Re: uncomradely debate

["LaSainte" <lasainte@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tahir Wood" <twood@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 8:39 AM
Subject: Re: uncomradely debate


> Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 14:53:12 +0300
> From: "Michael Keaney" <michael.keaney@xxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: uncomradely debate
>
> Meanwhile, as the opponents of imperialism, it is in our objective
> interest
> that Saddam Hussein's regime survives for as long as it can. Whether
> Saddam
> himself knows it or not, right now he *is* fighting for freedom -- the
> freedom of all peoples of the world to determine their own futures free
> of
> the interfering, intervening, manipulating, violating, undermining,
> overpowering, sabotaging, destroying, exploiting, asset-stripping,
> subjugating, oppressing, hegemonising, utterly amoral but
> fundamentally,
> structurally necessary logic of imperialism, the highest stage of
> capitalism.
>
>
> All your flatulent rhetoric cannot obscure the fact that Saddam is the
> creature of imperialism and that he is an implacable enemy of communism.
> Supporting dictators on the basis of their "objective anti-imperialism",
> just because they have fallen out with their former champions,  does
> nothing to advance the cause of communism.
>
> Tahir
>

You misunderstand. Comrade Michael is not "supporting" Saddam Hussein. That
is taking a static view of the situation. He is supporting the role Saddam
must play, a role that is determined  by the political/economic/social
dynamic of events.  In other words, if Saddam Hussein is to remain the
leader of the Iraqi people, his role must be that of an anti-imperialist.
That is what we support.

cherie pleau