Thanks to Jim for the thoughtful article.

Time after time the culturally "left" wing of the two-party dictatorship coopts peoples' movements.

These criminals won't get any of my support, time and resources.

I'll be there in September, with my own banner, friends, attitude, slogans and agenda.


Bourgois flunkeys, beware, because after we take down your masters, you're the very next item on OUR agenda. (And that agenda won't be safely channeled by no damn Roberts's Rues or consensus building this time--it'll be class war to the finale).

Jim,

I felt the exact same way when I was last at a UFPJ meeting. It was essentially a classroom dynamic; like you said, numbers at the expense of empowerment.

Operas should develop what is new from what is old, rather than what is old from what is old. They must not sing only of emperors, kings, generals, ministers, talented young gentlemen, pretty ladies, and their maids and escorts.


LET US STRUGGLE TO TURN THEIR FARCE INTO A CALAMITIOUS TRAGEDY--FOR THEM ALL!!!

This petty bourgeoise charade was almost as bad as a DAWN meeting--and that takes quite some doing to pull off.

Just because you didn't see the poodles, that doesn't mean they weren't there.

O ye doubting Thomases of muffin-like principledness, wake up and smell the poodle piss!!!!!!! Before the commoners rub your turned-up society nose in it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's just like the concept of vicarious participation in the "Democratic Party": Just because you don't see truly representative numbers of people-of-color or women in positions of real power, or achieving real socioeconomic or political power as a group, doesn't mean that someone doesn't assert that it's so.

Think about it.

I was at one of these too, and one of the speakers reminded me of a televangelist. It wasn't his fault, it was just how his tone and words came across.

Of course, we could USE such speakers on Dem TV speaking to the general public(same kind of sheep that whip out their credit cards for the 700 club), but I was a bit offended with what I heard that night, interpreting it as a bid for control of the action on S24.

empowerment does not come from large groups sitting around a table. people have to learn to become empowered, they have to be taugh to speak up. more precisely, it all boils down to people's innate leadership skills. some people are born with those skills, others do not have them, but throughout life people can hone and develop them.

the step up concept is a great idea, but do you think people would step up in front of 70 people for the first time? or would they feel more comfortable stepping up around 5 people?

the whitewash of the meeting was sad, but it was expected. i have never been to a peace movement meeting that actually reflects the demographics of the DC area. I think it boils down to the fact that the people who have time to attend these meetings are also the ones who have the money to support the movement, and sadly that tends to young white professionals and older well to do people.

as for no way to plug in creatively...
did you see how many people went to the Operation Ceasefire breakout session? that looked to be the most creative aspect of the entire mobilization and only a handfull of people decided plug in.

Thankfully, there was no awkward criticism of Israel, or even a mention of those arch-criminal treasoneers, the neo-cons. (Of course, if one of the few irreverent riff-raff present had even dared to broach the unseemly issue, we loyal oppositioneers certainly would have dealt with it forcefully. Never let it be said that we suffer true debate.).

Jim's article is a breath of fresh air. Many of my friends have felt this way about both UFPJ and Answer for a long time. When they challenge the lack of democracy in the movement, or it's lack of real militancy, they are called wingnuts or even accused of being cops. This is not a new problem, but with the war dragging on and on, and an ecological crises on the horizon, maybe it is time that people adress this issue.

Like EVERYONE's thoughtful comments blacked-out today. Who's responsible for the sabotage of our site?

I went, too. Yuppies and power-people, yuck.

I liked the pretty, white furry poodles many of the ladies had.

One of the poodles puddled, but they called two black janitors who cleaned it up so discreetly.

One of the poodles was a girl poodle. The other poodles chased t under the table and juped on it. Again, the janitors had to crawl under the table and fetch it.

Run, poodles, Run.

Things I've Learned at recent UFPJ meetings in DC:

1) UFPJ is planning to have tents on the Mall. They plan to charge groups a minimum of $20 for each table (this price tag goes much higher if you want to sell things at the table or if you want the table both saturday and sunday).

2) UFPJ is more interested in having a fundraiser than a protest. This is evidenced by the above mentioned charge for each table, as well as the fact that in the "Logistics" working group meeting they are much more interested in talking about getting people to be "money collectors" on saturday and to help set up the rented out tables, than talking about important things such as the Convergence Space, or mass housing, two things critical to having a successful mass mobilization.

3) They plan to have money collectors at both Operation Cease Fire and at the large rally before the march on saturday, as well as during the Peace And Justice Festival (formerly the Anti-War Fair). Since they expect to raise thousands and thousands of dollars from all the wealthy liberals who plan to attend their events, they are concerned for the safety of their money collectors and specifically the person with the large bucket all the money collectors dump the cash flow in. To remedy this problem, they came up with a concrete solution. UFPJ is HIRING off-duty undercover police officers who will be carrying GUNS to protect UFPJ's money.

4) UFPJ is planning a series of non-violent direct actions at the White House for Monday, September 26th. These actions are set to be arrestable and since liberals are afraid of spending a night in DC Jails, UFPJ has initiated dialog with the POLICE to make the processing go faster. Thats right, they actually called up the cops and said, this is our plan, this is how many people we plan on having you arrest on monday, what can we do to make sure you are able to process us all quickly.

5) I never want to sit through another UFPJ meeting again. UFPJ is one of the most hierarchical, disempowering, organizing body I have ever experienced. In UFPJ the only thing that matters is their bottom line, the amount of money one can give, and how to maximize profits. They actually passed the hat during their organizing meeting. They call themselves, grassroots, but they are in fact nothing better than a money (and power) hungry force of capitalism.

This was a good account of the way large anti-war institutions tend to operate, and although I commend you for bringing it up, your article is a bit of a downer.

Are we to be left with the impression that the last hope for resistance is just an institutional cop-out? I'm sure you didn't mean that we should give up, but where's the alternatives?

So maybe UFPJ is full of bossy-pants. They tell you what you should protest, and when.

Guess what? They're not the boss of us. We can protest whatever we want, whenever we want to, HOWEVER we want, and UFPJ can't say a thing about it. They've got some money, yes, but last time I checked, most of the really worthwhile activism in this country is done with almost none of the green stuff. Plus, everyone knows that if you get a significant people's movement going, UFPJ will eventually join in with their dollars and busses too.

Roll with UFPJ when it's convenient. Use their contacts, their resources...support them when they're doing something genuinely awesome.

And when they try to tell you what to do or what to think, just ignore them. Simple as that. March in their parade with a sign they don't allow. Keep talking - loudly - when the chairman of the meeting tries to interrupt you.

What are they gonna do?

You can always tell when they're not there--they are always then very noisy.

they are most dangerous, though, when they can neither be seen nor heard.

The same may be said of us--make the most of it, Comrades.

x is a very wise tactician, rock on, people...

.
What did you expect ?

Moveon.org and UFPJ are hand in hand.

Moveon was started with money
from George Soros !!

-----

UFPJ to Hire COPS wrote :

5) I never want to sit through another UFPJ meeting again. UFPJ is one of the most hierarchical, disempowering, organizing body I have ever experienced. In UFPJ the only thing that matters is their bottom line, the amount of money one can give, and how to maximize profits. They actually passed the hat during their organizing meeting. They call themselves, grassroots, but they are in fact nothing better than a money (and power) hungry force of capitalism.

DC Rules.
Let this be the beginning of our revoluiton, let it bring us privileged activists closer to our disenfranchised neighbors across the river. These neighbors need us and we need them more than we need UFPJ. Forget UFPJ. It's a business.

Jim, I was at the meeting prior to the one you wrote about, and my feelings were similar. They are deliberately not addressing the world bank and IMF EVEN THOUGH its their annual meetings and Wolfowitz engineered the Iraq War and is the current president of the World Bank. And they keep dodging questions of funding and housing when its not directly related to UFPJ events.

Thanks for writing that and exposing this group. United only applies to certain people and certain single-issues.

UFPJ needs to bring justice back into their name or they need to drop it altogether. They kicked ass in funding the convergence space in Miami and working on those issues; but now that the bretton Woods system in 60+ years and not quite as novel as the FTAA or War in Iraq, MOST of UFPJ is turning a blind eye.

Wake up people! Lets go! Lets act! Lets make the connections between the war in iraq and the bretton woods system. Its all connected. Both movements are connected. We need to get UFPJ (and ANSWER) out of the way and work together grassroots style.

Alternatively and/or complementary lets embrace the fact that We're DC residents, SO lets co-opt UFPJ. Sign up for their chores. Do it your style, or don't do it all...whichever works for you. Refuse to pay the $$$ for tables and set up anyway. Don't go to their meetings, or shall i say, lectures. Or go and ask why we can't make decisions? Phonebank UFPJ's national office. Flood their office with faxes demanding to have a seat at the table. Perhaps even lobby their regional and natinal offices. Stage a sit-in.

Funny, how all these tactics we use against the sources of oppression...white house, senators, world bank, imf, etc. and now they can be used against what would, on the surface, appear to be an ally.

UFPJ needs to reform their ways or be prepared for massive resistance.

UFPJ decision-makers: remember your days as grassroots activists or hold on for a wild ride.

WARNING: UFPJ Organizer Is a Recidivist Movement Wrecker



I feel compelled to bring to the public's attention that one of the prominent organizers of Monday's UFPJ event is a person not worthy of trust.

During the entire period that I have been attempting, for the good of the people of Maryland, to organize the Populist Party there, this person's erratic behaviour, vicious back-stabbing, and extreme views have been fatal to my endeavors. I now believe that she has been employing cold-blooded sabotage.

She, at all times, has just acted like a condescending, know-it-all, snobbish Clytemestra. Even her very attitude has been repulsive and divisive. While normally reticent and charming before the public, all a co-worker has to do is get her hackles up--then, you are subjected to her intolerant, petty tirades about "used-up", "bald", "fat" "middle-aged white men" who are ruining "her" movement, , about the many "stupid" party members who can't be "controlled" or "reasoned with", etc., ad nauseum. It is also unseemly when she paints communistic slogans on her belly and wriggles it publicly.

This person is a MENACE to any organization or movement she comes in contact with. Please take appropriate measures.

In the spirit of liberty and prosperity,


Franklin

See also:
www.populistamerica.com

December 13, 1963



Here is a report prepared by Comrades Li Jui-shan and Hua Kuo-feng of the Hunan provincial Party committee, on November 6, 1963 on their visit to Kwangtung to look at the progress of its agricultural production. Attached to the report are instructions written by the Hunan provincial party committee dated December 7, 1963. You are requested to study them. The Central Committee considers that this attitude and method of learning modestly from the good experience of other provinces, municipalities and districts is fine and constitutes an important way of promoting our economic, political, ideological, cultural, military and Party work.

Some comrades stick to the beaten track, are conceited and complacent, do not take an analytical approach towards the work in their own area in accordance with Marxist dialectics (i.e., one dividing into two, into shortcomings and mistakes as well as achievements), but notice only achievements and not shortcomings and mistakes.

They welcome praise but not criticism. They take little interest in arranging for competent high and middle-ranking cadres to study modestly and earnestly what is being done in other provinces, municipalities, districts or units in order to introduce improvements by applying the findings to their own province, municipality, district or unit.

They confine their vision always to the small world of their own area or unit, but fail to see beyond it and to notice any world other than their own, which is sheer parochial arrogance. They show to foreign visitors, comrades from other parts of the country or comrades sent by the central authorities to their area only what is good and not what is bad. They tell these visitors only the achievements, and not the shortcomings and mistakes which, if taken up at all, will not be gone into at any great length but dismissed perfunctorily in a few words.

The Central Committee has called our comrades’ attention to this problem time and again, maintaining that a Communist must acquire the Marxist dialectical conce! pt of one dividing into two with regard to achievements and shortcomings, truth and falsehood. Without exception everything (economy, politics, ideology, culture, military and Party work, etc.) develops as a process. And every process develops through the interconnection and mutual struggle of its two contradictory aspects.

This should be A B C for a Marxist. However, many comrades at the central and local levels seldom think and work conscientiously in accordance with this viewpoint They find it difficult to shake off their customary metaphysical way of thinking. By metaphysics is meant the denial of the unity of opposites and the struggle of opposites in things (the method of one dividing into two), the denial of the truth that under given conditions two contradictory things that stand in opposition transform themselves into each other and turn into their opposite. Metaphysics also finds expression in the following — to stick to the beaten track, to be conceited and complacent, to notice only achievements and not shortcomings, to welcome praise and not criticism; to be unwilling to criticize oneself (to apply the method of one dividing into two to oneself) and, worse still, to be afraid of being criticized by others. Among the dozens of ministries under the Central Government there are obviously several which have done better and have a better style of work, for instance, the Ministry of Petroleum Industry.

Yet other ministries simply pay no attention and have never bothered to visit them, study their experience and learn from them Of the various units under a ministry, there are obviously many factories and mines, enterprises, undertakings and scientific research institutions, together with their personnel, that have done well. Yet its leadership, through its ignorance, is in no position to encourage people to learn from them.

Comrades, when the Central Committee here speaks about comrades committing errors in succumbing to metaphysics, this refers only to some comrades, not to all. Nevertheless! it must be pointed out that large numbers of fine comrades are frustrated by those comrades who are highly placed with fat emoluments and live in style, who are conceited and complacent and are only too glad to stick to the beaten track, and who are addicted to bourgeois metaphysics; in other words, these fine comrades are frustrated by the bureaucrats.

This situation must be changed right now. To any comrade who rejects the dialectical and analytical method of Marxism and doesn’t modestly and conscientiously analyse either his own locality, his own unit and himself or other localities, other units and other people, we must give comradely advice and criticism, so as to bring about a change in this undesirable state of affairs. We must make it a practice to learn from the good experience, good style and good methods of other ministries, provinces, municipalities, districts and units.

