Hamas: Liberation of Palestine and the Fight Against Imperialism [Archive]

Kassad

24th January 2009, 20:40

It is impossible to deny that the Israel/Palestine conflict has been a central and heated battle in the world for many years. The British Mandate that established the Jewish state marked a moment of tyranny and oppression emitting from the Western world. The newly formed state served as a United States puppet and still does to this day.

Israel votes consistently beside the United States on issues at the United Nations. In fact, Israel and the United States were two of the three nations who voted to maintain the blockade in Cuba, against the protests of the rest of the world. Along with the promotion of Israel comes the demonization of other nations in the Middle East.

During the end of the Bush administration, Iran became a hot issue, due to the fact that the American media and intelligence manipulated the populace to believe that Iran was developing nuclear weapons which would potentially be a threat to the United States. As outrageous as this was, many believed it and many are quick to label Iran and its army as supporters of international terrorism.

I guess we could say that 'terrorism' is the new word for 'communism'. With the Red Scare having died down, those in power needed to find a new scapegoat for their colonialism and militarization. They chose to use the same 'terrorist' fear tactics that the enemies they labeled terrorists used. They instilled fear amongst the American population with such things as the color-coded alert system, the Department of Homeland Security and consistent threats pumped into the minds of the masses by the American media.

Based on neo-conservative thought, developed heavily by Irving Kristol, there must be an enemy figure to combat. During the Reagan years, it was the fear of communism. Now, it is the fear of terrorism and Islamic militants that have brainwashed the American masses. Al Qaeda and Middle Eastern terrorist organizations have become the new face of fear for the Americans.

A prime example of this scare tactic is the demonization of Hamas, the organization that has recently won a democratic majority Palestinian parliamentary elections. Hamas is currently the largest resistance force which stands up to Israel's oppressive imperialism. Hamas is consistently painted as a terrorist organization, in prime because they refuse to bow down to American and Israeli imperialism.

Hamas was formed in 1987 and during the early stages of its development, the Israeli forces and politicians did not focus much on it, leaving it along to manage its own affairs. They focused mostly on the Marxist Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, for obvious reasons.

Israel has and will consistently use their political and military power to prevent any kind of Palestinian state from rising up and uniting. They have issued consistent military actions against Palestine, killing many innocents and freedom fighters. They have issued blockades on the area which, even due to the current ceasefire, have continued to prevent Palestinians from obtaining medicine, food and other necessities.

Hamas, after a small time in the dark, has now risen as a popular movement, consisting of a majority of Palestinians standing against Israel. Hamas is an Islamic militant group that stands against Israeli, American and Western imperialism which threatens the sovereignty of the Palestinian state and the freedom of the Palestinian people.

Many have compared the issue to the situation in Tibet, comparing the Dalai Lama's feudalist ideology to Hamas' Islamic fundamentalism. There are common misconceptions in this idea. First of all, Tibet was liberated by the People's Liberation Army of China, which quickly enacted massive social and labor reforms which took the Dalai Lama from power and put power in the hand of the peasant class. China has continued to protect these revolutionary reforms and the absence of China would destroy these reforms. Israel has done nothing for the Palestinian people but incite fear and promote military occupation. The Palestinians have everything to gain, while the Tibetan people have everything to lose. Hamas consists of the majority of the Palestinian people, whereas the Dalai Lama's monks are a small minority of people. It is simply a battle between imperialism and liberation, in which the Palestinian people have all stood up and called for emancipation from the Jewish state.

I do not condone Hamas' reactionary policies, notable on homosexuality. Regardless, it is a popular movement against Israeli and American imperialism. I believe the workers movement has a significant amount in common with the popular liberation movements of Palestine and ridding the area of the Israeli colonialism will be a significant step in forming a Palestinian workers movement.

Sasha

24th January 2009, 20:43

Hamas was formed in 1987 and during the early stages of its development, the Israeli forces and politicians did not focus much on it, leaving it along to manage its own affairs. They focused mostly on the Marxist Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, for obvious reasons.

bollocks, they where as activily suported by the mosad as the afghan mudjahdeen where supported by the CIA, dont try to white wash history

Kassad

24th January 2009, 20:47

bollocks, they where as activily suported by the mosad as the afghan mudjahdeen where supported by the CIA, dont try to white wash history

I believe the Mossad was also behind attempts to assassinate leaders of Hamas and the successful attempts to disenfranchise the organization, as well as murdering many of their leaders. I'm not whitewashing anything. During the earliest formation of the organization, Israel was much more focused on suppressing the Fatah.

Crux

24th January 2009, 20:53

First of all I'd like to point out that China currently has several "national issues". Secondly, the victories of the chinese revolution have very little bearing on the effects of the current chinese dictatorship, and thirdly, something, for understandable reasons, not reported that foten in the bourguis media is that a significant part of the national liberation movement in Tibet has broken with dalai lamas exile regime. But enough about china.

You fail to mention the islamists role during the cold war. indeed hamas recieved backing from mossad to try and counter the then more popular PLO. Hamas, with their open reactionary politics does not have the capability to liberate palestine. that said, this does not mean that the thousands supporting hamas are just reactionaries. the switch to Hamas has come after the failure of PLO. And PLO's failures are many, discussions between self-proclaimed leaders of Palestine and the reactionary leadership in Israel can never produce peace and a free palestine. What is needed, is of course, workingclass struggle on both sides of the divide. And for this there needs to be a formation of new woprkingclass parties ready to take the fight. Already today there is important work being done by palestinan and israeli trade unions.

Kassad

24th January 2009, 20:59

Well, I don't really sympathize with China any more than I do Tibet. I just see some of the reforms in Tibet as worth savoring and realize that the "liberation" of Tibet from China will likely lead to the Dalai Lama's rise to power, reverting the nation back to his theocratic rule which the majority of Tibetans do not support.

I see Hamas as the best possibility of unifying the Palestinian people against the Israeli colonialism. The consistent threat of the Jewish state is oppressive and destructive and the unity and support that Hamas has recently gained serves as proof of their potential. I don't see Hamas as the best possible group to lead any kind of workers revolution, since I doubt it will happen. I see them as the best chance at Palestinian liberation and the workers movement can only gain power after said liberation.

Crux

24th January 2009, 21:16

I have ver little time but...
that's what they said about Khomeni.

Enragé

24th January 2009, 22:23

I believe the Mossad was also behind attempts to assassinate leaders of Hamas and the successful attempts to disenfranchise the organization, as well as murdering many of their leaders. I'm not whitewashing anything. During the earliest formation of the organization, Israel was much more focused on suppressing the Fatah.

Yes, they were focused on suppressing Fatah, and one of the things they did was support Hamas against Fatah (and, as we all know, when Hamas became more powerful, they supported Fatah against Hamas)

Kassad

24th January 2009, 22:26

Yes, they were focused on suppressing Fatah, and one of the things they did was support Hamas against Fatah (and, as we all know, when Hamas became more powerful, they supported Fatah against Hamas)

Of course. It's a never-ending cycle of imperialism.

Merces

24th January 2009, 23:34

As far as I'am concerend any organization who cowardly kills innocents inthe name of ideology is nothing more than a cancer on this planet. Hamas is a terorrist organization.

Yehuda Stern

25th January 2009, 00:20

An interesting re-writing of history. Several corrections are needed to take this piece from the realm of third world rhetoric back into reality:

Hamas was formed in 1987 and during the early stages of its development, the Israeli forces and politicians did not focus much on it, leaving it along to manage its own affairs.

In fact, Israel and its security forces were actively involved in establishing Hamas as a counterweight to the secular PLO. Ariel Sharon was probably involved personally in this. This is hole number 1 in the attempt to make Hamas out to be some revolutionary resistance movement.

They focused mostly on the Marxist Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, for obvious reasons.

Actually, the PFLP was always a small group, even at the height of its power, and most of its support came from students and intellectuals. At all times prior to Hamas' rise to power, Fatah was always in Israel's sights, with the PFLP occupying a significantly lower second place.

Much can also be said on the ridiculous characterizing of the PFLP as 'Marxist.' Suffice to say, anyone who thinks that an organization capable of fighting with Israeli agent Dahlan against the elected Palestinian government is Marxist has no idea what Marxism is.

Hamas, after a small time in the dark, has now risen as a popular movement, consisting of a majority of Palestinians standing against Israel. Hamas is an Islamic militant group that stands against Israeli, American and Western imperialism which threatens the sovereignty of the Palestinian state and the freedom of the Palestinian people.

The first half of the sentence is certainly true, and Hamas' popularity has only risen due to its victory against Israeli imperialism. However, to say that a group which has already signalled several times to the American and Zionist imperialists that it wishes to arrive at some sort of deal with them is "standing against Israel" is sheer fantasy. Hamas, like Fatah before it, wants not to defeat imperialism, but to arrive at an arrangement with it. It will betray the masses who support the moment it will be able to, and has actually already served in this role briefly before.

Tibet was liberated by the People's Liberation Army of China, which quickly enacted massive social and labor reforms which took the Dalai Lama from power and put power in the hand of the peasant class. China has continued to protect these revolutionary reforms and the absence of China would destroy these reforms. Israel has done nothing for the Palestinian people but incite fear and promote military occupation.

In fact, in both cases the occupier has claimed that it has advanced the status of the nation it oppresses. Zionists claim that Israel has advanced the Palestinians in terms of jobs and living standarts, at least back when Palestinians worked in Israel, and this claim has about as much merit as that of the Chinese Stalinists. This, of course, was on the background of intense exploitation and oppression, which exploded in the first Intifadah. Needless to say, it takes a chauvinist monster to put exploitation of the labor of oppressed people in a positive light.

GX.

25th January 2009, 04:55

As far as I'am concerend any organization who cowardly kills innocents inthe name of ideology is nothing more than a cancer on this planet.
Yes, I hate Israel too!

The Author

25th January 2009, 17:03

I certainly wouldn't support Hamas, but how many "genuine Marxist" parties are there in Palestine? How many in Israel? What are they doing while all of this conflict is taking place? I would really like to know.

Yehuda Stern

25th January 2009, 17:24

I hold that we are the only genuine Marxist group in Israel (I don't know of any in Palestine). If you would like to know more about our actions, PM me.

Kassad

25th January 2009, 17:47

Well, here's what I don't understand about some of your perspectives. Of course I would prefer to see a workers movement and a proletariat revolution in Gaza, but the liberation of Palestine is essential to put a stop to Zionist imperialism. The Fatah has failed to rally support, whereas Hamas has united the Palestinian people. It is a popular movement that has united the people of Palestine against Israel, which from what I've seen, can't be characterized as 'terrorist', since the actions it has undertook have been defensive. The bombings and attacks they've taken part in appear to have been aimed at the Zionist occupation. Am I wrong?

Annie K.

25th January 2009, 18:05

I don't see why defensive actions can't be terrorist. If they are conceived with to intention to create a state of terror, they are. But that's a side problem. Terrorism has its drawbacks but they are directly linked to the particular situation in which it is used; it can't be opposed a priori.
The problem, in my opinion, is that the liberation of palestine is essential for the sake of the palestinian population, and that the hamas has done nothing that can make this liberation closer.
The separation of gaza and the cisjordany is not an unification.

Kassad

25th January 2009, 18:13

Well, of course. Lenin's Bolsheviks practiced terrorism by condoning armed robbery to obtain funds. Depends where you draw the line, really. Terrorism has become such a demented term as of late.

I disagree with you though. I think that organizing a militant resistance movement in Palestine is completely necessary and the Fatah failed to do that. Every other organization has failed except Hamas which is uniting and organizing to fight the Zionist military occupation. They are the only ones who have posed any resistance in the most recent clashes and conflicts.

PRC-UTE

25th January 2009, 18:24

In fact, Israel and its security forces were actively involved in establishing Hamas as a counterweight to the secular PLO. Ariel Sharon was probably involved personally in this. This is hole number 1 in the attempt to make Hamas out to be some revolutionary resistance movement.

I'm glad you brought this up. Hamas is not an anti-imperialist movement

Kassad

25th January 2009, 18:38

I'm glad you brought this up. Hamas is not an anti-imperialist movement

Are you actually going to propose that the organization is just acting anti-imperialist and anti-Israel with no real substance? So the massive military clashes have all been a charade?

Charles Xavier

25th January 2009, 19:34

Lynx

25th January 2009, 19:41

As far as Iran is concerned, Hamas is their proxy and a possible bargaining chip.

Yehuda Stern

25th January 2009, 20:37

Kassad: First of all, I didn't Hamas terrorist, although it cannot be denied that Hamas is responsible for many attacks on Israeli civilians. At any rate, I do not doubt for a second the need for Palestinian liberation. I just don't believe Hamas can bring it. I think only a revolutionary proletarian party can. As for your other question, Hamas has been trying for months to make its peace with imperialism, and in fact is still trying. It is going down the same road that Fatah took over 15 years ago.

Annie K.

25th January 2009, 20:59

They are the only ones who have posed any resistance in the most recent clashes and conflicts. I don't deny that.
But once again, resistance in itself is not what we should care about. It's only a cure for hurt prides and dignities, not a concrete amelioration of the lives of the palestinian, and even less a liberation.
It's not even a all-or-nothing matter. Certain modes of resistance can allow a limited but significative liberation of the fighters, or a positive action against the agressions of the dominant power. That's why, for example, the resistance against nazi occupation in european countries, during the period when the final liberation of the country by the allied armies was not a tangible possibility, was not a waste. It saved many humans from the persecutions, and it was in certain aspects a positive experience from a revolutionnary point of view.
But the hamas resistance save no one, and I really doubt that the life among the militias is positive from any point of view. And no army is coming to free the palestinian.

Are you actually going to propose that the organization is just acting anti-imperialist and anti-Israel with no real substance? The imperialist ventures of israel haven't been contained or slowed down by the hamas. Means yes.

Bolshevik-Leninist

25th January 2009, 23:00

Hamas is a palestinian resistance movement, there is no Palestinian Authority right now, there is only for or against resistance to Israel. Left being for Resistance right being for submission. The Palestinian people will follow who is leading them toward their national goals for liberation. Despite the fact that Hamas has a reactionary social policy its won the people over from resistance. The working masses are in the camp of resistance. So whoever supports resistance is working with the proletariat and peasantry for liberation. After Liberation the situation will change, but this is not the reality right now.

I think the direction of your post is correct. However, we must be quite careful to be clear on this. Revolutionaries must fight alongside Hamas against imperialism. This is not the same as joining Hamas or offering any political support to Hamas. We recognize that Hamas right now represents the leadership of the Palestinian masses fighting against Israeli imperialism. We aim to win leadership of the working class in Palestine and other oppressed nations fighting imperialism by fighting alongside, winning workers with advanced consciousness to our political conclusions, and remembering that military support to Hamas means that we are saying to the oppressed with illusions in Hamas: we fight alongside you against imperialism and aim to convince you of the necessity of socialist revolution for real national liberation, but we do not cease to wage a political struggle for leadership of the working class and masses fighting imperialism.

Red Robespierre

25th January 2009, 23:32

Hamas is a palestinian resistance movement, there is no Palestinian Authority right now, there is only for or against resistance to Israel. Left being for Resistance right being for submission. The Palestinian people will follow who is leading them toward their national goals for liberation. Despite the fact that Hamas has a reactionary social policy its won the people over from resistance. The working masses are in the camp of resistance. So whoever supports resistance is working with the proletariat and peasantry for liberation. After Liberation the situation will change, but this is not the reality right now.

This summation of events in Palestine, as they exist now, reflects the most correct line for Marxist-Leninists. The struggle against the Zionist-Israeli imperialists, enjoying the financial and military support of the West, requires a broad, unified front amongst the Palestinians that transcends class boundaries. Hamas, after having been elevated to the vanguard of the Palestinian national liberation movement, is inherently progressive in its capability to resist and weaken Zionist imperialism.

PRC-UTE

26th January 2009, 00:10

Are you actually going to propose that the organization is just acting anti-imperialist and anti-Israel with no real substance? So the massive military clashes have all been a charade?

I'd propose what Lenin and the Communist International did- that not everyone in conflict with imperialism can actually defeat it. Or really intend to.

as we've seen in Ireland and many other oppressed nations, many who pose as anti-imperialists will make peace with the imperialists and establish themselves as capital's local enforcers. I think this is all but guaranteed unless there is also a proletarian revolution as well.

I don't think imperialism can be ignored, but national liberation without a socialist revolution is impossible under capitalism.

redguard2009

26th January 2009, 02:04

Yes, it is quite likely that if Palestinian resistence were ever to triumph and Israel capitulates or is destroyed, they would eventually seek peace with western capitalists and social progress would end there.

But there's no sense in not supporting something that has enormous short-term benefits for a large number of people simply because its end result isn't up to our "expectations". The lives of Palestinian workers would benefit enormously from their liberation -- isn't that what it's all about?

PRC-UTE

26th January 2009, 02:22

Kassad

26th January 2009, 14:50

I don't plan on ever joining Hamas, but I don't see anything wrong with extending solidarity to an anti-imperialist organization. Still, I am interested to see as to why people are convinced that Hamas will peacefully lay down their guns with Israel if given an opportunity for peace. What would suggest such a thing?

Leo

26th January 2009, 15:53

I don't plan on ever joining Hamas, but I don't see anything wrong with extending solidarity to an anti-imperialist organization.

The problem is that you support the bosses of Palestinian proletarians, that you support gutless rats like Haniyeh and Meshaal who hide in their layers while Palestinian workers give their lives for their interests, for the national interests. You side with the ruling class in Palestine, not with the working class, you support people who are the Israeli states partners in the massacres.

Kassad

26th January 2009, 17:23

Leo

26th January 2009, 17:38

Charles Xavier

26th January 2009, 17:48

The problem is that you support the bosses of Palestinian proletarians, that you support gutless rats like Haniyeh and Meshaal who hide in their layers while Palestinian workers give their lives for their interests, for the national interests. You side with the ruling class in Palestine, not with the working class, you support people who are the Israeli states partners in the massacres.

There is a bourgeioisie of the Palestinians, its very small though, and its divided. One side of the bourgeioisie supports resistance for its own measure but it links up in this regard with the national goals of the working masses. The other side the Palestinian bourgeioisie wage a propaganda war that Israel will peacefully give up Palestine and it can be negotiated and slowly and surely they will do it. For the big bourgeioisie the latter is preferred because they can have business as usual.

But we must question ourselves in any conflict where does the working masses stand. If they stand for liberation, or is it solely out of petty-bourgeioisie nationalism? Most national liberation struggles do take place when its the petty-bourgeioisie who is taking up the banner for nation(IE when the people recognize themselves a nation but don't think it needs to be separated and the bourgeoisie don't support it either), Basque, Galicia, and Catalonia in Spain, Quebec in Canada, sometimes even the bourgeioisie, in the eastern bloc countries after the fall of the soviet union, separation of Norway and Sweden, Santa Cruz(though its an artificial nation) in Bolivia, the breakup of Yugoslavia, Tibet etc etc.

Though these situations can sometimes turn themselves into struggles of working people or to the struggle of the big bourgeioisie. But communists do not ask what could be, we ask what is. And we take a position on the actual situation that we see before us.

So its not always a banner that communists must stand behind, we are a party of workers for workers, our interests are to elevate the social environment of working people. There has been many cases where its the working class and peasantry has taken up the banner of national liberation, Ireland is one example, Palestine is another, Vietnam, China, Korea, all of the colonies in this planet, the Philippines, Eastern Europe and France under the occupation of Nazi Germany, etc etc.

And in these struggles it is not the working class that always goes in alone, in Ireland the bourgeoisie allied themselves to the working class in the struggle for liberation, though later betrayed them. In China, the Communist Party of China allied itself with the KMT to overthrow the Japanese invaders, all accross eastern europe, popular fronts were formed to make up the resistance movement.

Sometimes the bourgeioisie will settle themselves for national oppression in most of Africa this is the case, in India for many years that was the case, and they sometimes join on at the last movement in order to control the national liberation.

In the case with apartheid in South Africa, the working masses from day one were on the side of resistance and national liberation. The communist party of south africa was originally an pro-apartheid party, the situation changed and it came to the front of the struggle against the apartheid.

The communist party of Iraq for example has the wrong line on liberation, which is why the Communist Party of Iraq doesn't have the people behind it. The people will go to who is leading them, not to just any organization.

Different class forces have different interests at different times

In John Reads 10 Days that shook the world, he explains,

The bolsheviks had a vote on insurrection, only 2 Trotsky and Lenin voted in favour of insurrection, an observer at the meeting yelled out, if you abandon the working people and allow the bourgeioisie to take over petrograd, we will abandon you. They had a revote and it passed in favour of insurrection.

So people don't care if you claim to represent them, and you fail to take up their interests, they will abandon your leadership and go to whoever willing to lead them.

Our question is where is the working class and peasantry? On any given struggle we must find that, and with that we march forward, whats correct today may be incorrect tomorrow.

So it is correct for us to support the side of resistance for Palestine, as working masses in this occupied country are on the side of liberation.

And maybe Anarchists and Left-Communists will have different opinions on the national struggles I listed and I could be incorrect on a few but the essense is what I am trying to explain.

Charles Xavier

27th January 2009, 01:00

From the actual John Reed book.

It is true that the Petrograd Soviet had not ordered a
demonstration, but the Central Committee of the Bolshevik party was
considering the question of insurrection. All night long the 23d
they met. There were present all the party intellectuals, the
leaders-and delegates of the Petrograd workers and garrison. Alone
of the intellectuals Lenin and Trotzky stood for insurrection. Even |
the military men opposed it. A vote was taken. Insurrection was
defeated!

Then arose a rough workman, his face convulsed with rage. "I speak
for the Petrograd proletariat," he said, harshly. "We are in favour
of insurrection. Have it your own way, but I tell you now that if
you allow the Soviets to be destroyed, _we're through with you!"_
Some soldiers joined him.... And after that they voted
again-insurrection won....

Kassad

27th January 2009, 01:03

Yes, this is what supporting Hamas means. Hamas' fight is cowardly bourgeois rats hiding in their dens while sending Palestinian workers to die, this is their "fight against Zionist imperialism", this is what you are expressing solidarity with.

Hamas is a united group of Palestinians fighting imperialism. Where does this surreal fantasy of a little group of leaders sitting in a pampered suite watching the minions run amok come from? From what I see, it appears to be a highly organized coalition resisting Zionism.

iraqnevercalledmenigger

27th January 2009, 02:20

Hamas is a united group of Palestinians fighting imperialism. Where does this surreal fantasy of a little group of leaders sitting in a pampered suite watching the minions run amok come from? From what I see, it appears to be a highly organized coalition resisting Zionism.

Kassad, all organizations have a rank and file and a leadership...

Paradox

27th January 2009, 02:22

However you try to rationalize it, I find this talk of supporting (regardless of whether this support is "critical" or "uncritical") a racist organization as truly perplexing. How can one who is revolutionary say that because an organization fights a seemingly anti-imperialist campaign, that group should be supported, even if only in that anti-imperialist sense, when that group is racist, misogynist, and other such wholly non-revolutionary things? It is understandable that one would want to resist occupation yes. But to suggest that because Hamas is "anti-imperialist," it's justifiable and even an act of solidarity with the Palestinian working class, to support Hamas in a "critical" fashion is disturbing. Does this not result in a slap on the face for the working class of Israel? Is not our goal a united working class movement involving the proletariat of all countries? How then would you explain to comrades in Israel who themselves work against the crimes of the government in their country and for a working class movement that because Hamas, an openly antisemitic group, is apparently the only available outlet of anti-imperialist sentiment for the Palestinians, you support their campaign of terror which only worsens the situation for the working class in both areas? This one-sided solidarity just seems completely wrong to me.

Leo

27th January 2009, 13:24

Hamas is a united group of Palestinians fighting imperialism.

Where does this surreal fantasy of a little group of leaders sitting in a pampered suite watching the minions run amok come from?

What you are saying, Hamas being a "united group of Palestinians fighting imperialism" is a fantasy. Hamas is gutless cowards hiding while sending ordinary people to death. Some of these rats aren't even in Gaza, ordering people there to die.

Hamas is Israel's parter in massacres, they are sending hard working Palestinian proletarians to die for their own interests.

Maybe you can't see it because all "little brown people" look the same to you :rolleyes:

Bolshevik-Leninist

27th January 2009, 15:26

What you are saying, Hamas being a "united group of Palestinians fighting imperialism" is a fantasy. Hamas is gutless cowards hiding while sending ordinary people to death. Some of these rats aren't even in Gaza, ordering people there to die.

Hamas is Israel's parter in massacres, they are sending hard working Palestinian proletarians to die for their own interests.

Maybe you can't see it because all "little brown people" look the same to you :rolleyes:

Well, what are "their own interests"--because it seems to me that right now the interest of Hamas is to defend itself from Israeli imperialism. This interest lines up with the interest of the Palestinian working class. The point of military support is to acknowledge that all Palestinians are oppressed on the basis of nationality, and if we do not defend from imperialism those groups leading (however improperly) the struggle against imperialism, we will not be able to win anyone at all to our struggle. The left-communist answer here is a non-answer. It is, fight imperialism as proletarian organizations, which is not already happening, but do not defend the organizations already fighting imperialism! It in effect says to the Palestinian masses: even though we cannot offer you a mass organization that is fighting imperialism, you must not fight imperialism alongside Hamas!

I say that communists must defend Palestine, including Hamas, from Israeli imperialism. We must fight to defeat Israeli imperialism, all the while pointing out that only the Palestinian working class allied with other the working class of other regional Arabic nations can successfully defeat imperialism. Hamas is a dead-end, no doubt, but we must win advanced workers (workers who are already fighting imperialism) not by telling them not to fight but by supporting their struggle. Hamas may be bourgeois, but it is silly to deny that it is fighting imperialism (even if it does not necessarily want to be). We must fight alongside it militarily, while it fights imperialism, in order to win away its political support.

Kassad

27th January 2009, 15:55

Bolshevik-Leninist

27th January 2009, 16:01

I have yet to see justification for the claim that Hamas will concede to Zionism whenever it gets the chance.
It will, because it is a capitalist organization fighting imperialism out of its oppression, not out of a long-term perspective for socialist revolution. That is, it cannot see the only solution for the fight it wages. Its interests lie in preserving capitalism, even at the cost of sacrificing the national liberation struggle.

Hamas has made this clear by their willingness to accept the 1967 border (which allows for the existence of imperialist Israel) and their tactic of launching rockets at Israeli towns which is designed to pressure Israeli imperialism, not defeat it militarily. But Hamas knows it cannot defeat Israeli imperialism, so it tries to cut deals like Fatah did. Communists warned of Fatah's betrayals before they came, and they did. The fact is, Hamas is a capitalist organization, and while its rank and file should be praised for fighting against imperialism, this does not translate to political support. Communist revolution is the only answer that can defeat imperialism and build a Palestinian workers' state, the only real solution to imperialist decay and oppression.

Charles Xavier

27th January 2009, 17:13

Merces

29th January 2009, 05:44

Yeah but Isreal has got better weaponry and is more and better equipped. Also Isreali girls are hot so that'll stop a palestinian dead in his tracks, who is used to seeing all women in burkhas.

Bolshevik-Leninist

29th January 2009, 15:22

Yeah but Isreal has got better weaponry and is more and better equipped. Also Isreali girls are hot so that'll stop a palestinian dead in his tracks, who is used to seeing all women in burkhas.

I know you are trying to be funny, but I don't really think this insensitive comment has any place in a discussion about Palestinians being slaughtered by Israeli imperialism.

SocialRealist

29th January 2009, 15:36

The question I have for you is "liberation" at what price? Is it fine for the Hamas to be launching rocket attacks on the civilian population due to the fact they feel they are being oppressed by the state of Israel?
As far as I remember that could be interpreted as terrorism rather than a legitimate revolutionary struggle. Hamas as it has been shown by their actions and words, crave a sense of being attacked. Only when the Hamas are attacked, they are shown as some what legitimate.

Merces

30th January 2009, 04:30

I know you are trying to be funny, but I don't really think this insensitive comment has any place in a discussion about Palestinians being slaughtered by Israeli imperialism.

No Iam being serious. with girls like these who wants to go war with Isreal, and probably have palestinian next top model.:scared:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrlE0h3pjlg&feature=related

Also really would you kill these lovely ladies( not speakign that all of em are hot but most are I mean look at our armed forces or those suicide bombers :crying:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szHUOxMaDyc

GX.

30th January 2009, 05:57

You're a moron :glare:

Yehuda Stern

30th January 2009, 13:57

Can someone kick this chauvinist asshole right out of here?

benhur

30th January 2009, 16:06

Can someone kick this chauvinist asshole right out of here?

Calm down, comrade. He's trying to diffuse the seriousness by making light-hearted comments, take it easy and relax. No need to be so glum. Anyway, unless you're blind as a bat, you must agree that Israeli girls are hot.;)

Charles Xavier

30th January 2009, 16:48

Calm down, comrade. He's trying to diffuse the seriousness by making light-hearted comments, take it easy and relax. No need to be so glum. Anyway, unless you're blind as a bat, you must agree that Israeli girls are hot.;)

This is very disrespectful.

Sam_b

30th January 2009, 21:28

He's trying to diffuse the seriousness by making light-hearted comments

So is making gross and offensive stereotypes and sexist humour 'light-hearted' for you?

Annie K.

31st January 2009, 01:22

His humor may be gross, but i don't see the sexism and the offensive stereotypes in it. Concupiscence is a valid reason for not killing someone.

Yehuda Stern

31st January 2009, 01:30

benhur:
1. There's a limit to how light hearted you can be in such a forum and such a subject. I can be very 'light hearted' at times, but in these situations I try not to be offensive towards people who might take it the wrong way. The person who made these comments obviously does not care the least about offending oppressed people.

2. Israeli "girls" are no "hotter" than "girls" anywhere else. In every country there are good looking women and less attractive women, same with men. To generalize in such a way about women is not only stupid, it shows chauvinism on a national level (as if Israeli women, being somewhat western, are naturally more attractive than Palestinian women, who are Arab), but also on a sexual level, as if it is permissible for a revolutionary to judge a nation on the basis of the looks of the women in it or women on the basis of their looks. I honestly cannot start to describe all the ways in which the things said are disgusting and reactionary.

3. With your callous attitude towards such insulting and reactionary attitudes, I'm halfway to proposing that you get thrown out along with your chauvinist friend.

Lynx

31st January 2009, 02:07

The Palestinian people can defeat the Israeli state, they will outnumber the Israelis in Israel, they have everywhere to go and exist. Its inevitable that Palestine will win, unless Israel wipes out all the Palestinians.
Why do you believe this? Israel is not about to offer Palestinians full citizenship, let alone voting rights.

Zurdito

31st January 2009, 03:58

benhur

31st January 2009, 14:10

The Palestinian people can defeat the Israeli state, they will outnumber the Israelis in Israel, they have everywhere to go and exist. Its inevitable that Palestine will win, unless Israel wipes out all the Palestinians.

