Workers World Support for War in Afghanistan- by the Soviets of course

[Jim Farmelant]

Perhaps, I have missed something but I was unware that
the WWP were passing themselves off as pacifists.  If they
are, perhaps Nathan would do us the favor of providing us
with appropriate citations.  If they are not, then how
can they be accused of being hypocrites because they
pick and choose which wars to support, and which to
oppose.  That is after what most of us, who are not
absolute pacifists do, and I don't think that makes
one necessarily a hypocrite because one might choose
in a particular instance to support an antiwar movement
even though one is not in general a pacifist.

Also, I would like Nathan's opinion of whether he thinks
that Afghanistan would be better off today, if the Soviet
invasion had been successful.

Jim F.

On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 14:42:44 -0500 "Nathan Newman" <nathan at newman.org>
writes:
Just to note the real hypocrisy of the Workers World folks in the present
"antiwar movement"-- they were vociferous supporters of the Soviet war in
Afghanistan, in fact denouncing Gorbachev and Shevardnadze for ending the
war and apologizing for it.  They dismissed their views as "bourgois
pacifism."  The WWP's contempt for "bourgois pacificism" and those who
would "humiliate the military" might come as a surprise to many of the
people attending their "antiwar" rallies.  I'm attaching Sam Marcy's 1991
analysis of a late 80s speech by Shevardnadze where he defends "defensive
war" in the name of the Soviet national interests - a line of argument I
am sure George Bush would find quite comfortable for his own purposes.

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <../attachments/20011119/0ab2419e/attachment.htm>