Re: [Marxism] re: Supporting the resistance?

["Carlos A. Rivera" <cerejota@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: <hari.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

> Reply:
> I guess I really must concentrate harder.
> What fine distinctions between the two are you really making?
> And furthermore, how does this all relate to attitudes to the Iraqi
> resistance movement - or is it all divorced from that?

It is the difference between analisys/theory and practice/action and between
strategy and tactics. I would never be open to compromise in theory and
strategy, but dialectics require that we compromise in practice and tactics.
Which is to what Louis' argument boils down to. Now, I think his argument is
flawed in that he presents the unwillingness to compromise in tactics of the
so-called "ultra-left" as a burning problem, whereas I visualize as the
greatest hurdle the unwillingness of the right-wing to compromise as the
burning problem. It is a difference of orientation, to use trotspeak, or
mass line to use maospeak.

Lets put is this way, I don't think the conditions are there to turn
imperialist war into revolutionary war. Hence, a wide united front of the
people to create a huge political movement

Even the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr, spoke of going back to armed
resistance (he had been a leader of the Deacons for Defense before adopting
non-violence). So I agree with the analysis that to radicalize something,
you must first build that something, not the other way around. Certainly in
the USA going around screaming "victory to the NLF" didn't win many people
to radical positions (with a long term perspective). But creating wide
groups, and adapting tactics (such as non-violence) did create conditions
for atleast critical support of more radical leadership alternatives.

The SWP, WWP, RU/RCP, and other groups had their membership heydays in the
late 60s early 70s, and this was because there was an hetereogenous movement
from which to recruit, that was built in large part by decidedly
non-revolutionary people, some of which became redicalized in the struggle.

But one thing all this groups had in common was that even in those wide
groups, they spoke openly about socialism and in many cases about their
wishes for victory for the NLF.

While we are at it, those of us who are sympathetic with the resistance in
theoretical terms (M. Junaid Alam I think has provided an eloquent voice in
this respect, however our disagreements on other things) are indeed faced
with a big problem: there is no NLF to support.

The Iraqi resistance groups are fragmented, ideologically hetereogenous, and
some of them have highly reactionary programs (ie "Al-Qaeda"). WHile we
stand on solid anti-imperialist grounds, some of them are actually
imperialists of another kind, seeking in some cases to join up with Saudi
Arabia as part of a re-constitued Caliphate!

The NLF on the other hand, was a popular front with a program any
red-blooded socialist could support, including freedom for women, racial and
ethnic equality, and a non-aligned foreign policy. Of course, like any
program it suffered under the stress of war and inter-imperalist conflict
(ie invasion of Cambodia, the duck shoots with China, etc), yet it was a
concrete alternative to the South Vietnamese program of corrupt comprador
capitalism.

How can we fight, without sounding like hypocrites, against Christian
Fundamentalists in the USA and then support thier brothers of another
Prophet in those lands? In my opinion it is correct to answer from analisys
in saying that they are waging anti-imperialist sturggle, but as politics
and demands it just doesn't cut it, at least not in the USA.

sks


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