AUT: Ewa Jasiewicz on class struggle and armed struggle in Iraq

[andrew robinson <ldxar1@xxxxxxxxx>]

This is the post by Ewa Jasiewicz I was on about.  In
case anyone doesn't know, the WCP are the
Worker-Communist Party of Iraq (a Marxist-humanist
group), Sistani is a "grand ayatollah" and leading
Shiite figure involved with pro-Iranian groups - a
relative moderate best known for leading
demonstrations to break the siege of Najaf - IWSG is
Iraq Workers Support Group, the list this was
originally posted on (though not the one I got it
off), the Mehdi Army is Moqtada al-Sadr's militia.
The OWFI I think is the oil workers' union, and SOC is
an oil organisation.  RPG stands for rocket-propelled
grenade.  (But you all know this already I'm sure...)

Andy

-----------------------------------------------------

Hiya, I actually wrote this a few weeks ago. Its just
a response, whilst I think debate is healthy, I really
dont think the IWSG is a list for debating, it should
be for organising concerete action


In response to the questions raised at the meeting
regarding workers struggle and armed struggle ? the
two dynamics and realities are not at odds, often they
are one and the same people taking action. Posing the
two as opposites or separate is a false dichotomy.
Those who hold tools by day can just as readily and
easily down them for RPGs at night. I think a lot of
the dis-ease, as is always the case when it comes to
liberation movements under scrutiny or distorted by
biased media, involves us as outsiders making (often
sweeping) value judgements on the resistance, often
based on little more than media-gleaned news and
definitions or those offered by competing political
parties ? in the case of the Moqtadr al Sadr/Islamic
terrorism (so sloppily bunched together as one ? is it
a cult of personality, is it a movement, is it a
militiamen travelling circus, an Islamic
fundamentalist current demanding an Islamic state? Or
ordinary Iraqi workers and unemployed being armed by
political Islamic forces which seek to create an
Islamic state or authoritarian state which all on the
secular/anarchist left disagree with? Or is it an
inchoate, contradictory, region-specific, unaligned
and aligned, Sunni, Shia, secular chaotic liberation
movement sharing the common aim of ridding the country
of the occupation and Baathism? Or a little bit of
everything? It is complicated. I think we have to be
clear what we?re talking about. The WCP in my opinion
has backed itself into an ideological corner,
denouncing the occupation and all political Islam and
seemingly muslims fighting Jihad too ? not necessarily
with an end goal of an Islamic state ? or muslims full
stop, all those fighting and organising around their
religious connections and underground organisation
networks which served to keep hope and solidarity
alive for a lot of Shia muslims in the south during
the regime ? they did and do organise around their
religion or religious spaces when it comes to struggle
against oppression- but that does not mean blind
support for Moqtadr al Sadr, public beheading, shar?ia
law or institutionalised misogyny.

The WCP has fallen into the trap of defining itself in
relation to what it is against and what it is not
rather than by what it is in itself and its
achievements and successes and services to the
community (which have been significant and important
and life-saving in the case of OWFI). Most people in
Iraq are muslims, that?s a reality, and take a lot of
strength from their religion in the pursuit of varied
goals and aims and agendas. But most people in Iraq do
not want an Islamic state. The media and the WCP, much
as I respect a lot of the WCPs activists and think
theyre doing a lot of seriously vital organising,
would have us, it seems, condemning anyone organising
around their religion to overthrow the occupation.
They have a very precise view of secularism and
secular struggle and I feel an overly fetishized view
of workers struggle and worker identity too sometimes.
For example the case of the factory workers being told
to vacate their factory so the Mehdi army could use it
as a shooting point/temporary base/permanent base ?
nothing is clear about this case!! Why? Could it be a
deliberate case of Islamic resistance-bashing (re-play
of the set-piece confrontations and conflicts between
Iranian comrades and the Islamic state there ? Iraq is
Not Iran and most likely will Not be) and painting of
the incident as inherently anti-worker as if the
fighters in the Mehdi armt are not workers and do
not have families to feed and means of production
theyd like to collectively control etc etc? Muslim
non-Communist and non worker communist workers can and
do (I met them and worked with them in Basra) have
just as much understanding of class and workers
struggle and
internationalism as any communists. Communists do not
Own class consciousness or the terms and ideas that
people need to think with for revolution for equality,
justice and peace on this planet. Im so fed up
of islamophobic depictions of muslims as lead solely
by their religion, two-dimensional caricatures who
want jihad and an Islamic state and that?s them,
that?s it and maybe one day they?ll see the secular
light. The future is going to be mixture of all these
ideas and struggles, we wont convert eachother but we
will unite on the basis of what we have in common and
fight over our conflicts but understanding and degress
of
acceptance are pre-requisites. (im not willing to
accept institutionalised misogyny or patriarchy but
what were seeing in Iraq isn?t so much a creation of a
new society or order, it?s the attempt at the
destruction of an old one and everything is crazy and
in flux and totally undecided ? ask anyone on the
streets, ?things are moving fast? they say and Noone
Knows For Sure Whats Going to Happen. Anyway, we don?t
know the details of this incident with the Mehdi army
but it could be:

a) the position was necessary and had to occupied in
order to save lives and territory
b) was asked for or negotiated with some of the
workforce

Also, would be re-acting to this if it were a bunch of
clerics or white collar workers evicted from their
workplace? In a war, life and death weave tenuously
close together and the worklife of a factory, industry
or production centre Does take second place when lives
are at stake and snipers, fighters, tanks and apaches
are pummelling a city ? you do stop work!! And the
people who need cover or to get into your building
aren?t doing to be arsey or reactionary dark stoneage
scenario forces waging war on the righteous
mono-secular workers because theyre too free or
something, theyre doing it to liberate their city.

