[Marxism] Re: Fw: Letters from Baghdad: #3 - Yanar Mohammed
jbustelo at bellsouth.net
Thu Aug 19 06:25:15 MDT 2004
Tom O'Lincoln says:
>>BUT ... I have noticed a tendency for many on this list to comment
>>archly on what the WCP Iraq ought to do. Yet when anyone comments on
>>what, say, the Cubans should do or the Sandinistas should have done,
>>this is quickly denounced as western sectarian Trotskyist arrogance.
>>So why is the WCP different?<<
I have no tactical or strategic plan for the WCP of Iraq. But I do see
this: the WCP is anti-national, that is, opposed to the actual struggle
of the Iraqi nation against imperialism. In the fight between the
resistance and the imperialist occupation, they are officially neutral,
although in fact the main emphasis in their propaganda is opposition to
"During the current governmental crisis and the dark scenario that is
unfolding in Iraq, the Islamic movements including al-Sadrs group have
identified two paths to rescue the capitalist system and bourgeois rule
in Iraq. One of them is the legal route of supporting the policies and
plans of the US in Iraq; and the other is by opposing the occupation and
Americas existence in Iraq. Both of these two paths seek an Islamic
regime as their alternative and therefore, they cannot provide freedom
and security nor protect the life of people in Iraq and they represent
the forces of darkness in the current situation in Iraq."
That's from: "Forward interviews Khasro Saya, the head of abroad
organization of the Worker-communist Party of Iraq on the position of
the Western left," part two, in the reprints from the Aug. 1, 2004
edition of Forward on their web site.
Another excerpt, which shows, I think, that the WCP has completely lost
its political bearings if it ever had any, and has a political line that
substitutes a religious holy war against Islam for any sort of class or
* * *
"Forward: Those who support the so-called armed resistance in Iraq
criticize the Worker-communist Party of Iraq for opposing all Islamic
forces and putting them under one broad hat, regardless of the nature of
the struggle and the nature of the group? They stress that there is a
difference between the ruling party in Turkey and al-Qaeda for example
and that the Islamic groups dont see each other as part of the same
movement. How do you explain this generalization by WPIraq?
"Khasro Saya:It is true that today there are differences among various
Islamic groups. They themselves often talk about these differences.
However, I think such a question implies that these differences are
between moderate and Fundamentalist Islam and between reformist
and democratic Islam and terrorist Islam.
"This sort of categorization of Islam prevails in the West. However,
some governments, nationalist and bourgeois democratic parties as well
as writers and intellectuals in the East use these same categorizations.
"The goal behind this categorization is to build a partnership with
political Islam rather than presenting a theoretical and scientific
analysis. Its goal is advancing a policy, which maintains the influence
of Islam in peoples lives, in the law and in the existing political
system at the expense of secularism, civil society, and the individual
rights and freedoms of citizens."
And, yes, it gets worse, down to discussing the "essence" of Islam as a
"Political Islam cannot be reformed or democratized because its essence
as a religion does not permit an Islamic Martin Luther so that he would
start the process of religious reform in Islam. From this point we view
all movements of political Islam as being similar and we believe that
communism of this era must represents an extreme anti-political Islamic
* * *
Obviously when we enter the realm of such heady vapors as "secularism,
civil society, and the individual rights and freedoms of citizens" --an
under conditions of imperialist occupation, at that!-- we have
completely abandoned anything bearing an even accidental resemblance to
But when we get to sentences about how the "essence" of Islam "as a
religion" is that it does not permit even a bourgeois reformation, and
therefore communists must be "an extreme anti-political Islamic trend,"
even while a mounting armed struggle against imperialist occupiers is
being waged largely under Islamic banners, I think we have to consider
whether we're really dealing with part of the Iraqi workers movement or
instead a group that has turned itself into an expression of the
imperialism's anti-Islamic crusade.
>From this it should be obvious why people take a different attitude to
Fidel than to the WCP. Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism;
the struggle against it is world wide. In that struggle, whatever else
you can say about him, Fidel is on the same side as we are. The WCP of
Iraq is not.
From: marxism-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu
[mailto:marxism-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu] On Behalf Of Tom O'Lincoln
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 12:09 AM
To: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
Subject: [Marxism] Re: Fw: Letters from Baghdad: #3 - Yanar Mohammed
More information about the Marxism