Analytical difficulty

Anti-Communism – Anti-Terrorism

The dominant element in present U.S. policy is ‘anti-terrorism’. This policy has, at the most, a rather remote connection to any serious confrontation with the problem of terror. Neither does it pretend to make the feeblest of attempts to analyze the sources of terror, aside from the suggested theological link between terror and ‘evil.’ Since evil has been around quite a while, we are left to guess as to the reasons for the ‘fact’ that at some quite recent date, evil-linked terrorism has reached tidal wave dimensions. One hypothesis would suggest that evil, after lying dormant for so long, has a new lease on life.

Incidentally, “terrorism” is an orphaned ‘ism’. The very definition of an ‘ism’ implies an ideology enjoying a modicum of open public support. But we do not have any people around who claim that they are expounding the teachings of terrorism, or putting them into practice. So though we have plenty of people who are currently being designated as terrorists, the candidates for this kind of appellation invariably deny that they are terrorists. More often than not, designated terrorists tend to claim, and often with very good reason that their accusers are themselves the real terrorists.

Despite much room for confusion, people of good will can identify what they mean by terrorism and why they find it objectionable. Terrorism involves an indiscriminate use of force and violence against innocent civilians, so whatever the matter at hand, the wrong people are suffering. It is no secret that usually terrorism is attributed to the behavior of people out of power, people who do not control state apparatuses. Governments out of favor are usually not described as terrorist but qualify for an additional criminal category. These governments are, it seems, not terrorists themselves but they are guilty of harboring terrorists or encouraging them, or they are not legitimate governments at all – they are rogue states. However, if the indiscriminate use of violence against civilians is the chief criteria, there is absolutely no reason why any state cannot be just as guilty of terrorism as any band of desperados. All you need to show is that the state involved is pursuing acts of violence and force against innocent civilians, an activity justly condemned by men and women of good will.

Many who recognize the injustice perpetrated against the Palestinian people and rightly demand the recognition of their just national rights might tend to hesitate before condemning suicide attacks against Israeli civilians. The argument against condemnation stresses that the Palestinians suffer from conditions that engender despair and frustration and have no other option, since terrorist activity by suicide bombers seems to be custom made for the weak. The difficulty is that the suicide tactic is not one of individual desperation, but an organizational and institutional effort led by those who find it, out of their own political considerations and credo, perfectly acceptable to kill civilians. No good can come out of hesitating to condemn terror sponsored by political and military forces with a very shady political agenda.

The real problem is the tendency of many to blind themselves as to the nature and the scope of Israeli repression in the occupied territories. The terrorist nature of a policy that turns the life of three million people into a living hell more than qualifies as terrorism perpetrated by a state formation or in short, state terrorism. Power usually enables the powerful to define the nature of social problems. Thus, it is ‘common knowledge’ that the Palestinians, instead of doing something more worthwhile, are perpetrating horrible acts of terrorism. The same discourse that tends to link terror to action by partisan irregulars enables Israel to be a leader in the fight against terror, when at the very same time, Israeli forces are pulverizing Palestinian civilian society and inflicting pain, suffering and humiliation on millions of civilians who are innocent, even in official Israeli parlance. However, even as Bush provides the ammunition for the fight against Arab terrorism, and as Sharon turns the screws against the Palestinian authority, more Israelis are beginning to understand that the occupation can and will qualify as a breeding ground for crimes of war.
Though there is no real difficulty in defining terror, terrorism is not simply the clear definition of any doctrine or practice, terrorism is a label with which power stigmatizes its current candidate for military and political annihilation.

But I have wandered from the main issue. Anti-Communism may have been connected in one way or another with the battle by the ‘free world’ against the Soviet Union, its friends and allies. The conflict between the United States and the USSR was real enough. But ‘anti-communism’ was something else; it was a more far reaching and more embracing concept and program. Anti-communism was the political and ideological crusade, which was designed to multiply the strategic and tactical options at the disposal of reaction. Of course, the common denominator is the manufacture of a political climate that disadvantages free public debate and public criticism.Analytical Difficulty

The physical existence of massive social entities referred to as the Arab countries and the Muslim world is a matter of fact. Observers devoted no little effort to calibrate the influence of these formations on the decision makers in the United States. The traditional wisdom is that in order to pursue and maintain its manifold interests in the Middle East, the United States must, in formulating policies, take into account the wishes and feelings of the Arab leadership and Arab public opinion.

