Iraq Resistance

Tom O'Lincoln suarsos at alphalink.com.au
Tue Nov 11 00:29:21 MST 2003


Me:
>>Well there's no reason why a national resistance movement shouldn't have
reactionary politics. The nation-state is a capitalist animal, after all.<<

Dan:
>>By "no reason" do you mean that characteristically, such movements have
reactionary politics, or that this isn't something that one should be
concerned about?<<

I was a bit too compressed there, wasn't I? I mean it's not particularly
surprising if a national movement generates ideologies that we see as
reactionary, given that nationalism is itself basically a bourgeois
ideology. To take one extreme example, in the 1930s Mussolini invaded
Abyssinia (Ethiopia). The resistance was led by a reactionary monarch whose
regime had permitted slavery, so I guess the ideology of the resistance was
reactionary too (not that I've ever looked into it). I would still support
the resistance on anti-imperialist grounds and the right of nations to
self-determination.

At the same time I'm always concerned if a movement remains trapped within
nationalist ideological frameworkers -- but in the case of Iraq, I think
that's just how it is.

In case you're interested, a summary of how I see Marxism and the "national
question" is here:

http://redsites.alphalink.com.au/nationalism.htm


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.



More information about the Marxism mailing list