I thought that Christopher Hitchens made a good point about the "Left" (who we call the pseudo Left) in that first they came to sit on the fence and once this became a habit then all was lost. Supporting the status quo might be alright for the Right but fatal for the Left.

Reflecting on where the rot set it, I have come to the temporary conclusion that much of the "Left" was forced by events to adopt a status-quo position. Thus, it neither really opposed nor welcomed (with some exceptions in both cases) the historic anti-Communist revolution of 1989. It sat on its hands during the Balkan conflict. It could find no voice in which to discuss the urgent challenge of holy war. When it came to Iraq, you could even hear leftists saying that an intervention might "destabilize" the region: a suggestive choice of term from supposed radicals, suddenly sounding like Kissinger Associates.  

 

Much the same has become true on other fronts, with people essentially saying, on things like Social Security; just leave it the way it is. Even the environmental movement seems to resent modernity and be nostalgic for agrarianism. I'm perhaps over-speculating here, but another trope of "anti-Americanism" could be one that resents the United States as the country par excellence of disturbing change and innovation and, via regime-change, of revolution. The Right often makes a version of this mistake, as with stem-cell research and Buchanan-type isolationism and nativism. But the Left is really doomed if all it wants is a quiet life.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11241

The pseudo Left found it hard to welcome the intervention of NATO in the Balkans against "ethnic cleansing" (genocide) and the intervention of the US (backed by the UN) in the first Iraq war because this meant supporting imperialism in some way.

Unfortunately for them the world is more complex and requires more thought than reflexive anti-Americanism.

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Can I recommend a book by James Mann, Jim Mann of the Los Angeles Times written a very good book. It's got the rather vulgar title of The Rise of the Vulcans. It's an examination of the neo-conservative tendency in Washington and within the Republican party. And actually it takes on the question of Wolfowitz versus Kissinger very well. It's the only book I know of that properly does do it. Wolfowitz and Kissinger disliked each other and disagreed very strongly with each other for a long time. I think the origin of the disagreement and the origin of Wolfowitz's political career is that he argued it was important to dump the Marcos dictatorship in the Philippines. Base or no base, let it go and take the chances that this would have a ripple effect in the rest of Asia, which was just what Kissinger didn't want. As a result, there were outbreaks of democratic insurgency, starting with the Aquino election, in South Korea, in Taiwan, eventuating in Tiananmen Square, in fact, in 1989, which of course, Kissinger also opposed and took the side of the Chinese Stalinists. On the Middle East, the victory of the neo-conservatives is very paradoxical, because contra Bush, Eagleburger -Ð Bush Sr., that is -Ð Eagleburger, Scowcroft -- I've just mentioned, by the way, the two leading members of Kissinger Associates -- and others, Colin Powell. The argument of the neo-conservatives, or at least of the Wolfowitz wing, was, "We can't go on like this, running the Middle East as a kind of political slum of client states. We have to take the chance that destabilization would be worth it in the long run." That's what, that's still why the extreme right in the country, people like Buchanan and others, oppose it. Precisely for that reason. They and the pro-Saudi conservatives.

AMY GOODMAN: Christopher Hitchens.

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: To the extent I'm a neo-conservative, it would be because they're the only ones willing to take the radical risk of regime change.

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: I couldn't quite say that, partly because of the clip you did just show. I mean, there is a division within the neo-conservative movement, which is, by the way, one of the tests of its authenticity as a tendency. I would say I was a supporter of Paul Wolfowitz, though, if you want that answer from me.

AMY GOODMAN: Yes.

