Anti-imperialism, anti-theism, and zionism (off-topic split from Afghanistan thread)

[Sam_b]

I think you've kinda proven my point. Every so often on these forums members (such as Crimson Commissar as an example) will talk about the 'radical Muslims' 'fundamentalist Muslims' 'Muslim extremists', or even my personal favourite 'Islamo-fascists'. What do they actully mean? What are the characterising features of 'radical Muslims'? It's debatable.

There's absolutely no point in labelling these things as objectifiably 'bad' because it's a waste of a post: these catchphrases have no real meaning apart from stirring up frenzies and creating half-truths and sloppy definitions about the 'Islamic boogeyman'. There are no deinitions here, and are used to describe everything from the Taliban to Ahmedinejad to people that blow up buses. There's a big difference between them all: these are not homogenised people.

It fails to engage with the social political and economic causes that differentiate between governments of so-called 'Islamic Republics' and those who turn into suicide bombers for example, and this is dangerously sloppy politics. There is absolutely no clarity here.

[Sam_b]

Well, a fanatic is just someone who follows their religeon properly, no?

So on whose authority can you make a generalisation on how someone personally follows their religion, 'properly' or not? What does that even mean?

You've also helped entrench my point in the previous post. Who mentioned 'fanatic' and what does it really entail?


Islam...Christianity....Judaism yadda yadda

Are you saying that religious people cannot be leftist?


So why do you get upset about pople telling Islamists to STFU, but do not mind denouncing Jewish zionist terror?

Why is this explicitly 'Jewish'?

[Sam_b]

because the terrorist who carried out bombings and attacks against the palestinains were doing so for a jewish state that would openly force palestinian christians and muslims out of their homes

Zionism is not inherently Jewish.


Your just trying to be awkward sam, and its kind of disgusting, because if you were a woman or a gay man, or an atheist in a Islamic country, where Islamic law and treadition is upheld, you would be fuking oppressed, and unable to talk semantics on revleft.

Spare me this as it means absolutely nothing to the point i'm making, and you fail to understand it.


You defend Islamic culture and law, because there is islamophobia in the first world??

Why don't you show me where I 'defend Islamic culture and law'.

[Sam_b]

Actually zionism is inherently jewish, christian, or imperialist, some zionists are because of their religeous belief, some arew because they are christians, and see the formation of israel as the next step of the comning of christ, and imperialists support zionism for financial gain


So indeed it is not inherently Jewish.


Spare the women being stoned to death for fucking a guy, or the children in nigeria being burnt with acid for being satans your broken rehtorc


I don't know if you're an idiot or a troll, seriously. To clarify, as it seems you need things spelled out to you; my point is that it's sloppy to label reactionary elements under an umbrella term of 'radical Islam' or 'fundamentalist Muslims' because they are interchangeable between different schisms, and unless properly defined weaken arguments aimed at reactionary layers of theism. Clarity in politics is essential.


And you defend islam by defending Hamas and Iran and seemingly shouting at anyone who hates islam, for the sexist and revoltingly homophobic and evil doctrine it is.

So that's a "no, I can't quote evidence where Sam_b is defending 'Islamic culture and law'" then?

Would you be against defending Iran if it was attacked by US imperialism?



Defending religeon is just the in thing in the left atm

Do you not support the right of people to be religious?


PS if you're going to pretend to be so clued up on the subject you should probably start spelling 'religion' right.

[graymouser]

And you defend islam by defending Hamas and Iran and seemingly shouting at anyone who hates islam, for the sexist and revoltingly homophobic and evil doctrine it is.
Context, I'm afraid, is always king in these debates. In Europe, and to a growing degree in the United States, Islamophobia is one of the prevalent forms of bigotry, and the imperialist wars that are ongoing are taking place in Muslim nations. This hatred can be dressed up in clothes ranging from women's lib and LGBT liberation, as you are doing here, all the way to the vile hatemongers in Florida who are turning 9/11 into "Burn a Koran Day." How can you tackle this bigotry when you yourself are primarily criticizing Islam? And what kind of "courage" does it take to direct your ire at what is already a demonized faith?

From a materialist perspective it doesn't even make sense. Islam is not the cause of homophobia and sexism, these have to be rooted in some material reality. More importantly, you will not make gains with them by fighting "Islam," because the primary opponents of the religion do not share your values. Imperialism is the problem, and bigotry in the imperialist countries, not Islam. These are the main fight, these are where the left should be concentrating. That's not to say we shouldn't ever condemn specific expressions of homophobia and sexism - but they should always be in a context where it is clear that the main target remains imperialism and racism.

[Sam_b]

So we're now ignoring the questions asked and having a rant against 'ALL RELIGEON' now, aye? If you can't make an argument, just shout loud and repeat yourself!

Priceless!

:laugh:

[Sam_b]

http://www.treehugger.com/gordon-brown-copenhagen.jpg

"bigoted woman"

[graymouser]

I am against ALL ISLAM, so you saying radical Islam is futile

All RELIGION is fucking bullshit, and all muslims and all christians have backwards moral views, unless they remove the bad shit in their holy book, in wich case, they are no longer Muslim or christian, but are just half and half, they denounce the most evil of religeous teaching, and also renounce common sense and the findings of science.
Personally I'm an atheist, and I don't like creationism or sexism or homophobia in any religion, regardless of whether or not it's Islam. However, by aiming your attack at Islam you are not fighting sexism, or homophobia, or anything else like that. You are weakening the fight against imperialism and racism, objectively, by taking religious ideology as your target rather than imperialism.


Your anti class outlook compromises the very ideals all revolutionaries have, how do communists do under the Iranian government?
This is why context is important. I have no use for the Iranian government and would prefer to see them overthrown by their own working class. And there was a debate on the left over whether or not to support the opposition last year - I happened to fall on the side that supported it, but in the specific context of absolute opposition to US or other imperialist intervention into the country. These questions are fucking complex, and trying to paint them with a simple brush gets you far, far away from any principled position.

[Sam_b]

well, the fact that women are not allowed out of their homw without a male in Islamist Saudi Arabai

The taliban give women lashes for immodesty, they stone women for being raped, they force women to cover themselves from head to toe

So we'll change the subject from Hamas then, yeah?


Iran DOES kill women for adultery, or gays for sex crimes, and the fact you lie about this, or excuse it, is pathetic.

Okay, I should probably put this in bold for you, as you seem to ignore everything or somehow fail to understand anything at all. Let's look at what I wrote above:


I don't think you have any idea about my politics and are trying to make up for it by using the most ridiculous and unsourced slanders against me. With no proof no less. It's not my problem if you cannot understand whats being said and cannot follow and argument. Perhaps you should start replying rationally rather than being a (pretty poor) troll and labelling people you don't like as 'anti woman' without a shred of evidence.

Emphasis, funnily enough, mine. Twice, not once, but twice, I have asked you to provide a source, or quotes that prove thus:

"Why don't you show me where I 'defend Islamic culture and law'."

"When has Hamas been stoning women?"

Oh what a surprise, i'm met with a wall of silence! So here's your new challenge: why don't you provide evidence (quotes) which show that I "lie about or excuse" Iran using capital punishment against women for adultary, or members of the LGBT community. Go on, show me exactly where I say this, I dare you.


If bush made homosexuality illegal, you would be calling him fascist, and rightly so, but when it comes to muslims, you seem to be like, oh its ok.

You don't seem to understand what fascism is.


kill women aid workers for naming their teddybear mohammed wrong?
Before you keep posting examples that have nothing to do with the actual point I was making, you should probably know that the woman in question wasn't killed. No doubt, however, you will latch onto this point FOR DEAR LIFE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXCUSE IT rather than provided quotes which I challenge you to do. You won't provide the evidence.

[RadioRaheem84]

Elizabeth Jones, you seem to be confused at to what Sam is trying to say.

I think that your firebrand anti-religious outlook is highly reactionary and anti-materialist.


Posted by Elizabeth: imperialism is not the cause of Islamic oppression, The mujahadeen started killing soviet volunteers who dared to teach women how to read, how is that anything like a reaction to imperialism?

Sam, you're wasting your time. This quote should've alarmed you that you're dealing with a Hitchean style argument.

[Sam_b]

Trolling the troll, sir ;)

[Crimson Commissar]

I think you've kinda proven my point. Every so often on these forums members (such as Crimson Commissar as an example) will talk about the 'radical Muslims' 'fundamentalist Muslims' 'Muslim extremists', or even my personal favourite 'Islamo-fascists'. What do they actully mean? What are the characterising features of 'radical Muslims'? It's debatable.

There's absolutely no point in labelling these things as objectifiably 'bad' because it's a waste of a post: these catchphrases have no real meaning apart from stirring up frenzies and creating half-truths and sloppy definitions about the 'Islamic boogeyman'. There are no deinitions here, and are used to describe everything from the Taliban to Ahmedinejad to people that blow up buses. There's a big difference between them all: these are not homogenised people.

It fails to engage with the social political and economic causes that differentiate between governments of so-called 'Islamic Republics' and those who turn into suicide bombers for example, and this is dangerously sloppy politics. There is absolutely no clarity here.
I've never used the term "Islamo-fascist". Though there definitely are some people who would fit with that term, I have never used it to describe anyone on revleft.

