[Mb-hair] HAiR - 1968 And Still Relevant Today

[richard haase]

its absolutely relevant
but they have to set it now or in the near future
and the war must be a war in the middle east
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Zuehlke" <jpzuehlke at prodigy.net>
To: <mb-hair at islandlists.com>
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 3:49 AM
Subject: [Mb-hair] HAiR - 1968 And Still Relevant Today


> What is it, 1968, that makes it so damn relevant?
>
> I received the following article in my e-mail, and I decided to post it
onto
> the HAiR list because, IMHO, it gives a pretty good comparison between
what
> was going on in 1968 and what is happening now. Especially interesting is
> the information about how the peace movement back then was co-opted and
> divided, with a significant faction being re-captured by the Democratic
> Party, which was almost as pro-war as the Republicans. This schism within
> the peace movement is being repeated today!
> Hope it provokes some thought.
>
>
> Blessed be with peace, freedom, and happiness,
> John
>
> =========================THE ARTICLE===========================
> Anti-war movement at critical juncture
> Into the streets or into the Democratic Party?
> By Richard Becker
>
> What has caused President George W. Bush's approval ratings to plummet to
> new lows?
>
> Certainly his numerous anti-worker and generally anti-people policies-such
> as the proposed privatization of Social Security-have generated growing
> popular opposition.
>
> But without a doubt, the main cause of the deepening sense of crisis in
> Washington is the resistance to U.S. occupation in Iraq. In the 27 months
> since the invasion of Iraq, the world's most powerful military has failed
to
> defeat the armed opposition to occupation. In fact, the resistance forces
> appear to be more numerous, organized and capable than ever.
>
> As the casualty figures continue to rise, a number of secret documents
like
> the "Downing Street Memo" have emerged that prove the Bush administration
> fabricated the justifications for attacking Iraq. The recently leaked
"Memo"
> contains the secret minutes of a British government meeting in July 2002.
It
> reveals that the Bush administration decided in advance to attack Iraq and
> that subsequently "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the
> policy."
>
> Many military analysts, including some inside the Pentagon, have expressed
> the view that the resistance cannot be defeated militarily. This does not
> mean the U.S. commanders have reversed their course. The occupation
> troops-the real "foreign fighters" in Iraq-have intensified sharply the
> repressive and brutal violence carried out against Iraqis in recent weeks.
> The increasingly indiscriminate violence of their counter-insurgency
> operations, however, has failed to halt or even slow the accelerating
tempo
> of resistance attacks. The number of casualties suffered by the U.S.
> military and the Iraqi puppet army has risen dramatically over the past
> three months.
>
> Fissures at the top
>
> The failures of the occupation forces have generated mass discontent over
> the war, and also opened fissures within the ruling establishment. Had the
> occupation been the "cakewalk" predicted by top U.S. officials, we would
not
> hear the criticisms now articulated by some Democrats and a few
Republicans
> in Congress.
>
> These changes in the U.S. political landscape present the anti-war and
> progressive movement with great opportunities. They also sharply pose the
> question: should the movement become the tail to the kite of ruling class
> politicians or should it instead try to develop into an independent
> anti-imperialist movement? The two principal anti-war coalitions in the
> United States take dramatically different positions on this issue.
>
> The movement has the opportunity to reach out to millions of people who
have
> never demonstrated-or even imagined themselves protesting-against the
> government. As living standards erode and health care costs soar, more
> working people have become angered by the war's human and financial costs.
>
> The ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) Coalition wants to develop
> the power of this incipient movement as an independent political force. By
> contrast, the leadership of United for Peace and Justice seeks to
subjugate
> it to the capitalist politicians who speak out against the war. This could
> potentially render the movement harmless and ineffective, no matter the
size
> of the anti-war demonstration.
>
> Pitfalls of looking to the Democrats
>
> It is essential for the anti-war movement to make an objective and sober
> assessment of the various forces in the struggle.
> Since the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, most Democrats and Republicans
> have supported the war and occupation-and they still do. Just a few weeks
> ago, the Senate voted 99-0 in favor of the new $82 billion "supplementary"
> appropriations bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
>
> In the House of Representatives, Democrat Lynn Woolsey recently called for
> Bush to submit a plan within 60 days for the withdrawal of U.S. troops at
an
> unnamed future date. Woolsey's plan also called for the United States to
> turn over the occupation to the United Nations, an organization dominated
by
> the U.S. government, which administered the genocidal sanctions against
Iraq
> for 13 years.
