Janurary 6, 2005

Statement on Iraq


by Aduku Addea and Li'l Joe
Adukuaddae@aol.com Joe_radical@earthlink.net


In the heat of the struggle the Worker Communist Party, of all parties, cannot be a bystander!!! The communists are supposed to lead workers. They aught not to be the rear-guards, or, the fence-sitters.


It is the working people of Iraq that are doing the fighting and dying in the resistance movement. And they are also the so-called "collateral damage."


Were the Worker-Communist Party of Iraq actual scientific socialists they would be explaining to the world the actual party/class interests that the religious factions in Iraq represented, the class basis and consequently, different interests that comprise the Resistance. "Just as one does not judge an individual by what he thinks about himself, so one cannot judge such a period of transformation by its consciousness, but, on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained from the contradictions of material life, from the conflict existing between the social forces of production and the relations of production".


It is obvious that the secular party in Iraq -- those engaging in the mass struggles and class conflicts -- are the comprador bourgeoisie politically represented by the quisling "Iraqi Interim Government", set up by US imperialism and maintained by its armed forces, training an "Iraqi" army ('national guard') and preparing elections that would provide it with 'legitimacy'. The 'former Ba’athists' capitalists, politicians, as well as military officers are being brought into this political camp.


On the other hand, Iraqi workers, concentrated in urban working class communities, not having had any prior mass-based worker's party of their own, are brought into the resistance ideologically by the lower clergy, who live as they live but, more important to these workers, are fighting the occupation.


Civil War of worker against worker is possible because there appears to be a split among elements of the Iraqi national bourgeoisie, with the bourgeois Shia closer to making a deal of inclusion with the quislings, thus compelling the politics of the Sunni bourgeois to merge with lower clergy, that is to say, to merge into a 'popular front against imperialism' with the Sunni workers resistance.


The Westernized communist parties in Iraq, being sectarian and nationalist in both their theoretical perspectives and politics, are equally split: the (Stalinist) Communist Party of Iraq is politically merging with the faction of the national bourgeois represented by the Shia, with the comprador bourgeois as participants in the quisling government, and its elections scam on one hand, while the (Trotskyist?) Worker-Communist Party is removed from the struggle altogether, seeing it as nothing more than an opportunity to recruit members to its elitist national sect.


Notwithstanding the opportunism of the Iraq Communist Party, and the sectarianism of the Worker-Communist Party of Iraq, both have abandoned workers engaged in the resistance, both using the fact that the workers are Muslims to justify abstention in the name of rejecting "religious fundamentalism", and "terrorism".


This leaves workers who are suffering the occupation, and want to fight it, with the only choice being to join with one or the other lower clergy outfits, either Shia or Sunni depending upon the neighborhood, which, as a vicious circle, further alienate Iraqi workers from the "Communist" organizations that are in fact, both opposed to "political Islam" and denouncing the workers in the Resistance as "political Islamists" and "Terrorists", leaving them with no alternative other than to join the organizations that are fighting the occupation - the Islamic cells.


The communist must step up and provide both theoretical and practical guidance. They must step down in the trenches and fight the invader thereby out-resisting the "Islamist" and Ba'athist and imposing the proletarian agenda on the struggle.


These comrades should take note of the fragmented nature of the political struggle now taking place in Iraq. Careful analysis will inform the correct course of action.


Here is a simplified outline that might be useful.


The political contenders are as follows:


a. The US/Anglo invaders & Alawi collaborative group


b. The Islamist


c. Ba'athist


d. The proletariat (working class)



a, b and c are factions of the world bourgeoisie.


b and c are factions of the Iraqi bourgeoisie who are in contention with a, the representatives of the global bourgeoisie.


a, b, and c are collectively and severally the class enemies of the working class, d, locally and globally.


The Iraqi communists are obliged to carry on a struggle against a, b, and c (collectively and severally) in the interest of the Iraqi working class and ultimately on the behalf of the global working class, since the struggle is global in essence.


The global working class is obliged to join the Iraqi working people in their struggle against theses elements of the bourgeoisie (collectively and severally).


This is the historical imperative.


To make this abundantly clear, if the Communist workers in Iraq leave the handling of the resistance to b and c, the workers going over to b will be the kind of 'popular front against imperialism', which was criticized in ABC of Class Struggle.


The silencing of the working class and the decade-old replacement of informed socialist discourse with the half-wit sound bites of liberalism in the world-sociopolitical debate is a natural consequence of generations of adherence to the "political line" which preached the gospel of "United Democratic Fronts" against "Imperialism." This doctrine, as we have seen in practice, is capitalist ideology in essence, all nationalist struggles being ultimately directed at fortifying the capitalist order of society. It has yielded the most repressive and corrupt regimes in Angola, The Congo, Sudan, Egypt, Ethiopia, South Africa, Nigeria, Ghana, Uganda, Somalia - - the list goes on ad infinitum. http://www.nathanielturner.com/abcsofclassstruggle.htm


For Iraqi workers participating in the Resistance, without the presence of a militant communist force forming a class cadre separate from, and independent of the 'national bourgeois' and their clergy representatives, means subordinating worker's material class interests to bourgeois interests, ostensibly 'national interests'. The only way the workers will break with the lower clergy (Sadr &C) is in the praxis of the class struggle, with Iraqi communists in the trenches engaging in 'practical-CRITICAL struggle against these Imams by pointing out their opportunism , and showing that the imam's 'betrayals' are not 'betrayal', but doing what is in their class' political interests, thus making it clear through praxis Practical activity that the workers need an independent class party, supported by the world working class (materially and politically) consciously.


The Worker-Communist group has a good, principled understanding of the general class nature of a, but less of b, and don't understand that the workers are 'tolerating' c, because they have weapons and training. Were the W-CP, in the trenches with the workers, fighting the Occupation, the quisling government, cops, and officials they would realize this scenario, thus the practical [active-side] of materialist praxis, which tells them what to criticize as occasions arise of a, b, and -- self-emancipating workers from 'resistance' to revolution. This means that we are compelled to critique the WCPI theoretical position that revolution is not possible in Iraq's "dark scenario" -- for, if that's the case why have a communist workers party, the workers may as well join a, b, or/and c. It is only in the struggle to topple the Iraqi bourgeoisie, backed by the US military, that is, in this struggle for class [proletarian] power that class consciousness is engendered!


LabourPartyPraxis discussion - subscribe