[Marxism] different class perspectives on Iraq was:THE MILITANT looks at the boom times coming ahead

[Steve Gabosch <sgabosch@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

This post is a follow-up on the discussion about Iraq and the Militant last
week.

Foremost on my mind in writing this post are the extraordinary hardships and
atrocities the Iraqi people are enduring under the US-led occupation, which
is presently concentrating on destroying the city of Fallujah, massacring
any resistance in that city of 300,000, and bombing, invading and
dehumanizing every square foot of human life there - in short, perpetrating
the highest levels of terrorism on an entire civilian population - all in
the name of democracy and anti-terrorism.  The only humane and just solution
to this horror is for the US to completely, immediately, and unconditionally
withdraw from Iraq.


******************************************
War between imperialist and oppressed nations

The question of who is the imperialist oppressor and who is the victim, as
Trotsky, Lenin and many others explained very clearly, is fundamental.  Many
on Marxmail have pointed to this starting point - that one must understand
that in general, imperialist military invasions must be defeated, and the
oppressed nations must be supported in their struggle against these
invaders.  Today, the US imperialist war and occupation of Iraq must be
defeated, and the Iraqi people must be liberated.

But the essential questions do not stop here.  It is not enough to simply
uncritically support any struggle against imperialism.  The history, class
composition and forms of struggle of resistance movements do matter.  Here
are three more essential points along these lines.


*******************************************
Independence, relationship of forces, rebuilding a workers movement

First, the question of *independence* of the revolutionary-minded working
class forces is paramount.  Trotsky pounded on this question again and again
in his assessment of the disaster of the Chinese workers carrying out the
Stalinist line of dissolving the Communist movement into the Kuomintang in
the 1925-1927 revolution, where Chang Kai-shek disarmed and massacred the
Communists in 1927.  Trotsky emphasized that this independence must be both
organizational and political, and that the bourgeois forces cannot be
trusted not to betray the workers at any point in the struggle.  In the case
of the Sino-Japanese War, which intensified in 1937 with Japanese
occupations of Shanghai, Nanjing, Shanxi, Trotsky strongly urged the
Communists and Left Oppositionists to fight in the front lines of the
Chinese army against the Japanese, but also maintain their independence from
Chang Kai-Shek.  (See Leon Trotsky on China (1976), especially the letter to
Diego Rivera that Louis Pr. quoted from a few days ago, beginning on page 567).

Second, the question of the relationship of class forces within the
oppressed nation must be taken into account. Here, Trotsky on China is of
limited value - he wrote many decades ago.  Conditions in Iraq today are
vastly different.  The bourgeoisie in Iraq is severely divided between
support to the pro-imperialist Allawi regime and support to the Islamic
militias. The historical analogy to Chang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang,
Saddam Hussein and the Baathist Party, has been largely crushed (but
certainly not entirely), unable to stop the US invasion or mount a unified
resistance.  The long decades of repression under Hussein's party-police
state have largely decimated (but again not entirely) an
anti-capitalist-minded workers movement.  The surrounding international
conditions are also very different (although all these questions are useful
to compare and learn from).  We can draw on China in the first half of the
20th Century and from many other important experiences, but we must
ultimately put the real conditions in Iraq today into the center of our
analysis.  It would be wrong to mechanically translate what Trotsky
suggested that Left Oppositionists do in Chang Kai-shek's army in 1937 into
a formula for how revolutionaries should relate to the resistance in Iraq
today.

Third, the problem of needing to re-build a workers movement and a
revolutionary voice within it is high on the agenda in Iraq.  How to
tactically go about these tasks is well beyond what I could or would try to
propose.  I only have generalities to offer - tactics can only be the job of
the Iraqis in that struggle, where, as always, many different strategies and
courses of action will be formulated and carried out.  I have not yet sorted
out who is saying what, but some of the links posted recently on Marxmail
have been helpful.  The conditions for socialists and worker militants in
Iraq today are among the most difficult on the planet.  These vanguard
activists, whoever they are, and as a whole, the workers, the poor farmers,
the Kurds and other oppressed nationalities, women, democratic forces and
the oppressed people of Iraq have extraordinary challenges.


***************************
The working class perspective of the Militant

The Militant, published in New York, is just one voice in the international
workers movement.  Looked at through the lenses I suggest here, I see
nothing in that newspaper that is not supportive and helpful to the workers
movement in Iraq, and the struggle against the imperialist occupation.  The
Militant opposes the US war and occupation and calls for immediate
withdrawal.  It calls (implied in anything I have seen it say, anyway) for
an independent workers movement, for political independence from the Iraqi
bourgeoisie and any bourgeoisie in the struggle against imperialism.  It
offers ways of maintaining this independence in its frank criticisms of the
Iraqi capitalists, political Islam, and so forth as anti-worker and
reactionary.  And, perhaps strongest of all its contributions, the Militant
offers its views on the concrete conditions facing the Iraqi workers and the
people as a whole in the context of a changing world imperialist situation.

