[Marxism] Re: The Military Programme of the Proletarian Revolution(was Re...

Jscotlive at aol.com Jscotlive at aol.com
Wed May 18 09:21:29 MDT 2005

In a message dated 18/05/2005 14:12:07 GMT Daylight Time,  
MLause at cinci.rr.com writes:

Jscotlive at aol.com continues to confuse moralizing nonsense with  Marxism.

I'm always amused when someone, like yourself, attempts to claim the  Marxist 
high ground, and does so without offering anything more than a stale  rant in 
the process.
You write:
Earlier Jscotlive at aol.com suggested demoralising the troops  by
denouncing them for war crimes--a position he now sedates into  merely
"criticising" them.  Yet, what's most objectionable here is not  the
dishonesty in argument (which implies that Jscotlive at aol.com regards  it
with all the importance of some junior high school debate).   

Sorry if I neglected to include the term 'for war crimes' in my second  
posting on the subject. Ludicrously, you ascribe the omission to a shift in  
position on my part. It was not, it was simply an omission. For the purpose of  
clarity, allow me to restate that position now: 'US troops in Iraq should be  
denounced for committing WAR CRIMES - on behalf of the US ruling class.'
Really, is this the best you can do?
You write:
Most working people look at the people in uniform and see younger  family
members or the kids of their coworkers and neighbors.  They  understand
what Jscotlive at aol.com does not...that the recruitment ads and  the
recruiters offer these youngsters way get more independent of  their
parents, to get a job skill, to earn benefits, and to help  people.  

yes, and most Iraqis see the people in uniform and see their oppressors,  
murderers and torturers. As an internationalist, and MARXIST, my sympathy and  
solidarity lies with them one hundred percent. Once the troops recognise that  
they are also victims and attempt to do something about it by  organising 
against the war, by refusing to obey orders, then and only then  will I support 
You write:
Finally, it should be very simple to understand the difference  between
those with power who are beyond their reach and those without power  who
are within their reach.  And it should be equally simple to  understand
the pitfalls of focusing our hostility about the former on the  latter.
Your talent for meaningless semantics is the most impressive  aspect of your 
entire analysis.  
I haven't come across anything in Marx about supporting the troops of an  
imperial power while they're slaughtering a colonised people with reckless  
abandon. I draw your attention to my comparison with Nazi troops during the  Second 
World War in occupied Europe. Perhaps, if you examine your motives, you  
might be sympathetic to the troops for no other reason than they are American  
troops. Perhaps, I don't know. I do know that, whilst active with the LA  Branch 
of the ANSWER Coalition and the IAC up until I returned to the UK at  the turn 
of the year, a fear of criticising the troops was prevalent, almost to  the 
point of neuroses in actual fact. This absolutely was a fear created by the  
propaganda machine of the ruling class.
Finally, there does exist a moral component to Marxism. It  is unfortunately 
often lost in all the hard economic and cold social  science which lies at its 
core. Ultimately, Marxism is about ending the  exploitation of man by man. If 
that isn't morality, I don't know what is.

More information about the Marxism mailing list