Does 'imperialism' exist?
Oct 29 2004 16:37
Is this a useful concept for anarchists? Many lefties see any defeat for 'imperialism' as being objectively a good thing. I think this can lead to them supporting Taliban, Milosevic, etc and forgetting that oppression comes from local issues of class and control just as much as it does from the 'imperial' powers.
Basically. the concept of 'imperialism' is un-anarchist because it leads us to support smaller elites, or ignore the damage they do, in favour of just concentrating on the USA, etc.
Personally I thinkthe concept of 'imperialism' is pure Leninism, and comes from lenin's immediate political needs during the USSR's war against France and Britain in 1918-24, during which any defeat for the imperial powers was good for the USSR -- and thus the working class, of course -- and so the Bolsheviks championed nationalists in Asia, Africa, etc.
Similarly, during the Cold War the USSR supported local nationalisms in order to oppose US hegemony.
A bollocks theory and not useful today. What do you think?
Oct 30 2004 15:21
#2
Imperialism undoubtedly exists, and I'm against it.
The problem is the leftist ideology of 'anti-imperialism', which as you say leads to bollocks like supporting the taliban. Certainly whenever people start going on about imperialism i think it sets alarm bells ringing that you're about to hear some leninist nonsense.
We should support working class struggles in all countries against all rulers.
Oct 30 2004 16:39
#3
Imperialism generally breeds a form of mercantilism and leaves feudal structures in place that weaken the working class.
The taliban are a product of 2-3 centuries of imperialist interference in afghanistan that has kept afghanistan in near feudal conditions.
Imperialism continuess to create monsters like the taliban and milosevic, so to say we should pretend imperialism doesn't exist in order to point out how shit the taliban are is pretty pointless.
Its all about CLASS and the economic and power structures and therefore the class structure of imperialism are very different to what they would be in a non-occupied capitalist state.
john
ps and lenin made a point of writing about imperilaism at that time because of all the 'socialists' who supported WW1.
The main branch of support for this was that it was german militarism which supposedly caused the war (thats what kropotkin argued when he supported the war) , yet lenin made the point of showing how all the allied powers were probly far worse imperialists and militarists than germany.
At least that was the main political aim of ''Imperialism: the highest stage of capitalism'', combined with paying more attention to the fact that russia itself had a cruel empire, which the bolsheviks promised to give self determination to, although of course they went back on that promise as soon as they got in power.
pps http://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/leys-colin/neocolonialism.htm
Oct 31 2004 13:15
#4
cantdocartwheels wrote:
Its all about CLASS and the economic and power structures and therefore the class structure of imperialism are very different to what they would be in a non-occupied capitalist state.
What's so great about the position of the toilers within a smaller capitalist state? Why is it always better? Sometimes a big empire can be much more slack about enforcing its authority than a tighter national ruling class.
I am all for supporting grassroots resistance to foreign occupation -- as redy and ned mention -- but by saying that a 'non-occupied capitalist state' is better aren't you givingtacit support for the anti-working class resistance that is builoding such a state?
Oct 31 2004 23:07
#5
why is class so important? i thought anarchists were supposed to be against all political power?
thousands of young men make up the mass movement that is islam. they no doubt support many extremist views, they are NOT anarchists, and history is NOT a teleological path leading to liberation.
no doubt these local demagogues will continue for a few thousand more years. their ideas are certainly much much older than anarchism, and offer greater reward to converts (ie immortality)
Nov 1 2004 01:32
#6
Lazlo_Woodbine wrote:
cantdocartwheels wrote:
Its all about CLASS and the economic and power structures and therefore the class structure of imperialism are very different to what they would be in a non-occupied capitalist state.What's so great about the position of the toilers within a smaller capitalist state? Why is it always better? Sometimes a big empire can be much more slack about enforcing its authority than a tighter national ruling class.
I am all for supporting grassroots resistance to foreign occupation -- as redy and ned mention -- but by saying that a 'non-occupied capitalist state' is better aren't you givingtacit support for the anti-working class resistance that is builoding such a state?
ok ok, i posted this before but it fits here aswell....
Your misunderstanding what the word support means. I support the slogan victory to the resistance. This means i think that it would be an improvement if the resistance shoudl drive out the imperilaists and that the coailition were forced to withdraw troops and cease combat operations by reistance and internal disruption.
That is all the ''support'' i can realistically give.
The islamic state is a capitalist state, iran is a capitalist state. Iraq is not strctly a capitalist state, imeprialism leaves more feudal structures in place. If you are unable to grasp even the most simple class concepts this is a hopeless arguement.
Capitalism creates a surplus exploted by the bourgeoisie. In a single capitalist state a section of this surplus goes into refoms (because the working class are a major threat) and keeping the reproduction rate of the working class stable, and general urban and industrial development (new factories, new housing and so on). SO while capitalism exploits the working class, it creates the conditions for its overthrow by strengthening the industrial base of the proletariat.
Under imperialism the capital flows out of that region (iraq) into another (the US, western europe), largely down the oil pipeline in this case. Iraq industrial development is kept at a low level and restruicted to uindustries which benefit the occupying power under the basic merc antilist perations of imperialism. Population growth is lower due to the lack of urban development. The iraqi working class is unarmed as weapons production is and faces a foreign army which will not mutiny.Therefore the imperialist power has no real need to offer reforms or legitmise itself, because the working class is weak and revolt would be bloody and hopeless.
The standard of living is lower therefore under imperialism, the level of eductaion is lower, and feudal structures remain in place. The strength of the islamists is partly a PRODUCT of imperialism, in that it relies for its base of ''volunteers'' on unemployed undereducated poverty stricken youths from ruined districts of cities like basra and fallujah.
john
Nov 1 2004 10:59
#7
So you 'support' the development of a capitalist ruling class in Iraq? That seems a strange position for an anarchist, if that's what you call yourself. Why not just restrict yourself to supporting the grassroots organisations? Whether the imperial armies are driven out or not, these groups will still need to face the class enemy, local or not. Would you advise them not to attack local Iraqi ruling class institutions -- because they are the lesser evil?
It seems that you're trusting to an economic shchema to guide your actions, while I think that we need to be more immediate in our analysis.
Nov 1 2004 12:14
#8
Anti-imperialism for idiots
Capitalism by it's very nature must expand and find new markets.
