Iraqi Oil Workers Strike [Archive]

xnj

18th July 2005, 17:14

Iraqi Oil Workers Hold 24-hour Strike - Oil Exports Shut Down
For Immediate Release Sunday July 17th 2005

15,000 Southern Oil Company workers from the General Union of Oil Employees - Iraq's largest independent union - began a 24-hour strike today, cutting most oil exports from the south of Iraq.

The strike is in support of demands made by Basra Governor Mohammadal-Waili - reflective of the wishes of the vast majority of Basra's residents - for a higher percentage of Southern oil revenue to be ploughed back into Basra's local economy. Basra's sewage system, electricity grid and medical services are still damaged and running at limited capacity. Despite being the capital of Iraq's oil reserves, the governorate is still struggling with entrenched poverty, malnutrition and an unemployment rate of 40%.
General Union of Oil Employees in Basra (http://www.basraoilunion.org/2005/07/iraqi-oil-workers-hold-24-hour-strike.html)

We see it as our duty to defend the country's resources. We reject and will oppose all moves to privatise our oil industry and national resources. We regard this privatisation as a form of neo-colonialism, an attempt to impose a permanent economic occupation to follow the military occupation.

The occupation has deliberately fomented a sectarian division of Sunni and Shia. We never knew this sort of division before. Our families intermarried, we lived and worked together. And today we are resisting this brutal occupation together, from Falluja to Najaf to Sadr City. The resistance to the occupation forces is a God-given right of Iraqis, and we, as a union, see ourselves as a necessary part of this resistance - although we will fight using our industrial power, our collective strength as a union, and as a part of civil society which needs to grow in order to defeat both still-powerful Saddamist elites and the foreign occupation of our country.

Bush and Blair should remember that those who voted in last month's elections in Iraq are as hostile to the occupation as those who boycotted them. Those who claim to represent the Iraqi working class while calling for the occupation to stay a bit longer, due to "fears of civil war", are in fact speaking only for themselves and the minority of Iraqis whose interests are dependent on the occupation.

We as a union call for the withdrawal of foreign occupation forces and their military bases. We don't want a timetable - this is a stalling tactic. We will solve our own problems. We are Iraqis, we know our country and we can take care of ourselves. We have the means, the skills and resources to rebuild and create our own democratic society.
Leave our country now (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1417222,00.html) by Hassan Juma'a Awad, GUOE president

Severian

19th July 2005, 02:08

The bosses admit that 15,000 workers struck and shut down oil exports and production. (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/worldbiz/archives/2005/07/18/2003264059)

Some more information on the workers' movement in Iraq:

Awad of the oil workers union and some leaders of other unions,visit U.S., speaks against occupation (http://www.occupationwatch.org/headlines/archives/2005/06/a_view_from_ira.html)

Iraq union leaders speak against occupation, describe situation to U.S. audience. - Part 1 (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0506/S00289.htm)
Part 2 (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0506/S00335.htm)

An old post with some links for more background info on workers' struggles in Iraq (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=24772&hl=worker)

Those who have no confidence in the working class anyway, will dismiss this as less glamorous than guns or car-bombs. But these are the actions that the workers' organizations in Iraq have chosen.

redstar2000

19th July 2005, 03:18

Originally posted by Severian
Those who have no confidence in the working class anyway, will dismiss this as less glamorous than guns or car-bombs.

There is nothing "glamorous" about guns or car-bombs...where'd you get a funny idea like that?

There is nothing "glorious" about the Iraqi resistance...it is hard and dirty work to drive imperialism out of Iraq.

I am glad to see that the trade unions have "opened another front" of resistance to the occupation. But I don't expect much to come of it unless they are also prepared to use "guns and car-bombs".

No "peaceful method" will ever defeat U.S. imperialism in Iraq or anyplace else.

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

h&s

19th July 2005, 16:12

I am glad to see that the trade unions have "opened another front" of resistance to the occupation. But I don't expect much to come of it unless they are also prepared to use "guns and car-bombs".
What? You seem to think that sectarian tactics are superior to the working class organising and taking power itself?
Strikes that do things such as cutting off the whole oil supply out from Iraq (if that happened) do far more than just bombing a few soldiers.
Violence will be needed, but working class power is more important.

redstar2000

19th July 2005, 17:37

You seem to think that sectarian tactics are superior to the working class organising and taking power itself?

Come now. Do you really expect us to believe that the Iraqi working class, as obviously backward as it must be, is going to "take power" in this century?

Do you really think that Iraq is "ready" to make the transition to communism...or even Leninist socialism?

Do you imagine that a working class that still believes in family, clan, and Allah is fit to rule itself?

Most ordinary people in Iraq have mind-sets that are closer to the 11th century than to the 21st. They have an incredibly long period of development to go through before communism is "on the agenda" there.

Don't get me wrong...a despotism of labor aristocrats would be preferable to the occupation. Anything will be better than the occupation.

But to speak of workers' power in Iraq is just fantasy at this point.

By the way, if the strike is prolonged and oil exports grind to a complete halt, look for the occupation and its quislings to import scabs from Kuwait, "Saudi" Arabia, and perhaps even the United States itself.

