Date: Wed, 3 Jul 96 12:29:54 GMT
From: Adam Rose <adam-AT-pmel.com>
Subject: Re: Iran's role for imperialism


> 
> You keep arguing as if US imperialism = imperialism, period.
> 
> Obviously, losing an arselicking vassal state like Saudi Arabia is a loss
> for the US, just as the loss of the Shah and his state was. However, it
> would not necessarily be a loss for the imperialist system, which after all
> represents the capitalism of our epoch. The surplus value generated in
> Saudi Arabia would just get pumped somewhere else -- a bit more might stay
> in the pockets of local capitalists, the rest would go to British or French
> or German imperialists.
> 

The educated stupidity of this has me dribbling at the mouth.

The loss of Saudi Arabia today would be a bigger blow to Imperialism
today than the loss of Egypt was in the 50's. A few bombs in Bahrain
and the Imperialists are shitting themselves. They know the whole region
is a tinder box waiting for a spark.

In the middle east, to use the fundamentalists language, there are many 
Satans, but the US is the big Statan. In the middle east, being anti US is
being anti Imperialist. One of the criticisms socialists make
of fundamentalists is precisely that because they do not look towards the 
working class to fight against US Imperialism, they end up accomodating to
it.

Saying that the fundamentalists represent a smaller version of Imperialism
is to ignore the bitter anti Imperialism and revolutionary spirit which 
moitivates their supporters, male + female. The problem with their politics
is not that they may end up acting in the interests of German Imperialism
( !? ) , but that their politics prevent them from fighting against Imperialism
effectively.

Adam.



Adam Rose
SWP
Manchester
UK


---------------------------------------------------------------


     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---