With President Barack Obama’s decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan, there has been a wealth of commentary by progressives and various socialists. Thus far, much of the “activism” in response to the escalation of the Afghanistan War has centered on online activities with websites—such as GetAfghanistanRight.com—taking up the torch of opposition. For the most part, there hasn’t been a lot of opposition in the streets, owing no doubt in part to progressive support for Obama during the 2008 election.
During the election, Obama made it clear he supported the Afghanistan War, just as he supports and will continue to maintain the occupation of Iraq. In the past week, one of the largest progressive groups—MoveOn—announced they were opposed to the escalation, but only organized an email campaign to Obama. A more recent campaign, is even more mixed, showing that the organization is largely unwilling to challenge Obama in any meaningful sense. Similarly, United for Peace & Justice—one of the largest anti-war groups—called on its members to call Congress and do outreach work.
Since the start of “The War on Terror,” anarchists have often played an important role in antiwar organizing. Whether it is doing critical behind-the-scenes mobilizing work or directly confronting the war machine through direct action, anarchists have been involved in all facets of the movement. Moreover, anarchists have been critical in advancing critiques of the mainstream antiwar movement and its limitations, particularly with regard to its allegiance to the Democratic Party.
Despite this, anarchists have been largely silent on the escalation of the war. However, at least one anarchist—Wayne Price—is calling on anarchists to oppose the escalation. In a piece titled “Obama’s Imperial War: An Anarchist Response,” Price argues that anarchists should organize against the war.
Price explains that for anarchists, it should be obvious why Obama escalated the war:
The expansion of the US attack on Afghanistan and Pakistan is not due to the personal qualities of Obama but to the social system he serves: the national state and the capitalist economy. The nature of the situation guarantees that the system will act irrationally. Anarchists should participate in building a broad movement against the war, while raising our political program.
In discussing President Obama’s expansion of the US attack on Afghanistan and Pakistan, it is important not to focus on Obama as a personality but on the social system to which he is commited, specifically to the war-waging capitalist national state. “War is the health of the state,” as Randolph Bourne declared during World War I. It is what the national state is for, what it does, and why it still exists, despite the real trends toward international unity and worldwide coordination. In an age of nuclear bombs, the human race will not be safe until we abolish these states (especially the big, imperial, ones such as those of North America, Western Europe, and Japan) and replace them with a federation of self-managing associations of working people.
Of the potential for anarchist involvement, Price writes:
We revolutionary anarchists must oppose these wars will all our might. While the system cannot stop making wars, it can be forced to end particular wars. This can be done by raising the price which the state must pay for that war. If the capitalist politicians feel that young people are becoming radicalized and militant, that labor is becoming restless, that soldiers are potentially mutinous, and that the local peoples will not stop resisting–then they will finally decide to end the war (as in Vietnam).
We should participate in broader “peace” movement, joining it in its mass marches and demonstrations. Often we radicals get tired of demonstrations, seeing how little they accomplish; but we should not forget how exciting they can be for newer layers of antiwar activists. However this does not mean that we cover up our program. In particular we must oppose the leaders of this movement (liberals, social democrats, and Marxist-Leninists) for their capitulation to the Democratic Party. For years now, they have held back the movement by focusing on electing and supporting liberal Democrats.
We need to point to those who have the real power to end the war: the soldiers and other military forces and the working class. There has been increasing discontent among rank-and=file military and their families about the war. We should have a positive attitude toward this, as opposed to a moralistic superiority toward ordinary soldiers, who are usually victims of the poverty draft.. Similarly, there has been much discontent with the wars among working people and their families. We can at least support the idea of strikes against the war, war production, and the transportation of war material. We should oppose any use of the war as an excuse for union-busting or wage-lowering.
The force most directly opposing US imperialism in these regions are the people. We should make clear our solidarity with the nationally oppressed people (who are mostly workers, peasants, and small businesspeople). We should defend their right to resist US aggression. We should not be “neutral” between the mightiest imperial power and the oppressed people of Afghanistan. But this does not require any support or endorsement for any particular organization or leadership. We are certainly not “for” the Taliban, which is viciously misogynist, anti-labor, and statist. We do not want them to get their state again. However, that is a matter for the Afghan people to decide, not for the US state nor for Western anarchists.
We should be willing to work with anyone who will oppose the wars, while openly expressing our own program: the end of the state, of international capitalism (imperialism), and of all forms of oppression.
Price’s words offer good advice for anarchists wanting to work against the escalation of the Afghanistan War.
MySpace
Twitter