Cosmos Left

Lenin and Trotsky in Red Square, May 1919

"What Is to Be Done?: Building a Communist International Today" includes essays and letters discussing the way forward for building a revolutionary internationalist working class movement. It seeks theoretical and programmatic clarification of the principal controversies and issues in the 21st century communist movement that have emerged from the collapse of Stalinism and the fracturing of the Trotskyist Fourth International. COSMOS LEFT is a supporter of Bolshevism, the Third International under the leadership of Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky, and Trotsky's Fourth International.

The first half of the title of this page, "What Is to Be Done?" refers to Lenin's classic 1902 pamphlet that tries to answer the question of questions facing revolutionaries then and now: how to imbue the working class with a communist consciousness that will lead it to build the kind of revolutionary workers party capable of achieving the socialist revolution. [May 3, 2008]

COSMOS LEFT considers the Cuban Communist Party under Fidel Castro as part of the communist international that working people worldwide should support.

Many of the essays and letters on this page will relate to the three major Marxist organizations today that COSMOS LEFT most identifies with: the Socialist Workers Party (Militant newspaper), Workers World (International Answer) and the Socialist Equality Party (World Socialist Web Site). All three of these parties were once part of Trotsky's Fourth International. The SEP still considers itself Trotskyist; the SWP formally shed its Trotskyist label in 1983, preferring to call itself Leninist while still viewing Trotsky as one of the great working class leaders of the last century; Workers World abandoned Trotskyism and the SWP in the late 1950s, capitulating to Stalinism. The Russian revolution, its degeneration, and the resulting clashes between Trotskyism and Stalinism are discussed in Chapter 1 of An American Worker in Tiananmen Square and Chapter 11 of An American Worker in Tiananmen Square: Conclusion.

The coming intensification of the class struggle will be characterized by all kinds of fracturing and fusions of various communist tendencies as the American working class, like all international workers, sifts through the existing Marxist parties and cobbles together the revolutionary leadership that will abolish capitalism from the face of the earth. This page of COSMOS LEFT is dedicated to that objective.--March 2003

July 2006:

Since writing the above missive for this page, COSMOS LEFT considers the revolutionary Marxist newspaper based in Canada, Socialist Voice, a fraternal publication that is playing a key role in building a communist international today.

“It is mass popular support that has enabled the Cuban Revolution to advance, under the most difficult circumstances, and to stand up to imperialism.”

US Workers Take Note--

Cubans Show Power of Proletarian Internationalism

Venezeula and Cuba Condemn Israeli Aggression!

From the comrades at Socialist Voice:

The president of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez Frías, condemned in the name of the Venezuelan people the most recent aggression that Israeli troops have waged against Palestine, as well as the violation of the airspace of Syria.

He made his assertion this Thursday during an act celebrating the promotion of officers and sub-officers of the Presidential Honor Guard Regiment. He said that Israel must respect the Palestinian people, "a people who have struggled for years for peace and independence. We send our solidarity to Palestine’s president and people."

The Israeli army took over the south of the Gaza Strip and in the early morning dozens of tanks advanced from the north. The Israeli attack included the arrest of ten ministers, 20 parliamentarians, and members of the Palestine resistance.

They have been using the entire military power accumulated by the State of Israel with support from US imperialism to bomb, penetrate, and invade Palestinian territory in defiance of UN resolutions and world peace. Also, in defiance of the United Nations, they have violated the airspace of the Arab Republic of Syria with overflights of the residence of the Syrian president, using the excuse that Syria protects terrorists. Nothing, absolutely nothing can justify to anyone in this world the transgression of the sovereignty of states and of the liberty of peoples," the Venezuelan president said.

That’s why and herein lies the importance of the battle we have been waging, our battle that we know has taken on or has extended itself into the world arena; our struggle is for peace, our struggle is for a world in equilibrium, as Bolivar said." Venezuela determined to enter the UN Security Council All this explains, in the words of President Chávez, the determination of the United States government to block Venezuela from being chosen next October as a member of the Security Council of the United Nations. "Of course, the United States does not like it when any country or person raises their voice against imperialist outrages. We have raised our voice against the imperialist outrages of the United States and we will keep on raising our voice because we’ve had enough with outrages in this world (…) we want peace and we want respect." President Chávez said Venezuela’s nomination to the post is a challenge for the Bolivarian government, one that is accepted nobly. He extended thanks for support given by the governments of Brazil and Argentina because they recognize that Caracas defends the voices of the weakest people in the world. He is confident that one by one more governments will come to support this proposal despite imperial pressure to block Venezuela’s entry as a non-permanent member of the Security Council. US spokespeople are already pressuring other governments to try to stop Venezuela’s election as a non-permanent member of the Security Council. "The Unites States says that Venezuela will not make it to the Security Council, and we say: Venezuela is going to the Security Council, we accept the challenge and take the on the battle worldwide, we say this openly." He commented with satisfaction on the results of a study carried out by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. It shows that the people of the United States and Venezuela are the ones who feel most pride in their countries. Fair play, political influence, social security, democracy, the military, and history were some of the factors appraised in the study. The head of the Venezuelan state affirmed that this result shows that with each passing day the women and men of this nation are more proud of having been born in this homeland.

A Statement From the Cuban Foreign Ministry:

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Cuba, has learnt with great concern of Israel's large-scale military operation that began in the Gaza Strip in the early hours of June 28, 2006 with the mobilization of around 5,000 soldiers, hundreds of tanks and other military hardware, during which it attacked the principal electricity station in the area, leaving half of the territory without electricity, indiscriminately bombarded several bridges connecting different parts of the Strip, reoccupied important southern portions of Palestinian territory, and detained many high-ranking figures from the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian Legislative Council.

Israel has used the capture of an Israeli soldier by the Palestinian occupation resistance as an excuse to launch its barbaric aggression, ignoring the fact that the Israeli army has killed 52 Palestinians just in the current month of June, according to recognized international organizations.

This inhumane and criminal aggression took place just when an agreement had been reached among the Palestinian political forces, which is contributing to the renewal of peace talks between the Palestinians and Israelis, in line with the relevant resolutions of the UN General Assembly and the Security Council.

At the same time, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Cuba rejects the violation of the Arab Republic of Syria's airspace by Israeli military aircraft which, together with the barbaric actions in the Gaza Strip, once again exposes the Middle East to a dangerous escalation of violence that is putting international peace and security at risk.

As in the past, Israel is acting with the arrogance and impunity afforded it both by U.S. economic and military support and its permanent veto on the UN Security Council.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Cuba wishes to express its most vigorous condemnation of the barbaric Israeli military aggression against the Gaza Strip and calls on the international community and peace-loving forces to mobilize in demand of the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Israeli troops from the Gaza Strip; a cession of Israeli state terrorism; and respect for the inalienable human rights of the Palestinian people, including the establishment of an independent, sovereign state with its capital in East Jerusalem, the return of refugees, and the unconditional return of all Arab territories occupied in June 1967, as the only way of reaching a just and lasting peace for all the people of that convulsive region.

Havana, June 29, 2006

March 19, 2006--COSMOS LEFT received the following correspondence from Socialist Voice, a Canadian Marxist group that split from the Socialist Workers Party's sister organization in Canada, the Communist League, over its line on the Iraq war. Readers of this page know that is a principal reason why COSMOS LEFT broke politically from the SWP several years ago. The editors of Socialist Voice, Roger Annis and John Riddell, have recognized that the Iraq war and other issues confronting working people worldwide "pose the need for Marxists and other working class fighters to forge new links across longstanding organizational barriers..."

On that basis, COSMOS LEFT considers those in and around Socialist Voice to be co-thinkers.

SOCIALISTS MUST OPPOSE ANTI-MUSLIM BIGOTRY
WHERE 'THE MILITANT' GOES WRONG ON CARTOON PROTESTS

By Sandra Browne and Robert Johnson

EDITORS' NOTE: Protests against the anti-Islamic caricatures
published in Denmark have been widely supported by Muslims and non-
Muslims alike. However, capitalist media claim that these actions
endanger freedom of speech, and some socialist groups echo this view.
Sandra Browne and Robert Johnson analyze the views of one such
current, the U.S. Socialist Workers Party. Both were prominent
activists for several decades in its Canadian sister organization. --
Roger Annis and John Riddell

***************

"People are no longer willing to pay taxes to help support someone
called Ali who comes from a country with a different language and
culture that's 5,000 miles away." --Flemming Rose, the editor who
commissioned the caricatures for the newspaper Jyllands-Posten,
quoted in the Feb. 12 New York Times

***************

"To Muslims, the caricatures vividly brought back the scenes of
Israeli bulldozers demolishing Palestinian homes in Jenin, the
invasion of Afghanistan, the fall of Baghdad, terrors of Abu Ghraib
and humiliations of Guantanamo Bay.

"Cultural arrogance was added to political aggressiveness. Muslims
have grown used to the torrent of terrifying images that associate
them and their faith with the most horrifying of practices, from
violence and cruelty to fanaticism and oppression. When it comes to
Islam, all boundaries and limits could be dispensed with. The
unacceptable becomes perfectly acceptable, proper and respectable.

"The truth is that today racism, intolerance, xenophobia, and hatred
of the other hide behind the sublime façade of free speech, the
defence of `our' values and protection of `our' society
from `foreign' aggression.

"Let us not be deceived about this rhetoric of liberalism and free
speech. The Danish cartoons have nothing to do with freedom of
expression and everything to do with hatred of the other in a Europe
grappling with its growing Muslim minorities, still unable to accept
them." -Soumaya Ghannoushi writing for Aljazeera.net

***************

"Muslims have, in effect, been vilified twice: once through the
original cartoons and then again for having the gall to protest them.
Such logic recalls the words of the late South African black
nationalist Steve Biko: `Not only are whites kicking us, they are
telling us how to react to being kicked.'" --Gary Younge, "The Right
to be Offended," The Nation, February 27

*******************

In the weeks following the publication of the anti-Muslim caricatures
by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, many large actions of
protest have taken place around the world. The mobilizations have
been particularly massive and sustained among the Arab and Muslim
peoples, the direct targets of the caricatures. But other fighters
against racism and chauvinism have joined the protests.

Meanwhile, the imperialist rulers and their ideological followers are
doing everything they can to dampen and discredit the mobilizations.
This has led to a sharp polarization of political opinion and action.
It has also posed a test for socialists. Many have rallied to the
defense of Muslims. But others have echoed ruling-class themes.

The February 27, 2006, issue of The Militant provides a particularly
blatant example of this. The newspaper expresses the views of the
U.S. Socialist Workers Party, and its stand on this issue illustrates
how far the SWP leadership has retreated from revolutionary Marxism
on the struggle of oppressed nationalities against imperialism.

1. TURNING THE VICTIMS INTO THE CRIMINALS

As Soumaya Ghannoushi explains, the publication of the caricatures
and the reaction they provoked had nothing to do with the issue of
free speech and everything to do with the mounting tide of war,
oppression, chauvinism, and racism that has been particularly
directed against peoples and nations who are Muslim.

This international context includes:

** The rise of racism in Denmark spearheaded by the Danish government
and the record of xenophobia and anti-Muslim incitement of the
publishers of Jyllands-Posten where the caricatures first appeared.
Their publication was a deliberate provocation.

** The presence of Danish troops in the imperialist armies occupying
Afghanistan and Iraq.

** Recent European Union decisions aimed at preventing or delaying
Turkey's adhesion to the EU because of its large Muslim population

** Afghanistan has been invaded and occupied by imperialism. Iraq has
been invaded and occupied by imperialism. Palestine is occupied by
the Zionists. In all of these countries imperialism has brought
nothing but death and destruction. The social fabric of these
societies is being destroyed. The U.S. has been building and
reinforcing military bases in other countries of the Middle East and
Central Asia. The threat of a war against Iran grows ever closer.

** In the imperialist countries the ruling class seeks to justify its
current and coming aggressions with a fierce ideological campaign, an
important component of which is directed against Muslims at home and
abroad. The campaign is multifaceted, but an underlying theme is that
Islam is an aggressive, backward, warlike religion whose adherents
must be conquered and "civilized." Official racism is instituted
through the immigration laws, operations of the secret police, secret
trials, "rendition" to ensure that detainees will be tortured, the
Guantanamo concentration camp, etc. Rightist and openly racist forces
are emboldened in this context, take the bit between their teeth and
push much further.

** This is the reality that immigrants in this country who come from
the countries under attack face, as they do in the U.S. or Western
Europe. The situation is much worse for those who live under
imperialist occupation or threat of attack.

The protests against the caricatures occur against this backdrop.
They are an expression of deep outrage at all of these aggressions
and indignities heaped upon the toiling masses, many of whom are
Muslims. At their most basic level they are a cry for dignity and
equality, and a sign that there are many among the protesters who are
willing to fight against the warmongers and merchants of hate.

The Militant's view

The Militant presents an entirely different view of the protests.

The coverage is presented in a lengthy article by Sam
Manuel, "Imperialist powers use reactionary demands on banning Danish
cartoons to attack rights, boost support for war," and an
editorial "Censorship hurts working class." (See references, below)

Nowhere in either the article or the editorial does the paper
acknowledge that the published caricatures including the one
depicting Muhammad as a terrorist are anti-Muslim, xenophobic and
intended to deepen racist suspicion toward Arab peoples. Nowhere do
the writers acknowledge the rightful anger of millions worldwide at
such affronts and their legitimate demands for an end to them.
Nowhere do they recognize that the victims of these attacks and
working people are right to strenuously protest such treatment by the
imperialist rulers.

Surely The Militant does not prefer that Muslims turn the other cheek
in the face of such an outrage. Why then is it unable to utter a
single word of support to the protests? Why are words such
as "racist", "anti-Muslim," and "chauvinist" entirely absent from its
coverage?

The character of the paper's treatment of the issue is exemplified in
the first paragraph of the front-page article by Manuel:

"WASHINGTON--Washington, London, and other imperialist powers are
taking advantage of often violent protests against controversial
cartoons, including one showing Prophet Muhammad with a lit bomb in
his turban, to expand popular support for their wars in Afghanistan
and Iraq and threats against Iran and Syria."

The caricatures are characterized as "controversial cartoons." The
choice of words is no accident since the editorial repeats the same
expression. The concept that the drawings were a chauvinist
provocation is foreign to the coverage.

Moreover, the author smears the mobilizations by calling them "often
violent protests." This again turns the victims into criminals.
Nearly all of the deaths and injuries associated with the
demonstrations occurred when the police and armies of pro-imperialist
governments attempted to quell the protests by force. (Later in
Manuel's article he does acknowledge the lethal role of the security
forces in two countries, Afghanistan and Pakistan. He then resumes
his narrative portraying the protests as reactionary.) The article
also makes a point of mentioning the torching of the Danish and
Norwegian embassies in Syria. Apparently the editors consider this
instance of destruction of private property to be especially
noteworthy, but they do not explain why.

The Militant states on its masthead that it is "published in the
interests of working people." That statement is contradicted by its
refusal to express solidarity with the protests in any way. This
refusal is a profound disservice to the paper's readers.

Instead the paper attempts to portray the protests as a reactionary
mass mobilization, one which aids U.S. imperialism in its war drive
and which favors censorship.

This is itself a crude caricature unsupported by the facts. It turns
reality on its head and amounts to what Malcolm X called "turning the
victim into the criminal."

Censorship, the working class,
and the mass protests

To be sure, Marxists oppose any attempt by capitalist governments to
stifle political, cultural, religious or other forms of expression.
The working class can only advance toward taking power through the
free exchange of ideas. History has shown that capitalist governments
do not hesitate to direct their powers of censorship and "anti-hate"
laws against the labor movement when it suits their purpose,
particularly in times of social crisis. This why, for example,
Marxists oppose the recent jailing of the right-wing author David
Irving in Austria for denying the Holocaust in his1989 speeches. Such
ideas must be vigorously opposed, but they cannot be defeated through
repressive thought-control laws.

The most effective way to respond to rightist ideas and provocations
is through debate and effective mass mobilization. Indeed, by
repeatedly mobilizing in the streets in their many tens of thousands
from Tangier to Jakarta, Muslims and their supporters have struck a
powerful blow against the racists and xenophobes.

In the semicolonial world many pro-imperialist governments sought to
suppress the protests, often violently. But others recognized the
depth of anger the caricatures triggered and sought to direct the
protests into channels that did not threaten their rule. Some
political and religious leaders of the protests did indeed call for
censorship. It is correct and necessary for socialists to oppose such
demands. But this can and should be done in the context of supporting
unambiguously the mass mobilizations against the caricatures.

NDP calls for protests

Even the reformist New Democratic Party has a better position than
the SWP on this issue.

On February 14 Alexa McDonough issued a statement on behalf of the
NDP entitled "NO TO ISLAMAPHOBIA [sic]. NO TO ANTI-SEMITISM. NO TO
RACISM OF ANY KIND." Not surprisingly the statement leaves much to be
desired. It attempts to place equal emphasis on freedom of expression
and religion on the one hand and opposition to hatred and intolerance
on the other. It calls on all sides to avoid excesses.

Yet for all that, the NDP states unequivocally that the cartoons
are "abhorrent depictions" that should be protested and says that "(i)
ntentionally denigrating Islam or any other faith is offensive,
destructive and understandably inflammatory."

Given this stand, it would certainly be logical to invite the NDP to
speak at future protests and to expect to be able to draw NDP
supporters to participate in it. This would provide aid and comfort
to the embattled Muslim community; they have been attempting to forge
a broader front against racism, but they are opposed by powerful
forces and their success has been limited to date.

The SWP, in contrast, opposes the protests from the sidelines.

2. REVISING MARXISM, ABSTAINING FROM STRUGGLES

Faced with imperialism's drive to terrorize, occupy and impose its
political will on the Arab and Muslim world, workers and socialists
of the oppressor nations have a special responsibility today to
defend and to give all possible aid to the struggles of the oppressed
for their liberation.

This is not a new question for the labor movement. Since the
beginning of the imperialist era over 100 years ago, some of the
sharpest debates and divisions among socialists have been over this
very issue. In its early years the Third (Communist) International
expressed the common interests of the workers in the imperialist
nations and the masses struggling for their freedom from imperialism
in the strategic slogan, "Workers and Oppressed Nations of the World,
Unite."

This strategic line formed part of the historic program of the SWP,
which applied it for more than 50 years to many of the burning issues
of the day including the fight against colonialism in Africa and
Asia, the fight against the Vietnam War, struggles in Palestine and
Ireland, and solidarity with Cuba.

To cite one such example, in 1982 the military junta of Argentina,
its hands dripping with the blood of tens of thousands of Argentine
workers, students, and others that it had murdered in its "dirty
war," sought to prolong its highly unpopular rule. It invaded the
Malvinas, a group of islands that historically belong to Argentina
but were occupied by Britain. In the ensuing war the Socialist
Workers Party unconditionally supported Argentina; the Cuban
government did likewise and campaigned to rally Latin America to the
cause of Argentina, even while it was led by the murderous generals.

Yet today when the targets of the chauvinist caricatures rise up to
proclaim their revulsion and their human dignity, The Militant
harshly denounces the protests and denies their role as part of the
fight against imperialism and national oppression.

The concluding paragraph of the editorial must be read in that light.
It states:

"The opposite is true. Muslims, like other believers, are divided
into classes. Among the swelling ranks of working people--from the
Middle East to North America, from Europe to Africa, Asia, and the
Pacific--there is a growing convergence among those who recognize the
need to safeguard and extend democratic rights in order to defend the
life and limb of the working class and its allies, and to fight for a
world without class exploitation, national oppression, or sex
discrimination."

This passage fails to recognize the oppression that imperialism is
today systematically directing against Arabs and Muslims on the basis
of their race and religion. This oppression has not only a class but
a national character. The chauvinist outcry against the Dubai Ports
World deal clearly illustrates the fact that capitalists who are
Muslim can also become targets of the mounting rightist propaganda of
imperialist rulers. (Of course the burden of such oppression falls
most heavily on the workers, farmers, and other toiling layers in the
semicolonial world and among the immigrant populations in countries
like the U.S. and Canada.)