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: And I feel I can illustrate what I think is the difference. There was a lot of argument about the relationship between Iraq and the Palestinian question. Now there are some of the neo-conservatives, I think, thought by taking out the main rejectionist dictatorship in the region, they would make Eretz Israel, or Greater Israel, more secure, or more feasible, alternatively, whether you think Greater Israel has been achieved or not. There were others of the same kidney, if you wish, where Wolfowitz and others took exactly the opposite feeling. If you took out the rejectionist dictatorship, you were in a stronger position to bring the leverage on Israel about the settlements and about expansionism, especially at a time when the Likud party itself is beginning to abandon the ultimate dream of Eretz Israel. I think it's very seldom noticed about this election, especially on the left, and this surprises me and I dare say I might even get Tariq's half acquiescence on this point. If you care about the rights of the Palestinians, which I do and I know he does, and you do, there's absolutely no reason whatever to hope for a Democratic victory in November. It's quite obvious to me that the only chance they have is a Bush second term. The possibility that some pressure can be brought in Israel from this quarter, the only quarter that counts, increases if Bush is re-elected. It's an irony, perhaps, but it's not as much of a lousy irony as it would be if the Kerry-Edwards ticket was elected, because that's a more or less straight AIPAC-Likud ticket.

On another forum, I recently criticised Resistance, the ISO etc in the following terms. I was accused of 'red-baiting'. I did not reply, because that forum is a place to build a progressive movement, and a vast majority of the people there are under the illusion that the SWP/DSP etc are progressive.

I would appreciate your views as to wether these views are justified, or if they are in fact 'red-baiting':

I really distrust and fear Resistance. I think they are undemocratic and are full of people whose intellectual ancestors put the interests of another State above Australia's. That is to say, they were slaves
to Soviet foreign policy. I also think they have an arrogant contempt for the average working stiff.

Of course we may need to work with them now and again, so I will invoke the 'keep my mouth shut to advance the cause' rule when in public with or for the Tank.

But don't _ever_ stop looking over your shoulder when they are around.

Resistance are VERY good at convincing other activists to work with them in the name of 'solidarity', but they bring very little to the table.

Their newspaper will never reach a mass market, their propaganda is ALWAYS angry (maybe a bit of hopeful stuff now and again would make people more interested), and their organisation resembles a cult.

When we formalise our structure and have voting members, I would be dead against ANYONE from Resistance, Socialist Alternative, the DSP (or the Socialist Workers Party, for that matter) being a full voting member. If we have to work with them, we have to work with them. But we should ally with them as outsiders, NOT invite them into our home.

I guess that is the problem. I can't come out swinging like I'd like to on that forum because there are people there that I think are very useful, but who are not prepared to attack the swampies/pseuds.

While I agree with much of what people have said on this site re the 'pseudo-left', your views are unfortunately far from what the mainstream of left people /progressive people/people who watch 'Secret Life Of Us' think.

The worst anyone is prepared to say publicly is that we 'differ on tactics'.

On the bright side, I think I am finding people who are excited by the resources and tools and oportunities that capitalism provides us, in its desperate lust for profits. In the long term I would expect people like that to move far far ahead of the 'usual suspects' in success and understanding.

But since I'm not prepared to split that group, I have to pull my head in.

I certainly think that a good current plan is to run a propaganda campaign that is full of hope instead of the anger that the psueds promote with their 'pull the evil baby-killing troops out of Iraq now' line.  At least get people noticing that there _IS_ a split in the Left and force more people to take sides, or at least think.

Maybe you should adopt the name 'Commies for Bush'. Inaccurate and stereotypical I know, but it would at least make people do a double-take/

 there are people there that I think are very useful, but who are not prepared to attack the swampies/pseuds..............The worst anyone is prepared to say publicly is that we 'differ on tactics'.

Youngmarxist               ‘I certainly think that a good current plan is to run a propaganda campaign that is full of hope instead of the anger that the psueds promote with their 'pull the evil baby-killing troops out of Iraq now' line.  At least get people noticing that there _IS_ a split in the Left and force more people to take sides, or at least think.’

Patrick.            Take a side yourself!  For example there has just been a debate between Hitchens and Galloway.  Read or listen to it, then tell your comrades what you really think.  Is Galloway part of the progressive left?  Do you think Galloway ought to be praised or exposed?  Write an article exposing him, if that’s what you believe ought to be done.  More importantly, expose the thinking in your milieu that is apologizing for him, or concealing and distorting what Hitchens has exposed about him!  Before you publish it show it to someone who will help you with criticism, and then revise it.  Then set it aside and do some research on something else for a week.  Then come back and revise it again.  Then publish it and be prepared to defend or change your position.