This is an important question and you are requested to discuss it. Later on, the Central Committee will also take it up at its working conferences and plenary sessions. For quite some time the Hunan provincial Party committee made no attempt at investigation and study and issued a spate of subjectivist directives to the lower levels, ramming many things down their throats while getting little factual information in return, and thus alienating itself from the masses and bringing tremendous difficulties upon itself. From 1961 onwards, a change came over its work and things rapidly looked up. Nevertheless it felt that it was still lagging far behind Kwangtung and Shanghai. Therefore, it organized two survey teams composed of large numbers of cadres at the provincial, prefectural and county levels, and sent them on study tours to Kwangtung and Shanghai. Please try and see if you can do the same. The Central Committee holds that it can and must be done. If you think otherwise, please transmit your views.

I am not going to be a Maoist.

News flash!

Mao is dead, this is not China, and what is attempting to rule the world today is much more of a menace than some long tiresome committee report by two boring bureacrats.

Capitalism must go!

UFPJ says that bullshit about the armed guards is not true. They also said that the tabling fees will not cover the costs of the tents and tables, so they're still subsidizing that. $20 is a pretty token amount for that, in my opinion; $100 would be reasonable for vendors.

I'm concerned with the possibility that the simplistic message that will be taken home by the MSM from the sept 24-26 protests will simply and readily be dismissed as unworkable, idealistic sentiments at best.

In part this is related to the problem addressed by Jim's article, since large groups like UFPJ and ANSWER do inherently tend to boil down message to a few sound-bitey demands, eg "Bring the troops home now," or "End the occupation/colonization of Iraq, Palestine, etc."

Here is the most likely historical outcome of the next few years: Some form of stable representative government will take root in Iraq, the insurgency will be brought under control (though likely after much more bloodshed), and US troops will at least be drastically reduced in number in Iraq, if not be gone entirely. And then Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al can point their fingers at all the "naysayers" and say "See? They were wrong." They'll basically say that because the whole endeavor "worked," all of the bloodshed was justified (since all wars, as well all know, result in loss of life). And more likely than not, the mainstream of the American public will buy it, or at least continue their apathetic tendencies and focus their attentions on whatever new crisis might be at hand at that time.

That's why I would like to see more attentioned being focussed on the following question: What right does the US have to decide how many tens or hundreds of thousands of human lives it's ok to destroy in order to obtain a political outcome that is acceptable to the US? I'm not sure how this question could be turned into a sound-bite, and I'm not sure turning it into one would be of any advantage. There are of course lots of questions that flow from the above question (such as why democracy in Iraq is important to us now when we blatantly supported dictatorship there in the 80's, why we continue to support non-democratic countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan, etc) And these would be topics for debates that are more elaborate than the simple messages that can be conveyed in a set of protests.

OK, why don't I just come out and say it? If I were supreme commander of both UFPJ and ANSWER, I would do the following: The protest on the 24th would focus entirely on the lies that the Bush administration used to get us into the war, along with the real reasons for the war (taking out a thorn in the side of US "strategic interests" in the region.) Basically, it would be one big cry of "LIAR!" On the 25th, the protest would focus entirely on questioning Bush's latest rationalizations for the war (ie asking the question I posed above about our right to decide how many people it's ok to kill to achieve our aims; and also asking how it's helped reduce the threat of terrorism against the US). How this could be done in a simple sound-bitey way, again, I don't know. Then the 26th, I would cancel that dumb concert thing (what are we now, Bono-like end-all-the-world's-problems-with-money-from-the-USA party-goers, sponsored by Nike? Visa? Did you go the anti-war concert? Dude. ) and have a final protest calling for: Getting the US to leave the Middle East and Central Asia militarily, financially, covert operationally, and even diplomatically. We have no reason (other than strategic oil and gas interests) for being there. We have already done more than enough damage there to keep us collectively guilty for decades if not centuries. Let's GET OUT NOW!

Would this result in policy change? Likely not, but the advantage is that this set of steps is far more difficult to dismiss as simplistic, idealistic, unworkable hogwash. And perhaps more importantly, it pre-empts the "argument" that (mark my words) the administration is going to be making in the next few years about how their policies are "working."

Jeez, you people sound like the object of the event is to protest UPFJ.

okay, so how do we deal with this shit then? do we go to the next UFPJ convention en masse and change the whole structure? or do we start our own anti-war network based on direct democracy, anti-authoritarianim, horizontalism, direct action, radical feminism and inclusion? whether we integrated these things into UFPJ or if we started our own, it would have a LOT of support throughout the movement - the above sentiments are by no means isolated. everyone from anarchists to librarians to palestinian activists have been saying these things, particularly around the sept 24th deal. start talking about how to deal with these fucking problems, and the "answer" can't be to simply have a breakaway march and smash some windows, or to call for a "day of decentralized actions" that fizzlie out to nearly nothing (not to bash the tactics, just the way its been executed thus far).

the war isn't going to end by itself. back in 67, plenty of folks thought vietnam would be over in a matter of months. next thing people knew it was '72 and millions were dead. get it straight: imperialism leads to colonialism, colonialism leads to resistence, resistence leads to repression, back to resistence, and so on. yeah, it'll end eventually, but it'll be in 2015, and the USA will look a lot like Iraq (and New Orleans for that matter) does right now.

Reality Check,

UFPJ, ANSWER, etc. ARE a big part of the problem.
Our Movement flounders on year-after-year, as these managers of our protest steer us down dead-ends, time-after-time. Every decent, mobilizing issue is coopted by these evil stepmothers, who proceed to then smother the infant in the cradle--and I cannot but believe that the Man's evil hand is directly in evidence here. For the sake of some sort of illusory "unity", the people have repeatedly swallowed their pride and bit their tongues, and taken a hit on their interests. Controversial, yet vital, intra-movement issues get swept under the rug, never to be resolved. We need a clean sweep--build our house not on the shifting sands of phoney liberal fashion, but the bedrock of the sweat and blood of real working peopkle.

and, yeah, we've let these professional opportunists prey on our good natures for far too long. They count on us never standing up to them for our legitimate rights, interests and view-points, so that their minimalist, manipulative, emasculating and patronizing agenda gets pursued by default every time. (They reason that we are so demoralized and worn down by the Man's imposed struggle to Live that we'll meekly settle for their second-worst offerings.).

We need to straighten this movement out, from top to bottom, even if, in the short term, it means the missing of a meeting or demo, or the taking out of some very dead wood.

I wish we could come up with more intelligent ways of expressing frustrations and grievances.

I wish people would refrain from reporting as fact what is an opinion based on limited information.

I wish all this energy were devoted to actual organizing.

In particular I find the use of that picture of Leslie Cagan completely unnecessary and offensive.

And I will record my name here - I wish others had the conviction to do the same.

Katie Nelson
DC Anti-War Network

Some of us--who really maean business--are ALREADY fighting, and cannot venture to posit our names. Some of us have been fighting for decades, and are in for the long haul.

Try to conceptualize it, movement maven.

To the arrogant, name-proud boutique liberal,

It is so sypmtomatic of the hubris and contempt of these dissent channelers for the common people of the pseudo-movement that they consider all others' tactics and strategies "unintelligent", others' informed conclusions mere "opinions.". It is certain that the interlocutor would desire that, rather than question the self-annointed directions-givers, we just get busy and execute their orders and agenda like good little movement nazi minions. Rather than contriving to upset herself with our manly assertion of ourselves as individuals equal to herself in all respects, she would have been better advised to take "offense" with the way UFPJ, etc have patronized us, used us, wasted our valuable time and resources.

