[Marxism] Re: The Militant and What's the matter with Florida?

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Brian asks:
Are there other Florida weirdnesses?

Fred responds:
Well, Florida does have the Cuban connection, Schiavo, the stolen votes
in 2000, and other peculiarities that can inspire Militant wierdness.

However, I still believe that the workers at that Florida plant were
moving away from, not towards, social patriotism, and towards, not away
from, opposition to the wark, and that the Militant's new stand is
abstentionist and wrong, and characteristic of their hostility to all
actual forms of antiwar sentiment.

It was, in fact, the motion in the class that interested me primarily,
not the Militant's position.  The Militant was the only radical paper in
a position to report the incident.

I have become firmly opposed to the unconditioonal denunciation of "our
troops."  In so far as they begin to criticize, begin to act, begin to
assert their rights, begin to refuse combat for whatever reason, we have
to defend them, not oppose them.  In Vietnam a lot of them really did
become "our troops" and this, not social patriotism, is the reason why
we began to use formulas like "bring our troops home now" at that time.
It wasw a mood that reflected what was happening in the army.  Frankly,
conditions in the army look somewhat parlous to me now.

It strikes me as bizarre that workers make armor plating are obliged as
internationalists to keep quiet about the fact that the materials they
are making will get their users killed, and that's what the Militant
stance seems to be.

And I think that the impulse to break ranks on this issue, like the
protests among Gis around it, comes fundamentally from disillusionment
with the war.  For if the war be just, people will take a lot of crap.
But if the war be not just, the king hath a heavy reckoning to make.

And yes, I think the basic attitudes of the proletarian military policy
are valid.  The main reasons for not raising trade union control of
military training now is not that this war is unjust and World War II
was The Good War, but that the trade unions are utterly incapable of
posing such a question, which involves a political challenge to the
state.  To the extent that Gis begin to organize independently of and
against the officers and the government, I will be for it in Iraq as I
was in Vietnam.

This has nothing to do with conditional support to the war or voting for
money for anything including armor.  It is about opposing and isolating
the US government from its own people and troops.

For people who imagine that this may lead the Militant toward the
antiwar movement or stronger opposition to the war, I guarantee you it
will not.  Opposition to "our troops" has been part of the Militant's
bssis for opposing the antiwar movement, and their extension of the
condemnation to working-class families that are worried about whether
their children are being sent into battle unprotected is a move away
from class struggle against the war, not toward it.

And a related development: There has been no mention of the
International Youth Conference in Caracas for at least five weeks --
really since the Militant broke politically with the conference over the
draw-the-line issue NOT of imperialist war today, where the Militant's
disagreenments come from reactionary sectarianism, but on the burning
issue of World War II.  And there has been no serious coverage of
Venezuelan developments for quite some time.

This is just a part of the continuing sectarianization.  The new,
better-than-ever 9-page Militant is determined to challenge the myth
that there is an outer limit to sectarianism.
Fred Feldman


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