ISLAM4UK march [Archive]

ComradeMan

4th January 2010, 13:44

The problem with not recognising the obvious truth that islamic reactionaries are about as reactionary as any other domestic fascists is that is giving the playing field to two different groups of fascists to form the political discussion.

Agreed- one bunch of nutters against another.

And yes, most organisations who live on attacking islamist fundamentalists are fascists. But that is not because islamist fundamentalists are all cuddly or progressive, but because most people recognise them as reactionary cesspools of religious fervor.
Fascism attacks such things which are unpopular on a wider scale.

Could you not say these are wars between different forms of fascism, the difference being that one is theologically based?

There is a difference between disliking muslims for being generally more dark-skinned and disliking islamists because of their anti-humanist and right-wing extremist ideology.

Why do you say for being more dark skinned? I don't understand the comment. I certainly do not view Muslims and Islam as a race issue. Most of my Turkish friends were lighter than your average Italian! :D Is this perhaps an American view?

If we ponder that the Germans had been black instead of white, would it then have been morally bad to attack national socialism?

No it wouldn't- but there would be people who may erroneoulsy have even supported them! For the same reasons there are still deluded leftists who support Robert Mugabe.

Dimentio

4th January 2010, 13:55

In northern Europe, islamophobia and racism are more deeply intertwined than in the south I reckon. In southern Europe, it is more national chauvinism as Italy, Serbia and Greece, as well as Spain, have had historical national conflicts with muslim neighbours. In countries like Britain, France, the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Norway and Sweden, it is more of a purely racist thing.

In Swedish schools, I know that people are called the N-word not only because of their looks, but because of foreign-sounding names. I know several Swedish-Germans who used to dye their hair blonde to not be called the N-word.

Holden Caulfield

4th January 2010, 13:59

All the more reason for progressive forces to drown out such racist voices with our own clear, progressive, principled opposition to Islamism.

Your exactly right, the left (mainly Iranian exiles and british lefties) have opposed the Iranian Theoocracy on the streets before just because some right wing dicks tried to hijack it doesnt mean we should stop doing it.

I think the Wooton Basset protests are fucking offensive as well as highly reactionary. If we do not criticize them then we leave the floor to the like of the EDL.

As for protesting against them i'm not sure about the logistics, it would be a complex mesh of protests

Ravachol

4th January 2010, 14:18

I disagree. Without doubt there are people who, like you say, use opposition for Islamic fundamentalism as a cover, but there are also many decent normal people who are often too scared to speak out for fear of automatically being branded as racists and far-right nutters. As I have seen on this board too, anyone who dares criticise muslim groups is targetted as a racist and a Zionist.

Nonsense. I strongly oppose groups like Choudry's, as I've outlined before. I also oppose groups like HAMAS, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Al-Qaeda, Al-Shabaab and god/(Allah :p) knows what kind of far-right traditionalist reactionary Islamist groups. I'm also, however, a fierce anti-Zionist. I think most people on this board fall in this ideological category. People who defend Israel's policies, whether hiding behind the cover of 'acting against these groups' or not, are to be shunned.

As I also stated before, popular opposition to these groups should be build, but that's not an easy task and most certainly not one that should be the prime focus of the emancipatory left (especially due to the small size and relatively minor influence of these groups, for outside of small segments of the Islamic community their influence is nihil). There is nobody preventing you from building a popular platform against reactionary movements, far-right Islamism included, as long as it's not EXCLUSIVELY targeted at 'the Islamic danger' :rolleyes: The opposition should stress the need for a popular class-struggle based emancipatory movement that opposes reactionary movements, whether the Islam4UK or the BNP of the EDL or any other 'God save the Queen'-brigade.

Sasha

4th January 2010, 14:19

i assume its difrent in the UK where there is an bigger fundamentalist/extremist islamic community but here in the netherlands we decided that for now they are so insignificant that while we vocaly oppose them we dont actualy organise activly against them.
most islamic fundamentalists here reject politics and activism (they stick to locking themselfs up in mosqeus and studying the koran), they are very tiny and organising against them is an waspsnest of playing into extreme-right & secretservice hands.
and like i said they are so insignificant that i rather put my energy in combatting the christian fundamentalists who have actualy an presence in both the senate (orthodox protestant party and an evangelical protestant) and in goverment (evangelical protestant) and who are bussy with undermining things like abortian rights, euthanisia, drug policy and such.

BobKKKindle$

4th January 2010, 14:24

#FF0000

4th January 2010, 14:31

ComradeMan missing the point completely

Maybe islamic fundamentalism would be something to campaign and take a stand against if those fundamentalists were actually in a position to impose it, instead of being a minority of a minority.

Going full force against islamic fundamentalism now is just plain stupid because it's not remotely a threat and the hype about it is built on xenophobic bullshit anyway.

Why is this even a discussion this is simple.

Dimentio

4th January 2010, 14:38

It is not about whether or not islamism is an actual threat or not. It is more about a principled stance.

#FF0000

4th January 2010, 14:46

It is not about whether or not islamism is an actual threat or not. It is more about a principled stance.

A principled stance against a boogeyman that was conjured up through stupid xenophobic and racist fears? What's the point? We already stand against "radical islam" because of what we, as leftists, stand for. We're against any fundamentalist interpretation of religion, in principle. There's no reason to single "radical islam" out, and doing so just smacks of xenophobia and is incredibly counter productive, since that sort of thing ALWAYS leads to regular old muslims getting bashed and picked on. If you deny this you are stupid.

The whole fight against "radical islam" is some dumb shit that a bunch of right wing idiots came up with, not because they disagree with the sexism, or the homophobia, or any of the other reactionary garbage that goes with fundamentalism.

They fight it because it's foreign

BobKKKindle$

4th January 2010, 14:54

It is not about whether or not islamism is an actual threat or not. It is more about a principled stance. Given that Islamism and fascism are not the same (the former being a distorted response to oppression, the latter most certainly not) there is also no reason to hold counter-demonstrations against Islamists or to treat Islamism and fascism in the same way on principled grounds, regardless of whether either of them post an actual threat. If you want to show a commitment to principle, then adopt a principled anti-racist position when it comes to the religious rights of Muslim communities. Putting that aside, however, we oppose the BNP and organizations like the EDL not only because we oppose their ideas on an abstract level, as a matter of principle, but also because we've seen that the members of these organizations are intent on directing physical violence against minorities in order to undermine their ability to live in accordance with their cultural and religious traditions, so that denying these organizations a platform is also necessary to combat a threat that is very real and immediate, from the viewpoint of ethnic minorities. In the case of the EDL their campaign of hate has involved protesting against mosques in Harrow and other places around the UK and with the BNP we've seen that whenever the party has gained an important electoral victory there have subsequently been not only impressive increases in party membership but also attacks against individuals belonging to ethnic and religious minorities in the area where the victory has taken place - this (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=18366) being a prominent example. The point here is that not only are Islamism and fascism not the same phenomenon in a fundamental sense, in that they are the consequences of different factors and play a different function, they are also different in that Islamists are not currently carrying out physical attacks on vulnerable individuals, whereas the fascists are.

4th January 2010, 14:57

Why the moralism about Wooten bassett and it being "highly offensive"? I don't support the protest at all, but it seems ridiculous to moralise about it being 'highly offensive' to Professional Military troops that have gone out and killed plenty of people and are now coming home body bags.

Die Neue Zeit

4th January 2010, 14:57

Sasha

4th January 2010, 15:00

We do support resistance movements unconditionally (whilst also criticizing those movements in areas where we disagree) because we recognize that it is not our place to tell workers in countries like Iraq that they should only be allowed to resist imperialist domination or that their resistance is only progressive if they carry out their resistance in ways that we agree with, and through organizations that have the same politics as us.

thats an complete idiot stance to take. Dont realy want to start an godwins law here but just to play devils advocate, couldnt you say that the rise of the NSDAP and its SA was an resistance movement against the blatant imperialism of the versaille treaty?
or what about the boer wars? the union in the american civil war?
or dont they dont count because they are placed in the firts world?
than what about african groups like the LRA... lets support those.
or the kmehr rouge? you know they eventualy got trown over by an foreign army (the vietnamese) i know wich side i would have supported.
this is what you get when you combine simplistic anti-imperialism with support of nationalist "liberation".

Die Neue Zeit

4th January 2010, 15:02

couldnt you say that the rise of the NSDAP and its SA was an resistance movement against the blatant imperialism of the versaille treaty?

That line of thinking was something I never considered. So much for unconditional "anti-imperialism." :lol:

ComradeMan

4th January 2010, 15:04

, they are also different in that Islamists are not currently carrying out physical attacks on vulnerable individuals, whereas the fascists are.

So Islamists are not involved in global terrorism, honour killings and persecution of minorities in Islamic countries, such as the persecution of the Egyptian Copts? Jewish cemetaries that have been vandalised? Come off it!!! There is but a narrow difference between fascism and Islamic extremism (as with other forms of extremism). The only main difference I see is the cultural difference of what they choose to call their supreme leader and their metaphysical points of reference. The fact remains that there is a farcical irony in all of this that if it were to come to matters of policy the extreme right and extreme Islamists would probably agree on most items.

#FF0000

4th January 2010, 15:06

So Islamists are not involved in global terrorism, honour killings and persecution of minorities in Islamic countries, such as the persecution of the Egyptian Copts? Jewish cemetaries that have been vandalised? Come off it!!! There is but a narrow difference between fascism and Islamic extremism (as with other forms of extremism). The only main difference I see is the cultural difference of what they choose to call their supreme leader and their metaphysical points of reference. The fact remains that there is a farcical irony in all of this that if it were to come to matters of policy the extreme right and extreme Islamists would probably agree on most items.

I really, really, really want you to reply to my post.

EDIT: Also why does what happens in other countries excuse racist attacks on muslims in the UK

BobKKKindle$

4th January 2010, 15:15

couldnt you say that the rise of the NSDAP and its SA was an resistance movement against the blatant imperialism of the versaille treaty?

No, no sensible Marxist would take that position at all.

or what about the boer wars? the union in the american civil war?

Marx did support the union in America as did other progressive activists at that point, in fact the willingess on the part of workers in Britain to accept short time in areas that were dependent on imports of cotton from the south is widely regarded by labour historians as one of the first examples of workers in any capitalist country acting collectively in support of producers elsewhere. I don't know much about the boer wars so I can't comment in that area but I will say that these cases are somewhat different from the kind of things we're dealing with when we talk about issues like Iraq today because they took place before capitalism had entered its imperialist phase, and as such part of Marx's reason for backing a particular side in a given international conflict was his recognition that the victory of that side would allow for capitalism to be introduced into a new region of the world, unleashing the development of the productive forces, and eventually generating a force with the ability to overthrow capitalism, in the form of the proletariat. In the current epoch there is no part of the world that is now free from capitalism and capitalism has ceased to have any progressive function, so a different analysis applies. The general principle that Marxists follow in taking the side of resistance movements is that the victory of these movements is progressive from the viewpoint of the international working class (that is, workers in both imperialist nations, and nations that are subject to the occupation of an imperialist power) because they open up a space in which class struggle can emerge and weaken the ideological and political stranglehold of ruling classes.

