DIY History | Transcribe | Social Justice | Iowa City Oppressed Citizen, September 4, 1970 | 1970-09-04 Iowa City Oppressed Citizen Page 5

Transcribe
Translate

Iowa City Oppressed Citizen, September 4, 1970

1970-09-04 Iowa City Oppressed Citizen Page 5

NUC cont. from p. 2
a lot of liberals voted for it. Congress repealed the Gulf of Tonkin resolution rather than see more ROTC buildings burned, trashed or occupied.
We must guard against the overly simplistic and cynical argument that the doves are merely opportunists and do not really want to end the war. At the same time it must be stressed that they oppose the war not out of any principled objection to intervening in other people's affairs (in 1968 McCarthy continued to support military aid and involvement in Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines), but because this particular intervention is becoming too costly in both economic and political terms.
The liberals under Kennedy supported the Indochina war fully. As the war dragged unsuccessfully on, radical opposition intensified and disaffection spread. This worried some liberals who began to see the war as a threat to the cohesiveness of U.S. society and therefore McGovern, McCarthy and Kennedy chose to run in hopes of re-establishing faith in the system. This liberal opposition in turn made it possible for criticism of the war to reach new sectors of the country. As the anti-war movement grew and as the war appeared no closer to ending, the tactics of the movement became more militant and the liberal attempt to control it intensified. This is the situation in the summer and fall of 1970, as the liberals try to channel discontent back into the "legitimate" mechanisms of the electoral system and as the movement expands into an attack upon the capitalist systems which produced the war.
Liberals now face an insoluble dilemma. They have only one alternative for bringing an end to the war, but that alternative contains the seeds of their own destruction. Liberals need the support of a mass based militant anti-war movement, but such a popular movement presents a threat to them: it undermines belief in the effectiveness of both elections and elected candidates and emphasizes that real change can only come by action against, not petition of, the government. Given the choice between tolerating the war and destroying the entire system from which they benefit, the liberals would not hesitate to choose the former. To avoid this choice the liberals must capture the anti-war movement.

DON'T OTHER ISSUES DILUTE THE ISSUE OF PEACE?
There would be no need for a war in Vietnam if the Vietnamese people were willing to accept the presence in their country of western investment, military bases and political direction, just as there would be no need for repression of black people if they were willing to accept the presence in their community of exploitative employers and landlords, white police and ward bosses. Violence occurs when people fight back. And they are right to do so. Peace is no substitute for liberation; it can only come in its wake. The movement has understood that to concentrate on the issue of peace in Vietnam without understanding and opposing also the same exploitation and domination in black and third world communities at home as well as throughout Asia, Africa and Latin America only ensures that other war s will break out. Politicians who only oppose U.S. involvement in Vietnam and who tell us that we must not dilute this issue understand that making connections among events leads people to attack the cause and not merely the effect. They also understand that electoral activity diverts people from perceiving the true relations of power in this country. Liberal politicians who want to concentrate on the single issue of peace see this as a way to split the anti-war movement from other insurgent elements. Their commitment to this system dictates that issues (imperialism, racism, sexism) should not be connected because to make those connections is to call into question American capitalism itself.

AREN'T CONSERVATIVES WORSE THAN LIBERALS?
Both liberals and conservatives share a basic commitment to American capitalism. Neither group questions the right of the U.S. to dominate the Third World for its own economic and political needs, nor do they challenge the primacy of corporate interests in determining government policy. They only differ in their strategies for maintaining that system. Thus the first point to be made is that the differences between them are inconsequential in face of the differences between both of them and us.
The strategic difference between conservatives and liberal policies emerge in their responses to popular insurgencies. Conservatives tend to hold a static view of society. They prefer suppressing social discontent to trying to make slight re-adjustments in the system to "cool it out." Consequently their strategy for dealing with the black liberation movement at home is to repress it through the use of force and their strategy in Vietnam is to push on for military victory while escalating the repression of domestic anti-war dissidence.
Liberal policies toward popular movements tend to stress cooperation. They respond to discontent through minor adjustments within the system which channel antagonism into "legitimate" political forms, thus defusing any basic opposition to the system as a while. The liberal response to black liberation is a program of integration which attempts to subvert the revolutionary thrust of the black movement. Similarly, liberals advocate opening up more professional positions to educated women as a measure designed to placate the anger and diffuse the power of the women's liberation movement. Despairing of victory in Vietnam, liberals now call the war a "tragic mistake" and advocate phased or even immediate withdrawal, believing that by cutting off a hand they can save the body of imperialism.
Given their commitment to capitalism, both liberals and conservatives can only deal with effects, not causes. Their strategies cannot produce lasting solutions to the problems involved.

CAN ELECTORAL POLITICS BRING ABOUT CHANGE?
Western democracy rests on the distinction between the public and private sectors. Government - the public sector - is responsible for the well-being of the nation, but that well-being depends on the actions and values of businessmen - being the private sector - who are neither elected nor publicly accountable.
The power which accompanies ownership or control of a corporation is wielded independently of the public will. A corporation can, in a billion-dollar program of investment, determine the quality of life for a great portion of society. Labor and factories move across the country; old communities die and new ones spring up. As industrial innovation creates new 
NUC cont. p. 7
BIZARRE MUSIC FESTIVAL
8:00 P.M. SATURDAY SEPT. 12
ST. PAUL'S UNIVERSITY LUTHERAN CHAPEL
CORNER OF GILBERT + JEFFERSON
MOTHER BLUES - THIEVES MARKET

Saving...

NUC cont. from p. 2 a lot of liberals voted for it. Congress repealed the Gulf of Tonkin resolution rather than see more ROTC buildings burned, trashed or occupied. We must guard against the overly simplistic and cynical argument that the doves are merely opportunists and do not really want to end the war. At the same time it must be stressed that they oppose the war not out of any principled objection to intervening in other people's affairs (in 1968 McCarthy continued to support military aid and involvement in Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines), but because this particular intervention is becoming too costly in both economic and political terms. The liberals under Kennedy supported the Indochina war fully. As the war dragged unsuccessfully on, radical opposition intensified and disaffection spread. This worried some liberals who began to see the war as a threat to the cohesiveness of U.S. society and therefore McGovern, McCarthy and Kennedy chose to run in hopes of re-establishing faith in the system. This liberal opposition in turn made it possible for criticism of the war to reach new sectors of the country. As the anti-war movement grew and as the war appeared no closer to ending, the tactics of the movement became more militant and the liberal attempt to control it intensified. This is the situation in the summer and fall of 1970, as the liberals try to channel discontent back into the "legitimate" mechanisms of the electoral system and as the movement expands into an attack upon the capitalist systems which produced the war. Liberals now face an insoluble dilemma. They have only one alternative for bringing an end to the war, but that alternative contains the seeds of their own destruction. Liberals need the support of a mass based militant anti-war movement, but such a popular movement presents a threat to them: it undermines belief in the effectiveness of both elections and elected candidates and emphasizes that real change can only come by action against, not petition of, the government. Given the choice between tolerating the war and destroying the entire system from which they benefit, the liberals would not hesitate to choose the former. To avoid this choice the liberals must capture the anti-war movement. DON'T OTHER ISSUES DILUTE THE ISSUE OF PEACE? There would be no need for a war in Vietnam if the Vietnamese people were willing to accept the presence in their country of western investment, military bases and political direction, just as there would be no need for repression of black people if they were willing to accept the presence in their community of exploitative employers and landlords, white police and ward bosses. Violence occurs when people fight back. And they are right to do so. Peace is no substitute for liberation; it can only come in its wake. The movement has understood that to concentrate on the issue of peace in Vietnam without understanding and opposing also the same exploitation and domination in black and third world communities at home as well as throughout Asia, Africa and Latin America only ensures that other war s will break out. Politicians who only oppose U.S. involvement in Vietnam and who tell us that we must not dilute this issue understand that making connections among events leads people to attack the cause and not merely the effect. They also understand that electoral activity diverts people from perceiving the true relations of power in this country. Liberal politicians who want to concentrate on the single issue of peace see this as a way to split the anti-war movement from other insurgent elements. Their commitment to this system dictates that issues (imperialism, racism, sexism) should not be connected because to make those connections is to call into question American capitalism itself. AREN'T CONSERVATIVES WORSE THAN LIBERALS? Both liberals and conservatives share a basic commitment to American capitalism. Neither group questions the right of the U.S. to dominate the Third World for its own economic and political needs, nor do they challenge the primacy of corporate interests in determining government policy. They only differ in their strategies for maintaining that system. Thus the first point to be made is that the differences between them are inconsequential in face of the differences between both of them and us. The strategic difference between conservatives and liberal policies emerge in their responses to popular insurgencies. Conservatives tend to hold a static view of society. They prefer suppressing social discontent to trying to make slight re-adjustments in the system to "cool it out." Consequently their strategy for dealing with the black liberation movement at home is to repress it through the use of force and their strategy in Vietnam is to push on for military victory while escalating the repression of domestic anti-war dissidence. Liberal policies toward popular movements tend to stress cooperation. They respond to discontent through minor adjustments within the system which channel antagonism into "legitimate" political forms, thus defusing any basic opposition to the system as a while. The liberal response to black liberation is a program of integration which attempts to subvert the revolutionary thrust of the black movement. Similarly, liberals advocate opening up more professional positions to educated women as a measure designed to placate the anger and diffuse the power of the women's liberation movement. Despairing of victory in Vietnam, liberals now call the war a "tragic mistake" and advocate phased or even immediate withdrawal, believing that by cutting off a hand they can save the body of imperialism. Given their commitment to capitalism, both liberals and conservatives can only deal with effects, not causes. Their strategies cannot produce lasting solutions to the problems involved. CAN ELECTORAL POLITICS BRING ABOUT CHANGE? Western democracy rests on the distinction between the public and private sectors. Government - the public sector - is responsible for the well-being of the nation, but that well-being depends on the actions and values of businessmen - being the private sector - who are neither elected nor publicly accountable. The power which accompanies ownership or control of a corporation is wielded independently of the public will. A corporation can, in a billion-dollar program of investment, determine the quality of life for a great portion of society. Labor and factories move across the country; old communities die and new ones spring up. As industrial innovation creates new NUC cont. p. 7 BIZARRE MUSIC FESTIVAL 8:00 P.M. SATURDAY SEPT. 12 ST. PAUL'S UNIVERSITY LUTHERAN CHAPEL CORNER OF GILBERT + JEFFERSON MOTHER BLUES - THIEVES MARKET