Gains In Iraq?

[kirov78]

For socialist gains to be made in Iraq, stability is required. But I think the question should be entertained....is socialism more or less likely in the current or presumed soon to be established order than under Saddam? Saddam enacted socialist programs but did so at the expense of class awareness...citizens were united either in their support or opposition to Saddam. With the current distress, workers will be concerned first with their safety and their ethnic or religious affiliation....but class consciousness seem more likely with a capitalist/imperialist context than the previous quasi-fascist one, no?

Opinions?

For workers.

[Severian]

There's more political space for workers to organize now, yes. And workers have begun to take advantage of that to a certain extent.

I'd suggest this kind of thing is one of the unintended consequences of U.S. imperialism's current course of action. Which will ultimately come back to bite them.

[kirov78]

I'd suggest this kind of thing is one of the unintended consequences of U.S. imperialism's current course of action. Which will ultimately come back to bite them.

Excellent point, comrade.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by kirov78
For socialist gains to be made in Iraq, stability is required.

That's a very odd way to look at things.

Historically speaking, revolutionaries have made their greatest gains in periods of extreme instability.

Indeed, it is very much to our advantage to encourage as much "instability" as we can. The more people realize that "what exists" cannot continue, the more open they become to "extreme alternatives".

That doesn't mean we'll "automatically win", it just means that we get a real chance to play the game.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[kirov78]

Hmmm, interesting point.... :)

[In Search of True Thinkers]

Plus I remenber reading in a book called Censored 2005 that most of Saddam's anti-labor laws were actually kept in practice by the american appointed iraqi interim gov't

[Severian]

Originally posted by redstar2000+May 19 2005, 07:24 AM--> (redstar2000 @ May 19 2005, 07:24 AM)
kirov78
For socialist gains to be made in Iraq, stability is required.

Historically speaking, revolutionaries have made their greatest gains in periods of extreme instability.

Indeed, it is very much to our advantage to encourage as much "instability" as we can. The more people realize that "what exists" cannot continue, the more open they become to "extreme alternatives".

That doesn't mean we'll "automatically win", it just means that we get a real chance to play the game.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
That's worth keeping in mind in a revolutionary situation; and under no conditions do you do anything in order to help the capitalist class solve its problems.

But the reality is Iraqi workers are not imminently gonna launch a struggle for power.

They have a lot of recovering to do.

Conditions of higher employment and production would increase the economic leverage of the working class. Our power in part from the ability to shut down production, and that's not worth much if there's no production to begin with. And it's harder (not impossible) to strike when there's 50 people ready to take your job.

It's likely that improvement in the Iraqi economy would lead to a revival in workers' organization and struggle, and from there workers' class-consciousness.

**

"In Search of True Thinkers" is right and that's something the labor unions have protested...but nevertheless space exists, people have organized unions, struck, held unemployed demonstrations...which was all impossible under the old regime. The old regime was not mostly about laws, y'know, it was about being hauled off in the middle of the night by the Mukhabharat.

***

Off-topic but at least about Iraq, the NYT had this analysis bit recently (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/05/15/news/insurgents.php) Kinda bewildered about the approach used by Iraqi insurgents, that they're disregarding everything learned in past guerilla wars, are r unconcerned with winning popular support, etc. Offhand, I think the NYT writer is grappling with a real phenom here, but there's a certain ideological blindness that keeps him from even starting to figure out why. Comments?