Carrol -------
Subject: On Iraq from Paul Stevenson
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 09:41:42 -0400 (EDT)
>From "Dr. Paul Stevenson" pstevens at io.uwinnipeg.ca
First of all let me apologize for not being able to clearly identify who I am responding to. I have been going through the PSN posts and printing them off, and then reading them--and there was no real identification of the post on the print-off. At best, I am responding to some things said by "Libero" about "the next war in Iraq."
While I do not disagree with the bulk of that post there are, nonetheless, some aspects of it which I find quite objectionable. The first reads: "In this war we offer support to neither [sic] side. We will not fall into the frequent leftist trap of giving 'critical' support to Iraq because it is the weaker of the two belligerents and is not the aggressor."
I find this statement objectionable at a number of levels. First of all, it implies an equality of sides when, in fact, that it is clearly not the case. Furthermore, the "side" of American transnational corporate capitalist imperialism is clearly different from that of many "other sides." In addition, the military power of the United States alone is far superior to that of Iraq. There should be no doubt about which nation is imperialistic and can back itself up with military power. "Sides" is not really the issue.
Secondly, and much more importantly, I know of no "leftist" who/which supports the Iraqi regime. Just because "they" are weaker has never been a reason for support of the Sadamm regime. Just who are these so-called "leftists" who support the current regime in Iraq. Libero does not identify them. Frankly, I am sick and tired of people stating that "leftists" take a certain position when, in fact, it is quite at odds with any leftism I am familiar with and no specific names or positions are identified. This is, frankly, a right-wing attack on the "left." It is someone who is portraying himself as "leftist" smearing the left through distortion and innuendo. Identify exactly who you are talking about or shut up. I know of no "leftist" who simply takes the position that because a nation, a region, an individual, etc. is weaker that they are in the right. "Leftists," good ones and poorer ones, have always struck me as specifying their objections; have always provided good, or sometimes poor, empirical evidence. Their criteria has never been-- oh, "weaker" therefore "in the right." Identify WHO this is you're talking about!
A further objection to this post includes its statement: "We proclaim that the international working class is the only social force that has the potential to put an end to this barbarism." Just who is "the international working class?" First of all, "working class" has to be defined. Secondly, "international working class" has to be identified and further specified as to just how much of the world's population is "working class." Frankly, the majority of the world IS NOT "working class" although the majority of the world is exploited by capitalism. Peasants, lumpens, etc. in the world capitalist economy are exploited, oppressed, and impoverished by transnational corporate capitalist imperialism and, to one degree or another, are rebelling against that exploitation and oppression. They are not "working class" but so what! If we're depending on the "working class" we're in trouble even though the working class everywhere should be against capitalism and can come to be against capitalism. Frankly, everything will not "be decided in our factories, our workplaces and in our streets." Rhetoric has to be laid aside.
Cheers, Paul Stevenson Sociology University of Winnipeg