Revolutionary Discipline Re: Liu...

Yoshie Furuhashi furuhashi.1 at
Mon Mar 24 10:12:17 MST 2003

At 11:51 AM -0500 3/24/03, Henry C.K. Liu wrote:
>Really, I have more important things to do than to continue this distraction.

If you think it unimportant, then, you don't need to reply to my
post, but in case others are interested, I'll make one argument here.

At 11:51 AM -0500 3/24/03, Henry C.K. Liu wrote:
>Our opposition is to the political structure of US imperialism.
>Although the military is part and parcel of the political structure,
>most of the time the military is merely following orders and
>performing the task of making war.  I have healthy respect for
>professional soldiers on all sides and the military code of honor is
>among the finest human institutions. In-group disloyalty is a basic
>betrayal of trust and is not something to support only because it
>happened to the other side.

What is an "in-group" that counts here?  Rank-and-file soldiers don't
generally consider officers as part of their "in-group."
Rank-and-file soldiers have their own "in-groups" from which officers
are excluded, and vice versa.  The code of honor of rank-and-file
soldiers in part comes from customs that have developed out of
creation and maintenance of a hierarchical organization, but the best
part of it (as far as its possible metamorphosis into a revolutionary
code of honor is concerned) develops despite and often against the
said anti-democratic customs.

At 11:51 AM -0500 3/24/03, Henry C.K. Liu wrote:
>Furthermore, bon moun is right, we do not have the facts.

I think all of us agree on that at least.

* Calendar of Events in Columbus:
* Student International Forum: <>
* Committee for Justice in Palestine: <>
* Al-Awda-Ohio: <>
* Solidarity: <>

PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.

More information about the Marxism mailing list