Oil, however, is only one feather on the American Imperial Eagle. The U. S. supports the racist regime in South Africa because of that country's vast gold and uranium deposits. And the story of United Fruit and Guatemala is an oft-told tale (sad but true). The list goes on, but the point should be clear.

THE QUESTION for the anti-war movement, then, is how to defeat the economic forces in this country which generate a major part of American foreign policy.

It should be obvious that opponents of the Indochina war must now also be opponents of the American imperial economy. And I'm afraid there aren't any liberal politicians (we discounted the other kind long ago) who are willing to mount a sustained challenge against the growing presence of American capital throughout Western Europe and parts of the Third World.

Oil changes, or soon will change, the liberal calculus concerning the U. S. and Indochina. Being "against the war" takes on a slightly different dimension with all those millions waiting to be banked. McGeorge Bundy, to take one example. a fine liberal via Harvard, two liberal administrations, and the Ford Foundation, has been against the war because the U. S. is losing, and because in terms of "cost-effectiveness." the cost to the U. S. has been too high. But oil raises the stakes of the game, and raises the American incentive to victory, or at least to prolonging the military stalemate.

And good old "Abe" Muskie is reported to be the favorite of the LBJ-Mayor Daley-John Connally axis of the Democratic Party. Texans Johnson and Connally understand oil-and I'm sure Muskie is willing to learn.

The only bourgeois politicians the radical left could even begin to consider supporting, and only then on a temporary basis, would be those committed to fighting American oil interests in Southeast Asia. Which means not only no guarantees concerning the safety of investments in the area, but a public commitment that the U. S. will under no circumstances intervene should the Thieu-Ky government fall to the communists, as seems likely. The only problem, of course, is that the American people are lied to every day by liberal politicians. Why should we be expected to believe another?

Whether radicals work with liberals or not, it is vitally important to remember one concept-and that is the notion of struggle. We, as social revolutionaries (whether we be Jesuit priests, Puerto Rican nationalists, radical women, or SDS organizers), are not primarily peaceful or legal or cooperative. We are primarily trying to get the U. S. out of Southeast Asia, and beyond that we are trying to build a socialist society in this country. Legality towards a criminal government is a matter of tactics, not philosophy. Relying on liberal politicians to dismantle America's imperial dominance will only result in further disillusionment among those working towards basic structural changes within this country. In the end, it is we who will have to overthrow that structure.