[Marxism] Re: The Workers Communist Party of Iraq on a coursethatonly helps...

Fred Feldman ffeldman at bellatlantic.net
Thu Nov 11 21:04:49 MST 2004


I was glad to get hear about the split in the WCPI from David Walters.
Whatever their weaknesses, by aligning with the fight against US and
British imperialism that is actually going on rather than explaining
that there really SHOULD be another one (gee, that WOULD be nice), the
split-off WCPI earn the right to contend for leadership as  part  of the
genuine vanguard of the struggle for national liberation and towards
socialism.

I agree with Tom that, to the best of my knowledge, there is no official
statement of the better-known WCPI that  "embraces imperialism."  It
does not struggle against imperialism.  It does not "embrace" the
struggle against imperialism.  It has dedicated itself to the
destruction of political Islam, including being quite willing to accept
the destruction of "political Islam" by US imperialism in Fallujah.  

They say thatthe foreign imperialist occupier and a quite substantial
part of the population of their own country (including many thousands of
workers, peasants, and poor people)  who follow one or another form of
political Islam are equal enemies.  

And when these oppressed and exploited people come into conflict with
imperialism, under bourgeois leaderships, they do not have the slightest
identification with their heroic and inspiring  struggle against the
overwhelming power of imperialism. Instead, they wish destruction on the
fighters and on all who embrace political Islam (and if some of the
imperialist troops get killed, that's okay too).  VERY revolutionary.  

To them, the basic division in Iraq is not class, but
political-religious..  If they  thought it was class, they would have to
focus their fire on the central oppressor class, the imperialists who
occupy the country and run the government. This the WCPI I know does not
do and does not  claim to do.  They concentrate on the fight for
secularism and against Islamism.  They are for the forces who fight for
secularism -- who cut across class lines -- and call for destruction of
political Islam, who also cut across class lines.  They use their
influence in the labor movement to subordinate the unions they lead to
that non-working-class perspective.  

Their answer to the religious divisions among working people is to crush
"political Islam" and to be FORMALLY neutral in the face of its
attempted destruction by US imperialism.  They decry the killing of the
innocent in Fallujah, but to them to be "innocent" means not being a
supporter of political Islam.  All supporters of political Islam are
guilty.

This is of course not a perspective for a DEMOCRATIC revolution in Iraq,
but for a brutally repressive form of "secularism" which would have
nothing in common with a popular revolution.   In the reality of today's
Iraq, their perspective is no less repressive and antipopular than  that
of Bin Laden, who at least is at least a talented enough demagogue to
present his actions in the framework of opposition to US and Israeli
occupation.  

Their support for secularism in the form of a crushing of "political
Islam" is not overtly proimperialist but formally ultraleftist.  The
"ultraleftism" has a Pol Pot-ist edge, in my opinion, and we should
remember that Pol Pot ended up in alliance with imperialism although, to
my  knowledge, he never officially embraced it.

The point is not to challenge Tom's correct point, but to hope we agree
that a group that does not officially embrace imperialism can be a
reactionary sectarian threat to the capacity of the working class to
participate in and learn to lead the anti-imperialist struggle in Iraq.
Fred Feldman





More information about the Marxism mailing list