I've no desire to turn this thread into a discussion about national liberation, you're more than happy to look for my views elsewhere, I've explained them many times, and they're shared by many others on this site.

than what about african groups like the LRA... lets support those.

What does that have to do with anti-imperialism?

or the kmehr rouge? you know they eventualy got trown over by an foreign army (the vietnamese) i know wich side i would have supported.

So would I, the conflict between the two countries was hardly a conflict between an imperialist and oppressed nation, and that example is one of if not the only example of humanitarian intervention having a positive effect.

4th January 2010, 15:21

So would I, the conflict between the two countries was hardly a conflict between an imperialist and oppressed nation, and that example is one of if not the only example of humanitarian intervention having a positive effect.

Heh, your line of thinking is astounding, no really, it is, you never know what's coming next. I remember you talking about 'sub-imperialism' against the Kurds when you gave Saddam your support, you supported him because 'sub-imperialism' (gassing whole villages of Kurds) apparently means little compared to err, not-sub-imperialism. Great thinking there, wish I thought of that first.

#FF0000

4th January 2010, 15:25

This whole side-conversation on national liberation or imperialism or whatever, while interesting, should probably stop or be carried on somewhere else.

ComradeMan

4th January 2010, 15:26

I really, really, really want you to reply to my post.

EDIT: Also why does what happens in other countries excuse racist attacks on muslims in the UK

It doesn't at all, I do not advocate violence at all by anyone!

I was however responding to BobK's rather blanket statement about Islamists not being responsible for violence etc.

The problem here is that we have two reactionary groups neither of which we should actually give a monkey's about. All this picking sides all over the place plays back into the old trap of "my enemy's enemy is my friend".

What I do think happens in Europe a lot these days, is that the only people who don't give one about being branded racists etc are the rightwing groups. This does not mean that Islamist groups are any less reactionary or should be cuddled up to, as someone else has also pointed out here.

BobKKKindle$

4th January 2010, 15:27

So Islamists are not involved in global terrorism, honour killings and persecution of minorities in Islamic countries, such as the persecution of the Egyptian Copts?That has no relation to what I said though, does it. This thread is concerned with an imperialist country (the UK) where Islamists draw their support from a group that has encountered intense political oppression at the hands of racists and society at large, and in this case Islamists are not the ones who are carrying out physical attacks, it is Muslim communities who are the victims of those attacks. When we're dealing with, say, Egypt, then I'm happy to admit that a different analysis has to apply, because the situation is entirely different.

There is but a narrow difference between fascism and Islamic extremismThere is a fundamental difference between these forces, both within imperialist countries, and when we're making international comparisons. The origins of fascism lie in the petty-bourgeoisie and this is currently where parties like the BNP get most of their support from, as the individuals who belong to this class find themselves subject to the same economic pressures ad the proletariat, but, lacking the experience of collective struggle, are drawn towards ideas that call for class collaboration and emphasize the virtues of small industries and localized production. The bourgeoisie finds it necessary to turn to fascism only when its own class interests are threatened by an increasingly militant proletariat, and fascism serves to stabilize bourgeois rule through the destruction of working-class institutions and the facade of bourgeois democracy. It is fundamentally impossible for Islamism to carry out this same role in countries like Britain because whereas fascism only exists as a tool of oppression in the hands of forces whose interests are hostile to those of the working class, the role of Islamism is much more contradictory, in that, apart from being an ideological instrument for Muslim members of the bourgeoisie and other forces who seek to maintain existing structures of oppression, Islamism can and has functioned as a distorted response to racism and economic oppression, when more progressive forces don't respond to the concerns of Muslim workers. It is this dual and contradictory role that lies at the heart of Islamism (in Britain and elsewhere - look at the support bodies like the Muslim Brotherhood get from the urban poor, and I would also argue that in this case and others in the Middle East the success of Islamism is due largely to the mistakes the left made in the post-war era, especially with regard to the way leftist forces approached Palestine, and the willingness of Communists in Iraq and Syria to ally with Ba'athist forces, resulting in the former being made to give up their political independence, and making them complicit in the oppression of those regimes) and which also needs to form the basis of our analysis.

you supported himWhen and in what way have I ever supported Saddam Hussein? Have I ever supported the gassing of Kurds?

Lenny Nista

4th January 2010, 15:28

I have this argument with a lot of well-meaning people I know. I usually answer along the lines that the material reality is that imperialism is the dominant system we live under and the far-right in Europe is the most reactionary wing of European imperialism. "Islamism" is a tiny ideology which on its own has no power, and where it has killed most people is in Afghanistan where it was armed and directed by the CIA as an anti-communist agent to destroy a secular, urban based, pro-Soviet miltary regime, and in Europe has never had any power and never will. Therefore the idea that Europeans are udner threat from "islamism" is a sick conspiracy theory similar to past conspiracy theories about Jews (which were what made Nazism possible and existed long before it, not the creation of Nazism).

I can understand how honest people are misinformed about Islam and I say to you, that just look at the fact, the "west" could obliterate pretty much every Muslim on earth very easily, Muslims in Western countries are pretty much the poorest and most oppressed and exploited sections of the working class statistically, Muslim countries are miltarily, politically and economically dominated by the West and all their regimes collaborate in this, waging war on their people on behalf of imperialism (and if they decline to do this to the extent that imperialism wants they get starved into submission and destroyed like in Iraq)...so no there is no "threat" from Islam at all, it's just an excuse the imperialist bourgeoisie's use to keep dividing workers, isolating one of the most exploited sections of workers, and to justify their constant state of war for profit that people like you die in! And now they're robbing you dry of your labour rights, your saving, your pension, your home, your jobs - and you're sitting there maoning about "Islamism"! Yeah right, someone's laughing at you all the way to the bank and it's not the me or "teh islamists"

To people who consider themselves "leftist intellectuals" however and who make active propaganda on a "leftist" basis for "opposing Islamic fascism", then to you people I say something compeltely different: you're the equivalent of"socialists" wanting to march in Nazi germany shouting "against Hitler, against Jewish bankers", and I hope history will remember your cowardice and betrayal.

Lenny Nista

4th January 2010, 15:29

That line of thinking was something I never considered. So much for unconditional "anti-imperialism." :lol:

But Germany was an imperialist country. You can see that "unconditional anti-imperialism" doesn't lead to this fromt he fact that Trotskyists in the 1930's managed to be both unconditionally anti-imperialist (as you can see when Trotsky argues on the need to supprot even a semi-fascist regime like vargas of Brazil against British imperialism) and unconditionally against German imperialism.

#FF0000

4th January 2010, 15:31

The problem here is that we have two reactionary groups neither of which we should actually give a monkey's about. All this picking sides all over the place plays back into the old trap of "my enemy's enemy is my friend".

What I do think happens in Europe a lot these days, is that the only people who don't give one about being branded racists etc are the rightwing groups. This does not mean that Islamist groups are any less reactionary or should be cuddled up to, as someone else has also pointed out here.

Nobody here is saying that we should cuddle up to these "islamists". They, or rather, I am saying that islamism is just a bullshit, xenophobic boogeyman that is no threat whatsoever, and like I said, is opposed by a lot of people not because they have warm fuzzies for feminists and homosexuals, but because islam is foreign.

Also, the racist right is far, far, FAR more powerful than muslim fundamentalists in the U.K. I

ComradeMan

4th January 2010, 15:38

Nobody here is saying that we should cuddle up to these "islamists". They, or rather, I am saying that islamism is just a bullshit, xenophobic boogeyman that is no threat whatsoever, and like I said, is opposed by a lot of people not because they have warm fuzzies for feminists and homosexuals, but because islam is foreign.

Also, the racist right is far, far, FAR more powerful than muslim fundamentalists in the U.K. I

I would begger to differ. Tell the people killed in 9/11, 7/7 that Islamists are no threat. Do some research on Wahhabism, Saudi Arabia and oil....

Die Neue Zeit

4th January 2010, 15:39

But Germany was an imperialist country. You can see that "unconditional anti-imperialism" doesn't lead to this fromt he fact that Trotskyists in the 1930's managed to be both unconditionally anti-imperialist (as you can see when Trotsky argues on the need to supprot even a semi-fascist regime like vargas of Brazil against British imperialism) and unconditionally against German imperialism.

It lost all its colonies after WWI, and did not exhibit "neo-colonial" tendencies or tendencies which characterize modern, corporate imperialism (American-style). Weimar Germany was not an imperialist country.

(A)narcho-Matt

4th January 2010, 15:39

So before you start calling protests like this "reactionary" or making comparisons between fascism and Islamism, get your politics in order - by which I mean follow the example of the SWP and take a principled stance on Islamophobia. We do back each and every woman's right to wear the Hijab. We do support a unified Palestinian state. We do support resistance movements unconditionally (whilst also criticizing those movements in areas where we disagree) because we recognize that it is not our place to tell workers in countries like Iraq that they should only be allowed to resist imperialist domination or that their resistance is only progressive if they carry out their resistance in ways that we agree with, and through organizations that have the same politics as us.

Whilst I support a womans (or anyones) right to dress how they want to, I dont think that people who choose to wear the hijab do so simply because they want to wear the hijab. Any choice based on religious teachings are hardly free. Christian churches used to teach that women had to cover themselves, and in many orthodox and catholc countries they do, I would oppose that for the same reason i oppose the hijab, because it is religious teachings telling people how to dress. "When you have a master in heaven you are a slave on earth"...

You call for a unified palastinian state. your not even calling for a unified palestinian workers state (do trots actually call for a palestinian workers state or just a unified palestine??), so do you support a capitalist palestine? I support the working class whether they are in plastine or isreali, because the working class has no nation. By supporting a nationalist palestine you are saying that palestinian people have more in common with palestinian bosses than isreali workers.

Unconditionally supporting nationalist resistance movements is just mad.

Also your (the swps) stance on islamophobia is just awful to the extent of calling committed anti-fascists racists because they oppose islam, its just idiotic.

Hit The North

4th January 2010, 15:50

I think the Wooton Basset protests are fucking offensive as well as highly reactionary.

Offensive to who? The imperialist British state and their willing personnel in the military?

Reactionary in what way? The organisers wish to highlight the imperialist nature of the occupation and the fact that ordinary Afghans are being regularly murdered and brutalised by alliance troops - including the dead British soldiers who's coffins are paraded in an atmosphere of sanctimony and hypocrisy through the streets of Wooton Basset.

BobKKKindle$

4th January 2010, 15:59

I dont think that people who choose to wear the hijab do so simply because they want to wear the hijabIf you're saying that people being socialized into certain patterns of behaviour and subject to various kinds of cultural pressure means that they are no longer making a free choice to do something, then in that sense you can say that women do not choose to wear the Hijab, but if you adopt that understanding of choice then in order to be consistent you would also have to accept that women do not choose to wear miniskirts and that men do not choose to wear the clothes that most men wear, because in those cases the role of society's expectations is also evident. The consequence of this position is to completely distort the meaning of choice to the extent that there appears to be no difference between a woman who wears the Hijab because she's been brought up to believe that it's how women should dress and a woman who wears the Hijab as a result of the use or threat or physical coercion, despite those cases being fundamentally different.

"When you have a master in heaven you are a slave on earth"...I think our understanding of religion needs to be more nuanced than this because whilst it's true that religion has often been used to legitimize the inequalities and oppressive structures that accompany class societies, not least specific forms of oppression such as sexism, it has also served as a source of inspiration for oppressed groups, and has enabled them to articulate their experiences of injustice - see Liberation Theology in Latin America, for example, or the role of religion in the peasant revolts of Europe, or the Taiping rebellion in China.

so do you support a capitalist palestineNo, my apologies for not making this clearer. I don't think a Palestinian state that is both unified and capitalist is possible. The current balance of power in the Middle East is such that the best resistance movements can do at the moment is to defend Palestinians against specific acts of aggression and to extract concessions from Israel, and this is one of the main reasons why it is important for socialists to take the side of the resistance even when we do not agree with all of the political aims of organizations like Hamas or the methods they use to resist imperialism. The liberation of Palestine will only be possible once the workers of the surrounding Arab countries have overthrown the regimes that currently control these countries and which have consistently failed to give consistent support to the struggles of Palestinian workers, going so far as to develop close economic and political relations with Israel, especially in the case of Egypt. The overthrow of capitalism in these countries will change the balance of power in the region so that Israel is no longer capable of acting as a watchdog for the world's leading imperialist powers, and the resulting withdrawal of support of Israel will enable the Israeli working class, which is currently bought off through the various forms of aid that are provided to the Israeli state from its imperialist backers, to recognize that its class interests are not served by Zionism, and to unite with Palestinian workers in the destruction of the Israeli state, and its replacement with a state, existing as part of a federation of socialist states, which reverses historic injustices by, for example, implementing the right of return, which would not be possible in any kind of two-state solution. This is the essence of what it means to support a Palestinian state, consistent with the theory of permanent revolution, which recognizes that the ruling classes of oppressed nations are fundamentally unable to complete the task of national liberation, which must therefore fall to the proletariat.

Also your (the swps) stance on islamophobia is just aweul to the extent of calling committed anti-fascists racists because they oppose islam,Evidence? Saying you oppose Islam is evidence of you having a bigoted and simplistic stance on religion, not necessarily outright racism.

ComradeMan

4th January 2010, 16:22

Evidence? Saying you oppose Islam is evidence of you having a bigoted and simplistic stance on religion, not necessarily outright racism.

Why? Surely hardline leftists oppose all religious belief? What happened to the opium of the people?

4th January 2010, 16:23

When and in what way have I ever supported Saddam Hussein? Have I ever supported the gassing of Kurds?

Nah you just called it 'sub-imperialism' really.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1332160&postcount=96

Is Iraq an oppressed nation? I presume that the leftists would argue that it is You are making a legitimate point, and all socialists aware of the existence of sub-imperialism within underdeveloped regions such as the Middle East. There is no reason why socialists should not also give support to other oppressed populations such as the Kurds, but we should also remain conscious of the qualitative differences between imperialism and sub-imperialism.

(A)narcho-Matt

4th January 2010, 16:25

If you're saying that people being socialized into certain patterns of behaviour and subject to various kinds of cultural pressure means that they are no longer making a free choice to do something, then in that sense you can say that women do not choose to wear the Hijab, but if you adopt that understanding of choice then in order to be consistent you would also have to accept that women do not choose to wear miniskirts and that men do not choose to wear the clothes that most men wear, because in those cases the role of society's expectations is also evident. The consequence of this position is to completely distort the meaning of choice to the extent that there appears to be no difference between a woman who wears the Hijab because she's been brought up to believe that it's how women should dress and a woman who wears the Hijab as a result of the use or threat or physical coercion, despite those cases being fundamentally different.

I do reject that society says women and men must dress in a certain way, I dont think this is inconsistant.

I think our understanding of religion needs to be more nuanced than this because whilst it's true that religion has often been used to legitimize the inequalities and oppressive structures that accompany class societies, not least specific forms of oppression such as sexism, it has also served as a source of inspiration for oppressed groups, and has enabled them to articulate their experiences of injustice - see Liberation Theology in Latin America, for example, or the role of religion in the peasant revolts of Europe, or the Taiping rebellion in China.

My critique of religion comes from the fact that it denes rationality to believe in the existance of a supernatural creator. I dont think people can tell others what to think because they either have a different imaginary friend or dont believe in a god.

I do know of liberation theology, I was brought up with a dad who is a christian socialist catholic, an whilst i accept this might be religion for the people, it is neither anti-capitalist or if it was it isnt libertarian, we would have the authority of capital and the state replaced with the authority of the priest and the church.

No, my apologies for not making this clearer. I don't think a Palestinian state that is both unified and capitalist is possible. The current balance of power in the Middle East is such that the best resistance movements can do at the moment is to defend Palestinians against specific acts of aggression and to extract concessions from Israel, and this is one of the main reasons why it is important for socialists to take the side of the resistance even when we do not agree with all of the political aims of organizations like Hamas or the methods they use to resist imperialism. The liberation of Palestine will only be possible once the workers of the surrounding Arab countries have overthrown the regimes that currently control these countries and which have consistently failed to give consistent support to the struggles of Palestinian workers, going so far as to develop close economic and political relations with Israel, especially in the case of Egypt. The overthrow of capitalism in these countries will change the balance of power in the region so that Israel is no longer capable of acting as a watchdog for the world's leading imperialist powers, and the resulting withdrawal of support of Israel will enable the Israeli working class, which is currently bought off through the various forms of aid that are provided to the Israeli state from its imperialist backers, to recognize that its class interests are not served by Zionism, and to unite with Palestinian workers in the destruction of the Israeli state, and its replacement with a state, existing as part of a federation of socialist states, which reverses historic injustices by, for example, implementing the right of return, which would not be possible in any kind of two-state solution. This is the essence of what it means to support a Palestinian state, consistent with the theory of permanent revolution, which recognizes that the ruling classes of oppressed nations are fundamentally unable to complete the task of national liberation, which must therefore fall to the proletariat.

But you are still arguing from a nationalist perspective. As I said, I reject the nation state and National liberation because I am an Internationalist how can internationalism be reconsiled with the creation of nation states? Even if these were created by the proletariate...

Evidence? Saying you oppose Islam is evidence of you having a bigoted and simplistic stance on religion, not necessarily outright racism.

What sort of Evidence would you like? I can give the example of Leeds anti-EDL demo when myself and several members of AWL were accused of racism by a group of SWP members because we were against islamic fundamentalism. Now the AWL may support a two state solution, but I know the AWL members personally and they are definately not racist.

Its not bigoted to oppose religion based on a reasoned examination and critique.

Ravachol

4th January 2010, 16:26

It's too simplistic to dismiss organizations like this as a bunch of nutters, as some people in this thread have done. The rise of Islamism in countries like the UK needs to be understood as (at least in part) the consequence of the aggressive wars that have been carried out by British governments in the Middle East over the past decade, as well as the prevailing climate of Islamphobia, which has been supported by government policies, especially the racist policies that have been put in place as part of the so-called 'war on terror' and constraints on religious expression of the kind that we've seen implemented in France, and, more recently, in Switzerland.

These events have been catalysts to the growth of this movement yes. And I ask you, so bloody what? Events like these could give rise to a myriad of movements hostile to class struggle. Far-right Islamism as examplified by the patriarchal, homophobic, ultra-traditionalist, anti-socialist policies of Choudry cum suis is HOSTILE to class struggle. It emphasizes 'religious unity' between the bourgoise and the working-class of the same religious idenity and, even worse, the other elments of it's ideology are highly reactionary and anti-emancipatory. Would you support a christian fundamentalist group originating in, say, liberia, that arose because of the same conditions? No. These groups are enemies of class struggle and should be opposed when they pose a significant threat (which is not the case, I admit).

Your politics reek of dirty party-politics looking to swell the membership and coffers of the SWP over the backs of Choudry and his anti-working class organisations. Do note that I don't "bash Islam", far from it. What I do bash is the specific incarnation of far-right,highly reactionary Islamism as examplified by Hizb-ut-Tahir and Choudry. I refer to my post here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/sharia-law-and-t120985/index.html?p=1586954#post1586954) for further details. Where I argue that although Islamofascism is possible (BBP, Grey Wolves), Hizb-ut-Tahir are not Islamofascist. They are,however, far-right reactionaries that only serve the interest of the class enemy.

What is it that you hope to achieve by cosying up to them? Members? Media-attention? Surely it doesn't advance the class war.

A large part of the answer is that the positions of the left when it comes to issues of concern for Muslims have been poor. We've seen leftists on this forum and in real life dismiss the Hijab as a symbol of patriarchal oppression

Do you honestly argue it is not? Jesus bloody Christ. Whether 'voluntary' or not, it is rooted in a tradition resulting from patriarchal discourse. If people want to wear them it's not really a problem, the problem is the symbolic value and connected ideological position. THOSE are objectivly patriarchal and ought to be combatted.

So before you start calling protests like this "reactionary" or making comparisons between fascism and Islamism, get your politics in order

Haha, you have the guts to say "get your politics in order". Actively cosying up to reactionary far-right ideologues, dismissing feminist struggle in favor of not offending these same far-right nutters? Honestly, no offense, you politics are a bloody mess and judging from this post, border more on populist attempts than actual left-wing discourse.

- by which I mean follow the example of the SWP

No thank you very much, I prefer mature politics.

we recognize that it is not our place to tell workers in countries like Iraq that they should only be allowed to resist imperialist domination or that their resistance is only progressive if they carry out their resistance in ways that we agree with, and through organizations that have the same politics as us.

'We recognize that it is not our place to tell workers in countries like the UK that they should only be allowed to resist capitalism or that their resistance is only progressive if they carry out resistance through class struggle.' :rolleyes: See what a few modifications can do?

thats an complete idiot stance to take. Dont realy want to start an godwins law here but just to play devils advocate, couldnt you say that the rise of the NSDAP and its SA was an resistance movement against the blatant imperialism of the versaille treaty?

That's actually the position taken by strasserists in Germany. A lot of third-worldist Maoists and anti-impies of the 80's went on to become Strasserist/National-Bolshevist fascists, prime example being Horst Mahler and, for the Dutch, our own Eite Homan. Their analysis goes more or less like this:

'The versaille treaty was imperialist' (correct) 'hence resistance to it was necessary' (correct again) 'National Socialism was the movement resisting imperialism' (BAM, wrong). And in it's modern day incarnation, they argue imperialism is present in 'national debt imperialism', with the national debt controlled by Jews, of course.

When supporting every movement finding a catalyst in imperialist opression (real or imagined) without analysing whether or not it actually oposses imperialism or just this instance and, more importantly, offers a class-struggle focussed alternative, you end up with this mess.

Given that Islamism and fascism are not the same (the former being a distorted response to oppression, the latter most certainly not)

Yes, because Saudi-Arabia's ruling class arose out of heavy opression :rolleyes:

Islamism as political Islam (as opposed to Islam, which is the religion) is diffuse and most strains are not far-right, though a lot show reactionary elements inherent to the Abrahamic religions. Far-Right Islamism, such as HuT/Choudry's is close to fascism though and it is most certainly far-right and reactionary. Would you support the BBP and the Grey Wolves when they claim to oppose 'US Imperialism' in Turkey. In that case i'd consider the one taking such a position an actual enemy of the working class.

The point here is that not only are Islamism and fascism not the same phenomenon in a fundamental sense, in that they are the consequences of different factors and play a different function, they are also different in that Islamists are not currently carrying out physical attacks on vulnerable individuals, whereas the fascists are.

This is a joke, I presume? :blink:
Also, stop using the term Islamism, we're discussing far-right Islamism here, which is a different cup of tea. You're making it seem we're homogenizing Islamism or even Islam, which is not the case at all.

Honestly, if what you argue here is the official line of the SWP, I'd rather not be associated with them in the slightest. It's dirty, murky politics that seek to employ some sort of misplaced populism to swell membership ranks and coffers by cozying up to the far-right ideologies of certain opressed identity because they have some momentum within these identity-communities. And honestly bob, how many of Choudry's followers have joined the SWP? :rolleyes:

Lenny Nista

4th January 2010, 16:29

What sort of Evidence would you like? I can give the example of Leeds anti-EDL demo when myself and several members of AWL were accused of racism by a group of SWP members because we were against islamic fundamentalism. Now the AWL may support a two state solution, but I know the AWL members personally and they are definately not racist.

Its not bigoted to oppose religion based on a reasoned examination and critique.
But the AWL when Muslims are being attacked, have lined up to equally condemn "Islamism" or "Sharía law", and the EDL, equally. Like I said, this is the equivalent of marching with the slogan "no to the Nazis, no to Jewish bankers", it's a slogan which panders to and spreads baseless conspiracy theories. It's a racist line whether or not AWL members are personally racist.

Dimentio

4th January 2010, 16:37

A principled stance against a boogeyman that was conjured up through stupid xenophobic and racist fears? What's the point? We already stand against "radical islam" because of what we, as leftists, stand for. We're against any fundamentalist interpretation of religion, in principle. There's no reason to single "radical islam" out, and doing so just smacks of xenophobia and is incredibly counter productive, since that sort of thing ALWAYS leads to regular old muslims getting bashed and picked on. If you deny this you are stupid.

The whole fight against "radical islam" is some dumb shit that a bunch of right wing idiots came up with, not because they disagree with the sexism, or the homophobia, or any of the other reactionary garbage that goes with fundamentalism.

They fight it because it's foreign

Yes, but radical islam is sexist, homophobic, reactionary and filled with garbage.

Nowadays, I wouldn't claim it too be necessarily foreign though. Jonas Mohamed Omar for example is a former Swedish nationalist (a friend of Jonas de Geer) who has become the spokesperson for shi'ite islamism in Sweden.

Pirate turtle the 11th

4th January 2010, 16:38

Dimentio

4th January 2010, 16:39

Ravachol

4th January 2010, 16:42

We should stop saying that islam is a religion for "brown" folk. It should not be treated worse or given a carte blanche just because of the descent of its proponents. It should be treated exactly like christianity.

this

Religion is a set of positions and cultural Signs and traditions which constitute an ideological framework. It should be examned based on these things, not the assumption it's a religion for 'brown folk'. I know Comrade Joe didn't mean it that way ;) Just wanted to support Dimentio's position on this.

ComradeMan

4th January 2010, 16:45

We should stop saying that islam is a religion for "brown" folk. It should not be treated worse or given a carte blanche just because of the descent of its proponents. It should be treated exactly like christianity.

I find this idea that Islam is a religion for "brown folk" worrying, would be interesting in Turkey, Albania or Bosnia to take that line along with many other Islamic areas. It also implies that Christianity is then a religion for "white folk".... I'm sure Desmond Tutu and Martin Luther King would be quite bemused.... Especially considering that the oldest Christian communities in the world are decidedly "brown folk".... Ethiopia, Copts... etc.

This is the problem with mixing ideas of religion and race!

Lenny Nista

4th January 2010, 16:45

The line we should take is this, both the actions of Islam4UK and EDL polarize communities, causing hostility between whites and brown folk and spread reactionary ideologies in their respective communities. Henceforth it is important that links are made in both white and muslim communities to work together to jointly oppose these losers.

I agree with this.

I think though that while doing the above, we should still keep an eye on reality: "Islamism" is not an equal threat to the British or world working class as European imperialism and its rearguard fascism. If we start syaing they are equal threeats, we won't do anyone any favours: what the European bourgeosiie wants is to point to the very weak "Islamists" to distract western workers, to tie them to a vision of "clash of civlizations", and to cast suspicion on the whole muslim and non-white communities. The als thing the left needs to do is help contribute to spreading this bogeyman threat, as many have said here, because far from "defending anyone from Islamism", we'd just be helping distract them from their real problems.

But yes I agree, we do need to work on class-based links between white and muslim workers to overcome groups like Islam4UK - but this needs to be on the basis of white workers understanding who the real enemy is, for their own good and everyone else's.

Pirate turtle the 11th

4th January 2010, 16:46

We should stop saying that islam is a religion for "brown" folk. It should not be treated worse or given a carte blanche just because of the descent of its proponents. It should be treated exactly like christianity.

Most muslims are brown and are identified as muslims due to their brown skin which is the important bit when it comes to community relationships.

Lenny Nista

4th January 2010, 16:49

Pirate turtle the 11th

4th January 2010, 16:53

On the idea of "Islam isn't just a religion for brown folk" - yeah it mightsound clever on an itnernet board, but in the real world when people buy propaganda about "Islam", this is used as a real life pretext for governments attacking immigrants and waging foreign wars. That's why we need to constantly oppose all the ridiculous conspiracy theories about "evil" Islam and explain that it is no worse than any other religion.

This needs to be done without being an apoligist for islamist tossers who should be opposed because not only to the polarize the muslim community but also spread some downright nasty idelogies inside it, Islam4uk must be opposed alongside EDL. In the areas affected such as luton the only real way to end the divison is by jointly tackiling these reactionary groups.

(A)narcho-Matt

4th January 2010, 16:58

But the AWL when Muslims are being attacked, have lined up to equally condemn "Islamism" or "Sharía law", and the EDL, equally. Like I said, this is the equivalent of marching with the slogan "no to the Nazis, no to Jewish bankers", it's a slogan which panders to and spreads baseless conspiracy theories. It's a racist line whether or not AWL members are personally racist.

How is it racist to say that we oppose Fascism And Fundamentalism. Its more racist to take the line you are because your taking the "muslims are brown people" line.

I am against Fascism because i am an anti-Fascist, I am against Islamic Fundamentalism (and all religion) because I am an Anti-Theist.

BobKKKindle$

4th January 2010, 16:58

And I ask you, so bloody what?It's relevant because the success of these groups is/was in no way an inevitable outcome of the wars that are being waged in the Middle East, the mistakes of the left also have to be factored into the equation. When we have people such as yourself who dismiss the choices of millions of Muslim women when it comes to how they dress as them being complicit in patriarchy then we shouldn't be surprised that reactionary forces are able to gain support amongst Muslim communities, or that Muslims feel their identity is coming under attack - the position you put forward is patronizing in the worst possible way because it assumes that the Hijab offers nothing positive to Muslim women in the current society and that the only reason women would wear it is because they're the unwitting victims of patriarchy. As I said in my first post the prominent role that women have played in the movement against the wars as well as the way they've responded to attacks on their rights (for example, women in France chanting "not our fathers nor our husbands, we choose the headscarves" - hardly evidence of those women not being political agents) destroys your crass assumption that the Hijab is only about oppression or that Muslim women are so unaware of their oppression that they need non-Muslim leftists to decide where they should be directing their energies. I've never said that we should cosy up to the kind of reactionary forces you've been talking about, which means that most of what you wrote in your last post is a complete waste of space, I simply said that Islamists are not the same as fascists, and that we should seek to understand why these forces have been able to draw support from the same people who should be attracted to the left and progressive ideas, whilst avoiding misleading comparisons with fascism.

Let me say this again to make my position clear: Islamism in all its variants is fundamentally different from fascism, at least as far as the UK is concerned. It would be wrong in almost all circumstances for socialists to support counter-demonstrations against Islamists, whereas that is the only correct policy when it comes to dealing with fascists like the BNP.

dismissing feminist struggleYou have no right to speak of feminist struggle - you dismiss the choices of Muslim women, as we've already seen.

See what a few modifications can do?The situation in the UK is not the same as Iraq though, is it. The latter is a country under the brutal occupation of some of the most powerful countries in the world. The former is one of the countries that is doing the occupying.

Yes, because Saudi-Arabia's ruling class arose out of heavy opressionActually, the history of Wahhabism is more complex than this sweeping statement implies. The sect arose partly amongst tribal peoples living in the Arabian peninsula during their struggles against the Ottoman Empire. In this respect it confirms what I said about about variants of Islamism incorporating both the legitimation of oppression and inspiring struggles against oppressive forces, in spite of its current role in Saudi Arabia.

You're making it seem we're homogenizing Islamism or even Islam, which is not the case at all.Actually, I agree. Islamism is more complex than I've implied.

I do reject that society says women and men must dress in a certain way, I dont think this is inconsistant.I don't quite understand what you're saying here, so I'll rephrase the point I made in my last post: If you think that women don't really choose to wear the Hijab because of social pressure, then, given that non-Muslim women and men are also subject to various kinds of social pressure, does this mean that they also do not choose to wear the clothes that they wear, and do you think this is a good way of understanding the concepts of choice and consent? Whether you personally support a societies without social roles is irrelevant to this question, I feel, because it is concerned with the nature of society in the here and now.

I can give the example of Leeds anti-EDL demo when myself and several members of AWL were accused of racism by a group of SWP members because we were against islamic fundamentalismThat depends entirely on what the accusations of racism involved and what you meant by saying you were against Islamic fundamentalism, also the actions of a bunch of SWP members in a particular locale says nothing about the actual line of our organization. What is evident is that the AWL pickets the annual Al Quds march, alongside fascists.

Why? Surely hardline leftists oppose all religious belief? What happened to the opium of the people?As a Marxist I recognize that religion is part of the superstructure of class societies and that as long as those societies exist people will continue to have religious beliefs. As I've emphasized already I also think it's wrong to assume that religion can only ever have one function or meaning and this is something that Marx himself was aware of, as, in addition to describing religion as the opiate of the masses, he also described it as the "sigh of the oppressed creature", the "heart of the heartless world", and so on, being conscious of the complexity of its historic and contemporary role.

This is something that other "anti-theists" should take note off.

Nah you just called it 'sub-imperialism' really.Which isn't the same as supporting genocide at all.

Lenny Nista

4th January 2010, 17:02

This needs to be done without being an apoligist for islamist tossers who should be opposed because not only to the polarize the muslim community but also spread some downright nasty idelogies inside it, Islam4uk must be opposed alongside EDL. In the areas affected such as luton the only real way to end the divison is by jointly tackiling these reactionary groups.

They should be opposed alongside the ELD or BNP march but not equally. When the EDL (we should treat them as art of the same movement IMO), equating the two threats is wrong, because they aren't equal threats. The far-right in Britain is a wing of British imperialism, one of the msot powerful in the world, that is part of those who economically and militarily dominate the "Muslim" countries, and which has Muslim workers as cheap immigrant labour with no rights, and the EDL and BNP want to unite the "white community", i.e. 95% of Britain, against the Muslim community, which is also one of the poorest communities with least rights.

So how can "Islamism" be an equal threat as imperialism orthe far-right? Why should we tell people it is then? It might be a popular thing to say at work or in the pub that you're against Islamism - that's because the "common sense" of our society is very misinformed, sadly. But I prefer not to get popular quickly on the basis of lying to people.

Pirate turtle the 11th

4th January 2010, 17:06

They should be opposed alongside the ELD or BNP march but not equally. When the EDL (we should treat them as art of the same movement IMO), equating the two threats is wrong, because they aren't equal threats. The far-right in Britain is a wing of British imperialism, one of the msot powerful in the world, that is part of those who economically and militarily dominate the "Muslim" countries, and which has Muslim workers as cheap immigrant labour with no rights, and the EDL and BNP want to unite the "white community", i.e. 95% of Britain, against the Muslim community, which is also one of the poorest communities with least rights.

So how can "Islamism" be an equal threat as imperialism orthe far-right? Why should we tell people it is then? It might be a popular thing to say at work or in the pub that you're against Islamism - that's because the "common sense" of our society is very misinformed, sadly. But I prefer not to get popular quickly on the basis of lying to people.

Its not an equal threat , it would be ridiculous for people in walse to organize against islam 4uk but lets face it , its not exactly mindblowing to suggest that people around luton should organize against Islam4uk as well as the EDL.

Lenny Nista

4th January 2010, 17:10

[QUOTE]How is it racist to say that we oppose Fascism And Fundamentalism. Its more racist to take the line you are because your taking the "muslims are brown people" line.

"More racist" as opposed to you being a "bit racist", or what?

My line isnt racist at all. I'm against Jewish communtiy leaders, Jewish capitalists and Rabbis too but I wouldn't have gone to a pogrom and shout "no to the Nazis, no to the Global Zionist Conspiracy!" Would you have?

I am against Fascism because i am an anti-Fascist, I am against Islamic Fundamentalism (and all religion) because I am an Anti-Theist.

Congrats then. You're also just playing off ideas aainst each other like a politics student, rather than actually analyzing the real problems workers face. Answer me a straight question, please: are "Islamism" and imperialism an equal threat to the world working class? If yes, on what basis, if no, then why go around telling people they are!

Lenny Nista

4th January 2010, 17:21

Its not an equal threat , it would be ridiculous for people in walse to organize against islam 4uk but lets face it , its not exactly mindblowing to suggest that people around luton should organize against Islam4uk as well as the EDL.

Fair point, but the EDL and BNP are proposing a national, political strategy, and aggressively posing it, promising to solve peoples problems. I think the left needs to do the same and while I think you're right on the need to build community links (I'm not an alien :p I grew up in a school where each "ethnicity" sat seperately in class pretty much), we also need to go further, and pose a revolutionary solution to people to their problems instead of stopping at the stage of community organising.

In that case then I think we need an overall explanation to people of the threats they face, and this means saying that Islamism and immigration aren't a threat, and that it's imperialism which opresses those communities and countries, it's imeprialism which funds "Islamism" and created "Al Qaeda", it's imeperialism which opposes any modernising secular government in the "Muslim" countries, it's imperialism dominating and exploiting those countries and communities, and that we defend their right to defend themselves even if we disagree with their leadership and want to win the brave resistance fighters over to a revolutionary perspective.

Dimentio

4th January 2010, 17:41

I find this idea that Islam is a religion for "brown folk" worrying, would be interesting in Turkey, Albania or Bosnia to take that line along with many other Islamic areas. It also implies that Christianity is then a religion for "white folk".... I'm sure Desmond Tutu and Martin Luther King would be quite bemused.... Especially considering that the oldest Christian communities in the world are decidedly "brown folk".... Ethiopia, Copts... etc.

This is the problem with mixing ideas of religion and race!

In Sweden, in cases where one has witnessed or heard or read expressions of racism, people have often been re-defined as "blacks" for having a foreign name. Italians, Greeks, Bosnians and even southern Germans have been called "blackskulls" by Swedish racists.

I think it is because that in Britain for example, you are hated because of your origin. In Sweden, you are hated because of being different. That is why the fascist party in Sweden have lots of "token" foreigners as honorary members, for example ex-muslims and so on.

I think it is worrying that the fascists and radical islamists are allowed to monopolise the discussion about religion into a question of christianity vs Islam.

Dimentio

4th January 2010, 17:44

Its not an equal threat , it would be ridiculous for people in walse to organize against islam 4uk but lets face it , its not exactly mindblowing to suggest that people around luton should organize against Islam4uk as well as the EDL.

Radical islamists in the UK planning attacks on cartoonists and holding rallies where they shout "DEATH TO THE UK" are a threat in so far that they are further dividing the working class, are increasing the xenophobia levels and strengthening British fascists.

In Sweden, it is more complicated as our domestic islamists have started to cooperate with the Swedish nazis, creating bizarre political alliances and conflicts.

Nowadays, nazis and fascists cannot stand each-other in Sweden. :lol:

Ravachol

4th January 2010, 17:47

It's relevant because the success of these groups is/was in no way an inevitable outcome of the wars that are being waged in the Middle East, the mistakes of the left also have to be factored into the equation. When we have people such as yourself who dismiss the choices of millions of Muslim women when it comes to how they dress as them being complicit in patriarchy then we shouldn't be surprised that reactionary forces are able to gain support amongst Muslim communities

Where do I oppose their choice to dress how they want? Care to quote me a little? :rolleyes: I oppose the patriarchal structures and ideology that give rise to such phenomena. And so should you.

, or that Muslims feel their identity is coming under attack - the position you put forward is patronizing in the worst possible way because it assumes that the Hijab offers nothing positive to Muslim women in the current society

What positive things does it have to offer? Note that I don't oppose them wearing it, but I do not see how it's a "positive" thing. Also, the only thing you are achieving by saying that 'Muslim Identity' is 'under attack' is refraining from any criticism and leftist discourse. Simple question: Do you or do you not oppose the political positions of Choudry cum suis? If yes, why do you pay lip-service to him and refrain from opposing his organisations. If no, how can you consider yourself a leftist any longer?

I suspect the only reason you hold onto this position is 'realpolitik' and the fear of 'alienating' reactionary segments of the 'muslim community'. The only thing you achieve, however, is alienating the non-muslim working class and delivering the muslim working class in the hand of reactionaries. THAT is what your politics are doing. I couldn't care less about bourgois elements of the muslim identity. Obviously I would oppose discrimination against them as hard as against working-class members, but I don't want to associate with them or organize alongside them. All it does is strengthen the idea the 'muslim identity' is monolithic and blur class distinctions.
Simple question: How do these positions advance class struggle AT ALL?

I simply said that Islamists are not the same as fascists

So, neither are christian conservatives, paleoconservatives or libertarians. Hell, the latter even oppose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well, yet I sure hope for the love of science you don't organize alongside them either. They are all the ideologies of class enemies and should be opposed as such.

Let me say this again to make my position clear: Islamism in all its variants is fundamentally different from fascism, at least as far as the UK is concerned. It would be wrong in almost all circumstances for socialists to support counter-demonstrations against Islamists, whereas that is the only correct policy when it comes to dealing with fascists like the BNP.

If you had actually read my post, you'd see I argued far-right Islamism is not fascist, but SHOULD BE OPPOSED NONTHELESS.

You have no right to speak of feminist struggle - you dismiss the choices of Muslim women, as we've already seen.

You can try to shut me up with strawman arguments, but that won't work with me lad. I don't dismiss the choice of a woman to wear a Haijb, a miniskirt or, hell why not, a trumpet as a hat. What I dismiss is the social structures and patriarchal discourse that spawned the phenomenon of the Hajijb. The Haijb has a symbolic value too and we need to dismantle the structures of patriarchal opression giving rise to this value. People are free to wear the Haijb but this is no excuse for leaving the social constructs of patriarchy intact.

The situation in the UK is not the same as Iraq though, is it. The latter is a country under the brutal occupation of some of the most powerful countries in the world. The former is one of the countries that is doing the occupying.

So? Because of brutal occupation it's OK to be anti-socialist and opposed to class struggle? I don't think any sane leftist discourse would lead to that position.

Actually, the history of Wahhabism is more complex than this sweeping statement implies. The sect arose partly amongst tribal peoples living in the Arabian peninsula during their struggles against the Ottoman Empire. In this respect it confirms what I said about about variants of Islamism incorporating both the legitimation of oppression and inspiring struggles against oppressive forces, in spite of its current role in Saudi Arabia.

I know about the history of Wahhabism, thank you very much. The struggle against the Ottoman Empire and the subsequent struggles waged by Wahhabist groups are legitimate, but does this justify the reactionary, patriarchal anti-socialist stance of such groups? No it does not. I, like some, do not deny these groups the 'right' to struggle against imperialism, but I don't support them either like you do. I don't want to contribute to a movement hostile to class struggle, thank you very much. Or do you deny Wahhabism is reactionary and hostile to class struggle?

Honestly, the only thing you do is abandon class struggle in favor of full-blown monolithic identity politics (instead of supporting class struggle arising from within identies, which I actually support) and reactionary, far-right politics at that too.

Pogue

4th January 2010, 17:48

When there was an Islam4UK march before what we did in London was turn out and have a presence incase anything of note happened, i.e. some lone Muslim or Asian person was attacked and generally to suss the far right turnout, whilst making it clear we don't support political Islam. I'd say this is what others do. Its not a demonstration leftists would ever want to be seen to support, Islam4UK does not represent the views of Muslim people in this country, whilst not being 'fascist' they are the extremists of the Muslim community who have an blatantly provocative attitude that isn't designed to gain mass support. Not a good organisation.