Your defense of islam is fucking disgusting. An idea as reactionary and anti-socialist as religion should have no place in left-wing politics. Islam promotes homophobia, sexism, unnecessary violence and absolute devotion to a reactionary dictator god who throws his own creations into the pits of hell for defying his will. If you think that any of those ideas are compatible with socialism, then you're not much of a socialist at all. Whenever I bring up the reactionary ideas of religion, islamophiles like you merely state that radical christians and muslims are "just a minority" and that "the majority of religious people are perfect, wonderful people who never do a thing wrong!". It's fucking pathetic. It doesn't matter how many people deny it, the majority of Christians and Muslims take their religion very seriously and would follow their god no matter what he asked of them. If god existed and he told every religious socialist to abandon their ideology, they would do it, no questions asked. That is how insane religion is. A religious person would go against their own morals and beliefs all because a tyrannous god told them to.

This islamophilia amongst the left has to stop. Even leftists who are somewhat tolerant of religion should be able to accept that at least organised religion is reactionary. However leftist islamophiles will support everything about islam. They will view it as a perfect religion which has done no harm to the world whatsoever. And then there's the ones like you who will support any islamic regime or organisation merely because they are the victims of US imperialism. We should take no side in any conflict that happens to occur between the US and an radical muslim regime. Nations such as Iran are just as reactionary as America is, and must be opposed by socialists. By supporting Iran you are supporting islamic fundamentalism and reactionary homophobic and sexist ideas, proving that you do not care at all about the needs of the Iranian working class and do not recognise the oppression they are experiencing at the hands of the Islamic fundamentalist government which controls Iran today.

[Sam_b]

Your defense of islam is fucking disgusting

Where am I defending Islam, or have you completely missed my point entirely?

[Crimson Commissar]

Where am I defending Islam, or have you completely missed my point entirely?
You defend Hamas and the Islamic Republic of Iran. You also seem to have no problem at all with the reactionary beliefs of muslims. That is enough to convince me that you are defending Islam.

[Sam_b]

You defend Hamas and the Islamic Republic of Iran. You also seem to have no problem at all with the reactionary beliefs of muslims. That is enough to convince me that you are defending Islam.

Calling for defence is not support. My organisation gives unconditional critical support to Hamas because it is a vehicle many Palestinians are using to defend their communities: rightly or wrongly. I do not sympathise with the reactionary leadership of Hamas, and would prefer resistance to be more secularised, but who am I to tell Palestinians how to defend themselves? I think its absurd to suggest that everyone who organises under the banner of Hamas is a reactionary 'Islamofascist' or whatever.

The same goes with Iran. I do not support the Iranian theocracy. I support organising and radicalising workers in Iran, and hope that there will be a time when the workers can overthrow Ahmedinijad and take power for themselves. But according to your logic, me not wanting the US to invade another country in the interests of imperialism is now open support for Iran. See the mistake you're making here? You can criticise my line all you like, please do, but I am not supporting reactionary leaderships here.

If I may say so, you also appear to have quite a twisted outlook on organising, that seems to lend itself to divide-and-rule. Do you disagree with the assertion that religious people, including Muslims, can be leftist?

[RadioRaheem84]

You defend Hamas and the Islamic Republic of Iran. You also seem to have no problem at all with the reactionary beliefs of muslims. That is enough to convince me that you are defending Islam.


What the hell are you talking about? Sam B, presented you with a lucid post about how the different "enemies of the west" are presented in a homogeneous light, giving no detailed analysis of how these groups formed and what their stated goals are.

There is no umbrella groups of extremist Islam and such. They vary and often fight with each other. They aligned themselves with the very same enemies they oppose now.

The situation is hopeless if leftists cannot chide religion on the one end while remaining concise about their defense for groups targeted by imperialism. This doesn't mean we defend Islam, it means we're against empire. It also doesn't mean we do not see the dangers of religion being taken to an extreme, it just means that we see the factors causing it to be much greater than a holy book that has no basis in reality.

This is a materialist outlook. Not one tainted by Hitchean/Harris Liberalism and an appeal for the defense of Western Civ. or it's values.

[chegitz guevara]

I think it's important to remember that the SPW(UK) is tied at the hip to right-wing Islamic organizations, which is why they are so quick to rush our and attack any legitimate criticism of right-wing Islamic movements. They are the poster child of the red-brown alliance. Usually opportunism leads you into tailing liberals. Their opportunism has led them into bed with reactionaries.

[Sam_b]

This, of course, completely ignores the previous post I made in the thread, and is entirely alien to the point that my comments in this thred have been making.

Got anything relevant to say on the homogenising of reactionary groups, Chegitz? Or are you just firing in here without doing any reading?

[chegitz guevara]

Your previous post is rationalizing your organization's getting into bed with reactionary organizations.

[Sam_b]

So what did you add, exactly? Aside from having no idea about unconditional critical support?

[Crimson Commissar]

So what did you add, exactly? Aside from having no idea about unconditional critical support?
A socialist group should not have ANY support for an islamic fundamentalist organisation.

[Sam_b]

Why don't you re-read some of this thread and actually answer to it, rather than repeating something that has already been explained to you?

[Obs]

A socialist group should not have ANY support for an islamic fundamentalist organisation.
You should read Marxism and the National Question.

[Kiev Communard]

You should read Marxism and the National Question.

Oh, this is rather doctrinaire approach. Well, if you insist:




In the Moslem countries, the national movement is guided in its early stages by the religious-political slogans of the pan-Islamic movement, and this gives the Great-Power diplomats and officials the opportunity to exploit the prejudices and ignorance of the broad masses and turn them against the national movement (British imperialism dabbles in pan-Islamism and pan-Arabism and plans to transfer the Caliphate to India; French imperialism pretends to “Moslem sympathies”). However, as the national liberation movements grow and mature, the religious-political slogans of pan-Islamism will be replaced by political demands. This is borne out by the recent struggle in Turkey to remove temporal power from the Caliphate.

As one can see, the Comintern viewed "pan-Islamic" movement (to which modern Islamism is merely a successor) as clearly reactionary and backward force to be overcome rather than allied with. The Comintern's support for Kemalism in Turkey against pan-Islamists is a testimony to that fact.

[graymouser]

As one can see, the Comintern viewed "pan-Islamic" movement (to which modern Islamism is merely a successor) as clearly reactionary and backward force to be overcome rather than allied with. The Comintern's support for Kemalism in Turkey against pan-Islamists is a testimony to that fact.
Is there a secular or democratic resistance tendency that can be critically supported against Islamism in the way that you describe Kemalism versus pan-Islamism? That's the rub, I think; most of us would rather support any other anti-imperialist force in the Middle East than the Islamists, but will defend them if they are the only ones fighting the actual imperialist forces (albeit this defense must be critical and made in the midst of real struggle against the US and other imperialist powers).

[Obs]

Oh, this is rather doctrinaire approach. Well, if you insist:



As one can see, the Comintern viewed "pan-Islamic" movement (to which modern Islamism is merely a successor) as clearly reactionary and backward force to be overcome rather than allied with. The Comintern's support for Kemalism in Turkey against pan-Islamists is a testimony to that fact.
What graymouser said - socialists must support different movements in different times. We can hardly use a decision made in the 1922 Comintern as a way to decide what attitude to take now, 90 years later. As for telling Crimson Commisar to read The National Question being a doctrinaire approach, I was simply trying to confront him about being a Marxist-Leninist, yet having such a simple view of Islamic movements.

[Crimson Commissar]

What graymouser said - socialists must support different movements in different times. We can hardly use a decision made in the 1922 Comintern as a way to decide what attitude to take now, 90 years later. As for telling Crimson Commisar to read The National Question being a doctrinaire approach, I was simply trying to confront him about being a Marxist-Leninist, yet having such a simple view of Islamic movements.
Being an anti-theist, I do not support any openly religious organisation, whether they fight against imperialism or not. I support the struggle of the middle-eastern people against US imperialism, but I refuse to support an islamic fundamentalist organisation which, if it managed to throw Israel and the US out of Palestine, would only keep the Palestinian people under theocratic islamist oppression.

[Obs]

Being an anti-theist, I do not support any openly religious organisation, whether they fight against imperialism or not. I support the struggle of the middle-eastern people against US imperialism, but I refuse to support an islamic fundamentalist organisation which, if it managed to throw Israel and the US out of Palestine, would only keep the Palestinian people under theocratic islamist oppression.
President Peres thanks you for the support.

[Crimson Commissar]

President Peres thanks you for the support.
Oh, so opposition to Hamas automatically equals support for Israel? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense doesn't it. :rolleyes:

[Obs]

Oh, so opposition to Hamas automatically equals support for Israel? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense doesn't it. :rolleyes:
Opposition to the one anti-imperialist organisation in Palestine with the means to effectively fight Israel does objectively end up as support for Israel. It would be better if the PFLP could be leading the fight in Palestine, but that just isn't happening, so as internationalists and anti-imperialists, we must be pragmatic above all. Again, read The National Question.

[Sam_b]

if it managed to throw Israel and the US out of Palestine, would only keep the Palestinian people under theocratic islamist oppression.

It's interesting to see your complete lack of faith in the Palestinian people. Comes with the territory of critiquing these boogeyman resistance movements from your house in London I guess.

