Jose G. Perez
jgperez at netzero.net
Thu Jul 24 18:31:55 MDT 2003
>>What I have stated is that BTTHN is inadequate to addressing the
struggle that is the real source of the war; that BTTHN couches itself
in patriotic jargon, just look at the stuff that accompanies the great
majority of presentations of BTTHN-- "this war isn't worth one American
I want to ask everyone else on the list, what's the point of discussing
this with this person? This is the most primitive, mindless, infantile
kind of sectarian ultraleftism imaginable. The demand is "inadequate" --
well, name me a demand that isn't "inadequate."
For example: "Immediate expropriation of the entire capitalist class
under a regime of worker's democracy?" Revisionist drivel. Does the
comrade need to be reminded why Marx and Engels chose the term
*communist* and rejected *socialist*? As for workers democracy, we
remind our reformist friend that democracy is a form of the state, and,
as revolutionary communists, we are for a society without a state, even
a revolutionary, democratic, proletarian state. Our slogan must be "for
the immediate abolition of commodity production and the state,"
everything else is inadequate, that is our real goal.
Which brings us back to where we started as a movement, the modern
workers movement whose first expressions in the ideological realm were
precisely utopian schemas of various sorts.
Marx and Engels cut their teeth in carrying out a critique of the
utopians. Their theory, as Engels explained, is a theory of "evolution"
of process, of motion.
As for the claim that it is somehow social chauvinist to say "this war
isn't worth one American life," first, it is bullshit to say the antiwar
movement then or now adopts such a statement as an overall framework,
second of all, it is an absolutely true statement, insofar as it goes,
and, third, especially and most of all coming from the spouses,
children, parents, friends or lovers of GI's, or the GI's themselves, it
isn't just progressive but entirely *revolutionary.* It is the beginning
In Slouching towards Bethlehem, Joan Didion has a devastating portrait
of Comrade Laski, of the CPUSA(M-L) whose specialty was standing on the
sidewalk shouting "correct" slogans at antiwar protesters as they
marched by. Comrade Laski found immortality, of a sort, in Didion. But
apart from that, does anyone remember the CPUSA(M-L) *at all*?
People like DMS are basically, not just in the big picture, but in the
real immediate and practical one, irrelevant. Let's not waste more time
on him here.
From: owner-marxism at lists.panix.com
[mailto:owner-marxism at lists.panix.com] On Behalf Of dms
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 9:09 PM
To: marxism at lists.panix.com
Subject: Re: RE: Re: Bring the Troops Home Now/Support the Troops
I don't at all understand what it is you're trying to do.. and I don't
I have to satisfy that.
What I have stated is that BTTHN is inadequate to addressing the
that is the real source of the war; that BTTHN couches itself in
jargon, just look at the stuff that accompanies the great majority of
presentations of BTTHN-- "this war isn't worth one American life."; that
BTTHN rather than moving the "95% of those without a concept of class"
concept of class, stops any such movement and allows the
commandeer the movement. I have stated that by not facilitating this
transition to a class analysis, the bourgeoisie are able to obscure the
essential characteristic of a class struggle, beg for more time within
patriotic trappings of BTTHN and once they do get the troops home,
the war with greater or lesser ferocity but continue the war. I direct
to the fate of the VN anti-war movement and the ferocious assaults made
US supported and supplied forces after the withdrawal of US ground
I say BTTHN does not entail an end to the war. Check the timeline for
LP made a statement that socialist politics should not be introduced
the anti-imperialist or anti-war movement. And that sums the differences
Those socialist politics are inextractable from an anti-imperialist,
anti-war movement and should be advanced along the lines of creating a
transition from an ill-defined, non-class specific protest, to a class
defined social program.
To say that socialist politics should not be introduced into the
movement because of the urgency of unity is to say in reality, socialist
politics should never be introduced anywhere, since we always need unity
no movement starts out with socialist politics. So how do we get off
By analogy, would anyone say that the civil rights struggle in the
in the South in the 1950s was just about segregation in the South? And
should no other politics have been introduced? Or should the socialists
participated in those struggles, who marched (and ran like I did a few
times) have articulated their analyses of the driving forces and where
movement had to go for fulfillment? And then when a black proletarian
communist movement did develop, should it have denied its history in the
civil rights movement or should it have illuminated the organic unity
between the two and the necessity for the transformation of civil rights
into the emancipation of labor? What is so terrifying about taking,
leading, the next step?
You want my slogan? Here's the long version: Ok, you say BTTHN. You
you support our troops and I suppose you might like a parade after they
return where you can show your support. So here I come, and let's
was in combat, and let's pretend I know something about military
and let's pretend I ask you if you support our troops. And you say yes,
you want to bring them home immediately. And I say-- Look pal, there
150,000 asses on the ground out there, scattered over a state the size
California [does that sound familiar?], and they can't come home
immediately-- do you support continued shipments of ammunition to "our
and girls" while we develop a timetable for orderly withdrawal? And
you can equivocate I say "Do you support combat perimeter patrols, recon
patrols, forward artillery observation, forward listening and
posts while troops are withdrawn to assembly points for embarkation?
before you can stammer an answer I say And do you support combat air
patrols to blast the shit out of threatening, hostile movements by
potentially hostile forces. And while you're pondering all that, I look
you and tell you, you don't know what support entails.
So here, being the ignorant soul that I am, and not knowing how to
that person and prove my support, I offer my slogan.
No US/UK/UN troops in Iraq. No Support to imperial destruction and
And I let the guy who knows all those things about logistices figure out
what to do next, with his army.
For the record, I am categorically against the deployment of the US
anywhere and everywhere, including the soil of the United States.
More information about the Marxism