Why the sectarian hatred.

[Little Bobby Hutton]

OK, im a Marxist Leninist, but i dont have the hate that alot of MLs have for Trotskyites or Anarchists and vice versa.
I just think trots and anarchists are too idealistic and have a poor theory, but i still deem them Marxists and certainly dont hate them or feel any deep seated resentment towards them.
I think permanent revolution is a dream and i think anarchism is even more idealistic and would not work without the dictatorship of the proletariat coming first.

Isnt this sectarianism stupid i mean, no ones saying we all have to join a broad left (well the realistic comrades) but this animosity and petty nastiness has to stop... even if just to give us revlefters a break from the epic sect battles raging, which, by the way Red Cat is owning Rosa at haha :)

[red cat]

Try explaining to Trots that instead of fabricating history, it is much more useful to learn from MLers how to make revolution. :)

In this aspect, I personally find anarchists much more flexible and willing to learn.

[cb9's_unity]

I was going to throw in a little line against Maoists, but i'll restrain myself.:thumbup1:

But the sectarian hatred is because people care more about winning arguments then finding common ground to unite against the bourgeoisie. People will get thrown out of party's because of their opinions of the USSR or because of obscure theoretical stances. Socialists need to unite over agreements in how to organize, agitate, and educate instead of dividing over how they view what happened in the past or what is happening in some far away land.

[red cat]

But the sectarian hatred is because people care more about winning arguments then finding common ground to unite against the bourgeoisie.

The reason might be a little different. Generally people love to unite in opinion with others who identify with their tendency.

Now, in the first world it may seem that sectarian hatred is leftist versus leftist, but in the third world, where the revolutions are taking place, it might have boiled down to a military contradiction between communist revolutionaries and police-informers and spies. If other tendencies unite with their counterparts in the third world, then Maoists can hardly think of anything but opposing those who team up with the counter-revolutionaries.

[cb9's_unity]

I don't entirely understand what your talking about.

Its good and fine that there are Maoist revolutions in the third world but we now have to focus on the first world were not much is happening. If you think a purely Maoist line is going to help cause revolution in the first world (and the point you tout the most is the ability of your ideology to create revolutionary movements) then continue to do nothing more than use Maoist methods. However, for whatever reason, Maoism isn't resonating in the first world as it is in the third world.

We need now to find a strategy that will unite the various different tendency's across the first world. That will obviously include uniting against the police, military, and spy's.

[Voloshinov]

It doesn't help of course when "sectarian hatred" is confused with genuine political criticism and vice versa. It's nothing new among leftists and it won't go away either.

[red cat]

I don't entirely understand what your talking about.

Its good and fine that there are Maoist revolutions in the third world but we now have to focus on the first world were not much is happening. If you think a purely Maoist line is going to help cause revolution in the first world (and the point you tout the most is the ability of your ideology to create revolutionary movements) then continue to do nothing more than use Maoist methods. However, for whatever reason, Maoism isn't resonating in the first world as it is in the third world.

We need now to find a strategy that will unite the various different tendency's across the first world. That will obviously include uniting against the police, military, and spy's.

Do you find any other tendency moving forward to make revolution in the first world?

Anyway, my point is that other tendencies should not take as granted what their third-world counterparts report about the Maoist movements there. Rather they should primarily uphold our movements, which they don't.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Some people see Trotskyism as something which is inherently counter-revolutionary, this is just opinion, and differing opinions does not constitute sectarianism. To call me sectarian on the basis that Trotskyism disgusts me you would first need to assume that I consider the Trotskyists to be part of the same movement as I am, this is not something which I do not accept. When I denounce Trotskyism, it is no more sectarian that when I denounce social democracy, or the British Labour Party.

[Little Bobby Hutton]

Motionless im an ML yet i prefer trots to Harpal and his band of geriatric dinosaurs.
They are out of touch with the workers and alienate people, and the cpgb ml support of sadam in lalkar is fucking sick.

[Wanted Man]

I think the "hatred" is rather exaggerated and played out on Revleft.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Motionless im an ML yet i prefer trots to Harpal and his band of geriatric dinosaurs.
They are out of touch with the workers and alienate people, and the cpgb ml support of sadam in lalkar is fucking sick.
lol...Pretty hard to imagine this same poster making a thread complaining about "sectarianism" just an hour or two ago. Irony? Nah, it's just plain stupidity.

[Little Bobby Hutton]

well no as i am an ML so criticising other MLs who support sadam and mugabe is not sectarian, its just not being an absolute disgrace to humanity.

[red cat]

well no as i am an ML so criticising other MLs who support sadam and mugabe is not sectarian, its just not being an absolute disgrace to humanity.

Supporting Saddam against US imperialism is natural. It is choosing the lesser evil among the two, when no other immediate option is available.

[Little Bobby Hutton]

No, supporting groups like hamas is reasonable if they are fighting imperialism, but with the case of iraq, the people should be given solidarity, not the regime that gassed over 200,000 kurds and supresses unions and womens rights.

[red cat]

No, supporting groups like hamas is reasonable if they are fighting imperialism, but with the case of iraq, the people should be given solidarity, not the regime that gassed over 200,000 kurds and supresses unions and womens rights.

But during the early years of the war, Saddam became the symbol of the Iraqi war of resistance.

[cb9's_unity]

Do you find any other tendency moving forward to make revolution in the first world?

Anyway, my point is that other tendencies should not take as granted what their third-world counterparts report about the Maoist movements there. Rather they should primarily uphold our movements, which they don't.

Obviously no other tendency is making movements in the first world. That's why a new strategy must be formed.

If Maoism was effective in the first world it probably would have already been successful. The fact that the rest of the left doesn't jump on to it shouldn't matter as the radical left is only a small part of the proletariat. You are failing at convincing the vast majority of the proletariat.