The most advanced capitalist states, those who have been growing the longest, are most likely to be those needing to find new markets.
The ruling class of these states care about, before all else, exploiting these markets so that capitalism may be maintained.
These advanced states are likely to be backed up by more advanced military forces and military technology.
Given this, these ruling classes will use this military force to expand their markets overseas, in less developed nations. This is called IMPERIALISM.
In these military interventions, lots of people die, and working class self activity is crushed. Development is held back, as the interest of the ruling class of the rich imperialist state lies in keeping these socities as underdeveloped as possible, so they can exploit these cheap markets, and keep unrest crushed. Unlike in their own nation, they have a clear historical (in terms of class development) and military advantage over the people they subjugate in foreign lands, and also do not have to worry about keeping the country nice for them to live in (eg. they don't have to worry about 'democracy', free speech etc. because since they don't live there, there's no need to set up such things that are created in the West because they are in their class interest).
This makes it far harder for the people of the occupied country to engage in class struggle, strengthens the imperialist ruling class, and acts as a threat against any would-be progressive regime. This is objectivly a BAD thing for the international working class.
Imperialist forces being driven out of such a country thus leaves the working class of the occupied country opposing their own ruling class, rather than the far more economically powerful and vicious imperialist power, weakens the imperialist ruling class at home, and reduces the threat these nations hold against the development of non-capitalist regimes. This is objectivly a GOOD thing for the international working class.
Supporting resistance to imperialism, thus, means supporting the result of driving out imperialist forces, because this is concurent with the good of the international working class. It does not imply support in any way for the overall aims, methods or even groups involved in this struggle, simply an agreement that their victory (in terms of defeating the imperialists) would be a 'good thing'.
Nov 1 2004 14:53
#9
Lazlo_Woodbine wrote:
Whether the imperial armies are driven out or not, these groups will still need to face the class enemy, local or not. Would you advise them not to attack local Iraqi ruling class institutions -- because they are the lesser evil?
And again for the primmos at the back
''Your misunderstanding what the word support means. I support the slogan victory to the resistance. This means i think that it would be an improvement if the resistance shoudl drive out the imperilaists and that the coailition were forced to withdraw troops and cease combat operations by reistance and internal disruption.
That is all the ''support'' i can realistically give.''
What the iraqi left does is up to them, its none of my fucking businesss what there strategy is.
john
Nov 1 2004 15:10
#10
Do both of you think, then, that cross-class anti-imperialist fronts should be set up to drive out the foreign oppressors?
If they should be set up in Iraq, then why not in the UK? Do you think that a cross-class movement like STWC or RESPECT is 'objectively' good for the working class, to the extent that it opposes imperialism?
Nov 1 2004 15:16
#11
Lazlo_Woodbine wrote:
to the extent that it opposes imperialism?
No they don't.
Nov 1 2004 16:12
#12
sorry cantdocartwheels but ur understanding of imperialism is incredibly one dimensional and not to mention completely outdated, a prime example of this is ur blanket assertion that imperialism maintains feudal structures and so needs to be destroyed before the working class of the colonialised nation can enter the class struggle.
Perhaps u would like to turn ur attention to Saudi Arabia, South Korea or Japan?? Capitalism requires much more than iraq's oil money to keep functioning, it requires markets. It is not enough to just move in and rule a country, explit its natural resources, britain learnt that lesson decades ago.
Imperialism has historically uprooted the feudal structures and in many places acted as a catalyst for the development of industry, for example US policy was instrumental in backing Saddam and his policies of brutal industrialisation and the builidng of a modern infastrcuture in Iraq, likewise US is pushing for the greater industrialisation of Eygpt.
Beisdes these academic points lets look at the actual events on the ground in Iraq.
The islamists are actively targetting woman rights groups, secularists and trade unionists, despite the composition of their bases being made up of the unemployed and poor they are objectively anti working class organistations, (in much the same way fascist groups are).
We should be without a doubt calling for the immediate withdrwal of Coalition forces, exactly for the reason that the longer they stay the greater the grip the islamists will exert over Iraq, the Islamists are feeding off the brutality of the coalition forces. Whilst the troops remain and the islamists are the only ones capable of mounting effective armed resistance the furhter the iraqi working class will be pushed under the islamist jackboot.
Does calling for the immediate withdrwal of the coalition troops mean we should support the islamist militias?? Fuck no!! Do we remain silent whilst islamist scum torture women, homosexuals and atheists? do we silence ourselves in the most sacred name of anti imperialism?? do we play the politics of force and jump behind groups who would happily have our pinko commie faggot heads roll?? Do we respond to the desperate pleas of iraqi womens groups and workers organisations with the refrain "sorry no solidarity for u cos it would disrupt our anti imperialist front and muddy the waters, anyway ur objectively supporting imperialism by speaking out against the resistance!"
perhaps we should bury our heads in the sand like many anarchists did regarding the russia revolution, too scared to criticise the bolsheviks because russia was under attack from 17 foreign countires? or how about the good old leftists who sat in silence whilst anarchists filled the stalinists prisons in spain??For surley as u said the Iraqi working class are dependent on the Iranian arms and it is the islamists that control this??? (in actual fact iraq is awash with arms and the Iraqi working class is armed to the fucking teeth and has actually been engaging in armed pickets over industrial disputes!). Just as the Communists controlled the supply of russian arms??
At present the remains of the orgainsed working class, and womens groups are under brutal assault from the US military machine and the lumpen scum that fill the ranks of the fundamentalist groups, they are calling for international solidarity but all the fucking wanky left can do isturn away and pretend it doesn't see it, just keep banging on about the US imperialists whilst remaining uncritical of islamic thugs.
Lets have some fucking guts and make a principled call for the withdrawal of coalition troops, at the same time we should not hesitate from critisicing and highlighting the crimes of the islamists, whilst offering our support and solidarity to those froces (no matter how small) in Iraq that resist both US imperialism and the Islamists and their Iranian backers!!
It is also in the fucking interest of Iran to have Iraq pushed into a bloody civil war, and it isn't hard to see the this rationale in a great deal of the brutal bombings aimed at the Kurds etc.
