Iraqi Resistance
Nov 12 2004 01:14
hiya,
could someone here please be kind enough to post a few links to some places where I can find a good analysis of the Iraqi resistance, their make-up, their strategy, their command, the places they get their arms, regional support etc...
i'm most interested in their politics, i.e: are they all theocratic muslim fundementalists, or are there currents and counter currents within the movement, differing and clashing political elements etc. i just want some hard evidence i can use to argue against the media homogenisation of the resistence... help would be appreciated 
Nov 12 2004 19:58
#2
Dear Marlow,
While it is tempting to want to see something positive in the attacks against the US/British forces in Iraq, this form of 'resistance' has nothing to do with proletarian internationalism and everything to do with fractions of the bourgeoisie in Iraq seeking to assert their own sordid interests.
We thought you may be interested in this article The Iraqi resistance are fighting for capitalism. We'd be interested to hear whether you do think there is something progressive in the Iraqi resistance or not.
For the class struggle against the entire ruling class,
World Revolution,
Section in Britain of the ICC.
Nov 27 2004 21:44
#3
Not really sure if this is relavent..but GW Bush has said, and im not making this up.
"I not suprised their upset. I would be to if i was occupied"
IF he feels this way then why the fuck doesnt he get out of there PLUS why do they always say that is in Muslim and Islamic Extremeists all the time
Dec 14 2004 19:56
#4
found this on infoshop, i dont know if its genuine, though i have no reason to think it otherwise.
Iraqi Resistance speech on videotape December 13 2004
Rush transcript-
Title:
Communiqué Number 6
The media platoon of the Islamic Jihad Army. On the 27th of Shawal 1425h. 10 December 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People of the world! These words come to you from those who up to the day of the invasion were struggling to survive under the sanctions imposed by the criminal regimes of the U.S. and Britain .
We are simple people who chose principles over fear.
We have suffered crimes and sanctions, which we consider the true weapons of mass destruction.
Years and years of agony and despair, while the condemned UN traded with our oil revenues in the name of world stability and peace.
Over two million innocents died waiting for a light at the end of a tunnel that only ended with the occupation of our country and the theft of our resources.
After the crimes of the administrations of the U.S and Britain in Iraq , we have chosen our future. The future of every resistance struggle ever in the history of man.
It is our duty, as well as our right, to fight back the occupying forces, which their nations will be held morally and economically responsible; for what their elected governments have destroyed and stolen from our land.
We have not crossed the oceans and seas to occupy Britain or the U.S. nor are we responsible for 9/11. These are only a few of the lies that these criminals present to cover their true plans for the control of the energy resources of the world, in face of a growing China and a strong unified Europe . It is Ironic that the Iraqi's are to bear the full face of this large and growing conflict on behalf of the rest of this sleeping world.
We thank all those, including those of Britain and the U.S. , who took to the streets in protest against this war and against Globalism. We also thank France , Germany and other states for their position, which least to say are considered wise and balanced, til now.
Today, we call on you again.
We do not require arms or fighters, for we have plenty.
We ask you to form a world wide front against war and sanctions. A front that is governed by the wise and knowing. A front that will bring reform and order. New institutions that would replace the now corrupt.
Stop using the U.S. dollar, use the Euro or a basket of currencies. Reduce or halt your consumption of British and U.S. products. Put an end to Zionism before it ends the world. Educate those in doubt of the true nature of this conflict and do not believe their media for their casualties are far higher than they admit.
We only wish we had more cameras to show the world their true defeat.
The enemy is on the run. They are in fear of a resistance movement they can not see nor predict.
We, now choose when, where, and how to strike. And as our ancestors drew the first sparks of civilization, we will redefine the word “conquest.“
Today we write a new chapter in the arts of urban warfare.
Know that by helping the Iraqi people you are helping yourselves, for tomorrow may bring the same destruction to you.
In helping the Iraqi people does not mean dealing for the Americans for a few contracts here and there. You must continue to isolate their strategy.
This conflict is no longer considered a localized war. Nor can the world remain hostage to the never-ending and regenerated fear that the American people suffer from in general.
We will pin them here in Iraq to drain their resources, manpower, and their will to fight. We will make them spend as much as they steal, if not more.
We will disrupt, then halt the flow of our stolen oil, thus, rendering their plans useless.
And the earlier a movement is born, the earlier their fall will be.
And to the American soldiers we say, you can also choose to fight tyranny with us. Lay down your weapons, and seek refuge in our mosques, churches and homes. We will protect you. And we will get you out of Iraq , as we have done with a few others before you.
Go back to your homes, families, and loved ones. This is not your war. Nor are you fighting for a true cause in Iraq .
