1-22-07, 9:29 am

A comrade wrote me with some strong and intelligent criticisms of my article. Bush, Iraq, and the Peace Movement, which I should both address and acknowledge.

The July, 20005 Chicago Convention of the CPUSA called in a resolution for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and the payment of reparations to the Iraqi people for the reconstruction of their nation, reparations taken from Halliburton and the war profiteers who have taken billions from the U.S. treasury and given the Iraqi people more pain and suffering I voted for that resolution at the time with no qualifications. 

My article was a response to materials that I have read recently from both Bush and on these questions the Iraqi Communist Party and the Iraqi left about the desperate struggle that they are making in the country to defend the interests of the Iraqi working class. It was an attempt to put forward a policy that would be more than a negation of the present one.

My criticisms in the article of “left opportunism” were directed against those in various anti-war coalitions who have disparaged the Iraqi Communist party and the Iraqi Trade Union movement as collaborators with the U.S. occupation for not taking their position on a immediate withdrawal and other issues—in general looking at Iraq as an issue that concerns only Americans, their government and corporations. 

My comments could be interpreted easily as being at variance with the CPUSA July 2005 resolution and that was an error on my part, since it really was not my intention in any way. 

My error was one of thoughtlessness, of writing the article too fast in order to put it forward in opposition to the Bush State of the Union address.  The “left opportunists” whom I referred to without mentioning individuals or groups by name in order to avoid direct polemics  were and are longtime critics of both the CPUSA and, on these specific questions, the Iraqi Communist party, seeing both either as “sellouts” to establishment forces and refusing to listen to either, particularly Iraqis, when it comes to their struggle.

These positions reminded me as I was writing the article of those in the anti-Vietnam War movement (a very different war) who demanded immediate withdrawal at the time that the Vietnamese were calling for a negotiated settlement, which the CPUSA supported.

While I might want to see an updating of the July, 2005 resolution in terms of recent events, it was not my conscious purpose to oppose that resolution, which made good sense as the time and still makes in its call for reparations for the Iraqi people punishments for the war profiteers and government war criminals good sense today.   To those who read the article and saw it as an undermining of the resolution (and I fully understand how they would see it as such, given the language that I used) I apologize for my wording

In effect this situation highlights  a problem of the international movement as it exists today when different parties take specific positions that may not be in complete agreement with each other.  I admit that I was thinking first of the Iraqis, their positions, and their plight and how we can best both defeat Bush and fight for both reconstruction and peace in Iraq.

I support and have always supported democratic centralism as a guiding principle.  While I do not interpret that to mean  that comrades should simply repeat resolutions and positions in an uncritical way regardless of changing circumstances and developments, I do interpret it to mean that comrades should not consciously attack and seek to undermine resolutions and positions adopted by conventions and  other bodies in ways that promote factionalism and division.  That was certainly the last thing that I dreamed of doing in my original article.

I realize also that I can do the most to advance the cause of peace and justice in Iraq and everywhere else by standing with my party here and with the U.S. working class and progressive forces as it struggles to develop positions to carry forward the struggle against exploitation, oppression, and global imperialism.

My article represented my views on the immediate situation as Bush prepares his State of the Union Address.  I am sorry that I did not solicit and receive criticism of the article before it was published online, since such criticism might have both strengthened the article and enabled me to more effectively explain my use of the term “left opportunism” within the article.

As a final point, let me say that my article was aimed at both Bush primarily and those whom I consider ultra leftists and “left opportunists” in the anti-war movement It was not aimed at the mass demonstration in Washington on January 27 in which people will be marching against Bush under the general agitational slogan, “Bring the Troops Home, Now.” 

That slogan is very much in line with the CPUSA’s position and the position of the Broad Left.  As a slogan it is a beginning, not an end to the political education on what has to be done in Iraq and what responsibilities the working class and progressive forces in the U.S. have to both the American people and the Iraqi people.

The more people march in Washington on January 27, the more the American and Iraqi people will gain and the more those who march will learn about and participate in the struggle for peace in Iraq.

I thank the comrade who informed me of this error of expression, which for him and probably for others undermined the points that I was attempting to make.  It is through such criticism and self-criticism that effective analysis develops