2004-11-28 - 8:33 p.m.
I had a fabulous time the last few days- went to Cap Cod with Jo, Claire, Sevki, Alec and Will- Dinner with Mark's Family on Friday was nice, and hanging out with Mark, Katie, and Bethany until 4:30am-
--
here's an interesting speech forwarded by Calvin:
Speech at Connecticut Anti-War Conference
Central Connecticut State University
November 20, 2004 by Bill Fletcher, Jr.
Text of Speech provided to Portside by Bill Fletcher, Jr.
Good morning. Thank you for inviting me to speak with
you today. I don't want to spend a lot of time
discussing the reasons for the US aggression against
Iraq. Certainly this has been the subject of numerous
articles and speeches, but it includes the US aim at
global repositioning; securing oil; protecting Israel;
making a statement...all of these were contributing
factors.
What I do want to emphasize, however, is that there is
a connection between the Iraq war and the so-called war
against terrorism, though certainly not for the reasons
offered by this Administration. Both the war against
terrorism and the invasion of Iraq represent
significant steps on the part of the US to ensure its
hegemony over the reorganization of global capitalism.
Both efforts, clearly summarized in Bush's original
statement that one is either with the US or with the
terrorists, emphasize that the US approach toward the
reorganization of global capitalism is THE approach
that must be followed. Failure to stay in line means,
as is clear when one reads the September 2002 National
Security Strategy doctrine, the potential to be
declared a rogue state and enemy of the free world.
Both efforts also share in common the basic notion of
crushing resistance. When the Administration is able
to declare any one or any organization to be a
terrorist, generally without any evidence, this
provides a means in order to advance its own agenda.
Thus, the characterization of various organizations
ranging from those in the global justice movement to
the Communist Party of the Philippines, serves to
confuse all observers, perpetuate fear, and result in
the suppression of political opponents of neo-liberal
globalization, irrespective of their political
tendency.
My second point to offer this morning concerns the
recent November 2nd elections. We must keep in mind a
few things: (a)it was 51/48, therefore, it was not a
landslide, (b)approximately 25% of the electorate has
been identified as hard-core right-wing, thus being
effectively unreachable, (c)the issue of 'values' was
and is a confusing matter since the manner in which it
was raised in polls was confusing, and also it was very
ill-defined. That said, the right-wing use of 'values'
gave people who otherwise feel very powerless an
opportunity to influence something in their lives,
(d)the right-wing out-organized liberals and
progressives, and in that sense reaffirmed that the
March 1989 decision by Rev. Jesse Jackson to turn the
National Rainbow Coalition into his own personal
organization eliminated an historic moment to organize
toward a progressive political realignment.
Yet there is one aspect of the election that many
people mention but do not wish to discuss: the issue
of national security. The irony of our situation is
that a President was re-elected who is, essentially,
unpopular. Yet, millions chose to vote for him in the
interest of security.
There are many things odd about this, not the least of
which is that 9/11 took place on his watch and the 9/11
Commission demonstrated that his Administration had
dropped the ball. It is odd as well because we were
sold a bill of goods as to the alleged threat of Iraq
to the USA.
What is both important and, unfortunately, not so odd,
is that people like the so-called 'security moms' made
a choice. The choice was to decide that the security
that all of us thirst after; a security from terror,
can take place at the expense of the rest of the world.
In other words, if security means that the US
overthrows governments, supports coups, blockades
opponents, carries out invasions and assassinations,
then these are acceptable if we are guaranteed
protection. Security for us; insecurity for the rest
of the world. However, this ultimately means
insecurity for us.
Thus, a section of the electorate voted for empire.
They knew what they were doing, and the people of the
world have come to recognize this. While some foreign
observers have seen this as indicating the alleged
stupidity of the majority of the electorate [the
Mirror's headline: how can 59 million people be so
DUMB?], others have seen this as a ratification of
aggression, of empire, of duplicity, all in the name of
national security.
We have been branded and it is with the letter "A"...for
aggressor.
48% of the electorate, or about 55 million people took,
for a variety of reasons, a different approach.
