[Marxism] Re: THE MILITANT looks at the boom times coming ahead

Richard Fidler rfidler at cyberus.ca
Mon Nov 8 16:54:50 MST 2004


Steve Gabosch writes:

"Clearly, Barnes and the Militant are answering Richard's question no,
that the social forces and forms of struggle being unleashed by the
leaders and militias of the current Iraqi resistance have a reactionary
character (despite their efforts to militarily resist the US
occupation), and cannot and will not inflict a major defeat on US
imperialism in Iraq or the general Middle East or lead such a struggle.
Keep in mind that the Militant also argues, I think quite cogently, that
the US goal is not a permanent major military occupation of Iraq with
its troops, but US imperialist dominance of Iraq's resources, economy,
state - as well as similar dominance of the Middle East and most of the
world."

Brief comment, again:

Two things here

1. The armed resistance in Iraq and the Mideast regimes have in common a
"bourgeois" leadership; they are not revolutionary socialist. But there
is a huge difference between a bourgeois nationalist who is engaged in
an armed confrontation with the imperialist occupier and a bourgeois who
collaborates with the imperialists or stands aside, at best wringing its
hands. It is outrageous to equate the Iraqi resistance with, say, the
Saudi regime. Marxists, in fact all anti-imperialists, support the first
in its struggle, whatever our doubts about the quality of the leadership
and current ideology of that resistance. It is only in the course of
that struggle that these courageous fighters can overcome the
limitations of their current leaderships (very few of whom favour such
tactics as beheadings let alone "rely" on them, BTW) and advance toward
anticapitalist conclusions.

2. I think this Iraqi resistance, whatever military setbacks it may
suffer, has already shown that the US cannot maintain its "dominance of
Iraq's resources, economy state" without permanently occupying that
country. And the implications of that are one of the many reasons why in
fact U.S. imperialism is, as Barnes says, a "declining international
order". (Walter got that one wrong; apparently, Barnes has reverted to
an earlier analysis and temporarily at least --- until some military
setback for the Iraqi resistance? --- shelved his triumphalist earlier
remarks on the positive prospects for US hegemony.)  Oddly, Barnes fails
to see the connection. No reason for us to overlook it, though.

Richard




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 01-11-2004





More information about the Marxism mailing list