Corrections to "the SWP's new world perspective" (After the American Century, us!)
ffeldman at bellatlantic.net
Sun Nov 9 11:46:25 MST 2003
I included some confusing mistyping in the post on the new Barnes-SWP
position on the Iraq war.
Most importantly, I garbled the list of five rightist-type positions
that the party had adopted in the last three years. It should have
Think about five rightist watersheds since my expulsion in 1999; the
opposition to the removal of Elian Gonzalez by the INS from the
captors assigned by the
INS to hold him;the pro-Bush claim that Gore, not Bush, was
stealing the 2000 election; (3) The abstention on the anti-affirmative
action Prop 54 in the California recall election; (4) opposition to
the prewar antiwar
protests; and (5) the current hailing -- that's what it is -- of Bush
"staying the course" in Iraq.
In addition, I used the term "out troops" rather than "our troops,"
probably generating needless confusion about the meaning of the
Clearly, contrary to Barnes' assumptions, avoidance of the mantric
formulation "our troops" or indifference to the casualties among US
troops (for which imperialism is ultimately responsible) is no
guarantee of a revolutionary defeatist or internationalist position.
After all, Rumsfeld is clearly even more indifferent than Barnes to US
casualties, but that doesn't make him more internationalist than
Barnes. He may not be much LESS internationalist at this point, but he
certainly isn't more.
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism