“Reactionary socialism… half lamentation, half lampoon; half echo of the past, half menace of the future.”
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto
We had fed the heart on fantasies,
The heart’s grown brutal from the fare;
More substance in our enmities
Than in our love…
W B Yeats
The left is defined, grouped and regrouped, and redefined again and again, by responses to major events — for example, to the October Revolution of 1917. The left is now undergoing another redefinition, around its responses to the series of wars that began with the Kosova war of 1999 and continued through to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Those who stand for working-class socialist politics are lining up on one side, and on the other are those who are for a nameless, classless, almost depoliticised and entirely negative “anti-imperialism”.
The shouting-down of Subhi al Mashadani, general secretary of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions, at the European Social Forum on 15 October, neatly epitomised this process of differentiation.
Al Mashadani had been invited not as a member or supporter of the Communist Party of Iraq — which we understand he is — but as a trade unionist, as a representative of the trade unions which Iraqi workers have been rebuilding since the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime.
Free trade unions were impossible under the totalitarian regime of Saddam. On things like that, Saddam modelled himself on Josef Stalin.
Those who howled down al Mashadani and would not let him speak — the meeting had to be abandoned — were, some of them anyway, people who think of themselves as Trotskyists (though the SWP, which has done most to create the political hysteria in which such things happen, has criticised those who shouted him down).
In fact they are true Stalinists, and not only in their thuggish disregard for free speech. They stand squarely on the Stalinist tradition in their attitude to the Iraqi working class and to the fate of the newly reborn Iraqi working-class movement.
They say they are anti-imperialists, and their objection to al Mashadani is that the trade union movement which he represented at the the ESF meeting does not call for the immediate withdrawal of US and British troops from Iraq; that it does not side with the military activities of the combination of Islamic fundamentalists and Saddamites who make up “the resistance”.
There are a number of Iraqi trade union groupings, divided by political affiliations. Not one of them supports the Islamist and Ba’thist “resistance” militias.
Why not? Because they know that the victory of the spiritual and political totalitarians who lead “the resistance” would create conditions in which trade unions could not exist. In which no labour movement would be possible. In which many of the militants who organise the trade union movements would immediately be killed or jailed — not as “collaborators” but as trade-unionists and “communists”.
Those who howled down al Mashadani are Stalinists also because they believe that the supreme revolutionary virtue is not, as Solidarity maintains, commitment to the working class and to the creation, growth, and education of a labour movement, but “anti-imperialism”.
They do not express it like this, but they held to a rigid and fixed Stalinist-type “stages” conception of socialist politics for Iraq.
First “the resistance” must defeat “imperialism”; and only then should those working-class activists who survive the tender attentions of those who set off bombs to kill Iraqi civilians, in Baghdad and elsewhere, organise trade unions and a political working class movement to fight for working-class power and socialism in Iraq.
(The fact that some of the hooligans may think that such a policy is “permanent revolution”, and that the war of “resistance” will somehow lead to socialism, does not make their programme any less idiotic and any less anti-working class or any less self-betraying.)
They are like the old Communist Parties — but worse; for they, after all, had a certain, albeit reactionary, coherence to their ideas. One-sided “anti-imperialism”, for the old CPs, meant politics which helped what they identified as socialism, the USSR — which was, in fact, Russian Stalinist imperialism. What was more important for them than the working class and its development was finding ways to help the real “socialist” power in the world, the USSR.
It all made a sort of horrible sense, according to their conceptions of socialism and of progress. The “anti-imperialism” of those who would not listen to a representative of the Iraqi working class at the ESF makes no sense. They are entirely incoherent and politically nonsensical.
Yet, treating al Mashadani as one would treat a fascist has its own coherence and its own terrible reactionary logic. Why did they object to him? Because the trade-union movement which he represented in London — like the other trade-union groupings in Iraq — refuses to eviscerate itself on the altar of an “anti-imperialism” whose social and political banner is that of out-and-out religious, social, and political reaction.
The militant and revolutionary-sounding slogans about “victory to the resistance”, and the calls for US and British withdrawal “now”, translate, in the real Iraq, into support for the unleashing of civil war and for the victory of clerical-fascist reaction (or perhaps, “at best”, of the Ba’thists again).
Unless socialists are to shut down their minds and their commitment to the working class, and operate by mechanical, eyes-closed deductions from super-abstract notions like “imperialism” and anti-imperialism — in the spirit of Orwell’s “Two legs bad, four legs good” — we must ask ourselves what such slogans mean in practice. That is the only rational, responsible, socialist and Marxist way to pose the issues.
Revolutionary socialists did not support the attempts to organise a Nazi “resistance” to the US, British and Russian occupiers of Germany, in 1945.
To say that the only thing socialists can do is back the clerical fascists against Britain and the USA involves giving up on the new Iraqi labour movement. It means concluding that something like the revolutionary Islamist regime that took power in Iran in 1979 — and still, slightly softened up, holds power there today — is the least bad outcome that it is now possible to hope for in Iraq.
It is to tell the Iraqi working-class and its movement that it should surrender to the clerical-fascists — and to refuse even to listen to those Iraqis who dare to disagree with the kitsch-left’s toy-town anti-imperialists.
Of course, it is possible to imagine a situation in Iraq in which the “resistance” would be not what it is now, a relatively small spectrum of Islamists, Saddamite Ba’thists and others, but a movement of more or less all the peoples of Iraq, pitted against an American imperialism committed to slug it out with them in a butcherous imperialist war of conquest.
In such a situation, socialists might have to decide that even the victory of outright reaction in an Iraq freed from the horrors of war would be better than the continuation of that terrible war.
That is what happened in Vietnam, with other parts of Indochina, such as Cambodia, being drawn into the slaughter.
Is that how things stand in Iraq?
Have things reached the stage at which socialists have to recognise that all the possibilities for the development of a working-class movement that were opened up by the destruction of the Saddam regime have been crushed, and the best thing left is a war against imperialist conquest, dominated by the religious, social, and political ultra-reactionaries — clerical-fascists, to give them their generic name — who will, having defeated their enemies, including the Iraqi trade unions, then fall heir to the state power in Iraq?
Are we at the stage where socialists have to recognise that the victory of political Islamists who will, in power, destroy even the quasi-secularism and root out the quasi-liberation for women that existed even under Saddam’s Ba’thist bloody totalitarianism, is the lesser evil now because it is preferable to continued slaughter on a Vietnamese or Cambodian scale — and there are no better possibilities in the situation that now exists?
In fact, the situation in Iraq can lead socialists to no such conclusions. The evidence is that most Iraqis do not support the “resistance” — those who set off bombs in Baghdad without warning and with the goal of killing as many Iraqi civilians as possible. Not even the brutal stupidity of the US occupying forces has so far driven them to such a despairing conclusion.
Certainly the new Iraqi labour movement has not reached such a conclusion. The Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions believes that the establishment of some sort of bourgeois-democratic system — even with the continued presence of US and British troops, which they oppose — is a better way forward for the Iraqi people. In that they are entirely correct.
Socialism would be better. But if the working class is not yet able to win socialism, then the IFTU is right that the establishment and consolidation of the sort of bourgeois-democratic rights that now exist de facto, despite the bloody chaos in Iraq, and without which the trade unions cannot survive — that that is the best possible option for the Iraqi working class. They are right not to rush to despair and commit the social, political and trade unionist suicide which the idiots of classless “anti-imperialism” urge on them.
For socialism to become possible, the Iraqi working class and labour movement will have to have time and space to educate and clarify themselves politically. Even the terrible situation there now is more conducive to that than the victory of clerical-fascist “anti-imperialism”.
The hard truth, however, is that the “anti-imperialist” left arrive at the crazy position of rushing to identify with Iraq’s clerical fascists and Ba’thists — even against the Iraqi labour movement, as in the shouting down of Subhi al Mashadani — not by reason but by reflex, by unreflected-upon tradition, and by pixillatedly wrong-headed politics.
Some of them believe that military struggle is, in itself, a politically higher order of things than the alternative road that is still, probably, possible — the evolution of Iraq, pushed along by working-class organisation and struggle, towards some sort of bourgeois democracy and the resumption of independence.
They are excited and thrilled by the violent “revolutionary” struggle. The “resistance” is defined for them as “revolutionary” and progressive not by what the clerical-fascists are and aim for, but by the bare fact that they are in arms against the USA and Britain. Even clerical fascists striving for the power to repress everything progressive in Iraq — workers’ rights, women’s rights, free speech, any degree of secularism, freedom to organise — even they are rendered “progressive” by their all-enobling military opposition to “imperialism”. This is what might be called “apolitical” or “de-politicised” “anti-imperialism”.
They have learned very little from either the relatively recent experience in Iran, or the more distant experience in China in 1927 — response to which was one of the pillars of Trotsky’s movement.
In Iran a powerful mass movement, led by Ayatollah Khomeiny and the Shi’ite Muslim clergy, challenged the repressive but secularising regime of the Shah. The left backed the movement for a variety of reasons — because the Shah was in alliance with the USA against the Stalinist USSR, or because there were serious working-class mobilisations against the Shah.
In fact when the Islamists came to power, they quickly crushed all independent movements, and subjected a comparatively advanced and secular society to rigid medievalism. Iranian women were thrown back generations. The independent working-class movement was crushed. Political opponents of Khomeiny were butchered — in the first place, those socialists who had supported him in the struggle against the Shah.
A quarter of a century later, Khomeiny’s heirs still rule Iran.
In China, in the 1920s, a bourgeois-nationalist movement, the Guomindang, led by Chiang Kai Shek, fought to reunify the country. The relatively strong working-class Communist Party of China allied with the Guomindang and, under the leadership of Stalin and Bukharin in the Communist International, submerged themselves politically and organisationally in it.
The result was that just after the Communist Party, at the head of the working class there, had helped deliver Shanghai to the Guomindang forces, Chiang Kai Shek turned on the CP and the workers who supported it and killed many thousands of them.
The policy which the kitsch left urges on the Iraqi workers is a policy of political and possibly physical suicide. These “militant idiots”, despite what they intend, are with their classless and nameless “anti-imperialism”, for practical purposes, simply reactionaries.
They are erstwhile socialists in process of inadvertently redefining themselves as “anti-imperialist” reactionaries.
The root of it is that they are people who now operate almost entirely with negative politics. They know what they are against. Apart from a vague and undefined, and increasingly “classless”, socialism, they do not know what they are for. By negative repulsion against the USA and Britain, they back themselves into a de facto unity with the politics of downright anti-working class reaction.
Those who shouted down al Mashadani on 16 October thought they represented virtuous anti-imperialism, but, no longer caring what they represent positively or with whom they ally themselves, were in fact siding with the clerical fascists against the emerging Iraqi labour movement.
The brutal rulers of the USA and Britain are perfectly capable of bungling and blundering into the destruction of all the progressive possibilities that now exist — or may still exist — in Iraq, and thus into making their stated aim of a bourgeois-democratic Iraq impossible. They may already have dealt irreversible blows to those prospects. That is one reason why the pixillated right-wing inverse of the pixillated “anti-imperialists”, those who let commitment to the Iraqi working class lead them into backing Britain and the USA, that is, into political suicide as socialists, are in their own way no less foolish and even more ridiculous than their mirror-images.
The toy-town anti-imperialists at least maintain a pseudo-revolutionary opposition to their own ruling class. That is something. It is not enough, but it is better than self-prostration before the British and US ruling classes. Many of the young people misled by the toy-town “anti-imperialists” can and will be helped to know better.
The left that in this process is being sifted and sorted, defined and redefined, is on the “anti-imperialism first” side a purely negative populism, a politically empty receptacle willing to let itself take on the positive imprint of any “anti-imperialist” force — even, in Iraq, of clerical-fascists, as earlier (during the 2003 war) of Saddam’s Ba’thists. (Socialist Worker even made a stab at “explaining away”, that is, half-heartedly justifying, the Taliban’s treatment of Afghan women (SW, 6 October 2001).) They have let themselves be drawn into the position of opponents of the Iraqi working-class movement, so long as it refuses to become a political tool of the clerical-fascists.
The characteristics of the other side in the differentiation of the forces of the left that is now taking place are as follows. We are above all else for the development of the labour movement and the political development of the working class. We are for the freedoms without which that will not happen — without which the labour movements and the working class cannot develop politically towards socialism and the overthrow of the bourgeoisie. Everything else is subordinate to that. There is nothing — except the socialism that the working class must win — higher for us than that. “Anti-imperialism” that is indifferent or hostile to the working class and the labour movement is a contradiction in terms: it is the working class and only the working class that will finally bury capitalism and imperialism.
In the early 1980s, we rejected and fought against the outlook of those who supported the Polish Stalinist state against the working-class movement, Solidarnosc, because Solidarnosc threatened state-owned nationalised property, which most of the left thought of as an all-overriding good. (The SWP was on the same side then.) Today we reject the view that the “anti-imperialism” of clerical fascists is superior to a labour movement that wants to see bourgeois democracy develop in Iraq.
Socialists who do not support those trade unions; those who seem not to care whether the Iraqi labour movement survives and develops, or is crushed by the clerical fascists or a new Ba’thist regime; the hooligans who howled down al Mashadani; and those like the SWP who have the same politics while hypocritically distancing themselves from the hooligans — all are abandoning socialism for an “anti-imperialism” which, by analogy with what Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto called “reactionary socialism”, is a species of “reactionary anti-imperialism”.
Comments
Reactionary anti-imperialists
By the time I got half way down the article I was actually seriously considering joining the AWL - and then you had to spoil it all with the inept comment about those of us 'who let commitment to the Iraqi working class lead them into backing Britain and the USA'.
This utterly undermines your whole argument - if the best workers can reasonably hope for in Iraq is a bourgeois democracy (and only the most infantile ultra-leftists imagine otherwise) then we have to support the forces internally and externally that are fighting to bring this about.
