Re: Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq

[dmschanoes <dmschanoes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Well, we know where the Comintern's support of the Kuomingtang took the
workers revolution, that's for sure.

And I believe you pose a false choice, in that no "bourgeois nationalist
control" of Iraqi oil, separate and apart from the domination, military
or market of Western capitalism is possible.  That's what the war itself
has shown, as if it hasn't been shown a hundred times before; in China,
India, Spain, Angola.....

As for the Irish struggle, Connolly himself established exactly that
sort of litmus test-- in just those terms.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Louis Proyect" <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq


dmschanoes wrote:
>
> Supporting national liberation, or a "self-determination" devoid of a
> specific class content of that determination, i.e. a program that
> includes expropriation of the privatized, now and future, means of
> production, is ultimately meaningless.

Not really. The Comintern backed the Kuomintang in its struggle for
national liberation even though it was a bourgeois-led movement. Nor did
it require such litmus tests for the Irish or any other nation suffering
from direct or indirect colonial rule. If the choice is between US
corporate control of Iraqi oil and bourgeois nationalist control, we
support the latter.


--

The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org