Any logical and coherent U.S. response to the events of September 11 would seem to demand a greater sensitivity and increased efforts to keep friends and influence public opinion in the Arab world. Nothing would have been easier, for this purpose, than reenergizing U.S. policy on behalf of a just peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis. It isn’t necessary to prove that the United States had at its disposal all the required elements to solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem or, at the least, to create a new modus vivendi that would go far to alleviate tensions and suffering.
Instead, at this point in time, the United States is giving full and open backing to Ariel Sharon and the most chauvinist and annexationist government ever to exist in Israel. The United States has actually taken the lead in attempts to isolate the Palestinian Authority and Arafat. Israel continues its massive and cruel repression against the Palestinians. The ostensible reasons are obvious. The United States is convinced that Arafat is soft on terror. It, therefore, sponsors his physical and political degradation by Sharon. The really big question is how the United States is able to disregard the responses of friends and foes alike, how the United States is totally unconcerned that its active alliance with Sharon may cause it serious difficulties in the defense of its regional interests.The big question is how the United States has zeroed out the Arab and Muslim world from the political equation in the Middle East.

The only answer is that the establishment in these countries has been rendered politically impotent and is totally unable to mount any effective criticism against the United States. Moreover, the opposition forces, and that first and foremost the Islamic fundamentalist opposition, are in a state of political paralysis. Arab nationalism has disappeared or been co-opted by the existing regimes. The left is still smarting from the loss of the Soviet alternative. Although it is clear that the United States is more and more disliked (hated, would be the better word) all over the Arab and Muslim worlds, there is at the present no focal point for serious opposition to present U.S. policies. So the United States can and is getting away with the establishment of the Sharon-Bush evil axis.The role of anti-terrorism, the new official ideology imposed on the world by the only super power, has been deadly effective in silencing those who hesitate to challenge its basic assumptions.

One could bring any number of examples, but Palestine-Israel is always an excellent source. The suicide attacks by Khamas militants are certainly not considered terrorist attacks by that outfit and its supporters. But a pretty good case can be made for defining them as such since the victims are, by any standard, innocent. Certainly, massive, continuous and unrelenting collective punishment by Israel, applied indiscriminately against millions of innocent civilians is terror, pure and simple. However, in the comparison of these two sorts of terror, Israel comes off as by far the worst case. Khamas is a splinter group, operating under military occupation. They can claim mitigating circumstances. Israel is an official state formation, with no shortage of available military potential, and a respectable (if not always respected) member of the family of sovereign states.

The Occasion for Re-examining the Question

Barbara Epstein deserves our appreciation for her timely article ‘Anarchism & Anti-Globalization’ which appeared as the Review of the Month in the September 2001 issue of MR. Epstein’s article, based on a serious analysis of the real, existing movement, raises issues of concrete political importance. These require some hard thinking from Marxists who appreciate the importance of the anti-Globalization movement. Moreover, Epstein makes a sincere attempt to find ways to overcome inevitable tensions arising from the presence of anarchist sensibility and Marxist strategies, in one and the same movement. However, in her effort to reveal understanding for the prominence of anarchist style and technique in the anti-globalization movement, Epstein ignores or downplays a number of pressing theoretical and political issues whose solution is critical for the movement. For this purpose she invents an ‘actually existing’ Marxism which is supposed to have modified its opposition to anarchism and an ‘actually existing anarchism’ that supports the need for state power. One fears that with Epstein the wish is the parent of the thought since no such ‘actually existing’ Marxism or any such ‘actually existing’ anarchism really exist.

