|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Progressive Labor Party (PL) says all nationalism is bad. So we were surprised to see how PL addressed the Mexican flag at the migrant worker rallies in newspapers it distributed at the New York rally against the Iraq War April 29:
Liberal U.S. rulers, in ever-increasing need of fresh cannon fodder, are trying to steer swelling immigrant protests toward U.S. patriotism and military recruitment.
That's stunning, because that's exactly what MIM has been saying the last couple years.
Since PL opposes all nationalism, how are they going to handle this question of rallying around the Mexican flag we have to wonder:
That's why liberals went ballistic when more Mexican than U.S. flags appeared during the first round of rallies. The New York Times (3/30) warned, "Latino advocates. . . would do well to . . . trade their ancestral flags for the Stars and Stripes." Organizers of subsequent events made sure that the red, white, and blue flew high.
On the one hand, MIM was glad to see someone other than MIM have the guts to confront Amerikkkan nationalism. On the other hand, knowing PL very well, we could not help but feel their new line is opportunist and not based on a thorough analysis. It's not possible to have the benefits of the MIM line selectively.
PL's line is that all nationalism is reactionary. By their own line, they should have denounced the Mexican workers for carrying the Mexican flag.
Mao's line was that the nationalism of the oppressed nations is "applied internationalism." PL openly rejected that line since before Mao died in 1976.
MIM is for redressing the grievances of Mexico against the united $tates. As a poor substitute for that, PL offers only the fight against racism. Not surprisingly, when it comes time to handle the Mexican migrants, PL ends up in bed with the New York Times denouncing Mexican nationalism--except that this time they realized it and caught themselves in a very MIMesque way.
PL for many years has expressed the economic line which the New York Times is the political expression of. No where in PL publications do they attempt to calculate super-profits from outside u.$. borders. They see no exploitation of other countries in practice by u.$. imperialism.
On the other hand, PL does calculate into detail the profits from racism inside u.$. borders. That is what makes PL the perfect shoehorn, the ultimate militant integrator of u.$. empire.
PL's messages to Blacks, Aztlán:, First Nations and Asians is that they can share the super-profits of empire equally with whites. That is why they pay no attention to super-profits from outside u.$. borders.
This line has the same basic appeal as Jesse Jackson or Martin Luther King. The followers of Marcus Garvey, Malcolm X and the Black Panthers had something else in mind--not joining the empire proudly.
PLP's line is social-imperialist, one of the most dangerous imperialist lines there is. PLP realizes that the strongest empire comes from uniting people inside u.$. borders on an equal basis for global exploitation. In some areas, PLP is fighting harder than anyone else to strengthen the u.$. empire.
PL's anti-racism is almost useless in discussion why Bush opposes the national anthem in Spanish. There are Spanish-speaking people of all races and most of Bush's message aims at Mexicans.
PL's phrase about the rulers going "ballistic" about the Mexican flag is an example of how PL differs from Democrats only in degree. There is no progressive role for opposing the Mexican flag in the migrant struggle, period, but only MIM affiliated organizations and allies are saying so.
There is something very inadequate about the way Amerikans are fighting all the wars by their government. So we hope that people study politics, including all those leaflets at the demonstrations. Here MIM tries to set a good example by reading through the PL paper.
PL's May 10th paper addressing May Day also opposes correctly: "the flag of U.S. imperialism, that has slaughtered workers worldwide." Minus the second-to-last paragraph telling lies about U.$. workers who oppose the Iraq War, while leaving out lack of opposition to the occupation of Afghanistan, Korea, Haiti, etc., MIM would have published PL's article on "Liberals' Rumsfeld-Bashing Masks Their Wider War Plans."
Like the other parties fighting for multi-racial empire, PL wrongly refers to migrants as "immigrants," in the assumption that people looking for work must be looking for u.$. citizenship. PL's line on Aztlán: and migrants all being required to seek u.$. citizenship is also objectively racist in addition to being chauvinist, because the effect of this negative line falls disproportionately on the Brown people.
We hope the PL of 2006 can look at the migrant struggle and realize that they have been wrong and MIM right. If so, their article on the Mexican flag can be the first sign of unity with the MIM line. Next they need to root out their imperialist economics from their line so as to be able to separate from the New York Times both politically and economically.
Alternatively, if PL cannot admit the truth yet, then it should explain why the workers it seeks to reach do not rally for PL in any large quantities. The U.S. Marxist-Leninist Organization and others have realized that they must be ultra-left if they do not attract widespread support from millions of exploited workers, so they have joined the impeachment crusade. We are hoping some people in PL know better than that--that that is bourgeois politics. So when will PL see the light and take up the MIM line?