From: "Harald Beyer-Arnesen" <haraldba-AT-online.no>
Subject: Re: AUT: Remove Scott from this list!
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 15:44:23 +0100



----- Original Message -----
From: "chris wright" <cwright-AT-21stcentury.net>
To: <aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: 13. februar 2003 05.46
Subject: Re: AUT: Remove Scott from this list!


I really did not want to reply to tthis but ...

<< However, I think that accusing Scott of being a Nazi or a fascist is
inappropriate and just not right.  Having been accused of being a fascist
sympathizer after 9/11 for critiquing an organization's anti-Islamic
racism and concessions to patriotic panic, I don't think that such
accusations
should be thrown lightly unless one is prepared to demand that that person
be physically removed on sight from demonstrations and events, beaten by
the local ARA chapter or anti-racist skinheads (who enjoy that sort of macho
bullshit vigilante stuff) on sight, and driven out of political life by
any and all means.  Seriously.  IMO, calling someone a fascist is very
different from calling their politics objectively pro-capitalist and harmful
to the
class.  I say that about all kinds of reformists, but I don't promote
violence against them unless it is in self-defense.  But fascists are a
walking 24/7/365 target with a 'beat me' sign on them and that is a
serious difference.  Since I don't think that anyone is proposing that
practical
orientation towards Scott, I think that statement ought to be retracted.
I know that vulgarity is frowned upon on the list, but it is less rude and
less condemnatory to call someone an 'annoying f*ck' or an 'assh*le' than
a fascist (I am not proposing that anyone call Scott that, btw, nor that
those words be used on this list.) >>

First I certainly do not agree in a general politics -- if that it can
be called --- of making "fascists ... a walking 24/7/365 target
with a 'beat me' sign on them." I find this stupid at best, at worst
proto-fascist. At times physical confrontations cannot be
avoided or may be needed, but that is another thing.  It is not
possible to give any general answer to this, to that concrete
situations, as well as the concrete persons involved, differ too
much. This calls for an intelligent and diversified approach
not a unidimentional one. Of course when a group starts
terrorizing their neighbourhood, aspecial group of people, or
whatever -- as the Swastika folks tend to cheerish  --  they
must  be forcefully confronted, but this should in principele apply
to outfits as the IRA and ETA as well, as various .incarnations
of the Chekas in diifferent times and places. But I am not very
likely to physically attack mullah Krekar -- a former marxist-
leninist I am told -- even if also according to his own testimony,
his organization carries out assasinations on political
opponents in the "autonomous" part of Iraq.
        On a whole other point, I am unsure of what "anti-Islamic
racism" mean if not distinguished from anti-Islamic or anti-
Christian non-rascism. And given that reference here is to the
News and Letters if I am not mistaken, and given their strong,
and uncrtical from my point of view, support of  the struggles
of the "muslim" Bosnians  and Kosovo-Albanians, it is hard
for me to believe that the label "anti-Islamic racism" fits
them well.


But to the point. What I wrote, I stand by:

:"As is clear from the above and everybody  who have
followed Scotts consistent advocacy of class
collaboration -- including with Nazis -- on this list, Scott
supports workers serving as cannon fodder in capitalist
wars, so as to defend "their" capitalist regimes. The Iraqi
workers in 1991 were not as stupid to follow Scott's
absurd advice to defend capitalism and their butchers
in the Bath regime. They deserted and turned their
weapons the other way as soon as they got a change."

It was a comment to among other  things, often
enough repeated on this list by Scott:

"Nowhere do they talk about the workers of the Third
World and especially Iraq overthrowing the likes of Saddam
on their own (albeit initially in a military bloc to
repel invasion with the anti-imperialist parts of
their own bourgeoisie). They don't call for the
defence of Iraq, though that was probably too much to
ask. "

Now for normal thinking people this cannot be read in
any other way than the advocacy of class collaboration
in the form of a "military block" with the Baathist/Nazi
regime of Iraq. It is hardly a question of even advocacy
of collaboration but for the complete subordination to
the rule of this regime. It is very hard to think that
even Scott is so ignorant to believe a political independent
military organization would ever be allowed to exist as
long as the present Bathist regime of Iraq holds power.

It might also in this context be worthwhile to remember
that "Communists" in Germany in 1920ies marched and
organized meetings together with the Nazis, even
carrying banners displaying both the Swastika and the
hammer and sickle, all in the name of anti-imperialism
of course.




Onto something entirely else again.

<<Whereas the Industrial Workers of the World support
the autonomy and self-determination of the diverse
populations within the borders of the Iraqi state; >>

I am sceptical to such unresreved and uncrtical  advocay
of "autonomy and self-determination of the diverse
populations," whether in relations to the Kurds or the
diverse other minorities existing within the border of
the state of Iraq. It all to easy lends itself to upholding
or bringing new life into a pattern of hierachically
organized ghettoes of the kind we've seen in Libanon
for instance.. Whether this is along ethnical or religious
lines -- to the degree that the two can be distinguished --
matters little.
    It was asked, "do the IWW want a shiite state?".I
am sure I can answer no to that. But it must added,
if we are first to enter into this terrain, that  historically
there is more basis for a state based on the Basra
province than a Kurdish state. A separate Kurdish
state -- which in case would include other ethnic and
religious minorities -- has never been a popular
demand among the Kurds of Iraq anyway.
        In all circumstances, their is principled difference
between a geographical based federalism and a
nationalist and/religious based one. The latter should
not be encouraged, unlike freedom to speak and learn
you mother tongue, freedom of belief etc....  or freedom
to return, if still possible to the way of life of the
Marsh-Arabs -- but not freedom to kill those who want
to get free from the religion their were born into, not
freedom to oppress women in the name of religion.
        Anyway, I believe in general a particular Iraqi idenity
is today relative strong throughout Iraq, also among the
Kurds. Particular political ambitions among leaders may
still change this picture though.

Harald















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