Taliban Class Warfare

[Sarah Palin]

I read this today and thought you all would like to hear how the taliban are using class warfare to push their ideology upon workers in the Swat Valley. I thought it was dangerous to a leftist movement in the region, and I'm curious to hear your thoughts.

Here's the article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/world/asia/17pstan.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper

[Saorsa]

These peasants should have been organised by leftist groups. In India the Naxalites are organising peasants in armed struggle against the landlords, it's a shame there's nothing similar to speak of taking place in Pakistan.

[Yehuda Stern]

While I agree it's unfortunate that such a struggle is led by the Taliban instead of a Marxist party, it's ridiculous to hear supposedly revolutionary leftist refer to a class struggle as "dangerous."

[Labor Shall Rule]

These peasants should have been organised by leftist groups. In India the Naxalites are organising peasants in armed struggle against the landlords, it's a shame there's nothing similar to speak of taking place in Pakistan.

Well, the Afghan Maoists are trying their best.

[Wanted Man]

I like the liberal indignation in the NY Times' headline...

[Sarah Palin]

While I agree it's unfortunate that such a struggle is led by the Taliban instead of a Marxist party, it's ridiculous to hear supposedly revolutionary leftist refer to a class struggle as "dangerous."

I was saying that it was dangerous that the taliban was taking advantage of the class struggle.

[el_chavista]

You can find some long serial articles about the Taliban militants in Pakistan at Asia Times online:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KB03Df02.html

[Pogue]

While I agree it's unfortunate that such a struggle is led by the Taliban instead of a Marxist party, it's ridiculous to hear supposedly revolutionary leftist refer to a class struggle as "dangerous."

I wouldn't really say its class war, and certainly not in the sense we like it, because it doesn't have class and revolutionary conciousness, its just saying 'He's rich, kill him for us and then we'll sort things out in our Taliban way', the Taliban way obviously not being revolutionary socialism. Its exploting class tensions and get poor people to attack rich people which isn't the same as class war, which is synoymous with revolution.

It could be argued its 'dangerous' because it'll lead to these people being indoctrinated into Taliban idoelogy which is reactionary and hinders the working class, so its using class tensions for a completely unproductive cause, the same way it'd be dangerous if a fascist movement started exploting the 'white working class' because its getting them fired up but for the wrong reasons (i.e. they'd focus it on our leaders somehow doing something against white people or the 'nation', as the Taleban probably say fighting the decadent rich is some sort of prelude to wiping out all immoral acts, one of which they believe is homosexuality etc).

[Yehuda Stern]

I agree, mostly. I just disagree with the way the OP characterized the situation. It sounded like something Newsbot would write.

[Dimentio]

I think this serves as a proof that radical islamism in Pakistan and Afghanistan is actually on decline (both since Karzai's regime is moving to accommodate the demands of reactionary elements, and the Pakistani people are turning more and more against both the government and the islamist insurgents). The Taleban are forced to try to find new ways to legitimise theirselves in the eyes of the population.

[Idealism]

I read this today and thought you all would like to hear how the taliban are using class warfare to push their ideology upon workers in the Swat Valley. I thought it was dangerous to a leftist movement in the region, and I'm curious to hear your thoughts.

Here's the article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/world/asia/17pstan.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper

It has long been the strategy of social elite (i.e. bourgeoisie) to drum up social issues to get people to follow ideaologies that are completely against thier own intrests. Just look at the republican party focusing on:

"State's rights"
Gay marriage
Gun regulation
Immagration

By doing this they are getting the working class to vote against their own interests; and i feel its what the Taliban is doing.

[Dimentio]

It has long been the strategy of social elite (i.e. bourgeoisie) to drum up social issues to get people to follow ideaologies that are completely against thier own intrests. Just look at the republican party focusing on:

"State's rights"
Gay marriage
Gun regulation
Immagration

By doing this they are getting the working class to vote against their own interests; and i feel its what the Taliban is doing.

