  |
  |
 |
|
Contents Page Previous page 14 Next page 16 |
Refusnikism
Sir! No Sir! (DVD, 2006)
David Zeigler’s documentary Sir! No Sir! looks back on the movement within
the military to end the Vietnam War,interviewing a wide range of soldiers who
participated in the anti-war movement while in uniform or after returning
from Vietnam This important history was subsequently forgotten, or more
precisely, buried under an onslaught of myths created by the US ruling class.
The revised, Government-approved version of events is symbolized by
the image of a shaggy hippy (usually a woman) spitting on a GI who has
just stepped off a plane returning from Vietnam, and then calling him
a baby killer. Never mind the fact, as the author of the book Spitting Image
points out in the film, that this is a complete and utter fiction. But it is an
effective lie, which sets the student and “middle-class” protestors on one
side, and the hard-hat workers and working class soldiers who supposedly
supported the war, on the other.
Back in reality, the film shows how opposition to the war within the military
gradually emerges, first as isolated acts of individuals morally opposed
to the war. At this early point there is no movement to speak of and the
anti-war soldiers are often astounded to discover that many other soldiers
support their stance against the war. As the GI-led anti-war movement grows,
“underground” newspapers begin appearing on military bases, written
and produced by radical soldiers, and the officers’ heavy-handed crackdown
on this spread of ideas only sparks greater interest. We see how so-called
“GI coffee houses” spring up near the bases, offering soldiers anti-war
literature and the chance to discuss the war.
The director himself worked as an organizer at one such coffee house
outside of Fort Hood in Texas. But he made the film not as an exercise
in nostalgia, but to set the historical record straight and provide lessons to
the current GI movement against the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Already
capitalists are expressing concern that the army is being “broken” in the war
in these wars, which refers not only to the wearing down of equipment, but the wearing out of morale.
We know from historical experience,though, that even if today’s wars
are brought to an end, there is no guarantee that these soldier’s children
will not be stuck in another military adventure twenty years later. This
is the bitter experience of no small number of Vietnam War veterans! In
this sense, the true anti-war movement, rather than an anti-this-war movement, is the movement to replace the war generating capitalist system with socialism.
The film does, however, end up providing socialists with a great deal of
encouragement. It shows us that the capitalist class is not half as fearsome
as it would have us imagine when its foot soldiers are entertaining second
thoughts about war. So imagine the position of this class, this tiny minority,
when the bulk of workers, soldiers included, want an end to capitalism
and have a good idea of the sort of society that will replace it. Sir! No Sir!
gives us a glimpse of the day when thecapitalists will be frustrated generals
without an army.
Is Ian Paisley
a socialist?
It is not often that the business pages of the capitalist press refer to socialism. Past experience suggests that when they do they make fools of themselves. A recent article in the Times ( 9 January) by Tim Hames confirmed this. “Northern Ireland”, he wrote, “is in danger of replacing sectarianism with socialism”.
If only this were true. Unfortunately socialism (common ownership,democratic control, production for use not profit, distribution according to needs) is not on the agenda there and in any event couldn’t be since socialism cannot be established just in one country let alone one province.
But this is not what Hames had in mind.After pointing out that state spending
represents 0 percent of all spending in Northern Ireland, he went on:
“The Rev Paisley and Mr McGuiness will find little difficulty making common
cause in asking for ever larger public spending to be showered, equitably, on
their constituencies”.
While it is true that politics in Northern Ireland is characterised by what on the continent of Europe is known as “clientelism” – where different politicians appeal to a different group of identified “clients” on the basis of getting material benefits for them in particular – Hames is wrong in thinking
government spending and subsidies on and for the poorer sections of society
is socialism. If it did then the Reverend Inane Paisley, with his client basis of
poor Protestants, would indeed be a socialist. An absurd conclusion which
is proof that the original proposition is wrong in accordance with the principle
of logic the Ancient Romans used to call reductio ad absurdum.
Government spending on measures to help the poor has nothing to do
with socialism. That’s reformism not socialism. At most Paisley is a reformist,
even a “leftwing” reformist compared with the UK Labour Party which used to
take up this position (now it cuts back on benefits for the poor).
But if Paisley isn’t a socialist, what about President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela? He features on the business pages more than Paisley.
Following his re-election as President in December, Chavez announced plans
to (re-)nationalise telecom and power companies in Venezuela. Horrified, the
Times (9 January) declared: “Mr Chavez begins his third termtomorrow, promising to complete what he calls Venezuela’s Socialist Revolution of the 21st century”.
More people would find it easier to regard Chavez as a socialist than Paisley, but this is based on another misconception about socialism – that it means government ownership. If this was socialism then all sorts of people just as unlikely as Paisley would be socialists.
Capitalist governments everywhere, whatever their political colour, whether political dictatorships or political democracies, whether “rightwing” or leftwing”, have had recourse to nationalisation. Very early on socialists, basing
themselves on the experience of Imperial Germany under Bismarck, identified this as state capitalism since with government ownership the workers remained exploited and bossed. The 70-year experience of Russia under the
dictatorship of the Bolsheviks confirmed this, as did the experience of the
nationalisations carried out by the postwar Labour government in Britain.
Nationalisation – government ownership of industry – is state capitalism because it leaves all the essential features of capitalism intact: production for sale with a view to profit, surplus value produced by wage worker, monetary calculation. Only the management changes, from private capitalists or their appointees to state bureaucrats.
Chavez’s renationalisation programme is no different. His “Socialist Revolution of the 21st Century” is the State Capitalism of the 20th Century all over again.
^ Top ^
Contents Page Previous page 14 Next page 16 |
Socialist Party