Why encourage others to take sides when you are not explicitly defending all those people with the purple stain on their fingers?  These are the Iraqi masses, whose legitimately elected representatives have requested the coalition troops to stay and continue training the forces of the new Iraq.  They are requesting that the Coalition stay and attack the Baathists, and Jihadists, along side of the now well armed democratic forces in Iraq?  Take a stand with them.  Defend the bourgeois revolution!

For an isolated ‘young Marxist’, there is no excuse for not supporting and defending this revolution and building unity with all democrats, while presumably advocating a second revolution when it genuinely comes onto the agenda (one that is built on the shoulders of this first revolution).  You cannot be a Marxist without being a Communist and you cannot be a Communist without being a democrat.  

Any Marxist (young or old), ought to familiarize themselves with some of the writings of Marx, and Engels on various wars in order to think through  the full spectrum of issues faced by modern Marxists when thinking about whether to leave the Iraqi masses to their fate, or whether all the forces that can assist them should be encouraged to do so.  I think the evidence for what progressive people ought to do in the face of Baathists and Jihadists is overwhelming.  Unite with Middle Eastern progressives!

This current ‘pull the troops out now’ line is exactly the same as the WW2 type of dribble, largely heard from the isolated Trots, about not being able to unite with British and U.S. imperialists to defeat the fascists etc.

In this site, as but one example, (although I am prejudiced and think it’s the best example), you have access to a trove of material that goes unanswered by your ‘progressive’ mates, because there are no answers that they are making that cut it.  You have the likes of Hitchens, and many others on left ‘pro-war’ blog sites to read, think about and apply.  It is no good knowing this stuff without applying it. 

Youngmarxist               ‘I guess that is the problem.  I can't come out swinging like I'd like to on that forum because there are people there that I think are very useful, but who are not prepared to attack the swampies/pseuds. 

While I agree with much of what people have said on this site re the 'pseudo-left', your views are unfortunately far from what the mainstream of left people /progressive people/people who watch 'Secret Life Of Us' think.’

Patrick             Who gives a fuck what the mainstream of the ‘left’ think!   No progress would ever be made if people, who know better, continue to shut up and refuse to just state their views and develop them in debate.  None of us are here to watch the world go round, and you could not be any type of Marxist without knowing basics about telling the truth.  Read ‘Combat Liberalism’.   

If nothing else, trust to this; there is no time to cut slack to the dishonest.

Youngmarxist   ‘The worst anyone is prepared to say publicly is that we 'differ on tactics'.On the bright side, I think I am finding people who are excited by the resources and tools and oportunities that capitalism provides us, in its desperate lust for profits. In the long term I would expect people like that to move far far ahead of the 'usual suspects' in success and understanding.  But since I'm not prepared to split that group, I have to pull my head in.’

Patrick             My gut advice to you is to ‘Unite and don’t split’, and develop a complex mind.  Try to write critically, but, for the sake of developing a broader unity.  Try not to single out individuals unless absolutely unavoidable, because the problem is generally a widespread lack of method in the context of a lack of genuine revolutionary education.

Youngmarxist               Maybe you should adopt the name 'Commies for Bush'. Inaccurate and stereotypical I know, but it would at least make people do a double-take/

Patrick             Now that you have done a double-take, why not tell us something about what you think, other than the discovery that ‘Resistance is useless’, and that they are a dopey, cultish type organization that has nothing to do with developing independently minded, critically thinking revolutionaries, who are able to solve problems for themselves as they genuinely unite with others. 

Yes we know their newspaper is unreadable and that they only participate in things in a dishonest manner, with the purpose not of really developing that particular issue but to get a platform for their people (how many times have we seen them try to do a little ‘branch stack’ in the all too friendly progressive ‘party’).

Have a look at the way they reported the Neither! Issue in the 1996 Australian Federal election and compare that to the mainstream press.  That is just an example of how even a handful of people with a genuine issue can outflank these anything but progressive pests.

Anyway let us hear what you have to say for yourself. 

How goes the world Youngmarxist?                        

Hi Young Marxist,

Sounds like you have a few difficult decisions to make. I like the way Patrick describes the process by which you can do that and see no point in reiterating it.

You have obviously made a start on this as your post and browsings through the site indicate. Be mindful of the fact that your struggle for clarity and direction will have two aspects; one will be external, the other internal.

The external is perhaps more obvious - the swampies and pseuds presentation of reactionary or conservative ideas and methods as progressive or revolutionary - and there is no substitute to the kind of process that Patrick is describing. And making yourself unpopular with some (perhaps many) in the process.

Which brings me to the second aspect, the internal. No-one likes a whistle blower or trouble maker; they make us confront things, usually about ourselves and our shortcomings. It may be on matters of political line/analysis or on exposing some of our primary motivations for our being in a group as not so enobling. Like needing to belong to something, to be accepted and liked by others when the price for that becomes too high - like losing our critical faculties and becoming a paid up yes person/swampie/pseudo/whatever, ourselves.

 It's the image Brecht writes of in his poem The Swamp and its worth a read. So in upping the ante you will need to be prepared to take some heat and to confront some of your own motivations in wanting to stay in your group (should these get in the way of the politics you believe in), eg. being sent to Coventry and having people accuse you of being bad, unworthy etc.

But if you want to be a Marxist being on the outer from time to time and saying unpopular things is part of the job description and this understanding has been around along time. So, good luck with your struggle. I'm sure people on this site, and others too no doubt, would be happy to support you in it if that is what you would like. In the mean time let me leave you with the words of Gerard Winstanley the most radical voice of the English Revolution circa 1650:

"Freedom is the man who turns the world upside down and he therefore maketh many enemies."

TomG

I saw many friends and the friends I loved most among them

helplessly sunk into the swamp.

I pass by daily.

And a drowning was not over in a single morning.

This made it more terrible.

And the memory of our long talks about the swamp,

which already held so many powerless.

Now I watched him learning back

covered with leeches

in the shimmering softly moving slime

upon the sinking face the ghastly blissful smile.

Thank you all for giving me so much to chew on.

I'll answer your questions in the order they appear on the posts above.

Keza: The forum is called the 'Progressive Think Tank' and it is based in Brisbane. It grew out of the Brisbane Social Forum. I joined it because the convenor/driving force, a bloke called Scott Nicholas, asked a question at a heated discussion on mainstream and alternative media. His question was

"Does anyone know how much money it would take us to start our own radio station".

Its not so much that I have dreams of a Left radio station as such. Its that a persom who could ask that sort of question is clearly thinking about real power and how to get some.

The group is so new that I do not know how many people have sympathy with my views. I suspect that many people are somewhat blindly following the anti-American line on the Iraq war, partly out of habit and partly because no other Left line is widely heard.

I have already had an angry argument with a fool about the correct use of the word 'fascist'. He was using it to mean 'Evil' or 'Something I hate' and he specifically described suicide bombers in Iraq as 'anti-fascists'. I mean, _really_!

While I am quite happy with the intellectual line I took, I think I went in too hard and appeared to be bullying the stupid.

I am also causing arguments by my organsing style. After four or five people expressed interest in bringing an Israeli peace actvist to I said 'lets do it, I'll kick in for air fare and these are the things we had to organise.

Scott then asked me to organise the visit, but a stupid hippy has been attacking me for not using consensus style decision-making. While I am prepared to submit policy decisions (that is, anything that committs the Tank to a public stance) to the group, I am NOT going to consult on the design of the posters.

This is not a major problem, as the group seems to prefer someone to go ahead and just do the work *(for a change!) but it means that I don't want to march in with a 'you need to agree with all my arguments' stance when we talk about theory. I especially don't want the lesser-informed to feel too intimidated to engage with my ideas.

So I'm not prepared to start a war of words with the swampies yet. In any case, once people get a taste of them, they will agree with my stance, I am sure.

I suppose when I talked about 'pulling my head in' I was referring to style rather than content.

For instance, I am thinking of starting a debate about the level of consent required before launching a war of liberation. I have got this idea from posts on this site talking about asking the Iraqi left for their opinion, and also from Hitchen's comment that he has made 'many comrades in the Iraqi and Kurdish Left'.

A debate like this could raise the standard of argument from the hate-America reaction that I see all around me, including in some good people. I'll have to start looking for some Kurdish and Iraqi voices to talk to Australians.

I know Secret Life is not very radical, (but I am not sure about the word 'mainstream' when you consider how many conservative shows are on the screen). I use Secret Life viewers as a rough rule of thumb to work out how many people in Australia might be open to arguments based on justice or fairness.

Patrick:

Have listened to the entire Hitchens-Galloway debate. Galloway is scum. Even if I eventually decide that the Iraq war was NOT justified, I will STILL think Galloway is scum. His comments about the dictator of Syria remind me of something sci-fi Robert A Heinlein (hardly a leftist) said:

"Rolling with the punches means accepting the inevitable, it does _not_ mean stooling for the guards".

I think the best way to approach such an article as you suggest is to keep repeating the allegations that Hitchens has made that Galloway refuses to challenge in court.

I agree with your comments about the purple stain. 8 million people defied Baathist and al-Quaedist terror to vote - they risked their lives. To start with, I will express these views as my own, not as a proposed policy of the Tank. You are right to say that if I want to call myself a Marxist I must defend the anti-feudal, anti-clerical revolution that the USA has helped to bring to Iraq.

I think that your words:

"You cannot be a Marxist without being a Communist and you cannot be a Communist without being a democrat"

need to be heard by all leftists and beyond. Otherwise people will keep on thinking that Marxism is what happened in Soviet Russia from 1953-1989.

I will read 'Combat Liberalism' the first chance I get. I will start looking for it on marxists.org

The reason I am concerned about the mainstream of the left is that people make their decisions on style as much as substance. I do not want to lose a single listener by saying these things in a way that will drive people away BECAUSE of the style. Of course, if they are driven away because they refuse to engage with a serious level of discussion, tough luck. But I want to help convert the good people who have not thought these things through.

And for what I think:

1) We will have to ride the capitalist revolution until the great mass of the people in the Western world do not accept it, or until the great mass of the population of the Third World rise in a war to liberate themselves.

2) Until such a revolution happens, we should encourage people to demand the liberal rights supposedly provided by capitalism, and to extend and defend those rights. I suspect there will be no revolution untl the people have squeezed every last drop that they can out of capitalism.

3) We should start running large businesses ourselves.

Firstly this is so the capitalist can become our 'ammunition carriers' and we can build the capital we need to buy tools and build organisations.

Secondly, we should encourage our workers to demand self-management. This will take a long time, as I think most workers just want to retire, or just have a 'decent' boss. They don't want the bakery, they just want more bread.

But if we start off workers in the habits of managing industrial enterprises then:

a) They will grow in expertise and power and responsiblity

b) The disease will spread, everyone will want to work for us and we can start showing people the ways in which capitalism fetters human productive power.

4) The appalingly low level of intellectual debate must be changed. The attitude "If I feel it, it must be true", which I suppose is a holdover from the sixties, must be destroyed. People at high schools must learn to debate at a level which would be considered postgraduate level today.

5) I must study economics, about which I am lamentably ignorant.

6) People need to study military affairs. If we have a revolution, the odds that we will provoke a fascist backlash are high (almost certain). Chanting "No Blood For Oil" won't cut any ice then.

7) We need "independently minded, critically thinking revolutionaries, who are able to solve problems for themselves", as you said in your post.

8 ) The Left needs to keep asking itself "What would I do if I had to solve this problem?" If we get where we SAY we want to get to, then we will need to actually run things and make decisions. Being the most active protesters in the world will be quite useless in that situation.

I am going to start a discussion thread on what we would need to do, for instance, in a situation like Hurricane Katrina. I know its corny, but we should steal the slogan "Be Prepared" from the Scouts. We need to start thinking and acting like people who actually expect to be in power one day.

Tom: Thank you for your words of encouragement. In the long run I don't think I will be sent to Coventry. In the long run I am sure that I can convince the vast majority of Leftists that these ideas MUST at least be grappled with. And who cares what the Swamp thinks?

The internal journey is very important. I will need to be careful of my bullying tendencies, making sure that I am not attacking someone JUST because I enjoy it. That would both be bad in itself, and lessen my effectiveness.

Thank you all once again for your feedback. It is most stimulating.