ISO Supports the Taliban?

[KC]

Should the left call for Taliban victory?

August 18, 2009

AS SOCIALISTS, we support the right of oppressed peoples to fight for self-determination unreservedly, just as we oppose imperialism, without caveat.

This perspective is generally accepted by the left without question in contexts such as Latin America or Africa, where bitter fights against U.S. and European imperialism have been fought and, in some cases, won.

Yet, when it comes to the Middle East and Afghanistan today there is suddenly much less clarity about what radicals and Marxists should be saying. Nowhere is that more evident than in the case of Afghanistan, which has suffered under the yoke of U.S. imperialism since 2001 (with active U.S. interference in the country since at least the 1970s).

The idea that the Taliban, as a movement fighting against U.S. occupation, is a force we should be supporting is, unfortunately, a somewhat controversial position to hold, even on the far left. This is a serious mistake and speaks both to the extent to which Islamophobia has penetrated the left, as well as to the lack of understanding of the social dynamics of an oppressed and devastated country like Afghanistan.

We are all familiar with the lies and excuses used to justify the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan in the wake of the September 11 attacks. Bush and his coterie of crooks and warmongers told us that only a military invasion could liberate the people, and especially the women, of Afghanistan from the brutal, misogynistic and "medieval" Taliban movement.

There was no mention, of course, of the substantial support offered to the Taliban regime in the late 1990s when Clinton was president and in the early days of the Bush presidency, nor of the long and ugly history of U.S. intervention in Central and South Asia, which was an important precondition for the rise of Islamism.

We should condemn unreservedly the oppression of women and the general social conservatism of the pre-2001 Taliban regime, as well, of course, as their efforts to cut deals with regional and global superpowers against the interests of the vast majority of Afghans. However, we must also unreservedly condemn the racism and Islamophobia used as an ideological fig leaf to justify invasion and imperialism, and it is the left's weakness on this issue, which has blinded many to the new realities on the ground in Afghanistan.

Before addressing the important question of who the Taliban actually are, it is important to understand the material conditions Afghans face. Afghanistan is a devastated country. It is ranked at or near the bottom of a broad range of social indicators, such as levels of poverty, infant mortality, literacy, per capita income, prevalence of easily preventable diseases and so forth. Most major cities in Afghanistan, including the capital Kabul, are in ruins (despite claims of "reconstruction" by NATO imperialists) and decent roads, electricity, clean water, sanitation and basic social services are unheard of for most of the population, especially in the rural areas. The majority of the population ekes out a living on a subsistence basis, and the struggle for survival is the overarching concern for most Afghans.

In a nutshell, there is no Afghan working class or progressive petit bourgeoisie to speak of, and the major social classes (aside from the puppet regime and it's assortment of bandits and thugs) are the poor peasantry and the Islamic clergy.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

THE SIGNIFICANCE of this to a discussion of anti-imperialist resistance in Afghanistan should be obvious to any serious historical materialist. This question cannot be thought about in the abstract, it must be considered in light of the material realities on the ground. Such realities necessarily shape the kinds of social forces and the character of class struggle in that country and make it highly likely that any grassroots resistance will have a strongly religious character, given that the rural clergy are the only force capable of uniting the peasantry against the comprador ruling class.

The following point cannot be stressed enough; whilst the U.S. remains in Afghanistan, economic and social development will not occur much beyond current levels. This in turn means that the Taliban, as a broad-based movement of poor farmers and lower clergy, is the face of anti-imperialist resistance in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future.

To put it another way, if we, as avowed anti-imperialists, intend to wait around for a resistance movement that agrees with us on every issue, including the need to fight the oppression of women, gays, racial and religious minorities, etc., we'll be waiting a long time. The Taliban is the resistance in Afghanistan and we must support it, critically, but unreservedly.

The Taliban that ruled Afghanistan prior to the U.S. invasion no longer exists. The U.S. and NATO routinely refer to any act of resistance as the work of the "Taliban" (meaning the followers of Mullah Omar), much as every act of resistance in Iraq was the work of "Baath loyalists."

To be sure, there are attacks being carried out by people who support the former regime, but many, perhaps most, resistance fighters have no particular loyalty to the former leadership and some are actively hostile to it.

Anand Gopal, one of the few independent journalists actively trying to find out what is actually happening in Afghanistan has written some very useful and insightful work on this, and as he points out, the ranks of the Taliban have been swelled in recent years by rural peasants who have been radicalized as a result of US/NATO brutality, including the indiscriminate air attacks which have killed thousands of Afghans.

The Taliban are increasingly espousing a strong nationalist message and, in some cases, have substantially moderated their social conservatism in order to build a more broad-based and effective resistance movement.

It is also the case that the "Taliban" is effectively a blanket term for a coalition of groups, some drawn from the tiny strata of educated middle class Afghans, which aim to eject foreign troops from their country. In short, when the U.S. and its allies use the term "Taliban" they want us to think of public stonings, music bans and ultra-conservative clerics--and if we follow their lead we do a grave disservice to the Afghan resistance and only help to perpetuate Islamophobic caricatures of "crazed, bearded extremists."

There is no fundamental difference between the liberation theology movements in South America and the popular Islamist resistance movements in the Middle East and Asia, movements such as Hezbollah, Hamas and the Taliban. To be sure, the former were less socially conservative, but as religiously colored grassroots resistance movements they are essentially the same kind of manifestation of class resistance.

The left needs to ask itself why it is much more critical of Muslims expressing class anger in a religious form than of South American Christians; to my mind, unexamined Islamophobia explains much of this discrepancy.

Every U.S. and NATO tank that the Taliban destroy, every Karzai-appointed stooge they assassinate and every town or village they liberate is a victory for our side and a grievous blow to U.S. imperialism--we would do well to remember that and to offer our solidarity and support for a Taliban victory in Afghanistan.
Nick K., from the InternetPulled this off Socialist Worker (http://socialistworker.org/2009/08/18/should-the-left-call-for-taliban-victory). I'm interested in hearing the opinions from ISO members on this, as this is a pretty fucked up viewpoint to take and I wasn't sure how representative it is of the overall position of the membership towards the Taliban. However, the fact that this was even published is troubling in itself, and shows the ISO's position on anti-imperialism to be incredibly and fundamentally flawed.

[RedScare]

Well. Supporting the Taliban. That's a new one. It's a pity, I'd hope to work with ISO on campus....

[Intelligitimate]

I was surprised how good this piece was, as the ISO usually takes opportunist lines on everything.

[YKTMX]

There is no fundamental difference between the liberation theology movements in South America and the popular Islamist resistance movements in the Middle East and Asia, movements such as Hezbollah, Hamas and the Taliban.I'm not sure about this. The structure of the Islamic and Catholic religions is so different that it makes comparisons like this dangerous. The "liberation theologians" represented an internal revolt against a very hierarchical and centralized bureaucracy in the Catholic Church. There is no such "central authority" in Islam, so we can't say that Hezbollah or Hamas are in revolt against some reactionary centralized force. Theological power in Islam is more widely diffused - it's one of the things leftist Islamophobes miss actually, the essentially "decentralized" and democratic nature of Islam.

The article is, of course, correct in its central argument, however. We support the right of the Afghans to resist occupation in anyway they see fit.

[genstrike]

I am not an ISO member and have absolutely no sympathies with the ISO (I'm an anarchist), but I think it is possible that there is a bit of confusion here regarding the term "Taliban". As I understand it, "Taliban" has become a blanket term in western media for the Afghan resistance, at least partially in order to try to discredit the entire resistance by painting it as the work of the far-right, anti-woman theocrats who were running Afghanistan before 2001. These far-right theocrats actually don't have much support in Afghanistan, and aren't all that different from the current Northern Alliance government - we see things like the rape law and that guy who was sentenced to death in a four minute trial for reading about women's rights, and RAWA has noted that acid attacks have been committed by both sides. The people running Afghanistan prior to 2001 and the current puppet government are essentially two sides of the same coin.

I don't think they are calling for a victory for the far-right fucks, but the Afghan resistance in general, and that is something I more or less agree with. The Afghan people have the right to self-determination and I would like to see the imperialist forces removed from Afghanistan by whatever means. I think there is a bit of a racist conception of Afghans at play - trying to demonize them in order to make it seem like "we" can't trust "them" with their own country, when Afghanistan is actually a relatively peaceful place (and women's rights were progressing - I've heard stories of Afghan women wearing mini-skirts in universities in the 70s and under the PDPA government) when imperialist powers aren't playing this Great Game shit.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

The Taliban that ruled Afghanistan prior to the U.S. invasion no longer exists. The U.S. and NATO routinely refer to any act of resistance as the work of the "Taliban" (meaning the followers of Mullah Omar), much as every act of resistance in Iraq was the work of "Baath loyalists."

To be sure, there are attacks being carried out by people who support the former regime, but many, perhaps most, resistance fighters have no particular loyalty to the former leadership and some are actively hostile to it.Why should we continue referring to all Afghan resistance as the Taliban just because that's what U.S. imperialists do? That's like saying we should call for Ba'athist victory in Iraq, just out of spite.


There is no fundamental difference between the liberation theology movements in South America and the popular Islamist resistance movements in the Middle East and Asia, movements such as Hezbollah, Hamas and the Taliban.This is bullshit. Liberation theologians actively called for socialism and a workers' movement. I'm sure there's Muslims who do that too, but the organizations Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Taliban do no such thing. They are nationalists and have never even claimed to support socialism.

[Random Precision]

Pulled this off Socialist Worker (http://socialistworker.org/2009/08/18/should-the-left-call-for-taliban-victory). I'm interested in hearing the opinions from ISO members on this, as this is a pretty fucked up viewpoint to take and I wasn't sure how representative it is of the overall position of the membership towards the Taliban.

This is from the "Reader's Views" segment of the Socialist Worker website. Meaning, the opinion expressed there doesn't represent the opinion of Socialist Worker, nor the ISO, though perhaps the writer is an ISO member- but if he was I think he would have identified himself as such.

I actually took part in a discussion on the Afghan resistance at the Northeast Socialism Conference last year. It was called "What Should Socialists think of Political Islam?" and was moderated by Deepa Kumar, a leading member of the ISO. Her opinion was that since the Taleban (by which we mean, the followers of Mullah Omar) have time and again proven themselves incapable of unifying and providing leadership to the resistance movement, and so we do not lend "political support" to that organization. I'd think that this position is the ISO one.


However, the fact that this was even published is troubling in itself, and shows the ISO's position on anti-imperialism to be incredibly and fundamentally flawed.

As an ISO member, I agree that the organization's position is to an extent opportunist; it tends to forget the importance that the working class bring forth its own politics in the context of a national-liberation struggle. I've talked about this with some other members and actually found a lot who agree.

