By Alex
With a new year setting in, public support for the Iraq war has plummeted and it has become the general consensus in the American working class that it is time to get out. However, George W. Bush recently stated that the U.S. occupation of Iraq could ‘easily’ last another 10 years.[1]
So what are we to do?
Many would say that the quickest way to end the war is to vote for an anti-war candidate for president in 2008. It has been more than clear for a considerable time that the Republican Party is a party of imperialism and war, but what is not so clear to much of the population is that the Democratic Party is also and imperialist party that has consistently supported the war since day one.
The only feeble attempt at opposition to the war that the Democrats managed was the “non-binding” resolution to oppose Bush’s “troop surge.” But this resolution was a flop and when it was shot down, the Democrats stuck their tails between their legs and gave Bush and the republicans exactly what they wanted: more troops and more money for the criminal war in Iraq.
And it has been the same story ever since. The only basis for the Democrats’ supposed “opposition” to the status quo is that the current strategy isn’t “working,” and this becomes clear when one looks at their legislation. The only difference between what the Democrats advocate and what the Republicans do is that the Democrats have a different way of achieving the same imperialist goals as the Republicans. Both parties are committed to establishing a permanent military base in the middle east and taking advantage of its oil resources, and both parties have yet to seriously propose a total withdrawal from Iraq.
There has been talk of “partial” withdrawal and a replacement of U.S. troops with UN troops. But the current plans for partial withdrawal call for thousands to remain in Iraq and thousands more to remain in the region to “re-intervene” if the things go badly. Secondly, putting UN troops in Iraq still continues U.S. imperialism and the imperialism of other nations because the UN is dominated by the U.S. and other imperialist powers.
The fact that the Democratic Party is an imperialist party that is not really against the war has become apparent to many. But there is still a strong tie to the “progressive” wing of the Democratic Party in the anti-war movement. These “progressives” appeal to anti-war activists because they occasionally mouth off about Bush and the war in Iraq, and they promise to oppose it if the people vote for them. But these progressive have a special role: they make the Democratic Party appealing so that, once in power, they can go on passing pro-war legislation.
The American people spoke when, in 2006, they voted the Democrats into power in both houses of Congress. They demonstrated that they wanted a change of course. However, since then, no change has happened, and that has enraged many. It is the job of these progressives to appease the masses and keep them docile so that they do not become a threat.
For example, in March of last year, MSNBC and some other media such as the Wall Street journal reported on a closed-door meeting between Nancy Pelosi and some of these “progressive” Democrats. In it, these “progressives” promised that Pelosi’s $100 million escalation of the Iraq war would pass in the “Out of Iraq Caucus,” and then they promised to vote against the bill when it reached the floor! Sure enough, when the Democrats were sure the bill would pass, these “progressives” voted against the bill, and the Party allowed some of their top presidential candidates (like Clinton and Obama) to oppose it as well, while Edwards opposed it from outside the Senate.
So what do we get by voting for a Democrat in 2008? Absolutely nothing. Except of course a continuation of the bloody, imperialist war in Iraq. Consistently, the Democrats have promoted themselves as an anti-war party while passing pro-war legislation in practice.
Yet countless people still insists that by standing behind whoever is nominated as the Democratic candidate this year will make it easier for the anti-war movement to win. Here’s a question: How exactly does supporting a candidate not remotely committed to ending the war make it easier for the anti-war movement to win? It doesn’t.
By voting for imperialist politicians, we are showing them that they don’t need to listen to us, because we already support them. No change will come about by voting for a Democrat in November. On the contrary, it will ensure the continuation of the status quo. If we can’t show the politicians that we don’t support them, they have no reason to do anything.
What is really needed at this point is to understand why the war in Iraq started and why neither party is interested in ending it any time soon. The answer is imperialism: it is an economic and political system into which we are born where the government uses its military and economic power to force its influence upon other nations for the profit of corporations (like big oil). It’s not a policy, so it cannot be “fixed” by any saviors from above. Since all politicians take huge amounts of money from corporations that thrive on the profits of imperialism, both parties will fight tooth and nail to continue the status quo, as it gives them large piles of money.
Imperialism and capitalism are inseparable. The root of the problem is in the nature of our economy, and as long as capitalism exists, there will be endless war and destruction. Anti-war organizations need to first break from both imperialist parties, but then they must also stop fearing the use of the word “capitalism” and make a decisive break from the entire economic system under which we live.
Only in this way will the anti-war movement show the ruling class of big-time capitalists that it is a threat, and only in this way will the government feel pressured enough to end the war.
FOOTNOTES
[1]http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=1413
2 responses so far ↓
gigi // January 17, 2008 at 5:52 am
The antiwar movement has failed to garner the type of support it really needs to do something. We need to put 10 million people in the street- not a very large number considering the population of the US- but large enough that it could force some redeployment of the national guard-out of Iraq and back to the US to “restore order.” I think that the anti war movement has not made adequate use of cyberspace as an organizing tool. I think that we need to impress upon the American populace that we are far worse off with a handful of oil companies controlling the supply of oil than we were when the arabs controlled their own oil and competed with each other for market share. I don’t know if I will vote in the next election, but I agree that the Democrats have offered nothing but vague allusions to the possibility of troop withdrawal. Far too little to be taken seriously.
Alex // January 18, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Indeed. The internet can be a great asset. Basically, the main argument against internet use is that “nothing replacing ‘in-the-field’ methods of organiztion” and “spending too much time on the internet will cripple the movement.”
Both of these things are true. But this doesn’t mean we souldn’t use the internet at all.
Too much of anything is too much, but most of the time, we don’t use that as an argument against doing something entirely.
One of the goals of this particular blog is to make more effective use of the internet to further the goals of the Left. It’s not quite on its feet yet, but it’s getting there.