Yes, the little lives are becoming smarter.

[Hoxhaist]

I think this serves as a proof that radical islamism in Pakistan and Afghanistan is actually on decline (both since Karzai's regime is moving to accommodate the demands of reactionary elements, and the Pakistani people are turning more and more against both the government and the islamist insurgents). The Taleban are forced to try to find new ways to legitimise theirselves in the eyes of the population.
Radical Islamism proved incapable of doing away with the divisions that they had blamed on secular rule. The leftists must show that only Marxism-Leninism is capable of ending exploitation and doing away with all vestiges of colonialism, imperialism, and capitalism that is at the root of the problems. The people must see that Islamic chauvinism and Islamist rule is nothing new and impotent in bringing liberation

[ComradeOm]

Meh, peasants. What exactly do you expect? Despite decades of wishful thinking on the part of socialists, the struggle between landlord and tenant is not the same as that of capitalist and proletarian. The Taliban can appease the peasantry precisely because the struggle of the latter lacks the socialist character of class warfare in industry


By doing this they are getting the working class to vote against their own interests; and i feel its what the Taliban is doingExcept that in this case the seizure of estate land is in the interests of the peasantry. Even if the Taliban take a cut, the tenants still end up with more land and power. From their narrow perspective this is very good news for the peasantry - they are winning this class war. The mistake is to assume that what is good for the peasantry is good for the urban proletariat

[Dimentio]

Radical Islamism proved incapable of doing away with the divisions that they had blamed on secular rule. The leftists must show that only Marxism-Leninism is capable of ending exploitation and doing away with all vestiges of colonialism, imperialism, and capitalism that is at the root of the problems. The people must see that Islamic chauvinism and Islamist rule is nothing new and impotent in bringing liberation

Radical islamists have never got the chance to win power (in Pakistan) except in local places in Pakistan. The reason why the people is increasingly turning against them is because their tactic (blowing up civilians when they are attacking policemen and soldiers), as well as what they actually do when they are taking villages and towns. If they won power in Pakistan, they would be unable to solve any problems caused by capitalist opression or imperialist exploitation, but they have not yet reached that stage.

[Hoxhaist]

what today is called radical islamism is the same administration of places like the early Muslim empires, sultanates, and caliphates. the caliphate is what some like Al-Qaeda is trying to restore; they are fighting to turn back the clock not progress. Leftists ought to be on their guard to not be suckered into supporting Islamism just because it is anti-colonialist

[Dimentio]

what today is called radical islamism is the same administration of places like the early Muslim empires, sultanates, and caliphates. the caliphate is what some like Al-Qaeda is trying to restore; they are fighting to turn back the clock not progress. Leftists ought to be on their guard to not be suckered into supporting Islamism just because it is anti-colonialist

I agree with your assertion, but not that islamism is one uniform ideology. Most forms of islamism are more or less fundamentalist, authoritarian and some of them are insane.

We have the Moslem Brotherhood, who have inspired groups like Hamas. They want to combine islam with some sort of authoritarian welfare state.

The Iranian shia islamists basically want a constitutional republic, but with shar'iah as the constitution.

The Salafis are not purely islamist, but rather the remnants of an islamic reform movement in the 18th and 19th century. They want to return to the caliphate.

[Hoxhaist]

There ought to be no misunderstanding, Islamism ought to have no place in leftist ideology or struggle. Although they may seem allies, their goal is fundamentally opposite to leftism. They seek to divide the world into infidel and Muslim, we seek to unite the world and bridge gaps based on religion, gender, and race

[Dimentio]

There ought to be no misunderstanding, Islamism ought to have no place in leftist ideology or struggle. Although they may seem allies, their goal is fundamentally opposite to leftism. They seek to divide the world into infidel and Muslim, we seek to unite the world and bridge gaps based on religion, gender, and race

Yes, I am in agreement there.