The issue here is the varying levels, degrees,
positions and dynamics people have in Iraq
politically, their strategies for struggle for
liberation and what theyre prepared to risk or stand
to lose (class/party
privelages). So much would be shaped by the past and
present levels of local struggle against the Baath and
the occupation. The WCP, Al Sadr?s lot (and lets
reiterate, theyre not ?devotees or loyal? to Sadr,
some Im sure are, but the majority probably want arms,
commraderie and the honour of fighting back against a
common, massacring, brutal and plundering enemy), and
unaligned workers all want the occupation out. Polls
show that over 80% of the population wants an
immediate end to the Occupation. I don?t think it
makes sense to rule out the fight to do this to be
fought by any means necessary - youre facing down the
worlds only superpower with a vastly more
sophisticated media machine and weaponry. Struggle is
determined by the conditions available to a people and
the conditions for a secular mass armed resistance do
not exisit in Iraq at present however much we wish
they did.

The armed resistance exisits and it is effective
(Fallujah is an autonomous zone), condemning it and
consigning it all to the ?other pole? of Islamic
Terrorism doesn?t help anyone, just clumsily lumps a
whole liberation movement with all its contradictions
into one ?civilisation? or humanity threatening
reactionary force. Most muslims fighting the
occupation in Iraq would take offence at this crude
dismissal of their struggle, especially when it apes
the language of their enemies - Rumsfeld, Bush, Blair,
Bremer, Kimmett et al.

I support all kinds of forms of resistance, I met
members of Islamic resistance groups in Palestine ? I
recognise the difference between politics and
political representation and image and rhetoric, and
the reality of the supply of arms and groupings of
fighters on the ground defending communties, losing
their lives and fighting for survival and for dignity
and honour too on a daily basis. I may not agree with
the political goals of some of these groups but I
recognise that they are not homogenous and also have
internal opposition in the community and a lot of
internal support and it will be ultimately those
communities who will decide what happens and will take
on that confrontation.

The whole dismissal of political islam as fascism (and
I am guilty of this description myself, wrote it in a
piece for last month?s Iraqi Refugee Newsletter and
regret it as being a way too sloppy) is a bit like
the SWP or Respect telling people attracted or
involved with the BNP that ?theyre actually fascists,
cant you see?? these are ultimately methods of
patronisation. In the case of Islam, or any religion
really, according to
many communists and anarchists, if you just say it
enough, criticise it enough, people will eventually
?wake up? and see how Wrong and duped they?ve been by
the false consciousness of opiate religion or
charismatic leaders. I get this message from the
writings of some WCP people. What theyre refusing to
understand though is Why people are supporting these
parties or forces, what are they getting it out of it?
And what different interpretations there are of Islam
and what are the common factors for organising around
religion ? is it the religion? or is it the social
networks, the spaces, the mosque, the collective
ritual, the unity, the solidarity, the aspects which
are general and universal and not religious
ideology-specific or dogma-base or doctrinal. Is there
really such a profound ideological commitment or hero
worship of Moqtadr al Sadr as the propaganda in the
papers suggests? I barely met a soul who even
respected
him in my time in Iraq ? people were far more drawn to
Sistani who is currently on the verge of losing all
credibility if he doesn?t get off the fence ? that?s
coming from people Ive been talking to in Iraq. These
kinds of definitions and dismissals usually, in my
experience, stem from an ignorance and an inexperience
of whats really happening on the ground, what these
Mehdi Army fighters (some aged 16, some aged 40 ? I
think they?ll have very differing views on a wide
range of subjects) really think. And don?t forget that
there are women fighters fighting alongside the Mehdi
Army if not actually within it itself, these women are
unlikely
to see themselves as victims, whether or not we can
say they are or not.

I think opposing the armed resistance wholesale by
lumping it all into the camp of Islamic
fundamentalists serves noone but the dominant state
forces oppressing Iraq now. This is all a theoretical
argument at the end
of the day because we are set on practically
supporting the social resistance in Iraq ? that?s why
we?re involved in the Iraq Worker Solidarity Group. We
wont be sending out RPGs to Iraq, we?ll be sending out
delegations for skill sharing and solidarity and
equipment-giving.

