Iraq, and national liberation struggles in general

  1. BobKKKindle$ - 27th January 2008, 02:52
    What do we all think of national liberation struggles? This is surely one of the most critical issues facing the left today, given the ongoing struggle against imperialism in Iraq.

    I think Socialists should always provide unconditional support for groups struggling against Imperialism. The struggle against Imperialism is inherently progressive, as imperialism, especially in the form of direct political control and military occupation, is derived from the needs of capital (the search for new markets and outlets for accumulated investment capital) and so by winning victories against imperialism, it is possible to create an economic crisis in the oppressor nations, and thus accelerate the downfall of capitalism. In addition, struggle also prevents Imperial powers from invading other countries, as military resources are too stretched.

    Are these good reasons for supporting struggle? Are there any others we should take note of?

    I recognise, however, that, in the case of Iraq, many of these groups are not socialist, and may support reactionary ideas which create divisions within the working class or encourage workers to identify as members of a particular religion or national identity, which undermines the importance of class struggle. Therefore, our support should not be uncritical - we should point out problems, and try to win over workers to the progressive sections of the movement.
  2. Holden Caulfield - 27th January 2008, 13:52
    nationalism is usually a progressive force until it achieves it primary goal then it turns massively reactionary,

    we should support liberation struggles as a way of breaking up american hegemony, and acting against its agressive imperialist foreign policy, but I think that it is very hard to say who to support as the more Marxist groups (as exsist in Palestine etc..) do not have the ability to over throw their opressors yet, and the ones who do have more power and support are usually religious and why remove one set of opressors to replace it with a new ones, 'better the devil you know'?

    it becomes almost impossible in Iraq to chose who to support, Saddam was more liberal on the whole (womens rights etc) yet was a tyrant and a dictator, the taliban want to go back to the 17th cent. or something, the smaller groups are religiously based and opress women and have no chance of uniting the people, or there are the Americans who dont give a fuck about the people and have no aims except to make a 'stable/opressed' puppet nation to expolit and rape of its resources

    we should all move the struggle to Puerto Rico, its the most suitable target that is close to America, and the propaganda opportunities would be hugely helpful to gain support for our cause,
  3. Enragé
    Enragé - 30th January 2008, 19:30
    I think Socialists should always provide unconditional support for groups struggling against Imperialism. The struggle against Imperialism is inherently progressive, as imperialism, especially in the form of direct political control and military occupation, is derived from the needs of capital (the search for new markets and outlets for accumulated investment capital) and so by winning victories against imperialism, it is possible to create an economic crisis in the oppressor nations, and thus accelerate the downfall of capitalism. In addition, struggle also prevents Imperial powers from invading other countries, as military resources are too stretched.

    Are these good reasons for supporting struggle? Are there any others we should take note of?
    In addition to this, a popular uprising against imperialism is a way for the people to actively engage in making history. This might not seem like much, but ordinarily under either capitalism or (quasi)feudalism the only ones making history are the elite.

    This said, and i agree with your other points, the only thing we should support unconditionally is the struggle against imperialism, and the groups partaking in that only on that point (unless they're commies/socialists/anarchists ofcourse). So fuck that "We are all Hezbollah"-shit, we're not, we simply support Hezbollah fighting off israeli invaders.
  4. Colonello Buendia
    Colonello Buendia - 1st February 2008, 19:08
    precisely, I support nationalist movements only until they take power, from then on, it's the left wingers who I support from then on, unless like Pol Pot or Mao they're reactionaries of the people
  5. Q
    Q - 2nd February 2008, 02:48
    What do we all think of national liberation struggles? This is surely one of the most critical issues facing the left today, given the ongoing struggle against imperialism in Iraq.

    I think Socialists should always provide unconditional support for groups struggling against Imperialism. The struggle against Imperialism is inherently progressive, as imperialism, especially in the form of direct political control and military occupation, is derived from the needs of capital (the search for new markets and outlets for accumulated investment capital) and so by winning victories against imperialism, it is possible to create an economic crisis in the oppressor nations, and thus accelerate the downfall of capitalism. In addition, struggle also prevents Imperial powers from invading other countries, as military resources are too stretched.

    Are these good reasons for supporting struggle? Are there any others we should take note of?

    I recognise, however, that, in the case of Iraq, many of these groups are not socialist, and may support reactionary ideas which create divisions within the working class or encourage workers to identify as members of a particular religion or national identity, which undermines the importance of class struggle. Therefore, our support should not be uncritical - we should point out problems, and try to win over workers to the progressive sections of the movement.
    With that rather important addition, I agree wholeheartedly. We should indeed support anti-imperialist movements, at least where they use the mobilisation of the masses (in contrast to for example FARC that fights on a pure guerilla strategy where the masses suffer). But we should support this struggle with our own programme and criticize the faulted program of, for example, Hezbollah or Hamas, to try and win over the masses or at least the more radicalised sections of the working class to our cause.

    But back to Iraq: how many socialist groups are active overthere and how big is their influence?
  6. Random Precision - 2nd February 2008, 03:34
    But back to Iraq: how many socialist groups are active overthere and how big is their influence?
    Well, there's the ever-popular Iraqi Communist Party, which, like most other Stalinist CPs has fallen into opportunism and reformism. They run on the reformist National List in elections for the US puppet regime. There's also the Maoist "Red Brigades", or something like that, who are apparently fighting valiantly against the US occupation, although I tend to think that all 5 of them are probably holed up in a basement somewhere. The most promising prospect I've heard of is the Worker-Communist Party of Iraq, which as I can recall is Luxemburguist/Left-Communist. They have a website in English, but it doesn't look like it's been updated in a while. I've no idea how strong a movement they have unfortunately.