>
> Amen. This e-mail from ANSWER is about as odious as if it had come from
> the National Alliance. Let's not forget the anti-free speech tactics of
> ANSWER, which included the baiting of me as a cop among east coast
> activist circles and all that stuff involving Nathan and the NLG>
>
> << Chuck0 >>
A "progressive capitalist" on the United for Peace and Justice-News list a few nights ago, cop-baiting me, as Lou Proyect has done (Yoshie, you ever admonish the putz Proyect for such as what you called Mike Larkin on, in your dour way?) after I posted the below on WWP and Lou Paulsen on the Taliban as "objectively anti-imperialist."
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 20:41:52 -0800, Sat Santokh <satsantokh at comcast.net> wrote:
> Does anyone actually know this Michael Pugliese? Is there some
> participating organization he belongs to that can be responsible for him?
> Or is he a government agent trying to screw up our collective
> communication vehicle? Does anyone know?
>
> Sat Santokh
http://www.flash.net/~comvoice/28cImperialism.html
> ...(9) For example, the WWP's journal Workers World for Sept. 27
> reprinted an article of theirs from Oct. 10, 1996, which called the
> Taliban the "hideous face of counterrevolution", and on Oct. 4, 2001 they
> approvingly cited Afghans saying that bin Laden was of "the brotherhood
> of Satan". Yet Workers World for Nov. 8 carries an article by Deidre
> Griswold entitled "First British Empire, now the U. S. /Afghans resist
> foreign domination" that promotes the military action of the Taliban. Of
> course, when it promotes Taliban actions it attributes them to "Afghans"
> in general, and diplomatically leaves out that it is the Taliban that is
> being referred to. It only mentions the word "Taliban" in such a context
> as saying that the bombing is rallying people around the Taliban, as if
> the article regretted the Taliban's war rather than promoting it in other
> paragraphs.
. Similar support, albeit somewhat conflicted support, for the Taliban is shown in an article of Nov. 22 by Fred Goldstein entitled "With terror bombing of Afghanistan/Pentagon extends U. S. empire to Asia". It says that the Taliban are not "a revolutionary or progressive force in any way beneficial to the Afghan people", but nevertheless, it insists that "they are fighting imperialism" and their fall would "be a major setback for the world". It expresses hope that the Taliban is still holding out in southern Afghanistan. It admits that "In this struggle the Taliban's greatest weakness flows from its reactionary character". But it recites a litany of disasters if the Taliban should fall, and concludes that, "for the world movement, and for the people of Afghanistan", the defeat of the Taliban in the Afghan war would be "the worst possible result". So, instead of condemning both sides in this war, the WWP rallies behind the Taliban.
. So, while these articles don't use this phrase, they are examples of the typical Trotskyist fraud of "military but not political support". The WWP believes that its "military support" of the Taliban (that is, backing a Taliban military victory) has nothing to do with "political support" of the Taliban. The military struggle of the Taliban and its oppression of the people are supposedly two entirely different things. As opposed to Marxism, which holds that war is the continuation of politics by other, i. e. violent, means, the WWP separates war and politics into two separate spheres--at least when it is a matter of the Taliban. (Text)
(10) The struggle of the WWP in Chicago, inside a coalition organizing for the September 29 demonstrations, against having slogans that condemned Sept. 11 or terrorism gave rise to an extensive debate on the internet between WWP's Lou Paulsen and a variety of other people on Louis Proyect's "Marxism Mailing List" (archives for this list can be found at www. Marxmail. org). For example, in a message of October 2 on the subject "Re: Some rhetorical questions (was: Re: A historical question about a certain type of violence in the national liberation struggle)", Lou Paulsen defended the WWP policy of opposing any condemnation of terrorism or of the Sept. 11 attacks. He sought to explain why he thought it was one thing for Castro (whom WWP regards as a socialist) to condemn the Sept. 11 attacks, but American activists shouldn't do so. In a message of October 3 (on the subject "The Global Class Struggle in a Period of Retreat and Confusion"), Paulsen advocated that those who carried out these actions were better than the Taliban, and he insisted that the Sept. 11 attacks were an "anti- imperialist act", part of the "anti-colonial struggle", and, implicitly, that they were part of the progressive side in the "global class struggle". He admitted that these actions showed contempt for the lives of American workers, and clearly regarded them as misguided and horrifying acts, but he refused to recognize that acts could be carried out by a reactionary trend, and he opposed condemnation of these acts.