Nov 1 2004 16:25
#13
revol68 wrote:
Lets have some fucking guts and make a principled call for the withdrawal of coalition troops, at the same time we should not hesitate from critisicing and highlighting the crimes of the islamists, whilst offering our support and solidarity to those froces (no matter how small) in Iraq that resist both US imperialism and the Islamists and their Iranian backers!!
Since when did we refuse to criticise the resistance, or refuse to support groups resisting both US imperialism and the Islamists?
Nov 1 2004 16:28
#14
sorry the whole basis of this argument was that we shoould support the islamists as they are at present the force capablble of ousting the coalition, and that it was our job as anti imperialists to not critisice them but rather support the defeat of "our own ruling class"
Nov 1 2004 16:35
#15
revol68 wrote:
sorry the whole basis of this argument was that we shoould support the islamists as they are at present the force capablble of ousting the coalition, and that it was our job as anti imperialists to not critisice them but rather support the defeat of "our own ruling class"
Oh I see, are we playing "make up a totally different position that we've never argued" now, are we?
Nov 1 2004 16:38
#16
jack perhaps ur not reading cantdocartwheels posts...
aye and all get to ur anti imperialism for idiots in a wee bit too, cos its lives up to its name in more ways than u'd think.
Nov 1 2004 16:42
#17
Please tell me where he posted anything that implied that.
I've read his posts, and know his politics well enough to know that is not in any way his position.
Anyway, me and redyred are now off to get GTA San Andreas so we can cause chaos and kill cops, because THAT is what anarchy is REALLY about.
Nov 1 2004 16:52
#18
cantdocartwheels wrote:
Surely the slogan 'victory to the resistance' is simply a blanket statement expressing the hope that 'coalition' troops are eventually forced to withdraw from iraq by any means neccessary.Sure the mehdi army is shit, but with an iraqi based ruling class, or even a ruling class closely affiliated to neighbouring iran, capital will be concentrated in iraqi cities and not pumped into the US and UK down the oil pipelines thus enabling the strengthening of the iraqi working class.
Surely thats fairly basic anti-imperialist rhetoric.
While you recognise the fact that the majority of the iraqi national liberation movements are thouroughly bourgeois, you cannot dictate the character of a national liberation movement from within the imperialist nation. How can you effectively challenge imperialism if you yourself are dictating how the iraqis should be behaving.
john
ps personally i think the disruption of oil supply in the US and the UK would be a bloody good thing in the long run
read that jack
Nov 1 2004 17:19
#19
The concept of 'anti-imperialism' is also rooted in nationalism, since it assumes that there is something unnatural about one 'country' exploiting the resources of another 'country'. All nations were created through an imperialist process that involved the homogenisation of an area under a particular local elite, and that involved the explotation of wage differences creaming off of surplus, etc. Look at how industrial Italy dominated south, agrarian Italy.
Was the struggle by the US southern states anti-imperialist? Would the southern USA workers and slaves have been better off exploited by their local ruling class?
An anti-imperial analysis seems to get in the way of a class analysis too much -- especially since a useful class analysis should be rooted in immediate experiece and struggle, not worked out using an economist's slide-rule.
Nov 1 2004 17:21
#20
sometimes i love u lazlo but then i remember ur a smelly hippy and have a really dirty guilt ridden wank about u instead. 
Nov 1 2004 17:32
#21
Oh Revol.
Sometimes your nasty talking gets me hot, but them I remember that you're no good for me and will only mess up my kharma for the next life. 
Nov 1 2004 17:54
#22
revol68 wrote:
read that jack
Fine, he WAS being a bit of a liberal there.
But not as bad as your idealistic wank 'nations are bad, lets pretend they don't exist'. 
Nov 1 2004 21:05
#23
Lazlo_Woodbine wrote:
Was the struggle by the US southern states anti-imperialist? Would the southern USA workers and slaves have been better off exploited by their local ruling class?
.
that isn't imperialism, that was the completion of the bourgeois revolution
A state is a self contained organisation for the legitmisation of the use of force by a ruling class. Therefore each state contains the means to defend its interests, wepaons factories and so on, and the means to reproduce its work force.
A colony does not contain those things thanks to mercantilism and foreign armed control.
john
Nov 1 2004 21:41
#24
revol68 wrote:
cantdocartwheels wrote:
Surely the slogan 'victory to the resistance' is simply a blanket statement expressing the hope that 'coalition' troops are eventually forced to withdraw from iraq by any means neccessary.Sure the mehdi army is shit, but with an iraqi based ruling class, or even a ruling class closely affiliated to neighbouring iran, capital will be concentrated in iraqi cities and not pumped into the US and UK down the oil pipelines thus enabling the strengthening of the iraqi working class.
Surely thats fairly basic anti-imperialist rhetoric.
While you recognise the fact that the majority of the iraqi national liberation movements are thouroughly bourgeois, you cannot dictate the character of a national liberation movement from within the imperialist nation. How can you effectively challenge imperialism if you yourself are dictating how the iraqis should be behaving.
john
ps personally i think the disruption of oil supply in the US and the UK would be a bloody good thing in the long run
read that jack
I point out that i dislike islamicism but i point out that while you can criticise the islamicists, you cannot dictate to and physically force a national liberation movement to assume a certain character.
The main unions and groups like the WCIP shoudl get our international recognition and support. But in order to eeefectively argue against imperiaism you do have to look at the mateiral reality, the iraqi working clas si weak, the chances of a proletarain revolution are pretty much zero because ther presence of a big fat 100% loyal US armoured divsion on the edge of every city might just present logistical problems.
So you have to say that while you'd prefer it if the iraqi left were influential, you admiy that the islamicists are likely to be the dominant force in many areas of iraq if the coalition pulled out in the next year or so.
Most people in this country think the mehdi army is shit, people rightly despise islamicists. So why the fuck shoudl i publish a ten page rant on hwshit they are, when other people will do that anyway.
I will criticise them at some length, although i won't go around screaming that they're ''sabvages'' (and why should i do that here, its an anarchist board, who the fuck is going to support islamiscists here), but i will attack my own ruling class first and demonstrate how the islamicists are a product of imperialism.
Most people now don't support the actual war, but you talk to the averge guy on the street he'll say something along the lines of, ''well we're there now, if we pull out there'll be chaos''. And so ou have to say that while a socialist iraq would be preferable, even an islamicist iraq would be preferable to an imeprialist one. Which is why yu unconditionally support thwe withdrawal of coalition troops.
