Add new comment

Submitted by Jason on Mon, 22/09/2008 - 07:24

Daniel you said that my position was Stalinist. My position very clearly said that we should be "fighting for arming the working class, for participation in the army but using the situation to argue for socialist politics and the necessity of the working class controlling society and the war effort"

I am saying tthat to call this Stalinist is very clearly a misunderstanding. I suppose the relaity is you are not calling my actul position Stalinist but making unwarranted assumptions about my position because you don't actually read or pay attention to what I write.

"is it or is it not the position of your organisation that "semi-colonial" bourgeoisies, and other forces such as clerical-fascist (or very close to clerical-fascist) militias in Iraq, should be approached (quite how such an approach is supposed to be made, I'm not sure) as potential partners for the workers' movement in the "anti-imperialist united front"? A straight "yes" or "no", please Jason..."

No it is not our position. Our position is that the working class should lead the resistance. There may be times when the guns of reactionaries and working class organisation point in the same direction against the occupiers but there is no doubt whatsoever that the workers will need to defend themselves against the Islamist reactionaries.

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