[Crimson Commissar]

Opposition to the one anti-imperialist organisation in Palestine with the means to effectively fight Israel does objectively end up as support for Israel. It would be better if the PFLP could be leading the fight in Palestine, but that just isn't happening, so as internationalists and anti-imperialists, we must be pragmatic above all. Again, read The National Question.
A theocratic islamist state would not be that much better than the current theocratic zionist state of Israel. Yes, I suppose I would prefer for Hamas to overthrow Israel rather than no one overthrowing Israel, but islamic fundamentalism and islamism is just as bad as jewish fundamentalism and zionism.


It's interesting to see your complete lack of faith in the Palestinian people. Comes with the territory of critiquing these boogeyman resistance movements from your house in London I guess.
And you think Hamas has the best interests of the Palestinian people in mind? Interesting to see that you support radical islamic nationalists over actual socialist movements such as the PFLP.

[Sam_b]

And you think Hamas has the best interests of the Palestinian people in mind? Interesting to see that you support radical islamic nationalists over actual socialist movements such as the PFLP.

I'm not going to turn my back on thousands upon thousands of Palestinian workers because they have chosen Hamas as their vehicle of resistance. I'm not going to tar them as 'Islamic Fundamentalists' because they happen to organise under this banner. The question is are you?

[Adil3tr]

Islam should be fought, as should christianity and all religeon.

Like some guy on here who calls himself an Islamic Marxist

you cannot be a marxist and also believe in a higher power, marxism is rooted in anti theism, and dialectiacl materialism.

I'm a Muslim, and an ardent Marxist, asshole. Religion is only oppressive when people don't have any goddamn sense or they try to use it for personal gain. Islam was never taken apart in a reformation, but thats because muslims follow the quran and only the quran. There is no pope or church or other authority on earth, so whats the big deal? What is you're problem?

[Crimson Commissar]

I'm a Muslim, and an ardent Marxist, asshole. Religion is only oppressive when people don't have any goddamn sense or they try to use it for personal gain. Islam was never taken apart in a reformation, but thats because muslims follow the quran and only the quran. There is no pope or church or other authority on earth, so whats the big deal? What is you're problem?
The quran is a book full of reactionary bullshit. I've already explained it before. Homophobia, sexism, the whole issue with headscarves and veils, and the fact that the islamic god expects every human on the face of the earth to bow before him and obey whatever he asks of them. You can't just deny that these things exist in Islam. Your own holy book condones and encourages them.

[Sam_b]

full of reactionary bullshit



The people of the Falklands ARE British. I doubt they want to become part of a country which:
1. They share no cultural or linguistic similarities with
2. Tried to forcefully invade them just 30 years ago

As for Iraq and Afghanistan, well, are you gonna go off on a rant against every country that is currently fighting in Afghanistan? Do you absolutely HAVE to oppose EVERYTHING that Britain does?

Pot, kettle, black?

[Adil3tr]

The quran is a book full of reactionary bullshit. I've already explained it before. Homophobia, sexism, the whole issue with headscarves and veils,
Those existed in Christianity too, but you just need to drop the ancient stuff. I'm reading the Quran and the only thing I saw about gays was god talking about some society where guys got raped. The veils are a thing of modesty, you wear it if you want to and it just supposed to cover you're hair. I think anyone who makes his wife wear a full body cover is a right wing douche.


and the fact that the islamic god expects every human on the face of the earth to bow before him and obey whatever he asks of them. You can't just deny that these things exist in Islam. Your own holy book condones and encourages them.

What? Its not like god walks around all day and commands people to bow to him, and If he was, would we be arguing? Bowing to god isn't that reactionary.

Are Christan socialists fine but muslim socialists an oxymoron?

[Sam_b]

It's a shame that many of the anti-theist crowd seem to take 'opiate of the masses' completely out of context.

Besides, isn't it a woman's right to wear the veil or whatever she wants? You cannot spea with authority for everyone and profess everyone's personal faith or adherance to religion, Mr Commissar.

[Obs]

Pot, kettle, black?
This is particularly great because it exposes what kind of mentality this liberal anti-religious sentiment stems from.

By the way, CC, have you read the Quran by any chance?

[Crimson Commissar]

Those existed in Christianity too, but you just need to drop the ancient stuff. I'm reading the Quran and the only thing I saw about gays was god talking about some society where guys got raped. The veils are a thing of modesty, you wear it if you want to and it just supposed to cover you're hair. I think anyone who makes his wife wear a full body cover is a right wing douche.
I respect the fact that you are trying to make your religion more compatible with socialism, but if you stray too far from the mainstream beliefs of it...then you're basically not following islam properly at all.


What? Its not like god walks around all day and commands people to bow to him, and If he was, would we be arguing? Bowing to god isn't that reactionary.I would definitely object to it. The abrahamic god is a tyrant who sends his own people to hell for, to be honest, some very fucking pathetic and childish reasons. If your god exists, then he does not deserve our worship.


