class, we most likely don’t want to work with them. But you can decide for yourself of course!
False Logic:
If Trots organize a protest should I hold them guilty for the actions of Stalin?
Not Magon: This has never been the point! The point is holding them accountable for the crimes of Trotsky, Lenin, and the Bolsheviks for taking over the Russian Revolution and turning it into the party run antidemocratic nightmare it became within days of their coup. I provided a reading list and I suggest you look into this if you want to avoid future embarrassment over your defense of authoritarian groups. It’s not that I think I’m “smart” but that I think if you had read any critical histories on the ideological underpinnings of these groups, you couldn’t see them as a positive.
False Logic:
You can say there is a difference in that some Maoist groups do openly praise Stalin
Not Magon: A good critique has been written: http://www.worldcantwake.org/
False Logic:
You can blather on about how solidarity is bad since appeasing the few hardline Communists will doom us all, but what imagnary world do you actually live in?
Not Magon: Solidarity is good. Solidarity of workers against tyrants, against snitches, police, capitalists, opportunists, state coercion, bosses, trade union and party bureaucracies, and against manipulative authoritarian vanguards. It’s simple. I would say it is you who is being unrealistic if you think united fronts with authoritarians will change anything.
False Logic:
Hardline Communists will never take over the US and pose a danger of being annoying at most. Most of the Anarchist/Communist theoretrical history blather is just blather and may be a wonkish way to show off how smart one is but doesnt relate to the real world where the threat of the Communists is pretty much the same as the threat of the Prussians or Ottomans.
Not Magon: The reality is that authoritarians have become very organized and have succeeded in taking the lead in many aspects of the Left. The ISO alone has at least five or six front groups, from CAN, to SAW, to Campaign Against the Death Penalty, and others. Anyone who has attended a CAN regional gathering has seen the naked manipulation by the ISO (you’d be amazed what a Robert’s Rules and Snehall with a gavel combo can do to crush dissenting opinions). It is totally alienating and disempowering to have the prerequisite to participating be submitting to the ISO party line and agenda. Of course no one has to do these things, but they are the most visible for young people and many others. A real problem is that they consciously work to keep tight control over groups they interact with. CAN did not start as an ISO front group, but became one over time.
False Logic:
You can argue that it doesnt serve activist movements well to have leaders who believe in religious myths like Marxism but you could make the same argument about any religion and purging all such people doesnt make a protest any more mainstream since the public at large is full of people holding strange and intersting views that would alienate people when spoken from stage.
Not Magon: What are you talking about? Marxist theory is just as valuable and essential as anarchist, situationist, ultra-left theory to understanding the world. All were influenced in part by Marxism. But the key is avoiding ideology (in the Marxist sense) where beliefs go unquestioned, and practice doesn’t form any part of what goes back into theory. This is where you start seeing the stifling centralized party lines that dictate authoritarian groups must control the groups they participate in, as they believe they are imparting wisdom on the workers rather than being in real solidarity with them. This is not to say we can’t share book ideas with each other, but I do so in the hopes you might think critically about the scene in the Bay area (and you already do that, to be fair), not subscribe to a doctrine.
Not Magon: I’m not going to argue with your sections on Israel, or anarchists looking at history, because I think they were critically done and thought provoking.
False Logic:
The general public who one hopes to organize en mass once groups like ANSWER are purged of the Reds isnt a blank slate ready to be told the truth of Anarchism.
Not Magon: But as everyone constantly states, the revolution has to come from the workers ourselves, and we have a lot of revolutionary consciousness from our participation as wage slaves. It’s not about the “truth” of anarchism, there isn’t one truth. Each situation has to be analyzed, and sometimes we workers don’t know everything we need to as far as analysis of our own situations, but we keep trying. The recent immigrant rallies, the Muni-Fare Strike, the anti-minutemen organizing done by working class groups have all been positives in my view. While much of the anti-war actions have had positives, they’ve been marred by the controlling presence of the various leftist sects who want the kind of participation from their “members” that doesn’t further liberty, freedom, critical thinking, revolutionary analysis, or much of anything else. A lot of the anger you see toward these groups comes from horrible first hand experiences with having campus groups infiltrated and taken over, and by having sections of the movement taken over and riddled through with authoritarianism. This history is there for the reading if you look for it. It’s not just whacky paranoia, red-baiting, or self-serving egoism.
