[Marxism] Re: (Marxism] SWP and Iraq
ffeldman at verizon.net
Wed Nov 26 16:12:15 MST 2003
Both Robin and Walter seem to be a little off on what is at issue in the question of the SWP's CEASING for the last several weeks (beginning with the major editorial called "War Party on the Ascent") to call for immediate, unconditional withdrawal and ending the occupation. The War Party editorial did suggest that a future "revolutionary organization" in Iraq would oppose occupation and the restoration of the Baath Party regime, apparently placing the same order of importance on both demands. But that major line editorial, did not demand either ending the occupation or immediate withdrawal.
Joel Britton, the former candidate for California governor who, as I noted, had put forward the withdrawal demand in his campaign, apparently did not include the demand for withdrawal in his major "line" speech to the British Pathfinder meeting, and there is no indication that members of the SWP or the Communist League intervened in the demo in Britain on this line at all. "On the contrary," as Jack Barnes and Steve Clark might say.
The course of the SWP on Iraq since the California campaign seems clearly to indicate a sharp shift and seems deliberately intended to indicate that. The respect shown Bush and Rumsfeld, the endorsement of some of their views, the snarling at all their critics and their criticisms, the judgment that Washington is marching toward victory in Iraq, and that US imperialism is on a slow but virtually unstoppable (for the indefinite future) rise toward world hegemony, the campaigning of the Militant against "anti-Americanism" in Europe, and the disappearing of the withdrawal and sovereignty slogans indicate change not continuity of line.
If the party line has not changed, as Robin suggests, I assume this will begin to be conveyed in its public work starting immediately. As of now, the Militant is and party spokespeople seem to be aggressively creating the opposite impression.
More information about the Marxism