Re: [Marxism] Supporting the resistance?

["M. Junaid Alam" <mjunaidalam@xxxxxxxxxx>]

"

If socialists in the North choose to engage in the
struggle for socialism by using Iraq as their
political terrain I believe they have a responsibility
to first, ascertain the class character and political
aims of the various factions that comprise the
resistance in Iraq, and then to give their support to
those which have some chance of objectively making
progress towards socialism. "

This is moronic. Iraq is not a pawn on a socialist chess board
to be "engaged" through some cherry- picking process conducted
from afar. What does it even mean to "give our support"? Is anyone
here going to go and fight with any resistance group in the armed
struggle in Iraq? No. So this is a totally meaningless reference point.

What will "make progress towards socialism" is the defeat of the
world's major imperialist power in the war in Iraq. Full stop. This
will boost tremendously the morale of the Arab people, who have
suffered far too many defeats and far too many humiliations, and
it will crush tremendously the morale of US imperialists, who
have enjoyed far too many victories, real and imagined, in the
last three decades.

"I disagree that the overwhelming priority is to demand
the withdrawal of US troops and their allies. If the reactionary,
clerico-bourgeoisie of Political Islam were to seize
power by stepping into the vaccuum caused by a sudden
US withdrawal, an enormously backward step will have occured."

So what is the "overwhelming priority"? To stop Hitchen's "Islamo-fascists",
I suppose. Here you reveal yourself as not only a fool, but as foreskin on the
dick of imperialism itself. By this standard, you support the Shah
versus the Iran Revolution, and every single imperialist assault against
the indigenous nationalist forces that have combated them anywhere in the
world. You  express your total ignorance of what anti-imperialist politics
means: between resistance and imperialism, you side with imperialism because
you don't like the flavor of the resistance.

I bet you have never even picked up a single book on Islam, never mind political
Islam, its history, etc. It is just anti-historical to pretend this will lead
to some form of fascism. As any thinking person knows, it is the occupation
itself which strengthens reactionary Islamism. So the objective task should be 
to
end the occupation. That will unclog the natural process by which Iraqis can
figure out the future of their own country without the artificial distortions
produced by imperialist intervention.

Meanwhile, ever heard of a certain Marxist guy named Leon Trotsky? Should try
giving him a quick read...

"
The struggle for socialism begins at the point of
production, not on the battlefield."

Boy, mindless regurgitation must be hard work. So must be setting up
false dichotomies. But what a truly profound insight: the struggle
for socialism never happens on the battlefield. Really. Profound.
I suppose then if the Americans invade Iran, tomorrow
morning, the sensible thing to do would be for the Iranians to do
would be to rush to their local vegetable markets and small businesses
to pump out some food products and cassette tapes, certainly not take up arms.

"
The Islamist and remnant-Baathist armed "resistance" has as much to do
with struggling for socialism as does George W. Bush."

I'll let this one stand, or rather limp, by itself. No further comment
necessary.

Finally, naming a bunch of unions does not impress anybody. This kind of rank
workerism represents the stupidest form of dogma imaginable. It is a total
retreat from reality and the forces actually engaged in the political scene.
If applied to Venezuela and PDVSA, with this workerism you would end up 
supporting
some of the worst enemies of the revolution entrenched  in the business union 
there.
If applied to 1960s Algeria, you would end up supporting the Francophiles 
against
the FLN. If applied to Vietnam, you would support Saigonese puppets...and on 
and on.

In Iraq, where more than 70% of the population is unemployed, some of these 
unions
are corrupt cliques, functioning as repositories for jobs handed out by parties
that are collaborating with the American occupation, and helping Americans suck
money out of the country with fraudulent contracts and outright theft. E.g.,
the Communist Party.

And, as a typical example of your intellectual laziness, you nowhere prove
that any of these "union officials" supposedly harassed by "resistance forces"
were actually harassed by anyone other than armed criminal gangs and thugs.
You do not even pretend to attempt to make a distinction between the various
strands of the armed resistance.

None of the cowards harping about the supposed evils of the Iraqi resistance
seem to have any beef with the resistance which made their own existence 
possible -
a resistance which was not only "sectarian" against other ethnic groups, but 
exterminated
one and enslaved the other, which not only was "backward" on women, but denied 
them any
property and political rights, which not only was occupied by a "civilized" 
country, but
rebelled against that country even in the context of a flourishing economy -
the American Revolution. The Iraqi resistance are absolute toothfaries by 
comparison.
But I guess hypocrisy is par for the course when it comes to racial prejudices, 
and
it always trumps historical, long-term thinking.

All in all, I think I prefer my imperialism and Islamophobia straight from the 
neo-cons;
it comes out all rather akward and wobbly when couched in "Marxist" or 
"leftist" rhetoric.





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