Log in

View Full Version : [RCIT] Iraq: Defend the Sunni Rebellion against the Maliki Regime and US Imperialism!



RKOB
23rd June 2014, 11:53
Iraq: Defend the Sunni Rebellion against the Maliki Regime and US Imperialism!
Down with all Reactionary Religious Sectarianism! For a Workers’ and Peasants’ Republic!
Statement of the Revolutionary Communist International Tendency (RCIT), 22.6.2014, www.thecommunists.net (http://www.thecommunists.net/)

1. A mass rebellion of the Sunni population has swept away government control over most of the Sunni areas in Iraq. This rebellion has sounded alarm bells not only among the bourgeois-Islamist Shia sectarian regime of Nouri al-Maliki, but also among the ruling classes in Washington and Teheran. The resulting destabilization of post-occupation Iraq signals a major defeat for US imperialism. As a result, the US has begun a new military intervention in Iraq. In light of these developments, the central task of socialists is to defend the uprising against the attempts of the Maliki regime, as well as of Washington and Teheran, to crush it. At the same time, reactionary forces like the arch-reactionary Salafist group Islamic State in Iraq and Levante (ISIL – often also abridged as ISIS) must be driven back, since they represent a major obstacle to the building of a non-sectarian resistance of workers and peasants in the Middle East against imperialism and reactionary dictatorships. The task is to transform the current rebellions in the Middle East into a region-wide class struggle for a socialist federation of workers’ and peasants’ republics.
2. A broad coalition of Sunni resistance organization has launched a major insurrection which successfully drove the army of the pro-US Maliki regime out of nearly all major towns in the north and west of Iraq. In a few days, the insurgents conquered cities like Mosul, Tikrit, Tal Afar, Baiji, and Rawa. As early as January of this year, these forces had taken over Falluja – the center of an heroic popular insurrection against the US occupation in March 2004 – and Ramadi. Their easy victories are the result of mass support for the insurrection, on the one hand, and of the highly demoralized Iraqi army whose soldiers were not willing to fight for the thoroughly reactionary and corrupt Maliki regime which was imposed by the US occupation forces before their withdrawal from the country.
3. Contrary to how theses latest developments are depicted in many Western media outlets, this is not an insurrection led solely by the reactionary Salafists of ISIL. It is a popular insurrection of the Sunni workers and peasants, albeit led by various petty-bourgeois nationalist and Islamist forces. Besides ISIL these are mainly the Baathist Jaysh Rijal al-Tariqa al-Naqshbandia (JRTN, led by the former Saddam Hussein deputy Izzat al-Duri), Harith al-Dhari's Association of Muslim Scholars in Iraq, the 1920 Revolution Brigades, the Islamic Army, the Rashidin Army, the Iraqi Hamas, Abdullah al-Janabi's Fallujah-centered Mujahidin Shura Council, the Anbar Tribes Revolutionary Council, and the Army of Pride and Dignity. While these forces are all Sunni-centered, many of them reject the sectarian hate-propaganda and actions against the Shiite population purported by ISIL.
4. The present insurrection is the legacy of the US conquest and occupation of Iraq between 2003 and 2011. Since its inception, the Maliki regime has been discredited by its collaboration with the US occupation forces. This regime has conducted a policy of brutal suppression against the Sunnis and has excluded them from employment in the public sector. This suppression escalated dramatically during the past year and a half, after the outbreak of the Iraqi Spring in Anbar province in December 2012, from whence peaceful mass demonstrations and sit-ins soon spread to other provinces. Protesters demanded the resignation of the government, jobs for the unemployed, higher wages, the release of political prisoners, etc. Instead of offering any concessions, the government chose to brutally smash the peaceful mass demonstrations of mostly Sunni workers and peasants. The result was a mass radicalization of the resistance and the formation of a military coalition which is now leading the present insurrection.
5. Like Maliki’s government, the exacerbation of sectarian divisions is the direct results of the country’s occupation by US imperialism. Faced with mass resistance against the occupation, the US colonial administration encouraged indiscriminate sectarian terrorist attacks between the Shiite and Sunni populations. By such a “divide et impera” policy they hoped to weaken the resistance. While indeed this policy of divide and rule resulted in a temporary weakening of the anti-imperialist resistance, due to Obama’s promises to the American public, the US occupation forces couldn’t postpone leaving the country in 2011 before managing to politically stabilize the country under their control. Instead the Maliki regime is ignored by the Kurdish people, who have established a kind of semi-autonomous area; it is despised by the Sunni population, which has now rebelled en masse; and it is also discredited among the Shiite population. In short, the present rebellion is a major defeat for US imperialism and demonstrates the bankruptcy of its colonial plans for the Middle East.
6. The RCIT calls for socialists to support the Sunni insurrection. This insurrection is just because the Sunni people have been discriminated and brutally suppressed since the beginning of the US occupation in 2003. It is just because it is directed against the reactionary Maliki government, a lackey of US imperialism. However socialists must not lend any support to the (petty-)bourgeois leaderships of the Sunni forces. In particular they must encourage the formation of self-defense groups against the arch-reactionary ISIL. Socialists should oppose any advance of Sunni insurgents into Shiite territories, which would only terribly inflame sectarian tensions. Socialists should fight against sectarian divisions and call for the formation of joint action councils and militias of Sunni, Shiites, and Kurdish workers and peasants.
7. US President Obama is now attempting to save as much as possible the stakes of the largest imperialist power. He has already ordered 300 troops as “military advisers” to Baghdad in addition to the 5,500 (!) strong personal already stationed at the US embassy. He has also deployed the aircraft carrier USS George HW Bush and two guided missile ships into the Persian Gulf. He is forced to negotiate with the bourgeois-Islamist regime of Iran which, for years, the US government has declared as being part of the “Axis of Evil.” In the short term, another full-scale invasion of US imperialism involving a large number of ground troops is unlikely, given the high risk of American casualties due to the fierce resistance in Iraq, to say nothing of the tremendous unpopularity of additional foreign wars among a clear majority of the US population. However, there is a real danger that the US will bomb the insurgents with their deadly air force and drones. In addition, a limited intervention by Special Forces on the ground is possible.
8. US imperialism is faced with a dilemma. Maliki has repeatedly called upon the US and Teheran to lend him more support. He has called for the US to bomb the Sunni insurgents. However, Washington knows that diplomatic moves to integrate sectors of the Sunni leaderships in the Iraqi government are necessary, something which the Maliki government has vehemently opposed doing until now. However, replacing al-Maliki, Washington’s main ally in the country, is no easy task, since there are few other reliable forces amongst the Shiite political parties. Most of them are either close to the regime in Teheran or follow Muqtada al-Sadr, a petty-bourgeois Islamist who led an insurrection against the US occupation in 2004 and who expressed his solidarity with the Sunni-dominated Iraqi Spring.
9. We in the RCIT consider it as the duty of socialists around the world to oppose any form of military intervention of US imperialism in Iraq. Washington’s wars against Iraq have already cost the lives of at least one million Iraqis and displaced four million people. It is important that the international workers’ movement mobilizes against another US war in Iraq. Socialists should call for the immediate withdrawal of all US military personal from Iraq, as well as of the US navy from the Persian Gulf. In a military conflict, socialists should stand for the defeat of the US forces and for the military victory of its opponents (even if it is such arch-reactionaries like the ISIL).
10. The bourgeois-Islamist regime of Iran is determined to support the Maliki regime. It hopes to strengthen its influence and to use the present situation to gain recognition by US imperialism. It has therefore already reached out to Washington to coordinate their military activities in Iraq. Teheran’s strategic goal is to come to some accommodation with Washington, which would help it become a major regional power with good relations with US, Russian, as well as Chinese imperialism. This demonstrates once more that the regime in Teheran is not “anti-imperialist” out of any principled considerations. It is a capitalist regime the class interests of which came into conflict with those of US imperialism after the Iranian Revolution in 1979. When the Iranian bourgeoisie spots a chance to come to reconciliation with Washington without giving up its power, it will do so. For this reason, the RCIT has in the past always called for the defense of Iran against sanctions and any military threats of imperialism, because it is a semi-colonial country which is suppressed and super-exploited by the imperialist world order. At the same time, we have always refused to give any political support to the regime and have consistently warned against having any illusions in its “anti-imperialist” rhetorical. We stand for the defeat of imperialism, against any military intervention of Iran in the Iraqi civil war, for a socialist revolution against the Teheran regime, and the establishment of a workers’ and peasant republic as part of a Socialist federation of the people of the Middle East.
11. The recent developments in Iraq have been a major blow to the myth of the petty-bourgeois pro-Assad left (mostly Stalinists, Bolivarian supporters of Chavez and Morales, various pseudo-Trotskyist groups, etc.). For more than three years now, these forces have been claiming that the reactionary dictatorship in Syria represents an “anti-imperialist camp” while the Syrian rebels were supposed to be pro-imperialist US agents. As it is well known, the Iraqi Maliki regime, as well as Teheran, has been from the beginning of the Syrian Revolution in spring 2011 the closest supporters of Assad – aside from the Putin government of imperialist Russia. These pseudo-socialists ignore that fact that the Syrian Revolution has an authentic democratic character representing the desire of the workers and peasants to get rid of the decades-old Assad dictatorship. They ignore that the Assad regime – which has collaborated repeatedly with US imperialism in the past – is a close ally of Russian (and Chinese) imperialism and is seeking some sort of reconciliation with Washington. The official envoy of the Quartet on the Middle East, Tony Blair – the former British Prime Minister and war criminal of the Iraq War – has already called for a full military intervention of Western imperialism and an accommodation with Syria’s dictator Assad. The petty-bourgeois pro-Assad left entirely ignores that the basic democratic and popular character of the Syrian Revolution is not at all undermined by the reactionary actions of groups like ISIL, nor by the treacherous collaboration of some leaders of the opposition with US imperialism. As we see now, it is the so “anti-imperialist” allies of Assad – Maliki and Teheran – which are calling for the military intervention of US imperialism! The RCIT states that authentic socialists must continue to support the Syrian Revolution in order to bring down the Assad regime without giving any political support to the (petty-)bourgeois leaderships of the rebels like the FSA, al-Nusra, or ISIS.
12. The Kurdistan Regional Government in the north of Iraq has seized the opportunity created by the present crisis for the Maliki government and has expanded the territory it controls to include the oil center of Kirkuk. For the time being, the KRG has reached a tacit agreement with the Sunni insurgents and refrains from initiating any military attacks against them. The leading forces of the Kurdish government – the two factions of the Barzani and the Talabani clan – are thoroughly bourgeois. Their interest is to establish their own capitalist state and to use the region’s oil reserves for profitable trade. However, given the historic oppression of the Kurds – in Iraq, as well as in Iran, Turkey, and Syria – socialists must defend the Kurdish people’s right for independence. However, we advocate an independent Kurdistan which is not under the control of the bourgeois clans but of the workers and peasants. Hence, the RCIT calls for an independent workers’ and peasants republic of Kurdistan which unites the Kurdish people of all four countries.
* Defend the Sunni popular insurrection against the Iraqi army!
* Down with any military intervention of US imperialism! Support the insurgents against any military intervention of US imperialism! For international mobilizations to defeat the US aggression!
* Down with the reactionary sectarianism! Drive the ISIL forces out of the resistance movement!
* Defend the Kurdish people’s right of self-determination! For a united and socialist Kurdistan!
* Victory to the Syrian Revolution against the Assad Regime!
* No military intervention of Iran! Down with the bourgeois-Islamist regime in Teheran!
* For joint action councils and militias of Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish workers and peasants!
* Expropriate the foreign owners of the Iraqi oil industry without compensation! Nationalize all oil companies, large industrial and telecommunication enterprises and banks under workers control!
* For a workers’ and peasants’ government! For a socialist federation of the people of the Middle East!

International Secretariat of the RCIT

Hrafn
23rd June 2014, 11:55
What the actual fuck

Sasha
23rd June 2014, 12:08
when satire becomes real: http://www.revleft.com/vb/hands-off-anti-t189215/index.html

Q
23rd June 2014, 12:23
This just blew my mind. When are you merging with the Sparts?

Anglo-Saxon Philistine
23rd June 2014, 12:51
This just blew my mind. When are you merging with the Sparts?

Not going to happen unless they change their minds about a lot of things.

But hey, why is everybody ganging up on the OP? This was your logic all those months ago when you called for victory for the "Syrian Revolution". As did the RCIT (the ICL did not). Now, a similar situation exists in Iraq - the RCIT still call for victory for what they call the "Sunni uprising". Why don't you? What's the difference between the Syrian and the Iraqi Sunni insurgents? The only difference is that one type of insurgent is sponsored by the US and the second type is opposed by the US - and you just happen to support the ones the US supports and oppose the ones the US opposes, marvellous.

Hrafn
23rd June 2014, 12:53
I've never in my life called for a Sunni victory in Syria, so don't even go there.

Q
23rd June 2014, 12:59
But hey, why is everybody ganging up on the OP? This was your logic all those months ago when you called for victory for the "Syrian Revolution".
When did I ever say such a thing?

Црвена
23rd June 2014, 14:00
Why...?

OGLemon
23rd June 2014, 14:34
lol

Anglo-Saxon Philistine
23rd June 2014, 15:43
I've never in my life called for a Sunni victory in Syria, so don't even go there.

Perhaps not directly, but I still remember you focusing exclusively on the Assad regime, thanking psycho's posts, and so on. Sasha-psycho directly supported the insurgents, as did a number of posters (both the IS grouping and the "anti-anti-imperialists"), one poster even calling Kurdish areas a "proto-workers' state" (good grief).

edit: And even those who did not support the insurgents directly did not react to statements - by the Egyptian "Revolutionary Socialists" and others - of support to the insurgents with one-liners. I think the RCIT is wrong here - perfectly in line with the SL's own position, not just on Syria but Lebanon etc. - but they're at least consistent, unlike most of the people who supported the Syrian insurgents and who now oppose the Iraqi insurgents.

Anti-Traditional
23rd June 2014, 16:07
This is ridiculous!

''Defend the Sunni rebellion...Oppose Washington and Tehran (Consistent so far, even if bullshit)...Oppose ISIS (What?! They are the Sunni's who have the guns!)...build a non-sectarian movement'' (WTF?! You just said defend the Sunni rebellion, how can it be anything but sectarian!)

Absolute loons!

Sasha
23rd June 2014, 16:09
http://i.word.com/idictionary/support
http://i.word.com/idictionary/understand
http://i.word.com/idictionary/strawman

Hrafn
23rd June 2014, 17:55
Perhaps not directly, but I still remember you focusing exclusively on the Assad regime, thanking psycho's posts, and so on. Sasha-psycho directly supported the insurgents, as did a number of posters (both the IS grouping and the "anti-anti-imperialists"), one poster even calling Kurdish areas a "proto-workers' state" (good grief).

edit: And even those who did not support the insurgents directly did not react to statements - by the Egyptian "Revolutionary Socialists" and others - of support to the insurgents with one-liners. I think the RCIT is wrong here - perfectly in line with the SL's own position, not just on Syria but Lebanon etc. - but they're at least consistent, unlike most of the people who supported the Syrian insurgents and who now oppose the Iraqi insurgents.

I have focused on Assad, yes, because there was much unfounded support towards him, and very little could be said about the despicable rebels that hadn't already been said. I don't see how thanking Sasha on strategically chosen posts makes me part of his Zionist Occupational Government conspiracy.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine
23rd June 2014, 18:06
I have focused on Assad, yes, because there was much unfounded support towards him, and very little could be said about the despicable rebels that hadn't already been said. I don't see how thanking Sasha on strategically chosen posts makes me part of his Zionist Occupational Government conspiracy.

Mein Gott, that last comment nearly had me falling out of my PaK 88! I am of course an anti-semite because I call people out for what I consider to be pro-imperialist positions. Note that it was precisely the Syrian question that convinced me psycho wasn't a Zionist - but of course, since I criticise Israel I must be an anti-semite according to our anti-anti-imperialists.

Now, apart from the unprincipled, but quite telling, slander, do you expect us to ignore the fact that the posts you "strategically chose" to thank contained Sasha's neverending quest to find the good, progressive rebels, minimised the crimes of the rebels while painting a picture of mass slaughter if the rebels were to lose, and so on? Nah, we won't do that. And yes, if you want to say "a plague on both your houses" (I didn't, back then - and I was wrong), then say it, don't attack just one side and act surprised when people call you out on it.

Hrafn
23rd June 2014, 18:07
What? When did I accuse you of anti-Semitism? You're most decidedly not a Hebrew hater, hombre.

Edit: I forgot to add - to be honest, I really can't recall the specifics of Sasha's posts. If you happen to find them again, please do link - it may very well be so that I've, ineptly enough, accidentally supported something uncanny.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine
23rd June 2014, 18:09
What? When did I accuse you of anti-Semitism? You're most decidedly not a Hebrew hater, hombre.

Why the jab about the "Zionist Occupation Government", as if anyone has ever accused psycho of being part of some secret Jewish cabal ruling America?

Hrafn
23rd June 2014, 18:11
It was a joke, referencing a recent and in my opinion amusing event, and the accusations of Zionism thrown around often.

Also check my updated post, in case you missed it.

Sinister Cultural Marxist
23rd June 2014, 18:29
What kind of nutter supports an insurrection which openly flaunts its truly violent sectarianism (alongside its desire to violently impose a form of religious law which would exclude women from political and economic life, and groups like homosexuals or atheists or Jews from actual life), then idealistically calls for a movement which transcends these ethnic divisions?


Perhaps not directly, but I still remember you focusing exclusively on the Assad regime, thanking psycho's posts, and so on. Sasha-psycho directly supported the insurgents, as did a number of posters (both the IS grouping and the "anti-anti-imperialists"), one poster even calling Kurdish areas a "proto-workers' state" (good grief).

edit: And even those who did not support the insurgents directly did not react to statements - by the Egyptian "Revolutionary Socialists" and others - of support to the insurgents with one-liners. I think the RCIT is wrong here - perfectly in line with the SL's own position, not just on Syria but Lebanon etc. - but they're at least consistent, unlike most of the people who supported the Syrian insurgents and who now oppose the Iraqi insurgents.

I think one could, and should criticize both Assad and Maliki's government based on their utterly atrocious human rights records. That doesn't mean we should support insurgencies by al-Nusra, ISIS, baathists and other fucking awful groups. Perhaps Hrafn "focused" on Assad's crimes over those of the insurgents but there were more outright unabashed Assad supporters.

Of course, in defense of those you're criticizing, the Syrian insurrection was more ideologically indefinite and it took much longer for sociopathic salafists to take the forefront. It only took them a week to commit an atrocity on a huge scale and brag about it all over the internet, plastering everywhere with photos of dead Shiite soldiers. I don't think you can compare support for the two insurrections. Also I don't think I saw psycho post here so I don't know why you're bringing him up.

I'm guessing the Sparts take a line of supporting the defeat of both sides? I'm actually unfamiliar with their position and genuinely curious (and also too lazy to go read a bunch of WV articles when I'm sure your summary is shorter and sweeter) ...


Why the jab about the "Zionist Occupation Government", as if anyone has ever accused psycho of being part of some secret Jewish cabal ruling America?

I think it was that you were lumping all these folks in together and implying that they are pro-imperialist (and I've seen you try to strawman me as arguing for a pro-imperialist position before too when that had nothing to do with what I was saying)

Anglo-Saxon Philistine
24th June 2014, 11:52
Edit: I forgot to add - to be honest, I really can't recall the specifics of Sasha's posts. If you happen to find them again, please do link - it may very well be so that I've, ineptly enough, accidentally supported something uncanny.

The thing is, the RevLeft search feature is fairly primitive, so I would have to spend hours going through old threads. But here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2750246&postcount=12) is a recent post on the subject you've thanked. I think the implications are clear, particularly since psycho never claimed that, in the event of an insurgent victory, everyone fighting on the side of the government would be killed. Incidentally, this is the same sort of rhetoric people use to justify Israeli colonialism.


What kind of nutter supports an insurrection which openly flaunts its truly violent sectarianism (alongside its desire to violently impose a form of religious law which would exclude women from political and economic life, and groups like homosexuals or atheists or Jews from actual life), then idealistically calls for a movement which transcends these ethnic divisions?

So why did you describe Foucault's support of a government that openly flaunted "its truly violent sectarianism (alongside its desire to violently impose a form of religious law which would exclude women from political and economic life, and groups like homosexuals or atheists or Jews from actual life)" as merely being "overly enthusiastic" about an alleged "Iranian revolution"? (There was, to be fair, a revolutionary situation in Iran - until the workers were butchered by the very people Foucault supported.) Apparently Foucault was just a bit too enthusiastic, RCIT are "nutters". Don't you think this is a double standard? Again, the chief difference between the Iranian "Revolutionaries" and ISIS is that the former are very popular with Western liberals.


Of course, in defense of those you're criticizing, the Syrian insurrection was more ideologically indefinite and it took much longer for sociopathic salafists to take the forefront. It only took them a week to commit an atrocity on a huge scale and brag about it all over the internet, plastering everywhere with photos of dead Shiite soldiers. I don't think you can compare support for the two insurrections. Also I don't think I saw psycho post here so I don't know why you're bringing him up.

The third post in the thread is from psycho...

The current uprising is also "ideologically indefinite" to a degree, as there are Sufi islamists and former Ba'athists fighting alongside ISIS. As for the Syrian insurgency, it was clear to everyone who was paying attention and didn't want to be tricked by stories about local anarchist committees and art-based groups that the Islamists led the movement.


I'm guessing the Sparts take a line of supporting the defeat of both sides? I'm actually unfamiliar with their position and genuinely curious (and also too lazy to go read a bunch of WV articles when I'm sure your summary is shorter and sweeter) ...

The ICL doesn't have an official line yet, but yes, that was their line on Lebanon, and on Syria (although we called for imperialists to leave on both occasions).


I think it was that you were lumping all these folks in together and implying that they are pro-imperialist (and I've seen you try to strawman me as arguing for a pro-imperialist position before too when that had nothing to do with what I was saying)

When was that? I genuinely can't remember.

The problem is that quite a few members accuse everyone who doesn't support Israeli colonialism of being anti-semitic, and psycho has done so several times. What is really ridiculous is that sympathisers of the SL usually catch 88mm fire for being "Zionists" because the SL views Palestine as a case of interpenetrated peoples.

Tim Cornelis
24th June 2014, 11:55
ah vincent west pulls his strawman bullshit catapult out again. He's pathological.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages
24th June 2014, 14:31
This is a scandalous thread filled with the usual apologists for imperialism. The objective, consistent anti-imperialist can only support comrade al-sadr against the machinations of the NATO/ISIS/Khamenei/Assad/Putin/Maliki/Kurd gang. All critical support to the glorious Mahdi army for a secular/islamic/worker/peasant/revolutionary people's democratic soviet socialist republic in Southern Bagdad

hashem
24th June 2014, 17:02
RCIT is stupid and reactionary. its position is not even worth a discusstion.

the only positive thing about it is showing what can the mixture of ideological confusion plus abandoning proletarian path can lead to.

Sinister Cultural Marxist
24th June 2014, 18:43
So why did you describe Foucault's support of a government that openly flaunted "its truly violent sectarianism (alongside its desire to violently impose a form of religious law which would exclude women from political and economic life, and groups like homosexuals or atheists or Jews from actual life)" as merely being "overly enthusiastic" about an alleged "Iranian revolution"? (There was, to be fair, a revolutionary situation in Iran - until the workers were butchered by the very people Foucault supported.) Apparently Foucault was just a bit too enthusiastic, RCIT are "nutters". Don't you think this is a double standard? Again, the chief difference between the Iranian "Revolutionaries" and ISIS is that the former are very popular with Western liberals.




Foucault's reporting on the Iranian revolution was very early on - when, incidentally, the Iranian Marxists were backing it. It was also before Islamism existed as the kind of movement it does today, and Foucault was not praising the Shiite rebellion for things like ending sectarianism so much as creating a mass movement which had done what had not been achieved before - the destruction of the Shah's regime. It was an actual mass movement too (like the initial Syrian uprising), and not a large insurgent army. I think we should have offered critical support to Sunni protesters against Maliki a few years back, but not to ISIS, as ISIS is angling to start a violent, bloody new emirate in the Middle East which will make Maliki look like Nelson Mandela.




The current uprising is also "ideologically indefinite" to a degree, as there are Sufi islamists and former Ba'athists fighting alongside ISIS. As for the Syrian insurgency, it was clear to everyone who was paying attention and didn't want to be tricked by stories about local anarchist committees and art-based groups that the Islamists led the movement.
Baathists are a secular movement working its very best to be more ugly and brutal than the Salafists. And they and ISIS have been at the forefront. Not to mention, a great deal of responsibility can be placed on ISIS's lightning offensive.



When was that? I genuinely can't remember.
Back in the cop thread I said liberal capitalist and social democratic governments in Europe and the US exported their terror and violence so they could reduce it at home. Whether or not that is factually accurate, you took that as somehow being an apologist for Imperialists or thinking the USSR was "worse" or whatever, when that's not what I was saying. You also tried to equate me with Max Schactman, I guess to make me look like a neocon.


ah vincent west pulls his strawman bullshit catapult out again. He's pathological.

The problem with Spartacists is they think they know already why you're wrong before you say anything, so they don't need to really read what you've actually written.

Five Year Plan
24th June 2014, 18:49
870, I think it is highly problematic to equate the struggle in Syria, where masses of people were rising up against a brutal dictatorship for the purpose of establishing a modicum of procedural democracy (whatever the "islamic" content), and the situation in Iraq, where a distinct minority of the population which has lot power is trying to re-establish it against the clear wishes of the majority of the population.

Revolver
24th June 2014, 19:33
Oh my. Well, the instant you start talking class consciousness in front of Islamists you are likely to encounter skepticism at best, or be executed as a leftist atheist at worst. That being said, this analysis doesn't seem completely off, to the extent that it is an assessment of Sunni support for ISIS/ISIL, since ISIS/ISIL's success is attributable in no small part to the participation of former Baathist soldiers, who are probably receiving some support from Syrian sources and who are better received by non-Islamist civilians. They're definitely not socialists or necessarily Islamists, but they are pragmatic opportunists from the looks of it. Still, whatever the status of sectarian division before the 2003 invasion, sectarian consciousness is alive and well today. I mean people are abandoning their own family members in the face of this division, so how support for a decidedly sectarian movement would translate into a class-based revolutionary consciousness is hard to imagine.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine
26th June 2014, 12:55
I try not to do sentence-by-sentence replies, but I just couldn't help myself in this case.


Foucault's reporting on the Iranian revolution was very early on - when, incidentally, the Iranian Marxists were backing it.

Foucault's support for the Islamist "revolution" (to talk about a revolution in situations where the ruling class has not been overthrown is to abandon Marxism) continued after his visit to Iran. And yes, Tudeh backed the reactionary clerics. This simply means that they were sellouts. Likewise the American SWP, which was outright delusional in their support for the mullahs (their response to Khomeini's complicity in the American-led insurgency in Afghanistan was to pretend it didn't happen).


It was also before Islamism existed as the kind of movement it does today, and Foucault was not praising the Shiite rebellion for things like ending sectarianism so much as creating a mass movement which had done what had not been achieved before - the destruction of the Shah's regime.

Islamism existed for quite some time - the Iranian "revolution" merely marks the point when Western liberals fell in love with it. And the monarchy was overthrown by the Iranian workers and the poor peasants, who were later butchered by the clerical clique in the Islamist "revolution".


It was an actual mass movement too (like the initial Syrian uprising), and not a large insurgent army. I think we should have offered critical support to Sunni protesters against Maliki a few years back, but not to ISIS, as ISIS is angling to start a violent, bloody new emirate in the Middle East which will make Maliki look like Nelson Mandela.

I don't think communists should offer any support to ISIS. Not because it is a "greater evil" (we know where such rhetoric leads), but because communists have no business getting involved in communalist conflicts on the side of one community.


Baathists are a secular movement working its very best to be more ugly and brutal than the Salafists.

Not only is that not even true - it would be perfectly irrelevant even if it were true, because communists do not orient themselves toward some bourgeois "lesser evil" like al-Maliki.


Back in the cop thread I said liberal capitalist and social democratic governments in Europe and the US exported their terror and violence so they could reduce it at home. Whether or not that is factually accurate, you took that as somehow being an apologist for Imperialists or thinking the USSR was "worse" or whatever, when that's not what I was saying. You also tried to equate me with Max Schactman, I guess to make me look like a neocon.

Shachtman was never a "neocon" (in fact I think position the existence of a single "neocon" group is stretching the truth a bit), and the people usually called "neocons" haven't been relevant to politics for over five years. This is, I guess, one of those uniquely American hang-ups. I mentioned Shachtman because the notion that the glacis states were "police states" whereas the Western democracies were not is classic Shachtmanism.

