Is the SWP's calling the war for oil as a war against islam their worst lie?
- Thread starter durruti02
- Start date
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
what have the WCPI actually done? Obviously one supports worker shen they go on strike, but that is not the only way one can fight the occupation - an obviously important task I'm sure we agree. Guns are pretty handy for that.
& you didn't answer the question, do you support the right of nations to self determination?
& you didn't answer the question, do you support the right of nations to self determination?
Don't know about the WCPI, but the Basra Oil Union has done some interesting things.belboid said:
Oh God, the SWP aren't really advocating this kind of shit are they?
As if the Iraqi ruling class are any better than the British or American ruling class in practice
JoePolitix
Gone
In Bloom said:
Hassan Juma'a Awad, the gen sec of the BOU, had this to say last year:
"The occupation has deliberately fomented a sectarian division of Sunni and Shia. We never knew this sort of division before. Our families intermarried, we lived and worked together. And today we are resisting this brutal occupation together, from Falluja to Najaf to Sadr City. The resistance to the occupation forces is a God-given right of Iraqis, and we, as a union, see ourselves as a necessary part of this resistance - although we will fight using our industrial power, our collective strength as a union, and as a part of civil society which needs to grow in order to defeat both still-powerful Saddamist elites and the foreign occupation of our country."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1417222,00.html
belboid said:
explain what you mean - do I support one local ruling class against a foreign ruling class? I think Lenin was wrong, if that's what you mean.
your missing the point entirely - if you are a socialist, you should ONLY EVER support groups, movements, individuals when they fight back on a class basis. Supporting a movement which is not based on class goes completely against a class analysis, which you supposedly have.
I don't like the SWP's line on "the resistance" either, but I think you're taking your workerism a bit far here.mk12 said:
How do you mean "on a class basis"? I mean, take the Black Panthers for example, fascinating example of working class resistance in the face of both class and racial oppression, yet at the same time, their politics were grounded in race. A strongly pro-working class movement in many respects, they just had slightly iffy racial politics.
yes, but it was based on a class analysis wasn't it? Founder of the Black Panthers Bobby Searle summed it up nicely:
"Those who want to obscure the struggle with ethnic differences are the ones who are aiding and maintaining the exploitation of the masses of the people: poor whites, poor blacks, browns, red Indians, poor Chinese and Japanese, and the workers at large… So in essence it is not at all a race struggle. We’re rapidly educating people to this…So let me emphasize again – we believe our fight is a class struggle and not a race struggle."
I'm sure people will say, "but there are poor people invovled in the Islamic resistance", which is true. But there were w/c people in the Nazis, in the BNP etc. Surely Marxists/anarchists should give support (in different ways) to the forces which are fighting as a class- rather than those who are just resisting for whatever reason?
"Those who want to obscure the struggle with ethnic differences are the ones who are aiding and maintaining the exploitation of the masses of the people: poor whites, poor blacks, browns, red Indians, poor Chinese and Japanese, and the workers at large… So in essence it is not at all a race struggle. We’re rapidly educating people to this…So let me emphasize again – we believe our fight is a class struggle and not a race struggle."
I'm sure people will say, "but there are poor people invovled in the Islamic resistance", which is true. But there were w/c people in the Nazis, in the BNP etc. Surely Marxists/anarchists should give support (in different ways) to the forces which are fighting as a class- rather than those who are just resisting for whatever reason?
So it doesn't matter what for? Just that they're resisting as a class.
We should support firefighters not handing out leaflets at a LGBT march because of their class?
What's your opinion on the IRA in the 80s mk?
We should support firefighters not handing out leaflets at a LGBT march because of their class?
What's your opinion on the IRA in the 80s mk?
Not sure how that particular event has anything to do with this.
I don't know enough about this to make a comment, but even if some firefighters were homophobic, I assume you'd still support those workers if they went on strike? I'm talking about particular acts (strikes, unionising, protests etc). I'm not saying I support everything people say just because they are w/c.
So the dockers who marched in support of Powell?
We had a theoretical argument in our SWSS group. If the union chose to strike and formed a picket line when Gerry Adams was visiting, and there were 400 people inside the hall, would you cross?
We had a theoretical argument in our SWSS group. If the union chose to strike and formed a picket line when Gerry Adams was visiting, and there were 400 people inside the hall, would you cross?
mk12 said:
You think a class analysis means you should ditch any other analysis (or rather, opinion) at all?
This seems overwhelmingly simplistic to be honest.
JoePolitix
Gone
In Bloom said:
The point Bloomy is that the likes of Matt Kid can pontificate all they like about “independent working class politics” but when confronted with statements from representatives of genuinely independent working class organisations like the Basra Oil Union they simply ignore them if they run contrary to their own blinkered black and white view of the world and class politics.
Matt brings up the fact that insurgents have recently kipnapped factory workers in Bahgdad and notes that the BOI probably wouldn’t approve this. In that he is correct. Hassan Juma’a has in the past signed statements condemning attacks on workers, sectarian bombings and the likes. However, the article I quoted also illustrates that he supports uprisings against the occupation such as the ones in Najaf and Fallujah. This presumably is because unlike Matt Kid Hassan Jumu’u can distinguish between the terrorist acts of criminal gangs and sectarian killers from struggles by genuinely popular mass based resistance movements.
It does leave you quite paralysed, mk, not being able to support anyone in the majority of conflicts.
Should we oppose the occupation at all then?
Should we oppose the occupation at all then?
There is growing evidence that sectarian killings and criminal gangs are being fostered by the occupying forces and stooge Government. Yet actions by sinister forces such as indiscriminate killings are used by Bush and by the likes of the AWL to seek to justify keeping the very troops in that are creating the conditions for these killings.
A number of reported 'sectarian killings by criminal gangs' have subsequently turned out to be murderous acts by US soldiers including the rape of a young girl.
All murderous activities in Iraq whether purpetrated by criminals, sectarians or by the occupying forces themselves are lumped in as part of the 'insurgency' by US propaganda, and the AWL and their friends parrot it. All AWL talk of supporting a 'class based opposition' is bollocks. It has not been the oil workers who they have been collecting money for or bringing over for speaking tours; it is unrepresentative pro-occupation forces.
A number of reported 'sectarian killings by criminal gangs' have subsequently turned out to be murderous acts by US soldiers including the rape of a young girl.
All murderous activities in Iraq whether purpetrated by criminals, sectarians or by the occupying forces themselves are lumped in as part of the 'insurgency' by US propaganda, and the AWL and their friends parrot it. All AWL talk of supporting a 'class based opposition' is bollocks. It has not been the oil workers who they have been collecting money for or bringing over for speaking tours; it is unrepresentative pro-occupation forces.
nonamenopackdrill said:
Indeed. No support for the anti-Apartheid struggle in the 80s because it did not take on a predominantly class-based character. No support for the Vietcom in the 60s. No support for the Mau Mau. No support for Ghandi. No defence of the Cuban revolution against attacks on Cuba by US imperialism. No support for the Civil Rights movements in the 60s.
If the left had adopted that approach - equally condemning the Vietcom and the US etc what a sorry fucking picture that would have been.
JoePolitix
Gone
mutley said:
I've read that Terry Barrett, a leading ISer on the docks at the time, joined in the strike to aviod accusations of scabbing. Rather than cross the picket line, he stood to one side of the main picket holding a placard opposing racism.
Don't know how he got on though. He either found the best compromise to the dilemma or really pissed off both the striking workers and anti-racists. Props for trying though.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
mk12 said:
not sure I'd put it like this. You seem to be making class consciousness a pre-condition for political support, but surely that can develop in the course of stuggle? Surely there are times when socialists intervene in a movement which might not have class politics explicitly at its centre, but in such a way as to raise the profile of such ideas?
What I do think is wrong is for socialists to subordinate their interests/arguments to forces which are explicitly hostile to the development of a revolutionary class politics, in the name of a false 'solidarity' with the movement as a whole. This is true whether the leadership is Reformist, Stalinist or Islamist.
See with the dockers, I can imagine joining the picket and arguing.
The Adams one is different. If it was an NUS picket, I'd cross - the 400 listening to Adams are more important than the NUS (though it does depend who you're pissing off). At the same time, if you're the union rep and it's a postal meeting or something I wouldn't. But I'd argue to fuck on the picket line.
The Adams one is different. If it was an NUS picket, I'd cross - the 400 listening to Adams are more important than the NUS (though it does depend who you're pissing off). At the same time, if you're the union rep and it's a postal meeting or something I wouldn't. But I'd argue to fuck on the picket line.
JoePolitix said:
I've heard that story, and that he produced a leaflet attacking Powell and highlighting his tory politics, and the fact that Powell was in favour of getting rid of the Dock labour scheme ie no friend of the dockers.
But i've heard conflicting stories about whether he actually struck or not.
nonamenopackdrill said:
Is that a new kind of protest?
Reports are coming in that a wildcat strike is spreading across the building sites in London. A common feature of this unique dispute is of lewd behavior on the picket lines. Several hundred pickets have been arrested for indecency.
JoePolitix
Gone
Groucho said:
US soilders didn't just rape a young Iraqi girl. The raped and then murdered her and then murdered her parents and her 5 year old sister:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1839522,00.html
Similar threads
