Re: [Marxism] Re: The Military Programme of the Proletarian Revolution(was Re...

[Jscotlive@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 18/05/2005 14:12:07 GMT Daylight Time,
MLause@xxxxxxxxxxxx writes:

Jscotlive@xxxxxxx continues to confuse moralizing nonsense with  Marxism.




Reply:

I'm always amused when someone, like yourself, attempts to claim the  Marxist
high ground, and does so without offering anything more than a stale  rant in
the process.


You write:

Earlier Jscotlive@xxxxxxx suggested demoralising the troops  by
denouncing them for war crimes--a position he now sedates into  merely
"criticising" them.  Yet, what's most objectionable here is not  the
dishonesty in argument (which implies that Jscotlive@xxxxxxx regards  it
with all the importance of some junior high school debate).


Reply:

Sorry if I neglected to include the term 'for war crimes' in my second
posting on the subject. Ludicrously, you ascribe the omission to a shift in
position on my part. It was not, it was simply an omission. For the purpose of
clarity, allow me to restate that position now: 'US troops in Iraq should be
denounced for committing WAR CRIMES - on behalf of the US ruling class.'

Really, is this the best you can do?


You write:

Most working people look at the people in uniform and see younger  family
members or the kids of their coworkers and neighbors.  They  understand
what Jscotlive@xxxxxxx does not...that the recruitment ads and  the
recruiters offer these youngsters way get more independent of  their
parents, to get a job skill, to earn benefits, and to help  people.


Reply:

yes, and most Iraqis see the people in uniform and see their oppressors,
murderers and torturers. As an internationalist, and MARXIST, my sympathy and
solidarity lies with them one hundred percent. Once the troops recognise that
they are also victims and attempt to do something about it by  organising
against the war, by refusing to obey orders, then and only then  will I support
them.

You write:

Finally, it should be very simple to understand the difference  between
those with power who are beyond their reach and those without power  who
are within their reach.  And it should be equally simple to  understand
the pitfalls of focusing our hostility about the former on the  latter.

Reply:

Your talent for meaningless semantics is the most impressive  aspect of your
entire analysis.

I haven't come across anything in Marx about supporting the troops of an
imperial power while they're slaughtering a colonised people with reckless
abandon. I draw your attention to my comparison with Nazi troops during the  
Second
World War in occupied Europe. Perhaps, if you examine your motives, you
might be sympathetic to the troops for no other reason than they are American
troops. Perhaps, I don't know. I do know that, whilst active with the LA  Branch
of the ANSWER Coalition and the IAC up until I returned to the UK at  the turn
of the year, a fear of criticising the troops was prevalent, almost to  the
point of neuroses in actual fact. This absolutely was a fear created by the
propaganda machine of the ruling class.

Finally, there does exist a moral component to Marxism. It  is unfortunately
often lost in all the hard economic and cold social  science which lies at its
core. Ultimately, Marxism is about ending the  exploitation of man by man. If
that isn't morality, I don't know what is.

J
_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism