Re: [Marxism] Supporting the resistance? To BK

["Shane Brinton" <comradebrinton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

BK wrote:

"Certainly, the argument that US aggression is strengthening the Islamists, and 
that a US defeat by the armed 'resistance' would raise the confidence of the 
Arab masses of the region to resist imperialism and capitalism in general, is a 
good one, but it's also a gamble. It doesn't guarantee the outcome that comrade 
Lenin insisted would occur. Whilst I'm not the world's most foremost expert on 
Iraqi events I suspect that a victory by Islamists and Baathist-remnants would 
be a victory only for their millionaire backers who would then want to 
replicate the same scenario elsewhere. It would also have the effect of giving 
the ideology and methods of armed Islamism a tremendous boost elsewhere."

What do you mean when you talk about "the Islamists?" Islam, like Christianity, 
Judaism, or any other religion, has many different faces, and can be put to 
different uses. Liberation theology exists within Islam too.

You might also want to consider that the "victory by Islamists and 
Baathist-remnants," that you are worried about, could also come out of the 
political process that we see taking place in Iraq. In fact, there are 
"islamists," "baathists," even "communists," on both sides of the conflict.  
There are plenty of very hardcore Muslims and some "ex"-Baathists that are 
cooperating with the occupation forces.

The idea is to turn the country over to them, so that is can go back to being 
the kind of client state that it was back in the good old days, when the oil 
was flowing..

It's true: putting all faith in the armed resistance is a ridiculous gable, but 
so is putting all faith in the US dominated political process, or an 
"independent" labor union that supports UN resolution 1546... for a continued 
occupation. 

You seem to think that the conflict is between "secularism," "democracy," and 
"humanism" on the one side and "baathism" and a general enemy called "islamism" 
on the other. Your quasi-socialist version of the "clash of civilizations," 
perhaps?

But this isn't the conflict, and your analysis isn't a Marxist one. 

Leave your subjective fantasy world for a minute and look at what it's really 
going to take to end the war and set the basis for some sort of democratic or 
socialist Iraq. US forces will not leave on their own, and socialism isn't 
going to happen as long as they are there. Right? So... the only way to end the 
occupation is multiple resistance struggles, in both the oppressed and the 
oppressor countries, using a variety of strategies and tactics. Nonviolent and 
political action is necessary to reach certain ends, armed resistance is needed 
to reach others. 

Iraqis need to have massive peaceful actions on the street, as they have been 
doing. This sends an important message to the occupation forces, as well as 
people across the world.

But American soldiers also NEED TO KEEP BEING KILLED, because body bags help to 
put the pressure on here at home (for example: the military has missed it's 
national recruiting goals for the last two months. In the small county in 
northern California where I reside, the only branch that is meeting it's goals 
is the Coast Guard! This IS HAPPENING FOR A REASON! Kids want money for 
college... they don't want to die!) So the armed resistance in Iraq is 
essential to making the war a reality at home, and building our own resistance. 
(ever study dialectics?)

Also - just some common sense: attacks on oil pipelines help to undermine one 
of the main reasons for the invasion.

Sorry BK, you can't "have it your way."



-- 
___________________________________________________________
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