[Marxism] What is the Marxist perspective in a case of an Israeli war against Iran?

yossi schwartz ssschwartz8 at gmail.com
Sat Jul 19 11:43:45 MDT 2008


Dear Walter Lippmann


The term satellite  does not define the class nature  and the  particular
stage of evolution of a given society   but the relationship it has with the
metropolitan  mother state-the US in this case.



 If we consider Egypt and Jordan for example, and we apply this definition
of a satellite we can say: "Yes they are satellite of the US."  This tell us
what is their regime. It does not tell us whether we are speaking of
imperialist states or semi colonial states?



Clearly they are semi colonial state and not imperialists.



When we put  Israel in this equation , we find that Israel regime is pro US
as well. But unlike Egypt or Jordan, Israel is an imperialist state, and I
am using Lenin definition of imperialism in his book: Imperialism the
highest stage of capitalism.



Thus the result if we use Wood's method is to put imperialist states and
colonial  and semi colonial states on the same platform –the same level.





Why this differentiation is important? Because as Marxists we see
imperialism as the worst enemy and are ready to block military with  "third
world" countries regardless of their regimes in a case of a war  between the
two types of states



Thus if there is a war between semi colonial country with a fascist or a
semi fascist regime on one hand and an imperialist state with parliamentary
democracy on the other, we as Marxists stands in the military clash with the
semi colonial country against imperialism regardless of their political
regimes.





To be concrete Iran is a semi colonial state while Israel is an imperialist
state.

The conclusion is clear in a case of a war between the two unless Iran would
be directly controlled by an imperialist state we will call for a military
block with Iran against Israel.



To put it in a Marxist language in the case of Israel we will call for
revolutionary defeat and in the case of Iran for revolutionary victory. This
does not  mean that we give Iran  rulers political support or say that Iran
under this regime can win , or any thing alike. When we say  revolutionary
victory we want the working class in Iran to take power and than it will be
possible to defeat Israel or the US. Military block does not mean political
subordination

In this sense we stand in the tradition of Lenin and Trotsky ( for example
blocking with the Moslems in 1925 against France in North Africa- see
Trotsky letter to Diago Rivera  or blocking with the forces of Emperor Haile
Selassie in the  Second Italo-Abyssinian War and in 1935 when Italian forces
invaded).



If you thing about the definition of a state as a satellite you can see that
this is a vulgar materialist concept –based on external relationship rather
than dialectical concept of internal development. When we look a tit not
from Marxist philosophical angle but political one, the confusion between  a
type of a regime and  a type of a state is typical for  social democrats and
other reformists.



Thus the pretension of Woods  use Marxists categories and analysis is well
exposed by using this terminology of a satellite state..



This of course will not be the first time he  will refuse to defend a third
world country against imperialism. (See for example his position on the
Malvinas war, we broke from them on a similar question of Israel using Abu
Mazen to attack Hamas when we demanded to block military with Hamas)











The British SWP is doing the same and confuse the difference between
imperialism and semi colonial state with their anti Leninist theory of the
world.



More information about the Marxism mailing list