Politics in the Zeros, Antiwar.com and Infoshop News on the effects of Marxist sects on the Anti-war and Pro-immigration movements

Bob Morris in Politics in the Zeros:

Why is the antiwar movement stalled?

In two words: the left

So says Raimondo at Antiwar.com. He is scathing against leftie ideologues who don’t want a right-left coalition to fight against the insane wars of the US because that might cut into their already absurdly small power bases.

The Ron Paul faction of the right as well as the Buchananites oppose the wars too. Does the left want to build little micro-mini-empires or does it want a genuine mass movement to end the wars? Because a real mass movement means people from all across the political spectrum join into together working for a common cause, and ignoring their differences.

A left-right coalition would make the antiwar movement uninhabitable by the inveterate sectarians of the ultra-left, whose only concern is to recruit naïve young people into their dying little sects. Trotskyism, today, is about as relevant as phrenology, and about as useful when it comes to building a mass political movement of any kind – and the sectarians know it. They are essentially parasites who converge on any “peace” movement that arises and suck the juice out of it until they’ve had their fill: then they feast on the bones.

Read more….

In another article at Politics in the Zeros, Morris quotes Infoshop News:

A constant for those of us in Arizona who have been in the streets since the passage of SB 1070, has been the troubling presence of political opportunists, or “the hacks” as we’re now accustomed to calling them. A “31 Flavors” of Left-wing political groups, most of them looking to jump on the anti-SB 1070 band wagon as a means to get their name out there, recruit new members, and/or using the human rights disaster we face to raise funds to build their presence.

For months now, the Trotskyist sect, the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), have shown up at pro-immigrant/anti-Arpaio demonstrations hawking their paper, “The Militant,” and setting up a table to sell their books. Meanwhile, the ANSWER “coalition” has appeared overnight and called for a demonstration the day before the law goes into effect.

As it’s been documented over the years, ANSWER is a front for the Party for Socialism and Liberation, a Leninist group that broke away from the Stalinist line of the Workers World Party a few years back. From where we stand, these groups, who parachute in with their own agenda, offer no answer from any of their party building, paper selling militants, or disingenuous front organizations for the crisis in Arizona.

With the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), there are plenty of opportunities for a well meaning person to get caught up in their web of front groups.

Although Morris and (at least the sections he quotes from) his sources don’t discuss it, a similar phenomenon exists with small neo-nazi groups infiltrating the ranks of anti-immigration groups and, some have claimed, tea parties.

11 thoughts on “Politics in the Zeros, Antiwar.com and Infoshop News on the effects of Marxist sects on the Anti-war and Pro-immigration movements

  1. paulie Post author

    On the other hand, I wish the Libertarian Party would be visible at the antiwar and pro-immigration marches.

  2. Jewish National Socialist Movement Afro-American

    Thank you for the great National Socialist Movement story.

    There are many Jewish African-Americans in the National Socialist Movement.

    More National Socialist Movement stories please.

  3. Good luck ----- .......... Lake

    told ya so, told ya so:

    I have been dealing with this Kintergarten play ground grunge match for years. Sincere, ernest right of center groups are not welcomed at left of center co-ordinations as they do not pass an apriori litmust test ……….

  4. Jacob Richter

    Until those who bash “leftist ideologues” come up with things like the Italian scala mobile for wages, permanent public employment programs for zero unemployment, state financial and foreign trade monopolies, gradual socialization through asset redistributions to wage earner funds, and so on, they’ll advance less than those same “leftist ideologues.”

  5. Thomas L. Knapp

    Raimondo got it pretty much right.

    The anti-Iraq-invasion movement circa early 2003 quickly broke down under the weight of opportunism.

    It started with well-attended mass rallies against the invasion.

    And week after week the crowds got smaller because once they arrived at the site to protest against the war, the organizers/speakers climbed up on the stage and started mewling that “this isn’t just about the war … it’s about universal health care … it’s about reducing class size and raising teacher wages in the public schools … it’s about blah blah blah.”

    90% of the people there to protest against the war were there to protest against the war, not be filmed/photographed and put on the news as being in favor of every utopian statist pipe dream that some idiot yahoo wanted to blather about.

    It took six months to a year, but at the end of it the only ones left at the “antiwar” protest were the would-be opportunists who thought they could trick those who opposed the war into supporting everything else.

  6. Jacob Richter

    That isn’t opportunism. That’s the result of an anti-political attitude by the masses, with no discussions on policies that are more related to each other than meets the eye.

    If you want to look at anti-political parochialism at its best, go look at American trade unions and their business unionism. They throw away millions of dollars to the Democrats and not towards a new third or fourth party, and only few labour issues are addressed if at all.

  7. Jacob Richter

    I don’t blame “the masses” for their anti-political attitude. A big factor is the infotainment industry, which prefers sex scandals over policy alternatives and proper history discussions (like labour history and not idiotic end-of-the-world “prophetic” scenarios).

  8. Nat Parry

    I’m not sure I agree with Raimondo’s premise here. Is he suggesting that the antiwar left should unite with any and all far-right groups just because they supposedly oppose the war? I have no problem with someone like Pat Buchanan speaking out against the war, but to invite this immigrant-basher to speak at an antiwar rally sponsored by an organization like UFPJ or International ANSWER would be political suicide for these organizations. ANSWER, in particular, has always been upfront that its struggle is against war AND racism, and to unite with thinly veiled racists like Buchanan and the Tea Partiers would go against everything they stand for. More imp0rtantly, it would alienate the immigrants and people of color who make up ANSWER’s base. (This organization has done better than most left-wing groups to actually attract people of color..)

    Of course, I detest the opportunism and sectarianism that infests the “antiwar movement” (or what is left of it), but I just don’t see how embracing the right-wing would do any good. Obviously, the right-wing doesn’t really care about the wars, otherwise they would be rallying against the wars rather than rallying against health care reform and some vague idea of “big government.” Those people are so utterly confused they don’t really know what they are against, they’re just scared and angry about “losing their country,” whatever that means.

  9. paulie Post author

    no discussions on policies that are more related to each other than meets the eye.

    Yes, but not in the way you think. Big government spending in one area (domestic, social) is linked to big government spending in another (foreign/military). Government is like an animal; in general, more muscle=more bones=more fat, although the exact proportions vary somewhat….an animal with the skeleton of a dinosaur won’t have the fat of a mouse or the muscle of a skunk.

  10. Pingback: Anti-war movement and TEA party must hang together or assuredly we shall all hang separately | Hammer of Truth

  11. Pingback: Anti-war movement and TEA party must hang together or assuredly we shall all hang separately « Next Free Voice

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *