> John wrote, though, that "70% of Iraq is formally unemployed!" (at
>
<http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20040209/003143.
html>).
> When the country is under the foreign occupation and 70% of the labor
> force are formally unemployed, workplaces may not be where "it
> _really_ counts" (even aside from the problem of economism).
Ah yes, "economism", one of the big phobias of 20th Century marxism. (A century of marxism which the old man would be glad to see the back of, IMO, had he been sentient during it.)
It seems you accept that unemployment will remain at "70%" in the forseeable future. I guess this is understandable, considering the likely organising principle/s of any successful opposition to the present state of affairs which excluded the ICP. I mean the most likely combination then would an alliance of populists, i.e. Arab nationalists and Islamists, not necessarily Ba'ath and not necessarily Shia --- wouldn't you agree? We _might_even be optimistic and hope for left nationalists and liberal Islamists.....but as a good "economist", I feel compelled to point out that the track record of these ideologies in economic development around the Arab/Islamic world is woeful, so it makes perfect sense why this figure of "70%" seems so fixed and significant.
> >Only if you aren't picky about your anti-imperialists.
>
> I think that analysis gets more objective if analysts don't look at
> Iraq in particular and imperialism in general as if the point is
> simply picking parties whose politics is the most palatable to us.
I prefer to simply support the Iraqi communists, on the basis that I think their approach seems most likely IMO to deliver genuine revolutionary change to Iraq . But if we _do_ look at Iraq "in particular" --- and US-led imperialism in Iraq "in particular" --- an unpalatable thought might then surface: "is imperialism is all bad?", when it brings new/enhanced connections with the outside world and investment, and the alternatives might well be particularism, clerical obscurantism and/or Arab ethnocentrism..._if_ you want to go down that line of thought.
But as I say, I prefer to simply support both parties of Iraqi communists, who at least have the advantage of being on the ground, regardless of whatever tactical mistakes they have made and will make in future.
regards,
Grant.