No to Iraqi Resistance, no to US Imperialism

[Rawthentic]

The Iraqi Resistance are religious fundamentalists who are inherently reactionary and must be opposed for a revolutionary alternative:

The present situation in Iraq and the forces involved



The US war on Iraq has led to the disintegration of the fabric of the civil society in Iraq. This war has unleashed the most reactionary religious and ethnocentric forces against the people of Iraq. Daily social, economic, and cultural life has plunged into an abyss. Iraq needs to rebuild its civil society. The security, livelihood and the basic freedom of the people must be maintained and their right to an informed and free determination of their future regime in Iraq guaranteed.



The present situation in Iraq is the product of the policies of the US, political Islam and the Arab and Kurdish nationalism. The military invasion of Iraq and the subsequent humiliation and submission of the country coupled with the destruction of the most of the country’s infrastructure; both during the economic sanction period and the recent invasion, has given the current occupation much wider dimensions. Without ending the occupation there can be no realistic improvement in the situation.



The social and political impact of the invasion of Iraq and the associated military aggression and violence has unleashed the darkest political and social forces in Iraq and in the region. The invasion and occupation of Iraq has been the singles biggest source of recruitment to the ranks of the political Islam in Iraq and the region. Iraq has turned into a magnet for the political Islam. The West and in particular the US policies have, more than any Islamic agitations, mobilised and recruited forces for the political Islam and continue to do so. The US government in its attempt to contain the situation in Iraq has resorted to the religious and tribal forces and increasingly turning Iraq closer into an Islam stricken society.



The Islamic Republic of Iran, Ben Laden brand of Islam and the Shiite and the Sunni forces in Iraq are one of the main causes of the current regression in Iraq. These forces in the guise of the “saviour” of the dignity of the Iraqi people, providers of “security” and “social services” and the architects of rebuilding the foundations of “civil life” have forced the Iraqi people into a more devastating submission. Humanity and human values under the influence of the Islamic currents in Iraq have sunk to their lowest point.



The Kurdish nationalist currents, in pursuit of their own interests and securing their share of the power, are capitalising on the spread of chaos and worsening civil life in other parts of Iraq. Never before in Iraq has ethnic and national hatreds run so deep. In addition to keeping Kurdistan in a limbo and social wilderness the Kurdish nationalism has more than ever stirred up Arab and Turkman nationalism and brought them to the fore.



Against the Americans and the forces of political Islam a third force focused on pulling the country out of the current abyss is emerging. Those who are frustrated with the violence and the indignity and humiliation at the hands of the Islamists, tribal forces and the US occupiers, i.e., the working class that is enduring physical destruction, the youth who are longing for a brighter future, the women who are suffering at the hands of the political Islam and the primitive tribal forces and the free minded intellectuals who are seeking a way out of this situations all belong to this third force.



The way out of the current situation



The way out the current situation is to remove all the perpetrators of the despair of the Iraqi people. None of the forces involved in the creation of the current turmoil can play a part in putting an end to this situation. Each one of the players in this conflict justifies their existence vis-à-vis the other forces. The Islamic and Arab nationalist forces draw their forces and resources from the social dimensions of the occupation and the resentment of the Iraqi people towards it. Similarly the ultra reactionary nature and the brutality of the Islamic groups and the tribal and fascistic forces are exploited by the Americans to justify their occupation.



None of the common solutions put before the people of Iraq can provide the prospect of delivering them from the current situation. These solutions broadly fall into three categories.



1. Siding with political Islam



Siding with the Islamists and turning a blind eye to their reactionary and criminal nature and practices under the rubric of being against the USA is a disastrous policy. Such a policy will lead to collusion with the Islamists. This policy not only fails to initiate any improvements in the current situation but will enhance the position of the Islamic currents. Furthermore, this policy by overlooking the ultra-reactionary nature of the Islamic currents and by dashing any hopes of better prospect for the people of Iraq, disheartens the honourable and civilised people across the world from engaging in a meaningful and active opposition to the current situation and practically giving the US a free rein.



2. Siding with the USA



This tendency is the other side of the same coin as compromising with the Islamists. Hostility towards Islam and Islamic backwardness forms the basis of this approach. This policy by overlooking the US occupation of Iraq offers the US a pretext to continue with its occupation of Iraq. Again, just as the siding with the Islamists, this policy is incapable of offering deliverance from the existing quagmire and the only solution that can offer is to call on them to be patient and wait for the eventual US victory over the Islamists. This policy by failing to comprehend the social implication of the occupation and the associated humiliation and indignation that the US aggression has inflicted on the Iraqi people and by adopting a policy of lingering around in anticipation of US victory remains incapable of a putting up an active intervention to rescue Iraq from the current abyss.



3. Calling for the intervention of the “International Forces”



Another approach to the current situation is to call for the replacement of the US forces with Multi-national forces under the auspices of the United Nations. This is an unrealistic, utopian and an impractical solution. The proponents of this policy do not realise that to restore civil order in Iraq the forces of political Islam and fascists must be swept away. Such a task in today’s Iraq, more than ever, has acquired a military and political dimension. Regrettably, the European governments and the United Nations themselves are guilty of appeasement towards political Islam. Therefore calling for the intervention of international forces is an unrealistic policy and in the real world it can only be regarded as a wait and see policy.



The force that can end the current situation



The only force capable of ending the current situation can only be an organisation that enjoys popular mass support in Iraq. The Iraq Freedom Congress intends to be such an organisation; an independent, democratic, secular, non-ethnic and mass organisation, which is founded to guarantee the right of the people of Iraq to determine freely the future political regime in Iraq. An organisation that can unite and organise the people to take their destiny into their own hands and defend themselves, as well as mobilising and leading the international support, to save the people of Iraq from the grip of the both poles of global terrorism.



The salvation of Iraq and its current and future generations and that of the entire region from the destructions imposed by the both poles of terrorism depends on the development of such a popular movement.



The aims the Iraq Freedom Congress



To remove all the protagonists of this dark scenario the people of Iraq should:



1) End the occupation of Iraq – the US forces must leave Iraq immediately

2) End the interference of the Islamic currents from people’s lives

3) Guarantee the right of the Iraqi people to make an informed and free decision on the future of political system

4) Restore civil life to Iraq



The plan of the IFC is to curb the influence of all the players responsible for the political, economic, moral and cultural devastation of people’s lives in Iraq. To this end, people should seize political power at all levels. People should organise around the IFC’s manifesto and implement it to guarantee their own security, livelihoods and freedom and take charge of their own affairs when and wherever possible.



The immediate goal of the IFC is to seize power and establish a provisional secular and non-ethnic government, declare the following articles as the laws of the land and guarantee their implementation:



1. Expel the US and its allied forces and dissolve all political, economic, military and paramilitary institutions set up by the US in order to control Iraq militarily, politically and economically. Repeal all the laws adopted in this regard,



2. Dissolve and disarm all armed and paramilitary groups linked to Islamic forces and lawless groups and confiscate all their weapons, resources and funds.



3. Make public all documents, archives and files from the time of the Baathist regime as well the current administration,



4. Confiscate and repossess all the properties and estates belonging to religious foundations and utilise them to meet social, recreational and political needs of the people,



5. Facilitate the provision of empowering people to defend their freedom and expel and suppress any aggression and assault directed against their rights and freedom,



6. Complete separation of religion from state and education,



7. Revoke all religiously derived laws and legislations. Declare freedom of religion and atheism,



8. Full and unconditional freedom of expression, belief, press, assembly, organisation and the right to demonstrate,



9. Declare the full and unconditional individual and civil rights and equality between men and women. Immediate revocation of all laws and regulations that violate this principle.



10. Full and unconditional civil, political and social rights for all citizens regardless of their gender, religion, nationality, ethnicity and citizenship,



11. Freedom of all political prisoners,



12. Abolition of the death penalty,



13. Free public access, especially for mass organizations and political parties, to state media.



14. Adequate unemployment benefit for every unemployed person over 16 years of age who is available for work. Adequate unemployment benefit and other necessary allowances for those who, for physical or mental reasons, are unable to work,



15. Delegation of powers to the assembly of the direct representatives of people to decide on the future political regime and drafting a constitution within a maximum period of six months.



16. Hold an immediate referendum in the Kurdish regions on cessation from Iraq or to remain within Iraq as citizens with equal rights,



IFC’s plan of action within Iraq



The IFC will:

a) Unite and organise people through local networks and in “People’s Houses”.

b) Acquire the necessary force and resources to restrain the Islamists and the nationalist forces from interfering in people’s lives.

c) Exert enough pressure on the US to withdraw from Iraq.

d) Become the instrument of the application of people’s power under any circumstances and at any possible level and extent.

e) Organising and leading people in this decisive challenge.

f) Self-defence is the basic right of every individual. In the absence of a viable government the rights of individuals to life is measured in terms of their ability to defend themselves. The IFC will endeavour to become the conduit for enabling people to defend themselves.

[Hiero]

And how does the Iraq Freedom Congress plan to enforce it's rule? If they are unwilling to join the Iraqi Resistance (which includes more then Islamist, many communist and secular people are part of the violent resistance to US occupation), I fail to see how they can gain any power to do such unrealistic things.

It is just a historical fact that if you want to defeat imperialism you have to have a united front. Hasn't anyone learnt anything from the Asian(most notable China and Vietnam) and the African experince. Liberalism will always fail the people.

Imperialism gives life to political Islam, so it is ridiculous to think you can defeat political Islam before defeating imperialism. Considering Iraqis have enjoyed a secular society, after liberation I doubt many people would accept a theocractic society.

[Whitten]

To be honest it wouldn't suprise me if these guys turned out to be working for the US.

[Cheung Mo]

The present situation in Iraq is the product of the policies of the US, political Islam and the Arab and Kurdish nationalism.

Not that those things are inherently different...The U.S. has been just as willing to support Kurdish nationalism and Islamism when it represented the material interests of its ruling class as it has been to support regimes that slaughter Kurds and repress Islam.

[Rawthentic]

The Iraqi Resistance is made up of the disgruntled ex-employees of U.S. Imperialism. They have taken part in the murder of innocent Iraqis.

The IFC is the only mass popular progressive force in Iraq, and is composed mainly of communists and socialists as well as several worker's unions.

[Leo]

It is true that neither the Iraqi Resistance nor the American occupation offers anything to the working class other than more suffering and more deaths. However, what the Iraqi Freedom Congress and the Worker-communist Parties in general are showing us as an alternative is can not be a solution for the working class. What they are calling for is "a Democratic, Secular and Progressive" bourgeois nation-state.

[Rawthentic]

To this end, people should seize political power at all levels. People should organise around the IFC’s manifesto and implement it to guarantee their own security, livelihoods and freedom and take charge of their own affairs when and wherever possible.
That doesn't sound very bourgeois.


Confiscate and repossess all the properties and estates belonging to religious foundations and utilise them to meet social, recreational and political needs of the people
Or that.

[Leo]

To this end, people should seize political power at all levels. People should organise around the IFC’s manifesto and implement it to guarantee their own security, livelihoods and freedom and take charge of their own affairs when and wherever possible.

That doesn't sound very bourgeois.

It sounds exactly bourgeois; I remember similar statements from the Turkish state, the American state, the states in Eastern Europe after the collapse of the Eastern Block (we the People)... When you hear the word "people", be cautious; it is nothing more than the left-nationalist idealization of class collaboration; a left-wing version of the term nation.



Confiscate and repossess all the properties and estates belonging to religious foundations and utilise them to meet social, recreational and political needs of the people

Or that.

This sounds very bourgeois also. This is simply talking about state owned religious institutions. I am sure that I heard exactly the same stuff from nationalists in Turkey while talking about secularism.

[sexyguy]

And just how do you intend to “remove all the perpetrators of the despair of the Iraqi people.” without them being DEFEATED, a policy and expression you studiously fail to use in your reactionary fantasy about an “independent, democratic, secular, non-ethnic and mass organisation”. Real world capitalist overproduction crisis is what drives imperialist war fever, not Islam of any description.
The weakness or absence of correct revolutionary theory about DEFEATING cut-throat “war on terror“ “shock and awe” imperialist mayhem is the problem.

[Hiero]

The Iraqi Resistance is made up of the disgruntled ex-employees of U.S. Imperialism. They have taken part in the murder of innocent Iraqis.

The Iraqi resistance is not some united organisation. Anyone or group that fights the US imperialists is the Iraqi resistance. The Ba'ath Party is just one group who are invovled in the resistance.


And just how do you intend to “remove all the perpetrators of the despair of the Iraqi people.”

With people's petition.

The IFC sounds like a joke.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Though however bourgeois the demands might be, they could lead to the formation of a democratic theatre that would permit the propagation of the class struggle, and it signifies an alternative to the petit-bourgeois militants who have variating tactics towards participants of the worker's movement. There is no independent worker's movement within Iraq at this moment, so we can not afford to patiently lay dormant until it advances to a level of strength and spontaneity, because there is a war occuring on it's very footsteps that threatens to swallow it's embryonic and naive organizations whole.

It is an obvious choice to support the Iraqi labor movement, but many of the unions are affiliated with the Iraqi Communist Party, which supports the coalition government. The Federation of Workers Councils and Unions in Iraq opposes the occupation however, but it is still an organ of the party itself. But still, there are a total of five federations of unions in Iraq - at least according to their united statement opposed to the oil law imposed upon Iraq by the US occupation. They are largely democratic union and represents the sentiments of the workers within Iraq. Even the IFTU is opposed to the occupation and what the Iraqi labor movement calls "the economic occupation", which is the integration of Iraq into the world market economy, the WTO, and the privatization of public enterprises. So I think that if we oppose these unions on the basis of how they choose to oppose the occupation or coalition government, I think we would be diverting ourselves to the insane premise of ultra-left sectarianism.

To my knowledge, Iraq is still under the anti-labor laws of Saddam Hussein, and unions are not legal. They still strike, negotiate, and win. Iraqi labor unions function even though their leaders are assassinated by baathists and fundamentalists, their offices raided and leaders arrested by US forces. To not support them, is to silence them. I've got to get on with the day so I'm not going to provide my usual links (sorry) but the GUOE, General Union of Oil Employees, won strikes against Kellog, Brown & Root (subsidiary of Haliburton) so that reconstruction of the oil industry would be done by Iraqis, they won strikes against the former 'Coalition Authority' for an increase in pay. Within Baghdad, one of the Worker-Communist affiliates have won strikes for work place and community issues. Also, in Basra the port workers waged a campaign against the Stevedoring Services International (think of them as Haliburton for ports) and SSI gave up and left Iraq.

So to conclude this diatribe, I think that there is an alternative to be found in the labor movement, but we should not ignore the Iraqi Freedom Congress, since it represents a chance for us to expand, and also to no longer see the gun of the insurgency and imperialist forces shoved into our faces.

[Spike]

The Islamic Republic of Iran, Ben Laden brand of Islam and the Shiite and the Sunni forces in Iraq are one of the main causes of the current regression in Iraq.
This is the problem with anarchists and Trots. They regularly act as mouthpieces for U.S. imperialism by regurgitating their ridiculous propaganda like this.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 07:36 pm

The Islamic Republic of Iran, Ben Laden brand of Islam and the Shiite and the Sunni forces in Iraq are one of the main causes of the current regression in Iraq.
This is the problem with anarchists and Trots. They regularly act as mouthpieces for U.S. imperialism by regurgitating their ridiculous propaganda like this.
You are an ignorant idiot. I recognize that the sectarian violence is the most perfect expression of the occupation; it is fueled by financers who are banking on every bomb exploded in a busy marketplace. I could argue the same thing against you, in that you are expressing your anti-worker stance by waving your flag for the insurgency, but I choose not to, since our objectives are the same, but our intentions might have disastrous implications on the socialist movement from within Iraq in general. To nitpick an entire tendency as being at the fault of being "mouthpieces for U.S. imperialism", is not only ridiculous, but dishonest and shameful. Before you make such an insulting accusation, I would suggest that you examine my post and the posts of others from this thread and recognize that we do not support the indiscreet bombing and shooting of civillians for the sake of having access to oil supplies.

[sexyguy]

So I think that if we oppose these unions on the basis of how they choose to oppose the occupation or coalition government, I think we would be diverting ourselves to the insane premise of ultra-left sectarianism.

I think no communist with any grasp of reality would not forgo the opportunity of forging relations with, and attempting to influence these trades unions to become communists trades unions. There is no question of sectarian opposition to them because we don‘t agree with them. The tactics to be employed are endlessly variable dependent on particular local conditions etc. But not to help these unions and the Iraqi working as a whole by stepping-up OUR COMMUNIST FIGHT to defeat the marauding, looting imperialists scum and their Iraqi allies and SAYING SO would be a hideous betrayal.

I have edited this to say NOT forgo in the second pharagraph. Sorry.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 08:13 pm
I think no communist with any grasp of reality would forgo the opportunity of forging relations with, and attempting to influence these trades unions to become communists trades unions. There is no question of sectarian opposition to them because we don‘t agree with them. The tactics to be employed are endlessly variable dependent on particular local conditions etc. But not to help these unions and the Iraqi working as a whole by stepping-up OUR COMMUNIST FIGHT to defeat the marauding, looting imperialists scum and their Iraqi allies and SAYING SO would be a hideous betrayal.
I think that the clear national unity and organization disproves the accusation that their "tactics that are employed are endlessly variable dependent on paticular local conditions". I think a true "hideous betrayal" would be to side with petit-bourgeois nationalist and Islamist forces that have butchered and dismembered thousands of workers and communists already. I believe that we can construct an anti-imperialist movement from within these unions. They are vehicles of the utmost strength, for they have already displayed their fiery spirit in battling the 'Coalition Authority', which has been the tool of foreign investors in trying to see that the reconstruction of the oil industry is the hands of American, British, and French capital. To lend strategical and military support to the insurgency would be to sacrifice the worker's movement; and you can't hide this inevitable result under the cloak of it being "OUR COMMUNIST FIGHT".

[sexyguy]

Please not my edit above.

QUOTE=RedDali,April 28, 2007 10:17 pm]
Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 08:13 pm
I think no communist with any grasp of reality would not forgo the opportunity of forging relations with, and attempting to influence these trades unions to become communists trades unions. There is no question of sectarian opposition to them because we don‘t agree with them. The tactics to be employed are endlessly variable dependent on particular local conditions etc. But not to help these unions and the Iraqi working as a whole by stepping-up OUR COMMUNIST FIGHT to defeat the marauding, looting imperialists scum and their Iraqi allies and SAYING SO would be a hideous betrayal.

I am saying that communist "tactics ... are endlessly variable dependent on particular local conditions".

The reason communists are not in the leadership of all the struggles is because the theoretical leadership lost sight of the need to DEFEAT imperialism. And you appear to be no different.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by sexyguy+April 29, 2007 12:11 am--> (sexyguy @ April 29, 2007 12:11 am) Please not my edit above.

QUOTE=RedDali,April 28, 2007 10:17 pm]
[email protected] 28, 2007 08:13 pm
I think no communist with any grasp of reality would not forgo the opportunity of forging relations with, and attempting to influence these trades unions to become communists trades unions. There is no question of sectarian opposition to them because we don‘t agree with them. The tactics to be employed are endlessly variable dependent on particular local conditions etc. But not to help these unions and the Iraqi working as a whole by stepping-up OUR COMMUNIST FIGHT to defeat the marauding, looting imperialists scum and their Iraqi allies and SAYING SO would be a hideous betrayal.

I am saying that communist "tactics ... are endlessly variable dependent on particular local conditions".

The reason communists are not in the leadership of all the struggles is because the theoretical leadership lost sight of the need to DEFEAT imperialism. And you appear to be no different. [/b]
Is that a reason to support an insurgency that is actually using their rifles and car bombs to massacre thousands of workers and communists? Though they represent the strongest anti-imperialist sentiment within the country at this current moment, they also represent the strongest anti-worker sentiment, and I think we need to pursue a 'third way' within these trade unions and the Iraqi Freedom Congress with hopes of building a new anti-imperialist movement.

[Rawthentic]

Yup, RedDali grasped the concept

[Spike]

You are an ignorant idiot.
The notion that Iran and Bin Laden are behind the violence is fabrication by the bourgeois press. They are propagated in order to try and justify the ongoing occupation in Iraq and imperialist designs on Iran. Fact of the matter is the insurgency in Iraq is a natural development to a hostile occupying power.

Is that a reason to support an insurgency that is actually using their rifles and car bombs to massacre thousands of workers and communists?

This again is incorrect and accepts misleading reporting on the resistance. 75% of all recorded attacks are directed at occupying forces and 17% at collaborationist Iraqi forces.
http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf

[sexyguy]

Originally posted by sexyguy+April 29, 2007 12:11 am--> (sexyguy @ April 29, 2007 12:11 am) Please not my edit above.

QUOTE=RedDali,April 28, 2007 10:17 pm]
[email protected] 28, 2007 08:13 pm
I think no communist with any grasp of reality would not forgo the opportunity of forging relations with, and attempting to influence these trades unions to become communists trades unions. There is no question of sectarian opposition to them because we don‘t agree with them. The tactics to be employed are endlessly variable dependent on particular local conditions etc. But not to help these unions and the Iraqi working as a whole by stepping-up OUR COMMUNIST FIGHT to defeat the marauding, looting imperialists scum and their Iraqi allies and SAYING SO would be a hideous betrayal.

I am saying that communist "tactics ... are endlessly variable dependent on particular local conditions".

The reason communists are not in the leadership of all the struggles is because the theoretical leadership lost sight of the need to DEFEAT imperialism. And you appear to be no different.
Is that a reason to support an insurgency that is actually using their rifles and car bombs to massacre thousands of workers and communists? [/b]

Who is doing that?





Though they represent the strongest anti-imperialist sentiment within the country at this current moment, they also represent the strongest anti-worker sentiment,

Exactly! Much of the ‘insurgent’ “sentiment” is bourgeois and formerly the natural, if troublesome, allies of imperialism. It is the fact that significant sections of Iraqi society are ‘dislocated’ from imperialism and see no future in its deadly embrace that weakens imperialism’s grip and points to a perspective for other “allies” to break out of imperialist political and military orbit. It is US and British imperialism’s inability to impose its ’discipline’ on the planet that is significant and a potential and growing revolutionary shock to the whole world system. Do the invaders go home with their tails between their legs and demonstrate their weakness, exposing themselves to attack from other rival capitalist states or a home-grown revolutionary challenge, or do they step-up their desperate struggle to stay top dog? Either way is risky to say the least. The only ‘reason’ they are in this life-and-death struggle is because the whole world economy is teetering on a knife edge threatening absolute ruin for the entire capitalist epoch and many on the edge can sense it, even if they can’t explain it.

It is the break-up of imperialist influence that is being exposed, cheered on and jeered at by revolutionaries! The renegade local capitalists in Iraq without external imperialist support are making themselves more vulnerable to workers revolution. Ditto - everywhere else as well.

Communists will only get a active hearing in all these struggles (especially in the US and Europe) when they grasp the necessity of DEFEATING the biggest, most vicious enemy. Anyone who is not part of that struggle is really in no position to say exactly what tactical moves need to be made, but the revolutionary lessons of the last hundred years are available and they don’t offer any good examples of revolutions that doesn’t fight to put themselves at the head of all social forces to smash the main enemy before dealing with the others where nessesary.


and I think we need to pursue a 'third way' within these trade unions and the Iraqi Freedom Congress with hopes of building a new anti-imperialist movement.
We can pursue a forth, fifth and sixth way with hopes of building a new anti-imperialist movement but it won’t happen. The anti-imperialist movement is not brought about by communists. Our job is to gain the leadership of it, as it is, or rather as it is unfolding and changing because only building workers dictatorships everywhere will the world’s people be able to control and distribute the fruits of generations of exploited labour.

Dreams of some third way are reactionary, petty-bourgeois lamentations. Lenin

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Hiero+April 27, 2007 04:30 am--> (Hiero @ April 27, 2007 04:30 am)And how does the Iraq Freedom Congress plan to enforce it's rule? If they are unwilling to join the Iraqi Resistance (which includes more then Islamist, many communist and secular people are part of the violent resistance to US occupation), I fail to see how they can gain any power to do such unrealistic things.[/b]
The IFC has its own armed force, the Safety Forces. They currently patrol several neighborhoods in Baghdad and other cities.


Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 04:30 am
It is just a historical fact that if you want to defeat imperialism you have to have a united front. Hasn't anyone learnt anything from the Asian(most notable China and Vietnam) and the African experince. Liberalism will always fail the people.
Yes, we learned something from those experiences: If you slavishly tail reactionary "anti-imperialists", you end up getting killed. Over 1 million dead Indonesian Communists put the exclamation mark on that fact.


[email protected] 27, 2007 04:30 am
Imperialism gives life to political Islam, so it is ridiculous to think you can defeat political Islam before defeating imperialism. Considering Iraqis have enjoyed a secular society, after liberation I doubt many people would accept a theocratic society.
It's not a matter of defeating one before the other. It's a matter of defeating both. Imperialism and political Islam have a symbiotic relationship, and so both of them have to be dealt with at the same time.

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 05:11 am
This again is incorrect and accepts misleading reporting on the resistance. 75% of all recorded attacks are directed at occupying forces and 17% at collaborationist Iraqi forces.
http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." -- Benjamin Disraeli

Iraq Body Count has an ongoing database of those killed under the occupation, either by the U.S. or by the so-called "resistance". Look at the listed incidents and tell me if they match this supposed "statistic" that 92 percent of those attacked are the occupation or its collaborators.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

Miles

[The Author]

Originally posted by [email protected] April 30, 2007, 10:30 p.m.

Iraq Body Count has an ongoing database of those killed under the occupation, either by the U.S. or by the so-called "resistance". Look at the listed incidents and tell me if they match this supposed "statistic" that 92 percent of those attacked are the occupation or its collaborators.


2. Sources

Our sources include public domain newsgathering agencies with web access. A list of some core sources is given below. Further sources will be added provided they meet acceptable project standards (see below).

ABC - ABC News (USA)
AFP - Agence France-Presse
AP - Associated Press
AWST - Aviation Week and Space Technology
Al Jaz - Al Jazeera network
BBC - British Broadcasting Corporation
BG - Boston Globe
Balt. Sun - The Baltimore Sun
CT - Chicago Tribune
CO - Commondreams.org
CSM - Christian Science Monitor
DPA - Deutsche Presse-Agentur
FOX - Fox News
GUA - The Guardian (London)
HRW - Human Rights Watch
HT - Hindustan Times
ICRC - International Committ of the Red Cross
IND - The Independent (London)
IO - Intellnet.org
JT - Jordan Times
LAT - Los Angeles Times
MEN - Middle East Newsline
MEO - Middle East Online
MER - Middle East Report
MH - Miami Herald
NT - Nando Times
NYT - New York Times
Reuters - (includes Reuters Alertnet)
SABC - South African Broadcasting Corporation
SMH - Sydney Morning Herald
Sg.News - The Singapore News
Tel- The Telegraph (London)
Times - The Times (London)
TOI - Times of India
TS - Toronto Star
UPI - United Press International
WNN - World News Network
WP - Washington Post

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/background.php

I was starting to get tired of highlighting the dubious, bourgeois sources used by Iraq Body Count. Fox News? Miami Herald? Christian Science Monitor? Am I supposed to take news produced by multibillion dollar media companies seriously? For all we know, the statistics on this matter could be completely fudged, and in truth it's probably the U.S. armed forces more than the resistance which are causing more deaths among the Iraqi people.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by sexyguy+April 29, 2007 08:05 am--> (sexyguy @ April 29, 2007 08:05 am)Communists will only get a active hearing in all these struggles (especially in the US and Europe) when they grasp the necessity of DEFEATING the biggest, most vicious enemy.[/b]
Which is why, if you read the publications of the League and the Iraq Freedom Congress (and the Worker-Communist Party of Iraq), the defeat and ejection of the imperialist occupation is the top issue. But unlike the left-social-democratic apologists for national socialism and political Islam, we don't end our criticisms and oppositions there. We don't try to give reactionary "anti-imperialism" a coat of "red" varnish.


Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 08:05 am
Anyone who is not part of that struggle is really in no position to say exactly what tactical moves need to be made
... which is why all you armchair revolutionaries in the "Tail-iban" are so amusing, with your toy-town Bolshevism and r-r-r-r-revolutionary rhetoric.


Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 08:05 am
but the revolutionary lessons of the last hundred years are available and they don’t offer any good examples of revolutions that doesn’t fight to put themselves at the head of all social forces to smash the main enemy before dealing with the others where nessesary.
Umm, yeah, like Indonesia in 1965. There was a great example. </SARCASM>


Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 08:05 am
We can pursue a forth, fifth and sixth way with hopes of building a new anti-imperialist movement but it won’t happen. The anti-imperialist movement is not brought about by communists. Our job is to gain the leadership of it, as it is, or rather as it is unfolding and changing because only building workers dictatorships everywhere will the world’s people be able to control and distribute the fruits of generations of exploited labour.
As the saying goes, you can&#39;t lead from the rear. And that is what it seems you in the Tail-iban choose to do: lead (actually, cheerlead) from the rear. You bury your fundamental political disagreements with the reactionary "anti-imperialists" and choose to build a sham "unity" with those who cynically use the working class in order to gain power for themselves. That is how workers and communists get killed.


[email protected] 29, 2007 08:05 am
Dreams of some third way are reactionary, petty-bourgeois lamentations. Lenin
If he followed that in the wooden manner you do, then he would have sided with either Russian or German imperialism in the First World War. I also suggest you look into his views on supporting "pan-Islamism", which he outlined in his Theses on the National and Colonial Question, presented to the II Congress of the Communist International.

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by CriticizeEverythingAlways+April 30, 2007 11:01 pm--> (CriticizeEverythingAlways &#064; April 30, 2007 11:01 pm)I was starting to get tired of highlighting the dubious, bourgeois sources used by Iraq Body Count. Fox News? Miami Herald? Christian Science Monitor? Am I supposed to take news produced by multibillion dollar media companies seriously?[/b]
Well, hell, why bother reading anyone, then?&#33; I guess we should just trust the ... Brookings Institute?


[email protected] 30, 2007 11:01 pm
For all we know, the statistics on this matter could be completely fudged, and in truth it&#39;s probably the U.S. armed forces more than the resistance which are causing more deaths among the Iraqi people.
Well, that&#39;s certainly an interesting take on it. Although I don&#39;t think the U.S. really needs to resort to suicide bombings or IEDs to kill Iraqis. That said, it wouldn&#39;t surprise me one bit if some or most of the bodies found dumped in areas around Baghdad had the imprimatur of the occupation on them. Then again, given that the "resistance" is a nominally-independent yet wholly-owned subsidiary of the imperialist occupation, I consider all deaths that have occurred in Iraq to be the responsibility of the imperialists -- even if they are committed by the Islamists and so-called "resistance".

Miles

[grove street]

There is a difference between the Iraqi resistance and the militas. The Iraqi resistance sole aim is to drive America out of Iraq and the resistance is mostly lead by the Baath party and Baathist elements. The Baath party has publicly condemed the secterian killings in Iraq. The militas on the other hand are armed factions based on secterian lines who&#39;s goal is to acheive their religious and political means through any form, these included siding with America and the puppet government when they see fit, while attacking those who are not of the same sect.

The Baath party is the most organised resitance movement in Iraq and it&#39;s most likely that when America leaves they will regain power. They have already publicly stated that once they regain power they will seek revenge against all traitors to Iraq including the agents of America and Iran.

[Xiao Banfa]

The nascent Iraqi Labour Movement
Michael Kyriazopoulos, Workers Party (NZ) 18 April 2007

Media reports from Iraq tend to focus on the deadly, often internecine attacks of insurgents. But there is another resistance that is struggling against both the brutal US-led occupation and the sectarian militias - the nascent Iraqi Labour Movement. This article is a brief survey of recent developments within that movement.

On 3 and 4 March workers at the Baghdad Sheraton hotel struck, calling for payment of overdue wages and other unpaid benefits. The strike was led by the General Union of Tourism and Hotels, with 250 workers taking action. The dispute ended when bosses agreed to the demands presented by union delegates. Workers’ wages have been frozen at numerous Baghdad hotels because of the limited occupancy of the buildings as result of them becoming military controlled zones.

Recently, teachers in Sadr City have struck over safety, wages and inflation. Street vendors in Nasria staged a successful sit-in which forced authorities to offer alternative sites for setting up the kiosks and carts on which their livelihoods depends.

Electricity workers in Kirkuk staged a one day strike on 4 April demanding plant management and local authorities provide security when they are out performing their duties. Seven of the strikers’ colleagues were killed when they were on their way to work. A day later, more than 450 municipals workers at the major Water Drainage system in Karbala protested outside the office of the governor, calling on him to improve their working conditions and health care and increase their wages.

But trade unionism in Iraq can be a risky business. Najim Abd-Jasem, General Secretary of the Mechanic Workers Union was abducted by criminal militias in Baghdad on the afternoon of the 27th March. His body was found three days later. Signs of torture were evident all over his corpse. Najim was one of the leading trade unionists who helped to establish the General Federation of Iraqi Workers (GFIW) after the fall of Saddam&#39;s dictatorship.

According to a GFIW statement: “His murder is a sign of a systematic campaign to eliminate the leadership of the newly formed independent and democratic unions that strongly oppose sectarianism.”

Oil remains most strategic industry by far. All the union federations are campaigning against the new law to open Iraqi oil to privatisation and foreign ownership, approved behind closed doors by the cabinet on 26 February. Hasan Jum&#96;ah &#96;Awwad al-Asadi, Head of the Federation of Oil Unions demanded that Iraqis be allowed to manage their own oil affairs, pointing out that: “after the entry of the occupying forces and the destruction of the infrastructure of the oil sector the engineers, technical staff and workers were able to raise production from zero to 2,100,000 barrels per day without any foreign expertise or foreign capital. Iraqis are capable of further increasing production with their present skills.”

Falah Alwan, president of the Federation of Workers’ Councils and Unions in Iraq issued the following appeal for international solidarity: “The main reason which has stopped the workers’ social efforts from turning into a major pole within the political formula and kept them as a mere potential force, is not that the workers are incapable or reluctant in organizing; although these factors are of some influence, more or less. In reality, there is an essential reason and aspect, which is that the weakness of the workers’ movement in Iraq reflects the parallel weakness of an international workers’ movement, and is consequently and extension to it…

The failure of the US and the current political forces in imposing a functional political model in the last four years in Iraq, in addition to the drawbacks which came over the nationalist and political Islamist forces, have opened a window of opportunity for the leftist and libertarian forces to enter the arena swiftly and to become THE alternative.

The pre-requisite for that is preparing and organizing the workers’ forces and ranks around their main aims, in addition to attracting and gaining the inseparable support of millions around the world. Only then, the possibility of victory becomes achievable and possible.”

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by hastalavictoria
No to Iraqi Resistance, no to US Imperialism

That piece was very good. I think it goes hand-in-hand with the RCP&#39;s line of Fundamentalism and Imperialism being the two outmodels and being part of the same system of exploitation and oppression that offers no future. At the same the time, A resistance is justified. The IFC won&#39;t be able to put forward its agenda if it doesn&#39;t resist both as the Maoists tried to do in Afghanistan during the Muhajedan-Soviet conflict. A resistance based on the principles which have proven themselves time and time again to use the power of the masses to overcome the funding and advanced arms of the US. These principles are People&#39;s War, and only in this way can the Iraqis drive out both forces as people&#39;s war drove out the fascist-imperialists in China and the corrupt fascitic Koumitang government

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by grove [email protected] 01, 2007 04:07 am
There is a difference between the Iraqi resistance and the militas. The Iraqi resistance sole aim is to drive America out of Iraq and the resistance is mostly lead by the Baath party and Baathist elements. The Baath party has publicly condemed the secterian killings in Iraq. The militas on the other hand are armed factions based on secterian lines who&#39;s goal is to acheive their religious and political means through any form, these included siding with America and the puppet government when they see fit, while attacking those who are not of the same sect.

The Baath party is the most organised resitance movement in Iraq and it&#39;s most likely that when America leaves they will regain power. They have already publicly stated that once they regain power they will seek revenge against all traitors to Iraq including the agents of America and Iran.
on the contrary the Ba&#39;ath Party in the wake of the invasion has tossed any progressive character it had (IE secularism, greater woman&#39;s rights than current) and has taken up a islamist line in order to gain support.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

@ Miles



Umm, yeah, like Indonesia in 1965. There was a great example. </SARCASM>



That is a ridiculous and irrelevant example. The Indonesian communists were already the dominant force in Indonesia&#39;s anti-imperialist struggle, and the Islamists there were clearly acting to cooperate with US imperialism in destroying the communist movement.

In Iraq, the communists are not yet in the leadership of the anti-imperialist movement, therefore its necessary for them to participate in the resistance efforts, whoever they have to work with in the process.

The principle contradiction, remember, is against US imperialism.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

That piece was very good. I think it goes hand-in-hand with the RCP&#39;s line of Fundamentalism and Imperialism being the two outmodels and being part of the same system of exploitation and oppression that offers no future.

With all due respect to the RCP, this line is clearly wrong, and plays into the hands of the imperialists and their reactionary lackeys.

"Fundamentalism" needs to be looked at in terms of its class basis. If it comes from the oppressed classes, and targets imperialism, it is a revolutionary force.

To place "fundamentalism" and "imperialism" in the same category without any analysis of their roots is clearly wrong.



At the same the time, A resistance is justified. The IFC won&#39;t be able to put forward its agenda if it doesn&#39;t resist both as the Maoists tried to do in Afghanistan during the Muhajedan-Soviet conflict.

We have already discussed that on Rev-left, and it was proven that the Maoist comrades&#39; line in the Afghan conflict was WRONG, and it played into the hands of US imperialism.



A resistance based on the principles which have proven themselves time and time again to use the power of the masses to overcome the funding and advanced arms of the US. These principles are People&#39;s War, and only in this way can the Iraqis drive out both forces as people&#39;s war drove out the fascist-imperialists in China and the corrupt fascitic Koumitang government

Look, comrade, all I&#39;m asking you to consider is this possibility:

Communists cannot, CANNOT, always dictate the terms of the conflict.

Are we going to deny the Iraqi people the right to fight imperialism, simply because many of the resistance fighters might not conform to our concept of secularism?

Are we going to build castles in the air (castles such as the IFC) simply because we cannot swallow the fact that there is an indigenous Iraqi resistance which is NOT led by communists?

And if the IFC exists to fight imperialism, then how can it equate the Iraqi insurgents (who are VICTIMS of imperialism) with the imperialist mercenaries themselves?

This left opportunism will ruin the prospects of the whole resistance.

We the communists must not build our own opportunist anti-imperialist fronts. We must join the existing resistance in a United Front.

That is precisely why the Chinese Communists led by Mao did NOT try to fight both Japanese imperialism and the Kuomintang at the same time.

The principle contradiction is between imperialism and the people it targets. Keep that in mind.

[Noah]

Are we going to deny the Iraqi people the right to fight imperialism, simply because many of the resistance fighters might not conform to our concept of secularism?

Well yes (you&#39;re not really denying them anything?&#33; The right to kill an American? A shia? A sunni? :rolleyes: ) because it&#39;s the same pooh simply fed with a different spoon.

In addition to this, you generalise (well this is my opinion anyhow) it is ridiculous to suggest that the Iraqi people hate America because they are capitalists or imperialists. The Iraqis are not fighting imperialism that is just plain stupid.

They are sick of the Americans as they have proven useless and failed in achieving their promises and as a result caused alot of suffering.

That doesn&#39;t mean they want extremism either but when there&#39;s no food, no medicine and no security then they&#39;ve got to take a side which has become Sunni or Shia and their various factions. It&#39;s not a matter of resistance it&#39;s because the people have to join one.

Why should the left compromise itself for a group of extremist Islamic shitbags? In the name of anti-imperialism, extremist Islam is just as oppressive as imperialism.


Are we going to build castles in the air (castles such as the IFC) simply because we cannot swallow the fact that there is an indigenous Iraqi resistance which is NOT led by communists?

It&#39;s not bloody &#39;indigenous&#39; how the hell can an Iraqi resistance generate the amount of money to create such an advanced (and well armed) &#39;resistance&#39; - there must be foreign elements, it&#39;s silly to suggest otherwise it&#39;s obvious Iran and neighbouring countries have personal interests in Iraq.


And if the IFC exists to fight imperialism, then how can it equate the Iraqi insurgents (who are VICTIMS of imperialism) with the imperialist mercenaries themselves?

As well as being victims of imperialism - it could be said most insurgents are also victims of Islam&#33; And therefore they are victims of both, it&#39;s easy to suck young, angry and unemployed men into religious extremism.

The extremists are mercenaries of an extreme form of Islam - as I said same shit different spoon.


This left opportunism will ruin the prospects of the whole resistance.

It&#39;s not really a resistance. It&#39;s simply that all factions want a bite of the cake, the warring won&#39;t stop once the imperialists leave, this is a war for power and there are many external factors.


We the communists must not build our own opportunist anti-imperialist fronts. We must join the existing resistance in a United Front.

LOL, what with the Mehdi army?&#33; :lol:

[KC]

"Fundamentalism" needs to be looked at in terms of its class basis. If it comes from the oppressed classes, and targets imperialism, it is a revolutionary force.

I don&#39;t think you&#39;re using the appropriate word here when you&#39;re saying they&#39;re "revolutionary". Obviously they&#39;re revolutionary, as they&#39;re revolting. Rather, I think you&#39;re trying to say that they&#39;re progressive. Am I correct? If so, I would completely disagree, as fundamentalists want to go backwards and not forwards. They&#39;re as progressive as Luddites.

However, what this does tell us is that the class struggle in these places where fundamentalism exists has become intensified to the point where these people are looking for a way out, and unfortunately they were looking the wrong way. This happened with the Luddites in Europe and with the Narodniks in Russia. So in this sense it is both good and bad.

However, I wouldn&#39;t side with the fundamentalists because of the fact that they&#39;re reactionary. The goal is to reach the mass of people and to guide them towards a social-democratic consciousness. Once this happens the most ardent fundamentalists and the petty-bourgeois and bourgeois supporters of fundamentalism will be isolated and the fundamentalist movement will be effectively eliminated.


Are we going to deny the Iraqi people the right to fight imperialism, simply because many of the resistance fighters might not conform to our concept of secularism?

Well, the fact of the matter is that the fundamentalists kill working people. We can&#39;t side with someone that attacks working class civilians. Second, the majority of the Iraqi people don&#39;t support the fundamentalist character of the resistance and are looking for an alternative to both. That is what the IFC is, and that is why they&#39;ve been able to gain so much support in such a short period of time.


Are we going to build castles in the air (castles such as the IFC) simply because we cannot swallow the fact that there is an indigenous Iraqi resistance which is NOT led by communists?

If you think that the IFC is a "castle in the air" then you really don&#39;t understand the situation in Iraq.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

With all due respect to the RCP, this line is clearly wrong, and plays into the hands of the imperialists and their reactionary lackeys.

"Fundamentalism" needs to be looked at in terms of its class basis. If it comes from the oppressed classes, and targets imperialism, it is a revolutionary force.

To place "fundamentalism" and "imperialism" in the same category without any analysis of their roots is clearly wrong.

No because the leaders of the fundamentalists are bourgeoisie or petty bourgeoisie clerics and religious leaders not workers. The workers may make the rank and file, but what kind of "revolutionary force" would this be if workers were in charge? It would be antagonistic to the needs of the masses because it ATTACKS the masses with suicide bombers and fundamentalism. What kind of future does this fundamentalism have for the masses? Stripping of woman&#39;s rights? Stripping of Gay rights? attacks non-islamists and secularists and science? Look at places where fundamentalism has succeeded, those places are not where the masses are empowered. By supporting the fundamentalists or supporting the imperialists you are essentially empowering the system of imperialism by telling the masses to side with it, and not form a popular resistance. I do personally think that US imperialism vs. the needs of the masses is the principle contradiction here and that it is far, far worse than fundamentalism, but fundamentalism is not a people&#39;s resistance it is still an outmodel which leads to nowhere. Like Marx says religion is the Opiate of the masses, so its no form of liberation.


We have already discussed that on Rev-left, and it was proven that the Maoist comrades&#39; line in the Afghan conflict was WRONG, and it played into the hands of US imperialism.

No because the people on that thread seemed to think that the Maoists sided with the fundamentalists, and that was what was WRONG about that thread.


Look, comrade, all I&#39;m asking you to consider is this possibility:

Communists cannot, CANNOT, always dictate the terms of the conflict.

that is true, but does it doesn&#39;t mean communists side with one side which doesn&#39;t offer any form of liberation


Are we going to deny the Iraqi people the right to fight imperialism, simply because many of the resistance fighters might not conform to our concept of secularism?

no we aren&#39;t going to deny that them right, we&#39;re going to say that A resistance has to be built based on liberation, not some suicide fundamentalist carnage.



We the communists must not build our own opportunist anti-imperialist fronts. We must join the existing resistance in a United Front.

That is precisely why the Chinese Communists led by Mao did NOT try to fight both Japanese imperialism and the Kuomintang at the same time.

The principle contradiction is between imperialism and the people it targets. Keep that in mind.

the terms are very different I think. It&#39;s a good point, but the united front is against imperialism, right now, the Iraqi resistance is not even that. It is fighting the masses not the imperialists that is why there are so many more Iraqi casualties than US ones. See this is exactly the thing. Without a people&#39;s resistance, we can&#39;t expect a effective resistance against the imperialists like in Vietnam we&#39;ll just see the killing of the masses. That is there is no term for a united front until at least, the Sunnis and Shi&#39;a stop the sectarian killings and unite. Right now there&#39;s nothing to even unite with, let alone something for liberation

[KC]

No because the leaders of the fundamentalists are bourgeoisie or petty bourgeoisie clerics and religious leaders not workers.

I think this is a crucial element in understanding the situation in Iraq and especially the situation with the Iraqi Resistance. The Iraqi Resistance is led by the nationa bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie against the imperialist bourgeoisie. This is not a fight against imperialism, as one can only fight imperialism by fighting capitalism (as imperialism is capitalism), and it should be quite obvious to Marxists that the bourgeoisie isn&#39;t going to lead a struggle against imperialism. What is being resisted here isn&#39;t imperialism itself, but the terms of exploitation of Iraq by imperialist forces. I think Hekmat&#39;s paper The Myth of the National and Progressive Bourgeoisie (http://hekmat.public-archive.net/en/0110en.html) analyzes this situation perfectly.

My earlier analysis of fundamentalism and the Iraqi Resistance is based on this as well.

[Hiero]

The Iraqis are not fighting imperialism that is just plain stupid.

It must be the US soldiers that are stupid then to suffer 3360 deaths, 17323 hostile injuries. Because if no one is fighting imperialism, I wonder how they suffered such violence.


If you think that the IFC is a "castle in the air" then you really don&#39;t understand the situation in Iraq.

How is it not a castle in the air? There claims are progressive, but unrealistic, at this time NO force in Iraq can defeat the Islamist forces and the imperialist forces at the same time. How can they achieve both when reactionary nationalism is a product of imperialism. The IFC would be a good party in a more liberal environment, but in the middle of war such liberalism will never make an impact.


I think this is a crucial element in understanding the situation in Iraq and especially the situation with the Iraqi Resistance. The Iraqi Resistance is led by the nationa bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie against the imperialist bourgeoisie. This is not a fight against imperialism, as one can only fight imperialism by fighting capitalism (as imperialism is capitalism), and it should be quite obvious to Marxists that the bourgeoisie isn&#39;t going to lead a struggle against imperialism. What is being resisted here isn&#39;t imperialism itself, but the terms of exploitation of Iraq by imperialist forces. I think Hekmat&#39;s paper The Myth of the National and Progressive Bourgeoisie analyzes this situation perfectly.

You&#39;re analysis is wrong. The bourgeoisie is divided between collaboraters and nationalists. History has proven this. The nationalists are more progressive then the imperialists, however they are reactionary in relation to communists. So unless the communist parties stand up and make an attempt to take leading role, the workers will fight with the nationalist bourgioes.

What makes this argument so ridiculous is we are arguing over what the workers of Iraq should do. When infact they have already chosen, the workers are fighting for national liberation. And I have more hope in their intelligence, that these once secular citizens of Iraq will not follow through with the Islamist after liberation.

In Iraq there is a strong secular, communist and trade union spirit. So I wouldn&#39;t say the workers in Iraq are siding with the Islamist, rather they are holding back their attack untill imperialism is defeating. I read in a Time (or a similar magazine) an interview with a bomb maker. He made bombs for and Islamist group, even he said he wasn&#39;t religious, and thinks after the US leaves they will have to fight the Islamists.

I often look at it this way. If Australia was invaded by an imperialist power, I would want to fight. Now if the Communist and Socialist parties collaborated with the imperialists and the Catholic church in my region said, here have a gun, what options am I left with? The IFC is a good party, but they have ne idea how they are going to get the imperialist out, if they aren&#39;t willing to join a broader resistance. I would imagaine this problem is a reality in Iraq.


There is a difference between the Iraqi resistance and the militas. The Iraqi resistance sole aim is to drive America out of Iraq and the resistance is mostly lead by the Baath party and Baathist elements. The Baath party has publicly condemed the secterian killings in Iraq. The militas on the other hand are armed factions based on secterian lines who&#39;s goal is to acheive their religious and political means through any form, these included siding with America and the puppet government when they see fit, while attacking those who are not of the same sect.

Good point. The Islamist militias enjoy the instable situation so they can work out their policies. This is what Moqtada al-Sadr did when he tried to join the puppert government in 2005. Then on the other hand he can be active in using his army to attack the US.

[YSR]

I don&#39;t think everyone in the resistance is either an Islamist or a Baathist. The way I&#39;ve heard it, there&#39;s plenty of regular folks who are resisting the yolk of American imperialism.

[RNK]

Yes, the resistance is made up of all sectors of society -- from foreign fighters to people who have simply armed themselves to defend their neighbourhoods, both against extremists Shias or Sunnis, or against Coalition forces.

[Noah]

It must be the US soldiers that are stupid then to suffer 3360 deaths, 17323 hostile injuries. Because if no one is fighting imperialism, I wonder how they suffered such violence.

Compared to 755,000 normal innocent Iraqis (and probably more) that&#39;s child&#39;s play, I wonder which resistance did that :rolleyes:

[The Grey Blur]

This is crap. We should critically support Iraqis and their right to defend themselves from the Imperialist aggressor while supporting the development of a non-sectarian worker&#39;s party and militia like the IFC. Sitting on fences hurts your ass.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

We should critically support Iraqis and their right to defend themselves from the Imperialist aggressor while supporting the development of a non-sectarian worker&#39;s party and militia like the IFC. Sitting on fences hurts your ass.

Exactly. That&#39;s like a summary of my position on Iraq.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 10:00 pm

It must be the US soldiers that are stupid then to suffer 3360 deaths, 17323 hostile injuries. Because if no one is fighting imperialism, I wonder how they suffered such violence.

Compared to 755,000 normal innocent Iraqis (and probably more) that&#39;s child&#39;s play, I wonder which resistance did that :rolleyes:
That comment is stupid for a number of reasons.

1) We have already pointed out there is a difference between the resistance and the Islamic and sectarian militias.

2) You have given a random figure without soucre. Which made me realise I didn&#39;t give my source. http://icasualties.org/oif/

3) Your number probally comes from the Lancet study, being that high. It shows the number of deaths that have occured in Iraq under occupation that normally wouldn&#39;t have. Such as people who come in direct or indirect conflict with the imperialist (combatant and non combatant), then people who have died because of destroyed services, and also people who have died because of sectarian violence. However you are willing to put the whole blame on the Iraqi people.

It makes me wonder why you are so willing to let the US imperialist off the hook, and play the whole "Iraqis are kiling each other" game. It downplays and works against everything we know about imperialism.

[Noah]

No I disagree. I&#39;m not shifting the blame fully on the Iraqis - not at all.

But those 755,000 deaths have come as a result of bombs, bad healthcare and illness and so on...It&#39;s true the Americans may have bombed a few hospitals but from my relative (and I know anecdotes suck) and from the news it seems like it&#39;s the &#39;militias&#39; that have been doing so, in addition to this the &#39;militias&#39;, &#39;resistance&#39; whatever seem to control many hospitals and have the power to refute people healthcare if they want to.

And plus, until someone can prove that there is a &#39;militia&#39; and a &#39;resistance&#39; and they&#39;re not all just the same thing, then I won&#39;t be convinced.

For example Al-Qaeida carry out attacks on America but they also kill innocent Iraqis, what are they?

[Avtomat_Icaro]

Hmm the fundamentalist movements seen in the Middle East are a reaction against imperialism. They might not be Marxist or very left, but they are against US imperialism.

I think you are keeping your head in the sand if you would only approve resistance against imperialism in the leftist Marxist form.

[KC]

You can&#39;t be against imperialism unless you&#39;re against capitalism because imperialism is capitalism.

[Noah]

Extremist Islamic groups won&#39;t bring communism (obviously) but just like the imperialist they&#39;ll bring capitalism wrapped in Islam. Same shit differerent spoon - so there&#39;s no point in supporting them.

I would rather be living in an America or Britain rather than a Iran.

[Question everything]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 04:32 pm
Extremist Islamic groups won&#39;t bring communism (obviously) but just like the imperialist they&#39;ll bring capitalism wrapped in Islam. Same shit differerent spoon - so there&#39;s no point in supporting them.

I would rather be living in an America or Britain rather than a Iran.
Realistically we have to recognize that we are not in a powerful position there, we cannot simply reject both sides of the fight and expect socialism to come out on top in the end (at least not in the near future)...

[Spirit of Spartacus]

@ Zampano


You can&#39;t be against imperialism unless you&#39;re against capitalism because imperialism is capitalism.

Of course&#33; Therefore, if non-Marxist groups attack the forces of imperialism, they are weakening global capitalism.


@ Noah:


Extremist Islamic groups won&#39;t bring communism (obviously) but just like the imperialist they&#39;ll bring capitalism wrapped in Islam. Same shit differerent spoon - so there&#39;s no point in supporting them.

Wrong.

You see, capitalism is not some sort of isolated system inside Iraq. It is a global socio-economic order, as Zampano just pointed out above. The imperialists have invaded Iraq to bring it fully inside their exploitative world system. If they succeed in doing so, the imperialists will be strengthened, and so will their exploitative world system.

Anyone from Iraq who resists the effort to drag their society into the capitalist world system will basically weaken global capitalism.

Even if the Islamic extremist groups replace imperialist super-exploitation with their own national-bourgeois exploitation, it will have two positive effects on the global revolutionary struggle:

1.) The people of Iraq will be objectively better off under the national bourgeoisie of Iraq rather than the imperialist aggressors.

2.) The capitalist global order will be weakened, making it that much easier for the Radical Left to finally overthrow it.

Therefore, looking at the current situation in Iraq, left-wing revolutionary forces have little to lose and much to gain by supporting the existing Iraqi Resistance.

Of course we should make efforts to minimize the sectarian carnage, but then again, the sectarian carnage was bound to take place, given the circumstances surrounding the Baathists&#39; fall from power.


I would rather be living in an America or Britain rather than a Iran.

That is your personal opinion.

But in any case, you need to realize that the imperialists aren&#39;t going to turn Iraq into an America or Britain. :P

The current prosperity of America and Britain has a lot to do with the poverty of places like Iraq.

In a word: NEO-COLONIALISM. ;)

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Originally posted by Question everything+May 09, 2007 12:18 am--> (Question everything @ May 09, 2007 12:18 am)
[email protected] 08, 2007 04:32 pm
Extremist Islamic groups won&#39;t bring communism (obviously) but just like the imperialist they&#39;ll bring capitalism wrapped in Islam. Same shit differerent spoon - so there&#39;s no point in supporting them.

I would rather be living in an America or Britain rather than a Iran.
Realistically we have to recognize that we are not in a powerful position there, we cannot simply reject both sides of the fight and expect socialism to come out on top in the end (at least not in the near future)... [/b]
Exactly&#33; When we have two enemies to deal with, we must prioritize. Who is the greatest, most consistent enemy of the global working-class since 1945?

The answer: US imperialism&#33;

[sexyguy]

But in any case, you need to realize that the imperialists aren&#39;t going to turn Iraq into an America or Britain. :P
Correct Spirit of Spartacus, but they are going to turn much of the rests of the world (including the US and Britain) into ’Iraq’ in an effort to kick their way out of their own self inflicted ’overproduction’ crisis unless and until they are defeated everywhere.

[Noah]

Anyone from Iraq who resists the effort to drag their society into the capitalist world system will basically weaken global capitalism.

To bo honest, I don&#39;t think most ordinary Iraqis want to weaken capitalism or care about our struggle as leftists. Many Iraqis probably welcomed an invasion which would give them &#39;democracy&#39; and a free market but seeing as these promises have not materialised many Iraqis have taken part in passive or direct resistance towards the Americans.


1.) The people of Iraq will be objectively better off under the national bourgeoisie of Iraq rather than the imperialist aggressors.

How do you know that? They&#39;ll probably use the same tactics as the imperialists.


2.) The capitalist global order will be weakened, making it that much easier for the Radical Left to finally overthrow it.

Yes if the imperialists are defeated then that will be a blow for the capitalists, I agree...But it would be a win for an Islamist group which is just as bad. Islamic extremism is just as imperialist as the capitalists or if they&#39;re not, they would be given the chance and why should we give them a chance?

I&#39;m not saying the struggle has to be a leftist one, I&#39;d prefer to see a struggle for capitalism without religion rather than a struggle for capitalism with religion. Because religion is a big fucking problem and difficult to work against.

It&#39;s easy to ridicule a capitalist but it&#39;s difficult to sever a person&#39;s bond with religious extremism after they&#39;ve been radicalised and obviously the first thing an Islamic government would do is radicalise the people as this will strengthen the government and create hate towards America and the west.

If religion takes grip in Iraq it is going to be a long time and an extremely difficult task to get anywhere socialism due to the surrounding influences and history has taught us that in different times people are easily radicalised.


But in any case, you need to realize that the imperialists aren&#39;t going to turn Iraq into an America or Britain.

What about that pub their building&#33;? :o

[sexyguy]

What about that pub their building&#33;?
That sums-up your position perfectly.

[Revolution Until Victory]

Iraqi Marxist Insurgent Group Declared

An unknown left-wing group calling itself the Iraqi Armed Revolutionary Resistance distributed leaflets in the Mid-Euphrates area around Najaf, Hilla and Karbala calling for “resistance against American, British and Zionist occupiers in order to liberate Iraq and form a free socialist, democratic alternative,” according to the Al-Badeel Al-Iraqi website. The group, which described itself as a “movement of Iraqi Communists and Marxists experienced in armed struggle, leftist Iraqi nationalists, and their supporters,” claimed responsibility for an attack against U.S. troops at the Khan Al-Nus area between Najaf and Karbla on Sunday. The leaflets, which carried a photo of Cuban Marxist revolutionary Che Guevara, announced the launch of the resistance in the Mid-Euphrates and condemned the “puppet government, the so-called Council of Representatives, terrorist Salafis, militias, the Interior Ministry, Iraqi traitors who came on American tanks, the American and British mercenaries, contractors, and their servants from the South Lebanese Army.” Printed in both Arabic and English, the statement said car bombs and roadside bombs killing Iraqis are planted by the above groups to damage the reputation of Iraqi resistance groups.

http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php/post/..._Group_Declared (http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php/post/2790/Iraqi_Marxist_Insurgent_Group_Declared)

[OneBrickOneVoice]

see this is great news. A actual resistance not a faction fighting islamic civil war

[sexyguy]

see this is great news. A actual resistance not a faction fighting islamic civil war

Now will that encourage you and Bob to agitate for the defeat of US and British imperialism?

[sexyguy]

As an example of the debate now ripping through the US establishment see this by Pat Buchanan a bourgeois commentator.

Pat Buchanan has been a senior adviser to three presidents, twice a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, and the presidential nominee of the Reform Party in 2000.

He says:
Hearing Rep. Ron Paul recite the reasons for Arab and Islamic resentment of the United States, including 10 years of bombing and sanctions that brought death to thousands of Iraqis after the Gulf War, Rudy Giuliani broke format and exploded:

"That&#39;s really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of 9-11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don&#39;t think I have ever heard that before, and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11.
"I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us what he really meant by it."

The applause for Rudy&#39;s rebuke was thunderous — the soundbite of the night and best moment of Rudy&#39;s campaign.
After the debate, on Fox News&#39; "Hannity and Colmes," came one of those delicious moments on live television. As Michael Steele, GOP spokesman, was saying that Paul should probably be cut out of future debates, the running tally of votes by Fox News viewers was showing Ron Paul, with 30 percent, the winner of the debate.

Brother Hannity seemed startled and perplexed by the votes being text-messaged in the thousands to Fox News saying Paul won, Romney was second, Rudy third and McCain far down the track at 4 percent.
"I would ask the congressman to ... tell us what he meant," said Rudy.
A fair question and a crucial question.

When Ron Paul said the 9-11 killers were "over here because we are over there," he was not excusing the mass murderers of 3,000 Americans. He was explaining the roots of hatred out of which the suicide-killers came.
Lest we forget, Osarma bin Laden was among the mujahideen whom we, in the Reagan decade, were aiding when they were fighting to expel the Red Army from Afghanistan.

We sent them Stinger missiles, Spanish mortars, sniper rifles. And they helped drive the Russians out.
What Ron Paul was addressing was the question of what turned the allies we aided into haters of the United States. Was it the fact that they discovered we have freedom of speech or separation of church and state? Do they hate us because of who we are? Or do they hate us because of what we do?

Osama bin Laden in his declaration of war in the 1990s said it was U.S. troops on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia, U.S. bombing and sanctions of a crushed Iraqi people, and U.S. support of Israel&#39;s persecution of the Palestinians that were the reasons he and his mujahideen were declaring war on us.

Elsewhere, he has mentioned Sykes-Picot, the secret British-French deal that double-crossed the Arabs who had fought for their freedom alongside Lawrence of Arabia and were rewarded with a quarter century of British-French imperial domination and humiliation.
Almost all agree that, horrible as 9-11 was, it was not anarchic terror. It was political terror, done with a political motive and a political objective.
What does Rudy Giuliani think the political motive was for 9-11?
Was it because we are good and they are evil? Is it because they hate our freedom? Is it that simple?
Ron Paul says Osama bin Laden is delighted we invaded Iraq.
Does the man not have a point? The United States is now tied down in a bloody guerrilla war in the Middle East and increasingly hated in Arab and Islamic countries where we were once hugely admired as the first and greatest of the anti-colonial nations. Does anyone think that Osama is unhappy with what is happening to us in Iraq?
Of the 10 candidates on stage in South Carolina, Dr. Paul alone opposed the war. He alone voted against the war. Have not the last five years vindicated him, when two-thirds of the nation now agrees with him that the war was a mistake, and journalists and politicians left and right are babbling in confession, "If I had only known then what I know now ..."
Rudy implied that Ron Paul was unpatriotic to suggest the violence against us out of the Middle East may be in reaction to U.S. policy in the Middle East. Was President Hoover unpatriotic when, the day after Pearl Harbor, he wrote to friends, "You and I know that this continuous putting pins in rattlesnakes finally got this country bitten."
Pearl Harbor came out of the blue, but it also came out of the troubled history of U.S.-Japanese relations going back 40 years. Hitler&#39;s attack on Poland was naked aggression. But to understand it, we must understand what was done at Versailles — after the Germans laid down their arms based on Wilson&#39;s 14 Points. We do not excuse — but we must understand.
Ron Paul is no TV debater. But up on that stage in Columbia, he was speaking intolerable truths. Understandably, Republicans do not want him back, telling the country how the party blundered into this misbegotten war.
By all means, throw out of the debate the only man who was right from the beginning on Iraq.

Emphasis added

[Spike]

The Iraqi Resistance are religious fundamentalists who are inherently reactionary and must be opposed for a revolutionary alternative:
Irrelevant. Marxists supported bourgeois revolutionary movements including those in France, America, and Russia because they were necessary and progressive as they expressed the needs of society&#39;s development. That a national liberation struggle is led by the bourgeoisie or in the case of the Iran by clerical surrogates is irrelevant.

A national liberation revolution by definition develops out of a movement aimed at abolishing foreign domination, winning national independence, eliminating national and colonial oppression and exploitation, and gaining a nation&#39;s right to self-determination and its right to establish its own nation-state. The main driving forces in today&#39;s national liberation revolutions are the working class--the most consistent champion of the national interests, social progress, and carrying the revolution through the end--and the peasantry, which plays a role in the anti-imperialist liberation struggle. Communists support the formation of a national front to resist foreign aggression.

[Rawthentic]

This classless "anti-imperialism" is reactionary to no end. Millions of workers get killed in these "united fronts" that ally with the bourgeoisie to end imperialism. This only creates fodder for the capitalist class to establish itself.

Marxists dont support these &#39;national liberation&#39; struggles, as long as they for the world liberation of the proletariat and are not classless.

[sexyguy]

Irrelevant. Marxists supported bourgeois revolutionary movements including those in France, America, and Russia because they were necessary and progressive as they expressed the needs of society&#39;s development. That a national liberation struggle is led by the bourgeoisie or in the case of the Iran by clerical surrogates is irrelevant.

This is a much needed correction to the tone and direction of this debate.


The main driving forces in today&#39;s national liberation revolutions are the working class--the most consistent champion of the national interests,

Spot on&#33;
Just one point though, while all this is undoubtedly true and a timely intervention in this thread, can we also agree that the “diving force” of the growing “national liberation revolutions” bubbling up and bursting out everywhere, is the deepening economic crisis of the whole imperialist system which has wound-up and set in motion all social and political conflicts, which then make &#39;left&#39; “condemnation” of “fundamentalists” at best "Irrelevant" but mostly gives comfort to reactionary "war on terror" fascism?