Letter to the LRP from the AL Collective -- April 2004
To the LRP:
Greetings,
We are pleased to have received your latest email. There are responses to your questions embedded in the text.
Yours in struggle,
Peter for the AL Collective
> From : lrp [email address removed]
> Sent : Friday, April 2, 2004 2:15 PM
> To : [email address removed]
> Subject : Re: greetings
> AL Collective
> Boston, Mass.
>
> Dear Comrades,
>
> Thank you for your recent message. We appreciate the renewed opportunity
> to engage in a discussion of elements of revolutionary program and
> Marxist methods in the fight against imperialist war.
>
> To first explain a bit what happened from our end, in terms of
> our previous contact with your group. After our comrades first
> encountered your group at the February 15, 2003 demonstration and
> obtained your leaflet from that day, we made a study of it and sent an
> e-mail, dated February 21, 2003, in response to both your leaflet and
> some of the verbal discussions we had with you on
> that day, intended to begin discussion. I checked with our office
> which is in charge of LRP communications and, according to our records,
> the email was sent out more than once -- with no response
> or acknowledgement received. This hardly rules out the possibility of
> a technical foul up on our end, which, if it happened, we
> certainly regret.
We are very pleased that you responded to us in Feb. 2003, and are similarly disappointed that we did not receive that communication. It is possible that we fouled up on this end. In any event, we are glad to be in communication.
> Rather than rehash further, now that we are back in touch it is
> agreed that a direct written political discussion between our two
> groupings would be very good. The text of our e-mail, from Cde. Dave F,
> is included below for your reference. In terms of re-starting the
> written discussion, a response, on your part, to our e-mail of last
> February, would be most welcome and very much appreciated. As part of
> your response, we would very much like to read more of an explanation
> for the reasoning behind what you now express as a modification in
> your political line toward army rebellion.
We still favor army rebellion, but we advocate soldiers protesting against the war and occupation. Soldier protests carry the potential of rebellion. In the crisis of a full-scale war, the relationship of forces, especially between the soldiers and the officer corps, might have changed very abruptly. The protracted nature of the current conflict, leads us to believe that organized struggle between the soldiers and officers would necessarily involve intermediate stages. (These lines were written before the events of the last few days, which once again raise the possibility of a crisis situation.)
> Of course, if you have, or
> in the future do produce, any more literature or statements which
> address these questions, or any of your political views, we would very
> much like to see it.
We distributed a leaflet in NYC on March 20 of this year. I have appended a copy at the end of this email.
> If you are planning to publish future documents, or
> a regular publication, our office can set up an exchange of
> materials and thus conduct a broader political discussion.
We have no plans for a periodical publication. However, we hope to continue agitating in mass demonstrations. We are also working on a propaganda pamphlet on revolutionary work in reform struggles.
> As you would know, we have a large amount of our material available
> on our website, www.lrp-cofi.org. In addition to criticizing your
> material, we are eager to learn of areas of agreement and disagreement
> between us concerning basic views. Therefore this letter should not be
> taken as proposing a one-sided discussion but is an invitation for
> comrades in your group to comment on our political views.
We appreciate your comradely spirit of discussion. However, in the interests of responding to you in a timely fashion, in this email we will restrict ourselves to issues already presented.
> The only other written statement the LRP has from your group is
> the transcription of your statement at our debate with the SL last May.
> As we understand it, the centerpiece of that intervention was a call
> for "anti-imperialists" to wage an election "campaign of class
> struggle," aimed at encouraging soldiers to rebel against military
> discipline and the war. Can you explain more as to what you mean by such
> a campaign, as concretely as possible?
Roughly, by "anti-imperialists", we mean groups and individuals who stand unconditionally opposed to all wings of the ruling class, who stand unconditionally opposed to all wings of ruling class parties, and who stand unconditionally opposed to all military policies of the ruling class, including those of the UN. Concretely, we do not consider Workers World Party or the RCP to be "anti-imperialist", because they support (sections of) the Democratic Party by offering Democratic Party politicians *friendly* platforms from which to speak. If a group or individual strongly objects to offering *friendly* platforms to bourgeois politicians, there is a good chance we would count them among the "anti-imperialists".
By "campaign of class struggle" we mean a campaign whose agitation and propaganda help to position the working class for a direct struggle for power. Agitation which encourages soldier rebellion/protest, is perhaps one of the most important examples of what we mean.
> A final question: at the debate, your comrade stated that "one of
> the distinguishing features of [the AL Collective] is a positive
> out look towards animal liberation." Does this indicate that you regard a
> stance and/or activities on this question to be an essential component
> of revolutionary program today? And if so, why?
We do not believe that some particular stance or activities on the question of animal liberation are essential to a revolutionary program today. We do, however, regard some specific stances (i.e. the "right" stances) and activities (i.e. appropriate activities) on the question of animal
liberation as *compatible* with a revolutionary program today.
We believe that a workers state and a planned economy provide the only serious basis upon which society may take lasting and significant steps toward animal liberation. We support, and aim to work for, workers revolution, even if it is not immediately apparent that steps toward animal liberation would be taken by a workers government, and even if the condition of animals were made temporarily worse. For us, the success of workers revolution worldwide can never be subordinate to any other issue.
I have attached a leaflet which we distributed in August 2002 related to animal liberation.
> Thank you very much for contacting us, once again. We look forward to> a fruitful discussion.
>> Yours in struggle,>
> Joseph
> for the LRP
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To: AL Collective
> From:Dave F, LRP
> Date: February 21, 2003
>
> Dear Friends,
>
>
>
> We were glad to meet you at the Feburary 15 anti-war demo in
> New York and to receive your leaflet. Your emphasize the need for a
> rebellion in the armed forces as a key element in an effective strategy
> to destroy the imperialist war aims. We would like to acquaint you
> with our view on the military and related questions in the hopes of
> establishing a political dialogue. (Our site is www.lrp-cofi.org But
> it would be helpful to have a street address or pob for your group so
> that we can send you some of our older materials on the military
> question which are not available on our website.)
You may send mail to
[address removed]
> Your leaflet did point out that there are differences between
> today's army and the drafted army of the past. Revolutionists, of course,
> do not like any version of the capitalist army. We are not "for" a
> drafted army as opposed to a volunteer army. However, we do have
> a PREFERENCE for which form of armed force exists (and some
> form of it is inevitable under capitalism). Either a drafted or
> "volunteer" army in these times will generally be composed of people
> from working class backgrounds, certainly among the enlisted ranks.
> But the real and potential level of discontent and rebelliousness will
> be greater among the drafted elements. They are far more open to
> radical and revolutionary ideas about war and society, particularly
> if a war is unpopular and/or going badly.
> The ruling class itself is well aware of this. Rumsfeld got
> caught recently making some offhanded remarks about enlisted men
> not having "value" in Vietnam. He had to beat a retreat on the matter.
> But he was speaking from the heart, and from his point of
> view he was correct. The enlisted forces were a much greater
> liability to the ruling class and its war aims.
> The ruling class is nonetheless forced in many situations of
> large-scale warfare to have to rely on the draft, as in World War II,
> Vietnam, etc. It has been able to get by more recently with its volunteer
> army. But it will have to depend on the draft again since as imperialist
> conflicts and mass rebellions in the world deepen it will need more
> massive human forces. (Ironically, Rumsfeld's strategy of world
> domination will quicken the pace for the drafted army that he is in
> particular fear of).
> Again, we are not "for" a draft, and would not support one.
> But we will not fundamentally align ourselves with a no-draft
> movement, as that in effect posits the idea of favoring a volunteer
> army, even if it doesn't openly say so. We believe this was the basic
> attitude of Lenin and the Bolsheviks in World War I, and that it has
> not lost its validity.