The level of police violence was approximately the same in the Eastern Bloc and in the West - you disputed this because you wanted to portray the Eastern states as "police states", probably "totalitarian" as well etc.



870, I think it is highly problematic to equate the struggle in Syria, where masses of people were rising up against a brutal dictatorship for the purpose of establishing a modicum of procedural democracy (whatever the "islamic" content), and the situation in Iraq, where a distinct minority of the population which has lot power is trying to re-establish it against the clear wishes of the majority of the population.

The problem is, the admitted Islamist content means - given the bloody history of communalist violence in the region - that the demands were communalist ones (just as the slogan of a "united, independent Bosnia", taken up by various Lambertist and Healyite mutations during the civil war here, was objectively a Bosniak-communalist one). I don't think communalism ceases to be a problem just because one of the communities is a majority.

Five Year Plan
26th June 2014, 17:21
The problem is, the admitted Islamist content means - given the bloody history of communalist violence in the region - that the demands were communalist ones (just as the slogan of a "united, independent Bosnia", taken up by various Lambertist and Healyite mutations during the civil war here, was objectively a Bosniak-communalist one). I don't think communalism ceases to be a problem just because one of the communities is a majority.

I don't know what this "communalism" is that you're speaking of, since I've not seen this term used in a Marxian context to describe what we're talking about. What I will say is that revolutionaries should support struggles for democracy, however imperfect or misguided they may be, because of the fact that democratic tasks in this day and age cannot be accomplished through mass struggle without proletarian revolution. If you think there's no link between the two, and that a mass struggle for democracy has no relationship to revolutionary struggle, then you haven't absorbed one of the most basic lessons of Trotskyism.

Obviously what I am talking about above is different than upholding some form of bourgeois democracy propped up by imperialist powers to ensure stability.

Revolver
27th June 2014, 07:29
I don't know what this "communalism" is that you're speaking of, since I've not seen this term used in a Marxian context to describe what we're talking about.

The term is used in South Asia to describe sectarian or ethno religious conflicts. For example, the 2002 Gujarat riots/ethnic cleansing.

KobeB
27th June 2014, 09:29
I just know Islam is One and that Allah dz. sh. is the Greatest Muhammed p.b.u.H. is the Messenger of Islam

Sinister Cultural Marxist
27th June 2014, 09:35
Foucault's support for the Islamist "revolution" (to talk about a revolution in situations where the ruling class has not been overthrown is to abandon Marxism) continued after his visit to Iran. And yes, Tudeh backed the reactionary clerics. This simply means that they were sellouts. Likewise the American SWP, which was outright delusional in their support for the mullahs (their response to Khomeini's complicity in the American-led insurgency in Afghanistan was to pretend it didn't happen).


Look, I'm not saying Foucault is right or perfect, I'm just saying his support for the Iranian Shiite Islamists cannot be equated with some group supporting ISIS. It's also notable that Foucault, unlike this group, had no pretenses of being a Marxist (though he had some Marxist influences on his thought)



Islamism existed for quite some time - the Iranian "revolution" merely marks the point when Western liberals fell in love with it. And the monarchy was overthrown by the Iranian workers and the poor peasants, who were later butchered by the clerical clique in the Islamist "revolution".
Again with the strawmen - I'm not saying Islamism didn't exist prior to the Iranian revolution, just that Islamism as it exists today was different from Islamism as it existed prior to and during the Iranian revolution. Nor am I disputing that it was the worker or poor peasants who destroyed the regime - I am merely noting Foucault's (perhaps, admittedly, mistaken) position that the language of religious Shia martyrdom was important in making the revolution seem possible for the masses. Just to clarify, I think Foucault was wrong and naive regarding Khomeini, but I don't think his wrongness is comparable to the wrongness of the folks supporting ISIS. Not to mention, I wouldnt be surprised if you're misrepresenting Foucault and exaggerating his views (its been a while since I read them) since it wasn't just a blind support for Khomeini, even if it was (as I described elsewhere) too giddy, naive and perhaps even orientalist.

Aside from the historical perspective on Islamism, the ideological particularities between Shia Islamism, Sunni Islamism, and the particularly virulent form of Sunni Islamism represented by AQ and ISIS should be distinguished. Each sect of Islam has different institutions, and within each sect there are competing models.



I don't think communists should offer any support to ISIS. Not because it is a "greater evil" (we know where such rhetoric leads), but because communists have no business getting involved in communalist conflicts on the side of one community.
OK not sure why you felt you had to clarify this. I was just saying that the Sunni protests against social and economic marginalization a few years back were justified, although any support should be very critical because evidently the Sunnis organizing seem to have had a very poor political consciousness.



Not only is that not even true - it would be perfectly irrelevant even if it were true, because communists do not orient themselves toward some bourgeois "lesser evil" like al-Maliki.
Are you under the impression that I am arguing on Maliki's behalf? Where did you get that from what I said? I'm confused, who do you think is playing the "lesser evil" game?

Also what I said is true. Baathists are thugs and brutes just like ISIS. ISIS is brutal and more than happy to butcher civilians through terrorism and archaic forms of punishment, but Baathists have historically used massively destructive, indiscriminate weapons against civilians both during Iraq's various civil wars and the Iran-Iraq war on a scale unseen in areas controlled by Islamists. I grant that this might be a lack of capability on the part of ISIS (perhaps if they had a nuke, they would be happy to use it against Shiite civilians, as their use of conventional weapons indicate) but we just have more historical evidence of both the brutality and capability of the Baathist government in Iraq.



Shachtman was never a "neocon" (in fact I think position the existence of a single "neocon" group is stretching the truth a bit), and the people usually called "neocons" haven't been relevant to politics for over five years. This is, I guess, one of those uniquely American hang-ups. I mentioned Shachtman because the notion that the glacis states were "police states" whereas the Western democracies were not is classic Shachtmanism.

The level of police violence was approximately the same in the Eastern Bloc and in the West - you disputed this because you wanted to portray the Eastern states as "police states", probably "totalitarian" as well etc.
Yeah and you are still building a strawman of the argument. I am "intending" to portray Eastern Bloc states as "police states" and "totalitarian" and not European states, yet if you read what I said, it was that liberal democracy exported its police state actions - imperialism makes them international police states, and one might say, totalitarian forces of international capitalism. All I'm saying is that imperialism abroad allowed for a reduction of state violence at home and the export of that violence abroad. True or not, that was NOT what you seemed to think I was saying, as you were trying to portray me as a social democrat which I'm not.

I'm saying that more Crimean Tatars died in their brutal deportation by Stalin than, say, Japanese in internment (it should also be noted that it took much less time for the Japanese to return to their communities - the Tatars could not return home until the 80s because they had effectively been ethnically cleansed). I'm most definitely NOT saying that the US, France and Britain weren't happy to butcher just as many Indians, Vietnamese, Guatemalans, Malaysians, Kenyans, Congolese or whoever else. In fact, I would say based on the numbers of non-citizens in the 3rd world killed, the Imperialist powers are probably worse, depending on how you count, in which case your characterization of my argument was fundamentally wrong. My statements about "police states" etc had nothing to do with making the Western powers look better by comparison, it only had to do with looking at the kinds of people being targeted by Western and Warsaw Pact police forces and trying to find differences. Even if I am factually wrong about the exact numbers killed through direct state violence against one's own citizens, that is most definitely not an argument which is remotely sympathetic to liberalism or social democracy - unless that is, I'm a racist and think the slaughter of non-white imperialized peoples is acceptable. Are you going to strawman me as a racist now too?

I might be wrong about something, but that's not what you do. You try to pin some other more absurd argument on someone and argue against that. Interestingly, it seems to be a common habit of Spartacists. Perhaps you'd convince more people of the Spartacist position instead of just pissing them off if they felt you were honestly and charitably listening to what they were saying.


5 year plan - by "communalism", 870 means violence between particular communities (ethnic groups, religions etc) as Revolver said. So Shiites and Sunnis butchering each other are committing acts of "communal" violence.

KurtFF8
27th June 2014, 14:09
3. Contrary to how theses latest developments are depicted in many Western media outlets, this is not an insurrection led solely by the reactionary Salafists of ISIL. It is a popular insurrection of the Sunni workers and peasants, albeit led by various petty-bourgeois nationalist and Islamist forces. Besides ISIL these are mainly the Baathist Jaysh Rijal al-Tariqa al-Naqshbandia (JRTN, led by the former Saddam Hussein deputy Izzat al-Duri), Harith al-Dhari's Association of Muslim Scholars in Iraq, the 1920 Revolution Brigades, the Islamic Army, the Rashidin Army, the Iraqi Hamas, Abdullah al-Janabi's Fallujah-centered Mujahidin Shura Council, the Anbar Tribes Revolutionary Council, and the Army of Pride and Dignity. While these forces are all Sunni-centered, many of them reject the sectarian hate-propaganda and actions against the Shiite population purported by ISIL.

This is just sad to read. I don't understand why some groups feel the need to jump on board to support a rebellion seemingly just because it's happening.

It's nothing short of delusional to call suggest the slogan "For a Workers’ and Peasants’ Republic!" has any potency or relevance in this current situation.

You can't just rehash slogans used in 1910's Russia and apply them to every situation and hope that we can achieve political clarity from them.

Hagalaz
2nd July 2014, 22:16
It seems that the religious causes,and reasons for this conflict are being pushed into the background here.

ckaihatsu
3rd July 2014, 20:43
USLAW Statement Opposing U.S. Re-Intervention in Iraq


DEMILITARIZING OUR ECONOMY AND FOREIGN POLICY
NO Iraq War Replay!

On June 25, the USLAW Steering Committee unanimously adopted this statement on the crisis unfolding in Iraq.

U.S. Labor Against the War (USLAW)

For Immediate release:

Issued: June 27, 2014
Contact: Michael Eisenscher, National Coordinator (510) 263-5303

[email protected]

NO Iraq War Replay

Adopted by USLAW Steering Committee, June 25, 2014

A majority of working people opposed the Iraq War and participated in the eight-year struggle to end it. We felt great relief when the last troops departed Iraq in 2011.

U.S. Labor Against the War opposes any U.S. military intervention in Iraq, whether that be with weapons, drones, missiles, bombs or troops, including Special Forces "advisors". At the same time, we abhor the sectarian violence that is wracking the country, and are appalled at the humanitarian crisis that deepens by the day in Iraq.
Can sectarian divisions in Iraq be overcome? One need look no further than the Iraqi labor movement, which has operated since the demise of the Hussein regime on the basis of non-sectarian solidarity and mutual respect. Unions in Iraq welcome all workers as members without regard to their religious, ethnic and cultural identity or national origin. When unions and other civil society organizations are allowed to operate free of government interference and repression, the wounds of sectarian division can begin to heal.

USLAW agrees with Falah Alwan, president of the Federation of Iraqi Workers and Unions in Iraq (FWCUI), who recently said:
"The working class in Iraq is the common force that exists across the county, from the north of Kurdistan to the furthest points south. It is this force whose very existence and survival depends on the eradication of discrimination and the unification of the Iraqi people. This is the only force that can end fragmentation and division.
"We reject US intervention and . . . also stand firmly against the brazen meddling of Iran.

"We stand against the intervention of Gulf regimes and their funding of armed groups, especially Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

"We reject Nouri al-Maliki's sectarian and reactionary policies.