And to George W. Bush, we say, “You have asked us to ‘Bring it on’, and so have we. Like never expected. Have you another challenge?”
Dec 14 2004 21:33
#5
Powerfull.
The Kurds in Iran has a tradition of anarcho-syndicalism that goes all the way back to pre-civilisation anarcho-primitivsm. They have no big chance to get the power in Iraq tough but it is good that other anarchist around the world know about their ideals.
Sep 14 2005 14:53
#6
We are suprised that the post from Vaneigemappreciationclub was submitted without much comment, and neither has it given rise to many replies. The statement he quotes from the group calling itself the 'Islamic Jihad Army' is certainly different from the usual al-Qaida rants against Jews and Crusaders and exulting in the slaughter of all “infidels”. It is addressed to the people of the world; it calls for worldwide protests against the war and recognises that many in the west oppose the war. It even ends by saying: “
Quote:
And to the American soldiers we say, you can also choose to fight tyranny with us. Lay down your weapons and seek refuge in our mosques, churches and homes. We will protect you. And we will get you out of Iraq, as we have done with a few others before you.
Go back to your homes, families, and loved ones. This is not your war. Nor are you fighting for a true cause in Iraq.
There is no doubt that many Iraqi workers are not taken in by the hateful, racist ideology of al Qaida etc. But the ‘Islamic Jihad Army’ group, far from expressing the real needs of those workers, is still functioning to recruit them into the imperialist war. As its name implies, its standpoint is either “Islam” or “our country”, not the working class, and its methods are not the methods of the class struggle.
Even if this group is not involved in the many acts of indiscriminate terror (or those directly aimed at certain groups, like Shia Muslims or Christians) which kill more Iraqi civilians than occupying troops, still they are not fundamentally distinct from factions like Zaqawi’s Al Quaida in Iraq. This can be seen from the militarist video that accompanies its statement on certain websites; these show the group brandishing their guns and engaging in roadside attacks on US army vehicles “in the name of Allah”. Of course, the class struggle does, at a certain stage, involve armed actions. But they assume their proletarian nature from the context of the movement in which they take part – for example the self-defence squads organised by strike committees, or the militias organised by the workers’ councils. And contrary to the sophisms of the GCI and others, the chaos and violence ravaging Iraq is not an expression of the class struggle; on the contrary, it is the product of an imperialist war of a new kind. It is a kind of warfare specific to the extreme decomposition of world capitalism, a sort of international civil war which links the ‘intifada’ in Palestine to the Iraqi resistance, conflicts in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or Chechnya, and the July 7 London bombers. The fact that many of the actions in this war are carried out by apparently uncontrolled gangs and warlords does not alter its imperialist character; and on a global level, these actions cannot escape the context of the growing conflict between capitalist states: at any time the uncontrolled terrorist groups can become direct agents of this or that imperialist power. We can see this from the statement of the Islamic Jihad Army, which thanks the governments of France and Germany for their stance on the Iraq war and calls on us to boycott the dollar in favour of the Euro. It also echoes the more crude anti-Semitism of al-Qaida by attributing to Zionism an exaggerated position in global affairs. It thus tells us we must “put an end to Zionism before it puts an end to the world.”
As we said in response to the GCI, there have been proletarian reactions in Iraq since the invasion – massive desertions from the army, strikes, demonstrations by the unemployed. But the mobilisation of Iraqi workers behind the resistance goes in a completely opposite direction. And any expression of proletarian politics in Iraq, far from lining up with the religious/nationalist partisans, would have to insist on this irreconcilable opposition between the terrain of the class struggle and the imperialist terrain of the resistance. This is precisely the same conflict that emerged at the end of the second world war, between for example the mass strikes of the Italian workers in 1943, who raised the slogan “down with the war”, and the actions of the anti-fascist partisans which sought to drag the most militant workers back into the trap of the war ‘for democracy’. Then as now those who blur the lines of this conflict are acting as recruiting sergeants for imperialist war.
Needless to say the defence of an internationalist position in Iraq today would be extremely dangerous because the balance of forces is not in favour of the class front, but of the imperialist front. Internationalist workers in Iraq would certainly face not only imprisonment and torture at the hands of the occupying forces but also summary executions by the jihadists who control large parts of the country. All the same, one internationalist statement coming out of Iraq would be worth more to the cause of real liberation than a thousand roadside bombs.
The question remains: where do those who call themselves anarchists stand on this issue?
World Revolution.
PS. Those interested in a more indepth discussion on the question of internationalism may be interested in the thread '1939 and all that...' in the thought forum. We also take up this discussion in the article 'Anarchism and the patriotic resistance' in the latest issue of World Revolution.
Sep 14 2005 14:58
#7
I wish I was pathetic enough to write articles about debates I'd had on the internet in a magazine.
Sep 14 2005 15:47
#8
As Lazy_riser says, the Iraqi 'resistance' are a varied bunch of fighters, some no better than gangsters, others semi-fascist, and others with a family, nationalistic or socialistic reason for fighting. The people who attempt to pass of this phenomenon as just composed of one group -- as George Bush does, and as World Rvn has just tried to do -- are bulshitting us and trying to simplify the complex situation into one that they can offer bogus 'solutions' to.
Resistance also takes many forms Passive resistance in Iraq happens every time someone refuses to serve a US collaborator in a shop, or makes it clear that soldiers aren't welcome in their neighbourhood.
Many workers' groups are also engaged in resistance in Iraq, like the GUOE oil workers in the south (www.basraoilunion.org), who have carried out strikes and protests against the occupation and against the corporations that are trying to privatise Iraq.
Basically, the resistance is a phenomenon, in which many groups are taking part in, not am identifiable group.
Sep 14 2005 16:40
#9
Lazlo_Woodbine wrote:
The people who attempt to pass of this phenomenon as just composed of one group -- as George Bush does, and as World Rvn has just tried to do -- are bulshitting us and trying to simplify the complex situation into one that they can offer bogus 'solutions' to.
Yes. The situation is complex and chaotic - this is exaclty what we are arguing - which is why it demands clarity, not confusion. Our previous post specifically took up the arguments of the 'Islamic Jihad Army', and we refered to other elements that make up the 'resistance'. Where did we say the resistance was just one group?
Lazlo_Woodbine wrote:
Resistance also takes many forms Passive resistance in Iraq happens every time someone refuses to serve a US collaborator in a shop, or makes it clear that soldiers aren't welcome in their neighbourhood... Basically, the resistance is a phenomenon, in which many groups are taking part in, not an identifiable group.
In times of chaos and confusion the responsibility of internationalists is to be very clear, not to add to the confusion. In what way is the position 'no war but the class war' a bogus solution?
Lazlo refers to the struggles in Basra - which are important - but it is wrong to conflate such actions on the class frontier with those on the imperialist frontier (even if they are behind the trade unions). As we say:
wld_rvn wrote:
...the mobilisation of Iraqi workers behind the resistance goes in a completely opposite direction. And any expression of proletarian politics in Iraq, far from lining up with the religious/nationalist partisans, would have to insist on this irreconcilable opposition between the terrain of the class struggle and the imperialist terrain of the resistance. This is precisely the same conflict that emerged at the end of the second world war, between for example the mass strikes of the Italian workers in 1943, who raised the slogan “down with the war”, and the actions of the anti-fascist partisans which sought to drag the most militant workers back into the trap of the war ‘for democracy’. Then as now those who blur the lines of this conflict are acting as recruiting sergeants for imperialist war.
World Revolution.
Sep 14 2005 23:22
#10
Caveat: I don't in any way know what I am talking about here - not having Arabic nor ever having visited Iraq. But, that said, seems to me there are just two Iraqi Resistance groups:
1) al-Qaeda in Iraq [formerly al-Tawhid wa al-Jihad/Monotheism and Holy War]: the main resistance group. Own the streets in Sunni cities, carry out lots of beheadings and floggings for minor infractions of religious law, such as shaving, and record it all on camcorder for production onto DVDs for sale. Salafi by ideology, are allies rather than membes of the real al-Qaeda.
2) Muhammad's Army [Jaish Muhammad]: the second group, are the military wing of the old Arab Baath [rebirth] Socialist Party, so not religious, despite the name. Run by the former ruling class, they have the money, the arms caches, the ex-army and ex-secret police personnel ... but don't have the popular support. Doomed to slowly fade out of existence in the face of AQII competition. Are allies of AQII through gritted teeth at the moment - took to killing each other last month over an AQII attempt to burn out Shiites loyal to the Baath in Ramadi. If the Americans were not too full of hubris to consider it, the Baath would sell out AQII in an instant for the right price (Saddam out of prison, massacre of the Southern Shiites, that sort of thing). Are unrelated to the Pakistani organisation of the same name that was involved in the recent London bombings.
The Sadrist Mahdi Army was also a third major resistance group for some of 2004, but the Americans have now made peace with them.
Good sites are http://juancole.com and http://atimes.com.
Sep 14 2005 23:49
#11
and what about labour groups, and womens groups involved in less spectacular resistance to the occupation?
Sep 15 2005 00:06
#12
Although this was written as a talk by a member of Organise! back in November 2004 I reckon its still worth a look:
http://flag.blackened.net/infohub/organise/content.php?article.616
revol68 likes it so it must be good
and in answer to wld_rvn it sets out where this particular wee group of anarcho's stand on this matter
edited cos I just noticed the question from our ICC comrade, because I got the date of the talk wrong first time and sumthing else I forget now. G'nite.
Sep 15 2005 11:34
#13
wld_rvn wrote:
Where did we say the resistance was just one group?
In the same post you ask this question, you refer several times to 'the resistance'. This is not a useful way to describe the conflict. At best it's naive, at worst it's a deliberate attempt to resolve what is a many-sided conflict into a simple formula.
wld_rvn wrote:
In times of chaos and confusion the responsibility of internationalists is to be very clear, not to add to the confusion. In what way is the position 'no war but the class war' a bogus solution?
I'd ask you right back -- how is a slogan a solution? Shouting cliches is hardly an appropriate response to the situation in Iraq. Are you even aware of whether there's any understanding of your jargon in the Arabic world?
Do you really mean it, that one internationalist statement from Iraq would be worth a hundred acts of resistance? Whay the fetish with paper proclaimations? What if someone in leeds was to fake up a proclaimation that looked like it came from Iraq, would that do you as well?
To be frank, there are already far too many political parties, all thinking they have the authority of Lenin to tell the workers what to do, and the ICC's analysis seems to continue that tradition. The people resisting in Iraq need to be understood, not lectured at.
There are better groups, and there are worse groups: let's support the better ones, rather than waiting for the 'right' internatinalist slogans to be raised.
Sep 15 2005 12:11
#14
In response to Lazlo Woodbine: there are different groups in the 'Resistance' and as Afraser points out there may even be armed conflict between them. But the question is this: what strengthens the struggle of the exploited against the exploiters, and what merely serves the battles between exploiters? In other words, what is part of the class struggle, and what is against it? We have just seen an attack claimed by Al Qaida in Iraq which deliberately targeted hundreds of construction workers, and which at the same time tried to sow hatred between Sunnis and Shias. A working class response to this action must be to affirm that such murderous gangs are no less the enemy of the workers than the US or British states, or the Iraqi government. And that if it is to defend itself rather than being the passive victim of such atrocities, the working class must develop its own identity, its own demands, its own forms of organisation. This would also involve the emergence of internationalist political groups.
None of this can be furthered by blurring the lines between a class resistance against capital and the action of nationalist gangs, by arguing that they are all just different aspects of the same movement.
Sep 15 2005 12:21
#15
I don't think anyone is arguing that we should blur it all into one movement called the "resistance". perhaps you sould read the Organise speech again?
The current situation in Iraq
by deconstruct on Sunday 13 February 2005
Quote:
A talk delivered at QUB Belfast 30.11.04 by a member of Organise! regarding the current situation in Iraq (at that date in time)
The recent criminal and barbaric re-occupation of Fallujah once again highlighted the levels states are prepared to go in the interests of so-called ‘stability and peace’ to ensure their domination and oppressive control over society.
The total destruction and uprooting of innocent people’s homes, infrastructure and means of life, refusing the entry of aid convoys from NGOs not to mention the estimated deaths of up to hundreds if not thousands of people is consistent with all states during some time in their short history.
These same events are perpetrated across Iraq in the interests of allegedly advancing freedom and democracy but we all know real truth behind the ‘propaganda machine’ which is that the invasion and subsequent illegal occupation is the root cause of the problem in that it has bred more violence and instability and replaced one dictatorship with another ensuring the interests of US and British economic, political and military domination.
Essentially Iraq has been turned into a global supermarket for Bush and Cheney’s favourite contractors such as Halliburton etc. Whilst Iraqi oil is the most prized asset and the first they secured it is only part of the spoils of war. Iraqi public services devastated during a decade of war and sanctions have been privatised by colonial decree. For example, in September last year the CPA-headed by US diplomat and pro-Zionist Paul Bremer published Order 39 to permit 100% foreign ownership of businesses. Around the same time, the CPA lowered the wage base for Iraqi public sector employees (the majority of Iraqi workforce) from rates set when the US troops first arrived in Iraq- ranging from 60 to 120 dollars to 40 dollars monthly. Since then housing and food subsidies have been abolished and numerous anti-trade Union laws have been retained as well as the numerous concentration or torture camps. Even in December last year the occupiers and their lackeys attacked and closed down the headquarters of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions in Baghdad! Since then this situation has not changed and even got worse, as various estimates suggest. The current unemployment rate is hovering at around 70% which condemns those to a life of misery, hunger and isolation especially since there are no welfare benefits.
The poor wages and safety conditions have led to an upsurge in class struggle labour activity such as strikes and occupations. In Nassiriyah of this year, the workers of the aluminium factory saw off his the Mahdi Army which had attempted to occupy and turn it into a military base, not to mention the numerous wild cat strikes in cities across Iraq mainly in electrical generating stations. The CPA and its appointed director were soon forced to back down in their insistence on wage reductions. In Um Qasr and other ports workers committees have been set despite no recognition from their bosses. Women have joined the Organisation for the Freedom of Women in Iraq in their thousands, raising the slogan ‘No to Occupation and the veil’. More to the point these groups especially the miltant and vibrant unemployed movement were often the first to confront the occupation utilising all forms of collective direct action. This is consistent with Iraq tradition of class struggle, from the widespread popular unrest of 1958 to the widespread mass rebellion in 1991 in which conscripted soldiers, Kurdish rebels and Iraqi civilians participated in. Rebels seized Basra, Kabala, Najaf, Kurkuk and other major cities. Mosques and symbols of the Ba’athist regime were destroyed as riots, insurrection and demonstrations rocked the Iraqi elite. In some areas self-organised workers councils (shoras) were set up to run things.
In calling for the end of the occupation of Iraq, we must not hide our principled opposition to some tactics such as indiscriminate car bombings adapted by groups within the so-called Iraqi resistance, including all the Islamist groups who despite their differences over tactics etc have the same aims, to establish a regime founded on Sharai law, with strict sexual apartheid. They hate atheists and secularists, other religious groups, feminist, organised workers, socialists and communists and they devote columns to denouncing them in their papers. In Basra, the different Islamist parties have set up an “emirate” where women are rarely seen in the street and where alcohol and nightclubs and even picnics are forbidden. While parts of left were beautifying the Fallugadh resistance as ‘freedom fighters’, it is also a place where women dare not step outside their door un-accompanied, No doubt this is taking place in other parts of Iraq where local Islamic groups such as the al-Sadr army have gained a foothold and where the offices of the Unemployed Union of Iraq, the Workers Communist Party and Women’s Movement have frequently been targeted and attacked.
In the short term, we must provide solidarity and assistance to those who are struggling for a genuinely free and equal Iraq. The only solution to the crisis in Iraq is for the Iraqi working class to destroy the power structures that have oppressed them for so long, to resist not just the military occupation but the local fundamentalists, nationalists, Ba’athists and demagogues who wish to carve up Iraq as they see fit.
We have watched and participated in the mass demonstrations across the world against this war to no avail and the war rages on with devastating consequences for all of us.
Instead of grovelling and lobbying politicians and Trade Union bureaucrats, we need to build an aggressive campaign based on self-managed collective direct action, civil-disobedience and solidarity. One that brings the campaign to the doorsteps of those gangsters and profiteers that have benefited from the plunder and raping of Iraq’s resources and labour and those that have ‘legitimised’ the war. In the Republic Shannon War port is actively assisting and aiding the US Death machine by the re-fuelling of lethal weapons of mass destruction and the transportation of troops and arms which must be one of the prime focuses of the anti-war movement in terms of dismantling these weapons of death and destruction. This also needs to be tied in with general anti-militarist agitation to encourage those serving in the occupation forces to resist and dis-obey orders. Fundamentally, we need to learn from history which is that marching from A to B never rocks the boat and that the State never concedes anything without some form of collective struggle or insurrection.
Most importantly, a movement which does not seek to abolish the existing power structures which create wars is a sham! In struggling for the end of the occupation of Iraq we must eradicate the very global structures of capitalism and its protector the state which ensures the dominance and exploitation of the majority by a privileged minority. General Smedley Butler who served in the US army is all too familiar with this when he stated:
“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service as a member of this country’s most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major General; I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”
As to the forthcoming elections, rather that marking a shift towards democracy ( if you can categorise democracy as electing careerist rulers every four years at best who are neither legally accountable to their mandate nor recallable at any stage and who ultimately as all Governments protect the interests of wealthy elites) will mean as the Workers Communist Party highlighted in their press release in August of this year,
“ sacrificing ourselves in the marches of the reactionary force for the sake of a bourgeoisie “nation” who are the enemies of basic human and civil standards. Leaving aside our class objectives and rights is like a boring chapter in bleak comedy, which does not deserve even ridicule. Is it not enough, what happened to us at the hands of “nationalists; from hanging, imprisonment and throwing us into acid pools?”
We would point out that although democracy is an improvement from absolute barbaric dictatorship, real change only comes about through collective direct action without depending on empty promises from our leaders, and a world built in our own interests and founded on mutual aid and co-operation, in self-management and direct democracy from below
The situation in Iraq is inseparable from the current era in which capitalism grinds us further into the dirt! This current era is witness to a global assault on our class and the many gains that have been made by social struggle has been stripped away. The devastating effects of neo-liberalism are their for us all to see and experience which includes job losses, increased casualisation and insecurity, running down of public services and social housing, increased homelessness, racism and not to mention privatisation, cutbacks, and the scourge of low pay. Increased charges, rates, water tax, top up fees, increases in the cost of living, and a bigger gap in earnings are ensuring the rich continue to get rich while the poor get poorer. This has been cushioned by an expansion of state social control, surveillance and criminalization of social dissent, all the hallmarks of a police state.
As anarchists we want all workers to secure a full and equal share of the wealth and social benefits created by the combine labour of our class. This means abolishing the capitalism and the state with a world based on direct democracy and workers self-management of production. Not replacing it with any other centralised or hierarchical political body, but with a system of federation and delegation where delegates are directly elated and immediately recallable. A free and equal classless society based on mutual aid, solidarity and distribution of resources based on need, not profit.
Sep 15 2005 12:48
#16
wld_rvn wrote:
A working class response to this action must be to affirm that such murderous gangs are no less the enemy of the workers than the US or British states, or the Iraqi government.
Pleasty of people i Iraq -- possibly the majority -- already think this about the al-quaeda style grops that amssacre civilians.
wld_rvn wrote:
the working class must develop its own identity, its own demands, its own forms of organisation. This would also involve the emergence of internationalist political groups.
Again we see an attempt to say -- only when the Iraqi start organising like the ICC will the Iraqi workig class have a voice.
wld_rvn wrote:
None of this can be furthered by blurring the lines between a class resistance against capital and the action of nationalist gangs, by arguing that they are all just different aspects of the same movement.
The same movement? Who's said that? Everyone -- apart from you -- has emphasised the distrinctly hetrogenous nature of the Iraqi civil war.
Sep 15 2005 18:07
#17
Hi wld_rvn
What is the ICC’s appraisal of the Iraqi Worker Communist Party?
http://www.wpiraq.net/english/index.htm
I give them 8 out of 10. I tried to get in contact with them to see if they were interested in raising their rating, but I never received a reply. I expect they were a bit busy to be honest, trying to stay alive and that.
Love
Chris
Sep 15 2005 19:39
#18
The Iraqi resistance is to be expected. It comes as no surprise. Foreign troops have killed and maimed so many people and there is bound to be a resistance. The resistance pits one group of workers against another.
It doesn't really matter what motivates the different groups. There might be an anarchist resistance group there, who cares? HOw is it in the workers interest to kill and be killed by other workers? So they kick out the foriegn troops only to suffer at the hand of local rulers? The internationalist position simply asks workers to act in their self interest.
What does that mean in practice? Look back at 1917-1918. That's what is looks like. There are no short cuts.
Sep 15 2005 19:41
#19
well thats just fucking fan fucking tastic, look to 1917.
arsehole!
Sep 15 2005 20:30
#20
alibadani wrote:
What does that mean in practice? Look back at 1917-1918. That's what is looks like. There are no short cuts.
You know, if the Iraqis wear those big Russian fur hats they'll all die of heat-stroke.
Really -- WTF does that post mean? In the Russian Civil war there were loads of armed groups, some of which were downright dodgy, and some of which were fairly cool. Is alibadani really saying there's 'no difference' between them all? Still waiting for that perfect leaflet to come floating your way?
In reply to Lazy Riser, I'd say that the WCP-I suffer from being a political party, and from being extremely anti-Islamic. Howver, the groups they've set up (union of the unemployed, organisation of women's freedom, fed of workers' councils) are some of the best in Iraq, and I'd support them.
Have you head of the Iraqi freedom congress? It seems to be an attempt by the WCP-I to set up a broad pro-secular coalition. They'll prob have a stall at the anti-war march on the 24th; I gave them a fiver last demo, and I'm well stingy 
Sep 16 2005 03:48
#21
I'm not waiting for the perfect leaflet. I oppose all resistance groups. NO mattter what their ideology, they call on workers to slaughter each other and that is unnacceptable to me.
Sep 16 2005 03:57
#22
utter bollocks. Firstly what about those people struggling against the occupation and the Islamists/ ex Ba'athist's? I take it hat when the White armies where invading Russia the Soviets should have issued leaflets and not bothered organising militias (later to be militarised and set under the leadership of ex Tsarist Generals). how about the Spanish Civil War should the workers not have seized the weapons in Barcelona docks? Should they have drafted a strongly worded leaflet? The Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto? How about Hungary 56, should they have been throwing ICC leaflets into Soviet tank hatches?
Your either a complete cretin or far more likely a username invented by the ICC in an attempt to manufacture some support for their utterly moronic views.
Sep 16 2005 06:51
#23
Revol68,
Let’s not forget the soviet movement in Iraq in 1991. There was an insurrection by workers in Iraq. It is one of those forgotten moments in revolutionary history. The soviets primarily occurred in Kurdistan, they were called Shoras. It began with the mass mutiny of troops in the South. The class nature of the movement was revealed when the invading U.N forces allowed loyal Baathist troops to crush the movement. I use 1917 as an example because most people are totally unaware of the proletarian insurrection in Iraq itself during the first Gulf war. This is a movement that I hope the workers in Iraq would emulate today. In an armed struggle against both sides, which simultaneously calls on US troops and workers in the various resistance groups to join the class movement (with the help of strongly worded leaflets YES). The shoras released leaflets. Here’s one that rejected the Kurdish nationalists, the Baathists and the Americans:
http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/jack/Politics/kurdistan/hawkers.html
In the case of the Russian Civil War, that surely classifies as class war. When workers and their soviets take up weapons to defend their interests, their organizations and their state, we have to support them. Insofar as a war is a weapon to crush a proletarian movement it is the job of the workers not only to defend their movement but also to reach out to the workers in uniform on the other side. I don’t know much about Hungary 1956 but I have no problem with workers defending their revolution while simultaneously reaching out the Russian proletarians in those tanks. In the case of the Spanish Civil war workers could once again have gone the route of the Shoras of 1991, instead of picking sides. As for the holocaust, I refer you to my post about the Armenian genocide during WWI
By the way I have nothing to do with the ICC. I read their articles as well as articles by the IBRP the Bordigists and many others. I happen to think they are the closest thing we have to a reliable worker’s party. We’ve exchanged some correspondence. I live in Des Moines, Iowa, in Dubya country. I joined this forum and several others to alleviate my sense of geographic isolation, and to discuss with others, hopefully without calling them names.
Sep 16 2005 07:27
#24
I agree with Lazlo, For all their faults ( and they have a great many) the wcpi are one of the most honest (and also courageous) groups operating in Iraq.
Too much of the discussion over the 'resistance' is dominated by a false dichotomy between either 'supporting the trades unions' ( that is opposing the resistance, and alibiing the presence of US and UK troops, because 'they are preventing a sectarian massacre'). Or 'emphasising the national liberation struggle' ( that is giving a leftist seal of approval to every and all excess of the armed groups operating within Iraq, )
it simply not possible to build an independant working class movement under the guns of the us marine corps; to ignore the occupation is to support the occupation. Similarly to pretend that fascists and religious bigots ( who make up a large part of the armed resistance) can magically be transformed into progressives by sheer weight of will by the international left is a dangerous fantasy.
In rejecting both these delusions, in calling for both foreign troops out, whilst simultaineously attempting to build a combative and confident working class movement to counter the influence of the jihadis and Baathists the wcpi comrades are worthy of our (critical) support
Sep 16 2005 12:48
#25
A short post to express solidarity with Alibadani. It would be refeshing if some of the people who disagree strongly with him were to say that, nevertheless, the insults thrown at him are completely out of order ('arsehole', 'cretin' etc). There has to be some minimum standard of debate on a forum like this.
It should also be evident that, while we agree with the fundamentals of what he's saying, Alibadani is not some 'submarine' of the ICC. For example, we don't share his estimation of the 1991 movement. We think there were genuine proletarian elements within it, but think that on the whole the Kurdish and Shia nationalists were dominant. This is a matter for research and discussion. But we we share the essential concern: to separate working class movements and organisations from those of the bourgeoisie.
We don't share the view of a number of posts that the Worker Communist Party represents a proletarian alternative. We think that this is a radical Stalinist group. It comes from the tendency of the UCM/Komalah/Communist Party of Iran, which supported Kurdish nationalism and effectively functioned as an agency of Iraq against Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. But we will have to return to this at a later date.
Sep 16 2005 13:47
#26
alibadani wrote:
I'm not waiting for the perfect leaflet. I oppose all resistance groups. NO mattter what their ideology, they call on workers to slaughter each other and that is unnacceptable to me.
So you simply oppose all armed groups? Well that's consistent, at least. Haven't you seen the nasty cuts one can get from leaflets, though?
Sep 18 2005 14:42
#27
World Revolution,
I'm afraid you'll have to return to the issue of the WCPI very sharpish as you've just described them as Stalinist. Explain with reference to their present politics, how they are Stalinist (how they believe that there is a progressive section of the ruling class, how national liberation struggles must be supported, how socialism can be established in one country etc.)
We await your answer.
