Re: Bosnia and CPUSA

[Louis N Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 3 Aug 1995 Tim Wolforth wrote:

> Perhaps one of the saddest aspects of the general paralysis of the Left in
> relation to Bosnia is the "sentimental" attachment of some with Russian
> strategic interests. (What in the Hell is "progressive" about contemporary
> Russia or Serbia?  The Mafia?) These interests include a tilt towards Serbia.
> I have in mind CPUSA, Alexander Cockburn, Sparts(?) -- clarify me on the
> Sparts but general they follow Cockburn or Cockburn follows them and both
> always seek the Stalinist low-water mark!,  and, disgracefully, the pacifist
> Dave McReynolds.

Louis Proyect:
I think it's time to take back and examine the differences over Bosnia
with open eyes.

It is necessary to state that the anti-intervention position is not limited
to the CPUSA, Alex Cockburn, Trotskyist groups and like-minded
individuals. It is also the position of the anarchist-leaning Z Magazine,
and most especially its leading light Noam Chomsky. Chomsky has
been denouncing the idea of intervention in the former Yugoslavia for
years now and I suggest people take a look at his Web page for
documentation.

It's more accurate to say that the pro-intervention position is, with
some exceptions, the party line of Social Democracy. Bogdan Denich,
the head of DSA, has been blowing the bugle for war against the
despicable Serbs for some years now. You are likely to find arguments
on behalf of intervention in social democratic house organs like
Dissent and In These Times. Most of the forces to the left of the social
democrats, with some exceptions, adhere to an anti-interventionist
position. This also includes significant members of the liberal
community such as the journalist James Ledbetter of the Village Voice
who I cited yesterday and pacifists like David MacReynolds.

One of the difficulties we have in this discussion is that Tim Wolforth
is looking for the "left" to adopt a position. The left has been
fragmented between revolutionary socialism and social democracy for
most of the century and we are kidding ourselves if we think these
differences are going to go away any time soon.

One final thought on the conversion of ex-Maoists, ex-Trotskyists and
various other 1960's ultraleftists to social democracy: isn't it odd that
in all of the penetrating retrospective gazes that have been directed
toward the failure of the "left", so little reevaluation of social
democracy has taken place among its new adherents. After all, it was
social democracy that brought us W.W.I, that supported Popular
Frontism in the 1930's, and that has frequently been politically
complicit with imperialist intervention (read Irving Howe's Vietnam
writings for documentation.) As long as we are about the business of
examining our past, let's not forget the sins of the labor lieutenants of
capital while we're at it.



     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------