"We also reject armed terrorist gangs and militias' control of Mosul and other cities. We agree with and support the demands of people in these cities against discrimination and sectarianism.
"Finally, we reject the interference of the religious institution and its call for indiscriminate warfare."*

USLAW recommits itself to defend and act in solidarity with the Iraqi working class and labor movement in its quest for a non-sectarian, tolerant, egalitarian, democratic and prosperous Iraq that is at peace with its neighbors and at peace with itself.
There can be no military resolution to the conflict in Iraq and intervention of the U.S. will only add to the suffering while prolonging the hostilities. The conflict will end when Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds and Christians negotiate a durable just power-sharing arrangement that promotes mutual respect and tolerance rather than sectarian division and enmity. There is no role for the U.S. in those negotiations. U.S. involvement should be limited to providing generous humanitarian aid and reparations for the destruction wrought by U.S. military operations.

The roots of the present crisis in Iraq can be traced to the U.S. occupation. While the neocons dominated the U.S. foreign policy establishment, an overwhelming bipartisan Congressional majority voted to authorize the Iraq War. The neocons now seek to deflect responsibility for the consequences of their policies by pointing to "age old religious sectarian schisms," but there had been no violent conflict between Shiites and Sunnis until the U.S. occupied Iraq. George Bush sent Paul Bremer to Iraq to set up the occupation authority. He pursued a 'divide and rule' policy that pitted Shia against Sunni against Kurds to create and exploit social, economic, tribal, cultural and religious differences. The present crisis is the bitter fruit of that near-decade long military intervention. The crisis in Iraq has a "made in America" stamp all over it.

The very same figures who took us into the Iraq War are today calling for U.S. military intervention again in light of growing sectarian violence that threatens to plunge Iraq into civil war. They blame militant jihadists and depict the unfolding conflict as a "takeover" by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) bent on establishing a caliphate in which their extreme interpretation of Sharia law will prevail across what are now Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine. But ISIS's military success has been possible only because it enjoys the support of disaffected Sunnis, former members of the Ba'ath Party and others who have been marginalized and ruthlessly repressed by the autocratic corrupt U.S.-installed al Maliki regime.

U.S. missiles, bombs, drones and Special Forces 'advisors' will do nothing to resolve the conflict in Iraq but will rekindle Iraqi hatred of the U.S. and entangle the U.S. once again in the internal affairs of Iraq. It will put American troops in harm's way and inevitably lead to more U.S. casualties. Three hundred U.S. advisors can not accomplish what 165,000 U.S. troops could not.
We call on USLAW affiliates, the American labor movement and its social allies to demand NO U.S. military intervention in Iraq. Build America, don't destroy Iraq. Create jobs here not refugees and casualties there. Respect Iraqi sovereignty and the right of Iraqi people to self-determination.
* * * * *

Web: USLaborAgainstWar.org FB: labor.against.war
Twitter: @USLAWLeader Email: <[email protected]>

In solidarity,

National Co-Convenors:
Kathy Black
Bob Muehlenkamp
Brooks Sunkett
Nancy Wohlforth
Michael Zweig

National Coordinator:
Michael Eisenscher

Luís Henrique
3rd July 2014, 21:16
In light of these developments, the central task of socialists is to defend the uprising against the attempts of the Maliki regime, as well as of Washington and Teheran, to crush it.

The central task of socialists is to oppose the war moves of the US and other "Western" countries from within. Which means not supporting this or that faction where we haven't even a foot in the ground, but opposing war where we are, in direct opposition to our own governments.

Luís Henrique

Fegelnator
4th July 2014, 12:03
How about we just give the Kurds a mental pat on the back and stay out of this?

Sasha
4th July 2014, 12:16
Since "we" (as in the west) are among the root creators of this mess we should also give a hand in cleaning it up. But we should only help and not make it worse, so I would say let's put our energy in pressuring our own governments and those they are friendly with into the right action, Israel should accept a real peace plan with a viable Palestinian state, Turkey needs to accept a Kurdish state or federation, SA and Qatar etc need to become at least representive democracies. We need to stop making dirty deals for oil etc etc.

Luís Henrique
4th July 2014, 15:51
Since "we" (as in the west) are among the root creators of this mess we should also give a hand in cleaning it up. But we should only help and not make it worse, so I would say let's put our energy in pressuring our own governments and those they are friendly with into the right action, Israel should accept a real peace plan with a viable Palestinian state, Turkey needs to accept a Kurdish state or federation, SA and Qatar etc need to become at least representive democracies. We need to stop making dirty deals for oil etc etc.

How about letting the Israeli and the Palestinians, the Kurds and the Turks, the Saudis, the Qatari, etc., sorting out their own problems?

If the Saudi want a representative democracy, they will have to fight for it. Any attempt to give one to them as a gift will result in some kind of disaster. As we should already know from past experience.

Evidently, what the US and other imperialist countries should stop doing (but this will only happen if enough pressure is put onto them from below, from their own citizens) is to actively support the reactionary social forces in these countries (namely, clergy, military, landowners) and to pretend they are slowly reforming into some kind of democracy.

This, again, is a struggle to be fought and won in the US, in the UK, in France, in Germany, in Japan, by the American, British, French, German, Japanese, workers. Not in Palestine, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, Kuwait, Iran, Libya, Syria, etc.

Luís Henrique

Devrim
4th July 2014, 20:11
Since "we" (as in the west) are among the root creators of this mess we should also give a hand in cleaning it up.

This is one of the worst ideas I have ever seen proposed on Revleft. I agree with Luis. Those in Western countries should campaign against the military involvement of their own countries in the region. These imperialist states have no progressive role to play in the Middle East. Nor do those advocating new imperialist polices for the region.

Devrim

Црвена
4th July 2014, 20:50
I would be all for rebellion against a dictatorship, but the Sunni rebels just want to replace it with a new dictatorship. There is no one actually fighting for the liberation of the Iraqi people, so both sides are as bad as each other. Although the Kurds do deserve an independent state.

Devrim
5th July 2014, 08:38
Although the Kurds do deserve an independent state.

Why do 'the Kurds' deserve an independent state?

Devrim

Creative Destruction
5th July 2014, 09:00
Islam is the light.