[Marxism] On criticizing the enemies of imperialism

[Eli Stephens <elishastephens@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Since we've been discussing the subject, I thought I'd post an example. The 
local antiwar group preparing a resolution called "Don't Attack Iran" for the 
San Jose City Council, and my response to it.

Incidentally, Lenin's Tomb has a very much related post just up 
(http://leninology.blogspot.com/2007/11/abc-of-anti-imperialism.html) but I'll 
let him republish it here if he wishes.

The proposed resolution:

GENUINE DIPLOMACY WITH IRAN

WHEREAS, a democratic Iran is in the best interest of its people as well as a 
safer and more stable Middle East; and that the engine of the nascent Iranian 
democratic movement is its struggling middle class and the vast population of 
youth; and

WHEREAS, either comprehensive sanctions or military action against Iran would 
move it farther away from democracy, weaken its middle class and help the 
anti-democratic forces in Iran to maintain and solidify their grip on power; and

WHEREAS, in the absence of direct talks, sanctions have little chance of 
success 
and if they fail, they pave the way for further escalation and eventually for 
military confrontation;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of San Jose calls on Congress to oppose 
comprehensive sanctions and preemptive military action against Iran and instead 
support direct talks between the United States and Iran without preconditions; 
and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of San Jose stands for the rule and spirit 
of international law by empowering the International Atomic Energy Agency to 
continue to enforce its inspection regime and perform its role in preventing 
the 
proliferation of nuclear weapons, as mandated by the United Nations.

Submitted by:
South Bay Mobilization, SBM
Bay Area Iranian-American Democrats, BAIAD
BAIAD is chartered with:
Santa Clara County Democratic Central Committee and
Alameda County Democratic Central Committee

This resolution has been adopted by:
- Bay Area Iranian-American Democrats (on 3/27/07)
- Alameda County Democratic Central Committee (on 4/4/07)
- Santa Clara County Democratic Central Committee (on 4/5/07)

AND MY REPLY:

While others have been busy commenting on this or that aspect of what to do 
with 
this resolution, no one has yet commented on the resolution itself, which is, 
to 
put it simply, an almost overtly PRO-imperialist resolution and completely 
objectionable from my point of view.

The idea that it is the role of the U.S. government to "move Iran closer to 
democracy", or "strengthen its middle class" etc. is dangerous in the extreme. 
After all, the first of those is PRECISELY what the imperialists claim they are 
doing in Iraq. To accept that as an acceptable aim of the U.S. government is to 
JUSTIFY the war in Iraq, and furthermore, to JUSTIFY an attack on Iran under 
the 
guise of someone arguing that it WILL increase democracy in Iran.

The resolution talks about the "little chance of success" of sanctions. What on 
earth would "success" be? Toppling the regime? And that is the role of the U.S. 
government how exactly? The U.S. and its partners conducted "successful" 
sanctions against Iraq, as you may recall. That "success" consisted of killing 
a 
million Iraqis and weakening its power so that it could then be easily invaded, 
with another million dead as a result.

Whether sanctions or military action would be "successful" or would move Iran 
closer or farther from democracy IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. Creating democracy 
in 
Iran is the job of the IRANIAN PEOPLE, not the U.S. government.

Then we have the entire context of this resolution. Why does it talk about 
moving IRAN closer or further from democracy, while not not talking about 
moving, say, Saudi Arabia closer to democracy? Or Kuwait? And why does it talk 
about inspections of nuclear facilities in Iran, without calling for the IAEA 
to 
inspect nuclear facilities in Israel? Or in the U.S., for that matter?

Last but not least, there's the implicit attack on the motivations of the 
Iranian government and its implicit ENDORSEMENT of the U.S. government point of 
view: "a democratic Iran is in the best interest of a safer and more stable 
Middle East." Actually, that's nonsense; Iran under a dictator, the Shah, was 
no 
threat whatsoever to the safety and stability of the Middle East. But neither 
is 
Iran under Ahmadinejad. Iran has not attacked anyone in hundreds of years and 
there is neither evidence it has any plans to change that approach, not any 
logical reason why it would do so. Implying, as this resolution does, that Iran 
IS a threat to a "safe and stable Middle East" just hands one more 
justification 
to the imperialists for an attack.

Of course what the U.S. REALLY objects to is Iranian support for the just 
struggle of the Palestinian people. It's THAT that THEY consider a "stable 
Middle East" - a Palestinian people whose struggle has been totally crushed. 
And 
in suggesting, in the language of the imperialists, that a "stable Middle East" 
is our goal, this resolution on top of everything else is a BETRAYAL of the 
Palestinian people.

U.S. HANDS OFF!!!


_________________________________________________________________
You keep typing, we keep giving. Download Messenger and join the i’m Initiative 
now.
http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGLM
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism