[Marxism] The immigration thread

Ian Pace ian at ianpace.com
Thu Oct 6 10:16:14 MDT 2005

From: "Louis Proyect" <lnp3 at panix.com>
> 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.

But what exactly is your definition of 'fascist', and how does it directly 
exclude some wings of the Ba'ath party, the mullahs in Iran, the Taliban, 
military rule in Pakistan or even the House of Saud (a more dubious case for 
the term 'fascist' even though the regime is odious, I feel)?
>>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.
OK, I can buy that in principle. Similarly we should fight for withdrawal of 
support to the House of Saud, so the class struggle can proceed there? I 
just wonder if it is possible to 'de-internationalise' such conflicts any 


More information about the Marxism mailing list