If the oil workers use "guns and car-bombs" against the scabs, will they be "guilty" of "sectarian tactics"? :lol:

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

Anarchist Freedom

19th July 2005, 17:48

Scabs get stabbed or in this case car bombed.

Severian

19th July 2005, 18:33

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 08:18 PM
There is nothing "glorious" about the Iraqi resistance...it is hard and dirty work to drive imperialism out of Iraq.
LOL! No, it's only hard, dirty, and dangerous if you're doing it yourself.

"Armed struggle" is exciting and glamourous...if you're sitting safe behind your computer, telling workers on the other side of the world what tactics to use.

Based on ABC-of-Marxism truisms. Rather than the detailed, concrete examination of the concrete conditions, which is necessary in order to know what to do here and now.

(Really, there's no way even someone knowledgeable can accurately know what tactics are correct for a struggle they're not actively involved in.)

Do you really expect us to believe that the Iraqi working class, as obviously backward as it must be, is going to "take power" in this century?

Yes. Governments of workers and farmers have taken power in countries far more economically backward than Iraq, and carried out profound revolutionary-democratic measures, begun the fight for socialism, and most importantly aided the world revolution....while in contrast you'd have a hard time finding examples of thoroughgoing bourgeois-led revolutions in the past century.

More revolutions like Cuba's bring revolution in the First World - which is, yes, necessary for building socialism and communism - closer; more Ba'athist or Taliban-like regimes won't.

The Iraqi working class is "backward" in organization and consciousness due to decades of Ba'athist repression which made all workers' organization impossible...struggles like this strike are essential to workers beginning to recover from that hideous defeat. (That defeat was, incidentally, made possible by the treacherous role of Stalinism...which is thankfully much weakened now.)

Martin Blank

19th July 2005, 19:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 12:37 PM
Come now. Do you really expect us to believe that the Iraqi working class, as obviously backward as it must be, is going to "take power" in this century?

Do you really think that Iraq is "ready" to make the transition to communism...or even Leninist socialism?

Do you imagine that a working class that still believes in family, clan, and Allah is fit to rule itself?

Most ordinary people in Iraq have mind-sets that are closer to the 11th century than to the 21st. They have an incredibly long period of development to go through before communism is "on the agenda" there.

Don't get me wrong...a despotism of labor aristocrats would be preferable to the occupation. Anything will be better than the occupation.

But to speak of workers' power in Iraq is just fantasy at this point.

By the way, if the strike is prolonged and oil exports grind to a complete halt, look for the occupation and its quislings to import scabs from Kuwait, "Saudi" Arabia, and perhaps even the United States itself.

If the oil workers use "guns and car-bombs" against the scabs, will they be "guilty" of "sectarian tactics"? :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
I think these comments betray a real ignorance of the situation in Iraq, RedStar. You are letting the bourgeoisie think for you, whether you know it or not.

I suggest you look into the work of the Worker-Communist Party of Iraq (http://www.wpiraq.net/english/) and the Federation of Workers' Councils and Unions of Iraq (http://www.uuiraq.org/).

In terms of this thread, I am with Severian ... in principle. In terms of Iraq, the League stands with the FWCUI.

Below is the FWCUI statement on the Basra oil strike, and a photo.

Miles

==============================

Call on the oil workers in Basra

For so many days the protests of oil workers in Basra carried on demanding their annual payables and rejection of the management decision to deduct %20 of their allowances. Earlier on the workers forced the management to negotiate their demands after facing a strike by hundreds of workers who threatened to go on general strike and halt the production down if the management wouldn’t respond.

The management resorted to their assistants in what is so called the southern oil trade union who promised to respond to their demands however they hindered the workers efforts instead. At the same time the management resort to procrastination and postponement and tried to mislead the workers by telling them that the government is the reason behind these issues and they are standing by the workers for their demands.

With the strikers continue raising their demands, the political powers and parties who propagandize for Federalism, these right wing reactionaries that took over the power through fraud and deception procedures called it elections; have intervened to carry on a propaganda for their project to high jack and endorsing the workers cause to their own issues that aim to divide the society in the name of federalism and materialize their domination.

Our federation slogan is always “the strength of the working class in its integration and unity” and this slogan was proven throughout the history of workers struggle, whereas the calling for federalism parties, telling the workers that federalism will lead to an equal distribution of wealth especially oil revenue among the people and bring prosperity.

On the other hand these same parties and powers seek working class fragmentation and carry on a massive operation of robbery in Iraq’s modern history.

The oil workers of Basra stand in the front lint of the movement, and their rights and demands will prevail throughout their unity.

Long live worker class unity!
Long live worker cause!
Down With the Reactionary Federalism Project!

Falah Alwan
President of
Federation of Worker Councils and Unions in Iraq
July 18, 2005

----------

http://www.wpiraq.net/arabic/Album/images/Oil2.jpg

Severian

19th July 2005, 20:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 12:40 PM
(From the FCUI statement)
With the strikers continue raising their demands, the political powers and parties who propagandize for Federalism, these right wing reactionaries that took over the power through fraud and deception procedures called it elections; have intervened to carry on a propaganda for their project to high jack and endorsing the workers cause to their own issues that aim to divide the society in the name of federalism and materialize their domination.
Well now this is an interesting question. I was wondering whether the federation demand was actually progressive (though inclined to support a workers' mass action regardless of disagreement over demands.)

And this al-Waili or Waeli, the governor mentioned in the earlier statement as promoting this demand, is a figure close to the Sadrists. A theocratic reactionary governing in uneasy cooperation with the Brits. (All the major candidates in the Basra regional elections were apparently theocrats. Despite Basra's history as a relatively secular and cosmopolitan city, and a center of the workers' movement in Iraq.)

And here the FCUI is saying this represents an attempt to divert an ongoing workers' struggle in a direction proposed by this reactionary.

JC1

19th July 2005, 23:22

Do you really think that Iraq is "ready" to make the transition to communism...or even Leninist socialism?

Do you imagine that a working class that still believes in family, clan, and Allah is fit to rule itself?

This is non-sense. Iraq , with the exception of the kurdish north, is a largly Urban Country. And the fact that the mass workers orginizations are the only centralizied resistence thus far, its not too great a a bet to summize they have a chance of wining.

redstar2000

20th July 2005, 06:26

Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)"Armed struggle" is exciting and glamorous...if you're sitting safe behind your computer, telling workers on the other side of the world what tactics to use.

Based on ABC-of-Marxism truisms.[/b]

I think that's the real source of your enmity towards my views, Severian. That "ABC-of-Marxism" stuff is like a pebble in your shoe...and every time you try to get rid of it, I'm the one who puts it right back in there.

I have, in fact, never characterized armed struggle as "exciting" or "glamorous" in any fashion.

All I have said is that armed struggle has a chance to work...and "peaceful methods" don't!

Your inference that I can say these things because "I'm safe behind my computer" (that is, that I'm a "coward") is utterly contemptible!

You are just as "safe" as I am -- and yet you fear to admit the truth about "peaceful methods" of struggle...how wretchedly inadequate they have always been. And always will be.

Neither of us are being consulted by the Iraqis -- it is not a matter of either of us "telling them what to do". That's just another Trotskyist fantasy.

But what about telling the people on this board the simple truth?

That's pretty basic, isn't it?

How much "courage" does that take?

Really, there's no way even someone knowledgeable can accurately know what tactics are correct for a struggle they're not actively involved in.

No shit. And even people who are "involved in the struggle" often fuck up and get it wrong.

Do you actually even have something besides platitudes to offer on this question? Or is it your position that "whatever a trade union (or its leadership?) decides to do, that's ok with me."???

They're workers, ain't they?

Yes. Governments of workers and farmers have taken power in countries far more economically backward than Iraq, and carried out profound revolutionary-democratic measures, begun the fight for socialism, and most importantly aided the world revolution....while in contrast you'd have a hard time finding examples of thoroughgoing bourgeois-led revolutions in the past century.

What those "governments of workers and farmers" (they were neither) have done is "clear the way" for modern bourgeois regimes in those countries -- Cuba is the only remaining arrow in your quiver at this point...and, at least to my eyes, it's starting to look rather crooked.

To speak of any of those other regimes as "beginning the fight for socialism" is just more fantasy.

And yes, they have advanced the cause of proletarian revolution...by weakening our own imperialists. Unfortunately, the effect so far has also been weak...workers in the imperialist countries still think they're backing a winner.

Until that changes, nothing will change!

That defeat was, incidentally, made possible by the treacherous role of Stalinism...which is thankfully much weakened now.

Yeah, blame Joe...or his followers. The movement of history is due to...villains.

Originally posted by [email protected]
I think these comments betray a real ignorance of the situation in Iraq, RedStar. You are letting the bourgeoisie think for you, whether you know it or not.

Of course I am ignorant of "the situation in Iraq"...as are we all. I don't live there; I don't speak Arabic; the only even half-way reliable sources available to any of us are Iraqis who live in exile in the "west" and tell us what their families still in Iraq think about what's happening there.

And, of course, "manifestos"...endless manifestos. Pages and pages (or screens and screens) full of...promises.

Are any of them true? How would I (or you) know?

I'm willing to give "the benefit of the doubt" to any Iraqi group not collaborating with the occupation. I've already said that I'm glad to see the oil workers strike. I hope they stay out "until hell freezes over".

I hope they join the resistance! And if they capture a leading role in it, so much the better.

That's not what Severian (and some others here) want -- they want the resistance to surrender and accept the power of the quisling regime...and then use "peaceful methods" to struggle against it and the permanent U.S. occupation that will support it.

If anyone is "tailing the bourgeoisie" in this controversy, I think it is pretty clearly not me.

JC1
This is nonsense. Iraq , with the exception of the Kurdish north, is a largely Urban Country.

Yeah...an urban country where nearly everyone believes in family, clan, and Allah.

Bet your rent money on Leninist socialism in Iraq -- and then start looking for a comfortable sidewalk to sleep on.

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

Martin Blank

20th July 2005, 06:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 01:26 AM
Of course I am ignorant of "the situation in Iraq"...as are we all. I don't live there; I don't speak Arabic; the only even half-way reliable sources available to any of us are Iraqis who live in exile in the "west" and tell us what their families still in Iraq think about what's happening there.

And, of course, "manifestos"...endless manifestos. Pages and pages (or screens and screens) full of...promises.

Are any of them true? How would I (or you) know?

I'm willing to give "the benefit of the doubt" to any Iraqi group not collaborating with the occupation. I've already said that I'm glad to see the oil workers strike. I hope they stay out "until hell freezes over".

I hope they join the resistance! And if they capture a leading role in it, so much the better.

That's not what Severian (and some others here) want -- they want the resistance to surrender and accept the power of the quisling regime...and then use "peaceful methods" to struggle against it and the permanent U.S. occupation that will support it.

If anyone is "tailing the bourgeoisie" in this controversy, I think it is pretty clearly not me.
Not all of us are ignorant of the situation, RedStar. I talk periodically with the comrades of the WCPI in Baghdad, as well as with their comrades in other parts of the world. As well, we have a comrade who has a fair-to-decent grasp of Arabic, so we can compare the original documentation and conversations to English translations.

As for joining the "resistance", I would rather see these brothers and sisters join the developing armed workers' self-defense that already exists in Baghdad and Kirkuk. There have been instances already where these self-defense units have clashed with other elements of the "resistance" -- those that have no qualms about killing civilians -- and have defeated them. But these incidents are secondary to the task of these bodies: securing working-class areas of Iraq from intervention by the occupation forces.

And, finally, I did not accuse you of "tailing the bourgeoisie". I did say that you were accepting the propaganda that the imperialists are telling you as good coin, and thus are letting them "think for you". It happens ... to all of us.

Miles

Severian

20th July 2005, 09:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 11:26 PM
Do you actually even have something besides platitudes to offer on this question?
That's rich, when all you have to say is that armed struggle is needed (no shit.) If that's not a platitude, what is?

No, I don't have anything more concrete to say about what tactics are correct for workers facing the current situation in Iraq. Maybe their tactics are bad.....but I am on their side regardless. That's kinda what class consciousness is all about. "Which side are you on?"

What those "governments of workers and farmers" (they were neither) have done is "clear the way" for modern bourgeois regimes in those countries

Heh. Suppose I concede, for the sake of argument, that all they've done is carry out bourgeois-democratic revolutions.

That's still a lot more than the bourgeoisie has done, anyplace, in the last century. So why do you keep looking for bourgeois revolutionaries, so desperately that you're willing to latch on to the Ba'athist-Zarqawi alliance?

I'd suggest that it's because you're still captive to one of the basic political theories of Stalinism, which you learned in your Maoist youth. The two-stage theory of revolution, where the "national bourgeoisie" is supposed to lead the first revolution, to be followed by a prolonged period of capitalist development.

Chiang Kai-Shek was one of the first candidates for this job. And frankly, even he was better than any of the people you've nominated for it in the 21st century.

Cuba is the only remaining arrow in your quiver at this point.

What do mean, left? Do you think I ever placed any confidence in any of the late, unlamented Stalinist regimes? (Though you once upon a time did, didn't you?) Do you think I was even the tiniest bit upset when the Berlin Wall fell? What "arrows" do you think I've lost?

..and, at least to my eyes, it's starting to look rather crooked.

Which says more about your eyes than about Cuba; you failed miserably in your attempt to show that Cuba was moving towards capitalism - a number of peices of evidence on this were presented, and they all pointed the opposite way.

That's not what Severian (and some others here) want -- they want the resistance to surrender and accept the power of the quisling regime...and then use "peaceful methods" to struggle against it and the permanent U.S. occupation that will support it.

Bubba, I don't wnat the Ba'athist-Islamist resistance, or any other mass-murdering enemies of the working class, to do anything but eat shit and die. I certainly have no tactical advice for them, nor would I even if I lived in Iraq and had the detailed knowledge required.

No, not even, especially. What could I say?

"Comrade, if you come back Thursday night, you can blow up more people. This street's always busier then."

Or maybe:

"Are you going to saw my head off with that knife? Are you sure it's dull enough?"

h&s

20th July 2005, 16:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 04:37 PM
Come now. Do you really expect us to believe that the Iraqi working class, as obviously backward as it must be, is going to "take power" in this century?

Do you really think that Iraq is "ready" to make the transition to communism...or even Leninist socialism?

Do you imagine that a working class that still believes in family, clan, and Allah is fit to rule itself?

Most ordinary people in Iraq have mind-sets that are closer to the 11th century than to the 21st. They have an incredibly long period of development to go through before communism is "on the agenda" there.

What? These are massive generalisations. How did you make them? You see a few Iraqis on the TV and you think that they are all the same?
How can you classify a whole country's working class as being 'backward'?
Just because they (like most people) don't see left-wing politics in the way you do you are prepared to completely abandon them and let them suffer because you want to see imperialism defeated at any cost?
The fact that a working class exists in Iraq allows them to take over, regardless of how 'developed' they are.

coda

20th July 2005, 18:15

the left movement in iraq opposses the armed resistance as well as the occupation.

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/15/news-smyth.php

http://www.broadleft.org/iq.htm

http://www.workersliberty.org/node/view/2274

Class struggle: "We don't support the US's war and we don't support the US's peace"

redstar2000

20th July 2005, 18:29

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+--> (CommunistLeague)As for joining the "resistance", I would rather see these brothers and sisters join the developing armed workers' self-defense that already exists in Baghdad and Kirkuk...But these incidents are secondary to the task of these bodies: securing working-class areas of Iraq from intervention by the occupation forces.[/b]

This is interesting information...but it suggests a crucial difference between the resistance and these workers' "self-defense" units.

What do self-defense groups do? They defend themselves, right? In the event of an attack by the occupation forces on a particular workplace or on a particular neighborhood, they presumably offer some kind of armed resistance. (Do they do likewise against quisling forces?)

Very good.

Now, what does the resistance do? It does not wait for the enemy to attack, but rather it attacks the enemy...even inside the "Green Zone".

See the difference?

You know, going all the way back to the Paris Commune, there has been a world-wide tradition in the working class of "self-defense"...and a corresponding marked reluctance to take the initiative and carry the war to the class enemy. From the time that Engels bemoaned the failure of the Commune to march on Versailles to the present day, there must have been dozens or even hundreds of incidents where workers have seized some city or some part of a city and attempted to "defend themselves" against overwhelming force.

What followed was usually characterized as a massacre. It usually was.

Consequently, I look with a jaundiced eye on "workers' self-defense committees" in Iraq...because I know from the history of working class struggles that it's not enough to win.

It's good that they have them and I hope they have more of them...but until they take the offensive against the occupation/quisling forces, they are not going to really "make a difference".

Originally posted by [email protected]
That's still a lot more than the bourgeoisie has done, anyplace, in the last century.

So what? The effect is the same. In one form or another, it's "1789" for all of those places.

The two-stage theory of revolution, where the "national bourgeoisie" is supposed to lead the first revolution, to be followed by a prolonged period of capitalist development.

Call it a modified "two-stage theory". Dissident elements from the middle and upper classes lead peasant insurrections. Following victory, they introduce a long period of (state capitalist) economic development which generates a modern bourgeoisie (and a modern proletariat).

That is what has demonstrably happened, Trotsky's self-serving fantasies of "permanent revolution" notwithstanding. Those countries did not and will not "press on" to socialism because they cannot do it...the objective material conditions were not and are not developed enough to permit that.

Bubba, I don't want the Ba'athist-Islamist resistance, or any other mass-murdering enemies of the working class, to do anything but eat shit and die.

My view precisely...but of the occupation/quisling forces instead.

One can tell a lot from the enemies that someone chooses.

h&s
What? These are massive generalisations. How did you make them? You see a few Iraqis on the TV and you think that they are all the same?

I don't own a dummyvision set...but it's true that my impressions are gathered from "western" observers in Iraq -- and it's certainly possible that they could be full of shit.

What are your sources...and what do they say? Are the people in Iraq sitting around reading Arabic translations of Marx and Engels by candlelight?

What's the equivalent of RevLeft on the Baghdad internet?

Are kids tagging the walls of Basra or Kirkuk with "ALLAH SUCKS!" graffiti?

Just because they (like most people) don't see left-wing politics in the way you do, you are prepared to completely abandon them and let them suffer because you want to see imperialism defeated at any cost?

I'm afraid that there's nothing I (or you) can do to alleviate their suffering...except build a powerful anti-imperialist movement in the U.S. and the U.K. that would help force the imperialists to withdraw.

Expressions of sympathy have no effect on the situation whatsoever.

The fact that a working class exists in Iraq allows them to take over, regardless of how 'developed' they are.

Sure, in a technical sense that's possible, after the imperialists are driven out.

But if they did "seize power", I doubt that they could hold onto it for more than a few weeks -- the clans would squabble over the spoils and a despot would emerge...and put them back on the path to modern capitalism.

Material reality prevails!

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

Martin Blank

20th July 2005, 19:14

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jul 20 2005, 01:29 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Jul 20 2005, 01:29 PM)
CommunistLeague
As for joining the "resistance", I would rather see these brothers and sisters join the developing armed workers' self-defense that already exists in Baghdad and Kirkuk...But these incidents are secondary to the task of these bodies: securing working-class areas of Iraq from intervention by the occupation forces.

This is interesting information...but it suggests a crucial difference between the resistance and these workers' "self-defense" units.

What do self-defense groups do? They defend themselves, right? In the event of an attack by the occupation forces on a particular workplace or on a particular neighborhood, they presumably offer some kind of armed resistance. (Do they do likewise against quisling forces?)

Very good.

Now, what does the resistance do? It does not wait for the enemy to attack, but rather it attacks the enemy...even inside the "Green Zone".

See the difference?

You know, going all the way back to the Paris Commune, there has been a world-wide tradition in the working class of "self-defense"...and a corresponding marked reluctance to take the initiative and carry the war to the class enemy. From the time that Engels bemoaned the failure of the Commune to march on Versailles to the present day, there must have been dozens or even hundreds of incidents where workers have seized some city or some part of a city and attempted to "defend themselves" against overwhelming force.

What followed was usually characterized as a massacre. It usually was.

Consequently, I look with a jaundiced eye on "workers' self-defense committees" in Iraq...because I know from the history of working class struggles that it's not enough to win.

It's good that they have them and I hope they have more of them...but until they take the offensive against the occupation/quisling forces, they are not going to really "make a difference". [/b]
If I understand what you're asking, no, they are not guerrilla units ... at this time. They are having to fight two enemies -- the occupation soldiers and the fundamentalist gangs -- at the same time. They have not yet reached a point yet where they can stage anything more than tactical attacks and counterattacks, and they will not resort to individual terror tactics.

It must also be pointed out that the organized self-defense units often make ad hoc alliances with irregular workers' militia at various workplaces. But many of these workplaces are not at the point where they are ready to do more than defend. That's the problem, so to speak. These workplaces do not send delegates to the Workers' Councils, but will work with the self-defense groups on immediate problems. That's a political question dictating the military ones.

You're right to levy the warning about making the same mistake as the Communards. The problem with the analogy, though, is that the Parisian comrades had one advantage: Paris. They had Paris. The Iraqi comrades don't have Baghdad yet. How can you expect them to "march on Versailles" (the "Green Zone") without first having secured Paris (the rest of Baghdad)?

The warning is worthwhile, and I will pass your concerns on to the Iraqi comrades. When they reply, I'll post it here.

Miles

viva le revolution

20th July 2005, 22:18

Noble though their intentions may be, this action kind of resembles the syndicalist parties of the past. Although they are worth supporting but realistically speaking their chances of stopping the U.S occupation through these syndicalist-type actions is unrealistic given the ability of the U.S to bring in contractors and workers from the middle east, pakistan and india to take their place, given the potential billions to be usurped , replacing local workers with foriegn ones is not such an extreme measure. the only way the occupation will end is through confrontational action and violent insurrection.

Martin Blank

21st July 2005, 06:10

Originally posted by viva le [email protected] 20 2005, 05:18 PM
Noble though their intentions may be, this action kind of resembles the syndicalist parties of the past. Although they are worth supporting but realistically speaking their chances of stopping the U.S occupation through these syndicalist-type actions is unrealistic given the ability of the U.S to bring in contractors and workers from the middle east, pakistan and india to take their place, given the potential billions to be usurped , replacing local workers with foriegn ones is not such an extreme measure. the only way the occupation will end is through confrontational action and violent insurrection.
Let me relay a little story the Iraqi comrades told me about: Early on in the occupation, a group of glass workers (IIRC) began an informational picket demanding recognition of their union, negotiation of a contract, restoration of utility services, etc.

Occupation soldiers came to the picket and ordered the "strike" ended. They threatened to arrest the leaders and break the picket by bringing in scabs under their protection. They gave the worker two hours to comply.

When the occupation soldiers returned, along with a dozen scabs, they were confronted by the same workers. But, this time, the workers were armed. During those two hours, the workers left in small groups, went home, grabbed their Kalashnikovs, and returned to the picket. (Remember that just before the invasion, the Ba'athists were handing out automatic weapons like candy.) The Americans tried to act tough and intimidate the workers, but there were about 60 of them versus a grand total of about 20 soldiers and scabs.

Guess who won the day? Guess who still has their jobs to this day?

Miles

viva le revolution

21st July 2005, 10:43

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+Jul 21 2005, 05:10 AM--> (CommunistLeague @ Jul 21 2005, 05:10 AM)
viva le [email protected] 20 2005, 05:18 PM
Noble though their intentions may be, this action kind of resembles the syndicalist parties of the past. Although they are worth supporting but realistically speaking their chances of stopping the U.S occupation through these syndicalist-type actions is unrealistic given the ability of the U.S to bring in contractors and workers from the middle east, pakistan and india to take their place, given the potential billions to be usurped , replacing local workers with foriegn ones is not such an extreme measure. the only way the occupation will end is through confrontational action and violent insurrection.
Let me relay a little story the Iraqi comrades told me about: Early on in the occupation, a group of glass workers (IIRC) began an informational picket demanding recognition of their union, negotiation of a contract, restoration of utility services, etc.

Occupation soldiers came to the picket and ordered the "strike" ended. They threatened to arrest the leaders and break the picket by bringing in scabs under their protection. They gave the worker two hours to comply.

When the occupation soldiers returned, along with a dozen scabs, they were confronted by the same workers. But, this time, the workers were armed. During those two hours, the workers left in small groups, went home, grabbed their Kalashnikovs, and returned to the picket. (Remember that just before the invasion, the Ba'athists were handing out automatic weapons like candy.) The Americans tried to act tough and intimidate the workers, but there were about 60 of them versus a grand total of about 20 soldiers and scabs.

Guess who won the day? Guess who still has their jobs to this day?

Miles [/b]
So then it wasn't the strike but the threat of using arms that won the day! as you said the scabs would have been brought in but for the strikers that went home and brought out their kalashnikovs.
So you could say that the sight of workers striking was not as profound to the authorities as the sight of workers wielding kalashnikovs. Like i stated earlier neo-syndicalist strikes will not drive the U.S out but violent insurrection or atleast the spectre of it. it seems that even the workers you mention in your post understood this and decided to bring out the guns.

Martin Blank

21st July 2005, 10:52

Originally posted by viva le [email protected] 21 2005, 05:43 AM
So then it wasn't the strike but the threat of using arms that won the day! as you said the scabs would have been brought in but for the strikers that went home and brought out their kalashnikovs.
So you could say that the sight of workers striking was not as profound to the authorities as the sight of workers wielding kalashnikovs. Like i stated earlier neo-syndicalist strikes will not drive the U.S out but violent insurrection or atleast the spectre of it. it seems that even the workers you mention in your post understood this and decided to bring out the guns.
I would say that it took both to make it happen. The organization of these workers, combined with their willingness to defend themselves with arms in hand, was key for repelling the scabherding occupation troops. If it was only an unarmed picket, they would have slaughtered the workers; if it was only an armed rabble, they would have slaughtered the workers.

Miles

mo7amEd

21st July 2005, 15:50

ive read this thread, and as i understood it redstar thinks iraqis are some retarted stone age people that don't know anything apart from that God (dont know y he uses the word Allah, which in arabic means God, its like me typing in swedish and uses some english words) rules anything and therefore they should rely on him and lissen to all the Imams, Mullahs or Sheikhs or whatever and obey them to 100 percent like they were slaves.

i must say i agree with viva_le_revolution, the first step for Iraq is to get rid of the occupation, and the only way is with armed struggle.

mo7amEd

21st July 2005, 16:11

http://www.wpiraq.net/english/rebwar010803.htm

dont know if any1 published this, but this article shows the difference between the iraqi communst party and the woker-communist part of iraq

redstar2000

21st July 2005, 20:04

Originally posted by mo7amEd
ive read this thread, and as i understood it redstar thinks iraqis are some retarted stone age people that don't know anything...

Then you didn't understand what I wrote at all -- unless you think the 11th century is "the stone age".

I suspect that you are simply unfamiliar with the way that Marxists look at history. In our view, a people's culture ultimately derives from its level of technological development and the class structure that level of development has created.

(And by the way, this has nothing to do with "intelligence"...as far as we know, all living humans are born within a very narrow range of intellectual capabilities. To say that all people are equally intelligent is actually pretty close to the statistical truth of the matter.)

Modern technology -- and the scientific outlook that goes with it -- is very new to the Arab world (and the Muslim world).

For example, since you live in Sweden now, take a look at how most Swedes view "God" and compare that with how most Iraqis view "Allah". You ought to be able to see the enormous difference.

Do you know that only a few hundred years ago, Swedes were just like Iraqis now -- the Swedes fervently believed in their particular version of Christianity and were delighted to go to war for it. As soon as the concept of jihad was explained to them, they would have instantly understood and supported it.

That's not true anymore, is it? Modern Swedes probably think that religion is irrelevant to their lives...and jihad sounds like insanity to them.

Or consider the status of women. Iraq under Hussein actually granted more freedom to women than nearly all other Arab or Muslim states...but compare even Iraq at its best to Sweden. See the difference?

The point in my posts was that Iraqis as a people are in a different and earlier "epoch of production" than the modern capitalist countries. They must "catch up" before any ideas about socialism or communism can really make sense to them. Sure, any literate Iraqi can read an Arabic translation of Marx or Engels...and even like what s/he reads.

But if s/he went out and tried to "do communism" in Iraq, it wouldn't work. Most people there would be horrified by the atheism, would not understand why you shouldn't grant special privileges to members of your own family/clan, would not understand why you should take care of public property as if it were your own, etc.

Even in the most "advanced" capitalist countries, we westerners are not yet developed enough to understand communism well enough to "do it".

It might be another 50 or 100 years before we have communist revolutions in the "west"...before we finally understand enough to make it work.

Iraq is at a much earlier level...it might take another 50 years just for that country to get to where the U.S. was in 1933.

And even that can't be done until you defeat the American-British imperialists.

And that's why I support the resistance. Iraq cannot make any progress until the imperialists are expelled.

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

JC1

21st July 2005, 20:23

Then you didn't understand what I wrote at all -- unless you think the 11th century is "the stone age".

I suspect that you are simply unfamiliar with the way that Marxists look at history. In our view, a people's culture ultimately derives from its level of technological development and the class structure that level of development has created.

Actualy, those backwards views on the part of Iraqi's poverty and relation to Imperialism, not backward Technological Conditions. It has been pointed they have a up to date technological infastructure.

The reason Sweden is Sweden and Iraq is Iraq is not becuase there a semi-fuedal relations in Iraq, but Iraq lacks its "own" capital.

Iraq is not Nepal, and the conditions in non-imperialist countrys is not carbon copy.
You have admited that Iraq is a urban Country, and at the same time keep on jabering this very materialist analysis, but refuse to base youre analysis on the existing material conditions. So you have made youre own up.

mo7amEd

21st July 2005, 21:13

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jul 21 2005, 07:04 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Jul 21 2005, 07:04 PM)
mo7amEd
ive read this thread, and as i understood it redstar thinks iraqis are some retarted stone age people that don't know anything...

Then you didn't understand what I wrote at all -- unless you think the 11th century is "the stone age". [/b]
when u said 11th century i though u were exaggering, so i did the same.

I suspect that you are simply unfamiliar with the way that Marxists look at history. In our view, a people's culture ultimately derives from its level of technological development and the class structure that level of development has created.

(And by the way, this has nothing to do with "intelligence"...as far as we know, all living humans are born within a very narrow range of intellectual capabilities. To say that all people are equally intelligent is actually pretty close to the statistical truth of the matter.)

Modern technology -- and the scientific outlook that goes with it -- is very new to the Arab world (and the Muslim world).

For example, since you live in Sweden now, take a look at how most Swedes view "God" and compare that with how most Iraqis view "Allah". You ought to be able to see the enormous difference.

I am familiar with the way Marxists look at history.

What you are saying is that Sweden is secular society and Iraq is not. Yes I know that.

Do you know that only a few hundred years ago, Swedes were just like Iraqis now -- the Swedes fervently believed in their particular version of Christianity and were delighted to go to war for it. As soon as the concept of jihad was explained to them, they would have instantly understood and supported it.

That's not true anymore, is it? Modern Swedes probably think that religion is irrelevant to their lives...and jihad sounds like insanity to them.

Yes I am familiar to the Swedish history, when they used to burn "witches" etc.

Or consider the status of women. Iraq under Hussein actually granted more freedom to women than nearly all other Arab or Muslim states...but compare even Iraq at its best to Sweden. See the difference?

This is really no new information...

The point in my posts was that Iraqis as a people are in a different and earlier "epoch of production" than the modern capitalist countries. They must "catch up" before any ideas about socialism or communism can really make sense to them. Sure, any literate Iraqi can read an Arabic translation of Marx or Engels...and even like what s/he reads.

But if s/he went out and tried to "do communism" in Iraq, it wouldn't work. Most people there would be horrified by the atheism, would not understand why you shouldn't grant special privileges to members of your own family/clan, would not understand why you should take care of public property as if it were your own, etc.

You must not be attheist to be communist. And I know what you mean with Iraqis not prepared to "do Communism" as you call it. But saying that they live in an earlier epoc feels like a bit exaggaration. Sure they have been help back because of the occupations (Ottomans, Brits etc.) and because the dictatorship, but still there are alot secular people that could be convinced of Communism, and with knowledge I do believe you could make progress in Iraq.

Even in the most "advanced" capitalist countries, we westerners are not yet developed enough to understand communism well enough to "do it".

It might be another 50 or 100 years before we have communist revolutions in the "west"...before we finally understand enough to make it work.

Iraq is at a much earlier level...it might take another 50 years just for that country to get to where the U.S. was in 1933.

I don't know what you are saying, that America is more advanced in techologies or that they are more secular. 'Cause if you're saying they are more secular then Sweden must atleast be 100 years ahead of USA. In speeches Bush uses phrases like "God bless America" etc. In Sweden people would proberly wonder what that has to do with anything if our Prime Minister said so.

America is more secular than Iraq, but I wouldnt say that America is an secular nation.

[QUOTE]And even that can't be done until you defeat the American-British imperialists.

And that's why I support the resistance. Iraq cannot make any progress until the imperialists are expelled.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif[QUOTE]

I support the resistance because Iraq would be better without it. If an democracy would etablish it would be without the occupation.

h&s

22nd July 2005, 10:11

Sure, in a technical sense that's possible, after the imperialists are driven out.
Great. You support the failed Stalinist idea of revolution in two stages? How many people have suffered in the past due to that policy?
The fact is, and you know this as well as anyone else here does, that as soon as a revolution happens anywhere it will be invaded by imperialists.
Why waste the effort fighting them twice when you can do it in one go?

But if they did "seize power", I doubt that they could hold onto it for more than a few weeks -- the clans would squabble over the spoils and a despot would emerge...and put them back on the path to modern capitalism.
But if the working class took over, properly, how could that happen? The clans would have no power.

Severian

22nd July 2005, 14:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 01:23 PM
You have admited that Iraq is a urban Country, and at the same time keep on jabering this very materialist analysis, but refuse to base youre analysis on the existing material conditions. So you have made youre own up.
Yeah, exactly. There is reality nothing materialist about Redstar's seemingly super-materialist, even simplistically and mechanically materialist, approach. A materialist approach has to be based on facts about the material world not assumptions and preconceptions based on the contents of Redstar's head.

Severian

22nd July 2005, 15:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 11:10 PM
When the occupation soldiers returned, along with a dozen scabs, they were confronted by the same workers. But, this time, the workers were armed. During those two hours, the workers left in small groups, went home, grabbed their Kalashnikovs, and returned to the picket. (Remember that just before the invasion, the Ba'athists were handing out automatic weapons like candy.) The Americans tried to act tough and intimidate the workers, but there were about 60 of them versus a grand total of about 20 soldiers and scabs.
That's a very interesting account. I can easily see how the situation in Iraqi would lead all forces towards tending to resolve all questions by armed force, relatively quickly.

What were you referring to earlier, by "irregular workers' militia at various workplaces"? Does that relate to the tendency, in the immediate aftermath of the invasion, and maybe afterwards for all I know, to form armed groups to defend neighborhoods and workplaces from looting?