On another note
I mean sure you saying ''cantdosodomyitsagainstthewordofallah'' on the other thread is just a lame joke, but given the fuss you made when someone accused you of homophobia, its a bit silly to go implying the same thing about other people isn't it.
Its not the end of the world, it just annoys me is all.
Its not liek either of us is actually going to convice the other person about the validity of our arguements, and its not as if it really fucking matters anyway unless you liek to pretend that what a couple of lousy anarchists say on a message board about the exact way in which a troops out demand should eb formulated is really important to the world, this is just a good forum debate.
john
Nov 2 2004 01:16
#25
But more important, San Andreas was sold out in every shop in Colchester. 
Nov 2 2004 01:23
#26
serves u right for being such an apoligist for cack handed national liberation ideology!!
ive had my copy since friday as have have all good decent ultra leftists! 
Nov 2 2004 01:25
#27
Yes, well, I'm poor, I had to borrow money off redyred.
So, you've had it since Friday... It's going to stop me finding another job, isn't it?
Nov 8 2004 00:25
#28
haha now i have some free time......i'm going to waste it on a pointless arguement
revol68 wrote:
sorry cantdocartwheels but ur understanding of imperialism is incredibly one dimensional and not to mention completely outdated, a prime example of this is ur blanket assertion that imperialism maintains feudal structures and so needs to be destroyed before the working class of the colonialised nation can enter the class struggle.Perhaps u would like to turn ur attention to Saudi Arabia, South Korea or Japan??
South Korea: Before the 1980's korea was hporrifically underdeveloped. After the war and the later failed rebellions and revolutions S korea has eventually modernised somewaht since the 80's. But its still massively underdeveloped and its ruling class are still under the thumb of the US.
Saudi Arabia-Isn't under really under foreign imperial control in the same way as south korea, although i can guess there is some arguiement that its locked into impeiral hegemony. However, looking at urban development in Saudi arabia you can see its horrifcally low, so i don't really see what your arguiement is here.
Japan-Was an imperialist power before 1945. And therefore had undergone an advanced stage of capitalist development. Its resulting high population density and proximity to the USSR meant that had Japan been subjected to the same treatment as indonesia or vietnam there would have been an extremely strong resistance backed by soviet arms and US forces would have been dragged into urban guerilla warfare, which is exactly what they didn't want. So tactically they used japan as a buffer against the eastern bloc.
I mean they pretty much did the same thing with west germany, another occupied capitalist power. They compromised and gave those territories autnomy because of the cold war military situation. After which the ruling classes of Germany and Japan have gained complete control over the surplus in their respective nations.
Quote:
Capitalism requires much more than iraq's oil money to keep functioning, it requires markets. It is not enough to just move in and rule a country, explit its natural resources, britain learnt that lesson decades ago.
Yes they need markets, but for what? Its pretty crude analysis not to draw the lines between different types of commodities. What do imperialist powers export to a colony?
Luxury goods, weapons, induistrial equipment to keep the few industries an imperialist power needs to access key resources in its territories or aid in there control. eg oil drilling equipment
Why would a capitalist make 10,000 brand new ovens to sell to people in the jakartan slums, when he can sell 1000 to buyers in the west at ten times the price.
Look at the fucking world, see what goods are exported where and to who. Its not simply a simplistic case of markets for crying out loud.
(No doubt next time you''ll be pointing out how many railway lines the imperialists built 
)
Quote:
Imperialism has historically uprooted the feudal structures and in many places acted as a catalyst for the development of industry, for example US policy was instrumental in backing Saddam and his policies of brutal industrialisation and the builidng of a modern infastrcuture in Iraq, likewise US is pushing for the greater industrialisation of Eygpt.
The reason the US took Iraq of the list of nations that sponsor terorism back in 1980 was in order to support saddam in pursueing a war against iran which absolutely crippled the iraqi economy. Any compromise with saddams industrialisation and control of oil reserves was made because Iran was pereceived to be a greater threat.
I completely fail to see how US impeirialism ever helped iraq.
Imperialism is not a catalyst for the development of industry. Certain regions of the world (africa, south america, east asia) are clearly poorer than others and less developed (or whatever fancy marxist or liberal terms are in vogue this week to describe 24 million starving to death every year), and this was clearly caused by the old colonial structures and exacerbated by the newer imperialist military and financial structures.
Quote:
Beisdes these academic points lets look at the actual events on the ground in Iraq.
The islamists are actively targetting woman rights groups, secularists and trade unionists, despite the composition of their bases being made up of the unemployed and poor they are objectively anti working class organistations, (in much the same way fascist groups are).
yes we know..
Quote:
We should be without a doubt calling for the immediate withdrwal of Coalition forces, exactly for the reason that the longer they stay the greater the grip the islamists will exert over Iraq, the Islamists are feeding off the brutality of the coalition forces. Whilst the troops remain and the islamists are the only ones capable of mounting effective armed resistance the furhter the iraqi working class will be pushed under the islamist jackboot.
That was my point, as long as the troops remain, the islamists are the only ones capable of arming iraqis. The Imperialists aren't going to be driven out just by us wankers marching up and down trfalgar square every couple of months. Its horible but the only way the imperilaist are going tomlose, or that people in the west are going to fight imperilaism harder, is if there is an actual war. A couple of miraqisd waiving placards on a picket line then running away from the tanks and going back to starve doesn't count. Sorry to sound bl;unt but thats the reality of the situation. You need a war to force the imperialists out.
Quote:
Does calling for the immediate withdrwal of the coalition troops mean we should support the islamist militias?? Fuck no!!Do we remain silent whilst islamist scum torture women, homosexuals and blah blah blah
point out to me where i said ''don't ever criticise the islamists'' please. i must have missed that one
Of course yopu criticise the islamists, but you still say victory to the resistance.
The majoroity of the millions of islamists in iraq don't support the ismaists in order to carry
Some 15 year old fucking kid with an RPG is running through the rubble of fallujah and fighting for his fucking life against a US armoured division, and your just going to say ''oh he's an ''islamist'' ie your lumped in term for everyone of the muslim faith who resists starvation and the black watch battalion that shot down members of their family.
Claiming that the islamists and the US military machine are exactly the same is just fucking stupid, if thats what your line is then fortget this whole debate because thats clearly utter bollocks.
