[Marxism] Iraq and Ireland and anti-imperialism

Nestor Gorojovsky nestorgoro at fibertel.com.ar
Thu Feb 19 04:53:16 MST 2004

Respuesta a: [Marxism] Iraq and Ireland and anti-imperialism
Remitido por: Philip Ferguson
Fecha: Jueves 19 de Febrero de 2004 
Hora: 18:17

I don't know who is Phil F. debating with on the e-mail I am answering now. But I tend to believe that Phil is right.

Essentially, because I saw what follows, once again, on a debate regarding the situation in the colonial areas of the Earth:

> Leftists in the West who attempt to tell occupied Iraq not to engage in
> armed resistance are just contemptible chauvinists and reformists.

Can anyone guess a better demonstration of the immense power and 
might of the imperialist bourgeoisies than the simple fact that it is 
the necessary to repeat this _truism_ over and over again, even on a 
Marxist list where most participants are, want to be, or believe to 
be dedicated revolutionaries?

Let us put it in elementary language.

You get a swarm of foreign, imperialist, soldiers, into your country. 
OK. This is clear. Save for utter social-imperialists who I am not 
interested in having business with, we are all agreed on that this is 
an accurate description of the current Iraqi situation, are we not.

Now, these soldiers protect and establish a system which is turning 
your life into a surrogate of hell. Let us try to put ourselves in 
the skins of the Iraqis.  What can we do with the invaders?

Well, there is not such a vast array of possibilities.  

You can (a) greet them, (b) blast them, or perhaps (c) make them 
believe you greet them while you support those who blast them.  You 
can also (d) try to make people believe that you hate them while you 
greet them.  

People in the Third World -and Iraq is a Third World country- are 
normal people. Heroism is good for many things, but it does seldom 
become an everyday feature of _most_ people, of millions. Common 
people are hindered by multiple vices that somehow don't allow them 
to be as heroic as many in their armchairs want them to be.  

For example, people want to eat, you know. And they have a queer idea 
that if they don't get a job they may lose their opportunity to eat 
properly. Maybe they have a family. Children. Some parents or 
relatives you must take care for.  It is quite a sad situation: 
revolutionary politics, as a Salteño Indian chief told to some cdes. 
of mine thirty years ago (tears in his eyes), can become "too 
expensive a luxury for common people". 

Thus, most people will not, save for exceptional conditions, choose 
alternative (b).  They will waver between (c) and (d). In essence, 
however, the final result depends on the balance of forces between 
those adopting positions (a) or (b).  This balance of forces will win 
the battle for the hearts, and make common people believe that 
position (c) is not only morally better but also _more practical_ 
than position (d).  When you have this, then you are the winner.

Is it _so difficult_ to understand that anyone who makes it 
impossible for the occupation forces to have a good night's sleep is 
helping those in the (b) band? 

If it looks too simple, I am sorry: that is the way actual world 
works. What is not _that_ simple is the ways in which people in the 
First World, with the best intentions admittedly, are carried to 
believe that things are somehow more complex thant the simpleton 
schema above.

I agree with Phil F's final paragraph. So that I will put it here, 

"The fact that the US is in a quagmire in Iraq is largely due to the 
armed resistance.  If the left in the West can't turn that to 
advantage then it really is pretty pathetic and pretty stuffed."

Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
nestorgoro at fibertel.com.ar

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 
"Sí, una sola debe ser la patria de los sudamericanos".
Simón Bolívar al gobierno secesionista y disgregador de 
Buenos Aires, 1822
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 

More information about the Marxism mailing list