If you had a long term strategy of trying to create some sort of viable position then a counter-protest isn't a bad idea. Maybe have a socialist bloc, as has happened before. You could hook up with some secular types (Mind the secular Iranian groups though, alot of them chummed up with the EDL in the past) too. But I wouldn't make it an 'anti-Islam4UK' thing but an 'anti-bigotry' thing, i.e. opposed to the bigotry of both sides. I'd support this and its something we've considered before.

BobKKKindle$

4th January 2010, 18:27

Where do I oppose their choice to dress how they want?

I didn't say that you think that the state should prevent women from wearing the Hijab, I said that you dismiss the choices of Muslim women, which is true because you believe that the Hijab is part of patriarchal structures of oppression, and that it can never be anything but that, whereas what I've been arguing in this thread is that religion in general is contradictory, and that the contradictory character of religion manifests itself in specific practices such as the wearing the Hijab as well - on the one hand you and other posts are correct in saying that social pressure is an important factor in convincing women that they have an obligation to wear the Hijab and that there are also doubtless cases of women being made to wear the Hijab through the pressure of the male members of their communities, but what you seem to ignore, and what Muslim women are aware of, is that the Hijab can also be used as an instrument in the struggle against oppression, in that it can force men to acknowledge women as equals and also provides Muslim women with a way of asserting their identity in societies that are hostile to the traditions of immigrant groups. In fact, it is significant that after the French government passed the first set of laws on whether the Hijab could be worn in schools, large numbers of Muslim women and women of north-African descent who had not previously worn the Hijab chose to do so precisely as a way of making their opposition to the laws clear and defending cultural diversity.

If yes, why do you pay lip-service to him and refrain from opposing his organisation

Now you're just openly slandering me, as nowhere in this thread have I argued that socialists should not oppose Islamist organizations. This thread is about a prospective march that is being organized by Islamists and the only thing that I have said as far as being opposed to Islamists is concerned is that we should not hold demonstrations against marches such as this on account of the fact that adopting that kind of response would obscure the contradictory role that Islamism plays (in the British context) and put us on the same side of the police cordons as the fascists who will inevitably turn up to spread racist bigotry. You have asserted on multiple occasions now that I think we should make concessions to Islamists and not criticize them even going so far as to suggest I claimed that we should organize with them and yet you have failed to provide a single shred of evidence to back up any of your claims about my or the SWP's politics.

They are all the ideologies of class enemies

This is the kind of simplistic reasoning I'm talking about - yes workers who have an ideological commitment to these ideas are not in a position where they can confront the bourgeoisie and pursue their class interests but as I've already shown in relation to Islamism and religion in general simply dismissing all non-socialist ideas as the ideas of class enemies doesn't capture their internal contradictions and it also doesn't tell us much about how these political forces have been able to gain support, and what we as leftists should do to engage with the working people who are currently amongst their supporters.

If you had actually read my post, you'd see I argued far-right Islamism is not fascist, but SHOULD BE OPPOSED NONTHELESS.

As already stated, at no point have I denied that Islamism needs to be oppossed, but at the moment we're dealing in the abstract - or at least you are. I pointed out in my first post in this thread that the main way socialists should be opposing Islamists apart from exposing their sexism and bigotry is by proving that we on the left are the most consistent and militant fighters when it comes to defending the religious rights of Muslim communities and supporting struggles against imperialism. This is important because it is something that most people on the left have failed to do and and yet you have not given us anything concrete in terms of what you mean when you talk how we should go about opposing Islamists. You have not told us, for example, whether you think that leftists should attend counter-demonstrations against the Al Quds march, and demonstrations such as the one that's been discussed in this thread.

So? Because of brutal occupation it's OK to be anti-socialist and opposed to class struggle?

Your talent for slandering other people is remarkable, as nowhere in this thread have I said that I oppose class struggle in nations under imperialist occupation. In fact, I didn't even develop my views on national liberation because that isn't the central focus of this thread. My views on the relationship between class struggle and national liberation are that in nations such as Iraq which have fallen under occupation, direct confrontation and struggle between the national ruling class and workers is muted (or, to be more specific, distorted) because the most intense form of suffering and pain for the workers of these occupied countries comes not from exploitation in the workplace but from the presence of the occupying power, which, owing to the weakness of the ruling classes of oppressed nations, governs with the support of the national bourgeoisie, who are commonly the beneficiaries of occupation. In this situation support for the expulsion of the occupying power by any means is vital for socialists because it is only when the occupying power has been removed that the political energies of the working class can switch away from occupation and towards the national ruling class and their monopoly over the means of production. In this way, anti-imperialism is not a substitute for class struggle, but the primary form that class struggle takes in nations such as Iraq and Afghanistan. The task of socialists in these countries is to seek to eliminate the petty-bourgeois leaderships of liberation movements (for example, Hamas) and to introduce socialist and other emancipatory ideas into the anti-imperialist struggle.

The support of socialists in imperialist nations for all anti-imperialist struggles even when these struggles are not led by forces who have all the same aims as we do is important not only from a principled standpoint but also because it is unlikely that workers in oppressed nations will look upon socialists and workers in countries such as Britain as their allies unless we have smashed the chains of national chauvinism and acknowledge the right of (for example) Iraqi workers to not be occupied by a foreign power, and, whilst the occupation remains, to conduct their resistance as they see fit. There are concrete examples of why this is important. In the case of Spain it was partly the failure of the bourgeois republic to guarantee Morocco independence that led the Moroccan forces to take the side of Franco during the revolt.

I don't support them either like you do.

The support offered by Trotskyists to anti-imperialist forces, a category into which the Saudi government does not fall, is only military in nature, i.e. it only extends to a desire to see those forces inflict a military defeat on imperialism and not agreement with their ideas or a refusal to criticize them.

4th January 2010, 18:32

Which isn't the same as supporting genocide at all.

No, you just downplay it, that's fine when it's "sub-imperialism" though.

BobKKKindle$

4th January 2010, 18:34

No, you just downplay it, that's fine when it's "sub-imperialism" though.

Yes, you're right, I do support genocide. You've convinced me that's the case.

4th January 2010, 18:36

Bob, in your own words, you "unconditionally" offer your support to anti-imperialist movements, what do you think that means when you read it?

(A)narcho-Matt

4th January 2010, 18:38

BobKKKindle$

4th January 2010, 18:40

Bob, in your own words, you "unconditionally" offer your support to anti-imperialist movements, what do you think that means when you read it?

That I don't attach conditions to supporting those movements, support in this context meaning wanting them to inflict a military defeat on imperialism. It doesn't mean that I support everything those movements do. I didn't support Hamas expelling female students from the Islamic University, or attacking trade unionists, but I still recognize the resistance movement that they are leading as progressive in spite of those reactionary actions. I'm sorry, but not even the usual suspects are going to buy your efforts to make it seem as if I support genocide.

Isnt anti-imperialist nation a contradiction in terms seeing as all natons are imperialist

Not everyone accepts that all nations are imperialist powers. The blockaded and bombed enclave that is Gaza is not, in my view.

4th January 2010, 18:43

That I don't attach conditions to supporting those movements, support in this context meaning wanting them to inflict a military defeat on imperialism. It doesn't mean that I support everything those movements do. I didn't support Hamas expelling female students from the Islamic University, or attacking trade unionists, but I still recognize the resistance movement that they are leading as progressive in spite of those reactionary actions. I'm sorry, but not even the usual suspects are going to buy your efforts to make it seem as if I support genocide.

Guess what? Your support and some of the actual economic support offered by parties like yours, assures that they can continue carrying out their disgusting anti-worker acts, so feel good about yourself.

Lenny Nista

4th January 2010, 18:49

Guess what? Your support and some of the actual economic support offered by parties like yours, assures that they can continue carrying out their disgusting anti-worker acts, so feel good about yourself.

This is rubbish, Hamas supprot comes from the fact they lead the resistance to Israel while the cowardly traitors of Fatah capitulated. You might not care about that but Palestinians do and your pious third campism really isn't going to convince them to give up the national sturggle any more than it historically ever convinced any other oppressed nation to give up theirs.

Pirate turtle the 11th

4th January 2010, 18:49

Fair point, but the EDL and BNP are proposing a national, political strategy, and aggressively posing it, promising to solve peoples problems. I think the left needs to do the same and while I think you're right on the need to build community links (I'm not an alien :p I grew up in a school where each "ethnicity" sat seperately in class pretty much), we also need to go further, and pose a revolutionary solution to people to their problems instead of stopping at the stage of community organising. .

Agreed.

In that case then I think we need an overall explanation to people of the threats they face, and this means saying that Islamism and immigration aren't a threat,.

Islamism is a threat to many people in the UK no where near as much as shit such as the BNP but it is still a threat for those in muslim areas (expecially those from muslim backgrounds) pretneding that its not is just trying to be a super radical revolution dude rather then dealing with reality.

and that it's imperialism which opresses those communities and countries, it's imeprialism which funds "Islamism" and created "Al Qaeda", it's imeperialism which opposes any modernising secular government in the "Muslim" countries,

Its a joint effort really one the behalf of the ruling classes of both afganistan and Britain/America. Its a class issue thats what needs pushing out to the front in every single sentance that is spoken.

it's imperialism dominating and exploiting those countries and communities, and that we defend their right to defend themselves even if we disagree with their leadership and want to win the brave resistance fighters over to a revolutionary perspective.

Sorry leaving national liberation debates aside demanding people start supporting the taliban is a one way ticket to obsuritiy.

ComradeMan

4th January 2010, 18:52

In Sweden, it is more complicated as our domestic islamists have started to cooperate with the Swedish nazis, creating bizarre political alliances and conflicts. :lol:

This is what I have thought for a long time... it's quite ironic that the right and the Islamists have a go at each other, they would probably agree on most matters of policy. Knock out the metaphysical stuff and they start to resemble each other worryingly.

What also irritates me about these Islamist groups is that because of them people like the Itjihadist movements get sidelined or are forgotten about. (The itjihadists are a group of movements for reform within Islam- most of my criticisms of Islam have come from these sections of ISLAMIC society).

Lenny Nista

and that it's imperialism which opresses those communities and countries, it's imeprialism which funds "Islamism" and created "Al Qaeda", it's imeperialism which opposes any modernising secular government in the "Muslim" countries,

What absolute tosh. Sorry, is it Western Imperialism crushing the workers movement and opposition in Iran? Islamist movements are anti-Imperialist because they perceive Western/American culture to be a threat to Islamic values they don't give a stuff about workers' movements and would be quite happy with a theocratic caliphate- indeed those are usually their aims.

As for Imperialism oppressing people in those countries? What countries? Saudi Arabia. the Gulf States, Oman, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Algeria- yeah- they are all really oppressed by Western Imperialism.... the former in the list have done nothing but do well out of capitalism!!!

This is rubbish, Hamas supprot comes from the fact they lead the resistance to Israel while the cowardly traitors of Fatah capitulated. You might not care about that but Palestinians do and your pious third campism really isn't going to convince them to give up the national sturggle any more than it historically ever convinced any other oppressed nation to give up theirs.

