The Antiwar Movement and the Iraqi Resistance

[refuse_resist]

The biggest obstacle to U.S. domination of Iraq and the Middle East has become the armed resistance to the U.S. military occupation of Iraq. Unable to subjugate the resistance, U.S. plans to set up a colonial puppet regime have fallen flat.

This fact has generated a growing discussion within the worldwide antiwar movement: What attitude should opponents of the U.S. war take toward the Iraqi resistance?

Read More (http://socialismandliberation.org/mag/index.php?aid=93)

[h&s]

What attitude should opponents of the U.S. war take toward the Iraqi resistance?


We support the Iraqi people's right to rebel against an illegal, oppressive occupation, but by no means should we support the reactionary element of the insurgency. Religous based groups, such as the one led by Muqtadr-al-Sadr are certainly not to be supported in their aims to establish a theocracy, and terrorist bombins are never to be supported.

[RagsToRevolution]

Hm, let me look here...


When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Or..


Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Or...


PART II

GENERAL PROTECTION OF PRISONERS OF WAR

Article 12

Prisoners of war are in the hands of the enemy Power, but not of the individuals or military units who have captured them. Irrespective of the individual responsibilities that may exist, the Detaining Power is responsible for the treatment given them.

Prisoners of war may only be transferred by the Detaining Power to a Power which is a party to the Convention and after the Detaining Power has satisfied itself of the willingness and ability of such transferee Power to apply the Convention. When prisoners of war are transferred under such circumstances, responsibility for the application of the Convention rests on the Power accepting them while they are in its custody.

Nevertheless if that Power fails to carry out the provisions of the Convention in any important respect, the Power by whom the prisoners of war were transferred shall, upon being notified by the Protecting Power, take effective measures to correct the situation or shall request the return of the prisoners of war. Such requests must be complied with.

Article 13

Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

Article 14

Prisoners of war are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honour. Women shall be treated with all the regard due to their sex and shall in all cases benefit by treatment as favourable as that granted to men. Prisoners of war shall retain the full civil capacity which they enjoyed at the time of their capture. The Detaining Power may not restrict the exercise, either within or without its own territory, of the rights such capacity confers except in so far as the captivity requires.

Article 15

The Power detaining prisoners of war shall be bound to provide free of charge for their maintenance and for the medical attention required by their state of health.

Article 16

Taking into consideration the provisions of the present Convention relating to rank and sex, and subject to any privileged treatment which may be accorded to them by reason of their state of health, age or professional qualifications, all prisoners of war shall be treated alike by the Detaining Power, without any adverse distinction based on race, nationality, religious belief or political opinions, or any other distinction founded on similar criteria.

*cough*

[Severian]

For communists, there are basically two sides: the workers and the capitalists. For the author of this article, in contrast, there are only two sides: the U.S. capitalists, and those Iraqi capitalists who are opposed to the occupation. ("There are two sides in Iraq today: those who support the imperialist occupation and those who resist it.") Self-organization and actions by Iraqi workers are seens as a dangerous diversion. Anyone who demands the occupation recognize them as a legal union is seen as a collaborator.

"The biggest obstacle to U.S. domination of Iraq and the Middle East " in the long run is not, in fact, this capitalist-led resistance, nor any of the capitalist regimes in the region, but rather working people. Just as the former regime was politically incapable of organizing an effective defense of Iraq, the capitalist "resistance" is politically incapable of ending the occupation.

They have projected nothing positive as far as what they're fighting for - to the extent any of them have such a program, it's deeply reactionary. They have earned the hatred of many Iraqis with their car bombings which have indiscriminately killed civilians. It's become clearer and clearer over time that many of their leaders were, in fact, part of the hated former regime. This has politically isolated them to the point that there was little protest in most of Iraq over the recent bloody assault on Falluja.

The resistance is popular in some Sunni Arab areas - that is, among the section of the population that was the base of the old regime. And it is supported by some tribes which supported the old regime. This is not comparable to the kind of popular support it takes to beat Washington.

The casualties they are inflicting, while heavier than the U.S. army has suffered recently, are nowhere near Vietnam levels. Washington is not going to cut and run readily. Indeed, what U.S. imperialism has long needed to overcome the Vietnam syndrome is a victory over a determined adversary after a prolonged and bloody struggle, and it appears to be on track to achieve this.

It's false that Washington's attempt to create a client regime has "fallen flat". On the contrary, they have a reliable figurehead, Allawi. The elections will occur, and the Shi'a majority will massively participate - including the Sadrists, who are part of a slate endorsed by Sistani. The Kurdish nationalist parties will probably participate as well. Their peshmerga are quite willing to fight for the occupation against the Ba'athists, and other Iraqi sepoy forces may become more reliable as they are gradually blooded in battles like Falluja.

The strikes and unemployed demonstrations that the article decries as a diversion are in fact the road forward. That's true regardless of whether their leaders, mostly from the Workers' Communist Party of Iraq, have the right line on everything or even anything.

One thing they clearly do have the right line on though: making use of the expanded political space that exists in Iraq today. There is more space for workers to organize openly now than there was under the Ba'athist regime. Clearly it's better to use it, rather than immediately confronting the U.S. in the arena where they're strongest: armed conflict.

It's usually best not to give tactical advice to workers' organizations in other countries, but that one's crystal clear. And, of course, it's the conclusion that's already been reached by every sizable workers' organization in Iraq.

The article's position has no support among organized workers in Iraq, so the author's left placing faith in Ba'athist and "Islamist" forces and pretending there is no other alternative in world politics to the conflicts among different capitalists.

Edited 'cause I saw "ANSWER" and mistakenly assumed this was a Workers' World publication. It seems politically similar, though, to Workers' World's main political trait: placing its faith in any regime that happens to be in conflict with imperialism, or in this case, in the remnants of a deposed regime.

[refuse_resist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 06:07 PM
For communists, there are basically two sides: the workers and the capitalists. For the author of this article, in contrast, there are only two sides: the U.S. capitalists, and those Iraqi capitalists who are opposed to the occupation. ("There are two sides in Iraq today: those who support the imperialist occupation and those who resist it.") Self-organization and actions by Iraqi workers are seens as a dangerous diversion. Anyone who demands the occupation recognize them as a legal union is seen as a collaborator.

"The biggest obstacle to U.S. domination of Iraq and the Middle East " in the long run is not, in fact, this capitalist-led resistance, nor any of the capitalist regimes in the region, but rather working people. Just as the former regime was politically incapable of organizing an effective defense of Iraq, the capitalist "resistance" is politically incapable of ending the occupation.

They have projected nothing positive as far as what they're fighting for - to the extent any of them have such a program, it's deeply reactionary. They have earned the hatred of many Iraqis with their car bombings which have indiscriminately killed civilians. It's become clearer and clearer over time that many of their leaders were, in fact, part of the hated former regime. This has politically isolated them to the point that there was little protest in most of Iraq over the recent bloody assault on Falluja.

The resistance is popular in some Sunni Arab areas - that is, among the section of the population that was the base of the old regime. And it is supported by some tribes which supported the old regime. This is not comparable to the kind of popular support it takes to beat Washington.

The casualties they are inflicting, while heavier than the U.S. army has suffered recently, are nowhere near Vietnam levels. Washington is not going to cut and run readily. Indeed, what U.S. imperialism has long needed to overcome the Vietnam syndrome is a victory over a determined adversary after a prolonged and bloody struggle, and it appears to be on track to achieve this.

It's false that Washington's attempt to create a client regime has "fallen flat". On the contrary, they have a reliable figurehead, Allawi. The elections will occur, and the Shi'a majority will massively participate - including the Sadrists, who are part of a slate endorsed by Sistani. The Kurdish nationalist parties will probably participate as well. Their peshmerga are quite willing to fight for the occupation against the Ba'athists, and other Iraqi sepoy forces may become more reliable as they are gradually blooded in battles like Falluja.

The strikes and unemployed demonstrations that the article decries as a diversion are in fact the road forward. That's true regardless of whether their leaders, mostly from the Workers' Communist Party of Iraq, have the right line on everything or even anything.

One thing they clearly do have the right line on though: making use of the expanded political space that exists in Iraq today. There is more space for workers to organize openly now than there was under the Ba'athist regime. Clearly it's better to use it, rather than immediately confronting the U.S. in the arena where they're strongest: armed conflict.

It's usually best not to give tactical advice to workers' organizations in other countries, but that one's crystal clear. And, of course, it's the conclusion that's already been reached by every sizable workers' organization in Iraq.

The article's position has no support among organized workers in Iraq, so the author's left placing faith in Ba'athist and "Islamist" forces and pretending there is no other alternative in world politics to the conflicts among different capitalists.

Edited 'cause I saw "ANSWER" and mistakenly assumed this was a Workers' World publication. It seems politically similar, though, to Workers' World's main political trait: placing its faith in any regime that happens to be in conflict with imperialism, or in this case, in the remnants of a deposed regime.
Uh.... the article talked about how the resistance is made up by not just Saddam loyalist and Islamic extremist, but by lots of different types of people. In reality, the working class make up the resistance, however I'm not quite sure if there are any Marxist-Leninist factions. Don't believe anything the mainstream media has to say about them. I sure don't. :P

As far as Falluja goes, if you read some of the previous articles I have posted from independent reporters, the majority of the people were against the capitalist attack on Falluja, and the majority of the Iraqi's are helping the resistance fighters in the face of resisting imperialism.

The working class of Iraq doesn't have it any better off under Allawi than they did under Saddam. If anything Allawi will be just as bad, if not worse, than Saddam. Especially since he came from one of the wealthiest families in that country.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 01:36 PM
Uh.... the article talked about how the resistance is made up by not just Saddam loyalist and Islamic extremist, but by lots of different types of people. In reality, the working class make up the resistance, however I'm not quite sure if there are any Marxist-Leninist factions. Don't believe anything the mainstream media has to say about them. I sure don't. :P

Uh.... the article talked about how the resistance is made up by not just Saddam loyalist and Islamic extremist, but by lots of different types of people.

I'm sorry, but in fact the article provided no evidence for such an assertion. It did mention evidence that the resistance had widespread support in some areas, which is probably true.

But then, so did Saddam's regime. No regime stays in power for decades by repression alone, y'know. "Islamic fundamentalism" has a certain widespread appeal as well.

It's probably true that most individual resistance fighters are working people, but the same could be said of the U.S. army.

The article says that "By all accounts, there are a wide variety of forces carrying out armed organized resistance, including both secular nationalist and Islamic elements." Well, yeah, the Ba'athists are often described as "secular nationalists". What a wonderful "wide variety".

Many "inside the resistance" news accounts mention individuals in "Saddam Fedayeen" uniforms, etc. And where do you think they got expert snipers, people who know how to build networks of steel-reinforced bunkers, etc.?

I have never seen anything indicating any organization claiming to be communist has taken up arms against the occupation. The article linked denounces the two largest organizations claiming to be communist in Iraq. (In one case, justly so; the Iraqi Communist Party was in fact part of the occupation's governing council.)


Don't believe anything the mainstream media has to say about them. I sure don't. :

Nothing the big-business press says should be accepted uncritically. But the same goes for publications like the linked article.


As far as Falluja goes, if you read some of the previous articles I have posted from independent reporters, the majority of the people were against the capitalist attack on Falluja, and the majority of the Iraqi's are helping the resistance fighters in the face of resisting imperialism.

Majority of Fallujans, but not Iraqis. Have you looked at the opinion polls coming out of Iraq? The results are often not so comforting for the occupation, but they don't support any conclusion like "the people are behind the resistance" either. Reality is messy.


The working class of Iraq doesn't have it any better off under Allawi than they did under Saddam.

I never said they did, much less that they will in the future. But there is, undeniably, more space to organize presently than there was under Saddam. The fact that there are openly operating parties, unions, unemployed organizations, etc. for the linked article to denounce proves that.

Such political space should be taken advantage of.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian
It's false that Washington's attempt to create a client regime has "fallen flat". On the contrary, they have a reliable figurehead, Allawi. The elections will occur, and the Shi'a majority will massively participate - including the Sadrists, who are part of a slate endorsed by Sistani. The Kurdish nationalist parties will probably participate as well. Their peshmerga are quite willing to fight for the occupation against the Ba'athists, and other Iraqi sepoy forces may become more reliable as they are gradually blooded in battles like Falluja.

Setting aside this speculation favorable to a victory for U.S. imperialism -- i.e., if they're "going to win anyway, why oppose them?" -- I see it's time once more to deal with the ever present habit of western "leftists" scabbing on third world resistance to U.S. imperialism.

The resistance in Iraq is led by people "we don't like" -- a motley rag-tag assortment of various kinds of Islamic fundamentalism, supporters of Saddam Hussein, domestic wanna-be capitalists, etc., etc., etc.

That's a damn shame, ain't it? Why can't the Iraqi resistance "be like us"? Good hard-core secular communists that we could support openly without being embarrassed?

Why can't they be Trotskyists? Of the "correct tendency", of course.

So what should we do? Be "even-handed" and "judicial"? Say "oh, of course, we're opposed to U.S. imperialism" but, in the same breath, "it would be terrible if the resistance won...which they won't anyway".

Can you see people like Severian in Germany in 1915, writing about how the German imperialists are "not so bad" compared to the "reactionaries who run Russia"...so perhaps the war is worthy of our "reluctant support"? And, after all, Germany "will win anyway".

Do I exaggerate? A little, perhaps, but not by much!


One thing they clearly do have the right line on though: making use of the expanded political space that exists in Iraq today.

The only "expanded political space" that exists in Iraq today is reserved for quislings.

If you have "permission" from the occupation authorities to "organize" so much as a cup of coffee...your "good intentions" don't mean squat!


Have you looked at the opinion polls coming out of Iraq?

What'd they say, "Dewey Beats Truman"?

Reminds me of a cartoon I saw once: a large barbarian is standing at the door of a peasant's hut. He asks the peasant, "Do you think Attila the Hun is doing a fair job, a good job, or an excellent job?"


But there is, undeniably, more space to organize presently than there was under Saddam.

Such political space should be taken advantage of.

Perhaps the Socialist Workers' Party (U.S.) can open a bookstore in downtown Baghdad. I'm sure the occupation authorities would not give them any problem about that at all.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 09:21 AM
That's a damn shame, ain't it? Why can't the Iraqi resistance "be like us"? Good hard-core secular communists that we could support openly without being embarrassed?

Why can't they be Trotskyists? Of the "correct tendency", of course.
You've missed your target here; my criterion is class not ideology. The point is not the resistance's lack of a correct ideology; as I said earlier, it doesn't matter so much whether the workers' organizations in Iraq lack correct ideology. The problem is that the resistance are capitalist, and not only capitalist but venomously hostile to the workers' movement.


So what should we do? Be "even-handed" and "judicial"? Say "oh, of course, we're opposed to U.S. imperialism" but, in the same breath, "it would be terrible if the resistance won...which they won't anyway".

Oh, it wouldn't be terrible. Or it would be less terrible than the occupation is...current conditions are more murderous than Saddam's regime, probably even worse than Saddam's regime + the blockade.

The only part of that I said is, they're unlikely to win. False hope is not a revolutionary weapon.

And the emancipation of the working class can only be the act of the workers themselves. That's a rather basic political point, and has nothing to do with sectarianism or ideological purity.


Can you see people like Severian in Germany in 1915, writing about how the German imperialists are "not so bad" compared to the "reactionaries who run Russia"...so perhaps the war is worthy of our "reluctant support"? And, after all, Germany "will win anyway".

No analogy. Workers' revolution does not equal remnants of a repressive capitalist regime.

When it comes to the defense of existing workers' states, I'm certainly not less reliable than you.

And again, I don't support the war or occupation.


The only "expanded political space" that exists in Iraq today is reserved for quislings.

That's simply false. You yourself once posted a news article about Iraqi workers winning their demands through threatening a strike against the occupation-run oil industry.

A number of bourgeois parties and religious leaders who call for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops also function openly.

Incidentally, I said something inaccurate about one of these earlier; it now appears the Sadrists will not be supporting the slate of the other Shi'a religious parties, but will boycott the election.

Are you assuming that my recognition of this fact equals support to the occupation? Why would you make that assumption, unless somehow you thought the occupation should be supported if it did? One would have to fetishize bourgeois democracy to draw that kind of conclusion. Political space is a means to an end, not a be-all and end-all.



Have you looked at the opinion polls coming out of Iraq?

What'd they say, "Dewey Beats Truman"?

Yeah, that's your typical reaction to facts: to disregard them. The polls should be looked at critically, of course, like everything else, but they contain useful information. Ignorance is not a revolutionary weapon either.

For those who are interested in facts, here's one poll, from June 2004, a political high point in opposition to the occupation. (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5217874/site/newsweek/) A lot of detail is available if you follow the links.

It's hard to find good recent polls, but here's one that's recent anyway. (http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/102404L.shtml)

The results are deeply contradictory, but as I said earlier, "The results are often not so comforting for the occupation, but they don't support any conclusion like "the people are behind the resistance" either."

[YKTMX]

Here's a quote I like:

"Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral"

Paulo Friere

[bolshevik butcher]

Of course the western media will make the Irai resistance look bad. But they are lead by fundementalist.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian
You yourself once posted a news article about Iraqi workers winning their demands through threatening a strike against the occupation-run oil industry.

Not exactly. What the oil workers threatened was joining the resistance.


A number of bourgeois parties and religious leaders who call for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops also function openly.

One would logically assume that they are lying and that the occupation authorities know that.


The only part of that I said is, they're [the Iraqi resistance] unlikely to win. False hope is not a revolutionary weapon.

As an abstract historical possibility, sure, the Iraqis could lose.

But they don't "look like" they're losing...at least not to me.

If we were conducting a post mortum, that would be a different matter; i.e., they lost and here's why.

But where is the utility of assuming defeat "while the battle rages"?

Unless your crystal ball (unlike mine) really works.


Yeah, that's your typical reaction to facts...

At least you could have put quotation marks around that word "facts".

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[RAT]

I do not think that it is guarantee that the US will win. Israel was involved in such a guerrilla warfare in Lebanon. After 4 years and around 800 deads and 3,000 wounded, Israel had to retrieve, till today they suffer terrorist attacks.

The problem is as with any kind of occupation, there will be a resistance. Will you accept any system that will come to you by war?
It is true that car bombings kills many innocents, but it is the same with bombs dropped by US planes, or tanks, I know I was involved in a couple of wars.
So niether side should gain support, however the populace ussually supports the revolutionary forces, and such it is in Iraq.

[Edelweiss]

I already I'm rather with Severian on this one, although not entirely. Sure, the Iraqis have all right to resist their occupiers, but do we, as leftists, need to support them without asking questions, just in the name of "national liberation" and anti-imperialism? I don't think so.

It's pretty obvious that the resistance is led by deeply reactionary forces, which if they would indeed kick the US out of Iraq, would establish some clerical-fascist regime in Iraq, simular to Iran or Saudi Arabia. Okay, if the Iraqis really want that, so may it be, but again I don't see any reasons for a political support them.

I don't think it would be right to assume that the only choice we have if we want to support the anti-imperialist, Iraqi opposition is to support clerical fascists and Iraqi nationalists, who make much noise and get a lot attention with their skillful media campaigns, but of which I'm sure of that they do not remotely represent the will of the the Iraqi labour movement, which always was as big in Iraq as in no other Arabian nation, or the Iraqi working class in general.

It would be wrong to ignore voices like the WCPI, or even the CPI, who hopefully just leading a double strategy, the CPI, probably as the the only force within the governing council, has significant power over the Iraqi working class and the Iraqi poeple, and the US is damn aware of that. The CPI can, and maybe even already has, threaten the US everytime to leave the governing council and call for armed resistance. In this position the CPI has much more power over the US than the current armed resistance probably will ever have, not only over the US, but in the next 30 years in Iraq in general. So the CPI can represent the interests of the Iraqi working class better, than they would probably ever will be with an open support for the resistance, and an open call to arms already now. It is however, always still an option for them, there shoudln't be an "political power at any price" stance. Call it opportunism, and yes it is a pretty questionable strategy, but it's a question of political intelligence IMO.

Of course, the Iraqi resistance will never be "like us", but to say that the Iraqi working class therefore can't do any better than joining clerical fascists and nationalists anyway, would be a culpable underestimation of it. It's like saying "hey, those are stupid, uneducated people in an underdeveloped third world nation, they do not know any better, and we need to support them because they are fighting for their national liberation". A general support by the western Left for the Iraqi resistance now, would be a slap in the face to the proressive, anti-imperialist forces within Iraq, and a slap in the face of the Iraqi labour movement.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 09:21 AM
Can you see people like Severian in Germany in 1915, writing about how the German imperialists are "not so bad" compared to the "reactionaries who run Russia"...so perhaps the war is worthy of our "reluctant support"? And, after all, Germany "will win anyway".
That's from Redstar's earlier post; I misunderstood his analogy earlier and wanted to come back and correct my error. Which partly flowed from carelessness, and partly from a foolish assumption that he was trying to make an analogy that would work in his favor.

I mean, fer crying out loud. Yeah, let's suppose these ideas were being put forward in 1915 Germany, during World War One, about the war between Kaiser and Tsar.

First, "Socialism and Liberation" magazine comes out with an article saying "There are two sides": the tsar and the kaiser. You must pick one.

It argues that's it's unimportant whether the "armed resistance" to German imperialism is led by tsarists or not, and proclaimed that the tsarists had popular support in Russia (which was probably true in 1915.) That anybody who doesn't support them is supporting German imperialism. That there are only two sides; that another side, of independent working-class action against both, is impossible, and anybody who acts as if there is, is a collaborator with the kaiser. (and in fact, that accusation was levelled against Lenin and Trotsky for acting as if a third side was possible and desirable.)

I think the reaction to such an article would have been even harsher than mine was. Certainly my points would have been uncontroversial among revolutionary internationalists of that time: that such a capitalist "resistance" deserved no support, and that only the workers can and should smash German (and other) imperialism.

And if someone had asked, as Redstar does:
So what should we do? Be "even-handed" and "judicial"? Say "oh, of course, we're opposed to U.S. imperialism" but, in the same breath, "it would be terrible if the resistance won...which they won't anyway".

Hell yeah, we should be "even-handed" in Germany 1915: a plague on the capitalists of both nations. And of course any informed person had no confidence in the capacities of tsarism's outmoded semifeudal army up against the efficient Prussian military machine.

