[Marxism] The immigration thread
lnp3 at panix.com
Thu Oct 6 09:50:32 MDT 2005
>No, this line of argument doesn't seem to take enough account of class
>distinctions in the Muslim world as well. Fascism is possible in the
>Middle East in support of the interests of Muslim capitalists, and may
>also generate support from various strata of Iraqi, Iranian, Saudi or
>whatever society, as was the case with European fascism. I think there's a
>danger of returning to neo-Maoist romantic third world nationalism when
>engaging with anti-imperialist struggles.
The only signs of fascism in the Middle East are the descendants of
Jabotinsky in Israel and Falangists in Lebanon. It is highly doubtful that
fascists would be in an armed struggle with US imperialism, which--while
not being fascist--is a state that Hitler would have wet dreams about.
>Well, that's the Trotskyite position, it seems (one to which I'm
>relatively sympathetic, but not totally so). But what is so wrong with
>anti-imperialists and revolutionaries in the Western world looking to
>support genuine socialist groups, if they exist, in the Third World? If we
>agree on driving the imperialists out as the primary strategy, don't we
>wish to form alliances in the hope that the Iraqi people won't simply have
>to surrender to the interest of their own neo-feudalists and capitalists
>(this is a genuine question, I'm not sure of the answer)? Or else mightn't
>we end up in the ludicrous Tel Quel position of supporting the Iranian
>mullahs after 1979?
Again, we should not be in the business of "supporting" the resistance in
Iraq in the fashion that the otherwise sensible ISO and British SWP do. The
only reasonable posture for socialists is to demand self-determination and
allow the class struggle in Iraq to go on unimpeded.
More information about the Marxism