Hizbulla: A resistance or a terrorist group? [Archive]

Che_shall_Live

30th March 2009, 21:27

it is important to note that Hizbulla was established in 1982 by a decree from KHomeini of Iran and they are a secterian shiite party. The problem is that in a country like lebanon where you have 18 sects, it is not easy to make the Lebanese accept a "secterian" party with arms and rockets, without them fearing from a domination of the Shiites. It is a fact in Lebanon. The link to Iran is a main problem of Hizbulla.
THe political parties in Lebanon offered Hizbulla to join the Lebanese army, operate under the army supervision, but fight in a non-classical manner. Hizbulla refused. the other problem is that Hizbulla has its own "security areas" protecting its leaders in which even the Lebanese Army can't get it. They have their own phone network claiming that Israel may spy on the govt's network. They are a state within a state. They inherited the resistance from the Lebanese Communist Party in the 80's. Now they claim that they are the only resistance group while history defies that.
It is a real problem in Lebanon

Wanted Man

30th March 2009, 21:31

"Join Lebanon"? They are a political and military movement in Lebanon, but not its government.

To answer the question, I doubt it's in their interests to join the government, since they have their own agenda independent of said government. Getting pacified and co-opted will not serve that agenda. People will not forget that they are the ones who did the actual fighting that, despite the military weakness compared to Israel, still forced Israel to withdraw, that they are the ones who provide the necessary facilities in the area that they control, etc. To compare it to the Palestinian situation, Hamas would have no interest in giving in to Fatah at any point.

Obviously, neither their politics nor their methods are an option for communists when it comes to creating independence and socialism. But they thrive exactly because of the politics of imperialism and the lack of an alternative.

Che_shall_Live

30th March 2009, 21:36

spritely

30th March 2009, 22:30

Hezbollah is a religious extremist formation dominated by mullahs and kahns. Their goal is to create a capitalist state governed by Islamic law. They will kill you and your mother because you are red or pink.

Yehuda Stern

31st March 2009, 05:59

1. Only in today's world where the world "terrorism" has become a synonym for "Muslim bad guys" can such a question actually seem to make sense. What contradiction is there between being a resistance group and a terrorist group? Resistance groups and even Marxists in the past have at times employed terrorism - for example, the red terror in the Bolshevik revolution.

2. Hizb Allah is a reactionary organization, but as it has led at times the anti-imperialist struggle of the Lebanese masses, the correct position for Marxists was to support this struggle while always seeking to expose the bourgeois and conciliatory nature of Hizb Allah. During the Second War on Lebanon, even though most of my group was in the IMT section, we took this exact position, which I still think is correct.

3. The Lebanese state is a capitalist state, and therefore, there's no imperative for revolutionaries to support the dissolution of guerilla groups into its incompetent army, which actually allowed Israel to attack the country at times - so much for making Lebanon a "strong country."

TheCultofAbeLincoln

31st March 2009, 06:19

I am confused by the phrasing of the question.

Hizbullah began as the radical Shiite militia during the civil war, protecting the (albeit, largest) minority against Falangist and other factions. They especially rose to prominence following the removal of the PLO from Lebanon by the Israelis and the subsequent occupation. Israel went in listening to the Christian parties, and were not ready to handle the realities of Lebanon.

Once the Isrealis left and the Americans/NATO moved in, mainly protecting Cristian assets and not really reaching out to the Shiite, or even Sunni, elements, Hizbullah began attacking them with support from Iran and Syria.

Today, despite the 2006 conflict, Hizbullah very much has a stake in internal Lebanese national politics and seem averse to engage Israel, hence the lack of military support to Gaza. They showed they can fight Israel, and, honestly I think it was a good move to spare Lebanon another conflict, both ethically and politically.

BobKKKindle$

31st March 2009, 06:28

Their goal is to create a capitalist state governed by Islamic lawIt's not my job to defend Hezbollah, and Marxists should support the struggle of the Lebanese people against imperialism regardless of whether the organization they are conducting their resistance through is progressive or not - not, in the case of Hezbollah - but this accusation is too simplistic. Hezbollah does advocate an Islamic state, but only after the return of the 12th Imam, who is regarded by Shia Muslims as the savior of mankind. I'm making this point, because Hezbollah is a classic example of a movement that has been forced to adjust its aims and ideological principles in order to accommodate the demands of a broad membership base and retain mass support. In this respect, Hezbollah is similar to other contemporary nationalist organizations, including Hamas, in that these organizations intersect with civil society, and cannot be understood and analyzed in the same way as political parties operating in western societies because their activities are not limited to a clearly identifiable political sphere. Hezbollah's role in providing social services and reconstruction is well-known, but the most interesting manifestation of the movement's flexibility and close links with the Shia community is the fact that a suburb of Beirut under Hezbollah control known as al-Ghubayri is also home to the country's biggest liquor store - despite the conservative attitudes of the leadership.* This is interesting from an academic point of view, but it's also politically significant as the ability of revolutionaries to win over workers who currently support these nationalist movements will depend not only on whether they can offer an effective vehicle for anti-imperialist resistance, but also on their capacity to assume the broader social functions that are currently provided by Islamists.

*Hezbollah: A Short History, by Augustus R. Norton, page 104

Matina

31st March 2009, 06:41

"11) With regard to the more backward states and nations, in which feudal or patriarchal and patriarchal-peasant relations predominate, it is particularly important to bear in mind:
first, that all Communist parties must assist the bourgeois-democratic liberation movement in these countries, and that the duty of rendering the most active assistance rests primarily with the workers of the country the backward nation is colonially or financially dependent on;
second, the need for a struggle against the clergy and other influential reactionary and medieval elements in backward countries;
third, the need to combat Pan-Islamism and similar trends, which strive to combine the liberation movement against European and American imperialism with an attempt to strengthen the positions of the khans, landowners, mullahs, etc.;[In the proofs Lenin inserted a brace opposite points 2 and 3 and wrote '2 and 3 to be united'.-Editor.]
fourth, the need, in backward countries, to give special support to the peasant movement against the landowners, against landed proprietorship, and against all manifestations or survivals of feudalism, and to strive to lend the peasant movement the most revolutionary character by establishing the closest possible alliance between the West European communist proletariat and the revolutionary peasant movement in the East, in the colonies, and in the backward countries generally. It is particularly necessary to exert every effort to apply the basic principles of the Soviet system in countries where pre-capitalist relations predominate-by setting up 'working people's Soviets', etc.;
fifth, the need for a determined struggle against attempts to give a communist colouring to bourgeois-democratic liberation trends in the backward countries; the Communist International should support bourgeois-democratic national movements in colonial and backward countries only on condition that, in these countries, the elements of future proletarian parties, which will be communist not only in name, are brought together and trained to understand their special tasks, i.e., those of the struggle against the bourgeois-democratic movements within their own nations. The Communist International must enter into a temporary alliance with bourgeois democracy in the colonial and backward countries, but should not merge with it, and should under all circumstances uphold the independence of the proletarian movement even if it is in its most embryonic form;
sixth, the need constantly to explain and expose among the broadest working masses of all countries, and particularly of the backward countries, the deception systematically practised by the imperialist powers, which, under the guise of politically independent states, set up states that are wholly dependent upon them economically, financially and militarily. Under present-day international conditions there is no salvation for dependent and weak nations except in a union of Soviet republics." (From V. I. Lenin, Draft Theses on National and Colonial Questions (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/jun/05.htm))

Bold is mine and I couldn't have said it better myself.

BobKKKindle$

31st March 2009, 06:53

Bold is mine and I couldn't have said it better myself. Read the rest of that section - the reason why Lenin believed that Marxists shouldn't support these organizations was because, in addition to resisting imperialism, they aimed to strengthen pre-capitalist economic formations in the form of feudal land ownership, thereby obstructing capitalist development, which would, in turn, undermine the struggle against capitalism. It wasn't because they were Islamic organizations, and Lenin's objection isn't applicable to Hezbollah, because Lebanon has historically lacked feudal property relations, and Hezbollah draws its strength primarily from the urban poor. Therefore, it's unlikely that Lenin would have refused to support the struggle that is being led by Hezbollah (or Hamas) if he were alive today, and, in any case, there's no reason to assume that something Lenin wrote at the beginning of the last century is also applicable to the political situation today. It's also worth pointing out that Lenin's position does not logically entail refusing to support resistance against imperialism - he is simply arguing that when resistance is being led by organizations that reflect the class interests of landowners, or promote religious ideology, Marxists should combat the influence of these organizations, which is what we should do anyway whenever a resistance is not being led by a revolutionary anti-capitalist party, even in countries where Islamism is entirely absent.

Matina

31st March 2009, 07:09

It wasn't because they were Islamic organizations, and Lenin's objection isn't applicable to Hezbollah, because Lebanon has historically lacked feudal property relations, and Hezbollah draws its strength primarily from the urban poor. Therefore, it's unlikely that Lenin would have refused to support the struggle that is being led by Hezbollah

Isn't Hezbollah tied to the reactionary state of Iran? Why have only a national outlook? anyways Lebanon is a semi-colonial country and has always been, so Lenin's analysis applies. Permanent revolution is the key here.

(or Hamas)

Hamas is clearly tied to feudalism.

he is simply arguing that when resistance is being led by organizations that reflect the class interests of landowners, or promote religious ideology, Marxists should combat the influence of these organizations, which is what we should do anyway whenever a resistance is not being led by a revolutionary anti-capitalist party, even in countries where Islamism is entirely absent.

Do you have the illusion that Hezbollah and Hamas are fighting for the class interests of the proletariat? Just look at the Iranian reactionary state, which has killed and tortured thousands of workers and communists (if not hundreds of thousands).

Anyways it is not a Leninist position to give support to anti-imperialist movements, just because they are anti-imperialist. I think is this clear to both of us.
Hamas and Hezbollah do not represent the interests of the working class. I think this should be clear to both of us as well.
Of course we support the Palestinian and Lebanese people against imperialism, but that can be done without "critically supporting", organizations that do not represent the interests of the masses.

As marxists, we have the duty to show to the Palestinian and Lebanese people the marxist way out. Otherwise we reduce ourselves to something like "the Friends of the Soviet Union" . I would not want such friends. Anyways these are my views and due to the fact that this debate has been oversaturdated in the left internationaly, I'll leave it like that.

Devrim

31st March 2009, 07:19

Hezbollah's role in providing social services and reconstruction is well-known, but the most interesting manifestation of the movement's flexibility and close links with the Shia community is the fact that a suburb of Beirut under Hezbollah control known as al-Ghubayri is also home to the country's biggest liquor store - despite the conservative attitudes of the leadership.*

I don't think this is particularly interesting at all. Konya is possibly the most religious area of Turkey. In last weekends election it gave 68% of its vote to the main religious party, and 15% to a smaller religious party (Fascists came in third with 11%). It is also well know for having the highest level of alcohol consumption per head in the country. When I lived in Beirut I often went drinking with neighbours who were supporters or members of Hezbollah.

Why would the fact that people drink be interesting?

Devrim

BobKKKindle$

31st March 2009, 07:27

Isn't Hezbollah tied to the reactionary state of Iran? Why have only a national outlook? anyways Lebanon is a semi-colonial country and has always been, so Lenin's analysis applies. Permanent revolution is the key here.Hezbollah is linked to Iran, but this is a common feature of historical and contemporary nationalist movements, and doesn't change the fact that these movements are fighting imperialism, which - given that the struggle against imperialism opens a space for class struggle within oppressed nations, and undermines the ideological hegemony of the imperialist bourgeoisie over the proletariat - means that these movements are carrying out a progressive activity, even if they are not progressive as organizations. It's worth pointing out that the NLF was also tied to both the USSR and the PRC, diplomatically, and militarily, and yet almost the whole of the revolutionary left gave enduring support to the struggles of the Vietnamese people (which sometimes became political support for the NLF - a major error) for the duration of the Vietnam War because we recognized that the defeat of the US forces and the creation of an independent Vietnamese state would be in the interests of both American and Vietnamese workers, even if the resulting state was a bourgeois state, controlled by an aspirant ruling class. As for permanent revolution, you're going to need to give some more explanation as to why you believe that this theory invalidates the need to support struggles against imperialism in the Middle East.

Hamas is clearly tied to feudalism. In what respect? Gaza - the only area of Palestine where Hamas is in control - lacks feudal property relations.

Do you have the illusion that Hezbollah and Hamas are fighting for the class interests of the proletariat?Hezbollah and Hamas are reactionary organizations, but it's certainly in the interests of workers to fight back against the IDF when they are faced with the threat of invasion and occupation.

Anyways it is not a Leninist position to give support to anti-imperialist movements, just because they are anti-imperialistI don't support Hamas or Hezbollah. I wouldn't have supported the NLF if I were alive during the Vietnam War because the NLF was a Stalinist organization that didn't reflect the genuine interests of the Vietnamese proletariat. Marxists support anti-imperialist struggles (as distinct from organizations) regardless of whether the leadership is reactionary or progressive - I made this quite clear in my first post.

Why would the fact that people drink be interesting?

It's not surprising or interesting that Lebanese people drink, but it is interesting that an avowedly religious organization is happy to permit drinking in an area under its control. I find the dynamics between the support bases of political movements, the desires of political leaders, and the ideological pronouncements of those same movements very interesting.

Matina

31st March 2009, 07:43

@ bobkindles, you clearly see Hamas and Hezbollah as expression of the movement itself. You say you support the movement and at the same time don't support the organizations. In fact you have a contradictory position and you are apologetic to reactionaries.

On the one hand you say that these organizations do not represent the interests of the working class, but on the other you support a movement that does not represent the interests of the proletariat. Very contradictory and confused positions.

The Leninist approach is 1) Independence from popular fronism and alliance with organizations that do not represent the interests of the working class

2) No support to reactionary organizations and reactionary states, however hard they fight against imperialism.

I wonder, how a Leninist can support the Stalinist theory of popular frontism, directly or indirectly. That is why I say the Permanent Revolution is key. I think you should take a read.

And by the way Hamas, no matter what it controls, is tied to feudalist interests. Oh wait there is no Palestinian feudalist class, I thought all the Palestinians are oppressed? No, Palestine like every territory is divided along class lines and both Hamas and Gatah represent the interests of the ruling clique.

redSHARP

31st March 2009, 07:45

i dont know what to say. Maybe one should look to iran; their financial supporters.

Matina

31st March 2009, 07:46

Lenin always wrote in a clear and uncompromising style. He was insistent that Communists working in the colonial and ex-colonial countries (sometimes referred to as the "Third World"), while conducting an implacable struggle against imperialism, must always fight against "Pan-Islamism and similar trends, which strive to combine the liberation movement against European and American imperialism with an attempt to strengthen the positions of the khans, landowners, mullahs, etc.".

To use a more contemporary term, this means that Communists must combat those Islamic fundamentalist trends that, hiding under an alleged "anti-imperialist" banner, are carrying out a reactionary political and social agenda is aimed precisely to strengthen the positions of the khans, landowners, mullahs, etc.

To confuse the red flag of socialist revolution with the black flag of Islamic reaction is one of the worst mistakes a Marxist can make. But this is precisely what certain "Marxist" groups like the British SWP are doing when they support organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. This is the exact opposite of what Lenin and the Communist International stood for. Such a policy can do nothing but harm to the cause of socialism and the working class. You can stand with Lenin or you can stand with the Muslim Brotherhood, but you cannot stand with both!

BobKKKindle$

31st March 2009, 08:01

@ bobkindles, you clearly see Hamas and Hezbollah as expression of the movement itself. You say you support the movement and at the same time don't support the organizations.I didn't say I support the "movement" (I've referred to Hezbollah and Hamas as political movements, because the term movement effectively conveys the way they function) or either of these organizations at any point in this discussion. My position has been clear from the start - Marxists should actively support the struggles (this is the term I've been using) of all peoples who are oppressed by imperialism and hope that these peoples are able to emerge victorious in all cases of imperialist oppression even when their struggles are being led by reactionary organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas, because it is always better, from the perspective of the international proletariat, in terms of what will best allow workers to cast off their prejudices and liberate themselves from capitalism, for imperialism to suffer military defeats, than for peoples to remain under imperialist oppression. It's not confusing at all. Marxists should fight alongside these organizations and yet also build support amongst the proletariat in preparation for the overthrow of capitalism once national independence - a democratic demand - has been addressed.

Building a united front to combat imperialism does not mean refusing to work alongside bourgeois organizations - it would be completely counter-productive if Marxists refused to work with Hamas militants. It means retaining political independence (whereas a popular front would involve giving up political independence and merging with the bourgeois movement) and always basing our praxis on the ultimate goal of socialist revolution.

If you believe that I've given any kind of support to Hamas during the course of this discussion, then please point it out, because I seem to have missed it. I think you're trying to paint me as a reactionary for the sake of it.

And by the way Hamas, no matter what it controls, is tied to feudalist interests. Oh wait there is no Palestinian feudalist class, I thought all the Palestinians are oppressed? No, Palestine like every territory is divided along class lines and both Hamas and Gatah represent the interests of the ruling cliquePalestine is a class society, but that doesn't mean there are Palestinians who don't suffer any oppression whatsoever. The Palestinian bourgeoisie, or at least a section thereof, is a bourgeoisie of an oppressed nation, and is therefore denied opportunities for the accumulation of capital.

AvanteRedGarde

31st March 2009, 08:49

In fact you have a contradictory position and you are apologetic to reactionaries.

Whats more apologetic to "reaction," BobKindles correct position of critical support for those fighting the forces of monopoly finance capital or the one you've taken up, which sees its preeminent role as attacking the chief organizational opposition movements towards imperialism and its Zionist lackeys in the Middle East? How revolutionary!

....You can stand with Lenin or you can stand with the Muslim Brotherhood, but you cannot stand with both! Seeing as how Lenin has been dead for 85 years and how he has little to no popular relevance in Muslim society, and compared to the MB, which for all its faults is a banned political party in Eygpt and its autonomous chapters a mixed-bag force, but none the less relevant one, throughout the Middle East, I'd probably choose to stand with the Muslim Brotherhood--critically, of course.

And by the way Hamas, no matter what it controls, is tied to feudalist interests. And feudalism is a form of property relations with specific ties to production, not unlike capitalism. Please clarify this particular position of yours. I find it particularly racist. Would you call the Republican Party feudal because it is tied in with Christian fundamentalism?

Matina

31st March 2009, 17:05

Building a united front to combat imperialism does not mean refusing to work alongside bourgeois organizations - it would be completely counter-productive if Marxists refused to work with Hamas militants. It means retaining political independence (whereas a popular front would involve giving up political independence and merging with the bourgeois movement) and always basing our praxis on the ultimate goal of socialist revolution.

No no no no!
No alliances with the bourgeoisie, no matter how you call it its popular frontism. By allying yourself with the 'progressive bourgeoisie' you are subordinating your actions to those of the progressive bourgeoisie and you cannot fight imperialism effectively, as the bourgeoisie is more afraid of its own position at home, even more than they are afraid of Zionism and imperialism.

Haven't you studied the revolution of 1905 ? Please read Trotsky's permanent revolution and then let's have this discussion again. I can't believe that the SWP has fallen so low as to support popular fronts, dressed up as "united fronts". Trotsky must be rolling in his grave right now.

Whats more apologetic to "reaction," BobKindles correct position of critical support for those fighting the forces of monopoly finance capital or the one you've taken up, which sees its preeminent role as attacking the chief organizational opposition movements towards imperialism and its Zionist lackeys in the Middle East? How revolutionary!

Hamas and Hezbollah cannot fight imperialism effectively. Only a proletarian movement can do that. Why don't Hamas and Hezbollah arm the masses? They are afraid of their own positions so they'd never do that. They are reactionary organizations. Only if they arm the masses they can effectively fight Israel.

Seeing as how Lenin has been dead for 85 years and how he has little to no popular relevance in Muslim society, and compared to the MB, which for all its faults is a banned political party in Eygpt and its autonomous chapters a mixed-bag force, but none the less relevant one, throughout the Middle East, I'd probably choose to stand with the Muslim Brotherhood--critically, of course.

Yes, because you are an opportunist and not a real marxist.
Lenin died, lets abandon Marxism-Leninism and revise it so it can be its opposite. No wonder you are a stalinist.

And feudalism is a form of property relations with specific ties to production, not unlike capitalism. Please clarify this particular position of yours. I find it particularly racist. Would you call the Republican Party feudal because it is tied in with Christian fundamentalism?

How is it racist ? Feudalists still exist in Palestine and Iran. Those parties are tied to Iranian and Palestinian feudalists . Is this a revelation for you?

BobKKKindle$

31st March 2009, 17:33

No alliances with the bourgeoisie, no matter how you call it its popular frontismWhat does refusing to build alliances with the bourgeoisie actually mean, in practical terms? I never suggested that Marxists should give up their political independence - the main task facing Marxists in nations subject to imperialist oppression is to constantly expose the failure of bourgeois organizations to consistently oppose imperialism, and to build a socialist movement capable of carrying the struggle against imperialism to its ultimate conclusion - the overthrow of capitalism - and this task requires that Marxists do not merge with the bourgeois movement. To merge with the bourgeois movement would mean not being able to pursue this task. This is what the Chinese Stalinists (who were part of the KMT at the time) did when they agreed with the request of the KMT leadership to disarm the workers of Shanghai in 1927. This much is obvious, and I emphasized the need to maintain political independence in my previous post. However, you seem to be suggesting that, in addition to fighting imperialism, Marxists should also do everything they can to destroy bourgeois organizations, presumably by refusing to enter into any relations whatsoever with Hamas, and carrying out attacks against the militants who belong to these movements. This would be political suicide, and a completely reactionary course of action, leading to the complete isolation of Marxists from the working class, and undermining the struggle against Zionism. Presumably you also believe that Chinese Communists should have called for attacks against the KMT when China was being attacked by Japan during WW2 even though the cooperation of the KMT was required to liberate China from Japanese occupation. Lenin was aware of this, because he actually used the term "temporary alliance" to describe the strategy that Marxists should adopt towards bourgeois organizations:

"The Communist International must enter into a temporary alliance with bourgeois democracy in the colonial and backward countries, but should not merge with it, and should under all circumstances uphold the independence of the proletarian movement even if it is in its most embryonic form"

Marxists should fight alongside Hamas and avoid open conflict with the organization up to the point when it begins to make concessions to Zionism. You don't seem to understand what the united front actually means.

Please read Trotsky's permanent revolution and then let's have this discussion again.I have read that text, and please don't be patronizing. You've made unsupported assertions about my position throughout this discussion, directly contradicting what I've actually said.

How is it racist ? Feudalists still exist in Palestine and IranWhat do you understand by the term "feudalist"?. I'm not aware of any political actors inside either of these countries who advocate a return to pre-capitalist relations of production.

spritely

31st March 2009, 21:43

Hezbollah's "covenant" says of Jews "With their money, they took control of the world media ... stirred revolutions in various parts of the world with the purpose of achieving their interests and reaping the fruit therein. They were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution ... With their money they formed secret societies ... They were behind World War I, when they were able to destroy the Islamic Caliphate, making financial gains and controlling resources".

spritely

31st March 2009, 21:44

Cliffites say neither Moscow or Washington. But they love Tehran. Oh boy!

skki

1st April 2009, 01:13

Devrim

2nd April 2009, 09:51

To confuse the red flag of socialist revolution with the black flag of Islamic reaction is one of the worst mistakes a Marxist can make.

Er, I think that it is green, not black.

But this is precisely what certain "Marxist" groups like the British SWP are doing when they support organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

Are the SWP supporting the Brotherhood? Could you provide a link, please?

Devrim

Devrim

2nd April 2009, 09:53

Presumably you also believe that Chinese Communists should have called for attacks against the KMT when China was being attacked by Japan during WW2 even though the cooperation of the KMT was required to liberate China from Japanese occupation.

So do you believe that communists should have supported their 'own' States in WWII now?

Devrim

black magick hustla

2nd April 2009, 10:21

Leo

2nd April 2009, 10:41

The IST has a very peculiar analysis - they reject support for WWII because it was led by "imperialist states",

Actually, I don't think either the leadership or the majority of the IST rejects support for WWII either, their political "fathers", including Tony Cliff himself, strongly supported the war effort and defended democracy.

black magick hustla

2nd April 2009, 10:45

Wasnt one of the reasons Cliff splitted with the 4th internationale was on the issue of WWII being an imperialist war?

Leo

2nd April 2009, 16:14

No, I reckon that was about the Korean War not the WW2.

BobKKKindle$

2nd April 2009, 16:43

Wasnt one of the reasons Cliff splitted with the 4th internationale was on the issue of WWII being an imperialist war? Cliff only adopted the state-capitalist position in the years immediately after WW2 so I don't think this would be the case. In fact, I remember reading somewhere that Cliff initially decided to study the USSR because he wanted to refute those who were arguing against the orthodox position, but then decided, based on the evidence he had researched, that the state-capitalist position was actually correct. As Leo points out, the SWP did adopt a neutral position on the Korean War on account of the fact that both sides were strongly backed by a superpower, and so the inter-imperialist aspect of the war was more significant than any oppressor-oppressed aspect that might have existed. I don't think anyone would deny that most wars tend to involve some degree of inter-imperialist conflict, because it is common for imperialist powers to exert influence via proxy, but the error of the ICC (and other Left Communist organizations) is that you see all conflicts as inter-imperialist wars, even if the involvement of an imperialist power on the side of the oppressed nation is only incidental or non-exist ant, as in the case of Gaza.

So do you believe that communists should have supported their 'own' States in WWII now?As I noted above, the SWP didn't exist during WW2. I think it was wrong for Trotskyists to call on workers to support the Allied powers during the war, but in China the situation was more complex, and the oppressor-oppressed aspect outweighed the inter-imperialist aspect, in my opinion, so it would have been progressive for Trotskyists to support anti-Japanese resistance. It's worthy pointing out that no Trotskyist would ever call on workers to fight in any war against an imperialist power unless resistance was already being conducted - you often characterize Trotskyists as celebrating the deaths of workers and urging workers to give up their lives, whereas this is simply not the case.

Leo

2nd April 2009, 18:01

even if the involvement of an imperialist power on the side of the oppressed nation is only incidental or non-exist ant, as in the case of Gaza. Of course no imperialist state will ever side with the oppressed, but as for the involvement of an imperialist power on the side of Hamas, it is clearly existent, isn't it? Who funds and arms Hamas? Who gives them political support in the international arena? Even if you do not see Iran to be an imperialist state (which it completely is by indeed every definition, and not a minor one either), what about the Russia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_the_Arab-Israeli_conflict

AvanteRedGarde

2nd April 2009, 18:19

Are you seriously considering Iran (or even russia) with the U.S. in terms of global power. While both might have some degree of waxing regional influence, we shouldn't conflate either as being on par with U.S. imperialism.

Leo

2nd April 2009, 18:31

Being imperialist does not mean being the strongest state in the world. Certainly Iran is a very strong regional power but it is weak on the global level and Russia is weaker compared to the US, yet this does not change the imperialist character of these states.

AvanteRedGarde

2nd April 2009, 18:45

So how do they relate to each other and who is the more important enemy from the viewpoint of those in Lebanon? Iranian finance capital (?) or the imperialist designs of the U.S. and its lackey Israel?

Leo

2nd April 2009, 18:51

Right now the most deadly "enemy" from the viewpoint of those in Lebanon is the specter of civil war, between the government and Hizbullah.

AvanteRedGarde

2nd April 2009, 19:00

That wasn't what I asked. Moving on though.

So we should advocate for a relatively non-violent revolution by a non-existent 'left communist' Lebanese mass? Against whom exactly? Or should we advocate peace for peace's sake?

I really don't see what you are proposing here.

Leo

2nd April 2009, 19:31

I am not advocating a "relatively non violent revolution". I am advocating workers' revolution. Neither Hezbollah, nor the government nor the butchery the Israeli state can impose offers anything positive for the working class and is against the interests of Lebanese workers. We have exactly seen how anti-working class all Lebanese bourgeois factions are at the latest strikes. Such workers' revolution can be nothing but a part of an international proletarian revolutionary wave against world imperialism, against the entire class that rules the world.

AvanteRedGarde

2nd April 2009, 19:42

Then I have to ask, what's the closest thing to a "working class revolutionary movement" currently in Lebanon.

Leo

2nd April 2009, 19:56

There isn't a "working class revolutionary movement" in any part of the world. There is, like there is in all parts of the world, a working class and class struggle in Lebanon and the interests of this class, of the class struggle lie in overthrowing the ruling class. Why, you think arabs are too backwards for class struggle and proletarian revolution or something?

AvanteRedGarde

2nd April 2009, 20:19

No, I don't set the bar so high for what counts as a revolutionary movement that "revolutionary movements" themselves become merely an ideal. Nor do I demand that oppressed people form "working class movement" towards the end of "proletarian revolution" in order for me to support their active struggles- namely the ones against Zionism, its capitalist imperialist backers, and compradorism- and the organized forces engaged in these struggles.

Mike Morin

2nd April 2009, 20:43

An Algerian Saddiq (Arabic for Friend) told me that Hizbuallah meant "Party of "God". For what it's worth?

We all know that the Koran and Old Testament justify jihad (holy war).

It seems difficult to expect the Palestineans to turn the other cheek after they have been massacred and driven further out time after time. Forgive them for they know not what they do?

This bullshit about a two state territory is ridiculous from the Palestinian point of view. Yah, Israel gets the good ground and the Palestinians get the trash heaps.

How's this for idealism?

On our way to a Stateless world, we transition by calling the former British colony, now the 51st American State, Palrael or should it be Palreal?

Cant blame a guy for tryin'.

Peace,:crying:

Mike Morin
www.peoplesequityunion.blogspot.com (http://www.peoplesequityunion.blogspot.com)

Leo

2nd April 2009, 21:51

No, I don't set the bar so high for what counts as a revolutionary movement that "revolutionary movements" themselves become merely an ideal.If you think revolutionary movements that are actually movements of the working class are "merely ideals" than this tells more about you than anything else.

Nor do I demand that oppressed people form "working class movement" towards the end of "proletarian revolution" Oh how generous of you :rolleyes:

You are a first-world chauvinist.

in order for me to support their active strugglesYou do not support the struggles of the workers, you support the active "struggles" of the enemies of workers, you support the native butchers of the proletariat.

AvanteRedGarde

2nd April 2009, 22:51

Random Precision

2nd April 2009, 23:14

The IST has a very peculiar analysis - they reject support for WWII because it was led by "imperialist states", but China to them was probably an oppressed nation, and thus in their eyes, calls for national defense are perfectly valid.

Before World War 2, China was a nation under aggressive imperialist attack by Japan, thus we would uphold Trotsky's position of support for the national liberation movement in China against the imperialist power. The opening of war between Japan and rival imperial powers in the region (United States, Britain, France, the USSR) changed the nature of the conflict in China from a war of national liberation into an inter-imperialist war.

Leo

2nd April 2009, 23:22

If a "revolutionary working class movement," as you describe it, is not restricted to the realm of ideals, then please provide me with a real world positive example of such a movement. I'll spare you to double speak. You already said (post # 41) that one doesn't exist anywhere in the world. Any historical examples you want to shoot for?

The revolutionary wave following the WW1, including the October revolution is a historical example. Although not yet revolutionary movements, May 68 and great workers' struggles following it in most parts of the world, and from our period again while not yet revolutionary movements, the struggles in France against the CPE, the rising in Greece, in al Mahalla, Egypt, the massive strike in Iran of 2007, the massive strike in Dubai and so forth are all steps in that direction. Yet what we call a revolutionary class means the working class acting with the perspective of taking power and overthrowing the bourgeois state.

How exactly am I a first world chauvinist for not demanding that people organize according to my ideological schema?

This has got nothing to do with ideological schemas or "demanding people to organize" according to them and everything to do with the reality of classes. Whether you care about them or not, classes exist in all parts of the world, and workers have different interests, in fact antagonistic interests with their bosses, their rulers. You can either support the class struggle of workers, and of workers everywhere, or the bosses and rulers here and there. You are, with your oh so generos and significant royal support of the glorious struggles of nationalist bosses and rulers, doing the latter. You dismiss the workers and their interests about which you know nothing of for the sake of supporting these nationalists. This is why you are a chauvenist.

Hizzbolah, butchers of the working class?

Yes.

I'd like to see you trot out this line in Lebanon and see what sort of reception you receive.

I'd like to see you talk to Lebanese bordigists, see how they will react on this question.

Trystan

2nd April 2009, 23:40

Long story short: Hezbollah are a bunch of fascist pack-animals who deserve nothing less than complete annhiliation. They with to establish a Islamic theocracy in Lebanon, they hate Jews, they hate women . . . fuck 'em and fuck you if you think they serve any good purpose at all. "Oh you are just falling for Imperialist propaganda" . . . no, I ain't. Fuck off.

There, nice and simple for the SWPites.

AvanteRedGarde

3rd April 2009, 01:26

Klondike & Leo, The Iranian Revolution, despite its outcome, was still an anti-imperialist revolution with overthrew the CIA installed shah. The left should have organized better and established a more independent footing during the course of the revo, but that doesn't mean we should write off the whole thing as a parade of reactionaries.

Furthermore, there are examples of revolutionaries lining up with bourgeois, even feudal forces, and then coming out on top. The Chinese CP comes to mind. They eradicated feudal practices such as footbinding, theocracy, the landlord and merchant role of the Catholic Church, after alligning for a period with the GMT. They were able to do this precisely because they were building up there own instituions of the oppressed while alligning a larger segment for a larger cause (national liberation).

Moreover, i don't think throwing out the October Rev is a good example, seeing as how it was quickly co-opted by 'statists,' 'Stalinists' or whatever. Obviously the revolution as which occured in Russia did not lead to your vision of communist development. Therefore, should we treat 'statists' and "Marxist Leninists" as enemies of the "revolutionary working class movement?" In fact, none of the examples you gave led to a revolution as you would like it to be.

So here we are, you are talking about class in terms of "workers and bosses," claiming this is the paradigm of revolution and struggle. This comes despite the fact that most struggle today is obviously of national proportions. These are struggles which you, mind you, write off as "infighting between reactionaries." Furthermore, when the vast majority of people in Lebenon don't uphold your vision of revolutionary struggle, you see it as an act of false coinciousness on their end.

I've never claimed that Hizbollah is a proletarian force. Rather, they are a force, composed of both the workers and patriotic bourgeosie, led by the latter, which is fighting for national salvation of Lebanon from compradors, Imperialism, and zionist aggression. Naturally, because they are from Lebanon and not South or North America, this is expressed in part through islam. Would I like their to be a stronger, more secular left force in Lebanon? Of course. But I doubt this will come about in direct opposition to Hezbollah, one of the largest current oppositional parties.

This has been going all day and I just want to review your position again. Basically: during the last invasion by Israel, Hizzbolah was one of the main fighting groups. Your position, if I'm correct, is that Hizzbolah is a reactionary organization. This would imply that those who support Hizzbolah support reaction, regardless if that is their intention. They, including a sizable number of Lebanese, are exhibiting extremely false conciousness. This is based entirely on your 'scientific' viewing of class relations, class struggle and the correct course of the revolutionary struggle. This is your position, even though most struggle today has clear national, and not particularily worker power, aspects (such as the one in Lebanon).

This is the position you are upholding compared to my obviously First World chauvinist one?

Mike Morin

3rd April 2009, 04:05

Before World War 2, China was a nation under aggressive imperialist attack by Japan, thus we would uphold Trotsky's position of support for the national liberation movement in China against the imperialist power. The opening of war between Japan and rival imperial powers in the region (United States, Britain, France, the USSR) changed the nature of the conflict in China from a war of national liberation into an inter-imperialist war.

As was the enTIRED Pacific "theatre"

The fossil fuel age and the automobile are a histoical quirk, a super-nova, a flash in the pan.

We are far past peak in global oil production and we better at least commit to doing something about it and fast...

For those of you in the continent once called North Vespucciland, I think you better get Obama and the rest of US to read and heed my essay entitled, "Demand Side Management, Supply Side Reallocation, Neighborhood Redevelopment and Transportation Planning" wouldn't hurt to look at "Financial Systems Restructuring and Property Ownership Reform", while you're at it, why don't I just fuck off... :crying:

Devrim

3rd April 2009, 05:16

Hizzbolah, butchers of the working class? I'd like to see you trot out this line in Lebanon and see what sort of reception you receive.

I really hate this sort of 'moralising, but that is not what it is like in the real world' sort of line. I lived in Beirut for nearly ten years, most of the time in Shia neighbourhoods, which were of course dominated by Hezbollah.

I argued this line consistently, and on a personal level, which is not to say I didn't get into many political arguments, I never got a hostile reception.

Devrim

BobKKKindle$

3rd April 2009, 09:11

Long story short: Hezbollah are a bunch of fascist pack-animals who deserve nothing less than complete annhiliationReally, comments like this just don't advance intelligent discussion in any way whatsoever. It's pure rhetoric without any content. "Fascist" is not just a term you can use to refer to any political organization you happen to dislike, because it has a definite meaning - it generally refers to a political phenomenon that receives the support of the bourgeoisie (although initially rooted in the petty-bourgeoisie) when the threat of social revolution presents itself, because the only way the bourgeoisie can protect capitalism and increase the rate of profit is to destroy the organizations of the working class, especially in the form of trade unions, and revolutionary parties, thereby eliminating working class resistance. Hezbollah are certainly reactionary and they may even hold positions on certain issues that one would normally associate with fascism, but Lebanon has never experienced a revolutionary situation, and so applying the term "fascist" to Hezbollah as a political insult deprives it of any analytical meaning. In addition, you seem to be ignoring the fact that Hezbollah's most significant support base and source of members is the Shia community, which has historically suffered political and economic oppression, relative to the other ethnic and religious groups that comprise the Lebanese population. If you were somehow able to achieve your goal of physically eliminating the whole of Hezbollah you would be eliminating the kind of people who revolutionaries should be engaging with and winning over to a socialist position.

respectful87

3rd April 2009, 20:24

I think they lean in the direction of a terrorist org. As far as I see it they are just out to screw their own people as much as the Israelis and their methods are crude. You notice the Middle East doesn't have a Ghandi or MLK type figure.

If they did they find life much easier instead of spreading hate. Both sides have good people and criminals but lets face it unless they can both be reasonable and compromise they will both keep fighting and people whom had nothing to do with any of this will die.

Love>Hate

AvanteRedGarde

3rd April 2009, 20:31

I really hate this sort of 'moralising, but that is not what it is like in the real world' sort of line. I lived in Beirut for nearly ten years, most of the time in Shia neighbourhoods, which were of course dominated by Hezbollah.

I argued this line consistently, and on a personal level, which is not to say I didn't get into many political arguments, I never got a hostile reception.

Devrim

Of course, but you got nowhere. Not the ICC, nor 'Left Communist,' has much influence in Lebanon, whilst the old CP, Hizbollah, and their Christian partners are the main opposition. So now you live in Turkey, a more pro-Western country, where you have managed to set up a chapter, which you do most of the work- I presume. In your free time, you post on an english language message board in which most of the contributors are likely in their teens or early 20's. This of course confirms this correctness of your line. Real telling.

Mike Morin

4th April 2009, 00:51

I think they lean in the direction of a terrorist org. As far as I see it they are just out to screw their own people as much as the Israelis and their methods are crude. You notice the Middle East doesn't have a Ghandi or MLK type figure.
Love>Hate

They may have. They may have many. It is probably that the Capitalist press does not want to attach any humanity to their cause. :bored:

Mike Morin
www.peoplesequityunion.blogspot.com (http://www.peoplesequityunion.blogspot.com)

ibn Bruce

5th April 2009, 07:34

Hezbollah for the large part, are totally opposed to socialist ideals. They believe in Capitalism, they have no respect for womens rights or gay rights, and want an over-bearing, authoritarian, Sharia government to rule the entire world with an iron fist.

Do they, do they really? As already said, Hizb'Allah are Shia, and they don't believe in acting as such. You are confusing your xenophobic European generalities.

You notice the Middle East doesn't have a Ghandi or MLK type figure.

Which would lead you to conclude exactly what? Are you seriously advocating non-violent resistance to the IDF. Two words: YOU FIRST.

synthesis

5th April 2009, 08:16

Are you seriously advocating non-violent resistance to the IDF. Two words: YOU FIRST.

100%. "The oppressor defines the nature of the struggle" - Nelson's words have rarely been so prescient.

Long story short: Hezbollah are a bunch of fascist pack-animals who deserve nothing less than complete annhiliation. They with to establish a Islamic theocracy in Lebanon, they hate Jews, they hate women . . . fuck 'em and fuck you if you think they serve any good purpose at all. "Oh you are just falling for Imperialist propaganda" . . . no, I ain't. Fuck off.

In the Middle East, the socialists failed to halt the march of Western imperialism. Sad but true. Hezbollah and Hamas took their place. Before you condemn the form of the resistance, you must first determine the substance of what they are resisting - and in this case, you might find an equally potent manifestation of fascism.

black magick hustla

5th April 2009, 09:22

AvanteRedGarde

5th April 2009, 13:24

No, similar to Kua Fang, I'm pointing out that Lebanese have a natural class consciousness. One which is far from addressed by "workers vs. bossses" dogma and so-called left-communism. That would be one of the reasons why groups like Hamas are popular whereas left communists form a tiny sect.

robbo203

5th April 2009, 13:58

We can't deny the success of Hizbulla against Israel during its occupation to South Lebanon. But now that Israel withdrew in 2000. Hizbulla is still a problem to the establishment of a strong state in Lebanon. Other Lebanese believe the opposite.
I would like to know the opinion of our comrades. Do you think Hizbulla should surrender its weapons to the Lebanese army and join as "Special forces" who fight a guerrilla war if Israel attempts to attack Lebanon again? or should stay independant.

Whatever Hisbulla does is up to them; as far as marxists are concerned we are no more interested in giving support to these reactionary feudalists than we are in shoring up the Lebanese state. To hell with all nationalism! Nationalists witter on endlessly and tiresomely about the need to combat "imperialism" but nationalism is the very soil in which imperialism is rooted. The problem is capitalism - imperialism is but a symptom of this problem - a fact from which class collaborationists of the pro-capitalist left never cease in trying to divert out attention with their inane parrot-calls about the "need to fight imperialism". If you support nationalism or national liberation struggle you are ipso facto an imperialist since all states are inherently imperialist. Its just that you are a bit picky about which imperialism you support and which you oppose.

So, no, stuff the lot of them! If Hisbulla or for that matter their equally loathsome zionist counterparts in Israel, were to fold tomorrow and shut up shop for good, the world would be a marginally better place to live in.

ibn Bruce

5th April 2009, 23:53

Whatever Hisbulla does is up to them; as far as marxists are concerned we are no more interested in giving support to these reactionary feudalists than we are in shoring up the Lebanese state.What is with all the references to 'feudalists'? What on earth do Hizb'Allah have to do with feudalism?

So, no, stuff the lot of them! If Hisbulla or for that matter their equally loathsome zionist counterparts in Israel, were to fold tomorrow and shut up shop for good, the world would be a marginally better place to live in.Easy for you to say, since you do not live with the threat of an Israeli invasion hovering over your head! I don't agree with Hizb'Allah nor particularly Hamas for that matter, however I would never say that the Palestinians or the Lebanese would be better off without them! That is no more than an idealism completely removed from the situation 'on the ground' and all it is encouraging is zionist oppression rather than leftist freedom.

Would you say that the French resistance against the Nazis should not have occurred because it was nationalist in nature? What about nationalist resistance to American imperial endeavours in South America? Should these not occur?

AvanteRedGarde

6th April 2009, 09:10

I wanted to clarify a few things, as I came off as slightly crass in previous posts.

The post in questions was this:

{I said}...you got nowhere. Not the ICC, nor 'Left Communist,' has much influence in Lebanon, whilst the old CP, Hizbollah, and their Christian partners are the main opposition. .[.blah blah]..In your free time, you post on an english language message board in which most of the contributors are likely in their teens or early 20's. This of course confirms this correctness of your line. Real telling.

Now granted this came off as crass, and I half-heatedly apologize (seeing as how exponentially worse crimes are being carried out on a structural level). To the point though, I had a pretty good point though...

Before I go on, I want to highlight something Kun Fanâ (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=8787) said which was spot on.

In the Middle East, the socialists failed to halt the march of Western imperialism. Sad but true. Hezbollah and Hamas took their place.

I strongly agree. The main reason why Hamas and Hizzbollah have so much support today is because the established revolutionary left (Russia and China) ultimately failed to advance the global struggle against capitalist-imperialism.

Today, it seems like much of the self described revolutionary left is fine with brushing over the most clear and present form of oppression facing facing the masses the Middle East, justifying it on variations of similar dogma.

In my last post I echoed this sentiment:

... I'm pointing out that Lebanese have a natural class consciousness. One which is far from addressed by "workers vs. bossses" dogma and so-called left-communism. That would be one of the reasons why groups like Hamas are popular whereas left communists form a tiny sect.

This statement could basically apply to any number of -ists (Anarchists, Trotskyists, Leninists- all self-described of course). Point being, the long term failure in places like the Middle East isn't for a lack of trying. In many ways, its a result of erroneous ideas and policies, which as I said, fail to address the real and expressed class interests of the oppressed.

Patchd

6th April 2009, 09:28

I don't agree with Hizb'Allah nor particularly Hamas for that matter, however I would never say that the Palestinians or the Lebanese would be better off without them! That is no more than an idealism completely removed from the situation 'on the ground' and all it is encouraging is zionist oppression rather than leftist freedom.

Without Hamas, would you argue that there would not be another resistance alternative for Palestinians?

In addition, we still have the ability to voice what we think of the situation, and as revolutionaries we should advocate autonomous and working class resistance to Zionism as opposed to looking to organisations like Hamas. I would argue that if Hamas was replaced with working class resistance, then it would be much better.

I offer support to resistance against Zionism, but no "military", which is synonymous with political, support for reactionary organisations, these very same organisations that turn on working class resistance (trade unions, PFLP etc.) when Israel isn't launching a large scale invasion.

ibn Bruce

6th April 2009, 10:20

Without Hamas, would you argue that there would not be another resistance alternative for Palestinians?

I believe that that is the form the resistance has taken, and if one expects the resistance to take the form that we especially like we are being foolish. I would love for the resistance to Zionism be a Traditionalist, Islamic mass movement, without links to Iran, but with financial support from the entire Ummah. I would like the same thing to exist in all other cases, from Chechnya to Mindanao.... however that isn't going to happen anytime soon, so I will not denounce the resistance in the form it takes.

I offer support to resistance against Zionism, but no "military", which is synonymous with political, support for reactionary organisations, these very same organisations that turn on working class resistance (trade unions, PFLP etc.) when Israel isn't launching a large scale invasion.

How exactly do you envision a resistance movement that is devoid from military action? Or for that matter military organisations? Seriously, reactionary and fascist are the two buzz-words used by people to label anyone they disagree with, its really annoying.

robbo203

6th April 2009, 10:35

Easy for you to say, since you do not live with the threat of an Israeli invasion hovering over your head! I don't agree with Hizb'Allah nor particularly Hamas for that matter, however I would never say that the Palestinians or the Lebanese would be better off without them! That is no more than an idealism completely removed from the situation 'on the ground' and all it is encouraging is zionist oppression rather than leftist freedom.

Not at all. You are completely misunderstanding my position. I am not condoning Zionist oppression at all; what I am talking about is the pretext on which it opposed. Opposition to Zionist oppression on the grounds of palestinian nationalism and the desire to establish a palestinian state (which the pro-capitalist left are so fond of extolling in true knee yerk style) is deeply and utterly reactionary. Of course this cuts both ways. Support from Israeli workers for the Israeli state is equally utterly reactionary. A plague on both these nationalist houses, to coin a phrase! Am I being idealist here? I dont think so . I think the real idealists in this derogatory sense of the term are those who fancifully imagine that there can ever be peace on nationalistic terms that they can ever extricate themselves from the nationalistic tit for tat saga that is the sorry history of the Middle East.

Imagine hypothetically that Palestinain workers began to increasingly lose interest in the the nationalistic goal of a Palestinian State. Imagine a situation - hypothetical as I say - in which they increasingly made common cause with Isreali workers, opened up lines of communication with them and of course vice versA. What do you think the consequences of this would be in terms of the welfare of Palestinain and indeed Israeli workers would be.

I venture to suggest that, at the very least, you will no longer have the threat of "an Israeli invasion hovering over your head". Increasingly class war will begin to push nationalist war off the agenda . The utter irrelevance of establishing or indeed manitaining a nation state - whether Israel , or Palestine or any other - from the standpoint of the working class may strike the anti-marxist as fantastical and idealistic but the truth of the matter is that it is only way forward that can guarantee any kind of meaningful and lasting peace. The sooner we grab this particular bull by the horns the better for all concerned. Down with all nationalism!

Patchd

6th April 2009, 11:01

I believe that that is the form the resistance has taken, and if one expects the resistance to take the form that we especially like we are being foolish. I would love for the resistance to Zionism be a Traditionalist, Islamic mass movement, without links to Iran, but with financial support from the entire Ummah. I would like the same thing to exist in all other cases, from Chechnya to Mindanao.... however that isn't going to happen anytime soon, so I will not denounce the resistance in the form it takes.