Redstar's analogy's not entirely right of course, since today in Iraq we see the capitalists of an oppressed nation fighting against imperialist capital, not two imperialist countries. So I don't regard the two sides as exactly the same, and I'd be happy if time proves me wrong about the likely prospects for the future. That is, I'd be happy to see our main enemy take a blow from some lesser enemies, as its withdrawal would greatly weaken Washington's credibility in threatening peoples around the world.

I'm not entirely "speculating" about the resistance's weaknesses, contrary to what Redstar said. A number of my points were about things which have already happened: Allawi's been installed, has loyally stood by Washington, and has a sizeable amount of support from Iraqis hoping for some law, order, and stability. Large and popular Shi'a parties are strongly behind the elections - in which they hope to win more power for their sect than it's ever had before - and have even mobilized to protest any suggesting they be postponed. Kurdish peshmerga have fought willingly for Washington against the rebels. So S&L mag's statement that the installation of a puppet regime has "fallen flat" is false. So far, it hasn't. That's not speculation, it's the reality of what's happened already.

And the occupiers carried out this brutal attack on Falluja, not only with an unsurprising tactical military success, but with little protest in most of Iraq. Shi'a groups that spoke out against the last assault several months ago, and mobilized to take aid to Falluja, have been silent. And the (Sunni Arab) Iraqi Islamic Party, which has a base of support similar to the resistance, has registered to run candidates, backing off from its threat to boycott in protest of the Falluja assault.

These are facts. Redstar's latest post proceeds entirely from "logical assumptions", and is hermetically sealed against any response that attempts to rely on facts. (Anybody who's not arrested is assumed to be a quisling; therefore, any non-quisling will be arrested.) So I won't bother with any detailed response to his latest.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 11:22 PM
It would be wrong to ignore voices like the WCPI, or even the CPI, who hopefully just leading a double strategy, the CPI, probably as the the only force within the governing council, has significant power over the Iraqi working class and the Iraqi poeple, and the US is damn aware of that. The CPI can, and maybe even already has, threaten the US everytime to leave the governing council and call for armed resistance. In this position the CPI has much more power over the US than the current armed resistance probably will ever have, not only over the US, but in the next 30 years in Iraq in general. So the CPI can represent the interests of the Iraqi working class better, than they would probably ever will be with an open support for the resistance, and an open call to arms already now. It is however, always still an option for them, there shoudln't be an "political power at any price" stance. Call it opportunism, and yes it is a pretty questionable strategy, but it's a question of political intelligence IMO.
I doubt this is what the "Communist Party" is doing.

The Iraqi CP has a long history of joining all kinds of truly rotten coalition governments - including the Ba'ath party government when it first came to power. They CP left that coalition, not because they'd decided to call for revolutionary struggle, but because the Ba'athists kicked 'em out and started slaughering CP members en masse.

Contrary to "Socialism and Liberation" magazine's statement about the ICP's "proud tradition" it has never been distinguished from social democracy except for its subservience to the Kremlin's diplomatic interests. Since there's no more USSR, even that distinction has disappeared.

I doubt it would be an effective strategy if they were to follow it; Washington cannot be bluffed or threatened so easily, and belonging to its government blocks the ICP from an effective course of public opposition and mobilizing and organizing against it.

There are alternatives besides joining a government or immediately taking up arms against it.

By the way:
Here's (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=24772&hl=iraq) one of my old posts with a bunch of links on unions and workers' actions in Iraq under the occupation.

[Edelweiss]

Originally posted by Severian+Dec 18 2004, 09:17 AM--> (Severian @ Dec 18 2004, 09:17 AM)
[email protected] 17 2004, 11:22 PM
It would be wrong to ignore voices like the WCPI, or even the CPI, who hopefully just leading a double strategy, the CPI, probably as the the only force within the governing council, has significant power over the Iraqi working class and the Iraqi poeple, and the US is damn aware of that. The CPI can, and maybe even already has, threaten the US everytime to leave the governing council and call for armed resistance. In this position the CPI has much more power over the US than the current armed resistance probably will ever have, not only over the US, but in the next 30 years in Iraq in general. So the CPI can represent the interests of the Iraqi working class better, than they would probably ever will be with an open support for the resistance, and an open call to arms already now. It is however, always still an option for them, there shoudln't be an "political power at any price" stance. Call it opportunism, and yes it is a pretty questionable strategy, but it's a question of political intelligence IMO.
I doubt this is what the "Communist Party" is doing.

The Iraqi CP has a long history of joining all kinds of truly rotten coalition governments - including the Ba'ath party government when it first came to power. They CP left that coalition, not because they'd decided to call for revolutionary struggle, but because the Ba'athists kicked 'em out and started slaughering CP members en masse.

Contrary to "Socialism and Liberation" magazine's statement about the ICP's "proud tradition" it has never been distinguished from social democracy except for its subservience to the Kremlin's diplomatic interests. Since there's no more USSR, even that distinction has disappeared.

I doubt it would be an effective strategy if they were to follow it; Washington cannot be bluffed or threatened so easily, and belonging to its government blocks the ICP from an effective course of public opposition and mobilizing and organizing against it.

There are alternatives besides joining a government or immediately taking up arms against it.

By the way:
Here's (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=24772&hl=iraq) one of my old posts with a bunch of links on unions and workers' actions in Iraq under the occupation. [/b]
Bathism useed to be a rather progrssive force in the middle east back when the ICP joined the Bathist government, I don't see it as a "rotten coalition" at all that the joined it in the first place.

I still do think that the ICP is following some double strategy. One could argue that it's better to have at least some crediable representation of the Iraqi labour movement within the Iraqi government, than if it would be totally consisting out of US puppets, which you yould argue are the CPI as well. But I do doubt that. A quick look at their website will prove the opposite, they are in fact strongly ooppsed to the US politics in Iraq and openly say so, they are not some quiet servant of US-imperialist interesrst in Iraq. And you'll find proofs for my theory of a double strategy by them:

http://www.iraqcp.org/framse1/0041019icp.htm

Our Party stressed that the Council was only one arena and one platform, among others, for our struggle to achieve national sovereignty and independence. We always emphasized the need to continuously combine between our work within the Council, and in the present interim government, and our efforts of a mass character, as well as strengthening relations with all forces that want to achieve the transition to end the occupation and build a united federal democratic Iraq.

This is what I meant: Taking part in the governing council, does not prevent the CPI to organize mass (yet civil) resistance againt the occupation.

You said, Washington "Washington cannot be bluffed or threatened so easily", well I think they can in the current state of Iraq. Washington is damn aware that the CPI is the only force within the governing council that is grassrooted within the Iraqi people, it's not some self-proclaimed representor of the Iraqi labour movement, it is the biggest communist party within the whole middle east. Even if the ICP would just leave the governing council now without actually calling to arms, it would effect the stability in Iraq, something which Washington really can't afford currently. Therefore I remain my thesis that the CPI now in the governing council has some power over the US foreign politics in Iraq, and does that to reprpresent workers interests, even if it's only on a low level. But IMO, the CPI strategy is far better and more effective than the strategy of the armed resistance (but of course still very argueable, no doubt about that!), which is led by clerical fascists and nationalists.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 06:47 AM

Bathism useed to be a rather progrssive force in the middle east back when the ICP joined the Bathist government, I don't see it as a "rotten coalition" at all that the joined it in the first place.
I disagree. One, on principle I don't think communists should join capitalist governments.

Two, what's more, Ba'athism's rise was a step to the right in Iraqi politics. After the monarchy was overthrown there were a series of left-leaning military governments. The CP supported some of these too but I didn't mention 'em because it's not as blatantly self-defeating a sellout.

The young Saddam was involved in an attempt to assassinate the farthest-left of these, Qasim - Saddam was apparently helped by the CIA in this, according to declassified documents. Some progressive force.

Later, a series of Ba'athist coups and attempted coups happened, each of these was a step down for the revolution, associated with increased anti-worker repression, and welcomed by U.S. imperialism.

I mean, c'mon were they progressive one day when the CP joined their government and suddenly became reactionary almost immediately when they started killing CP members? Usually that kind of transformation takes more time. I think the Ba'ath went back and forth a few times between coopting and killing too...

Somebody had a good thread on the character of Ba'athist ideology - he pointed out some semi-fascist features of that ideology - but I haven't been able to turn it up with a search.



I still do think that the ICP is following some double strategy. One could argue that it's better to have at least some crediable representation of the Iraqi labour movement within the Iraqi government, than if it would be totally consisting out of US puppets, which you yould argue are the CPI as well. But I do doubt that. A quick look at their website will prove the opposite, they are in fact strongly ooppsed to the US politics in Iraq and openly say so, they are not some quiet servant of US-imperialist interesrst in Iraq. And you'll find proofs for my theory of a double strategy by them:

Sure, they're sometimes critical of some U.S. actions. Some of the bourgeois parties in the puppet government are as well. But when you join a government, that kinda takes the heart out of your attempt to criticize it. People tend to ask: it can't be that bad if you're part of it, can it?

And even more it takes the heart out of any attempt to organize mass action against it, 'cause that would be against yourself....also participation in the government, various alliances with capitalist parties, etc. seem to be taking up most of the ICP's time. It's not coincidental, I think, that the WCPI is seems to be putting a lot more effort into organizing, demonstrations, strikes, etc.

None of this is new of course and there's a lot of stuff in the socialist classics about why socialists shouldn't join a capitalist government. I think there's a good article in Rosa Luxemburg speaks for example. But like a lot of stuff the good traditions have been lost due to Stalinism reviving old reformist crap and claiming it's OK.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian
It argues that's it's unimportant whether the "armed resistance" to German imperialism is led by tsarists or not, and proclaimed that the tsarists had popular support in Russia (which was probably true in 1915.) That anybody who doesn't support them is supporting German imperialism. That there are only two sides; that another side, of independent working-class action against both, is impossible, and anybody who acts as if there is, is a collaborator with the kaiser.

I'm at a loss to understand your position here.

If you are an anti-imperialist, then you favor the defeat of "your own" ruling class's imperialism first...do you not agree?

Is that not what Lenin himself meant by "revolutionary defeatism"?

To what purpose, then, are discussions of the short-comings of the Iraqi resistance? You either want them to win or you want them to lose, right?

Do you think they will just "go away" in the absence of your engraved "certificate of authenticity"?

You speak of "independent working class action" (presumably "untainted" by Muslim idiocy or nationalist fantasies) as if that were a plausible "third option" in an occupied country.

Well, sure, it's possible and may have even taken place in limited ways -- but do you imagine that Iraqi workers are not both Muslims and nationalists? Given the material conditions in that unhappy land, what else could they be?

Trotskyists? Maoists? Come on!

The truth of the matter is that there can be no independent working class struggle until the imperialists are driven out of Iraq; even if there were some kind of significant communist presence in Iraq, they have no ground to stand on. To the extent they collaborate with (or have collaborated with!) the imperialists, they will only destroy their own credibility.

My "crystal ball" tells me that after the resistance wins, there will be immediate civil war over the future of Iraq -- and, I hope, the secular nationalist forces will defeat the Islamic reactionaries. Then the field "opens up" for an independent working class opposition to bourgeois nationalism...it has "ground to stand on".

If the resistance loses, only then does your perspective make a kind of "sense" -- sort of like building the workers' movement in Ecuador. Useful and necessary work, no doubt, but nothing to get excited about, unless you happen to live there.

Right now, the Iraqi resistance is "center stage" in world-wide opposition to the American Empire...no one else is playing in their league!

I would be quite happy to march beneath the banner: Victory to the Iraqi Resistance!

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Edelweiss]

Well, as you already said, the ICP is rather Social Democratic than Communist, like many of todays big communist parties, especially in Europe (France, Italy etc). Still I prefer the ICP by far before the current armed resistance. We don't have much to choose from in Iraq, and the ICP defenetly IS one of the most progrssive forces there. As sad as this is maybe. But I have a rather pragmatic stane on this one, than an ideological one. I totally agree with you that the WCPI is the most progressive faction in Iraq, but I'm not sure if they are really that grassrooted within the Iraqi people, unlike the ICP. The WCPI was an pure exile organisation for years, they are heard here within the Left in the western world, but I'm not sure how much that is the case in Iraq itself. I would be happy to be proofed wrong. Like you, I'm hoping for effective workers self-oranisation now.
I strongly agree with you about the tradition of Rosa Luxemburg and others, it's really a shame that it's almost lost, and no bigger party/group really is acting in their tradition. As you may have noticed, I see myself quiet in the tradition of Rosa Luxemburg, especially her strong anti-nationalist stance seems to be totally lost within todays communist tendencies, it seems to be replaced with a rather simplistic anti-imperialism, as we see again now on the stance of many communists on the Iraqi resistance. Where we are at it: You said that Rosa Luxemburg was against communist in bourgeois governments, but she also said that that reforms of capitalism are a means of class war. Maybe this is an illusion, but the ICP in the Iraqi government could push the US to some certain reforms, which will improve labour rights, and which will strenghth the role of the unions there.

[Severian]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Dec 19 2004, 07:20 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Dec 19 2004, 07:20 AM)
Severian
It argues that's it's unimportant whether the "armed resistance" to German imperialism is led by tsarists or not, and proclaimed that the tsarists had popular support in Russia (which was probably true in 1915.) That anybody who doesn't support them is supporting German imperialism. That there are only two sides; that another side, of independent working-class action against both, is impossible, and anybody who acts as if there is, is a collaborator with the kaiser.

I'm at a loss to understand your position here.

If you are an anti-imperialist, then you favor the defeat of "your own" ruling class's imperialism first...do you not agree?

Is that not what Lenin himself meant by "revolutionary defeatism"? [/b]

Well, I do, and other Leninists, yes. I wouldn't say you have to be a defeatist to be an anti-imperialist, though: that'd disqualify Rosa Luxemburg, Trotsky during most of WWI, and many others...."revolutionary defeatism" was a position held by Lenin and almost nobody else during WWI. In a way it's surprising to see such a militant anti-Leninist as yourself endorse it.

Lenin's revolutionary defeatism didn't lead him to endorse the kaiser, though. Nor did the Spartakusbund, in 1915 Germany, endorse the tsar. If the distinction is really uncler to you, I'm not sure what more I can do to clarify.


To what purpose, then, are discussions of the short-comings of the Iraqi resistance? You either want them to win or you want them to lose, right?

Yes, and in fact I want them to win over imperialism, as they're Third World bourgeois nationalists rather than imperialists. That goes back to Lenin too: backing Persia, China, etc over imperialism regardless of details.

I'm not sure if I can explain the "purpose" of political clarity if you don't get it yet; basically it's just what I said before, false hope and ignorance are not revolutionary weapons.

Consider how many leftists were overtaken with demoralization and despair because they placed false hope in the Kremlin. Even worse to place too much hope in some section of the capitalist class.


You speak of "independent working class action" (presumably "untainted" by Muslim idiocy or nationalist fantasies) as if that were a plausible "third option" in an occupied country.

Nothing is "untainted" in the real world, but workers' actions are in fact taking place in Iraq. How can something be implausible when it's actually taking place? Only if you ignore facts.


If the resistance loses, only then does your perspective make a kind of "sense" -- sort of like building the workers' movement in Ecuador. Useful and necessary work, no doubt, but nothing to get excited about, unless you happen to live there.


Perhaps the strikes and demonstrations of Iraqi workers are less flashy and harder to "get excited about" than roadside bombs, but they are far more "useful and necessary" at this stage.

It's funny, we superficially seem to have reversed positions from an argument we had shortly after the invasion over whether it would be correct for hypothetical communists in Iraq to work together with "Islamic fundamentalists" against the occupation.

I said that would likely be a useful tactic; for example it might be useful to join demonstrations called by some mullahs against the occupation, in order to reach the mullah's followers. You seemed to reject it entirely. I don't recall the details of your position enough to definitely say more about it, but it'd seem in contradiction to what you're saying now.

Edit: Here's the thread. (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=4662&st=0) Definitely seems in contradiction.

And while searching for it I stumbled over this thread (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=17752&st=20#entry276305) in which Redstar said, in response to one of my posts opposing mindless Washington-imitating demonization of the north Korean regime:



Don't you grasp the idea that a communist can oppose "her/his own" imperialism without flopping on his belly for whatever regime imperialism may target?

Did LENIN--your hero--oppose Russian imperialism by praising the "progressive" character of the German Empire???

Which is precisely what I was just trying to explain to Redstar here! I think it was a pretty poor response to my post, since I didn't argue that the north Korean regime should be politically supported or that it couldn't be criticized from a socialist direction. But Redstar definitely gave a good answer to himself!

So what's up? Nothing succeeds like success...maybe some people are influenced by certain transitory successes of the Iraqi resistance to forget all kinds of things they've said themselves in the past?

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 07:37 AM
As you may have noticed, I see myself quiet in the tradition of Rosa Luxemburg, especially her strong anti-nationalist stance seems to be totally lost within todays communist tendencies, it seems to be replaced with a rather simplistic anti-imperialism, as we see again now on the stance of many communists on the Iraqi resistance.
You oughta like the WCPI then, they seem to reject anti-imperialism, and the comparison to Rosa Luxemburg occurred to me...that is, it's understandable in their context they'd reject Arab nationalism just as Luxemburg rejected Polish nationalism. I think it's throwing out the baby with the bathwater though.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian
In a way it's surprising to see such a militant anti-Leninist as yourself endorse it.

He wasn't wrong about "everything", you know.

If you're going to be a consistent anti-imperialist, then that means you want "your" ruling class to get hammered. How else is your working class going to learn the folly of imperial ambition...and perhaps even capitalism itself?


Lenin's revolutionary defeatism didn't lead him to endorse the kaiser, though. Nor did the Spartakusbund, in 1915 Germany, endorse the tsar.

Well, I don't "endorse" the mullahs & the nationalists in Iraq, for that matter.

I simply wish to see U.S. imperialism lose...and after that, I'm perfectly satisfied to let the Iraqis work out their own paths to class struggle and revolution. It will be a torturous affair, no doubt...but as they haven't requested my advice, I'll just stand aside and let them figure it out.


I'm not sure if I can explain the "purpose" of political clarity if you don't get it yet; basically it's just what I said before, false hope and ignorance are not revolutionary weapons.

Consider how many leftists were overtaken with demoralization and despair because they placed false hope in the Kremlin. Even worse to place too much hope in some section of the capitalist class.

I don't think there's any sensible people left who think the expulsion of U.S. imperialism from Iraq is going to immediately result in a "workers' paradise".

It's true that was a common failure in the 20th century left...to the point where if people couldn't find something good to say about somebody fighting U.S. imperialism, they just made stuff up.

But that's not what I would advocate. Iraq will still be a shit-hole after the U.S. is driven out (if that happens)...just not quite as stinky.


Perhaps the strikes and demonstrations of Iraqi workers are less flashy and harder to "get excited about" than roadside bombs, but they are far more "useful and necessary" at this stage.

I completely disagree! Armed insurrection against the imperialists not only directly weakens their power but also "grabs the world's attention" to an enormously greater extent...inspiring more resistance in every part of the American Empire -- including at home.

Watch and see for yourself. If the Iraqi resistance movement is defeated, the American anti-war movement (such as it is!) will pick up its marbles and quietly go home. No one is against successful imperialism.

And some AFL-CIO guys will take Arabic lessons and then go to Baghdad and teach the workers how to build a "responsible trade union"...responsible to the imperialists, of course.


It's funny, we superficially seem to have reversed positions from an argument we had shortly after the invasion over whether it would be correct for hypothetical communists in Iraq to work together with "Islamic fundamentalists" against the occupation.

I said that might be a useful tactic at times; for example it might be useful to join demonstrations called by some mullahs against the occupation, in order to reach the mullah's followers. You seemed to reject it entirely. I don't recall the details of your position enough to definitely say more about it, but it'd seem in contradiction to what you're saying now.

Well, I reviewed two collections of "papal encyclicals" on my site and didn't find a discussion of this particular matter.

In any event, I think it's moot; the occupation authorities have opened fire on so many demonstrations that I rather doubt that anyone is much interested in the tactic now.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Ricardo P.]

I support glorious Iraqi freedom fighters. American army is a horde of wild barbarians. Comparing to yankes even Mongols and Nazi looks like angels

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 07:22 PM

Well, I reviewed two collections of "papal encyclicals" on my site and didn't find a discussion of this particular matter.

In any event, I think it's moot; the occupation authorities have opened fire on so many demonstrations that I rather doubt that anyone is much interested in the tactic now.
I've given a link to the thread now; and the overall topic wasn't demonstrations as a tactic, but rather if it's OK for communists to work with fundamentalists against imperialism....you definitely seem to have changed your mind about that.

[redstar2000]

Here's what I wrote...


Originally posted by redstar2000
But let's talk about a real situation...Iraq under U.S. military occupation.

Presumably, as communists, we would attempt to inspire vigorous opposition to the occupation, would we not?

And yet, even more fanatical opposition would come...is coming right now, from muslim fundamentalists.

What do we do? Would we form some kind of anti-occupation coalition with the muslim fundamentalists, realizing that the day the American troops leave, we'd go for each others' throats?

Or would we actively propagandize against Islam and in favor of secular communism for Iraq? Even though we'd know that such a course would make us pretty unpopular for a long time to come?

I would favor the latter course if I were actually in Iraq right now...but this is the kind of "real world" situation that communists must learn to deal with. (May 7, 2003)

Severian responded...


Yes, work with the Islamists, and anyone else who opposes the occupation. Right now, they have a bigger following among working people in Iraq than anyone calling themselves communist, that's for sure.

And that's what the "united front" was invented for, winning over the masses away from another leadership. Put THEM in the situation of saying, we won't work with you, you're godless communists.

And I said this...


No question about it, the "united front" against some outstanding reactionary evil has always been an attractive strategy for communists.

Historically, the way things have usually (always?) worked out is that after the "united front" wins, the communists get fucked.

Ok, now have I indeed contradicted myself?

In the thread in which this exchange took place, we were discussing what a hypothetical communist formation might do inside Iraq.

But in this thread, we were discussing the attitudes of communists within imperialist countries.

I think that communists should do different things in different countries.

In Iraq, it might be well for communists (if they exist in more than name) to conduct an independent resistance struggle combined with an open political struggle against Muslim fundamentalism.

In the U.S., communists should say forthrightly "victory to the Iraqi resistance" without troubling ourselves as to its political nature.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[PRC-UTE]

Victory to the Iraqi Resistance!

If the U$Empire is not defeated than make no mistake, there will be more countries attacked. The next nation could be a progressive nation like Cuba.

I'm shocked there is so much reactionary bullshit being spewed by the left on this issue. I always sympathise with people defending themselves against tyranny. And I wish nothing but death to the scabs who hire themselves out as hitmen for capital!

And just to clear up some myths, here is a statement by the Iraqi Patriotic Alliance, who are proud to be kicking imperialist ass and, at least temporarily halting the expansion of the Empire.

It's pretty clear that the Iraqis will most likely win. They're already well armed, the Brit scum and US occupiers cannot defeat their tactic (RPG's), and the occupiers are creating more support everyday for the resistance with their acts of brutality.

The US/UK are losing support internationally all the time. They will require more assistance to win . . .and that is not coming.


Letter from Iraqi Patriotic Alliance addressed to our brothers all
around the world

The Iraqi resistance is confronting the illegitimate and brutal
Zionist Imperialist occupation of Iraq. Our resistance is legitimate
according to international law and the UN Charter, including the right
to resort to armed means. We are claiming our right to national
self-determination and a real sovereignty

The different resisting groups in Iraq have developed a network
between each other in order to achieve their ultimate goal. This goal
was clearly addressed in their political program released after the
liberation of Fallujah in April this year (2004). The program of the
Iraqi resistance is as follows:

1. End the occupation and liberate the country
2. Transition period of 2 years
3. Iraq united - National government for all
4. Iraqi constitution written by Iraqis themselves
5. Democratic rules
6. Free election and full participation of the different political
parties

To implement the strategy of liberation, the Iraqi resistance is
attacking occupying forces and their institutions and those who serve
them with food, oil and other supplies. On the other hand, the Iraqi
resistance is preventing the occupiers from using Oil as a political
means.

Schools, churches, mosques and other civilian places have never been
the target of the Iraqi resistance. Besides, we have to be very
critical and careful about any kidnapping or killing process of a
foreigner-worker in Iraq. The resistance has no benefit in attacking
people like Margaret Hassan, two Simonas or others. These actions are
meant to discredit the legal resistance of our people. Here, we would
like to share with you some of the heroic achievements of the Iraqi
resistance: The Iraqi resistance was able to cause a high number of
casualties in material and soldiers among the occupying forces.

The resistance fighters were able to liberate 30 cities: creating a
suitable environment for the resistant fighters by forming a
death-zone for the occupying forces and their agents.

The Iraqi resistance has defeated the Spanish imperialism and has
forced 9 out of the occupying/allying countries to leave Iraq. The
Netherlands, Hungary and Poland are leaving Iraq next year.

The Iraqi resistance was able to pull plunder companies out of Iraq,
the so-called contractors, rebuilding companies.

The Iraqi resistance has renewed the spirit of resistance in the whole
world by defeating the US imperialism in Fallujah, Al Samawa, Najaf
and other Iraqi cities.

The heroic resistance in Iraq has isolated UK and US in Iraq,
preventing temporary the go-on of the war on terror against: Syria,
Cuba and North Korea.

The resistance in Iraq is the resistance of the Iraqi people and it is
mainly represented by the major political groups; the Patriotic,
Islamic and the Pan-Arab groups. By this, we want to emphasis on the
fact that our resistance has an anti-imperialistic profile with
Islamic and patriotic elements. Adding on that, the effective
participation of members of the dismantled Iraqi army and the Ba'ath
party. We could expect some objections about the participation of the
Ba'ath party in the resistance. There are more than three million
active Ba'ath party members in Iraq. So, when we mention members of
this party we do not mean only- those who were in the former Iraqi
government. But those who believe in the Ba'ath ideology expressed in
their slogan: Unity, Liberty and Socialism.

The fear of the Islamic character of the Iraqi resistance could be
answered by the fact that after the liberation of Iraq, the Iraqi
resistance will then be the only legitimized representative of the
Iraqi people. A transition period will then give the Iraqi people the
chance to choose their representatives to form a united national
government with full participation of all parties including the
Islamic forces. We have then to accept the choice of the Iraqi people.

As to the Iraqi Patriotic Alliance, we are proud to inform you that
our secretary general in Iraq Mr. Abduljabbar al-Kubaysi was arrested
on 3rd of September in Baghdad. The house he had temporarily stayed in
was surrounded and stormed by about 50 US occupation soldiers
employing helicopters and tanks. Mr. Al-Kubaysi was leading the IPA
since the 90?s against the economic sanctions and the Zionistic and
imperialistic plans of the US in Iraq. During his latest activities
building a united political front of the resistance against the
occupation, he was arrested without any charges. At this moment we
know nothing about his situation. Even his family is unable to contact
hem. We hold the occupying forces responsible for the health and life
of Mr. Al-Kubaysi and all other prisoners in Iraq.

We hope for further coordination between you and us in our shared
struggle against occupation and imperialism.

Long Live the Iraqi Resistance!

In Solidarity,
Nada Al-Rubaiee [on behalf of the Iraqi Patriotic Alliance (IPA)]
Tel: 0031- (0)-645542498
[email protected]
[email protected]
http://home.zonnet.nl/patrioticalliance/

[Edelweiss]

I would ike to add that I'm an anti-fascist before I'm an anti-imperalist. Despite of the lip services by the Iraqi "Patriotic Alliance", the Iraqi resistance is led and dominated by clerical fascists, who, if they indeed would succeed with their resistance would etablish a clerical fascism in Iraq. I can not support a movement with such reactionary goals. As much as I can comprehend statements by redstar like


In Iraq, it might be well for communists (if they exist in more than name) to conduct an independent resistance struggle combined with an open political struggle against Muslim fundamentalism.

In the U.S., communists should say forthrightly "victory to the Iraqi resistance" without troubling ourselves as to its political nature.

, I can not support it. I totally agree that the most effetive stage to fight imperialism, is from within the imperialist nation itself, and that with a conistent anti-national stance. At this point I would like to call again radical leftists from other imperialist nations like Germany or France to do exatly the same, and not to go into simplistic anti-americanism and not to focus entirely on the "big, evil US". But fighting the imperialism of the own nation should never mean to support fascist resistance within the nations suffering from imperialism IMO, it should rather mean to support real emancipatory, progrissive, anti-imperialist forces, which are existing in Iraq, as Severian has proven. I'm totally against national self-determination at any price by supporting fascist resistance.
I'm basing my opnion on the current political reality in Iraq, and despite of some sucesses by the Iraqi resistance, and some media attracting acts of terrorism (sorry, but I can not call the arbitary bomings, which have hit many inoccent Iraqis, any different), I don't think that the US will be defeated anytime soon. Iaq has such a key role in the criminal US foreign politics, that I think theyare willing to risk much more losses there, and that they are willing to spend much more money to defeat the resistance by all means. And even if the US would withdraw from Iraq now (which I hope of course), that would result in a bloody civil war, but not a civil war bewteen secular and religous forces, but a civil war bewteen different ethnicities and religous persuasions within Islam, I doubt that secular nationalists will play any role there, nor even communist factions. Ethnic-religous-nationalist civil wars are the most destructive and dangerous ones, I don't think that this is something anyone wants to seriously have. So again, my stance is to support the progrssive groups and parties within Iraq now, the labour movement in general, and even the (small but existing) communist faction within the armed resitance within the "Patriotic alliance". But I will never advocate a general support of the current armed resistance in Iraq, nor do I hope for a victory ofthe current Iraqi resistance, no matter how reactionary that some of you might find.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Malte
At this point I would like to call again [for] radical leftists from other imperialist nations like Germany or France to do exactly the same, and not to go into simplistic anti-Americanism and not to focus entirely on the "big, evil US".

Fair enough...again, I think this is a case of communists in different countries doing different things.

Revolutionaries in Germany are naturally acutely conscious of the legacy of Nazism; it's very understandable that their focus should be on fighting every public manifestation of fascism within Germany itself.

