Iraqi Revolutionary Maoist Organization

[NaxalbariZindabad]

The Founding Statement of the Iraqi Revolutionary Maoist Organization

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/6863/rrsfdk8.gif

The Iraqi Revolutionary Maoist Organization (IRMO) is a revolutionary internationalist Marxist-Leninist-Maoist organization aiming at organizing the theoretical and armed struggles in order to carry out the socialist revolution and to establish the dictatorship of proletariat, also to execute the tasks of building the humane socialist society and a civilized world. Our aim is to put an end to the exploitation and slavery of man by man, to break the chains and shackles of the makers of peace and bread, that is the working class. The sole path of salvation and liberation from this class-slavery of the bourgeoisie, local and international capitalism is the intellectual struggle to educate our working class and peasantry about this iniquity and open-slavery of mankind by imperialist capitalism, as well as educating them about the iniquity of the Anglo-American occupation and the Iraqi puppets who came along with them, whether they be sectarian bigots, nationalists, tribal leaders, Baathists, political-Islamists, or “more dangerously- opportunist revisionist left which acts as an agent to the bourgeoisie and to the Americans. This same left which worked previously with the Fascist Baathist regime of Saddam, is currently working with occupation.

Besides working on the spreading of class political consciousness, our movement has its military wing, hence the armed struggle by means of people's war of workers, peasants, unemployed and their allies from students, women, trade unions, workers councils and organizations and revolutionary intellectuals.

Our movement has been, and currently is, present on the land of Mesopotamia, it carried out proud and heroic struggle against the invaders and their puppets and mercenaries of police, army and their security apparatus which is a puppet of Mussad, America, Iran and criminal sectarian militias. We have sacrificed our most honoured and most glorified comrades whom had honourably and proudly fallen as martyrs of Iraqi patriotic spirit, of the Iraqi revolutionary communist movement and of our Iraqi working class and Iraqi peasantry and their principles and aspirations for justice and welfare, for national, economic, social and cultural independence, and for the liberation of Iraqi women from injustice and inequality in society. Our Revolutionary Maoist Organization has given some of its best cadres, immortal heroes among which comes our leading, revolutionary communist intellectual, our immortal martyred comrade ELWAN. Despite his high academic achievements, he sat an example of a proletarian human being, thus the evil forces have murdered him using its usual dreadful methods. His life ceased to pulsate, but the revolution never ceased beating with his immortal history which he left as a revolutionary heritage to the comrades following his path. Another martyr of our comrades, proletarian comrade ABO ESHTAR, a cadre who adhered to the spark of proletarian armed revolution and a member of the founding board of IRMO and a member of its political cadre. Our immortal heroic martyred comrade JANGOZ (IBRAHIM ALI), a vanguard cadre, a proletarian intellectual who stood courageously against the hated sectarianism and Nazi nationalist and ethnic conflicts. As an opponent to the imperialist invasion of Iraq and other areas in the world, he upheld the torch of class struggle to the workers until he was expelled from his job as a university lecturer, consequently he was forced to work with manual workers. Our comrade was a prominent member in Maoist RED STARS FRONT, a comrade whose loss could never be compensated for, particularly under these exceptional circumstances. Our organization has lost many of its vanguard revolutionary cadres who were prominent on the level of leadership as well as the level of intellectual activity, it has also lost many of its guerrillas, in addition to those mentioned is comrade FAHAD, a member of the board for additional tasks. The rotten, criminal, fascist, racist gangs of Jaafari and Maliki, supported by the military of imperialist Anglo-American forces, experts and gangs of Mussad, have assassinated our leading comrade.

Our revolutionary heroic comrades of Iraqi revolutionary Maoist RED STARS FRONT (RSF) have carried out several military operations against the occupations forces and the apparatus of the puppet regime (army, police and security services). Among those operations are OPERATION SPARTAKUS (Slaves' Liberation Rebellion) on 26th of October 2005, and two other revolutionary operations BREAD and PEACE on Tuesday 2nd of March 2006.

On the 18th of March 2006 in Samaraa, our comrade NEWROZ (REZGAR MOHAMMAD), a university student, was arrested in a crossroad while he was accompanied by his wife. Our comrade has been subjected to the most barbaric and ferocious methods of torture on the hands of mercenaries of the fascist front composed of sectarian National Guards, swine of "Pesh Pesh Marga", wolves of BADER, remnants of Baath and the Iranian intelligence services. Glory to our hero and martyred comrade Rezgar Mohammad!

On the 19th of the same month, comrade AHWAR, an unemployed manual worker, was arrested and subjected to the same savage torture. Like comrade Rezgar, he stood up heroically against the coward and dirty torturers. On the same day in which comrade Rezgar was martyred, the 20th of March 2006, comrade AHWAR got martyred.

IRMO is present among the ranks of our Iraqi people, the proletariat, the peasantry, the students, women, trade unions and workers' organizations, and the intellectuals. We are active underground due to the political situation imposed on us by occupation, and due to the anti-people policies of their fascist-Nazi agents. We clearly declare that we work completely in secret with a security apparatus in order to ensure the continuity of our political activities to uphold the revolutionary communist principles, as well as to ensure the protection and strengthening of our armed wing, allowing our comrades to expand the front, the RSF, a front of immortal heroism known nationally, regionally and internationally.

Despite the fact that our organization was, and still is, underground, independent and has no organizational ties with the Iraqi Marxist-Leninist Revolutionaries' Regroupment (IMLRR), the latter has taken the initiative and suggested a coordination between us on the level information and media. Unfortunately, the IMLRR has exploited that coordination on the expense of the struggle of our conscious comrades, those who have participated in the establishment of our people's war movement of the Iraqi proletariat, the RSF. We should not waste this chance to salute our comrade, HAMORABI, for his heroic revolutionary vanguard role in embracing the armed strategy of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, a strategy followed by our immortal martyrs in this long march; his thorough understanding of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and the exceptional circumstances of Iraq at the current stage, a stage of American occupation which needs a study and analysis of the class struggle and the classes that have an interest in getting rid of class exploitation and imperialist occupation, and those which do not. According to such analysis, the strategic slogan that represents the aim of the Iraqi Maoist movement would be deduced. Lenin has correctly said: "during the course of history, any class that wanted to dominate had to have political leaders within its ranks, vanguard representatives capable of organizing the movement and leading it". He adds: "effective and experienced party leaders are forged slowly and with difficulties. Without this, the dictatorship of the proletariat and its unity of will are nothing but empty of all meaning". Thus, Marxist-Leninists see the revolutionary party as a real staff of the proletariat, such a party has to correctly solve the relationship between leaders and party, classes, masses, and organization according to the principle of central democracy. Such a party must have a relatively stable leading nucleus composed of experienced leaders able to maintain a unity between the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and everyday practice of the revolution. Such leaders emerge from class struggle and the revolutionary movement of the people, and whether they are members of central committee or local party committee, they are absolutely loyal to their blood and flesh, the masses. Such leaders have the ability to concretely express the masses, and coherently put their ideas into action. Those leaders are true representatives of the masses. The Communist Party of China has always emphasized the Marxist-Leninist theory on the role of masses and individuals in history, the relationship between leaders and party, classes and masses, and linking those relationships with the principle of central democracy within the party.

Our martyred comrades have planned the work among masses as well as the political, practical and theoretical programme by adopting the strategy of armed struggle to defeat the capitalist enemy, domestic and foreign, a strategy built on psycho-technology: the use of media to psychologically weaken the class enemy. However, the IMLRR wanted to impose its will on our decisions and our essays published by MODERN DISCUSSION as well as their website. Most of those essays have been written by the Political Cadre of IRMO, despite the changes, omissions and mistakes carried out without consulting us. In addition, we have sent them many essays which they refused to publish without giving any reasons. Despite this practice, we decided not to expose such actions, taking into consideration the difficult political and practical situation of our comrades in IRMO and the armed wing RSF, as well as the situation of our heroic Iraqi people, a situation shaped by oppression and enslavement particularly of our working class and peasantry. For all of that, we decided that it is inappropriate to expose this discourtesy and this non-comradely behaviour which do not benefit the revolutionary communist struggle or the local or international working class and peasantry. We do not seek here to openly attack the comrades of IMLRR, it is not one of our aims here, however, we would like to emphasize the fact that we have been, and are on ground, present on all fields of struggle: theoretical, social, economic and military; we are present on the soil of Mesopotamia and not on the pages of internet, there is a difference. We understand reality as it is on ground not as it is on satellite TV channels and websites, we are not living in Europe and dreaming of socialist revolution and dictatorship of proletariat without any comrades or partisans present in the motherland. Surely this would be a dream which is not built on dialectical analysis, that is revolutionary Marxist-Leninist analysis.

Meanwhile, our comrades who established the RSF- which is carrying out the armed Maoist proletarian people's war- are currently working, with rifles on shoulders, to expand and develop the revolutionary struggle, hence to develop the proletarian revolution and the subjective ability to carry it out, as well as to raise our organizational methods in all fields to a higher level. We are ought to be an organized nucleus and a spark to the first Maoist proletarian people's revolution in the Middle East and a vanguard of middle eastern movements with all the high consequent responsibilities and all what it takes in terms of struggle and fighting. We realize that our spark has shined on the Middle East and the world and that it will be an example of firm adherence to revolutionary Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as vanguards of the east! Our Political Cadre and the leadership of RSF have proven to be reliable since they have paved the path, in its most difficult stage, to the first Iraqi Maoist armed proletarian people's revolution! We know that our voice and our struggle has attracted the attention of the Nazi Anglo-American governments of Jaafari and Maliki, which explains the fascist dirty conspiracies they plotted with the purpose of annihilating our cadres and destroying our movement. However, our movement is growing and getting stronger, and its revolutionary schools are competing, those schools which are smashing the fascists' conspiracies today, will tomorrow smash their bloodthirsty barbaric rule.

Therefore, we will continue our struggle and will adhere to our principles, we promise our martyrs to take the cause forward and to put their revolutionary testaments into action as a guarantee for bearing the difficult circumstances and to avenge for their martyrdom.

We wholeheartedly salute comrade HAMORABI for his revolutionary proletarian heroic leading role in founding our organization and its armed wing RFS.

LONG LIVE MARXISM-LENINISM-STALINISM-MAOSIM!

LONG LIVE IRAQI AND INTERNATIONAL MAOIST MOVEMENT!

LONG LIVE IRAQI WORKERS AND PEASANTS!

LONG LIVE ARMED MAOIST INTERNATIONAL REVOLUTIONARY PROLETARIAN PEOPLE'S MOVEMENT!

HONOUR AND GLORY TO THE IMMORTAL MARTYRS OF IRAQI REVOLUTIONARY MAOIST ORGANIZATION!

SALUTES TO ARMED PEOPLE'S MOVEMENTS IN NEPAL, PHILLIPINS, INDIA, COLOMBIA, IRAN, TURKEY AND PERU!

SALUTES TO MAOIST COMMUNISTS IN MOROCCO, SYRIA, LEBANON AND THE ARAB GULF!

LONG LIVE IRAQI MAOIST PROLETARIAN PEOPLE'S WAR!

LONG LIVE LEBANESE NATIONAL RESISTANCE AGAINST ZIONIST ISRAELI AND AMERICAN INVADERS!

LONG LIVE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE'S RESISTANCE AGAINST THE BARBARIC CRIMINAL ISRAELI ATTACKS !

15-8-2006

[Dimentio]

Any links to news outlets?

[TC]

yah, sounds cool but there are no google news references to that organisation.

[NaxalbariZindabad]

As you know, the information coming out of Iraq is heavily censored and distorted by the imperialists. So far, it seems like the bourgeois media hasn't said anything about IRMO and RRSF. However, it's possible to get statements from these organizations on arabic websites. For example:

copy + paste this for google translation:
translate.google.com/translate?u=http://www.watanpress.com/news.php%3Fgo%3Dfullnews%26newsid%3D869&st=15&langpair=ar-en

[Red Heretic]

Is this for real?! I don't understand how I could have never heard of this??

[Brownfist]

This has been circulating on the internet for at least the last few days. I am surprised that it hasnt gotten the kind of focus that it should. From what I have seen stated somewhere else, these people are not affiliated in any way to the RIM people. It would be interesting to learn more about these folks.

[LSD]

Real or fake, I highly doubt another self-declared "party" is going to make a difference.

[Luís Henrique]

Much less one that has crossed guns for a symbol. <_<

Luís Henrique

[RNK]

Ah, you may not think so, but they are Maoists&#33; If anyone can make a difference, it is we. :)


Much less one that has crossed guns for a symbol.

Oh no&#33; Guns&#33; Violence&#33; How dare such things enter into the realm of revolutionary communism&#33; Why, violently opposing imperialism is nothing but PURE EVIL. Silly Maoists up to their evil tricks again&#33;

Wait, where&#39;s Rosa when you need her for a repetitive anti-Maoist one-liner?

[TC]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 06, 2007 01:22 pm
Much less one that has crossed guns for a symbol. <_<

Luís Henrique
:lol: yah because political parties with armed militias have never had any political influence or popularity in Iraq lol :lol:

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 06, 2007 01:22 pm
Much less one that has crossed guns for a symbol. <_<

Luís Henrique
Yeah I think their symbol should have been a red star super-imposed on a smiley face.

[Herman]

Yeah I think their symbol should have been a red star super-imposed on a smiley face.

It should be 10 choppers shooting innocent civilians while one communist drinks their blood using a skull.

[SocialistMilitant]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 06, 2007 01:22 pm
Much less one that has crossed guns for a symbol. <_<

Luís Henrique
Should of been roses corssed for a symbol then right :rolleyes:

[Lenin II]

I sincerely hope this organization is real. If it is, it may the answer, at least eventually. When the Iraqi "parlaiment" votes in a reactionary Muslim theocrat, hopefully they will attack the destabilized government. Who knows? Their ideology may mix well with the violently anti-imperialist attitude in Iraq. The Middle East is under the influence of a great deal of religious fundamentalism, but the fact that the organization exists says something.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 06, 2007 01:22 pm
Much less one that has crossed guns for a symbol. <_<

Luís Henrique
I kinda agree.

I really like the SI&#39;s symbol of a fist clenching a rose, for example. It looks pretty militant and at the same time it doesnt looks childish.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I would have like to have seen the support comrades here are giving an organization which may or may not exist go towards the Iraqi Freedom Congress, which is a working class movement that&#39;s fought the occupation for some time.

[bezdomni]

The banner looks like it was made in about five minutes on MS paint.

Not that banner quality is absolutely indicative of if a a group actually exists or not...just saying...

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+November 06, 2007 01:22 pm--> (Luís Henrique @ November 06, 2007 01:22 pm) Much less one that has crossed guns for a symbol. <_<

Luís Henrique [/b]

Originally posted by RNK+--> (RNK)Oh no&#33; Guns&#33; Violence&#33; How dare such things enter into the realm of revolutionary communism&#33; Why, violently opposing imperialism is nothing but PURE EVIL. Silly Maoists up to their evil tricks again&#33;[/b]


Originally posted by TragicClown
:lol: yah because political parties with armed militias have never had any political influence or popularity in Iraq lol :lol:


Red [email protected]
Yeah I think their symbol should have been a red star super-imposed on a smiley face.