> Of course we'd like to know your thoughts on this.
A draft provides military strength for the imperialists immediately, while a draft army is potentially a liability to imperialism in the future. In war, tempo is a critical factor. Suppose the US is losing a war with its mercenary army. A draft in that case might be critical to an imperialist military victory. Wouldn't it be appropriate to oppose the draft as part of a general defeatism? We raise this question, but are willing to discuss the issue with you further.
> Also, your leaflet makes the point that strikes against the
> war are an important tactic. We agree with this. In general we think
> that a powerful working class movement is essential for stopping
> any specific war plans and that workers' socialist revolution is
> necessary to stop imperialism altogether. In terms of the U.S.> working class, our perspective is that a revolutionary working class
> party is necessary to raise consciousness in the working class about
> the essence of U.S. imperialism, the common enemy of workers and
> oppressed at home and abroad.
> The generally low level of class consciousness in this country
> has been fostered by the treacherous union bureaucracy over many
> decades.
> We believe that a fight within the working class and its
> institutions is vital. The union bureaucracy is a key barrier to workers'
> struggles today. And sp we emphasize the necessity of fighting to build
> a new revolutionary leadership as well as concrete fights to build mass
> actions against the attacks on workers at home, as well as abroad.
> It is no accident that union leaders like President Dennis
> Rivera of 1199 and President Roger Toussaint of TWU Local 100
> were happy to make anti-war statements. So-called progressive
> union leaders are content to bring token contingents to
> demonstrations, such as on February 15. But they
> avoid mobilizing the ranks -- even on basic issues related to defending
> their living standard and job security, much less the overall questions of
> the imperialist attacks. Our propaganda generally connects the attacks on
> workers and oppressed at home with the imperialist war drive. We expect
> that once workers are able to successfully engage in struggles over the
> direct attacks that they are suffering, that they will be gain confidence
> and consciousness and better able to make connections in larger numbers
> between the domestic and international attacks and the need to actively
> fight on all fronts as a class
> Again, we would like to know your thoughts on this.
In the interests of not delaying our response to you further, we will save this discussion for another occasion.
> A possible disagreement between us is that we do not believe that
> the current middle class movement, and its organizations can or will
> play any role in presenting this perspective to the working class or being
> a positive part of its actual struggles. That is a huge subject beyond the
> scope of this letter, but we would hope that you read our critique of the
> current anti-war movement. It is in the Proletarian Revolution magazine,
> which we believe you purchased at the demo. We would be very
> interested in your appraisal of any of our material.
You characterize the anti-war movement as "middle class". We would say that the leadership is class-collaborationist, and restricts itself to slogans which are acceptable to the ruling class, or at least some wing of the ruling class. The demonstrators, however, are in large part wage-earners or members of wage-earner families. We think that it is our duty to fight the influence of class-collaborationist leadership over working class masses, wherever we can. To absent ourselves would be to give a gift to the class-collaborationist leadership. We are somewhat critical of groups that restrict their "fight" against ANSWER etc. to propaganda (i.e. newspapers) which reach only a very small minority of demonstrators, and who shun agitation (i.e. leaflets) which can reach a much larger section of the demonstration. The class-collaborationists, after all, are not restricting themselves to selling newspapers.
We would like to know what your attitude is toward agitation in mass
movements today, with the forces you have available.
> Hoping to hear from you soon,
>
>
>
> Dave F
>
> For the LRP
We are also looking forward to hearing more from you.