It is the same situation as 1939-45: supporting the bourgeois democracies (and from 1941 the stalinist dictatorship) in their war against fascist totalitarianism wasn't an act of political suicide then and it is not now.
As you so eloquently argue, for leftists in Iraq true political suicide there would be to support the Islamo-fascist and Baathist 'resistance'.
Here and in the US it is precisely the great mass of the anti-war left who have already committed political suicide by placing themselves on the side of reaction and terror - it will take us yet another generation to rebuild the credit that the idiots of the SWP and the other Trotskyist grouposchules have thrown away.
Still at least you're 50% right....
realignements and bedtime stories
To paraphrase: news of our death is exaggerated! We are alive and kicking and it seems we have a better grasp of the prizes Iraq offers than you have.
Overall, Sean’s editorial was fantastic. Blogsphere has welcomed it with acclaim and a little confusion. Socialism in a Time of Waiting assumes the para on ‘pixillated’ pro-regime changers was a late insertion to protect the author’s internal left flank. HarrysPlace thinks the position is at odds with the empirical reality of Iraq and interprets your talk of ‘political suicide’ as the expression of a self-censorship policed by fear of loosing space on the left. Personally, I don't think its a good idea to look for meanings in such psychologically loaded phrases.
Not having supported the war, I come at the article from a different angle. To me it’s a shame that Sean did not interrogate realignment, the subject of his opening paragraphs. It may prove to be true that a handful of his ‘misled’ reactionary anti-imperialist youth will come to you, but you will not realign the bulk. By concentrating your efforts (not the article) on recruiting some of them you are missing the main show. You prioritise one to one recruitment rather than driving through strategic change for the left of the movement as a whole.
Realignments are taking place amongst the pro-regime change left and the many people who make up ‘us’ – their ‘pixillated’ allies who opposed the war yet cheered when the stone SH toppled. Strip away the uniform, the songs, the history, your preferred codes and reference systems and look at the core of our positions. You are far closer to ‘us’ than you are to the reactionary anti-imperialist left: even closer than might seem obvious on first readings.
Essentially, those of ‘us’ who care about reading back into history might say that Sean’s previous article on the ILP in WW2 is up there with the most useful things he has written. It is as good as the work on anti-semitism, the Workers’ Government, Israel and Ireland. Find the bravery to embrace this, abandon Cannon’s double talking bed-time stories and you will see that your potential allies are not where you look for them. The jury is out on if the regime change can work and the prize of shaping the realignment will fall to collectives of people who can make most sense of its success or failure.
Lessons Socialist Have Forgotten
In the last few years there have been a number of instances where conflicts have caused confusion amongst the ranks of the left. As Martin Thomas says elsewhere such times are important for the left in reassessing, and regrouping sifting out the healthier elements. Of course that is only true if the right lessons are learned, and the organisations which grow most quickly under such circumstances are in no way guaranteed to be the ones that have learned the correct lessons.
One of the reasons the Left has strugg;ed to come to terms with some of the challenges presented by the conflicts of the last few years is in my opinion that lessons once learned seem to have been forgotten. I am not talking here about the lessons on imperialism, or the national question, or permanent revolution, which Clive Bradley has discussed eloquently and clearly elsewhere. Rather I am talking about lessons of independent socialist organisation and action.
Take the example of Kosovo. On the one hand you had a vicious and reactionary regime under Milosevic carrying out what amounted to genocide. How were workers to react to this. On the one hand there is the option of merely proclaiming disdain for such action, but with the belief that nothing can be done short of the workers of Kosovo uniting for the socialist revolution. Such a position is unlikely to gain much support from those being killed on a daily basis by a reactionary oppressor, nor even from those within the ranks of the oppressor looking for an alternative, and something that can be done in the here and now.
On the other hand there is the position adopted most frequently left social democrats of relying on the United Nations to intervene as a neutral force. The problem with this of course is that the UN is not a neutral force. The major imperialist powers will either only allow the UN to intervene where there is no conflict with their own interests, or will encourage intervention under circumstances where there influence can ensure that the intervention meets their needs. And of course as in Iraq where the UN does not act in a way that meets the oconditions of the US as the hyperpower the US simply intervenes on its own terms.
The problem for socialist here is that especially when the military intervention has begun or when an occupation is in place as in Kosovo or Iraq a conflict that is almost a moral conflict arises. On the one hand the intevention must be denounced, but on the other hand the absence of the intevention or withdrawal will lead to civil war, furtherr genocide etc. which no decent human being let alone socialist would want to encourage.
But this choice does not reflect the full range of choices open. Where workers are being threatened during a protracted strike by gangs of thugs brought in by the employers, socialists do not rely on the police to intervene to prevent it. Socialists certainly would not present to the workers involved the idea that the police are neutral in this situation. On the contrary socialists use the experience to try to teach the workers something about the nature of the capitalist state. Socialists teach the workers to rely on their own organisation to defeat the thuggery, and if necessary to extend this to the idea of creating Workers Defence Squads. Socialists would advocate the same kind of organisation to defend say black communities against fascist attacks.
During the 1930's having witnessed what happened in Germany workers did not wait for some international bourgeois policeman to intervene to counter the threat from Franco's fascists in Spain. They organised the International Brigade, which was really nothing more than a Workers defence Squad on an International scale, to help the Spanish workers. The socialists who went to fight in Spain, by no means all of them revolutionaries, contributed far more to the effort to defeat Franco than any number of analyses, and well thought out phrases.
Many of those in the Labour Party who supported the war did so because they had the understandable desire to relieve the suffering of the Kosovan Albanians, just as now they had the same feelings for the Iraqis. But more importantly no credible alternative for relieving this suffering other than military intervention was supplied by revolutionary socialists. The only people that have brought forward an alternative "practical" and immediate solution in many of these situations for example in Palestine have not been socialists, but well meaning peace activists who have put their life on the line literally by going into the conflict arena.
And of course the lesson of the International Brigade has been learned by others. Instead of socialists being the ones who organise, and put their Internationalism into practice by offering practical, physical support to workers in these situations it is the reactionary, Islamic fundamentalists.
Revolutionary socialists should give no support to the forces of the international bourgeois policeman, but counterpose their own independence including a demand that socialist and trade union organisations create international organisations capable of providing practical support to workers internationally in cases of conflict.
Arthur Bough
War is not for democracy
The one glaring error that the pro-war left make is the assertion that the war is about, or was ever about, bringing democracy to Iraq. It is true that the level of opposition to the war has meant that the US (and it is dishonest to pretend that anyone other than the US government and bourgeousie are calling the shots in the re-building of Iraq) has had to tread carefully in order for the new Iraqi government not be perceived as being a puppet government. But whichever way you look at it, a puppet government is what it is. The choice of candidates on offer in the elections will be determined by the USA and the elected Iraqi governments policy will be subject to approval by the USA. Anti-Americanism? No. Just simple facts.
So, how can anyone who supports the idea of working class liberation and self organisation support the war and give credibility to the puppet Iraqi government? From reading various pro war arguments it seems that all this is justifiable on the basis that it is better for Iraqi workers than Sadaam's quasi fascist regime. We can agree on that point but no more than we can agree with the anti-war left that the interests of the Iraqi working class are not best served by US imperialism.
The AWL is correct to distance itself from the arguments and political philosophy of the pro war left. Personally I would be inclined to take the pro war lefts arguments more seriously if it wasn't littered with childish and sectarian (and often very malicious) denounciations of "Trots" and "sects". This kind of polemic has little to do with politics. One can only guess at the motives of people that have a pathological hatred of those who choose to join active socialist organisations and attempt to put their ideas to practical use.
but who said they did...
Arthur, the motives of the US etc are not as important as the outcomes of their actions. Sure, the war was not fought for democracy. But that does not mean it might not be possible to achieve it. I did not support the war but I know it is a good thing that SH has gone. It is also a good thing that the UN will bring in elections, the new Gvt write a consitution and hopefully civil society will bloom.
Why do you have such trouble pleased about these things? Yes, campaign for union rights and so on, but recognise you will not have a chance to win them unless the UN process is successful.
For the life of me, I cannot see what is wrong with this framework for understanding what's what in Iraq.
Copyediting Nitpicks
It's not "Friedrich", it's "Frederick" Engels - you wouldn't call the English composer Handel Haendel just because that was his name when he was born in Germany.
It's not "Socialism in a Time of Waiting", it's "Socialism in an Age of Waiting" (http://marxist-org-uk.blogspot.com).
So
Would you call them Chareles Marks and Frederick Angels then?
Arthur Bough
Dont Think Twice, It's Alright
Don’t Think Twice, It’s Alright:
A reply to Sean Matgamna’s ‘Reactionary Anti-Imperialism’
Alan Johnson and Jane Ashworth
Sean Matgamna’s article (‘Reactionary Anti-Imperialism) was a useful brick to throw at reactionary anti-imperialists but was dishonest on three counts.
First, Matgamna pretends the AWL has had a consistent position of clear support for the IFTU. In fact, the AWL joined the idiot chorus that attacked the IFTU after Labour Party conference. Martin Thomas wrote: “The actual effect of the Labour Friends of Iraq/ Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions intervention at the Labour Party conference was to give Blair a free hand to carry on backing Bush. Whatever sophistry may be used to evade this fact, it was de facto support to Bush's policy - brutal, arrogant, militaristic, privatize-at-all-costs, "spot of trouble? Slaughter a few hundred more civilians and that'll show them!" - which, far from being a democratic alternative to the rise of Islamist reaction, has fuelled that rise”.
Stupid. Hysterical. An unwitting part - and one balanced by better things Thomas has written - of the fingering of the IFTU that contributed to the disgraceful assault at the ESF. So much for Matgamna’s assertion that they support the IFTU. The unpleasant truth is that Thomas not Matgamna represents the mainstream of the AWL on the issue of Iraq. Matgamna is often silent while this political nonsense sets the AWL’s tone.
Read these web comments from AWLers:
AWL member: “We recognize the IFTU leaders for what they are - right-wing Stalinist bureaucrats prepared to collaborate with an imperialist occupation”.
AWL member: “It would be stupid of socialists and workers, either in Iraq or here, to use the existence of a potentially more brutal force around Al Sadr to excuse the brutality of that occupation. But that as far as I can see was what the IFTU representatives, that you [Alan Johnson] are close to, did at the Party conference”.
Mick Duncan, the organiser of the No Sweat group did not even mention the attack on the IFTU at the ESF, in his ESF conference report for the No Sweat list.
Solidarity editorialised “We disagree with the IFTU's rallying to Allawi and the Interim Government as a "lesser evil" than Sadr”.
AWL member: “I think the IFTU strategy is wrong because I don't think unions should have plans for "working along with" ruling classes anywhere”.
AWL member: “The Allawi administration is not just an ordinary ruling class the same as any other. It is, additionally, the puppet of an occupying foreign power. That makes the IFTU's strategy worse”.
AWL member: “The IFTU representatives' actions at Labour Party conference are a 'level of collaboration' with the government party of an occupying power that goes well beyond what is necessary to secure the space for unions to develop in Iraq … I don't think that the US/UK occupation can or intends to create a democratic society in Iraq’.
In our opinion the best hope for democracy and the trade unions in Iraq is the UN-backed political transition process. It is codified in UN resolution1546, overseen by the UN and the Interim government, backed by the Kurds, Sistani, the IFTU, and everyone in Iraq bar the ‘resistance’. Matgamna knows this. The IFTU knows this. Everyone in the world bar the idiotarian far left knows this.
The AWL’s error is to counterpose the need for independent working class organisations to the UN process as if recognising the validity of the political process necessarily denies such independence. One AWLer, and no neophyte at that, when pushed in a web-debate, confuses the democratic with the socialist programme and demanded workers control of the economy as the alternative to the UN process!
The (difficult) task of the Iraqi democrats is to bring democratic pro-worker politics into the UN-backed political process and timetable. And the job of the western left is to support them because they are right to take this approach. It is not good enough to (just) to mimic both the old Militant Tendency, shouting ‘socialism!’ and the old IS, shouting ‘build workplace organisation!’. The AWL used to know the limits of both abstract propaganda for socialism and narrow syndicalism. But, today, this is what the AWL offer on Iraq. Matgamna wont draw a clear political programme for Iraq from his critique of ‘reactionary anti-imperialism’.
Second, Matgamna side-steps any honest accounting about the troops. He pretends the AWL has had a consistent position on the troops. In fact the AWL has been all over the place.
The AWL has argued that the call for troops out now should be ‘condemned’ AND argued that US troops only bring ‘helicopter gunships and cluster bombs’.
In Solidarity (52) the editor argued that socialists must treat the Iraq War like earlier socialists treated World War One and say ‘Not a penny for the System’. In the jargon this is a ‘revolutionary defeatist’ position. Yet Matgamna argued (Solidarity 50 and 53) that the stance taken by the Independent Labour Party (ILP) in Britain during World War Two – critical support for the allies against Nazism while continuing to work for socialism – was the better guide for socialists today. In the jargon this is a ‘revolutionary defensist’ position. The first position should logically have led to a call for the withdrawal of the coalition troops, but it hasn’t. The second position should have led to a position of ‘critical support’ to the coalition’s project (while continuing the fight for socialism) but it hasn’t. At the very least the AWL should have faced the fact that it had two positions. It didn’t. The silence on Matgamna’s article about the ILP and WW2 has been astonishing.
In the resultant confusion AWL members have been left picketing British Army barracks to protest troops going to Iraq while selling a newspaper that argues (Matgamna, in Solidarity No. 50) "right now the proclaimed programme of the US-UK in Iraq and their Iraqi clients and allies - the setting up of a viable democratic Iraqi government, and ultimate US withdrawal - is relatively progressive, and that of their armed opponents is reactionary by any measure you choose to use.(...) For all these reasons we condemn slogans like "troops out now" as inappropriate to the situation in Iraq". So the AWL pickets a barracks demanding no troops are sent to Iraq while selling a newspaper that ‘condemns’ calls for troop withdrawal. No troops out, and no troops in. What about those troops in transit? Keep going? Turn back?