>
> Another recent Democratic proposal called for a withdrawal of U.S. troops
to
> begin by October 2006. A resolution introduced by House Minority Leader
> Nancy Pelosi called for Bush to simply establish "criteria" for troop
> withdrawal.
> Although both proposals were defeated, UFPJ was ecstatic about the
> congressional "opposition" to the war. Neither of these proposals set a
> timetable for complete withdrawal. This is no coincidence.
>
> In reality, Democrats have no more intention of leaving Iraq than
> Republicans. There is near unanimity within the U.S. capitalist ruling
> class-and therefore also among its political representatives-about the
> importance of retaining control over Iraq and the entire Middle East. Such
> domination is only achievable by military means.
>
> But even if substantial numbers of U.S. troops were withdrawn, the U.S.
> plans to establish 14 U.S. military bases in Iraq. The Pentagon hopes to
> build a proxy Iraqi military force to take the place of U.S. troops and
thus
> reduce the political cost incurred by continued U.S. casualties. They hope
> that having Iraqis kill Iraqis will also obscure the anti-occupation
> character of the resistance.
>
> In the Vietnam War, the U.S. government employed a similar tactic of
> "Vietnamization," which aimed to build up the puppet army of south Vietnam
> in order to speed up the withdrawal of U.S. forces. The tactic failed in
> Vietnam and has not been successful in Iraq. No military officials have
> expressed great confidence in the U.S.-created Iraqi army and police,
which
> the resistance has repeatedly targeted, infiltrated and disrupted.
>
> Bipartisan agreement on global domination
>
> Despite a tiny handful of dissenters in Washington-none of whom are in the
> leadership of either party-Democrats and Republicans are both committed to
> the continued occupation of Iraq, just as they are to the continued
> occupation of Palestine, and the control of the entire region. Both
support
> the Bush administration's hostility toward Syria and Iran, and the
> occupation of Afghanistan.
>
> Their bipartisan consensus is not just limited to the Middle East. Whether
> it's Haiti, Colombia, Venezuela and Cuba in Latin America, North Korea and
> the Philippines in Asia, or Sudan and Zimbabwe in Africa, the Democrats
and
> Republican stand together, committed to aggression and intervention in
> pursuit of global hegemony. They disagree only on tactics-on how to best
> achieve their shared objective.
>
> This understanding is an essential element of the anti-imperialist outlook
> of the ANSWER Coalition. ANSWER believes that it is critically important
for
> the developing anti-war movement-particularly inside the United States-to
> consciously stand against imperialism and in solidarity with those who are
> resisting U.S. domination. Without this understanding, the movement will
be
> constantly subjected to manipulation by the liberal and conservative
> factions of the ruling establishment.
>
> The drive toward war and domination is built into the capitalist system.
It
> is not a mere option that can be chosen by some presidents and legislators
> and rejected by others. Moreover, all U.S. leaders assume that the United
> States has a natural right to be the world's dominant power. All of them,
> regardless of party affiliation, vote annually for a Pentagon budget that
is
> larger than the combined military budgets of all other countries on the
> planet.
>
> The already monstrous military-industrial-banking-oil complex grows
> regardless of whether the Democrats or Republicans hold the majority in
> Congress, or control the White House. That war machine demands
ever-greater
> markets for capital and goods, and occupies an increasingly central role
in
> the U.S. economy. Without its massive war sector, the U.S. capitalist
> economy would be in far deeper crisis than it is today.
>
> Likewise, regardless of which capitalist party is holding sway, the drive
to
> maximize profits marches on-cutting workers' wages, benefits and social
> programs, busting unions, degrading the environment and diminishing civil
> rights and liberties.
> Placing the leadership of the people's movement in the hands of the
> Democrats can only lead to demoralization and disorientation. Although
> Republicans are commonly associated with barefaced exploitative policies,
> the Democratic Party has played a special role in preserving the same
> exploitative political and economic system.
>
> The Republicans are openly the party of big capital and business, which
> thrives off a voter base that is comprised of the most reactionary,
racist,
> sexist, anti-labor, homophobic and national chauvinist elements in
society.
>
> Similar financial and corporate interests control the Democrats, who
> nonetheless promote themselves as the party of the "common people." The
> Democrats perform a key function in the U.S. political system-absorbing
> millions of activists from progressive and radical movements.
Historically,
> they have drained away resources and activists from militant movements,
> rendering them relatively harmless to the system.
>
> 1968: 'Get clean for Gene'
>
> The year 1968 provides a dramatic example of this phenomenon. The anti-war
> movement experienced qualitative growth in 1967, with huge demonstrations
in
> the spring and fall. At the end of January 1968 came the dramatic Tet
> Offensive, a turning point in the war. The conditions existed for a wide
> broadening of the movement.