False Logic: At the last ANSWER demo many Lebanese in the crowd cheered whenevr anything positive about Hezbollah was said from stage... I guess Anarchists could get some Lebanese middle-class hipsters and a mainly white crowd to denounce Hezbollah and Israel at an Anarchist protest but protesting a war but excluding those effected due to ideological differences seems paternalistic an elitism
Not Magon: I’m unclear on why everyone tries to smear anarchists as white middle class (as if either precluded revolutionary consciousness).
1. Anyone who has ever seen the various anarchist contingents at marches sees a broad mix of ethnicities. Sorry to get hung up on ethnicity, but my impression has been that there is a huge latino segment of the Bay Area anarchists. Of the three anarchists I worked with on the Fare Strike at City College, one was “white”, one Middle Eastern, and one African American. I don’t have the data, but my personal observation and experience goes directly against this idea that the anarchists are white middle class. If anything, I would guess the ISO is far more white, and I’m almost certain more middle class than the Bay Area anarchist movement. I think one reason is that they recruit on college campuses, not because they intentionally discriminate (I’m sure the opposite is true). But I could be wrong that college campuses are more white than anywhere else as far as who gets recruited. There are a lot of working class, and people of color on campuses, working their way through school. But I stand by my observation that the Bay Area anarchists do not seem more white than other groupings.
False Logic:
What a group like ANSWER provides is the free time and knowledge of permit processes and logistics (how many portopoties to get, how many food stands are needed ....) to get a large demo groing.
Not Magon: But there is a lot more. They exert a limiting of theoretical range. They put forward a lot of nationalistic propaganda, and this means anti-working class positions. They operate as any centralized party apparatus tends to, with all the negatives this brings. There is nothing wrong with groups federating in solidarity to put up mass resistance, but when a group operates in a top down centralized manner, the problems are too numerous to include here, but have been touched upon in my posts and thousands of others over the last ten years.
False Logic:
There isnt anything preventing a hardline ANarchist group from organzing something similar but there are logistical problems in the Bay Area for several reasons.
Not Magon: Anarchists have been instrumental in organizing quite a lot in the Bay Area. Some of the most successful (and even high profile) food aid to the homeless has been carried out by food not bombs. The Muni Fare Strike, which was at least a partial success despite many faults, was mainly organized by anarchists and ultra-left types, and saw the participation of tens of thousands of people standing up in their own class interests. (For some context, look into the Italian self-reduction movement.) The week long anti-war protests when the war started was not led by ANSWER or any other authoritarian group, and yet it was among the largest and most radical, even though it could have been far more effective and smart about its attempts to “shut down” the city (I include myself in this critique).
False Logic:
The most important reason is that sectarianism and dogmatic hatred of views different from their own would prevent any mass Anarchist demo
Not Magon: There is sectarianism in anarchist circles, but also some of the most authentic diversity of ideas and tactics you’ll find anywhere. The anarchists and left-communists that run in the same circles encompass a much broader range of historical influences than the party line authoritarian groups. You may find it’s a really interesting mix if you ever decide to look into your community.
False Logic:
(since people would openly say they dont want Communists attending, probably wouldnt want groups like the Nation of Islam, might want to prevent Democratic Party linked groups from having banners etc... )
Not Magon: Communists and anarchists work together all the time in the Bay area. But most in this milieu avoid getting caught up in authoritarian socialist activities as they are seen as counter-revolutionary to put it mildly.
False Logic:
But almost as important is the logistical problems and lack of willingness to provide an alternative structure to ANSWER to get people into the streets.
Not Magon: Part of it may be money too. I know that the ISO and RCP have deep pocket donors who enable much of the organizing they do. This is not a judgment necessarily, but I don’t know of any anarchist organizations receiving funding from millionaires, but maybe I haven’t looked hard enough. There are good anarchist presses though, AK being the one that comes to mind. There is a lot of effective anarchist organizing going on. I’ve cited a few examples.