Nevertheless the letter "A" has been burned into our
skins.
The challenge we face is that a significant section of
the electorate voted out of fear and allowed the Bush
team to push all of the right buttons, thereby ignoring
the reality of both the international and national
situation. The Bush administration will utilize this
vote in order to claim a mandate for empire-building
and further aggression.
Before proceeding into a discussion of where do we go
from here, I want to take a few moments to discuss
where is this all headed, for lack of a better term. I
have been doing some studying of fascism for a while,
though it increased after 9/11. Through the insight of
people like Jay Sekai, David Stock and others, I came
to understand Al Qaeda not simply as a representation
of so-called political Islam, but more importantly an
example of clerical fascism. I came to understand the
relationship between right-wing populism, which we have
seen rise in many countries of the global north,
including our own, and possible fascist movements.
I don't think that what we are currently facing is
fascism, but I think that it is a form of right-wing
authoritarianism which is just as dangerous. Fascism
is more than simply right-wing authoritarianism. It is
more than repression. The Left, however, has used the
term 'fascism' to describe any and every form of
right-wing rule to which we object.
In my humble opinion, and borrowing some from the great
theorist Nicos Poulantzas, fascism is a social movement
that in many respects is quite radical in that it
represents a clearing of the decks within capitalism
and the fundamental alteration of the capitalist state
in order to advance the interests of a section of the
capitalist class. Its base is primarily, though not
exclusively, within the middle strata and it arises in
the midst of a political crisis in which a section(s)
of the capitalist class loses confidence in their
political representatives. It does not emerge as a
response to the strength of progressive forces;
actually it is more the opposite, and in that sense is
different from many other forms of
counter-revolutionary, repressive regimes.
We seem to be facing something that, while having
elements of fascism, does not quite fit into that
description. There is no actual name for this system,
at least to my knowledge, though I think of it as a
neo-gilded capitalism or an authoritarian/theocratic
capitalism. What we do not see, at least at this
moment, is a mass movement that is attempting to end
the party-system and end bourgeois democratic
capitalism. What we do see, is a highly repressive
State that is overseeing massive wealth redistribution
from those at the bottom to those at the top, reducing
civil liberties, tolerating limited terms of resistance
and which is supported by a well-funded and highly
organized, reactionary, theocratic movement. This
reactionary, theocratic movement is grounded in a form
of right-wing populism and as such could probably
evolve into fascism, but at this juncture there is no
indication that the capitalist class is in the midst of
a political crisis that they believe that they cannot
resolve through existing means and mechanisms.
This should NOT make us feel warm and fuzzy. There are
a variety of forms of the capitalist state ranging from
social democracy in Scandinavia to Pinochet's military
regime in Chile during the 70s and 80s. We also have a
long history in the USA of extremely reactionary social
movements, e.g., the KKK in the South and their
counterparts in the Southwest (and actually here in
Connecticut, which had a thriving KKK for years!!).
I believe that this developing repressive state
corresponds to the needs of US capital in its efforts
to remake the world, and specifically, global
capitalism as I raised in the beginning of my speech.
In other words, the capitalists are not thinking simply
in terms of today, but also thinking about what is
necessary in order to carry out their global agenda.
Internationally there is intense resistance to
neo-liberal globalization. In the USA this is true as
well, though the resistance is far more dispersed. What
is needed in order for the neo-liberal project to
succeed is immense confusion among the masses, and the
elimination of instruments of resistance, such as
left-wing political groupings, labor unions, as well as
the independent media. The consolidation of the media
and the growing dominance of the loony Right in that
field results in the dumbing-down of the US populace
and the enhancement of right-wing ideological themes.
While fascists, open and crypto, are certainly part of
this effort, and fascism may grow within this manure, I
do not think that this is what has appeared.
What is particularly dangerous is that this
authoritarian/theocratic state is seizing upon the
broad insecurities of the population, but particularly
the white section of the population. We must keep this
in mind since the November elections were not only a
victory for political reaction in general, but also for
racial politics. The insecurity that much of white
America feels is, in my opinion, not simply or solely
about terrorism. Terrorism, in some respects, has
become the focal point for the societal anxieties felt
by white America as their world collapses. The
collapse of the American Dream; the collapse of the
notion that the lives of our children will improve over
our own; the collapse of the bubble of ignorance that
has surrounded us and within which we all too often
found comfort.
I emphasize here the racial aspect largely because
people of color have traditionally lived in terror
within the USA. The micro and macro-aggressions that
we received...The fear of driving while Black, Brown or
Other...The fear that certain neighborhoods were
forbidden.
White America has lived through a different experience,
one largely divided based on class and gender, but it
has not lived through the endless nightmare of racial
terror except in one odd respect: the fear of the
maroon...the runaway slave...the Mau Mau. That is the fear
that those at the bottom of the global ladder would
somehow and someday challenge their subordination and
emerge out of the darkness.
With 9/11, every fear that white America had about its
collapsing world could be channeled into one thing:
SECURITY. Security could mean both their collapsing
domestic world and the fear that the dispossessed were
finally out of control! The right-wing has grabbed
this and fed this fear. Bush knew exactly the buttons
to push. The post- Cold War world has become, in the
words of the Egyptian theorist Samir Amin, an empire of
chaos, and in such a situation, the cry in much of the
United States is for order; not justice...not
understanding...not reparations...not dialogue...but order.
"Order" in terms of the suppression of dissent; "order"
in terms of clarity...the clarity that comes with
AUTHORITY.
Thus, in thinking of the challenges that await us, and
the tasks ahead, we must understand that we build an
anti-war movement at a moment of uncertainty. We build
it at the same time that right-wing populism has become
an important current--again--in US life. With this in
mind, here are my suggestions: The anti-war movement
must be both an independent movement, but must also
insert itself into every progressive social movement:
The strength of the anti-Iraq war movement was its
rapid rise and massive scale in 2002 - 2003. This same
strength was its weakness. While certain movements,
such as organized labor, witnessed the growth of an
anti-war current [US Labor Against the War], the
anti-war movement did not fuse with other movements. In
that sense it was very different from the anti-war
movement that arose around Indochina in the 1960s and
1970s. In the latter case, anti-war sentiment
permeated all parts of society.
I do not raise this as a criticism. I suggest that we
have to be patient, but also strategic. We must
recognize that anti-war sentiment needs to work itself
into every nook and cranny of society and not simply be
something which seems to stand outside of and apart
from other movements. The anti-war movement must have
at its core an anti-empire framework: By this I mean
that while the broad anti-war movement is united around
opposition to the invasion and occupation of Iraq--and
this is a correct point of unity which should not be
violated--the core must understand that Iraq was in many
ways not extraordinary, but represented a certain
consistency in US foreign policy. The core of the
anti-war movement, through education and debate must
help to move the anti-war movement as a whole in the
direction of this analysis. This does NOT mean,
however, the sort of sectarian, arrogant antics that we
have seen where groups raise the level of unity of the
movement unilaterally in order to satisfy some
competitive desire. Our overall approach should always
be to unite the many to defeat the few, which means
that at different times coalitions and alliances will
shift. Some who agree with us on Iraq will not agree on
Palestine or Venezuela. This does not mean that we
ignore them. It means that we recognize the
limitations of the existing alliance while we do what
we can to change it.
We must keep foreign policy alive as an
electoral/political issue: The anti-war movement needs
to take up this question of 'security' which consumed
many voters, and link security to foreign policy. As I
have said many times, the anti-war movement needs to
advance a comprehensive view of the need for a
democratic foreign policy. A democratic foreign
policy is NOT an anti-imperialist foreign policy, but
one that recognizes that we have a weak Left in the USA
and no coherent anti-imperialist movement. But we can
demand a foreign policy that rejects the prerogatives
of empire and strives for cooperation with other
countries and abstains from aggression. This is the
sort of demand that a genuine reform movement in US
politics would make, and it is consistent with the
message that was articulated in the 1980s through the
Presidential campaigns of the Rev. Jesse Jackson and
the National Rainbow Coalition. One cannot wait till
the election year mania arises in order to raise these
issues. I would also suggest that much of this can be
raised by non-profits that are prohibited from engaging
in partisan political activity. This is the REAL
education work that is necessary at the base.
