[Marxism] Seymour/Ayers

S. Artesian sartesian at earthlink.net
Wed Dec 3 13:21:11 MST 2008

It would give your argument some credibility re demonstrations and US 
military actions if in fact the US WAR against Vietnam ended in 1969.  It 
did not.  It would give your argument some credibility if the US did not 
bomb dykes in Vietnam.  It would give your argument some credibility if in 
fact events on the battlefield did not precipitate the growing opposition to 
the war which in turn fed the demonstrations.

But... events on the battlefield did.  The Tet Offensive, massively costly 
to the NLF, forcing the NLF to retire from large direct engagements, 
nevertheless proved that the US could not control the battlefield.  That was 
the driving force for increased protests, Nixon's "Vietnamization," the 
demoralization of US troops, Congress' ban on US ground troops engaging in 
combat, and of course, the increased bombing of the North by US air power.

But... the war did not end 1969.  Casualties after 1970, when US ground 
combat was "prohibited" exceeded casualties from 1965 when US began 
commitment of brigade and divsion strength direct combat trops until that 

But...the US did bomb dikes in the North.  And for all its fear and 
trepidation about protests, none of that stopped the US from invading 
Cambodia, from conducting extensive aerial bombardments of both Cambodia and 

There is nothing "vanguard" about identifying the source of the war 
properly, in the class structure of capitalism, and linking the struggle 
against the war to the struggle against that source, and linking that 
struggle to all other manifestations of the common struggle against 
capitalism.   I find it a little inconsistent that the "left" could praise 
Martin Luther King for his change in tactic and strategy- linking the 
struggle for black emancipation to the struggle against the war-- a change 
that cost him his life when he went to Memphis  to link both to a class 
struggle,  and at the same time the "left" could work so diligently against 
creating those same links, that same identification of source, and 
resistance through class analysis and class struggle.

I read Camejo's pamphlet in 1968.  Thought he was wrong then.  Think he's 
wrong now.

But as Louis said about the ANC, we've had this argument before.  Check the 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Cod" <tcod at hotmail.com>
To: <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers


More information about the Marxism mailing list