Epstein’s restraint in criticizing anarchist practice and theory reflects, in my opinion, a lack of assertiveness characteristic of many Marxists who fear that the Marxist theory on the state, revolutionary politics and the centralization has been invalidated by the Stalinist experience. However, even self-criticism must be critical. Serious and even agonized reflection on ‘what went wrong’ with the Bolshevik revolution and other revolutions inspired by the Marxist theory is vital. However, this kind of reflection demands analytical rigor, or at the least a concern about the danger of throwing out the baby with bathwater. The discussion on hopes for the radical transformation of modern society demands that we come up with the most reliable perspective. Marxist theses on the nature of state power and the preconditions for building socialism are essential for that perspective. Marxist theory and practice, despite inevitable limitations, tells us qualitatively more about future possibilities than anarchism, which offers us, as it were, history without pain and progress without sacrifice.

The wholesale dismissal of the principles of historical materialism actually leaves the field wide open for anarchist theory. For those who see no major problems with a synthesis between Marxism and anarchism, this forfeit of principle is quite acceptable. The difficulty is that this synthesis is not a question of good manners or reaching out to the other side, or even appreciating the contributions made by anarchists to revolutionary struggle. The synthesis is simply unsustainable. True, in this stage of the development of the movement against globalization, Marxism and anarchism must be defined as only tendencies. But both these tendencies have powerful historical associations and traditions, which cannot but influence the development of the movement.

Mass movements are guided by political theory and principle, evenat the stage in which theoretical issues seem remote or even irrelevant. In other words, the solution of practical day-to-day problems is influenced by the understanding of goals. Many anarchists are quite explicit on this point, demanding that all technical, organizational and strategic problems be addressed according to their very own principles and long-range goals.

An examination of a number of key issues in the movement against globalization should help avoid circumstances in which ‘anarchist clarity’ confronts and even seems a bit more convincing that a fuzzy kind of timid Marxism.

The Main Battle is Political

At the moment, the pivot of the debate with our anarchist colleagues relates to urgent, immediate concerns of the movement. The Marxist left understands that the movement against corporate capitalism, not to mention the campaign for revolutionary change, requires a broad based coalition and patient efforts to build unity. This alliance will be based on dialog and mutual respect among all sections of the movement. In this context, Marxists emphasize the qualitative importance of labor and the trade union movement as vital building blocks for movement politics and are openly willing ‘to wait and to compromise’ in order to achieve unity. Anarchists on the other hand are proud of their preference for the ‘Great Abstention’: from electoral politics, from trade union politics, from the fight for serious reforms, from building coalitions. They oppose any and all strategies that involve serious compromises and attempts to bring in new, less radical forces and to broaden their participation in the movement. The fight for deepening political struggle within the existing state formation is condemned as the ultimate sell-out.

The Socialist Alternative

The movement against globalization is not merely a movement for reform. In addition to the exposure of specific evils, it does promote serious criticism of what it calls ‘the system.’ Naturally enough, a movement in which many activists openly criticize ‘the system’ provides the setting for serious discussion of an alternative to the dominant capitalist social-economic system. In fact, anarchism and anarchists are quite keen about discussing this matter of an alternative regime since they propose the simplest of all solutions. The future is the absolute negation of the past – liberation will be achieved via the elimination of all organs of power and control. Small, federated communities (such as the hippie commune or the neo-tribal squatters’ colonies) will replace the giant multinational corporations. The elimination of the state is equated with the victory of freedom. Marxists do not need to place the replacement of capitalism on the intellectual agenda of the anti-globalization movement for the simple reason that it is already there.

Marxists recognize the existence of a series of absolutely vital and critical requirements for transforming capitalist society. Organs of genuine democratic rule must be established, the economy must be reorganized along with the introduction of socialist planning. There is an urgent need for the rational administration and global allocation of resources. The need for these and other indispensable measures is met with derision by anarchists and presented as the slippery slope down the Stalinist path. The anarchists deny the need to recognize the imperatives of revolutionary change and claim that once the capitalist state is dislodged, all of society (i.e., all the classes, without exception) will be guided by innate impulses towards cooperation and equality. In short, the anarchists propose a highly enticing theory of transformation without too many stresses and conflicts. Can serious socialists let this ‘alternative’ stand by default?