[chegitz guevara]

I understand why the ISO is taking the position they take. I'm ambivalent on the matter. I take a default anti-imperialist position, but I haven't really though deeply enough through all the problems of the question.

Would the opportunities provided by a defeat of American imperialism outweigh the strengthening of political Islam? On the other hand, would a defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan weaken political Islam enough that the left could make gains in the Middle East. Would the imposition of capitalism in Afghanistan lay the future ground for socialism or will feudalism remain intact and co-opted by imperialism?

I don't know.

[bricolage]

I'm always interested as to what supporting the Taliban or supporting Hamas or whoever actually means. Aside from writing articles in papers and making placards what is there that all these 20 member left groups can do with this support?

[chegitz guevara]

The ISO has a few more than 20 members. It's the largest revolutionary group in the US.

[bricolage]

The ISO has a few more than 20 members. It's the largest revolutionary group in the US.

Ok fine, take out the 20 member bit and my question still stands.

[Communist]

This essay does (briefly) address the differences between the old and current Taliban, as well as concede a few of the obvious and dramatic disagreements with the organisation's ideology that socialists hold firmly to.
But the ISO get's it right. Revolutionary socialists need to look at the class character of every movement before immediately falling back into liberal conclusions which are far too often completely bloodsoaked by imperialist propaganda. Of course much of the Taliban is abhorrent and should these positions remain and are unacceptable to the Afghan people, they shall be dealt with by the oppressed, and with our support.
But right now they are involved fighting an extremely difficult struggle against US imperialism, with the wide support of the working class, oppressed and radicals of the country and region, and should be supported on that score.

[KC]

Well recently a caravan to Palestine provided a few million dollars in aid that was handed directly over to Hamas. I'm not taking a political position on this, but it's a good representation of what support can lead to.

[Communist]

Well recently a caravan to Palestine provided a few million dollars in aid that was handed directly over to Hamas. I'm not taking a political position on this, but it's a good representation of what support can lead to.

Indeed, and it's needed. Consider the bankroll the opposition has, much of it from the US government. This struggle is taking place on all fronts and in considered measure.

Which caravan are you specifically referring to?

[KC]

Which caravan are you specifically referring to?


I don't remember the specific organization(s) involved but here's (http://www.fightbacknews.org/2009/08/minnesotans-detained-in-and-deported-from-israel-return-home-denounce-tight-grip.htm) an article on it.

[Sam_b]

Well recently a caravan to Palestine provided a few million dollars in aid that was handed directly over to Hamas

Good.

[LOLseph Stalin]

This just shows how sad of a situation Afghanistan is in when the Taliban are seen as the most progressive opponant against western Imperialism.

[Sam_b]

The crux of the argument depends on your definition of the Taliban, INH.

[KC]

The crux of the argument depends on your definition of the Taliban, INH.

There are only really two definitions:

1. Mullah Omar's followers.
2. Anyone fighting against the occupiers, including Al Qa'ida.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

I understand why the ISO is taking the position they take. I'm ambivalent on the matter. I take a default anti-imperialist position, but I haven't really though deeply enough through all the problems of the question.

Would the opportunities provided by a defeat of American imperialism outweigh the strengthening of political Islam? On the other hand, would a defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan weaken political Islam enough that the left could make gains in the Middle East. Would the imposition of capitalism in Afghanistan lay the future ground for socialism or will feudalism remain intact and co-opted by imperialism?

I don't know.

I think the Taliban/U.S. military dichotomy is as superficial and phoney as the Democrat/Republican dichotomy in the USA is. There is no reason for us to pick a side between reactionary groups. Rather, we should be clear about what actions we support: ending all imperial occupations, capitalism, patriarchy, and racism. Now, we know that US imperialism in Afghanistan has no real interest in doing any of those things; on the other hand the Taliban might have some interest in ending the occupation, so we can have a little bit of "agreement" with them on that, but that's it. There is a huge difference between calling for a nationalist reactionary victory and calling for the end of occupation.

[Revy]

There are only really two definitions:

1. Mullah Omar's followers.
2. Anyone fighting against the occupiers, including Al Qa'ida.

The ISO has another article I found called "Who are the Taliban? (http://socialistworker.org/2008/12/09/who-are-the-taliban)".

It expresses similar arguments though it stops short of calling for supporting the Taliban.

There are more than two definitions (apparently):

1. The Taliban in Afghanistan
2. A blanket term used by the imperialists in reference to all resistance in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
3. The Taliban in Pakistan (independent of the one in Afghanistan, and much more hard-line apparently).
4. The "Local Taliban" a faction of the Pakistani Taliban which avoids conflict with the Pakistani military.

[genstrike]

I think the Taliban/U.S. military dichotomy is as superficial and phoney as the Democrat/Republican dichotomy in the USA is. There is no reason for us to pick a side between reactionary groups. Rather, we should be clear about what actions we support: ending all imperial occupations, capitalism, patriarchy, and racism. Now, we know that US imperialism in Afghanistan has no real interest in doing any of those things; on the other hand the Taliban might have some interest in ending the occupation, so we can have a little bit of "agreement" with them on that, but that's it. There is a huge difference between calling for a nationalist reactionary victory and calling for the end of occupation.

But I think there is also a problem with assuming that the result of any struggle against occupation will be a reactionary, nationalist government. Perhaps at the end of the occupation, Afghanistan might end up with a secular, socialist government - it wouldn't be the first time in Afghan history. Or at the very least, the end of the occupation might open up new avenues of struggle and spaces in which to organize. And it is practically guaranteed to be less reactionary than the occupation.

But I'm not sure, we might be talking past each other with differing definitions of Taliban.

[n0thing]

More of that detestable "anything but imperialism" attitude.

[Communist]

More of that detestable "anything but imperialism" attitude.

I haven't seen any of that on this thread. I've rarely seen any of that anywhere among the Left.
For socialists to assert a position and be unafraid to bring it to discussion is a great thing. On the other hand, it's best for revolutionaries to not refer to the "Taliban" because at present it's historical existence no longer applies, or to vigorously define the state and class character of the many "Talibans" today - why allow the capitalists to frame the struggle by association with a name that instantly provokes emotional and ideological horrors? The anti-imperialist struggles are too important and happening at too critical a time in history to allow imperialists to exploit the association...

[Conquer or Die]

There seems to be a whole lot of fucking confusion: Imperialism is THE enemy. American soldiers are unfortunately being used as puppets to secure the holdings of reactionary right wing piglets who damage Afghanistan's social structure and economic relevance. It seems that Afghanistan's territory is very reactionary and backward but it also seems that there has been much significant progressive change in the country historically speaking. While the true communist party of Afghanistan, the Maoist ALO, seems to be moribund; there are features of the geography and political/educational tradition which seem to favor agrarian peasant revolution. Assuming the United Snakes and the Soviet Snakes didn't tip their poison into the region for political and economic reasons; it is highly likely that a peasant revolution would've developed from a mixture of internal consciousness and external (city) progressiveness. If the United Snakes depart fully from Afghanistan then there would be a great flight of nation traitors (Afghanistan's current ruling class) resulting in many deserved sword dirtying. Once the business of treason is settled then comes the typical islamo faction war and underground democratic movement. Assuming no other third parties get involved; the business of real progress begins.

That said, as an American I am not a nation traitor. I support the capture of Osama Bin Laden at any means and a smart, quick, phased withdrawal with humanitarian intervention.

[genstrike]

That said, as an American I am not a nation traitor.

Why not? As a Canadian, I am and proud of it

[Guerrilla22]

AS SOCIALISTS, we support the right of oppressed peoples to fight for self-determination unreservedly

Yes so we should support the Afghan people and those in frontier areas of Pakistan in their efforts to resist both US/NATO imperialism and oppression from the Taliban.

[AlMack]

This 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' line is horseshit

[Guerrilla22]

That's the problem with the term "the people" -- it includes everyone and anyone. Cops are people. So are the bourgeoisie.

In this case, "the people" you want to support are reactionary religious fanatics (who cute their teeth in a U.S.-backed counterrevolution) acting in the interests of the local mullah and landowners.

Or I guess I should have said the average worker/peasant in these areas that end up being killed by both sides.

[Comrade Akai]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is the Taliban not a totalitarian organization who oppresses people with their warped views of Islam and generally turns everything into suck?

[Ismail]

http://web.archive.org/web/20021119014438/www22.brinkster.com/harikumar/AllianceIssues/ALLIANCE45AFGHANISTAN.html

The latter part of this article, specifically parts:

19. The Wars of the Mujahadeen
20. The Economy of the Mujahadeen War-Lords
21. The Rise, Ideology and Backers Of the Taliban
22. What Is the Class basis of the Taliban?
23. Consolidation of Taliban Victory – Embroiling of Central Asian Republics In War
24. Prelude To The New USA War
25. The USA Led War Against the Afghanistan State
26. Motives For The USA Led War
27. The New Comprador Regime of Hamid Karzai
28. ConclusionsShould be looked at. Every sentence is sourced, etc. The only problem is that it's a bit dated, having been written in 2002.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but is the Taliban not a totalitarian organization who oppresses people with their warped views of Islam and generally turns everything into suck?They're fundamentalists, yes. So are many Islamic movements, though the Taliban is rather unusual in how far it goes. They still have a following, however, and their actions brought it into conflict with the US, which would have rather supported the "Northern Resistance" composed of significantly more pro-US ex-Mujahidin. Saying that they "turn[ed] everything into suck" isn't a very bright analysis considering that, despite the dangers they faced (the "Northern Alliance" in the north, tribalism, etc.) they were taking steps to centralize the government and to eliminate most vestiges of tribalism.

[genstrike]

This 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' line is horseshit

Nice strawman, but no one has said that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" in this thread.

[KC]

But they've followed that logic. They say (1) U.S. imperialism is our enemy; (2) the Taliban is in conflict with U.S. imperialism; so, (3) we should support the Taliban.

Actually, "they" didn't say it, as RP has pointed out.

[gorillafuck]

That said, as an American I am not a nation traitor.
Is that a joke?

[fredbergen]

You know, back in 2003 the ISO was organizing forums with the title, "Should we invade Iraq?" Who is this "we" you speak of, ISO?

The defining political traits of the ISO are cold war social-democratic anti-sovietism, and opportunist tailism. Under the pressure of cold war anti-communism, Tony Cliff redefined the Soviet Union as "state capitalist" because ... it had nuclear weapons. This enabled him and his followers to abandon the defense of the Soviet Union and China as imperialism waged war on Korea. When imperialism armed and funded Bin Laden's bands of cutthroats in Afghanistan, the ISO howled with the imperialist wolves for the withdrawal of Soviet troops. (Trotskyists proclaimed Hail Red Army in Afghanistan!) When the Kremlin bureaucracy bowed to imperialist pressure and withdrew from Afghanistan, the ISO declared victory. The ISO hailed Reagan and the Pope's company union, Solidarnosc, in concert with the McCarthyite AFL-CIO apparatus.

Now that the Soviet Union is no more, and a sharpening of inter-imperialist rivalries and regional conflicts is dragging humanity towards another world war, the ISO's business of opportunist tailism is even more fraught with potential contradictions. The ISO has never had qualms about bowing to mullahs (or Catholic priests!) in the past, but now that they have campaigned for Obama's war budget (http://socialistworker.org/2009/03/03/battle-over-the-budget), can they politically support the Taliban reactionary islamists in Afghanistan who got left out of imperialism's deal with the "Northern Alliance" of reactionary islamists? That would require some creative politicking!

But at this late date, all this brouhaha seems a bit contrived. The CWI supporter wants to win sympathy from imperialist liberals by attacking the ISO's (fake) anti-imperialism. All these opportunist fake-lefts stood together with their own imperialists when it counted. Both hailed Yeltsin's pro-capitalist coup, both howled for the Soviets to get out of Afghanistan, both enthused over the anti-Soviet Catholic nationalists of Solidarnosc. And neither party called nor calls for the defeat of their own imperialists in this Iraq-Afghanistan-Pakistan war.

There is only one organization that took the principled stand on these fundamental questions: the League for the Fourth International. (http://www.internationalist.org/int12toc.html)

[KC]

The CWI supporter wants to win sympathy from imperialist liberals by attacking the ISO's (fake) anti-imperialism.:laugh:


There is only one organization that took the principled stand on these fundamental questions: the League for the Fourth International. (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.internationalist.org/int12toc.html)

You're awesome.
:laugh::laugh:

[Kassad]

Well recently a caravan to Palestine provided a few million dollars in aid that was handed directly over to Hamas. I'm not taking a political position on this, but it's a good representation of what support can lead to.

I think you're referring to the Viva Palestina caravan, which was endorsed by a significant amount of organizations (http://www.vivapalestina-us.org/topics/endorsers/), such as the International Socialist Organization, ANSWER Coalition, International Action Center and many others. The aid contained things such as medical supplies, walkers, vehicles and wheelchairs (http://answer.pephost.org/site/News2?abbr=ANS_&page=NewsArticle&id=9141).

[Jimmie Higgins]

KC,

I haven't read all the posts in this thread yet, but has anyone pointed out that this was taken from a section clearly marked "Reader's Views" and is a debate from a member or reader - not a position of the ISO.

Maybe you just didn't see what section you were reading - or maybe other groups are posting this to make the ISO look bad - but it is pretty disengenious to post this as and official ISO stance.

http://socialistworker.org/2009/08/18/should-the-left-call-for-taliban-victory

Here is the link if anyone cares to see.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Ok, now I've read some more of the posts and I see that KC corrected the statement about this being an official statement about the ISO's position.

If anyone is interested, here is a back and forth debate on this issue that appeared in the Socialist Worker newspaper:

http://socialistworker.org/2006-2/603/603_12_Afghanistan.shtml

The last of the arguments is made by one of the main writers and organizers for the ISO and she comes down against the Taliban being a true force for national liberation:


It is now clear that in Afghanistan, as in Iraq, the U.S.'s post 9/11 strategy has backfired, and the Taliban is on the rebound. Should we therefore assume that the Taliban now represents a genuine national liberation movement?
Although the Taliban is fighting against U.S. and NATO forces, its prior history is one of accommodation--not resistance--to U.S. imperialism. Indeed, the Taliban's hostility toward the Northern Alliance--its other enemy in the current war--predates the U.S. occupation by a decade.
The suffering in Afghanistan today is the product of more than 25 years of nearly continuous wars and occupations. But no substantial national liberation movement has yet emerged. As Avery Wear suggests, "genuine national liberation currents in Afghanistan may find [the Taliban] to be an obstacle."
The Taliban's return to power would not necessarily require a resounding defeat for U.S. imperialism--if both sides resumed their previously collaborative relationship.
It is perfectly consistent to unconditionally defend the right of Afghans to resist U.S. occupation without fostering illusions that the Taliban is capable of liberating Afghanistan from U.S. imperialism--any more than the return of the Baath Party today would liberate Iraq.
Sharon Smith, Chicago

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well. Supporting the Taliban. That's a new one. It's a pity, I'd hope to work with ISO on campus....

Try talking to ISO members and asking them - there may be things that you disagree with ISO members on, but at least you'll get the truth about what our politics are.

[Sam_b]

If I could add to the above - why would that be such a travesty? I disagree with many aspects of the RCG's politics but we've worked together before.

[Random Precision]

You know, back in 2003 the ISO was organizing forums with the title, "Should we invade Iraq?" Who is this "we" you speak of, ISO?

Who cares?


The defining political traits of the ISO are cold war social-democratic anti-sovietism, and opportunist tailism. Under the pressure of cold war anti-communism, Tony Cliff redefined the Soviet Union as "state capitalist" because ... it had nuclear weapons.

Now there's an impressive critique of state capitalism. If only you had actually read what Cliff wrote about it, you might not sound like such a blithering idiot.


(Trotskyists proclaimed Hail Red Army in Afghanistan!) When the Kremlin bureaucracy bowed to imperialist pressure and withdrew from Afghanistan, the ISO declared victory. The ISO hailed Reagan and the Pope's company union, Solidarnosc, in concert with the McCarthyite AFL-CIO apparatus.