Taking up this question of a democratic foreign policy
is also a means for anti-war activists to directly
address many of the fears felt and held by the people,
but doing it in such a way that we propose answers
rather than talking past the concerns of the people.
We must build local anti-war coalitions that have a
long-term plan: One of the difficulties that we face
is that so much seems to happen at the national level.
We have these national anti-war coalitions that call
national demonstrations. Sometimes these are great;
other times they are a drag. In either case, people are
often exhausted by them.
We must encourage more local activity. Local
coalitions or ad hoc groupings can play an important
role in building the movement. Target certain
districts for educational canvassing; host educational
events in central locations and work those
neighborhoods; train speakers who can attend meetings;
visit shop stewards meetings in local unions; host
cultural programs that have anti-war themes; do
anti-military counseling, discussing with young people
non-military career options; fund raise!
I believe that all of this is eminently doable, but it
must flow from both an analysis as well as a plan of
work. I believe that United for Peace & Justice, as
well as many other anti-war forces are attempting to
embrace such a framework.
Let me end by shifting gears, somewhat dramatically.
We must understand that genuine peace will never come
to the Middle East, and there will never be anything
approaching national security, as long as the plight of
the Palestinian people and national movement is not
settled justly.
When the Darfur crisis arose in the western Sudan,
TransAfrica Forum and many other groups spoke out
directly and immediately in opposition to the ethnic
cleansing that we were witnessing. In fact, there was
a world-wide outcry in response to the monstrous
actions of the Bashir clique in Khartoum, as well as
their allies in the Arab militias.
Yet what disturbed me was that the Western press was
and is highly selective as to which disasters they
cover. We were successful in raising attention on
Darfur, however, few people know that 3.5 - 4 million
people have died since 1997 in the Democratic Republic
of the Congo as a result of a civil war that is often
referenced as Africa's 'first world war.' Few people
are aware of the massacres that have taken place in
Burundi. Few people follow the Colombian civil war and
the ethnic cleansing being carried out by right-wing
death squads against Afro-Colombians.
AND few people treat the Palestinians as if they have
an ounce of humanity. Each day the Palestinians are
subjected to humiliating abuse; assassinations; home
destructions; and countless other injustices, while we
treat this as if it is normal, or in some cases, treat
it as if it is justified.
The Palestinian movement does not have a very well
organized constituency in the USA to support its cause.
The formation, a few years ago, of the US Campaign to
End the Occupation of Palestine was an important step.
Actually, if there is anything for which I am critical
of the Palestinian movement it is that it did not put
enough attention on the development of an international
solidarity movement AND anti-occupation movement
analogous to the work of the African National Congress
and the Pan Africanist Congress in South Africa.
Part of what the anti-war movement must do over time is
to push the envelope on Palestine. No, I do not mean
proclamations or resolutions. I mean that we have to
build strong, organized sentiment in the US which
supports justice for the Palestinian people. Opinion
polls, interestingly enough, seem to indicate that a
majority of the US believes that the Bush
administration is far too biased in favor of Israel, a
poll result I truly did not expect. Yet this poll
result does NOT mean that people are prepared to make
the Palestinian cause a priority issue...certainly not at
election time.
Thus, the anti-war movement has a critical challenge.
Particularly since the invasion of Iraq has been
justified by the charlatans in the White House as
being, among other things, for the security of Israel,
the anti-war movement can and must discuss this issue
of security for Israel, but we must flip the script.
We must look at security and justice for the
Palestinian people and the means through which a just
and equitable peace can be secured for Palestinians,
Israelis, and, indeed, for other peoples of the
so-called Middle East.
No justice for Palestinians and we will instead find
ourselves in the state of perpetual war...indeed
apocalyptic war...that sections of the US political Right
actually dream of as being the goal of their activities.
Thank you.
