Comments on: The Anti-War Movement’s Image Problem http://isgreaterthan.net/2008/03/20/the-anti-war-movement%e2%80%99s-image-problem/ An eclectic journal exploring the intersections of culture and politics, art and the free market, technology and science Fri, 29 Aug 2008 00:23:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Pam http://isgreaterthan.net/2008/03/20/the-anti-war-movement%e2%80%99s-image-problem/#comment-1299 Pam Fri, 21 Mar 2008 19:04:51 +0000 http://isgreaterthan.net/2008/03/20/the-anti-war-movement%e2%80%99s-image-problem/#comment-1299 Actually, I think that the war blurs a lot of the issues on the left. For example, an outcry against "U.S. imperialism" is sometimes seen as a progressive act in-itself, or worse, a politics; yet it doesn’t offer much of an insight alone. Wars are never an opportunity to *build* a clear and solid movement, the preparation for a meaningful opposition would have to have occurred beforehand. A politics that rides on the coat-tails of disaster would deny the central role that foresight plays in a progressive politics. A liberal pluralist, a pacifist, and a radical Marxist, can oppose the war, but that's not necessarily a grounds on which to build political solidarity, these three will offer disparate political solutions to the problem, i.e., “Leave Iraq to the Iraqis" (pluralists), "No War is worth fighting for" (pacifists), not to mention that those on the radical Marxist Left today have opted to repeat a reductionist, and *conservative* line, when they argue for the self-determination of the people of Iraq by uncritically supporting reactionary political forces on the ground—forces, that if successful would make it impossible for a radical Left, or even a liberal progressive force for that matter, to take be effective. So, then, I think that the content of what we mean by "progressive politics" needs to be fundamentally reconsidered, and I don't think that looking over these very real political divisions will produce a coherent movement, in fact, it may mean that those on the radical Left with the worst lines but the largest international presence (e.g., I.S.O.) will be propped up by others who have diametrically opposed political positions in the name of a “unity.” My point, and I don’t think it’s particularly original, is that the assumption that everyone on the left is on "the same side," is part of the problem. *How* we make sense of the inequalities that are perpetually reconstituted in our present matters on a fundamental level. In fact, in large part, this is the content of a politics, i.e., how does one deal with the problem of unfreedom. Being on “the side of the oppressed” will not reap a progressive politics in itself--the most oppressed in this world don’t even have basic civil liberties or resources to build a progressive movement. So what responsibility does a progressive left have in this situation? Why support car bombs in the name of anti-imperialism? Why not attempt to build a politics that can challenge both the American right and the Islamic right? Wouldn’t it be crucial for radical leftists around the world to cultivate progressive forces in the region that don’t comply with reactionary forces (of the American *and* the Iraqi kind)? I think we live in a very difficult and confused period with little prospects for transformation, but that doesn’t mean that we should start conceding the right one of the most important resources we have left, historical and political consciousness. Actually, I think that the war blurs a lot of the issues on the left. For example, an outcry against “U.S. imperialism” is sometimes seen as a progressive act in-itself, or worse, a politics; yet it doesn’t offer much of an insight alone. Wars are never an opportunity to *build* a clear and solid movement, the preparation for a meaningful opposition would have to have occurred beforehand. A politics that rides on the coat-tails of disaster would deny the central role that foresight plays in a progressive politics.

A liberal pluralist, a pacifist, and a radical Marxist, can oppose the war, but that’s not necessarily a grounds on which to build political solidarity, these three will offer disparate political solutions to the problem, i.e., “Leave Iraq to the Iraqis” (pluralists), “No War is worth fighting for” (pacifists), not to mention that those on the radical Marxist Left today have opted to repeat a reductionist, and *conservative* line, when they argue for the self-determination of the people of Iraq by uncritically supporting reactionary political forces on the ground—forces, that if successful would make it impossible for a radical Left, or even a liberal progressive force for that matter, to take be effective.

So, then, I think that the content of what we mean by “progressive politics” needs to be fundamentally reconsidered, and I don’t think that looking over these very real political divisions will produce a coherent movement, in fact, it may mean that those on the radical Left with the worst lines but the largest international presence (e.g., I.S.O.) will be propped up by others who have diametrically opposed political positions in the name of a “unity.”

My point, and I don’t think it’s particularly original, is that the assumption that everyone on the left is on “the same side,” is part of the problem. *How* we make sense of the inequalities that are perpetually reconstituted in our present matters on a fundamental level. In fact, in large part, this is the content of a politics, i.e., how does one deal with the problem of unfreedom. Being on “the side of the oppressed” will not reap a progressive politics in itself — the most oppressed in this world don’t even have basic civil liberties or resources to build a progressive movement. So what responsibility does a progressive left have in this situation?

