Bring the Troops Home Now/Support the Troops

DMS dmschanoes at earthlink.net
Thu Jul 24 06:53:29 MDT 2003


Once more to LP:

1. "But we are not talking about real soon."  You may not be,
but they, the recuperators, the left Dems, etc. are, and since,
as you point out perhaps "95%" have no concept of class, they
will also fail to grasp the subtle distinction between bring
our boys and girls home, bring them home now, bring them home
right away, bring them home asap, bring them home now and
keep bombing ala Yugoslavia-- and that is precisely where
we have to make a difference 1. by precisely stating that
we do not support troops in Iraq 2. allowing that distinction
to pre-select who speaks at demonstrations, etc.

2.Yes Out now and BTTHN were both used.  However, after the
troops were "brought home," the war continued, the anti-war
movement died.  Simple fact. Ergo, BTTHN is not sufficient,
adequeate, etc. and will be converted into its opposite, a
way of dismantling the anti-war movement.

3. No jargon, just analogy. Russia did not have a bourgeois
revolution to catch up-- only a working class revolution
based on class differentiation could accomplish the critical
"interruption" in the backwardness of capital reproduction.
Similarly with the anti-war movement, a non-socialist, non-
class perspective, is futile-- it will not accomplish the
necessary task.  You say we don't or shouldn't interject
socialist politics into the anti-war movement, to do so
will fracture the movement.  Why say that?  If we are Marxists
and we believe the war is class based and that only
the class struggle can put an end to the immediate and the
future wars, why wouldn't we state that.  Certainly no one
is hesitant about interjecting bourgeois politics into the
anti-war movement-- for UN mediation, for continued inspections,
etc. Speakers with those politics have been welcome on
anti-war platforms.  Why should we hide our analysis?  As
Vietnam shows, the anti-war movement will fade away if it
does not develop into a socialist political movement.  I
don't see a way, a reason, a purpose in separating the two,
unless you think capital can end these wars itself-- in which
case we have a whole lot more to discuss.

4. The military history I am referring to is the intense
combat in VN, Cambodia, Laos that accompanied and followed
the bringing home of the US troops.

5. You refer to the anti-war movement as a form of united
front-- but a united front is a specific class-based
organization, it is a front with other parties based on the
class basis of those parties, with differing programs for
the demands of that specific class.  I would think a united
front would include the welcoming of socialist politics
into the anti-war movement.  No form of a real united front
required the class-based organizations so united to
refrain from introducing "socialist politics" either in the
marching or the striking.

6. Throwing in the bon-mot that 'anything that gets in the
way of that[total unity of radical, pacifist, religious, civic
organizations on BTTHN] is counter-productive if not
counter-revolutionary," is a contradiction to the principle
of a united front.

So let's just say No, we do not support US/UK/UN troops in Iraq,
OUT NOW. Why couch it in patriotic rather than socialist
politics?

dms



More information about the Marxism mailing list