Hallo Comrades, I see that the annotations I criticised were made by A. Holberg so my harsh words were attributed to the wrong address !!
Actally the annotations are more puerile than cynical - and show, I am afraid, that comrade Holberg is more interested in fighting the old worn-out battle between Stalin and Trotsky than developing the fight for a better world. In retrospect it is very clear that both Stalin and Trotsky ignored my point two of lessons for revolutionaries. But to comment in detail: > > From the Iraqi Communist Party .... > > We agree with your evaluation of the objectives > > driving US administration to war, in the framework > > of its overall strategy, especially regarding the > > Middle East. The defeat of these imperialist schemes > > and plans, in any part of the world, would, no > > doubt, be a victory for our communist and workers' > > movement, as well as for other forces fighting for > > justice, peace and peoples' right to freely > > determine their destiny, without hegemony and > > domination. > > For more than a quarter of a century, our Iraqi > > Communist Party, as well as other patriotic and > > democratic Iraqi opposition forces [it seems that the ICP does not dare to name these forces since this would make it obvious that at least some of them - if not the majority - are far from being either democratic or patriotic or boths.The ICP however has been in alliance with one or another of these forces], --- this IS cynical [and this is what led to my first posting] - are no alliances with "reactionary forces" for particular outcomes permissible? - has been waging > > a multi-sided struggle against Saddam's regime and > > its policies of aggression and terror. We consider > > this regime to be the first and principal cause of > > the calamities that have been inflicted on our > > people and country. [Above the declaration acknowledges the objective driving forces of (US-)imperialism in the region. This however seems to be just lip service for the ICP, since now it finds out that it's not these driving motives of imperialism but the policies of the bourgeois ASBP-regime in Iraq which is the main culprit. If however Saddam is the main enemy, why then combine all the disperate 'peace loving forces' to stand up against US-agression which (among others) aims at doing away with the bad guy?]. --- again cynical. Of course WITHIN Iraq Saddam is the MAIN enemy of the people - but only the most cynical opportunists would therefore ally themselves with American imperialism to get rid of him. See Guardian article by Seumas Milne I previously referred to (surely very relevant comrade Wosni - particularly "In fact, leftwingers were pretty well the only people in the west campaigning against the Iraqi regime two decades ago - left activists were being imprisoned and executed in their hundreds by Saddam Hussein at the time - while the US and British political establishments were busy arming Iraq in its war against Iran and turning a blind eye to his worst human rights abuses, including the gas attacks on the Kurds in the late 1980s." to which one can add left-wimgers in Iraq. Its adventures have lead to two > > devastating wars and eleven years of crippling > > economic sanctions as well as the looming war to be > > followed by occupation, under the pretext of > > eliminating weapons of mass destruction. [it's true that Saddam's policy since the 80s was adventurous, but have they really led to two wars or have they merely been the pretext sought by first the Iranian mollarchy and then US-imperialism to wage war? Remember that Khomeini called the war in the 80s a "gift from heaven" and Bush may have all reasons to think likewise] ---- it's a moot point. But in UK I would still blame Blair and his "New Labour" for what's gone on, even knowing full well that behind it is US imperialism - so the comment is unnecessary at the least. > > While we are grateful for any action and initiative > > to build a powerful movement against the aggressive > > schemes the US administration, we look forward, in > > addition, for open and effective support to, and > > solidarity with, the struggle of our people and > > party for a democratic, federal and pluralistic > > alternative [this would be okay if the declaration had not before made out Saddam and not (US-)imperialism as the main enemy to confront]. --- same comment applies Addressing only the current crisis, > > leaving aside Saddam's regime which is continuing > > its policy of bloody terror, even under the grave > > dangers currently threatening Iraq, would amount to > > dealing solely with the effects of its disastrous > > policies. > > While our party continues to struggle against the > > present dictatorship and its policy, we > > categorically reject war as means for change [This is interesting to hear since the ICP has (had?) armed forces in Iraqi Kurdistan. Were they engaged in painting peace doves or in preparing for military confrontation (war)? Obviously the ICP as is the habit with this sort of revisionists once again tries to portrait itself as pacifists in order not to antagonize any potential 'peace loving' bourgeois ally]. --- You KNOW that do you? Sounds a suspect comment to make from the west. For > > achieving the democratic change, we rely mainly on > > our people, and their patriotic and democratic > > forces [1. how about relying in the first place on the working class instead of 'the people', and how about the character of the relationship to other oppositional forces? Who and where are the democratic and patriotic allies of the Iraqi 'Communist' Party?]. --- You answer the question.... I am sure there are plenty of those opposed to Saddam's dictatorship - but the same people will not be looking forward to intervention by the "democratic forces of the US !! - and the working class cannot succeed by itself in a third-world country like Iraq - or even in Britain and the USA for that matter !! In this exceptionally hard struggle, we look > > forward to internationalist solidarity. But our > > people also need help from the international > > community on the basis of international legitimacy > > and relevant UN resolutions, especially Security > > Council Resolution 688 (April 1991) which calls for > > ensuring human rights and ending repression in Iraq. [is the ICP talking about the necessity of proletarian internationalism? No, it refers to the UN - the well known "den of thieves"(Lenin), the body uniting all the exploiters and oppressors of the world under the leadership of the strongest of them (how could it be not like this?). History has shown (and could not do otherwise) that the UN is either a paper tiger or an instrument in the hands of the strongest imperialist power. This of course goes specially for the Security Council. To my humble opinion among the first international duties of a Communist is the struggle to ideologically delegitimize the UN (even it may seem at times to act as a brake to US-imperialist plans]. ---- What nonsense; A Holberg wants to consider the two points for REAL revolutionary action given in my previous message. Being such a "Holy-Marxist" leads nowhere. > > At present, we are considering responsible > > approaches to enable our people to avert a > > devastating war culminating in invasion and > > occupation. Among these options is the proposal to > > convene an international conference on the Iraqi > > issue, under the auspices of the UN, which would not > > only ward off the danger of war, but also ensure a > > democratic change to put an end to the agonies of > > our people and turn Iraq into a factor for peace and > > progress in the region. [how could the UN do so? If the Iraqi opposition is not able to topple the present dictatorship, how can the UN, which doesn't have an army of its own? The answer is easy! The UN would have to legitimize the US-army to do the Iraqi opposition's job. Back to square one.] > > In these critical and crucial moments, which our > > people and country are going through, we look > > forward to your more energetic efforts against war > > as well as your support for the struggle being waged > > by our party and people under extremely difficult > > conditions, against the vicious dictatorship, for > > peace and democracy. > > [Hail to the many members of the ICP who have given their lives in the past to fight against imperialism and reaction. Woe to the treacherous leadership of those militants, who again and again on the basis of the Stalinist theory of stages and the foreign policy interests of the corrupt CPSU has led the Iraqi working class into alliances with one or the other faction of the bourgeoisie (1958 with Qasim, in the mid-60s with Aref, and still later in the early 70s with Saddam's ASBP) and who up to this day declines to learn anything from the bloody lessons received from the hands of their 'antiimperialist' allies] --- see my comment at head of message --- Comradely greetings from Paddy NFHS Member #5594 Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://apling.freeservers.com/index.htm or http://www.e.c.apling.btinternet.co.uk _______________________________________________ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
