Dec. 17, 2001
Howard J Ehrlich, Editor
Social Anarchism
2743 Maryland Ave
Baltimore, MD 21218
Dear Howard:
I start with your “call
for papers” which prompted this letter where
you ask “What have you been thinking since
9/11?” and “What do you think should
or could be done to deal with terrorism?”
When I was a publisher an age ago (I’m 86
now), I was going to acquire (publisher’s
jargon for sign up authors) and produce a not-then
(and not-yet) written series of books on the “undeclared
wars” of the US, and as an adjunct to that
do a series of books on “terrorism.”
With these notions in mind I talked with many
intellectuals and that path led me to Marc Raskin
at the Institute For Policy Studies, where I trotted
out for him my ideas for both series. He looked
at me bemused and asked, “Terrorism? What’s
that?”
I said “Hey, everyone
knows what terrorism is.”
I paraphrase his response
now from memory. “Do they? The history of
the Narodniks demonstrates that you’re either
crapping around about your beliefs or you really
will take action to further them. Most intellectuals
have no stomach to get arrested continually (which
is what happens when you take action) and prefer
talking or writing letters. Eventually it becomes
apparent that if you want whatever situation it
is that you believe needs to be changed in fact
to be changed then something might actually need
to be done. Silone in his book Fontamara
ends the book with that question (Lenin’s
question): What Is To Be Done? Menachim Begin
figured out that the British would never get out
of 'Palestine.' Adams, Paine and others figured
out that the British would never give them representation
despite essays by big-wheel Tories on 'conciliation.'
They had a tea party. Liberals and intellectuals
always like the idea of tea-party action better
than Begin’s action. Gandhi was marvelous
as a passive-aggressive and intellectuals like
his mode of blackmailing, bulldozing the British
to bend to his will, all under the banner of pacifism,
with only the implicit threat of action in the
offing. So what is to be learned? The powerful
ones will never simply yield the field and walk
away. Never happen! And willy-nilly we’re
thrust always into the What Is To Be Done!? So
before we trash all the liberation movements of
the world using the word of the powerful ones,
“terrorism,” ask first What Is To Be
Done? If we intellectuals are afraid to ask that
question it’s because we’d sure like
things to be better but haven’t faced
‘what if the oppressor won’t walk away?’”
Marc’s notions remain
in my memory as you can see. I’ve some notions
about “terrorism” of my own, led there
by that very conversation:
Where do we (thinking people
of every stripe) stand on the question of the
British-dominated North of Ireland and the question
of “terrorism”?
Where did we stand on South
Africa and apartheid where Reagan-Bush kept talking
of Constructive Engagement when they were neither
constructive nor engaged?
Where do we stand on Sharon’s
provocation at the Temple Mount as well as
on Arafat’s impotence and downright hostility?
If the Taliban believed
in cutting people’s hands off is not that
terrorism, and was that unknown to us as we were
arming them and supporting them? And isn’t
State Terrorism the rule (sometimes the Law) in
nations that are allied to us and which we boast
of as being part of our “coalition”?
So which “terrorism”
are we talking about? Is the amount of people
killed the measure? How about the killings we
sponsored (Lumumba and Diem come to mind)? What
about our training of the mujahadeen, arming
them not only with weapons but with CIA manuals
on how to rain terror on the Russian troops? Defensible
because we were in a cold war? Could it be that
when we sponsor terror through our surrogates
it’s OK? Why is it that when we crack down
on whatever we perceive as the current threat
we always start with depriving citizens of their
civil liberties (McCarthy, Ashcroft)?
These thoughts hardly represent
answers, just questions. What is suggested to
me as I’m writing this is that the subject
of “terrorism” (as Marc said) is highly
complex, not the simple-minded politician-speak
we can hear every day on giant-owned TV or read
any day in any Murdoch-owned newspaper. For thinking
people the subject is widely ramified and I have
yet to read an unbiased, un-tendentious, informed
analysis of the various notions we must bear in
mind as we think about this subject. Sweeping
generalities about evil-doers may go down in Peoria,
but won’t take us very far. Obviously too
I have no “solutions” or “answers”
since first I’d have to get my definitions
straight, my “relativism” straight,
my sense of What Happens After They Won’t
Walk Away straight. I haven’t done that yet.
Sincerely,
/s/ Earl Coleman
back
to top