Anyway, thank you False Logic elaborating some interesting positions. To me, they seem far more honest and critical than the clownish ideology of Steven Argue's thimble deep "anti-imperialism".
Sincerely,
Andrew Eldritch (Ooh! What a give away!)
Sorry if it sounded like I was saying all Anarchists were white and middle class in the thing about Lebanese activists. The issue I was getting at was that in the Middle Eastclass and secularism seem tied together; in Iran the hardline Islamists have their strongest support in poor rural communities while the proDemocracy protesters tend to be at least the better educated (if not the children of the wealthy... although in Iran's case the educational system is good enough there are poor youth and even poor women who make it into the Universities and become radicalized). Lebanon is complicated with Christian and Druze cricticism of Hezbollah mixing real fears of a fundamentalist ideology with racist and biggoted views that were openly expressed during the civil war. The UK Guardian had a story a week or so ago about how many educated youth were leaving due to the fear of Hizbollag but the story really was focusing on a Westernized hipsterish elite that one can guess is out of touch with most communities in Lebanon (which is a pretty poor country overall with little in the way of public service to pull people up and educate them). The class thing gets really highlighted during wars when the middle class can leave the country (as tens if not hundreds of thousands did) and can view things in more abstract terms. In this light I can see how ANSWER's "we stand with Hezbollah" type rhetoric seems much more an act of solidarity (especially comming from activists in the US) than wishy washing talk about how people theoretically have the right to resist but anyone who talks favoribly about Hezbollah should be shunned (as can be seen above in comments about Todd and the ISO)
In trems of ANSWER getting in the way of organizing and having more money, I think thats just a myth. ANSWER gets a good amount in donations (more than most small Anarchist groups do) but overall the tech savy portion of the Anarchist scene is wealthier than most of those who donate to ANSWER. Plus the mainstream nonCommunist progressives have a huge amount more money than ANSWER has and some in that community (such as celebrities and people like Soros) donate to random causes single sums larger than ANSWER gets in a year. The ISO may coopt campus groups on some campuses but overall groups like ANSWER dont get in the way of anyone. Its not like in other countries where if you take on some groups turf you are going to get your house firebombed or disappear, if some Anarchists really feel that ANSWER and the ISO prevents mass actions I would tend to see the ANarchists think that at fault since we have much more powerful enemies and if ANSWER can prevent action there is no hope against more powerful groups (like the US government or even the powerful centrist protest movements like MoveOn)
I do give you that some Anarchists are able to work with everyone and have a good attitude about it (for example DASW was great) but lately it seems like all the open Anarchist talk online is just the sectarians and at the last Lebanon protest I didnt see many Anarchists but did see this:
https://www.indybay.org/uploads/2006/08/12/16_a_for_i.jpg
In trems of ANSWER getting in the way of organizing and having more money, I think thats just a myth. ANSWER gets a good amount in donations (more than most small Anarchist groups do) but overall the tech savy portion of the Anarchist scene is wealthier than most of those who donate to ANSWER. Plus the mainstream nonCommunist progressives have a huge amount more money than ANSWER has and some in that community (such as celebrities and people like Soros) donate to random causes single sums larger than ANSWER gets in a year. The ISO may coopt campus groups on some campuses but overall groups like ANSWER dont get in the way of anyone. Its not like in other countries where if you take on some groups turf you are going to get your house firebombed or disappear, if some Anarchists really feel that ANSWER and the ISO prevents mass actions I would tend to see the ANarchists think that at fault since we have much more powerful enemies and if ANSWER can prevent action there is no hope against more powerful groups (like the US government or even the powerful centrist protest movements like MoveOn)
I do give you that some Anarchists are able to work with everyone and have a good attitude about it (for example DASW was great) but lately it seems like all the open Anarchist talk online is just the sectarians and at the last Lebanon protest I didnt see many Anarchists but did see this:
https://www.indybay.org/uploads/2006/08/12/16_a_for_i.jpg
Not Magon: I laughed out of desparation when I saw that anarchosyndacalists for Isreal picture. Amazing! At first I thought, wow some really confused people! Then I thought, maybe these kids are trying to embrace something in anarchism but can't move beyond the Zionism in whatever conservative circles they move in, who knows. Then I thought that there is a sort of half assed rationale for it. If you were taking Peter Kropotkin's "defensist" position, in which he advocated for "supporting" France against German imperialism in World War I, to defend France's inherent revolutionary legacy, you might be able to tie it in your mind to defending Israel against "Islamo-fascism". Of course this is a really bizarre pro-state, nationalist, patriotic, and even pro-imperialist position to take if the people in the picture really think they're anarcho-syndicalists. Other than that, maybe they see the anarchist strains in Israel as somehow justifying "support" for the State. But there are a lot of weird positions that emerge when you talk about Israel. Like I remember seeing an anti-war guy from SF State standing with the pro-war zionists at the anti-war rally because Israel trumped the war for him, and he saw the anti-war side as anti-Semitic. Without going into it, his background was so checkered, that he may be a cointel-pro type person, if he's reading this, he probably knows who he is and this could get really interesting!
My original article had nothing to do with anarchists at all, it had to do with opposing pro-war Diane Feinstein and building an anti-war movement and labor movement independent of the pro-war Democrat Party that is capable of ending the war. I'm sorry that my work upset you so much "Not Magon", but plenty of other people found it useful and did give me positive feedback.
In this thread "Not Magon" seems upset that I was speaking more specifically of Magon's ideas and not talking about anarchists in general. Personally, despite differences with the many stripes of anarchists, I see many anarchists as part of the movement for a better world and would not tend to take the same tone towards you or anarchists in general as you are taking towards me.
"Not Magon", I'm sorry that you did not feel that my previous answer was sufficient, but as I pointed out, I presently do not have the time to answer your lengthy criticisms and misrepresentations of my thoughts.
Perhaps I have time to answer one misrepresentation.
"Not Magon" claims that my logic is, “If the U.S. criticizes Hezbollah, and an ‘anarchist’ criticizes them too, both are equivalent.” I've never made any such claim. To do so would be calling myself a supporter of imperialism since I too criticize Hezbollah. Yet those, like Magon, who criticize Hezbollah without recognizing the murderous nature of the US/Israeli aggression against Lebanon are working in the service of imperialism. This is what I said.
U.S. troops out now! For the labor movement to break from the Democrat Party of war and exploitation and to end the war through building the mass movement in the streets; striking against arms producers; hot cargoing war materials on the docks, trains, and trucks; and building towards a general strike against the war. For the right of military personal to refuse orders and resist this war. For student actions against recruiters, such as those at UC Santa Cruz that have repeatedly driven military recruiters off campus. For building the socialist movement as part of the anti-war resistance today and to ultimately end U.S. imperialism through socialist revolution tomorrow.
In this thread "Not Magon" seems upset that I was speaking more specifically of Magon's ideas and not talking about anarchists in general. Personally, despite differences with the many stripes of anarchists, I see many anarchists as part of the movement for a better world and would not tend to take the same tone towards you or anarchists in general as you are taking towards me.
"Not Magon", I'm sorry that you did not feel that my previous answer was sufficient, but as I pointed out, I presently do not have the time to answer your lengthy criticisms and misrepresentations of my thoughts.
Perhaps I have time to answer one misrepresentation.
"Not Magon" claims that my logic is, “If the U.S. criticizes Hezbollah, and an ‘anarchist’ criticizes them too, both are equivalent.” I've never made any such claim. To do so would be calling myself a supporter of imperialism since I too criticize Hezbollah. Yet those, like Magon, who criticize Hezbollah without recognizing the murderous nature of the US/Israeli aggression against Lebanon are working in the service of imperialism. This is what I said.