I'm still forming my ideas on how to form a new and effective revolutionary party and revolutionary movement. However I do think that the only way this will happen is if the radical left can unite to create a mass anti-capitalist propaganda unit. The only way to do this is to forget our differences over the third world and over the past. We can't denounce each other over theoretical shit that means nothing if a mass workers movement hasn't already developed.

However even if I'm wrong in what I'm proposing, it doesn't necessarily mean that you are right in what your proposing. If Maoism is failing just as much as Trotskyism in the first world that just means they are both just as wrong. You don't get extra points because there is a revolution in a place that has a completely different class makeup. It is very possible that a strategy that is 100% successful in the third world can not be successful at all in the first world.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Isnt this sectarianism stupid i mean,
Might have something to do with the Stalinists going around shooting Trots and Anarchists for several decades.

Saying that - I have worked in the past with Stalinists and ex-Stalinists - but as a general rule I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them (they have an uncanny knack of trying to sell-out any movement they have any influence in).

[Tifosi]

In this aspect, I personally find anarchists much more flexible and willing to learn.

Anarchism doesn't have a set of giving rules like ML has for example, It doesn't have a manifesto. It is far more open to new ideas than any other theory.


I think the "hatred" is rather exaggerated and played out on Revleft.

It's all down to the person wrighting the comment on here.

[RadioRaheem84]

Supporting Saddam against US imperialism is natural. It is choosing the lesser evil among the two, when no other immediate option is available.

Saddam was an agent of US Imperialism during the 80s. Iraq was a client state against the Iranian regime and was a bulwark against communism and socialism in the region. His Baath Party was the equivalent to a National Socialist Party with Arab traits. It isn't natural for leftists to defend him just because he decided to take his country in a non-imperialist nationalist direction. The man ran his country like a gangster state.

The best thing would've been to support the Trade Union movement, the Iraqi Communist Party, which are very active even at the height of Saddam's terror.

[Little Bobby Hutton]

saddam was an agent of us imperialism during the 80s. Iraq was a client state against the iranian regime and was a bulwark against communism and socialism in the region. His baath party was the equivalent to a national socialist party with arab traits. It isn't natural for leftists to defend him just because he decided to take his country in a non-imperialist nationalist direction. The man ran his country like a gangster state.

The best thing would've been to support the trade union movement, the iraqi communist party, which are very active even at the height of saddam's terror.

this

[Kléber]

The Iraqi Communist Party supported the US invasion and acts as a laughable left prop for the quisling regime. They suffered horrible repression in the 1970's, when Hussein was friendly with US imperialism, but the reformist ICP has taken sectarian revenge on Ba'athism by becoming a gang of comprador traitors. The real working-class forces are constituted in the workers' councils and proletarian militia of the FWCUI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_of_Workers_Councils_and_Unions_in_Iraq) which is mainly led by the WCPI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_Communist_Party_of_Iraq), I don't fully support them, but I admire their opposition to all forms of sectarian violence, their principled call for an immediate end to the US occupation, and continued policy of militant strikes in the face of imperialist and fundamentalist repression, ICP and social-democratic slander.

It would be necessary to defend any government against imperialism, even the most ugly authoritarian capitalist government there is, because for an oppressed country, nothing could be worse than imperialist occupation. A temporary alliance, however, isn't the same as politically supporting bourgeois nationalism and abandoning the independence of the proletariat. That would be the opposite mistake.

Anti-Imperialist Struggle is Key to Liberation (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/09/liberation.htm)

[danyboy27]

i really didnt know that not agreeing with marxist-leninist was considered sectarian.

i think its rather patronizing to think that there is only 1 way for everyone, and that marxist leninism is the only viable option.

to each according to its need.

each group of people might need differents mean to achieve socialism, and its definitively not to me to say to other how things should be done outside my living space, its up to the people itself.

I think its rather childish to try to play the foreman and say thing like: Well, this country should adopt marxism leninism! fuck that, its not up to us to determine that, its to the people who live there wether or not they want that kind of system.

[Little Bobby Hutton]

hey danyboy, drop that chip.

also i never said anything of the sort

[danyboy27]

hey danyboy, drop that chip.

also i never said anything of the sort

of course you didnt. it was absolutly not dirrected at you, you seem to be able to respect other people political opinions, unlike some others.

[Nolan]

Might have something to do with the Stalinists going around shooting Trots and Anarchists for several decades.

Might have had something to do with them subverting the revolution and just being general counter-revolutionaries. After all, Trotsky himself - the founder - was a traitor. :lol:


Saying that - I have worked in the past with Stalinists and ex-Stalinists - but as a general rule I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them (they have an uncanny knack of trying to sell-out any movement they have any influence in).

Funny, that's the stereotype of trots. I think I'm seeing a trend here.

[RadioRaheem84]

The Iraqi Communist Party supported the US invasion and acts as a laughable left prop for the quisling regime. They suffered horrible repression in the 1970's, when Hussein was friendly with US imperialism, but the reformist ICP has taken sectarian revenge on Ba'athism by becoming a gang of comprador traitors. The real working-class forces are constituted in the workers' councils and proletarian militia of the FWCUI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_of_Workers_Councils_and_Unions_in_Iraq) which is mainly led by the WCPI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_Communist_Party_of_Iraq), I don't fully support them, but I admire their opposition to all forms of sectarian violence, their principled call for an immediate end to the US occupation, and continued policy of militant strikes in the face of imperialist and fundamentalist repression, ICP and social-democratic slander.

It would be necessary to defend any government against imperialism, even the most ugly authoritarian capitalist government there is, because for an oppressed country, nothing could be worse than imperialist occupation. A temporary alliance, however, isn't the same as politically supporting bourgeois nationalism and abandoning the independence of the proletariat. That would be the opposite mistake.

Anti-Imperialist Struggle is Key to Liberation (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/09/liberation.htm)


I wouldn't be so quick to judge the ICP like that. They didn't support the invasion but were invited to be a part of the interim government that followed the invasion and occupation. They maintain an anti-occupation stance as well as an anti-terrorism stance. Their youth wing is very vocal about democratic socialist change in Iraq. I keep in touch with some of them and they were always against the US occupation and invasion.

I disagree that siding with nationalists, especially horrible nationalists like Saddam Hussien is somehow a better option to anti-imperialism than some of the already established opposition to both.

So are you basically saying that the ICP became 'sectarian' traitors to the Baatists? Since when were the Baathists and the ICP kin or part of any leftist struggle? Was it because of their National Front in the 70s. I agree though that the ICP tends to be rather revisionist and has some social democratic tendencies within it.

[scarletghoul]

Anarchism doesn't have a set of giving rules like ML has for example, It doesn't have a manifesto. It is far more open to new ideas than any other theory.
I dont think its a case of the tendencies being more open. Its more to do with the individual people and how willing they are to consider new and differant ideas. Maoism for example has spawned some of the most creative and fresh ideas of the modern left.

And since when did ML have a manifesto ? If you mean the Communist Manifesto by Marx then thats not really a set-in-stone rule book for all MLs. It was a manifesto for the movement of its time, and theory was not as developed as it is now, just as Bakunins writing was of its time and not fully developed. Its not like some religious document or something, there is nothing like that in ML. Nothing is sacred except for the deepest and most heartfelt desire for human freedom (and I notice that's something Anarchists share with us).

[Kléber]

I keep in touch with some of them and they were always against the US occupation and invasion.
That's what the party says, but it's revising history. They supported the invasion with the caveat that they would have preferred a friendlier, UN-led multinational invasion. Initially their labor confederation IFTU also refused to call for an end to the occupation, which was one of the reasons for the split in the union movement, but now that I look into it, you're right, it appears they have moved to publicly oppose the occupation, that's a step in the right direction, even though they continue to prop up the quisling regime.


I disagree that siding with nationalists, especially horrible nationalists like Saddam Hussien is somehow a better option to anti-imperialism than some of the already established opposition to both.
The distinction between "progressive" nationalists like Chávez and "horrible" nationalists like Hussein is subjective. Workers have more political freedom in Venezuela, but keep in mind that Iraq was officially "socialist" under Ba'athist rule. Ultimately it is class interests that determine politics and not the rightist or leftist prejudices of great men.

I don't support Saddam Hussein, but neither do I approve of his ouster and execution by even bigger criminals, the US imperialists. Like I've been saying in regard to Venezuela, there's a difference between willingness to form a temporary alliance with bourgeois nationalists against imperialism, and outright political capitulation to nationalism. I already stated my support for the FWCUI which is organizing workers against the religious sectarians, the occupation, and the parties participating in (or trying to participate in) the occupation government (ICP included).

"Progressive" nationalists can turn around and betray the workers. Chiang Kai-shek, before he purged the Communists, was viewed as a very progressive figure by the Comintern, he was even elected as an honorary Comintern member (against Trotsky's futile protests) and his portrait was paraded about.

Likewise, more obviously reactionary nationalists can, for totally selfish reasons, come into conflict with imperialism, as did the Iraqi Ba'athist regime. We need a political perspective that can take advantage of the dispute between imperialism and bourgeois nationalism, and appeal to anti-imperialist sentiments among the workers and people, rather than just say, screw everyone they're all capitalists.


So are you basically saying that the ICP became 'sectarian' traitors to the Baatists? Since when were the Baathists and the ICP kin or part of any leftist struggle? Was it because of their National Front in the 70s. I agree though that the ICP tends to be rather revisionist and has some social democratic tendencies within it.
I think that using the disgusting Ba'athist purges of Communists in the 1970's as an excuse to then support the replacement of Ba'athism with a foreign-dominated puppet government in 2003 as somehow more "democratic," was unprincipled.

[RadioRaheem84]

But Baath Socialism doesn't even constitute bourgeoisie nationalist merit, it was flat out Fascist and proud of it. It was basically national socialism with Arab characteristics. It preached Arab supremacy, that Kurds, Persians and Shiites were like rats, and the Baathists wanted to swing back into the past of Arab greatness. I agree to a certain extent with the pro-war liberals that supporting Saddam Hussien against US imperialism in any shape or form was akin to supporting Fascism because as an anti-imperial force. Remember that Hussein didn't just invade Kuwait, he annexed it in the same manner that Hitler annexed Poland. The man and his party were not anti-imperialist, they were just anti-US imperialism. During the Iran-Iraq War, two of three major objectives of the Iraqi State was to annex the Khuzestan province from Iran, and take back the waterways for them to have their Arab identity back. The other objective was retrieve land for the UAE!

The man may have been a progressive populist hero in the 70s and early 80s but this shouldn't overshadow his imperialist, pan-arab expansionist delusions about re-awakening the lost Mesopotamia with him as the new Nebuchanezzer. Plus most of the nation was laid wasted by the oil embargo on Iraq and Saddam consolidated power into his own hands and cared not for the people.

I normally do not attribute real fascist or Hitler-esque attributes to tin pot tyrants but Saddam Hussien was a low level wannabe Hitler. His fanatic scape-goating of the Kurds and Persians led him to commit genocide against them.

I don't think any support should've been given to this man even if regime was at the the peril of US invasion.


The distinction between "progressive" nationalists like Chávez and "horrible" nationalists like Hussein is subjective.Um, its the difference between supporting FDR and Mussolini by comparison or Clement Atlee and Franco.

[Axle]

Nothing is sacred except for the deepest and most heartfelt desire for human freedom (and I notice that's something Anarchists share with us).

Motherfucking this.

We need to be ready and willing to slay all our sacred cows if need be. I'm a ML, but by God, if that turns out not to be the right path for a revolution to take, I will toss that allegiance right out the window and help look for the right one.

[Wolf Larson]

The sectarian ego slinging between anarchists and Marxists mostly comes from Leninists and Trots [Bolsheviks] who sycophantically regurgitate the slander Marx and Lenin dished out towards anarchists without even understanding why Marx was frustrated with Bakunin or even what anarchists stand for . Just saying. The accusations that Proudhon was a petty bourgeois enemy of the working class can some what be validated if one reads Proudhon's entire scope of works but Proudhon wasn't an anarchist himself he was simply an important part in building the anarchist framework - a framework which predicted and is opposed to Bolshevism/hierarchy/authority.

I find most modern Marxists to be quite personable and most have come to see why Bolsheviks should be opposed. Libertarian Marxists and Anarchists have the potential to form a very very broad social movement/alliance. I can't say the same for Leninist's or Trots or anyone who thinks anyone but the workers themselves should rule from below. As history has shown Bolshevism did not lead to the dictatorship of the proletariat [rule from below] as Marx spoke of so many Marxists have been given a bad name and should rightly separate themselves from the Bolsheviks. Stalin was nothing but a state capitalist. To see people apologize for Stalin sometimes eeerks me. Many peple still think we need leaders and this is the problem. Anarchists and Marxists can debate whether or not we need to take over the state to abolish capitalism but what should NOT be debatable is the fact we should NEVER give a minority control of the state mechanisms again. If we do end up taking over the state in some revoloutionary future we know what not to do. Workers must be given control of it right away. It should immediately be melded with the workplace/decentralized. It should be abolished but abolished by being transformed. Control should be given straight to the workers. Just my opinion. Obviously before a revolution can take place proper class consciousness for at least 40% of the people is in order. Western civilization isn't ready for revolution yet. A centralized command economy can be debated as well. Underproduction seemed to be a problem.

[Spawn of Stalin]

No, supporting groups like hamas is reasonable if they are fighting imperialism, but with the case of iraq, the people should be given solidarity, not the regime that gassed over 200,000 kurds and supresses unions and womens rights.
Hamas is one of the most reactionary regimes in the world today, but I still think they are worth supporting from an anti-Zionist point of view. Just as it was worth supporting the Baath regime in Iraq, because at the end of the day, having a brutal, semi-fascist, Islamic dictator in the top spot would have been miles better than a war which cost hundreds of thousands of lives. To deny this is to support the occupation.

If you were actually a Marxist-Leninist, if you had actually read what Lenin and Stalin had to say with regards to national liberation and imperialism, you would know ANY organization, no matter how backwards it may be, must be supported if it poses a genuine threat to imperialism on its home turf.

But that has nothing to do with anything, you chose to use my opinion of Trotskyism as an excuse to attack my party, well, I'm not bothered what you think, you don't represent the British working class, you're just someone on the internet I know nothing about, for all I know you could be posting from Tel Aviv.

[MortyMingledon]

you would know ANY organization, no matter how backwards it may be, must be supported if it poses a genuine threat to imperialism on its home turf

I would disagree with this. If a regime is suppressing its workers and is invaded by an imperialist power that suppresses its workers slightly less, I would support the imperialist power (as much as would I hate doing it). Think of Nazi Germany upon invasion by the allied forces. That regime was certainly very "backwards", and it was under attack by an imperialist power, but of course I would not back the Nazis for providing a "genuine threat to imperialism on its home turf".

And I do believe that disagreement between factions is the curse of the far left. The far left is by nature idealist, and since everyone's imagined utopia differs slightly, combined with all the disagreements on how to reach that utopia, we are a much more split group than centrist social-democrats and liberals. If we genuinely want to achieve revolution we should look past these splits and focus on what all want to achieve: the complete overthrow of capitalism and the bourgouis.

[red cat]

I would disagree with this. If a regime is suppressing its workers and is invaded by an imperialist power that suppresses its workers slightly less, I would support the imperialist power (as much as would I hate doing it).

But this situation does not arise when a semi colony is invaded by an imperialist power. Imperialism will try to maximize its gains and hence push the system to its limits, generally resulting in a degree of oppression that is much greater than before.

[vyborg]

As someone observed, so called ML and stalinist in general have been shooting or simply beating marxists in many countries for decades. Even in the 80s in Italy, stalinist tried not to allow to distribute Trot political materials in demos etc.
Even without taking into account the extreme reactionary behaviour of stalinist leaders in the advanced countries, where they sold themselves to burgeoisis for pocket money, it is difficult to work together with someone that try to kill you at first sight.

Anyway, ML and stalinism doesnt exist anymore in the first and second world, so the sectarianism can fade away easily. It is more difficult in the backward countries where they can still do a lot of damage.

It is a pity because most of their rank and file is composed by very good comrades

[Little Bobby Hutton]

[QUOTE=motionless;1698278]Hamas is one of the most reactionary regimes in the world today, but I still think they are worth supporting from an anti-Zionist point of view. Just as it was worth supporting the Baath regime in Iraq, because at the end of the day, having a brutal, semi-fascist, Islamic dictator in the top spot would have been miles better than a war which cost hundreds of thousands of lives. To deny this is to support the occupation.

If you were actually a Marxist-Leninist, if you had actually read what Lenin and Stalin had to say with regards to national liberation .

Yeah i know we must support them no matter how backwards they are if they are fighting imperialism blah fucking blah, i tell you what lets get stalin into iraq let him be terrorised by sadam then lets see if he wants sadam supported, my loyalty is to the oppressed peoples under all forcefully and existentially oppressive regimes, not to some big picture rhetoric all the time when the people need help and not us supporting genocidal

[RadioRaheem84]

hamas is one of the most reactionary regimes in the world today, but i still think they are worth supporting from an anti-zionist point of view. Just as it was worth supporting the baath regime in iraq, because at the end of the day, having a brutal, semi-fascist, islamic dictator in the top spot would have been miles better than a war which cost hundreds of thousands of lives. To deny this is to support the occupation. no way.

[Kléber]

Um, its the difference between supporting FDR and Mussolini by comparison or Clement Atlee and Franco.
Big difference between historical European fascism and military dictatorships in the oppressed countries. England, Italy, Spain were imperialist, or at least junior partners in imperialist coalitions. Real "fascism" in the sense of growing out of global imperialist power relations can only exist in an imperialist country.

Also, there was nothing good about American or British imperialism. They had been friendly to Hitler at first, given him Spain, Austria etc. but they didn't come into conflict with him for selfless reasons either. The Browderist policy of support for the US government during WWII was revisionist. So was the CPGB's decision to stop supporting strikes the moment the USSR entered the war.


But Baath Socialism doesn't even constitute bourgeoisie nationalist merit, it was flat out Fascist and proud of it.
There is no "merit," subjective distinctions are irrelevant, it doesn't matter if they were into fascist kitsch, what ultimately matters is objective relations to the means of production. Saddam Hussein was a bourgeois nationalist plain and simple, but his country was oppressed so the class he represented still had reasons to come into conflict with the bourgeois imperialist powers. Hitler was also a bourgeois and a nationalist, but he was in charge of an imperialist country so there's a qualitative distinction between them.


It was basically national socialism with Arab characteristics. It preached Arab supremacy, that Kurds, Persians and Shiites were like rats, and the Baathists wanted to swing back into the past of Arab greatness. I agree to a certain extent with the pro-war liberals that supporting Saddam Hussien against US imperialism in any shape or form was akin to supporting Fascism because as an anti-imperial force.
I have been trying to say that it isn't as simple as "supporting" or not supporting, just as politics are not a matter of good vs. evil. Political support, never, but perhaps military support if they are fighting a bigger and badder enemy.


It preached Arab supremacy, that Kurds, Persians and Shiites were like rats, and the Baathists wanted to swing back into the past of Arab greatness.
Well, nationalists will be nationalists :P

Don't forget though, Iraq was one of the least discriminatory countries in the Middle East, that had minorities and women in high positions.


Remember that Hussein didn't just invade Kuwait, he annexed it in the same manner that Hitler annexed Poland.
Poland was much more of an independent country whereas Kuwait was a semi-colony, as Iraq had been prior to breaking with the US, and the oil wealth was being held onto by the imperialists and comprador Kuwaitis to force Iraq to pay for the war against Iran out of its own pockets, which led to Iraqi-Kuwaiti economic warfare and then outright warfare. Prior to the invasion, Kuwaiti firms were slant drilling underground across the Iraqi border, and their mutual ally wouldn't make them stop. So a better comparison would be with Hitler's opposition to the French occupation of the Ruhr region, but most Germans, Communists and Social-Democrats included were against that as well.

Hitler had been a revanchist too, but Nazi Germany did not have casus belli on Austria and Czechoslovakia. There was a big difference between the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, which resembled the waning Abbasid caliphate trying to reassert itself against Seljuk domination, and Hitler's unprovoked Eastern landgrabs, which resembled Teutonic and Prussian imperial campaigns.


The man and his party were not anti-imperialist, they were just anti-US imperialism.
You aren't going to find a perfect bourgeois leader who is anti-imperialist to the core. Politics are basically about class interests, the personal prejudices are superstructural. The bourgeoisie only adopts anti-imperialist rhetoric, and chooses leaders who spout it, insofar as they come into political-economic conflict with actual imperialism.


During the Iran-Iraq War, two of three major objectives of the Iraqi State was to annex the Khuzestan province from Iran, and take back the waterways for them to have their Arab identity back. The other objective was retrieve land for the UAE!
That war was instigated by the CIA, while Iraq was still in the pro-US sphere. Iranian regime wasn't great either, the MKO and other leftists were tortured raped and killed by the thousands.


The man may have been a progressive populist hero in the 70s and early 80s but this shouldn't overshadow his imperialist, pan-arab expansionist delusions about re-awakening the lost Mesopotamia with him as the new Nebuchanezzer.
He was never a hero, Communists and their families were being tortured to death during his most "progressive" years. Ba'athism or any other nationalist ideology wasn't good and became bad, it just shifted some policies and rhetoric; class interests were at play the whole time. Hussein was bourgeois and the changing international situation led him to say different things, put on different masks, experiment with different governmental policies, but the system of exploitation was always capitalist even though there was more state industry at some point.

It's true that Hussein had Napoleonic ambitions, like Hitler, but he never had a chance in hell of realizing them. It was all talk: the Iraqi Ba'athists declined to merge with Syria and Egypt when they had the chance. Hugo Chávez, framing his project in more progressive phraseology, also plans to unite a giant region into a new bourgeois superstate, turning Latin America into a great Bolivarian Alliance. This is unrealizable for similar reasons - most OAS governments are too dependent on imperialism to join ALBA. And, like in Venezuela, the proletariat can only take power if it has its own political party and military force independent from all sections of the bourgeois-nationalist leadership.. even if some of them can temporarily be allies against imperialism.

BTW, the Ba'ath party also had differences of opinion, there were left-wing Ba'athists who wanted more "socialism," entry into UAR and alliance with the USSR; there were centrists; and of course right-wingers who favored collusion with the US. Before they got massacred, pro-Soviet Communists were essentially committed to being left advisors to Ba'athism and pushing Hussein to the left.


Plus most of the nation was laid wasted by the oil embargo on Iraq and Saddam consolidated power into his own hands and cared not for the people.
You can't blame the embargo on Hussein, it only happened because he broke with US imperialism.


I would disagree with this. If a regime is suppressing its workers and is invaded by an imperialist power that suppresses its workers slightly less, I would support the imperialist power (as much as would I hate doing it). Think of Nazi Germany upon invasion by the allied forces. That regime was certainly very "backwards", and it was under attack by an imperialist power, but of course I would not back the Nazis for providing a "genuine threat to imperialism on its home turf".
I partially agree with you insofar as we definitely shouldn't totally "support any organization," merely because it has come into conflict with imperialism. However, that doesn't mean we should take an ultraleft stance that rules out a temporary military bloc with bourgeois nationalism against imperialism, as a step toward abolishing both.

That's a tricky case though. With Nazi Germany I would support defeatism as well, like in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. However, that's because Germany was an imperialist country, and could only pose as a national defender in its last moments. For a small/dependent/oppressed country coming under attack by an imperialist power, though, the correct strategy would be to fight the imperialists and try to form a temporary truce with the oppressive government. Obviously they will try to betray us and wipe us out, tearing up the truce, but in terms of national propaganda, communists have to make it clear to the people of the oppressed nations that we're the real anti-imperialists.

For example, the US has been engaging in aggression against Yugoslavia-cum-Serbia, and taking its land. American workers enjoy a slightly better life than their Serbian comrades did under Milosevic or have with his gangster/neoliberal successors, but it would be a fantasy to believe that NATO has (or could have) brought anything to the Balkans but barbed wire and austerity. Because of their hatred for the occupiers, many Serb workers won't even listen to somebody who isn't adamantly opposed to NATO. If we don't step in and fight for leadership of the anti-imperialist movement, we leave the field open to bourgeois reactionaries, in that case the Albanian-bashing neo-Chetniks.

[anticap]

It seems to me, as an outsider (in the sense that I identify simply as an unaffiliated anti-capitalist/pro-communist), that one of the simplest things comrades could do to foster unity -- on the forums if nowhere else -- would be to address others as they wish to be addressed. For Marxist-Leninists to continually refer to Trotskyists as "Trotskyites" ("-ite" is generally considered derogatory, unlike "-ist"), and for Trotskyists to continually refer to Marxist-Leninists as "Stalinists,"* when each knows full well how those terms grate, demonstrates a lack of desire to get along. Instead, comrades appear to revel in the prospect of pissing one another off, which strikes me as incredibly childish.

*(Incidentally, I don't understand this objection. A person who admires Marx and subscribes to his theories is called a Marxist, and no one objects. It seems to me that an admirer of Stalin who subscribes to his politics ought not object to being called a Stalinist. I understand that it wouldn't be be fun to wear that label in a world of such ignorance that "Stalinist" is held to be on par with "Nazi," but then again Marx is not exactly well-loved, either. I also understand that those Marxist-Leninists who might qualify to be called "Stalinists" object on grounds that Stalin merely upheld Marxism-Leninism, but that's unfair to those admirers/supporters of Marx & Lenin who do not admire/support Stalin and yet are entitled to wear the label of Marxist-Leninist. Anyway, no matter! If those to whom "Stalinist" is directed object to the term, then only those who seek to perpetuate rifts and thwart unity will use it.)

[RadioRaheem84]

So Kleber, what is the significance of being anti-fascist in the left if support for certain regimes depends on their ability to be exert their expansionist ambitions in the world? I fail to see how Saddam and Hitler didn't share similar expansionist ambitions. Hussein committed genocide against the Kurds and drained the Marshes in the South to give most of the political clout to Sunni Arabs whom he viewed as a superior race. Just because Hussein wasn't able to fulfill his grand delusions at a grand scale, doesn't mean that he was a good counterweight to US imperialism. I agree that the man shifted his alliances quicker than American high school students but that doesn't mean that he was never fully committed to taking down the left and had his own imperial ambitions.



BTW, the Ba'ath party also had differences of opinion, there were left-wing Ba'athists who wanted more "socialism," entry into UAR and alliance with the USSR; there were centrists; and of course right-wingers who favored collusion with the US. Before they got massacred, pro-Soviet Communists were essentially committed to being left advisors to Ba'athism and pushing Hussein to the left.I am aware of the nuances within the Baath Party, comrade, but I fail to see how such a disgusting ideology could even merit support from any real leftist. Didn't Hussein enact his own purge of any left elements within his party too?


That war was instigated by the CIA, while Iraq was still in the pro-US sphere. Iranian regime wasn't great either, the MKO and other leftists were tortured raped and killed by the thousands.I am sure that it was but Hussein had not only a hatred for Persians but a vested interest in seeing the Islamic Revolution halted. This pleased the CIA. The Iranian regime was a foul theocratic mess, I am not supporting it.



You can't blame the embargo on Hussein, it only happened because he broke with US imperialism.

After he played ball with them for years, killing Commies, Persians and Kurds. He aligned himself with the US in order to seek assistance to his expansionist ambitions, played ball and then decided that he could drop the US and seek his glory. He was a megalomaniac not worth the left's time much less sympathy just because he broke away with US imperialism and was feeling their boot on his throat. That would be akin to supporting Suharto or Pinochet if either of the two ever broke away from US interests.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Might have had something to do with them subverting the revolution and just being general counter-revolutionaries. After all, Trotsky himself - the founder - was a traitor.
Remind me again who signed an agreement with the Nazis in 1938 - :blushing:

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It doesn't help of course when "sectarian hatred" is confused with genuine political criticism and vice versa. It's nothing new among leftists and it won't go away either.

And whilst this is the case, there will be no world revolution.:rolleyes:

[Kléber]

The word "support" has different meanings, using it broadly blurs the very important distinction between temporary military alliances and reformist political subordination. It's irrelevant which nationalist leaders some Western leftists thousands of miles away, or decades after the fact, support or don't support. I don't support Hussein any more than you support Chávez. The proletariat in those countries however needs its own party and army to make the revolution. Temporary alliances with nationalists - military support - might sometimes be necessary, such as in the event of an invasion by a huge imperialist power, but abandoning the organizational independence of the proletariat and politically supporting the local bourgeoisie is suicide.

The similarities between Hussein and Hitler are obvious, but drawing them is unproductive IMO. This period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbasid#Abbasid_Relations_with_the_Saljuq_Dynasty) (section 4.2-4.4) seems more historically similar to Iraq's last 100 years.


for Trotskyists to continually refer to Marxist-Leninists as "Stalinists,"* when each knows full well how those terms grate, demonstrates a lack of desire to get along
Trotskyists are Marxists and Leninists too. Referring to Stalinists as the only "Marxist-Leninists" infers that Stalin was some kind of righteous inheritor of the Bolshevik-Leninist tradition, when actually his regime murdered the leaders of October, abolished partmaximum and destroyed Lenin's Comintern. We don't like the idea of Marx and Lenin's revolutionary theories being revised and condensed into a state religion (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/01/30.htm) and I doubt they themselves would either - Lenin had reacted with disgust to his 50th birthday celebrations. I would love to get along with every comrade here, but revolutionary socialist ideas can't get along with revisionism and distortions of history. People don't have to remain chained to ideologies out of emotional connection. I was an anarchist and a Maoist once, I moved on.

[Kléber]

As for the last part, yep, I would support Suharto or Pinochet against imperialism, if they decided to bite the hand that fed them. But it would be temporary cautious military support, not indefinite political surrender.

[anticap]

Trotskyists are Marxists and Leninists too. Referring to Stalinists as the only "Marxist-Leninists" infers that Stalin was some kind of righteous inheritor of the Bolshevik-Leninist tradition....

I'm aware, and I addressed that issue directly, but since you redacted it I guess you didn't read it.

Still, my point stands: if the people you refer to as "Stalinists" take objection to that, then you're not going to build any bridges by persisting. I also said, if you'd read it, that I consider their objections more than a bit odd, but it is what it is.

Anyway none of this matters unless you agree with the OP, which you don't appear to do.

(I'm so glad I don't have to deal with this nonsense. I'm happy to rub elbows with anyone fighting on behalf of the working class. It must be awful to be compelled by one's sectarian allegiances to sometimes exclude oneself from such activities.)

[Kléber]

I did read your post. It was contradictory. Stalinism is not the continuation of Marxism or Leninism, end of story. Otherwise there would not have been an expensive propaganda campaign to convince people that "Stalin is the Lenin of today."

Trotskyists don't abstain from struggles alongside Stalinists. We believe in the united front, as opposed to the sectarian theory of "social-fascism" which doomed the antifascist struggles in Germany.

In southern Vietnam in the 1930's, the Stalinist ICP and Trotskyist ICL had worked together in a united front for a little while. It ended with an ugly sectarian betrayal. It wasn't the Trotskyists who tore it up and stabbed the Stalinists in the back and handed them over to the French colonial police, so I don't get how people can say that Trotskyists are sectarian.

Why "build bridges" to a reactionary cult that worships some dead gangster Okhrana agent and murdered the best and brightest people in the workers' movement? I'll forge a united front with them, because there are many good comrades who are members of Stalinist parties, but I'll keep my theoretical distance.

[Spawn of Stalin]

I would disagree with this. If a regime is suppressing its workers and is invaded by an imperialist power that suppresses its workers slightly less, I would support the imperialist power (as much as would I hate doing it). Think of Nazi Germany upon invasion by the allied forces. That regime was certainly very "backwards", and it was under attack by an imperialist power, but of course I would not back the Nazis for providing a "genuine threat to imperialism on its home turf".
But the Nazis posed absolutely no threat to imperialism or capitalism, so there is no excuse for supporting them. The Nazis themselves were an imperial power, not just militarily but economically too, with regards to the Western allies invading Europe in an attempt to overthrow fascism, things get a little more complicated when the contradictions are between two or more imperialists, but there is not point getting into that now, unless of course you are of the opinion that Iraq was an imperialist country, in which case I simply have no time for silly little arguments. As red cat correctly pointed out, the degree of oppression and suffering has no doubt heightened since in the last seven years. The most logical anti-imperialist stance is to support the regime which stands against imperialism while remaining critical of its blatant reactionary actions past and present. When an imperialist force attacks a non-imperialist force the non-imperialists become an anti-imperialist force by default, as is the case with Hamas, Iraq, even the Taliban lunatics. If there is one thing Marxism-Leninism stands for on the question of imperialism and war it is the right to self-defence.


Yeah i know we must support them no matter how backwards they are if they are fighting imperialism blah fucking blah, i tell you what lets get stalin into iraq let him be terrorised by sadam then lets see if he wants sadam supported, my loyalty is to the oppressed peoples under all forcefully and existentially oppressive regimes, not to some big picture rhetoric all the time when the people need help and not us supporting genocidal
First of all, no man, living or dead could terrorise Stalin, it's just not possible. Secondly, where is the logic in supporting the Islamist Hamas but refusing to support (the comparatively secular) Saddam Hussein. Both are/were just as bad as each other, I dare say if Hamas were in control of a country the size of Iraq they would have killed a lot more people than Saddam did. Third, and finally, who gives a shit? What I want to know is why you used your own anti-sectarianism thread as a platform to attack an organisation based on its anti-imperialism.


Remind me again who signed an agreement with the Nazis in 1938 - :blushing:
Hi, a non aggression pact is just that, an agreement, it is NOT -as some people would like to believe - an alliance. Besides, actions speak louder than words (or in this case, agreements), and I think that the actions of the Soviets in the years '41-'44 spoke volumes.

[Kléber]

Hi, a non aggression pact is just that, an agreement, it is NOT -as some people would like to believe - an alliance.
There were secret clauses involved, political agreements, military, intelligence and prisoner exchanges, that made it more than a mere non-aggression pact. The Soviet foreign ministry was purged of Jews to facilitate negotiations. Eastern Europe was divided up into spheres of influence (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Ribbentrop-Molotov.svg).


Besides, actions speak louder than words (or in this case, agreements), and I think that the actions of the Soviets in the years '41-'44 spoke volumes.
I'm really happy for the 1945 victory, and I'mma let you finish, but Leon Trotsky was one of the greatest military geniuses of all time.

[Palingenisis]

Remind me again who signed an agreement with the Nazis in 1938 - :blushing:

Remind me who worked with Hitler to undermine the USSR?

[Kléber]

Remind me who worked with Hitler to undermine the USSR?
"Dissatisfied Jewish intellectuals" no doubt.

[anticap]

I did read your post. It was contradictory. Stalinism is not the continuation of Marxism or Leninism, end of story.

Having read my post, you'll be aware that I made no such claim, and that I couldn't care less.

My point (as you'll be aware, having read my post), is that it makes no difference what you take their ideology to be, or not be: if you seek to get along -- on the forums if nowhere else -- then the least you can do is address them as they would like to be addressed (and that goes both ways). Since this would require zero effort, and would have an immediate positive impact on the quality of discourse, the only reason one might refuse to extend such a small and effortless courtesy is if one gets their kicks taunting comrades (which you've conceded that they are).

But I'm repeating myself. You're evidently too far down your rabbit-hole to be reached, as evidenced by the fact that you can't keep your own position straight from one sentence to the next (how one might "forge a united front" without "building bridges" is anyone's guess).

No need to take this further. I offered a suggestion; you made your rejection clear.

[Kléber]

Since this would require zero effort, and would have an immediate positive impact on the quality of discourse
It would be an abandonment of discourse altogether. Trotskyism is based on the defense of Marxism and Leninism against Stalinist distortions. If Stalinists are the "Marxists-Leninists," what the hell does that make us? Marxists-Leninists as well? OK, so what's the difference between people who take Trotsky's or Stalin's side in the CPSU and Comintern debates of the 1920's and 1930's? What words can you use to describe supporters of Stalin as opposed to supporters of Trotsky? Trotskyists are honest enough about this. I don't see why it would be emotionally hurtful to call a Stalin supporter: a Stalin supporter (stalin-ist). It's not like we are calling them Stalinites.

Pablo Neruda exhibited the honesty I wish more would show when he said "Stalinists, let us bear this title with pride."


But I'm repeating myself. You're evidently too far down your rabbit-hole to be reached, as evidenced by the fact that you can't keep your own position straight from one sentence to the next (how one might "forge a united front" without "building bridges" is anyone's guess).
Over practical issues affecting workers in a workplace, community, or country, of course. I have helped organize joint events with members of the RCP of all people before, so don't make silly assumptions about me. I call them the Revolutionary Communist Party because that's their name, I would call a party with "M-L" in the title "Marxist Leninist" too out of politeness. But after the event is over and we are discussing politics, I'm not afraid to criticize Avakian or the usurpation and revision of the Bolshevik legacy by Stalin.

This is a forum for revolutionary leftists to debate theories and strategies of working-class revolution, not for cuddlebears of various tendencies to find way to get along and hug each other by dumbing down the level of discussion to a lowest common denominator, building rainbow bridges across a river of blood.

[Antid Oto]

OK, im a Marxist Leninist, but i dont have the hate that alot of MLs have for Trotskyites or Anarchists and vice versa.
I just think trots and anarchists are too idealistic and have a poor theory, but i still deem them Marxists and certainly dont hate them or feel any deep seated resentment towards them.
I think permanent revolution is a dream and i think anarchism is even more idealistic and would not work without the dictatorship of the proletariat coming first.

Isnt this sectarianism stupid i mean, no ones saying we all have to join a broad left (well the realistic comrades) but this animosity and petty nastiness has to stop... even if just to give us revlefters a break from the epic sect battles raging, which, by the way Red Cat is owning Rosa at haha :)

Well anarchists are not marxists except if you think, as Rubel did, that Marx was the real anarchist theoretician instead of Bakunin!

"Permanent revolution" means a revolution where the democratical stage and the socialist one is not interrupted and where the national revolution spreads to an international scale. That's exactly what happened with the russian revolution altough the international revolution was defeated. Then it is not a dream, what we are still to see at any point is a socialist revolution on the base of separate stages...Even Mao who was a "ml" (that means a stalinist) quickly dropped the idea of a hundred years of capitalism once in power...

[Incendiarism]

There are a number of theoretical problems with all tendencies. I think if we are truly interested in eliminating capitalism and all the terrible things associated with it, then it's best to unite along broader, more general lines.

For the longest time I considered myself an anarchist and repudiated anything marxist, but when I began to immerse myself in marxist critiques and theories I realized that this was a very real, very potent means of creating socialism. This does not mean that anarchism lacks any structure, because Kropotkin's work is still very influential to me, years later.

The point is, the question isn't who is right(we all are if we truly stand together) it's how to successfully agitate, orient ourselves towards a meaningful and concrete revolution, and rip asunder that which fetters human development on all levels.