[Marxism] Re: Cagan's support for el-Maliki
causecollector at msn.com
Wed Aug 16 09:37:55 MDT 2006
I really disagree with Fred Feldman on supporting elements of UFPJ, wanting
to have official ties with the current puppet government of Iraq.
I believe one has to always ask themselves, when we see such political
manuevers proposed: Who benefits from these proposed discussions? What is
their political purpose?
I believe Fred Feldman has misunderstood why elements of the UFPJ want to go
to Iraq and have some discussions with some of the puppet Iraq "government".
I believe the UFPJ has a number of people, who see the Iraq CP as their
comrades. They want to give these people their political support. Let me
remind Fred and others on this list, that he Iraq CP is part of the puppet
This tour like the earlier U. S. tour of "Iraqi unionists" is a cover in my
opinion for this "false solidarity" that forces in the UFPJ, led by many in
the CPUSA and many in COC, the two main forces in UFPJ, want to promote.
The main problem with this "solidarity" with the Iraq CP, is that to do so,
requires giving up the demand for immediate U.S. military withdrawal and
trying to give political support to the "legitimacy" of this puppet
government. This puppet government only remains in power because it is
backed by the U. S. military - something that is not "a small detail" - but
should be central to anyone who understands U. S. military, foreign and
corporate policies, in that it all functions for the same purpose - the
Empire having control of that land and oil.
The UFPJ has nothing to "negotiate" with any puppet government. The people
who have stood up to the U. S. military and sacriiced much - should not be
betrayed by Americans who say they are really opposed to the Empire and want
to end U. S. corporate domination.
I believe the Iraq Resistance can discuss much better, than the UFPJ, with
representatives of this puppet government - if they want to. They also do
not need to take long plane flights to do this!
The Iraq CP made a WRONG political choice in joining this puppet government
and giving it support.
Does this wrong decision by the Iraq CP leaders, mean that we must all go
along with this strategy because elements of the CPUSA and COC, want to
offer some kind of strange solidarity, with this sister party of theirs?
Does Fred really suggest we need to have solidarity with the Iraq CP and its
betrayal and wrong decisions?
I believe we need to see who would benefit from this puppet government
staying in power and who would not. The U. S. Empire would benefit, if it
could avoid a military AND political defeat. The collapse of their puppet
government, would be detrimental to the U. S. Empire - and thus one should
question "Why? - would any one who favors an end to the empire - want to be
supporting what appears to many Iraqis, who oppose the occupation - as
political maeuvers trying to save the empire's forces from total defeat.
Who benefits from these proposed discussions? What is their political
objective? The fact that the U. S. government will allow these meetings -
and that the U. S. government has approved of the Iraq CP being part of this
puppet government - should say a lot to people on this List.
When the Iraqi trade unionist tour took place I realized that the U. S.
government approved of it - or it would have cancelled it. To not
understand these simple clues - of who supports what - is missing the whole
current struggle in Iraq and elsewhere.
I do not have any political agreement with Islamic fundamentalists, when it
comes to having a socialist and cooperative world. I favor socialism that
includes Women and Gays having respect and freedom. I favor working people
not being expolited. This is where I stand. But I do not stand with puppet
governments imposed by the U. S. Empire.
>From: "Fred Feldman" <ffeldman at bellatlantic.net>
>Reply-To: Activists and scholars in Marxist
>tradition<marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
>To: <marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
>Subject: [Marxism] Re: Cagan's support for el-Maliki
>Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 20:17:39 -0400
>Well, Lou disagrees with me and I disagree with Lou, which is pretty
>natural because we come here to our fundamental disagreement over the
>character of the antiwar movement. Lou says he favors the antiwar
>movement concentrating on out now. But in fact he favors an antiwar
>movement that de facto, if not de jure, is based on "support the
>insurgents" and "oppose the occupation government." He does favor a
>political boycott of the government on the movement level, even when a
>growing pattern of conflicts with Washington, including over attacks on
>Shia forces that are in the occupation government (the Sadr militia, for
>He insists that meeting with Maliki represents a betrayal of Out Now!
>That could be true in the case of UFPJ, but need not be at all.
More information about the Marxism