Anti Imperialist ?

[Mao Zedong Thought]

What is your stance on anti Imperialism?

My position is that, we must back all anti imperialist forces against foreign oppresion, yet we must denounce and declare others as enemies of the workers of the world.

We have groups like:

FARC EP
LTTE
PFLP
INLA
EZLN
ETA

Who are genuine freedom fighters, who not only want an end to imperialism or in cases, Neo Colonisalism and puppet Governments, but want to establish socialism.

Yet we must also show support for:

Hamas
Hizbollah
Taliban


Etc.

These groups have Backwards ideology, and are the enemy of the workers, yet, to some degree, they are leading the fight against western Hegemony and Imperialism.

We do not have to support them in the sense of praise or acclaim, but, we should accept the peoples right to use them to fight for their right to self determination.

How do you suppose we stand on Anti Imperialism.

Are you in Favour or against?

Who do you support and who not.

What logic do you follow in choosing who to support to fight against imperialism and who not?

[The Vegan Marxist]

What is your stance on anti Imperialism?

My position is that, we must back all anti imperialist forces against foreign oppresion, yet we must denounce and declare others as enemies of the workers of the world.

We have groups like:

FARC EP
LTTE
PFLP
INLA
EZLN
ETA

Who are genuine freedom fighters, who not only want an end to imperialism or in cases, Neo Colonisalism and puppet Governments, but want to establish socialism.

Yet we must also show support for:

Hamas
Hizbollah
Taliban


Etc.

These groups have Backwards ideology, and are the enemy of the workers, yet, to some degree, they are leading the fight against western Hegemony and Imperialism.

We do not have to support them in the sense of praise or acclaim, but, we should accept the peoples right to use them to fight for their right to self determination.

How do you suppose we stand on Anti Imperialism.

Are you in Favour or against?

Who do you support and who not.

What logic do you follow in choosing who to support to fight against imperialism and who not?

Hamas only at certain instances, Hezbollah..ehhhh idk, but you're crazy if there's anyone here who supports the Taliban! There's no way I'd give them any credit of the doubt. I think it should depend on where their stance is when it comes to civilian casualties. If they're willing to fight for the people, & not be willing to kill innocent civilians for their anti-imperialist causes, then sure, I'll give them my support. But if not, then hell no! Which is where the Taliban stands in my view. But of course, I definitely support the ones you pointed out on the top section.

[pranabjyoti]

TALIBAN? NEVER. Actually Talibans are nothing but a hybrid of capitalist imperialism and very backward Asiatic feudalism. It's actually like a pet snake that the imperialist were brought up to stop the propagation of socialist ideology in backward Asian countries, but NOW THIS PET SNAKE IS BITING BACK IT'S FATHER. So, at least I never support Taliban, though they are actually helping the world revolutionary forces by engaging huge force and resources of imperialism to fight them and that BLEEDING proves to be very painful to imperialism day by day. Otherwise, this forces can be used against revolutionary forces in other part of the world. But, at least I can not support Taliban. To me, they are nothing but materialization of inherent contradictions of imperialism.
(I myself personally want their existence for so long, until the revolutionary forces around the world can be strong enough to fight the USA and European Union.:sneaky:)

[Idle Bandit]

I defend/support the Taliban militarily as long as they are genuinely fighting imperialism and not say acting in the interests of another imperialist power or in some manner capitulating to imperialism. This conditional defence, however, does not include political support for reactionary or reformist forces that will inevitably lead the workers and the oppressed masses of every country to defeat after defeat.

Nationalism is a dead end; a cul-de-sac, and so while as internationalists we must call for the defence of oppressed nations or ethnic and religious minorities we must also advance the line of revolutionary socialism as the only true solution to these problems.

Of course Stalinism and its offshoots do not hold such a perspective.

[Spawn of Stalin]

I see all three as necessary evils. I do not support any of them but certainly the victory of Hamas and the Taleban would be favourable. I'm under no illusions, groups like Hamas represent the ruling class and are a reactionary and oppressive force, but Palestine must be under the control of Palestinians and not Israelis, better to have Palestinians oppressing Palestinians than Israelis and Europeans/Americans oppressive Palestinians in my opinion. To be honest I'm not too clued up on Hizbollah so I won't comment on them.

[LeninBalls]

I defend/support the Taliban militarily as long as they are genuinely fighting imperialism and not say acting in the interests of another imperialist power or in some manner capitulating to imperialism. This conditional defence, however, does not include political support for reactionary or reformist forces that will inevitably lead the workers and the oppressed masses of every country to defeat after defeat.

Nationalism is a dead end; a cul-de-sac, and so while as internationalists we must call for the defence of oppressed nations or ethnic and religious minorities we must also advance the line of revolutionary socialism as the only true solution to these problems.

I was gonna thank your post because I agree with this.


Of course Stalinism and its offshoots to not hold such a perspective.

But then I stumbled across random sectarianism.

[Idle Bandit]

But then I stumbled across random sectarianism.

My point about Stalinism, which happens to be factually correct (I'm terribly sorry if that inconveniences you :)), was neither random nor sectarian. 1. the OP's user-name is "Mao Zedong Thought", which would indicate he/she is a Maoist of some sort and so therefore my exposure (granted I could have gone into a bit more detail!) of Stalinist capitulation to nationalist and other non-proletarian forces in the name of internationalism stands. 2. I fail to see how this qualifies as political sectarianism when all I'm doing is showing how Stalinism clashes with genuine Marxism.

[Palingenisis]

Stalinism is a meaningless term covering people from out and out ultra-leftist militarists to social-democrats.

[Idle Bandit]

Stalinism is a meaningless term covering people from out and out ultra-leftist militarists to social-democrats.

It is not a meaningless term, but by all means tell yourself that if it helps you justify whatever particular derivative of Stalinism you happen to buy into.

[Killer Enigma]

I don't understand people's hostility towards the Taliban, especially after many of these same people agree that anti-imperialists should support groups like Hamas and Hezbollah critically. The 'Taliban' as a formal organization doesn't exist--there's a Pakistani and Afghani Taliban whose goals are completely different and often at odds with each other. These two separate national entities are a variety of tribal militias that claim allegiance to an amorphous idea called "the Taliban". If you say you support any kind of anti-imperialist resistance in Afghanistan and Pakistan, you're saying that you support the 'Taliban' whether you realize it or not.

It's worth noting that, while in power, the formal Afghani Taliban were capitulationists to the United States up until September 2001. As late as July 2001, officials from the Bush Administration struck deals with the Taliban to construct an oil/natural gap pipeline from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan. Their relationship broke down after 9/11 opened the opportunity for direct regional reconstruction by the US military.

That said, the primary contradiction in West Asia is Western imperialism, not Afghani/Pakistani capitalism.

[RadioRaheem84]

Tricky situation, to go against the Taliban the US has to almost commit genocide on the native Pashtun. We should not support that, either directly or indirectly. Yet, the Taliban is still a reactionary throwback to feudal regimes. Ironically, though they're still less corrupt and reressive then the US backed warlords in power now! This is evidenced by the many Afghani's who take the Taliban's side!

It's difficult to take sides in the Middle East and Central Asia when the US backed client states supressed nearly all the democratic and progressive leftist movements, leaving a vacuum for religious zealots to take up the anti-imperial mantle.

[Blake's Baby]

I see anti-Imperialism as being support for the weaker Imperialism. All states are imperialist, and Trotsky was wrong to call for support to the weaker states (such as his classic 'support a Fascist Brazil against an Imperialist England' dilemma). I oppose both, and with Lenin, call to 'turn the Imperialist War into a Civil War'.

[mosfeld]

Non-socialist anti-imperialists don't deserve support ideologically, but they're temporary allies since they're fighting the same main enemy as us. For example, the main contradiction in Afghanistan is between imperialism and national liberation. Currently there there is no contradiction between, for example, the Communist (Maoist) Party of Afghanistan and the Taliban, and they could, if they haven't already, form a United Front with them against the imperialists, just as the CPC and the Kuomintang formed a United Front against the Japanese. Once they defeated the Japanese, the CPC only had one other enemy left, the Kuomintang, and went on to defeat them in a civil war, the same as when the Taliban have finally defeated the US imperialists, Afghan communists will defeat the Taliban and proceed towards socialism.

[Blake's Baby]

yes, if the Afghan Maoists can make an alliance with a repressive theocratic gangster party, this is why the Afghan Maoist Party is an enemy of the working class and needs to be defeated.

No War but the Class War.

Destroy All Nations.

[Spawn of Stalin]

So, oppose the Maoists, oppose the Taleban, all that's left for you to say is support the invaders, right?

No war but class war! That is, the British and American ruling class obliterating the working classes in Afghanistan.

[Ocean Seal]

Hamas-Always they are fighting Israeli oppression. The Pallestinian people are among the most oppressed in the world. Those that wish to fight their oppressor are doing their people a great service regardless of what they call themselves.
Hizbollah- In the event of a war against Israel we must support them, otherwise meh.
Taliban-Absolutely Not.
Again when the imperial power is gone we must recognize that these are temporary allies. mosfeld makes a good point.

[Blake's Baby]

So, oppose the Maoists, oppose the Taleban, all that's left for you to say is support the invaders, right?

No war but class war! That is, the British and American ruling class obliterating the working classes in Afghanistan.

Well, the British and American ruling classes are fighting a class war all right. As is every ruling class, the Taleban included in the areas they control.

I oppose all of the gangsters, British, American, French, Canadian, Polish, Korean and anyone else as well as Afghan.

It's funny, if you were actually a Maoist, you'd know the expression 'if I am given a choice between two alternatives, I always pick the third'.

In other words, if you think my opposing the Moaists and Taleban means I support the British and American governments, then you really need to think a bit more.

I support the international working class (why not? I'm part of it) not any of the gangs of murderers that chose to act in its name (whether of 'left' or 'right' leaning stamp).

[Spawn of Stalin]

Do you not think that a British defeat in Afghanistan (and the subsequent blow to imperialism) would represent even a small victory for the international working class?

[Blake's Baby]

Fair question.

No, I don't; partly because if the people (workers and peasants) of Afghanistan are enlisted behind 'defence of the nation' then they're merely tied more closely to their own bourgeoisie; secondly, because the populations of the defeated occupying powers will be more closely aligned with their bourgeoisies (such all the shit in Britain now about 'our heroes in Afghanistan').

I think any national struggle is a trap for the working class; we must be striving to overcome the divisions capitalism has imposed on us, not cementing them through siding with one gang of murderers against another gang of murderers. All that differs is the technical capcity to kill; the west has far greater technical capacity to kill, but that doesn't mean the Taleban are not murderers. They're just backward and inefficient murderers (that incidently represent the worst dregs of afghan society).

[LimitedIdeology]

I'm hesitant to support any of the groups for the limited gains their violent ways get them.

Also, seriously, the Taliban? Supporting sociopaths against other sociopaths gets you.........more sociopaths!

Western imperialism isn't some secret club with it's own decoder ring; It's not some ideology (Beyond economic greed). I'm surprised at the "US" and "THEM" approach here, for there are innumerable categories any organization can be put in, at different times.

[(A)narcho-Matt]

I despair when I see aparant "revolutionaries" supporting fascists. (I use fascists here in a more generic sense rather than in the sense of the ideology.) Its anti-imperialism that really shows the bancruptcy of pseudo revolutionary ideologies such as Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism. This view of imperialism that denies the working class support in favour of supporting "official" resistance groups. Many of whome have deeply reactionary ideologies. Its not Ok to support fascists. Not even if you only offer "military" support (which doesnt mean shit because most MLs are armchair revolutionaries anyway..) In many cases this support for anti imperialist causes is simply a continuation of soviet military foreign policy and entirely anti-working class.

[Crux]

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam are a spent force and their total collapse after the death of their leader should tell you something about the limitations of their military campaign.
INLA were in the end, regardless of who shot first, like most republican groups better at shooting each other than fighting imperialism.
The PFLP I have some sympathy for, but the question on how to take the palestinian struggle further is still an unanswered one, certainly not one answered by the likes of Hamas.

EZLN, from my limited point of view seems to have been at a standstill for some 15 years.

The ETA has also walked self into a serious cul-de-sac.

And as for FARC EP, well, from here it's hard to tell.

Hezbollah seems to play a contradictory role, and it's their broadened social base that creates this contradiction. They might be pushed in new directions yet, the question is by whom and where.

The Taliban are a helplessly sectarian force originally propped up by US imperlialism. As a rule of thumb I tend to avoid backing groups that kills my comrades.

[Ocean Seal]

I despair when I see aparant "revolutionaries" supporting fascists. (I use fascists here in a more generic sense rather than in the sense of the ideology.) Its anti-imperialism that really shows the bancruptcy of pseudo revolutionary ideologies such as Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism. This view of imperialism that denies the working class support in favour of supporting "official" resistance groups. Many of whome have deeply reactionary ideologies. Its not Ok to support fascists. Not even if you only offer "military" support (which doesnt mean shit because most MLs are armchair revolutionaries anyway..) In many cases this support for anti imperialist causes is simply a continuation of soviet military foreign policy and entirely anti-working class.

We have to consider real life not ideology when we speak about imperialism. Sure I wouldn't support the Taliban. But if we look at Hamaas we might not see "revolutionaries" but we see those who are against the barbarism of imperialism. They are helping us deal the death knell to capitalism. When the imperialist leaves then we will deal with them. But it would only help the oppressor if we stood divided. The other side will divide and conquer, but if resistance is united them it'll make the oppressors job a hell of a lot tougher.

[Blake's Baby]

No they aren't helping us to bring about the death-knell of capitalism, "we" are helping them to murder proletarians and establish a gangster-fiefdom supported by the EU (an imperialist bloc) and Iran-Syria (another imperialist bloc) against America and Israel (another imperialist bloc) where they will continue to oppress their own people, while murdering Israelis, thereby helping the Israeli state to rally its own population behind Israeli nationalism and prevent the development of class-consciousness in Israel.

How exactly is that any way forward?

[AK]

I defend/support the Taliban militarily as long as they are genuinely fighting imperialism and not say acting in the interests of another imperialist power or in some manner capitulating to imperialism. This conditional defence, however, does not include political support for reactionary or reformist forces that will inevitably lead the workers and the oppressed masses of every country to defeat after defeat.
You do realise yeah, that if the Taliban manage to win this war, they will take over the country again?

Just because the imperialist doesn't have a legitimate organ to exercise it's power through, it does not mean it is not an imperialist.

This is a war of oppressors against oppressors, using ordinary men as their soldiers.

[LeninBalls]

You do realise yeah, that if the Taliban manage to win this war, they will take over the country again?

Why are you so sure and where is your proof that the Taliban of the 90s-2001 will take over again and implement the same policies?

[kefka]

I'm not as fond of anti-imperialism as I ought to be. Naturally I support socialist (and to some extent national liberation) movements but when it comes to defending countries like North Korea, Iran and Libya like the anti-imps where I live I just can't support them.

If I would classify the movements you selected after my views I would say that I support the first list but not the second.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Why are you so sure and where is your proof that the Taliban of the 90s-2001 will take over again and implement the same policies?

This. Plus, even if the Taleban did come to power and resurrected the reactionary Islamist state, it would be marginally better than having a puppet government supported by foreign capitalists.

[AK]

Why are you so sure and where is your proof that the Taliban of the 90s-2001 will take over again and implement the same policies?

This. Plus, even if the Taleban did come to power and resurrected the reactionary Islamist state, it would be marginally better than having a puppet government supported by foreign capitalists.
Marginally better, yes. And I never implied I favoured the US over the Taliban. The Taliban were Bourgeois before the invasion, and there's little evidence that they'll be a kind and peace-loving government if they win this war.

@LeninBalls: where the hell is your proof it won't be? No-one has proof that it will or won't, but considering it's the same group that was in government post-invasion, I doubt there will be much difference to how Afghanistan was run pre-war.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I'm hesitant to support any of the groups for the limited gains their violent ways get them.

Also, seriously, the Taliban? Supporting sociopaths against other sociopaths gets you.........more sociopaths!

Western imperialism isn't some secret club with it's own decoder ring; It's not some ideology (Beyond economic greed). I'm surprised at the "US" and "THEM" approach here, for there are innumerable categories any organization can be put in, at different times.

Seriously, Comrade, your pacifist views or Christian views, whatever you want to call it, will never lead this movement any further than where it is now. There can never be the liberation of the working class & the destruction of Capitalism through pacifism. The global class State will never lay down their arms & walk away by the mere sight of signs asking them to please step down & let the workers take control.

[LeninBalls]

@LeninBalls: where the hell is your proof it won't be? No-one has proof that it will or won't, but considering it's the same group that was in government post-invasion, I doubt there will be much difference to how Afghanistan was run pre-war.

I don't have proof, only an educated guess. I don't believe the Taliban is solely made up of hardcore radical Muslims, and I'm pretty sure it isn't. One of the rules of the Taliban is that all men must have a beard the size of their first, if you go looking for footage of newly captured "Taliban" prisoners on Ross Kemp or Youtube or whatever you'll see loads don't even have any facial hair.

So it's either the Taliban have changed or not all proclaimed Taliban fighters are followers of Taliban ideology. I'm more inclined to believe the latter. I can't understand how someone can think every attack carried out by the "Taliban" is solely done by radical mullahs. These (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_(Maoist)_Party_of_Afghanistan) carry out attacks too but you never hear of "Maoist attack in Kandahar", just Taliban.

It's the same deal with the US calling every Iraqi move of resistance as Baathist resistance or Al Qaeda, or the British media suspecting republicans of causing violence in communities when it's simply just anti-social thugs.

[this is an invasion]

I generally share the same views as Left-Communists on the subject of anti-imperialism and national liberation.

[Blake's Baby]

I like 'destroy everything' in your corner-namey-bit-thing. I thought I was being hardcore when I put 'destroy all nations' in my sig. Revolutionary kudos to you sir, madam or hermaphrodite comrade.