[mobglob-discuss] RCP [USA]: On Revolutionaries in the Anti-war Movement

[Macdonald Stainsby]

Because of my general revulsion towards Bob Avakian's style of party building, I
feel the need to make a disclaimer here. THis is probably the first time I have
forwarded his party's materials. I'll take a movement of Avakianists over these
Red-Baiting scum they are replying to.

Q: How do you know the movement is getting somewhere?
A: It's being red-baited by liberals.

I must say, liberals and anarchists are often just as anti-communist as each
other, but anarchists do not get caught up in this sell-out of principle &
witchhunting of fellow organisers. At least, not the relevant ones.

Macdonald

SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
On Revolutionaries in the Anti-war Movement

By the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA

As the drumbeats of U.S. war on Iraq grow louder and more imminent; as new
government measures threaten Muslim and Arab immigrants; as sweeping new big
brother programs threaten massive surveillance on the entire population and the
denial of political rights -- it is more and more urgent to unite all who can be
united against the whole U.S. government agenda that we in the Revolutionary
Communist Party have called a juggernaut of war and repression.


Friend and foe alike acknowledge that a new movement is on the rise to meet
this challenge. We see it taking shape in the powerful "Not In Our Name"
Statement of Conscience, in the tens of thousands who took the Pledge of
Resistance in cities around the country on October 6, in the massive turnout
to the October 26 demonstrations in Washington D.C. and San Francisco, in the
determined youth who took the streets on November 20. Our party is proud to be
part of these efforts, uniting with people from a wide range of views to bring
an urgently needed movement of resistance into being.

In this context, journalist Michelle Goldberg of Salon.com (and a variety of
other voices in the media) have warned that the involvement of revolutionary
communists and radicals will harm the newly emerging anti-war movement.
But will the anti-war movement be more powerful if radicals and communists
are driven from the leadership and something Goldberg and others consider "a
more rational group" moves to the forefront? Will our movement build the kind of
resistance that needs to be built? Will it unite millions to oppose the
terrible injustices being carried out in our name by the U.S. government?
Will it give scope to the deep debate that needs to go on throughout society
on the nature of this juggernaut? Will it stop the war?

No.

In fact, the movement will not be more powerful, it will not be broader, and
it will not be more effective. It will be divided and weak. It will not reach
out to include the "change the world" youth and people for whom life under
this system is intolerable. It won't unite all the people who can and must be
united to stop this juggernaut. And it is really important for people to
understand this.

On one level, there is a certain absurdity to Goldberg's charge: from the
Paris Commune to World War 1 to the French War in Algeria to the Vietnam War,
radicals and communists have played an important, and at times decisive, role in
every movement against an unjust war by great powers. And these movements have
derived their strength, determination and breadth from the participation of the
most committed opponents of the status quo. But we will deal with the charges of
today, in the spirit of doing all that we can at this historic juncture to build
the kind of movement that is needed now.

>From the days after September 11 -- when it became clear that the U.S.
government was using these events to embark on a whole program to forcibly
recast the power relations on the planet -- our Party began a serious effort
to unite with others to build the kind of movement that could rise to these
historic and unprecedented challenges. We recognized the need for new
alliances, drawing on the creativity and commitment of people from many
different political perspectives. And we put forward our ideas on what we
thought this movement needed to be.

In December 2001, in the Revolutionary Worker (RW) newspaper, RCP Chairman Bob
Avakian spoke of the need to bring forward the "vision of a movement against the
war acts and repression of 'our own' U.S. government that is so powerful that it
cannot be hidden from the masses of people all over the world -- including in
the countries and areas that are targets of U.S.
imperialist aggression and are, justifiably, 'hotbeds' of hatred 'against
America.'

"Imagine the inspiration it will provide and the potential realignment it
will contribute to -- with ordinary people worldwide finding common cause
against the oppressors and bullies of the world, first and above all the
rulers of America -- who, it will be more and more clear, do not speak and
act in the interests, or in the name of large, and growing, numbers of
American people themselves."

In editorials in our newspaper and discussions with many organizations and
individuals, we talked about the need for a movement of resistance that could
unite people very very broadly -- from different perspectives, walks of life
and regions of the country -- to stand up and say: "not in our name."

Many people brought their creative thinking and contributions into the mix -
and a common vision and a common basis of unity emerged. This took concrete form
in a powerful statement of conscience, which opened up space for people all
across the country to voice their opposition; a pledge of resistance which has
captured the imagination and determination of hundreds of thousands; and a day
of resistance which signaled a serious Not In Our Name movement.

Our party also supported the October 26 actions in Washington, D.C. led by
the ANSWER Coalition, urging all those opposed to the war to be counted in
the streets -- and it was heartening that so many people turned out. While
our party has significant differences with the Workers World Party, which is
involved in the ANSWER Coalition, we are firmly opposed to the kind of
unprincipled attacks that have also come down against WWP in an attempt to
divide the mass movement against the war.

*****

Goldberg's Salon.com articles, and other distorted accounts, paint a picture
of manipulative "leftists" with hidden agendas in the anti-war movement.
This has nothing to do with reality.

Our party has a strategic approach to uniting with others who do not share
our Maoist politics and ideology. The Not In Our Name initiatives represent
real united front efforts, where people of different perspectives strategize
together and act together to oppose the great injustices that are coming
down. We recognize this united front as a place where we come together with
others to make something new. It is not "ours," it is not a so-called "front
group," and it certainly does not concentrate our whole revolutionary line or
analysis or program. But our vision of the importance of such united front
efforts does flow from our understanding of the need to change the political
climate and alliances in society. We are open and aboveboard about putting
forward our views on the dividing lines and directions of these united front
efforts, and we seek to learn from others.

We believe these are very crucial efforts for the people - they are serious
beginning steps on a path we need to walk together to stop this juggernaut.
Our party has contributed a lot to this process, and we are committed to give
our all to working with those who want to stop this juggernaut.

At the same time, we all need a great debate and discussion, throughout
society -- wrangling over the world situation and what to do about it.
Our party has a revolutionary agenda -- a vision of a radically different
world without classes and class distinctions. But it is hardly a hidden
agenda.

Our party believes that this juggernaut of war and repression is a product of
a political, economic and social system that will keep on causing enormous
suffering for people all over the world until a real revolution brings a
whole new social order into being -- a revolution involving the emergence of
a revolutionary people, where millions see this system for what it is and a
huge crisis in society creates conditions for people to rise up. And from
many different angles, we will continue to share our "independent line" on
this and many other questions, in the great debates within the anti-war
movement and throughout society.

But those we have united in the anti-war movement are not responsible for our
whole revolutionary line and program -- and we are not responsible for all of
their ideological positions. This is another tack by Goldberg and others --
attempting to divide the movement by forcing people to take responsibility
for all the revolutionary views of our party, which they may or may not agree
with. And this cannot be allowed to go down.

What we are all responsible for is to unite all who can be united to resist
and stop this juggernaut.

*****