Re: AUT: RE: antiwar movement

["\\\"Ryan H. B. Graham\\\"" <ryan.graham@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Quoting Thomas Seay <entheogens@xxxxxxxxx>:

>
> --- neil <74742.1651@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > But communists should know better than to
> > support this
> > 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' crap by now.
>
>
> This is a very complex situation...or so it seems to
> me.
> It is easy to  say, "well, the ba'athist and islamic
> forces are reactionary and therefore I wont support
> them."  However, Thiago has a point.  Who then is in a
> position to stop the onslaught of U.S. agression?

The international working class is in the position to destroy capitalism in its
entirety (pardon my "time-honoured rhetoric").  How and when it will it do this
are the only real questions that a true "anti-war" movement should be dealing
with.  Backing one ruling class (or potential ruling class) simply to weaken
another ostensibly more aggressive ruling class not only gives direct support to
imperialist rivalry and war but only offers an endless future of
anti-imperialist" struggle against the next evil imperialist power (probably the
one we backed in the last "anti-imperialist" struggle).

> The NewDemocracy person on this list has, in my
> opinion, a rather naive assesment of the present U.S.
> population.  They are (rightfully) angry about the
> deaths of soldiers and expenditure of money on the
> Iraq war.  However, had this been one of Clinton's
> bombing raids, where no U.S. soldiers are killed, I
> doubt we would have the outcry against this war that
> currently exists.  What proof do I have of this? Well,
> look at amercian public sentiiment vis-a-vis the
> bombings and agressions carried out in the 1990s.  How
> much outcry have we seen here in regards to the recent
> coup d'etat in Haiti?  I am not sayiing that the
> majority of US citizens support imperialism; however,
> unless U.S. soldiers die, somehow these militaristic
> events do not
> register so much on their psyche...they are otherwise
> willing to accept the line that these are
> "humanitarian interventions".
>
> My point is that if there were not a resistance in
> Iraq, I doubt that we would be seeing the public
> outcry
> against this war that we have seen.  Americans would
> be able to sooth any doubts by watching the faces of
> smiling Iraqi children receiving candy from U.S.
> soldiers.  The death of soldiers, the draining of the
> US economy to fight the war there, do not permit
> Americans to ruminate in such fantasies for long.

Certainly war casualties and the misery that war brings to the working class
does effect its opinions towards war.  But the results of this is not
necessarily a positive thing.  The Iraqi working class has suffered decades of
war.  The end result of all that is the predominance of nationalist and
religious reactionary forces.  These forces may boot out the Americans (although
I highly doubt it) but so what?  Iraqis are no better off.  The best thing
Iraqis can hope for as a result of the current 'resistance' is something
resembling post-revolutionary Iran - and we all know what a great deal that
"anti-imperialist" victory was for Iranian workers.

As for US workers being forced to realize that their ruling class is doing much
nastier things than handing out candy to Iraqi children, I'm not sure that more
body bags will ensure that.  It is just as likely to result in the ostensibly
"isolationist" nationalism that followed the Vietnam war.  Sure, heavy US
casualties could lead the US to pull out.  It could even lead to a revolutionary
situation.  But I think that an actual internationalist workers' struggle in
Iraq would have much more of a chance of influencing a positive (even
revolutionary) reaction from US workers.  The actual reactionary Iraqi
'resistance' today may give the US a bloody nose, but even if successful it will
ensure that American workers see their Iraqi counterparts as a foreign enemy
ideologically bent on their destruction - and not as fellow workers.

> So, without the resistance, the anti-war movement
> would
> probably be dwarfed (in the U.S. in any case).  And if
> the anti-war movement weren't there, the
> Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz war machine would keep
> on trucking into Syria, Iran, etc.

I think inter-imperialist rivalry has more to do with the putting the brakes on
US imperialism than the 'anti-war movement' (which has largely acted as or
has been exploited as an adjunct of Bush's bourgeois rivals - be they domestic
or international).  If the goal is simply to halt US imperialism then it seems
perfectly logical to throw our support behind Chirac, Schoder and European
capital because they have the best chances of accomplishing that end.  I suppose
we should also cheer (in secret of course) Osama's network for killing 200
Spanish workers - since it dealt US imperialism a blow by potentially knocking
out one of its allies.  This is where the logic of "anti-(US)-imperialism" takes
us.

> Perhaps we should not support the resistance (and so
> far, I have not) but serious attention needs to be
> given to the above mentioned facts, and to what Thiago
> is saying.  This is a complext situation and resorting
> to time-honoured rhetoric just wont do.
>
> On the other hand, Thiago, do you really support the
> resistance?  Would you be willing to give material
> support to it if you could?

It seems a little sketchy to give 'political support' to the poor guerrillas or
terrorist blowing themselves up for 'the cause' without giving material support.
 I suppose that means blowing up packed commuter trains and buses 'at home' (I'm
not accusing anyone here of contemplating this - just that it seems like the
logical conclusion of bourgeois anti-imperialism).

CGs
Ryan


--


     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---