Quote:
At present the remains of the orgainsed working class, and womens groups are under brutal assault from the US military machine and the lumpen scum that fill the ranks of the fundamentalist groups, they are calling for international solidarity but all the fucking wanky left can do isturn away and pretend it doesn't see it, just keep banging on about the US imperialists whilst remaining uncritical of islamic thugs.
Lets have some fucking guts and make a principled call for the withdrawal of coalition troops, at the same time we should not hesitate from critisicing and highlighting the crimes of the islamists, whilst offering our support and solidarity to those froces (no matter how small) in Iraq that resist both US imperialism and the Islamists and their Iranian backers!!
Since when does the slogan 'Victory to the Resistance' interfere with that. I'm not a member of the fucking SWP so don't heap all that bollocks about ''what the left did next'' on me, i have offered nothing but support for the iraqi workers movement. I'm not the one doing mental leninist bollocks like no-platforming unions at the ESF. I support a full and active dialogue with the iraqi left and full support and solidarity for them.
And yes of course we should openly criticise the islamists, allthough i suspect you'll find your ground work is already done, as 99.9% of the UK population already know that groups like the mehdi army are murdering fundamentalist bastards. However we should offer them critical support.
So you say that while you support their struggle for independence from evil impeirlaists because of x,y and z , you criticise them for A, B and C because they are bourgeois bastards and you would hope that before or more realistically after the coalition troops leave the iraqi working class represented by F, G and H will be better able to annihalate the iraqi ruling class.
That is what the slogan 'victory to the resistance' is supposed to represent.
I know you are a lot more experienced and cleverer than me, and no doubt cna go on and on about how my rhetoiric is ''tired and old'' all day, but i still consider your viewpoint utterly flawed on this issue.
You seem to be paying no attention to the malthusian nature of international capital in your analysis of imperialism. Its not like the bourgeois WTO actually want population growth and mass markets for consumer goods in third world countries!! If anything those are the two things they specifically don't want.
john
Nov 8 2004 22:43
#29
i was goin to sit and type up a long winded reply but then if found this piece and thought to myself hey this guy is Iraqi and if i was Iraqi i'd be standing alot closer to this guy than al sadr and co, and his basic points on nationalism and imperialism are very close to mine.
anyway here it is, and please don't point out the leninist bits cos im aware of them.
The “Iraqi Resistance” and Worker-communists
Dear...
May 18,2004
“The situation in Nasiriyiah today May 18th is relatively calm. The Mahdi Army fled the fight against coalition forces, leaving behind tens of its members either dead or wounded. There is widespread resentment in the city towards the war and current street battles. Amidst the recent fighting, the Mahdi army looted the museum, which was full of antiquities. Their justification was even worse than their deed. They say antiquities are earthy treasures, which belong to Mahdi and his army. Some of the stolen artifacts were found the following day in the city bazaar. It has been reported that the occupation forces are planning to sack both the police director and the governor for cooperating with terrorists. It is reported that these two figures who are members of the al-Dawaa party, provided the Mahdi army with weaponry and vehicles for transportation.” These are excerpts of a report by one of my comrades in Nasiriyiah who is a member of the Worker-communist Party of Iraq. The report sheds lights on some of the practices of the Mahdi army- Moqtada’s gangs.
It clarifies the dark scenario, which is unfolding in Iraq whose starring roles are played by occupation forces and the Islamic terrorist gangs, murdering and looting bands formed from the followers of reactionaries like Moqtada. What came in this report are trivial incidents in comparison to what ordinary people in Iraq undergo amid the domination of these gangs and their impact on the destiny of Iraqi society and due to the escalation of terrorist conflict between occupation forces, the Mahdi Army and other militias.
The crimes carried out by these gangs start from launching campaigns against unveiled women, bombing liquor shops and cinemas, calling on their followers to kill communists, seculars or simply anyone who opposes their dominance. The criminal activities of al-Sadr’s gangs are becoming more diverse and have started from the very first day the US troops entered Iraq.
The current confrontation between al-Sadr’s group along with other terrorist Islamic groups and American troops does not stem from a policy that America wants to protect Iraqis from terrorism. It is also stupid to portray this conflict as an armed struggle by the Islamic groups for the rights of people in Iraq and dismiss the US forces and the allied troops who are the violators of these rights. We are facing a terrorist conflict between two international poles of terror that have taken Iraq as a battle ground to settle their reactionary accounts.
The Islamic groups backed by Iran have practiced terrorism from day one of the US occupation as their only method of imposing themselves and asserting their rigid political and religious programs and influence on the people of Iraq eager for a free and secure life.
All of the crimes against humanity that were brewing in plain view of the US authority, while they did absolutely nothing to deter these groups and put a limit to their crimes. Al-Hawza paper, the mouthpiece of al-Sadr’s group, which was later banned by the American civil authority for vilifying the coalition forces, had often threatened communists and secularists with murder.
Despite these overt methods of instilling fear and terror, the US forces had not even exerted pressure on the Islamist publication to put an end to the threats. Instead, the coalition forces attacked the offices of the Worker-communist Party of Iraq, which was forced to arm its members with light defense arms to defend themselves against attacks by Islamists.
Over the last year, the American authority turned a blind eye at campaigns of random and haphazard killing by Islamists against those who they accused of being Baathists. This authority did not pay any attention to the frequent complaints by followers of other faiths who have extremely suffered at the hands of these gangs. They did not even think about defending women who have now come in the fire range of Islamists. The frequent visits by the heads of Iranian intelligence to the city of Basra and their meetings with the leaderships of collaborating Islamic groups didn’t pose a problem for the British forces. They have not responded to calls of help by people asked to pay ransoms to these gangs under various excuses. All these actions did not concern these “liberation” and “freedom-fighting” forces which watched them as if nothing has happened. This sick neutrality towards violence continued up to the day these terrorist groups turned their guns on the Americans. We do not have to elaborate on the real drives behind America’s war against the Islamists.
The people of the entire East have been suffering a bitter reality, which came as a result of continued collaborations between the US government and the Islamic forces with a common interest of terrorizing people and progressive forces. This is a fact, which is clearer than to need any clarification. This is not my point behind writing this article. What is crucial in relation to this bloody conflict is the way we understand the essence and motives of forces commonly known today as the “Iraqi resistance.”