Hamas support leads the resistance against Israel..., please pull the other one. Hamas support comes from terrorising people into not being able to support anything else.

Hamas seem to spend more time killing their fellow Palestinians (workers) than doing anything effective against Israel. The Palestinian daily newspaper, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, reported an incident of one Gazan girl whose father was killed by Hamas gunmen Hamas also shot and wounded nine other members of her family including several children. This is not new in the area either, by the end of the first intifada, nearly 1,000 Palestinians had died by the hand of their own people.

4th January 2010, 18:57

This is rubbish, Hamas supprot comes from the fact they lead the resistance to Israel while the cowardly traitors of Fatah capitulated. You might not care about that but Palestinians do and your pious third campism really isn't going to convince them to give up the national sturggle any more than it historically ever convinced any other oppressed nation to give up theirs.

And what makes you think I expect them to? The only way they will is by workers taking control, I'm fully aware of that, thanks. They don't 'lead' the resistance against Israel either by the way.

Lenny Nista

4th January 2010, 19:10

And what makes you think I expect them to? The only way they will is by workers taking control, I'm fully aware of that, thanks. They don't 'lead' the resistance against Israel either by the way.

Who leads the resistance movement then?

I agree that the working masses need to take control of the struggle but it's these who make up 99?% of those fighting it, how do you expect them to be won over to your line if you refuse to support the resistance until they change their leadership?

4th January 2010, 19:18

Who leads the resistance movement then?

I agree that the working masses need to take control of the struggle but it's these who make up 99?% of those fighting it, how do you expect them to be won over to your line if you refuse to support the resistance until they change their leadership?

If you mean the movement as in physical fighting against Israel, then yes you could probably say hamas is the most prominent one, however there is no "unified movement" to be lead is there.

The working masses do have control of the struggle in some ways, those in Israel and Palestine, AATW seem to be the most legitimate resistance there is to all imperialist factions and they are completely unarmed and regularly, people die at those wall demonstrations. I don't think their means are perfect, but with the workers in such a bad way throughout Palestine, it seems like the best thing that exists.

If such a broad movement took place throughout Israel and Palestine imagine what could be achieved? Do you think that guns automatically = legitimate anti-imperialist resistance from the get go?

Lenny Nista

4th January 2010, 19:51

If you mean the movement as in physical fighting against Israel, then yes you could probably say hamas is the most prominent one, however there is no "unified movement" to be lead is there.

The working masses do have control of the struggle in some ways, those in Israel and Palestine, AATW seem to be the most legitimate resistance there is to all imperialist factions and they are completely unarmed and regularly, people die at those wall demonstrations. I don't think their means are perfect, but with the workers in such a bad way throughout Palestine, it seems like the best thing that exists.

If such a broad movement took place throughout Israel and Palestine imagine what could be achieved? Do you think that guns automatically = legitimate anti-imperialist resistance from the get go?

What do you mean "legitimate anti-imeprialist resistance"...? Since when is any anti-imperialist (in this case anti-colonial) resistance illegitimate? To quote Trotsky:

Fossa: What can you say on the liberating struggle of the peoples of Latin America and of the problems of the future? (...)
Trotsky: (...)
I will take the most simple and obvious example. In Brazil there now reigns a semifascist regime that every revolutionary can only view with hatred. Let us assume, however, that on the morrow England enters into a military conflict with Brazil. I ask you on whose side of the conflict will the working class be? I will answer for myself personally—in this case I will be on the side of “fascist” Brazil against “democratic” Great Britain. Why? Because in the conflict between them it will not be a question of democracy or fascism. If England should be victorious, she will put another fascist in Rio de Janeiro and will place double chains on Brazil. If Brazil on the contrary should be victorious, it will give a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness of the country and will lead to the overthrow of the Vargas dictatorship. The defeat of England will at the same time deliver a blow to British imperialism and will give an impulse to the revolutionary movement of the British proletariat. Truly, one must have an empty head to reduce world antagonisms and military conflicts to the struggle between fascism and democracy. Under all masks one must know how to distinguish exploiters, slave-owners, and robbers!

In other words we don't differentiate between "good" and "bad" anti-imperialist struggles, because we aren't going to politically support any nationalsit movement, we just want to fight for the broadest unity against the invasion/occupation (the anti-imperialist united front) while calling on workers to break with their bourgeois leaders, come to the forefront of the struggle, and turn it into a revolutionary struggle.

The sectarian logic of rejecting some anti-imperialist leaderships as reactionary and therefore not supporting any movement which they lead (even if as you claim, and I disagree, they only lead a fraction of it), seems to go hand in hand with the opportunist logc of looking for other leaderships to meekly cheerlead for. But communists shouldn't be interested in fighting to reform the anti-imperialist struggle and find "progressive" nationalist leaders to replace the "reactionary" ones. Instead we should be poltitically against all nationalist leaders and at all times fight to break the working class from their political leadership and never politically promote any, while at the same time, we will defend from repression and stand alongside all those who fight imperialism, regardless of their leadership and even when we argue against the strategy they are using.

This is a similair logic to the tactics Trotskyists have traditionally used in the unions, but the CWI sadly doesn't employ it, rather they have the logic of calling for "lesser evil" reformist candidates while using sectarianism against the masses under the traditional leaders apparently both on the national and workers struggles (the same logic as the IS and most right-centrists in fact).

chegitz guevara

4th January 2010, 20:02

Lenny Nista

4th January 2010, 20:06

couldnt you say that the rise of the NSDAP and its SA was an resistance movement against the blatant imperialism of the versaille treaty?
Exactly what I was going to point out. We need to defend people of the Islamic faith from persecution, but we shouldn't stand by or support reactionary politics just because it comes from the oppressed. We have to part ways on that shit.

But for the second time, the comparison doesn't work because Germany was an imperialist country (and is). If the comparison worked then Trotsky and his followers would have supported Nazism, because they unconditionally supported anti-imperialist struggles and called for the anti-imperialist united front - but we can see historically that they didn't support it.

chegitz guevara

4th January 2010, 20:08

Could someone point out to me where a women has been murdered or had acid thrown in her face by her father or brothers or strangers for wearing the hijab?

chegitz guevara

4th January 2010, 20:08

But for the second time, the comparison doesn't work because Germany was an imperialist country (and is). If the comparison worked then Trotsky and his followers would have supported Nazism, because they unconditionally supported anti-imperialist struggles and called for the anti-imperialist united front - but we can see historically that they didn't support it.

Which is why we shouldn't be supporting reactionary Islamic movements.

Also, at the time, Germany was imperialized more than it was imperialist. During the period of the rise of fascism in Germany, it was occupied by foreign countries, it's wealth being carted off. It was in a colonial position to Great Britain and France.

4th January 2010, 20:19

What do you mean "legitimate anti-imeprialist resistance"...? Since when is any anti-imperialist (in this case anti-colonial) resistance illegitimate? To quote Trotsky:

Don't be silly, I was using it as 'anti-imperialists' use it, if you want my opinion, the terms imperialism, anti-imperialism and all the other similar ones only confuse.

In other words we don't differentiate between "good" and "bad" anti-imperialist struggles, because we aren't going to politically support any nationalsit movement, we just want to fight for the broadest unity against the invasion/occupation (the anti-imperialist united front) while calling on workers to break with their bourgeois leaders, come to the forefront of the struggle, and turn it into a revolutionary struggle.

And how well has that turned out?

The sectarian logic of rejecting some anti-imperialist leaderships as reactionary and therefore not supporting any movement which they lead (even if as you claim, and I disagree, they only lead a fraction of it), seems to go hand in hand with the opportunist logc of looking for other leaderships to meekly cheerlead for.

How does it go hand in hand with looking for othe rleaderships to cheerlead for? If you think that the wall protests are "led" by any one group, you are talkign utter nonsense, if you think that strikes in Israel, the gaza strip and the west bank are led by any one group and I'm looking for one to "lead" them, again, you are severely mistaken.

But communists shouldn't be interested in fighting to reform the anti-imperialist struggle and find "progressive" nationalist leaders to replace the "reactionary" ones.

And I've advocated this..where? I'm not a Trotskyist you know.

Lenny Nista

4th January 2010, 20:58

^^^I thought you were a member of the CWI...? Apologies if I made a mistake.

Which is why we shouldn't be supporting reactionary Islamic movements.

How does it go hand in hand with looking for othe rleaderships to cheerlead for? If you think that the wall protests are "led" by any one group, you are talkign utter nonsense, if you think that strikes in Israel, the gaza strip and the west bank are led by any one group and I'm looking for one to "lead" them, again, you are severely mistaken.

All strikes are led by someone. Have you ever been in a strike? I've seen a fair few and never seen one where the most advanced workers didn't have to convince the rest to a greater or lesser degree - whether or not they are in a political tendency. To think otherwise is to think that all workers share a uniform level of consciousness or that they can all spontaneously overcome all the bourgeois propaganda coming from the bosses and union leaders every single day...

Just for clarity though when I say "lead" regarding Hamas, I mean that the movement is subordinated to them politically, not that they necessarilly are always leaders in action. This is what communists traditionally mean when we refer to reformsits as "workers existing leaders", even when they are in no sense actually "leading" it. Sometimes the leadership is behind its base, but htis doesn;'t mean they've been repalced as the leadership - if it did, life would be so easy for us!

chegitz:

Also, at the time, Germany was imperialized more than it was imperialist. During the period of the rise of fascism in Germany, it was occupied by foreign countries, it's wealth being carted off. It was in a colonial position to Great Britain and France.

It was a crushed imperialist power but the bourgeosie retained its ability to rebuild its role, as we can see from what happened. This process has never happened in a true semi-colonial or colonial country in the imeprialist epoch (US being an example of a pre-colonial country becoming an imperialsit power), but long before the imeprialist epoch.

This is why Totsky recognized Germany as an imperialist power, while rightly never compromosing on unconditional support for anti-imperialist struggles or on the Anti-Imperialist United Front, as we can see from the Trotsky quote on Brazil in this thread (this page I think).

Lenny Nista

4th January 2010, 21:07

Isnt anti-imperialist nation a contradiction in terms seeing as all natons are imperialist... So supporting Nationalist movements like HAMAS on the basis they are anti imperialist is counter to an internationalist standpoint...

I just saw this one...how are all nations imperialist?

My uncle is broke but dreams of becoming a petit-bourgeois, is he therefore a "capitalist"...?

Imperialist relates to a country's position in the global system, not to the ideology of its leaders (though the idea that the Palestinian bourgeosie has an imperialist logic is laughable! Their ambitions are limtied to being Israel's police within the Occupied Territories in return for guns, armoured cars and some cash).

#FF0000

4th January 2010, 21:14

I would begger to differ. Tell the people killed in 9/11, 7/7 that Islamists are no threat. Do some research on Wahhabism, Saudi Arabia and oil....

That's not what I meant you dope. People like those involved in Islam4UK act as if Islamism is something that's going swallow up England and change the culture and all that. THAT is what they're afraid of.

Yes, but radical islam is sexist, homophobic, reactionary and filled with garbage.

I know. It's religious fundamentalism.

Nowadays, I wouldn't claim it too be necessarily foreign though. Jonas Mohamed Omar for example is a former Swedish nationalist (a friend of Jonas de Geer) who has become the spokesperson for shi'ite islamism in Sweden.

What you would claim is totally irrelevant, because people on the right do see it as foreign.

We should stop saying that islam is a religion for "brown" folk. It should not be treated worse or given a carte blanche just because of the descent of its proponents. It should be treated exactly like christianity.

Of course Islam isn't just a religion for "brown folk" but that doesn't change the fact that almost everybody on the right sees it as foreign and attack it on such grounds. So, no, we shouldn't get involved in that.

And no, it shouldn't be treated like Christianity, exactly for that reason. This "radical islam" boogeyman is just an excuse to scapegoat foreigners. Anyone who can't see that is a fool.

4th January 2010, 21:27

All strikes are led by someone.

Preferably the workers, when that happens I don't really say strikes are "led".

Have you ever been in a strike? I've seen a fair few and never seen one where the most advanced workers didn't have to convince the rest to a greater or lesser degree - whether or not they are in a political tendency.

That is slightly different from 'leading' people, although you are right and I am not saying otherwise. Sometimes those who are less conscious also play their part in stopping demoralisation during strikes as well, would you say they are 'leading' the strike in some way? I don't think you can see it in such a black-and-white way as you are putting it.

To think otherwise is to think that all workers share a uniform level of consciousness or that they can all spontaneously overcome all the bourgeois propaganda coming from the bosses and union leaders every single day...

No, I never said that. However, most workers in the west bank are certainly not 'led' by Hamas, I doubt you could say a majority are directly led by hamas in the gaza strip, but that is probably debatable.

Just for clarity though when I say "lead" regarding Hamas, I mean that the movement is subordinated to them politically, not that they necessarilly are always leaders in action. This is what communists traditionally mean when we refer to reformsits as "workers existing leaders", even when they are in no sense actually "leading" it. Sometimes the leadership is behind its base, but htis doesn;'t mean they've been repalced as the leadership - if it did, life would be so easy for us!

No progressive leadership can ever assume control of Hamas, it's just not going to happen. Also, I'm afraid that Hamas simply do not lead and control the other anti-Israel organisations like hizbullah and co, that's simply not true, the other ones all have their own agendas which are put into practice, haaretz will far too easily say HEZBOLLAH AND HAMAS COLLABORATE AGAIN, but it's just an easy way of saying "they are the unified resistance against israel" from either the pro or anti israeli side, when in fact, they are not unified at all.

Lenny Nista

4th January 2010, 21:44

That is slightly different from 'leading' people, although you are right and I am not saying otherwise. Sometimes those who are less conscious also play their part in stopping demoralisation during strikes as well, would you say they are 'leading' the strike in some way? I don't think you can see it in such a black-and-white way as you are putting it.

I just mean "leadership" in the sense that someone is recognized as setting out the extent and limits of the struggle, broadly speaking (though they interact with the base, of course). This is why rank and file struggles, at least in my experience, need rank and file leaders, i.e. someone to consciously spell out a plan of struggle, or else the traditional bureaucrats will just do so. I don't think "lead" means any more than that - you can't have leaders (or misleaders) without the base. Neither does it mean forcing things on people: arguing on the need for a factory committee or assembly is leading in itself, and in any proletarian democratic decision making body I know of, some are always seen as "leaders", not in the sense of having priveliges, but in the sense of their determination, knowledge and ability.

No, I never said that. However, most workers in the west bank are certainly not 'led' by Hamas, I doubt you could say a majority are directly led by hamas in the gaza strip, but that is probably debatable.

I was talking about Gaza, not the West Bak, maybe I should have been clearer.

Regarding being "directly" led, again, sorry for misunderstanding, but this isn't what I meant. I just meant that Hamas is accepted as the political point of reference for the great majority int he resistance movement, whether or not it orders their actions directly, whether or not they are more or less critical of it. Recognizing this is improtant because if we want revolutionaries to lead the Palestinian sturggle we need to know who stands in our way.

No progressive leadership can ever assume control of Hamas, it's just not going to happen.

I agree, I don't think I ever said this.

Also, I'm afraid that Hamas simply do not lead and control the other anti-Israel organisations like hizbullah and co, that's simply not true, the other ones all have their own agendas which are put into practice, haaretz will far too easily say HEZBOLLAH AND HAMAS COLLABORATE AGAIN, but it's just an easy way of saying "they are the unified resistance against israel" from either the pro or anti israeli side, when in fact, they are not unified at all

Again this is true. I only meant to say that Hamas has the political leadership of the resistance movement as a whole within Palestine. If we use the dialectical method, a movemenet can have dual tendencies but only one nature - therefore a movement having internal cotnradictions and oppositions, doesn't mean that we can't write off the existing dominant force as the leadership, and it also lets us understand the need to give a struggle within such a movement if possible.

I would say that with regards anti-imperialist struggles, this is possible, because the progressive aim of national liberation is only possible through revolution, and so revolutionaries have to fight for the most advanced tendencies within the resistance to take up a revolutionary program and win the leadership of the movement.

4th January 2010, 23:07

I just mean "leadership" in the sense that someone is recognized as setting out the extent and limits of the struggle, broadly speaking (though they interact with the base, of course). This is why rank and file struggles, at least in my experience, need rank and file leaders, i.e. someone to consciously spell out a plan of struggle, or else the traditional bureaucrats will just do so. I don't think "lead" means any more than that - you can't have leaders (or misleaders) without the base. Neither does it mean forcing things on people: arguing on the need for a factory committee or assembly is leading in itself, and in any proletarian democratic decision making body I know of, some are always seen as "leaders", not in the sense of having priveliges, but in the sense of their determination, knowledge and ability.

Yeah, to some extent you are obviously right, there are always those that will take a conscious and relentless fightback, however, I just think that calling them leaders is slightly incorrect, indeed when you have a lot of them (which should happen as the workers gain confidence).. well how many people are you going to call 'leaders'?

Regarding being "directly" led, again, sorry for misunderstanding, but this isn't what I meant. I just meant that Hamas is accepted as the political point of reference for the great majority int he resistance movement, whether or not it orders their actions directly, whether or not they are more or less critical of it. Recognizing this is improtant because if we want revolutionaries to lead the Palestinian sturggle we need to know who stands in our way.

Well sort of, I think a lot of other 'resistance' organisations have their own agendas as well.

Again this is true. I only meant to say that Hamas has the political leadership of the resistance movement as a whole within Palestine. If we use the dialectical method, a movemenet can have dual tendencies but only one nature - therefore a movement having internal cotnradictions and oppositions, doesn't mean that we can't write off the existing dominant force as the leadership, and it also lets us understand the need to give a struggle within such a movement if possible.

It seems quite weird to lump the whole "movement" together like this, which has been my point really, but it's your prerogative.

I would say that with regards anti-imperialist struggles, this is possible, because the progressive aim of national liberation is only possible through revolution, and so revolutionaries have to fight for the most advanced tendencies within the resistance to take up a revolutionary program and win the leadership of the movement.

That seems quite impossible in Palestine, as most of the organisations are not parties where factional tendencies have a look in whatsoever.

Hit The North

4th January 2010, 23:18

Exactly what I was going to point out. We need to defend people of the Islamic faith from persecution, but we shouldn't stand by or support reactionary politics just because it comes from the oppressed. We have to part ways on that shit.

Again, please tell me what is politically reactionary about the aims of the proposed demonstration?

It is ludicrous that the SWP(UK) would be more supportive of a reactionary superstition than the revolutions in Cuba and Nepal.

What's ludicrous is the above statement.

Die Neue Zeit

5th January 2010, 01:55

Exactly what I was going to point out. We need to defend people of the Islamic faith from persecution, but we shouldn't stand by or support reactionary politics just because it comes from the oppressed. We have to part ways on that shit.

It is ludicrous that the SWP(UK) would be more supportive of a reactionary superstition than the revolutions in Cuba and Nepal.

And like I said, the SWP(UK) doesn't pander to such superstition through economic appeals (equity over usury / "Islamic banking," which I fully support minus the religious role), but through New Left, identity politics appeals.

But for the second time, the comparison doesn't work because Germany was an imperialist country (and is). If the comparison worked then Trotsky and his followers would have supported Nazism, because they unconditionally supported anti-imperialist struggles and called for the anti-imperialist united front - but we can see historically that they didn't support it.

For the second time, Weimar Germany, like post-WWII Germany during reconstruction, did NOT exhibit the features of a colonial, "neo-colonial," or corporate-imperialist power. There was no capital or goods to export, and the deutsche mark during these times was NOT the continent's currency for trade.

"Imperialist power" status is not something permanent.

Lenny Nista

5th January 2010, 02:35

For the second time, Weimar Germany, like post-WWII Germany during reconstruction, did NOT exhibit the features of a colonial, "neo-colonial," or corporate-imperialist power. There was no capital or goods to export, and the deutsche mark during these times was NOT the continent's currency for trade.

"Imperialist power" status is not something permanent.

I think your argument is completely formalistic. Ok, Lenin made observations that Germany exhibited tendencies towards being semi-colonized, but he never said the process had been completed. If what you are saying is true then Lenin and Trotsky should have supported Germany against imperialism and raised national demands, but they never did! Why...either they were inconsistent and couldn't even understand the theory of imperialism, or you have made a mistake.

I think it's the latter...for example saying that "imperialist status is not permanent", is just an abstract truism. In reality what you're proposing is just take some statistical evidence and on this at any given time classiffy a country as imperialist or not. Which begs the question, "on what criteria?"

In fact, imperialism is an inextricably intertwined system of global economics and politics, and we have to see tendencies in motion, and not just momentary snapshots. Germany was obviously central enough to European and American economic and political stability that its semi-colonization could not be consolidated. For example, look at the role that the inability of Germany to pay off its debts had in bringing around the 1929 crash (not just as a spark bnut as a fundamental underlying contradiction of the system). No semi-colony today currently has that level of economic importance coupled with the level of political importance that Germany had, allowing it to reindustrialize an remilitarize on imperialist terms, i.e. with its bourgeoisie as the dominant monopoly bloc at home, maintaining a labour aristocracy and exploiting the rest of the world.

To ignore all that and just say "Germany was partly occupied for a few years and robbed through usury and extraction of surplus so therefore was a semi-colony" (or whatever you want to call it) is like saying "the wind is blowing because the leaves are moving". Leninw as right to note these tendencies to semi-colonization but also right to leave open the possibility that this could be reversed, as it was.

now, none of that applies to a normal semi-colony, does it? So then, why claim that Lenin and Trotsky's anti-imeprialism should logically lead to supporting the NSDAP? Taking the argument to such an absurd point only shows absurdity on the part of the person making it, not the person who made the original argument.