The truth is there are two AWLs.
One AWL has argued that precipitate withdrawal of troops would open the gates to a ‘vast regression’ of Iraqi society and the death of the labour movement while a Solidarity supporter voted at Labour Party conference for, yes, the precipitate withdrawal of troops.
One AWL joins protests against multinationals ‘touting for business’ in Iraq (note, protests that do not just call for labour rights but actually demand capitalists stay out, or get out, of Iraq) while the other AWL, seemingly oblivious, argues the coalition project is ‘relatively progressive’ because, for one reason amongst many it opens the doors to trade unionism – and you cannot have trade unions without industry or jobs!.
Matgamna supports troops staying where they are to stop the Saddamist-Fundamentalist ‘resistance’ winning. Pete Radcliff dodges this question by this argument: “We don’t support a ‘fixed date for withdrawal’, or even an early date for withdrawal because, for one reason, that implies that before that date we support the troops. We don’t support the troops at any time.”
Take careful note of this. One AWL does not support the troops ‘at any time’ while another AWL ‘condemns’ calls for their withdrawal.
In fact, the AWL opposes ‘one penny’ being spent on the very soldiers whose withdrawal from Iraq they would ‘condemn’.
When a Solidarity supporter at Labour Party conference voted for an early date for withdrawal she denounced the IFTU for failing to support her, using this argument: “The fig leaf used by the Blairites to cover their naked “save Tony” strategy was the support of some Iraqi trade unions for the Allawi government. In order to persuade the Big Four union delegations that they should oppose the critical motion, representatives of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions attended delegation meetings to argue against early withdrawal of troops, and to put the case that the decision on this should be down to Iraq’s elected Government rather than Labour Party conference”. In other words the Solidarity supporter was outraged that the IFTU advanced Matgamna’s own argument, the argument carried in an editorial of the newspaper she supports.
The ambivalence is driving some mad. Martin Thomas opts for lies and fatuous abuse of LFIQ and all its works for advancing the very arguments set out by Matgamna. Presumably he fears that some AWLers who back Matgamna will want to get involved. A ‘“solidarity” campaign which crawls so far and so fast up Blair’s arse will not deliver much solidarity', belched Thomas, shortly after attacking the IFTU as ‘de facto backers of Bush and slaughter’.
AWL coverage of Party Conference privileged your desire to blood Blair’s nose above the living reality of Iraq. That is a form of chauvinism you would never have allowed over Ireland. You could have taken on the reactionary anti-imperialists over Party Conference but you chose instead to stay and keep them warm: perhaps you dare be isolated with anyone, but us…
We would have watched all this from the sidelines had it not been for Matgamna’s attack on the very people (us) who have developed the political position he now agrees with. He attacks myself and Jane Ashworth (who have joined with others to set up Labour Friends of Iraq) as ‘pixilated right wing political suicides’ who have ‘self-prostrated before the US and UK ruling classes’). The extravagant violence of the language is good knock about stuff written not only to amuse the members and licence them to try to cut up rough, but has another purpose. It is a protective shield.
The awkward fact for Matgamna is that everything politically important he says in October 2004 I or Jane Ashworth - the ‘pixilated right wing political suicides’ who have ‘self-prostrated before the US and UK ruling classes’ - have been saying, often in heated debate with his own members, since March 2004.
Compare the following quotes:
ON THE NEED FOR REALIGNMENT ON THE LEFT
Johnson (March 2004): “We now have a Pro-Tyrant left and democratic socialists should draw a line and oppose it and build something else rather than march with it. It is indeed time to move on. Such a rational and democratic left can only be built in through practical solidarity with the progressive forces in Iraq. Much of the existing left – incoherent anti-imperialists rather then democratic socialists, unable to condemn the most foul terrorist outrages without excusing them in the same breathe - is finished for that kind of progressive politics. It is time to move on”.
Matgamna (October 2004): “The left is defined, grouped and regrouped, and redefined again and again, by responses to major events — for example, to the October Revolution of 1917. The left is now undergoing another redefinition, around its responses to the series of wars that began with the Kosova war of 1999 and continued through to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Those who stand for working-class socialist politics are lining up on one side, and on the other are those who are for a nameless, classless, almost depoliticised and entirely negative “anti-imperialism”.
ON HOW TO BUILT THE THIRD CAMP
Johnson (March 2004): Political third campers want to build a third camp in real political time and in the concrete circumstances we find in Iraq. That means using the breathing space offered by the coalition occupation, for now, to build up the progressive political forces that would constitute a ‘third camp’. In short, we have to understand what the progressive forces inside Iraq have already understood, that while a progressive Iraqi political force might emerge by intelligent political struggle under and against the umbrella of a managed transition to sovereignty and democracy, such a force would be, literally, executed under conditions of civil war or Baathist dictatorship.
Matgamna (October 2004): For socialism to become possible, the Iraqi working class and labour movement will have to have time and space to educate and clarify themselves politically. Even the terrible situation there now is more conducive to that than the victory of clerical-fascist “anti-imperialism”.
ON THE IFTU
Johnson (March 2004): Do I trust the coalition? No, of course not. The task of the third camp is to fight in and against the coalition umbrella for a secular democratic Iraq. Note: ‘fight’! Note: ‘and against’! Shachtman in 1951 was for fighting. You seem to think I am for sitting back and trusting the coalition will deliver democracy. No! But I am for fighting for democracy in the breathing space provided by the coalition – and immediately that means recognising that political space exists and that ‘troops out now’ would close it – by building the size, independence, power, finances, and networks of the progressive democratic opposition. I want a future… when that opposition can cast off not only the Baath and al-Queda but also the control exerted by the coalition. But politics is always a strategic activity, always conducted in real political time. First this, so we can move on to, that. If ‘third camp socialism’ is to move on it must decide to live in ‘real political time’... That does not mean giving up on our goals. But it might mean we move towards our goals and not someone else’s. And that would be a start.
Matgamna (October 2004): The Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions believes that the establishment of some sort of bourgeois-democratic system — even with the continued presence of US and British troops, which they oppose — is a better way forward for the Iraqi people. In that they are entirely correct.
ON HOW TO FIGHT FOR SOCIALISM IN IRAQ
Johnson (March 2004): The political third camper accept that being for the ‘third camp’ means doing the difficult and messy work of building an alliance of democratic and progressive political forces out of a situation of extreme weakness. This dictates we attend urgently to what we might call ‘real political time’ and develop our political programme in its light. This kind of third camper wants to be a political lever not an abstract propagandist. (…)We are working for the construction and eventual victory of the third camp not the coalition. But if we decide to live in ‘real political time’ not ‘third camp time’ we have do that work in a particular way, connecting up the brute facts about the present role of the coalition, the present strength of our forces, and our own future goals. That present is the only terrain on which we fight to carve a better future, as opposed to merely making abstract propaganda for one.
Matgamna (October 2004): Socialism would be better. But if the working class is not yet able to win socialism, then the IFTU is right that the establishment and consolidation of the sort of bourgeois-democratic rights that now exist de facto, despite the bloody chaos in Iraq, and without which the trade unions cannot survive — that that is the best possible option for the Iraqi working class.
The real difference between us and Matgamna was captured by an AWL member months ago. “At least Alan Johnson takes his position to its logical conclusion and offers critical support to the occupation in its attempts to put down the Islamists and Ba'athists and oversee a transition to something vaguely resembling national sovereignty. At least Alan admits that he does, advocating leaving the task of opposing the Ba'athist-Islamist-civil war threat to the imperialists, claiming that the workers have "no choice" but to do this”.
In other words, the real difference is that we have been willing to draw practical political conclusions and fight for them. There is no chance of a workers militia fighting back the insurgents and once that truth lays waste to flat-pack politics there are consequences to be faced: now, just as in WW2.
The road to the self-determination of the Iraqi people passes through the democratic process being overseen by the UN and the coalition. The role of the left is to build up our forces to fight within that process. Back in March Alan Johnson cited this passage written by Max Shachtman in 1951 (when he was still a left-wing socialist leading the Independent Socialist League):
"We are opposed to such defeats of the bourgeoisie whose consequences are, and cannot but be, a disaster and an inferno of exploitation for the working class. We do not exist to see that revenge is taken upon the bourgeoisie for its social crimes, but to see that the working class emancipates itself from all class rule (…) We do not for a moment suspend the class struggle, even in wartime. But, not being Stalinists and not being cretins, we do not prosecute it in such a way as to produce a defeat of the government by Stalinism. We are for the working class defeating the bourgeoisie in the class war and that is all we work for. We do not work for it in such a way as assures the defeat of the bourgeoisie by a reaction that would crush the proletariat itself”.
Today, Matgamna is saying something almost identical. ‘We are above all else for the development of the labour movement and the political development of the working class. We are for the freedoms without which that will not happen — without which the labour movements and the working class cannot develop politically towards socialism and the overthrow of the bourgeoisie. Everything else is subordinate to that. There is nothing — except the socialism that the working class must win — higher for us than that. “Anti-imperialism” that is indifferent or hostile to the working class and the labour movement is a contradiction in terms’.
Matgamna must make up his mind. His organisation must make up its mind.
You can think troops should come out as part of a political settlement as Sean does, or you can be for their precipitate withdrawal, as the Solidarity member at Labour Party conference was, voting with the reactionary anti-imperialists to give Blair a bloody nose.
You can think the IFTU ‘correct’ as Sean does, or ‘de facto backers of Bush and slaughter’ as Thomas does.
You can think the best guide to our thinking on Iraq is the ILP during World War Two as Sean does (‘revolutionary defencism’) or think that Lenin’s analysis of World War One the better guide as the Solidarity editor did (‘revolutionary defeatism’).
But you can’t think all of these things at once. Not in logic nor in political reality.
Sean, your first thought is the right one. Don’t think twice, its alright.
Alan Johnson
Jane Ashworth
Where you're bound you cannot tell
I had started to do a line-by-line refutation of Alan Johnson's and Jane Ashworth's points some time ago here. But I actually don't think it is necessary although some reponse may be necessary. The premises are ultimately quite simple and a significant shift from any independent 'Third Camp' position.
They are
1) If you dare to criticise the IFTU leadership or its external representatives behaviour, you are as bad as those who refuse to support its right to exist or to develop.
If Alan and Jane can't distinguish between the StWC's attack on the IFTU and our criticism of its representative then that is frankly bizarre.
2) You have to take sides in war.
Well I'm so sick of hearing that argument from the reactionary anti-imperialists that I hope that it will not require a long denial. But it is given further life by Alan and Jane's playing of the WW2 card i.e. that the Iraq war is like WW2 and as in that 'progressive' war we should have supported the Allied troops so should we also in Iraq.
Now there are many ways that the Allied invasion of Europe in WW2 is different from the invasion of Iraq by the US and UK. But, even if that simple equation were to be accepted, I would not accept that our position in WW2 would have been 'support the Allied troops'. Even though the post-depression mass mobilisation of anti-fascist feeling and the politics of the rank-and-file soldiers were significant factors in the situation (far more than now), the war was nevertheless fought with a general staff steeped in nationalist feeling and traditional imperialist training. It was conducted by governments that were either eager supporters of or, at their very best, were unprepared to challenge the foreign interests of their respective imperialisms.
Just looking at UK involvement (leaving aside the even more brutal actions of the US and Soviet Union forces) there was, after all, Dresden and the saturation bombing of German citizens in many cities; and the collaboration of the UK troops in brutally putting down of the Greek communist-led partisans and keeping former Greek fascists in power.
Would we have wanted our condemnation of Dresden to be muted so as not to confuse our hostility to Nazism; would we want to inject 'pro-worker' policies into the process of the occupation of Greece? I don't believe so.
If we had had the ear of the Greek working class organisations would we not have warned them of this imperialist nature of their occupying forces? Or if we were to have Greek working class representatives at a post-war Labour Conference wouldn't we have wanted them to have warned British workers about a naïve believe in the democratic nature of the British Army, its state and its government's foreign policy? I think we would.
Would we not have said about the allied commanders 'they threw back the Nazis but they cannot be trusted. We don't trust the regime they represent or their generals neither of whom can be controlled either by their rank and file or their people at home. We need an army of, and for, democracy in order to protect and defend ourselves. If it is not immediately available then it has ultimately to be built but only by recognising that all the existing forces will do whatever they can to stop it coming about.'
Of course there are differences between post-WW2 Greece and Iraq as there are between post-war occupied Germany and the present Iraq. But in all of them we cannot forget that the army is not ‘our army’ and the foreign policy of the government (and the US govt) is not our policy.
That, simply put, is what NOT supporting the US/UK occupation means.
That policy is not as simple as 'taking sides' but it is more accurate and more honest.
Pete Radcliff
idiot wind
Pete,
Thinking the IFTU are right to try to maximise the opportunities opened up by the overthrow of Saddam and consolidate the democratic reforms that are on offer is not the same as thinking or preaching that the US have benign interests. Nor does it amount to making propaganda for the US or renouncing the need for working class organisations. Actually though, in today's climate, the cutting edge of the polemic is not against those who think the US are motivated by goodwill to all mankind but against those who cannot see how good it is that SH has been overthrown.
Criticise the IFTU all you like, but what is your political alternative to supporting the elections and the process of preparing a constitution? Organising workers on the group in unions or community orgnaisations is not a political alternative. It is necessary from the point of view of a democrat who wants to build civil society or a socialist, but it is not an alternative.
I suspect the space between us is occupied by unspoken concerns with agency. If the US/UN do drive through change and leave behind a democratic, sovereign Iraq then our expectations of the age we live in are profoundly challenged.
The logical conclusion of AWL politics...
...is support for the occupation! The only difference between them and Johnson and Ashworth is that the latter are principled, even if it is pro imperialist and pro war, whilst the AWL have not quite developed as far right as Shachtman (yet) it can only be a matter of time!
typical Magamna sophistry
A typical piece of Magamna sophistry and pseudo intellectualism.
How to adequately describe someone who's only serious contribution to Left wing theory is to rationalise support for the Great Powers imperial policy?
Not great for a life's work is it?
A suggestion...
Hi Bill.
Rather than simply spewing yet more unsubstantiated, baseless shite why don't you try and actually get to grips with some of the arguments being made?
You've proved very comprehensively throughout the entire history of your "participation" in "debates" on this site that doing this represents a rather enormous challenge for you, but do have another try, eh?
I have to say that it's completely beyond me why you bother to post here. You never have anything to say that even remotely approaches an attempt to critique something we've written (which would naturally include things like quotes and references, which you appear incapable of). All you ever come up with is sneering, two-line quips about how racist/pro-imperialist/whatever you think we are.
If I turned up to PR meetings and, rather than making any kind of constructive intervention, simply repeatedly put my hand up and said "you people are scum, you people are scum", I think you'd be within your rights to ask me to leave. What is it then, that you think gives you the right - or indeed, as I say, even makes it worthwhile from your point-of-view - to behave in the equivalent manner on our website?
So if you can't actually get to grips with real political debate can I suggest that you just stop posting here? It'll probably improve everyone's mood.
Blimey O'Reilly
Blimey O'Reilly.
Unsubstantiated? Perhaps not.
What do we get from Magamna? We discover that he owns a Yeats compendium. This is supposed to mean something. We find that he can produce a sort of pseudo Marxoid rationalisation for the Great Powers Imperial policy. This too is supposed to provide some sort of credit to his ledger.
It doesn't.
Oo er
Bill
Daniel criticised you for posting sneering two-line quips rather than engaging with the actual arguments, and you respond with ... a sneering two-line quip. Kind of makes Dan's case that, really.
This article seems to
This article seems to conflate two issues.
One is quite specific- tactics regarding the attempt by some activists to shout down Subhi al Mashadani, general secretary of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions, at the ESF in 2004.
I wasn’t at the meeting but from reports the heckling began by people who identified themselves as Iraqi exiles- the veracity of this has subsequently been challenged but if you were there and people said this man is part of the government who murders trade unionists and supports a brutal occupation you may indeed think twice before attempting to censor the hecklers. Should al-Mahsadani have been invited? An unelected leader of a ‘trade union’ set up by the occupation forces, the same forces who ruthlessly shoot independent trade unionists. I think the answer is no. Should he have been allowed to speak once there? I think the Iraqi exiles should have been allowed to put their case and it should have been voted on- if it had been agreed I would have supported either leaving the meeting or perhaps listening and replying- either way it is a tactical decision on the day not a matter of principle.
Unfortunately, these options were not pursued, Iraqi activists were not allowed to put their points and shamefully those shouting about their legitimate concerns about trade unionists being murdered were condemned- something this article seeks to continue, with the added spice of insult that Iraqi refugees who have escaped persecution are ‘reactionary’ ‘Stalinists’ for opposing the unelected leader of a stooge trade union.
The wider point is whether socialists here or in Iraq should support the resistance. Use of the definite article again conflates issues and sows confusion. Should we support reactionary sectarian killings? Certainly not- these do not resist imperialism rather give a cover for it. Should we support workers organising like the Basra oil workers? We should. They really are resisting imperialism. Should such workers arm themselves and seek to repel the US led occupation forces as well as the reactionary Islamists? Yes.
We should support workers against the bosses and the imperialist occupation to organise free trade unions, for armed self-defence and for a war of liberation against the US led occupation. This way the working class and small farmers could be won to socialism instead of falling into the trap of reactionary Islamism which means death for the working class- repression of women, execution of gay people and more communal murderous attacks.
Of course I will no doubt be condemned as 'an idiot', a 'reactionary', 'shite', 'kitsch', 'sneering' 'spewing' 'quipping' etc. but I fear such epiphets do little to encourage dialogue or debate.
is it a dog?
After a dog has taken a roll in a mud bath, it remains a dog, albeit one covered in mud. To reveal the essence of the dog, its necessary to wash it, to remove the dirt which obscures the real thing.
What is the essence of Magamna's argument?
That is is necessary for imperialism to occupy Iraq to enable the creation of trade unions who will then pursue the struggle for socialism.
Its so feeble that to say it out loud is enough.
If ever there was a stages schema it is this one, not of course in the sense of the pseudo-classical verbiage that Magamna prefers, but in the sense of a impossible series of events that can never occur.
So what does Magamna do? He rolls his argument in mud. So for example;
"Those who howled down al Mashadani are Stalinists also because they believe that the supreme revolutionary virtue is not, as Solidarity maintains, commitment to the working class and to the creation, growth, and education of a labour movement, but “anti-imperialism”.... They do not express it like this, but they held to a rigid and fixed Stalinist-type “stages” conception of socialist politics for Iraq.... First “the resistance” must defeat “imperialism”; and only then should those working-class activists who survive the tender attentions of those who set off bombs to kill Iraqi civilians, in Baghdad and elsewhere, organise trade unions and a political working class movement to fight for working-class power and socialism in Iraq."
Which part of this statement is true? Not one word. Magamna doesn't try and prove it. He asserts it without any substantiating evidence. Yet this enough for his acolytes to defend him.
It is mud that needs to be washed away.
As one of those who howled down al Mashadani I can say better than most.
Yet David Browder and Janine want us to address not the argument but the mud. The sophistry and pseudo intellectualism that Magamna hides all his reactionary rubbish behind.
What's the point?
Assertions
Yes, Bill, and you never assert *anything* without attempting to prove it.
I don't want to get into the argument itself, because I have done so ad nauseam on this site, in detail. I want to comment on a secondary thing. I have what I take to be a position pretty similar to Sean's. In my own mind this is categorically not 'support for imperialism' so that imperialism can help set up trade unions or something. It was because they wanted 'critical support for imperialism' in Iraq that the LFIQ people against whom Sean is arguing in this article broke from us. (They weren't awl members, but had been around us in one form or another for a long time). I personally had lots of (email) arguments with Alan Johnson in particular, which were pretty heated. They saw it as a break. I certainly saw it as a break. It's true that they, also, argued that we/I simply lacked the courage of our own convictions, but then, also, I found this argument rather unconvincing.
So: I didn't support the war. I don't support the occupation. These are my own formulations of what I believe is in my own head. I don't believe the occupation is a 'stage' towards the building of socialism, or something. I have had furious arguments with people who think otherwise.
(It is a matter of empirical fact that trade unions exist now and didn't used to, and we need to both acknowledge that fact and work out how best to support them. But that, for now, is a separate issue).
So how do you account for what's in my head? All right, it might be that I'm pretty dim; that all that's in my head is mud; and that I unconsciously hold beliefs I am too afraid of to accept to myself that I do, in fact, hold, in which case I guess the best remedy is therapy.
Or maybe there's a political argument. It seems to me that in this version of it - with PR - if I have understood them, it comes down, actually, to an argument about trade unions. Jason, below, wants to define the 'resistance' so it includes trade union struggle. You can if you like, in which case obviously we too support an aspect of the resistance. But nobody usually thinks that's what 'the resistance' means. More generally, along with many on the left, there seems to be an objection to any form of trade unionism which *isn't* semi-insurrectionary - which isn't, in effect, some kind of national liberation movement instead of a trade union movement.
I think that in places like Iraq you are often going to get very tentative forms of working class organisation, focused on very narrow, economistic and reformist things, often - or probably - organised by the people with some history of doing so (like the Iraqi CP). And *even unions like that* are vital to the socialist project, more so than groups of disaffected poor youth terrorising people in Sunni districts, or whatever - and even than people taking armed action against imperialist troops.
*That*'s what's the dog, surely, whatever mud it's covered in: the trade union movement.
To Clive
Hi Clive
Some interesting points.
First, on:
“So: I didn't support the war. I don't support the occupation. These are my own formulations of what I believe is in my own head. I don't believe the occupation is a 'stage' towards the building of socialism, or something. I have had furious arguments with people who think otherwise.”
“I didn't support the war. I don't support the occupation. “
Fair enough- good. However, when the AWL refuse to call for Troops Out it is confusing and easy to see how this becomes conflated with support for the occupation in some people’s minds. It’s not of course necessarily support for the occupation but a refusal to demand troops out is not exactly against the occupation either. Of course some people I’ve had this discussion with say (I’m not saying you will) it doesn’t matter what I say. But in a sense it does. If we support demos saying troops out now or even just troops out and argue for such a position in the unions, and for building a movement based on troops out then we should take responsibility for it. Action is more important than slogans but slogans and demands are not irrelevant.
I’m not personally in favour of saying the AWL are pro-war- I think we should be more precise. But refusing to support demonstrations on the basis of troops out is poor. For example the article "Why we do not support the US/UK in Iraq" makes no demands nor suggestions about how best to create a movement here to force the troops out or how to raise solidarity with Iraqi workers to force the troops out or resist imperialism in other ways- strikes, demonstrations, organised self-defence, insurrection.
Indeed Magamna explicity rejects troops out now as causing civil war-
“The militant and revolutionary-sounding slogans about “victory to the resistance”, and the calls for US and British withdrawal “now”, translate, in the real Iraq, into support for the unleashing of civil war and for the victory of clerical-fascist reaction (or perhaps, “at best”, of the Ba’thists again).”
This is suggestive that f the troops leaving now inevitably means Islamist fascist reaction then the troops for the meantime do have some progressive role to play.
We should completely reject this. If a mass movement here or in the US forces troop withdrawal then this would be a massive victory against Bush, Blair and their successors- Brown and Obama (or McCain). It would be incumbent on British and US trade unionists to offer material solidarity to Iraqi trade unionists (as it is already) in their fight against the Islamists. Currently the imperialist occupation is the Islamists’ main recruiting card. And nor should we dignify those who murder trade unionists, women or gay people or ordinary working class people by setting off bombs in markets or mosques as ‘the resistance’- they actually strengthen imperialism by fracturing opposition and driving a section of Iraqis into tacit support for the occupation. Most of all we should not dodge the immediate priority of building an effective anti-war movement here as well as raising solidarity for Iraqi trade unionis- e.g., the oil workers' union that we have raised money for at our events.
If the point was simply to question the clarity of the slogan ‘victory tot he resistance’ then I think you would have a point as I said over a year ago on the PR website
“I think Steve might have a point that given the fracturing of Iraqi resistance movements, including many bent on a vicious sectarian war which far from being resistance to imperialism actually strengthens it, that merely saying we support 'the resistance' may not be clear enough. We should support military actions against US and UK imperialism, support the Iraqi working class organising itself (such as the Basra oil workers)and be for the working class to come to the fore of resistance against imperialism.”
However Magamna instead launches a vicious and bizarre attack on Iraqi exiles protested a leader of a stooge trade union as ‘Stalinists’, ‘reactionary’ and all manner of other insults bearing no relation to the reality of politics here or in Iraq.
I hope this helps clarify why there are disagreements and has done so in a reasonable tone and manner. If you feel misrepresented please feel free to comment or correct me and at least you have not taken the tone of insult substituted for argument that the main article takes.
Jason
How do I account for what's in your head?
You oppose the withdrawal of imperialist troops - ergo you support them staying - ergo you support the occupation.
Formal logic has its place.
In a country where according to the Lancet over one million people have been killed. Where according to the UN four million displaced. Such that from a population of 16 million around 30% have been seriously affected as a direct consequence of the occupation.
And you support the cause of this slaughter.
All the rest is mud.
In your head.
To Bill and to Jason
Hard, obviously, to reply to two responses which are so different in tone and intelligence. And I don't want to get into yet another head bang about this subject; I'll let someone else do so if they feel like it.
But just briefly, then, at the risk of simply repeating what I've said ad nauseam. I don't know what to say to someone, like bill, who simply refuses to respond to actual arguments or the things people actually say. I'm tempted just to say 'fuck off, you absurd apolitical moron'.
But the argument is about whether to raise a particular slogan, and campaign around it, and support other campaigns around it, or to do something else instead. It really don't see why thinking 'troops out now' is a bad slogan commits me to 'supporting the occupation', or 'wanting the troops to stay' or any other similar formulation, any more than thinking 'overthrow Gordon Brown' now is a bad slogan commits me to support for the British government. It's fundamentally an argument about ultra-leftism, I suppose - or vague, unfocused, pseudo-revolutionary sloganising and all that, not an argument about whether to support imperialism.
The argument that it is a bad slogan is based on an assessment of what is happening in Iraq, on the state of the labour movement, on its ability to survive civil war, and so on. On a certain level, yes, if you like, it's an assessment that the status quo is marginally preferable to civil war; but so is the status quo in most situations. Demanding civil war is not a good way to oppose the status quo. It doesn't mean you support the status quo. And the argument that *in principle* such as assessment is support for imperialism seems to me simply daft. Making a particular judgment about what might follow from 'troops out now' if that's what you really mean doesn't commit you to a general assessment of imperialism, or indeed to a specific assessment that in some positive sense imperialism is a 'good thing' in Iraq.
The assessment might be wrong, of course. But that is rarely argued very forcefully. Normally it's the implied 'in principle' argument. (ie that the assessment *must be* *in principle* wrong, because to make such as assessment is to make a concession to imperialism)
I agree that leaves you in need of a good way to pose sharply opposition to the occupation. I don't have a snappy answer to that question. I think sometimes situations can be quite complicated. I can see the attractions of saying 'troops out now' just as a way of saying 'we REALLY hate the Americans'. I mean that sincerely; I can see the benefits of it. At the the of the day, though, it just seems incoherent.
I can't remember the details now of the ESF business. But it's surely not true that the IFTU as it was then was 'set up' by the Americans, as someone said, I think it was Jason. Activists from the ICP, mainly, set it up. They used an opening presented by American occupation, and for sure have had a popular frontist attitude to the various pro-American governements. But the images of 'stooges' is false - or rather, by this category of stooge, any trade union movement which isn't insurrectionary - ie, any real one with a sense of how to actually build stable working class organisation - will be a stooge. So even if it was the case that the howling down was led by Iraqi exiles - and I'm not sure it is - they were exiles who were politically opposed to the whole project of building an actual labour movement on a nationalist/Stalinist basis. And that's leaving aside whoever else was involved in the howling.
There is somehting very, very basic, from our point of view, about solidarity with a workers' movement, even if it's an imperfect one, led by people we disagree with, and it's only just getting off the ground after decades of repression.
On the ESF: I was also there
On the ESF:
I was also there at the time and if I've got things correctly Subhi al Mashadani represented a "yellow union" that was in league with the occupation (along with the ICP). If this is correct then why would anyone have any qualms with him being shouted down. To be another scenario imagine the UK had been occupied by an imperialist power and the TUC was in league with them (which is why independent unions won't joiin the IFTU). Wouldn't we think it was an outrage if a continental social forum invited them to speak at their event and wouldn't we praise people who demanded they weren't given a platform?
In terms of the occupation and the whole "troops out now" debate I'd firstly point people to this article by Sami Ramadani:
http://www.permanentrevolution.net/entry/2070
Among other stuff he says:
"Strikes were always crushed under Saddam. But in a fascist-style move, Saddam Hussain in 1987 introduced a new law (known as decree 150) declaring all public sector workers, i.e. the overwhelming majority of Iraq's several million workers, "civil servants". And guess what? Civil servants were banned from joining a trade union. Overnight, most of Iraq's workers were not allowed to join even Saddam's own yellow unions.
After the occupation, Paul Bremer decreed that Saddam's decree 150 was still in force. It is the only Saddam law that was ever specifically declared valid by the occupation regime. Furthermore, no trade unions, yellow or red, are legal in Iraq today, until such time that the government 'enacts a law which will govern the status of all associations'. That some unions are operating is due to the determination of the workers to defend the most basic of their rights. The Federation of Iraqi Oil Unions, headquartered in Basra, is the shining example of such a union.
It was no accident that the province which was least controlled by the US-led occupation and the puppet regime developed into the hub of independent trade unionism. Not a single trade unionist was killed by the Sadr movement in Basra, a city that they mainly controlled. It was the British forces which opened fire last year on a well known union office in Basra. And it was the occupation which was accused by the unions of the assassination of an oil engineer last year."
Also I really don't get the argument about civil war. The US and UK are currently arming different sectarian factions in Iraq and giving them more weapons by the day. The occupation actually makes civil war more likely the longer it goes on.
Also the stuff about saying troops out now means "we REALLY hate the Americans" is just lazy, apolitical nonsense. Who was mentioning slurs earlier in this debate?
The fact is that the AWL isn't just opposed to a slogan they don't want the troops to leave now. They were quite clear about that at the recent day school I went to. Now you can put all the nuances on it you want but if you are opposed to the troops leaving now, it means you want them to stay for the time being. There is no way round this. And this logic leads to all kinds of problems. Would it be right to call for imperialist invasions under other scenarios if you thought it would provide a breathing space for the working class?
Not only does the stance of the AWL fail to take into account the international conatations of anti-imperialist struggles, it also fails to see the picture of what happens in Iraq.
PS While I wouldn't use quite the same style as Bill I think the AWL aren't in a great position to talk about those kinda things given how rude and needlessly aggro quite a few of their leadership are. Sean M and Mark O being two examples.
IFTU and link
On IFTU I didn't claim they were set up by the Americans- they weren't as far as I know but did refer to the perception amongst some Iraqi exiles that they were a 'stooge' union- certainly they were legal whilst others weren't.
(Edited to say- actually I see I did say set up by occupation forces- this according to what I've read isn't strictly accurate but it did have the support of those political parties who worked with the occupation and was allowed to operate at least partially by the occupation forces in stark contrast to other union bodies.)
This doesn't mean that we should have nothing to do with them or indeed that socialists shouldn't under all circumstances work in them or with them in Iraq or abroad- but there is a reasonable debate to be had. I'll write more tomorrow.
Sami Ramadani disagrees with the shouting down at the ESF- he may be right. My point is that whatever we think it is rather over the top and unhelpful to label those who did so as automatically Stalinist. It may- I think it is- more complex than that.
Sami Ramadani article
On arguing style, Dan has a point though I do think Bill is too angular on this. There is something to be said for how the AWL position risks coming across but nevertheless little to be gained I think in mere accusations- though of course the lead article falls into this trap fairly comprehensively (though as the adage goes two wrongs doesn't make a right and neither is my enemy's enemy always my friend to enter the world of simplistic adages even further!).
more on IFTU and the culture of debate on the left
There are two issues here-
1) Is the IFTU a legitimate i.e. independent trade union?
2) Is the AWL’s position on the war support for occupation, clearly anti-war or something else?
However, even before addressing these questions we have to look critically at Matgamna’s polemical strategy. He takes one small incident at the ESF and magnifies this into a tirade against much of the left as Stalinists, reactionary and then completely conflates support for armed resistance to the US and allies’ occupation with support for reactionary Islamist forces. What is he trying to do here? It seesm designed to obscure the issues and create an emotional idenfication by AWL supporters as seeing others as somehow nasty bad people- Stalinists and the like.
Firstly on the IFTU; it is the only officially recognised trade union body (even if in practice the American backed administration doesn't allow any union to operate freely). Why? Because it is linked to ruling parties in Iraq and does not oppose the occupation. It was clearly set up as if not exactly a stooge trade union then one under the control of the ICP who had previously prioritsed opposing Saddam to opposing imerialism and then actually given critical support to the occupation. Of course this is not to condemn all the workers who joined it and actually there is a long history of activists working within state sanctioned and even trade unions set up by secret police to subvert them and make them work for the wroking class struggle (e.g. in the Russian revolution but also in many other cases- I know some activists in Ethiopia who have done something similar, in heroic life and death struggles, risking everything to participate in the class struggel and be true to their principles). However, in the main it does seem that more class-conscious workers tended to join other, banned, union bodies such as the Federation of Workers’ Councils and the Federation of Oil Unions. Actually as time has gone on the IFTU has, under pressure form below and the objective situation, become more opposed to privatisation and has backed strikes by other groups of workers.
In general socialists and working class activists should of course try to work alongside stooge unions, sometimes even using them to spread class-consciousness and instigate strikes. The fact that the IFTU has had to come out in support of the Federation of Oil Unions’ strike shows some of this class dynamic.
However, Matgamna raises one particular issue over a visit not by an ordinary trade unionist but the general secretary of this trade union. When members of the audience from Iraq objected this was over-ruled undemocratically by the chair who tried to talk over objections. Should he have been shouted down? It’s a tactical question with no definite answer. I’ve already suggested that it should have been put o a vote and that when it wasn’t it was fair to heckle. But what is fairly definite, even if you disagree with this, is that any one who did object to this supporter of the occupation from speaking, an occupation that has murdered hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, including shooting demonstrators and trade unionists is not for this reason a Stalinist!
It is an absurd and mud-slinging assertion. This then becomes without any evidence suddenly support for Baathists and Islamists and for the eradication of trade unions in Iraq. However, it is perfectly possible to object to the occupation, to demand troops out now, to be for the military defeat of imperialism without in any sense supporting the Baathists or Islamists.
Is Troops Out really ultra-left in the sense of being disconnected from the wider movement? Far from it. What Clive actually means I think is that whilst he does not support the troops being there in the first place he does not support amass movement bringing them out now because the situation will be worse for the Iraqi workers if the reactionary Islamists are in power. However, if a mass movement here forces the bourgeois here and/or in the US to withdraw troops this is a massive defeat for imperialism and its ability to intervene at will to privatise economies and subjugate regions. What perhaps lies behind the AWL’s position is an ambiguity with some indeed believing perhaps in a contradictory fashion that the occupation is somehow better than the alternatives. But it isn’t because a defeat for imperialism will mean less interventions in the future, more chance for an Iraqi working class movement to defeat the Islamists and other reactionaries and a mass movement here that forces troop withdrawal can also force massive aid and reparation for the Iraqi working class and indeed raise funds directly for Iraqi working class organisations.
There clearly can be a complex and intelligent debate. There are some comrades in the AWL I believe misled by the complexity into either unclear positions or ones that give tacit support for imperialism by for example opposing creating a movement demanding a clear troops out position (accompanied admittedly by a denial of but by opposing troops out – let alone now- this shows contradiction and perhaps confusion). Others- the minority- advocate troops out but still hold with the AWL positions in general for reasons I find obscure. There are yet others in the AWL who seem to prefer general denunciation and rudeness substituting insulting epithet or debate- so far at least Clive seems to have avoided this.
It may be of course that the internal culture of the AWL which seemingly encourages highly emotional attacks on people who disagree with them makes many impervious to a reasonable debate but I think at least some want to genuinely engage on these issues and anyway these debates are not confined to the AWL- for example we had something of a discussion whilst in Workers Power over the possibility of calling for a victory to the Taliban a position many of us found completely untenable and wrong-headed.
The fact that some in the AWL seem to ‘defend’ their positions through the tactic of highly emotive insults against others on the left is incidentally why I think it is extremely important to maintain a calm reasonable and polite debate- emotional counter-attacks or insults do nothing to take the emotional heat out of arguments- rather they enflame it. This culture of attack and invective is moreover something that disfigures to varying degrees much of the left- it would be not only pleasant to change this particular aspect of left culture but potentially quite important as well.
I think even if this debate only changes this and perhaps even only amongst some people it would be quite an achievement with potentially impoirtant ramifactions for creating a culture of debate that encourages participation rather than puts people off.
Ok...
... 3 points, and then I'm afraid I will have to withdraw from this discussion.
1. The IFTU no longer exists. What was the IFTU is recognised as a union, for instance, by the TUC and every British union which has developed any trade union solidarity with Iraq, and also by US Labour Against the War (who hosted a tour by reps of the IFTU and other unions and got them to put out a joint statement). The whole conception of it as a stooge union is simply false. It is, for sure, not a revolutionary movement and its leadership are ex-Stalinists. But the distinction between its general secretary and a rank and file worker you want to make is not very persuasive: much of the time, the representatives of such unions will be their full-time officials. It is a union, also, remember, whose members have been murdered by sectarian reactionary militia; and which has been referred to, in response to the fact of such murders, as 'quislings' by, for instance, the SWP.
The framework in which a non-revolutionary trade union movement is a stooge or a quisling is, I think, one incompatible with any real effort to build, or help build, a workers' movement in Iraq. (Of course there were Ba'thist pseudo unions, but they are a different matter).
2. 'Armed struggle' against the occupation of course in principle could include working class organisations. But since the start of the occupation by far the strongest need for armed working class organisation is *against* sectarian, Sunni or Shia and/or Islamist militias which have carried out murders against members of rival communities, worker activists, people selling alcohol, gay men, etc - rather than alongside them in struggle against imperialist troops.I think the 'anti-imperialist' framework (by which I mean one which imagines this is pretty closely analogous to an anti-colonial struggle) confuses this issue.
3. Would a victory for those militias against Bush etc be a victory? On one quite narrow level, I suppose so. But on a much deeper level the fate of the working class, and working class, secular, feminist etc - and of course socialist - movements in the region will be decisive for its, and humanity's, future. A victory for sectarian/Islamist militias - or, perhaps, the division of Iraq with ethnic and religious cleansing, a stronger position for the Iranian government, maybe the Saudi government too - all that - would not help advance that future.
It's true that the occupation has fostered sectarian division, boosted different sides of the civil war (though mainly the Shia side, if only by default) and what have you. The occupation has not played a progressive role. But festering poison is still not the same as all-out haemorrhaging (or something). Of course, we are against both. But we are not obliged to propose drastic catastrophe as the answer to chronic illness.
Or in other words, the ruling class's defeat is not necessarily out victory. We want their defeat. But if we lose sight of our overall socialist objectives, and see everything in terms of defeat or victory for Bush, I think we lose the plot.
I can assure you there are
I can assure you there are such things as stooge or false trade unions- for example in Ethiopia I know of several unions that were shut down, activists imprisoned or murdered and unions set up by the state. So it is not a made up notion.
The point about defeating the imperialists in Iraq from our persepective as socialists in Britain is what we do here- build solidairty links with Iraqi workers both through communciation and fund raising and by building a militant anti-war movement based on troops out now. If- and it is a big if_ I'll grant you we managed to force troops out by militant direc action it certainly would be a victory.
On "stooge unions" and the anti-war movement here...
Yes, of course there are such things as stooge unions but the IFTU wasn't one and the GFIW (its successor) isn't one either. Revolutionaries don't judge the character of trade union organisations simply by how bad the politics of its leaders are; if we did, we'd be forced to conclude that Unison, Unite and the GMB were ultimately organs of class-collaboration and essentially tools of the government.
Yes, the IFTU's leaders were right-wing, sell-out, Stalinoid social-democrat traitors. The GFIW's leaders are even worse, given that it was formed through a merger of the old ICP-led unions and some Islamist-led unions. But the relationship of a union's leaders to the state is not the only - or even the decisive - test of a union's character. It is whether that union organises workers against their bosses in workplaces. The IFTU did, and the GFIW does. Of course, the class-collaboration of a union's leadership works to constantly undermine any workplace organisation but while any such workplace organisation exists our job as socialists is to support it and defend it against reaction - even while uncompromisingly criticisng the politics of the union's leaders.
The key point for me, though, is that the argument over "stooge unions" was pretty much a red-herring from day one. Even if you ended up concluding that the IFTU/GFIW was/is a "stooge union" (and I know people with better politics than you, Jason, who did) there were still at least two (now three) trade union centres in Iraq that had arguably better records of workplace organisation and were not compromised by any links to the state. People who banged on and on about "stooge unions" in Iraq would usually argue, once you got down to it, that any kind of working-class politics was off the agenda and guerilla struggle was as good as it was going to get. I personally find the notion (which, by the way, I am not accusing Jason or PR of but which was, and remains, depressingly widespread on the left) astonishingly patronising and in-fact borderline racist; working-class politics is fine for everywhere else but imperialised brown people can only be expected to resist under the leadership of clerical-fascists and only by the means of guerilla cells. It's basically cultural-relativist, Stalinist third-worldism writ large and it is, in short, bullshit. Even in conditions where the organised working-class element is so weak and marginalised as to be almost invisible (which, actually, it never has been in occupied Iraq) the job of socialists internationally is ALWAYS to identify it and lend as much support and in whatever form we can.
Which brings me onto my second point about the role of the anti-war movement here, which Jason argues should primarily be about trying to "force" the troops to leave. I actually can't conceive of a situation in which the anti-war movement, as currently constituted, could possibly force the hand of the British government in terms of what it does with its troops so to an extent the discussion's academic. Obviously, the anti-war movement Jason's imagining probably looks a lot different to the one we've got now, but as far as I'm concerned any anti-war movement socialists would like to see would have to be "based on" a fuck of a lot more than "troops out now". Even an anti-war movement solidly grounded in working-class direct action that limited itself to placing demands on what the British ruling-class did with its military would be insufficient. Personally I wouldn't want the British anti-war movement - or any anti-war movement for that matter - to be the agency that forces the withdrawal of troops even if I thought this were possible. For Iraq to have anything like a democratic and secular - much less socialist - future, this task must be carried about by the Iraqi working-class on their terms and in such a way that they are able to impose themselves (socially and politically) on a post-occupation Iraq. THAT would be the victory.
In this context the job of the anti-war movement internationally for me is to do whatever it can to help Iraqi labour achieve this task. Certainly, anything that makes it more difficult for the armed wing of British capitalism to conduct its business in Iraq (transport workers refusing to move munitions, for example) should be supported and encouraged, but it's vital that such actions take place within the framework of international working-class solidarity that places the agency of Iraqi labour at the centre of any anti-imperialist struggle.
We - and I mean all socialists - aren't (or shouldn't be) just interested in the troops and getting them out. We are (or should be) interested in who gets them out, on what basis, and what happens afterwards. That means that demands like "troops out now" aren't enough. It means that any anti-war movement that subordinates its politics and activity to those demands becomes at best impotent and at worse on the side of reaction. And it means that solidarity with Iraqi workers must, without a doubt, be the motivating factor in everything we do and say about the occupation of Iraq.
.............
I find it strange that Daniel Randell says that we need debate that isn’t aggro and sticks to the politics and then comes out with statements like “and I know people with better politics than you, Jason, who did”. What’s the need for it? Throwing in swear words every other sentence doesn’t really add much either.
Then you go on about groups who don’t think there can be working class struggle when that’s not what’s being said on this thread or the politics of PR.
Also no-one seems to have commented on what Sami Ramadani has said. It should be added the when a representative of the Oil Workers came over to the UK he was scathing of the IFTU and as you say the GFIW is even worse. Whether or not you want to call it a stooge union I’d still repeat the scenario of:
Imagine the UK had been occupied by an imperialist power and the TUC was in league with them (which is why independent unions won't join the IFTU). Wouldn't we think it was an outrage if a continental social forum invited them to speak at their event and wouldn't we praise people who demanded they weren't given a platform?
In terms of “troops out now” then obviously Jason doesn’t think that an anti-war movement should just limit itself to that demand, but it should be the primary demand. I really don’t understand the argument that the troops being there creates some kind of breathing space when day in, day out the US and UK governments are arming sectarian militias actually making any potential civil war even more likely and more bloody. As Sami Ramadani has also said they are also clamping down hard on the trade union movement.
There is nothing to stop people supporting armed resistance and trade union organisations at the same time. Indeed it is absolutely crucial that socialist and pro-working class organisations form more armed wings and take part in the physical fight against the occupation. If it’s just left to nationalist and Islamist forces then they are the ones who will get support from the majority of Iraqis who despise the occupation. Indeed it seems a little bizarre that you talk about patronising the people of Iraq when every opinion poll in Iraq shows that the majority of Iraqis want the troops to leave immediately.
The AWL majority also seems to ignore any international dimension. When the US troops were forced out of Vietnam it wasn’t just a victory for Stalinists, it was also a blow to the imperialist countries and a flame for pro-working class movement around the world. Going by the logic of some of the posts above you could of just seen it as a victory for a stalinist regime which viciously murdered independent working class organisations (and trotskyists), but I think that would miss the international connotations. The same is true if imperialist troops were forced out of Iraq.
Dan 1. You ignore the
Dan
1. You ignore the crucial difference between Vietnam and Iraq, namely that in Vietnam there was a broadly unified popular liberation movement. Yes, it was Stalinist and murderous against our class, but it represented a real national liberation movement. Therefore troops out = liberation for Vietnam. You have yet to make the case that troops out = liberation for Iraq, as opposed to sectarian conflagration and partition.
Jason
2. We don't deny at all there are such things as fake unions/labour fronts - eg we were vehement in demanding the British labour and student movements break links with the police state "unions" in Eastern Europe when many on the left equivocated. But the point is that not every union which is reformist, popular frontist, pro-imperialist is a labour front (any more than social democrats who pave the way for fascist victory are fascists). I'm pretty scathing about eg the leadership of Unison too - do you really believe that they are any more militant or anti-imperialist than the GFIW leadership? - but that doesn't make it a labour front.
Sacha
..............
Hi Sacha (someone who certainly has a good debating style!)
1) Does it matter if the liberation movement is united or not? The resistance in Iraq is broadly of a nationalist or Islamist basis (unfortunately socialist forces are almost non-existent in the resistance and of a pitiful size full stop). The big majority of the Iraqi people want the US/UK troops to leave immediately. And in the polls I’ve seen the majority of Iraqis supported the armed resistance against the occupation. I can’t see, given this level of support, how it can’t be called a national liberation movement. For socialists and working class forces to abstain from the armed resistance (as is currently the case) will mean they will never pick up significant support.
How can it be that a left force won’t support troops out now when that is what the majority of the Iraqi people want and all the while the occupation is arming the sectarian militias making civil war more likely.
2) As said above I don’t think it matters whether you call it a stooge union or not. It’s the fact that this union is so much in collusion with the occupation that independent unions won’t join the federation. If the UK was invaded and the TUC was in collusion with the occupying power I’m sure we’d have something to say if the leader of the TUC was invited on a platform on a continental social forum!
"Even an anti-war movement
"Even an anti-war movement solidly grounded in working-class direct action that limited itself to placing demands on what the British ruling-class did with its military would be insufficient. Personally I wouldn't want the British anti-war movement - or any anti-war movement for that matter - to be the agency that forces the withdrawal of troops even if I thought this were possible. For Iraq to have anything like a democratic and secular - much less socialist - future, this task must be carried about by the Iraqi working-class on their terms and in such a way that they are able to impose themselves (socially and politically) on a post-occupation Iraq. THAT would be the victory."
Of course the troops defeated by the Iraqi working class would be a victory. How best can we assist that? By having a mass movement here to force the troops to be withdrawn. If a mass antiwar movemenet based on strikes and direct action did force the US or Britain to withdraw the troops that would also be a massive victory- such a mass movement could and should also offer material aid and solidarity to Iraqi unions. Who says the struggle should be limited?
"The key point for me, though, is that the argument over "stooge unions" was pretty much a red-herring from day one. Even if you ended up concluding that the IFTU/GFIW was/is a "stooge union" (and I know people with better politics than you, Jason, who did)"
As Dan commented a little puerile- how do you know my politics? I didn't introduce this- Magamna did by attacking Iraqi exiles who objected to the leader of the IFTU as 'Stalinists' and 'reactionaries'. Nowhere have I argued against solidarity with Iraqi and other trade unionists- the very opposite. We put a very high priority on such solidarity. In fact I argued on this very thread that we should make links including with militants in unions with reactionary leaderships and even those partly set up by political parties supporting the occupation. But that doesn't mean that there can't be legitimate questions about inviting the leader of such a union.
Sacha (whose debating style I agree with Dan2 is exemplary!) I see you have no illusions in the NLF in Vietnam- good. However, despite the murderous Stalinist policies of Ho Chi Minh it was right for US solidiers to refuse to fight and for a mass antiwar movement to demnd troops out now and indeed for ordinary Vietnamese to herocially fight against the US occupation.
We should support the call (on Manchester Mayt day rally 2005- can't find copy of speech sadly) of an activist from the Workers Communist Paety of Iraq for workers to come to the fore of the armed resistance against imperialism in Iraq and support those workers resisting both through strikes and other means.
Response
I know your politics, Jason, because you're arguing for them on this website. I think there's a difference between unsubstantiated slander a la BillJ and saying "I think you have bad politics" in the context of a debate about a particular issue.
Dan, your scenario vis a vis the IFTU speaker at the ESF is ridiculous; as far as we can tell he wasn't shouted down by independent, anti-Stalinist worker-militants but by people who oppose the Iraqi labour movement outright on a reactionary basis. If Dave Prentis was shouted down at some event by anti-union elements I'd defend his right to speak despite the fact that he's basically a class-collaborationist sell-out fucker.
As regards "the resistance", I think PR's conception of it is massively mistaken and divorced from any kind of analysis of the actual scenario on the ground. "The resistance" is not some homogenous movement made up of contending political elements that the working-class could "come to the fore" of. The various elements who are engaged in sporadic "resistance" to US imperialism are as mortally hostile to Iraqi workers, and indeed each other, as they are to occupying troops. Rather than sewing illusions in some mythical national liberation movement - implied by any species of support for "the resistance" - we need to help Iraqi workers develop a politically, socially and organisationally independent working-class resistance movement that opposes Islamist sectarians as well as the occupying forces.
The debate is not about armed resistance vs non-violence or something like that; I am, and the AWL is, totally in favour of workers' organisations arming themselves. It's obviously completely necessary both for self-defence and the prosecution of any successful working-class resistance to occupation/sectarianism. The question is political; if war is a continuation of politics by forcible means, and we are hostile to the political basis upon which the Sadrists (for example) are carrying out their "war" against the occupation, then we cannot support them. It's pretty clear cut in my view.
Finally a quick word on "debating style"; what I'm against is unsubstantiated slander and sneering. I've got no problem with harsh criticism within the context of serious debate. Jason would be perfectly within his rights to tell me that he thinks my politics are bad. If people have a problem with swearing or being disagreed with then that's unfortunate but an abrasive "debating style" is not the same as a pathological incapability to deal with substantive political issues.
Its difficult to know how to reply to people like Clive
Only joking. Of course its not.
Clive finds it difficult to understand how supporting the UK/US troops staying in Iraq can be equated with him supporting UK/US troops staying in Iraq.
Come on its really not that hard is it?
Well...
.. I don't. Jesus.
Daniel it's not that you
Daniel it's not that you said Jason had bad politics, it's the way you said it and it wasn't a constructive comment it was clearly a dig and I don't see the need for it, but anyway.
Where did you get the impression that the people shouting that bloke down were doing so because they oppose the Iraqi labour movement outright?! Seriously is this a joke, where did that information come from, because I was one of the people heckling him and that definately wasn't the case, it was a mixture of Iraqis and people on the trotskyist left in the UK, not people who were anti-union. What were people saying about smears and slanders again? Indeed what makes your comment even more ironic is that it was SWP members who ended up heckling the Iraqi demonstrators, the same organisation who is taking far too an uncritical line about the Iranian regime and Iraqi resistance.
Why is the scenario I'm talking about ridiculous? Again, how would you feel if the UK was invaded by imperialist armies and the TUC was in collaboration with the occupation. Would you be pleased if the ESF invited a leader of the TUC onto a platform? Would you oppose people who heckled him because of that fact?
And where did PR say that the resistance is homogenous? Can you give me a quote? Of course it's not, but the point is that if pro-working class forces don't join the armed resistance they will remain side lined.
Yes there are Islamist forces in the resistance that would massacre pro-working class forces, just like the stalinists did in Vietnam. That doesn't mean that the resistance movement is no longer a national liberation movement, which is fairly clearly backed up in my view by the fact that in polls a clear majority of Iraqis both support the armed resistance and want troops to leave immediately.
And where have PR said that an independent working class movement shouldn't be built? Indeed we think it is key.
'Joining the armed resistance'
What exactly do you mean by this? If you mean there should be workers' militias planning joint activity - planting bombs and what have you - against the Americans, I think this is wildly off-beam - because the workers' militias will need to fight the sectarian 'resistance' groups more often than not. If you mean that workers' militias should be organising their own military actions against the occupation, I think that's off beam, too - because surely, the situation is far more defensive than that, and the workers' movement is a long way from being able to lead, or conduct, all-out military struggle against occupation. (And that would hardly be 'joining' the resistance anyway).
The whole framework seems to me a fantasy. Workers' organisations are weak, beseiged, perhaps in many cases only tenuously in existence. A strategy that calls on them to wage military struggle against imperialism - in alliance with bitter enemies (see variant one, above) or in competition with them, just doesn't have a grip on reality.
Daniel you say you know my
Daniel you say you know my politics by my contributions to this website but then you produce a complete mishmash of assertions I've never made. On debating style all I said was it's a little peurile and unnecessary but yeah it's better than some. But then why say "Jason would be perfectly within his rights to tell me that he thinks my politics are bad. If people have a problem with swearing or being disagreed with then that's unfortunate but an abrasive "debating style" is not the same as a pathological incapability to deal with substantive political issues."
That clearly implies I have a pathological incapability etc. as no one else is named. It is rather silly.
However, to the politics you say
"as far as we can tell he wasn't shouted down by independent, anti-Stalinist worker-militants but by people who oppose the Iraqi labour movement outright on a reactionary basis"
Perhaps you should have asked the exiles objecting. I wasn't there but people who did ask those objecting were told it was because he supported a government that was murdering Iraqi workers and trade unionists. So as your assumption is unfounded perhaps we’re having an argument over a misunderstanding.
As for the resistance that you yet again use the definite article for implying that it is one movement (but then actually forget when you falsely accuse me of thinking this!) you write:
"The various elements who are engaged in sporadic "resistance" to US imperialism are as mortally hostile to Iraqi workers, and indeed each other, as they are to occupying troops. Rather than sewing illusions in some mythical national liberation movement - implied by any species of support for "the resistance" - we need to help Iraqi workers develop a politically, socially and organisationally independent working-class resistance movement that opposes Islamist sectarians as well as the occupying forces.
"
You are the one using the definite article. Sectarian killings of worshippers in mosques or shoppers and traders in markets are not 'resist'ing imperialism. Striking oil workers are or workers with guns in hand resisting US troops are as well. We should be for solidarity with these Iraqi workers and be for building an anti-war movement here based on troops out now. Clive you say you don't support the occupation- good. (AS I said before actually)- but this should imply supporting troops out. If you say you don't support the troops being in or staying but you oppose calling for troops out it is at the very least confusing....
More exemplary debate from me
I don't have time to reply properly now - I will later - but two quick, off-at-an-angle thoughts before I go to a demo.
1. The relevant analogy with the IFTU/GFIW collaborating with, accepting and endorsing the political framework of, the occupiers, is surely trade unions in occupied Germany and Japan at the end of the Second World War. There, as in Ba'thist Iraq, trade unions had been crushed by fascist regimes; they revived as a result of the overthrow of these regimes by the Allied imperialists and developed under imperialist occupation. As I understand it, many of these unions were sympathetic to the occupiers - eg in Japan, even quite radical worker activists looked to the American occupation to defend them against a revival of the old order. Clearly this was wrong, as subsequent events in Japan (the Americans allying with sections of the old regime to attack the workers) proved. Revolutionaries in those countries should have, and did, oppose such pro-occupation stances. But did that make the unions led by reformists "quislings", yellow unions, imperialist labour fronts etc? Clearly not. If it had, why would the Americans in Japan have been confronted by a huge strike wave which they had to break? (Incidentally, it's not clear to me that revolutionaries should have said "Troops out now" for Germany or Japan immediately in 1945... I admit I don't know how the Trotskyists did pose this; I'll have to educate myself on this point.)
To be clear, we see the FWCUI and the Worker-communist Party of Iraq as *much* more deserving of support than the GFIW and ICP. Almost all our own practical efforts have been focussed on these organisations.
2. I came across an article by Trotsky about China in the late 1930s, in which - while naturally accepting the common Trotskyist framework that China was an oppressed nation requiring a war of national liberation against Japan - he argues against Chinese comrades who wanted to raise the slogan of starting a war immediately. Instead, he argues, the key thing it to build up the basic organisational strength of the working-class through trade union struggles. I don't think China-Iraq is a good analogy: in fact my point is that, even in a situation which was unambiguously one of national oppression and liberation, unlike Iraq today, Trotsky saw no principle in saying "Start a war now". Rather he wanted a focus on building up the strength of the labour movement - through revolutionary methods, of course - so that the working-class could shape events.
I'll look the piece up and see if I've remembered it rightly.
Sacha
F*%k off sacha (joke!)
Clive you say it is fantasy politics to say that workers organisations and socialists should build up militias and take part in armed resistance against the occupation. Before I turn to this you also say that workers organisations have to spend most of their time fighting off sectarian attacks, far more so than resisting attacks from the occupation. But this is not what Sami Ramadani is saying and not what the oil workers union representative was saying. Both have said that the occuaption is the main threat to organising at the moment.
As for joint activity with the resistance again I think you are being too simplistic. For sure the more sectarian parts of the resistance might refuse joint activity (and in doing so partly expost their sectarianism and lack of true anti-imperialist politics), but there are nationalist elements (who have no time for the sectarian islamists and in some cases are now at war with them) that might well do so. I don't know for sure though, and neither does anyone on here, but you can't make definate statements.
Fair enough the workers movement is very weak and no-one is disputing the need to build up the independent unions, but while this is also an uphill struggle it should (in my view) go hand in hand with a military build up as well. In fact if that doesn't happen then the workers movement will end up getting crushed either by the occupation or any islamist force that might take power in a struggle against the occuaption. That might not mean all out war straight away but it's something that needs to be achieved, and achieved fairly quickly.
In terms of Japan this seems a strange analogy because, as you say, didn't the occupation end up crushing the fledgling trade union struggles and set the trade union movement back decades? But I have to say my knowledge of this is minimal.
As said though I'm not really bothered about whether they are called stooge unions or not. The fact is that the independent unions in Iraq (including the powerful oil unions) won't join the IFTU/GFIW because of how bad their lash up with the occupiers is. And you still haven't come back on "how would you feel if the UK was invaded by imperialist armies and the TUC was in collaboration with the occupation and we were trying to build independent unions because of that. Would you be pleased if the ESF invited a leader of the TUC onto a platform? Would you oppose people who heckled him because of that fact?"......seriously why didn't the ESF invite an oil workers representative instead?!
As for not raising war immediately, as above, this is a tactical question. But what is for sure is that this needs to be prepared for. And I'd say again when the majority of Iraqis want "troops out now" and the majority support the armed resistance how can you say that it's not a national liberation struggle and how can you not support that demand?
Briefly...
1. If there was a national liberation movement, broadly speaking you could say that the occupiers should get out and have over power to them. Often, I know, it's not quite so simple. But in the Iraqi case not only is there not a unified movement, but in the event of a power vacuum you would most likely get a violent competition for power - ie civil war in one way or another - between sectarian (by which I mean communalistic, not just refusing-to-work-with-others) groups. For sure there are worse and less awful groups who identify as part of the 'resistance', and there were some who tried to rein in the worst communalist excesses. But it is not even like, say, Zimbabwe in 1979 where there were rival parts of the liberation movement; it is vastly more fractious and sectarian than that was then.
This is the other side of the 'troops out' argument. Normally, that's the negative equivalent of a positive slogan - 'national liberation movement to power', basically. That's not the case in Iraq.
2. I think to imagine any of us is in a position to offer 'tactical' advice (to whom?) beyond the broadest generalisations is pretentious. But it certainly makes sense for workers' organisations to be able to defend themselves - against whoever, but certainly including the worst sectarian fighting. Yes, to avoid being crushed in the future. But 'armed struggle' against the occupation, whether you call that 'war, now' or not, seems wildly wrong as a proposal for a weak, fragile labour movement (the more so the more repressive the occupation is likely to be, incidentally. That there are extant unions at all is a reflection of the fact that relatively speaking, in certain respects, the occupation has not been as repressive as it might be or could be if it wished. That's not to say it's positive, or anything; just to take note of reality).
I absolutely accept that the workers' movement needs to 'hegemonise' anti-occupation feeling, and on that level - ideologically - compete with the 'resistance', or not vacate the field to them. It may be that *in Iraq* part of doing so is to say 'troops out now' - I don't know.
3. Sami Ramadani, in my view, seems to filter his view of Iraq through a kind of left-nationalist lens, rather like Tariq Ali's, in which the real, specific needs of building a workers' moveemnt are subordinated to notions of national resistance.
4. I don't think your 'British TUC under occupation' thought experiment is a very good one. But if it was the case that it was widely known that there were attempts to build workers' unions independently of the TUC, and it was a widely accepted principle within the ESF-analogy that such organisations were important, yes, all right, heckling a TUC representative would be understandable. But with Iraq, it is simply not the case that most people are aware of the existence of unions *at all* in my experience - it falls outside their image of the country or the things they think about. And even were it true that some people would shout down the IFTU due to specific criticisms of that organisation in particular, most people in their audience would not. And many people do, as Daniel said, regard the effort of building unions *at all* as somehow collaborationist (and unions are, perforce, 'collaborationist' on a certain level and by a certain standard, because they have to negotiate with people.)
It does matter whether these are stooge unions, rather than unions led by reformists, or not. There did used to be stooge unions under Saddam, and for instance there were perfectly reasonable protests against representatives of *them* speaking on behalf of Iraqi workers. The point about the Japanese unions, say, is that they were not stooge unions either.
5. I'm not sure it's true that the reason the oil unions won't join with the former IFTU (if my memory serves the southern oil company union did briefly affiliate to the IFTU actually) is purely because of the politics of the latter towards the occupation. I'm also not sure - by which I mean I'm not sure, I'm not stating a definite view - that if that *is* the reason, socialists wouldn't be critical of it, as a reason - proposing workers' unity in a single federation at least as a desirable aim. Having said that I have no doubt that there all sorts of reasons not to want to be too hemmed in by the ex-CP people who dominate the GFIW.
Btw, I think opinion poll results about what people do and don't support in Iraq are quite contradictory.
antiwar movement
The IFTU incident was brought up by the main article to try to 'neatly epitomise' how sections of the left are grouped and regrouped and redefined into what Magamna claims is
"Those who stand for working-class socialist politics are lining up on one side, and on the other are those who are for a nameless, classless, almost depoliticised and entirely negative “anti-imperialism”.'
Apart from the incident didn't neatly epitomise this at all. If we go with the Japan analogy then it would be if Japanese exiles objected to a leader of a union federation supporting the occupation from speaking- should they have the right to be heard and perhaps heckle someone they allege is co-operating in the murder of trade unionists? I'd say yes probably. And even if I disagree with them shouting they are not necessarily (or even probably) Stalinists or standing for a depolicitised classless anti-imperialism. None of this means that we should refuse to work with members of the IFTU but we should as Sacha agree prioritise work with the FWCUI and Worker Communist Party of Iraq.
The argument and disagreement has historically (between PR and AWL at least) been about support for resistance and support for troops out now. We support the right of Iraqi workers to resist imperialism- actually it seems so do you. We have said support the resistance and victory to the resistance though more recently I think we have acknowledged that using the definite article in the wake of sectarian attacks and the ascendancy of the military Islamists that we should be more emphatic about support for working class resistance.
On troops out now this has hardly been covered in this debate but I think it should be a major focuse of the antiwar movement here (as well as in fact as part of solidarity to Iraqi unions and workers). As Dan says most Iraqis unsurprisingly oppose the occupation: the worker communist party of Iraq certainly does saying end the occupation and calling on the antiwar movement to assist them in this aim.
website here
The anti-war movement and national liberation
Jason repeats, again and again, that the anti-war movement in Britain must "be based on" the demand "troops out now." But he never explains why. I repeat what I wrote about that point earlier in this debate and would find a response from a PR comrade illuminating:
"Which brings me onto my second point about the role of the anti-war movement here, which Jason argues should primarily be about trying to "force" the troops to leave. I actually can't conceive of a situation in which the anti-war movement, as currently constituted, could possibly force the hand of the British government in terms of what it does with its troops so to an extent the discussion's academic. Obviously, the anti-war movement Jason's imagining probably looks a lot different to the one we've got now, but as far as I'm concerned any anti-war movement socialists would like to see would have to be "based on" a fuck of a lot more than "troops out now". Even an anti-war movement solidly grounded in working-class direct action that limited itself to placing demands on what the British ruling-class did with its military would be insufficient. Personally I wouldn't want the British anti-war movement - or any anti-war movement for that matter - to be the agency that forces the withdrawal of troops even if I thought this were possible. For Iraq to have anything like a democratic and secular - much less socialist - future, this task must be carried about by the Iraqi working-class on their terms and in such a way that they are able to impose themselves (socially and politically) on a post-occupation Iraq. THAT would be the victory."
On the workers' movement in Iraq "joining" the resistance, I think Clive's covered it, basically. Workers need to build their own pole of resistance that opposes both the troops and the Islamists. Collaboration with the latter is both unprincipled (they're mostly a clerical-bourgeois force backed by Iranian capitalism) and inconceivable; they'd sooner shoot revolutionaries than work with them. If you agree with this, as various comments imply that to some degree you might, how does it make any sense to continue to attempt to force the template of Vietnam or Algeria onto Iraq when the situations are patently different? Dan's invocation of opinion polls is not relevant here; as Clive points out, different opinion polls conducted by different people throw up different results and it's simply not the case that there is a unified, national-democratic movement (like the NLF or FLN) that masses of Iraqi people can support.
It's interesting that Jason constantly invokes the WCPI to back up his argument but I can assure all PR comrades that they would have very little truck with your attitude to "resistance" groups. I think there are major problems with their approach but it's no coincidence that all anti-occupation agitation they've ever undertaken has been intrinsically coupled with agitation, demands and slogans opposing "the resistance" as well. PR would do well to take a leaf out of their book on this score, I think.
PS: Jason - when I spoke of people's "pathological incapability" to deal with substantive political issues I was actually referring to Bill and again, I don't think a comment like that is illegitimate. There's nothing "slanderous" about it. On the ESF incident, my understanding was that the heckling was lead by supporters of "the resistance", prominently including Workers' Power members which I suppose would've included yourselves at this time. I think WP's position was, and remains, hostile to workers' organisation and working-class politics in Iraq.
In response to Clive: 1) The
In response to Clive:
1) The national liberation movement may indeed be fractured and large parts of it reactionary but how can you deny it is a national liberation movement when the big majority of the population of Iraq (in every poll I've seen recently, have you got any evidence of contradictory ones?) say they want "troops out now" and a majority support the armed resistance? Do you really think it would stand socialists in a good position in Iraq if they turn around and say "sorry but troops shouldn't leave now, it will make things worse", while all the while the occupiers are arming the sectarian factions.
2) It's not about "offering advice" it's a debate among socialists, some of it more theoretical (like what goes on in Iraq) other bits less so (about the anti-war movement here). I spend most of my time doing practical work, but debate on web boards is ok at times. I could say it's patronising to tell the Iraqi people that the troops shouldn't leave now when the majority of them want the occupation to end now, but I really don't think that kinda way of debating helps much. After all as the far left is so pitiful in the UK lots of questions discussed about international stuff is largely theoretical. And when you say "that there are extant unions at all is a reflection of the fact that relatively speaking, in certain respects, the occupation has not been as repressive as it might be or could be if it wished", I don't agree, the occupation might not want yet another huge struggle on its hands (which it would have if it took on the oil unions). The fact is that armed struggle is there, and no-one has suggested "all out war" but the fact that armed resistance is needed if the workers movement is to survive.
3) You can say that about Sami Ramadani but Hassan Juma from the oil union (I think that was his name) was saying remarkably similar things when I saw him speak in the UK.
4) You might agree with the comparison of the UK being occupied but I think there are similarities. Even if it is accepted that the IFTU isn't a stooge union the fact is that is collaborates with the occuaption, so much so that independent unions won't join it for that very reason (that was why their representative criticised them when he was in the UK, what other reasons are there if you don't think that is the reason?). I think it was totally out of order that one of its representatives was invited to the ESF and have no problem with the fact that he was heckled for progressive reasons. You can bring up the slur about people not wanting unions as much as you like but that's not why he was being heckled, he was heckled because he represented a union that is undermining workers struggles and collaborates with the occuapation. I also strongly doubt that there was hardly anyone (if anyone at all) in that audience who thought that building unions in and of itself is collaborationist, that's certainly not the SWPs position.
On Daniel's point about "troops out now" being the focus of the anti-war movement the fact is that if the anti-war movements in the west helped to force out troops from Iraq it would be a huge boost for the working class internationally, just like with Vietnam. And as you say, for that to happen the anti-war movement would have to be a far more militant movement which in turn would bring up many questions about the workers movement in the UK. But obviously such a movement would also support working class forces in the UK, it's not an either/or situation.
As said above if you have opintion polls that show that the majority of Iraqis don't want the troops to leave now, then show them to me. And if other parts of the resistance wouldn't join pro-working class militias then, as said, this shows up their sectarianism, but I think that nationalist parts of it might well do. The fact is that not only will repression get worse and worse on an armed level (making armed resistance inevitable) but all the while armed resistance is carried out by reactionary forces then that's where support will go because the occupation is so unpopular. Whether a pro-working class movement is in a position to do this is another question. But if it can't in the short to medium term then pro-working class forces will be crushed in my view.
As for Vietnam the stalinists would and did crush pro-working class resistance.
"I think WP's position was, and remains, hostile to workers' organisation and working-class politics in Iraq."
I have problems with WPs politics but this is absolutely not the case. WP fully supports the oil unions and building independent working class forces in Iraq. You can't have read much of their stuff to come out with the above. Again this is, as you say, slander.
On Workers' Power and again on national liberation
Workers' Power's position - based on slogans like "victory to the resistance" - is hostile to working-class politics because it salivates at the prospect of a victory for essentially fascistic forces who spend their time butchering women, trade unionists, ethnic minorities and the wrong kind of Muslim. If Workers' Power's demands were actually brought to fruition the labour movement would be slaughtered as it was after Khomeni's coming to power in Iran. If that's slander, then fine; sue me.
You can't have your cake and eat it, Dan; you say that militias which carry out reactionary, sectarian, sexist or anti-worker attacks aren't part of your (fantasy) anti-imperialist national liberation movement, but the people doing this (i.e. the reactionary attacks) are, unfortunately for you, the same people conducting the attacks on US/UK forces.
For them, it's all part of the same clerical-fascist project. You can't abstract actions you approve of (i.e. attacks on troops) from actions you don't (i.e. attacks on workers). Either you support these elements (like Workers' Power do) or you don't. Make up your mind.
Your reasoning about national liberation in Iraq is totally flimsy. It makes no sense. Your formula seems to be that because most Iraqis seem to want the troops to leave (a fact I don't for a second dispute and in which matter I agree with them), plus the fact that most Iraqis seem to support armed resistance to the occupiers (another fact I don't dispute and another matter in which I agree with them), then the people conducting armed resistance to the occupiers must - as if by magic - constitute a national liberation movement. But the "resistance" militias aren't defined solely by their relationship to the occupation but by their relationship to a whole host of other elements; different ethno-religious sections of Iraqi society, oppressed groups such as women and LGBT people, the Iranian ruling-class and - crucially for us - Iraqi workers. The role of almost all of the most powerful and significant "resistance" groups (i.e. the ones that would take power in a post-occupation scenario in which the working-class was unable to hegemonise Iraqi society) as anti-worker, anti-women, anti-LGBT sectarian mafias backed up by Iranian sub-imperialism means there's no way socialists can reasonably characterise any of them as a national liberation movement.
The whole point about a movement like the FLN or the NLF was that - despite their atrocious politics - they represented a single, unified movement the victory of which would - in however imperfect a sense - represent the fulfilment of the key democratic aspiration of the majority of the people of Algeria and Vietnam respectively. In what sense would the victory of the Badr Corps or the Mahdi Army (yes, the end of occupation but also the creation of an Shia-dominated Islamist theocracy in regional partnership with Iranian capitalism) represent the fulfilment of the democratic aspirations of the Iraqi people as a whole?
Trotsky
"In order to arrive at a real national liberation it is necessary to overthrow the Kuomintang. But this does not mean that we postpone the struggle until the time when the Kuomintang is overthrown. The more the struggle against foreign oppression spreads the more difficulties the Kuomintang will have. The more we line up the masses against the Kuomintang the more the struggle against imperialism will develop.
At the acute moment of Japanese intervention the workers and the students called for arms. From whom? Again from the Kuomintang. It would be a sectarian absurdity to abandon this demand under the protext that we wish to overthrow the Kuonintang. We wish to overthrow it but we have not yet reached that point. The more energetically we demand the arming of the workers the sooner we shall reach it."
"For A Strategy of Action" Writings 1932
Arthur Bough
There is a difference
There is a difference between you saying that WPs politics (and by the way PR supports "victory to the resistance", if in a more nuanced way), because you think it will end up with a victory for reactionary forces and what you're saying above. Before commenting on this I'd say that firstly we think that the "victory for the resistance" (as it goes hand in hand with building independent socialist/working class forces) is actually more likely to get working class forces to the fore of Iraqi politics and also that you're not taking into account international ramifications.
However you have gone down the road of the same crass and disengenuous politics as Magamna has. Workers Power supports building independent workers organisations. To say that that they "salivate" at the prospect of Islamists taking power is both dishonest and a pathetic way of debating to be honest (and I have no time for a chunk of WPs politics at present on other questions). Indeed you carry on this dishonesty when you talk about Khomeni, when WP actually outright criticise the way the left operated in Iran at the time. To then say "sue me" is again a pathetic way of debating. It's better if you actually engage with what organisations are saying. I really can't see how you can pick billj up on stuff and then come out with this!
It would be like me saying that because I think your politics are more likely to lead to defeat of the working class that you salivate over the prospect of a continued imperialist occupation.
Also in terms of a fantasy national liberation struggle, I'm basing this on the majority of Iraqis supporting the armed resistance and on the big majority wanting US/UK troops to leave immediately (with good reason as they are arming the sectarian militias daily and slaughtering 100,000s of Iraqis and have levelled a major city to the ground). Yes an anti-imperialist united front can involve reactionary forces and I've never said they aren't or couldn't be (like in Vietnam when the stalinists massacred pro-working class opposition), but I'd also say that you paint too a simplistic picture of the resistance in any case. The nationalist elements aren't the same as the islamist forces.
Someone can quite easily say they support attacks on soldiers but not civilians. Just as I'd say that I don't have any problem with the Palestinian resistance attacking the IDF (or the settler militias for that matter) but I think it's wrong to attack the civilian populations of Israel.
You say that because of the reactionary nature of the politics of the resistance it can't be a national liberation movement. But you still characterise stalinists in Vietnam as a national liberation movement despite the fact that they massacred pro-working class forces and had reactionary politics. Did their victory in Vietnam and the subsequent anti-working class dictatorship really "represent the fulfilment of the key democratic aspiration of the majority of the people"!!! I'd say not, but that doesn't mean (especially given the international ramifications) that it was wrong to support the Vietnamese resistance.
And I really don't get the view that because a movement is fractured along different political/sectarian lines it can't be a national liberation movement.
And as said if the pro-working class forces don't manage in the very short term to take up arms against the occupation as part of building up an independent and pro-working class/socialist movement sadly they will remain side lined and support will grow for the nationalists and islamists.
National liberation
The point, for me, is that the 'resistance' is not meaningfully separable from the sectarian militias. A 'national liberation movement' composed of militias on opposing sides in communal civil war is a nonsensical concept. (The core of what has been referred to as the 'resistance' since the term first started to be used is Sunni - and they are, overwhelmingly, Sunni-sectarian. For the sake of argument you can include the more militantly anti-American Shia militias in the 'resistance;'. But the Mahdi army has been - the odd moment and some of Muqtada's rhetoric aside - Shia-sectarian). It's in *that* sense that there's no unified movement which can take power. It's not a matter of conferring a particular label on something,but of recognising its actual social dynamic.
There are 'nationalist' forces which are distinct from the Islamist ones - though most sources I have read suggest quite a large ideological fusion of these elements. But I don't think they change the basic point.(There are also, incidentally, for sure straight-out criminal/gangster elements, etc).
If you want to say that the workers' movement has to find a way to express its militant opposition to the occupation, hegemonise such sentiment, etc I have no disagreement at all. I think posing this as an 'anti-imperialist united front' with, in practice, sectarian/Islamist militias is absurd. If you think this is too simplistic a view of the 'resistance', be specific - I don't just mean be specific in this argument; all your literature should be specific. *Which* organisations are you talking about?
The leadership of the oil workers' union, as I understand it, are actually politically quite close to Sistani. So whatever they say about the resistance only reveals that people can say all sorts of things which don't add up to much of a guide.
Who Made This Definition
Clive, you made the definition that the "Resistance" meant the Sunnis, but who else did? The BBC in a documentary some months ago about the way no one had planned for the aftermath of the invasion "No Plan - No Peace" - said that everyone knew that within a very short time of the beginning of the Occupation literally a few months, the majority of the attacks against the troops came from Shia forces not from Sunnis.
It suited you at the time to argue the Resistance was the Sunnis because your argument then was that if the troops left the Sunnis would come to power - that was before you decided a Civil War was the reason for the troops to stay - and also you were colouring up the prospects of the Occupation and their Shia allies - the same ones whose militias were taking arms and training from the Occupation with one hand, and blowing them up with those same weapons or ones from Iran with the other - of bringing in some form of bouregois democracy. Remember you told us that the Sistani who is now calling for gays to be murdered, and is overseeing the murder of women in and around Basra - was really a bouregois Constitutionalist. On the question of "breathing space", Martin certainly did use that phrase when in a reply to me he spoke of the way the Green Zone was being used for Trade Union meeetings.
Arthur Bough
Sunnis
Jesus, Arthur. It was absolutely commonplace in the first few years of the occupation that when people spoke of the 'resistance' or the 'insurgency' they meant Sunnis. That you accuse me of making this up only goes to show how little you know, or knew, about it.
It was a point of confusion in one exchange between us, but not because it 'suited' me. For myself, I've never thought the 'Sunnis' would come to power - the possibility of armed Shia resistance against such a thing having always been too likely, civil war therefore being the result. (I was, for instance, personally talking publicly about the Badr brigades and Muqtada's movement before most other people on the British left. It would have been perverse to refer to the former as part of the 'resistance', though, since they were supporting the occupation).
That the Sunni resistance want power, and that's why they opposed elections which would produce a Shia majority - that was an issue of dispute between us, in which you, scandalously, endorsed the chauvinism of the Sunni sectarians.
As I Recall
You apologised for making that last accusation at the time, because its totally untrue. You on the other hand were arguing effectively that all Sunnis were sectarians! The only comment I made at the time was that it was understandable that the majority of Sunnis didn't view the prospect of "democratic" elections with with great joy, because it was obvious that the result of such would be that they would get screwed. That is not an endorsement of anything, just simply a statement of fact. Moreover, were they correct in that judgement of what sectarian elections would bring? Did the elections mean the Sunnis got screwed? Yes it did. As Marxists we are supposed to be aware of the consequences of particular political acts. Our task is not to simply parrot the nostrums of bouregois demcoracy, but to utilise it only insofar as it assists the working class. A fundamental requirement is to build working class unity, which is why Lenin insisted on putting forward demands to deal with the rights of minorities such as the Sunnis. But, your position has assisted in the process ofd riving a wedge between Sunnis and Shia. You have no Programme for building workers unity in Iraq. But then you have n Programme for Iraq at all beond tea and sympathy, and hoping you can persuade the Imperialist army to "For God's sake disarm the fascist leagues!" as Trotsky put it in relation to others that had such a position.
There were ways in which bouregois demcoratic demands could have been utilised in Iraq as I have outliend elsewhere, for example in calls for Regional Constituent Assemblies, where the greater homogeneity of peoples would have meant it would have been more likely that class politics could have had a chance of playing a role, in demanding Trade Union Rightrs, Rights of Assembly and so on. For workers it is all those other aspects of bouregois demcoracy that are fundamental not elections, because it is the former not the latter which enable the Labour Movement to function. But, you were unable to raise such a political Programme both because you have limited yourself to Economism, and because your eyes were set solely on the issue of bouregois demcoratic elections organised by the Occupation and its Shia allies who you looked to to bring about some kind of bouregois demcoratic solution, just as you argued previously you would have demanded Britain did in India.
You can't with a straight face keep telling us you want imperialism to do all these progressive things, and maintain you do not see its role as progressive.
Arthur Bough