There is a lethal illusion in this regard. There is a widespread illusion among the international Left in relation to the “Iraqi resistance”. The positions range from a modest support to an open approval accompanied with celebration for every operation carried by this “resistance.”
From a rabid defense of the actions of this resistance to an attempt to beautify the face of the forces involved. Thus, it has become commonplace for the American and European Left to blame communists in Iraq for standing against these “resisting” forces and for viewing the resistance as one player of a terrorist and reactionary conflict.
The manifestations of this illusion are diverse and we find ourselves obliged to answer those holding these illusions. These illusions are based on wrong and non-revolutionary theoretical and political views. I will try here to criticize, in the main, these illusions and clarify what is taking root in Iraq and the nature of the political stand we, the Worker-communists of Iraq, adopt about this issue.
“The foreign occupation legitimizes resistance and leftists should support the resistance regardless of the nature of its leadership. As long as there is an occupation, there will be resistance and communists participating in the national movement to achieve the tasks of democratic national revolution along with other national forces and spectrums.”
The very definitions of “occupation” and “resistance” and their political background, which originate from terms such as “sovereignty,” and “nation” as “sanctities” have never been among the revolutionary language used by Worker-communists. These ready-made formulas declared by the international Left today were never the spoken or practical language in Marx’s or Lenin’s time to deal with wars, their political consequences and movements which stood up to occupation forces.
The only standard to assess political movements, whether armed or otherwise, is knowing their objective nature, goals and characteristics rather than UN’s resolutions or knowing what actions are sanctioned or banned by the UN in dealing with occupation forces.
The struggle of Iraqi workers against a “foreign” army does not originate from the concept that this intervention is a violation of their national sanctities! What sanctity is left for us, the workers, that the foreign army can violate! Is it the “Sovereignty,” which was in the hands of our oppressors? Or the “motherland” that we own not one inch of? The “motherland”, which we said as Marx did 150 years ago, is never ours? Or “national freedom,” which always meant the freedom for our prison guards to torment us! The nationalist nonsense, which says that a local and “national” wolf is better than a foreigner because if it happened to eat our flesh it will never break our bones, is no longer able to numb the masses.
The conscious workers who have seen nothing from the national bourgeoisie and its governments but wars, poverty, absolute oppression and humiliation do not care about the backward nationalist discourses, which will no longer deceive them. All the sacrifices we have made or rather were forced to make in wars waged by our national bourgeoisie have yielded nothing more than the dispersing of our ranks, the killing of our leaders and fighters in the prisons of Jamal Abdulnasar, Saddam and Asaad and in forcing us to bear “national” bondage once again.
Repeating these experiences again, rallying behind these slogans and 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 society standards. Leaving aside our class objectives and rights will be only a boring chapter in a bleak comedy, which does not deserve even ridicule and laugh. Is it not enough, what happened to us at the hands of “nationalists;” from hanging, imprisonment and throwing us into acid pools? Is our memory so dull so that we seek the repetition of all these tragedies again? The Iraqi workers struggle against the US army and take a radical position against Coalition authority policies and plots. However, they do not participate in the fronts of reactionary forces. The struggle of workers and toilers against the occupying army is inseparable from the struggle against the reactionary forces and their medieval and nightmarish visions for society.
In order to make the withdrawal of the US forces a turning point and symbol of a new era of freedom, equality and prosperity, the Iraqi workers and toilers need to achieve their aspirations and wishes through themselves. We were the first who rushed into streets opposing the US troops. The Union of the Unemployed in Iraq was the first to launch a sit-in against unemployment and hunger. We were the first to ask for the occupation forces to leave. We have unequivocally stood against the US policies in rebuilding our state and political infrastructures on the basis of religious sects and ethnicities. We were the ones who said no to the Governing Council and no to a sectarian and ethnocentric government! We have been the ones who demanded and struggled for a secular and non-nationalist government, which should guarantees political freedom, livelihood, and security. What a difference between our aspirations and objectives and the policies of forces that seek repeating the bloody experiences of Iran, Afghanistan and Sudan in Iraq. The workers need a front, which stands against both poles of terrorism, the US and Islamic terrorists at the same time.
“America is the source of all atrocities, which happen in today’s world. It is the imperialist par excellence. If US imperialism is defeated then contemporary Imperialist powers will be defeated and this will bring about a revolutionary atmosphere around the world. Comparing local and weak forces with America, the almighty force is a mistake made by the Worker-communist Party of Iraq who forgets that Islamic terrorism has been created and nurtured by America and it will end once America is defeated.”
This is another example of the illusions, which hinder the necessary intervention of the international Left and activate its role internationally and in Iraq in particular. The view that al-Sadr’s followers and other Islamic groups in Iraq are outnumbered and outweighed by the coalition troops’ heavy and highly advanced weapons make them forget the fact that Islamic groups in Iraq are part of an international current, which commit terrorism from Manhattan to Bali and from Madrid to the Philippines. This illusion makes them forget that we are here talking about a political force, which is systematically ruling in a number of countries and is an active opposition in many others. They forget that this political movement consists of hundreds of parties, organizations, armed groups, huge financial and “philanthropic” institutions equipped with modern media technology, “intellectuals”, and cultural apologists worldwide.
The traditional view of the Left on imperialism, which defines it as Western capitalism developed to become a sole imperialist power against the “socialist” and third world countries prevent them from seeing imperialism as an international system. Reducing imperialism to the advanced capitalist forces and seeing America as the representative of this modernized pole causes traditional leftists to forget that even when we face the weakest, most reactionary, and theocratic forces we are facing a capitalist foe and a bourgeoisie movement which is an inseparable part of imperialism as an international system.
Imperialism is not a bloc of countries or certain policies to simply collapse with the downfall of an almighty country that likes playing the role of a sole superpower. Viewing small terrorist groups, which prevail here and there as isolated phenomena and as counter action to what America is doing, is a naïve and superficial view. It is a view, which does not take into account the bourgeoisies and capitalisms that are exploiting a billion of human beings and setting the material and economic basis for the emergence of a movement that seeks to represent capitalism in this part of the “capitalist-Islamic World.”
