> Imperialism in the Middle East – in
> “particular” Iraq - have moved from the fostering of Mr Hussein’s
> barbarism, and the slaughter of Iraqi communists mis-led by the
> revisionist Iraqi Communist Party (ICP)
I am reasonably familiar with Iraqi history. The "fostering" was somewhat disrupted by events post-1990. Do you imagine that the Iraqi "revisionists" --- here meaning marxists who differ in opinion from a virtually dead and resoundingly discredited stream of Soviet marxism --- are so "dense" that they don't know about Washington's policies before 1990? Has it occurred to you that they fear Washington less than more reactionary forces within Iraq?
> to the physical occupation of Iraqi oil reserves by Imperial might.
A state of affairs which is worse than the occupation of said reserves by the Iraqi bourgeoise under the guise of "state socialism"?
> good Marxists, as we are must recognize that life is “dialectical” and
> “exceedingly complicated” & as Buddhists that the Charkra goes round &
> we, must …. THANK imperialism for its’ beneficence & generosity?
Who said anything about thanking them? Such a question suggests a failure to distinguish betwen theory (based on material, real historical circumstances) and practice (response to those circumstances), which may be closely connected, but are not exactly the same thing.
> to what advertising agency does a Resistance movement go to proclaim
> his or her wares? That we appear to know so little about the Iraqi
> movement is hardly a surprise. Well to me at any rate, since I do not
> share the sources of the CIA & other Eyes.
The PLO and Hamas have no trouble on that score, which to me exposes how truly weak and disorganised the Iraqi resistance is.
> postulating that Gramsci [I prefer not to trouble ourselves
> with that servant of revisionism Togliatti in this context] would not
> have been troubled with a British invasion to un-seat Mussolinni seems
> quite strange to me. (i) Rather than your depiction that G would have
> trouble BEFORE but not after, I think is quite wrong. Likely if anything
> the other way around. (ii) Would Gramsci support a colonization policy?
> Or do you think he would have said, “It is really not for me to say –
> What will be will be”?
Perhaps not, but I might have said that from Gramsci's place in his prison cell or his sick bed as the case may be. Once again you put words in my mouth (or hands at least), i.e. "not have been troubled", which is not at all what I said.
Real, long-term "colonisation" is no more of real proposition in a semi-developed state like Iraq than it would have been in 1930s Italy, since development/accumulation tends to go hand in hand with nationalist ideologies. (Just as the resistance in Afghanistan is religious rather than nationalist in orientation, befitting the miniscule modernisation and recent destruction which has occurred there.) Which is why the US ruling class will seek to create in Iraq a "dominion" of global capital, under the guise of liberal democracy.
regards,
Grant.