Social Transformations

The most cursory examination of three important revolutions in the last century, the Russian, the Chinese and the Cuban revolutions, shows how strikingly different the forms of revolution can be. But, in terms of content, there are inevitable regularities in any revolutionary process: a) the revolution cannot occur everywhere simultaneously; revolutionary struggle is protracted and involves outward expansion from a revolutionary center; b) organized force is mobilized to defend the revolution and to neutralize its enemies; c) the revolution develops and is lead by a strong core leadership. These universal elements are essential to any serious analysis of revolution.

The anarchist revolution, by bypassing or ignoring these characteristics, reduces itself to the status of an ideology of rebellion.Of course, Marxists do readily admit a need for caution when speaking about revolutionary transformations. Avoiding the pitfalls of centralization and the dangers stemming from the concentration of political and military power are genuine challenges. But these are difficulties that stem from the very nature of highly developed class formations and as such must be met head on. Success in overcoming these problems is possible only if the battle against them is based on a realistic and practical appreciation of the fact that processes such as centralization and the exercise of centralized political power will emerge. These contradictory advances hence, must be controlled democratically, because they cannot be bypassed or averted. There is and will be something ‘out there’ in social reality that has to be ‘checked and balanced’. It is necessary to find ways to ensure democratic controls and sensitivities precisely because there are dangers inherent in revolutionary action, because there has to be a strong, core leadership operating with force at its disposal. It is quite understandable that the experience of the revolutionary left with Stalinism has generated a serious, thoughtful (and often guilt ridden) desire to do everything and anything to avoid a repetition of that disaster. However, the left cannot realize this desire for deep and abiding self-criticism by ignoring and bypassing historical experience and lessons that were never refuted.

One could go on and examine further differences between Marxism and anarchism regarding other genuine, pressing issues. Epstein is right in suggesting that despite their differences, Marxists and anarchists, along with many others, can and will have to work together. However, it would be quite naïve to believe that our anarchist friends are preoccupied only with style and sensibilities which can indeed add color and dynamism to the movement. The anarchists will not forfeit their right to attempt to shape the theoretical character of the movement. The very existence of ideological differences in the anti globalization movement need not be divisive and can even be fruitful. There is certainly no place for theoretical domination or ideological uniformity in the movement. This is especially true in the face of the movement’s talent for unifying different forces - most of whom have as yet to formulate any long range policy goals beyond capitalism. Flexibility and honest efforts to built unity with all elements of the movement are the order of the day. However, hiding the valuable insights of Marxist experience, method and tradition under a bushel will rob the movement against globalization of an essential component.

Sharonbush

When They Attack

We have to do some hard thinking regarding the structure and the circumstances pertaining to several recent international crises. The United States exercises its imperial hegemony by attacking relatively reactionary political forces, which are often enough, with full justification, in considerable disrepute. Saddam Hussein and the Taliban are two examples. Recently the Palestinian Hamas and the Islamic Jihad are another case in point.

The first comment regarding this phenomenon is historical. Saddam, the Taliban and Hamas, despite overwhelming disparities in most respects, have the honor of having served U.S. imperial interests in critical battles of the past. Saddam, very far from any kind of religious fundamentalism, was part of the U.S. network against Iran. Islamic fundamentalism became a major force in the Middle East region on the basis of the sponsorship and financial backing from the pro-U.S. rulers of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia was, of course, greatly strengthened by super profits accumulated during the oil crisis dating from the early seventies. Osama Bin Laden, presently wanted by the US, began his career as one of the CIA operatives in Afghanistan in the battle to eradicate Soviet influence.

The conflicts in the East are basically battles of the United States against political elements, which served it in the past, in one form or another, in the struggle against the Soviet Union. On the more local level, Islamic fundamentalism played an ideological role against ‘atheistic communism’ and then appeared with fat bankrolls to extend material succor to the poor and suffering masses.