Are Christan socialists fine but muslim socialists an oxymoron?What? Definitely not. I oppose both Christianity and Islam, they are both reactionary religions in my opinion.


Pot, kettle, black?
That post was made quite a while ago now. I hadn't really been a communist for long and so I didn't quite understand issues like that and definitely didn't view them in a very leftist way. I now take no particular side on the whole falklands situation. If Britain keeps it, they are maintaining their colonial empire which should have died long, long ago. If Argentina gets it, it wouldn't really make any fucking sense since the people of the falklands are of british descent, not hispanic.

[Obs]

I respect the fact that you are trying to make your religion more compatible with socialism, but if you stray too far from the mainstream beliefs of it...then you're basically not following islam properly at all.
Who the fuck are you to tell someone how to follow his religion properly? Jesus Christ, how can you even walk with an ego that size?

[Sam_b]

So what is your great master plan in engaging with the working class, who often carry a religion?

[Adil3tr]

I respect the fact that you are trying to make your religion more compatible with socialism, but if you stray too far from the mainstream beliefs of it...then you're basically not following islam properly at all.

I would definitely object to it. The abrahamic god is a tyrant who sends his own people to hell for, to be honest, some very fucking pathetic and childish reasons. If your god exists, then he does not deserve our worship.

What? Definitely not. I oppose both Christianity and Islam, they are both reactionary religions in my opinion.


You're kind of nitpicking. I admit there are some contradictions in a muslim communist, but the book was written 1500 years ago. If socialism was possible then, I think there would be some real differences. I'm not actually that far off from the mainstream here in the US. All lot of muslims here have money, so that helps with numbing the whole strong help the poor aspect. To be honest, after we have socialism, I think religion will fade to its most vital principles which I see as compassion and peace. I see where you come from, and I respect atheism very much, but there is a difference between religion under capitalism and under socialism.

[RadioRaheem84]

I respect the fact that you are trying to make your religion more compatible with socialism, but if you stray too far from the mainstream beliefs of it...then you're basically not following islam properly at all.


I hate this mentality.

[Devrim]

Calling for defence is not support. My organisation gives unconditional critical support to Hamas

I don't think that anybody outside Trotskyism understand what the sort of phrases mean. You support HAMAS.


The same goes with Iran. I do not support the Iranian theocracy.

Which is not the consistent line of your organisation:


we have no choice but to support the Khomeini regime
...it would be wrong to strike...
socialists should not call for the disruption of military supplies to the front… should not support actions which could lead to the collapse of the military effort



But according to your logic, me not wanting the US to invade another country in the interests of imperialism is now open support for Iran. See the mistake you're making here? You can criticise my line all you like, please do, but I am not supporting reactionary leaderships here.

I agree in principle. Opposing the US2 actions in the Middle East does not necessarily imply support for reactionary leaderships though as the quote above shows in the SWP's case it at times can.

Incidentally why was the person you were arguing with banned?

Devrim

[Sam_b]

Devrim, this quote you have taken completely out of context: may I fill it out a little?


We have no choice but to support the Khomeni regime against the US and its allies

Emphasis mine. I believe this is consistent with our position. May I ask why this bit was omitted?

[Devrim]

Devrim, this quote you have taken completely out of context: may I fill it out a little?

Emphasis mine. I believe this is consistent with our position. May I ask why this bit was omitted?

It was omitted because I don't have a collection of two and a half decade old Socialist Workers at home, and it isn't on line, so I quoted it from another source, which had omitted it. I do remember reading it at the time as I was living in London then.

I don't think it changes the context at all though. Who else would you be supporting the Iranian state against, possibly North Korea? I don't think so.

The fact is that not only does the SWP support regimes like this, but also argues for the working class in those countries to back the state,, and argues that "it would be wrong to strike".*

Devrim

*If my memory is correct, and it is a long time ago, the full sentence said something like 'there are times when it is wrong to strike'.

[Obs]

I don't think that anybody outside Trotskyism understand what the sort of phrases mean. You support HAMAS.
I do, and I'm not a Trotskyist. It's not that hard to decipher what it means. And yeah, he supports Hamas, as do I. If it comes down to supporting Hamas, as the largest group in the PLO, and supporting Israeli/U.S. imperialism, then yeah, I'm gonna support Hamas. You can say "I support the Palestinian people" or "I support the Palestinian proletariat", but in real-world terms, all that translates into is "I'm gonna ride the fence on this one".


Incidentally why was the person you were arguing with banned?
Sockpuppet of a banned troll.

[Sam_b]

I don't think it changes the context at all though. Who else would you be supporting the Iranian state against, possibly North Korea? I don't think so.

Since when is North Korea an ally of US imperialism?

[Devrim]

Since when is North Korea an ally of US imperialism?

It isn't. My point was that of course you were supporting them against the US. Who else could it have been?