>
> At that time, Eugene McCarthy, Democratic senator from Minnesota, running
on
> a mildly anti-war program that called for "negotiations" rather than
> withdrawal, launched his primary campaign against the incumbent Democrat,
> President Lyndon Johnson.
>
> Thousands of newly activated youth rallied to the call to "Get Clean for
> Gene." Getting "clean" wasn't just about grooming habits; it was about
> playing down radicalism to be more appealing to so-called
> "middle-of-the-road voters."
>
> McCarthy's strong showing in the 1968 New Hampshire primary and Johnson's
> decision to quit the race proved that opposition to the Vietnam War was on
> the rise, and could have spurred the movement's most massive popular
> outpourings yet.
>
> Instead, tens of thousands of activists were drawn into the McCarthy
> campaign, and even larger numbers to Robert F. Kennedy's bid for the
> presidency. Kennedy's position on the war was similar to McCarthy's. These
> campaigns were both short-lived.
>
> On June 5, 1968, Kennedy was assassinated after winning the California
> primary. McCarthy's campaign had already lost momentum by that point, and
> the Democratic nominee became a pro-war candidate, Hubert Humphrey, who
lost
> in the general election to Nixon.
>
> Due to the election campaigns of the mildly anti-war Democrats, there were
> no nationally planned mass anti-war marches in 1968, unlike 1967 and 1969.
> There were many independent, local and increasingly radical anti-war
actions
> in 1968, but the main anti-war coalition did not initiate national
actions.
> The largest anti-war protest in 1968 took place in July, outside the
> Democratic National Convention in Chicago. On the orders of the Chicago's
> Democratic mayor, Richard J. Daley, Chicago cops viciously attacked, beat
> and jailed the demonstrators. Many of the same young people who a year
> earlier had marched in the streets alongside those beaten outside, watched
> it all take place from inside the convention center.
>
> Once the election was over, the anti-war movement was able to regain its
> momentum. Huge protests took place in the following years. But 1972 was in
> many ways a repetition of 1968, as large numbers of anti-war and other
> progressive activists entered McGovern's presidential campaign. While
there
> were many militant protests in 1972, there were no mass anti-war marches
> that year, as there were in both 1971 and 1973.
>
> September 24 and the anti-war movement
>
> By early May 2005, it was apparent that the rising level of resistance in
> Iraq, and the growing popular opposition to the war and the Bush
> administration's policies had again created the potential for large-scale
> protests.
>
> On May 12, the ANSWER Coalition called for a mass, unified anti-war
protest
> in Washington, D.C. to take place on Sept. 24. ANSWER's call is clearly
> anti-imperialist, with a central slogan of "Stop the War in Iraq-End
> Colonial Occupation from Iraq to Palestine to Haiti." It also raises
demands
> related to U.S. intervention and threats against a number of other
countries
> being targeted by Washington, and links the international struggle to the
> fight against the racist, anti-immigrant, anti-labor offensive and attack
on
> people's rights in the United States.
>
> Eleven days later, UFPJ leaders issued their own call for a Washington
> demonstration on the same date, focused almost exclusively on the Iraq war
> and its impact at home. In its first statement regarding Sept. 24, UFPJ
> announced that under no circumstances would it agree to hold a united
> demonstration with ANSWER.
>
> Since that time, it has become apparent that the UFPJ leadership is
veering
> to the right. On the UFPJ website, graphics of an American flag, the
Statue
> of Liberty and the Capitol building, mix with rapturous praise of members
of
> Congress.
>
> The UFPJ leaders are preparing their coalition and anyone else they can
> bring along for the 2006 elections, when their cry will be "Take Back
> Congress"-i.e., regain Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. This
> orientation is as fatal for the progressive movement now as it was in
1968.
>
> The only way to end the occupation and radically change the political
> climate inside the United States is to build a united mass movement
> independent of bourgeois political parties and their anti-working class
> policies.
>
>
>
> (Articles may be reprinted with credit to Socialism and Liberation
magazine.
> Reprinted from the Socialism and Liberation Magazine Web Site
> www.socialismandliberation.org/mag
> Published by the Party for Socialism and Liberation
> National offices: SF: (415) 821-6171 DC: (202) 543-4900
> E-mail: info at socialismandliberation.org
> www.socialismandliberation.org/PSLsite)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mb-hair mailing list
> Mb-hair at islandlists.com
> http://www.islandlists.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mb-hair