IT WON'T HAPPEN AGAIN, SYNCOPHANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

TAKES MORE THAN PROTEST

It takes more than protest to stop a war. It takes direct action and sabotage aimed at taking away the supply of recruits, munitions, and raw materials necessary for the war.

We have here the opportunity to bring exactly that about, hopefully within the year. Today, UFPJ , MFSO, et all only protest, but they will soon drink the bitter dregs of protests falling on deaf ears.

At that time, some of the energy stirred up by Cindy Sheehan will inevitably get redirected into counter-recruiting, a major form of direct action and one capable of crippling the US military. More will no doubt get redirected into sabotage. For a head of state to lose a war is one of the worst political situations he can ever get into, and historically often ends in political chaos.

Losing wars in other nations have cause coups and revolutions, and while the US military is rather apolitical, military families and soldiers are proving to be quite another story. It coud easily lead to electoral and constitutional chaos here with wierd "elections" and impeachment attempts, like we've already seen in the Clinton era.

Those of us who are already dedicated to direct action need to be damned careful not to do anything that blunts the energy building up in MFSO, the Sheehan people, et all. They may not give a damned about imperialism until wars are lost, but they have the numbers and strength to do great damage to Bush when they get moving. They will soon change their tune and have to work with us.

What's a radical? A liberal that got pepper sprayed last week protesting military recruiting!

You couldn't be more wrong about Katie.

While I remain incredibly angry and believe that some serious shit has to change at the top, the same can be said from the bottom where there's an unwritten party line of the street. Just reading nonsense like what's written about Katie here personally disgusts me, and I hope you'd really get to know her before you peg her into your comfortable and easy stereotypes.

Jim Macdonald

UFPJ interjected itself onto this forum; it must stand all reasonable critique.

We don't know Katie. From what you say, she must be nice. Unless she's armiferous, though, please keep her head down when the real action begins. We might not win this one, but they will not, either.

katie wrote->" I wish we could come up with more intelligent ways of expressing frustrations and grievances."

That's a not-so-subtle way of calling the prior-posted comments "stupid." That's quite a charge. What specifically do you find to be of sub-par intelligence? Are you really surprised that someone might take offense at this statement? What if I simply dismissed your statement as not very intelligent? Would you not then seek at least elaboration? I think you owe us that unless you just felt like spewing meaningless bile.

u wrote->"I wish people would refrain from reporting as fact what is an opinion based on limited information."

Again, this is related to my criticism above. It's a very un-subtle way of dismissing the comments made prior to yours. Are you including Jim's in this? How are we to know? How do you know how much information someone has when making a statement? How could you possibly know, given that one of your complaints is that the comments are pseudonymous? You might want to think this one through a bit more.

u wrote->"I wish all this energy were devoted to actual organizing."

Nice sentiment. But again, could you be more specific? Do you mean acting on what UFPJ wants us to do? Or do you have another strategy in mind? If so, what is it?

u wrote->"In particular I find the use of that picture of Leslie Cagan completely unnecessary and offensive."

I remember the picture. I didn't know it was of Leslie Cagan (though knew her name, I don't recall ever seeing a picture of her before), but I distinctly remember not being offended in any way by the picture. I am really very curious about this comment. What exactly did you find offensive about it?

u wrote->"And I will record my name here - I wish others had the conviction to do the same. "

You're assuming a lot with this statement. People may choose anonymity or pseudonymity for several reasons. Do you honestly believe that the only possible reason could be lack of conviction? That's not just (again) insulting, but indicative of a lack of imagination (on this issue) which you may want to concern yourself about. Please think a little more before you post comments here. Thanks.

There's another issue which you didn't specifically address: and that is the Democratic leadership (Reid, Pelosi, Dean, etc) basically dismissing calls for immediate withdrawal out of concern that the result would be complete chaos, civil war, loss of life, and basically an outcome entirely against US interests.

We cannot ignore this line of argument.

If we ignore this line of argument, all the MSM will say about the protests is "Nice sentiment. Unfortunately, regardless of the merits of starting the war, this is now a humanitarian situation which we cannot absolve ourselves of, neither for moral nor strategic reasons."

I propose three main inter-related counter-arguments to the MSM/Democratic leadership argument.

1) The conditions which could lead to civil war in Iraq likely will exist long after US troops leave at whatever date (assuming it's less than a decade or two). I believe the conditions are as follows: The Kurds and Shiites want at least limited autonomy, while the Sunnis who do not live in the resource-rich regions, don't want to be left behind financially as a result of the break-up of Iraq, and there are also non-resource-related territorial disputes. This is a problematic and volatile situation, and again, it's not likely to change once the Americans leave. Nor is it likely to be papered-over once a new government and military are established. This is a key point. I really doubt the Kurds, for instance, will want to permanently give up their dreams of autonomy. Look at the example of Turkey. Whatever national army gets formed could easily splinter along ethnic or sectarian lines. And I would say that such a scenario (splintering of the armed forces) is more likely under conditions that are not dictatorial (ie, under democratic conditions). One thing the US is clearly doing now is training and arming a new Iraqi army. Whatever civil war breaks out in the future will be all the more bloody in proportion to the degree of militarization and training of the splintered armed forces. So if civil war is to break out, it can happen now with all sides relatively unable to carry out massive attacks, or it can happen a little bit later with more heavily armed and trained soldiers, leading to more bloodshed.

2) We made a mistake when we invaded Iraq. It may not be a mistake we can "fix." We don't know how long it will take to "stabilize" the region. It may be decades. Can we afford (not just militarily and financially, but politically and morally) to stay there that long? Suppose the worst-case scenario happens (massive civil war as soon as the Americans leave), we could just chalk it up as a learning experience and use it as lesson as to one of the many reasons why killing tens of thousands of people (who never attacked us) to achieve political ends is a bad idea. It may be best to just cut our losses now. If a civil war does break out, there is no telling whether our troops could have prevented it by staying (come up with a number here) years there. Think about it. If we leave 12 years from now, and then civil war breaks out, William Kristol would probably just say it's because we were supposed to stay 13 years.

3) Given arguments 1 & 2 above, consider this: the longer we stay, the more animosity we generate, and the more radicalization and training we give to whatever jihadist terrorists or would-be terrorists taking advantage of the situation in Iraq. A lot of the bloodshed right now is a result of resistance to US occupation (as opposed to factional/sectarian violence). So it can be argued that the US is having as much of a destabilizing effect (which can be a factor leading to civil war) as any kind of stabilizing one.

Now if someone can stuff all of the above into a nifty, catchy slogan that can be read in a few seconds from a protest sign...

how's the above comment? Still too stoopid?

Pardon the unavoidable pun, Katie, but some of us are trying to AVOID conviction (and other nasty complications) by means of various anonymous activities.

All joking aside, when the Amerikan Terror State, in its great wisdom, chose to criminalize the Opposition, it merely guaranteed that its demise will be extremely violent and painful. And it's coming very soon.