U.S. troops out now! For the labor movement to break from the Democrat Party of war and exploitation and to end the war through building the mass movement in the streets; striking against arms producers; hot cargoing war materials on the docks, trains, and trucks; and building towards a general strike against the war. For the right of military personal to refuse orders and resist this war. For student actions against recruiters, such as those at UC Santa Cruz that have repeatedly driven military recruiters off campus. For building the socialist movement as part of the anti-war resistance today and to ultimately end U.S. imperialism through socialist revolution tomorrow.
stevo, what time do we meet & where for the revolution tomorrow?
will i need to bring food/water?
will i need to bring food/water?
O.K. silly, I didn't literally mean tomorrow.
OCTOBER 10, 7:30PM- Debate between Jeff Mackler, Todd Chretien (Green Party), Marsha Feinland (Peace and Freedom Party). Dianne Feinstein (D), Richard Mountjoy (R), and Lea Sherman (Socialist Workers Party) have been invited. PLACE- Socialist Action Bookstore, 298 Valencia St. (corner of 14th St.), SF.
this may be a plea written to persuade the public from reelecting feinstein as the article pointed out that her republican challenger only needs 20%.. what do you think throwing a vote away to some third party loser would do..
comment reposted from Santa Barbara Indy Media:
http://www.sbindymedia.org/mod/comments/update/index.php
comment reposted from Santa Barbara Indy Media:
http://www.sbindymedia.org/mod/comments/update/index.php
Feinstein isn't worth electing. She is a mass murderer.
The people I talked about that are running against her are the only ones worth supporting, and more importantly by supporting their political perspectives for independent action in the streets as opposed to voting for our own oppression you will be participating in the only kind of movement that has ever changed anything for the better in this country.
From the progress made by the militant labor movements of the 1930's and 1940's to the Vietnam Anti-war movement and the civil rights (human rights) movement, and the movements that were born largely out of those radicalizations including the free speech movement, the women's rights movement, the gay rights movement, the Chicano movement, and the environmental movement, none of the gains that have been made in this country have been given to us by the Democrats, they've been won by mass movements that had to fight against the Democrats. This is still true today. Watch what Democrats actually do, not what they say, and have the courage and imagination to vote and work for what we need rather than support more of the same just because the corporate media has convinced you that nothing else is viable.
The people I talked about that are running against her are the only ones worth supporting, and more importantly by supporting their political perspectives for independent action in the streets as opposed to voting for our own oppression you will be participating in the only kind of movement that has ever changed anything for the better in this country.
From the progress made by the militant labor movements of the 1930's and 1940's to the Vietnam Anti-war movement and the civil rights (human rights) movement, and the movements that were born largely out of those radicalizations including the free speech movement, the women's rights movement, the gay rights movement, the Chicano movement, and the environmental movement, none of the gains that have been made in this country have been given to us by the Democrats, they've been won by mass movements that had to fight against the Democrats. This is still true today. Watch what Democrats actually do, not what they say, and have the courage and imagination to vote and work for what we need rather than support more of the same just because the corporate media has convinced you that nothing else is viable.
I'm certainly looking for a good alternative. She's become just another cog in the military industrial machine...
Agreed. I got a great deal of satisfaction voting for another candidate in the primary, and I let her know it every time I email and call her office.
In the end there are factions that see any vote involving Iraq, not matter how well intended, as a pro-Bush war vote.
Recall the addage about throwing out tha baby with the bath water.
Although, I myself agree with (and ussally vote for) the so-called "third party" canidates...
Recall the addage about throwing out tha baby with the bath water.
Although, I myself agree with (and ussally vote for) the so-called "third party" canidates...
Baby with the bath water? Feinstein voted for this Iraq war and every other war since she came into office in 1992. I'd say it is more like throwing out the rotten eggs with the trash.
Yeah, Feinstien has never been a progressive, not even in reformist politics. She has a long record of being prowar, english only, homophobia (she vetoed demestic partners as mayor of San Francisco), procorporations, pro USA PATRIOT Act, pro flag burning amendment, anti-tenent, anti worker. I don't see much baby in that bath water. She's a Lieberman Democrat.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$75.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network