Re: [A-List] UK majority against attack on Iraq

[Chris Burford <cburford@xxxxxxxxxx>]

At 19/03/02 21:30 -0500, Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx wrote:

> actually, Britain has its own imperialist agendas in the middle east and
> central asia, as the several articles about British "sub-imperialism" from
> the Guardian magazine have proved. The issue is about Britain's desire to
> control over oil
> resources and share world's goodies with the US: ABC's of Lenin's theory of
> imperialism.
>
> This poll about Iraq does not mean that Europe is anti-imperialist.


Of course not !

> am i wrong in assuming that Burford always finds a tricky way to apologize
> imperialism?

Perhaps "Xxxxxx" just assumes other people are as naive as he is.

But more fundamentally behind the striking stance of people who have a
tendency to dogmatism, lurks simple laziness.

For such people any attempt to analyse the contradictions between
imperialisms, hegmonism, and sub-imperialisms will alway smell of
apologizing for imperialism, and a distraction from the true path of
socialist revolution (within the next twelve months, maximum.)

Innuendo and personal mistrust aside, the theoretical problem here is the
old one of how to analyse classes and other forces in a highly complex
world, and how to analyse changes and reforms as to whether they stabilize
the oppressive system or undermine it. And what is the relationship between
the struggle for democratic rights and the struggle for
socialism/communism. Dialectics are indispensible.

Anyway to come back to the concrete, the debate in the UK Parliament will
be interesting not only for the range of unease among different parties
(all of whom, apparently I must point out, support capitalism!) but even
more how they are reported. Look for signals of how the British government
has influenced the reporting of the debate. My prediction is that it would
suit Blair in his dialectical relationship with Bush, if the debate fully
reports widespread misgivings.

But perhaps I just always have a tricky way of apologising for Blair. If
so, no more tricky than Blair is himself.

Chris Burford