The conclusion of the editorial is a shameful revision of
revolutionary Marxism. It contradicts not only the historic program
of the SWP but the teachings and practice of such revolutionaries as
Malcolm X, Fidel and Che, Lenin and Trotsky.

A further point should be noted. The Militant's refusal to call for
protests against the racist caricatures mirrors its longstanding
failure to promote protests against the war in Iraq. It condemns
virtually all acts of resistance by Iraqi fighters to the occupation
of their country. The paper abstains from and criticizes virtually
all of the major protest actions against the occupation organized in
the U.S., Canada, and other countries. It justifies this stand by
citing its disagreements with the leaderships of these actions. The
SWP appears to have lost the ability to join in united fronts and to
support actions that objectively weaken U.S. imperialism's
stranglehold on Iraq, whatever may be the political positions of the
forces leading such actions.

The Militant does not mention the considerable and growing opposition
to the war among the U.S. troops stationed in Iraq. This omission is
all the more striking in light of the SWP's record of leading work
among GIs against the Vietnam war and orienting the antiwar movement
in this direction. The paper is also silent on the large and growing
opposition to the war among the U.S. population as a whole.

Similarly, The Militant has utterly failed to systematically defend
Iraq's sovereignty and expose the colonialist oppression of the Iraqi
people. The war and occupation have brought dreadful living
conditions, many Iraqi deaths, checkpoints, curfews, raids, jailings,
torture and political interference, all imposed with imperial
arrogance by the U.S. and its allies. This information is credibly
documented elsewhere, but is kept out of the pages of The Militant.

In statements and editorials the party and the newspaper occasionally
repeat their call for the U.S. to withdraw from Iraq. But The
Militant gives no indication that the SWP is carrying out any
practical activity to further that goal. It does not report on any
antiwar campaigning by the party whether in the factories and mines,
on the campuses, outside military bases, or elsewhere. Yet the party
does not hesitate to sharply criticize those who protest or resist
the occupation.

This course of conduct is also in complete contradiction to
revolutionary Marxism and to the outstanding record in earlier years
of the SWP and The Militant.

3. GROWING DIVERGENCE WITH CUBA'S LEADERSHIP

For several decades after the victory of the revolution in 1959 The
Militant was the best source of information in English on events in
Cuba and the views of the leaders of the revolution. Speeches by
Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Raul Castro, and other leaders appeared in
the newspaper in a timely way; many of these were then published in
book form by Pathfinder Press.

This is no longer the case. The SWP and The Militant are still
partisans of the Cuban revolution, but their approach and coverage
has become highly selective and disconnected from many of the big
issues of the day. Articles on Cuba in the paper deal with almost
exclusively with historical themes and with Cuba's humanitarian and
internationalist aid to other countries. Publishing projects that
involve Pathfinder are also reported. While this is information is
certainly of some interest, The Militant has chosen not to report on
many key statements by Cuban leaders and on other developments
related to Cuba that are vitally important to fighters around the
world.

In fact, for Cuba 2005 has been a "wonderful, triumphant year", as
John Riddell reports in Socialist Voice #67. Important advances have
been registered both domestically and internationally, and the
forward motion is continuing. Fidel Castro and others have given many
talks in recent months about changes and challenges inside Cuba,
Cuba's view of the world situation and what the Cubans and others are
doing to advance the international struggle. Much of this material is
available, in English, on the Web.

So far The Militant has been silent about these important
developments. Fighting workers and youth can no longer look to the
paper to learn what the revolutionary leaders and people of Cuba are
doing and saying. They must find this information elsewhere.

The reason for this silence is not hard to understand.

Mesmerized by its greatly exaggerated appraisal of the strength of
U.S. imperialism, bewailing the leadership challenges faced by our
class, and dismissive of the masses in the Middle East, Latin America
and elsewhere who are rising up in new waves of struggle, the SWP's
view of the world is very different from that of the Cubans.
Moreover, our Cuban comrades are acting boldly on their assessment of
the new objective possibilities, and are reaching out to build the
most powerful anti-imperialist united front that they can. They are
forging ever-stronger ties with Venezuela and have embraced the
election of Evo Morales as president of Bolivia, offering concrete
aid to the Andean country in every possible way.

In their support for struggles for justice around the world and for
Latin American unity against U.S. imperialism, the communist leaders
of the Cuban workers state are in fact applying the strategic line
of "Workers and Oppressed Nations of the World, Unite" and adapting
it to today's conditions.

Moreover, they explain what they are doing in no uncertain terms, to
all who will listen. All of this means that as the objective
situation improves for our class and the possibilities for struggle
grow, the chasm between what the Cuban comrades are doing and saying,
and what the SWP stands for, grows larger.

The SWP's rejection of the national liberation struggle, so clearly
captured in their opposition to the international antiracist
protests, is also a rejection of the communist course of the Cuban
leadership.

***********
REFERENCES:

The Militant, February 27, 2006:
** http://www.themilitant.com/2006/7008/700804.html
** http://www.themilitant.com/2006/7008/700820.html

Letters from Readers and reply by The Militant, March 20, 2006
** http://www.themilitant.com/2006/7011/701135.html
** http://www.themilitant.com/2006/7011/701136.html

***********
THE AUTHORS: Sandra Browne and Robert Johnson were members and
subsequently organized supporters of the Communist League and its
predecessor organizations for more than three and four decades
respectively. Robert Johnson was a central leader of the organization
through the mid 1960s to the early 1980s. The Communist League is the
sister organization in Canada of the U.S. Socialist Workers Party.

Sept. 25-26, 2005--The Militant was once an outstanding tribune of the working class. Today it is a sectarian, workerist rag that continually provides a left cover for George Bush and the most reactionary wing of the US capitalist class. In the lead article of the Sept. 25 issue, Argiris Malapanis wrote the following:

"Despite complaints by Louisiana and New Orleans Democrats of underfunding, however, the state of Louisiana had received $2 billion over the last five years from the Bush administration for Army Corps of Engineers civil projects—more than any other state. Only a tiny portion of these funds were used to reinforce the levee system, however, which was not designed to withstand a storm with the force of Katrina."

This passage could have been lifted directly from a Republican or Bill O'Reilly playbook designed to deflect blame from Bush by putting it on the Democrats. Now the Militant will say it's only trying to forge working class independence and liberate workers from the clutches of the lesser-evil Democrats, but the World Socialist Web Site has consistenly shown it is possible to target the entire capitalist political establishment--federal, state and local--as well as the bipartisan disaster that is this bourgeois government--without helping the Republicans' diversionary and scapegoating schemes.