In other words, in the one instance "Trotskyists" supported bureaucratic intervention into Afghanistan and spat on the Afghan workers and their right to self-determination, and in the other supported a Stalinist bureaucracy crushing and killing striking workers. If that is "Trotskyism", then I can cheerfully say that I want no part of it.


Now that the Soviet Union is no more, and a sharpening of inter-imperialist rivalries and regional conflicts is dragging humanity towards another world war,

:rolleyes:


the ISO's business of opportunist tailism is even more fraught with potential contradictions. The ISO has never had qualms about bowing to mullahs (or Catholic priests!) in the past,

cool story bro.


but now that they have campaigned for Obama's war budget (http://socialistworker.org/2009/03/03/battle-over-the-budget),

You're some piece of work, aren't you. You'd have to be for this:


To be sure, there are many reasons to be critical of the Obama budget. When it comes to education, for instance, the focus is on fake "reform" schemes that blame teachers for the problems of public schools. It cuts back on the billions spent every month on the Iraq war, but Obama will increase military spending overall. Another $250 billion is thrown down the Wall Street bailout sinkhole. On health care, it leaves the fundamental problems of a privatized system untouched.

to become "campaigning for Obama's war budget".


can they politically support the Taliban reactionary islamists in Afghanistan who got left out of imperialism's deal with the "Northern Alliance" of reactionary islamists? That would require some creative politicking!

You're a joke.

[Kassad]

There is only one organization that took the principled stand on these fundamental questions: the League for the Fourth International. (http://www.internationalist.org/int12toc.html)

You know, if the League for the Fourth International spent even half the time they spend criticizing other organizations as they do actually doing work in the labor movement, combating the war etc., I'm pretty sure they would have initiated a revolution by now.

[Revy]

It's good ISO members showed up in this thread.

It seems that a person can't write their own opinion without it being taken as the general view of the organization.

Something similar happened in the Socialist Party USA, one of our members wrote an article about the struggle against imperialism in Lebanon, and suggested the "progressive wing" of Hezbollah might be worthy of critical support. You wouldn't believe the outcry over that, suddenly the whole party is allegedly cozying up to Islamists....

[KC]

It seems that a person can't write their own opinion without it being taken as the general view of the organization.

This was a mistake that Random Precision corrected.


Something similar happened in the Socialist Party USA, one of our members wrote an article about the struggle against imperialism in Lebanon, and suggested the "progressive wing" of Hezbollah might be worthy of critical support. You wouldn't believe the outcry over that, suddenly the whole party is allegedly cozying up to Islamists....

Where did the article appear?

[chegitz guevara]

I think the Taliban/U.S. military dichotomy is as superficial and phoney as the Democrat/Republican dichotomy in the USA is. There is no reason for us to pick a side between reactionary groups. Rather, we should be clear about what actions we support: ending all imperial occupations, capitalism, patriarchy, and racism. Now, we know that US imperialism in Afghanistan has no real interest in doing any of those things; on the other hand the Taliban might have some interest in ending the occupation, so we can have a little bit of "agreement" with them on that, but that's it. There is a huge difference between calling for a nationalist reactionary victory and calling for the end of occupation.

All of this is true, comrade, but in the real world, we're unable to give any real support to the struggle in Afghanistan against the American empire. We can try and undermine support for the war here at home, but our tiny forces, given the collapse of the antiwar movement, means that's a long, uphill struggle.

If we were to succeed in forcing an imperialist withdrawal, the real, practical effect would be to hand Afghanistan back to reactionary, Islamist forces. I seriously doubt whether the Afghan Maoists are in a position to force imperialism to retreat or capitalize on an imperialist retreat should we force it.

I think there are also deeper questions to think through. What kind of society is Afghanistan? I don't think it can be characterized as capitalist, though, as noted, I haven't studied it deeply enough. Thus, I'm not going to make proclamations. I'm asking questions. Is Afghanistan capitalist, feudal, some hybrid created by imperialism? What are the implications for imperialist victory? For Taliban victory?

I don't know. I haven't seen any thought on these lines from our movement, and I'd like to see some.

[Random Precision]

You know, if the League for the Fourth International spent even half the time they spend criticizing other organizations as they do actually doing work in the labor movement, combating the war etc., I'm pretty sure they would have initiated a revolution by now.

Spending time doing things other than criticizing other groups would mean the end of theirs. The Spartacist League, Internationalist Group etc. subscribe to a fairly bizarre theory in which this is still effectively the 1930s and Trotsky's "crisis of leadership" thesis still applies. Since the proletariat has been objectively capable of revolution for well over 100 years now, but has not, obviously those to blame are other revolutionary groups, most specifically those with over a dozen or so members. So, the order of the day is to forcibly break those groups' sway over the workers, by whatever means necessary.

The sentiment is appreciated, but I fear that you're wasting your time. :(

[fredbergen]

The Spartacist League, Internationalist Group etc. subscribe to a fairly bizarre theory in which this is still effectively the 1930s and Trotsky's "crisis of leadership" thesis still applies.

Wrong. After bureaucratically purging the founding cadres of the Internationalist Group/Grupo Internacionalista, the ICL revised the central thesis of the Trotskyist program, on the way to abandoning other key elements of program that it had defended for decades. (http://www.internationalist.org/lfideclaration.html)


Trotsky’s assertion in the 1938 Transitional Program that “The world political situation as a whole is chiefly characterized by a historical crisis of the leadership of the proletariat” predates the present deep regression of proletarian consciousness. The reality of this post-Soviet period adds a new dimension to Trotsky’s observation.

-- "ICL Declaration of Principles and Some Elements of Program (http://www.icl-fi.org/english/icldop/index.html)", February 1998.

[chegitz guevara]

Have y'all ever led any struggle, contributed in any way to real movement?

[Random Precision]

Wrong. After bureaucratically purging the founding cadres of the Internationalist Group/Grupo Internacionalista, the ICL revised the central thesis of the Trotskyist program, on the way to abandoning other key elements of program that it had defended for decades. (http://www.internationalist.org/lfideclaration.html)



-- "ICL Declaration of Principles and Some Elements of Program (http://www.icl-fi.org/english/icldop/index.html)", February 1998.

Wonderful way to prove my point, thanks.

[Das war einmal]

There is no excuse for defending the Taliban, but its in the line of expectation of an organization like this one.

[KC]

There is no excuse for defending the Taliban, but its in the line of expectation of an organization like this one.

Please read the thread before you post. For the third time, Random Precision has clarified that this article appeared in the Readers' Views section of Socialist Worker and does not represent the viewpoint of the ISO.

[chegitz guevara]

They have been involved in some things, as have the Sparts.

We've all been involved in some things. Have their people been instrumental in a strike? Have they built an antiwar organization of more than just their own people? Have they defended a family against eviction? Have they ever made a difference?

The Sparts I knew (and got along with) in Chicago never did anything aside from come to events other people organized and denounced them, but that was before the split.

[Kassad]

I'm not here to defend those groups, but we shouldn't bend the truth because we have differences with them.

The Sparts raised tens of thousands of dollars for victims of the attack on Jalalabad by the mujahedeen, initiated protests that shut down planned demos by fascists, etc.

Members of the Internationalist Group were involved in the occupation of the New School here in NYC, etc.

You always seem to know the membership tallies of organizations somehow. Do you know how many the Internationalist Group has?

[chegitz guevara]

I'm not here to defend those groups, but we shouldn't bend the truth because we have differences with them.

The Sparts raised tens of thousands of dollars for victims of the attack on Jalalabad by the mujahedeen, initiated protests that shut down planned demos by fascists, etc.

Members of the Internationalist Group were involved in the occupation of the New School here in NYC, etc.

Well all right then. :thumbup1:

I was asking serious questions based on my own experience. It's good to know that they do actually do something besides attack other groups.

[fredbergen]

If you want to know about the public activities of the Internationalist Group, read our press or contact our organization.

For a basic list of highlights, I refer you to this section of the introductory article on our web site, www.internationalist.org (http://www.internationalist.org/):

Internationally, the demise of the Soviet Union threw the socialist left into a profound crisis. Many militants dropped out, some tendencies simply closed up shop, others moved further to the right or ostentatiously distanced themselves from the class struggle. Stalinist parties became thoroughly social-democratic or even bourgeois. Of those currents that identified with Trotskyism, most today no longer even pretend to build Trotskyist parties and a Trotskyist Fourth International. Some talk of a (non-Trotskyist) “Fifth International,” others want to roll back history and reincarnate an all-inclusive First International. But one and all, they seek to bury themselves in “broad,” “anti-capitalist” or “anti-neoliberal” parties and popular-front coalitions with sections of the bourgeoisie.

For years many of these pseudo-Trotskyists sided with imperialism rather than defend the Soviet Union (notably over Poland and Afghanistan in the 1980s). At the decisive turning point in the USSR, they sided with Yeltsin’s counterrevolution. In recent years the United Secretariat (USec), which falsely claims to be the Fourth International, has participated as ministers in a bourgeois government (Brazil) and been part of a bourgeois coalition government (Italy) waging imperialist war on Afghanistan. Trotsky and Lenin have become no more than historical “references” to them, the Bolshevik program of world socialist revolution is no longer considered relevant. Such opportunist currents are incapable of providing revolutionary leadership.

From Venezuela with its left-talking nationalist-populist caudillo, to China facing deep inroads of capitalism within and imperialist pressure from without, to struggles against the ravages of the global capitalist economic crisis, the need for a Leninist-Trotskyist leadership is as acute as ever. Forging such a vanguard requires study of Marxism and the history of working-class struggle combined with intervention in the class struggle.

The League for the Fourth International (LFI) was formed in 1998 by Internationalist Group (IG), founded by longtime leading cadres expelled by the International Communist League (ICL – the Spartacist tendency) in the U.S. in 1996; expelled comrades from ICL sections in Mexico and France; and the Liga Quarta-Internacionalista do Brasil (LQB). After three decades of upholding the banner of revolutionary Trotskyism, and intervening to fight counterrevolution in East Germany and the Soviet Union, the ICL became demoralized by the defeat and retreated into passive propagandism, blaming the backward consciousness of the working class while abandoning key Trotskyist positions. The LFI seeks to reforge an authentically Trotskyist Fourth International whose deeds match its words.

In the decade since the League for the Fourth International was formed, we have concretely fought for working-class opposition to popular-front coalitions with the bourgeoisie in Mexico and Brazil. The LFI has uniquely upheld the Leninist program of fighting on a proletarian program for the defeat of “one’s own” capitalist rulers in imperialist war. The national sections of the LFI have led a number of important struggles, including to oust the police from the unions in Brazil as well as the first-ever strike action (a state-wide work stoppage by teachers in Rio de Janeiro) (http://www.internationalist.org/brazilmumia0599.html) demanding freedom for former Black Panther and world-renowned radical journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal. (http://www.internationalist.org/mumiatoc.html)

In Mexico, our section, the Grupo Internacionalista, sparked the formation of worker-student defense guards (http://www.internationalist.org/mexdefenseguards0799.html) that contributed greatly to staving off army repression of the 1999-2000 National University strike, which despite the arrest of over 1,000 strikers (including several of our comrades) was able to defeat the attempt to do away with free public higher education. The GI also played an important role intervening from the capital in the convulsive 2006 struggle by teachers, workers and the indigenous population in the southern state of Oaxaca. (http://www.internationalist.org/oaxacaburning0611.html)

In the heart of the dominant global superpower, the Internationalist Group’s fight for working-class action to defeat U.S. imperialist war (http://www.internationalist.org/defendiraq1002.html) abroad and the capitalist war on working people, oppressed minorities and civil liberties “at home” has a particular importance. Within weeks of the 11 September 2001 attack on the World Trade Center, the IG initiated a struggle against the “anti-immigrant war purge” at the City University of New York (http://www.internationalist.org/intCUNYtoc.html). And the IG’s years-long fight for workers strikes against the war contributed importantly to the May Day 2008 West Coast port shutdown to stop the war in Iraq and Afghanistan (http://www.internationalist.org/ilwumaydaystrike0805.html) – the first-ever such action by U.S. workers against an imperialist war – overcoming the union bureaucracy’s efforts to prevent it, and then to deform it with social-patriotism.

While reformists and centrists of all stripes blame defeats on the working class, claiming it has undergone a qualitative regression in consciousness, the Trotskyists of the LFI insist that the class struggle continues uninterrupted and the fight for revolutionary leadership remains key. (See our article on “In Defense of the Transitional Program (http://www.internationalist.org/defendtransprogram.html).”) As the combination of losing imperialist wars and deep economic crisis puts sharp class battles on the order of the day, the cohering of a reforged Fourth International will require revolutionary regroupment, through a process of splits and fusions, not by episodic combinations and recombinations but in fighting to uphold and extend the Trotskyist program.

[chegitz guevara]

Don't care about why you think you're better than everyone else. Just wanted to know what you'd done in the real world to advance the cause. You can tell me your politics is superior, but so can every other comrade. Who can prove it? None of us are in a position to test the veracity of our ideas. So instead of engaging in metaphysical discourses on how many Trotskyists can dance on the head of a pin, I'd like to know what comrades are doing.

This isn't to say I don't think intellectual rigor is important. I do. I have my SP local reading Lenin, Engels, Marx, Luxemburg (no Trotsky yet), etc. I think it's important to state openly that we stand for revolution and keep it in mind as we work towards that goal. That everything we do needs to be measured against whether or not it moves us closer to overthrowing the American Empire and capitalism. I don't think it's important to tell me why your tiny sect's theories are more awesome than my tiny sect's theories. I certainly have no interest in slagging other comrades.

[fredbergen]

https://lists.riseup.net/www/arc/debsian/2008-08/msg00087.html


MOVE is a nasty, apocalyptic cult that only has any cred on the left
because it was attacked by the cops and one of their members got
caught killing a cop. While they certainly didn't deserve to have a
bomb dropped on them, they were a terrible nuisance to the
neighborhood and had made the block practically unlivable. At the huge
Mumia demo I went to in Philly in '99, almost every other word out of
the many speakers mouths was, "John Africa." John Africa this, John
Africa that. There was more about John Africa than there was about
Mumia.

Before anyone gives me any shit about saying Mumia did it, let me say
that if I came a across a cop beating the crap outta my brother, and I
had a gun, there'd be one less cop in the world. Mumia was justified
in shooting Faulkner.

You don't care about revolutionary theory just like you don't care that Mumia is innocent, you pretend that Lenin was a Menshevik and you alibi the racist legal lynchers out to get Mumia. You are a phony, cynical con-man opportunist scum.

[Kassad]

I mean, does the Internationalist Group really think that they can just slander other organizations so much that they'll be the only credible ones left? That's shit I expect from corporate Republicans and Democrats, not revolutionary fucking socialists. There's a time when raising legitimate grievances about a party is necessary, but there's also a time when you're making up for a lack of substantial political and proletarian support by just attacking everyone else you can based on minor political differences.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I have my SP local reading Lenin, Engels, Marx, Luxemburg (no Trotsky yet), etc.

No Kautsky yet, either? :(

[In fact, I'd suggest skipping Lenin and Engels until Kautsky has been read.]

Comrade Rakunin posted the question:

Who is the more relevant for 21st century radicals? a) Luxemburg b) Kautsky c) Trotsky

[Random Precision]

Posts on Mumia Abu-Jamal split (http://www.revleft.com/vb/mumia-abu-jamals-t116293/index.html?t=116293) to Discrimination.

Fredbergen, you win the prize of two warnings for a) flaming, and b) using a poster's real name. Thanks and I look forward to serving you again.

[The Red Next Door]

The taliban hate people like us, so why the fuck? we should support those quran thumbing cocksuckers. plus they were the cia puppets during the soviet invasion. God knows what they could of done to the left of Afghanstan.

[Conquer or Die]

If a foreign country started firebombing "strategic" targets in my hometown then I'd pick up a rifle and follow people carrying the American flag. I'm really sorry so many people are confused about imperialism.

[UlyssesTheRed]

The ISO has a few more than 20 members. It's the largest revolutionary group in the US.

Point of order- the ISO is far from revolutionary, even in rhetoric.