France's imperial adventures tend to get crowded off the front-pages by America's...but the French have, in recent years, been up to a lot of real shit in Central Africa -- and I hope there is a movement in France against that. There certainly should be!

I know there was a strong movement against the U.S. imperialists in Europe in the 1960s and 70s; Vietnam radicalized people in a lot of places besides the U.S.

And while I certainly wouldn't object to the re-birth of that movement, I'd also have no problem with revolutionaries in Europe focusing directly on the behavior of their "own" ruling classes.

For international capital, a blow struck against one is, directly or indirectly, a blow against all. When German auto-workers strike against layoffs and pay cuts, they are actually helping American auto workers against "our" bosses...even if they don't know that.

If German revolutionaries can limit or even stop the German government from co-operating with the U.S. on any issue, that helps American revolutionaries by weakening our enemy at home.

In my view, revolutionaries in each country have to determine how to allocate their resources, develop strategy, etc. according to their own circumstances...there's no such thing as an "international line" to which "all must adhere and carry out".

My personal opinion is that a decisive defeat for U.S. imperialism in Iraq would benefit revolutionaries in every country...but I don't "demand" that "everyone" has to agree with me about that.

I do think we are presently in an era similar to the 19th century; when Marx characterized Russia as "the fortress of reaction" in Europe -- the power that reactionaries in all other countries relied on.

I think that the U.S. fills that role in our own era; for example, in Iraq I'm sure they're "shopping" for clerical fascists who are willing to be obedient to American authorities. They have no real objections to clerical fascism at all -- they simply object to the clerical fascists who won't submit to American authority.

The U.S. seeks to fill up the planet with reactionary regimes that are willing to submit to the U.S.

Recall the warm and friendly relations between the Spanish fascist Franco and the U.S. imperialists -- Franco was an "obedient" fascist and, consequently, the U.S. had no problems with Spanish fascism at all.

Just as it has no problems with the clerical fascists in "Saudi" Arabia or, for that matter, the clerical fascists in Israel.

Frankly, I think the U.S. would have no problem with outright Nazis...as long as those particular Nazis acknowledged American hegemony. They came pretty close to that with the first independent regime in Croatia, right?

I would expect European revolutionaries to be far more critical of the Iraqi resistance than revolutionaries in the U.S. -- you have a "latitude" on that question that we don't.

For us, any criticism of the Iraqi resistance is easily read as indirect (or even direct) support of our "own" ruling class...and that's just unacceptable. This also applies to revolutionaries in any country which also has troops in Iraq.

Otherwise, you may be as critical as you like -- the Iraqis don't care, so why should I?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Monty Cantsin]

one question if we support the Iraqi resistance, what does that change? if we did that means Leninists reform parties could not only hold conferences such as “unfuck the world” “revolution in south America” but also…”revolution in Iraqi”

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 10:10 PM
Schools, churches, mosques and other civilian places have never been the target of the Iraqi resistance.


(That's from the statement McGlinchey pasted in).
Clearly this statement is massively dishonest - just the other day the "resistance" bombed Najaf in an act of pure sectarian hatred - and its other claims and promises cannot be trusted then either.


The resistance in Iraq is the resistance of the Iraqi people and it is
mainly represented by the major political groups; the Patriotic,
Islamic and the Pan-Arab groups. By this, we want to emphasis on the
fact that our resistance has an anti-imperialistic profile with
Islamic and patriotic elements. Adding on that, the effective
participation of members of the dismantled Iraqi army and the Ba'ath
party. We could expect some objections about the participation of the
Ba'ath party in the resistance. There are more than three million
active Ba'ath party members in Iraq. So, when we mention members of
this party we do not mean only- those who were in the former Iraqi
government. But those who believe in the Ba'ath ideology expressed in
their slogan: Unity, Liberty and Socialism.

This is probably true though; it's basically the same thing I've said about the character of the resistance groups, only with a big smiley face on it. And pretty clearly reveals that this particular group is Ba'athist. Even those who are not probably rely on officials of the deposed regime, and wealthy individuals who were close to it, for funding - running this kind of operation, and even offering bounties for attacks on the occupation, ain't cheap.

See earlier in this thread for the real character of Ba'athism and its ideology.

Edit: [url=http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=16918&hl=aflaq]Here's the link I was looking for earlier, to a thread were someone called "Stonerboi" explains the profoundly reactionary, fascist-influenced character of Ba'athism.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 04:19 AM
I totally agree that the most effetive stage to fight imperialism, is from within the imperialist nation itself, and that with a conistent anti-national stance. At this point I would like to call again radical leftists from other imperialist nations like Germany or France to do exatly the same, and not to go into simplistic anti-americanism and not to focus entirely on the "big, evil US".
Yeah, really. A lot of leftists from other imperialist countries are falling into an anti-Americanism that amounts to supporting "their own" imperialists.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 11:18 AM
France's imperial adventures tend to get crowded off the front-pages by America's...but the French have, in recent years, been up to a lot of real shit in Central Africa -- and I hope there is a movement in France against that. There certainly should be!

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
The problem is, there isn't. Instead, most French leftists focus their fire on Washington to the point of letting Paris completely off the hook.

Even "their own" imperialists assistance to Washington tends to be ignored, downplayed, or apologized for by red-tinged Canadian and European nationalists. All of these governments have assisted Washington's wars in one way or another, but anti-Bush protests - except perhaps in Britain - have usually been directed solely at the U.S. and not against their own imperialists.

This is an especially serious problem as Washington and the other imperialist powers are more and more at odds over trade issues, spheres of influence in Africa, other imperialist powers being shut out of Iraq "reconstruction" contracts and influence, etc. The Iraq war is in large part and indirect interimperialist war, with Washington taking the world's second-largest oil reserves out of the hands of a government with traditionally close ties to Paris and Moscow (closer than to Washington, even during the Iran-Iraq war.)

The U.S. left isn't immune to this type of problem, either, especially on trade issues where a lot of nationalism is involved in opposition to NAFTA, the WTO, etc. But it's usually not so blatant, especially on issues of war, probably for the reason Redstar indicates....


I would expect European revolutionaries to be far more critical of the Iraqi resistance than revolutionaries in the U.S. -- you have a "latitude" on that question that we don't.

In reality, the reverse tends to be true, probably due to European nationalism.


For us, any criticism of the Iraqi resistance is easily read as indirect (or even direct) support of our "own" ruling class...and that's just unacceptable.

Well, as I quoted you saying on the last page, opposing one's own imperialism doesn't require you to flop down on your belly before any regime they happen to be in conflict with. Nothing changes in principle depending on whether a force is in or out of power.


I do think we are presently in an era similar to the 19th century; when Marx characterized Russia as "the fortress of reaction" in Europe -- the power that reactionaries in all other countries relied on.

Indeed - no other imperialist power, or combination of them, could hope to "police the world" independently of Washington, all are forced to go to Washington for help when they run into serious trouble.

Unlike the 19th century, however, this is a time of fully developed finance-capital imperialism, with the whole world divided up, and there can be nothing progressive about any attempted challenge to Washington's domination by other imperialist powers. Unlike Marx's time, when he welcomed anything that weakened Russia, even victories by Britain in the Crimean War.

By focusing solely or even primarily on Washington, leftists in other imperialist countries capitulate before "their own" imperialists.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Monty [email protected] 21 2004, 05:27 AM
one question if we support the Iraqi resistance, what does that change?
True enough. For me, the main practical point is: if you expect great things of some gang of capitalist thugs, you're setting yourself up for disappointment and demoralization when some bigger gang of capitalist thugs eventually finishes squishing 'em.