As usual, the Militant leaves its readers with a woefully superficial analysis bereft of a multitude of facts that lets Bush off the hook. Last year the Army Corps of Engineers wanted to examine how New Orleans could be protected from a killer hurricane, but Bush ordered the study nixed. In 2001, FEMA reported that the destruction of New Orleans by a Katrina-type hurricane loomed as one of the three  most likely disasters facing the US, along with a terrorist attack on New York City and a San Francisco earthquake. In response federal funding for flood control was diverted to the Iraq war. And in 2004, Bush slashed spending to hold back the flooding of Lake Pontchartrain by more than 80 percent. Further, Bush's decision to unleash developers on the wetlands no doubt increased Katrina's storm surge level.

Similarly, the Militant's analysis of the maneuvering and infighting between Louisiana Governor Blanco and Bush over the federalization of the National Guard was superficial and, with the exception of the last sentence, could have been written by the White House or any two-bit bourgeois news service:

"Louisiana governor Kathleen Blanco has also accused the Bush administration of not moving fast enough to send troops to the state in Katrina’s wake. The White House initially relied on National Guard troops sent to the region, now numbering 46,000, which are under the jurisdiction of state governors. According to the September 9 Washington Post, Blanco resisted a Bush administration effort to exert federal control over all local police and state National Guard units.

"The Bush administration itself and its backers are claiming that it could not deploy federal troops rapidly into a situation where they would have to enforce 'law and order' against 'looters' because the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 forbids use of the military for domestic policing. The Gulf Coast disaster is now being used by both Democrats and Republicans to argue for greater use of troops within the United States."

The twin parties of war, racism and repression are not only arguing for greater use of troops within the US, they're doing it, and the WSWS does a better job than the Militant explaining the dynamics behind the rulers' expanded deployment of US troops in such articles as "New Orleans becomes a war zone: A dress rehearsal for martial law?"

And unlike the WSWS, the Militant says nothing about the undeniable evidence that Washington prevented aid from reaching New Orleans until it had amassed a large enough military force to occupy the city.

A similar dynamic is still unfolding on the pages of the Militant regarding the occupation of Iraq. The Militant continues to give credence to Washington's position by reducing the Iraqi Resistance to "Baathists" and by parrotting the Pentagon's line about "Al Qaeda in Iraq" and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. This simplistic approach explains nothing and only bolsters Washington's propaganda campaign. While the Resistance contains remnants of Hussein's Baathists, it also includes nationalists and a myriad of Islamic fundamentalist groups. Most of the Resistance attacks are directed against the foreign occupiers and those Iraqis collaborating with them. The Militant has never told its readers about the credible reports that Zarqawi was killed in Northern Iraq several years ago. The Militant passes along the Pentagon's line that Sunni extremists and Baathists are behind the terrorist attacks on Shiites. However, the recent events in Basra have only strengthended the widespread perception in Iraq and elsewhere that "Al Qaeda in Iraq" is actually a creation of US and British intelligence.

The Militant's simplistic, sweeping use of "Baathists" is also misleading because, as the WSWS has reported, "US officials in Iraq are reconstituting elements of the former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's secret police, the Mukhabarat, and integrating them into the US occupation authority."

It is a slander to Iraqi workers under the gun of US imperialist firepower for the Militant to falsely characterize the Resistance as "Baathists" while echoing Washington's line that these Sunnis are the ones slaughtering Shiites in terrorist operations. We don't know for sure who is behind these heinous acts. Some may be the work of British, American or Israeli provocateurs, as Basra's recent events suggest. Others no doubt are committed by Islamic extremists from "Al  Qaeda in Iraq" or otherwise. But to use"Baathists" and Al Qaeda in Iraq interchangeably in assigning blame for the slaughter of Shiites is both simplistic and slanderous to Sunni workers and all Iraqis.

As a statement by the five leading Sunni-based guerrilla organizations fighting the occupiers stated:

" The call for murdering all Shiites is a fire that would burn all Iraqis—Sunni and Shiite... The main objective is liberating Iraq from the occupiers and establishing a national free regime... The resistance does not target any Iraqi, regardless of their sectarian or racial loyalties, unless they are connected with the occupier”.

Readers may wonder why COSMOS LEFT still encourages working people to read the Militant given its wretched line on Katrina and Iraq. The answer is that just as Marxists always defended the nationalized property relations and planned economies of the Soviet Union and the other deformed workers states despite the counterrevolutionary bureacratic leaderships, so COSMOS LEFT urges workers to glean what remains of the revolutionary Marxist program in the Socialist Workers Party, despite the political degeneration of the present party leadership.

An example of what's left of Bolshevism in the Militant is not just its coverage of crucial labor struggles by machinists at Boeing,  mechanics at Northwest Airlines, and independent truckers in Miami, but how working people in New Orleans are transforming themselves while organizing to survive in the face of the social catastrophe unleashed by Katrina.

 Militant Admits "Social Patriotism" in June 13 Editorial

Retracts "Oppose faulty gear for GIs" as a repudiation of 75 years of working class internationalsim

Now if the Socialist Workers Party would only come to their senses and reverse the SWP's junking of Trotsky's "Permanent Revolution" and its abandonment of a cardinal tenet of Leninism--the unconditional defense of semi-colonial nations attacked by imperialism, which the Militant has done in opposing Iraqi resistance to the imperialist occupation, then the SWP can find itself again as a revolutionary workers party.

"Social patriotism" is the term Marxists have employed since World War I to describe the phenomenon whereby socialists give political support to "their" bourgeois governments in wartime, abandoning fundamental communist principles of proletarian internationalism and revolutionary defeatism. Communists call for the political AND military defeat of their respective bourgeois governments in order to strengthen working people in our fight for socialism.

The Militant's "Oppose faulty gear for GIs" was a textbook case of social patriotism; it is still another illustration of what the World Socialist Web Site described as the SWP's "cowardly adaptation to the most reactionary right wing forces." It should be no surprise that this adaptation led to the SWP's lapse into social patriotism during the current Iraq war. This page has traced the political degeneration of the Socialist Workers Party to the decision by National Secretary Jack Barnes to break with Leon Trotsky and his theory of Permanent Revolution, which had been the backbone of the international Marxist movement for decades.

As the Militant's July 18th retraction points out, the call to "oppose faulty vests for GIs"can only be interpreted as meaning "our GIs." But it's not our military. It's not the military of the working class. It's their military--the military of the capitalists, the tiny clique of exploiters who get rich off our labor. Perhaps if the Militant hadn't junked Trotsky, its editors would have remembered what he included in the founding programmatic document of the Fourth International: "Not one man and not one penny for the bourgeois government!"("The Transitional Program: The Death Agony of Capitalism and the Tasks of the Fourth International", 1938).

It was not wrong for the Militant to cover the struggle by workers at Point Blank Blank Armor to unionize and fight for higher wages and better safety on the job. Indeed, Trotsky's Transitional Program stated that "[w]ar is a gigantic commercial enterprise, especially for the war industry. The '60 Families' are therefore first-line patriots and the chief provocateurs of war. Workers control of war industries is the first step in the struggle against the 'manufacturers' of war."

It is absolutely correct for revolutionary socialists to condemn war profiteering and remind workers that our lives are expendable to the bosses and their military officer caste. Where the Militant went wrong, which even its editors eventually realized, was joining the call for "better quality" military equipment. This is where it veered into social patriotism, because measures that strengthen the army of the exploiting rich weaken working people from Detroit to Baghdad.

But one may ask: Aren't the armed forces composed of predominantly working people whom communists wish to win over to the revolutionary workers movement? Isn't it a prerequisite for any successful revolution to win over the proletarian ranks of the army, navy, marines and air force?

Our answer is an unequivocal yes. And the way to win over the ranks of the army is to conduct political agitation and disseminate revolutionary politics and Marxist ideas among soldiers and sailors, as the Socialist Workers Party did during the Vietnam War. This includes fighting for the idea of a "citizen-soldier,"whereby the First Amendment freedom of speech guarantees are extended to soldiers, something the imperialist military command denies them.

We fight for the democratic right of soldiers to discuss and debate the true reasons they're being asked to kill and die in Iraq and elsewhere. In so doing, we introduce rank and file soldiers to the demands affecting them laid out in The Transitional Program:

"Complete abolition of secret diplomacy; all treaties and agreements to be made accessible to workers and farmers [add to that all "national security" classified files related to 9/11 and terrorism]; Military training and arming of workers and farmers under direct control of workers' and farmers' committees; Creation of military schools for the training of commanders among the toilers, chosen by workers organizations; Substitution for the standing army of a people's militia, indissolubly linked up with factories, mines, farms, etc."

The fact that the SWP publicly reversed itself and admitted it had succombed to social patriotism is a hopeful sign. Perhaps the party's rank and file can yet reverse the SWP's decline and restore its revolutionary character.--July 15-16, 2005

Does the WSWS deny Cuba the right to exert political pressure on Washington to defend itself? Is the WSWS saying Cuba doesn't have the right to turn the tables on Washington when it tries to use emigration as a weapon against the Revolution? Vann mentions the Mariel boatlift, but he omits the US-instigated provocation at the Peruvian embassy which preceded it. Further, Fidel's policy of not stopping Cubans who want to leave Cuba for the Yankee Paradise is consistent with his view that socialism can only be built by those who want socialism voluntarily, who feel it in their bones and don't have to be coerced.

The Cuban workers and peasants made a revolution. US imperialism has tried to drown that revolution in blood with counterrevolution. Cuba has a moral and political right to defend itself against Washington's ongoing campaign to overthrow the Revolution. Given this reality, Fidel's "within the Revolution--everything is permitted; outside the Revolution--nothing" makes complete sense.

Cuba is not going to allow Washington to openly organize counterrevolutionary political opposition. The fact that Cuban undercover agents exposed the "dissidents'" connections to Washington should be applauded by revolutionaries, not criticized. As Vann says, ". . .the axis of the so-called dissident movement has been the US State Department, the CIA and the US Interests Section in Havana."

The Cuban people are not served by socialists in their editorial offices judging Cuba's revolutionary leadership with the same moral yardstick used to gauge Washington's conduct. "Socialists oppose capital punishment in the United States and must reject its use in Cuba as well. Summary one-day trials that result either in executions or sentences of up to 28 years in prison are a mockery of fundamental democratic rights, no matter who the defendant is or what government is responsible for the prosecution."

But it DOES matter what government is responsible for the prosecution! The death penalty in the hands of a capitalist regime is used as a weapon of terror against the working class. The death penalty in the hands of a revolutionary government when the life and death of the revolution is at stake is quite another matter. The Bolsheviks used the death penalty during the Civil War. Trotsky ordered deserters to be shot. Does the Socialist Equality Party oppose the Bolsheviks' "repressive crackdown" against the rebellious Krondstadt sailors in 1921? [see "On Kronstadt and Trotsky: A Reply to Justin Raimondo," below]

The Socialist Equality Party talks about the death penalty in the abstract, which is impossible in a class divided world. The death penalty in the hands of a workers government is a qualitatively different than it is in the hands of an imperialist power. Of course, part of the problem is that the SEP denies that Cuba is a revolutionary workers government, which is what prevents it from having the correct line on the death penalty.

Even a revolutionary democrat like Abraham Lincoln employed "draconian acts of repression," including suspension of habeas corpus, when the Union's existence was threatened by the Confederate slavocracy.

With this said, the case can certainly be made that the Ochoa executions in 1989 and the recent ferry hijacking executions were unjustified. If anything, the latter execution have more validity, given the current context. Lives WERE threatened, and will be again in any future ferry hijackings, and given Washington's history of sponsoring terrorist attacks and military invasions against Cuba, the ferry hijackings are a counterrevolutionary crime.

In a particularly bizarre formulation, Vann states "The decision to carry out the executions and send 75 people to prison was undoubtedly just as politically calculated as the US provocations." Again the misplaced political equivalency placed on a revolutionary workers government and US imperialism. [Even allowing for the SEP's erroneous categorization of Havana as a bourgeois nationalist regime, Lenin taught communists to block with bourgeois nationalist regimes in conflict with imperialism.]

Obviously, the executions and prison terms were politically calculated. Does the SEP deny Havana the right to make political decisions when it's under the gun of US imperialism? Just as obviously, the harsh measures were intended to send a message to Washington and their counterrevolutionary allies in Cuba: don't fuck with the Cuban Revolution. Before the ferry hijackings escalated, Havana decided to nip them in the bud to prevent a repetition of the 1996 Brothers to the Rescue airspace provocations, which Vann was curiously silent about in his essay.

No doubt Vann would characterize Cuba's shooting down of those Brothers to the Rescue airplanes as a repressive, draconian measure. But to the many oppressed and exploited in the world, Cuba's bold act of self-defense was an act of inspiration and a blow against the Empire.

In this time of heightened peril, communists should be unconditionally defending the Cuban Revolution against imperialist attacks, not writing sectarian tracts that falsely equate alleged "Castroite repression" with US provocations and aggression.--April 28, 2003

December 2003/December 2004--Two articles in the December 8 Militant confirm the rapidly accelerating decline and political degeneration of the Socialist Workers Party. In Tony Hunt's "Bush visit to UK bolsters imperialist 'war on terror' " and "What's the 'war on terrorism,' resistance in Iraq?" by Argiris Malapanis and Sam Manuel, the SWP continues its contemptible practice of praising Bush while attacking antiwar demonstrators and opposing Iraqi resistance to Washington's occupation.

