During the Anti-imperialist Camp in Assisi, Italy, which took place in the first week of September 2003, some of the participants and guests launched a public appeal for a demonstration in support of the Iraqi resistance. The document affirmed not only the legitimacy of the resistance as stipulated by the UN charter, but also the chance offered by it to bring down the US attempt to erect an empire. The possibility of a new Vietnam is evoked: “The defeat of the Anglo-American occupiers would be a victory for everyone fighting for democracy and self-determination, for the freedom of the peoples refusing to submit under the imperialist yoke.” The appeal ends not only to call for driving out the occupation troops but also to close down the US basis in Europe.
As was to be expected the attacks against the demonstration started as the reception of the call suggested a success. What was, however, astonishing, is the fact that they started from the left.
The “Marxist” opponents of the resistance mechanically derive their political line from concrete assumptions made in the period between WWI and WWII. To be mentioned first of all the theorem of inter-imperialist rivalry which is doomed to take an antagonistic form leading to a new show-down between the Anglo-American and the German block. In their sterile approach they simply deny the new architecture of the imperialist system developed after the US victory in WWII and especially following the implosion of the USSR. Actually, the main contradiction of today is between the imperialist bourgeoisies and their broad middle class environment on one side and the billions of wretched on the periphery of imperialism on the other side. In this dominant conflict the secondary imperialist powers depend on the overwhelming military might of the US. Therefore weakening the US means weakening imperialism as a global system. Especially the German bourgeoisie in all its currents has firmly ! embraced this assessment. Unfortunately many orthodox Marxists are unable to see those facts. They regard anti-Americanism as a support to German or Italian imperialism. To adopt anti-Americanism as the concretisation of anti-imperialism therefore implies for them a “transversal front” with the bourgeoisie, the right and especially the Fascists. Anti-Americanism is looked upon as treason to Lenin’s slogan developed facing the inter- imperialist war according to which the main enemy has to be fought in one’s own country. In their binary logic they are unable to see that to fight Americanism means to fight one’s own bourgeoisie as the latter is integral part of the US-led world system.
There currents are as such insignificant and of no importance. But insofar as they can deliver a “left” apology for the ruling class’ struggle against anti-Americanism and Islam they serve as the “Marxist” witness for the imperialist consensus. Their accusation of “Fascist infiltration” into the only large European demonstration in favour of the resistance was never backed and could not be backed by evidence as the historic right and the Fascists are with the US war drive. However, in this way they delivered the blueprint of the campaign against the Iraqi resistance and its Italian and European supporters led by the bourgeoisie in its different currents.
Like an avalanche it started with the “Marxist” left, then passed to the Communist Party, then it was the turn of the anti-Berlusconi bourgeoisie, then the government and state forces and finally the fascists – a transversal front condemning the Iraqi resistance and their supporters as a "Islamo-Nazi- Communist" block. What has happened?
Already since the aggression on Yugoslavia led by the left liberal forces of Europe and accepted with “neutrality” by the biggest part of the historic left, we have been warning that the historic European left had become an integral and organic part of an American-type two party system. Minor differences between the two blocks remained to keep the democratic cover. But on the decisive questions of liberalist attacks on the popular masses both within Europe and throughout the capitalist periphery as well as on the imperialist war drive – though masked by humanitarian and democratic phrases – they are firmly unified. Like in the US it is one capitalist and imperialist regime regardless whether the left or the right administers it.
Concluding: The Iraqi resistance is the core question of the global struggle against the US-led imperialist system. This struggle tends to constitute the poor classes of the world against imperialism all together. That does not automatically mean that whoever supports the Iraqi resistance is an anti-imperialist and can be co-operated with. Some elements striving for the erection of an concurrent imperialist power for whatever inspiration (Fascist, liberalist, conservative or “leftist”) must be excluded. However, the tendency is clear – only from that anti-imperialist struggle a new revolutionary anti-capitalist movement can be born. On the other side, whoever refuses to support the resistance is in open or tacit collaboration with imperialism for whatever motivation (Fascist, liberalist, conservative or “leftist”) which intrinsically tends to a new form of Fascism.
Full article: www.antiimperialista.com/en/view.shtml?category=9&id=1071255908&keyword=+
***