[Marxism] Re: US-ordered elections deepen divisions....

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The following is a letter sent to me by a comrade on the Solidarity
Global Justice Antiwar Coordinators' list and my reply.
Fred Feldman

From: Allen Ruff
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 5:52 AM
To: soli-gjaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Fred:
 Whike I find the the main thread, the thrust of your analyiis to be
fairly write on, I found the assumptions in one phrasing somehwat
problematical.

In the section on unconditional support to the resistance, you wrote:

>...progress by the resistance, in all its different facets, will lead
>to further progress in forging the leadership needed for victory.
>

Do I sense a tinge of inevitablism here? Or am I reading too much into
this statement.  Perhaps its your use of "will".  When you talk a bout
the kind of "leaership needed for victory," am I wrong to assume that
you mean a socialist or working class leadership?  If that be the case
then there certainly is no indication that any "progress" in that
direction will take place in the foreseeable future.    Are we in a
different historical moment, witnessing a kind of resistance distinct
from those of an earlier era; those that clearly had a cohesive and
significant revolutionary left or socialist component?  Do we or should
we be calling for the  unconditional support of reactionaries who will
undoubtedly move to slaughter and suppress the left and any other
secular democratic forces?  Yes, yes, I understand solidarity with those

fighting imperialism, but  should we not be quite cautious in suggesting

a kind of automatic movement in the direction of some kind of
"progress"?  After all, look at the kind of "leadership" that  won the
"victory" in Iran.

-Allen


I was concerned that phrase might sound like socialist rum-tum-tum, but
I failed to rework it enough to avoid the problem.

I am talking not about the leadership needed to establish socialism but
the need for an orientation that will reknit the ties with the shia and
bring about an end fo a criminal and murderous occupation to which the
US government is deeply committed. I simply meant to note that further
development is necessary to conquer this goal.  Personally, I believe
this will take place, and may already be beginning to do so.  The main
reasons being that (1) the fact that this division only aids the
occupation is clear to many and  (2) I don't believe the Shia masses are
in a mood to be won to the cocupation in a long-term way, or that
Washington has what it takes at this time to make a successful effort to
buy them off.

I deliberately never talk about socialism as a practical goal  of
today's fight. I believe that under today's conditions the actual fight
against the occupation that is taking place in Iraq today is a
precondition to the fight for real democracy there, let alone socialism.


I do not claim that ending the occupation will necessarily require NEW
leadership, but that there needs to be some reorientation to do the
immediate job of uniting the people against the occupation across
sectarian lines.  I do not rule out at all that this can be accomplished
by a leadership no better than that Khomeini group which stood at the
head of the successful battle against the shah in Iran.

I do not believe I was wrong to support the movement to topple the shah,
including under the leadership of Khomeini, but I think I did not look
coldly enough at the time at the kind of regime this was likely to
establish and the challenges that fighters would then face in taking the
next steps. Of course, I still stand unconditionally for solidarity with
Iran as a nation against US imperialism, regardless of what kind of
government Iran has.

Iraq very much needs a "new" working class and socialist movement, as
does and did Iran.  I think that the battle to end the occupation is a
precondition to achieving this, and I am on the side of the current
resistance -- many warts and all -- in the fight they wage against the
occupation. (This is not, as the article makes clear, an endorsement of
everything that takes place under that banner.) I think there is every
reason to assume that after the occupiers leave Iraq, the road to
socialism will be difficult, full of sacrifices and, yes, martyrs. That
will not at all cancel out the importance of the victory over
occupation.

Our main problem now is to get to that point. And that means, on our
part, building the broadest, most united movement of protest for
immediate withdrawal of US troops.

Basically, I am saying that your criticism was basically on point.  I
will recast that phrase if I publish this any further.
Fred


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