Re: [Marxism] Supporting the resistance?

["Shane Brinton" <comradebrinton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Lance Murdoch wrote:
"What about the forms of Iraqi resistance OTHER than IED's blowing up trucks.  
The corporate news usually talks about resistance being IED's, and completely 
ignores the concept that "resistance", at least to US rule, was elected in the 
assembly, and is talking about it in the assembly, and that there are mass 
protests against the occupation and perhaps potential mass Iraqi movements 
against the occupation."

This is very true. Actions don't have to be violent to be resistance. Working 
within the political process could bring some positive results. It is not an 
alternative, but an ADDITIONAL arena of struggle that deserves more attention 
and support.

At the same time, the armed struggle is a key aspect of the Iraqi resistance, 
and is making it far more effective, because it is helping to put the pressure 
on in the oppressor nations. As Tariq Ali points out in BUSH IN BABYLON (please 
forgive me if you've heard this book quoted too often): "It is the Iraqi maquis 
that has weakened Bush's position in his own country and enabled Democrat 
politicians to criticize the White House, with Howard Dean even daring to 
suggest a total US withdrawal within two years. Even the bien pensants who 
opposed the war but are supportive of the occupation and denounce the 
resistance know full well that without it they would have been confronted with 
a triumphalist chorus from the warmongers."

This is what we need to be saying in out local peace coalitions. 

Right now, ISO and Workers World are pretty much the only ones talking about 
the resistance. While most of their reasoning is accurate, and their articles 
and essays are nice for those of us that already support the resistance, this 
just isn't good enough. 

We shouldn't try to impose support for the resistance on the anti-war movement, 
and as Elizabeth Wrigley-Field just pointed out: nobody, not even the ISO has 
proposed this. But what we do need to be doing, that I don't see happening 
enough now, is giving a really convincing explanation of why Iraqis are 
resisting. We should make this more about patriotism and identification with 
the plight of the Iraqi people. As, Ahmed Manajid - a midfielder for the Iraqi 
soccer team said "I want to defend my home. If a stranger invades America and 
the people resist, does that mean they are terrorists?"

I've found that if I really sit down and talk with someone that is 
anti-resistance (and I've really done this a few times), I can usually get them 
to at least understand why Iraqis are resisting, by simply taking the time and 
respectfully asking questions like: "Don't you love this country?... Wouldn't 
you fight to defend it?... Were you angry after September 11th?" The same 
questions that the neo-cons use to pressure people into being "patriotic," can 
be used for the opposite purpose.

The point is, we need to stop screaming about imperialism and start setting up 
public showings of Mel Gibson's THE PATRIOT (it may not be as good at the 
BATTLE OF ALGIERS, but it's mainstream propaganda designed for mass 
consumption, and can send the same anti-imperialist message, if used in the 
right way.) If people start to realize that the empire is a threat to the 
republic, then they will be more likely to appose imperialism.

Wow! Mel Gibson as anti-imperialist! I know, ironic, right? How did I end up 
here?!?! Well... whatever. It's something to consider. It could be our 
red-state strategy!







-- 
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm


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