. Paulsen occasionally says that one shouldn't rely on his statement of WWP policy, but should read WWP's official statements. But Workers World articles don't deal with such controversies. (Text)
------- Forwarded message ------- From: Michael Pugliese <debsian at pacbell.net> To: Sat Santokh <satsantokh at comcast.net> Subject: Re: [upj-bayarea] anti-imperialism of fools Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 21:32:27 -0800
Here it is again! The endless, infantile cop-baiting of the rad left...Course, I betcha' Comrade Sat Santokh thinks DSA and other left orgs. I've been affilated w/ for decades are just revisionist "social fascists"
------- Forwarded message ------- From: Michael Pugliese <debsian at pacbell.net> To: Karl Kramer <karl at cc-ds.org>, upj-bayarea at lists.riseup.net Subject: Re: [upj-bayarea] Michael Pugliese Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 16:33:57 0800
Ah the mysterious Pugliese ;-) I do admit to not being as active in attending meetings in churches (like the church in Noe Valley where a BAUAW meeting I went to months ago was held, where one of the WWP reps. had a snit fit along w/ the Uhuru House reps, and Jeff Paterson from NION/Refuse & Resist looked hella' bored) and union halls like back in '91 before the Gulf War at the ILWU hall south of Market where a good hundred or so activists, fought like dogs the Trotskyists from the Revolutionary Workers League who wanted to commit the coalition to the full program of the Fourth Int'l. circa 1938...but, I digress ;-) A brief bio. and why I've been a socialist since I was about 15. Born in '61, Dad went through the military between Korea and Vietnam, Mom is a liberal Democrat who voted for Camejo. My Dad's politics were hawkish...but, he voted for McGovern in '72. My Mom and I in '71 attended one of the huge MOBE's against the Vietnam War in Washington, D.C. I still have a photo of a hippie waving a North Vietnamese flag from the steps of the U.S. Capitol. Joined the socialist-feminist New Leftish org, the New American Movement in Santa Cruz in college at UCSC, had joined DSOC in high school. Worked on various left electoral campaigns in Santa Cruz, where the city council has had a "progressive" (i.e. various degrees of open socialist/social democratic politics) majority since the early 80's. Worked in CISPES too back then. Was a precinct coordinator in the 9th C.D. for Jesse Jackson in '88. Helped to destroy some railroad tracks outside the Concord Naval weapons Base after S. Brian Willson had his legs shorn off by a train w/ munitions bound to El Salvador to fight the FMLN. I bring up the FMLN, NLF and FSLN, so there is no confusion re: my crits of Alison Weir or others who support Palestinian resistance by which I assume they mean Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade ("Donors waver amid funds probe Palestinians get more than $2 billion in emergency aid." http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/11/13/MNGPU30MLA1.DTL
) is not from, as it might be from some Xtian pacifists, a rejection in toto, of the tragic strategic necessity to engage in violent armed struggles when all peaceful alternative mode have been exhausted. Anyway, that is a brief summary of where I'm coming from. I'm a bit of a bookish nerd, still read the Marxist academic journals, I've read since high school, but, I keep up w/ liberal, centrist and conservative pov's journals and websites too. And, I don't always agree w/ the things I forward, like the Frontlines piece looking askance at CofC/CCDS, who I consider good comrades and solid folks....even if in my anti-Stalinism (I have a bit of a neo-Trot streak) I still wonder why they took so long to break w/ the CPUSA. But, all of us, have been enmeshed in networks of comradeship and solidarity where we sometimes have had tto swallow bits of dogma that were nuts. Like the Maoists of the 70's supporting thugs like Savimbi 'cuz of Mao's Three Worlds Theory. Ask Bob Wing of War Times, formerly of Line of March ("March In Line' ;-) or Max Elbaum, who wrote an excellent book for Verso on the, "New Communist Movement, " groups of the 70's and 80's. Michael, the neo-Menshevik/neo-Trotskyist, left social democat revsionist running dog, Pugliese P.S. Yes, of coarse, GO Matt Gonzalez!
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:56:16 -0800, Karl Kramer <karl at cc-ds.org> wrote:
Michael is with Democratic Socialists of America, which has been at UfPJ meetings. I would imagine that they would also be committed to keeping the anti-working class Gavin Newsom out of the mayor's office. Let's eschew divide and conquer tactics regardless of from where they come. Keep our eyes on the prize. Support Matt Gonzalez. In Solidarity, Karl
----- Original Message ----- From: "Roy Birchard" <roybir2002 at yahoo.com> To: "UFPJ - Bay Area" <upj-bayarea at lists.riseup.net> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 12:17 PM Subject: [upj-bayarea] Michael Pugliese
Has anyone on this list actually ever met Michael Pugliese in person?
Roy Birchard
-- Michael Pugliese
There were basically three forms of totalitarianism.... One was the various kinds of Fascism, the other was Bolshevism, and a third was corporate capitalism. Two are gone." -- Noam Chomsky