[Marxism] Re: The "Sociali-Imperialist Workers Party" sinks to a new low

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

  Whatever the purposes of the Militant in publishing the article I
submitted, which I thought was relatively good, not bad. I am quite
familiar with their refusal of solidarity to the struggles of the people
of Iraq against the occupation in all their forms and their view that
the most important result of the imperialist occupation of Iraq has been
the unintentional creation of more "political space" for building a
"communist" vanguard.

  I believe the actions of this group  of workers is a step toward
attacking and exposing the imperialist war not simply an expression of
reactionary "support the troops" sentiment.  I suspect the workers
involved are quite divided about the war, and that prowar militancy is
rare among them.  I think their concern for the safety and well-being of
the troops is positive, that it undermines prowar patriotism and pushes
them toward the antiwar movement, and that this exposure is part of this
process.  It is part of the same dynamic we see among the military
families and the troops themselves.  It is also progress when US troops
protest being sent into battle without adequate protection.

  This is all part of exposing the class character of the war from
another angle, and a legitimate one.

  The fact that the capitalists' indifference to the lives of the
troops -- we are not kidding when we say they are just cannon fodder --
is becoming an issue in a union organizing campaign is very good news
for us. The more the war and the more purely "domestic" class struggle
get tied together, the better for the antiwar fight.

  My concern about these things is part of the reason why I am opposed
to the attempts to create a simon-pure 100 percent anti-patriotic, 100
percent anti- "support the troops", simon-pure anti-imperialist antiwar
movement.

  That's one reason why I was so glad that UFPJ got into the September
24 act, whatever awkward moments result and I am sure there will be
some.

  The Militant by the way does not "support the troops."  They never
have a good word for the troops and the presence of "support the troops"
slogans and sentiments is one of their justifications for regarding the
antiwar movement as chauvinist and social-patriotic. As their coverage
of the war has shown, they have much more regard for the opinions of US
generals -- whom they frequently quote as the last word on various
reported "victories" over the "Saddamist" resistance to the occupation
-- than they do the rank and file soldiers, whose criticisms they no
doubt regard as "patriotic" and therefore reactionary.

  I am a lot closer to "supporting the troops" than the Militant has
been.  I fight to build a movement around the slogans of bringing the
troops home and self-determination for Iraq, an effort the Militant
opposes on various "proletarian" and "anti-patriotic" grounds.

  So I am glad to see these Florida workers taking up this issue in
their fight for a union, and I hope I see more of this.
Fred Feldman


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