Even if this happens, Hamas or whoever is in charge will try to oppress workers from both sides, establish theocracy, and maintain power at all costs. Result: the suffering you see today will persist in another form, with a new government under new laws.

So your idea of 'victory' is actually a defeat for both Israeli and Palestinian workers. When will people realize that the problem isn't merely restricted to Israel or Palestine, but extends to a still larger problem, namely the abuse of power, which is what creates Palestine-like situations in the first place?

Yehuda Stern

31st January 2009, 14:59

To oppose the victory of the Palestinians over Israel in the name of fighting oppression is ludicrous. That you blame the Palestinians for wanting to set up a dictatorship and that therefore they must wait until they have a leadership more to your liking is to put yourself on the side of Zionism.

Annie K.

31st January 2009, 20:14

All palestinians don't want another dictatorship. To generalize in such a way about palestinian is not only stupid, it shows chauvinism on a national level (as if palestinians workers, being somewhat arab, are naturally more attracted to dictatoships than western workers, who are expected to tolerate only the oppression of their representatives).
We are able to criticize more than one oppression at one time. In fact, being opportunist in our critics takes away the logic and the credibility of our positions and the possibility of a progressive turn in the struggles we judge necessary.

Kassad

31st January 2009, 23:32

Even if this happens, Hamas or whoever is in charge will try to oppress workers from both sides, establish theocracy, and maintain power at all costs. Result: the suffering you see today will persist in another form, with a new government under new laws.

So your idea of 'victory' is actually a defeat for both Israeli and Palestinian workers. When will people realize that the problem isn't merely restricted to Israel or Palestine, but extends to a still larger problem, namely the abuse of power, which is what creates Palestine-like situations in the first place?

This is absolutely abhorrent to everything revolutionary socialists should stand for. A Palestinian defeat of Zionism would send a crushing blow to the bourgeoisie colonialists who are trying to stake a claim in that area. A workers revolution in that area will never happen under the firm grip of Israeli Zionism, but if the Palestinian people can unite against Israel and topple the Zionist control of the area, that is one less obstacle impeding workers control. You are sympathizing with Zionism by suggesting that we just sit back and wait for a solution.

Annie K.

1st February 2009, 03:22

Talking about utopist views.. I didn't understood that benhur is opposed to the unity of the palestinian people against israel. But it's not what you propose; you propose the submission of the people. Unity is something different, it doesn't require to accept the oppression of one organization.
Then again, a revolution is as likely to happen if the people living in palestine are under the grip of a conservative and imperialist state than if they are under the grip of a reactionnary and theocratic state. If the history of israel taught us something, it's that an oppressed people can free itself while sticking to religion and nationalism, and can as well in doing so build a new oppression over itself and other people around.

But if there is anything for what revolutionnary socialists should stand, it's the anti-idealist analysis of the situation. The facts.
And the reality is that the hamas is not the tool of the defeat of zionism.

You are sympathizing with Zionism by suggesting that we just sit back and wait for a solution. Do you suggest that we put on explosive belts and go blowing up civilians in tel aviv ? If not, I hardly see the difference with sitting back and waiting for a solution.
But once we all sat back, you can choose between cheering while two oppressive powers draw the people who trust them (or not) into another bloodbath, or not. But remember that revolutions are led by the living.

Yehuda Stern

1st February 2009, 15:32

All palestinians don't want another dictatorship. To generalize in such a way about palestinian is not only stupid, it shows chauvinism on a national level (as if palestinians workers, being somewhat arab, are naturally more attracted to dictatoships than western workers, who are expected to tolerate only the oppression of their representatives).

If this is supposed to be some clever sting at me, then I don't really get its relevance.

benhur

1st February 2009, 19:25

If this is supposed to be some clever sting at me, then I don't really get its relevance.

You don't get a lot of things, Yehuda.;) Point is, when you support reactionaires like hamas, when you speak of hamas as a representive of Palestinians, is that not an insult to Palestinians (and Arabs/Muslims in general)? That they're incapable of organizing a true workers revolution? That they're not ready for this, and must therefore depend on religious nuts like hamas?

This is a patronizing attitude that most people have toward Arabs, which is why they expect them to support hamas, because in their mind, they're convinced that Arabs are incapable of a true workers revolution.

Guerrilla22

1st February 2009, 19:54

Sorry, Hamas is not an anti-imperialist movement. Sure they fight against Israel, they fight against a lot of groups, including other Palestinians. Iran opposes Israel as well, are they fighting against imperilaism? I'm not trying to claim that Hamas doesn't have the right to fight back, I just think we need to be realistic as to what the group actually is.

Bolshevik-Leninist

1st February 2009, 20:00

Hamas is being attacked by imperialism and defending itself, as it has every right to do. It is incapable of defeating Israeli imperialism. The only solution is an Arab workers revolution establishing a socialist federation of the Middle East and defeating Israel. But revolutionaries must acknowledge that Hamas is fighting imperialism, even if it will betray the struggle. We must fight alongside Hamas in order to win over its political support by breaking their illusions in pro-capitalist leadership. And we must defend it against imperialism, recognizing that while it is part of the bourgeoisie and reactionary, it is however grudgingly fighting imperialism. We must defend Hamas and all of Palestine against Israeli imperialism and call for the defeat of the imperialist Israeli military.

Marion

1st February 2009, 20:53

So the "only" solution is an Arab workers revolution and yet simultaneously we "must defend" bourgeois Hamas (a party you admit may "betray the struggle). How exactly does that work then???

Yehuda Stern

1st February 2009, 21:04

You don't get a lot of things, Yehuda.

As low as that comment is, I will refrain from replying in kind, as any person who has read anything by either of us should know quite well who has an advantage in "getting" things.

As for the rest of your post, it is the same stupid demagogy I hear from ultra-lefts at all times. It does not address any of my arguments and is honestly just a lame excuse for pro-imperialism.

Bolshevik-Leninist

1st February 2009, 21:25

So the "only" solution is an Arab workers revolution and yet simultaneously we "must defend" bourgeois Hamas (a party you admit may "betray the struggle). How exactly does that work then???

We must acknowledge that to refrain from fighting imperialism in Palestine would be to capitulate to Israeli imperialism. Military support is a tactical question as well as a political question. Hamas is fighting on the same side as revolutionaries in the fight against Israeli imperialism. We must fight alongside and defend Hamas from imperialism in order to win over the layers of workers and oppressed fighting under its (mis)leadership, by presenting ourselves as a political alternative to pro-capitalist groups like Hamas who are in the (perhaps uncomfortable) position of fighting imperialism. Only by fighting alongside them in their fight can we demonstrate that only we have a solution, only we workers can make the socialist revolution that is needed to defeat imperialism. Make no mistake--imperialism represents the biggest and most difficult to defeat obstacle to the socialist revolution internationally. We fight alongside the bourgeois misleaders of the anti-imperialist struggles of the oppressed because to refuse to do so is to capitulate to imperialism.

Bolshevik-Leninist

1st February 2009, 21:28

From "Self-Determination and Military Defense: The Marxist Method" by Sy Landy, in Proletarian Revolution #59, Summer 1999

Self-determination is rarely granted by imperialism without the threat of a fierce struggle, political and military. When the national struggle is controlled by bourgeois or petty-bourgeois leaderships, precise tactics are necessary. Leninists use the tactic of "military-technical support" in defense of a non-communist leadership fighting the same oppressor. This can involve enabling that leadership to get arms and other tactical aid from any source it can. That is, for a moment in time, each for their own reasons, communists and non-communists aim their guns (literally or figuratively) not at each other but at a common enemy.

Military support to a non-working-class leadership means that we have no political agreement with it. Leninists have given military support over the century to the Russian counterrevolutionary "socialist" Kerensky against the Tsarist General Kornilov, to the reactionary Ethiopian emperor Haile Selassie against Italian imperialism, to the murderous Chiang Kaishek in China against Japanese imperialism, to the bloodthirsty General Galtieri of Argentina against the British imperialists, and to the criminal Saddam Hussein against U.S./U.N. imperialism -- to name only a handful of enemies of the working class who for a historical moment were forced to fight on the right side. Likewise, we can, at appropriate times, give military support to the KLA or to Milosevic's regime against the momentarily dominant oppressor. They are nothing more than the masses' unwilling and very temporary "allies".

Since military support in the sense described implies no political agreement, we sometimes refer to our policy as "military but no political support." For that reason, in general we do not call for a "military victory" by non-proletarian elements if that would imply support for their taking state power or for their war aims. The importance of this distinction may be seen again in the example of the Spartacists, who called for the military victory of the FMLN in El Salvador, advocating state power for a class-collaborationist front; we advocated only military support, for the defeat of imperialism. (See Socialist Voice no. 14.) The tailist Spartacists effectively endorsed a popular front coalition trying to win state power from the pro-imperialist regime. Genuine Marxists reject class collaboration and give no political support to any capitalist government.

In some other situations, like the war between NATO and Serbia, we did call for military victory over the imperialists -- because here the term implied only defeat of the imperialists and not the raising of a new bourgeois contender to state power. Victory might result in keeping Milosevic in power, but especially given the political divisions in Serbia, that was not guaranteed nor was it our intention. (Our support for Kosovar self-determination was clearly in opposition to Milosevic's war aims.)

It may be that for lack of resources we can offer no actual military or technical support. Then the slogan becomes a propaganda statement, a means to begin to convince enough workers of our method so that in the future more tangible offers of military assistance will be possible.

We emphasize that we give military support when the treacherous misleadership in question is actually fighting the oppressors. We support only those military blows which are struck against the common enemy. As Trotsky pointed out in advocating military support for the bourgeois Republic against Franco's fascists in the Spanish Civil War, we know that many of the weapons sent may be used against us and the masses. But in the acute situation which demands our aid, we have no choice but to take a very real risk.

There are specific circumstances, like those in which the Bolsheviks gave military defense to Kerensky's Provisional Government, where the misleaders are not actually fighting the enemy but where we give such support. A crucial feature of the military support tactic, as with the defense of self-determination, is to expose false leaderships to their base in the masses. The Bolsheviks' military defense actually served to show the workers of Petrograd that they and not the Provisional Government defended the masses and their soviets.

Use of military support has become more frequent in the post-World War II period. The world proletariat suffered mass defeats because of social democratic and Stalinist betrayals, including the suppression of the post-war working-class revolts. Therefore workers have had to face revolutions of the oppressed generally led by pro-capitalist misleaderships; military support has been one important tactical means of intervening in self-determination struggles.

