Do any of you actually support the Taliban and Al-Queada?

[L.A.P.]

It seems like some of you actually support them, I think some of you take the whole fight Western imperialism thing too far if you do actually support the these groups.

[Barry Lyndon]

It seems like some of you actually support them, I think some of you take the whole fight Western imperialism thing too far if you do actually support the these groups.

Yeah I suspect that too. Which is ridiculous from a leftist perspective, given that when Islamic fundamentalists take power, Marxists and trade unionists are among the first to die.

[Apoi_Viitor]

It seems like some of you actually support them, I think some of you take the whole fight Western imperialism thing too far if you do actually support the these groups.

Mao Zedong - "We shall support whatever our enemies oppose and oppose whatever our enemies support."

[L.A.P.]

Mao Zedong - "We shall support whatever our enemies oppose and oppose whatever our enemies support."
I like Mao and all but FUCK THAT!!!

[Urko]

Mao Zedong - "We shall support whatever our enemies oppose and oppose whatever our enemies support."

what about what I support and oppose... what about what we support and oppose...

[Manic Impressive]

I support the normal, everyday, working people of Iraq and Afghanistan.

[RadioRaheem84]

I've never really seen anyone actually support the Taliban in here or see how that would even be a leftist position. Al Qaeda especially is not to be supported.

I fully denounce both organizations as both were agents of US Imperialism at one point to crush the Democratic government of Afghanistan.

They're creations of the CIA and the horrid elements of the Afghan bourgeoisie.

The problem is that US imperial plans are hindered in Pashtun which is majority Taliban strong. It would be difficult for US forces not to completely cleanse the nation of this one ethnic group if they want to flush out the Taliban.

I say we as leftists should ALWAYS take a third position; a leftist one and not one that sides with any group just because they claim to be anti-imperialist. Al-Qaeda itself claims to be an imperialist group, just one competing with the US Imperial army.

The Taliban is a reactionary bourgeoisie group that wishes to throw back any progress in Afghanistan. Why would any leftist support them?

The only reason leftists do is because there is a vacuum left over from the Cold War and the right has distinguished most leftist movements around the world.

That would be like us supporting the Contras or Noriega or Saddam Hussein's Baathists over US Imperialism. Not gonna happen. At least in Iraq there are several leftist organizations to support over the bulk of the armed Iraqi Resistance which is made up of former Baathists and Islamists.

Afghanistan is in a much worse situation as the US strategically eliminated all traces of Communist Progressive influence after the Soviet/Afghan war.

NO to support of the Taliban. HELL NO, to support of Al Qaeda.

[Quail]

Mao Zedong - "We shall support whatever our enemies oppose and oppose whatever our enemies support."

Following that line of thinking can lead to some dodgy positions. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.

[L.A.P.]

I've never really seen anyone actually support the Taliban in here or see how that would even be a leftist position. Al Qaeda especially is not to be supported.

I fully denounce both organizations as both were agents of US Imperialism at one point to crush the Democratic government of Afghanistan.

They're creations of the CIA and the horrid elements of the Afghan bourgeoisie.

The problem is that US imperial plans are hindered in Pashtun which is majority Taliban strong. It would be difficult for US forces not to completely cleanse the nation of this one ethnic group if they want to flush out the Taliban.

I say we as leftists should ALWAYS take a third position; a leftist one and not one that sides with any group just because they claim to be anti-imperialist. Al-Qaeda itself claims to be an imperialist group, just one competing with the US Imperial army.

The Taliban is a reactionary bourgeoisie group that wishes to throw back any progress in Afghanistan. Why would any leftist support them?

The only reason leftists do is because there is a vacuum left over from the Cold War and the right has distinguished most leftist movements around the world.

That would be like us supporting the Contras or Noriega or Saddam Hussein's Baathists over US Imperialism. Not gonna happen. At least in Iraq there are several leftist organizations to support over the bulk of the armed Iraqi Resistance which is made up of former Baathists and Islamists.

Afghanistan is in a much worse situation as the US strategically eliminated all traces of Communist Progressive influence after the Soviet/Afghan war.

NO to support of the Taliban. HELL NO, to support of Al Qaeda.

I completely forgot how the US supported the Islamist groups at first when they were fighting the Soviet Union. Thanks.:thumbup1:

[Soviet dude]

I support any group resisting US imperialism. The reasoning expressed here not to is simply childish nonsense and racist Islamophobia.

[Pawn Power]

It seems like some of you actually support them, I think some of you take the whole fight Western imperialism thing too far if you do actually support the these groups.

Where? This seems like an assumption you are making- not something you have actually seen.

Not only is supporting these groups completely disconnected from the values of revolutionary leftist - it is also (somewhat) illegal here in the US. There have been numerous cases of peace activists, in fact quite recently, being detained and their homes searched, for 'support' of terrorist organizations. So, it would be nice if you didn't make such ridiculous and damning claims to fellow comrades.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Mao Zedong - "We shall support whatever our enemies oppose and oppose whatever our enemies support."
When reading that quote, we shouldn't forget that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are our enemies too. They are creations of the west; if we understand their history we understand that they are enemies of our movement, just as much as the west are. The fact that the west opposes them now does not change the fact that they are natural enemies of ours, and their origins and ideology are contradictory to our own.

I've never met a leftist that supported Al Qaeda or the Taliban, personally, although I've been accused of it myself. One opponent even tried to tell me that the Taliban are a Marxist organization... People get it twisted; some people think that because we don't support the occupation of Afghanistan, we must support the Taliban or Al Qaeda.

[Apoi_Viitor]

When reading that quote, we shouldn't forget that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are our enemies too.

I support the Taliban in their struggle against Imperialism. But I also support the Muslim Proletariat in their struggle against the Taliban.

[Widerstand]

I support any group resisting US imperialism. The reasoning expressed here not to is simply childish nonsense and racist Islamophobia.

Not supporting a group, that fought the USSR as well as their own Democratic government, supported by US money and the CIA, establishing a highly patriarchal and intolerant Theocracy, is racist or childish?

[Tavarisch_Mike]

No. I dont support fascists.

[Pawn Power]

I support the Taliban in their struggle against Imperialism. But I also support the Muslim Proletariat in their struggle against the Taliban.

Truly this is the politics of the surreal- blatant contradictions, dogmatic statements to feign radicalism, dismissal of history in favor of hyperbole.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Truly this is the politics of the surreal- blatant contradictions, dogmatic statements to feign radicalism, dismissal of history in favor of hyperbole.

Why? I think this policy worked pretty well for the Bolsheviks. "Help us Makhno, the White Army is approaching Moscow." Then after the Black Army was finished helping to fend off the capitalist reactionaries... "Anarchists are infantile ultra-leftist reactionaries who deserve to be executed."

[Palingenisis]

It seems like some of you actually support them, I think some of you take the whole fight Western imperialism thing too far if you do actually support the these groups.

I used to support the Taliban until I educated myself properly.

I know people who support them because they are against the Brits and Yanks basically. There is a lot of lazy support for Islamic reactionaires within the western left.

[Soviet dude]

Not supporting a group, that fought the USSR as well as their own Democratic government, supported by US money and the CIA, establishing a highly patriarchal and intolerant Theocracy, is racist or childish?

The Taliban and the anti-Soviet forces are not the same thing. The Taliban took control of the government that overthrew the PDPA. That government went on to became the Northern Alliance.

And yes, the reasoning is childish and racist. The only real force opposing US imperialism in the country is the Taliban. To not support them is to accept US imperialism.

The people of Afghanistan already had a communist revolution once, and the communists could have been the ones leading the fight against US imperialism, but most of them decided to cheer-lead the invasion, which no doubt is going to cast them into irrelevancy for at least a generation.

[bcbm]

To not support them is to accept US imperialism.

i'd be willing to bet a significant amount of money that the feelings (not "support") of some internet leftist kids about what is going on in afghanistan probably mean fuck-all in terms of what is happening on the ground.

[KC]

I think that the point being made in the OP is valid; however, I don't think it's fair to target the Talib'an and Al Qa'ida as some kind of "special" groups. There are groups all over the world that kill civilians and innocents much in the same way that the Talib'an and Al Qa'ida do, and so to treat them as some kind of "special case" is just accepting the "western propaganda" that treats them as such.

[Soviet dude]

You should try to write coherent sentences when you're putting "significant" amounts of your daddy's money on the line.

[Pawn Power]

And yes, the reasoning is childish and racist. The only real force opposing US imperialism in the country is the Taliban. To not support them is to accept US imperialism.



If there is going to be a conversation on the subject we need to at least adhere to some basic principles of logic. "The only real force opposing US imperialism in the country is the Taliban. To not support them is to accept US imperialism" is not a logical statement.

[Palingenisis]

i'd be willing to bet a significant amount of money that the feelings (not "support") of some internet leftist kids about what is going on in afghanistan probably mean fuck-all in terms of what is happening on the ground.

Actually the Afghan Liberation Organization which is Marxist-Leninist-Maoist orginally welcomed the US as a lesser evil (until it became that the US was just putting outright bandits in power and not bringing any type of order). Revolutionary Communists and Socialists from Afghanistan whether anti-revisionist or tankie or whatever have absolutely no time for the Taliban.

[bcbm]

You should try to write coherent sentences when you're putting "significant" amounts of your daddy's money (lol) on the line.

what part are you having trouble understanding? the feelings expressed by leftists here in no way effects the situation of the taliban or us imperialism and hardly amount to "support" in any meaningful sense.

[Palingenisis]

And yes, the reasoning is childish and racist. The only real force opposing US imperialism in the country is the Taliban. To not support them is to accept US imperialism.



There is an argument that support for the Taliban among western leftists is it itself racist as it can come across as implying that such reactionary crap is all these people are capable of.

[bcbm]

Actually the Afghan Liberation Organization which is Marxist-Leninist-Maoist orginally welcomed the US as a lesser evil (until it became that the US was just putting outright bandits in power and not bringing any type of order). Revolutionary Communists and Socialists from Afghanistan whether anti-revisionist or tankie or whatever have absolutely no time for the Taliban.

they're in a position where their support or lack there of could presumably mean something though, here it is just a pissing contest.

[Palingenisis]

Also its important to understand that the Taliban isnt mainstream Islam.

It is to Islam what these psychoes are to Christianity...http://www.godhatesfags.com/

[Soviet dude]

If there is going to be a conversation on the subject we need to at least adhere to some basic principles of logic. "The only real force opposing US imperialism in the country is the Taliban. To not support them is to accept US imperialism" is not a logical statement.

Most children here don't know the first thing about logic, yet they often like to think they do.

In fact, both of those sentences are logical statements, because the definition of a logical statement is a statement that is either true or false.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

The Taliban and the anti-Soviet forces are not the same thing. The Taliban took control of the government that overthrew the PDPA. That government went on to became the Northern Alliance.

And yes, the reasoning is childish and racist. The only real force opposing US imperialism in the country is the Taliban. To not support them is to accept US imperialism.

The people of Afghanistan already had a communist revolution once, and the communists could have been the ones leading the fight against US imperialism, but most of them decided to cheer-lead the invasion, which no doubt is going to cast them into irrelevancy for at least a generation.
This is where problem lies with that argument. They are the force fighting the west, but at the same time, they wouldn't be there without the massive western funding during the soviet-afghan war, which in turn paved the way for them to reinstitute terrible conditions for the lower classes in Afghanistan.

They don't deserve to be the main force fighting off the occupation in Afghanistan, the oppressed people should say fuck you to them and to the west. The fundamental problem is that the Taliban are not fighting off the occupation with the people they represent in mind, but their own desire to secure power and remain a hierarchical, shitty regime that subjects its people to even worse conditions than any capitalist powerhouse does (on its own soil, anyway).

Lets say, hypothetically, that the Taliban were able to fight off western forces and gain the power back, where does that leave us and our support for that organization, when they kill off communists just like you or me, as they have done in the past? Or when they shoot a woman in the head in public because she didn't stick to the role that the Taliban envisioned for her?

I am stuck on the question of Afghanistan, whatever happens, the fate of the people there lies in the hands of one of two regimes that we should all desire to rid the earth of. It is hard to take a clear opinion on this without seeming either ultra-leftist or as an apologist for a regime that treats women like dogs and kills communists quicker than our western powers ever will.

[Apoi_Viitor]

they're in a position where their support or lack there of could presumably mean something though, here it is just a pissing contest.

Well, yes, this is just a pissing contest.

I'm going to make the assumption that the majority of the posters in this thread are from either the UK or United States - in which case, if we really wanted to oppose Western Imperialism, we wouldn't need to either 'support' or 'oppose' the Taliban. But we can anyways, just for shits and giggles.

[bcbm]

Lets say, hypothetically, that the Taliban were able to fight off western forces and gain the power back, where does that leave us and our support for that organization, when they kill off communists just like you or me, as they have done in the past? Or when they shoot a woman in the head in public because she didn't stick to the role that the Taliban envisioned for her?


aside from this, if the taliban do resume power they will undoubtedly be quickly bought off and re-integrated into capital in a way that supports western interests. hardly a lasting blow to imperialism.

[Soviet dude]

There is an argument that support for the Taliban among western leftists is it itself racist as it can come across as implying that such reactionary crap is all these people are capable of.

This is the second time I've ran into such disgusting, racist shit coming from someone who claims to be a Leftist. This is an example of projection, but let me spell something out to you:

Most Western Leftists are fucking petty-bourgeois idiots who ultimately side with their own imperialists. The people of Afghanistan have had a communist revolution and have made heroic sacrifices against Western imperialism. The people of Afghanistan are much smarter and more courageous than the pseudo-Left trash in the West will ever hope to be. They have shown they are capable of much more than the majority of the moronic Western Left will ever be.

So please stop projecting your fucking ridiculous racism and Western chauvinism onto people who disagree with your pro-imperialist bullshit.

[bcbm]

this thread would probably be better if people tried actually discussing instead of calling each other racists, chauvinists, imperialists, etc.

a pipe dream, i know.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

This is the second time I've ran into such disgusting, racist shit coming from someone who claims to be a Leftist. This is an example of projection, but let me spell something out to you:

Most Western Leftists are fucking petty-bourgeois idiots who ultimately side with their own imperialists. The people of Afghanistan have had a communist revolution and have made heroic sacrifices against Western imperialism. The people of Afghanistan are much smarter and more courageous than the pseudo-Left trash in the West will ever hope to be. They have shown they are capable of much more than the majority of the moronic Western Left will ever be.

So please stop projecting your fucking ridiculous racism and Western chauvinism onto people who disagree with your pro-imperialist bullshit.
Dude, calm down!

Our brothers and sisters in Afghanistan are brave and have fought hard for an incredibly long time. The point is, why should we insult them by supporting an organization like the Taliban? They deserve more than that; they are stuck between two shitty powers, why should we 'support' either when neither of them properly support the people outside of their own interests?

[KC]

This is the second time I've ran into such disgusting, racist shit coming from someone who claims to be a Leftist. This is an example of projection, but let me spell something out to you:

Most Western Leftists are fucking petty-bourgeois idiots who ultimately side with their own imperialists. The people of Afghanistan have had a communist revolution and have made heroic sacrifices against Western imperialism. The people of Afghanistan are much smarter and more courageous than the pseudo-Left trash in the West will ever hope to be. They have shown they are capable of much more than the majority of the moronic Western Left will ever be.

So please stop projecting your fucking ridiculous racism and Western chauvinism onto people who disagree with your pro-imperialist bullshit.

Where are you from? How much do you make?

[Apoi_Viitor]

Where are you from? How much do you make?

Don't even ask, he's obviously 50 times more proletariat than everyone else here.

[Palingenisis]

they're in a position where their support or lack there of could presumably mean something though, here it is just a pissing contest.

Yes and no.

People's attitude to the Taliban will be similar to their attitude to Political Islam in their own countries. In England and France it is trying to move in to fill the vacum left by the Labour Party and the PCF among disaffected second and third generation "immigrant" kids from Islamic countries. The biggest Trotskyite party in England was actually involved in "Popular Front" type party called Respect with some very reactionary Islamic elements.

Im not a radical anti-thieist. I believe in freedom of religion as long as religion isnt being used for counter-revolutionary purposes. However we have to be clear that Political Islam has much more in common with Action Francaise, Jospeh De Maistre and the International Third Position than it does with something like Liberation theology. A lot of people on the left just dont seem to get that.

I am anti-Imperialist and reject the Left-Communist views on national liberation struggles however Huey Newton drew a dividing line between reactionary and revolutionary nationalism within oppressed nations. A lot of anti-imperialists have forgotten that this line exists.

[Soviet dude]

This is where problem lies with that argument. They are the force fighting the west, but at the same time, they wouldn't be there without the massive western funding during the soviet-afghan war, which in turn paved the way for them to reinstitute terrible conditions for the lower classes in Afghanistan.

Apparently you simply didn't read what was wrote. The Taliban are not the same group that overthrew the PDPA. That group was overthrown by the Taliban, and then it reconstituted itself as the Northern Alliance.


They don't deserve to be the main force fighting off the occupation in Afghanistan, the oppressed people should say fuck you to them and to the west.

Guess what? That isn't happening. The people support them, because they're the only group that is actually fighting US imperialism.


The fundamental problem is that the Taliban are not fighting off the occupation with the people they represent in mind, but their own desire to secure power and remain a hierarchical, shitty regime that subjects its people to even worse conditions than any capitalist powerhouse does (on its own soil, anyway).

So you are saying you actually support US imperialism? That's pretty honest of you.


Lets say, hypothetically, that the Taliban were able to fight off western forces and gain the power back, where does that leave us and our support for that organization, when they kill off communists just like you or me, as they have done in the past? Or when they shoot a woman in the head in public because she didn't stick to the role that the Taliban envisioned for her?

The people of Afghanistan will sort things out, on their own terms. They already had a communist revolution once. We shouldn't pretend like we know better than them.


I am stuck on the question of Afghanistan, whatever happens, the fate of the people there lies in the hands of one of two regimes that we should all desire to rid the earth of. It is hard to take a clear opinion on this without seeming either ultra-leftist or as an apologist for a regime that treats women like dogs and kills communists quicker than our western powers ever will.

