RE: [Marxism] Re: Militant: 'Stop Bush' protests, marked by nationalism, aid British rulers

["Jose G. Perez" <jgperez@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul F. writes: "Blair's uncritical relationship with Bush is a very
easy target in Britain. Certainly, it must be attacked, but it must be
done in a principled manner that does not encourage British chauvinism."

Well, *that's*  a real joke. Here we have the Militant, which is
*refusing* to demand immediate and unconditional withdrawal of "its own"
imperialism from Iraq, which counsels Iraqis to rely on "civic"
organizing, and which denounces the struggles of the Iraqi and
Palestinian people as "bourgeois," going after the British antiwar
movement because is has the temerity to do what the SWP *won't* do,
which is to militantly oppose Washington's war. 

They're very upset that people are toppling over effigies of George W.
and torching the American flag. They say it is chauvinism, by the Brits
against the United States.

All the stuff about British nationalism and so on is bull. What's really
going on here is that the Militant is capitulating to American "great
nation" chauvinism. Because, is it really true that British chauvinism
is going to be re-enforced by a mass movement against the very concrete
expression of that chauvinism, Britain's participation in an imperialist
war? 

The only "principles" involved in the SWP's position are national
chauvinism and white racism. They have decreed that the struggle of the
Iraqi people and the Arab nation against their European and
European-descended colonialism, neocolonialism, Zionism, imperialism and
military occupation is meaningless and bourgeois; that what is really
important is the fight between the imperialist nations over how to
divide the Iraqi pie.

If the SWP had an ounce of revolutionary politics left, their stance, of
course, would be to tell the American workers that they should do what
the Brits did, and organize a movement to defeat the U.S. war. But the
SWP has gone over to Kautkyism, very conveniently letting the SWP off
the hook in terms of organizing a movement against *its own*
imperialism. And now they're insisting everyone else in the world stop
struggling against U.S. imperialism, because that only helps the French
and the Germans. 

And everybody knows that the defeat of the imperialists who speak with
funny accents is the lesser evil. Just ask W.

This is not a question of ideology or bad slogans. Either this struggle
against the imperialist war is progressive or it is reactionary, and its
role in the class struggle is not determined by how good or bad the
ideas in the heads of participants may be. 

For all of the SWP's crowing about how the "war party" is making gains,
November has been the month in which the American imperialists and their
acolytes have suffered the most serious blows. 

The Iraqi resistance is waging an intelligent and increasingly effective
people's war. They understand the political character of the war, they
have the strategic initiative, and their tactics are consciously
designed at politically defeating the U.S. plan for domination of Iraq.

The Brits, Italians, Spaniards, the NGO's and international
organizations, as well as local quislings cooperating with the
occupation, have all been or will be hit. The "coalition" will fall
apart at the seams; the blows of the Iraqi resistance are quite
consciously aimed at speeding up this falling out among the would-be
thieves. 

The real relationship of forces on the ground is shown by two very
revealing incidents, the hit against the two Americans last weekend in
Mosul and this weekend against the Spanish "intelligence" (Hah!) team,
which was completely rubbed out. 

First, it shows that the U.S. attempt to establish more of a presence by
dividing its forces into smaller patrols is doomed. The Iraqis have
enough organization, firepower and morale to take out any roving bands
of conquistadores foolish enough to go traipsing through the countryside
without at least a couple of armored vehicles to back them up.

Second, it shows the capacity of the coalition to react to these attacks
sucks. In both cases, air support and reinforcements should have been
called in as soon as the first shot was fired, and should have been
available within a few minutes. In the case of the Americans it wouldn't
have mattered, in the case of the Spaniards, it might have saved those
who survived the initial attack, and who resisted for quite a while. But
of course the way to deliver support and reinforcements would have been
by helicopter. The U.S. command *chose* to let its Spanish spies get
massacred rather than risk having another dozen or two American
casualties should the helicopters fall to a carefully prepared attack
from the ground. How do you think the Spanish commanders and political
authorities, never mind the people in Spain, are going to feel about
this?

Third, local Iraqis rejoiced at the invaders' losses. They did so
openly, without fear. The "battle for the hearts and minds" is over: the
imperialists lost. Even the imperialists recognize this. That is the
meaning of the adoption of Zionist-style mass terror tactics, the razing
of houses and so on, kidnapping of spouses and children of suspected
resistance leaders, the admission that patriotic elements infiltrated in
the new puppet police forces are helping to plan and coordinate the
attacks, etc.

What the SWP is doing is strikebreaking against the Iraqi national
resistance movement. They are totally conscious about this. They
describe the resistance as "remnants" of the "regime" and have stated
quite openly and directly that they are *against* the victory of these
forces. In the actual war that is really going on today, they are
"neutral" on the side of imperialism. And so of course they oppose the
British antiwar movement -- and not out of any excessive Leninist zeal.

José