SocialistMilitant
Should of been roses corssed for a symbol then right :rolleyes:

Luís Henrique said what needed saying. The fact that it doesn&#39;t fit in with the &#39;revolutionary&#39; fantasies of Western Maoists is hardly the point.

The last thing that the Iraqi working class needs is another self proclaimed &#39;revolutionary&#39; gang of armed nationalists.

Devrim

[TC]

Luís Henrique said what needed saying. The fact that it doesn&#39;t fit in with the &#39;revolutionary&#39; fantasies of Western Maoists is hardly the point.

The last thing that the Iraqi working class needs is another self proclaimed &#39;revolutionary&#39; gang of armed nationalists.


No they should fight the American Marines with very well worded propaganda delivered in newspapers with ideologically perfect slogans&#33; Thats sure to work&#33;

[Reuben]

are there any maoists anywhere who do not write in a completely unreadable style

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Sure.

A better question though would be whether or not these Maoists are the type (or even some) of the Maoists who fought alongside the reactionary, U.S.-backed mujahadin forces in Afghanistan, thus helping to usher in not only the brutal rule of the Taliban in Afghanistan, but counterrevolution and capitalist restoration in the home of the first successful communist revolution.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 05:38 pm


Luís Henrique said what needed saying. The fact that it doesn&#39;t fit in with the &#39;revolutionary&#39; fantasies of Western Maoists is hardly the point.

The last thing that the Iraqi working class needs is another self proclaimed &#39;revolutionary&#39; gang of armed nationalists.


No they should fight the American Marines with very well worded propaganda delivered in newspapers with ideologically perfect slogans&#33; Thats sure to work&#33;
It is interesting that the first thing that comes from the Maoists is about fighting American marines. There is no class analysis here at all. It is just an automatic reaction for them. Somebody is fighting against Amerikkka, so it is something that they have to support.

If they stopped, and looked at the situation of the working class today they might come to slightly different conclusions. All across the country workers are being mobilised to fight not only in a war of national defence against the US, but also into sectarian murder gangs, which are randomly attacking workers of other creeds and/or ethnicity. This is the nature of the resistance in Iraq today. Another nationalist gang will do nothing, but add to the horror that is Iraq today.

Have these people got any idea what a class based opposition to the occupation would look like? The working class response would be mass strikes, and demonstrations. Do we see this in Iraq today? No, we don&#39;t

What we actually see is a descent into viscous sectarian war. Notice that these Maoists are talking now about their attack upon Kurdish militia. How far are these people from attacks upon Kurdish civilians?

In the past when they some somebody in the Middle East with a gun, and a red flag, certain western leftists almost wet themselves in excitement. Nowadays little has changed apart from the fact that the flag doesn&#39;t even need to be red any more.

These sort of people see any sort of struggle, and manage to convince themselves that it is &#39;revolutionary&#39; struggle. And thus the parts of the Middle east where the working class is actually in the worst situation, and the most defeated become for them the high points of the struggle.

They end up talking about &#39;the Palestinians being undefeated&#39; whereas in reality the Palestinian working class is one of the most defeated in the entire region, and at the moment is shedding its blood fighting for different factions of the Palestinian bourgeoisie.

The communists take a different view. Whilst recognising that even under these terrible conditions the working class in these countries can still express itself as a class, witness the strikes in countries such as Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine, the truly inspiring struggles in the Middle East today are those such as Mahalla, and the wave of strikes that it has inspired, the mass strike wave in Iran last year, and the current strike wave in Turkey today.

For us the heroes of the working class today are the Türk Telekom strikers, who are still continuing their strike as the war preparations continue, and the entire media condemns them as traitors, not some sectarian murder gang in Iraq.

So to answer the question that was originally posed, the tasks of communists today in Iraq are the same as in other countries; to intervene in workers struggle, to develop praxis, and to work towards the establishment of a world communist party. There is a time when it is correct to sell newspapers, there is a time to leaflet factories, and universities, their is a time to argue in mass meetings, and ultimately there will come a time to take up arms, and destroy the state. When that time comes it will be the organisations of the class taking up arms though, not sectarian gangs.

Devrim

[Red Heretic]

That&#39;s really sick devrim, attacking Maoists for fighting US imperialism and defending the Marines?

Not only that, but it reeks of economism. The role of communists is not to "lead workers struggle," in fact, Lenin explicitly said that those who do that are not communists&#33;

The role of communists is raise their sights to revolution.... and in the oppressed countries, the road to revolution is protracted people&#39;s war&#33;

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 08, 2007 07:32 pm
That&#39;s really sick devrim, attacking Maoists for fighting US imperialism and defending the Marines?


Please point out where I defend US marines. This is typical of Maoists. Anybody who questions their politics is automatically accused of lining up with the imperialists.

Actually, I was attacking the Maoists for being nothing more than another nationalist gang.

The funny thing is that if you look at what is happening in the region the Maoists on here are supporting organisations that are actively collaborating with the US (i.e. the PKK).

And as for the accusation of &#39;economism&#39;, that is what you can expect from Maoists when you start to talk about class.

Devrim

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 07:43 pm
Please point out where I defend US marines. This is typical of Maoists. Anybody who questions their politics is automatically accused of lining up with the imperialists.
Right here:


It is interesting that the first thing that comes from the Maoists is about fighting American marines.

You opened your post with an attack on Maoists for fighting the Marines.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Red Heretic+November 08, 2007 08:17 pm--> (Red Heretic @ November 08, 2007 08:17 pm)
[email protected] 08, 2007 07:43 pm
Please point out where I defend US marines. This is typical of Maoists. Anybody who questions their politics is automatically accused of lining up with the imperialists.
Right here:


It is interesting that the first thing that comes from the Maoists is about fighting American marines.

You opened your post with an attack on Maoists for fighting the Marines. [/b]
I don&#39;t think that implies any defence of US Marines. I said that the interesting thing is that this (i.e. national defence)is the first thing that the Maoists are thinking of rather than making a class analysis.

Devrim

[Revolution Until Victory]

It is interesting that the first thing that comes from the Maoists is about fighting American marines

yup, really, why is fighting imperialism the first thing that comes form those blood-thirsty Maoists?? hmm...lest&#39;s see, maybe coz Iraq is currenlty facing an imperilaist agression?? lol, who would&#39;ve guessed :rolleyes:

The Maoists are right in having the first thing to come form them is thier oposiition to imperilaism, since during a war of liberation and during a time of imperialist agression, all othe conflicts beome secondary and minor compared to the imperialist agreesion that becomes the mjaor concern. During those times, the Bourgeosie and the proletrariates would TEMPRORALY unite to more effeciently defeat the imperialists, and thus, pave the way for changing the current social order after liberation. However, while the proles would unite with the local exploiters in the form of the national bourgeousie during the war of liberation, they would at the same time fight them and prenvent them from leading the liberation struggle sine the capitalist class interests of the local exploiters would always move them into the path of compromise and peaceful settlment with imperialism.


There is no class analysis here at all.

haahaahaa, what utter bullshit&#33;

"no clas analysis" when the maosists decided to fight the imperialists to pave the way for the workers revolution?? what more class analysis do you demand than this?? or where you some how thinking the Maoists simply aim to end imperilaism and replace one exploiter with another, in the form of replacing the western capitalists with the native ones??


Somebody is fighting against Amerikkka, so it is something that they have to support.

yup.


If they stopped, and looked at the situation of the working class today they might come to slightly different conclusions.

not at all.


All across the country workers are being mobilised to fight not only in a war of national defence against the US, but also into sectarian murder gangs, which are randomly attacking workers of other creeds and/or ethnicity.

exactly, but guess what, those factions that target innocnet Iraqis and wokers coz of ethnicity or any other secetrian reasons are not considered part of the resistance. Nice try.


This is the nature of the resistance in Iraq today.

You are joking, right???


Another nationalist gang will do nothing, but add to the horror that is Iraq today.

yes, keep on genralizing, so you would be taken even more seriously.


Have these people got any idea what a class based opposition to the occupation would look like? The working class response would be mass strikes, and demonstrations.

WHAT???&#33;&#33;&#33;

Imperialism will be defeated by demonstarations and strikes??? were is that? in Wonderland???

Imperialism will be defeated by revolutionary violence and people&#39;s wars. Strikes, demos, and sit-ins will achieve nothing, at least as far as defeating imperialism is concerned.


What we actually see is a descent into viscous sectarian war.

Whey the hell do you keep referring to the secterian violence?? no one is advocating that the wokers should join such conflicts, rather, they should join the war of liberation against imperialism.

T
hey end up talking about &#39;the Palestinians being undefeated&#39; whereas in reality the Palestinian working class is one of the most defeated in the entire region, and at the moment is shedding its blood fighting for different factions of the Palestinian bourgeoisie.

That&#39;s a different issue. As I said, there will always be a struggle between the workers and the national bourgeousie for control of the liberation movment. Now, in your opnion, the Palestinian workers are loosing this battle in the context of their temproray allieance with the local exploiters, and are not leading the struggle, rather, are fighting for the native exploiters. However, this is a different issue; there are many opnions on who&#39;s leading the struggle. In my opnion, the workers failing to control the liberation struggle doesn&#39;t necessearly mean they are &#39;the most defeated". I believe the way to konw if they are the most defeated or not is to look at how is the war of liberation progressing, sine the weaker imperilaism is, regardless of who controls the liberation movments, the better it is for the proles since it would pave the way for their emancipation through a revolution against the current socail order. So I don&#39;t think that the "worst thing" that could happen to the Palestinians exploited masses is to fight for the bourgeousies, rather, the worst thing that could happen is the weakining of the liberation struggle against imperialism.


the truly inspiring struggles in the Middle East today are those such as Mahalla, and the wave of strikes that it has inspired, the mass strike wave in Iran last year, and the current strike wave in Turkey today.

What happned in Egypt, Tureky, and Iran is truley great, but the situation in those countreis can&#39;t possibly be compared, to the situation in Palestine, Iraq, and Lebanon, in which the wokres have to first defeat the imperialists.


So to answer the question that was originally posed, the tasks of communists today in Iraq are the same as in other countries; to intervene in workers struggle, to develop praxis, and to work towards the establishment of a world communist party. There is a time when it is correct to sell newspapers, there is a time to leaflet factories, and universities, their is a time to argue in mass meetings, and ultimately there will come a time to take up arms, and destroy the state. When that time comes it will be the organisations of the class taking up arms though, not sectarian gangs.

Devrim

Yup, they should take up arms to destroy the state, but that couldn&#39;t happen before the impeiralists are eradicted first, then the eradiciton of the local exploiters and their state will follow.
There is time for only one thing to be done by the workers now: People&#39;s War and revolutionary violence to end imperialism and pave the way for their total liberation.


I don&#39;t think that implies any defence of US Marines. I said that the interesting thing is that this (i.e. national defence)is the first thing that the Maoists are thinking of rather than making a class analysis.

National defence and the war of liberation against imperialism, in this case and any case were there is an imperialsit agression, is based on a calss analysis by itself.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by SocialistMilitant+November 06, 2007 07:08 pm--> (SocialistMilitant @ November 06, 2007 07:08 pm)
Luís [email protected] 06, 2007 01:22 pm
Much less one that has crossed guns for a symbol. <_<

Luís Henrique
Should of been roses corssed for a symbol then right :rolleyes: [/b]
Well... if the reasoning is,

"We will use guns to make a revolution, ergo we have guns as our symbol"

then we might also reason like that:

"We will use money to make a revolution, ergo we should have a big &#39;&#036;&#39; as our symbol"...

But evidently our symbols should not reflect our means, but our ends.

Perhaps a hammer and a sickle could do the job? Or a red star? :o

Luís Henrique

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Revolution Until [email protected] 09, 2007 05:32 am
The Maoists are right in having the first thing to come form them is thier oposiition to imperilaism, since during a war of liberation and during a time of imperialist agression, all othe conflicts beome secondary and minor compared to the imperialist agreesion that becomes the mjaor concern. During those times, the Bourgeosie and the proletrariates would TEMPRORALY unite to more effeciently defeat the imperialists, and thus, pave the way for changing the current social order after liberation. However, while the proles would unite with the local exploiters in the form of the national bourgeousie during the war of liberation, they would at the same time fight them and prenvent them from leading the liberation struggle sine the capitalist class interests of the local exploiters would always move them into the path of compromise and peaceful settlment with imperialism.

&#39;Revolution until victory&#39; clearly states what the program of the nationalist left is today, alliance with the bourgeoisie. Of course, they stick in the word temporarily, but it doesn&#39;t disguise what is being proposed here.

This raises questions; Are there any progressive factions of the bourgeoisie today? In these cross class alliances which class ends up dominating? What is the nature of national liberation struggles?

We would contend that in these type of alliances the interests of the working class is always subordinate to those of the bourgeoisie. The very struggle itself for national liberation is a bourgeois movement by its nature. Let&#39;s be very clear on this. This whole idea of &#39;national liberation&#39; is a farce. Today, imperialism is a global system. No bourgeois state can break out of the system, the most that can be achieved is a change of ruling class, or a realignment of political alliances.

We would further contend that those who support national liberation movements, however &#39;socialist&#39; they sound, are acting as recruiting sergeants to mobilise the working class on behalf of different bourgeois factions. This is the reality of the temporary alliance with that they talk about. Workers fighting each other, and being massacred on behalf of the boss class. They are the enemies of the working class.


That&#39;s a different issue. As I said, there will always be a struggle between the workers and the national bourgeousie for control of the liberation movment. Now, in your opnion, the Palestinian workers are loosing this battle in the context of their temproray allieance with the local exploiters, and are not leading the struggle, rather, are fighting for the native exploiters. However, this is a different issue; there are many opnions on who&#39;s leading the struggle. In my opnion, the workers failing to control the liberation struggle doesn&#39;t necessearly mean they are &#39;the most defeated". I believe the way to konw if they are the most defeated or not is to look at how is the war of liberation progressing, sine the weaker imperilaism is, regardless of who controls the liberation movments, the better it is for the proles since it would pave the way for their emancipation through a revolution against the current socail order. So I don&#39;t think that the "worst thing" that could happen to the Palestinians exploited masses is to fight for the bourgeousies, rather, the worst thing that could happen is the weakining of the liberation struggle against imperialism.

The problem here is not who is in control of the national liberation movement. It is the movement itself. It is that workers are being mobilised by the national bourgeois in the name of the nation.

RTV concludes here that the worst thing for the working class is not being mobilised to fight on behalf of the bourgeoisie, but that it would be a weakening of the Palestinian bourgeoisie&#39;s struggle.

It is very clear where these people stand. The only absurd thing is that they try to pass it off as a class analysis.

Devrim

[Revolution Until Victory]

&#39;Revolution until victory&#39; clearly states what the program of the nationalist left is today, alliance with the bourgeoisie. Of course, they stick in the word temporarily, but it doesn&#39;t disguise what is being proposed here.

I think that today and everyday, a temproray allieance with all forces with in one coutnry should exist temproraly to fight off imperialism, which would pave the way for the revolution. The temproray allieance of the workers with the exploiters (while, of course, at the same time fighting to prevent the bourgeousie form leading the struggle) is for the benift of the workers.


Of course, they stick in the word temporarily, but it doesn&#39;t disguise what is being proposed here.

really? what is "proposed here"??


The very struggle itself for national liberation is a bourgeois movement by its nature. Let&#39;s be very clear on this. This whole idea of &#39;national liberation&#39; is a farce.

exaclty, no one denied this. I didn&#39;t suggest the goal should be to end imperialism and be happy with a bourgeousie state. However, joining the national liberation struggle is integral in defeating imperialism and thus paving the way for the real goal: the liberation of the proletariat.


We would further contend that those who support national liberation movements, however &#39;socialist&#39; they sound, are acting as recruiting sergeants to mobilise the working class on behalf of different bourgeois factions.

not necessarly. But you are right, the whole national liberation issue is a bourgeousie issue first and formost, however, it is necessary for the workers emancipation to occur.


The problem here is not who is in control of the national liberation movement. It is the movement itself. It is that workers are being mobilised by the national bourgeois in the name of the nation.

but that&#39;s not the end here. The goal and the end isn&#39;t to have a nation free of imperialism. This is merely a mean to reach an end, which is changing the current social order. You are defenatly right, the movment in itself is a bourgeousi movment (in movment, I mean the whole struggle for liberation) that&#39;s why I reject the idea to get rid of impeirlaism and simply have a state controlled by the exploiters. That&#39;s why the struggle must carry one, and in fact, begin at the end of imperialism. National-Liberation is not an end, it is merely a mean to the end, workers liberation.


RTV concludes here that the worst thing for the working class is not being mobilised to fight on behalf of the bourgeoisie, but that it would be a weakening of the Palestinian bourgeoisie&#39;s struggle.

Fighting on behalf of the bourgeoisie in the context of a war of liberation isn&#39;t a major concern, as long as the anti-imperialist struggle is advancing, since a weaking of imperialism will pave the way for the revolution in that specific area and elsewhere. The anti-imperialsit struggle, no matter how bourgeoisie, is a tool in the hands of the workers to reach their liberation. The "Palestinian bourgeoisie&#39;s struggle" you are reffering to is the anti-imperialist struggle that must win to ensure victory of the workers at the end.

[KC]

Devrim, I&#39;m interested to hear what your opinion is on Mansoor Hekmat&#39;s The Myth of the National and Progressive Bourgeoisie (http://hekmat.public-archive.net/en/0110en.html).


I think that today and everyday, a temproray allieance with all forces with in one coutnry should exist temproraly to fight off imperialism, which would pave the way for the revolution.

This is fallacious reasoning. Imperialism is capitalism. One cannot ally oneself with the bourgeoisie in order to defeat the bourgeoisie.

[Revolution Until Victory]

This is fallacious reasoning.

no its not


Imperialism is capitalism.

true.


One cannot ally oneself with the bourgeoisie in order to defeat the bourgeoisie.

but not all bourgeoisie are the same. There are the Western imperialist bourgeoisie, and there are the anti-imperilaist native bourgeoisie. You see, imperialism is the highst stage of capitalism, not merely capitalism, that&#39;s why the local exploiters are not yet imperialists, while the Western ones already are. So here you would have an imperialsit bourgeoisie agressor, and an anti-imperilasit front composed of the workers AND the bourgeoisie who are not yet imperialist. Since both the workers and the native exploiters are anti-imperilasit, both could temprorarly coporate in the workers-controlled liberation struggle in order to pave the way for the revolution and the distruction of those local bourgeoisie whom the workers were allied with. The workers aim to defeat imperialism, the native bourgeoisie aim to defeat imperialism; how is, then, a temprorary allience between the two impoosible? the only way it could be impossible is if one assumes that imperialism is capitalism (not that imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism) and the native bourgeouisie are capitalists which means they are imperialists since capitalism is imperalism which means them and the imperialsits are the same. But that isn&#39;t the case. One bourgeoisie are imperialsit, the others are anti-imperialist. In other words, the workers should "take advantage" of the local, temproralry anti-imperialist exploiters before destroying them.

[Leo]

but not all bourgeoisie are the same. There are the Western imperialist bourgeoisie, and there are the anti-imperilaist native bourgeoisie.

Which is actually also imperialist.


You see, imperialism is the highst stage of capitalism, not merely capitalism, that&#39;s why the local exploiters are not yet imperialists, while the Western ones already are.

Imperialism is not a local stage of different national capitalisms, it is a global stage of the capitalist mode of production, it is a world epoch.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 09, 2007 08:52 am
Imperialism is not a local stage of different national capitalisms, it is a global stage of the capitalist mode of production, it is a world epoch.
Exactly.

But this "global stage of the capitalist mode of production" distributes the various national economies unevenly. While Afghanistan is part of the imperialist chain as the United States, their respective place within that chain is completely different. So to say that the Afghan bourgeoisie is "imperialist" is false; the Afghan bourgeoisie is compradora and has not enough strength or self-confidence to try and become independent, much less imperialist on its own right.

Luís Henrique

[Revolution Until Victory]

Which is actually also imperialist.

I diagree. Even though their capitalist class interests will always make them choose compromise with imperilais, I wont&#39; go as far as descring "third world" bourgeoisie as imperilaist.


Imperialism is not a local stage of different national capitalisms, it is a global stage of the capitalist mode of production, it is a world epoch.

true, but still, a "third world" bourgeoisie will in now way be an imperialist after the liberation struggle form imperialism have won. That&#39;s why, through out history, specific countries would have reached the highest stage of capitalism, and turned imperialist, and others, at the same time, didn&#39;t, or did so later.

[Revolution Until Victory]

Exactly.

But this "global stage of the capitalist mode of production" distributes the various national economies unevenly. While Afghanistan is part of the imperialist chain as the United States, their respective place within that chain is completely different. So to say that the Afghan bourgeoisie is "imperialist" is false; the Afghan bourgeoisie is compradora and has not enough strength or self-confidence to try and become independent, much less imperialist on its own right.

Luís Henrique

agree, again, not all bourgeoisie are the same as far as the anti-imperialist struggle is concerned.

[Leo]

Luis;


So to say that the Afghan bourgeoisie is "imperialist" is false; the Afghan bourgeoisie is compradora and has not enough strength or self-confidence to try and become independent, much less imperialist on its own right.

I think we talked about this before but I don&#39;t like the term compradora, primarily because it implies the possibility of a non-compradora bourgeoisie, a bourgeoisie independent from all imperialism. However, in the so-called "third world" countries, even the faction of the bourgeoisie claiming to be non-compradora is a part of this or that greater imperialist power. And what is more is that even the bourgeoisie of the greater powers occasionally act as compradora. For example, think of the intervention of Turkey in American politics. Turkey stopped the American parliament from voting on the Armenian genocide, then Turkey got Bush to tell them the PKK locations in Iraq so that they can bomb them and also got political support for an ambitious operation, probably under the implied thread of a full-blown invasion of Northern Iraq or something like that, and the Americans did all faithfully, and even their own media described the way their government acted was pathetic&#33; Now, you would call the Turkish bourgeoisie compradora and the American bourgeoisie imperialist, but in this situation it seems as if the roles were changed.

But the most important aspect of it is that being subordinate to a greater imperialist power and having imperialist interests to pursue are not mutually exclusive to each other - in fact you can&#39;t have one without the other. The bourgeoisie of a certain country does not ally itself with the Americans because they are a bunch of losers. They do it because they see it as the best way of pursuing all their interests, and this includes their imperialist interests as well.

I mean when you say:


But this "global stage of the capitalist mode of production" distributes the various national economies unevenly. While Afghanistan is part of the imperialist chain as the United States, their respective place within that chain is completely different.

I completely agree with it. I just think that even being in the lowest rank of the imperialist chain necessarily involves the pursuing of imperialist interests - as it is the natural way every single bourgeois faction acts in this epoch.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Revolution Until Victory+November 09, 2007 08:17 am--> (Revolution Until Victory &#064; November 09, 2007 08:17 am)
Of course, they stick in the word temporarily, but it doesn&#39;t disguise what is being proposed here.

really? what is "proposed here"??
[/b]
What is being proposed here is a cross class alliance. You at least admit that. What we are saying is that in this alliance the working class will inevitably take the subordinate role, one of cannon fodder.

Of course the leftists will claim that it is a &#39;temporary alliance&#39;, that it is &#39;paving the way for the revolution&#39;, or some other such nonsense. The question is, given their past record, why we should take their claims any more seriously than the claims of those who offer us happiness in the next world?

The fact of the matter is that these people are advocating that the working class subordinate itself to the bourgeoisie. It doesn&#39;t matter what fancy language they dress it up in, they are the recruiting sergeants of the bourgeoisie, and their hands are covered in workers blood.


Originally posted by Revolution Until Victory+--> (Revolution Until Victory)
Originally posted by Devrim
The very struggle itself for national liberation is a bourgeois movement by its nature. Let&#39;s be very clear on this. This whole idea of &#39;national liberation&#39; is a farce.

exaclty, no one denied this. I didn&#39;t suggest the goal should be to end imperialism and be happy with a bourgeousie state. However, joining the national liberation struggle is integral in defeating imperialism and thus paving the way for the real goal: the liberation of the proletariat.


Originally posted by Devrim
We would further contend that those who support national liberation movements, however &#39;socialist&#39; they sound, are acting as recruiting sergeants to mobilise the working class on behalf of different bourgeois factions.

not necessarly. But you are right, the whole national liberation issue is a bourgeousie issue first and formost, however, it is necessary for the workers emancipation to occur.


[email protected]
The problem here is not who is in control of the national liberation movement. It is the movement itself. It is that workers are being mobilised by the national bourgeois in the name of the nation.

but that&#39;s not the end here. The goal and the end isn&#39;t to have a nation free of imperialism. This is merely a mean to reach an end, which is changing the current social order. You are defenatly right, the movment in itself is a bourgeousi movment (in movment, I mean the whole struggle for liberation) that&#39;s why I reject the idea to get rid of impeirlaism and simply have a state controlled by the exploiters. That&#39;s why the struggle must carry one, and in fact, begin at the end of imperialism. National-Liberation is not an end, it is merely a mean to the end, workers liberation.[/b]

There are two completely opposed conceptions here. Our conception says that it national liberation within a world imperialist system is an impossibility. There can be no national independence today. The other conception sees that not only is national liberation possible, but indeed that it is a necessity on the road to communism.

But this is more than a theoretical argument. It has a very real effect on how we see revolutionary politics today. RUV explains his perspective:


Revolution Until Victory
Fighting on behalf of the bourgeoisie in the context of a war of liberation isn&#39;t a major concern, as long as the anti-imperialist struggle is advancing, since a weaking of imperialism will pave the way for the revolution in that specific area and elsewhere. The anti-imperialsit struggle, no matter how bourgeoisie, is a tool in the hands of the workers to reach their liberation. The "Palestinian bourgeoisie&#39;s struggle" you are reffering to is the anti-imperialist struggle that must win to ensure victory of the workers at the end.

One admirable thing about RUV is his honesty. Many leftists will try to dress up what is happening here with lots of fancy words. RUV is open about it. He advocates the working class &#39;[f]ighting on behalf of the bourgeoisie&#39;. Of course he talks about socialism in the never, never, but what do they advocate today?

They talk about &#39;the anti-imperialist struggle [...] advancing&#39;, and the &#39;weakening of imperialism&#39; as being necessary steps on the road to workers revolution. If our theory is correct though what this means is merely an adjustment of the balance of power between competing states... And these so-called socialists are calling for the working class to die for that.

As for their promises for the future if we are correct, and national liberation is an impossibility then they are merely pipe dreams. The bourgeoisie will always make promises to the working class when it wants it to sacrifice itself on the alter of national capital. It is, however, difficult for them to sell these lies about &#39;a land fit for heroes&#39;, or whatever without dressing it up in a little left-wing language.

That is the role of left nationalism today; to make the working class die for their bosses.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+November 09, 2007 08:59 am--> (Luís Henrique @ November 09, 2007 08:59 am)
Leo [email protected] 09, 2007 08:52 am
Imperialism is not a local stage of different national capitalisms, it is a global stage of the capitalist mode of production, it is a world epoch.
Exactly.

But this "global stage of the capitalist mode of production" distributes the various national economies unevenly. While Afghanistan is part of the imperialist chain as the United States, their respective place within that chain is completely different. So to say that the Afghan bourgeoisie is "imperialist" is false; the Afghan bourgeoisie is compradora and has not enough strength or self-confidence to try and become independent, much less imperialist on its own right.

Luís Henrique [/b]
Even if we accept your analysis, Luís, what difference would it make? The political conclusions that we draw from our economic analysis is the important point.

The question, expressed in your terms then, is this: Should the working class ally itself with a &#39;compradora&#39; bourgeoisie against an &#39;imperialist&#39; bourgeoisie? Should communists advocate workers dying on the alter of national capital to even out the balance of imperialist power?

Devrim

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Zampanò@November 09, 2007 08:18 am
Devrim, I&#39;m interested to hear what your opinion is on Mansoor Hekmat&#39;s The Myth of the National and Progressive Bourgeoisie (http://hekmat.public-archive.net/en/0110en.html).

I have never read it, Zampanò. Thanks for the link though I will try to read it this weekend.

At the time that it was published their current was quite close to ours, and the communist left held joint meetings with SUCM.

Devrim

[Revolution Until Victory]

I think we talked about this before but I don&#39;t like the term compradora, primarily because it implies the possibility of a non-compradora bourgeoisie, a bourgeoisie independent from all imperialism.

who ever suggested a bourgeoisie totally independent from imperialism??


However, in the so-called "third world" countries, even the faction of the bourgeoisie claiming to be non-compradora is a part of this or that greater imperialist power.

ture.


The bourgeoisie of a certain country does not ally itself with the Americans because they are a bunch of losers. They do it because they see it as the best way of pursuing all their interests, and this includes their imperialist interests as well.

totally agree.


I just think that even being in the lowest rank of the imperialist chain necessarily involves the pursuing of imperialist interests - as it is the natural way every single bourgeois faction acts in this epoch.

exactly. All of what you have been mentioning above is something I have been repeaiting and stressing in almost every thread. While a temprorary alliance should exist between all different forces in one country in order to efficently defeat the imperialists and pave the way for workers revolution, the workers would STILL be fighting the bourgeoisie even during thier temproray alliance to prevent them from controling and leading the struggle towards national liberation, and thus, workers liberation since the interests of the native bourgeoisie will always direct them in the direction of compromise and peaceful settlment with imperialism.
I never suggested the native bourgeoisie are totally independent from imperilaism, but at the same time, I wouldn&#39;t say that both the western bourgeoisie and the native ones are imperialist.


What is being proposed here is a cross class alliance. You at least admit that. What we are saying is that in this alliance the working class will inevitably take the subordinate role, one of cannon fodder.

Ok, so your opnion is that during a war of national liberation, the workers will be always subordinate to the national bourgeoisie if they allied themselves withthem to be able to defeat the imperialists?? I disagree.


Of course the leftists will claim that it is a &#39;temporary alliance&#39;, that it is &#39;paving the way for the revolution&#39;, or some other such nonsense. The question is, given their past record, why we should take their claims any more seriously than the claims of those who offer us happiness in the next world?

don&#39;t you love it when so-called "leftists" use right-wing style argument to debunk whatever they oppose??


The fact of the matter is that these people are advocating that the working class subordinate itself to the bourgeoisie.

not this is not the fact of the matter.


It doesn&#39;t matter what fancy language they dress it up in, they are the recruiting sergeants of the bourgeoisie, and their hands are covered in workers blood.

no, it&#39;s a recrutiment of the national liberation struggle that should be controlled and lead by the workers which will be followed by the workers liberation struggle.


There are two completely opposed conceptions here. Our conception says that it national liberation within a world imperialist system is an impossibility. There can be no national independence today. The other conception sees that not only is national liberation possible, but indeed that it is a necessity on the road to communism.

That&#39;s a different issue. We are not discussing wether national liberation is possible or not. Personally, I think it is. Lebanon would be a great example.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Revolution Until Victory+November 09, 2007 04:42 pm--> (Revolution Until Victory &#064; November 09, 2007 04:42 pm) That&#39;s a different issue. We are not discussing wether national liberation is possible or not. Personally, I think it is. Lebanon would be a great example. [/b]
But this is actually central to the issue. If national liberation is not possible, then all you are doing is dragging workers into dying to give one faction of the bourgeoisie slightly more power than another one.

In our opinion it is not possible for any capitalist nation to break out of the system of imperialism, and small countries like Lebanon will always be used in the struggle between rival powers, just as the political parties within Lebanon even though they call themselves &#39;national&#39; parties end up being the surrogates of the regional, and even international powers.

The same thing applies when one looks to Kurdistan. The Kurdish parties have always been used as the puppets of the regional powers, from the days when the Shah supported the KDP, to Syria supporting the PKK, and now both the PUK, and KDP have become US puppets. This is what national liberation means today, choosing which local, or international powers will have the dominant influence.


Originally posted by Revolution Until Victory+--> (Revolution Until Victory)Ok, so your opnion is that during a war of national liberation, the workers will be always subordinate to the national bourgeoisie if they allied themselves withthem to be able to defeat the imperialists?? I disagree.[/b]

Yes, this is our opinion, and the reason for this is that these struggles do not take place on the terrain of the working class, but on a completely bourgeois terrain. The working class must struggle with its own methods to assert itself as a class for itself.


Originally posted by Revolution Until Victory

Originally posted by Devrim
The fact of the matter is that these people are advocating that the working class subordinate itself to the bourgeoisie.


not this is not the fact of the matter.

Really? You are quite clear about the need for an alliance with the bourgeoisie, fighting for the aims of the bourgeoisie. What makes you think that the working class can dominate that alliance.

For us by the very action of entering that alliance the working class gives up its independence, and its ability to act as a class. It subordinates its interests to those of its enemy, and you think in this way as a collection of individual, atomised workers, it can assert its power?


Revolution Until [email protected]

Devrim
It doesn&#39;t matter what fancy language they dress it up in, they are the recruiting sergeants of the bourgeoisie, and their hands are covered in workers blood.

no, it&#39;s a recrutiment of the national liberation struggle that should be controlled and lead by the workers which will be followed by the workers liberation struggle.

Again the same insistence that the working class can lead the struggle of the opposing class, a struggle against its very interests.

It doesn&#39;t matter to us what words, and phrases these left nationalists dress themselves up in. Ultimately, they speak in the same language as Kautsky, the language of those who urge workers to go out, and die for their bosses. The phraseology is irrelevant. Whatever &#39;left&#39; words they use the nationalists are the enemy of the working class.

Devrim

[Revolution Until Victory]

But this is actually central to the issue.

I know it is, but I meant that we are not discussin this now.


In our opinion it is not possible for any capitalist nation to break out of the system of imperialism, and small countries like Lebanon will always be used in the struggle between rival powers, just as the political parties within Lebanon even though they call themselves &#39;national&#39; parties end up being the surrogates of the regional, and even international powers.

True, that will always happen. Countries that have defeated the imperialist agression will always have different sectors that have regonal or international loyalties. But again, that&#39;s a different issue. The important thing here is that the Zionist imperialist agression have been defeated.


You are quite clear about the need for an alliance with the bourgeoisie, fighting for the aims of the bourgeoisie

during the war of liberation from imperialism, the bourgeoisie and the workers would both have the same aim of eradicting imperilaism. For the natoinal bourgeoisie, this is their ultimate goal, for the workers, this is simply a mean to reach total liberation, workers liberatoin.


Again the same insistence that the working class can lead the struggle of the opposing class, a struggle against its very interests.

Wether the anti-imperialist struggle is in the intrest of the workes or not depends wether the workes have used this struggle, the national liberation struggle, as a tool for the ulitmate struggle, the workers liberation struggle. When the anti-imperilaist war becomes a tool the workes use to pave the way for thier emancipation, the national bourgeoisie would be the ones fighting against thier very interets.

[Marion]

Originally posted by Revolution Until [email protected] 09, 2007 05:27 pm
Wether the anti-imperialist struggle is in the intrest of the workes or not depends wether the workes have used this struggle, the national liberation struggle, as a tool for the ulitmate struggle, the workers liberation struggle. When the anti-imperilaist war becomes a tool the workes use to pave the way for thier emancipation, the national bourgeoisie would be the ones fighting against thier very interets.
Perhaps your argument would be helped if you could point to some concrete examples of national liberation struggles which have developed in the positive way that you suggest is possible? Or, if this hasn&#39;t actually happened, some examples where it was realistic that it might have? For example, an occasion where after national liberation the working class waged serious struggle against the bourgeoisie...

[Revolution Until Victory]

Perhaps your argument would be helped if you could point to some concrete examples of national liberation struggles which have developed in the positive way that you suggest is possible? Or, if this hasn&#39;t actually happened, some examples where it was realistic that it might have? For example, an occasion where after national liberation the working class waged serious struggle against the bourgeoisie...

wether this have happned before or had the chance of happneing before or not is irrelivant. Any failure to happen doesn&#39;t necessarly mean a flaw in the theory but it could be in pracitce. a few examples I can think of in which after the national liberation struggle, there was some realistic possiblity of socialism would be Egypt with Nasser, China with Mao, and to a much lesser extent, Algeria with Ben Bella.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 09, 2007 09:18 am
I think we talked about this before but I don&#39;t like the term compradora, primarily because it implies the possibility of a non-compradora bourgeoisie, a bourgeoisie independent from all imperialism.
Logically, perhaps. In practice, however, there is no such thing in the third world, and where there are smallish sectors of the bourgeoisie that maintain delusions of independence, they are too small and too isolated from their own class to play a serious role in national politics. The sectors more or less directly subordinated to imperialism are always clearly hegemonic within the third world bourgeoisies.


However, in the so-called "third world" countries, even the faction of the bourgeoisie claiming to be non-compradora is a part of this or that greater imperialist power. And what is more is that even the bourgeoisie of the greater powers occasionally act as compradora. For example, think of the intervention of Turkey in American politics. Turkey stopped the American parliament from voting on the Armenian genocide, then Turkey got Bush to tell them the PKK locations in Iraq so that they can bomb them and also got political support for an ambitious operation, probably under the implied thread of a full-blown invasion of Northern Iraq or something like that, and the Americans did all faithfully, and even their own media described the way their government acted was pathetic&#33; Now, you would call the Turkish bourgeoisie compradora and the American bourgeoisie imperialist, but in this situation it seems as if the roles were changed.

I don&#39;t think the roles were reversed in any significant way. Obviously the faction of the American bourgeoise that controls the State believes, or hopes, that a Turkish intervention in Kurdistan would be in their interest. The fact that the dog badly wants to chase the pray doesn&#39;t change the fact that it is the hunter who will in the end decide if the dog is unleashed or not, and much less the fact that the hunter will eat the filet, while the dog will earn the legs and neck of the prey...


But the most important aspect of it is that being subordinate to a greater imperialist power and having imperialist interests to pursue are not mutually exclusive to each other - in fact you can&#39;t have one without the other. The bourgeoisie of a certain country does not ally itself with the Americans because they are a bunch of losers. They do it because they see it as the best way of pursuing all their interests, and this includes their imperialist interests as well.

Not at all - it includes their necessity of being subordinate to imperialism in order to keep power at home.


I just think that even being in the lowest rank of the imperialist chain necessarily involves the pursuing of imperialist interests - as it is the natural way every single bourgeois faction acts in this epoch.

It involves pursuing imperialist interests of others - while the upper links of the chain pursue interests of their own, and are able to effectively confront, to some degree, each others.

Luís Henrique

[Marion]

Originally posted by Revolution Until [email protected] 09, 2007 06:00 pm
wether this have happned before or had the chance of happneing before or not is irrelivant. Any failure to happen doesn&#39;t necessarly mean a flaw in the theory but it could be in pracitce.
Of course - that&#39;s why I included the bit about examples "where it was realistic it might have"


a few examples I can think of in which after the national liberation struggle, there was some realistic possiblity of socialism would be Egypt with Nasser, China with Mao, and to a much lesser extent, Algeria with Ben Bella.

Well, the onus is very much to show how there was a realistic possibility of socialism in these cases and how an ideology and practice of national liberation helped the development of these struggles.

Perhaps another question is exactly what is it about the struggle in Iraq (or Palestine for that matter) which suggests the national liberation struggles there can avoid falling into the same result as every other national liberation struggle (given that you admit none has achieved socialism)...?

[Revolution Until Victory]

Perhaps another question is exactly what is it about the struggle in Iraq (or Palestine for that matter) which suggests the national liberation struggles there can avoid falling into the same result as every other national liberation struggle (given that you admit none has achieved socialism)...?

what did I admit??

I never said that no national liberation struggle have been followed by socialism, all I did was give a few examples from the top of my head of national liberation struggles that were followed by, or had the realistic possiblity of being followed by, workers liberation. Btw, in the case of China, ulike Egypt and certinaly, unlike Algeria, I believe Socialism was achieved.

I think a better question should be, how many countries, in history, and reagdless of imperilaist agreesion, have been actually able to achieve socialism in the first place? Socialism and true workers control wasn&#39;t achieved in that many places around the world anyways, for you to narrow the search even more and ask to not just provide examples of Socialism, but harder yet, examples of Socialism preceded by nationali-liberation.

[Marion]

Originally posted by Revolution Until [email protected] 09, 2007 09:32 pm

Perhaps another question is exactly what is it about the struggle in Iraq (or Palestine for that matter) which suggests the national liberation struggles there can avoid falling into the same result as every other national liberation struggle (given that you admit none has achieved socialism)...?

what did I admit??

I never said that no national liberation struggle have been followed by socialism, all I did was give a few examples from the top of my head of national liberation struggles that were followed by, or had the realistic possiblity of being followed by, workers liberation. Btw, in the case of China, ulike Egypt and certinaly, unlike Algeria, I believe Socialism was achieved.
Apologies if I misunderstood what you were saying, but the statement:

a few examples I can think of in which after the national liberation struggle, there was some realistic possiblity of socialism would be Egypt with Nasser, China with Mao, and to a much lesser extent, Algeria with Ben Bella.
made me think you were saying there was a possibility of socialism but it didn&#39;t actually happen. Mind you, you&#39;re obviously about 20 times better in your second language than I&#39;d ever be...

Anyway, do you honestly think socialism was achieved in China? Where was the "true workers control" you speak about...?

[Revolution Until Victory]

Anyway, do you honestly think socialism was achieved in China? Where was the "true workers control" you speak about...?

I knew you would ask me such a question. This issue have been discussed sooo many times in boring detalis. I don&#39;t think we should start a discussion here about it given its urelivance to the issue, which is this new Iraqi communist resistance faction.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Revolution Until Victory+November 09, 2007 05:27 pm--> (Revolution Until Victory &#064; November 09, 2007 05:27 pm)
You are quite clear about the need for an alliance with the bourgeoisie, fighting for the aims of the bourgeoisie

during the war of liberation from imperialism, the bourgeoisie and the workers would both have the same aim of eradicting imperilaism. For the natoinal bourgeoisie, this is their ultimate goal, for the workers, this is simply a mean to reach total liberation, workers liberatoin.
[/b]
Can national liberation struggles eradicate imperialism? We would say that they don&#39;t they just lead to a change in the balance of imperialist power.


Originally posted by Revolution Until Victory+--> (Revolution Until Victory)
Originally posted by Devrim
In our opinion it is not possible for any capitalist nation to break out of the system of imperialism, and small countries like Lebanon will always be used in the struggle between rival powers, just as the political parties within Lebanon even though they call themselves &#39;national&#39; parties end up being the surrogates of the regional, and even international powers.


True, that will always happen. Countries that have defeated the imperialist agression will always have different sectors that have regonal or international loyalties. But again, that&#39;s a different issue. The important thing here is that the Zionist imperialist agression have been defeated.[/b]

Has imperialism been eradicated in Lebanon though, or has the balance of power merely changed?


Originally posted by Revolution Until Victory
Wether the anti-imperialist struggle is in the intrest of the workes or not depends wether the workes have used this struggle, the national liberation struggle, as a tool for the ulitmate struggle, the workers liberation struggle. When the anti-imperilaist war becomes a tool the workes use to pave the way for thier emancipation, the national bourgeoisie would be the ones fighting against thier very interets.

We contend that the working class can not use this struggle as a &#39;tool&#39; in the ultimate &#39;struggle&#39;. We contend that by making alliances with different bourgeois factions the working class destroys itself as a class for itself. Those who would even temporarily advocate the abandonment of workers interests in favour of pursuing the interests of the national bourgeoisie, are those who advocate the working class abdicating its own interests as a class, and becoming cannon fodder in the bosses wars.


Revolution Until [email protected]
wether this have happned before or had the chance of happneing before or not is irrelivant. Any failure to happen doesn&#39;t necessarly mean a flaw in the theory but it could be in pracitce. a few examples I can think of in which after the national liberation struggle, there was some realistic possiblity of socialism would be Egypt with Nasser, China with Mao, and to a much lesser extent, Algeria with Ben Bella.


Revolution Until Victory

Anyway, do you honestly think socialism was achieved in China? Where was the "true workers control" you speak about...?

I knew you would ask me such a question. This issue have been discussed sooo many times in boring detalis. I don&#39;t think we should start a discussion here about it given its urelivance to the issue, which is this new Iraqi communist resistance faction.

I can understand that you don&#39;t want to get into this here. I would say though that those who see &#39;socialism&#39; in the &#39;Free Officers&#39; Movement&#39; have, in our opinion, no idea what a class movement is.

Devrim

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

This is a very interesting (and mysterious) development. I wonder what this could developm into...