File spoon-archives/marxism-news.archive/marxism-news_1998/marxism-news.9803, message 10


Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 03:01:34 -0500
From: Aaron <aaron-AT-burn.ucsd.edu>
Subject: M-NEWS: U.S. Labor and Iraq: a response to Harry Kelber


Comrades, et ??,

The following item from Harry Kelber came to me via Michael Eisenscher
<meisenscher-AT-igc.apc.org>. I have reproduced here the full text of
Kelber's post, with my comments interspersed. The original, uncommented
text of Kleber's post as I received it is now on my web site as both
(http://burn.ucsd.edu/~aaron/Iraq/Kelber.text) and
(http://burn.ucsd.edu/~aaron/Iraq/Kelber.html).

 - In solidarity with the oppressed,
 - Aaron

>From: Harry Kelber <hkelber-AT-igc.apc.org>
>Newsgroups: labortalk
>Subject: LaborTalk: Is Iraq a Labor Issue?
>Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 22:48:18 -0800 (PST)
>
>It is most unlikely that the AFL-CIO will have anything to say about
>the looming U.S. military attack against Iraq. The subject of Iraq is
>taboo in the official labor press. We have yet to see a prominent
>union leader make any statement, for or against, concerning the
>Administration's current policy toward Iraq. The prevailing view is
>that this crisis, as important as it may be, is outside the limits of
>the AFL-CIO's legitimate concerns.

The 'AFL-CIA', as it is known around the world, has a history of support
to U.S. imperialist intervention everywhere, and an even stronger record
of support to Israel, whose total domination of the 'Middle East'
requires a very weak Iraq. Given these facts, maybe the U.S. labor
bureaucracy's silence on the issue of Iraq is a progressive step!

>Herein lies a dilemma which, sooner or later, must be confronted. The
>AFL-CIO proclaims itself as the champion of working families and
>certainly is striving to attain that posture.

Although this is a side issue, it is an important one: There are many
millions of workers in the U.S. who are not in any real sense part of
"families", "working" or otherwise. Let's not fall into the assumptions
of the reactionary "pro-family" demagogues!

>But if working people are troubled about U.S. military action against
>Iraq, including a possible ground war that would mean the loss of
>countless lives, ...

Over a million Iraqi lives -- most of them from "working families" --
have been lost since 1991 as a result of U.S.-led military and economic
warfare against them. One can infer that Kelber accepts that the lives
of U.S. nationals are qualitatively more important than those of Iraqis.

>... should the AFL- CIO be indifferent toward their worries?  What if
>the Iraq crisis becomes a hot-button issue in the 1998 elections, will
>unions continue to ignore it?

>Will AFL-CIO political campaign literature talk about the minimum wage
>and health care and have nothing to say about Saddam Hussein and how
>to deal with the threat that he poses?

If we're just talking here about dictators of oppressed nations, how
about the far greater threat to working people posed by, for example,
Indonesia's Suharto or Peru's Fujimori? Are U.S. workers supposed to
concern themselves about such dictators only when the latter are no
longer on the CIA payroll, doing the bidding of "our" ruling class?

>By remaining silent, organized labor is giving a blank check to
>whatever the Clinton administration does about Iraq. Does that serve
>the needs of America's working families?

If the alternative to remaining silent is to discuss "how to deal with
the threat that [Saddam Hussein] poses", it's better that they remain
silent on the matter! But that doesn't mean that leftists within the
unions should remain silent. In fact, those U.S. workers who can't be
moved by solidarity with the people of Iraq should have the "Gulf War
Syndrome" waved in front of them to remind them of the rewards of being
a mercenary for their ruling class.

>One of the main reasons why unions avoid issues like the bloated and
>wasteful Pentagon budget, NATO expansion and the proliferation of
>biological, chemical and nuclear weapons is that they are controversial.
>(Thousands of workers earn their livelihood in the manufacture of
>military weaponry.)

Working people in the U.S. are taxed a few hundred billions of dollars
each year to finance the U.S. war machine.  The largest portion thereof
goes for the super-profits of the investors in war production.  But a
substantial portion goes to those who work in such production -- the
"cheap whores" of the Military-Industrial Complex. [Correction: "Whores"
(cheap or otherwise) don't usually facilitate mass murder in the normal
course of their employment.] But thanks to the dominance of ruling-
class ideology in the U.S. working class, it's easier to mobilize a
minority to defend their short-term interests than to mobilize the class
as a whole to stop financing the wars and profits of its masters!

Incidentally, the wasteful part is the least objectionable part of "the
bloated and wasteful Pentagon budget" from the viewpoint of the workers
and oppressed of the world.

>But often, it is the controversial issues that are matters of public
>concern, especially during an election campaign.

That's the only good reason for parties of the oppressed to participate
in election campaigns. Certainly not to get Democrats elected so that
they can bomb Arabs and cut welfare instead of the Republicans!

>There is a simple and enlightening way to deal with controversy; namely,
>to present both sides of an issue.

When somebody talks about "both sides of an issue", your crap detector
should be sounding a loud alarm. What the "sides of an issue" are is a
consequence of how the issue is defined. I'll comment on some of Harry
Kelber's specific questions below.

>In serving the nation's working families ["families" again -- Aaron],
>unions ought to provide them with accurate, useful information on all
>public issues that affect their lives.

Unfortunately, the labor bureaucracy is generally as incapable as the
mainstream capitalist press of providing "accurate, useful information"
on anything of importance. But leftist union activists should fight to
get their views printed in labor papers and heard and discussed at
union meetings.

>Take the issue of Iraq, about which there is much confusion:

Here's one place where I definitely agree with Kelber! I see almost as
much confusion on the side of those who oppose U.S. domination as on the
side of those who support it! It is the confusion of the former that I
want to help clear up.

>What does U.S. diplomacy consist of? Is it not actually an ultimatum to
>Saddam Hussein to let the U.N. inspectors examine whatever they wish to
>or else face military action?

One need only add that the "U.N. inspectors" are actually led by U.S.
military and intelligence agents!

>Should the U.S. engage in military action virtually alone (except for
>England), with strong opposition from Russia and China and uncertain
>support from Saudi Arabia?

Germany, February 1938: "Should Germany invade Csechoslovakia now in
the face of strong opposition from England and France, or should it
wait to arrive at a negotiated agreement at Munich next month?"

>What are the announced military objectives of the White House and what
>impact will they have on Saddam Hussein and his alleged arsenal of
>biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction?

>What effect have the U.N. economic sanctions had on Iraq and should we
>continue to rely on them rather than engage in military action?

Should the U.S. just continue to starve to death a few thousand Iraqis
each week or should the U.S. kill another couple of hundred thousand of
them in a short time like it did in 1991?

>Are there other countries that are producing biological weapons of mass
>destruction, given the fact that scientists have developed the
>technology to produce them?

The biggest producer and stockpiler of weapons of mass destruction is
-- without any doubt -- the United States. The country that devotes
the largest proportion of it's wealth to producing such weapons is --
without any doubt -- that other favorite of the AFL-CIO bureaucracy,
Israel!

>Should the AFL-CIO have some constructive input on these life-and-death
>questions or should it leave the decisions to politicians, many of whom
>have shown little regard for working families? And does the AFL-CIO have
>a responsibility to provide working people with the facts, pro and con,
>on these issues?

>These are questions that ought not to be ignored. They deserve serious
>answers.

Ruling-class propagandists know that getting people to think about the
right questions is more important than how they answer said questions.
In that spirit, I propose a question of my own:

"Should the people of the world assasinate U.S. diplomats and businessmen
- and burn and bomb their embassies, consulates and places of business -
now, while the U.S. is starving the Iraqi people to death, or should we
wait until the U.S. again launches actual military action against Iraq?"**

I don't think the AFL-CIO bureaucrats will want to present their members
with ANY answers to THIS question!

** Note to Janet Reno: This question is being asked for educational
purposes only. It should not be construed as advocating anything! {;->}




   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005