It is basically a position which calls on workers to rally around the nation in the name of national defence.

Devrim

[Devrim]

I do, and I'm not a Trotskyist. It's not that hard to decipher what it means. And yeah, he supports Hamas, as do I. If it comes down to supporting Hamas, as the largest group in the PLO, and supporting Israeli/U.S. imperialism, then yeah, I'm gonna support Hamas. You can say "I support the Palestinian people" or "I support the Palestinian proletariat", but in real-world terms, all that translates into is "I'm gonna ride the fence on this one".

Yes, it means that they support HAMAS, whatever adjectives they attach to it.

Devrim

[Obs]

Yes, it means that they support HAMAS, whatever adjectives they attach to it.

Devrim
It's like you just can't get past the idea that anyone would support Hamas, and instead of trying to understand the reasoning behind it, you just revert to this "but but but... you support Hamas!!" rhetoric.

[Sam_b]

It isn't. My point was that of course you were supporting them against the US. Who else could it have been?

Which is a totally different kettle of fish than comparing it to another country threatened by imperialism. I would have thought this point obvious. Perhaps not to opponents of workers defending themselves from imperialist states.

[Devrim]

It's like you just can't get past the idea that anyone would support Hamas, and instead of trying to understand the reasoning behind it, you just revert to this "but but but... you support Hamas!!" rhetoric.

It doesn't surprise me at all. I live in a country where the overwhelming majority of the population supports Palestinian nationalism across the whole range of the political spectrum, from leftist to fascist, where the Prime Minister from the Islamicist ruling party is well known for criticising the Israeli state, and semi-official government organisations have connections to HAMAS front organisations.

I am not at all surprised that people support HAMAS, and I am well aware of the reasoning behind it. I just think that the nationalist movements have nothing to offer the working class.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Which is a totally different kettle of fish than comparing it to another country threatened by imperialism. I would have thought this point obvious. Perhaps not to opponents of workers defending themselves from imperialist states.

Your point was that I (inadvertantly) put the quote out of context by omitting the part in bold.


We have no choice but to support the Khomeni regime against the US and its allies

My point was that of course you were defending it against the US and its allies. Who else could it have been. The absurd example of North Korea was used as a country that could not have possibly been threatening Iran. It could have just as well been Iceland.


Perhaps not to opponents of workers defending themselves from imperialist states.

What the SWP was suggesting there was that Iranian workers should give up their own interests, and rally round the defence of the state. Why else would they say "it would be wrong to strike", i.e. defend class interests?

This is called 'national defencism'. It has nothing at all to do with 'workers defending themselves against imperialist states', and has everything to do with mobilising workers to get massacred on behalf of capitalist states.

Devrim

[Sam_b]

So it's in the worker's interests to get carpetbombed while at the markets in Tehran, right?


My point was that of course you were defending it against the US and its allies. Who else could it have been. The absurd example of North Korea was used as a country that could not have possibly been threatening Iran. It could have just as well been Iceland.

We wouldn't defend the state against an uprising of the class.


What the SWP was suggesting there was that Iranian workers should give up their own interests, and rally round the defence of the state. Why else would they say "it would be wrong to strike", i.e. defend class interests?

Well striking is a tactic rather than an absolute. Anyway i'd love to see some quotes attaining to it, especially as they'll probably come with a well-figured out explanation.



This is called 'national defencism'. It has nothing at all to do with 'workers defending themselves against imperialist states', and has everything to do with mobilising workers to get massacred on behalf of capitalist states.

So to clarify, you would be against workers defence of imperialism and then turning the situation into a civil war, yes?

[Crimson Commissar]

Who the fuck are you to tell someone how to follow his religion properly? Jesus Christ, how can you even walk with an ego that size?
I'm just going by what I've heard from actual muslims and from people who have read the quran. If the quran is saying that you HAVE to follow islam EXACTLY as it says, then having any beliefs that conflict with those stated in the quran automatically counts as not being a proper muslim. So if someone is going to go against what their own religion is telling them, why follow it all?

[Devrim]

So it's in the worker's interests to get carpetbombed while at the markets in Tehran, right?

Obviously it isn't. Is it in workers interests to get carpet bombed in the army though? Although the US is not adverse to bombing civilians, they are probably more likely to get massacred in the army.


We wouldn't defend the state against an uprising of the class.

But you would argue that:


socialists should not call for the disruption of military supplies to the front… should not support actions which could lead to the collapse of the military effort

I would suggest that a working class uprising would do exactly that. More importantly you would argue against actions which would tend to develop the political independence of the class, and argue that workers should defend the state.


Anyway i'd love to see some quotes attaining to it, especially as they'll probably come with a well-figured out explanation.

I'd like to see the whole text. As I said it is not on-line,. The SWP must keep archives and presumably you as a member could get a copy of it.


So to clarify, you would be against workers defence of imperialism and then turning the situation into a civil war, yes?

The whole idea of turning a war into a civil war is generally seen to involve socialists arguing for workers to defend their own class interests and refuse to defend the state. This is what I am arguing. You are arguing precisely the opposite.

Devrim

[Yehuda Stern]

Sam, it is exactly the role of proletarian revolutionaries to tell Palestinian workers how they think they should organize. Otherwise, you are betraying these workers to the bourgeois politicians, who will use their trust to make dirty deals with Israel and stab them in the back. I'm sorry to say this, but your organization, among others, took a similar position on the PLO, and thus has a huge responsibility for enabling its betrayal in the 1990s.

[Rafiq]

I've never used the term "Islamo-fascist". Though there definitely are some people who would fit with that term, I have never used it to describe anyone on revleft.

Your defense of islam is fucking disgusting. An idea as reactionary and anti-socialist as religion should have no place in left-wing politics. Islam promotes homophobia, sexism, unnecessary violence and absolute devotion to a reactionary dictator god who throws his own creations into the pits of hell for defying his will. If you think that any of those ideas are compatible with socialism, then you're not much of a socialist at all. Whenever I bring up the reactionary ideas of religion, islamophiles like you merely state that radical christians and muslims are "just a minority" and that "the majority of religious people are perfect, wonderful people who never do a thing wrong!". It's fucking pathetic. It doesn't matter how many people deny it, the majority of Christians and Muslims take their religion very seriously and would follow their god no matter what he asked of them. If god existed and he told every religious socialist to abandon their ideology, they would do it, no questions asked. That is how insane religion is. A religious person would go against their own morals and beliefs all because a tyrannous god told them to.

This islamophilia amongst the left has to stop. Even leftists who are somewhat tolerant of religion should be able to accept that at least organised religion is reactionary. However leftist islamophiles will support everything about islam. They will view it as a perfect religion which has done no harm to the world whatsoever. And then there's the ones like you who will support any islamic regime or organisation merely because they are the victims of US imperialism. We should take no side in any conflict that happens to occur between the US and an radical muslim regime. Nations such as Iran are just as reactionary as America is, and must be opposed by socialists. By supporting Iran you are supporting islamic fundamentalism and reactionary homophobic and sexist ideas, proving that you do not care at all about the needs of the Iranian working class and do not recognise the oppression they are experiencing at the hands of the Islamic fundamentalist government which controls Iran today.



Islam is a viciously right wing Idealogy, no doubt.

But in order to open people's eyes about religion, you have to bring them in.

How do you expect people to leave Religion logically if you keep discriminating against them?

You have to be kind to them first, for they are gong to approach us with hostility and radicalize even more.

[Rafiq]

I'm just going by what I've heard from actual muslims and from people who have read the quran. If the quran is saying that you HAVE to follow islam EXACTLY as it says, then having any beliefs that conflict with those stated in the quran automatically counts as not being a proper muslim. So if someone is going to go against what their own religion is telling them, why follow it all?

Approach them nicely and over time, you educate them

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I think you've kinda proven my point. Every so often on these forums members (such as Crimson Commissar as an example) will talk about the 'radical Muslims' 'fundamentalist Muslims' 'Muslim extremists', or even my personal favourite 'Islamo-fascists'. What do they actully mean? What are the characterising features of 'radical Muslims'? It's debatable.

There's absolutely no point in labelling these things as objectifiably 'bad' because it's a waste of a post: these catchphrases have no real meaning apart from stirring up frenzies and creating half-truths and sloppy definitions about the 'Islamic boogeyman'. There are no deinitions here, and are used to describe everything from the Taliban to Ahmedinejad to people that blow up buses. There's a big difference between them all: these are not homogenised people.

It fails to engage with the social political and economic causes that differentiate between governments of so-called 'Islamic Republics' and those who turn into suicide bombers for example, and this is dangerously sloppy politics. There is absolutely no clarity here.


I agree with you entirely. There is little point (and i'm not being purposely philosophical here) in ascribing the idiotic epithets of 'good' and 'evil' to anything, really.

The problem here is the translation into words. We need to get the point across that, while Islam isn't the root cause of the current crop of 'terrorism', those who purport these awful attacks have been influenced by a twisted version of Islam which is not representative of the religion's original intentions, nor 99.9% of its followers. It's a difficult argument to put across.

I'd also like to say that, relating to the title of the thread, I do not like the term anti-theism. I would not describe myself as an anti-theist, it's a pretty negative term; science will conquer the nice little story of religion in due time, we should focus on filling in the holes in the scientific argument of creation and the beginning of time, since it is fact, not debate, that will win the argument against the god squad.