Hi all,

I had a phone conversation with Katie Nelson a couple days ago. She actually agrees with a lot of what Jim has written, as do I. Personally, I am tired (and somewhat sickened) of the strong-arm style of organizing now being utilized by UFPJ's New York Central Authority (Leslie Cagan and Judith LeBlanc).

However, a lot of the responses here are full of hatred and some are suggesting violence to resolve conflict in our society. How is that really any different than the warmongers?

Personally, I am dedicated to nonviolent resistance. How many here are willing to commit themselves to this? And yes, The National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance, Clergy and Laity Concerned and Military Families Speakout have worked on crafting UFPJ's White House action on the 26th. And, yes, we have talked with the Park Police and Metro D.C. Police, but who knows what will actually happen that day. We felt it was responsible to *request* that the processing be sped up for people who have not done this action before and our coming from states far away and are traveling with a group. Otherwise the numbers participating int he action ont he 26th could be very very small. The process inc rafting this action was not perfect and had some difficulties, but it was open to member and non-member groups.

Keep up your dissent, but let's not attack each other constantly. Let's turn out on the streets on 9/24 and 9/26. And then afterward let's continue our dissent with this strictly top-down organization controlled by the Communist Party-USA and elements within the Democratic Party. Both of which have had a quiet alliance since the '40s.

There has also been some criticism of DAWN here. Often this group does have lengthy debates that don't actually produce any real action. But it is a very democratic group, anyone who stops by a meeting immediately is a full participant and can make proposals, etc. Generally good group of people, I just would like to see more of them actually show up at actions. But I guess most of us are working jobs for the might dollar bill still.

In peace and solidarity,
Pete Perry
Agape Action
Member of the D.C. Statehood/Green Party

UFPJ, DAWN, ANSWER et al. will, inevitably, arrogate to themselves the "right" to dictate their own game. Fine. This would be an honest and not unreasonable approach, if they'd just explicitely level with the People. So, let them keep their game to themselves--just don't let them attempt to inveigle others in their impotence and wasted opportunities, or to pretend that they have any special insight on effective stategies and tactics, or that their intransigence is itself not something divisive, (since using police-inspired labels of "hateful" and "violent" to describe those who won't pray and play with them, or who don't hesitate to call out a flunkey or a phoney.).

And We don't seek to change these cliquish groups: they'll never rise above themselves and, (even if they could be wise enough to respond appropriately to constructive criticism), and we now have an irreparable, profound lack of confidence in their "leadership.".


We'll be there in September, as we've always been, (which cannot be said of many of these opportunists.). But we'll have our own signs, attitude and agenda. If you boutique liberals can't live with that, excellent.

What is a boutique liberal? Someone who spends their money liberally at quaint boutiques?

Oh, sorry, I have to clean up after my poodle now. Then I will get someone to wash my Mercedes. ;)

how the hell are we to line up behind "leaders" who are so unsure of themselves that they can't brook criticism or self-criticism, and can't act until they've convinced everyone of their moral and intellectual supremacy, or failing that, driven them out of "their" little movement by sanctimonous condemnations and smears, or by ouright Judas-like denunciations to the police?

WHO THE HELL ARE YOU PEOPLE TO LECTURE OR ADVISE US ON ANYTHING?!?!?!

go do your Thing--we'll do ours--you people aren't worth a shit anyway, and never will be!

Thanks Disgusted for sharing your thoughts. Please detail your criticism of the movement further. We hope you are doing well, and we love you. And we hope change will come soon to this troubled nation, since it is so full of hate and ignorance.

Pete

We don't criticize the movement, of which we are an integral part--We criticize its Disenablers. We are well; We respect all persons of good will, in this country and beyond. It has been a long while since we have been afforded the human luxury and dignity of love.

We continue to hate ignorance, arrogance, and oppression. Also, we're troubled by your inability to discriminate between the righteous "hate" and inevitable vegeful justice of the oppressed and the very evil nature and existence of the oppressor.

You seem to ask for feedback. That has been attempted, and rebuffed, repeatedly, by a stonewall on your side. Our time will not be wasted again. Also, frankly, even if we won you over 100% to our viewpoint, what would we have gained? We can't feed you or protect you, and to be honest with everyone, you'd still have to confess that, when the issue comes, you''ll never be worth a shit to anyone, including yourselves--what would we do with you? (We take particular offense to these organizations' calculated pandering to the naivete and callowness of the youth--luring them with specious, vacuous slogans and personable, up-front women--the biggest transcorps could even take lessons from you, in this respect.).

We don't seek to convert you; you cannot convert us. As long as your organizations continue to broadcast their naive and condescending noticia here, they will be responded to.



See you, in ordine belli, in late September.
Ende.

Some will not be able to resist making personal attacks. It's sooo easy to lash out over the Net what with no one to actually face. I agree with the criticism in the article, but truly wish that it had also included some concrete suggestions. I feel sometimes like we're all just talking to ourselves.

The fundamental divide is not tactics, strategy or organization. The fundamental divide is politics. And that divide is between those who think that we should get out of Iraq and those who think that they should be forced out of Iraq! In other words, those who identify with the Empire and those who identify with its enemies!

I'd make an exception though, for soldiers who are actually in Iraq! If they say that "we should get out of Iraq" and if they organize among their fellow soldiers to make it happen, that's another story entirely! If you know anybody in that position, send them a copy of Soldiers In Revolt: GI Resistance During The Vietnam War by David Cortright! (See http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/08/1763633.php for more info!)

The fundamental divide is not tactics, strategy or organization. The fundamental divide is politics. And that divide is between those who think that we should get out of Iraq and those who think that they should be forced out of Iraq! In other words, those who identify with the Empire and those who identify with its enemies!

I'd make an exception though, for soldiers who are actually in Iraq! If they say that "we should get out of Iraq" and if they organize among their fellow soldiers to make it happen, that's another story entirely! If you know anybody in that position, send them a copy of Soldiers In Revolt: GI Resistance During The Vietnam War by David Cortright! (See http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/08/1763633.php for more info!)

Be aware of the labels you use. Why not try to get to know someone first? And, frankly, I am not sure which "side" I am on in this percieved divide. I want to see more autonomous actions, but I plead that these are done with loving resistance, not vengance. Love and a desire for peace and justice is what can truly divide us fromt he oppressors.

Love to everyone in the movement. I hope everyone is well today.

We know Jim. We believe we have started to "get to know" Pete. Katie we have yet to identify, at least locally.

Accept our ways, or not; we never asked you to adopt them. We strike from the shadows, and return to them. Experience has shown us not unwise.

We will help bring justice, followed by peace.

September 7, 1937



We stand for active ideological struggle because it is the weapon for ensuring unity within the Party and the revolutionary organizations in the interest of our fight. Every Communist and revolutionary should take up this weapon.

But liberalism rejects ideological struggle and stands for unprincipled peace, thus giving rise to a decadent, Philistine attitude and bringing about political degeneration in certain units and individuals in the Party and the revolutionary organizations.

Liberalism manifests itself in various ways.

