[Marxism] re: US SWP role in British antiwar protests

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Peter Evans' arguments about British nationalism as a factor in
opposition to the US-British war are completely specious.  If the
protesters are opposing the US participation in the war, but are
silent or supporting the British imperialist position on it, then
there would be a serious problem and a big fight and very possibly an
outright split to form a different kind of movement would be
appropriate.

But that is not the problem.  People are fighting the British
participation in the war starting from politics as they variously
understand it.  That is just what is needed.

The SWP-US role in this process is completely reactionary and includes
a definitely social-imperialist element.  They are outraged because
people in other imperialist countries oppose their government's  war.

If the British rulers have become more divided about the war  (I don't
know that this is the case), good!  If divisions among the rulers open
a little more space for the protesters and make it easier to attract
new forces, good!   During the Vietnam war, taking account and
ADVANTAGE of divisions in the ruling class  was a  legitimate
component of the strategy we followed.  We knew it opened more space.
We knew it attracted forces like some of the labor bureaucrats or the
"moratorium" people in the antiwar movement, some of whom we ended  up
winning to the party. We had people like Sen. Vance Hartke speak at
demonstrations -- bringing the divisions right into onto the protest
platform.

If people want to make propaganda about the real role of the ruling
class and why it needs to align and subordinate itself to Washington
and join in all the crimes of US imperialism, that's fine.  I'm a
strong believer in patient explanation of that kind. I don't think a
mass movement would thrive without it..

But as an excuse to place yourself in opposition to the
anti-imperialist thrust of the British antiwar movement, which is a
movement in opposition to the war their rulers are carrying out here
and now, is phony as a three dollar bill and a political crime to
boot.  And for somebody from New York to come over and insist that the
boys  and girls in Britain act on that line is social-imperialist
through and through.

Why does the British government and ruling class accept subordination
to Washington? Its because the British ruling class is too weak to
contend on its own.  Its good, of course, that its so weak (that also
makes it more vulnerable to the antiwar movement).  Not only would the
British not be in Iraq without US imperialism.  They wouldn't be in
the Falkland Islands.  They could hardly hold on to Ireland or maybe
even Scotland and Wales without the support of US imperialism.  That's
what makes Blair act like a puppy dog (his physical resemblance to a
puppy dog may have genetic or psychological sources).

Today, the SWP is opposed to denouncing Bush in the other countries
because they say your fire must be overwhelmingly on your own ruling
class (people have to not just consciously oppose the government, but
the ruling class for the protest to be legitimate).  There would have
been no international antiwar  movement against the war in Vietnam if
that happened.  In this country, the SWP says that if you center your
fire on Bush -- the HEAD of the imperialist government, the HEAD of
the bipartisan war party -- you are a rotten Democrat and they will
oppose your coalition and your protest.  There is always a reason for
opposing expressions of outrage against the current occupant of the
White House.

If the SWP wants the fire to shift to the Democrats, I guess they
should join the effort to get one in the White House. I don't care who
is in the White House, really, as long as we are fighting the
imperialist thug.  But the SWP isn't, of course, trying to elect a
liberal imperialist. They want our fire to be on the liberals or the
French imperialist critics of Bush or the section of the British
ruling class that thinks Blair should move away from the US, or
anywhere but the leader of US imperialism and the war he is pursuing
with a great deal of British help.

Back in the 1960s, we  revolutionists in the antiwar movement were not
afraid to denounce the president of the United States, the Democrat
Lyndon Johnson, and hold him responsible for the war he was leading.
When Nixon was president, without changing our opposition to both
parties, we kept our fire on the center of power.  We never criticized
people for hating Johnson or Bush, here or abroad.  We advocated  that
those in other countries should fight their country's complicity,
partly because demands on their own government would weaken the US war
effort.

DIVISION AMONG THE ENEMY IS A GOOD THING!  There isn't half enough
inter-imperialist conflict in the world today as far as I'm concerned.
I look forward to much more of it.

That doesn't call for the SWP's line which is opposed, on one pretext
or another, to fighting the role of British imperialism in Iraq and,
above all, opposed on one pretext or another to fighting  the role of
US imperialism in Iraq.

Bush is the constitutional head of the imperialist government of the
United States, and takes full responsibility to the war.  Why
shouldn't people hate his guts?  Why shouldn't they take his name in
vain?

I think .basically that the British movement is on the right track,
and that  the SWP, if it keeps on its present course, is headed for
straightup class treason.
Fred Feldman