The basic pattern is to turn on former underlings. The ideological cover for aggression is supplied by the disreputable status of the victims.One cannot suggest any serious ideological basis for the clash between the U.S. and the victims of its aggression. The metaphor that suggests itself is the Mafia settling accounts with local or regional operatives who wished to challenge the division of spoils one way or another. The exercise of hegemony by U.S. imperialism is thus facilitated by the fact that it can claim to be acting against a repressive and reactionary regime. The shady character of the object of U.S. aggression is an important factor in creating the difficulty experienced by the democratic forces in trying to mount a political and ideological struggle against U.S. actions.

Thus, we argue, there is a distinction between the form in which U.S. hegemony is exercised and its content. The form suggests a battle between a modern, enlightened society and backward, fundamentalist and or dictatorial regimes. This enables the hegemonic power to claim that it is fighting for democratic values and for a free society. It is highly difficult to develop opposition and protest against an aggressor when the victim appears to be ‘just as bad’ or even worse than the aggressor. The content of the battle is a contest between two reactionary forces in which the strong one exercises global hegemony to enforce its standing as the sole super power maintaining the new world order.

Bush Just Loves Sharon

As the United States moved into confrontation with the Islamic world and the Arab countries as a result of its decision to unleash massive force to depose by military force a ruling government in Afghanistan, it was quite logical that it would re-examine its policies on major issues in this part of the world. The basic U.S. position regarding the Israeli-Palestinian (and Israeli-Arab) conflict has been that a peaceful solution must be found that would accommodate the just national demands of both Israelis and the Arab side. It is also true that the United States had an open, special relation with Israel as a trusted and dependable ally. The US tried to bridge the contradiction by assuming the role of an honest broker despite its special relation with Israel. The logic for this policy was very strong. The United States wished to prove that its friendship to Israel was not necessarily an impediment to positively developing and deepening its relations with the Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular. The question was how to make peace and in what conditions.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict in its current phase involves the violent repression and mass suffering of more than three million Palestinian Arabs. A very good case can be made for the thesis that it is in the clear and manifest U.S. interest to take immediate steps to ensure that the stark reality and the poignant images of the suffering of the Palestinians would not provide its enemies or detractors of clear evidence that the United States was once again flaunting its indifference to Arab-Moslem feelings and sensitivities. If any thought, in this direction, occurred to the Washington thinking, it was blocked by Sharon’s adamant refusal to assist the United States in this endeavor and decimated when the United States decided that terror was the immediate cause and main challenge to the solution of the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict and not one of the results of the long festering, stale-mated peace process. The decision to locate the current obstacle to peace in Arafat’s inability to control Palestinian terror meant that the United States was unreservedly backing Sharon’s policy of applying more and more military pressure against the mainly civilian Palestinian population under occupation.

From a side in the U.S. sponsored peace process, the Palestinian Authority was relegated to Taliban status as a force harboring and encouraging terror. Sharon and Bush were a bit kinder to Arafat in that they gave him a bit more time to surrender his El Kaida.

On A Roll

The immediate reason for Bush’s total support to Sharon stems more than anything else, in this stage of affairs, from the tendency of Washington to believe its own Afghanistan born rhetoric. The current thought process in Washington, bordering on some sort of delirious euphoria, is that the U.S. has found a sure-fire formula to run the globe more efficiently. Countries, one and all, are to be put on notice, that they are going to receive an assignment to eliminate some or other inconvenient political force. If they refuse, they will be designated as countries harboring and abetting terror. They will be tora-bora-ized sooner or later.

The concrete expression of the Washingtonian frenzy is this game played in high circles of ‘whose next?’ : The current DC discourse goes something like this: ‘We have unsettled business with Saddam Hussein and Iraq, the Iranians have terrorist networks all over the place, Somalia is a haven for all sorts of terror. The Hezballah should be taken out of the equation. Arafat really isn’t trying hard enough. Yemen won’t fool us with symbolic action. The armed Islamic underground in the Philippines is a danger to the region, etc. This is the mood in D.C. It is dangerous. It is a cause for concern. But despite their success so far in Afghanistan, that caper only proves that the United States does not have the resources or the ability to keep up or execute more than one small fraction of its current scheming. This demands an explanation.