Why support car bombs in the name of anti-imperialism? Why not attempt to build a politics that can challenge both the American right and the Islamic right? Wouldn’t it be crucial for radical leftists around the world to cultivate progressive forces in the region that don’t comply with reactionary forces (of the American *and* the Iraqi kind)? I think we live in a very difficult and confused period with little prospects for transformation, but that doesn’t mean that we should start conceding the right one of the most important resources we have left, historical and political consciousness.

]]> By: halie http://isgreaterthan.net/2008/03/20/the-anti-war-movement%e2%80%99s-image-problem/#comment-1296 halie Fri, 21 Mar 2008 04:53:15 +0000 http://isgreaterthan.net/2008/03/20/the-anti-war-movement%e2%80%99s-image-problem/#comment-1296 I agree with you in your critique of divisive individual and group actions. I think you fall into some of the patterns of alienation that you critique. I don't think the left is ever going to be one unified voice for one unifying change. But I do think we can come together on this one issue (and tack on hating John McCain as a physical representation of the war). But, we need to maintain an acceptance of leftist groups as being diverse and coming from different places with different needs (to which end, your criticisms only further alienate). What I want to hear are more tactile ideas for coalition-building around the one issue the left seems to be unanimously outraged over -- the war. Getting into some kind of unified heirarchy starts to sound conservative (and will most certainly alienate whichever groups do not get the top slot). When it comes to anti-war parties, I'll be at the biggest bash. I agree with you in your critique of divisive individual and group actions. I think you fall into some of the patterns of alienation that you critique. I don’t think the left is ever going to be one unified voice for one unifying change. But I do think we can come together on this one issue (and tack on hating John McCain as a physical representation of the war).
But, we need to maintain an acceptance of leftist groups as being diverse and coming from different places with different needs (to which end, your criticisms only further alienate).
What I want to hear are more tactile ideas for coalition-building around the one issue the left seems to be unanimously outraged over — the war.
Getting into some kind of unified heirarchy starts to sound conservative (and will most certainly alienate whichever groups do not get the top slot).
When it comes to anti-war parties, I’ll be at the biggest bash.

]]> By: ncm http://isgreaterthan.net/2008/03/20/the-anti-war-movement%e2%80%99s-image-problem/#comment-1294 ncm Fri, 21 Mar 2008 00:56:09 +0000 http://isgreaterthan.net/2008/03/20/the-anti-war-movement%e2%80%99s-image-problem/#comment-1294 I couldn't agree more. The current, fractured state of the American political left creates the false perception that this country is fundamentally conservative. It is much easier for conservatives (or any group that defends the status quo) to a single hierarchical system because its position is simple: change nothing. On the other hand, the progressive movement, aggressively advocating major reform, does not seem to have come to a consensus on what the final product would look like. The process of coordinating the efforts of such groups can be a long, painful process of weeding out the "fringe" positions, and isolating the core, consensus issues. This is one caveat to my pessimistic view, as I see it the war provides an incredible catalyst for this otherwise complex process. For anyone who has written a term paper the night before, you will know how motivating pressure can be. Rather then feed divisions among these groups, argue about about the particulars, or otherwise advantage the opposition (the political right) us leftist need to coordinate. Often an inspirational figure is the greatest tool a movement can have, but we have just the opposite, an infuriating, war-monger for oppositoin: John McCain. Can't we all agree that we hate McCain and unite around our common hate. (Hell, seems to work better then love!) I couldn’t agree more. The current, fractured state of the American political left creates the false perception that this country is fundamentally conservative. It is much easier for conservatives (or any group that defends the status quo) to a single hierarchical system because its position is simple: change nothing. On the other hand, the progressive movement, aggressively advocating major reform, does not seem to have come to a consensus on what the final product would look like. The process of coordinating the efforts of such groups can be a long, painful process of weeding out the “fringe” positions, and isolating the core, consensus issues.
This is one caveat to my pessimistic view, as I see it the war provides an incredible catalyst for this otherwise complex process. For anyone who has written a term paper the night before, you will know how motivating pressure can be.
Rather then feed divisions among these groups, argue about about the particulars, or otherwise advantage the opposition (the political right) us leftist need to coordinate. Often an inspirational figure is the greatest tool a movement can have, but we have just the opposite, an infuriating, war-monger for oppositoin: John McCain.

Can’t we all agree that we hate McCain and unite around our common hate. (Hell, seems to work better then love!)

]]>