[Marxism] Re: SWP participation in UK antiwar protests

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

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 acount 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 the center of 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.  

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 United States because they 
say the war is bipartisan and therefore its not fair to denounce Bush and the 
United States without focusing your fire entirely or mostly on your own 
government.  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.

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
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?