Yours in struggle,
Peter, for the AL Collective
On the one hand, the Animal Rights movement, by and large, seeks to advance its goals either through moral persuasion, personal lifestyle changes and boycottism, or through the lever of the capitalist state, i.e. animal welfare laws. On the other hand, to the extent that ostensibly Marxist organizations pay any attention to the issue of animals at all, they generally take up the position that animal liberation might be a social aim of those living under a communist society (i.e. in the far distant future), but poses no serious tasks for the revolutionary period during which the political power of capitalism is overthrown, but before a full blown egalitarian society has become a reality, that is, in the period of a workers' state. Thus, from seemingly opposite political ends, the Animal Rights movement, and most ostensibly Marxist organizations agree on one thing, i.e. keeping movements toward animal liberation and toward establishing workers states separate.
Yet, a planned economy is potentially the most significant lever for animal liberation, permitting the orderly phase out of animal agriculture and drastic reductions in the use of animals for experimentation.
The current anti-war movement has drawn in individuals with a wide range of positions, some of whom incidentally agree with opposition to the US war machine, and with opposition to animal suffering. Such individuals may have been drawn to the anti-war movement from positions of pacifism or opposition to "unjust wars". We seek to transform this incidental confluence of positions into an integrated position, where opposition to US war moves is essentiallly connected to the fight against animal oppression. We seek to transform pacifism into consistent anti-imperialism.
Anti-imperialism means struggle against all wings of the ruling class, which seeks to impose domination by one gang of capitalists or another over the whole world. The most rabid militarists make this aim obvious, but other wings of the ruling class differ from the Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft gang only with regards to tactics and to which corporations will be given the greatest opportunity to loot and plunder.
Anti-imperialism also means (within an imperialist country) struggle against all military adventures of "one's own capitalist class", regardless of the character of the intended target. "The main enemy is at home"! Only if the working class is uncompromisingly opposed to its own ruling class, can it rise to power and establish a workers state and a planned economy.
Only through a planned economy, can the main tasks of animal liberation be accomplished.
If you agree with the perspectives in this leaflet, we would like to talk to you. You may contact us at:
Many protesters against the current war and occupation of Iraq will place their hopes in a victory of John Kerry in the coming elections. Although Kerry has stated that he favors more troops to Iraq, and that he is not opposed to unilateral action by the United States, there is widespread belief that he will not be as trigger-happy as George W. Bush. Kerry will no doubt seek to allay the fears of (former?) European allies regarding the alarming status of US foreign policy, a task that Bush may be ill-suited to achieve. After the bold attack on Iraq, the ruling class is now testing to see how stable its position is. Bush, played a leading role in forcing the military policy forward, and cannot be as successful at mending fences with Europe, or building a popular pro-US movement in Iraq.
However, US politics is not determined primarily by the struggle between the Democrats and the Republicans, despite popular belief. The class of profit-driven businessmen, the ruling class, plays a far greater role in determining the winners and losers of elections than the populace. The media is a privately owned business, and must necessarily express the will of its owners. The media can make or break a politician. It can confer “legitimacy” upon the most dishonest politicians, and it can pillory a politician and bring wide discredit upon him or her.
The ruling class has used Bush to push forward an aggressive, offensive, unilateral military policy. The interests of US corporations have been brazenly pushed, even at the expense of US allies. The US ruling class is interested in testing the limits of its power. But it is also interested in avoiding unnecessarily weakening itself through over-extension. Thus the ruling class alternates between support for administrations which push the limits, and administrations that test to see that the ruling class is still on stable ground. Kerry’s job, should he be elected will be damage control.
What will the ruling class conclude if damage control is successful? They will see that their domination was extended under Bush, and that the risks turned out ultimately to be negligible. Just back a Democrat for a term and relations with France and Germany will be restored to normal. They will conclude that backing Bush was not a mistake, because the apparent risks turned out to be not that serious. Once the ruling class knows that they are on stable ground, that they haven’t over-extended themselves, they will push to continue the war-plans that Bush has so far been unable to complete. The recent history of elected Democratic Party leaders is to fall into line under such circumstances. We need only remember how they voted to give Bush war powers, lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction, and pressed crippling sanctions against Iraq, leading to untold suffering. However, in the event that Kerry fails to fall into line, the ruling class, through the capitalist media, will unleash a vicious campaign to ensure that Kerry is ousted from the presidency at the earliest possible moment, and replaced, once again, by someone willing to continue along the warpath. A Kerry election would be only a short interlude before a new onslaught of US aggression.
