[Marxism] RE Should opposition to imperialism's offensive be a defense of the Middle East status quo? Should our opposition be conservative for now?
joe_radical at earthlink.net
Tue Mar 15 17:35:20 MST 2005
Why don't you be honest, and clear: you endorses
US created "New Iraq". But, in doing this you must admit
you support the 'new' goal of US imperialism,
and its stated reason for staying in occupation - to
create stability for this 'new democratic Iraq'.
Well, the only thing 'new' in Iraq is the decades devastation
of that country by bombing, sanctions, invasion and occupation,
the destruction of that country, which the Bush people say
is 'justified' because it is 'creating a "new democratic Iraq'
(remember the MSNBC head-in slogan once the occupation forces were
in place?). All of Fred's 'arguments' have already been made by
Bush, Powell, Allawi, and CNN, MSNBC, BBC, VOA, &C., &C..
I don't know what this "new 'democracy'", created as a side show
by US imperialism to 'legitimize' its occupation, winning over
would-be 'Marxist-Leninists' and 'Trotskyists' to support the
goals of the occupation, has to do with proletarian revolution.
Proletarian revolutionary's objective is not an annual ballot box
trick of illusion of 'people power', but the revolutionary
expropriation of the productive forces by workers and peasants,
each in his 'own' country. This is precisely what the so-called
"new 'democratic' Iraq" Constitution is banning from happening.
It is not possible for Fred, nor anyone else in the West, who
support the "new 'democratic' Iraq" sham elections to oppose
the results of those elections and the Constitution which
provide it's rules of rule making, laws.
Using the argument of this 'new Iraq' breaking of the "old status
quo" is pure mystification of 'democracy', as is expected from
Americans. The reality is that the same class that has owned
the Iraq i forces of production, the Iraqi bourgeoisie and
imperialist investors, still own those productive forces. There
is no 'break-up' of the 'old status quo', and in fact US troops
are in place in Iraq are there to maintain this 'status quo',
and the US created 'democracy' is only an excuse to have its
quisling agents 'democratically elected'.
From: "Fred Feldman" <ffeldman at bellatlantic.net>
Subject: [Marxism] Should opposition to imperialism's offensive be a
defense of the Middle East status quo? Should our opposition be
conservative for now?"
The region faces challenges we have to resist, but it is also changing
and shaking loose in ways we should welcome. And when I say "we", I mean
me. I think some of our reactions to the election process in Iraq,
while hardly entirely wrong, were one-sided enough to give us a partly
wrong fix on what was taking place.
The range and variety of aspirations for democracy in the Middle East
are part of the breakdown of the old status quo, a desirable and needed
It would be a mistake to see the hundreds of thousands who demonstrated
in opposition to the Syrian troops in Lebanon, and the hundreds of
thousands who have twice mobilized to support Hezbollah against Syria
against US-French-UN Security Council intervention as simply opposite
sides of the class struggle, even though the Hezbollah supporters tend
to be mostly the poor and working people, and the other mobilizations
are mostly middle class. And it is imporant that Hezbollah, for its own
reasons, correctly does not do so. They call for dialogue.
No one is mobilizing for Syrian troops in Lebanon, despite imperialist
attempts to make this the central issue. Hezbollah has primarily called
for solidarity with Syria against Washington, not for the continued
presence of troops. This is partly because Syria has decided -- wisely I
think -- to participate in a withdrawal process.
It is a fact that the Hezbollah forces tend to have more support and to
mobilize more of the poor, especially from among the Shia who tend to
make up, along with the Palestinians, the poorest and least represented
section of the population. But it is wrong to see these demonstrations
as simply representing counterposed pro- vs. anti-imperialist forces.
Should our axis be defending the status quo against the neocons,
or participating in the efforts beginning among the masses to create
something new. Isn't something new rather desperately needed. Have the
old structures proved effective in holding off imperialist advance?
Isn't the breakdown of the status quo a fact in Iraq, and Lebanon (and
also Saudi Arabia)? Can effective opposition to imperialist intervention
be a defense of an order that was weighed in the balance, including the
balance of war, and found wanting?
I think an effective, united struggle against the occupation has to be
based on the idea of a "new Iraq," not the one that proved incapable of
defending the nation. Revolutionists (I'm not talking here about slogans
for the antiwar movement), it seems to me, have to be for an Iraq in
which Sunni and Shias will not be a hierarchy of sects, where there will
be democratic rights for the people to speak their minds and organize,
where governments will be based on popular sovereignty, where workers
will have the right to unions, women the right to advance their human
needs, interest, and right.
More information about the Marxism