A new message from the Iraqi resistance

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Take a look:

http://peoplesgeography.com/2007/10/02/fro...aqi-resistance/ (http://peoplesgeography.com/2007/10/02/from-the-iraqi-resistance/)

I don't understand why they're grateful to the "anti-globalization" movement. What have we done for the Iraqi resistance? Hell, we haven't even been able to take a united stance in the anti-imperialist struggle.

The Left is still debating whether or not the Iraqi people deserve national liberation.
The more dogmatic we are, the more irrelevant we will become.

What do the comrades think?

[Revolution Until Victory]

Thanks, comrade, I have already posted the transcript before here in this thread (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=71333). Good thing you have posted the video for those who are not patient enough to read.

I have stressed this from thier transcript, for those too lazy to read:


The Resistance has also proved that the highly consumable capital based economies cannot fight long wars, and their greed for energy to sustain a specific lifestyle will eventually grind humanity into a global market of exploitation and slavery only to be followed by total collapse. Capitalism as is tested more and more with less energy available will eventually fail.

[Faux Real]

Thanks SoS and RUV.

His points on the Anti-Globalization, and more specifically the Peace Movement are probably overblown, but meh.


I don't understand why they're grateful to the "anti-globalization" movement. What have we done for the Iraqi resistance? Hell, we haven't even been able to take a united stance in the anti-imperialist struggle.
Maybe because the anti-global movement is one of the few noticeable one's that recognize capitalism is harming people around the world and Iraq, that can bring it's message out quite efficiently.

It's great to see this side out of the Iraqi resistance. A beautiful speech overall.

[Forward Union]

I can't open the link because it's blocked at my work. But which group released this message? "the iraqi resistance" doesn't exist. It's a mixture of opposing groups with contradictory aims, ranging from religious nutters, and fascists, to Unionists and communists.

And out of interest what exactly is national liberation? I mean, within that concept, the meaning of "liberation" is confusing to say the least. Often when we talk of national liberation, we're talking about the self-determination of a local state over a foreign one. "Freedom for the slave owner" as some might say. The Iraqi workers fighting for this cause are acting against the interests of the working class. Although they fight against the US, which is good, and they have every right to, they seek to replace that old order with another bunch of ****s.

[Revolution Until Victory]

But which group released this message?

the 1920 Revolution Brigades. It is among the main resistance factions. Its name referrs to the 1920 anti-British colonialism revolution in Iraq.


"the iraqi resistance" doesn't exist. It's a mixture of opposing groups with contradictory aims, ranging from religious nutters, and fascists, to Unionists and communists.

There we go again, another imperialist apologist. The Iraqi resistance exists with full power, if imperilaist apologists can't realize this, it's not our problem. There are those who are secterian and attack innoncet civlians of different sects, those are not part of the resistance. The Iraqi resistance are those fighters who target the US imperialists and thier agents and tools. Too bad they have a different ideaology than yours (Political Islam etc.), but in no way that denys the fact it is an anti-imperilaist resistance. The communists themselves are to blame for the weak precense of acommunist movment; this doesn't give you right to dimiss the anti-imperilaist forces as "they don't exist' or they are "religious nutters".
Communists should always alie themselves with all anti-imperialist forces in the world to smash imperilaism and neo-colonialism and pave the way for the workers emancipation.


And out of interest what exactly is national liberation?

in this context, it referrs to the liberation of Iraq from yankee imperilaist control and military occupation.


The Iraqi workers fighting for this cause are acting against the interests of the working class. Although they fight against the US, which is good, and they have every right to, they seek to replace that old order with another bunch of ****s.

What??

Those Iraqi guerrillas are paving the way for the workers revolution, which will take place after imperilaism is eradicted in Iraq. Again, the communists alie themselves with anti-imperialist forces, many times, temproraly, like in the case of Iraq, with out supporting all of thier positions. No one said you should support the Iraqi resistance factions in a liberated Iraq or support any anti-workers moves they might take. What we are saying is that we should support the anti-imperilasits NOW during the war of liberation.

The Iraqi workers, unfortunatly, have little to no choice in Iraq. There is no resistance faction that is pro-working class or holds thier ideology, the ideology of the proletariat, communism, and at the same time, be major. There is one or two, but they are extremely minor. The Iraqi workers, for now at least, are left with one path only: joining the Iraqi resistance (reagrdless of their position on the ideology of the proletariat) in crushing imperilaism in Iraq which would pave the way for thier emancipation.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Revolution Until [email protected] 04, 2007 02:40 pm
There we go again, another imperialist apologist.
Hardly. I fully support the destruction of US imperialist forces in Iraq. Even the SWP has criticism of the iraqi resistance!, to point out inherant ideological contradictions that often manifest as violence within the "resistance" is not appologisign for anything.


There are those who are secterian and attack innoncet civlians of different sects, those are not part of the resistance.

Many of them fight against the US. And so are part of the "resistance" surely?


The communists themselves are to blame for the weak precense of acommunist movment

Oh absolutely. I agree wholehartledly.


Communists should always alie themselves with all anti-imperialist forces in the world to smash imperilaism and neo-colonialism and pave the way for the workers emancipation.

The problem with this analysis, is that it could lead to support for anything. In the 1930s the National Socialist Party were being anti-imperialist by rejecting the treaty of versallis, by opposing French and Polish occupation of German territory, imperialist restrictions on their millitary, and artificial the division of their nation.

Of course that was a positive, perhaps the working class should have supported them, because anything that weakens the western alliance, benefits us, right?

Many of the intentions of the groups in the IRaqi resistance are abhorant, and disgusting. And if anything these factions should be treated like hitlers stormtroopers.


Those Iraqi guerrillas are paving the way for the workers revolution,

Debatable to say the least! as you said yourself "There is no resistance faction that is pro-working class " meaning they are all anti-working class. Now this fills me with a little scepticism, claiming that victory for anti-working class forces, would somehow lead to "workers revolution" I have my reservations.

[Revolution Until Victory]

Hardly. I fully support the destruction of US imperialist forces in Iraq. Even the SWP has criticism of the iraqi resistance!, to point out inherant ideological contradictions that often manifest as violence within the "resistance" is not appologisign for anything.

I understand your postion. But being against the Iraqi Resistance means you are apologising for US imperilaism. You might not mean to, but in this situation, you can't be in the middle. You can't say I'm both against US imperilaism and the resistance against it.

I have no problem with pointing out the fatal ideological problems in the reistance, but what I oppose is claiming that there is no such thing as an Iraqi resistance.


Many of them fight against the US. And so are part of the "resistance" surely?

Fighting US imperlaism alone wouldn't make them part of the resistance. The secterian factions who have other goals than ending imperlaism in Iraq and who target the innocent iraqis couldn't be considred the resistance. This is the positon of the 1920 Revolution Brigades and I would say the majority of the other factions.


The problem with this analysis, is that it could lead to support for anything. In the 1930s the National Socialist Party were being anti-imperialist by rejecting the treaty of versallis, by opposing French and Polish occupation of German territory, imperialist restrictions on their millitary, and artificial the division of their nation.

Of course that was a positive, perhaps the working class should have supported them, because anything that weakens the western alliance, benefits us, right?

That is a different situation. WW1 wasn't a war between an imperlialist power against an opressed third world nation. It was imperilaists vs imperiliasts. Both sides were wrong and both sides shoudn't get the support of the workers on either sides. Germany was an imperialist nation who lost a war against another imperialist power. The restrictions put on it, were by impreilaists imposed on other imperilaists. The situation in Iraq, howerver, is totally different. What we have here is a capitalist-imperilaist agression against a "third world" people. Unfortunatly, for reasons such as the fall of the USSR among others, there is barly a communist resistance in Iraq. What is the only choice the workers got?? resist the occupation throught the available resistance factions, even though they might not uphold the correct ideaology, and fight to smash imperialism.


"There is no resistance faction that is pro-working class " meaning they are all anti-working class.

I said this while knowing the Iraqi resistance isn't explaining its postion clearly and isn't addressing the world enough throug the media. However, there are good signs, such as the last message posted in this thread:


The Resistance has also proved that the highly consumable capital based economies cannot fight long wars, and their greed for energy to sustain a specific lifestyle will eventually grind humanity into a global market of exploitation and slavery only to be followed by total collapse. Capitalism as is tested more and more with less energy available will eventually fail.

But the fact that maybe no resistance faction is pro-working class in currently irrelivant. No one is saying those factions should be support AFTER the liberation of Iraq. After the liberation, it's a totally different issue.


Now this fills me with a little scepticism, claiming that victory for anti-working class forces, would somehow lead to "workers revolution" I have my reservations.

It is very simple. Our allience is temproray. The communists, who are anit-imperilaists, should join ranks with the iraqi resistance, which is also anti-imperilaist. Unfortunatly, the Iraqi resistance isn't on the right track in terms of ideology, but that wouldn't break our allience with them, since its is merely temprorary. I'm not saying we should aly with anti-working class forces after the liberation, I'm saying BEFORE.

As I said, there is little choice. It would have been wonderful if there was strong communist precense, in which the workers can join and develop a faction that upholds their ideology and class interests, just like in Palestine. I wouldn't balme you if you were against Hamas, Islamic Jihad, or Fatah coz they are anti-working class, since there is an alternative, unlike Iraq. In Palestine, the workers can join a faction that is pro-working class and upholds their ideology, the PFLP. It is among the main liberation groups and is the most active. The situatin in Iraq, isnt' like in Palestine, to say the least.

[Dr Mindbender]

IMO the vast majority of insurgents are no comrades of ours, they want political islam for Iraq, not any progressive ideaology like Socialism or Anarchism.

[Revolution Until Victory]

IMO the vast majority of insurgents are no comrades of ours, they want political islam for Iraq, not any progressive ideaology like Socialism or Anarchism.

oh com on Uslter, be serious. It doesn't really matter what those anti-imperilaists want AFTER liberation. Open the dictionary and tell me what does the term AFTER mean. Looks like the first time you have heard it. AFTER means not now, latter, not currently under US imperialism, but latter, when Iraq is liberated from the Yankees. Tell me, why would any communist want to alie with those anti-imperialist forces?? It is coz they are anti-imperialist and would pave the way for a workers revolution by destroying the imperilaists. We only need them in destroying imperialism, nothing more. In other words, our allience is TEMPRORAY. Again, looks like a term you have never heard of.

We should support the Iraqi resistance temprorarly, until there is a strong movment that adobts the ideology of the proletariat, or until imperialism is eradict. NO OTHER CHOICE. The Iraqi workers can't sit and watch the war of liberation take place, complaining the Iraqi resistance is a bunch of "relegious nutters". That's not an option. The Iraqi workers should carry their rifle and slaughter the imperialists along thier anti-imperilaist comrades (regardless of thier ideologies or plans after the liberation), thus, paving the way for thier own emancipation and ending thier exploitation.

[rebelworker]

What if some members of the resistance are activly destroying the Iraqi workers movement NOW!

Just because some people arnt picking up a gun or a suicide bomb, dosnt mean they arent resisting.

Guerilla warfare is important at some times, but whos to say that the best think for Iraqis right now is to stop the violence and start organising a mass movement o workers to get controll of the economy (especially the oil). The people who are doing this are being targeted by the "resistance".

I understand your point about oposing imperialism, but there are many ways to do so. Saying guerrilla warfare is the only legitimate form of resistance is just plain adventurism, and plays into the hands of minority groups with access to money ( a new ruling class).

[Revolution Until Victory]

What if some members of the resistance are activly destroying the Iraqi workers movement NOW!

That's a different issue.


Just because some people arnt picking up a gun or a suicide bomb, dosnt mean they arent resisting.

I'm sorry, but guerilla warfare is the only form of resistance, or at least, the most major. Peaceful sit-ins, demonstrations, boycotts, and throwing a bunch of empty bottles, rocks, and molotvs are not considred "resistance". They are totally worthless (if applied on thier own at least). Guerilla warfare is what works and what demands the most sacrifice.


the best think for Iraqis right now is to stop the violence and start organising a mass movement o workers to get controll of the economy (especially the oil).

I have no problem with this.


The people who are doing this are being targeted by the "resistance".

Good thing you have put resistance between quotes coz those who target thier own people, who are innocnet civlians and are the most poor, oppressed, and exploited class got nothing to do with the resistance. We should be opposed to such groups.


I understand your point about oposing imperialism, but there are many ways to do so.

No, believe me, there aren't many ways to do so.


Saying guerrilla warfare is the only legitimate form of resistance is just plain adventurism,

It is the most major form that would actually get you results as well as demands the most amount of sacrifice.


and plays into the hands of minority groups with access to money ( a new ruling class).

not necessarly.

[ComradeR]

oh com on Uslter, be serious. It doesn't really matter what those anti-imperilaists want AFTER liberation. Open the dictionary and tell me what does the term AFTER mean. Looks like the first time you have heard it. AFTER means not now, latter, not currently under US imperialism, but latter, when Iraq is liberated from the Yankees. Tell me, why would any communist want to alie with those anti-imperialist forces?? It is coz they are anti-imperialist and would pave the way for a workers revolution by destroying the imperilaists. We only need them in destroying imperialism, nothing more. In other words, our allience is TEMPRORAY. Again, looks like a term you have never heard of.
While I agree that non-leftists groups make useful temporary allies during a guerrilla war when the leftists don't have the strength to fight it on they're own, knowing what those non-leftist groups want after liberation is very important. Just because leftist and non-leftist (such as religious) guerrilla groups have a common enemy (the imperialists) doesn't mean that once that common enemy is gone the non-leftist groups will continue their alliance with leftists, in fact they almost always turn on leftists and crack down hard on all workers movements such as in Iran. Just remember those kind of groups will shake your hand while hiding a knife behind their back with the other.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Revolution Until [email protected] 04, 2007 04:54 pm
I understand your postion. But being against the Iraqi Resistance means you are apologising for US imperilaism. You might not mean to, but in this situation, you can't be in the middle. You can't say I'm both against US imperilaism and the resistance against it.
If I accept your logic, by being critical of the resistance i somehow "appologise" for imperialism, then surely by critisisng imperialism, I also appologise for the resistance? that sounds like a fairly reasonable place to be. Though I obviously have no sympathy for the Coalition, and much for the Iraqi people.


It was imperilaists vs imperiliasts. Both sides were wrong and both sides shoudn't get the support of the workers on either sides

Right. But we are talking about a post ww1 Germany, in which, they were also the victims of imperialism. I mean, to take another example, the Syrian Social-nationalists want to create "living space" for the superior Syrian peope. They engaged in armed conflict against the Israleli state, and coperated with Hezbollah and the Communists. And so the people who argue the same corner as you, were forced into aligning themselves with the Nazis, against the working class of Israel and Lebanon... Sounds like a dodgy position to be in.


But the fact that maybe no resistance faction is pro-working class in currently irrelivant. No one is saying those factions should be support AFTER the liberation of Iraq. After the liberation, it's a totally different issue.

Well, which ever faction is strongest after the removal of the imperialists will solidify it's power by filling the vaccume. And if, as I suspect, it will be a nationalist, religious faction, the working class will get ass fucked Islam style. That's the real reason I can't fully adopt your point of view.

I totally accept the pragmatic point, that there's no one else out there to support and we need to put our purist-politics aside and support real people. But I harbor concerns that it will lead to a dictatorship.

And we do have the option of not supporting any formal faction. Because, whether we say we support them or not, it doesn't have any practical impact. We can say we are against the Imperialists, and for working class self-organisation. We can point out where the resistance ahs doen good, and doen bad, and argue that we must amend the failrues of the libertarian-communist left, and build workers organisation. And not support the puppets of new bourguisie, due to a lack of workers organisation.


I'm not saying we should aly with anti-working class forces after the liberation, I'm saying BEFORE.

And I am saying that it would be too late.

I know we've had this debate 100 times on revleft, and after a few posts it has a tendancy to become heated, but I do think it can be constructive! and I hope we can have a useful discussion on the broader issue of imeprialism

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Revolution Until [email protected] 05, 2007 04:00 am
What if some members of the resistance are activly destroying the Iraqi workers movement NOW!


That's a different issue.
No it isn't. You are talking about actively supporting anti working class, nationalist movements, because we have failed to build a decent proletarian one.

Now the fact is that within Islam, workers self-organisation, womens rights, homosexual rights, equality, etc are all sins. And you, essentially, want to put these beliefs in power in Iraq, because by global circumstance they find themselves fighting another enemy of the left, and have managed to hoodwink a large part of the working class into their ranks. There are obvious parallels between Hitlers SA rallying large sections of the workforce to fight Allied imperialism in the 1930s.

I mean, the day the Coalition pulls out, and if it is a result of the resistance, it obviously will not be the working class who take power, it will be religious extreamists, or Iraqi nationalists and capitalists who will obliterate workers organisations. Much like the Bolshevik party did after it got power.

You haven't given the working class any advice, you have spoke out against them self-organising now, and instead argue them to join with the reactionaries, and help them win massive credility, influence and PR.

[Revolution Until Victory]

While I agree that non-leftists groups make useful temporary allies during a guerrilla war when the leftists don't have the strength to fight it on they're own, knowing what those non-leftist groups want after liberation is very important. Just because leftist and non-leftist (such as religious) guerrilla groups have a common enemy (the imperialists) doesn't mean that once that common enemy is gone the non-leftist groups will continue their alliance with leftists, in fact they almost always turn on leftists and crack down hard on all workers movements such as in Iran. Just remember those kind of groups will shake your hand while hiding a knife behind their back with the other.

That's exactly my position. Even though I won't go as far as saying those groups will shake our hand while "hiding a knife behind thier back with the other". It's just that both of us are anti-imperialists, yet we happen to have different ideologies. They have thier plans after liberation, and we have ours.


If I accept your logic, by being critical of the resistance i somehow "appologise" for imperialism, then surely by critisisng imperialism, I also appologise for the resistance? that sounds like a fairly reasonable place to be. Though I obviously have no sympathy for the Coalition, and much for the Iraqi people.

No, that's not at all what I said and this is not my logic. I didn't say "being critical of the resistance" is apologism for imperialism. Critisizing the resistance is in fact necessary and benifets it. What I meant by apologism for imperialism is saying "the Iraqi resistance doesn't exist".


Right. But we are talking about a post ww1 Germany, in which, they were also the victims of imperialism.

But how did they get to that position? they were an imperilaist force fighting another. The workers should never choose to an alieance with two imperialists. That's like the US loosing a huge WWIII against Russia. 2 capitalist imperialist nations faught each other and one lost. Would we support the US and any "imperialist restrictions" put on it by the Russians? no, they desrve it. Same situation holds true for 1930's Germany


Well, which ever faction is strongest after the removal of the imperialists will solidify it's power by filling the vaccume. And if, as I suspect, it will be a nationalist, religious faction, the working class will get ass fucked Islam style. That's the real reason I can't fully adopt your point of view.

But I also have my concerns!!! but you have to understand, we are today in 2007, we are no more in the 60's and 70's were the communists were the dominant force through out the arab world. Stop talking from this privalged position. Wake up. We have no choice but join other anti-imperilaist comrades, regardless of thier ideology, to crush imperilaism, and then, struggle to preserve our class interests after liberation. I didn't say it will be easy for the workers after the liberation. No, but the choices are limited.

However, what is for sure, is that the sole legitamite representative of a colonized/occupied people is the resistance. That's why, the workers should join, as much as they can, the current resistance factions so that after libertion they might have a say in the issues.


I totally accept the pragmatic point, that there's no one else out there to support and we need to put our purist-politics aside and support real people. But I harbor concerns that it will lead to a dictatorship.

it might. But, as I said, we have to struggle. We have 2 choices.

1. The workers join the current non-communist resistance and and then fight to not be crushed by any reactionary force after liberation (you are talking as if it's 100% the Iraqi resistance will be anti-workers after the liberation, even though there is a lot of doubt on this issue. I said all Iraqi factions are anti-working class from the available information about them. Who knows, if we knew their position fully, they might be different, such as the 1920 Revolution Brigades).

2. The workers, while joining the current resistance, join and develope thier own communist resistance faction until it becoms a major one. For me, this is the best option. There are already 2 or three communist resistance factions, the most major being the Red Stars (I think that's the name of the military wing. they are maoist)


And we do have the option of not supporting any formal faction. Because, whether we say we support them or not, it doesn't have any practical impact.

I suppose by "we", you mean communists.

Then I think your utterly mistaken. Our verbal position on the resistance might not have much impact on the guerillas on the ground in Iraq, but it got MASSIVE impact on the world-wide communist movment. What destroyed our dominance other than the communists being sidelined by the imperialists and to not be considered a threat any more? There is no bigger blow for the communists other than not being blatantly anti-imperialist. We should strive to be as anti-imperialist as possible.


We can say we are against the Imperialists, and for working class self-organisation.

Totally agree.


We can point out where the resistance ahs doen good, and doen bad

Totally agree.


and argue that we must amend the failrues of the libertarian-communist left, and build workers organisation.

no objection


And not support the puppets of new bourguisie, due to a lack of workers organisation.

And I say due to lack of choices, we should alie, TEMPRORALY, with all anti-imperialist forces, regardless of their position of the ideology of the opressed, so we can reach a common goal. All of this while building a resistane faction that upholds the class interests and the ideology of the proletariat.


And I am saying that it would be too late.

I know we've had this debate 100 times on revleft, and after a few posts it has a tendancy to become heated, but I do think it can be constructive! and I hope we can have a useful discussion on the broader issue of imeprialism

As you said, it's a highly debatable issue. I say that it won't be too late. We have no choice and have to be carful and struggle after liberation (unless a workers communist resistane faction was developed during the war of liberation to be major enough).

[Revolution Until Victory]

No it isn't. You are talking about actively supporting anti working class, nationalist movements, because we have failed to build a decent proletarian one.

Yes it is. I'm talking of resistance factions that are the most major, yet are not pro-working class nor do they uphold their ideology. I wasn't talking about those who kill innocent Iraqis and destroy their anti-imperialist orgnizations, and not any Iraqis, but no, the opressed and exploited section of them. This is a different issue since those people are in no way considered part of the "resistance", but are simply aiding Yankee imperilaism.


Now the fact is that within Islam, workers self-organisation, womens rights, homosexual rights, equality, etc are all sins.

lol, it is a fact???

you should've said it is right-wing propaganda crap that Islam is all of that. Islam isn't just not against workers orgnization, but actually pro-working class orgnization and actually pro-workers VIOLENTLY siezing political power. In Islam, even though it is clearly anti-violence, one should fight to defent him/herself from opression. The workers are exploited and opressed = Workers could and SHOULD fight to end their exploitation. Also, Islam, in general, and compared to other relegions, is extermely pro-women right. That's why more women join Islam than men. Islam is all about equality. This is a different issue, but please, keep us aways from this ignorant, basless propaganda.


And you, essentially, want to put these beliefs in power in Iraq, because by global circumstance they find themselves fighting another enemy of the left, and have managed to hoodwink a large part of the working class into their ranks.

It won't be easy, but I have already explained by position.


There are obvious parallels between Hitlers SA rallying large sections of the workforce to fight Allied imperialism in the 1930s.

no there isn't


I mean, the day the Coalition pulls out, and if it is a result of the resistance, it obviously will not be the working class who take power, it will be religious extreamists, or Iraqi nationalists and capitalists who will obliterate workers organisations. Much like the Bolshevik party did after it got power.

But that's a natural stuggle in all "third world" countries controlled by imperilaism. The bourgouasie will always try to take control of the liberation movment to uphold thier own explotive class interests after liberation. The workers should fight them in that sense.

The day the Yankees pull out, the SOLE LEGITAMITE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE IRAQI PEOPLE: THE RESISTANCE, will take power. That's wy, workers must dominate the resistance.


You haven't given the working class any advice,

What?? did you even ready any of my posts???


you have spoke out against them self-organising now

What?? are you serious?


and instead argue them to join with the reactionaries, and help them win massive credility, influence and PR.

yup.

[bolshevik butcher]

“…our opponents in the main are Iraqi nationalists, and are most concerned with their own needs – jobs, money, security, hope – and the majority therefore I suggest are not bad people.”- General Dannatt (Head of the British Army).

Thought that was an intersting quote. When the man whose the head of an Imperilist war machine can comes out with this I really do doubt the myth that a huge sway of the insurgency is willing to admit this I think the left can probably accept it as true.

Sure, there are no doubt sectarian and religous fundementalist elements but does that really mean most of the men in the hills and towns engaging the imperialist forces are sectarian religous nutcases? I don't think so.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 04:19 am
What if some members of the resistance are activly destroying the Iraqi workers movement NOW!

Just because some people arnt picking up a gun or a suicide bomb, dosnt mean they arent resisting.

Guerilla warfare is important at some times, but whos to say that the best think for Iraqis right now is to stop the violence and start organising a mass movement o workers to get controll of the economy (especially the oil). The people who are doing this are being targeted by the "resistance".

I understand your point about oposing imperialism, but there are many ways to do so. Saying guerrilla warfare is the only legitimate form of resistance is just plain adventurism, and plays into the hands of minority groups with access to money ( a new ruling class).
Yes. All the Dutch railroad workers, police officers, teachers, etc. who didn't join the resistance in 1940-1945 were also really good little proles at heart. It was very bad of the resistance to target them instead of conjuring up a mass workers' movement out of thin air. They were not comrades of ours! :angry: Signed, the RevolutionärLinks Proliness Kommission, Ulster Sozialist, Wilhelm Eberhardt und Rebelarbeiter.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Revolution Until [email protected] 05, 2007 02:54 pm
lol, it is a fact???

you should've said it is right-wing propaganda crap that Islam is all of that.

No, it isn't I've read the Koran. Islam, like christianity and Judaism, is a steaming pile of homophobic, anti-scientific, sexist, bigoted racist shite.


But that's a natural stuggle in all "third world" countries controlled by imperilaism. The bourgouasie will always try to take control of the liberation movment to uphold thier own explotive class interests after liberation. The workers should fight them in that sense.

Right. They should fight their local bourgeoisie and nationalist/religious organisations! Not join them!


The day the Yankees pull out, the SOLE LEGITAMITE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE IRAQI PEOPLE: THE RESISTANCE, will take power. That's wy, workers must dominate the resistance.

But the resistance isn't an organisation that can take power, it's a collection of organisations and loosely affiliated individuals. The strongest faction will take power, and will subjugate the working class rank and file of its membership and of the entire Iraqi working class to it's will.


What?? are you serious?

Yes, you proposed they follow the leadership of anti-working class groups.


yup.

Just to clarify, your agree that the working class should help the reactionaries win massive credibility, influence and PR...

[Leo]

Revolution Until Victory, I'm guessing that you're living in a Western country and have lived there most of your life. Is that correct?

Even the most right-wing tendency within the leftism in the middle east which is glorifying all the reactionary and anti-working class "resistance" organizations in the region would not, could not even think of claiming what you said about Islam.

[Revolution Until Victory]

No, it isn't I've read the Koran. Islam, like christianity and Judaism, is a steaming pile of homophobic, anti-scientific, sexist, bigoted racist shite.

Wow!!! no kidding!! you have actually read the Quran? You know everything about Islam then?

Lol, Islam is so complicated, that only shcolars are allowed to inerpret it. Everything you read in Islam got to be put into its historical context. It's not enough to read it to understand it. Islam is pro-women's right, as far as you can get from racism, and isn't in any way possible anti-worker orgnization and, according to my humble opnion, would support a violent proletariat revolution.


Right. They should fight their local bourgeoisie and nationalist/religious organisations! Not join them!

As I said, they should join them temproraly (in the anti-imperilaist struggle in the context of the war of liberation while it's still on) and at the same time fight them (meaning they should prevent them from leading the resistance and thus prevent them from imposing thier own exploitve, capitalist, reacitonary class interests). Again, I wouldn't advocate such a complex, diffecult situation, but there is no choice.


But the resistance isn't an organisation that can take power, it's a collection of organisations and loosely affiliated individuals. The strongest faction will take power, and will subjugate the working class rank and file of its membership and of the entire Iraqi working class to it's will.

That's what I just said, the struggle isn't over with the defeat of Yankee imperialism, due to lack of choices. there is the struggle against the local capiliasts which we should fight in order to maintain the workers class interests.


Yes, you proposed they follow the leadership of anti-working class groups.

I clearly said they should join their anti-imperilaist comrades AND self orgnize.


Just to clarify, your agree that the working class should help the reactionaries win massive credibility, influence and PR...

Just to clarify, I agree the workers should help, join, carry the rifel along with, and help the resistance get credeiblity, influence, and PR until liberation and defeat of the imperialists.

[Revolution Until Victory]

Revolution Until Victory, I'm guessing that you're living in a Western country and have lived there most of your life. Is that correct?

1. What made you make this brilliant guess?

2. This is completely irrelivant to the issue

3. you couldn't be any more wrong. I'm a Palestinian Arab not from a Western country but from a place fighitng at the fron line of capilaist imperilaist. I'm a Palestinian from Palestine and have lived all, not just most, of my life in Palestine...

good guess though :lol:


Even the most right-wing tendency within the leftism in the middle east which is glorifying all the reactionary and anti-working class "resistance" organizations in the region would not, could not even think of claiming what you said about Islam.

Really?? Anyways, that's a different and completely irrelivant issue to the discussion.

[Leo]

1. What made you make this brilliant guess?

Experience.


2. This is completely irrelivant to the issue

It should have been, however there is something called "exile mentality" about how people living outside the places of their birth or of their parents birth glorifying the place they came from.


3. you couldn't be any more wrong. I'm a Palestinian Arab not from a Western country but from a place fighitng at the fron line of capilaist imperilaist. I'm a Palestinian from Palestine and have lived all, not just most, of my life in Palestine...

Okay, so you're living in Palestine. I won't ask specific questions about which organization you belong to there for obvious security reasons, I do have a good guess though.


Really??

Yes, any proletarian with even a tiny bit of militant left-wing and class conscious activity living under Islam hates it.

And of course anyone who has studied both the Islamic belief and it's historical context would easily come to the conclusion that your suggestions about it are wrong.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Revolution Until [email protected] 05, 2007 09:25 pm
Lol, Islam is so complicated, that only shcolars are allowed to inerpret it.
It's far too "complicated" for us working people to grasp. It's an issue for wealthy, educated, scholars. What a pile of shit, in itself.


Everything you read in Islam got to be put into its historical context.

Sure, if we assume from the off that it's not true. But if you believe it to be fact, then it's supposed to be the universal unchangable truth. I'm not a scholar but I was a philosophy student.


Islam is pro-women's right, as far as you can get from racism, and isn't in any way possible anti-worker orgnization and, according to my humble opnion, would support a violent proletariat revolution.

Then you have obviously read the wrong book! Or got a fucking crap translation.


As I said, they should join them temproraly

If they do that, then they cannot simultainiously build their own organisations can they? I would propose the solidifcation and strenghtening of syndicalist style unions and militas. But it simply wont happen.


I clearly said they should join their anti-imperilaist comrades AND self orgnize.

Right, but that would necisseraly lead to conflict with those groups who want power, and not a self-organised working class. And you have already said we should give them the advantage by dedicating ourselves to their cause against us.

[Revolution Until Victory]

It should have been, however there is something called "exile mentality" about how people living outside the places of their birth or of their parents birth glorifying the place they came from.

You are right. People seem to be more attached to thier homeland when they are away from it.


Okay, so you're living in Palestine. I won't ask specific questions about which organization you belong to there for obvious security reasons, I do have a good guess though.

Currently, and for a brief period of time, I'm out of Palestine for reasons I don't think its safe to share on an Internet forum available for everyone to view, nor would I say were am I. I will be back in a few weeks. But as far as the discussion goes and the theory of "exil mentality", yes, you could consider I'm from Palestine and lived all my life in palestine.


I do have a good guess though

What is it?


Yes, any proletarian with even a tiny bit of militant left-wing and class conscious activity living under Islam hates it.

not necessarly.


And of course anyone who has studied both the Islamic belief and it's historical context would easily come to the conclusion that your suggestions about it are wrong.

I don't think so. But that is a different issue and shouldn't be discussed here.

[Revolution Until Victory]

It's far too "complicated" for us working people to grasp. It's an issue for wealthy, educated, scholars. What a pile of shit, in itself.

yeah, why don't you go ahead and miss up the discussion by putting words into my mouth??

the Quran, written centuries ago, MUST be put into its historical context. Besides, the complexty of it requires experts on relegion to understand it. I didn't say they have to be educated (they only need to be experts in relegion) nor wealthy. This is a fact.


Sure, if we assume from the off that it's not true. But if you believe it to be fact, then it's supposed to be the universal unchangable truth. I'm not a scholar but I was a philosophy student.

What?? I'm not talking of the Quran as a record of history, rather, as a set of rules and commades. Those rules and commandes are the ones I meant must be put in their historical context.


Then you have obviously read the wrong book! Or got a fucking crap translation.

1. No I didn't read the wrong book

2. I don't even need a translation. Didn't you just read I'm Palestinian?


If they do that, then they cannot simultainiously build their own organisations can they?

I think they can


Right, but that would necisseraly lead to conflict with those groups who want power, and not a self-organised working class

I have already said those who are opposed to the workers orgnizations during the war of liberation, and those who attack it, are reactionary and further the goals of the imperialists. They are not part of the resistance.


And you have already said we should give them the advantage by dedicating ourselves to their cause against us.

I didn't say that. I said workers should fight along the anti-imperialists forces for they share the same goal, even though they might have a different ideology.

[Leo]

You are right. People seem to be more attached to thier homeland when they are away from it.

Yes, and it's a bad thing - it is one of the factors alienating immigrant workers from local workers.


What is it?

PFLP.


not necessarly.

I had not seen many exceptions.


I don't think so. But that is a different issue and shouldn't be discussed here.

I can split the thread if you want.

[Revolution Until Victory]

Yes, and it's a bad thing - it is one of the factors alienating immigrant workers from local workers.

True.


PFLP.

As you said, for obvious securiy reasons, I can't comment.


I can split the thread if you want.

hmmm...I have no problem with this, even though I don't have much time to be on revleft. But go ahead and split it if you want to.

My argument was that Islam isn't against workers orgnizing, nor is it racist or anti-women rights and your argument was that is is.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Revolution Until [email protected] 05, 2007 10:26 pm
What?? I'm not talking of the Quran as a record of history, rather, as a set of rules and commades. Those rules and commandes are the ones I meant must be put in their historical context.

Right. But the Judeo-Christian God (allah) takes some of it's philosophical foundation from Aristotilian writings. Essentially the idea that 'god' is universal, unchanging, and perfect. As such, the laws in the Koran are also Universal, unchanging, and perfect (that is if you accept the premise of the faith, that God is real) So to suggest that allah "moves with the times" is completely contradictory to the premise of the faith. He didn't change his mind on womens rights after he read a leaflet by Pankhurst.

So when Allah wrote/inspired; "to the male the equivalent of the portion of two females" Women 4:11 He meant it!

Unless you accept that Allah never existed. But our point of referance was people who do believe he existed. Granted some "muslims" do not accept the word of their god, and dismiss it in favour of reason. Which is fine, but they're not very good muslims.


I think they can

Then why bother merging with the reactionaries. Why not put all effort into building proletarian organisations, and fight against the American imperialists. This doesnt entail immediate conflict with the rest of the Resistance, but, they have been known to attack workers organisation without provocation.

[Revolution Until Victory]

Right. But the Judeo-Christian God (allah) takes some of it's philosophical foundation from Aristotilian writings.

Allah = God. "Allah" is simply God translated to Arabic. The same God of the christains, jews, and muslims. God in Spanish is Dios. You wouldn't go around saying to a Spanish speaker in English "you believe in Dios"!


So when Allah wrote/inspired; "to the male the equivalent of the portion of two females" Women 4:11 He meant it!

You see, Islam faces the same problem as Marxism. All those stupid reactionaries who attack Marxism do so for not diagreeing with it, but coz they simply don't get it. They don't understand Marxism. Same issue with Islam. Most who attack it simply don't understand specific things, especially in post-9/11 right-wing propaganda waves.

A good example is the quote you gave above. It you understood it, you would realize that it would be actually unjust for the male if both women and man got the same amount!

You seem to not realize that in Islam, there are cases in which women take more inheritance than men, and other cases in which women get inheratnce and males get nothing (as well as other cases in which both man and woman get equal amounts). The quote you have above is a case in which the man takes more. This is the rational behind it. Let's say a brother and a sister inhert. The brother, when gets married, will pay a considrable amount of dower gift (a gift, usually money, to the bride must be paid by the man), while the sister if got married will get an equal amount from her husband. After marrige, dure to mans phisical abilities, and certinaly in traditional societies, house expense will be on the man, while his sister, while being a wife, won't pay anything. Now lets say that neither gets married. Well, in Islam, the brother is supposed to aid his sister financially. In other words, the quote you mentioned isn't unjust towards women, and the amount was devided in that way in that special case so it wouldn't be unjust for the male with all those expense which the sister doesn't have to pay. But that's a different subject and got nothing to do with the discussion.


Then why bother merging with the reactionaries. Why not put all effort into building proletarian organisations, and fight against the American imperialists. This doesnt entail immediate conflict with the rest of the Resistance, but, they have been known to attack workers organisation without provocation.

I agree with you here. It depends. If the workers can develpe thier own faction that upholds thier ideology and class interests and supports the end of thier exploitation, while being major, then no need to join other resistance groups. but if things were going slow and not well enough, we are left again with the only choice.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I agree with what Revolution Until Victory is saying. Its sad that most groups here end up just inherently supporting imperialism by refusing Iraqi people's right to resistance. As communists we gotta support all forms of anti-imperialist resistance because if the US loses in Iraq, it means imperialism loses, it means imperialism is weakened internationally and that Iraq is free of imperialist domination. This paves the way for a socialist revolution.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Supporting mullahs and similar forces -- who want to either establish better relations with the imperialists (aka armed reformism), turn back progress and return to a feudal system, or set themselves up as the new bourgeois rulers who will serve at the pleasure of the imperialists -- when they blow up workers with truck bombs in the name of "anti-imperialism" is the worst kind of treachery. It is exactly this sort of shit, carried out by "leftists," that has disenchanted so many to struggle for communism.

Lenin pointed out "the need to combat Pan-Islamism and similar trends, which strive to combine the liberation movement against European and American imperialism with an attempt to strengthen the positions of the khans, landowners, mullahs, etc." Too bad so many that claim to uphold his legacy today ignore his contributions.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Revolution Until [email protected] 06, 2007 09:45 pm
Allah = God. "Allah" is simply God translated to Arabic.

That's what I said?


You seem to not realize that in Islam, there are cases in which women take more inheritance than men, and other cases in which women get inheratnce and males get nothing

So like most other religions it's also inconsistant. There are hundreds of passages in the Koran (see the skeptics anotated Koran thread in Religion) and we could debate every single quotation and it's interpritation until the war in Iraq is over. But for the sake of staying on topic, we can agree that a majority, if not all, of the Islamic organisations in Iraq (the Islamic Revolution Committee for example), are enemies of the working class.


I agree with you here. It depends. If the workers can develpe thier own faction that upholds thier ideology and class interests and supports the end of thier exploitation, while being major, then no need to join other resistance groups. but if things were going slow and not well enough, we are left again with the only choice.

I'd sooner waste my life trying to build an anti-captialist, proletarian organisation in vein than help my enemies. I think that there is always that choice.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 05:12 am
I agree with what Revolution Until Victory is saying. Its sad that most groups here end up just inherently supporting imperialism by refusing Iraqi people's right to resistance.
Don't be a doofus. I am not denying the Iraqi peoples right to resist, no one is or ever has. We are raising concerns that the form this resistance takes may lead to a worse state of affairs for the working class of Iraq.


As communists we gotta support all forms of anti-imperialist resistance

Even Fascism and Nazism, there have been fascist, racist and even nazi organisations on the front lines in the middle east fighting the Israelis. Granted they have intentions of becoming Imperialist themselves but so do most of the Islamists. Do you really think victory for a hard-line theocracy paves the way for socialist revolution?

I think it paves the way for the obliteration of working class self-organisation.

So does US imperialism. But I don't have to make a choice between one bastard or another. I can argue for the building of working class unions/federations. And if there is no trace of such a feat. Then my only interest is in making it possible.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

By weakening US imperialism, you can weaken the world-system of capitalism, bringing a socialist revolution so much closer.

To strike at imperialism is to weaken the capitalist world-system, because capitalism today essentially is imperialism.

Why is this so hard to digest for so many leftists?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Spirit of [email protected] 07, 2007 11:46 am
By weakening US imperialism, you can weaken the world-system of capitalism, bringing a socialist revolution so much closer.
You don't quite understand anti-imperialism, but then again most people who advocate uniting with the national bourgeois of one nation over another never really quite grasp the problem with their stance:

The bourgeoisie are the bourgeoisie are the bourgeoisie.

You cannot circumnavigate this problem, it will always be in the class interests of the bourgeoisie of any nation to keep capitalism in power. Even if you claim to have solidarity on with proletarian organisations the problem still remains that many of these organisations are simply pawns of reactionary bourgeois elements - many of the Islamist organisations are very strictly ordered with powerful bourgeois clerics at the top and the poor proles left to simply fight on the front lines. It is only through solidarity with left-wing organisations acting in our class interest that we will make a difference to capitalism.


To strike at imperialism is to weaken the capitalist world-system, because capitalism today essentially is imperialism.

I'd argue the reverse - today's imperialism is capitalism. Meaning that acting against "imperialism" with reactionary and pro capitalist organisations will only replace one kind of capitalism with another, maybe you'll succeed in changing the imperial power - but that's not something any leftist should term a "success".


Why is this so hard to digest for so many leftists?

Some people don't digest bullshit as well as others.

[Revolution Until Victory]

So like most other religions it's also inconsistant.

no this is not what it means. It simply means that different situations demand different measures to ensure justice. Got nothing to do with "inconsistance".


There are hundreds of passages in the Koran (see the skeptics anotated Koran thread in Religion) and we could debate every single quotation and it's interpritation until the war in Iraq is over.

Exactly, this is off-topic and we should stop arguing about it, even though the skeptics anotated Koran is a joke and couldn't be any more un-reliable. It is not just that they clearly misinterpret passages and take them out of context, they even actually have wrong passages; they add or take aways words!!


But for the sake of staying on topic, we can agree that a majority, if not all, of the Islamic organisations in Iraq (the Islamic Revolution Committee for example), are enemies of the working class.

Agree, from the information available to us, they are not pro-working class, however, wether they realize this or not, they are benifiting the workers by weakining imperilaism in Iraq which would pave the way for the workers to end thier exploitation.


I'd sooner waste my life trying to build an anti-captialist, proletarian organisation in vein than help my enemies. I think that there is always that choice.

Here is were I diagree. The workers shouldn't spend all their efforts building thier own faction, alienate themselves from the resistance, and end up not acutally resisting. The workers either build an orgnization that got the time and the chance to be major the fight imperialism (Best choice), or join the resitance while doing so (Second best choice). The important thing is that they should be the dominant force in the anti-imperialist struggle.


Granted they have intentions of becoming Imperialist themselves but so do most of the Islamists. Do you really think victory for a hard-line theocracy paves the way for socialist revolution?

Imperialism is the highest stage of capiltalism. Those Islamic resistance movments, while capialists, are not developed enough to be imperilasts.

But Yes, defenatly, those resistance movments, regardless of thier plans post-liberation plans and thier ideologies, will be paving the way for a proletariat revolution agaisnt thier exploitation and alienation by eradicting imperialism.


I think it paves the way for the obliteration of working class self-organisation

It could pave the way for the oblitaration of working class self-orgnization after liberation and it also could pave the way for the workers revolution. It goes both ways.


it will always be in the class interests of the bourgeoisie of any nation to keep capitalism in power.

Jazzratt, stop repeating what have been already said here. No one denied the majority of Iraqi current resistance is bourgeoisie, and thus will only strive to further their own class interests of exploitation. However, those bourgeoisie are actually working AGAINST thier class interests and for the class interests of the opressed class, by weaking imperilaism and paving the way for the revolution. I agree with you, the national bourgeoisie who lead the resistance, even though they are fighting imperilaism, will only care about their own class interests after liberation, but no one here advocated an alience with them AFTER liberation. We only need them TEMPRORARLY. We know they want to keep capitalism in power, and that's why we will fight them, but at the same time, unite with them temprorarly to end imperilaism for the benifets of the proletariat.


It is only through solidarity with left-wing organisations acting in our class interest that we will make a difference to capitalism.

There we go again, Tell me, what year is it over were you live? 1960? or maybe 1970?? Wake up, we are in 2007, post-USSR world where leftist movments around the world have been hit hard. You might want to deny it, but there is no left-wing orgnizations in Iraq that are part of the resistance and are fighting imperilaism, major ones, that is. If there was, I would be the first one to advocate joining them and not getting near the national bourgeoisie and thier hypocritical orgnizations.


Meaning that acting against "imperialism" with reactionary and pro capitalist organisations will only replace one kind of capitalism with another

Here is the diagreement. What you just described is a possible senario, but not a nessacery one. We believe that by siding with the national bourgeoisie, since there is no other alternative, we will destroy imperialism and pave the way for the workers to revolt. Workers must fight those capitalists after the liberation to prevent them from replacing one kind of capitalism with another.

[samsonite]

Islam, like christianity and Judaism, is a steaming pile of homophobic, anti-scientific, sexist, bigoted racist shite.

Try looking into the Koran yourself and seeing what it actually says.