Wednesday, November 29, 2023

The SWIP Flips to SWOP

Totally relevant picture about abortion (Source)

Insert any vowel into the acronym SWP (Socialist Workers Party, which publishes The Militant) and you end up with nonsense.

Random vowel insertion is the effect of this article, by Jacquie Henderson, entitled Ohio abortion referendum was blow to women, working class. I understand that the Party doesn't consider itself Trotskyist anymore (though they still frequently quote Trotsky), but this leaves that heritage so far in the dust that it's a real head-scratcher.

The lede paragraph:

After a national campaign organized by the Democratic Party, drawing in tens of millions of dollars, an amendment to enshrine the right to abortion in Ohio’s state constitution passed Nov. 7. The campaign had nothing to do with the fight for women’s rights — including the decriminalization of abortion — nor defending working-class interests.

Some background is important. The Party supported the Dobbs decision--in which the Supreme Court overturned abortion rights as a Constitutional issue, and instead referred the question back to the states and the people. This has been a political godsend for the Democrats, who have campaigned heavily on the so-called MAGA effort to ban abortion. The Dobbs decision led to no such outcome, and in fact abortion rights will soon be enshrined in law in all 50 states--it's that popular.

I can sort of see the Trotskyist logic in supporting Dobbs. They have long supported democratic rights, and therefore the Constitutional and civil rights of citizens. Abortion isn't even mentioned in the Constitution, and therefore neither the Court nor the Congress have any authority to legislate on the subject at all. Decisions about abortion should be left to the states and the people.

The Party, in their recent Political Report, which I reviewed here, in language I described as "mealy-mouthed," argued that abortion should be "decriminalized (whatever that means). "Mealy-mouthed" turns out to be an understatement. The offending paragraph in the Political Report quoted in my review is

...our communist program has nothing in common with bourgeois and middle-class forces--whether feminists, or campaigners for population control--who in fact advocate abortion as a means of contraception. We reject the pseudoscientific views of those who deny that the issue of human life, a profound moral question for all working people, is always involved in abortion decisions and procedures.

I don't think I understood what that paragraph meant. It's clarified in Ms. Henderson's article here:

The yes campaign was openly tied to getting President Joseph Biden reelected in 2024. After the vote, Biden declared, “Ohioans and voters across the country rejected attempts by MAGA Republican elected officials to impose extreme abortion bans.” He added, “The only reason abortion is banned in America is because of Donald Trump!”

In other words, the Party's position has nothing to do with abortion at all. They are simply against anything the Democrats are for--full stop. If the Dems were against abortion, they'd be for it. The problem with the Ohio referendum was not that it expanded abortion rights, but rather that it was supported by a bunch of evil, petty bourgeois Democrats--in an effort to get Biden reelected.

I agree with their assessment of the Democrat party. But setting oneself up as the "anti-Democrat" party seems to me just as illogical as Jeff "Vanguard Man" Mackler setting himself up as the anti-Trump party. It let's your opponent--be it Trump or Democrats--determine your entire political program.

I think the Party should have ignored the Ohio referendum altogether. The effect is ultimately inconsequential. As I recall, the Republicans had settled on a 15 week deadline for abortion. The referendum went for 22 weeks. According to the CDC, 93.5% of all abortions were performed by or before the 13th week. Fewer than 1% of abortions were performed at or after 21 weeks. I don't have numbers for 15 weeks, but it's likely over 95% of abortions occur before that deadline, and those that happen afterwards are almost certainly for compelling medical reasons, and not for the trivial excuses used earlier in the pregnancy. Abortion for compelling medical reasons will be allowed in any case.

The Party argues that enshrining the law as a state constitutional amendment will make it harder to overturn later, making it more difficult for "workers" to change their minds. This was the argument of the Pro-Life community. Though the Party takes this to unreasonable extremes. From Ms. Henderson's article:

The answer to inflation and growing pressures on families is not more abortions, as many Democrats argue. This is a woman’s medical decision. Workers should reject the push to use abortion as a means of contraception. At issue with abortion is a potential human being. Abortion should be a fallback, something that is needed when all else fails.

