A contribution to the debate on antiwar strategy and Cuba's position

John Paramo albatrosrojo2000 at yahoo.com
Sun Mar 9 23:07:59 MST 2003

Fred wrote:

"I hate to have this turn into a kind of loyalty oath,
but nothing that I say here should be interpreted as
advocating any shift from OUR focus on building the
mass protests against the war.  This is the main way
we can influence events, and we have been successful
well beyond my wildest dreams so, of course, why stop
now? On to March 15!"

As a participant, organizer, all out activist for ALL
demonstrations and activities against the war, let me
note here the following:

That is not the "MAIN way we can influence events ..."
but ONE of the ways we can approximate to the task of
influencing events.  A "coalition of the revolutionary
and politically disorganized" cannot stop the
capitalist/imperialist coalitions "of the willing" to
go with Bush or their nemesis of the UN.

My advise is that you JOIN a political group, if it is
a revolutionary much for the better.  And as part and
parcel of the Marxist movement you CONTRIBUTE to the
building of the mass movement as well as the building
aof a socialist perspective.  Why to be only half
Marxist when you can be a whole Marxist? 

Fred wrote:

"I know that I would be alarmed if Iraq threw out the
inspectors now -- its undeniable right as a sovereign
nation.  I know I was relieved
when they started to destroy these questionably
labelled missiles."

But we are not Iraq or the Iraqi government.  Why we
should constrained on what we say - or Fidel for that
matter? - for the pressures iomposed upon Iraq?  IMO,
we should oppose inspections and we should clearly
state that the destruction of the Al-Salmoud rockets
serve no purpose for the protection of the US or
anyone else since they are limited to few hundred
miles.  Nor they were in defiance of limitations
imposed by the UN (since, if you added conventional
warheads, their range will be greatly diminished.)

The Al-Salmoud rockets were, in fact, one of the few
conventional weapons Iraq could have used to defend
herself against US troops.  While Iraq ceded to
pressure to destroy them, why us or Fidel should be
the cheerleaders of Mr. Blix and the US - who wanted
the Al Slamoud out of the way?

Fred wrote:

"I know
that I only support disarmament measures  by Iraq to
the extent  that they
place U.S. imperialism more on the defensive.  As far
as I am concerned,
frankly, Iraq has as much right to the nuclear weapons
as China, North
Korea, or India and Pakistan do."

Nobody has the "right" to have or use nuclear weapons
and I see no use for them from a working class and
Marxist point of view. Now, let's talk about "nuclear
disarmament of US and European imperialists" if you
wish and then we can have plenty of agreement.


"I think we should also note the emergence of the
Cubans once again as
leaders in the antiwar fight, after quite a few years
of apparent
marginalization on the international arena-- and the
re-emergence of the
nonaligned movement, which was in sharp decline back
in 1990."

Sorry, I don't get this.  "Leaders in the antiwar
fight?" My characterization is that they are late
comers to the side of the
French/German/Russian/Chinese.  They are followers,
not leaders. Not of the antiwar movement, but of the
movement of imperialist control through
institutionalization of the undemocratic UN.


¡Internet GRATIS es Yahoo! Conexión!
Usuario "yahoo", contraseña "yahoo". 
Desde Buenos Aires, 4004-1010.
Otras ciudades: http://conexion.yahoo.com.ar/avanzados.html

PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.

More information about the Marxism mailing list