Re: AUT: RE: antiwar movement

[cerclesocial@xxxxxxxxxx]

>>>...on the other hand, the other day I met some Worker Communist Party of
Iraq people who think that the Iraqi resistance is entirely foreign and
Ba'athist, charge them with killing 30,000 people, vehemently deny that
there are any armed leftist groups, and at the same time demand an end to
the occupation.

I'm not sure that 'rseistance' is enterly foreign, but I was confirmed by a
former human shield in Irak - so a totally different source than WCP
comrades - that part of them has been launched by people coming from other
'muslim' countries, including Palestinians, came there at the call of Saddam
Hussein.

Are they all baathists ? Another problem there. What's baathism ? Is it the
ideology of the pre-1991 'baath arab socalist party' or the religious
nationalism after 1991 ? (even if baathism had been less secular it is
generaly told). I would suggest to call baathists not only suportrs of
ex-president Hussein, but all groups thatvseems to have be armed by the
former regime. The quickness wich guerilla warfare developped, the quaility
of its equipement and attacks, let think it has been prepared well before
the occupation. When you read Guevarra, Mao or even Debray books about
guerila warfare,it's clear its a long process to get weapons, training,
support and so on... But all of this is purely conjectural.

On another hands, fundamentalist muslims webpages support iraqi resistance
as Jihad, and chosen method like suicide-bombings and massive civil
population killing and wounding suggest more islamists style than a leftist
one. Now, I would ask if someone can cite a armed leftist group ? I seen
none, no communicate, even if from time to time some people speak about a
communist resistance.

Finaly, I dont undertsand why the fact to explain the fact that armed iraqi
'resistance' is recationnary should be understood as incompatible with a
refusal of occupation. The main problem is not the ending of occupation, but
the social content of this end. If it's only reaction, why choose between
one or another ?

This kind of debate is sometimes strange, as people refers to Iraq as a
central point for capital, so debate about how it can challenge capital,
without thinking there is in Iraq living, working people.

>>>...They reject the Governing Council, nearly came to blows with a
Communist Party of Iraq man who was present at the meeting, but also object
to elections as those would doubtlessly bring a Shia Islamist government.

What's the problem to be against Gov council and the parties that take part
to it, including communist party ? And what's the problem to be against
elections in a context where they couln't be democratic at all (as far as
elections can be democratic in capitalism - note that WCP suggest that
capital only ruling method in dependant country is dictatorship).

>>>...You can keep your soul squeaky clean and wait for ever for the right
conditions, I suppose, but there are some very nasty choices to be made
right now.

What's the nastliest choice ? Support the islamist, like SWP, as the only
resistance against imperialism ? Or support workers and women organisations,
on antinationalist and antireligious bases ? I got some reserves on WCP, but
I think the easier thing to do is to discuss with them about it. Nothing's
simplier, as they're fond giving a lot of email and phone numbers and all
there web page and even on there TV (if you understand farsi :) So, things
are very simple, terribly simple.

I like the phrase "We are quite ordinary people, that is to say rebels." It
could apply to WCP also.

Nico






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