Sep 19 2005 18:20
#28
World Revolution,
More research is needed on the uprising in Iraq of 1991, especially in its initial stages. From the info I have, soviets were established by workers and thier allies among mutinous troops. This seems to me to show the class nature of the movement. I think that more research might clarify this. Some of my info is from the ICG who see proletarian struggles everywhere. Also some anarchist websites talk about the soviets of '91.
The media portrayed the movement as nationalist and Islamic, just like the Polish proletarian struggles of 1980 were portrayed as pro-democratic/anti-Stalinist. There are accounts not only of the shoras but of their struggles with the Kurdish nationalists, including clashes with the Peshmergas.
My main point was that if such a development were to happen (again?) in Iraq, that would merit our support.
Here are some links:
http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/jack/Politics/kurdistan/letter2.html
http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/jack/Politics/kurdistan/letter1.html
Sep 19 2005 18:29
#29
We've got stuff on our history page about the uprising which provoked the Halabja Massacre:
http://www.libcom.org/history/articles/halabja-massacre-1988/
Sep 20 2005 12:28
#30
McCormick wrote:
World Revolution,I'm afraid you'll have to return to the issue of the WCPI very sharpish as you've just described them as Stalinist. Explain with reference to their present politics, how they are Stalinist (how they believe that there is a progressive section of the ruling class, how national liberation struggles must be supported, how socialism can be established in one country etc.)
We await your answer.
As we said, we intend to look into the question of the various Worker-Communist Parties in Iran and Iraq as there have been developments since 2004. We won't be rushed into responding. For the time being what we can affirm is our method: such bourgeois groups cannot become proletarian.
Our method is also historical: we don't take things at face value. It is necessity to understand the history of an organisation. From an initial reading of information about these groups on Wikipedia, the Worker-Communist Party of Iran (WPIran) split from the Communist Party of Iran in 1991. The WPIran was led by Mansoor Hekmat, who died in 2002. There was a split in 2004: the WPIran(Hekmatist) defended participation in a popular-front should the regime in Iran collapse under the pressure of the 'democratic revolution'. They left the WPIran rump behind. There was also a Worker-Communist Party of Iraq (WPIraq), the majority of which sided with the WPIran(H). The WPIraq are involved in the 'Progressive Coalition', the 'Organisation of Women’s Freedom in Iraq' and the 'Union of the Unemployed in Iraq'. A minority within the WPIraq formed the 'Left Fraction of the WPIraq' which still supports the rump WPIran.
The WPIran(H)/WPIraq are accused of 'deviating' from 'worker-communism' by the WPIran/Left-WPIraq. However, a brief reading of all of their programmes shows that what they have in common is the approach of making long lists of 'transitional demands' which decadent capitalism can supposedly grant. The WPIraq seems happy to participate in the bourgeois state structures (set up by the US!) while the WPIran/Left-WPIraq's talk about the need to create a new Communist International says little about the need for a world revolution, leaving open the possibility that 'islands of communism' could exist.
Given the nature of the situation in the Middle east it is understandable that anarchists/libertatians/autonomists are looking for anti-war/progressive/proletarian currents, movements and groups that may offer an alternative to the carnage that is engulfing the region. We can add that even proletarian groups (the IBRP - and even at one time the ICC, but we corrected this error!) were taken in by such 'radical' groups in the past. What worries us is the ease with which people support such groups which are part of the civil war that is unfolding in Iraq. There is going to be a terrible bloodbath there. Thousands upon thousands of workers are going to die horrible deaths. The massacre of the day-workers in Baghdad by a suicide bomber is an example of what is to come. We condemn this atrocity outright. And whatever Blair says, the London bombings are a direct consequence of the war in Iraq. See our article 'Imperialist Carnages develops in Eurpope:
http://en.internationalism.org/wr/287_carnage.html
It is this last point that we would like to underline. We can be as sure as hell that the 'resistance' groups are also the pawns of rival imperialist powers. Iran is mixed up in the South, Syria with the Sunnis, Jordan as well probably. It is irrational for the local powers to stoke up even more chaos but that is imperialism: they want their slice of Iraq, their sphere of influences, just as much as the larger powers. Those who are concerned about the situation in Iraq need to reflect on the links that exist between terrorism and imperialism. It is the major powers who have become the major wielders of the weapon of terrorism in the service of their own interests, in their struggles against their rivals - large or small. For there to be peace in the Middle East the entire capitalist system must be destroyed, a task that can only be carried out by the entire working class, at an international level.
World Revolution.
There is a thread on the resistance (and the support there of) on these boards and as people have said there the resistance is not one whole group but a synthesis of different groups with different aims. So you woulldn't really be abke ti get ab outline of what the resistance want.