Sam_b

1st February 2009, 22:49

As for the rest of your post, it is the same stupid demagogy I hear from ultra-lefts at all times

I agree. Its funny that Benhur has a picture of Trotky as an avatar but i've yet to see him formulate any Trotskyist position whatsoever.

Kassad

1st February 2009, 22:59

You don't get a lot of things, Yehuda.;) Point is, when you support reactionaires like hamas, when you speak of hamas as a representive of Palestinians, is that not an insult to Palestinians (and Arabs/Muslims in general)? That they're incapable of organizing a true workers revolution? That they're not ready for this, and must therefore depend on religious nuts like hamas?

This is a patronizing attitude that most people have toward Arabs, which is why they expect them to support hamas, because in their mind, they're convinced that Arabs are incapable of a true workers revolution.

I have yet to see any workers movement formulate in Palestine. Hamas has shown their ability to recruit massive numbers of supporters and Palestinians which pose a significant threat to Israeli imperialism. Though a workers movement is our ideal goal, it is not plausible at the current time. The only possible liberation of Palestine is going to come through Hamas, at least for the time being. They have shown themselves to be a uniter of the Palestinian people and they consistently threaten Zionist colonial gains.

A workers movement will only survive once the Zionist movement has been pushed back and stifled in Palestine.

BobKKKindle$

1st February 2009, 23:27

namely the abuse of power, which is what creates Palestine-like situations in the first place?The oppression of the Palestinian people is not due to "abuse of power" - framing the problem in this way totally ignores the fact that Israel is a tool of the imperialist powers and is only able to survive and maintain its position as the oppressor of an entire nation because it agrees to protect the interests of the imperialists in the Middle East and serve as a forward military base. Identifying the problem as something abstract and ahistorical such as "abuse of power" implies that the Palestinians are responsible in the same way or to the sane extent as the Israeli state whereas in reality this is not the case. The problem is imperialism, which derives from capitalism, and so the liberation of Palestine and the creation of a unitary state giving equal rights to all of its inhabitants regardless of their ethnic or religious background can only come about as the result of a proletarian revolution on a regional scale.

Your posts have consistently shown that you have no grasp of the situation on the ground. You characterize Hamas as a group of "religious nuts" who want to impose their will on the Palestinian population, and yet Hamas came to power through a democratic election which received the validation of numerous international observers and Hamas still commands the support of the Gazan population despite the ongoing blockade and the recent Israeli invasion, partly because they are not corrupt in comparison to Fatah and so have been able to sustain the provision of basic services despite a serious shortage of funds and materials, but also because they are one of the few groups which has not become a tool in the hands of the Israeli state but has continued the resistance struggle against all odds. Nobody is forcing anyone to support Hamas - you and other ultra-lefts have a complete disregard for the ability of Palestinian workers to make political judgments which reflect their class interests because you assume that the only reason someone would ever support or become part of Hamas is because they have been forced to by the strength of bourgeois ideology, and so need to be told that fighting imperialism is irrational and a capitulation to nationalism - apparently ultra-left sects in the imperialist core feel confident enough to tell Palestinian workers how to behave. These points have all been made before, but you ignore them and continue to promote your twisted views. You criticize Hamas and claim that they are not worthy of our support because you believe that the only legitimate form of resistance for Palestinian workers is a movement which adopts "clean" tactics (i.e. no attacks on civilians) and supports the overthrow of capitalism - in other words, you seek to impose your values and conceptions of political legitimacy on an oppressed population and thereby disregard the material circumstances in which Palestinians have been forced to live and the right of all oppressed peoples to freely determine their own methods of resistance without being forced to accept the idealistic moral criticisms of those who have no direct knowledge or experience of the situation. Palestinian workers decide to launch rockets against Sderot, then that's their prerogative, and any attempt to deny this prerogative constitutes the worst form of idealism and national chauvinism. We have to understand that anti-imperialist struggle is not a dinner party - the FLN had to carry out surprise attacks against French settlers in Algeria by planting bombs in cafes in order to remove the occupation and establish their own independent state but French anti-imperialist intellectuals such as Sartre acknowledged that a clean and peaceful resistance is an impossibility when confronted with a barbaric military apparatus, and so continued to support the FLN. When confronted with violence and death, socialists do not flinch, we do not back down - we maintain our support for anti-imperialism.

Leo

1st February 2009, 23:43

I have yet to see any workers movement formulate in Palestine.

More chauvinist ignorance...

Only a few years ago there was a wave of massive strikes involving tens of thousands of workers.

http://libcom.org/news/palestine-civil-servants-strike-310806

http://libcom.org/news/class-war-in-palestine-latest-news-03092006

http://libcom.org/news/palestine-strike-may-spread-to-fuel-workers-10102006

http://libcom.org/news/armed-gunmen-attack-palestine-workers-radio-23102006

http://libcom.org/news/health-worker-and-bank-strikes-in-palestine-04122006

http://libcom.org/news/gaza-public-sector-strike-spreads-14042007

http://libcom.org/news/palestinian-union-hit-all-sides-25072007

Regardless of all the facts that both Hamas and Fatah tried to control the Palestinian workers' struggle using the trade-union machinery, there is a working class in Palestine that wants to struggle regardless of how strong Hamas and Fatah is and that working class had managed to struggle. As for the supporters of Hamas, they can see what this organization had been doing to the Palestinian workers themselves.

Hamas has shown their ability to recruit massive numbers of supporters

All bourgeois organizations have the very same ability.

As for the rest of your post, it is the same stupid demagogy I hear from ultra-lefts at all times. It does not address any of my arguments and is honestly just a lame excuse for pro-imperialism.

It is an arguement you never even attempted to refute though, nor have you been able to show in any way that the position against Hamas is "an excuse for pro-imperialism" so I think you do look a bit too ridiculous when you claim it is "stupid" and "pro-imperialist".

Kassad

1st February 2009, 23:54

Well, that's swell and all, but have those working class striked managed to counter Israeli colonialism? Zionist imperialism? As I've stated before, I don't believe a workers movement has the proper ability to liberate Palestine at the current time, as much as I would like to see one. Hamas has done a great job at rallying the masses and millions of supporters, many of which I assume are working class, to continue to struggle against the Zionist machine. A workers movement has yet to stand up to Israel. Hamas has.

Leo

2nd February 2009, 00:04

The oppression of the Palestinian people is not due to "abuse of power" - framing the problem in this way totally ignores the fact that Israel is a tool of the imperialist powers and is only able to survive and maintain its position as the oppressor of an entire nation because it agrees to protect the interests of the imperialists in the Middle East and serve as a forward military base.On the other hand, claiming that Israel is the only source of oppression on the Palestinian proletarians is ignoring the reality of the disgusting attacks and crimes committed by bourgeois organizations like Hamas and Fatah along with the Israeli state against the Palestinian workers.

Your posts have consistently shown that you have no grasp of the situation on the ground.Neither do you.

You characterize Hamas as a group of "religious nuts" who want to impose their will on the Palestinian population, and yet Hamas came to power through a democratic electionReligious nuts who want to impose their will on the population has proven themselves in more than one occasion to be capable of coming to power through democratic elections.

Your respect for democratic bourgeois elections is admirable, and tells a lot of your politics. Most bourgeois parties come and had historically came to power through democratic elections, including Hitler, Thatcher, Reagan, Blair, Bush, Sarkozy among many many others. For real communists, democratic elections of the bourgeoisie does not have any validity.

Nobody is forcing anyone to support Hamas - you and other ultra-lefts have a complete disregard for the ability of Palestinian workers to make political judgments which reflect their class interests because you assume that the only reason someone would ever support or become part of Hamas is because they have been forced to by the strength of bourgeois ideology, and so need to be told that fighting imperialism is irrational and a capitulation to nationalismThis is quite a ridiculous arguement. Your whole arguement is a liberal one regarding "respecting peoples' choices", it is not a marxist arguement in any way. For a marxist the reason anyone becomes part of a bourgeois movement is having falling under the ideological control of the bourgeoisie, this is the same with those under the influence of Hamas and Al Fatah as well as Likud, Kadima and the Israeli Labour Party, as it is with Democrats and Republicans in the US, Labour and Conservatives in the UK and so forth.

Workers in Gaza are as capable of it as any worker under the influence of bourgeois ideology, and most workers are under the influence of bourgeois ideology in all parts of the world and still capable of coming to conclusions themselves, although of course whether they do so or not depends on the situation.

apparently ultra-left sects in the imperialist core feel confident enough to tell Palestinian workers how to behave.Funnily enough, there is not a single supporter of Gaza who is not from the "imperialist core" posting here while several "ultra-lefts" who argue against it are not from the "imperialist core" at all.

In any case, you are telling the workers in Palestine what to do as much as anyone else. You are telling the workers in Gaza to support Hamas (and don't pretend as if all workers in Gaza support Hamas because they don't and as we speak even Hamas is out there hunting dissidents). At least for ourselves, we are telling workers to put their own interests first which, just as here, doesn't involve fighting for any nationalist cause, and involves trying to survive rather than mobilizing for Hamas' war effort.

We have to understand that anti-imperialist struggle is not a dinner partyYes, the one you have in mind is the mobilization of workers by the bourgeoisie to get massacred.

the FLN had to carry out surprise attacks against French settlers in Algeria by planting bombs in cafes in order to remove the occupation and establish their own independent state but French anti-imperialist intellectuals such as Sartre acknowledged that a clean and peaceful resistance is an impossibility when confronted with a barbaric military apparatus, and so continued to support the FLN.Yes, and the FLN was such a great friend of the Algerian working class, wasn't it? :rolleyes:

Palestinian workers decide to launch rockets against Sderot, then that's their prerogative, and any attempt to deny this prerogative constitutes the worst form of idealism and national chauvinism.

I wonder how you are going to justify Hamas murdering militant workers and local dissidents. I suppose that's their prerogative, right? Why should you give a damn about it? All that matters is "fighting Israeli imperialism", and all the rest, well it's their business no?

Oh yes, you are very comfortable now, very easy for you to say all these, just as it was very easy for Sartre to say what he did in his comfy chair. Surely bombs ain't gonna be falling on you anytime soon, right? It is so easy, all this talk, when it is not you who has to die under a rocket launched or you who is the dissident murdered by Hamas.

Leo

2nd February 2009, 00:10

Well, that's swell and all, but have those working class striked managed to counter Israeli colonialism? Zionist imperialism?Neither has Hamas countered Israeli colonialism or Zionist imperialism. Countering imperialism is not throwing a few rockets against the enemy and using workers as cannon fodder as a proxy for other local imperialist powers. The Israeli state is strong and alive. Only the international struggle of the world proletariat can counter imperialism, and it has to counter world imperialism.

On the other hand, your logic is shockingly flawed, supporting sworn enemies of the working class because the working class is not strong enough.

Hamas has done a great job at rallying the masses and millions of supporters, many of which I assume are working classThis liberal arguement, "oh they have mass support" just keeps coming doesn't it? Yes, bourgeois organizations everywhere are capable of having mass support at times. Fatah has mass support. Likud has mass support. Kadima has mass support. Israeli Labour Party has mass support. Obama has mass support. McCain had mass support. Bush had mass support. I can go on. This doesn't make them any more valid for a marxist - only for a liberal.

Kassad

2nd February 2009, 14:58

Neither has Hamas countered Israeli colonialism or Zionist imperialism. Countering imperialism is not throwing a few rockets against the enemy and using workers as cannon fodder as a proxy for other local imperialist powers. The Israeli state is strong and alive. Only the international struggle of the world proletariat can counter imperialism, and it has to counter world imperialism.

On the other hand, your logic is shockingly flawed, supporting sworn enemies of the working class because the working class is not strong enough.

Hamas has impeded Israeli advances in Gaza. Their militant resistance of the Zionists has prevented Israel from making many colonial gains in the area. The Jewish state will not be destroyed any time soon, since they are a puppet of the United States and itc corporatist agenda. Right now, liberating parts of Gaza and the surrounding area should be a priority and Hamas has managed to make significant gains.

I'm not supporting an enemy of the working class. I don't consider Hamas to be in line with the bourgeoisie, or at least not the international banking elite, the corporate hegemony or the American-backed colonialists. They are struggling to liberate a land that they inhabited before they were forced from their lands and left to die.

You continue to make the issues overly-simplistic. I'm not saying that in every situation you should support an organization that can unite and rally supporters. However, I am saying that for the potential liberation of Palestine, a united front must be created. Who has managed to unite the people of Palestine against Israel? Who has continued to win popular support from the people of Palestine? Hamas has. They have created a militant front to combat Israel and Zionism. They are countering the American and Israeli imperialist forces and rejecting their colonialism. A victory over the colonialists is a victory for workers everywhere.

Guerrilla22

2nd February 2009, 17:06

They have shown themselves to be a uniter of the Palestinian people

They often knock off politcal opponents and ahve been fighting with Fatah and their supporters for years. I'd hardly call them the great uniters of the Palestinian people.

Hamas has impeded Israeli advances in Gaza.

Actually the Israeli government decided to pull settlements from Gaza in order to give the illusion that they were committed to peace and willingto make concessions, so that they could consolidate control over the west bank, which they view as being more important. The decision to do so had nothing to do with any efforts by Hamas.

Right now, liberating parts of Gaza and the surrounding area should be a priority and Hamas has managed to make significant gains.

And these would be?

2nd February 2009, 18:16

Well, that's swell and all, but have those working class striked managed to counter Israeli colonialism? Zionist imperialism?

From this quote you are implying that class struggle is secondary to "fighting Zionist imperialism" and "Israeli colonialism". If this is the case, then could you please define what you mean by "imperialism"?

As I've stated before, I don't believe a workers movement has the proper ability to liberate Palestine at the current time

Why not?

Right now, liberating parts of Gaza and the surrounding area should be a priority and Hamas has managed to make significant gains.

This stageist analysis has been attempted countless times and always led to massacre. Are you familiar with the Islamic Revolution in Iran? Because you are taking the same position as the Fedaian majority there before they were all massacred. It was important to first drive out the US-backed Shah (i.e. "overthrow imperialism" or whatever you would call it) and then deal with internal issues. Thousands were massacred and the leadership were forced into exile. The workers movement in Iran, which used to be very conscious and militant, has never recovered.

And that is just one example. Your politics have led to the massacre of hundreds of thousands of militant and conscious workers.

Bolshevik-Leninist

2nd February 2009, 18:27

There are essentially two major flawed positions being floated here. One is political support to Hamas, despite its being a reactionary bourgeois organization. The other is abstinence from the fight of Palestinians against imperialism. Neither position is correct: the first denies the revolutionary potential of the Palestinian workers to lead the struggle against imperialism, and the second denies the necessity of an organized fight against imperialism, wrongly arguing that bourgeois organizations fighting imperialism -- like Hamas -- are not really fighting imperialism.

The problem here is twofold. Revolutionaries cannot abstain from the struggle, yet we are not yet accepted by the Palestinian masses as leadership for the fight against imperialism. Yet both of the wrong positions argued here lead to this same outcome. By supporting Hamas politically, bourgeois nationalism is substituted for socialist revolution. This is essentially Kassad's argument. He and other Stalinoids do not pose the necessity for a fight for leadership of the struggle, instead capitulating to bourgeois nationalist forces because they are already in leadership. And this has essentially always been the Stalinist method.

On the other hand, ultra-lefts downplay the deplorable role of imperialism in maintaining the global capitalist order. They are right to point to bourgeois nationalists' betrayals of struggles, and they are right to argue that revolutionaries should lead these fights. But their proposition is essentially to abstain from fighting alongside Hamas because to them, the bourgeoisie of an oppressed country is equivalent to the bourgeoisie of imperialist countries.

This is wrong. Because of imperialism, Hamas has been forced to fight tempoarily on the side of workers. We must acknowledge this basic fact, just as we must acknowledge that Hamas is not capable of leading a successful national liberation struggle. We must fight alongside Hamas while it fights against imperialism in order to struggle for leadership of the national liberation struggle, so that it can be carried out and completed through socialist revolution.

The problem of the ultra-lefts is their attribution of a universal character to the bourgeoisies of the world. They (largely) acknowledge the special oppression of the Palestinian workers but fail to recognize that Palestine is oppressed as a nation, not only on class grounds. All Palestinians are oppressed, regardless of class. And we must fight alongside all those fighting against imperialism in order to carry the struggle forward on class terms.

Kassad

2nd February 2009, 18:35

From this quote you are implying that class struggle is secondary to "fighting Zionist imperialism" and "Israeli colonialism". If this is the case, then could you please define what you mean by "imperialism"?

No, I'm saying that for a workers movement to formulate, Zionism must be defeated. A workers movement has failed to rally support that could potentially confront and defeat Israel. Hamas has managed to muster that support and I believe that once Israel is on the defensive, a workers movement could emerge. Also, as I've said many, many times, imperialism is the exploitation of nations, usually small and underdeveloped nations, by other nations, usually bourgeoisie and developed. This is a product and result of capitalism, due to the profit and enterprise system that allowed workers and resources to be manipulated for personal gain.

Why not?

Because it has been proven that Hamas is doing a much better job at uniting and fighting Zionism than any workers movement has. In the future, it could happen, but at the current time, I don't see it as plausible.

This stageist analysis has been attempted countless times and always led to massacre. Are you familiar with the Islamic Revolution in Iran? Because you are taking the same position as the Fedaian majority there before they were all massacred. It was important to first drive out the US-backed Shah (i.e. "overthrow imperialism" or whatever you would call it) and then deal with internal issues. Thousands were massacred and the leadership were forced into exile. The workers movement in Iran, which used to be very conscious and militant, has never recovered.

And that is just one example. Your politics have led to the massacre of hundreds of thousands of militant and conscious workers.

Countless times? It has? From what I see, there are very few choices. American and Israeli imperialism is dominating the area and Hamas is the only potential threat to their colonial gains. Advocating a new movement would be divisive and would likely result in the domination of the area by the Zionists, leaving significant amounts of Palestinians displaced and left to die under their oppressive rule. It isn't an ideal situation at all, but I can't imagine a better chance of a workers Palestine under Israel instead of Hamas, which is at least a militant, popular front for liberation.

Bolshevik-Leninist

2nd February 2009, 18:38

Because it has been proven that Hamas is doing a much better job at uniting and fighting Zionism than any workers movement has. In the future, it could happen, but at the current time, I don't see it as plausible.

This is the crux of the Stalinist position: support to bourgeois nationalism because it already exists. Yet, Stalinists have already been supporting bourgeois nationalism. Our role as revolutionaries is to argue on principled grounds, not tail backward consciousness. Hence the need for military, not political support: continue to argue principled working-class revolutionary politics while fighting alongside the masses against imperialism.

Charles Xavier

3rd February 2009, 01:10

This is the crux of the Stalinist position: support to bourgeois nationalism because it already exists. Yet, Stalinists have already been supporting bourgeois nationalism. Our role as revolutionaries is to argue on principled grounds, not tail backward consciousness. Hence the need for military, not political support: continue to argue principled working-class revolutionary politics while fighting alongside the masses against imperialism.

Our goal is to elevate social conditions for our class. As communists, as the proletariat, we look for allies on every one of our positions we ally with Hamas against Imperialism, we ally with the Irish bourgeoisie to free Belfast, we ally with veterans groups and trade union to raise old age pension rates, we ally with bourgeoisie republican forces to bring down monarchy, we ally with social democrats to raise the minimum wage, we ally with anarchists to fight racists, we ally with Peasants groups to bring land reform, and we even ally with the green party and other small parties to bring about democratic reform.

We do this because as communists, as revolutionaries, its not our job to control everything or go in alone when we don't have to. We are not sectarian and we will work with whoever is willing to elevate the social conditions of working people. We are always looking for allies. We are a party of coalition and cooperation, a party of class unity, not class control. So our purpose is to defeat reaction were ever it ends up. Our job is to fight for progress regardless of who is fighting with us. This is what sectarianism is about. Sectarianism is an unwillingness to work together, if you can't control something you dismiss it. Sectarianism must be defeated. This is the true underlying discussion we are having.

Just because we support Hamas resistance against imperialism, doesn't automatically mean we support every one of their positions. But on the important issue of resistance, Hamas has taken the correct stand. We shouldn't be *****es because communists don't control the resistance, its not our job to control the resistance, its our job to resist.

Bolshevik-Leninist

3rd February 2009, 01:30

Our goal is to elevate social conditions for our class. As communists, as the proletariat, we look for allies on every one of our positions we ally with Hamas against Imperialism, we ally with the Irish bourgeoisie to free Belfast, we ally with veterans groups and trade union to raise old age pension rates, we ally with bourgeoisie republican forces to bring down monarchy, we ally with social democrats to raise the minimum wage, we ally with anarchists to fight racists, we ally with Peasants groups to bring land reform, and we even ally with the green party and other small parties to bring about democratic reform.

We do this because as communists, as revolutionaries, its not our job to control everything or go in alone when we don't have to. We are not sectarian and we will work with whoever is willing to elevate the social conditions of working people. We are always looking for allies. We are a party of coalition and cooperation, a party of class unity, not class control. So our purpose is to defeat reaction were ever it ends up. Our job is to fight for progress regardless of who is fighting with us. This is what sectarianism is about. Sectarianism is an unwillingness to work together, if you can't control something you dismiss it. Sectarianism must be defeated. This is the true underlying discussion we are having.

Just because we support Hamas resistance against imperialism, doesn't automatically mean we support every one of their positions. But on the important issue of resistance, Hamas has taken the correct stand. We shouldn't be *****es because communists don't control the resistance, its not our job to control the resistance, its our job to resist.
Words, just words. You are basically agreeing with everything I have written on the subject. So answer plainly and honestly: do you give political support to the bourgeois, reactionary Hamas?

And another thing, I think you should edit the sexist slur out of your post and apologize.

Devrim

4th February 2009, 11:46

On the other hand, ultra-lefts downplay the deplorable role of imperialism in maintaining the global capitalist order. They are right to point to bourgeois nationalists' betrayals of struggles, and they are right to argue that revolutionaries should lead these fights. But their proposition is essentially to abstain from fighting alongside Hamas because to them, the bourgeoisie of an oppressed country is equivalent to the bourgeoisie of imperialist countries.

I think that you have completely misunderstood what is being argued here. The 'ultra-lefts'* do not think that 'bourgeois nationalists' betray these struggles. They think that they act in their own class interests which are against those of the working class. They do not at all argue that 'revolutionaries should lead these fights'. They argue that national liberation struggles are against the interests of the working class.

This is wrong. Because of imperialism, Hamas has been forced to fight tempoarily on the side of workers. We must acknowledge this basic fact, just as we must acknowledge that Hamas is not capable of leading a successful national liberation struggle. We must fight alongside Hamas while it fights against imperialism in order to struggle for leadership of the national liberation struggle, so that it can be carried out and completed through socialist revolution.

It is not a fact that HAMAS has been 'forced to fight temporarily on the side of the workers'. What has happened is that some workers have fought on the side of HAMAS. Actually many more fled from the fighting though. The reason, in our opinion, that Hamas is 'not capable of leading a successful national liberation struggle', is not because HAMAS is bad, or bourgeois or Islamicist, but because national liberation struggles are in possible in the epoch.

The national liberation struggle is not a struggle for working class interests, but against them. After 'national liberation' is achieved, they tend to massacre workers not 'complete the struggle through socialist revolution'.

I think that this has been explained reasonably clearly. Please at least try to address the positions that you are criticising rather than your own idea of what these people must think.

Devrim

*As is widely known 'ultra-left' is a meaningless insult. However, I presume that you are referring to the left communists.

Cumannach

4th February 2009, 12:28

After 'national liberation' is achieved, they tend to massacre workers not 'complete the struggle through socialist revolution'.

What about China's National Liberation struggle against the Japanese? What about Greece's National Liberation struggle againts the Italians and Nazis? What about North Korea's National Liberation struggle against the Americans and British? What about Vietnam? What about Zimbabwe?

None of this are or were perfect models of flawless impeccable socialism, but all of them completed their Liberations and then immediately after did not abandon the workers but began to attempt socialist revolutions with varying succcess. What about these?

Bolshevik-Leninist

4th February 2009, 13:29

I think that you have completely misunderstood what is being argued here. The 'ultra-lefts'* do not think that 'bourgeois nationalists' betray these struggles. They think that they act in their own class interests which are against those of the working class. They do not at all argue that 'revolutionaries should lead these fights'. They argue that national liberation struggles are against the interests of the working class.

Perhaps I did misunderstand the arguments. I gave them the credit of the doubt. I don't know what to call a position that condemns Palestinians to death because their struggle is supposedly not in the interests of the workers. I am proud to stand alongside Palestinians fighting Israeli imperialism. You have a lot of harsh words for Hamas but what about Israeli imperialism? -- one of the main reasons Hamas is in power to begin with.

It is not a fact that HAMAS has been 'forced to fight temporarily on the side of the workers'. What has happened is that some workers have fought on the side of HAMAS. Actually many more fled from the fighting though. The reason, in our opinion, that Hamas is 'not capable of leading a successful national liberation struggle', is not because HAMAS is bad, or bourgeois or Islamicist, but because national liberation struggles are in possible in the epoch.
I agree -- they are impossible. But this is the imperialist epoch and they are impossible because of imperialism -- which must be defeated as part and parcel of the socialist revolution. And as I have argued, only the working class is capable of defeating imperialism--which is the biggest obstacle to socialist revolution. Your proposal to the Palestinians, workers or not, is simply: sit back and let Israel slaughter you. I say this is no solution at all.

The national liberation struggle is not a struggle for working class interests, but against them. After 'national liberation' is achieved, they tend to massacre workers not 'complete the struggle through socialist revolution'.
But this is precisely my argument behind why we must fight alongside bourgeois nationalists of the oppressed against imperialism. Because only we can defeat imperialism through socialist revolution, and only we can carry out the socialist revolution needed to preserve the gains made by the national liberation struggle. And your abstinence from the struggle will mean that bourgeois misleadership will be free to slaughter workers if it manages to consolidate its power.

*As is widely known 'ultra-left' is a meaningless insult. However, I presume that you are referring to the left communists.
I don't know how comfortable I am calling you a communist; ultra-left it is.

Devrim

4th February 2009, 13:52

I don't know what to call a position that condemns Palestinians to death because their struggle is supposedly not in the interests of the workers.

Are you seriously suggesting that Palestinian workers going out and fighting alongside HAMAS is going to somehow lead to less deaths. I would imagine that it could lead to quite a few more. Massacres will not be stopped by HAMAS.

I am proud to stand alongside Palestinians fighting Israeli imperialism.

Well no, not really. What you are saying is that you are proud to stand in the United States calling for support of HAMAS.

You have a lot of harsh words for Hamas but what about Israeli imperialism?

We are very clear about Israeli imperialism. You can read our international statement on the situation in English here. (http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2009/01/gaza)

However, on this discussion board nobody is supporting Israel.

Your proposal to the Palestinians, workers or not, is simply: sit back and let Israel slaughter you. I say this is no solution at all.

And your solution is go out and let Israel slaughter you. I don't think it is much of a solution either. The fact is that there is no solution in Palestine within the boundaries of the current system.

But this is precisely my argument behind why we must fight alongside bourgeois nationalists of the oppressed against imperialism. Because only we can defeat imperialism through socialist revolution, and only we can carry out the socialist revolution needed to preserve the gains made by the national liberation struggle.

But the national liberation struggle is diametrically opposed to the class struggle. One involves intra class unity behind the bourgeoisie. The other involves working class independence. They are not points on the same path.

Any real change in the situation in Palestine is impossible without a huge change in the international balance of power. 'National liberation' in Palestine can not 'defeat imperialism', but merely change the balance of different imperialist forces.

I don't know how comfortable I am calling you a communist; ultra-left it is.

OK, right-wing bourgeois nationalist you are.

Devrim

Devrim

4th February 2009, 13:58

What about China's National Liberation struggle against the Japanese? What about Greece's National Liberation struggle againts the Italians and Nazis? What about North Korea's National Liberation struggle against the Americans and British? What about Vietnam? What about Zimbabwe?

None of this are or were perfect models of flawless impeccable socialism, but all of them completed their Liberations and then immediately after did not abandon the workers but began to attempt socialist revolutions with varying succcess. What about these?

China, Vietnam, Zimbabwe, North Korea? There are not 'not perfect models of flawless impeccable socialism'. They were all capitalist states.

There were not workers' revolutions in these countries. Bourgeois parties came to power backed by some imperialist power or other.

As for the massacres of workers, I don't know about all these examples, but in China, Vietnam, and North Korea workers and revolutionaries were certainly massacred by bourgeois nationalists, in some cases the ones claiming to be communists.

Devrim

Charles Xavier

4th February 2009, 14:57

China, Vietnam, Zimbabwe, North Korea? There are not 'not perfect models of flawless impeccable socialism'. They were all capitalist states.

There were not workers' revolutions in these countries. Bourgeois parties came to power backed by some imperialist power or other.

As for the massacres of workers, I don't know about all these examples, but in China, Vietnam, and North Korea workers and revolutionaries were certainly massacred by bourgeois nationalists, in some cases the ones claiming to be communists.

Devrim

Sorry but workers did make those workers states, just because you they didn't always turn out perfectly doesn't mean they weren't worker states. You "pure socialists" only accept revolutions that come perfect without mistake or you hate it completely. You have to understand within the working class movement there exists divisions and contradictions which must be patiently resolved. You on the other hand just tell the working class they are idiots if they dont do things perfectly. You would never goto the poor neighbourhoods for example why dont you organize the people in Tuzla and organize the community, you're too busy being arrogant and talking shit about people. You belong to the well to do academic left yet who probably doesn't even organize in universities.

You think the working class movement is perfect? And if its so not perfect and it would but if it listened to you. Why don't you organize us dumb proletariat who dont know how to make a perfect revolution without mistakes?

But I forgot you think the working class has no stake in anything, its only factions of the bourgeiosie but this is false. The working class has a stake in every major descision that comes through parliament, every thing that comes through parliament has a class character, its either something that is a concession to the working class or it is a payout to the bourgeioisie.

Cumannach

4th February 2009, 15:01

There were not workers' revolutions in these countries. Bourgeois parties came to power backed by some imperialist power or other.

Devrim, this is fantasy.

Devrim

4th February 2009, 15:12

Sorry but workers did make those workers states, just because you they didn't always turn out perfectly doesn't mean they weren't worker states.

I don't think that many people take this sort of hard-line Stalinism seriously. I don't think that they were workers states. I think it seems obvious to most people. That is why I don't really bother arguing with Stalinists in English.

I will just make a few points to set the record straight though.

You belong to the well to do academic left yet who probably doesn't even organize in universities.

I don't see myself as an academic. Personally, I left school at 16, and have been a worker for about twenty five years. Due to the fact that am not a student, I don't actually organise at university. However, members of our organisation who are students do.

You would never goto the poor neighbourhoods What do you know about me, and where I live? Personally, I would imagine that I have lived in 'worse neighbourhoods' than even exist in Canada, but you of course can think what you like.

for example why dont you organize the people in Tuzla

First we think that it is the task of workers to organise themselves, not for leftists to organise them. However on the specific point of Tuzla, it is about six hours bus ride away from me, and on another continent. However, members of our organisation have been involved in Tuzla.

This is pretty much a personal attack without any political content whatsoever.

Devrim

Solipsiste

4th February 2009, 15:12

There were not workers' revolutions in these countries. Bourgeois parties came to power backed by some imperialist power or other.Can a party not be bourgeois in your analysis ?

Devrim

4th February 2009, 15:14

Devrim, this is fantasy.

In your opinion. I think it is a fantasy that there were workers' revolutions there.

That however is a matter of opinion though it is certainly a documented fact that workers' and communists were massacred by bourgeois nationalists in the countries I mentioned.

Devrim

Devrim

4th February 2009, 15:15

Can a party not be bourgeois in your analysis ?

Yes, it depends which class they represent.

Devrim

Solipsiste

4th February 2009, 15:33

How does one know that ?

Charles Xavier

4th February 2009, 15:35

Honesty though, You don't even debate the point that :

Our goal is to elevate social conditions for our class. As communists, as the proletariat, we look for allies on every one of our positions we ally with Hamas against Imperialism, we ally with the Irish bourgeoisie to free Belfast, we ally with veterans groups and trade union to raise old age pension rates, we ally with bourgeoisie republican forces to bring down monarchy, we ally with social democrats to raise the minimum wage, we ally with anarchists to fight racists, we ally with Peasants groups to bring land reform, and we even ally with the green party and other small parties to bring about democratic reform.

We do this because as communists, as revolutionaries, its not our job to control everything or go in alone when we don't have to. We are not sectarian and we will work with whoever is willing to elevate the social conditions of working people. We are always looking for allies. We are a party of coalition and cooperation, a party of class unity, not class control. So our purpose is to defeat reaction were ever it ends up. Our job is to fight for progress regardless of who is fighting with us. This is what sectarianism is about. Sectarianism is an unwillingness to work together, if you can't control something you dismiss it. Sectarianism must be defeated. This is the true underlying discussion we are having.

Just because we support Hamas resistance against imperialism, doesn't automatically mean we support every one of their positions. But on the important issue of resistance, Hamas has taken the correct stand. We shouldn't be *****es because communists don't control the resistance, its not our job to control the resistance, its our job to resist.

You have your argument on any issue be "You don't believe that do you?" "OH MY GOD" yet while you mock what I say instead of a counter-debate you ramble on about how Stalin is under everyone's bed and is a boogie man. I personally don't think that highly of Stalin, but I recognize the attack on Stalin is usually not about Stalin but rather attack on Marxism and Leninism. Its was used to dismantle socialism in the soviet union, it was used to make communist parties accross europe into Social Democratic parties. But your attack on my position has nothing to do with Stalin yet when you don't understand something you say "I DISAGREE BECAUSE STALIN!!!!!!"

4th February 2009, 15:38

No, I'm saying that for a workers movement to formulate, Zionism must be defeated.

Why? Why can't a workers movement formulate right now?

Also, as I've said many, many times, imperialism is the exploitation of nations, usually small and underdeveloped nations, by other nations, usually bourgeoisie and developed.

This is not a Marxist definition. Moreover, what is an "underdeveloped nation" and what is a "bourgeoisie and developed nation"?

This is a product and result of capitalism

Imperialism can't be "a product and result of capitalism" because imperialism is capitalism.

Because it has been proven that Hamas is doing a much better job at uniting and fighting Zionism than any workers movement has.

So you support Hamas because they are popular. You are dismissing the class struggle in favor of supporting Hamas. This is what you are blatantly stating here. The class struggle "isn't plausible at the current time".

Countless times? It has?

Iran, Indonesia, China and Spain off the top of my head.

Have you studied any of these cases? How can you reconcile your belief with the fact that it has failed so many times? Do you support the Fedaian Majority's and Tudeh's position of complicity with the Ayatollah and his minions and their tailing of that movement? If so, what did they do wrong? How could the massacre have been prevented in your opinion, and how could they have taken control of the country?

Devrim

4th February 2009, 15:58

Honesty though, You don't even debate the point that :

Our goal is to elevate social conditions for our class. As communists, as the proletariat, we look for allies on every one of our positions we ally with Hamas against Imperialism, we ally with the Irish bourgeoisie to free Belfast, we ally with veterans groups and trade union to raise old age pension rates, we ally with bourgeoisie republican forces to bring down monarchy, we ally with social democrats to raise the minimum wage, we ally with anarchists to fight racists, we ally with Peasants groups to bring land reform, and we even ally with the green party and other small parties to bring about democratic reform.

...while you mock what I say instead of a counter-debate you ramble on about how Stalin is under everyone's bed and is a boogie man. I personally don't think that highly of Stalin, but I recognize the attack on Stalin is usually not about Stalin but rather attack on Marxism and Leninism. Its was used to dismantle socialism in the soviet union, it was used to make communist parties accross europe into Social Democratic parties. But your attack on my position has nothing to do with Stalin yet when you don't understand something you say "I DISAGREE BECAUSE STALIN!!!!!!"

You are absolutely right. I don't spend much of my time debating these things we you. In the past our tendency has argued against these points, going write back to the twenties.

However, today in English I don't think the Stalinists are really worth arguing against as nobody is listening to them. To be quite honest if I thought that people were attracted to your arguments I would spend some time trying to counter them. As it is I don't.

Throwing personal insults doesn't make it any more likely.

Sorry, I am just not interested in discussing it with you. If you would like to know what I would say, you can look at our website, this page (http://en.internationalism.org/taxonomy/term/21)
discusses the question of the united front.

Devrim

Devrim

4th February 2009, 15:59

How does one know that ?

One makes an analysis of the role and function of the organisation. For, example do you think that the parties of the Second international (UK Labour Party etc) are socialist. If so why, if not why not? Every organisation makes an analysis of other organisations.

Devrim

Charles Xavier

4th February 2009, 21:56

You are absolutely right. I don't spend much of my time debating these things we you. In the past our tendency has argued against these points, going write back to the twenties.

However, today in English I don't think the Stalinists are really worth arguing against as nobody is listening to them. To be quite honest if I thought that people were attracted to your arguments I would spend some time trying to counter them. As it is I don't.

Throwing personal insults doesn't make it any more likely.

Sorry, I am just not interested in discussing it with you. If you would like to know what I would say, you can look at our website, this page (http://en.internationalism.org/taxonomy/term/21)
discusses the question of the united front.

Devrim

The reason you're not interested in debating is because you do not have enough confidence with a debate. But I'm not a stalinist, I do not have stalin all over my walls and sign the hymn of the soviet union, I do not study the works of Stalin or read at lenghts defenses of Stalin. I have never been to Russia. I'm a marxist-leninist communist. You haven't offered valid counter-arguments to a single one of my posts, you don't offer anything but say "You're wrong because Stalin liked to eat potatoes."

Devrim

4th February 2009, 22:14

The reason you're not interested in debating is because you do not have enough confidence with a debate. But I'm not a stalinist, I do not have stalin all over my walls and sign the hymn of the soviet union, I do not study the works of Stalin or read at lenghts defenses of Stalin. I have never been to Russia. I'm a marxist-leninist communist. You haven't offered valid counter-arguments to a single one of my posts, you don't offer anything but say "You're wrong because Stalin liked to eat potatoes."

Please, believe whatever makes you happy. I am just not interested in discussing with you.

Devrim

Charles Xavier

4th February 2009, 22:28

Please, believe whatever makes you happy. I am just not interested in discussing with you.

Devrim

Funny how you discussed at great lengths with me already but as soon as I hand your ass to you, instead of conceding a single point, you call me a Stalinist you don't want to discuss with me no more.

But sure you don't have to discuss with me if you don't want, unlike Left-Communists we don't kill people for disagreeing with us.

Niccolò Rossi

5th February 2009, 08:49

EDIT: It seems my post is largely redundant. I typed it up in Open Office the other day and posted it now, it seems however that the debate has progressed some way in that time :(

On the other hand, ultra-lefts downplay the deplorable role of imperialism in maintaining the global capitalist order.

In what sense is this the case? I don't think this claim has any basis in reality and is simply your own assumption based on the political tactics of the "ultra-lefts".

They are right to point to bourgeois nationalists' betrayals of struggles, and they are right to argue that revolutionaries should lead these fights.

What "fights" are we talking about here? The communist left have no interest in leading "national liberation" or "anti-imperialist" struggles, these struggles are, irrelevant of the faction or force leading them, fundamentally bourgeois.

Because of imperialism, Hamas has been forced to fight tempoarily on the side of workers.

In what sense is the military struggle "against imperialism" "on the side of the workers"?

Hamas is not capable of leading a successful national liberation struggle.

This much we can agree on, albeit from different standpoints. Real national liberation (irrespective of it's leadership) is not possible within the context of decadent capitalism.

We must fight alongside Hamas while it fights against imperialism

Hamas is not fighting against imperialism, the current Israel-Gaza conflict is nothing more than an inter-imperialist proxy conflict backed by the US and its military partners on one side and amongst others, Iran and Syria on the other.

in order to struggle for leadership of the national liberation struggle

As above, this is not the desire or goal of the communist left.

so that it can be carried out and completed through socialist revolution.

National liberation is completely antithetical to socialist revolution and the interests of the working class.

The problem of the ultra-lefts is their attribution of a universal character to the bourgeoisies of the world.

Would you care to elaborate on this claim? The bourgeoisie is certainly not a monolithic entity, it is devided into innumerable national and ideological factions, each defending conflicting interests. Despite this the bourgeoisie does however have one universal characteristic, that is it's existance as a class, as an exploiter of the proletariat.

They (largely) acknowledge the special oppression of the Palestinian workers but fail to recognize that Palestine is oppressed as a nation, not only on class grounds. All Palestinians are oppressed, regardless of class.

This is correct. The “palestinian people” are “oppressed”. However, to proceed from this basis and draw the concrete political conclusions to defend Hamas and the struggle for Palestinian national liberation is utterly reactionary. Communists are proletarian political militants, steadfast defenders and supporters of the interests of the international working class, they are not the defenders of “oppressed peoples” and supporters of different national sections of the working class butchering one another.

And we must fight alongside all those fighting against imperialism in order to carry the struggle forward on class terms.

On the contrary, the “fight against imperialism” is the path to the betrayal of the working class and carrying the struggle forward on a national and bourgeois political terrain.