Re: Forwarded from Anthony (NYT)

["lvnadal" <lvnadal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

: "bon moun":>
.  Patriotism is not simply
> the refuge of scoundrels, it is a powerful operational mystification among
our own (white... another post perhaps) working class.  I would
 never call for pandering to patriotism, and I think the "Peace is>
Patriotic" slogan is idiotic.  But the broad movement that said simply "No
War" before the latest onslaught has become a pragmatic, material force on
the battlefield in Iraq, and it included people and slogans
> that were deeply confused.
____________________________________________

I quite agree with Comrade Stan's remarks.  My response to the question of
patriotism was designed to use the same terms that were posed in the
question itself.

Patriotism means quite literally "loyalty to the fatherland."  Now if that
phrase doesn't make you (in the general sense, not Comrade Goff or even
Comrade Lippmann specifically), as a Marxist,  stop and reconsider your
choice of words, we got big trouble in Bartertown.  Try saying "Peace Means
Loyalty to the Fatherland," and let me know how you feel.

I do not advocate attacking those who base their opposition to the war on a
notion of patriotism.  I just do not consider that notion a basis for moving
the struggle forward.  Nor do I advocate simply demanding everybody
immediately join a 4th Intl, defend workers and peasants, etc.

I do advocate developing the methods and means of transition to a more
class-conscious, anti-capital, anti-patriotic movement.  Slogans such as
"Peace is Patriotic" do not do that.  Indeed they preserve the existing
loyalty to the fatherland.  "No War"  is totally different than "Peace is
Patriotic" in this regard.  Still, "No War," must be supplanted, superceded,
as the war is real and now a mechanism for ending the war needs to be
articulated.  "Troops Out!"  is a necessary beginning, and one that will be
supplanted as the struggle continues.  And indeed, if Troops Out! is correct
for the Irish struggle against British and proxy imperialism, good enough
for Irish and English workers, then it should be correct for US workers in
this struggle.

The problem with stating "Support Our Troops, Bring Them Home!" is twofold.
First the supposed "bond" it establishes with "the troops" is totally
illusory.   The real bond established with this phrase is with the ruling
class that sent the troops to defend the empire of capital.  That's what the
patriotic meaning of "OUR" is. Secondly,  individual soldiers may indeed be
ours by blood, friendship, marriage.  But the ARMY as an institution, the
MECHANIZED INFANTRY as an organization, is not ours but the ruling class's.
The Army becomes "ours" only in its dissolution, when the class struggle
splits the organization of the enlisted soldiers from the officers.  Again
this does not mean blind attacks on soldiers per se, dancing gleefully at
pictures of their dead, etc..  It does mean articulating programmatic
methods for accomplishing that split.

I agree completely with Comrade Paramo's remark that we may be required to
march next to someone carrying an American Flag, but we don't subjugate the
movement to that flag.