“This year workers have learned more about how to fight for better conditions, from striking autoworkers, casino workers, bakery and other unionists,” Hawkins said.

The SWP points to the powerful example set by the leadership of Cuba’s socialist revolution.

Fidel Castro led working people to conquer power. Millions of women participated in the defense and advance of the revolution, breaking down barriers to full involvement in economic, social and political life. The revolutionary government organized child care, school and workplace lunch and after-school programs to help overcome the inequality women face. Along the way they decriminalized abortion.

In other words, because Americans are supposedly getting poorer (worse housing, worse food, worse medical care) we don't need more abortion--but instead we need to imitate Cuba. Cuba--where housing, food, and health care a vastly more available than in the USA. Really?

The SWOP is a FLOP. 

Allow me a personal reminiscence here.

When I was 18 years old I returned to my hometown after living 18 months in Germany. A girl I knew from high school before I left invited me over to her house for milk and cookies--and the complete recording of Jesus Christ Superstar on the stereo set. She had her whole life planned out--and wanted me to be a part of it. She wanted to get married and have five children. And Jesus Christ Superstar was by far the best piece of music ever written. I didn't mention that I was a sworn atheist, and that my stay in Germany (frequent trips to the old East Berlin notwithstanding) had turned me into a committed Communist. Besides, I was way too shy to make the requisite phone call necessary to cash in on her offer, so nothing ever came of it.

In recent years I've come to reconsider that road not taken. I certainly wouldn't have joined the Socialist Workers Party. I probably would never have attended college. There is no way I'd have spent a year with my family living in Uganda. I wouldn't have married my current wife--who gave me two children and now two grandchildren--who is from the Philippines. I have a whole country-in-law, which has added a richness to my life that I think I would miss.

But just suppose--if I'd had five children beginning at age 20. It would have been a hardscrabble, difficult life--supporting five children without a college degree. No fun at all. But by now I'd possibly have a dozen grandchildren. Not just two. And lots of kids would take care of me in my old age--not just my daughter. Of course this assumes the marriage endured for what now would be 52 years.

There's nothing wrong with that life. But it would have taken courage and commitment that I didn't have at age 18. After all, I couldn't even make the phone call.

The SWP is at least pro-natalist. Which, considering that the average, elderly Trotskyist has zero grandchildren, is amazing. Most people with no grandchildren are envious of folks like me--and it's that envy that drives the whole feminist/LGBTQIA+ movement. But the SWP has somehow risen above that--and for that they deserve praise and admiration.

Further Reading:


 

 

Friday, November 10, 2023

Addendum: Trotskyist Antisemitism

Left Voice's new allies (source)

Reader John B. commented on my last post (Trotskyist Antisemitism) suggesting that I include this quote from the Left Voice's Declaration. The full quote from John is here:

"...However, the course of action pursued by the Hamas militias, which attacked military posts and civilians alike, has been easily instrumentalized by Netanyahu and the imperialist states to try to legitimize their declaration of war. It has allowed the Israeli government to rally the opposition and critical sectors behind support for a military offensive against the Gaza Strip. We reject the attacks on the civilian population. We do not share the methods of Hamas, which impede the necessary unity in struggle between the Palestinian population, Arabs who live in Israel, and sectors of the Jewish working class who break with Zionism and its criminal policies; this unity must be built around the denunciation of the state of Israel and its systematic apartheid in Palestine. We do not share Hamas’s program and strategy, which proclaims its objective to be the installation of an Islamic fundamentalist state throughout the territory of the state of Israel. If the “two-state” policy promoted by the PNA through the Oslo Accords proved to be a resounding failure, Hamas’s proposal also does not represent a progressive alternative..."

He is certainly correct that I should have included--or at least cited--this paragraph in my previous post. Thus I add this addendum.

John offers his opinion here:

If I had written that article, I would have put that paragraph toward the top of it, but it clearly indicates that the Left Voice comrades don't "support" Hamas. Politically, that is.