Well again I would differ, I'd prefer religion to play no role in it whatsoever, but hey ho, and I still wouldn't call what we advocate to be foolish at all, it's what we would like to see, not what we are seeing.

In addition, I think the connections to Iran are over-stressed, even by the left. 50% of Hamas' fundings, from a source I read a long while back, came from Saudi Arabian businesspeople, the funding from Iran is usually indirect, going through other channels than directly to Hamas.

How exactly do you envision a resistance movement that is devoid from military action? Or for that matter military organisations?

I don't! But that's the thing, I support the resistance against Zionism (and Capitalism where that also applies), however, that is it. I don't offer military support to organisations like Hamas, giving military support is afterall, giving political support, because militaries are the forceful expression of a political movement.

Until a viable alternative appears for me, I will not give it "military" or "political" support, if I were to give political support to any group in the region, I would give it to Anarchists Against the Wall.

Seriously, reactionary and fascist are the two buzz-words used by people to label anyone they disagree with, its really annoying.

It is by many, but it doesn't take that claim away from Hamas, it is reactionary.

ibn Bruce

6th April 2009, 11:05

Robbo's post
So the way to get that to occur, is to attack the resistance movements already in existence? Tell them that they are foolish nationalists and they should ally with the Israelis that vote in Presidents than bomb them?

It is a fanciful hypothetical situation that belies the complexity of the issues at hand. The opposition to Zionist oppression does not only occur in the form of nationalism, but seriously, if nationalism is one of the things that gives unity and strength to those resisting such things, I think it is foolhardy at best to propose its destruction. Palestine is, like it or not, the identity of a huge group of those oppressed by a vicious form of occupation. By denying that identity you do not give strength by default to a worker's cause, you only give strength to those who benefit by its destruction.

Well again I would differ, I'd prefer religion to play no role in it whatsoever, but hey ho, and I still wouldn't call what we advocate to be foolish at all, it's what we would like to see, not what we are seeing.
There is no problem with advocating such things, there is in condemning that which currently exists.. at least thats how I see it.

In addition, I think the connections to Iran are over-stressed, even by the left. 50% of Hamas' fundings, from a source I read a long while back, came from Saudi Arabian businesspeople, the funding from Iran is usually indirect, going through other channels than directly to Hamas.

I am not sure that is the case, though any Iranian funding is bad, and Saudi money is worse... it is filthy.

I don't! But that's the thing, I support the resistance against Zionism (and Capitalism where that also applies), however, that is it. I don't offer military support to organisations like Hamas, giving military support is afterall, giving political support, because militaries are the forceful expression of a political movement.

Until a viable alternative appears for me, I will not give it "military" or "political" support, if I were to give political support to any group in the region, I would give it to Anarchists Against the Wall.
Either way is that not, considering the difference in power, weakening the Palestinian cause? Not that either of us are really in a position to give military support, but surely the denial of resources to such groups will only strengthen Israel, making the position of the workers even less stable?

It is by many, but it doesn't take that claim away from Hamas, it is reactionary.
How so? Seeking Palestinian autonomy is a progressive stance, not a reactionary one. In broad terms, Hamas is reactionary in that it is reacting to the occupation, something which no doubt most people would support. Are not any revolutionary movements reactionary in that they are reacting to the status quo, though the form they then take is progressive... people use the term like the right use 'socialist', papering over complex ideological and political positions with a broad, derogatory and ultimately misleading term.

Patchd

6th April 2009, 11:20

So the way to get that to occur, is to attack the resistance movements already in existence? Tell them that they are foolish nationalists and they should ally with the Israelis that vote in Presidents than bomb them?

What you're saying is pretty racist and anti-workerist, to assume that the whole Israeli working class is homogenous, and therefore supports the occupation is ridiculous. Not only that, but it's simply offensive to the Israelis who oppose Zionism, the occupation and the Israeli state itself, members of Anarchists Against the Wall have worked very hard with Palestinian communities as well as agitating within the Israeli working class for similar goals as the resistance; the opposition to Zionism and the occupation, and further on to oppose Capitalism and the state.

Perhaps beginning to ally themselves with Israeli working class elements that oppose the occupation, they will get more support within Israel itself. If you live in America, are you responsible for the occupation of Iraq?

Come on, you must have more sense than that, you know how liberal democracies work, you elect someone who you've apparently given a mandate to do what the hell they like, and you can only do this once every while, which is simply ridiculous. Not only that, but you are forgetting an important factor of bourgeois hegemony, the media which is used to distort news and offer a usually one sided point of view, usually on the side of a faction of the ruling class, in Israel, most of which are vehemently pro-occupation.

In addition, the trade union leaders themselves are also to blame for their exclusion of Arab Israelis in the unions. Your politics are just as racist and separatist as that of the moderate Zionists. Do you not think that your support for an Islamist organisation, that is influenced by anti-semitism, will alienate the Jewish-Israeli working class?

Also, who said anything about telling the people that they are "foolish nationalists"? We should highlight the problems of Hamas, of organised religion, and of Capitalism, not go around slagging off every Palestinian worker. Where has your sense of internationalism gone?

The opposition to Zionist oppression does not only occur in the form of nationalism, but seriously, if nationalism is one of the things that gives unity and strength to those resisting such things, I think it is foolhardy at best to propose its destruction.

Well, I would have thought that as a revolutionary leftist you would have opposed nationalism full stop. Afterall, it is a racist, seperatist and anti-working class ideology.

Anyway, I'm tired and I wanna get some sleep.

ibn Bruce

6th April 2009, 11:36

What you're saying is pretty racist and anti-workerist, to assume that the whole Israeli working class is homogenous, and therefore supports the occupation is ridiculous.I was giving voice to their perceptions as conveyed to me by Palestinians, rather than supporting them. I am well aware of the protest movement within Israel against the occupation, both from worker's groups and the Orthodox Jewry. I do not however believe that they are a mass movement, and the fact is that like it or not, Israelis vote in the governments that bomb Palestinian children. Expecting a Palestinian with 5 shaheeds in his/her family to somehow get past that fact to see that 'not all Israelis are bad' when what defines an 'Israeli' is the occupation of his/her homeland is naive.

If you live in America, are you responsible for the occupation of Iraq?I live in Australia, and I consider myself partly culpable in the various Imperialist actions this country has taken since I have been old enough to do something. Astafirgillah.

Also, who said anything about telling the people that they are "foolish nationalists"? We should highlight the problems of Hamas, of organised religion, and of Capitalism, not go around slagging off every Palestinian worker. Where has your sense of internationalism gone?Considering that Sunni Islam is not 'organised religion' I don't see where that would get us. Considering the people of Falastin are more than aware of the problems of Hamas, yet they still choose them over socialist movements (its not like they don't exist), I find it hard to see what that would achieve either. I think it is more racist to assume that the people within Falastin have no ability to define their own struggle and choose which organisation to support against the occupation. They do not need us 'internationalists' coming in and telling them who they can and cannot give their support to. What makes you assume I am an internationalist in the way you seem to conceptualise it?

Well, I would have thought that as a revolutionary leftist you would have opposed nationalism full stop. Afterall, it is a racist, seperatist and anti-working class ideology.I believe that Nationalism is inherently a genocidal ideology, I do believe there can be a seperation between Nationalism in that it advocates the Nation State and National identity in terms of religious, cultural and linguistic identities. There is a difference between the two, failing to seperate them is falling for the same trap that created nationalism in the first place.

Devrim

7th April 2009, 13:55

Of course, but you got nowhere. Not the ICC, nor 'Left Communist,' has much influence in Lebanon, whilst the old CP, Hizbollah, and their Christian partners are the main opposition. So now you live in Turkey, a more pro-Western country, where you have managed to set up a chapter, which you do most of the work- I presume. In your free time, you post on an english language message board in which most of the contributors are likely in their teens or early 20's. This of course confirms this correctness of your line. Real telling.

Now granted this came off as crass, and I half-heatedly apologize (seeing as how exponentially worse crimes are being carried out on a structural level). To the point though, I had a pretty good point though...

Well thanks for the half hearted apology. I was kind of wondering what you were going on about with a lot of speculation about my life that turned out to be completely inaccurate, but let's get back to the political point:

In the Middle East, the socialists failed to halt the march of Western imperialism. Sad but true.

You make it sound like the Islamicists took the place of the traditional left through just replacing a failed movement. This is very far from the truth. I think that we can date the start of the replacement of the traditional left by Islamicists all across the Middle East to the end of the seventies/start of the eighties. It wasn't some sort of natural process though. The Islamicists, in most cases supported by the Western Imperialists, butchered the old left. As examples, we can look at the Beginning of the Lebanese civil war, the Iranian revolution, the beginning of the war in Afghanistan, the 1980 coup in Turkey...

No, similar to Kua Fang, I'm pointing out that Lebanese have a natural class consciousness. One which is far from addressed by "workers vs. bossses" dogma and so-called left-communism. That would be one of the reasons why groups like Hamas are popular whereas left communists form a tiny sect.

This seems a bit contradictory. It seems to be that you are suggesting that they have a non-class based class consciousness.

Of course left communists are weak in Lebanon today and non existent as far as I know in Palestine. This is connected to the strengh of the working class in those countries though. The Palestinian working class is possible the most defeated in the region. That is why bourgeois parties such as HAMAS are popular.

Would you say that the French resistance against the Nazis should not have occurred because it was nationalist in nature? What about nationalist resistance to American imperial endeavours in South America? Should these not occur?

The idea of whether it should not of occurred or not is a part of the idealist method. The question for communists is whether these sort of movements offer anything to the working class. The communist left says no. They are merely mobilising workers on behalf of different bourgeois factions and rival imperialisms.

Today, it seems like much of the self described revolutionary left is fine with brushing over the most clear and present form of oppression facing facing the masses the Middle East, justifying it on variations of similar dogma.

I don't think that there is anywhere that left communists at least have justified that 'oppression'.

This statement could basically apply to any number of -ists (Anarchists, Trotskyists, Leninists- all self-described of course). Point being, the long term failure in places like the Middle East isn't for a lack of trying. In many ways, its a result of erroneous ideas and policies, which as I said, fail to address the real and expressed class interests of the oppressed.

I agree here. The difference is that we see the erroneous ideas as being those that put nation above class. This was the policy follwed by the traditional left as well as by the more modern leftists today.

Devrim

Devrim

7th April 2009, 13:56

Easy for you to say, since you do not live with the threat of an Israeli invasion hovering over your head!

More moralism in place of reasoned argument.

Devrim

Atrus

7th April 2009, 14:08

From my limited understanding of Hezbollah, I see them much like Hamas.
I do not agree with their ideas generally, I don't like the state they would try and create.
However, their fight against Israel is just, as Israel cannot go on like it is, committing war crimes as it fancies, and it needs people to stand up to the state.
As I see it, they are the lesser of two evils.

ibn Bruce

7th April 2009, 14:10

The idea of whether it should not of occurred or not is a part of the idealist method. The question for communists is whether these sort of movements offer anything to the working class. The communist left says no. They are merely mobilising workers on behalf of different bourgeois factions and rival imperialisms.

So the working class were better off under Nazism or in De Gaulle's France? Would the kind of protest movements that exist today not be brutally massacred were France still to be controlled by the Vichy or the Nazis?

It is fine to think that the improvement is not THAT MUCH, but I would say that those massacred for resisting the fascists would be pretty happy were the only thing they faced was tear gas and gaol time.

More moralism in place of reasoned argument.

It is 'moralism' to point out that these observations on the exact form of resistance the people of an area should support, are made from a position completely removed from that faced by the people at hand? None of us here, unless we grew up, and still reside in Lebanon, will ever be more than tourists to the oppression and threat of invasion faced by those people. For us to sit back and condemn a resistance movement because we think it would be better off if it took forms we personally like, is extremely problematic.

I mean no offence, but without a response to my points about your various fallacious statements about different political ideologies (in other threads), you are not really in a position to attack me for a lack of reasoned argument :blushing:

ibn Bruce

7th April 2009, 14:13

Seriously, anyone who believes that some kind of worker's revolution can occur with an oppressive, brutal nation-state staring over the proverbial shoulder, is kidding themselves.

Remove Israeli oppression first, then people can start talking about the form that Lebanon or Palestine takes...

Devrim

7th April 2009, 14:19

It is 'moralism' to point out that these observations on the exact form of resistance the people of an area should support, are made from a position completely removed from that faced by the people at hand? None of us here, unless we grew up, and still reside in Lebanon, will ever be more than tourists to the oppression and threat of invasion faced by those people. For us to sit back and condemn a resistance movement because we think it would be better off if it took forms we personally like, is extremely problematic.

I mean no offence, but without a response to my points about your various fallacious statements about different political ideologies (in other threads), you are not really in a position to attack me for a lack of reasoned argument :blushing:

I am a Lebanese passport holder, I lived in Beirut for nearly ten years, and I lost immediate family members to Israeli attacks. I think I have a fair understanding of the situation

However, I don't use this to make the claim that I am right because it does not in itself make my argument right.

The fact that you use this sort of moralism doesn't make you right.

Devrim

ibn Bruce

7th April 2009, 14:32

I am a Lebanese passport holder, I lived in Beirut for nearly ten years, and I lost immediate family members to Israeli attacks. I think I have a fair understanding of the situation

However, I don't use this to make the claim that I am right because it does not in itself make my argument right.

The fact that you use this sort of moralism doesn't make you right.

Where is the 'moralism' (which is a term for a specific philosophical brand of thought and otherwise is not a word that applies here) in my question? An understanding does not make a shared oppression. Even if you were there when Israeli attacks occured (were you?) you could still leave. The majority cannot.

My point is not a moral one, it is simply pointing out the ridiculousness of a bunch of people sitting in their safe houses, far from events (you in this case are an exception) and telling other people that the form their resistance has taken is wrong because they don't agree with it.

Devrim

7th April 2009, 15:25

Even if you were there when Israeli attacks occured (were you?) you could still leave. The majority cannot.

Yes, I got the windows on my apartment blown out during one, but it is not at all the point

My point is not a moral one,

It is absolutely a moralistic one. I didn't say moral. You are using the fact that others died to make people feel guilty for not having suffered to put forth your argument.

it is simply pointing out the ridiculousness of a bunch of people sitting in their safe houses, far from events (you in this case are an exception) and telling other people that the form their resistance has taken is wrong because they don't agree with it.

Whereas you are sitting in a 'safe house' as 'far from events' as possible.

Devrim

robbo203

7th April 2009, 20:47

So the way to get that to occur, is to attack the resistance movements already in existence? Tell them that they are foolish nationalists and they should ally with the Israelis that vote in Presidents than bomb them?
.

What on earth are you talking about? How can you possibly infer from what I said that Palestinians "should ally with the Israelis that vote in Presidents that bomb them"? Listen, I am a marxist. That means I am opposed to ALL nationalism - Israeli nationalism, Palestinian nationalism, American nationalism, Russian nationalism, the lot. I certainly do not say fellow workers in the capitalist state of Palestine should "ally" themselves with Zionist nationalists who thinks its OK for the Israeli capitalist state to bomb the Palestinian capitalist state. I dont think I could possibly make myself more clear on this issue. Palestinain workers, Israeli workers and workers everywhere else should reject nationalism, reject the capitalist construction we call the "nation state" (nation states did not exist before capitalism). There is nothing "progressive" about the so called palestinian state. Its a load of bullshit just like the Israeli state. Workers need to start thinking outside of the box and stop parroting the slogans of their capitalist masters.

ibn Bruce

7th April 2009, 22:14

ibn Bruce

7th April 2009, 22:18

What on earth are you talking about? How can you possibly infer from what I said that Palestinians "should ally with the Israelis that vote in Presidents that bomb them"? Listen, I am a marxist. That means I am opposed to ALL nationalism - Israeli nationalism, Palestinian nationalism, American nationalism, Russian nationalism, the lot. I certainly do not say fellow workers in the capitalist state of Palestine should "ally" themselves with Zionist nationalists who thinks its OK for the Israeli capitalist state to bomb the Palestinian capitalist state. I dont think I could possibly make myself more clear on this issue. Palestinain workers, Israeli workers and workers everywhere else should reject nationalism, reject the capitalist construction we call the "nation state" (nation states did not exist before capitalism). There is nothing "progressive" about the so called palestinian state. Its a load of bullshit just like the Israeli state. Workers need to start thinking outside of the box and stop parroting the slogans of their capitalist masters.
There is a fundamental difference between 'nationalism' and national identity. The rise of nationalism is a relatively recent development, defined by national identity and the political entity of the nation state become inseparable. One can disagree with nationalism but still not reject a groups identity as a 'nation'.

Also, Hamas and Hizb'Allah both are Muslim movements. Muslim movements are not capitalist in the way you think of it. Defining Palestine today as a 'capitalist state' is extremely misleading... after all it is not even a state!

synthesis

8th April 2009, 06:43

You make it sound like the Islamicists took the place of the traditional left through just replacing a failed movement. This is very far from the truth. I think that we can date the start of the replacement of the traditional left by Islamicists all across the Middle East to the end of the seventies/start of the eighties. It wasn't some sort of natural process though. The Islamicists, in most cases supported by the Western Imperialists, butchered the old left. As examples, we can look at the Beginning of the Lebanese civil war, the Iranian revolution, the beginning of the war in Afghanistan, the 1980 coup in Turkey...

Right, but what predates that? Mossadeq, Qassim, so on and so forth.

synthesis

8th April 2009, 06:48

What on earth are you talking about? How can you possibly infer from what I said that Palestinians "should ally with the Israelis that vote in Presidents that bomb them"? Listen, I am a marxist. That means I am opposed to ALL nationalism - Israeli nationalism, Palestinian nationalism, American nationalism, Russian nationalism, the lot. I certainly do not say fellow workers in the capitalist state of Palestine should "ally" themselves with Zionist nationalists who thinks its OK for the Israeli capitalist state to bomb the Palestinian capitalist state. I dont think I could possibly make myself more clear on this issue. Palestinain workers, Israeli workers and workers everywhere else should reject nationalism, reject the capitalist construction we call the "nation state" (nation states did not exist before capitalism). There is nothing "progressive" about the so called palestinian state. Its a load of bullshit just like the Israeli state. Workers need to start thinking outside of the box and stop parroting the slogans of their capitalist masters.

There is a difference between the nationalism of an imperialist state and the nationalism of a people who are suffering foreign occupation.
This may sound absurd, but I absolutely believe it to be true: Palestinians need to have their own state and bourgeoisie to rebel against, because otherwise the struggle will lose its roots in class conflict.

NiccolÃ² Rossi

8th April 2009, 08:21

Palestinians need to have their own state and bourgeoisie to rebel against, because otherwise the struggle will lose its roots in class conflict.

Despite this post being directed at Robbo I'd like to make a reply of my own because I could not disagree with this post more.

What you are doing here making consessions to the point of completely subsuming the palestinian working class to palestinian nationalism on the basis that it can only struggle as a class against it's own bourgeoisie because all struggles under Israeli occupation must involve alliance with nationalist forces against the state of Israel, sidelining the class struggle.

This attitude is completely reactionary and defeatist. Instead of calling for the unified struggle of the Palestinian and Israeli working class it surrenders the palestinian working class to bourgeois forces until a later date, the workers can not liberate themselves before they have been butchered in the interests of "their own" bourgeoisie. The proletariat is an international class and it's interests are unified internationally.

(Note: This is not a thread about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and really isn't the place for a deeper discussion on it.)

BobKKKindle$

8th April 2009, 08:46

Israeli occupation must involve alliance with nationalist forces against the state of Israel, sidelining the class struggle. The single biggest threat to the wellbeing of Palestinian workers and their communities is not the Palestinian bourgeoisie, it is the Israeli state, which systematically oppresses the people of Gaza through the embargo and the threat of violence. This means that we should not be surprised when we see that Palestinian workers are giving support to nationalist organizations such as Hamas instead of calling for the overthrow of the local bourgeoisie and fighting against the embryonic Palestinian state - it is not that these workers have been deceived as to where their real interests lie, and have fallen under the influence of bourgeois ideology, as is often alleged, rather, these organizations are valued and command mass support because they have shown that they are capable of fighting back and protecting Palestinian civilians from the repeated assaults of the IDF, whereas those who stand by and accuse the resistance of being too nationalistic are ignored because they are isolated from the main concerns of Palestinian workers. As long as Palestine remains subject to national oppression, the focus of political activity will be the anti-imperialist struggle, and this struggle will continue to be led by reactionary bourgeois organizations unless Marxists are willing to become part of the resistance and show that they are able to challenge Israel's military strength and combine the struggle against imperialism with other progressive struggles, including the struggle against patriarchy, and, of course, the struggle against capitalism. The history of anti-imperialist struggles shows us that whether the national question can be resolved in favour of the oppressed ultimately depends on the ability of the proletarian vanguard to organize itself as a party and take the place of bourgeois organizations as the leadership of the resistance, as the bourgeoisie is aware that the victory of a mass anti-imperialist movement would give a valuable impulse to the consciousness and militancy of the proletariat, and possibly lead to the position of the bourgeoisie being threatened, once workers realize that national independence alone, in the absence of international socialist revolution, will not eliminate all forms of economic and political oppression. This unwillingness of the bourgeoisie to decisively defeat imperialism manifests itself as a desire to make concessions to the imperialist powers in exchange for protection against the proletariat of the oppressed nation, and this is exactly what has happened in Palestine, in the case of Fatah, which has ceased to play a valuable anti-imperialist role, and now represses the struggles of workers in the West Bank.

Instead of calling for the unified struggle of the Palestinian and Israeli working class How can these Palestinian and Israeli workers unite at the current time when the latter derives material privileges from the oppression of Palestine, and Israel's role as the defender of imperialism in the Middle East?

robbo203

8th April 2009, 09:33

There is a fundamental difference between 'nationalism' and national identity. The rise of nationalism is a relatively recent development, defined by national identity and the political entity of the nation state become inseparable. One can disagree with nationalism but still not reject a groups identity as a 'nation'.!

Yes but you dont do you? You support nationalism. You support the idea that goes with it that the palestinians should have their own state dont you. The nation state is integral to capitalism , is a creature of capitalism. It assumes some commonality of interest and identity between workers and capitalists. It is therefore something that any self respecting communist or marxist would not want to touch with a bargepole. To advocate a palestinian state is nationalistic and is therefore class collaborationist i.e. pro capitalist

In any case I question the supposed distinction between national identity and nationalism. So called nations did not necessarily see themselves as nations prior to capitalism. The formation of national identity was part of the process of nationalist aspirations engendered by the rise of capitalism. See Benedict Andersons Imagined Communities

Also, Hamas and Hizb'Allah both are Muslim movements. Muslim movements are not capitalist in the way you think of it. Defining Palestine today as a 'capitalist state' is extremely misleading... after all it is not even a state!

This is rubbish. They may be muslim movements but they are also clearly capitalist political outfits with their own particular slant and how capitalism should be run. They are not opposed to commodity production or wage labour or sectional ownership of the means of production but embrace these things and completely and take them for granted. How can you possibly deny this. This is what makes these organisation pro-capitalist organisation. They want capitalism with Muslim characteristics tacked on.

As for Palestine not being a state well we might quibble about that. I would be prepared to call it an embryonic state if that suits you. But it is a capitalist embryonic state all the same

robbo203

8th April 2009, 10:11

There is a difference between the nationalism of an imperialist state and the nationalism of a people who are suffering foreign occupation.
This may sound absurd, but I absolutely believe it to be true: Palestinians need to have their own state and bourgeoisie to rebel against, because otherwise the struggle will lose its roots in class conflict.

Yes it is absurd. What you are saying if I read you correctly is that the palestinians need a state and a bourgeosie of their own becuase then otherwise there wont be class struggle to engage in!!! So in this hypothetical state of affairs - the palestinians without a bourgeoisie of a state would be living in a sort of stateless classless cocoon of a society! Good grief. And thats what I thought we communists wanted. A classless stateless society. LOL

I might have read you completely incorrectly but that is what you appear to be saying. Well of course , either way it is nonsense. Even if the Palestinian workers did not have "their" own bourgeosie and "their" own state they would still be employed by capitalists of some other nationality and ruled over by some other state, wouldnt they? . Not that it makes a friggin bit of difference which capitalists parasites employ me. Im more interested in getting them off my back than being picky about who is going to exploit me.

As for the difference between "the nationalism of an imperialist state and the nationalism of a people who are suffering foreign occupation", what difference? Nationalism is nationalism is nationalism. All nation states are imperialist, manifestly or latently, because all nation states are an aspect of capitalism with its inbuilt expansionist dynamic. If some nation states are more effective at the imperialist game and get to assert power over others, this does not mean the occupied countries are in some qualittaive sense, different. They are not. Their nationalism is just as anti-working class and pro-capitalist as the nationalism of the occupying power

In any case, all this nationalistic obsession among the pro-capitalist left with fighting imperialism is totally out of touch with the reality of capitalism. Capitalism is international; capital is global. Lets say that the embryonic state of Palestine gets full recognition and peace comes at last. Guess what? The next thing you know multinational corporations will be moving in, at the invitation of the Palestinian state having brown-nosed said corporations with various inducements, to take full advantage of the low wage rates of palestinian workers. And then you will have these same lefties, having expended all their time and energy in the "anti-imperialist" struggle to establish a Palestinain state , running around like headless chickens as usual, complaining about the palestinain government allowing international capitalism to exploit the palestinian workers. Sheeesh. Its no wonder I lose patience at times!

Devrim

8th April 2009, 10:16

Right, but what predates that? Mossadeq, Qassim, so on and so forth.

In the case of Iran, the mass strike, and in the case of Turkey massive working class struggle. I really think that you can draw a tendency across the whole region that the Islamicists were used against the working class and the (old) left.

Devrim

Devrim

8th April 2009, 10:25

It is absolutely a moralistic one. I didn't say moral. You are using the fact that others died to make people feel guilty for not having suffered to put forth your argument.No, that is not at all what I am saying. Again, I reiterate, it is not our place to criticise resistance as it exists, only talk about where we wish it would lead. It is definitely not our place to say that Lebanon would be better off without the resistance.

In which case I presume that the logic of your argument goes as far as not criticising the Israeli 'resistance' against Islamic 'terrorism'.

Whereas you are sitting in a 'safe house' as 'far from events' as possible. Don't believe I ever said I wasn't, that was in fact my point.

Well yes, by your own argument you don't have a right to talk.

The more important thing though is that the entire argument that you put forward is absolutely alien to the traditions of socialism and the working class, which are based on internationalism.

The argument of socialist is that whatever far flung corner of the world events take place in they are important to the working class as a whole. It totally rejects the idea that people shouldn't discuss and comment on events in far off places.

But then this shouldn't surprise us as you are not a revolutionary socialist, are you?

Devrim

benhur

8th April 2009, 12:35

I have a general question for those who support hezbollah and the likes, stating it's because they want to oppose imperialism. What if hezb/hamas/taliban succeed in countries like Palestine or Afghanistan?

What if the imperialists are defeated and go back home? In what way do you think the situation will change, do you believe the people will be happy under hamas/hezb rule? How will a hezb/taliban/hamas victory translate into a working class victory, at least eventually it not immediately?

I hope someone can answer these questions, so we can understand how the future is supposed to unfold AFTER this anti-imperialist struggle against Israel/US has been won.

BobKKKindle$

8th April 2009, 15:11

In what way do you think the situation will change, do you believe the people will be happy under hamas/hezb rule? How will a hezb/taliban/hamas victory translate into a working class victory, at least eventually it not immediately?I dealt with this issue briefly in this thread in my previous post, but it is explained in more detail here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1379710&postcount=50). I think I've actually linked to that post before, and other users have explained this as well, so I don't know why you're asking again. Hal Draper offers a brief summary as to what Marxists think will happen once the national question has been resolved, and why this requires us to support anti-imperialist struggles, in this (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1969/abc/abc.htm) essay, as follows:

The essential reason is this: domination or oppression from the outside by a foreign imperialist tends to overlay the social struggle class struggle of the indigenous society, and therefore to distort, dampen or moderate precisely those social antagonisms which bear a social revolutionary potential. A people who do not enjoy national freedom will tend to primary attention to that immediate source of pain; their capacity to struggle will tend to be dominated by it; their perception of who-is-the-enemy will tend to be dominated by it. Therefore imperialist oppression tends to set back or slow up a full crystallization and clarification of class antagonisms; and a liberation from imperialist domination will have the long run effect of providing the conditions for the exacerbation of internal class strains (even if the immediate effect of a national liberation victory appears to be otherwise for an initial period). This is not gainsaid by the fact that, to be sure, revolutionary policy aims to introduce class struggle components even in the course of a national struggle.

CHEtheLIBERATOR

9th April 2009, 18:27

It doesn't matter there are still bad motives.Islamism is a form of government that is run on religous fascism

Patchd

9th April 2009, 18:32

No, that is not at all what I am saying. Again, I reiterate, it is not our place to criticise resistance as it exists, only talk about where we wish it would lead. It is definitely not our place to say that Lebanon would be better off without the resistance.

Why not? Because you say so? I have every right in the world to criticise an organisation that I think has shit politics. An organisation does not equate the entire resistance, or even, the idea of resistance, in fact the organisation is part of the resistance.

Like I've said before, I support the resistance in the sense that when Imperialism comes in all guns a-blazin then I support the pointing of guns against Imperialism first and foremost, this does not mean no criticism of Hizb'Allah or Hamas, organisations which have been responsible for the crushing of Marxist or workers movements, such as the PFLP and certain trade unions. To give military support to these anti-worker organisations, is to give them political support, as militaries are always the armed expression of a certain political trend, in the case of Hamas and Hizb'Allah, it is the armed expression of political Islam, something which I, and many in here, do not support.