To let things slide for the sake of peace and friendship when a person has clearly gone wrong, and refrain from principled argument because he is an old acquaintance, a fellow townsman, a schoolmate, a close friend, a loved one, an old colleague or old subordinate. Or to touch on the matter lightly instead of going into it thoroughly, so as to keep on good terms. The result is that both the organization and the individual are harmed. This is one type of liberalism.

To indulge in irresponsible criticism in private instead of actively putting forward one's suggestions to the organization. To say nothing to people to their faces but to gossip behind their backs, or to say nothing at a meeting but to gossip afterwards. To show no regard at all for the principles of collective life but to follow one's own inclination. This is a second type.

To let things drift if they do not affect one personally; to say as little as possible while knowing perfectly well what is wrong, to be worldly wise and play safe and seek only to avoid blame. This is a third type.

Not to obey orders but to give pride of place to one's own opinions. To demand special consideration from the organization but to reject its discipline. This is a fourth type.

To indulge in personal attacks, pick quarrels, vent personal spite or seek revenge instead of entering into an argument and struggling against incorrect views for the sake of unity or progress or getting the work done properly. This is a fifth type.

To hear incorrect views without rebutting them and even to hear counter-revolutionary remarks without reporting them, but instead to take them calmly as if nothing had happened. This is a sixth type.

To be among the masses and fail to conduct propaganda and agitation or speak at meetings or conduct investigations and inquiries among them, and instead to be indifferent to them and show no concern for their well-being, forgetting that one is a Communist and behaving as if one were an ordinary non-Communist. This is a seventh type.

To see someone harming the interests of the masses and yet not feel indignant, or dissuade or stop him or reason with him, but to allow him to continue. This is an eighth type.

To work half-heartedly without a definite plan or direction; to work perfunctorily and muddle along--"So long as one remains a monk, one goes on tolling the bell." This is a ninth type.

To regard oneself as having rendered great service to the revolution, to pride oneself on being a veteran, to disdain minor assignments while being quite unequal to major tasks, to be slipshod in work and slack in study. This is a tenth type.

To be aware of one's own mistakes and yet make no attempt to correct them, taking a liberal attitude towards oneself. This is an eleventh type.

We could name more. But these eleven are the principal types.

They are all manifestations of liberalism.

Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension. It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads. It is an extremely bad tendency.

Liberalism stems from petty-bourgeois selfishness, it places personal interests first and the interests of the revolution second, and this gives rise to ideological, political and organizational liberalism.

People who are liberals look upon the principles of Marxism as abstract dogma. They approve of Marxism, but are not prepared to practice it or to practice it in full; they are not prepared to replace their liberalism by Marxism. These people have their Marxism, but they have their liberalism as well--they talk Marxism but practice liberalism; they apply Marxism to others but liberalism to themselves. They keep both kinds of goods in stock and find a use for each. This is how the minds of certain people work.

Liberalism is a manifestation of opportunism and conflicts fundamentally with Marxism. It is negative and objectively has the effect of helping the enemy; that is why the enemy welcomes its preservation in our midst. Such being its nature, there should be no place for it in the ranks of the revolution.

We must use Marxism, which is positive in spirit, to overcome liberalism, which is negative. A Communist should have largeness of mind and he should be staunch and active, looking upon the interests of the revolution as his very life and subordinating his personal interests to those of the revolution; always and everywhere he should adhere to principle and wage a tireless struggle against all incorrect ideas and actions, so as to consolidate the collective life of the Party and strengthen the ties between the Party and the masses; he should be more concerned about the Party and the masses than about any private person, and more concerned about others than about himself. Only thus can he be considered a Communist.

All loyal, honest, active and upright Communists must unite to oppose the liberal tendencies shown by certain people among us, and set them on the right path. This is one of the tasks on our ideological front.

UFPJ is wrong on the politics, the strategy, the tactics--and its cadres are just plain low-quality persons. (We leave aside the question of whether it is even intended as a sincere, effective opposition force, and give it the benefit of the doubt, arguendo. I really don't know why, though--why should the "left" wing of the two-party duopoly really seek to change the system which boots it just as well as the "right" wing? Since genuine partisanship is always based on interest, it will always be a waste of activists' time to organize ourselves in alliance with parties and groups which are not EXPLICITELY anti-imperialist and -military, because our interests can never be the same as theirs.).

The insurgent Iraqi people are NOT the Enemy. Since the late 40's, the undoubted major menace to Mankind has been, instead, located in venues such as Wahington, D.C., and Langley, Va., Norfolk, Va., New York City, N.Y., and Tel Aviv, Israel

The Monday event, showcasing CIA agents and the mercenaries always lovingly-embraced by them as "our troops", in no wise even started to address the prime problem of the American polity for some time: the parasitic, well-entrenched, voracious and hyper-aggressive military-industrial complex, (appended to which is the security state, including the intelligence community, and the prison-police establishment.). Indeed, the very approach of UFPJ actually fetishizes these malefactors--it certainly doesn't go to the source of the evil. They internalize the System's propaganda, presuming that these operatives are somehow better than normal people, chosen to lead the bewildered masses. Whereas, in fact, they'll never have the moral high ground: we working people NEVER sold out for blood money like they did. (And this is not to detract from actual, isolated incidents of soldiers' personal courage, when they do in fact occur--but don't forget that ALL workers are who really made and make this country, and theirs is the courage which faces the daily grind of the vicious, neo-liberal "free market" arena, generally without the semi-socialist social welfare net afforded by the military establishment.).

We justly fault the "Right" for cynically, opportunistically, manipulatively putting the troops in harm's way, for not sincerely caring about and for them and then hiding behind them when the time comes for accountability or the lies and crimes they committed. Yet the UFPJ "opposition" also cynically uses the troops and their families in its high-profile, Madison Avenue-style political gamesmanship.

United for Peace and Justice is the Shepherd I never wanted or needed.

It maketh me to sleep on my legal rights and interests; it whitewasheth the complicity of the Liberals in the crime of Empire.

It picketh my purse and wasteth my time; it leadeth me astray from effective organizing for Israel's and the neo-cons' sake.

Yea, though it blithely collaborates with the Evil Empire to lead all Humanity into the Valley of Death, I will see, hear and speak no evil of it; its phoney phrases, and the police terror, they shock and awe me.

It preparest a slab upon which my enemies shall dine on poor little LambChop; it is the Empire's enabler in the wars for oil; my sheepish naivete runneth over.

Surely police agents and heavy taxes shall follow me all the days of my life; and I will suffer on in a police state forever.






EAT MORE BEEF & CHICKEN!!!

Establishment Liberalism, the War Urge and the Hunched Figure of Randolph Bourne






When there was a war to get enmeshed in during most of the 20th Century, "establishment" or "responsible" American liberals – intellectuals, legislators or presidents – could be relied upon to stiffen the upper lip. They were poised at the starting gates for the World Wars and Korea. As for lachrymose Vietnam, the "best and the brightest" saw to it that the death and destruction was radically escalated. The interregnum of establishment liberal skepticism towards major deployments of ground troops into darker hued lands lasted from Vietnamization until the trade towers turned to cinders. What to say of executive branch Johnny-come-lately Republicans? They just stumbled into launching land wars in Mesopotamia under the Bush clan colors.

Yes, it would be more fun to sarcastically characterize the present oily dynastic confluence as a "coincidence." But the aggressions waged by The Family are sadly more basic to human – to say nothing of American – history than the personalities involved. The common denominator between the "realism" of Papa Bush's limited Babylonian excursion and Baby Bush's whole hog occupation came down to the same thing. They both did it because they could; there was no deterrent to their designs.

Had Saddam invaded Kuwait instead of Iran in 1980, the exigencies of the Cold War might have made for a real crisis – no chance of getting a UN coalition together with the Soviet Union in the wings. And so, lacking any deterrent – so what if steadfast allies and the planet's publics protested almost unanimously? – they smashed and grabbed it. The Pyrrhic capture of Baghdad came faster than Warsaw's fall; for the victors, comparable perils were averted.

Not that it matters anymore: nearly the entire Democratic caucus voted against the first Gulf War – a dubious endeavor to be sure – but also a U.N.-sanctioned effort with a limited mandate against a tyrant who had invaded another "country." By way of contrast, half of the Democrats were cowed into voting for (or á la Lieberman, fully agreed with the goals of) "Operation Iraqi Freedom." This latest far flung nonsense lacked even a fig leaf causus belli, to say nothing of the U.N.'s ordinarily oleaginous imprimatur.

Given the evidence available prior to the war, one might have imagined 60's chic establishment liberals somehow acquitting themselves a bit better. So ostentatiously "internationalist" in rhetoric, so backdoor unilateralist in practice, they sneered behind veneers at the world's cue. And so, the "realist" half of the Democratic Party voted to legitimize the crime. These willing patsies leapt in line behind Bill Clinton. His sage strategy: better to mimic the "strong and wrong" crowd than be perceived as "right and weak." Speaking of the Neocons, to what extent can one really blame, in Nietzsche's formulation, "a bird of prey for being a bird of prey?" When this administration nested its foreign policy apparatus with Iran-Contra vultures – to just how much surprise were we entitled?

No, a shade more insulting was the reaction of the not-so-kumbayah "humanitarian intervention" crowd. The Clintons, Biden and Kerry, the "doves" of yore, would run interference for Bush as the Republicans once did for Johnson. The Gulf of Tonkin phantom attack they scorned during their "impressionable" youth; aluminum tubes, yellow cake from Niger, Iraqi ghost drones laden with exotic poisons – that these unmoored adults yucked down. These wizened hypocrites imagined themselves again inoculating the Democratic Party from the dread "Vietnam syndrome" in the midterm elections of 2002. They then produced abject failure; they midwifed not a policy setback, not even a quagmire, but a diseased whirl of mass murder – a bacillus from which their children will in any event remain immune.

Ari Berman, recently writing in The Nation, flushed out today's establishment liberal by sketching out the institutional structure that buttresses the kinder, gentler Empire worldview. He presented this network as a pyramid. Up top are Senators such as Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and John Kerry – the clique's leading figures, so we are solemnly advised, of presidential timbre. They voted for war; they steadfastly continue to fund the war; their maundering is transparently partisan. They deal not in deep criticism, for what they performatively deplore is management inefficiency, not the essence of the enterprise. Drop the trap door: here roosts Clintonian ex-officialdom in the form of Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Richard Holbrooke, the former UN Ambassador. Further down we unearth gnomes busy scribbling for think tanks such as the Brookings Institution and the Progressive Policy Institute. Amidst the bottom feeders we recoil at "laptop bombardiers" like Thomas Friedman.

Mr. Berman quoted Stephen Walt, the dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, who helpfully elucidated the lofty considerations preoccupying the liberalish hawk. "Brookings was basically supportive of the war in Iraq. If Brookings is signing on to a major foreign policy initiative of a Republican administration, that doesn't give the Democratic mainstream much room to mount a really forceful critique of the incumbent foreign policy... It's pretty hard to go wrong right now taking a hard-line position. There's enough places or institutions that will take care of you. Outside of academia, if you take positions on the other side, there's just nowhere near the level of institutional support."

In the halls of power, one might contrast the establishment liberals with the dissenting liberals. Among them we can count Senators Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold and Robert Byrd. They don't have much in the way of think tanks or influential columnists backing them up. They have some activist groups behind them and, incidentally, an inchoate 60 odd percent of public opinion. In the Senate there are no dissenting conservatives save Chuck Hagel.

The establishment liberal may still proffer the now tattered proviso that (even though I voted to authorize it) I had "reservations." These reservations don't extend too far – in fact, for most of them, they don't even exist, for their ilk frequently postures more aggressively than the President. Kerry advocated adding 40,000 Army grunts during the campaign. Hillary thinks, wrongly, that 80,000 more bodies might ingratiate her, along with her Senate war prayer breakfasts, with right wing voters in 2008. The appropriate colloquialism for this liberal escalation? Putting lipstick on a pig.

Whether these positions are sincerely held or amount to bravado is anyone's guess. As Mr. Berman points out, such liberals do live in an ideological echo chamber. And, as Mr. Walt's remarks imply, the "strategic class," in taking the path of least resistance, functionally put advancement enhancements before whatever scruples are advertised.

If the history of decolonization is any indication, the very presence of the American military will continue to fuel the insurgency. Whether our departure from Iraq will quell the violence is, again, anyone's guess – civil war seems about an even bet. If the liberal hawks have their way – a bipartisan compromise! – we may end up fighting on behalf of Saddam's "secular" Sunnis before all said and done. Or, alas, we will have set the stage for an Iranian satellite. How appropriately, if unintentionally, absurd the notion of faith-based democracy remains – whether here or astride the Shatt al-Arab.

As for us Americans, watching a clutch of principled, peace-loving politicians atop either political party remains an impossibility. Less evident is this. We might just one day see these establishment liberal weasels – their paws aloft – turning tail at brisker breezes of the whirlwind.


Randolph Bourne Then and Now
Randolph Bourne, the early-20th Century dissident liberal turned radical who coined the phrase "war is the health of the state," well explained the pragmatic dynamics of establishment liberalism's support for war. He turned against his liberal compatriots – men such as Walter Lippmann and John Dewey – at the New Republic after they wholeheartedly supported our country's intervention in World War I. While his writings are scarcely recalled at all – more on him here – his observations retain a remarkable prescience.

Bourne diced the Janus-faced establishment liberal approach to war in his essay "Twilight of the Idols." "Either Professor Dewey and his friends felt that the forces were too strong for them, that the war had to be, and it was better to take it up intelligently than to drift blindly in; or else they really expected a gallant war, conducted with jealous regard for democratic values at home and a captivating vision of international democracy as the end of all the toil and pain. If the motive was the first, they would seem to have reduced the scope of possible control of events to the vanishing point. If the war is too strong for you to prevent how is it going to be weak enough for you to control and mold to your liberal purposes? And if their motive was to shape the war firmly for good, they seem to have seriously miscalculated the fierce urgencies of it." In his essay "A War Diary" Bourne anticipated the trajectory of second thoughts, so familiar among liberals from the Vietnam era, so forgotten in their middle age... "The penalty the realist pays for accepting war is to see disappear one by one the justifications for accepting it. He must either become a genuine Realpolitiker and brazen it through, or else he must feel sorry for his intuition and be regretful that he willed the war."

In examining the sort of cynical pragmatism inherent in the liberal embrace of war, Bourne placed much of the blame on the emerging technologically-minded intelligentsia. In "Twilight of the Idols" he recognized that they "are liberal, enlightened, aware... the product of the swing in the colleges from a training that emphasized classical studies to one that emphasized political and economic values... Their education has not given them a coherent system of large ideas, or a feeling for democratic goals. They have, in short, no clear philosophy of life except that of intelligent service, the admirable adoption of means to ends. They are vague as to what kind of society they want, or what kind of society America needs, but they are equipped with all the administrative attitudes and talents necessary to attain it... The American, in living out this philosophy, has habitually confused results with product, and been content with getting somewhere without asking too closely whether it was the desirable place to get."

Bourne saw similar, if less pronounced, shortcomings among the critics of war. "The trouble with our situation is not only that values have been generally ignored in favor of technique, but that those who have struggled to keep values foremost, have been too bloodless and too near-sighted in their vision... If your ideal is to be adjustment to your situation, in radiant cooperation with reality, then your success is likely to be just that and no more. You never transcend anything. You grow, but your spirit never jumps out of your skin to go on wild adventures. If your policy as a publicist reformer is to take what you can get you are likely to find that you get something less than you should be willing to take... Vision must constantly outshoot technique, opportunist efforts usually achieve less even than what seemed obviously possible. An impossiblist élan that appeals to desire will often carry further. A philosophy of adjustment will not even make for adjustment. If you try merely to 'meet' situations as they come, you will not even meet them. Instead you will only pile up behind you deficits and arrears that will some day bankrupt you."

As for the general public, Bourne – surprise, surprise – found that indifference characterized most of his fellow Americans. In "A War Diary," he noted that acquiescence was no different functionally from enthused participation – the key was that the war was tolerated, even if grudgingly. "The kind of war which we are conducting is an enterprise which the American government does not have to carry on with the hearty cooperation of the American people but only with their acquiescence. And that acquiescence seems sufficient to float an indefinitely protracted war for vague or even largely uncomprehended and unaccepted purposes. Our resources in men and materials are vast enough to organize the war-technique without enlisting more than a fraction of the people's conscious energy. Many men will not like to be sucked into the actual fighting organism, but as the war goes on they will be sucked in as individuals and they will yield. There is likely to be no element in the country with the effective will to help them resist."

The institutional power of the war managers would overwhelm private doubts to keep the war running just fine. "It will be coercion from above that will do the trick rather than patriotism from below... all that is really needed is the cooperation with government of the men who direct the large financial and industrial enterprises. If their interest is enlisted in diverting the mechanism of production into war-channels, it makes not the least difference whether you or I want our activity to count in aid of the war. Whatever we do will contribute toward its successful organization, and toward the riveting of a semi-military State Socialism on the country. As long as the effective managers, the 'big men' in the staple industries remain loyal, nobody need care what the millions of little human cogs who had to earn their living felt or thought... The government of a modern organized plutocracy does not have to ask whether the people want to fight or understand what they are fighting for, but only whether they will tolerate fighting. America does not cooperate with the President's designs. She rather feebly acquiesces. But that feeble acquiescence is the all-important factor. We are learning that war doesn't need enthusiasm, doesn't need conviction, doesn't need hope, to sustain it. Once maneuvered, it takes care of itself, provided only that our industrial rulers see that the end of the war will leave American capital in a strategic position for world-enterprise."

In a bit of prosaic fancifulness, Bourne perfumed the degree to which the public is carried along on the swells of war. "...[W]e are like brave passengers who have set out for the Isles of the Blest only to find that the first mate has gone insane and jumped overboard, the rudder has come loose and dropped to the bottom of the sea, and the captain and pilot are lying dead drunk under the wheel. The stokers and engineers however, are still merrily forcing the speed up to twenty knots and hour and the passengers are presumably getting the pleasure of the ride."

Then, as now, critics of war would be tarred with the brush of disloyalty. "The country is still dotted with young men and women, in full possession of their minds, faculties, and virtue, who feel themselves profoundly alien to the work which is going on around them. They must not be confused with the disloyal or the pro-German. They have no grudge against the country, but their patriotism has broken down in the emergency. The want to see the carnage stopped and Europe decently constructed again. They want democratic peace... They know that the longer a war lasts the harder it is to make peace. They know that the peace of exhaustion is a dastardly peace, leaving enfeebled the moral of the defeated, and leaving invincible for years all the most greedy and soulless elements in the conquerors."

And so, the critics must remain steadfast, unwilling to abide the lies of the War Party's enthusiasts or the evasions of its enablers. From "A War Diary:" "Patriots and realists can both be answered. They must not be allowed to shake one's inflexible determination not to be spiritually implicated in the war... Since the 30th of July, 1914, nothing has happened in the arena of war-policy and war-technique except the complete and unmitigated worst. We are tired of continued disillusionment, and of the betrayal of generous anticipations. It is saner not to waste energy in hope within the system of war-enterprise... It is better to resist cheap consolations, and remain skeptical about any of the good things so confidently promised us either though victory or the social reorganization demanded by the war technique. One keeps healthy in wartime not be a series of religious and political consolations that something good is coming out of it all, but by a vigorous assertion of values in which war has no part. Our skepticism can be made a shelter behind which is built up a wider consciousness of the personal and social and artistic ideals which American civilization needs to lead the good life."

And so it falls again to the youth and their supporters. They may be the untouched critical thinkers or those disillusioned souls themselves gnawed on by the war machine. From "Twilight of the Idols:" "The malcontents would be men and women who could not stomach the war, or the reactionary idealism that has followed in its train... Yet these malcontents have no intention of being cultural vandals, only to slay. They are not barbarians, but seek the vital and the sincere everywhere... They will be harsh and often bad-tempered, and they will feel that the break-up of things is no time for mellowness. They will have a taste for spiritual adventure, and for sinister imaginative excursions. It will not be Puritanism so much as complacency that they will fight. A tang, a bitterness, an intellectual fibre, a verve, they will look for in literature... Their own contempt will be scarcely veiled, and they will be glad if they can tease, provoke, irritate thought on any subject. These malcontents will be more or less of the American tribe of talent who used either to go immediately to Europe, or starved submissively at home. They are too much entangled emotionally in the possibilities of American life to leave it, and they have no desire whatever to starve. So they are likely to go ahead beating their heads at the wall until they are either bloody or light appears..." In the end, illusions must be hurled aside. "Optimism is often compensatory, and the optimistic mood in American thought may mean merely that American life is too terrible to face."

Pakistan is a democratic country. It has become rather fashinable to bash Musharraf to hold out Pakistan as the bastion of all that is retrogressive and corrupt, but it is a country with a strong, vibrant political life, where there are genuinely democratic elections, where people can protest without being attacked, speak freely without being 'disappeared,' and actually affect changes in governmental policy.

If you make youself a sheep, the wolves will eat you.

"Sheep will never make an Insurrection.".

Go home, UPFJ, go home!