This post is a response to an article written by my friend, The Hong Se Sun, which can be found here on his blog. I wrote this response to him in an e-mail and publish it now at his request:
The objective factor (the lack of a revolutionary class in this country) is the main reason why, as you say, protesting doesn't "work" in imperialist countries in terms of re-polarizing the situation along radical lines. Accordingly, I don't see why you even feel compelled to answer those who ask you about alternatives thereto.
Well protesting is not revolutionary action anyway, as you point out. But it can be something that contributes to the mixture that changes the objective situation. It can inspire people to take bolder actions sometimes. But no change in the situation of this country will bring even one class therein on board with proletarian revolution and that's the point. Americans belong to the world's richest 10% (at least 98% of them do). They are part of the global upper class, not part of the world's oppressed and exploited majority. Hence in working in America at all, we are working behind enemy lines. We should get comfortable with the fact that nothing is going to "work" in terms of re-polarizing U.S. politics in a positive way. What we are doing behind these enemy lines is working to undermine our country's ability to oppress others in the Third World, in addition to recruiting the tiny handful of Americans who might be open to our message so that they will help us get it into the hands of the masses in the Third World.
The tactical advice you offer IMO mostly flows from this ongoing illusion that a radical re-polarization of the situation in this country is possible and that accordingly we just have to discover how to make that happen. It is not possible. American imperialism has to be defeated by those it actually oppresses: the masses of the Third World. You advise communists not to try and establish leadership of protest actions and to try and win over the sympathy of the U.S. corporate media by toning down our message and making sure it is 'American' enough. What kind of advice is that?? The 2006 Day Without Immigrants actions were a success only if one considers the numbers in attendance the most important measure of success. Yes, one hell of a lot of people showed up! The action was in protest of the December 2005 law criminalizing undocumented migrants. That was the basis of unity. Beyond this, however, there was a definite split among the protesters. The vast majority were, as you pointed out, wanting a way into American life, rather than seeking to tear down America. That (the former) was not a good thing! In fact, it was precisely what the Democrats in turn capitalized on as a 'legitimate' demand, thus becoming able to woo most of the immigrant rights movement. What the American media and political establishment found they could not unite with were those who did, in fact, carry their national flags (Mexican flags in particular) to the actions in question. This, like those signs reading to the affect of "We didn't cross the border, the border crossed us!", promoted a secessionist position on the part of a section of migrant community. This latter section, the one that didn't want to be bought off, but which instead wanted their rightful sovereignty, was the genuinely progressive-minded section.
Just my thoughts. Again, not that I disagree with your essential point, which was of course that "most" protests "don't work" here. Obviously we're in agreement there. I just wanted to highlight that we seem to agree on that, but for different reasons.
On another note, I've noticed a qualitative improvement in your writing style. It has definitely improved since we first met. Just wanted to let you know that I noticed. :)
No comments:
Post a Comment