To prevent renewed Bush-ite military aggression, the masses must be engaged in effective political struggle. Most importantly, the anti-war movement must reach the soldiers in the field, and the workers in the in their workplaces. The mood of the soldiers is an especially important factor. During the Vietnam war, social struggle in the US fed anti-war struggle by GIs in Vietnam. The US ultimately pulled out of Vietnam, not because 50,000 US soldiers dead was too many, but because discipline in the army threatened to collapse. That was the Vietnam syndrome, and it stayed the hand of the ruling class for many years. The Vietnam syndrome needs to be revived, or we will face new and more serious wars of aggression.
SOLIDARITY WITH IRAQI LABOR
The labor movement in Iraq faces serious dangers. The Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions, and the Union of Unemployed in Iraq have been the target of US arrests. The US has reserved for itself the right to arrest strikers or even anyone encouraging strikes or “disruptions”. Public sector workers are forbidden from joining trade unions. This ban includes workers in the oil industry. However, the danger to Iraqi labor comes not only from the occupation forces, but also from the threat of a theocracy. Political labor strikes were instrumental in bringing down the hated Shah of Iran. However, the theocracy which came to power in the aftermath of that upheaval consolidated its power by repressing the labor movement. The rights of women, and of religious minorities were curtailed, while ethnic minorities, such as Kurds were savagely brought under heel. The labor slogan “an injury to one is an injury to all” urgently needs to be applied in the case of our Iraqi brothers and sisters.
Repression of the labor movement anywhere weakens the labor movement everywhere. The poorer, the more desparate, and the less organized the workers in one land, the more management is able to use the threat of relocation as a weapon against labor in other lands. Significantly more is at stake than bread and butter issues, however. Iraq has traditionally had the greatest separation between religious institutions and the state. Iraq’s history of women’s rights and religious tolerance give grounds for hope. However, recent developments pose the possibility of a theocratic state emerging, similar to that in Iran. Organized labor in Iraq is potentially the most potent force for protecting women and religious minorities from theocratic repression. The labor movement in the US must demand the end to all anti-labor laws enforced by the US and coalition occupation forces, the end to arbitrary arrests of unionists, and the release of any unionists still held captive.
Organized and unorganized workers comprise the majority of the anti-war /anti-occupation movement. However, the movement has a multi-class character. Though few members of management or capital attend demonstrations, Democratic Party politicians play a visible role, and the Democratic Party represents one of the tactical approaches for protecting the interests of capital. It is not wrong for workers to fight in broad coalitions against the occupations of Iraq, Palestine and Haiti, even alongside members of capital and management. But the conflict of interest between capital and labor does not end at the shop gate. In the anti-war / anti-occupation movement, capital aims at restricting the slogans to US out. Capital won’t fight for the interests of Iraqi labor. But US labor must defend Iraqi labor in order to defend itself and to defend women’s rights and religious freedom. Capital, represented by even the most liberal Democrats, won’t support GI protests against the war. But GI protests are among the most effective weapons available for fighting militarism. Anti-occupation capital, represented by anti-occupation Democratic Party politicicans, will lead the anti-war /anti-occupation movement toward support for pro-occupation, Democratic Party politicians. But US labor needs to build its own party. Not one that caves in to the likes of Tony Blair, but one that will really represent the interests of labor and not of capital.
The Democratic Party politicians who speak at anti-war / anti-occupation rallies will not be fighting for organized labor in Iraq or Haiti. Rather, they will try to limit the the issues to simply ending the occupations. The workers movement in the US needs to mobilize independently of the Democraty Party to fight for the real interests of the Iraqi people.