Relations of the Left with political Islam

[AIM Correspondent]

Relations of the Left with political Islam


Lebanese Professor Ali Fayyed was in a senior college in the University City of Madrid to give a talk about the situation in Palestine .
As a veteran member of Hizbollah’s Executive Committee, he presented the ideas of his political background on imperialism and also on the role of the Left and the relations of the Left with political Islamism. (…)
Who think too that today’s Islamist political leaders -damned as anti-democratic, extremist fundamentalists– do not represent the ideals of the Left. For that reason, a sample of some of his comments may be useful to calibrate the leftism of our leaders compared to that of “the guys with the beards”.
Fayyad mentioned the failure of the United States in Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon -something the “progressive leaders” ignore, being firm allies of both the US and of Israel, the other major current aggressor. He also noted the new configuration of forces in the Middle East , concretely, with reference to the increase in the strength of the Resistance and corresponding decline in the imperialist camp.
As is natural he dismissed the European Union’s designation as a terrorist organization of Hamas, the party which became the legitimate government of Palestine in 2006. That designation is something not even those same European politicians believe in. They negotiate with Hamas, albeit behind the backs of the general public.
Fayyad knows very well, although this is something he also dismisses, the poor image of Islamic forces in the West, which he puts down to their being the victims of propaganda. This should be obvious to anyone, since it is not the Western press that legitimates the Arab and Muslim anti-imperialist forces, but voters in the Middle East and what they do. Various elections have several times made things clear.
If anyone had any doubts, he insisted that Hizbollah does not want a sectarian state in Lebanon and that the problem in the area is not religious but political. At the same time he suggests that the clash of civilizations is a mistake:
“There is no opposition of values and if there were it would be no reason for war –the cause of the problem is United States ’s support for Israel , it is not a religious problem”. “As an Islamist I am closer to Leftist activists than certain Islamists who do not fight to the same degree against imperialism”.
He concedes less importance to ideology than Westerners who stick the handy label of “fundamentalism” on the Resistance so as to avoid having to take a genuinely left-wing position against imperialism, especially in the Middle East .

“I am interested in whether you fight imperialism, not in whether you are Islamist or Marxist”. In other words “are you in favour of colonialism or not? Do you support the area’s dictatorships?”
To resist, he argues, one has to have shared values. For that reason, Hizbollah is working towards an international block that transcends ideologies to “admit all views to this historic task.”
Political Islamism is perfectly clear on its current role. The Western Left ought to be equally clear given the growing push of imperialism, despite its failure thanks to the Resistance in the Middle East and other places. This failure has cost many thousands of lives there and, here, general social and political deterioration.
“Leftists” make a very sorry spectacle when they are left well behind by “fundamentalists” in terms of political objectives, of strategy and sacrifice. The confusion in the progressive ranks is such that being on the Left lacks any value at all. The words continue to be true of whoever it was that said, “live as you think, or end up thinking like a progressive”.
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m53839&hd=&size=1&l=e

[BobKKKindle$]

Islamist organizations are certainly the most visible part of the resistance against imperialism, and have inflicted a series of military defeats on the imperialist powers, and it's also true that there are many Marxist organizations which give enthusiastic support to national-liberation struggles, including my own party, because we recognize that military struggles against imperialism represent a distorted form of class struggle, and that it is in the interests of all workers throughout the world for imperialism to suffer defeats. However, this interview seems to suggest that if the left condemns imperialism and supports the victory of the resistance forces, then that mean that leftists hold the same position as Islamists when it comes to imperialism. This is not the case. As a Trotskyist I recognize that the bourgeoisies of oppressed nations are fundamentally incapable of carrying the struggle against imperialism to its ultimate conclusion in the same way that they are unwilling to carry out the other demands that comprise the democratic revolution, because they recognize that total defeat for the imperialist powers, in the sense of the imperialists being forced to give an oppressed nation complete and unconditional territorial sovereignty, would create a strong and confident working class that would eventually be able to take action against the bourgeoisie and extend the struggle to the overthrow of capitalism, and for that reason any organization that is led by bourgeois forces or serves the class interests of the bourgeoisie will inevitably enter into a compromise with the imperialists whereby they agree to accept imperialist hegemony in exchange for a guarantee that the imperialists will protect the bourgeoisie against pressures and struggles from below. The outcome of this is that the achievement of genuine national liberation depends on the ability of the left to challenge the organizations which currently lead anti-imperialist struggles, and combine anti-imperialism with the struggle for the overthrow of capitalism, as well as broader set of struggles against other forms of social and political oppression. The Islamists are not our friends - it is the duty of Marxists to cast them aside as agents of the embryonic bourgeoisie.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

I support Islamic Socialism and any kind of Islamic/Arab opposition to imperialism as long as it's not of the extremist islamist kind.
As such, I support organisations like Hezbollah and Hamas.

[BobKKKindle$]

I support Islamic Socialism and any kind of Islamic/Arab opposition to imperialism as long as it's not of the extremist islamist kind.Do you then not support the resistance struggle in Afghanistan? It's led by the Taleban who are surely some of the most extreme and reactionary political agents to ever participate in any kind of anti-imperialist struggle, given their treatment of women and homosexuals, as well as their historic links with the imperialist powers, which, according to you, is reason enough not to take an anti-imperialist stand. I don't think the political orientation of the organizations that lead anti-imperialist struggles is actually important, because a military defeat for imperialism and the removal of an occupying force is always progressive for the international proletariat and provides a boost to the development of class consciousness even if those events do not come about through the efforts of a progressive movement. I also think that you make a mistake in saying you support Hamas or Hezbollah as organizations, because Marxists support anti-imperialist struggles - there is no reason to give any kind of political support to non-revolutionary organizations such as Hamas, as the leaders of these organizations are seeking to establish themselves as a new ruling class and aim to accumulate capital at the expense of the proletariat. I know that the normal way to say you want an anti-imperialist struggle to be victorious is to say that you give "military support" to a particular organization but a much better way to express the argument and emphasize what makes us different from Islamists and other reactionary tendencies is simply to say that you support the struggle without giving one ounce of support to any of the organizations that are leading it.

Also, what do you mean by Islamic socialism, and why do you support it?

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

Do you then not support the resistance struggle in Afghanistan? It's led by the Taleban who are surely some of the most extreme and reactionary political agents to ever participate in any kind of anti-imperialist struggle, given their treatment of women and homosexuals, as well as their historic links with the imperialist powers, which, according to you, is reason enough not to take an anti-imperialist stand. I don't think the political orientation of the organizations that lead anti-imperialist struggles is actually important, because a military defeat for imperialism and the removal of an occupying force is always progressive for the international proletariat and provides a boost to the development of class consciousness even if those events do not come about through the efforts of a progressive movement. I also think that you make a mistake in saying you support Hamas or Hezbollah as organizations, because Marxists support anti-imperialist struggles - there is no reason to give any kind of political support to non-revolutionary organizations such as Hamas, as the leaders of these organizations are seeking to establish themselves as a new ruling class and aim to accumulate capital at the expense of the proletariat. I know that the normal way to say you want an anti-imperialist struggle to be victorious is to say that you give "military support" to a particular organization but a much better way to express the argument and emphasize what makes us different from Islamists and other reactionary tendencies is simply to say that you support the struggle without giving once ounce of support to any of the organizations that are leading it.

Also, what do you mean by Islamic socialism, and why do you support it?

Of course I do not support the Taliban reactionary uprisings, since they fought against the Afghani Communist Party and the USSR.

Nor do I agree with the policies of Hamas, ut I support them in their struggle against zionist oppression.
I respect Hamas more then I do respect Fatah, since Hamas really opposes Israel actively.
I would however under normal circumstances never support Hamas in elections or struggle for power. My main support in Palestine of course goes to the PFLP.

[BobKKKindle$]

Of course I do not support the Taliban reactionary uprisings, since they fought against the Afghani Communist Party and the USSR.I don't think any Marxist would say that they support the activities of the Taliban but not those of the other groups that are fighting against the occupation in Afghanistan. However, it's a clear fact that the Taliban is the most powerful and visible component of the resistance in Afghanistan and you seem to be saying that you don't support the expulsion of the occupation and the victory of the anti-imperialist struggle, because you recognize that the Taliban is dominant, and so would probably come to power shortly after the occupying forces were compelled to withdraw. The only way you could rationalize this position is if you see the prospect of Taleban rule as being even worse than life under occupation for the Afghan proletariat, and I don't see how that's a sensible judgment. As I mentioned in my previous post, I don't care whether the resistance in Afghanistan is being led by the Taleban, or RAWA, or the C(M)PA, because I think that each one of those organizations is totally reactionary, albeit in different ways, but nonetheless the victory of the resistance would be a progressive development.


Nor do I agree with the policies of Hamas, ut I support them in their struggle against zionist oppression.However, as a bourgeois organization, Hamas is prone to making concessions to Zionism because its leaders are afraid of what would happen to their own position if they really did push the liberation struggle to its full conclusion and refused to make any concessions whatsoever. We can already see the tendency of bourgeois organizations to make concessions to imperialism in the case of Fatah, which, having been an anti-imperialist force in the past, is now a puppet of the Israeli state. This is why we should be ready to condemn and totally break with Hamas when it does start to make concessions, and instead of just offering passive support to the anti-imperialist struggle, or merging with Hamas, revolutionaries in Palestine have a duty to build their own organizations in order to become the leadership of the struggle.


My main support in Palestine of course goes to the PFLP. In what way is the PFLP more progressive than Hamas? What links does it have with the working class?

[AvanteRedGarde]

I really liked this article.

Personally, i think religion, any religion, is incompatible with the kinda of long range, internationalist viewpoint that is necessary with Marxism.

That said, the struggle today is against the capitalist-imperialism system (not some wishy washy 'capitalism' or every act of national projection as an act of imperialism).

The dividing line between forces of revolution and counter-revolution today is opposition towards capitalism-imperialism. Mr. Fayyed is right to say that many Islamic forces have left the "Left" behind in terms of opposing imperialism and gaining popular support. This is an objective fact. Globally speaking, leftist revolutionaries are about are irrelevant as ever whereas political Islam has projected itself as a regional alternative to those whom feel trampled on by imperialism.

It all comes down 'who are our enemies, who are our friends.' Well, U.S. -led capitalist-imperialists are our main enemies. Groups like Hamas and the Taleban happen to be engaged in this struggle, on the right side, so they are our friends.



I also agree to some extend (as i often do in this area) to BobKindles thoughts. Specifically, what separates leftist revolutionaries (those trying to bring about a world without or with absolute minimal amounts of unequal power relations, hierarchy and a state) from and other poles in the gloabl struggle against imperialism, is precisely our critique of the other forces, their proposed system, its limitations and our alternative. It is true that groups like Hamas are bourgeois nationalists wrapped up in all sorts of fetters from pre-capitalism, thus limiting them in varied ways against imperialism. However, this should be pointed out as part of the common struggle against imperialism, not in opposition to it.

[More Fire for the People]

"political Islam" is such a vague category that it is useless. Do we mean Islamic rightists or Islamic leftists? Those who want to impose sharia law or those who use Koran as an inspiration to fight for the fundamental dignity of human beings?