Let us suppose that the hawkish conclave in D.C. convinces George W. to hit Iraq. There are immediate, immense problems in building up the case and plotting the move: a) what about the vaunted international coalition against terror? b) What is the local version of the northern alliance? Who will put down the Kurds? And what do we do about the lack of a clear, open provocation, which would convince everyone that we have no choice? Iraq is a bit complicated.

Let’s take care of Hezballah. Beirut is a friendly capital and let us inform them of the danger of harboring terrorists. What, they do not agree that the Hezballah are terrorists? What, they say that they do not have the political or military option of moving against the Hezballah? Why do the experts say that we cannot bomb Beirut, until they understand that they have no choice in the matter?! Perhaps we can use the Israeli’s who have a score to settle with Hezballah. Sharon, already fighting terror, is preparing mass expulsions of Palestinians. Sharon, you say, is hesitant about going back to Lebanon and is busy preparing for our attack on Iraq… So goes the feverish pitch of anti-terror hysterics.

The United States leadership is convinced that it is on a roll like some university football team smashing the defense to pieces. On this roll, sooner or later, and probable sooner, the United States will come to understand that the world is not composed of standard ‘Taliban controlled Afghanistans.’ And, as this dawns on the U.S. administration, it will be have to recognize that all of its allies in the battle against terrorism are running their own terrorist operation on another front. The world is full of ‘Pakistans’, which, aside from helping in Afghanistan to fight terror, are running their own show in Kashmir. This will make it a bit embarrassing for the U.S. to reply to India’s demands for a common front against terror in Kashmir.

We have said nothing of the difficulties of establishing new governments, administrations and stabilizing them, after the United States has disposed of recalcitrant elements which refuse the call up to mobilize their forces in the war against terror! The famous adage that you can do anything with a bayonet except to sit on it applies here.

Despite the relative easiness of the military victory in Afghanistan (where it is rumored that many a ‘defeated’ Taliban and El-Qaida fighter has simply run off so as to fight another day), the military, political and economic effort to win this battle in the war against terror suggests that it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to maintain momentum and feed the current frenzy with new ‘glorious’ successes.

The contradictions sketched above, in rudimentary form, are even more complex and intractable in real life. It is in order to at least mention that there other sets of nagging problems at the doorstep of the United States in its role of the hegemonic spearhead of the new world order. The world capitalist system is far from having overcome the pressing signs of global recession. Argentina may not be contagious economically (as it seems, so far). But social and political unrest in a central Latin American nation has all the potential of being very contagious. And so on. The war on terror might have seemed as a panacea which might lighten the burden of Bush, so worthy of respite while he is defending civilization. However, the U.S. unilateral cancellation of the ABM is just another bit of evidence that the world did not change completely on September 11.

Even when it granted Sharon a free hand to destroy Arafat and the Palestinian Authority, the U.S. stopped short of translating the green light into an official change in its diplomatic position. Enough fine words and nice phrases are still theoretically in place to enable the United States to re-state their position distancing themselves from Sharon’s policies. When the United States discovers (perhaps slowly and with difficulty) the limits of anti-terrorist hysteria, it may well start its long journey back to international political reality in the Middle East. In Afghanistan, the U.S. could at least claim that it was unifying the country and democratizing it. If the U.S. continues on this dangerous path with Sharon it will be unable to present any reasonable end product. It will be reduced to receiving ‘credit’ for the success of a rampant Sharon’s ‘campaign against Arab terror’ after he succeeds in turning all of Palestine into a canton of the land of Greater Israel and creating millions of additional refugees. Unlimited U.S. support for Sharon is so improbable and so dangerous for the United States as to suggest that it’s reversal may well serve as a first step in the restoration of some sense to U.S. actions and policy in the region and in general.