[Marxism] Skewering "Fahrenheit 9/11"

Ian Pace ian at ianpace.com
Fri Jul 2 16:39:07 MDT 2004


>
> Ian Pace wrote:
> >
> >
> > I haven't seen Fahrenheit 9/11 yet (it opens over here soon).
Nonetheless,
> > the accounts I've read suggest the following conclusion: any critique
(like
> > that of Moore's) that can't posit some plausible alternative will itself
be
> > an exercise in vanity and self-delusion, fodder for faux-progressives
who
> > want their consciences cleared but actually have a vested interest in
> > nothing changing. But that depends whether you think that the election
of
> > Kerry or Nader is in any sense better.
> >
>
Carrol Cox> Look at the film as one-half of an agitational leaflet. The
other half
> has to be distributed by members of anti-war groups leafletting outside
> the theatre. I presume that the purpose of the left is to involve more
> and more people in active resistance to imperialism; I also presume (or
> at least hope) that there is no one on this list whose idea of agitation
> and recruitment resembles the Weatherman tactic of 1969 of approaching
> people on the beach, in drive-ins, etc. with the challenge, "Are you for
> imperialism or against it! You have 60 seconds to make up your mind."
> (Incidentally, that is how Mark Rudd got his jaw broken in a drive-in in
> Milwaukee.)
>
> I personally haven't voted for a DP candidate since 1964, and I don't
> plan to break that record this fall.
>
> BUT, practically everyone I am working with in the local anti-war group
> is hot for Kerry, and while I have never concealed my personal views, I
> would be out of my fucking mind if I didn't work with those people. And
> I would be equally stupid if I disrupted work of the group by arguing
> over the DP or Kerry now. There is too much other important work to do.
> I seriously hope that some of them will, in the next two or three years,
> move towards marxism, and that even more of them (not to speak of new
> people reached) will move towards a position of principled opposition to
> U.S. imperialism. Now it is more than sufficient that they work against
> the occupation of Iraq; we can began to worry about Kerry next January.
>
> Most of the people who have made revolutions in the past, and I see no
> reason this will change in the future, have not been revolutionaries,
> they have been people mobilized in struggles against particular evils
> who discovered, at some point, that the only way they could continue
> that struggle was to rally around the standard of the minority of
> revolutionaries within their ranks. More, I suspect a majority of
> marxist revolutonaries have not been marxists; they have merely
> discovered in their collective struggles that the minority of marxists
> in their midst usually have the best advice to give on tactics and
> strategy. That is our job, and if we do it well we will find that we are
> also doing well in recruiting new revolutonaries and new marxists among
> those revolutionaries.
>
I'm basically in sympathy, but would you consider the possibility that in
some ways Kerry might be worse? Or at least no better, but more adept at
selling the same policies with liberal pretensions (exactly what has
happened in the UK under Blair)?

Ian






More information about the Marxism mailing list