I disagree with John's conclusion. Left Voice has enthusiastically marched under Hamas' banners, including:

  • From the river to the sea--Palestine must be free.
  • End the occupation.
  • Resistance is justified.
These are thinly disguised commands to kill all the Jews. Palestine is the word they use for a Judenrein ("cleansed of Jews") Holy Land, where Jews have lived for 3000 years. The occupation refers to any Jew living in so-called Palestine, who "occupy" the land by walking on it with their filthy feet. Resistance is justified because the Jews are so awful that anything you can do to get rid of them is a heroic act to be championed.

Left Voice signs off on the Hamas program in every important particular. They are straight-out anti-Semites. But as a fig leaf to protect themselves they include the paragraph John quoted.

It's a very small fig leaf. First, they oppose the civilian deaths only for tactical reasons. Left Voice has no complaint about killing Jews on general principle. They just think that this particular incidence of mass murder was "easily instrumentalized by Netanyahu." Only when Hamas has the capability of murdering 100,000 Jews or perhaps a million Jews--then might be the best tactical time to get on with it.

Then they claim to oppose the "Islamic State." This is reserved for an as yet hypothetical time in the future when all the Jews have been wiped out and Hamas has to figure out what happens after that. That's the only time Left Voice will dare to disagree with them on any principle. Until then the number of Jews to be killed is a purely tactical concern.

I have a professor friend--a former colleague before I retired--who is a religious Muslim but not Palestinian. He is clearly sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, and argues that dropping 1000 pound bombs on Gaza is killing innocent children along with Hamas generals. He has a point. His advice is that Israel should stop dropping 1000 pound bombs.

But he is not antisemitic. He rejects the slogans that Hamas promulgates. He condemns the barbaric attack on Jewish civilians. He just thinks the best way forward is a ceasefire. I disagree with him because I don't think it will work--I think Hamas will just stage a new attack to kill more Jews and the only viable strategy moving forward is to eliminate Hamas. But on this reasonable people can disagree--and my colleague is both a reasonable and an honorable man.

He's not antisemitic and I'm not anti-Palestinian. I think Palestinians should have at least a middle class lifestyle and their full civil rights, either within Israel or in a separate Palestinian state. I strongly disagree with that (small) segment of Israeli opinion that supports the expulsion of Palestinians from the Holy Land. From the river to the sea, there are approximately 10 million Jews and 6 million Palestinians--and there is no good reason why either one of them has to leave or be murdered.

Oh--I guess there is at least one reason: Hamas, along with their antisemitic allies in the US, including Left Voice.

Even absent any humanitarian motives, it is obviously in Israel's best political interest to avoid Palestinian civilian casualties as much as possible. This is why Hamas, their US allies, and the UN are all busily trying to inflate the number of Palestinian dead--literally by using their own civilians as human shields, and figuratively by just lying about the death toll. Of course the Hamas brass hides under the biggest hospital in Gaza City--where else would they hang out?

If Israel didn't care about civilian casualties, then why did they send in ground troops? Surely, a few dozen 2000 lb bunker buster bombs over al-Shifa hospital could take out all the tunnels, brass, militia, and tens of thousands Palestinians to boot. No Israeli soldier would have to die.

Here's the truth (h/t Arnold Kling): The only reason Israel is sending in ground troops is to protect Palestinian civilians. A 2000 lb bomb can't distinguish between a child and a terrorist--but a soldier can, at least some of the time. Since dropping bunker busters on a hospital is unconscionable, Israel is putting its own soldiers at risk so it can take out Hamas while injuring as few civilians as possible. Or, put another way, Israel won't be dropping any bombs on top of their own soldiers. The more Israelis there are on the ground, the fewer civilians will be killed.

There is no other reason for those soldiers to be there.

John also dings me for this:

Given the main focus of this blog, I'm surprised you didn't mention the SWP's full-throated endorsement of Zionism and the Israel slaughter in Gaza. Indeed, The Militant's coverage of this most recent crisis is indistinguishable from the Murdoch media or the press releases of the Israeli Defense Force.

He is correct--the Socialist Workers Party is the only Trotskyist grouplet on my beat that rejects antisemitism. I'm happy to point that out--as I did in the Further Reading segment following the previous post. That link is The SWP Defends Civilization. Which is nothing less than the truth.


Further Reading: