> I think one has to bear in mind the objective similarities among the
> ideologies of the invaders _and_the_resistance_, i.e. nationalism (if not
> xenophobia), religious fanaticism, particularism, etc. In that sense I
don't
> believe that the resistance is more progressive; i.e. I believe the forces
> of global capital are more likely to enlarge the Iraqi proletariat and
> enhance class consciousness within it, a "role" which - as Marx noted - is
> better suited to imperial/international capital, than to national/petty
> bourgeois (allegedly "socialist") political forces such as the Ba'athists,
> Shia Islamists and other forms of nationalism, religious ideology, etc.
>
> ^^^^^^^
>
> CB: Here's an update on Marx: See Lenin,et al., right up to Fidel Castro
on
> colonialism, national liberation and self-determination. The main victory
of
> humanity in the 20th Century was in successful anti-racist,
anti-colonialist
> , anti-imperial/international capital struggles. This has been the main
> success of Marxism, period. These were and are class struggles.
Sorry, I don't think Marx needed a lot of updating here. But that's a whole different argument.
> "It is not at all beyond appropriate discussion to consider whether
> sensitivity to racism in the US war on Iraq is greater in people of
color!"
>
> Leaving aside the issues of what the original debate was about - and it
had
> little to do with US domestic politics - and Yoshie's reasoning regarding
> those who disagreed with her,
>
> ^^^^^
> CB: Lets not leave that aside. What was the original debate about ?
It was about the Iraqi resistance (AKA "so-called resistance" if one is a member of either of the Iraqi communist parties).
> I don't accept that. For example I am not, at the moment, badly affected
> personally by pollution or environmental destruction - am I less able to
> comment than those who are? I am not a US citizen and have never been to
the
> USA - does this automatically make me less-informed than US subjects on
the
> matter of US foreign policy? I am a wage-earner and I feel able to make
> observations about the causes and best interests of the international
> working class, including the Iraqi working class, without regard to
myopic,
> short-term, localised and/or purely ideological considerations.
>
> ^^^^^^
> CB: No comment. I'm commenting on race as discussed above and elsewhere.
You don't think the analogy is relevant?
> Personally, I never accused Yoshie of racebaiting and I don't believe that
> was what caused her to posit that correlation.
>
> ^^^^^^
> CB: So I wasn't talking about you (!). Did you notice that somebody else
> used the racist term "racebaiting" ?
Your previous post, just like this one, was not addressed to anyone (i.e. it simply began "The U.S. war on Iraq is racist...."). As it had the same subject heading as previous posts of mine, and Yoshie and I had already been debating the matter, I assumed it was partly addressed to me.
> I take no responsibility for the views of US liberals, since I have little
> in common with them. If, however, you were alleging similarities between
> (various international) conservative views on race and the views of some
> contemporary Marxists or historical materialists, I would want to hear
some
> precise reasons and/or examples.
>
> ^^^^^^^
>
> CB: Here's the interesting thing here ( What's the "Freudian"/Shakes term
> for it ? " Methinks ye doth protest too much " ): No, I wasn't thinking
> about any contemporary Marxists or historical materialists, but how come
you
> _thought_ I was ? Oh , I know, if the shoe fits, wear it.
Refer to my previous comment.
> as I said to Yoshie, race (and
> other aspects of identity) are all too often raised by capitalists and/or
> other members of the bourgeoisie who happen to be from
> ethnic/national/religious/other minorities, in the interests of
networking,
> marketing and obtaining state assistance. None of which IMO is less
> objectionable than capitalist politics in general.
>
> ^^^^^^
> CB: No, Yoshie and I are not capitalists or bourgeoisie of color, nor do
we
> represent their point of view in this thread.
There are many ways to "represent" the bourgeoisie and one is the insistence that "identity" is more/equally significant than/to (economic) class. I don't think that's what you and Yoshie are doing, but I'm not certain.
At this point, I think it's worth reprising --- from another recent post of mine --- the words of an Australian Aboriginal activist and Marxist, Yabu Bilyana:
"The Aboriginal middle class leaders have a definite interest in covering up the truth. Their social interests are bound up with securing their position within the capitalist state, and establishing themselves in the lucrative business of marketing Aboriginal culture and art, as well as deals with the mining companies, tour operators and real estate developers [...]
This is the content of black nationalist politics.
The Aboriginal leaders promote black nationalism which claims that the oppression of Aboriginal people arises from white society. But the continuing oppression of the Aborigines is not the result of "white society" but of capitalist society which attacks all sections of the working class--whether they be black, white or immigrant--for the profits of a few.
* * * *
[T]he contradictions of the profit system have reached such a point that the poverty, misery and degradation inflicted by it on the indigenous population indicates the social conditions that are being created for all sections of the working class.
There can be no social justice, secure living standards or democratic rights of any section of working people within the framework of the profit system. Aboriginal people can only advance their struggle as part of the struggle of the international working class to put an end to the profit system and for the socialist transformation of society."
Yabu Bilyana, 1944-1999
http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/apr1999/yabu-a07.shtml
> No, I don't think the problem you mention has come to equal that of
racism,
> nor is it a reason to stop protesting and opposing and criticizing racism,
> particularly with respect to the war on Iraq.
Since we apear to agree that racism is not the primary motive for the Iraq War, can we also agree that discussion of racism in realtion to Iraq occurs at the expense of more relevant issues/situations in relation to both Iraq _and_ racism?
> I certainly hope _all_ leftists have lost or are losing the 20th Century
> Marxist habit of simply supporting any cause which happens to appeal to
> subjective/popular opinion within definitely oppressed/colonised
> nationalities and ethnic groups. That is _not_ critical, it is
> populist/opportunist.
>
> ^^^^^^^
>
> CB: Clearly you articulate the opportunist position on this issue. Failure
> to criticize racism is one of the marks of an opportunist "socialist" in
the
> U.S.
I criticise racism and opportunism, so I'm a racist and an opportunist?! Well, whatever... Your next few paragraphs are so dominated by the standard bold, bald assertions and defamation of Marxist-Leninist polemics, that I'm not going to respond to them. Fortunately for me, I'm not in Moscow in 1938.
> Put it this way, Marx and Engels focussed your attention on the unity of
the
> world working class -Workers of the World , Unite !- The main division of
> the world working class in world history and still is due to racism.
True, but I don't think we should give it encouragement, such as flinging that shit in an extraneous context.
> The struggle against racism is the central struggle of the communist
movement.
That's strange, I thought it was the class struggle -- as you just indicated. I must have read a different Marx and a different Lenin.