Re: [Marxism] Supporting the resistance? (from Aaron Hess)

["Calvin Broadbent" <calvinbroadbent@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

BK,

Do you think any nation merits 'self-determination' at any time, or only
those that aren't under direct occupation by the world's foremost
imperialist powers? Posting a list of those countries you believe should
have self-determination and those you think do not would undoubtedly be
illustration enough of your reactionary politics. Who cares what Rosa
Luxembourg said? It is incumbent upon you who quotes her to show how she was
right, how 'Leninist' support for the self-determination of nationalities
oppressed by Russian Tsardom held back the cause of socialist
internationalism. Merely saying 'Rosa Luxembourg said this or that' is
meaningless rhetoric.

You write,

"It's no secret that Sunni Arab millionaires outside of Iraq are the
financiers of much of the Islamist 'resistance', their long term aim being
to unify Arabs under Islamist rule. Sunni Islamism is the manifestation in
our time of the failed secular, state-socialist-based, pan-Arab nationalism
of the 1950's and '60s, albeit in a much more reactionary and socially
oppressive form".

Do you include here the people defending themselves and their neighbours
from the occupying armies napalming, gassing and blowing people apart apart
in the streets of Fallujah recently? Were they the pawns of Sunni
millionaires? Which ones and where?! You say that "secular state-socialist
pan-arab nationalism" 'failed', but you don't say how. Might it have had
something to do with the economic and military pressures of imperialism? Are
you opposed to Arab nationalism or Arab unity in general? Again you fail to
provide any evidence that the supposed pan-arabism (evidence?) of the
current Iraqi resistance promotes the most reactionary strands in political
Islam. Or do you suppose that all muslims are by definition political
reactionaries?

What social elements do you, the ideological scourge of the Iraqi
resistance, support? The US/K army and IFTU. Again you spout the same
nonsense that "the working class plays the leading role in the struggle for
socialism". The Iraqi resistance are mostly members of the working class,
does this not thereby qualify them to be your 'socialist strugglers'? Or do
you include only industrial factory workers in your definition of the
working class? If so, presumably you suppose that the struggles for
socialism in the past century or so in China, India, Vietnam, Zimbabwe,
Sudan, Zaire, Ireland, pre-industrial Russia, Columbia and so on were shams
and had nothing to do with socialist politics? Perhaps the fact that the
US/UK armies have a great many working class and Christian soliders in them,
endears you more to them than the Iraqis fighting occupation?

You still have not proven that US/K imperialism will tend to create an
organised and revolutionary socialist Iraqi working class. Still, at least
it might civilise some more savages.

_________________________________________________________________
It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger 7.0 today!
http://messenger.msn.co.uk


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