File spoon-archives/aut-op-sy.archive/aut-op-sy_2001/aut-op-sy.0109, message 71


From: "cwright" <cwright-AT-21stcentury.net>
Subject: Re: AUT: Re: [R-G] Strategy for an international movement.
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 22:54:14 -0500


> >Tahir, this is not aimed at you but a large series of people in general:
> >I'm >really fucking tired of hearing people call others Saddam (or insert
> >here) >lovers for defending Iraq and her people from American bombs.
Saying
> >that Iraq >successfully engaging in military defense would be a good
thing
> >is quite >different than calling Hussein the father of all the people.
>
> the reason Iraq was defeated so quickly was because the Iraqi proletarians
> in uniform refused en masse to die for 'their' country and instead took
> their guns home from the front and launched a powerful insurrection. to
say
> that Iraq succesfully engaging in military defense would have been a good
> thing means that the mass execution of Iraqi deserters would have been a
> good thing, for that is what would have been required for Iraq to win the
> war.
>
> peter
>
Actually, and I thought this when I was a Leninist, the only way Iraq was
going to defeat the US was through a mass uprising in Iraq (and prolly the
whole mideast) which overthrew Hussein and resulted in a revolutionary war
against the US.  However, I did not say a plague on both houses at that time
because I felt that while Hussein's regime was deplorable, the US would
actually do massive damage, murder more people and weaken the possibility of
revolt against Hussein.  Arguably, all of that happened.  I also did not go
beyond calling for the defeat of the US because I live in the US, and I
could think of no stronger way to say no to nationalism here than to
proclaim support for the defeat of the US, without ever proclaiming support
for Hussein (since, as I said, I knew that Hussein could never mobilize such
support.)

That was then.  Now, I would largely say the same thing, except that I would
say a plague on both states, but I would still call for the defeat of the
US, in the same way I would support the defeat of a racist attack, even if
the people leading the defense against the attack were Black nationalists.
The problem is that, much like Hussein, the Black nationalists would not be
able to mobilize and lead a thorough-going defense because of their
complicity with capital on some level.  As such, the point is not merely to
say 'lesser of two evils' or 'plague on both your houses', but to point to
the two key issues: the unequal relation of power which represents some real
oppression, and the inability of (or even outright hypocrisy of) the
'leadership' of the oppressed side to be able to mount a genuine fight
against that oppression.  The result was what you point out: the Iraqi
soldiers voted with their feet.  The problem is that the US has decimated a
large section of Iraq, killed over 500,000 people, and directly and
indirectly intervened against any oppositions.  US victory in this case had
no neutrality, whereas Hussein winning (however utterly unlikely) would not
have guaranteed him stability.  He may actually have more now with the
hobby-horse of US imperialism to ride.

Our task is therefore three-fold: To call for the defeat of 'our' state, and
to point out that the only way for that to happen requires (at least)
massive opposition internally and the overthrow of capital in the country
under siege (unless one is looking for a Vietnam or Cuba, where victory
simply means picking up a new dictator.)

I don't know if that is clear.  Oh well, I will hear about it either way :)

Cheers,
Chris



     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005