Hunt's article continues the Militant's general approach to the Bush administration--fawning over Bush's political and military successes instead of exposing his lies in front of the working class. The SWP's newspaper consistently stands in awe of Bush's victories while overstating them, its editorial proclamations sounding as if they could have been penned by the White House or Defense Department.

Hunt writes that Bush's state visit to London was a big success that strengthened American and British imperialism. Further, Hunt claims, this success was "only reinforced by the anti-American, pro-British tone" of the massive antiwar demonstrations that were organized by the Stop the War Coalition under the slogan, "Stop Bush."

Hunt opines that the Coalition and other forces organizing the antiwar protests were "[f]ocusing their fire on the U.S. government and portraying Blair as a mere 'puppet' of Washington . . . they buttressed the nationalist framework of the British rulers' efforts to assert their own imperialist interests in the world."

The first half of the above-quoted formulation is a distortion of the Stop the War Coalition's position, and the second half is an unsubstantiated opinion.
Hunt's claim that the Nov. 21 London protests were "anti-American" and "pro-British" is a lie. This is a quote from the Stop the War Coalition's Nov. 20 solidarity statement to sister demonstrations in the US: "We, the Stop the War Coalition in London, England, the Mobilization to stop the FTAA in Miami (U.S.) and the School of the Americas Watch Movement in Columbus, Georgia (U.S.), are mobilizing tens of thousands of people this week in the United Kingdom and the United States to HOLD BOTH OUR GOVERNMENTS ACCOUNTABLE. Our struggles are interconnected and we organize in solidarity with each other. We recognize OUR GOVERNMENTS' FOREIGN POLICIES ARE NOT BRINGING SECURITY TO THE WORLD any more than their economic policies are bringing prosperity." [emphasis added]

The London demonstrators were not "anti-American"--they were anti-Bush and anti-imperialist. The demonstrations did not "aid British rulers"--they inflicted substantial political damage to Blair. Read John Pilger excellent Dec. 2 Znet article (www.zmag.org), "Bush and Blair Are In Trouble."

This point is corroborated in a WSWS Nov. 20 article by Chris Marsden, "Bush's London visit highlights mass opposition to US and British governments," which he writes, "Blair has, if anything, been politically damaged by the visit. Significantly, he chose to defend it to an audience of top-ranking executivest at the Confederation of British Industry conference on November 17, and even there his remarks had a defensive ring."

COSMOS LEFT does not agree with the Stop the War Coalition organizers on every issue, and fully recognizes that not all the demonstrators have reached revolutionary conclusions and many still harbor reformist and nationalist illusions. But that in no way negates the fact that hundreds of thousands mobilized in a demonstration against the invasion and occupation of Iraq that humiliated Bush, further damaged Blair, and showed that mass opposition to imperialist wars exists in the UK.

Whatever their flaws, London's Nov. 21 demonstrators are a lot smarter than the SWP about world politics. Haley, a voice-over artist interviewed by the WSWS in its "Britain: Massive turnout at demonstration against Bush and Iraq war" (Nov. 21), had this to say: "Neither Bush nor Blair represents their country. Bush was elected in a phoney election. He was a friend of the bin Laden family for years, and the whole terrorism thing is a cover-up for a money-led drive for world domination."

Those three sentences by a voice-over artist from Kent, England, explain more about world politics than the last three years of Militant issues. The SWP remained absolutely silent as Bush stole the 2000 election, breaking that silence only to enlighten its readers that it was Gore who tried to steal the election. Similarly, the SWP has barely mentioned September 11, let alone Bush's long-time financial ties to the bin Ladens and the CIA's role in creating Al Qaeda. Currently, to the extent the Militant talks about the war on terrorism, Al Qaeda, or anything related to Sept. 11, the paper miseducates workers about the connections between US and Israel intelligence and "terrorist" groups like Al Qaeda, and does little more than give credence to Washington's phony war on terrorism. More on this shortly.

Completely ignoring the overwhelmingly proletarian composition of the London demonstrators, Hunt instead chose to focus on one protester quoted in the right-wing Daily Telegraph--John Hayes, "a millionaire with more than 100 employees--a pitiful attempt to besmirch the London demonstrators by tainting them with a capitalist class character. This is workerism at its crudest.

In analyzing Bush's Nov. 19 London speech that defended the "three pillars" of US foreign policy, Hunt does little but echo Bush's propaganda and give left cover to US imperialism: "Bush indicated that Washington's goal is not to establish dictatorships but to press for certain benchmarks of bourgeois democracy in a way that will advance the U.S. rulers' dominance in the Mideast politically, not just militarily. These include elections, religious freedom, freedom of the press, and 'new protections for women.'"

Instead of exposing and dissecting the lies and hypocrisy oozing from Bush's fraudulent speech, Hunt stands in awe of Bush's supposed tactical wizardry, passing along as fact Bush's fallacious arguments. The Militant gives no evidence substantiating its absurd assertion that Bush is pushing for bourgeois democracy in the Middle East. Where? Iraq? The country where Washington issues publishing guidelines about what can and cannot be published?

Women's rights? Where? Afghanistan? Iraq? The West Bank?

Elections? Excuse me, Bush? Compare Hunt's examination of Bush and bourgeois democracy with Patrick Martin's treatment in "Bush's London speech: A defense of aggression and lawlessness" (Nov. 20, 2003, www.wsws.org):

"The basic premise--that Bush is a tribune of global democracy--overlooks the fact that he is an unelected president, selected not by American voters, but by the far-right majority on the Supreme Court, which intervened in the 2000 election to halt vote-counting in Florida and place Bush in the White House."

Of course, the Militant is unable to acknowledge this truism, because the SWP has covered for Bush's theft of the 2000 election by arguing that it was Gore who tried to steal the election. What Bush did--manipulation and suppression of the votes on an unprecedented scale--no big deal to the SWP.

When a revolutionary workers party makes a mistake of this magnitude, it will pay a high price politically, because the gravity of the error is illuminated over time, particularly when the methods used by Bush to seize power are directly relevant to the methods his gang used in waging war on Iraq and Afghanistan. The SWP--and the working class--are paying the price for the Barnes' leadership serious errors.

While Hunt covers up for Bush with fawning praise, Martin tells the truth: "In a potted review of the 20th century, Bush presented the United States as the consistent protagonist for democracy, skipping over nearly a century of aggressive military intervention in Latin America to prop up pro-American dictatorships, as well as the Cold War alliances with such tyrants as the Shah of Iran, Suharto in Indonesia, Mobutu in the Congo and military rulers in many other countries."

THAT'S educating the working class about US imperialism.

While Hunt writes "Clearly referring to Saudi Arabia and other countries, he [Bush] added, 'We will expect a higher standard from our friends in the region," Martin tells it like it is: "Even more bizarre was Bush's denunciation of the region's corrupt elites, since US policy--and the Bush family's own personal financial interests--have long been intimately bound up with those elites, above all the Saudi princes."

THAT's how you educate working people--by exposing and dissecting the ruling class liars.

Martin continues: "He [Bush] repeated one of the standard nostrums of US foreign policy, that 'democratic governments do not shelter terrorist camps or attack their peaceful neighbors.' This commonplace is never challenged by the ignorant and servile US media, but it is flagrantly untrue."

Unlike Martin, Hunt ignores the century-long track record of US foreign policy refuting this Bush lie that saw the US invade or attack "Mexico, Nicaragua, Haiti, Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Grenada and Panama--to speak only of neighbors--as well as waging war in Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan and Iraq, and sponsoring dozens of military coups and guerrilla insurgencies (including the Afghan mujaheddin from which the Al-Qaeda terrorists emerged)."

Hunt managed one breakthrough in his thoroughly unreadable piece--he actually mentioned "Al-Qaeda" in reference to the two Istanbul bombings on the second day of Bush's visit: "A statement purporting to come from a unit of Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for the attacks." Run a search on the Militant Web site for Al Qaeda and September 11. Don't be overwhelmed by the coverage. Incredibly, the first and one of the only times the Militant has mentioned Osama bin Laden was when it printed one of the published bin Laden speeches, without providing a word of historical context about bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, and the CIA.

After reading Argiris Malapanis and Sam Manuel's "What's the 'war on terrorism,' resistance in Iraq?" one is tempted to include the Militant as part of the "ignorant and servile US media" that Hunt talked about.

Their "Reply to a Reader" is a response to Militant reader Richard Young, who suggested that a "clearer explanation of Washington's 'war on terrorism" is needed."

Malapanis/Manuel begin their answer already on the defensive.

"This has been a central feature of lead articles and editorials in the Militant this year. [A self indictment; if it's been a central feature, why are readers clamoring for a clearer explanation?]

"The Militant doesn't assume, however, that readers go back to previous coverage. For a fighting working-class newsweekly seeking new readers constantly, frequent explanations of phrases such as 'war on terror,' not assertions, are necessary." [What a mouthful. The Militant also doesn't assume that readers don't go elsewhere to get the facts and historical context they're not getting from the Militant. The Militant doesn't assume that readers go back to previous coverage to see how poorly that coverage stands up over time. And yes, readers need timely explanations, not assertions, about statements in the Militant that can't be understood beyond the realm of the party hacks that constitute most of the present SWP.

[What's embarrassing for the Militant is that after admitting Iraq and the war on terrorism has been a central feature of lead articles and editorials for almost a year,readers still need a clearer explanation from the SWP on the subject.]

Malapanis and M anuel begin the attempted clarification by recounting the July 7 Militant editorial that said: "Washington is leading an international coalition of imperialist powers and their allies under the banner of 'smashing terrorism' to defend the imperialist system and extend its domination. They are doing it by concentrating on their most vulnerable foes--armed opposition groups able to maintain themselves as an alternative because of the declining political prospects of the national bourgeoisies in the semicolonial world. The U.S. and other imperialist powers have wide support for going after all these groups that often carry out suicide bombing attacks and other similar such actions. There are no disagreements among the imperialist powers, or within bourgeois public opinion, on the policy of targeting 'terrorists.'"

January 2004--Before we resume this essay, I thought it would be relevant for readers to consider a recent letter to the Militant editor published in the January 19 issue:

"I am totally flabbergasted by your attitude toward the war in Iraq. Your paper has been badmouthing the antiwar movement, American and European, before and after the beginning of this war.

"It has spoken in glowing terms of possible democratic prospects in the area, due to Bush’s intervention (Saudi Arabia). It speaks about French and German “lucrative” deals with Iraq as if this is a reason not to get involved in any interimperialist controversy. One can suppose that any commerce between nations that involves lucre is imperialist even if neither France nor Germany have killed or destroyed in Iraq as the U.S. has done.

"It currently discusses the nature of the resistance in Iraq as being not quite what is desirable, or that it is not believable. The paper consistently fails to tell working people what to say or do about this war.

"It is time that it come clean and do as any communist paper is supposed to do. I want to hear your advice for fighting imperialism. So far the Militant’s advice in this respect has been to recount tales of courage in the Sierra Maestra 50 years ago, but I don’t think it recommends to follow that example at this time.

"In short, it seems to me that this abstentionism is the result of sectarianism on the part of the leaders of your party."

While the letter's author is wrong to discount the role of French and German imperialism in Iraq and the relevance of the Cubans' heroism in the Sierra Maestra to world politics today, the author's criticism of the SWP's sectarian approach to Iraq dovetails with everything this essay is about. The writer expresses the sentiments of many workers around the world who are shaking their heads in dismay over the political degeneration of the Socialist Workers Party.

APRIL 11, 2004:

The sheer weight of events in Iraq this week requires the long-overdue conclusion of this essay. The insurrectionary upsurge by Shiite and Sunni toilers from Falluja to Baghdad to Najaf demolishes the entire line of the Socialist Workers Party on Iraq and confirms the thrust of the criticism we began articulating in December.

Just listen to what the Militant's Sam Manuel and Argiris Malapanis said in their Dec. 8th reply to a reader, "What's the 'war on terrorism', resistance in Iraq?":

"A number of groups in the middle-class left have attempted to paint up the resistance to the U.S. occupation as a national liberation movement....An article by Richard Becker in the May 15 WORKERS WORLD. . .concluded with the following: 'Having achieved their victory...the occupiers now confront a people who have a long and proud history of resistance. The anti-war movement here and around the world must give its unconditional support to the Iraqi anti-colonial resistance.' "

A completely accurate assessment that has been confirmed in the real world. But it wasn't in the SWP's world. Manuel and Malapanis continue: "A more recent article by Fred Goldstein in the November 6 WORKERS WORLD stated, referring to the guerrilla attacks on U.S. and other occupation forces in Iraq, 'The war of resistance is moving in the direction of a genuine people's war with widespread popular support.' "

Again, the nationwide armed uprising that erupted this week affirms the correctness of Goldstein's stance. But the SWP didn't see it this way. Instead, Manuel and Malapanis had this to say: "The logic of these statements is a stance of political support for the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein and favoring its return to power. [This could have been penned by bourgeois pundit Thomas Friedman, then and now.] The recent attacks on U.S., Italian and other troops in Iraq have been largely carried out by remnants of the brutal party-police state the Baathist Party led, not a popular guerrilla force like the National Liberation Front of Vietnam that earned that popularity through its decades-long fight against French, Japanese, and U.S. imperialism. The attacks have been concentrated in the Sunn