What makes the Militant unique, and which runs through its approach to Iraq
and all questions - (please remember that I am only speaking for myself and
my humble understanding of things, not the Militant itself) - is that it is
meticulous about viewing and keeping the workers movement, its program for
emancipation, and its political line of march completely *independent* of
the urban middle classes and the capitalists (poor farmers are a different
issue).  The Militant is highly critical of political ideas that blur this
independence and which attempt to fuse the workers movement with urban
middle class political movements, which in turn inevitably contain class
collaborationist aspirations with the big bourgeoisie.

To the average radical, who by necessity is immersed in the politics of the
urban middle classes, the Militant can indeed seem sectarian.  In contrast
to the aspirations of the typical urban radical, the Militant is not seeking
to unify the "left" (placed in quotes here because the term deliberately
does not distinguish between different kinds of class forces within the
general socialist and left-democratic (small d) movements).  The Militant
puts its energy elsewhere: it seeks to first and foremost to unify workers,
and in doing so ally with farmers behind a class struggle program and course
of struggle.  It also favors the workers bringing any urban middle class
forces it can into supporting their struggles, and vice versa.  Whereas the
usual US radical sees the road to socialism along the lines of unifying the
middle and working classes around progressive causes, the Militant places
the movement of workers alone in the front seat.  This perspective can seem
sectarian to the average urban middle class radical, as well as to working
class radicals that see themselves as a kind of bridge between the working
classes (including the oppressed nationalities, working class women, etc.)
and radicalized middle class individuals, or, perhaps even more to the
point, a bridge between the radicalized middle classes and individual
radicalized workers.

I think this is why the Militant, as a recent tactic over the past couple
years, has given the mass demonstrations against the war in Iraq a low
priority.  These actions mobilize the energies of left-liberal urban middle
classes, and of course many individual workers, and some unions.  Some of
these actions have been huge, and all should be taken very seriously.   I
think the Militant has done this.  But these mobilizations don't fall
directly on the line of march the Militant believes the contemporary workers
movement is taking, especially in the US and Europe, which is centered much
more at this time on union organizing and socio-economic issues, a process
which in turn is very much connected to the crisis of imperialism.  They
suggest, and are carrying out this line as best as they can, that the key to
mobilizing the working classes of the world against imperialism, including
the war in Iraq,  is through promoting an anti-capitalist course of action
in the unions and workers movement.

At the same time, in their view (this is my interpretation, of course), this
viewpoint by no means precludes tactics such as organizing mass
demonstrations demanding that imperialist troops immediately withdraw.
Please remember, despite claims to the contrary, that the Militant has not
opposed participation in any of the antiwar actions.

In my opinion, different kinds of class perspectives lie behind the
different ideas that are being debated regarding Iraq.  While the Militant
is often portrayed by some writers on Marxmail as being irrational, its
views are actually quite well thought-out, but based on a different way of
looking at the class struggle.  The Militant, unlike any other group on the
left, sees the working class as occupying the front seat of the class
struggle (behind, of course, the engine of capitalism and the class that
rules it), with the middle classes occupying places farther behind.  If one
accepts that this is the Militant's point of view - that the working class
is center stage - then many of its seemingly unique and puzzling statements
and positions become much clearer.   The key is to fully grasp what this
particular class outlook combined with Marxism means on all political
questions.


****************************
A little on my attitude

I've been on Marxmail for maybe a year now (this time around), and Iraq has
been a key factor in what amounts to a re-politicization process on my part.
The sometimes sharp discussions I have been in, on this and other questions,
have been very helpful in getting me re-focused on the big political issues
of our time, and seeing these issues in much more detail.  I realize I have
been moving in a different direction from some of the major writers on
Marxmail, and some of my remarks in this post will create some sparks.  In
no way do I mean anything personal, especially in the sense of questioning
anyone's integrity or sincerity.  But I do believe part of what is going on
in these political discussions is a complex form of the class struggle,
where individual activists and groups consciously and unconsciously are
adapting to and recoiling from specific social classes and layers in motion,
as well as of course specific political ideas and programs.

Looked at this way, it becomes easier to understand why different tendencies
have such radically different assessments and such a colorful variety of
characterizations of themselves and one another.  So, even though I do
sometimes laugh, and sometimes mutter, about some of the sharper personal
attacks that show up in this kind of political forum, I don't take it
personally.  I do, however, just like any radical and revolutionary
Marxist-minded activist, have to struggle with my own class pressures, tugs
and pulls, and this can be a profoundly personal as well as political
process.  Being able to share my political and other thoughts, and read
those of others, in a serious forum like this has been a help in my own
development, and this is something I appreciate.


**************************************
US Out Now

Returning to Fallujah, and the war in Iraq as a whole, the world is
certainly watching, and the courage of the Iraqi people under these horrific
conditions is a testament to the struggle of humanity against the forces of
class oppression and injustice.  Long live the Iraqi people.  US OUT NOW!

~ Steve Gabosch


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism