What is Reactionary? Or what is being Reactionary?

[FinnMacCool]

What do you think 'being reactionary' means or implies?

Here is the definition from dictionary.com


re·ac·tion·ar·y ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ksh-nr)
adj.
Characterized by reaction, especially opposition to progress or liberalism; extremely conservative.

n. pl. re·ac·tion·ar·ies
An opponent of progress or liberalism; an extreme conservative.

[Dyst]

I think of it as something which aims to compromise or shatter the working class' (or, perhaps, anyones) struggle for emancipation of themselves.

[The Grey Blur]

Anyone who wants to combat progression

[YKTMX]

Yes, it is opposition to progress but it's also a desire to return to the past.

So, the Nazis were both opposed to progress (socialism, Marxism) and also wanted to "return" to some imagined, utopian state wehre Aryans lived in idyllic little communities.

To use a more contemporary example: the Republicans want to stop "gay marriage" and "abolish" Roe vs. Wade.

[Ol' Dirty]

A person intent upon reacting against proggresive change/ revising (or abolishing) the status quo.

[emma_goldman]

Counter-revolutionary

Travels backward, the opposite of a progressive

Btw, if Con is the opposite of Pro, is Congress the opposite of progress? ;)

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 04:52 PM
Counter-revolutionary

Travels backward, the opposite of a progressive

Btw, if Con is the opposite of Pro, is Congress the opposite of progress? ;)
That was good. :)

:lol: :lol:

[Rawthentic]

Reactionaries I would say are those who are against revolutio or human progess and liberation. Police brutality is part of being reactionary and living in a reactionary regime. This regime in America may not seem blatanly reactionary, but I bet, and that goes for any American regime, that if the working class revolted and fought for liberation, they would immediately send for the pigs and the National Guard. Its the nature of capitalism

[Martin Blank]

Generally speaking, a reactionary is someone who holds to a perspective that is opposed to human progress and advancement. Because it is a broad perspective, it can develop in all manner of movements and political currents. The bourgeoisie does not have the monopoly on reaction by any means.

For example, I would argue that the leadership of the "resistance" in Iraq is composed of reactionary anti-imperialists. They are opposed to the U.S. occupation, yes, but the political program they offer as an alternative is reactionary: against real democracy, against secularism, against liberation from oppression and exploitation, etc. Similarly, within the anti-globalization movement, there are reactionary anti-capitalists: those who want to scrap modern technology and industry wholesale and return to the dull idyll of pre-capitalist existence.

As communists, revolutionary socialists, etc., we need to be on guard against reactionary elements attempting to sneak into movements against capitalism, imperialism, war, racism and the like. Broad-based movements often draw in people on the basis of a single issue, and so they do come to the movement with some backward views. Reactionaries who are allowed into these movements will play on those backward views and undermine or undercut socially progressive political currents.

Miles

[YKTMX]

but the political program they offer as an alternative is reactionary: against real democracy, against secularism, against liberation from oppression and exploitation, etc.

The resistance has never offered a coherent political programme, so I don't quite see how you've managed to divine all those intentions.

Looks like a rather poor state department press release.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 02:00 AM

but the political program they offer as an alternative is reactionary: against real democracy, against secularism, against liberation from oppression and exploitation, etc.

The resistance has never offered a coherent political programme, so I don't quite see how you've managed to divine all those intentions.

Looks like a rather poor state department press release.
You don't read much, do you? Or is it that you only read what makes you feel good? I get the weekly reports from the Iraqi "resistance", and even though the groups don't have one single ideology, they do all agree on some basic points.

I tend to think that the fact that the Fedayin Saddam issued a touching obituary for al-Zarqawi, calling him an "inspiration" in their "jihad" speaks volumes about the kind of Iraq they would build.

But then, you don't believe there is an Iraqi working class (or, at least, one that's independent of the Ba'athist unions), so I don't expect much from you but cheerleading for reaction, anyway.

Miles

[EusebioScrib]

Good examples of reactionaries are:

Primitivists
Fascists
Leninists(and all add on adjectives)
Religious

However reactionary can be a tricky term to use. As certain groups weren't always reactionary. For instance the Bolsheviks were progressive in 1917 because they were making a bourgeois revolution, yet became reactionary in the 70's etc. Christians were progressive in the Roman times helping bring down the Roman Empire. So it depends on the time and place on wether or not someone is reactionary.

However Primitivists are always reactionary.

[peaccenicked]

Reactionary is a word best used in the heat of the moment, as a category it tends to be a mere denunciation. However, in a debate that involves a pertinent issue, if one observes a response that shows prejudice rather than objectivity the word reactionary is appropiate. This might just be a matter of taste.

[EwokUtopia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 05:28 AM
However Primitivists are always reactionary.
...Says the transhumanist. Class exploitation never existed before civilization, and if we do merge our humanity with our technology, the most technologically advanced "people" will just be the new technocratic bourgeoisie. I am by no means a hardcore primitivist (would I be on the computer right now if I was?) but I do agree that industrial technology, particularly technology dependant on oil or coal or any filth like that, is the greatest threat to the world, and all of its species and classes. I, for one, am sick of breathing poison and drinking acid. Does this make me a reactionary?

[EusebioScrib]

Class exploitation never existed before civilization,

Oh, so because classes didn't exist before technology justifies the primmies? That's just dumb :wacko:


and if we do merge our humanity with our technology, the most technologically advanced "people" will just be the new technocratic bourgeoisie.

Oh, so technology breeds classes? Primmie. :lol: :lol: :lol:



but I do agree that industrial technology, particularly technology dependant on oil or coal or any filth like that, is the greatest threat to the world, and all of its species and classes. I, for one, am sick of breathing poison and drinking acid. Does this make me a reactionary?

Global warming is a threat to the world, I never claimed otherwise. Your justifying your arguement by making outrageous and baseless claims. You clearly have no idea what transhumanism or primitivism is.

Primitivists are totally against technology and civilization. They want to take society back to the stone age and live in hunter gatherer socities. The ELF even wrote an article where they said AIDs was a great disease because it would reduce the population so that we could have primitivism.

Primitivism IS reactionary because it wants to take us back to an age which is obsolete. However, they are not a threat at all. The working class realizes that these guys are wackos :wacko:

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+Jun 16 2006, 06:20 PM--> (CommunistLeague @ Jun 16 2006, 06:20 PM)
[email protected] 16 2006, 02:00 AM

but the political program they offer as an alternative is reactionary: against real democracy, against secularism, against liberation from oppression and exploitation, etc.

The resistance has never offered a coherent political programme, so I don't quite see how you've managed to divine all those intentions.

Looks like a rather poor state department press release.
You don't read much, do you? Or is it that you only read what makes you feel good? I get the weekly reports from the Iraqi "resistance", and even though the groups don't have one single ideology, they do all agree on some basic points.

I tend to think that the fact that the Fedayin Saddam issued a touching obituary for al-Zarqawi, calling him an "inspiration" in their "jihad" speaks volumes about the kind of Iraq they would build.

But then, you don't believe there is an Iraqi working class (or, at least, one that's independent of the Ba'athist unions), so I don't expect much from you but cheerleading for reaction, anyway.

Miles [/b]
Yes, there is "one thing" that unites them, opposition to the coalition forces. I don't know anything about the "Fedayin (sic) Saddam", or what the hell they had to say about Zarqawi. Saddam loyalists are a very small part of the resistance. There are certainly ex-Baathists in the resistance, but you have to remember, Saddam has lots of enemies within the Ba'ath Party as well.

I know most of the resistance groups hated Zarqawi's small grouping and in fact had clashes with them on many occasions.

In any case, as I said, my solidarity with the oppressed isn't contigent upon their "political programme". I would have supported the right of the NLF to fight the Americans in Vietnam even though they intended a dreadful ultra-Stalinist regime.

I support Miles would have been "neutral" in that conflict as well.

As for the "trade unions", yes, you have anticipated my reaction. The IFTU is an occupation front. And for trade unions who collaborate, I offer no solidarity whatsoever.

[EwokUtopia]

On your list of reactionary ideals, I believe it was Fascism, primitivism, leninism and religion, you only cited that primitivism was allways reactionary, thereby implying that you see primitivism as the greatest threat to leftists.

Yeah.......I think fascism is a tad worse.......wouldnt you agree?

And of course class didnt exist before society, do you see 5% of chimpanzee's exploiting the rest? that is essentially our history (unless you are a creationist), and im not saying we should return to it (or even that a return is possible) but I am just making a point that primitive society can not be reactionaty because there is no concept of a class system in pre-civilization humanity. and of course if some people become post-humans and the vast majority of mankind stays true humans, the technologically superior people will gain an upper hand over the rest of their former species and creat a new class system, one so rigid that it can not even be said that the lower class is even a part of the dominant species any more. Or do you plan on transhumanizing 6 billion people at once, despite whether or not they want to?


We either need clean, responsible, and geographically limited industry (keep the world green, and not make it a global city) or we need no industry at all. My views arent that people have gone to far, they are that humans are not ready to have as much power as we do now. People naturally evolve as they learn more, but in the past hundred and fifty years, our technology has advanced WAY beyond how much people themselves have.

[EusebioScrib]

On your list of reactionary ideals, I believe it was Fascism, primitivism, leninism and religion, you only cited that primitivism was allways reactionary, thereby implying that you see primitivism as the greatest threat to leftists.

I never said it was the greatest threat (yea...all 10 primmies out there) but that it is always reactionary, or rather was.

Primitivism only became an ideology recently and ever since it's existance it has wanted to go backwards. So it has always been reactionary.


Yeah.......I think fascism is a tad worse.......wouldnt you agree?

I'd rather have healthcare and electricity in Fascism (at least there is a hope) than death and starvation in primitivism. I have a chance in Fascism, none in primitivism.


And of course class didnt exist before society, do you see 5% of chimpanzee's exploiting the rest? that is essentially our history (unless you are a creationist), and im not saying we should return to it (or even that a return is possible) but I am just making a point that primitive society can not be reactionaty because there is no concept of a class system in pre-civilization humanity

The question of classes is irrelevant in this question. Primitivism is not a mode of production and pre-history is not "primitivism." Primitivism is wanting to take an industrial society back to the stone-age, which will cause massive starvation and death. It is by far the most supreme example of "survival of the fittest."

Reactionary doesn't imply classes. It doesn't matter wether one wants or doesnt want classes. What matters is where they want humanity. Primitivists want no classes, but want to take us back to our early days, which is reactionary.

Progress doesn't = no classes. The bourgeoisie are more progressive than primitivists.


and of course if some people become post-humans and the vast majority of mankind stays true humans, the technologically superior people will gain an upper hand over the rest of their former species and creat a new class system, one so rigid that it can not even be said that the lower class is even a part of the dominant species any more. Or do you plan on transhumanizing 6 billion people at once, despite whether or not they want to?

Again, you don't understand transhumanism. We cannot transcend the human condition unless we are in communism. It is the process of the human race, not of an individual. It is our evolution as a species when we are united entirely. Humans, while in internal struggle, cannot transcend human.


We either need clean, responsible, and geographically limited industry (keep the world green, and not make it a global city) or we need no industry at all. My views arent that people have gone to far, they are that humans are not ready to have as much power as we do now. People naturally evolve as they learn more, but in the past hundred and fifty years, our technology has advanced WAY beyond how much people themselves have.

So humans are incapable of running an industrial society? Wrong. We are fully capable of doing it. It's not a matter of capability. It's a matter of motive. The motive of such industry is to make a profit. If industry is clean it is more expensive, if it is dirty it is cheap.

[Comrade Yev]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 05:52 PM
Counter-revolutionary

Travels backward, the opposite of a progressive

Btw, if Con is the opposite of Pro, is Congress the opposite of progress? ;)
It'd actually be "regress". ;)

Kudos to you anyway.

[EwokUtopia]

Well, would you force every human to join this posthuman single entity? because I can damn well assure you that not that many people would like to have their consciousness be merely a small part of an utterly united human race. And what then would the post-human do with the humans who didnt join the bandwagon? you have just created an Ubermanschen and an Untermenschen, I think you would have a very good chance of survival in fascism after all.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by YKTMX+Jun 18 2006, 08:27 AM--> (YKTMX @ Jun 18 2006, 08:27 AM)Yes, there is "one thing" that unites them, opposition to the coalition forces.[/b]

And? Under this logic, the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, or on July 7, 2005, were supportable. Is this your view?


Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 08:27 AM
I don't know anything about the "Fedayin (sic) Saddam", or what the hell they had to say about Zarqawi.

Then you must not be paying attention to the situation in Iraq.


Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 08:27 AM
Saddam loyalists are a very small part of the resistance. There are certainly ex-Baathists in the resistance, but you have to remember, Saddam has lots of enemies within the Ba'ath Party as well.

The known organizations involved in the Iraqi resistance are:

1. Al-Faruq Brigades
2. Ansar al-Islam
3. Armed Vanguards of the Second Mohammed Army
4. Army of Mohammed
5. Army of Right
6. Black Banner Organization
7. General Command of the Armed Forces, Resistance and Liberation in Iraq
8. Iraqi National Islamic Resistance
9. Iraqi Resistance Brigades
10. Iraq's Revolutionaries
11. Islamic Armed Group of al-Qaida, Fallujah branch
12. Jihad Cells
13. Liberating Iraq's Army
14. Mujahideen Battalions of the Salafi Group of Iraq
15. Muslim Fighters of the Victorious Sect (aka, Mujaheddin of the Victorious Sect)
16. Muslim Youth
17. Nasserites
18. National Iraqi Commandos Front
19. New Return
20. Patriotic Front
21. Political Media Organ of the Ba‘ath Party (Jihaz al-Iilam al-Siasi lil hizb al-Baath)
22. Popular Resistance for the Liberation of Iraq
23. Return
24. Saddam's Fedayeen (Fedayin Saddam)
25. Salafist Jihad Group
26. Snake Party
27. Sons of Islam
28. Wakefulness and Holy War
29. White Flags

Of these 29 groups, 16 are Muslim fundamentalist and 11 are known to be Ba'athist/Nasserist. That leaves two (2) organizations who don't have a known reactionary program.


Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 08:27 AM
I know most of the resistance groups hated Zarqawi's small grouping and in fact had clashes with them on many occasions.

You're about two years behind the times. Since late 2004, most of the insurgent organizations had made peace with al-Zarqawi and were working side-by-side with him.


Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 08:27 AM
In any case, as I said, my solidarity with the oppressed isn't contigent upon their "political programme". I would have supported the right of the NLF to fight the Americans in Vietnam even though they intended a dreadful ultra-Stalinist regime.

We're not arguing about the right of an organization to oppose imperialism. Yes, each of these 29 groups has the right to oppose the U.S. occupation of Iraq. What we are talking about here is whether communists give these organizations political support, which you do and I do not.


Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 08:27 AM
I support Miles would have been "neutral" in that conflict as well.

Typical Trotskyist "either-or" understanding of the world. You still do not get it. There are more than two sides in this conflict.


[email protected] 18 2006, 08:27 AM
As for the "trade unions", yes, you have anticipated my reaction. The IFTU is an occupation front. And for trade unions who collaborate, I offer no solidarity whatsoever.

This speaks volumes about your methodology: when the facts don't fit your narrow doctrine, alter or omit the facts. Pathetic.

Miles

[EusebioScrib]

Oh henny penny! You still don't get transhumanists.

Let me cross my d's and dot my t's this time so we don't have to do it again. I don't care if you agree with me, just as long as you understand me. PLEASE!

Note: Everything I am saying is how I think things will unfold, I'm saying this not to convince you but to make you understand me.


Well, would you force every human to join this posthuman single entity? because I can damn well assure you that not that many people would like to have their consciousness be merely a small part of an utterly united human race. And what then would the post-human do with the humans who didnt join the bandwagon? you have just created an Ubermanschen and an Untermenschen, I think you would have a very good chance of survival in fascism after all.

There is no "single entity" in transhumanism first off. Also, transhumanism is not an "ideology" or "philosophy" to be accepted, as you seem to believe. It is not a way of life, but rather is life. All of humanity will transcend humanity, it's not really a matter of choice or force, it's a matter of human nature. What will humans do during communism. I believe it to be transhumanism.

Today we live in the age of class struggle to which no human in immune. We are all apart of it.

After the class struggle exists communism. There are no longer any human divisions and struggle in humanity doesn't exist (generally speaking). Humanity is a single group, with no divisions. All are cooperative with one another in equality.

So what will we do then? Just live? Humans don't exist without struggle. We have to be in struggle with something. And we will. I believe that something to be nature. Why?

In my first post in the "Becoming God" thread I gave examples of how man "defies" the limits nature places on him, just like the working class defies the limits capital places on it. Man is 100% unalienated when he controls 100% of his condition, and I mean 100%. We as humans are subject to nature. We are subject to death, to weather, to natural laws, to the sun etc. Humans don't like to be subject to anything

So humans will seek to transcend this condition which we call human, which is being subject to nature. We already have been doing this quite a bit, but we've been distracted mostly with interhuman struggle. When human struggle doesn't exist any longer we will be able to struggle with nature full throttle.

Get it? :)

Again, just understand me, don't agree. I don't care if you agree. PLEASE understand me. I believe I'm being 100% comprehensible.

[EwokUtopia]

Ok, I understand. My only problem is that I respect Primitivists from a distance (hell, if the shit hits the fan, we'll all have to become primitivists and fast, the shit is pretty bloody close to the fan) and I was just put off by your classification of primitivists as allways reactionary, while fascists merely made a list of reactionary ideals. to be fair, I also respect transhumanism from a distance, but i like to argue (lets face it, ultimately thats what forums boil down to). We'll just have to see what everything boils down to.

[EusebioScrib]

Oh I love argueing too, although it makes it so much easier when we understand one another. If you are interested in discussing transhumanism check out the "Becoming God" thread in Philosophy...it's been a rather dead thread..anything in there is basically off topic debating God's existance when it originally had nothing to do with theology.

[Janus]

I see what you're saying, EusebioScrib, and I agree with many aspects of tranhumanism as well. I especially like how transhumanism sees science and technology as a means of solving many of humanity's ills.

Anyways, I think that the major points of reactionary is dogma and conservatism. And as progressive leftists, we should be fundamentally opposed to these points.

[EwokUtopia]

What I find rather amuzing is that most people on this forum would consider the French Revolution to be a bourgeois movement that allowed the old yeomenry to overthrow the ruling aristocracy and themselves become the new ruling class (hardly the point of a good revolution). However, most people on this forum also use the word Reactionary to describe their adversaries. An interesting little historical fact is that the word reactionary was first made up by the Bourgeois French Revolutionaries to describe the opponents of the Frevolution. Just an interesting little "as a matter of historical fact".

[YKTMX]

And? Under this logic, the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, or on July 7, 2005, were supportable. Is this your view?


No. How did September the 11th strike a blow against American imperialism? If that was its purpose, it was a spectacular failure. As for July 7th, it certainy didn't hasten the end of the occupation of Iraq - it just murdered a load of working class Londoners going to work.


Of these 29 groups, 16 are Muslim fundamentalist and 11 are known to be Ba'athist/Nasserist. That leaves two (2) organizations who don't have a known reactionary program.


You'd characterise followers of Nasser as "reactionary"?

In any case, I doubt you've inspected the political programmes of any (most) of those groups - presumably because most of them haven't issued one. I suspect you've just looked at their "scary" names and divined all sorts of malicious intentions.

Edward Said would call it Orientalism - I'm more charitable.


Since late 2004, most of the insurgent organizations had made peace with al-Zarqawi and were working side-by-side with him.

From January 12th 2006.

Local Insurgents Tell of Clashes With Al Qaeda's Forces in Iraq (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,394828,00.html)

From January 30th 2006

There is increasing evidence that the fault lines between local Sunni Iraqi insurgents and the mostly foreign fighters of Abu Musaab al Zarqawi's al Qaeda in Iraq are deepening, according to a number of press reports. (http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=1557349)

January 7th 2006

American officials are talking with local Iraqi insurgent leaders to exploit a rift that has opened between homegrown insurgents and radical groups like Al Qaeda, and to draw the local leaders into the political process, according to a Western diplomat, an Iraqi political leader and an Iraqi insurgent leader. (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/07/international/middleeast/07insurgents.html?ei=5088&en=a64696274dec7678&ex=1294290000&partner=r&pagewanted=print)


I could go on but I think the point is made.


What we are talking about here is whether communists give these organizations political support, which you do and I do not.


I give them unconditional but critical support. To the extent that they oppose coalition forces I support them. I oppose all attacks targetted exclusively at civilians (a small fraction of resistance operations, in fact).


Typical Trotskyist "either-or" understanding of the world. You still do not get it. There are more than two sides in this conflict

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



This speaks volumes about your methodology: when the facts don't fit your narrow doctrine, alter or omit the facts. Pathetic.


Sorry, I don't get it - are you denying the IFTU is an occupation front. Yes or no?

[YKTMX]

And? Under this logic, the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, or on July 7, 2005, were supportable. Is this your view?


No. How did September the 11th strike a blow against American imperialism? If that was its purpose, it was a spectacular failure. As for July 7th, it certainy didn't hasten the end of the occupation of Iraq - it just murdered a load of working class Londoners going to work.


Of these 29 groups, 16 are Muslim fundamentalist and 11 are known to be Ba'athist/Nasserist. That leaves two (2) organizations who don't have a known reactionary program.


You'd characterise followers of Nasser as "reactionary"?

In any case, I doubt you've inspected the political programmes of any (most) of those groups - presumably because most of them haven't issued one. I suspect you've just looked at their "scary" names and divined all sorts of malicious intentions.

Edward Said would call it Orientalism - I'm more charitable.


Since late 2004, most of the insurgent organizations had made peace with al-Zarqawi and were working side-by-side with him.

From January 12th 2006.

Local Insurgents Tell of Clashes With Al Qaeda's Forces in Iraq (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,394828,00.html)

From January 30th 2006

There is increasing evidence that the fault lines between local Sunni Iraqi insurgents and the mostly foreign fighters of Abu Musaab al Zarqawi's al Qaeda in Iraq are deepening, according to a number of press reports. (http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=1557349)

January 7th 2006

American officials are talking with local Iraqi insurgent leaders to exploit a rift that has opened between homegrown insurgents and radical groups like Al Qaeda, and to draw the local leaders into the political process, according to a Western diplomat, an Iraqi political leader and an Iraqi insurgent leader. (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/07/international/middleeast/07insurgents.html?ei=5088&en=a64696274dec7678&ex=1294290000&partner=r&pagewanted=print)


I could go on but I think the point is made.


What we are talking about here is whether communists give these organizations political support, which you do and I do not.


I give them unconditional but critical support. To the extent that they oppose coalition forces I support them. I oppose all attacks targetted exclusively at civilians (a small fraction of resistance operations, in fact).


Typical Trotskyist "either-or" understanding of the world. You still do not get it. There are more than two sides in this conflict

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



This speaks volumes about your methodology: when the facts don't fit your narrow doctrine, alter or omit the facts. Pathetic.


Sorry, I don't get it - are you denying the IFTU is an occupation front. Yes or no?

[YKTMX]

And? Under this logic, the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, or on July 7, 2005, were supportable. Is this your view?


No. How did September the 11th strike a blow against American imperialism? If that was its purpose, it was a spectacular failure. As for July 7th, it certainy didn't hasten the end of the occupation of Iraq - it just murdered a load of working class Londoners going to work.


Of these 29 groups, 16 are Muslim fundamentalist and 11 are known to be Ba'athist/Nasserist. That leaves two (2) organizations who don't have a known reactionary program.


You'd characterise followers of Nasser as "reactionary"?

In any case, I doubt you've inspected the political programmes of any (most) of those groups - presumably because most of them haven't issued one. I suspect you've just looked at their "scary" names and divined all sorts of malicious intentions.

Edward Said would call it Orientalism - I'm more charitable.


Since late 2004, most of the insurgent organizations had made peace with al-Zarqawi and were working side-by-side with him.

From January 12th 2006.

Local Insurgents Tell of Clashes With Al Qaeda's Forces in Iraq (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,394828,00.html)

From January 30th 2006

There is increasing evidence that the fault lines between local Sunni Iraqi insurgents and the mostly foreign fighters of Abu Musaab al Zarqawi's al Qaeda in Iraq are deepening, according to a number of press reports. (http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=1557349)

January 7th 2006

American officials are talking with local Iraqi insurgent leaders to exploit a rift that has opened between homegrown insurgents and radical groups like Al Qaeda, and to draw the local leaders into the political process, according to a Western diplomat, an Iraqi political leader and an Iraqi insurgent leader. (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/07/international/middleeast/07insurgents.html?ei=5088&en=a64696274dec7678&ex=1294290000&partner=r&pagewanted=print)


I could go on but I think the point is made.


What we are talking about here is whether communists give these organizations political support, which you do and I do not.


I give them unconditional but critical support. To the extent that they oppose coalition forces I support them. I oppose all attacks targetted exclusively at civilians (a small fraction of resistance operations, in fact).


Typical Trotskyist "either-or" understanding of the world. You still do not get it. There are more than two sides in this conflict

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



This speaks volumes about your methodology: when the facts don't fit your narrow doctrine, alter or omit the facts. Pathetic.


Sorry, I don't get it - are you denying the IFTU is an occupation front. Yes or no?

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by YKTMX+Jun 23 2006, 05:44 AM--> (YKTMX @ Jun 23 2006, 05:44 AM)No. How did September the 11th strike a blow against American imperialism? If that was its purpose, it was a spectacular failure. As for July 7th, it certainy didn't hasten the end of the occupation of Iraq - it just murdered a load of working class Londoners going to work.[/b]

How is the bombing of factories, neighborhoods and shops in Iraq striking a blow against U.S. imperialism? For that matter, how is cutting off women's legs because they are wearing skirts striking a blow against imperialism? Unlike you, we get first-hand reports of what is really happening in Iraq.


Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 05:44 AM
You'd characterise followers of Nasser as "reactionary"?

In comparison to the independent labor movement, yes.


Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 05:44 AM
In any case, I doubt you've inspected the political programmes of any (most) of those groups - presumably because most of them haven't issued one. I suspect you've just looked at their "scary" names and divined all sorts of malicious intentions.

I don't care about their names or their paper programs. It is what they do in practice, in the areas they operate, that matters. This also applies to the so-called "Nasserites", which are really old-school Ba'athists.


Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 05:44 AM
Edward Said would call it Orientalism - I'm more charitable.

"Charitable" is not the word I'd use to characterize your politics. "Opportunist" seems more accurate.


Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 05:44 AM
I could go on but I think the point is made.

Not really. I'd trust the on-the-ground reports from workers and workers' organizations in Iraq before Bush regime propaganda.


Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 05:44 AM
I give them unconditional but critical support. To the extent that they oppose coalition forces I support them. I oppose all attacks targetted exclusively at civilians (a small fraction of resistance operations, in fact).

Only a European Trotskyist, who has never been in a real-world military situation, can turn tricks like this.


Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 05:44 AM
"Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral." -- Paulo Freire

I am not washing my hands of anything. I am taking a stand with the powerless -- the real powerless: the working people of Iraq.


[email protected] 23 2006, 05:44 AM
Sorry, I don't get it - are you denying the IFTU is an occupation front. Yes or no?

Yes, the IFTU is an occupation front, but they are not the issue here. What about the GFITU and the FWCUI? What about the Southern (Basra) Oil Workers Union? You conveniently omit them in order to paint the Iraqi labor movement as being in the pocket of the occupation. That was my point.

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by YKTMX+Jun 23 2006, 05:44 AM--> (YKTMX @ Jun 23 2006, 05:44 AM)No. How did September the 11th strike a blow against American imperialism? If that was its purpose, it was a spectacular failure. As for July 7th, it certainy didn't hasten the end of the occupation of Iraq - it just murdered a load of working class Londoners going to work.[/b]

How is the bombing of factories, neighborhoods and shops in Iraq striking a blow against U.S. imperialism? For that matter, how is cutting off women's legs because they are wearing skirts striking a blow against imperialism? Unlike you, we get first-hand reports of what is really happening in Iraq.


Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 05:44 AM
You'd characterise followers of Nasser as "reactionary"?

In comparison to the independent labor movement, yes.


Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 05:44 AM
In any case, I doubt you've inspected the political programmes of any (most) of those groups - presumably because most of them haven't issued one. I suspect you've just looked at their "scary" names and divined all sorts of malicious intentions.

I don't care about their names or their paper programs. It is what they do in practice, in the areas they operate, that matters. This also applies to the so-called "Nasserites", which are really old-school Ba'athists.


Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 05:44 AM
Edward Said would call it Orientalism - I'm more charitable.

"Charitable" is not the word I'd use to characterize your politics. "Opportunist" seems more accurate.


Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 05:44 AM
I could go on but I think the point is made.

Not really. I'd trust the on-the-ground reports from workers and workers' organizations in Iraq before Bush regime propaganda.


Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 05:44 AM
I give them unconditional but critical support. To the extent that they oppose coalition forces I support them. I oppose all attacks targetted exclusively at civilians (a small fraction of resistance operations, in fact).

Only a European Trotskyist, who has never been in a real-world military situation, can turn tricks like this.


Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 05:44 AM
"Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral." -- Paulo Freire

I am not washing my hands of anything. I am taking a stand with the powerless -- the real powerless: the working people of Iraq.


[email protected] 23 2006, 05:44 AM
Sorry, I don't get it - are you denying the IFTU is an occupation front. Yes or no?

Yes, the IFTU is an occupation front, but they are not the issue here. What about the GFITU and the FWCUI? What about the Southern (Basra) Oil Workers Union? You conveniently omit them in order to paint the Iraqi labor movement as being in the pocket of the occupation. That was my point.

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by YKTMX+Jun 23 2006, 05:44 AM--> (YKTMX @ Jun 23 2006, 05:44 AM)No. How did September the 11th strike a blow against American imperialism? If that was its purpose, it was a spectacular failure. As for July 7th, it certainy didn't hasten the end of the occupation of Iraq - it just murdered a load of working class Londoners going to work.[/b]

How is the bombing of factories, neighborhoods and shops in Iraq striking a blow against U.S. imperialism? For that matter, how is cutting off women's legs because they are wearing skirts striking a blow against imperialism? Unlike you, we get first-hand reports of what is really happening in Iraq.


Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 05:44 AM
You'd characterise followers of Nasser as "reactionary"?

In comparison to the independent labor movement, yes.


Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 05:44 AM
In any case, I doubt you've inspected the political programmes of any (most) of those groups - presumably because most of them haven't issued one. I suspect you've just looked at their "scary" names and divined all sorts of malicious intentions.

I don't care about their names or their paper programs. It is what they do in practice, in the areas they operate, that matters. This also applies to the so-called "Nasserites", which are really old-school Ba'athists.


Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 05:44 AM
Edward Said would call it Orientalism - I'm more charitable.

"Charitable" is not the word I'd use to characterize your politics. "Opportunist" seems more accurate.


Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 05:44 AM
I could go on but I think the point is made.

Not really. I'd trust the on-the-ground reports from workers and workers' organizations in Iraq before Bush regime propaganda.


Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 05:44 AM
I give them unconditional but critical support. To the extent that they oppose coalition forces I support them. I oppose all attacks targetted exclusively at civilians (a small fraction of resistance operations, in fact).

Only a European Trotskyist, who has never been in a real-world military situation, can turn tricks like this.


Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 05:44 AM
"Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral." -- Paulo Freire

I am not washing my hands of anything. I am taking a stand with the powerless -- the real powerless: the working people of Iraq.


[email protected] 23 2006, 05:44 AM
Sorry, I don't get it - are you denying the IFTU is an occupation front. Yes or no?

Yes, the IFTU is an occupation front, but they are not the issue here. What about the GFITU and the FWCUI? What about the Southern (Basra) Oil Workers Union? You conveniently omit them in order to paint the Iraqi labor movement as being in the pocket of the occupation. That was my point.

Miles

[YKTMX]

How is the bombing of factories, neighborhoods and shops in Iraq striking a blow against U.S. imperialism?

As I said, attacks against civilians constitute a small minority of resistance operations, and I don't support them. The occupation, which you support, has murdered many more Iraqis than the Resistance.


Unlike you, we get first-hand reports of what is really happening in Iraq.


Do we? Where exactly do you think I'm getting my "information" from? I get mines from Al-Jazeera, the People's Daily, the CS Monitory, the Indy, and Independent media sources.

Does the Communist League have a direct line to the conscience of the Iraqi working class?


In comparison to the independent labor movement, yes.


Independent labor movements" in colonialist societies - the last refuge of the reactionary ultra-leftist.


This also applies to the so-called "Nasserites", which are really old-school Ba'athists.


You've yet to expain why Baathism is de facto reactionary.


Not really. I'd trust the on-the-ground reports from workers and workers' organizations in Iraq before Bush regime propaganda.


"Workers' organisations" are just as comprimised as the Bush Regime.


Only a European Trotskyist, who has never been in a real-world military situation, can turn tricks like this.


Please.

What "military situation" have you ever found yourself involved in?


I am taking a stand with the powerless -- the real powerless: the working people of Iraq.


Many of the "working people" are involved in the day-to-day resistance to the occupation that you support. These "working people" involve themselves because they realise only in an independent and free Iraq is a "future" for the working class organisation possible.


but they are not the issue here.

Oh, now who's denying facts? The fact is that the main trade union in Iraq is a Quisling front group. The rest of the Trade Unions are, mainly, either happy with the occupation, afraid to organise against it or both.

I don't offer the working class unconditional support. "Workers'" groups in Israel support the Isreali state- does that mean I concede to Zionism? Of course not. If the trade unions in Iraq want to set up their own militias (as many have, I know) then I totally support that. If they want the colonizers to stay and "finish the job", I couldn't care less what they think.

[YKTMX]

How is the bombing of factories, neighborhoods and shops in Iraq striking a blow against U.S. imperialism?

As I said, attacks against civilians constitute a small minority of resistance operations, and I don't support them. The occupation, which you support, has murdered many more Iraqis than the Resistance.


Unlike you, we get first-hand reports of what is really happening in Iraq.


Do we? Where exactly do you think I'm getting my "information" from? I get mines from Al-Jazeera, the People's Daily, the CS Monitory, the Indy, and Independent media sources.

Does the Communist League have a direct line to the conscience of the Iraqi working class?


In comparison to the independent labor movement, yes.


Independent labor movements" in colonialist societies - the last refuge of the reactionary ultra-leftist.


This also applies to the so-called "Nasserites", which are really old-school Ba'athists.


You've yet to expain why Baathism is de facto reactionary.


Not really. I'd trust the on-the-ground reports from workers and workers' organizations in Iraq before Bush regime propaganda.


"Workers' organisations" are just as comprimised as the Bush Regime.


Only a European Trotskyist, who has never been in a real-world military situation, can turn tricks like this.


Please.

What "military situation" have you ever found yourself involved in?


I am taking a stand with the powerless -- the real powerless: the working people of Iraq.


Many of the "working people" are involved in the day-to-day resistance to the occupation that you support. These "working people" involve themselves because they realise only in an independent and free Iraq is a "future" for the working class organisation possible.


but they are not the issue here.

Oh, now who's denying facts? The fact is that the main trade union in Iraq is a Quisling front group. The rest of the Trade Unions are, mainly, either happy with the occupation, afraid to organise against it or both.

I don't offer the working class unconditional support. "Workers'" groups in Israel support the Isreali state- does that mean I concede to Zionism? Of course not. If the trade unions in Iraq want to set up their own militias (as many have, I know) then I totally support that. If they want the colonizers to stay and "finish the job", I couldn't care less what they think.

[YKTMX]

How is the bombing of factories, neighborhoods and shops in Iraq striking a blow against U.S. imperialism?

As I said, attacks against civilians constitute a small minority of resistance operations, and I don't support them. The occupation, which you support, has murdered many more Iraqis than the Resistance.


Unlike you, we get first-hand reports of what is really happening in Iraq.


Do we? Where exactly do you think I'm getting my "information" from? I get mines from Al-Jazeera, the People's Daily, the CS Monitory, the Indy, and Independent media sources.

Does the Communist League have a direct line to the conscience of the Iraqi working class?


In comparison to the independent labor movement, yes.


Independent labor movements" in colonialist societies - the last refuge of the reactionary ultra-leftist.


This also applies to the so-called "Nasserites", which are really old-school Ba'athists.


You've yet to expain why Baathism is de facto reactionary.


Not really. I'd trust the on-the-ground reports from workers and workers' organizations in Iraq before Bush regime propaganda.


"Workers' organisations" are just as comprimised as the Bush Regime.


Only a European Trotskyist, who has never been in a real-world military situation, can turn tricks like this.


Please.

What "military situation" have you ever found yourself involved in?


I am taking a stand with the powerless -- the real powerless: the working people of Iraq.


Many of the "working people" are involved in the day-to-day resistance to the occupation that you support. These "working people" involve themselves because they realise only in an independent and free Iraq is a "future" for the working class organisation possible.


but they are not the issue here.

Oh, now who's denying facts? The fact is that the main trade union in Iraq is a Quisling front group. The rest of the Trade Unions are, mainly, either happy with the occupation, afraid to organise against it or both.

I don't offer the working class unconditional support. "Workers'" groups in Israel support the Isreali state- does that mean I concede to Zionism? Of course not. If the trade unions in Iraq want to set up their own militias (as many have, I know) then I totally support that. If they want the colonizers to stay and "finish the job", I couldn't care less what they think.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by YKTMX+Jun 23 2006, 07:11 PM--> (YKTMX @ Jun 23 2006, 07:11 PM)As I said, attacks against civilians constitute a small minority of resistance operations, and I don't support them. The occupation, which you support, has murdered many more Iraqis than the Resistance.[/b]

First of all, the Communist League does not support the occupation. We have opposed it from the moment we were formed. Our membership in the Iraq Freedom Congress is a continuation of that opposition.

On the other hand, your support for the reactionary nationalists and religious fundamentalists puts you on the side of U.S.-UK imperialism. Both the imperialists and the so-called "resistance" rely on each other to justify their continued operations in Iraq, so supporting the presence of one means supporting the presence of the other.


Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 07:11 PM
Does the Communist League have a direct line to the conscience of the Iraqi working class?

As a matter of fact, yes. We talk with workers and unionists in Iraq on a regular basis, as part of our work in the IFC.


Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 07:11 PM
Independent labor movements" in colonialist societies - the last refuge of the reactionary ultra-leftist.

Casual dismissal of the working class -- the tried and tested refuge of a petty-bourgeois opportunist fakir.


Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 07:11 PM
You've yet to expain why Baathism is de facto reactionary.

National socialism is reactionary. What else needs to be said?


Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 07:11 PM
"Workers' organisations" are just as comprimised as the Bush Regime.

I think I'll just let this comment of yours stand alone. The absolute stupidity and anti-working class arrogance of it speaks for itself.


Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 07:11 PM
Please. What "military situation" have you ever found yourself involved in?

Enough military situations to know that your maneuvering and tricks mean nothing to those you hope to "united front" with.


Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 07:11 PM
Many of the "working people" are involved in the day-to-day resistance to the occupation that you support. These "working people" involve themselves because they realise only in an independent and free Iraq is a "future" for the working class organisation possible.

Like the social democrat you are, you "dream" of an unreal "future", while we communists work in the present. The workers in Iraq are organizing, building workers' self-defense organizations, taking control neighborhood-by-neighborhood in Baghdad, Mosul, Basra and dozens of more cities. They are battling the occupation forces and the reactionary "resistance", and they are winning. This is today -- right now.

The labor movement is working in alliance with women's rights organizations to fight the misogyny and brutality of the reactionaries you support. The IFC is about to launch its own satellite television network to spread their message not only to the far reaches of Iraq, but to working people throughout the Middle East.

Meanwhile, your comrades-in-arms are cutting off women's legs, throwing acid in women's faces, beating young men who do not wear a traditional beard or do wear shorts, attacking young people who are not of the same sect of Islam they are, breaking strikes and busting unions, and giving Washington and London every reason to justify their occupation of Iraq.


Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 07:11 PM
Oh, now who's denying facts? The fact is that the main trade union in Iraq is a Quisling front group. The rest of the Trade Unions are, mainly, either happy with the occupation, afraid to organise against it or both.

That second statement is a dirty lie. Both the GFITU and FWCUI are organizing and oppose the occupation every step of the way.


[email protected] 23 2006, 07:11 PM
I don't offer the working class unconditional support. "Workers'" groups in Israel support the Isreali state- does that mean I concede to Zionism? Of course not. If the trade unions in Iraq want to set up their own militias (as many have, I know) then I totally support that. If they want the colonizers to stay and "finish the job", I couldn't care less what they think.

This is a throwaway statement, and a lie on your part. You only support workers as long as they support whichever petty-bourgeois force you're tailing.

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by YKTMX+Jun 23 2006, 07:11 PM--> (YKTMX @ Jun 23 2006, 07:11 PM)As I said, attacks against civilians constitute a small minority of resistance operations, and I don't support them. The occupation, which you support, has murdered many more Iraqis than the Resistance.[/b]

First of all, the Communist League does not support the occupation. We have opposed it from the moment we were formed. Our membership in the Iraq Freedom Congress is a continuation of that opposition.

On the other hand, your support for the reactionary nationalists and religious fundamentalists puts you on the side of U.S.-UK imperialism. Both the imperialists and the so-called "resistance" rely on each other to justify their continued operations in Iraq, so supporting the presence of one means supporting the presence of the other.


Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 07:11 PM
Does the Communist League have a direct line to the conscience of the Iraqi working class?

As a matter of fact, yes. We talk with workers and unionists in Iraq on a regular basis, as part of our work in the IFC.


Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 07:11 PM
Independent labor movements" in colonialist societies - the last refuge of the reactionary ultra-leftist.

Casual dismissal of the working class -- the tried and tested refuge of a petty-bourgeois opportunist fakir.


Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 07:11 PM
You've yet to expain why Baathism is de facto reactionary.

National socialism is reactionary. What else needs to be said?


Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 07:11 PM
"Workers' organisations" are just as comprimised as the Bush Regime.

I think I'll just let this comment of yours stand alone. The absolute stupidity and anti-working class arrogance of it speaks for itself.


Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 07:11 PM
Please. What "military situation" have you ever found yourself involved in?

Enough military situations to know that your maneuvering and tricks mean nothing to those you hope to "united front" with.


Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 07:11 PM
Many of the "working people" are involved in the day-to-day resistance to the occupation that you support. These "working people" involve themselves because they realise only in an independent and free Iraq is a "future" for the working class organisation possible.

Like the social democrat you are, you "dream" of an unreal "future", while we communists work in the present. The workers in Iraq are organizing, building workers' self-defense organizations, taking control neighborhood-by-neighborhood in Baghdad, Mosul, Basra and dozens of more cities. They are battling the occupation forces and the reactionary "resistance", and they are winning. This is today -- right now.

The labor movement is working in alliance with women's rights organizations to fight the misogyny and brutality of the reactionaries you support. The IFC is about to launch its own satellite television network to spread their message not only to the far reaches of Iraq, but to working people throughout the Middle East.

Meanwhile, your comrades-in-arms are cutting off women's legs, throwing acid in women's faces, beating young men who do not wear a traditional beard or do wear shorts, attacking young people who are not of the same sect of Islam they are, breaking strikes and busting unions, and giving Washington and London every reason to justify their occupation of Iraq.


Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 07:11 PM
Oh, now who's denying facts? The fact is that the main trade union in Iraq is a Quisling front group. The rest of the Trade Unions are, mainly, either happy with the occupation, afraid to organise against it or both.

That second statement is a dirty lie. Both the GFITU and FWCUI are organizing and oppose the occupation every step of the way.


[email protected] 23 2006, 07:11 PM
I don't offer the working class unconditional support. "Workers'" groups in Israel support the Isreali state- does that mean I concede to Zionism? Of course not. If the trade unions in Iraq want to set up their own militias (as many have, I know) then I totally support that. If they want the colonizers to stay and "finish the job", I couldn't care less what they think.

This is a throwaway statement, and a lie on your part. You only support workers as long as they support whichever petty-bourgeois force you're tailing.

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by YKTMX+Jun 23 2006, 07:11 PM--> (YKTMX @ Jun 23 2006, 07:11 PM)As I said, attacks against civilians constitute a small minority of resistance operations, and I don't support them. The occupation, which you support, has murdered many more Iraqis than the Resistance.[/b]

First of all, the Communist League does not support the occupation. We have opposed it from the moment we were formed. Our membership in the Iraq Freedom Congress is a continuation of that opposition.

On the other hand, your support for the reactionary nationalists and religious fundamentalists puts you on the side of U.S.-UK imperialism. Both the imperialists and the so-called "resistance" rely on each other to justify their continued operations in Iraq, so supporting the presence of one means supporting the presence of the other.


Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 07:11 PM
Does the Communist League have a direct line to the conscience of the Iraqi working class?

As a matter of fact, yes. We talk with workers and unionists in Iraq on a regular basis, as part of our work in the IFC.


Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 07:11 PM
Independent labor movements" in colonialist societies - the last refuge of the reactionary ultra-leftist.

Casual dismissal of the working class -- the tried and tested refuge of a petty-bourgeois opportunist fakir.


Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 07:11 PM
You've yet to expain why Baathism is de facto reactionary.

National socialism is reactionary. What else needs to be said?


Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 07:11 PM
"Workers' organisations" are just as comprimised as the Bush Regime.

I think I'll just let this comment of yours stand alone. The absolute stupidity and anti-working class arrogance of it speaks for itself.


Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 07:11 PM
Please. What "military situation" have you ever found yourself involved in?

Enough military situations to know that your maneuvering and tricks mean nothing to those you hope to "united front" with.


Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 07:11 PM
Many of the "working people" are involved in the day-to-day resistance to the occupation that you support. These "working people" involve themselves because they realise only in an independent and free Iraq is a "future" for the working class organisation possible.

Like the social democrat you are, you "dream" of an unreal "future", while we communists work in the present. The workers in Iraq are organizing, building workers' self-defense organizations, taking control neighborhood-by-neighborhood in Baghdad, Mosul, Basra and dozens of more cities. They are battling the occupation forces and the reactionary "resistance", and they are winning. This is today -- right now.

The labor movement is working in alliance with women's rights organizations to fight the misogyny and brutality of the reactionaries you support. The IFC is about to launch its own satellite television network to spread their message not only to the far reaches of Iraq, but to working people throughout the Middle East.

Meanwhile, your comrades-in-arms are cutting off women's legs, throwing acid in women's faces, beating young men who do not wear a traditional beard or do wear shorts, attacking young people who are not of the same sect of Islam they are, breaking strikes and busting unions, and giving Washington and London every reason to justify their occupation of Iraq.


Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 07:11 PM
Oh, now who's denying facts? The fact is that the main trade union in Iraq is a Quisling front group. The rest of the Trade Unions are, mainly, either happy with the occupation, afraid to organise against it or both.

That second statement is a dirty lie. Both the GFITU and FWCUI are organizing and oppose the occupation every step of the way.


[email protected] 23 2006, 07:11 PM
I don't offer the working class unconditional support. "Workers'" groups in Israel support the Isreali state- does that mean I concede to Zionism? Of course not. If the trade unions in Iraq want to set up their own militias (as many have, I know) then I totally support that. If they want the colonizers to stay and "finish the job", I couldn't care less what they think.

This is a throwaway statement, and a lie on your part. You only support workers as long as they support whichever petty-bourgeois force you're tailing.

Miles

[YKTMX]

First of all, the Communist League does not support the occupation.

Your opposition to the resistance means, de facto, you support the occupation.


On the other hand, your support for the reactionary nationalists and religious fundamentalists puts you on the side of U.S.-UK imperialism.

A "reactionary" is someone who wants things to "return" or not to "move forward" -this is manifestly not the goal of the Iraqi resistance. Their goal is to free Iraq from foreign domination by any means neccessary, and I support them to that end.


Both the imperialists and the so-called "resistance" rely on each other to justify their continued operations in Iraq, so supporting the presence of one means supporting the presence of the other.


What a load imperialist waffle - both sides are "just as bad" and have as "much right". Sorry, but the colonalists - who you support - have NO RIGHTS in Iraq, whereas the poor souls of Fallujah and Sadr City who give their lives to defend themselves and their communities have every right.

Any who poses a moral equivalence between imperialists and their subjects is, at the very best, a poor sap.


We talk with workers and unionists in Iraq on a regular basis, as part of our work in the IFC.


You're welcome to your little mastobatory circles. It's fantasy politics anyway.


Casual dismissal of the working class -- the tried and tested refuge of a petty-bourgeois opportunist fakir.


Actually, being of the class myself, I don't feel the need, unlike you, to patronize people. I don't romantacize the working class. I don't feel I need to fall into line behind my ruling class, like you have, because some fucking Iraqi bureaucrat says I should.


National socialism is reactionary. What else needs to be said?


Quite a lot.

Once again, you seem to be misunderstanding the meaning of the word reactionary. Reaction is a relative force, not a constant.

To use an analogy, if I'm travelling at 30 miles an hour and someone says slow down to 20, then that's "reactionary". But if I'm travelling at ten and someone says speed up to 20, then that's "progressive".

In face of imperialist slaughter and colonialist slavery, national socialism, for instance in its Nasserite form, is a deeply progressive outlook. It may not be the one you favour, but who cares?


Enough military situations to know that your maneuvering and tricks mean nothing to those you hope to "united front" with

Fine, give me an example and I'll defer.


Meanwhile, your comrades-in-arms are cutting off women's legs, throwing acid in women's faces, beating young men who do not wear a traditional beard or do wear shorts, attacking young people who are not of the same sect of Islam they are, breaking strikes and busting unions, and giving Washington and London every reason to justify their occupation of Iraq.


And my comrades in the IRA kneecapped people; and my comrades in the ANC set people alight; and my comrades in the Vietcong shot Trotskyists; and my comrades in the FLN put bombs in cafes; and my comrades in the Red Army murdered and killed people.

Once again, I don't have to support every single action of the resistance (though I'm sceptical as to the truth of the things you claim) to support the rights of all Iraqis to resist imperialism.


You only support workers as long as they support whichever petty-bourgeois force you're tailing.


Yes, comrade, I'm a socialist and a communist, not a kneejerk, workerist, kowtowing, patronizing liberal like yourself. The workers do, frequently, get things very, very wrong. If they were "always right", like you contend, we might not be where we are today.

Our job as socialists is to take position that will bring the day of liberation that bit closer. Your ridiculous support of the imperialists in Iraq, because, to be fair, that's what it amounts to, is a jelly-spinned sellout.

[Martin Blank]

I had originally written a long response to YKTMX, but, after finishing the original, I realized that only a couple of quotes were really worth pointing out.


Originally posted by YKTMX+Jun 24 2006, 01:42 PM--> (YKTMX @ Jun 24 2006, 01:42 PM)Your opposition to the resistance means, de facto, you support the occupation.[/b]

You sounds like a Stalinist. "Your opposition to Stalin means, de facto, you support imperialism". I wonder if I still have those French novels around here....


Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 01:42 PM
You're welcome to your little mastobatory circles. It's fantasy politics anyway.

You are pathetic and delusional. But here you expose how you are really working for the imperialists, whether you realize it or not. In Basra, do you know who the main organized force is who's fighting the UK occupation troops -- "your own" imperialists? The Southern Oil Workers' Union. They are members of the IFC and sit on its Central Council. But to you, they are just a "fantasy".

You will not work with them because they refuse to support the phony "resistance". Therefore, when the brothers and sisters of the SOWU fight Westminster's armies, you stand on the sidelines and demand that they adhere to your shibboleth.


Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 01:42 PM
Actually, being of the class myself, I don't feel the need, unlike you, to patronize people. I don't romantacize the working class. I don't feel I need to fall into line behind my ruling class, like you have, because some fucking Iraqi bureaucrat says I should.

No, you move on the word of a mullah or tinpot colonel. And, again, no, you don't romanticize the working class, you sneer at it, call it "fantasy politics" and a "masturbatory circle". If you are from the working class, you're a fucking traitor to it, and deserve to be treated as such.


[email protected] 24 2006, 01:42 PM
Our job as socialists is to take position that will bring the day of liberation that bit closer. Your ridiculous support of the imperialists in Iraq, because, to be fair, that's what it amounts to, is a jelly-spinned sellout.

You have no business lecturing anyone about what "our job as socialists" is. You're a fucking scab, a traitor to the working class, hiding your support for imperialist occupation and social reaction behind a pile of cow dung you call Trotskyist politics.

While you may be fond of quoting imperialist propaganda when it suits you, you apparently don't read beyond the lead. The imperialists already said that one of their greatest "mistakes" was dissolving the Iraqi military -- the very core of the "insurgency". You don't think that, given half a chance, your so-called "resistance" will make a deal with the imperialists, just like the al-Sadr fundamentalists did? They will make a deal, if it is in their best interests (perhaps they will be promised the cut of the oil profits they had when they were in power?).

And you, like them, will try to sell that as "the day of liberation". Liberation for whom?! For your national-socialist and religious-fundamentalist "comrades", perhaps. For imperialism, certainly. For the Iraqi working class, forget it. For Iraqi women, forget it.

But then, what the fuck do you care, if they don't agree with your mullahs and colonels? Fuck them, right? Fuck the Basra oil workers and their fight against UK imperialism, too, right? Fuck those Iraqi women who don't understand that Salafi Muslim fundamentalists are their liberators, right? Fuck those Iraqi workers and communists who don't understand that the Ba'athists are their liberators, right?

* * *

The imperialists have turned Iraq into a hell on earth for those who live there. But the question now is whether the people of Iraq can actually move out of that hell absent of a social revolution. Whatever the crimes of American and British imperialism in Iraq, they have become an unconscious tool of history by forcing the working class to organize for taking power in their own name, to organize economically, politically and militarily to drive out the imperialists, overthrow their puppet regime and establish a secular democratic republic -- much as the British in India did 150 years ago.

The so-called "resistance" seeks to arrest this development and divert it into a restoration of previous relations -- either a retreat by decades (in the case of the Ba'athists) or a retreat by centuries (in the case of the fundamentalists). Your support for these forces exposes your own reactionary politics and, if one can believe you are from the working class, your betrayal of your own class and class interests.

You have reached the end game of petty-bourgeois politics; you are staring at the abyss. And, after this conversation, I encourage you to jump. Your kind of sneering traitor is not needed and not welcomed.

Miles

[YKTMX]

Well, this is all good knockabout stuff.

In the end, it's fairly academic, I doubt me or Miles will have any great impact on the course of events in Iraq. The only thing that matters now in Iraq are the Iraqis themselves. They themselves will, and do, make their own history.

The ragged, the poor, the dispossessed, men, women, young and old, they have decided that they are going to resist the latest attempt to bring their country under colonial rule. Something like 90% of their operations are aimed at coalition forces, and yet Miles won't support them.

Instead Miles, sadly, repeatedly slanders them, accusing them of lots of things with little evidence. He repeats Defense Department Press Memos without hesistation or pause in the hope of who knows what?

The slander and lies about resistance movements to Imperialism are nothing new, as we know. The lies Miles and the Defense Department tell now where told about the IRA, the NLF, the FLN etc, etc. The faces change and places change, but the motifs of "terrorism" and "anti-democracy" remain. It's just a shame that so-called "socialists" accept them without hesistation.

The "independent labour movement" in Iraq is, as I said, largely fantasy - a product of the imagination of people unwilling to take principled stands. The main nationwide Trade Union, the IFTU, is a colonialist front, similar to the German Labor Front, yet Miles supports it - and then accuses me of class treachery! The others are desperate to collude with government forces.

Miles accuses me of "Stalinism" because I won't support my own ruling class in Iraq. But, he insists, I should support Stalinist led Trade Unions! :lol:

Satire is dead.

[Martin Blank]

I have to admit, there is one area where I and this scab agree: The people of Iraq will make their own history. As for the rest, it is slander and falsification that serves imperialist interests. For example:


Originally posted by YKTMX+Jun 25 2006, 06:08 PM--> (YKTMX @ Jun 25 2006, 06:08 PM)Miles ... repeats Defense Department Press Memos without hesistation or pause in the hope of who knows what?[/b]

The information I provided is from a letter written by Samir Adil, President of the Iraq Freedom Congress, to the organization U.S. Labor Against the War, which is to be printed in the upcoming issue of Iraq Freedom, the IFC's English-language newsletter.

On the other hand, YKISOW (You Know I Scab On Workers) uncritically reprints reports from the bourgeois media, which are themselves reprints of Defense Department press releases, to bolster his position. And he, like the imperialists, repeat the lie that occupation soldiers are "90 percent" of the targets.

No. Iraqi civilians account for most of the targets now. The atrophy of Iraqi society, brought about by the occupation and the so-called "resistance", has led to a state of near-civil war. The Sunni "resistance" forces are killing Shi'as; the Shi'a "resistance" forces, along with their allies in the puppet regime, are killing Sunnis; the Salafi "resistance" forces are killing anyone who doesn't agree with them.

But they don't get reported much on BBC or CNN because ... well, they're Iraqis. The European and American media have demonized, marginalized and dehumanized them, just as they did with Vietnamese, Korean and Japanese people two and three generations ago. So, for phony white radicals like YKISOW, the people or Iraq are today's "gooks", whether he's willing to admit that to himself or not.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, as the saying goes. YKISOW uses the same method as the bourgeoisie when it comes to the "resistance", but he puts a plus where Washington and Westminster put a minus, and vice versa. In their shared view, the only active historical subjects are the occupation soldiers and the "resistance"; the actual people of Iraq are passive objects and play no role. In their shared view, the outcome can only be the victory of one or the other. In their shared view, only the lives of these two forces matter. But, again, where the bourgeoisie puts a minus, phony white juvenile leftists like YKISOW put a plus.

They are, in the final analysis, two sides of the same bourgeois coin.

We can see this same bourgeois ideology in the following statement:


[email protected] 25 2006, 06:08 PM
The "independent labour movement" in Iraq is, as I said, largely fantasy - a product of the imagination of people unwilling to take principled stands. The main nationwide Trade Union, the IFTU, is a colonialist front, similar to the German Labor Front, yet Miles supports it - and then accuses me of class treachery! The others are desperate to collude with government forces.

The Communist League, through its support for the IFC, supports the General Federation of Iraqi Trade Unions, the Southern Oil Workers Union, the Federation of Workers' Councils and Unions of Iraq, the Union of the Unemployed of Iraq, the General Federation of Teachers of Iraq and the other local and regional unions that are united in the IFC to fight for a secular democratic republic.

Neither the bourgeoisie nor phony white leftists like YKISOW are willing to acknowledge the existence of these militant unions. Why? Because to do so begs the question: Is there a third alternative in the struggle taking place in Iraq? For both of these anti-working class forces, acknowledgement of the unions working in the IFC would mean acknowledging that there is an alternative to the dichotomy they pose in their propaganda.

Eventually, though, both will have to acknowledge their existence. When they do, however, it will be with derision and shameful falsification. YKISOW has already given us a taste of it here -- "masturbatory circle"; "fantasy"; "a product of the imagination"; etc. Of course, it's easy to call it such things from the comfortable confines of Washington, London or any other Great Power city. The people of Iraq know otherwise.

And, as YKISOW said, and I agreed, they will make their own history -- in spite of both the imperialist bourgeoisie and their pet white radicals like YKISOW.

Miles

[YKTMX]

And he, like the imperialists, repeat the lie that occupation soldiers are "90 percent" of the targets.

Oh dear, you're lying again - you have to quit those bad habits.

I said 90% of resistance operation target coalition forces, which is slightly different to what you said.

http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/123063/2133682/2135237/2135842/060209_ws_chart_Ex.jpg

So, discounting Miles' baseless imperialist bluster, the evidence is pretty clear. The Iraqi resistance is mainly an anti-occupation movement of Iraqis. And yet Miles still tells us to back our ruling class in their civilizing mission.

Shame.


So, for phony white radicals like YKISOW, the people or Iraq are today's "gooks", whether he's willing to admit that to himself or not.


I do rather object to this as, if you were consistent, you would most definetly have supported the imperialist slaughter in Vietnam - as you do in Iraq. The NLF certainly didn't want to create a "democratic republic" - so I don't see how could have possibly supported them.

Perhaps the American-South Vietnam Trade Union Congress? :lol:


Of course, it's easy to call it such things from the comfortable confines of Washington, London or any other Great Power city. The people of Iraq know otherwise.


Oh please - I take it you're not posting that from some bunker in Basra, Miles? Don't get sanctimonious, it doesn't suit you.

I stand with the oppressed against their oppressors. You don't.

Deal with it.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 05:57 PM
I stand with the oppressed against their oppressors. You don't.
Actually, you stand with the imperialist-sponsored oppressors who were fired in 2003 and are now demanding their old jobs back. I don't. That's what you can't deal with. But it is fun to watch you squirm, twist and convolute the facts to fit your blinkered ideology.

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 05:57 PM
I said 90% of resistance operation target coalition forces, which is slightly different to what you said.

http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/123063/2133682/2135237/2135842/060209_ws_chart_Ex.jpg

So, discounting Miles' baseless imperialist bluster, the evidence is pretty clear.
Oops, one more thing. If you notice, the data in the above chart is courtesy of the DIA -- the Defense Intelligence Agency, the (dis)information wing of the Pentagon. So, here we have yet another example of YKISOW uncritically reprinting imperialist propaganda -- or, to use his term, "baseless imperialist bluster" -- for his own purposes.

Draw your own conclusions.

Miles

[YKTMX]

How is it in their interests to portray the resistance as a national anti-occupation movement?

You're talking so much rubbish, it's difficult to tell if you're being totally serious.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 07:58 PM
How is it in their interests to portray the resistance as a national anti-occupation movement?
You haven't been paying attention, have you? Read my last two long posts here. It is explained.

Miles

[Floyce White]

Finn MacCool, for what it's worth, your Dictionary.Com definition is basically correct. I described the term "reactionary" in my my third post at RevLeft (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=42555&hl=&view=findpost&p=1291971763). The purportedly ideological struggle between left and right, progress and reaction, is actually struggle among factions of the upper class. It is not the struggle between workers and capitalists--although workers' struggles are often co-opted into progressivism.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+Jun 27 2006, 03:16 AM--> (CommunistLeague @ Jun 27 2006, 03:16 AM)
[email protected] 26 2006, 07:58 PM
How is it in their interests to portray the resistance as a national anti-occupation movement?
You haven't been paying attention, have you? Read my last two long posts here. It is explained.

Miles [/b]
No, you explained why they would wish to deny the existence of your phantom "labour movement". But you didn't explain why it would be in their interests to portrary the resistance as a nationalist anti-colonial rebellion, probably because you know you can't. The "line" on the "insurgency" is that it's a "terrorist" force full of "outside agtitators" who are trying to "bring down democracy".

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by YKTMX+Jun 27 2006, 07:21 AM--> (YKTMX @ Jun 27 2006, 07:21 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 03:16 AM

[email protected] 26 2006, 07:58 PM
How is it in their interests to portray the resistance as a national anti-occupation movement?
You haven't been paying attention, have you? Read my last two long posts here. It is explained.

Miles
No, you explained why they would wish to deny the existence of your phantom "labour movement". But you didn't explain why it would be in their interests to portrary the resistance as a nationalist anti-colonial rebellion, probably because you know you can't. The "line" on the "insurgency" is that it's a "terrorist" force full of "outside agtitators" who are trying to "bring down democracy". [/b]
It's up there. You just don't get it. Oh well. I've tried my best.

Miles

[YKTMX]

Haha, fair enough.

If anyone wants to interpret Miles' rantings for me, send me a private message.

:lol: