The Respect conference and the Iraqi workers

Submitted by AWL on 2 December, 2005 - 9:19

AWL leaflet distributed at a recent meeting with George Galloway in Cambridge.

In its motion to the recent ‘Respect’ national conference the Cambridge ‘Respect’ branch “noted with approval the nascent Iraqi trade unions and women’s groups that, in spite of the terrible occupation, have sprung up since the overthrow of the despicable Baath regime.”

The motion condemned the fact that “as of yet, only one trade union federation, the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU) is officially recognised in Iraq.” It also condemned Iraqi government decree 875, which orders the seizure of trade union assets in Iraq (see below).

The motion concluded by calling for support for the Organisation of Women’s Freedom in Iraq (OWFI), the Union of the Unemployed (UU), and the General Union of Oil Employees (GUOE). It advocated publicising them politically and raising funds for their campaigning against the occupation, against privatisation, and in defence of civil liberties and trade union rights.

Trade unionists and women in Iraq are certainly in need of solidarity and support.

The offices of the IFTU have been raided by US troops. Members of the Union of Unemployed have been arrested for organising demonstrations and strikes. Saddam Hussein’s law of 1987 banning unions in the public sector (i.e. most of the economy) remains on the statute books. And the recent government decree 875 states: “A government committee … must take control of all moneys belonging to the trade unions and prevent them from dispensing any such moneys.”

Iraqi trade unionists have also been threatened, attacked, kidnapped and murdered by the ‘resistance’. The IFTU International Secretary was murdered in January of this year. The following month an official of the Oil and Gas Workers Union was murdered. At Easter a murder attempt was carried out on an official of the GUOE. Last month the Executive Secretary of the Iraqi journalists’ union was murdered.

Women’s rights are also under daily attack in Iraq. Some Islamists are campaigning for sharia law, which institutionalises discrimination against women, to be introduced. Other Islamists are not bothering to wait for its introduction. They are already attacking women on the streets, forcing them to wear the veil, and attacking them for the ‘crime’ of taking part in mixed-sex picnics in public parks.

Unfortunately, but inevitably, the motion from the Cambridge ‘Respect’ branch was decisively trashed at the national ‘Respect’ conference the weekend before last. An amendment from the leading lights of the Socialist Workers Party deleted over half the original motion.

Out went the call for support for OWFI, the UU, and the GUOE! And out went all the proposals for specific activities in solidarity with their struggles! Instead, the amendment declared: “We do not accept the notion of a third pole between the occupation and those resisting it in Iraq.”

The term “third camp” (to use the correct expression – not “third pole”) dates from the Cold War. It was coined by socialists who supported neither the camp of capitalism nor the camp of Stalinism but who advocated independent working-class struggle in both “camps”. Ironically, the term described the position of the SWP itself. (Its newspaper used to carry the slogan: “Neither Washington Nor Moscow, but International Socialism!” But then the SWP discovered George Galloway ….)

Today, in relation to Iraq, the term sums up the position of socialists opposed to the US-UK occupation, and also to the Baathists, Sunni-sectarians and jihadis who make up so-called ‘resistance’. The “third campists” seek to build support for independent working-class organisation in Iraq (i.e. trade unions), for women fighting for their rights, and for the small socialist organisations which struggle against the vastly more powerful forces of imperialist and Islamist reaction.

The refusal to “accept the notion of a third camp” in Iraq – never mind the refusal to build support for it – is an abandonment of the basic ideas of socialism. In fact, it is an abandonment of the most basic duty of working-class solidarity.

At great personal risk to their lives, trade unionists and women in Iraq are fighting to secure rights taken for granted in this country. Some of them have paid with their lives for taking part in that struggle.

Where is the support for their struggle from ‘Respect’/SWP?

Nowhere. On every occasion when support for Iraqi trade unionists has been raised at Cambridge Trades Union Council, ‘Respect’/SWP have argued vociferously against even the most minimal forms of support. And the sad fate of the motion from Cambridge ‘Respect’ branch to the ‘Respect’ national conference shows up who has ‘got the right line’.

‘Respect’/SWP represents a ‘Left’ in a terminal state of political, moral and intellectual collapse. It is a ‘Left’ which defines itself primarily not by what it is for, but by what it is against. It defines itself not on the basis of class politics, but on the basis of a demagogic and bogus ‘anti-imperialism’ (epitomised, of course, by Galloway himself).

A ‘Left’ which cannot define its own policies has lost the will to live. A ‘Left’ which solidarises with the head-choppers and the bombers of mosques and funeral processions in Iraq has lost the right to live. A ‘Left’ which campaigns against solidarity with Iraqi feminists and trade unionists is a force for reaction.

The Alliance for Workers Liberty is the only organisation on the British Left which consistently advocates a “third-campist” position and independent working-class politics and struggle. If you are a class-struggle socialist – join us.

Comments

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 08/12/2005 - 02:08

Fantasy.

You're equating the struggle of the twin Imperialisms in the Cold War to the fight between the American colonisers and the people of Iraq?

If we accept, like the CIA does, that the Iraqi resistance is about 95% domestic, then what exactly is the AWL line regarding national liberation? Uh, yes, national liberation, but not for the nasty Muslims? You're Hitchenite hysteria about 'head-choppers' is the real 'reactionary' position here.

Do you all really need remining of the barbaric practices of the NLF or the ANC? Did one support a 'third camp' between the ANC and the Apartheid state because the ANC practiced 'necklacing' (placing a rubber tire around the neck and setting it alight) of suspected informants?

Did one call for an NLF victory despite their hardcore anti-Trotskyist Stalinism?

The AWL better get a grip on this one.

As a young socialist, I had previously been attracted by your class based politics and progressive attitude to sections of the Labour Party. But, on this issue, you're heading over to the wrong side.

Submitted by Daniel_Randall on Thu, 08/12/2005 - 17:12

In reply to by Anonymous (not verified)

"You're equating the struggle of the twin Imperialisms in the Cold War to the fight between the American colonisers and the people of Iraq?"

No, because a) the American project in Iraq is not explicitly colonial (it's more about establishing local client regimes than direct colonial rule) and b) "the people of Iraq" aren't exactly a homogenous political force, which I'll come back on later. The point about the comparison with the "neither Washington nor Moscow" position isn't that what we're dealing with now is rival imperialisms (although there's actually a seperate argument about the rivalry between America and regional imperialisms in the Middle East), but to point out how far the SWP have moved; they used to refuse to line up behind whatever was posed as the "progressive" alternative to US imperialism - whether that was Stalinism or local sub-imperialisms or whatever else. Now their approach is the exact opposite.

"If we accept, like the CIA does, that the Iraqi resistance is about 95% domestic, then what exactly is the AWL line regarding national liberation?"

Our line is that no movement that defines itself along explicitly sectarian lines - as every single "resistance" militia in Iraq does - can represent the liberation of a whole national group.

Only a movement that organises Iraqis along political and social lines that transcend ethnic and religious divisions can genuinely be a force for national liberation. And for socialists that means the labour movement. Y'know, like...workers and stuff? It's kind of what we're all about.

"Do you all really need remining of the barbaric practices of the NLF or the ANC? Did one support a 'third camp' between the ANC and the Apartheid state because the ANC practiced 'necklacing' (placing a rubber tire around the neck and setting it alight) of suspected informants?"

The ANC genuinely represented the democratic aspirations of black south Africans and had genuine popular support. Muqtada al-Sadr's private army, by contrast, represents the desire for a section of the clerics in Iraq's Shia community to have more power. There's no comparison.

But even having said this, the predecessor of Workers' Liberty (Socialist Organiser) did say that simply cheering on the ANC wasn't enough, and that internationalists should look to build solidarity with South African trade unions and socialists who rejected the ANC's popular-frontists Stalinism.

"But, on this issue, you're heading over to the wrong side."

Yeah, I guess it looks that way if your "side" is the side of clerics, bosses and religious vigilantes in Iraq.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 09/12/2005 - 19:33

In reply to by Anonymous (not verified)

'If we accept that the Iraqi resistance is 95% domestic'...then what exactly? Ulster loyalism is 100% domestic, likewise was Afrikaner nationalism and I dare say UK fascism. And this tells us what about where we stand in relation to them? You need to establisn that there is a genuine national liberation movement rather than a collection of disparate and generally reactionary forces (Sunni sectarians, Islamist fundamentalists, ex-Baathists etc).
There is huge gap between the observation that most Iraqis oppose the occupation and want it to end and the assertion that the so-called resistance is representative, to be supported or even has self-dtermination as a genuine aim

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 23/12/2005 - 02:17

In reply to by Anonymous (not verified)

"they used to refuse to line up behind whatever was posed as the "progressive" alternative to US imperialism - whether that was Stalinism or local sub-imperialisms or whatever else. Now their approach is the exact opposite."

No, the position was clear. We line up with popular struggles of oppressed peoples, but we don't support Soviet client states and their bureaucratic classes. The Iraqi resistance is a popular struggle waged by Iraqis against foreign domination(whether you like this or not is irrelevant).

"And for socialists that means the labour movement. Y'know, like...workers and stuff? It's kind of what we're all about."

Workers' movements don't always 'transcend' political, ethnic and social lines, but that's another matter. There are nationalist elements in the Iraqi resistance, and they often struggle with the Islamic fundamentalists. I agree, the failure to set up a National Liberation Front has been a mistake, and it has allowed people hostile to the resistance - Hitchens, Bush, Blair, the AWL etc - to portray it as wholly 'Sunni supremacist'. When in fact it isn't.

"Yeah, I guess it looks that way if your "side" is the side of clerics, bosses and religious vigilantes in Iraq."

I'm with the popular armed resistance to Imperial domination. You, ummm, aren't. That's your prerogative.

"Ulster loyalism is 100% domestic, likewise was Afrikaner nationalism and I dare say UK fascism. And this tells us what about where we stand in relation to them?."

The best comparison for Ulster Loyalism is Radical White Nationalism in the Deep American South. Is the AWL supporting the 'cultural' rights of the Ku Klux Klan?

As for the other two examples. Ridiculous.

Submitted by Daniel_Randall on Sat, 24/12/2005 - 14:52

In reply to by Anonymous (not verified)

Such nonsense you talk. I hardly know where to start.

"The Iraqi resistance is a popular struggle waged by Iraqis against foreign domination(whether you like this or not is irrelevant)."

This simply isn't true. For Marxists, "popular" doesn't mean "popular" like Westlife are "popular" (i.e. loads of people, inexplicably, like them) - "popular" means "of the people". The FLN was "popular". The NLF was "popular". Even the KLA was "popular". All these movements had genuine bases in the national or ethnic groups in which they existed that went deeper than vague political sympathy. This isn't true of any of the "resistance" militias, and, more importantly, it *can't* ever be true because, unlike the FLN, NLF or KLA, they don't base themselves on an entire national group but on religious or ethnic sub-sections.

A more important point here is that Marxists aren't primarily interested in "popular resistance" in an age in which the working-class is the biggest single class in almost any society. We seek to organise along class - not "popular" - lines. Class war, not "people's war."

Where genuinely "popular" movements (in the sense I talked about earlier) exist, our perspective should be to work within them to split them along class lines.

Your point about the resistance being "progressive" because its "waged by Iraqis" is dumb. Plain dumb. Marxists don't analyse and assess political movements on the basis of the nationality of their members; we assess them on the basis of their class character and whose class interests their victory would further.

"Workers' movements don't always 'transcend' political, ethnic and social lines, but that's another matter."

Yeah, but sectarian religious or nationalist movement *can't*, by their nature. Organising people on the basis of class, by its nature, can transcend those divisions. The fact that sometimes in history they haven't done so is neither here nor there. The most important fact is that, in Iraq, the labour movement *is* the only resistance movement that unites working-class Iraqis regardless of their religious background.

If your only criteria for supporting a movement was that it was "waged by [insert oppressed nationality here] against foreign domination," you'd presumably have supported the Nazi-organised resistance to the US/UK occupation of Germany post-1945? Right?

"There are nationalist elements in the Iraqi resistance, and they often struggle with the Islamic fundamentalists."

So? Do I care if nationalist elements of the Iraqi bourgeoisie don't get on with clerical-fascist elements? No.

"People hostile to the resistance - Hitchens, Bush, Blair, the AWL etc"

You left "the entire Iraqi labour movement" off that list. I'm kinda more interested in what they've got to say than either Hitchens, Bush, Blair or indeed you (whoever the fuck you are).

Me and you debating on the internet is, in the scheme of things, meaningless. Because the cold, hard reality is that a dynamic, vibrant workers' movement exists in Iraq - a country at the heart of capitalism's project for the Middle East.

For anyone serious about working-class resistance to imperialism, the existence of this labour movement should be a source of joy and the absolute starting point for anything else one says about Iraq. The fact that you and your organisation hardly even acknowledge the existence of this movement*, let alone do anything to support it, is fucking disgraceful.

* Inviting Hassan Juma'a to your "Peace Conference" is not good enough, by the way, especially when the "Iraqi delegation" also included reactionary bourgeois scum like the foreign representative of the Army of the Mahdi (who, I'm told, sadly didn't turn up).

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 24/12/2005 - 17:00

In reply to by Daniel_Randall

"All these movements had genuine bases in the national or ethnic groups in which they existed that went deeper than vague political sympathy. This isn't true of any of the "resistance" militias, and, more importantly, it *can't* ever be true because, unlike the FLN, NLF or KLA, they don't base themselves on an entire national group but on religious or ethnic sub-sections."

Well, I don't wish to argue the numbers, but there is significant support for the resistance amongst sections of the Shia, and large sections of the Sunni - the Kurds have obviously sold themselves to Imperialism hook, line and sinker (understandably). Most resistance groups will desribe themselves as fighting for a United, independent Iraq, free of foreign domination. Now, for obvious reasons, these groups also happen to be Islamisist (many are comparable to the FLN in ideology, some aren't). The world is a diffirent place now than it was in the days of the NLF. If the American invasion had happened 40 years ago, then it may well have taken more of a leftist, secular, pan-Arab perspective - it isn't.

Still, I support national self-determination, even for believers.

"A more important point here is that Marxists aren't primarily interested in "popular resistance" in an age in which the working-class is the biggest single class in almost any society."

The Iraqi Labour movement was either

a) In league with the Occupation (the ICP)
b) Ambivalent (the IFTU)

There simply wasn't the basis for a working class struggle. Not surprisingly, since the Iraqis have seen that those calling themselves 'socialist' are ambivalent on the the question of the occupation and resistance to it.

"So? Do I care if nationalist elements of the Iraqi bourgeoisie don't get on with clerical-fascist elements? No."

Iraqi bourgeoisie? What are you talking about? The Mehdi army might be crazy 'head chopping' Arabs, but 'Bourgeois'? Don't make me laugh. The Iraqi resistance is a spontaneous uprising of the oppressed, led by nationalist religious leaders. They heroically struggle against the colonisation and rape of their country by a marauding Empire.

Who's side are you on? The AWL can't make its mind up.

"Me and you debating on the internet is, in the scheme of things, meaningless. Because the cold, hard reality is that a dynamic, vibrant workers' movement exists in Iraq - a country at the heart of capitalism's project for the Middle East"

The Iraqi Labour movement has progressive, anti-occupation sections. It also contains some thoroughly compromised reactionary bastards.

"The fact that you and your organisation hardly even acknowledge the existence of this movement*, let alone do anything to support it, is fucking disgraceful."

My organisation? I presume you mean the SWP? I'm not a member, sorry.
As for me, I'm not going to take any lessons from the friends of Alan Johnson and Ann Clywd on 'solidarity'. The most important thing for the Iraqi working class is preventing Iraq becoming a sub-colony. The barbarity and defeat of that outcome *outweighs* any other possible outcome. Therefore, I'm "with" Iraqis of all classes and perspectives in their struggle against the occupation.

Submitted by Daniel_Randall on Mon, 26/12/2005 - 13:47

In reply to by Anonymous (not verified)

...garbage, nonsense, rubbish, lies, crap, offensive crap, latent racism, rubbish, nonsense, shit...

...it's getting boring, mate.

So the Kurds (an entire national group, let's remember) have "sold themselves hook line and sinker to imperialism", have they? Well, that's them and their rights written out of history, I guess.

And Iraqis, according to you, are pretty much incapable of developing anything beyond a nationalist or religious consciousness, are they? If a nationalist or religious-sectarian resistance to capitalism developed in Britain you'd probably denounce it as reactionary, but apparently you don't have very high expectations of the poor, benighted brown people in the Middle East, who can only understand the world in terms of religious sectarianism or nationalism. Make sense, I guess.

You clearly know precisely fuck all about the Iraqi labour movement - for a start, the IFTU doesn't even exist any more and the ICP is hardly an independent organisation; it's a key part of the leadership of the IWF (the organisation that the IFTU has disolved into). The most militant sections of the Iraqi workers' movement (FWCUI and IFOU) are totally anti-occupation, but even the sections which aren't anti-occupation still deserve critical support. We don't refuse to support Unison or PCS strikes because their leaders are total sell-outs who acquiesce to the bosses all the time.

Your bullshit rhetoric about romantic heroes protecting their country against "rape" and "marauders" is pathetic; you sound like some 19th century toff talking about the "noble savages" defending their homelands. Who are you, anyway? Laurence of Arabia? George Galloway? Ask the trade unionists or travellers or feminists who've been attacked and assaulted by the Mahdi what they think of your "heroes".

"Not surprisingly, since the Iraqis have seen that those calling themselves 'socialist' are ambivalent on the the question of the occupation and resistance to it."

You mean like the WCPI, who say "troops out now"? Yeah, *real* ambivalent.

"The Iraqi Labour movement has progressive, anti-occupation sections. It also contains some thoroughly compromised reactionary bastards."

And you don't care about either section.

"The Iraqi resistance is a spontaneous uprising of the oppressed."

Muqtada al-Sadr? Oppressed? Now who's making who laugh?

"My organisation? I presume you mean the SWP? I'm not a member, sorry."

Then why did you talk about the SWP using the word "we" earlier in this pleasant little exchange?

"I'm not going to take any lessons from the friends of Alan Johnson and Ann Clywd on 'solidarity'."

And these people have got what to do with me, exactly? I've never met either of those people and they're certainly not my 'friends.' I tend not to make 'friends' with Blairites, coz I kinda think that it's wrong to make political alliances with people who represent in some way the interests of the boss class, coz, like, y'know, I'm a Marxist. If you think Iraqi workers and Iraqi bosses are on the same side in some glorious anti-imperialist struggle, you obviously ain't.

You might, however, wanna try taking some lessons about solidarity from Iraqi revolutionary communists who are risking their lives every day to organise workers against imperialism and nationalist and religious reaction. Those people are the heroes; people like you who sit on the internet and cheerlead for their enemies aren't fit to lick their fucking boots.

"Therefore, I'm "with" Iraqis of all classes and perspectives in their struggle against the occupation."

Says it all, really. Avanti the popular front in Iraq, eh?

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 27/12/2005 - 15:50

In reply to by Daniel_Randall

"Then why did you talk about the SWP using the word "we" earlier in this pleasant little exchange?"

Did I? I'm sorry about that.

"Says it all, really. Avanti the popular front in Iraq, eh?"

Absolutely.

Anyway, as you've suggested, I think we've shed enough light in our little insignificant ding-dong.

Leave it up to the Iraqis now.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 27/12/2005 - 16:17

In reply to by Daniel_Randall

Daniel Randell informs us that "Inviting Hassan Juma'a to your "Peace Conference" is not good enough".

That maybe so, but considering that Hassan Juma'a Awad is General Secretary of the Southern Oil Company Union and president of the Basra Oil Workers' Union (the most militant class struggle organisation in Iraq) the AWL would do well to learn something from the comrades’ analysis of the occupation and the resistance.

Consider his article in the Guardian of February this year entitled "Leave our country now" in which he asserts:

"The occupation has deliberately fomented a sectarian division of Sunni and Shia. We never knew this sort of division before. Our families intermarried, we lived and worked together. And today we are resisting this brutal occupation together, from Falluja to Najaf to Sadr City. The resistance to the occupation forces is a God-given right of Iraqis, and we, as a union, see ourselves as a necessary part of this resistance - although we will fight using our industrial power, our collective strength as a union, and as a part of civil society which needs to grow in order to defeat both still-powerful Saddamist elites and the foreign occupation of our country."

We can deduce from this that Awad believes that:

1. The occupation, not the resistance, are primarily to blame for the emergence of sectarianism in Iraq (this happens to be a view shared by the National Foundation Congress and the Association of Muslim Scholars although I presume the AWL will consider such organisations "bourgeois scum" and "clerical fascists" etc so no need to take anything they say seriously).

2. Resistance actions, such as the uprisings in Fulluja and Najaf, are part of a popular and legitimate national struggle that has transcended sectarian divisions.

3. Iraqi workers are a part of this wider resistance (Indeed the GUOE lead a solidarity strike against the US assault on Najaf).

For such reasons he, like most Iraqis (but unlike the AWL), wishes for an immediate end to a brutal and cruel occupation that has maybe killed upwards of 100,000 people and turned Iraq into a hotbed for terrorism.

Aaron Beck

Submitted by Daniel_Randall on Wed, 28/12/2005 - 00:43

In reply to by Anonymous (not verified)

"Hassan Juma'a Awad is General Secretary of the Southern Oil Company Union and president of the Basra Oil Workers' Union (the most militant class struggle organisation in Iraq) the AWL would do well to learn something from the comrades’ analysis of the occupation and the resistance."

The leaders of militant unions don't automatically have good politics. (Bob Crow - Stalinist. Mark Serwotka - sell-out bureaucrat. Arthur Scargill - Stalinist. The list goes on.) Just because a union organises militant disputes, that doesn't automatically lend the personal politics of its leader a special validity.

Obviously, I agree that we should listen to the views and perspectives of all currents within the labour movement. But that doesn't mean we have to agree with them.

Falah Alwan (General Secretary of the FWCUI) has an analysis much closer to mine than yours, but I don't expect you to change your mind simply by saying "look - a militant Iraqi union leader agrees with me, I must be right."

"1. The occupation, not the resistance, are primarily to blame for the emergence of sectarianism in Iraq."

Yeah, and? Capitalism is to blame for religious fundamentalism and sectarianism everywhere, not just in Iraq. Doesn't mean you don't criticise/fight religious fundamentalism in its own right.

"2. Resistance actions, such as the uprisings in Fulluja and Najaf, are part of a popular and legitimate national struggle that has transcended sectarian divisions."

The question of "legitimacy" is a total diversion here. I'm not interested in arguing whether it's "legitimate" for Islamists to kill Americans - I want to know what effect this will have on the Iraqi workers' movement.

The idea that "resistance actions" have "transcended sectarian divisions" is highly debatable and others in the Iraqi labour movement suggest it's not the case.

"3. Iraqi workers are a part of this wider resistance (Indeed the GUOE lead a solidarity strike against the US assault on Najaf)."

This is precisely the point; the Iraqi workers' movement can't just be one nebulous element of an amorphous "resistance". Anti-imperialist resistance must be working-class led and focused to be successful.

Hassan Juma'a's politics are actually pretty bad; he's a moderate Islamist supporter of Ali al-Sistani. But I am 100% not interested in vetting the politics of Iraqi trade union leaders - I want to support their organisations because of their class character. Because for me, class - and not rhetoric about "resistance actions" - is kinda important.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 01/01/2006 - 21:47

In reply to by Daniel_Randall

Daniel, your assertion that Hassan Juma'a Awad is "a moderate Islamist supporter of Ali al-Sistani" is somewhat in contradiction to your previous claim that "the entire Iraqi labour movement" is hostile to the resistance.

Both claims are incorrect in my opinion. Juma’a Awad has kept a safe distance from factional politics and the Basra Oil Union, unlike virtually all the other unions in Iraq, is independent from party political influence or control. This factor in itself gives more weight to Awad’s views than other representatives in that they are more likely to reflect the mood of his membership rather than simply toe the party "line".

Felah Alwan, by way of contrast is, like all FWCUI/UUI representatives, a member of the ultra leftist WCPI, a group renowned for its crude and sectarian propaganda. If you share such analysis Daniel then more fool you is all I can say.

"Yeah, and? Capitalism is to blame for religious fundamentalism and sectarianism everywhere, not just in Iraq. Doesn't mean you don't criticise/fight religious fundamentalism in its own right."

Criticise religious fundamentalism all you like but if you concede that such fundamentalism and sectarianism are caused by the occupation then it makes little sense to back the latter in order to wade off/ suppress the former.

"The idea that "resistance actions" have "transcended sectarian divisions" is highly debatable and others in the Iraqi labour movement suggest it's not the case."

The resistance is heterogeneous and as such includes a spectrum of forces. We saw some examples of sectarian divisions being transcended in 2004 when Shia joined Sunnis in donating blood and organising a relief convoy to Fallujah in the aftermath of the US blitzkrieg. Joint prayers were organised and members of the Mahdi Army (Al-Sadr’s militia) — went to Fallujah to fight alongside Sunnis. Similar events happened during the Najaf uprising. The formation of the anti-occupation forces like the National Foundation Congress and the Association of Muslim Scholars and of course the Iraqi trade unions are further examples.

The sitiuation on the ground is far more complex than crude WCPI/AWL propaganda makes out.

"The question of "legitimacy" is a total diversion here. I'm not interested in arguing whether it's "legitimate" for Islamists to kill Americans - I want to know what effect this will have on the Iraqi workers' movement."

So the Iraqi trade union movement is all that matters then? What about the rights of Iraqis who are being blown to bits by coalition bombs? What about the right of a state of 20 million people to live free of foreign occupation? I take it you disagree with Lenin that a socialist revolutionary should not be the trade-union secretary, but the tribune of the oppressed?

"This is precisely the point; the Iraqi workers' movement can't just be one nebulous element of an amorphous "resistance". Anti-imperialist resistance must be working-class led and focused to be successful."

Well of course only a movement spearheaded by the working class can truly and completely defeat imperialism, permanent revolution and all that.

But in order to lead such a struggle working class socialists must not only be resolutely opposed to the unpopular and brutal occupation but must also support the unconditional right of Iraqis to resist it. For example Hassan Juma'a Awad makes the distinction between the terrorists who murder civilians and those who fight against the occupying armies, supporting the latter. I think this will boost the prestige of the Iraqi workers movement in the eyes of Iraqis opposed to the occupation (i.e. the majority) better than the WCPI who denounce anybody (including trade unionists and socialists) who are not within the ranks of their own sect.

Aaron Beck

Submitted by Daniel_Randall on Mon, 02/01/2006 - 01:23

In reply to by Anonymous (not verified)

1) "Juma’a Awad has kept a safe distance from factional politics and the Basra Oil Union, unlike virtually all the other unions in Iraq, is independent from party political influence or control."

No, Juma'a is a supporter of the UIA.

However, it's clear from his statements in the past (such as the one he jointly signed with the IFTU and FWCUI, available online here: http://www.workersliberty.org/node/view/4450) that he's opposed to the targetting of trade unions and innocent civilians by "resistance" militias. I don't think his (mistaken) support for the Shi'a Islamists in the puppet government changes that position.

2) "Felah Alwan, by way of contrast is, like all FWCUI/UUI representatives, a member of the ultra leftist WCPI, a group renowned for its crude and sectarian propaganda."

"Renowned" by who? Sad hacks on the Western left? It's also "renowned" for the work it's done in developing militant unions, especially amongst the massive section of the Iraqi working-class that's unemployed.

3) "Criticise religious fundamentalism all you like but if you concede that such fundamentalism and sectarianism are caused by the occupation then it makes little sense to back the latter in order to wade off/ suppress the former."

Who are you arguing with, here? Me or Alan Johnson? Show me where I've "backed" the occupation at any point. I'm totally opposed to the occupation and I'm in favour of its revolutionary overthrow by Iraqi workers. But you keep setting up your straw men if it makes you feel big.

4) "The formation of the anti-occupation forces like the National Foundation Congress and the Association of Muslim Scholars and of course the Iraqi trade unions are further examples."

Ahhh, man - this is precisely my fucking point. The key division isn't "occupation" and "anti-occupation," it's labour and capital. The Iraqi labour movement isn't just one element in an amorphous sea of "anti-occupation forces" - from a Marxist perspective it's the sole hope for the future of democracy and socialism in Iraq. That's clearly a perspective you don't share.

5) "So the Iraqi trade union movement is all that matters then? What about the rights of Iraqis who are being blown to bits by coalition bombs? What about the right of a state of 20 million people to live free of foreign occupation?"

What about the rights of Iraqis who are being blown to bits by Muqtada al-Sadr's bombs?

But anyway, in modern, industrialised capitalism the only way to maximise the progressive content of a national liberation struggle is to develop the working-class element within it. So if you believe in self-determination, solidarity with Iraq's labour movement should be your first priority.

(Unless of course you don't believe in the idea of working-class agency, Aaron, which wouldn't surprise me.)

6) "Well of course only a movement spearheaded by the working class can truly and completely defeat imperialism, permanent revolution and all that."

Yes. Of course. My politics are aimed at helping that movement develop. Yours amount to nothing more than passive cheerleading for forces who want to garrotte it.

7) "But in order to lead such a struggle working class socialists must not only be resolutely opposed to the unpopular and brutal occupation but must also support the unconditional right of Iraqis to resist it."

Again, you're having an argument with someone else here. No-one's questioning that the occupation is "unpopular" or "brutal" or that it needs to be opposed. No-one's questioning the "right to resist".

The Iraqi people have a "right" to resist imperialist occupation. However, petty-bourgeois clerical-fascists and ex-Ba'athists do not have a "right" to terrorise trade unionists, women and members of the "wrong kind" of religious denomination.

8) "the WCPI...denounce anybody (including trade unionists and socialists) who are not within the ranks of their own sect."

Wrong. The WCPI have expressed clear support for the oil workers' struggles even though the SOC Union was not an FWCUI affiliate and had nothing to do with the WCPI. The WCPI supports Iraqi workers against their bosses because they're Marxists, and they know that the key dividing line in society is between labour and capital.

The fact of an imperialist occupation doesn't erase that division. If anything, it sharpens it.

9) "Reply to Randell".

It's "Randall", mate. You can see it at the top of this message. Try a bit harder next time, eh?

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 02/01/2006 - 06:20

In reply to by Daniel_Randall

"Daniel, your assertion that Hassan Juma'a Awad is "a moderate Islamist supporter of Ali al-Sistani" is somewhat in contradiction to your previous claim that "the entire Iraqi labour movement" is hostile to the resistance."

In any case, what's the contradiction? Sistani is not part of the 'resistance'.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 02/01/2006 - 13:30

In reply to by Daniel_Randall

"No, Juma'a is a supporter of the UIA."

I’m not aware of this. Have you got a link? (ideally not one on this site, I cant read the articles on here because I’m on a mac)

"However, it's clear from his statements in the past (such as the one he jointly signed with the IFTU and FWCUI, available online here: http://www.workersliberty.org/node/view/4450) that he's opposed to the targetting of trade unions and innocent civilians by "resistance" militias. I don't think his (mistaken) support for the Shi'a Islamists in the puppet government changes that position."

But the guardian article I sited shows that Juma’a Awad *does* support the right of Iraqis to resist occupation. Not just through strikes but also though armed uprisings such as the ones in Najaf and Fullujah.

"Renowned" by who? Sad hacks on the Western left? It's also "renowned" for the work it's done in developing militant unions, especially amongst the massive section of the Iraqi working-class that's unemployed."

That doesn’t change the fact that their analysis of the occupation and the resistance is piss poor and universally regarded as so, present company excluded.

"Who are you arguing with, here? Me or Alan Johnson? Show me where I've "backed" the occupation at any point. I'm totally opposed to the occupation and I'm in favour of its revolutionary overthrow by Iraqi workers. But you keep setting up your straw men if it makes you feel big."

The AWL refuse to call for the withdrawal of troops and condemn the anti-war movement for doing so. I’m not really interested Matgamna’s tedious linguistic wrangling about the ‘third camp’ or ‘independent working class politics’, in my book this amounts to tactic support for the occupation, little different in practical terms from Alan Johnson’s politics. The main difference I suppose is at least the latter is honest and takes his politics to their logical conclusion.

"Ahhh, man - this is precisely my fucking point. The key division isn't "occupation" and "anti-occupation," it's labour and capital."

Yes but try telling that to an Iraqi worker who has had his/her house blown up and entire family killed by coalition bombs.

"The Iraqi labour movement isn't just one element in an amorphous sea of "anti-occupation forces" - from a Marxist perspective it's the sole hope for the future of democracy and socialism in Iraq."

This is just an eternal truism. The point here is that opposition to the occupation is an unconditional demand. Not least because in situations of national oppression/foreign occupation class antagonisms that bare social revolutionary potential are retarded because opposition tends directed against those that are seen as primary enemies, i.e. the imperialist occupiers.

Oil workers in Basra would have almost certainly had family in Najaf when the U.S launched its assault against that city. Clearly the oil workers naturally viewed the U.S as their main enemy not al-Sadr. Indeed as has already been shown Juma’a Awad praised the resistance which was lead by the Mahdi Army.

To answer the rest of your points I’d just be repeating myself. But if you wouldn’t mind I’ve got a few questions:

1. Does the AWL support the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Imperialist troops from Iraq (like the BOWU, the FWCUI, the UUI, and the GFITU)?

2. Does the AWL support the unconditional right of Iraqis to resist the *occupation*? (whilst condemning terrorist attacks on civilians – like Juma’a Awad)?

Aaron Beck

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 02/01/2006 - 14:48

In reply to by Anonymous (not verified)

Just on the last point. You seem to want to deduce from the principle that an oppressed people has a right to resist the denial of their rights that this is a 'legitimate' instance of such resistance. Specific analysis of who the resistance is fades into an assertion of this general principle, as though in fact no analysis is required.

If there was, unambiguously, a movement of the Iraqi people against, unambiguously, colonial-style oppression, I don't think there'd be an argument; if this was Algeria. But there are several things which make this, at the very least, very untypical.

1. The 'resistance' clearly has its base in a minority population, which, moreover, is a formerly privileged group (all qualifications granted). There have been largely rhetorical instances of Shia-Sunni unity. Otherwise, as the 'resistance' has grown bolder, by all accounts sectarian antagonisms have got worse, too. That there is a huge element in the 'resitistance' which is fear of domination by Shia seems pretty clear.

2. Again, all qualifications granted, and to simplify things, the Shia, on the whole, have had a less antagonistic relationship with the occupying power. Thus Shia parties dominated the interim government, and probably the new one. Thus also, the sectarian conflict blurs with a conflict between 'resistance' and 'collaborators'.

3. This is not even to mention the Kurds. The Kurds, I think, are an embarrassing detail for many 'anti-imperialists'. The fact is, though, whether we like it or not, that a very large national minority has, on the whole, quite warm relations with the occupying power. And you can see why.

So it may be an 'unconditional right' to 'resist'. But the conclusion you want does not follow so automatically. Clearly there are examples of movements which were resisting occupation which only a moron would support on the basis of this principle: the most obvious example being the remnants of the Nazis in allied occupied Europe. The Iraqi resistance is not simply the same as that. But on a 'grid' of examples, it seems to me closer to the Nazi example than to, say, the FLN in Algeria. And the truth, as someone said, is concrete.

I suppose you have an 'unconditional right', too, to think the AWL has the same position as Alan Johnson, or anyone else. But it is certainly not the AWL's opinion, nor Alan Johnson's.

Submitted by Daniel_Randall on Tue, 03/01/2006 - 13:22

In reply to by Anonymous (not verified)

"I’m not aware of this. Have you got a link? (ideally not one on this site, I cant read the articles on here because I’m on a mac)"

Can't find one right now. Will keep looking.

"But the guardian article I sited shows that Juma’a Awad *does* support the right of Iraqis to resist occupation."

Why do you keep talking about this? The argument between you and me isn't about the abstract "right" of people to resist occupations, it's about whether the particular military struggle in Iraq as conducted by forces such as the Army of the Mahdi is progressive. If Juma'a thinks it is then his view is, to coin a phrase, "piss poor."

"That doesn’t change the fact that their [the WCPI's] analysis of the occupation and the resistance is piss poor and universally regarded as so, present company excluded."

Again, this is unsubstantiated assertion. If it was "universally regarded" as "piss poor" by anyone other than sad, white, armchair-general leftists then how is that they've managed to become one of the leading political forces in Iraq's labour movement despite being a tiny organisation?

You also make these assertions without any reference to anything the WCPI have written. What is it, specifically, about their analysis that makes you feel confident enough to denounce it in these terms?

"Yes but try telling that to an Iraqi worker who has had his/her house blown up and entire family killed by coalition bombs."

This is just ridiculous emotional reductionism. It's like saying "try telling a worker whose family will starve if he goes on strike that it's the right thing to do." Sometimes making the arguments for a Marxist analysis is difficult. That doesn't mean we can junk them.

To answer your questions:

"1. Does the AWL support the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Imperialist troops from Iraq (like the BOWU, the FWCUI, the UUI, and the GFITU)?"

We don't think that the point in time at which the troops leave is the key issue. We oppose imperialist occupation and don't believe that the troops have any progressive role to play at any time. We are in favour of working-class forces conducting a militant struggle against them while they remain in Iraq and fighting for social hegemony when they leave. This position - revolutionary hostility to the occupation and working-class solidarity - is concrete; sloganeering that amounts to little more than giving the American ruling-class tactical advice is abstract.

So the short answer to your question is we reject the posing of the issue in that way.

By the way, who are 'BOWU'? Jumaa's federation is called IFOU. And GFITU (the fake, yellow union federation run by SCIRI) doesn't exist anymore; it merged with GFTU (the old fascist labour front) and IFTU to form the Iraqi Workers' Federation.

"2. Does the AWL support the unconditional right of Iraqis to resist the *occupation*? (whilst condemning terrorist attacks on civilians – like Juma’a Awad)?"

Yes, but as the person above me says this isn't actually the issue. I support the "unconditional right" of British people to resist capitalism, but if a neo-Nazi or Islamist blew up a bank or even assassinated Tony Blair in an act of "resistance" I wouldn't support it.

It's becoming increasingly clear that the key difference between my position and yours is that yours is based on the reverence of abstract "rights". Mine is based on class struggle.

This website uses cookies, you can find out more and set your preferences here.
By continuing to use this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.