That?s why I risked my life working with trade
unionists and workers in Iraq for so long ? Im in no
way against supporting and focusing on workers rights
and struggles in Iraq, I think that?s abundantly
clear. I also specifically focussed on the oil sector
and doing workshops on rights and advocacy and
basically encouraging strike action because I knew
that it was the only civil society sector capable of
effectively
challenging the occupation and hitting it where it
hurts ? in its pocketbook, in its profits, and I
wanted to support that in anyway I could. I didn?t see
the struggles of the SOC as reformist, in the context
of the history of oppression and the lengths that
workers there were prepared to go to in joining the
armed resistance for their needs (that was the
clincher for the Occupation and the Ministry of Oil ?
then where
would their struggle be defined, given that many in
the union are religious Muslims?? Would they be lumped
as fanatics or combative workers taking up armed
picketlines? This happened in the Nahrawahn brinck
factory by the way and also won workers there
contracts and a wage rise).

And there are very real contradictions between the
tactic of withdrawing labour and shutting down oil
exports en masse as a workforce and suffering heavy
human-life losses for it (history has taught us that
when capital is threatened, it turns to massacre) and
carrying out guerrilla attacks on pipelines which
would mean minimal if any losses of life in the
workforce but a deprivation of the collective means of
struggle and
mutual solidarity and power experience (however whats
to say they don?t get that in armed resistance,
swiftly turning popular and massified and collective?)
But maximum damage of the occupation?s profits would
be
achieved. Also, don?t forget that the head of security
at the SOC?s main export terminal is a former head of
military intelligence and that a strike there would be
seriously crushed.

More contradiction: Do workers want to damage their
carefully and proudly reconstructed workplaces and
potentially lose their jobs and means for survival? It
might be hard for us to understand why theyd want to
risk that. Or, is it part of the struggle to stop
Iraqi labour, energy, resources, futures and
possibilities being stolen by the occupation which
requires such temporary sacrifices? And given the
scarcity people are
used to, in the words of a Bergeseeya (SOC) worker
following a walk-out there, ?we?ve lived on next to
nothing, we can do it again, this is about our honour,
this is about making our voices heard from here to
Washington?. There is much to win and in terms of real
living standards and conditions, when your close or at
rock bottom, theres not all that much to lose.

SOC has taken 8 attacks on its exports terminal in the
past 6 weeks or so. These were well-planned and
strongly suggest insider knowledge was essential.

My position is that I whilst I am critical of elements
of the armed resistance?s leadership and their
potential power ambitions, I know that the struggle
for a free Iraq and justice in Iraq goes beyond
religion,
religious or political affiliation, and its about
people struggling to survive and protect their
families and communities and rid their lives of
oppression and occupation, and it?s the main force
capable of doing that in Iraq, so I support it,
critically.

I think the reality is that workers struggle Is being
dwarfed by the armed struggle simply because at the
moment the armed struggle is doing more damage and is
more effective. That?s down to the conditions and
means/avenues of resistance available to people. This
isn?t Palestine circa 1987 when Palestinian industry
and palestinain workers working in Israeli industry
existed. Therefore, the tool, the weapon of the strike
could be deployed back then; workers had their labour
power to withdraw, hence the more social nature of the
resistance of the first intifada. Those possibilities
and conditions do not exist in Palestine anymore
(Israel has supplanted Palestinian labour with foreign
imported labour precisely to axe this area and tactic
of resistance, forcing more armed forms of resistance
(and therefore more armed and statistically three
times as deadly retaliation measures), this and the
fact that Israel was deploying uncompromising brute
force - killing 400 Palestinians (many in
peaceful demonstrations) and provoking a response
before the first significant suicide operation took
place. And the conditions for ?civil
society? resistance barely exist in Iraq too ?
industry is still at almost infrastructural ground
zero, there is 70% unemployment, the only sector
really vital to the occupation is the Oil sector.
Every other
sector is still virtually in ruins. Applying our
western notions of social resistance, which I feel
ex-pat WCP people are trying to apply, do not fit in
this context.

The workers movement in Iraq may be strong in terms of
consciousness and willingness to fight back, but in
terms of being able to challenge the occupation
Economically, its force is minimal. Securing higher
wages and better conditions and ownership of the means
of reconstruction ? yes, but, another problem, whose
interests will that reconstruction ultimately serve?
The people of Iraq yes, but the occupation and its
profits too. Some will be deeply uncomfortable with
this in Iraq.

Anyway, to sum up, the situation is really
complicated, cant be broken down into two polar forces
of Islamic and Baathist, and occupation forces of
oppression and reaction with unaligned secular
would-be worker
communist party members in the middle. The
intifada/armed uprising is contradictory, undecided,
secular and religious, male and female, young and old,
and varies according to region and that region's
history
(contrast the collectively punished Shia south, the
massacred but 10-years-of-relative-safety-experiencing
Kurdistan, and the Tikriti clan gripped northern tip
of the ?Sunni Triangle? ? Tikrit and Mosul and nearby
villages plus Baghdad, bith a Baathist stronghold and
Shia and anti-Baath centre too).

Anyway, that was a very long response but I think it
covers everything I wanted to pretty much.


		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com




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