The fact that political Islam took shape and emerged during a crucial phase where the US was in need of allies to stand up to what they used to call a “communist danger” does not change the present reality. The magic has turned against the magician and has become an effective and influential international pole fighting for the share of global wealth and power. Undoubtedly, terrorists feed on each other’s terrorism. In this sense, the state terrorism that America practices is the best meal they can present to the terrorism of the followers of Bin Laden and others.
Just as well, the policies of Ariel Sharon and his fascist terrorism is the best service that Israel can present to the forces of Islamic terrorism in Palestine. However, eventually the worst consequence of this conflict as far as the interest of workers and civilized humanity is concerned, is the victory of a terrorist force like political Islam on America. America is feeding on the fear and horror, which prevails world widely from such a possibility. The civilized humanity is watching the war of terrorists like a prey watching wild beasts fight to win over it.
Very few in the world are as stupid as the traditional Left, so they encourage and support one terrorist against the other in a conflict like this. This is the hidden core of the shrinking anti- war movement and its effect diminishing on the direction of events now. Progressive humanity, horrified by the current war and its disastrous consequences is patiently seeking an alternative force and a third camp to emerge against this bloody war and both of its poles. Humanity awaits an alternative to provide some solutions and answers for the crises of the world. Communism and the Left can become this alternative but on the condition that they transcend their illusions and emerge as a unique, independent and effective force and not as the admirer of one pole against the other.
In Iraq, we seek and struggle to form this third pole. We are providing an opportunity for the Left and communism on an international scale to emerge in an effective and independent manner to smash the terrorism and militarism of America with one hand and political Islam with the other. The Left can ensure the defeat of the US at the hands of the civilized humanity and its progressive and humanist forces not with supporting the followers of al-Sadr and Bin Laden materially and morally but rather with supporting Worker-communism and the secular labor movement in Iraq.
In addition to the necessity of abandoning their formulaic illusions, the Left needs to review its position in their societies and the conflicts that are going on in the world. Revolution and change will only happen in our contemporary world as the result of a conscious and independent activity by the revolutionary and socialist forces. The Left forces, who stand around waiting for a ripe “historical moment” to come about as the result of the US occupation’s defeat by political Islam has neither a future nor a chance.
No movement that deals with events and developments passively and sits by as a spectator toward the situations will win the fruits of these developments. The defeat of the US in Iraq by Islamic forces and the resistance that it leads will only be a victory for political Islam’s reaction and fascism on an international scale. The Leftist forces in the West will not be able to exploit such a defeat, which will rather strengthen the racist and reactionary right-wing currents in Western societies leaving the Left to shrink and marginalize further.
Islamic terrorism in Palestine, which is fed by Sharonism’s fascism, has only resulted in the strengthening the Israeli Right. In the same way, the defeat of US and British allied forces in this conflict, if it is to be at the hands of political Islam, will only enhance the reactionary and fascist Right’s foreign and domestic policies in the West. To ensure that US’s defeat in Iraq is going to prepare the way for a strong emergence of the Left and socialist movements across the world, these forces, in addition to other important factors must strategize that this defeat happens at the hands of the Left and communism in Iraq.
We in Iraq are confronting forces, which are not only local forces, but rather are international forces and rely on their international influence to fight each other. It is difficult for the Left (but it is not impossible) to emerge as an effective force in Iraq without the support of the international leftist force. Unfortunately, in our current circumstances, some of the forces of traditional Left are asking us to cooperate and join alliances with al-Sadrists and the followers of Bin Laden. The international Left wants us to surrender to forces and groups that are seeking to slaughter and annihilate not only communists, but any secular and freedom-loving person who opposes Islamists grim program and method. It is true stupidity that has no limits.
As far as armed resistance as a revolutionary tactic is concerned, although the worker-communits view armed resistance as a viable revolutionary tactic, amid the current ideological and class formations and the organizational weakness of a mass movement of workers and emancipatory forces, believe that, resorting to this method can be a huge political mistake, which could hinder the development of a secular mass movement and will deepens the current unfolding dark scenario.
Amid the presence of nationalist and politico-religious forces, the armed resistance in today’s Iraq may prepare the ground for these forces to strengthen. As long as workers and liberationist people lack their own strong parties and mass organizations, able to fill the political vacuum when the US troops are defeated and forced to retreat from key areas, this withdrawal is likely to mean helping the armed nationalist and religious militia and groups to dominate these places.
Also the US and allied forces withdrawal probably will mean turning Iraq to another Somalia. The only tactic to prevent this from happening is through an immediate strengthening of the partisan and mass organizational and armed capabilities of workers and communists to enable them to take the initiative in their hands and appear as a dominant and ruling force across Iraq or in any region where an opportunity exists to do so. The Worker-communist Party struggles and takes important steps every day in this direction. Obviously, the solidarity of the international leftist and labor movement with WPIraq will hasten these steps.
The only way for the international Left to emerge as an effective and prominent force amidst the current situation in the world is not by standing beside al-Sadrists and followers of al-Zarqawi and Bin Laden, and hailing their “resistance. Rather by politically and materially supporting the worker and communist forces in Iraq and on top of them, the Worker-communist Party of Iraq.
Shamal Ali
May 22, 2004
Nov 9 2004 07:41
#30
Endorse the Abdul Raheem Appeal!
For a Free, Democratic and Socialist Iraq!
Iraq lurches from one crisis to another. Violent battles rage between the occupation army and the disparate forces that are collectively mislabeled “Iraqi opposition”. Lawlessness and insecurity are the order of the day. The uneasy calm is broken by confrontations and battles. Out of this volatile situation will arise something called “the new Iraq”. But what will it look like?
The possible scenarios for the future of Iraq are many. But there are only two certainties – Revolution or Counter-revolution!
There are powerful forces with competing interests at play in Iraq. The US and its allies want to dominate Iraq, establish long term control of the region and keep the Middle East safe for capitalist investment. Many of the surrounding dictatorships, notably the Baathists of Syria and the Mullahs of Iran, want to destabilize the US plans in order to save their regimes.
The bourgeois forces in Iraq want to strengthen their position in order to win for themselves the biggest slice of the profits that they can. Tactics vary, while the aim remains the same. While some Baathist and Islamist forces clash with the occupation militarily, ultimately they are willing to cut deals with the occupation forces. These people are not capable of defeating the occupation, let alone rebuilding Iraq.
All of this makes for a grim scenario. Between the Imperialist robbers and the reactionary bourgeois, the Iraqi workers are relegated to a future of immiseration. Or are they? This working class is the forgotten factor that the bourgeois academics and Third Worldist liberals will never take into consideration. Liberals are quite happy to support “Shiite resistance” and “Sunni resistance”, but prefer to ignore the working class, just as they ignore the working class here in New Zealand preferring to reach out to churches and bishops.
What role do the workers and the communist movement have to play in the future of Iraq?
It is possible for a powerful Iraqi workers movement to defeat the U.S. and its allies. Let us recognise that Iraq too is a class society. Iraq too has a bourgeoisie and a proletariat. Iraq had a massive Communist Party in the 1950s and 60s. And if the Iraqi proletariat turned away from the Iraqi Communist Party (ICP) in 1960 it did so as a result of the political zig-zags and compromises that the ICP went through. The historic defeats of the ICP did not stem from sectarianism towards the bourgeoisie, but from a failure to arm an independent working class basis.
This Iraqi working class is today occupying factories, and defending them by force of arms not only from the occupation, but also from the Islamist gangs. It has flocked to the Union of Unemployed of Iraq (UUI), which is the biggest organisation of any sort in Iraq, boasting 300,000 members. Working women have joined the Organisation for Women’s Freedom in Iraq in their thousands, raising the slogan ‘No to the occupation and the veil!’ Both the Union of Unemployed and the Organisation for Women’s Freedom were founded by the Worker Communist Party of Iraq, a revolutionary Marxist organisation with offices across the country.
The working class has rallied in cross-ethnic solidarity. While the Islamists target Shiite shrines, churches and power plants, the workers have formed neighbourhood and factory defence committees, institutions which could form the basis for a workers’ government. They have proclaimed that certain areas and neighbourhoods are under their protection.
The proclamations include explicit warnings that any attempt to enter the area will be met by force of arms. Here we quote from a press release from the Worker Communist Party of Iraq (WPIraq):
WPIraq’s Armed Squads Protect Residents of al-Jihad and al-Furat
With jubilation, the residents of al-Jihad suburb in Baghdad received a statement by the WPIraq entitled “In Defense of the Residents of al-Jihad Suburb.” Hundreds of copies of this statement were distributed in the suburbs of al-Jihad and al-Furat. In the following days dozens of residents joined the armed squads of the Worker-communist Party of Iraq to defend the residents of these two suburbs. On August 13, 2004, four armed men using motorbikes tried to carry out a military operation in al-Jihad suburb, however the armed patrols of the WPIraq chased the group and forced them to flee the suburb after wounding one of them.
Also, comrade Sami abu Muhamad, the party leader in al-Jihad, warned the US troops against entering al-Jihad and al-Furat suburbs and asked them settle their accounts outside of these cities. Since the day the above mentioned statement was issued, the armed squads of WPIraq have continued to meet the residents of the suburbs who welcomed them and expressed happiness to see them in the suburbs. In these meetings, members of the WPIraq explained the policies of the party in protecting the residents. Many members of the Iraqi police joined squads of the WPIraq which are now responsible for conducting patrols and running check points 24 hours a day in both of these two suburbs.
On July 12, 2004 another group ordered the shop owners in al-Jihad suburbs to close their shops, however the party’s statement and a visit by the party’s delegation headed by comrade Sami Abu Muhammad, assured them and encouraged them to keep their shop open till midnight. We want to assure all residents of al-Jihad and al-Furat suburbs that their security and safety is the responsibility of the Worker-communist Party of Iraq. Therefore, their support for the party is in turn a support for themselves against the terrorist actions, which claims the lives of dozens of innocent people everyday.
Worker-communist Party of Iraq, 15 Aug 2004”
While the “left” internationally rallies to the support of the “freedom fighters” of Moqtada, the same paramilitary reactionaries are engaged in a very real war against the workers of Iraq. Fallujah is regarded by many as a symbol of resistance to imperialism. But that is not the whole story. Fallujah is a town where no woman dares to step outside her home unaccompanied for fear of the Islamists.
If the western left chooses to ignore the role of the Iraqi workers and their organisations, the Islamists do not. They have targeted the offices of the Unemployed Union of Iraq, the Iraqi Communist Party, the Worker Communist Party of Iraq and the Organisation for Women’s Freedom in Iraq in a series of bombings and armed attacks.
Nor do US occupiers ignore the workers’ movement in Iraq. They have retained Saddam’s old law banning strikes, and last December they attacked and closed down the headquarters of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions in Baghdad.
It is true that Iraq is a country that is under US occupation. While anyone fights against the occupation, we support them in their legitimate struggle to liberate Iraq from the invader. However we must also recognise that the Iraqi working class and its organisations are real, and that only their armed independence can win a truly independent Iraq. To this end we are committed to supporting the Iraqi workers’ movement to the utmost of our abilities.
The workers’ movement of Aotearoa made a small step in the right direction when its Council of Trade Unions opposed the US invasion of Iraq. Since then, some unions have showed solidarity with their comrades in Iraq. The Rail Maritime and Transport Union gave its name to the international trade union petition calling for the reopening of the Baghdad Trades Hall.
Unemployed members of Unite! community union have spoken at anti-war rallies about the activities of the Union of the Unemployed in Iraq. But words are not enough. The Iraqi workers’ movement needs practical support.
I think perhaps we as libertarian communists should be organising information meetings or at least making leaflets trying to shed some light on the situation on the ground within Iraq. I think showing that opposition to the occupation is coming not just from wing nut islamists but from trade unionists, womens groups and securalists would bolster the movement for troop withdrawal. I think many people in the UK are opposed to the presence but aren't willing to come out in support of the islamists, therefore showing that there are groups deserving of solidarity could make a huge difference, remember there is a reason why the media is reporting iraq in terms of islamists versus coalition troops it serves the goverment interests.
As for fullujah well lets imagine its called kronstadt, we can support its resistance to the US military whilst also supporting those groups who challenge the islamists and their jackboot, kinda like how u can oppose the red army and the white army just like makhno.
Being against imperialism doesn't mean you support the defending regime.
Being against imperialism doesn't mean you support the defending regime.
Being against imperialism doesn't mean you support the defending regime.
Being against imperialism doesn't mean you support the defending regime.
It's class.