Our government has murdered literally millions of communist and communist supporters. How you could say something so stupid is beyond me, but it goes back to the petty-bourgeois liberal roots of most Trotskyites.

The Taliban isn't going to destroy the world. The US government is, if we don't stop them.

[Soviet dude]

Where are you from? How much do you make?

You tell me how much money your Iranian family has first.

[KC]

Typical western tankie response.

[Palingenisis]

Most Western Leftists are fucking petty-bourgeois idiots who ultimately side with their own imperialists. The people of Afghanistan have had a communist revolution and have made heroic sacrifices against Western imperialism. The people of Afghanistan are much smarter and more courageous than the pseudo-Left trash in the West will ever hope to be. They have shown they are capable of much more than the majority of the moronic Western Left will ever be.

So please stop projecting your fucking ridiculous racism and Western chauvinism onto people who disagree with your pro-imperialist bullshit.

I said there was an argument for believing it was racist not that it necessarily was racist though Leo here who is a Kurd working as waiter in Turkey (and therefore would know bit more about oppression than you do) believes firmly it does come from racism...I can see where he is coming from.

My line on the Taliban and Political Islam in general comes from Communists from Afghanistan and the Islamic world...Are they all western chauvanists?

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Apparently you simply didn't read what was wrote. The Taliban are not the same group that overthrew the PDPA. That group was overthrown by the Taliban, and then it reconstituted itself as the Northern Alliance.
Are you suggesting that what is now the Taliban, did not take a lot of funding from the west in order to become what it is now?


Guess what? That isn't happening. The people support them, because they're the only group that is actually fighting US imperialism.I have seen not one bit of evidence to suggest this, whatsoever. And even if I were to take that into account, I still naturally try to predict what will happen to the people of Afghanistan if either the Taliban or the West wins the battle for power there (yes, power - liberation does not come into it, does it?). I don't see how you can be so black and white on a matter such as this, when there is both the history and the future of Afghanistan to consider.



So you are saying you actually support US imperialism? That's pretty honest of you. I didn't say that at all, stop being so pedantic.



The people of Afghanistan will sort things out, on their own terms. They already had a communist revolution once. We shouldn't pretend like we know better than them.And I hope that they do. How will this happen, though? Will the Taliban hand over power to a popular uprising against them and the west, after people get sick of their mothers and sisters getting brained every time they do something the Taliban thinks is wrong? Or will the west hand over power when the people of Afghanistan becomes slaves to their corporations? Will they fuck.



Our government has murdered literally millions of communist and communist supporters. How you could say something so stupid is beyond me, but it goes back to the petty-bourgeois liberal roots of most Trotskyites.That doesn't change the fact that the Taliban will readily kill any communists it can that will speak out against them. Just because our powers have had the means to kill more than the Taliban have, doesn't mean that the Taliban don't hate communists. The west and the Taliban share this quality, and many others in fact. Go and join the Taliban, then when all the fighting is over, suggest a programme of socialist transition. See where that gets you.


The Taliban isn't going to destroy the world. The US government is, if we don't stop them.I agree, except I will not class 'we' as revolutionary communists and the Taliban. We are not one and all, no matter how you try to portray it. As I said, the people of Afghanistan deserve better than the west and the Taliban. It is an insult for us to take sides with either of them.

Fuck the west, fuck the Taliban. What Afghanistan needs is an armed, revolutionary movement led by the oppressed people of their land. This is even more unforeseeable when the Taliban receive open support from 'communists' the world over.

[RadioRaheem84]

I still don't get how supporting the Taliban and Al Qaeda helps the class struggle if they're just as reactionary against socialism as the US Imperialists. Leftists in the third world need a third force besides rectionary anti-imperial movements and US/western imperial power.

[Palingenisis]

A picture of how silly things can get...During the summer I met a friend of mine in the park drinking beer with his top off with his girl friend who's breast he playfully fondled from time to time who half way through the conversation starts going on about how great the Taliban are (this is a guy who also rants a lot about how oppressive Irish Catholicism is)...Go figure that all out :rolleyes:

[Pawn Power]

In fact, both of those sentences are logical statements, because the definition of a logical statement is a statement that is either true or false.

Exactly. And the following statement is not proven to be true.

"The only real force opposing US imperialism in the country is the Taliban. To not support them is to accept US imperialism"

The are many example in this thread- people who do not support the Taliban and do not accept US imperialism.

[RadioRaheem84]

Like Focoult grasped for anything to bring down the shah he fully endorsed the reactionary clerics during the first year or two of the Iranian revolution.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I completely forgot how the US supported the Islamist groups at first when they were fighting the Soviet Union. Thanks.:thumbup1:

I support left realpolitik in response to earlier liberal/neocon bourgeois realpolitik, but surely there are limits. Hezbollah stands on the "OK" side of the realpolitik boundary, for example, but even then "We are all Hezbollah" plain sucks. On the other hand, Hamas stands on the "Not OK" side of the realpolitik boundary.

[Rafiq]

I support left realpolitik in response to earlier liberal/neocon bourgeois realpolitik, but surely there are limits. Hezbollah stands on the "OK" side of the realpolitik boundary, for example, but even then "We are all Hezbollah" plain sucks. On the other hand, Hamas stands on the "Not OK" side of the realpolitik boundary.


Hezbollah.. They are one of the most proletarient groups in Lebanon.

They aren't Iranian puppets, many of them distance themselves from Iran.

One of my parents grew up in Lebanon during the Lebanese civil war. His father was a member of the LCP.. He recalled how the south Lebanese Shia were the poorest of all people. They lived like rats.

Hezbollah gave them an identity, gave them a flag to stand by.

Before, they didn't have a cause of their own.

Although we disagree with some Hezbollah Idealogy, they are protectors of Lebanese proletarian.

They have 7/10 support

[Palingenisis]

I support left realpolitik in response to earlier liberal/neocon bourgeois realpolitik, but surely there are limits. Hezbollah stands on the "OK" side of the realpolitik boundary, for example, but even then "We are all Hezbollah" plain sucks. On the other hand, Hamas stands on the "Not OK" side of the realpolitik boundary.

I think we need to take our lead from Communists or Progressives in the region, thats the important thing, not just jump on the bandwagon of whoever is putting bullets in squadies.

[Ele'ill]

Mao Zedong - "We shall support whatever our enemies oppose and oppose whatever our enemies support."


Our enemy are those opposed to globalizing social justice.

[Manic Impressive]

i'd be willing to bet a significant amount of money that the feelings (not "support") of some internet leftist kids about what is going on in afghanistan probably mean fuck-all in terms of what is happening on the ground.

Todays "internet leftist kids" could be the revolutionary leaders of tomorrow :lol:

[gorillafuck]

I wonder sometimes, do people who claim to "support" every communist-murdering woman-brutalizing group that opposes NATO think that communists in countries under the heel of imperialism are somehow less important than western or first world communists? Because I mean, when the FBI asks a western leftist a question about a protest, there's a shitstorm. But when anti-imperialist countries have mass executions of communists, it's not even a problem.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I think we need to take our lead from Communists or Progressives in the region, thats the important thing, not just jump on the bandwagon of whoever is putting bullets in squadies.

Comrade, one of the key reasons for my sentiments toward Hezbollah and my mention of it in my work is its emulation of the SPD model. The pre-war SPD had its alternative culture, and the inter-war SPD had its own militias. It's all about organizing.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Fuck the west, fuck the Taliban. What Afghanistan needs is an armed, revolutionary movement led by the oppressed people of their land. This is even more unforeseeable when the Taliban receive open support from 'communists' the world over.

I'm all with you comrade, believe me. But the problem is not what we want, it's what's already provided for now. The initial problem we're facing is western imperialism. What we need is a militant force to fight against said imperialism. Yes, the Taliban were connected to those counterrevolutionary fighters who overthrew the Soviet-led PDPA. But that's the past & we need to put into account what is today. And what is today is the Taliban being the most powerful anti-imperialist force in Afghanistan. From there, we can then, under a plausible manner, start supporting an armed, revolutionary movement against the Taliban, because we would no longer have to fear of Western Imperialism in taking advantage of the situation & taking over when Afghanistan's weak.

[Palingenisis]

I wonder sometimes, do people who claim to "support" every communist-murdering woman-brutalizing group that opposes NATO think that communists in countries under the heel of imperialism are somehow less important than western or first world communists? Because I mean, when the FBI asks a western leftist a question about a protest, there's a shitstorm. But when anti-imperialist countries have mass executions of communists, it's not even a problem.

I have noticed that support for Political Islam increases among leftists the further away from it they get.

A lot of leftists in Ireland where its not an issue a all think its wonderful sadly. Comrades from "Islamic countries" in my experiance have a very different view.

[bricolage]

Comrade, one of the key reasons for my sentiments toward Hezbollah and my mention of it in my work is its emulation of the SPD model. The pre-war SPD had its alternative culture, and the inter-war SPD had its own militias. It's all about organizing.
you really think hezbollah are trying to emulate the SPD?
seriously?

[Soviet dude]

Exactly. And the following statement is not proven to be true.

"The only real force opposing US imperialism in the country is the Taliban. To not support them is to accept US imperialism"

The are many example in this thread- people who do not support the Taliban and do not accept US imperialism.

Thanks for admitting you don't understand what a logical statement is.

It doesn't matter what people say they do and don't support. Lots of Republicans say they're not racists. I don't take their bullshit for face value either.

[Palingenisis]

I'm all with you comrade, believe me. But the problem is not what we want, it's what's already provided for now. The initial problem we're facing is western imperialism. What we need is a militant force to fight against said imperialism. Yes, the Taliban were connected to those counterrevolutionary fighters who overthrew the Soviet-led PDPA. But that's the past & we need to put into account what is today. And what is today is the Taliban being the most powerful anti-imperialist force in Afghanistan. From there, we can then, under a plausible manner, start supporting an armed, revolutionary movement against the Taliban, because we would no longer have to fear of Western Imperialism in taking advantage of the situation & taking over when Afghanistan's weak.

Seriously you remind me of the people in Ireland who support Gerry Mc Geogh (a clerical fascist seeking a confessional Roman Catholic state who believes that Communism is a Freemasonic conspiracy) because of his war record with the Provos and because the Brits are harassasing him now. I like wearing tank tops in summer which he would make illegal, I like contraception being legal (though I dont believe in free love) which he would make illegal, I dont like the idea of women or girls who have had abortions being made to serve life sentences in prison which he and his mates advocate....I do want the Brits out now which he also wants. Just because he wants the Brits out does that mean I should forget about everything else he stands for?

[Die Neue Zeit]

you really think hezbollah are trying to emulate the SPD?
seriously?

Here's an article from 2007:

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2516.shtml


For Moslems of Lebanon, Al Qaeda is a terrorist group. But not Hezbollah. For Lebanese, Hezbollah is a resistance movement and a social relief organization. The distinction is fundamental. And besides, today it is a political party in the Lebanese Parliament.

An Arab friend told me this: the best way to understand Hezbollah is to think of it first of all as a Shiite political party -- the name means “Party of God.” In Arabic Hizb-allah. Hezbollah was founded in 1982 on the heels of the Iranian Revolution to lead a guerilla war against Israeli occupation of south Lebanon. When the Israeli troops abandoned Lebanon in 2000 after 22 years of occupation, the entire Arab world considered it a great victory. Guns were fired in the air to celebrate the first victory against Israel!

Hezbollah is today popular in the Arab world. It has organized schools and clinics. Its hospitals offer free medical care to its members. It has its own press and TV. Surveys after Israel’s war on Lebanon last year showed that 87 percent of Lebanese supported Hezbollah, including most Christians, Druse and Sunni Moslems.

Nonetheless, Hezbollah is an armed party.

[...]

But in Hezbollah, they don’t talk much about an Islamic state anymore. In practice it largely ignores the Islamic Shariah. Lebanese nationalism is the order of the day -- political alliances, trade unions, female activists.

In many ways, Hezbollah is practically Social Democratic. The irony is that someday Hezbollah could become a member of the Socialist International together with the Israeli Laborites. They could form a Middle Eastern bloc together. Another irony: Lebanon and Israel are the two most Europe-oriented countries in the Middle East, both sometimes mentioned as candidate members of the European Union

[Garret]

I support the Afghan people against Imperialism, and want them to resist without the backward-as-hell Taliban taking advantage.

[Soviet dude]

People in this thread crying crocodile tears for dead communists in Afghanistan probably belong to the same traditions who called Soviet intervention an invasion, the PDPA a puppet government, and who cheered the collapse of the USSR as being a chance to bring in "real socialism." Every step of the way, the phony, pseudo-Left always objectively lines up with their own imperialist bourgeoisie, with the stupidest of lines, no matter if they contradict each other from one decade to the next.

So please spare us all your phony concern for dead communist you think are "tankies" anyway.

[bricolage]

So Hezbollah provides some social care and you make the jump to claiming it is 'emulating the SPD', regardless of the political considerations this entails.

The problem with your model is as soon as any group builds a school or puts on a funeral they are in so I've seen you back anyone ranging from Blanquists to Food Not Bombs to Hezbollah to the SPD. None of it makes any sense.

[Devrim]

Another irony: Lebanon and Israel are the two most Europe-oriented countries in the Middle East, both sometimes mentioned as candidate members of the European Union.

Please produce just one reference to support this.

Devrim

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

People in this thread crying crocodile tears for dead communists in Afghanistan probably belong to the same traditions who called Soviet intervention an invasion, the PDPA a puppet government, and who cheered the collapse of the USSR as being a chance to bring in "real socialism." Every step of the way, the phony, pseudo-Left always objectively lines up with their own imperialist bourgeoisie, with the stupidest of lines, no matter if they contradict each other from one decade to the next.

So please spare us all your phony concern for dead communist you think are "tankies" anyway.
You're sounding like a wacko!

You're sounding more pseudo-left than anyone else in this thread.

[Palingenisis]

People in this thread crying crocodile tears for dead communists in Afghanistan probably belong to the same traditions who called Soviet intervention an invasion, the PDPA a puppet government, and who cheered the collapse of the USSR as being a chance to bring in "real socialism." Every step of the way, the phony, pseudo-Left always objectively lines up with their own imperialist bourgeoisie, with the stupidest of lines, no matter if they contradict each other from one decade to the next.

So please spare us all your phony concern for dead communist you think are "tankies" anyway.

Fuck seriously.....Communists in Afghanistan actually saw the US as a lesser evil when they came in first! I hate Imperialist soldiers, and I mean hate. I have zero sympathy when the Taliban kill those scum....But cop on....The Taliban are too Islam what the Westboro Church is to Christianity, its most derranged and psychopathic part.

You know people are banned here for disagreeing with abortion which is a very sensitive issue in real life (Im pro-chioce but I understand people's objections to it) but supporting the Taliban is a okay?

[Wanted Man]

zomg yea we totally support them, they are like so awesoem!!111

Seriously, though, aren't discussions like this kind of abstract? If one wanted to take up the position of "supporting" the Taliban, what would they do? Write sympathetic articles whenever they kill some soldiers? Campaign for them on the streets? I'd pay to see that. :lol: It's actually one of the most annoying and silly discussions on the left, about how "socialists have to support X or Y". Why should they?

[bricolage]

yeah its stupid. trotskyist groups in the uk argue about whether or not they 'support' hamas yet I doubt hamas even know that any of them exist.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The Taliban/Al Qaeda certainly seem to meet the qualifications for support on Revleft; i.e. brown people with guns in a mysterious, far away land.

[Palingenisis]

zomg yea we totally support them, they are like so awesoem!!111

Seriously, though, aren't discussions like this kind of abstract? If one wanted to take up the position of "supporting" the Taliban, what would they do? Write sympathetic articles whenever they kill some soldiers? Campaign for them on the streets? I'd pay to see that. :lol: It's actually one of the most annoying and silly discussions on the left, about how "socialists have to support X or Y". Why should they?

Because its part of wider question to how we should approach reactionary anti-imperialists in our own countries.

Look at my last post....People who are progressive and socialist have asked me to give money for the defense campaign of a clerical-fascist because he is against the Brits.

[Die Neue Zeit]

So Hezbollah provides some social care and you make the jump to claiming it is 'emulating the SPD', regardless of the political considerations this entails.

I never said Hezbollah is emulating the revolutionary program (Erfurt Program) of the pre-war SPD. I'm referring to one aspect here.


The problem with your model is as soon as any group builds a school or puts on a funeral they are in so I've seen you back anyone ranging from Blanquists to Food Not Bombs to Hezbollah to the SPD. None of it makes any sense.

I didn't back them like a tail wagging a dog. I'm comparing them to their sectarian competitors.

I prefer the Blanquists of the Paris Commune over some obscure sectarian left group organizing at that time.

I prefer Food Not Bombs to a lot of anarchist tendencies (utopians, lifestylists, hooligans, and insurrectionists).

I prefer Hezbollah to the multiple Islamist political groups and even the Lebanese Communist Party, since all of them don't see the big picture.

I prefer the pre-war SPD over the SDKPiL (Poland and Lithuania), the Social-Democratic Federation (UK), the Socialist Labor Party (US), etc.

I prefer the inter-war USPD over the ultra-left, sectarian KPD.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I never said Hezbollah is emulating the revolutionary program (Erfurt Program) of the pre-war SPD. I'm referring to one aspect here.



I didn't back them like a tail wagging a dog. I'm comparing them to their sectarian competitors.

I prefer the Blanquists of the Paris Commune over some obscure sectarian left group organizing at that time.

I prefer Food Not Bombs to a lot of anarchist tendencies (utopians, lifestylists, hooligans, and insurrectionists).

I prefer Hezbollah to the multiple Islamist political groups and even the Lebanese Communist Party, since all of them don't see the big picture.

I prefer the pre-war SPD over the SDKPiL (Poland and Lithuania), the Social-Democratic Federation (UK), the Socialist Labor Party (US), etc.

I prefer the inter-war USPD over the ultra-left, sectarian KPD.

I'm constantly amazed at how you manage to connect literally every social movement back to the SPD.

Also, have you actually ever met anyone associated with FNB?

[bricolage]

I never said Hezbollah is emulating the revolutionary program (Erfurt Program) of the pre-war SPD. I'm referring to one aspect here.
The same aspect that has already been monopolised by bourgeois states. Was Attlee emulating the SPD? Obama has a healthcare plan, is he?


I prefer...
I prefer apples over pears. Doesn't have anything to do with communism though.

[it_ain't_me]

i support soviet dude's mother taking away his computer privileges.

[Dimentio]

It seems like some of you actually support them, I think some of you take the whole fight Western imperialism thing too far if you do actually support the these groups.

Maoist-Thirdworldists in general get restricted/banned. Most of them are trolls anyway.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The same aspect that has already been monopolised by bourgeois states. Was Attlee emulating the SPD? Obama has a healthcare plan, is he?

It was temporarily monopolized after WWII, but there have been recent welfare state breakdowns. Why do you think there are revived discussions in some unions about providing social services for the unemployed?

[HEAD ICE]

If the Taliban kicks out the USA they will 100% ally themselves with another imperialist power, in fact they will probably become friends with the USA again. Seriously reading some of these posts the level of analysis here is straight from the 'Risk' board game instruction manual not any type of socialist text. The Taliban were USA imperialist pawns and they will remain an imperialist pawn whatever the outcome of this war.

[bricolage]

It was temporarily monopolized after WWII, but there have been recent welfare state breakdowns. Why do you think there are revived discussions in some unions about providing social services for the unemployed?
Because unions are not revolutionary.

What you speak of as 'alternative culture' (schools, hospitals, social services) are way beyond the reach of revolutionary bodies and more to the point are a waste of time. They are forever are doomed to co-option.

We can create our own culture by shutting production, by throwing bricks, by blocking the streets, not with singing clubs and swimming pools.

[Widerstand]

It was temporarily monopolized after WWII, but there have been recent welfare state breakdowns. Why do you think there are revived discussions in some unions about providing social services for the unemployed?

With all due respect, FUCK your SPD/LINKE-fetish.

[Ocean Seal]

It seems like some of you actually support them, I think some of you take the whole fight Western imperialism thing too far if you do actually support the these groups.
How can one bring onself to support a group that would almost necessarily create an autocratic reactionary state if it had the opportunity to do so. This isn't to justify US imperialism, but to stop midtrack and denounce two evils both extreme in nature. At times I will support non-communist anti-imperialists, but supporting al queda is going too far.

[Palingenisis]

Because unions are not revolutionary.

.

Is the CNT in Spain at this moment reactionary? NO.

Is the Independent Workers' Union in Ireland reactionary at this moment? NO.

I have had VERY bad experiances with Unions and my position on them is too the left of most anarchists here...But to dismiss ALL Unions as reactionary is wrong.

[Pawn Power]

This thread proves my point that there are certain conversations that happen on web forums like this that would never happen face to face because people can't bring themselves to actually say what they sometimes type.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Because unions are not revolutionary.

What you speak of as 'alternative culture' (schools, hospitals, social services) are way beyond the reach of revolutionary bodies and more to the point are a waste of time. They are forever are doomed to co-option.

I have yet to see any welfare state that has directly "co-opted" organizations like food banks, food pantries, clothing banks, soup kitchens, etc.

[I won't go into tax deductibility as a means of indirect co-option, and the need for a "business model" that gets around this.]


We can create our own culture by shutting production, by throwing bricks, by blocking the streets, not with singing clubs and swimming pools.

Tried, tested, and failed. Shutting production cons workers into taking power without being politically aware. Throwing bricks, if they're aimed at glass windows, is hooliganism. Blocking the streets, unless it's mass civil disobedience, is an inconvenience for ordinary folks going to and from their jobs.


With all due respect, FUCK your SPD/LINKE-fetish.

Again, I have no fetishes for either the modern SPD or Die Linke.

[Soviet dude]

Fuck seriously.....Communists in Afghanistan actually saw the US as a lesser evil when they came in first!

Pretty much all communists from that region have fell into the same trap Rosa Luxembourg did, and for which Lenin criticized her for. They seem incapable of understanding primary and secondary contradictions, especially the ridiculous Maoist groups in Afghanistan, until it is too late. The reality is, because they sided with the US invasion, which is almost universally hated, communists in Iraq and Afghanistan have made themselves irrelevant for at least a generation.

It's evident you people don't have the foggiest clue what Lenin advocated on the National Question or revolutionary defeatism.

"During a reactionary war a revolutionary class cannot but desire the defeat of its government. This is axiomatic, and disputed only by conscious partisans or helpless satellites of the social-chauvinists. " - Lenin

What this means is that for a communist, it is literally unthinkable to do anything else but call for a defeat of your own government. This means supporting the Taliban, and any other forces in Afghanistan fighting US imperialism.


I hate Imperialist soldiers, and I mean hate. I have zero sympathy when the Taliban kill those scum....But cop on....The Taliban are too Islam what the Westboro Church is to Christianity, its most derranged and psychopathic part.

More Islamophobia crap. It always comes back to racist stupidity with pseudo-Left liberals.


You know people are banned here for disagreeing with abortion which is a very sensitive issue in real life (Im pro-chioce but I understand people's objections to it) but supporting the Taliban is a okay?

People should be banned for supporting the murdering and plundering of Afghanistan and racist Islamophobia.

[bricolage]

But to dismiss ALL Unions as reactionary is wrong.
I said they weren't revolutionary, that doesn't mean they are reactionary.

[Palingenisis]

Pretty much all communists from that region have fell into the same trap Rosa Luxembourg did, and for which Lenin criticized her for. They seem incapable of understanding primary and secondary contradictions, especially the ridiculous Maoist groups in Afghanistan, until it is too late. The reality is, because they sided with the US invasion, which is almost universally hated, communists in Iraq and Afghanistan have made themselves irrelevant for at least a generation.


If this was the 1980s would be all behind the Provos despite their reactionary elements and contradictions....But the Taliban is something different. Women getting a chance to learn how to read and to write would be something progressive....Which is why the Afghan Liberation Organization supported the US as a lesser evil at the beginning. The Workers Communist Party of Iraq and the Marxist-Leninist-Maoists have consisently opposed the occupation there.

[Ravachol]

aside from this, if the taliban do resume power they will undoubtedly be quickly bought off and re-integrated into capital in a way that supports western interests. hardly a lasting blow to imperialism.

Even that's a 'what if' as the Taliban don't have to be 're'-integrated into Capital at all considering they're just as much part of it.



People in this thread crying crocodile tears for dead communists in Afghanistan probably belong to the same traditions who called Soviet intervention an invasion, the PDPA a puppet government, and who cheered the collapse of the USSR as being a chance to bring in "real socialism." Every step of the way, the phony, pseudo-Left always objectively lines up with their own imperialist bourgeoisie, with the stupidest of lines, no matter if they contradict each other from one decade to the next.

So please spare us all your phony concern for dead communist you think are "tankies" anyway.

This all coming from a person who sides with a group that doesn't even come close to Communism in the first place. I don't give two shits about any group seeking to replace one form of bourgeoisie rule with another. Following this ignorant position we might as well endorse the NSDAP as resisting 'Versailles Imperialism' :rolleyes:



I have yet to see any welfare state that has directly "co-opted" organizations like food banks, food pantries, clothing banks, soup kitchens, etc.


... Have you ever seen co-option in practice at all? Like, seriously :blink:



Tried, tested, and failed. Shutting production cons workers into taking power without being politically aware. Throwing bricks, if they're aimed at glass windows, is hooliganism. Blocking the streets is an inconvenience for ordinary folks going to and from their jobs.


Oh boy, whatever you do don't interfere with the circulation of Capital! :rolleyes:

Actually, regarding this discussion i'm more or less in the middle. Co-option is a real big danger as can be seen in practice in much of the pseudo-leftist NGO field as well as parts of the alterglobalist/squatter milieu. Both have been heavily co-opted by and integrated into Capital.

On the other hand, mere confrontation degenerates social struggle into armed conflict alone yielding no base for a new society in the shell of the old. Regarding this matter, I think Deleuze's concept of the 'War Machine', as stated below by Tiqqun, is the most sane one:



The first offensive campaign against Empire failed. The RAF’s attack against the “imperialist system,” that of the Red Brigades against the SIM (Imperialist State of the Multinationals) and many other guerilla actions were easily repelled. The failure was not that of this or that combatant organization or of this or that “revolutionary subject,” but the failure of a conception of war; a conception of war that could not be revived beyond these organizations because it was already a revival itself. With the exception of some texts of the RAF or of the June 2nd Movement, there are still today very few documents issued from the “armed struggle” that were not written in this awkward, ossified, armored language, which falls, in one way or another, into Third International kitsch. It’s as if they are trying to dissuade anyone from joining them.

(..)

The return to war demands a new conception of these.
We have to invent a form of war such that the defeat of Empire will no longer be a task which kills us, but which lets us know how to live, to be more and more ALIVE.

What we are talking about here is simply the constitution of war machines. By war machine, it is necessary to understand a certain coincidence of living and struggling, coincidence which does not present itself without simultaneously demanding to be built.
Because each time one of these terms finds itself in some way separated from the other, the war machine degenerates, goes off track. If it is the moment of living that is unilateralized, it becomes ghetto. It is in here that we bear witness to the sinister quagmire of “the alternative,” in which the purpose seems without ambiguity to be the commodification of the Self under the envelope of difference. The majority of occupied social centers in Germany, Italy or Spain, demonstrate how simulated exteriority to Empire can be a precious resource in capitalist valorization. “The Ghetto, the justifying of “difference,” the privilege given to all introspective and moral aspects, the tendency to consitute oneself as a separate society renouncing assault on the capitalist machine, on the “social factory,” is all of this perhaps a result of the vague and gushing rhapsodic “theories” of Valcarenghi [the director of the counter-cultural publication Re Nudo] and his consorts? Isn’t it strange that they accuse us of being a “sub-culture” precisely now when all of the flowery shit and non-violence that accompanies it is in crisis?” the autonomists of Senza Tregua already wrote in 1976.

On the other hand, if it is the moment of struggling that is isolated, the war machine degenerates into army. All of the militant formations, all of the terrible communities are war machines that have survived their own extinction in this petrified form.

(..)

War can’t be allowed to be put away as an isolated moment from our existence, as the decisive confrontation; from now on, it is our existence itself, in all of its aspects, that is war. That is to say that the first movement of this war is reappropriation. Reappropriation of means to live-and-struggle. Reappropriation, then, of spaces: squat, occupation or collectivizing private spaces. Reappropriation of what’s in common: constitution of languages, syntaxes, means of communication, of an autonomous culture –snatching the transmission of experience from the hands of the State. Reappropriation of violence: communizing fighting techniques, forming self-defense forces, arms. Lastly, reappropriation of basic survival: diffusion of medical knowledge-ability, progressive organization of a network of autonomous resupply.





More Islamophobia crap. It always comes back to racist stupidity with pseudo-Left liberals.
(..)
People should be banned for supporting the murdering and plundering of Afghanistan and racist Islamophobia.

You should keep your big internet loudmouth shut. Calling people here Islamophobic for no particular reason other than a complete and utter lack of arguments on your side is not only a gross accusation, it ridicules Islamophobia as a concept and reduces it to the caricature portrayed by right-wing media.

[Palingenisis]

This all coming from a person who sides with a group that doesn't even come close to Communism in the first place. I don't give two shits about any group seeking to replace one form of bourgeoisie rule with another. Following this ignorant position we might as well endorse the NSDAP as resisting 'Versailles Imperialism' :rolleyes:
.

Very, very, very good point.....A lot of "third world" nationalists DID have sympathy with Hitler (Gandhi to comes to mind and Sean Russell aswell as the Breton seperatists disagreed themselves practising real politick).

Plus Germany was an oppressed nation in many ways when Hitler came to power.

[bricolage]

I have yet to see any welfare state that has directly "co-opted" organizations like food banks, food pantries, clothing banks, soup kitchens, etc.
I'm sorry but the Salvation Army does this all a lot better than you ever could.


Tried, tested, and failed.
Unlike 'alternative culture' which was oh so successful, oh wait...
Lets be honest here we have never in the course of human history seen anything remotely close to communism, to criticise tactics based on 'failure' is to issue a blanket rejection of every tactic ever tried... to be honest I'm not too adverse to the idea of that but that's a whole other issue...


Shutting production cons workers into taking power without being politically aware.
Oh if only those poor workers would have you to enlighten them...
Shutting production is a necessary component on revolution. After the other thread on this I actually took on quite a lot of what Zanthorus said (seeing as he can engage in conversation like a sensible human being...) and I understand the ideas around political programmes. Considering your conception of revolution though is some abstract party acting above and beyond any kind of working class movement and remaining completely detached from it I really don't care what you have to say about 'conning workers'.


Throwing bricks, if they're aimed at glass windows, is hooliganism.
Well I guess you can hand them over the cops then? I mean that is what you like to do with 'hooligans' right?

Anyway the 'brick' was a metaphor more than anything else, obviously dependent on situations.


Blocking the streets, unless it's mass civil disobedience, is an inconvenience for ordinary folks going to and from their jobs.
Once again, dependent on situation and context.

[Lyev]

I would just like to interject here and say that anyone who doesn't support the Taleban unconditionally is a trotskyite-fascist-wrecker!!

[bricolage]

On the other hand, mere confrontation degenerates social struggle into armed conflict alone yielding no base for a new society in the shell of the old.
Yes, I agree with you here. I think in these discussions I end up getting pushed to one extreme just because I find what DNZ proposes to be utterly ridiculous. I believe we could start at some base level of creating an 'alternative culture', in the formation of communities of struggle. What this could mean in practice I don't really know and I am very abstract about, however it would definitely not involve co-ops, charity work or the replication of failed social democratic strategies.

[Palingenisis]

I would just like to interject here and say that anyone who doesn't support the Taleban unconditionally is a trotskyite-fascist-wrecker!!

The main Trotskyite party in England (the SWP) does support the Taliban and sucks up to Political Islam. Marxist-Leninists from Afghanistan HATE the Talbian.

[Soviet dude]

This all coming from a person who sides with a group that doesn't even come close to Communism in the first place. I don't give two shits about any group seeking to replace one form of bourgeoisie rule with another.

Translation: I support US imperialism.


Following this ignorant position we might as well endorse the NSDAP as resisting 'Versailles Imperialism'

What a blatantly ridiculous violation of Godwin's Law, but I suppose you can't expect much coming from someone who eats from a dumpster.

[L.A.P.]

To not support them is to accept US imperialism.

I'd rather support imperialism than support theocratic fascism.

[Palingenisis]

You should keep your big internet loudmouth shut. Calling people here Islamophobic for no particular reason other than a complete and utter lack of arguments on your side is not only a gross accusation, it ridicules Islamophobia as a concept and reduces it to the caricature portrayed by right-wing media.

Again good point...Am I anti-Christian? No. Am I against the reactionary political uses of Christianity? Yes. Same goes for Islam.

Most Moslems I have talked to consider the Taliban psychoes. The burqa is banned in a lot of Islamic countries but women are forced to wear in Taliban controlled areas.

[Lyev]

Seriously though, looking at the whole vast picture in Afghanistan (or perhaps any "oppressed" nation) shouldn't communists "side" with the working class? I mean I don't want to create a strawman where you absolutely must the Taleban or US imperialism, or the Afghani working class or the Taleban, but how can we side with such a reactionary group?

But I think some Marxist-Leninists or Maoists blow up issues pertaining national liberation and imperialism way too much. The whole class struggle ceases to become worker-boss; labour-capital, but more simply oppressed nation-oppressor nation, you know? Ho Chi Minh tried national liberation; look at Vietnam now. Not a exactly a pristine picture of communes and classlessness is it?

You support the Taleban, they rid the country of US imperialism, then what? Well, I would rather have neither the Taleban nor imperialists, if I was a normal Afghani guy. The people of Afghanistan themselves must choose what they want in their country - not western internet lefties, NATO, the Taleban or anyone else for that matter.

[Soviet dude]

I'd rather support imperialism than support theocratic fascism.

Thanks for admitting you're a liberal, racist Islamophobic supporter of imperialism.

[Lyev]

The main Trotskyite party in England (the SWP) does support the Taliban and sucks up to Political Islam. Marxist-Leninists from Afghanistan HATE the Talbian.Gee, thanks for your insight comrade. omg I hate Trotskyites as well, sooo sectarian!

[FreeFocus]

You don't necessarily have to support the Taliban or al-Qaeda, but when they deal blows to imperialism we should act as interested observers, using the changed reality and conditions to our advantage, where that applies.

Moreover, the Taliban today (you might call them the "neo-Taliban") is not the same Taliban from the 1990s. It's more nationalist and a little less socially oppressive. Of course, this is when they aren't in power (and there are still horrific incidents where women have been disfigured, people abused and tortured, etc.).

[Ravachol]

Translation: I support US imperialism.


You're either trolling or are complete incapable of any kind of argument. Either way, I'll leave you to your inane internet rage.



What a blatantly ridiculous violation of Godwin's Law, but I suppose you can't expect much coming from someone who eats from a dumpster.

Disregarding the fact that I eat from a plate, your attitude reeks of bourgeois moralism, condemning those who have to eat from a dumpster to survive. So either you're a bourgeois moralist or you're just plain stupid.

Perhaps actually getting outside and being an active militant in the class struggle might sort out a few things in that messed up little mind of yours.

[Reznov]

Why? I think this policy worked pretty well for the Bolsheviks. "Help us Makhno, the White Army is approaching Moscow." Then after the Black Army was finished helping to fend off the capitalist reactionaries... "Anarchists are infantile ultra-leftist reactionaries who deserve to be executed."

You cold son of a ***** :laugh:

[Soviet dude]

Disregarding the fact that I eat from a plate, your attitude reeks of bourgeois moralism, condemning those who have to eat from a dumpster to survive.I condemn those who eat from a dumpster as a political statement, which is your political-brethren. Anarchism is a fashion-scene for petty-bourgeois hipster-doofuses.


Perhaps actually getting outside and being an active militant in the class struggle might sort out a few things in that messed up little mind of yoursI've probably done a thousand time the organizing and struggle you ever will engage in. Vegan-potlucks excluded, of course.

[Palingenisis]

Thanks for admitting you're a liberal, racist Islamophobic supporter of imperialism.

Know he isnt.

I like the fact that I was thought to read and write.

I like the fact that I can dress comfortably (which is different from dressing "slutty" ) on hot days....wow I even enjoy sunbathing topless on beachs where its the norm..Should I be killed for all that?

[L.A.P.]

Thanks for admitting you're a liberal, racist Islamophobic supporter of imperialism.
You're starting to become really fucking irritating because I don't support an extremist group that stones women because they got raped makes me a racist islamophobic supporter of imperialism? Blow it out your ass, I hate western imperialism but I don't have to bow down to every group who fights them. Fighting western imperialism or not the Taliban and Al-Queada are absolutely fucking disgusting people. By the way, thanks for admitting you're a fascist, religious fundamentalist supporter of theocracy.

[bricolage]

Anarchism is a fashion-scene for petty-bourgeois hipster-doofuses.
Damn, we've been outed...

[Palingenisis]

I condemn those who eat from a dumpster as a political statement, which is your political-brethren. Anarchism is a fashion-scene for petty-bourgeois hipster-doofuses.


Look I regard anarchism as hopelessly utopian.

However the fact remains that a lot of good actually working class kids identitify as anarchist and do a lot of good work like defending squats (and most people who squat do so as a necesscity not as a trendy option) and kicking the shit out of fascists. Blanketly dismissing all anarchists as middle class is stupid.

[gorillafuck]

People in this thread crying crocodile tears for dead communists in Afghanistan probably belong to the same traditions who called Soviet intervention an invasion, the PDPA a puppet government, and who cheered the collapse of the USSR as being a chance to bring in "real socialism." Every step of the way, the phony, pseudo-Left always objectively lines up with their own imperialist bourgeoisie, with the stupidest of lines, no matter if they contradict each other from one decade to the next.

So please spare us all your phony concern for dead communist you think are "tankies" anyway.
Uh oh, you've been called out on how you only care what happens to western communists and I can tell the tears are steadily flowing.

I would have been in favor of the PDPA had I been alive at the time. Take your made up horseshit somewhere else.

[Amphictyonis]

I support communism.

[Widerstand]

Look I regard anarchism as hopelessly utopian.

However the fact remains that a lot of good actually working class kids identitify as anarchist and do a lot of good work like defending squats (and most people who squat do so as a necesscity not as a trendy option) and kicking the shit out of fascists. Blanketly dismissing all anarchists as middle class is stupid.

Why can't middle class ppl be anarchists? What have they done to be denied that right?

[Palingenisis]

Why can't middle class ppl be anarchists? What have they done to be denied that right?

There are middle class anarchists and nothing I can say or do will end the existence of middle class anarchists.

My point was that Soviet Dude was wrong to say that ALL anarchists are middle class....Not all anarchists are middle class=fact.

[Pawn Power]

The posturing in this thread is pretty ridiculous.

[Os Cangaceiros]

There are middle class anarchists and nothing I can say or do will end the existence of middle class anarchists.

My point was that Soviet Dude was wrong to say that ALL anarchists are middle class....Not all anarchists are middle class=fact.

Dude, but, like, all anarchists represent petty bourgeois class interests. Man.

[L.A.P.]

Well I can conclude that the answer is thankfully FUCK NO, and those who do just comes off as trolls.

[bcbm]

Look I regard anarchism as hopelessly utopian.

However the fact remains that a lot of good actually working class kids identitify as anarchist and do a lot of good work like defending squats (and most people who squat do so as a necesscity not as a trendy option) and kicking the shit out of fascists. Blanketly dismissing all anarchists as middle class is stupid.

i mean, do you really expect this person to have any sort of sensible, nuanced opinion at this point?

[RadioRaheem84]

There are some moderate muslim groups that I would give a modicum of support against imperialists like Hezbollah, but the Taliban and Al Qaeda are totally out line.

This anger about not defending them is largely due to the lack of good leftist movements.

[Palingenisis]

i mean, do you really expect this person to have any sort of sensible, nuanced opinion at this point?

You never know...As I said I supported the Taliban until I was told to cop on. Our opinions become more sensible and nuanced through arguing...Isnt that why post here?

[FreeFocus]

Look I regard anarchism as hopelessly utopian.

Given that communism is about creating a stateless, classless society, how are you a communist if you view that end result as "hopelessly utopian?" Or do you think anarchist strategy is utopian?

[Palingenisis]

Given that communism is about creating a stateless, classless society, how are you a communist if you view that end result as "hopelessly utopian?" Or do you think anarchist strategy is utopian?

Because jumping from the mess we are in now to that seems hopelessly utopian to me unless you have a global revolution happening at the same time and all the reactionaries fade away in a couple of weeks.

[Widerstand]

Because jumping from the mess we are in now to that seems hopelessly utopian to me unless you have a global revolution happening at the same time and all the reactionaries fade away in a couple of weeks.

But anarchists do neither think there shouldn't be a transitional phase, nor that there won't be a counter-revolution. We do however want a transitional phase that doesn't require us to join some top-down party, centrally led by a self-important Führer-figure, in which's politics we will ultimately have no say in and which will strip us of our newfound freedom to establish state capitalism, and eventually get us shot.

[Ravachol]

Because jumping from the mess we are in now to that seems hopelessly utopian to me unless you have a global revolution happening at the same time and all the reactionaries fade away in a couple of weeks.

True, except that that's not at all what 'Anarchism' (disregarding the fact that there's no unified field of theory in an ideology as diffuse as Anarchism) is about. Anarchism is about Capitalism -> shit hits the fucking fan -> Communism. It's a process of repeated cycles of democratic, self-managed struggle of increasing intensity. The actual strategy varies with the tendency. The project of building and living communism in the here and now is nothing but the direct realisation of the material demands of the proletariat in opposition to Capital and the state, it's not utopian or idealist at all.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I'm reminded of something that Marsella (bless her, she's basically Trollzilla, but she said a lot of intelligent things too) once said: there's no transitional phase after the revolution; the revolution IS the transitional phase. (She was a left com, too, not an anarchist.)

[crashcourse]

I support any group resisting US imperialism. The reasoning expressed here not to is simply childish nonsense and racist Islamophobia.

Don't dodge the question: do you support the Taliban and Al Quaeda? That is, in your view are these groups resisting US imperialims?

[Palingenisis]

True, except that that's not at all what 'Anarchism' (disregarding the fact that there's no unified field of theory in an ideology as diffuse as Anarchism) is about. Anarchism is about Capitalism -> shit hits the fucking fan -> Communism. It's a process of repeated cycles of democratic, self-managed struggle of increasing intensity. The actual strategy varies with the tendency. The project of building and living communism in the here and now is nothing but the direct realisation of the material demands of the proletariat in opposition to Capital and the state, it's not utopian or idealist at all.

I will see if I can find links tomorrow....But in the past anarchist in London, Zurich and I think also in Amsterdam and Germany have sucessfully defended squats from the police....Did the majiority of even working class people in England and Switzerland agree with them doing so? Im far from sure that was the case...Therefore they were acting in an undemocratic manner....That doesnt bother me at all (even though Im a Gothonic-Stalinist Ive lived in squats and dont have any problemn with squating) but it does go against anarchism in general. Its being pretty dictatorial.

[Widerstand]

I will see if I can find links tomorrow....But in the past anarchist in London, Zurich and I think also in Amsterdam and Germany have sucessfully defended squats from the police....Did the majiority of even working class people in England and Switzerland agree with them doing so? Im far from sure that was the case...Therefore they were acting in an undemocratic manner....That doesnt bother me at all (even though Im a Gothonic-Stalinist Ive lived in squats and dont have any problemn with squating) but it does go against anarchism in general. Its being pretty dictatorial.

Am I dictatorial if I take a shit without the majority of the proletariat sanctioning it? No really, can you explain this argument to me?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Following this ignorant position we might as well endorse the NSDAP as resisting 'Versailles Imperialism' :rolleyes:Very, very, very good point.....A lot of "third world" nationalists DID have sympathy with Hitler (Gandhi to comes to mind and Sean Russell aswell as the Breton seperatists disagreed themselves practising real politick).

Plus Germany was an oppressed nation in many ways when Hitler came to power.

Short of a sectarian KPD takeover, a Communitarian Populist Front could have evoked working-class consciousness as well as left-nationalism by revoking that Treaty... even if it meant a new war and kicking the crap out of the Western aggressors.


Have you ever seen co-option in practice at all? Like, seriously :blink:

Apart from what I said on tax deductibility as a means of indirect co-option, or direct funding as a means of direct co-option, please enlighten me.


Actually, regarding this discussion i'm more or less in the middle. Co-option is a real big danger as can be seen in practice in much of the pseudo-leftist NGO field as well as parts of the alterglobalist/squatter milieu. Both have been heavily co-opted by and integrated into Capital.

Yes, I read this:

"Manufacturing Dissent": the Anti-globalization Movement is Funded by the Corporate Elites (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21110)

[LOL at your "squatter milieu" remark - the appeals to lumpen-scum never ceases to amuse me.]


On the other hand, mere confrontation degenerates social struggle into armed conflict alone yielding no base for a new society in the shell of the old. Regarding this matter, I think Deleuze's concept of the 'War Machine', as stated below by Tiqqun, is the most sane one

He poses an analysis, not a solution. Thanks for citing, though.


I'm sorry but the Salvation Army does this all a lot better

What did I say?

"The need for a 'business model' that gets around this"

Which means a "business model" that can thrive even without donor tax deductibility, that appeals to working-class donors and not philanthropists, and that raises explicitly political messages.


Unlike 'alternative culture' which was oh so successful, oh wait...
Lets be honest here we have never in the course of human history seen anything remotely close to communism, to criticise tactics based on 'failure' is to issue a blanket rejection of every tactic ever tried... to be honest I'm not too adverse to the idea of that but that's a whole other issue...

The Bolsheviks succeeded because they followed as much of the Revolutionary Strategy of the Center as they could, despite czarist limitations.


Oh if only those poor workers would have you to enlighten them...
Shutting production is a necessary component on revolution. After the other thread on this I actually took on quite a lot of what Zanthorus said (seeing as he can engage in conversation like a sensible human being...) and I understand the ideas around political programmes. Considering your conception of revolution though is some abstract party acting above and beyond any kind of working class movement and remaining completely detached from it I really don't care what you have to say about 'conning workers'.

Far from it. My premise is that real parties are real movements and vice versa. Such "party" you speak of isn't a real party at all, and such "working class movement" you speak of isn't a real movement at all, either.


Yes, I agree with you here. I think in these discussions I end up getting pushed to one extreme just because I find what DNZ proposes to be utterly ridiculous. I believe we could start at some base level of creating an 'alternative culture', in the formation of communities of struggle. What this could mean in practice I don't really know and I am very abstract about, however it would definitely not involve co-ops, charity work or the replication of failed Social-Democratic strategies.

I don't like party-movements building co-ops, either, in the sense of cooperative businesses (like farms and especially "mutual" banks) flooding the economy. The sports clubs, funeral homes, supplementary workers' insurance, etc. could be operated by party's "cooperative union" arm, though. The cooperative talk is definitely walking a fine line.

[Palingenisis]

Yes, I read this:

"Manufacturing Dissent": the Anti-globalization Movement is Funded by the Corporate Elites (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21110)

[LOL at your "squatter milieu" remark - the appeals to lumpen-scum never ceases to amuse me.]



The squatter milieu is atctually a pretty mixed bag from middle class kids "finding themselves" to working class families to elements of lumpen scum...Most of it isnt lumpen scum though. In my estate there is regular violence between lumpens and the working class (the police generally take the side of the lumpens...surprise, surprise). I know what lumpen scum actually is...In my experiance of squatting in England and in mainland Europe most squatters in established squats arent that.

[RadioRaheem84]

"Manufacturing Dissent": the Anti-globalization Movement is Funded by the Corporate Elites

Wow. Is this for real?

[Palingenisis]

Wow. Is this for real?

Yes...Charities are big business. People from Africa tend to be extremely cynical about them...Western liberals tend to go with emotions instead of brains....Which makes them very easily manipulated...Thats why we need Marxism.

[RadioRaheem84]

I always knew that the anti-globalization movements that were mainly liberal bent were sponsored by some rich people. That sucks.

We do need Marxism.

[Palingenisis]

Am I dictatorial if I take a shit without the majority of the proletariat sanctioning it? No really, can you explain this argument to me?

Uh taking over a building is a wee bit different (I dont think anyone is going to object to you taking a shit :rolleyes:....as long as its in a toilet and not in public:rolleyes: ).

[RadioRaheem84]

palingenesis, do you recommend the doc Superpower by the Global Research Institute?

[Palingenisis]

palingenesis, do you recommend the doc Superpower by the Global Research Institute?

I dont trust the global research people.

Ima kinda paranoid but most of the time I have them quoted by distributists, libertarians or the right of Irish Republicanism.

[Prairie Fire]

" Do any of you actually support the Taliban and Al Qaeda?"

Several of the more long time posters on revleft have been complaining about the plummeting level of discourse on Revleft for years now ( myself included,), but just when we think that the bar can't get lower, it does.

Among the recent gems, there is currently a thread in "learning" concerning whether or not V.I. Lenin was a "Monster" (Apparently the validity of an insult is the starting point for a debate that presents itself as rational), and now we have this recent thread, which is seeking to bully people into a dichotomy of "For" or "Against" the combattant forces in Afghanistan, when the reality of the situation is much more complicated then that.

The Original poster opens up the discussion by taking that stand that anyone who "actually supports" these forces is taking "the whole fight Western imperialism thing too far".

This in itself raises questions.

In the struggle against western imperialism, how far is too far?

In the struggle to defeat an occupying foriegn power, what is un-acceptable?

How far would you be willing to take it?

Is moderation required in the scope of a revolutionary armed struggle, and if so, in what way?

The unspoken implications of this point of view are also that these islamic insurgencies are the greater evil to western imperialism in the middle east.

Now, comparing the carnage, destruction and body counts next to one another, one sees that this is a fallacious argument. Whether or not Western imperialism is ideologically motivated to the same extent as Taliban Mullahs, the fact remains that in practice it is equally reactionary, and it leaves more bodies in it's wake.

As for the Taliban and Al Qaeda, just that fact that you have chosen to classify the two in the same sentence tells me that you are very heavilly influenced by the narratives that are available to you on Television.

Other than that, the Taliban, as with other Islamic oriented insurgencies around the world, is a dynamic force, and we must recognize the role that it has to play in different political climates.

Prior to the NATO invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the Taliban was a reactionary force with almost no redeeming features.

After the invasion though, the Taliban was thrown into the default role of the largest, most organized, most heavilly armed insurgency in Afghanistan.

It is in this capacity, as the forces on the ground in Afghanistan resisting United States imperialism, that they have attracted many to their banner, and that they are playing a national liberation role.

After the imperialists withdraw from Afghanistan (under one circumstance or another), the role played by the Taliban (and like minded islamic insurgencies) will change again, and we will re-evaluate them once more.

In every revolutionary situation, there are reactionary class forces that can become temporarilly radicalized,and this is especially the case in a cross-class national liberation movement, where the local exploiters and reactionaries often chaffe under the heel of domination by foriegn exploiters and reactionaries.

For Afghanistan at this time, the first precondition to putting Afghanistan on a path to it's own development, is for foriegn intervention/domination to be expelled, and for Afghanistan to take charge of it's own destiny.

Will this lead to reactionary state power? Most likely, yes. Such is the case with a class society, but at least then Afghanistan will be placed into the same position as the rest of the countries on Earth, with the agenda of the working class being able to shift from confronting the immediate problem of the foriegn military occupiers, to being able to turn their attention to their domestic garden variety exploiters and affirming their own rights.

If left to their own devices, the people of Afghanistan will fight for their own interests the same as any other humyn being would. During the 90's, from several narratives that I have recieved, the Taliban had a hell of a time keeping things under control, especially in progressive Kabul. For nations that are characterized as prehistoric and socially backwards in all official accounts, I've read some interesting sources about just the amount of damage that the influx of bootlegged tapes of James Camerons "Titanic" from Pakistan caused in Taliban hegemony during the late 90's.

The Taliban is reactionary, just as objectively the same can be said about any insurgent group that ultimately expresses the aims of small agricultural producers.

That said, the circumstances in Afghanistan have cast them into a default role as the main armed opposition to NATO rule.

The problem with lines of thought that thumb their nose at the Taliban (or any domestic insurgency that is taboo for critical analysis,) is that they always are built on the foundations that rule by these insurgents would be worse than foriegn imperialism.

It is for precisely this reason that a myriad of nominally "left" groups have flocked to the banners of the NATO occupation of Afghanistan, rationalizing it as a very progressive step in the development of Afghanistan, and making gratuitous attacks on Islam, when more often then not it is material circumstances that energize new fighters into the insurgency rather than pages of scripture.

A lot of this same rhetoric also applies to Iran.

In Iran, they practically hunt communists for sport. It was the previous electoral candidate Mousavi who, during his reign as Prime Minister, over-saw the execution of thousands of Communists and Islamic Socialists in Iran. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_executions_of_Iranian_political_prisoners

From a social, political and economic analysis, the rule of the Ayatollahs is reactionary, a manifestation of a rotten class system that must be over-turned.

That said, should we support external military aggression on Iran? Should we support internal unrest that plays into the strategic goals of imperialism for Iran (the coverage of the Iranian unrest last summer was most blatant in CNN, which featured a montage of the Iranian uprisings following the legacy of the "Colour revolutions" in Europe, and the Tiananmen Square incident in China :rolleyes:)?

Iraq is another great example. Saddam Huissen and the Ba'ath party came into power with no insignificant amount of foriegn external intervention, and they then proceeded to murder the communists, trade unionists, womyns movement, etc, etc.

That said, should we have cheered when Saddam was pulled from his spider hole and hanged?

Should we have danced, as bombs rained down upon Baghdad?

Should we take measures to distance ourselves from the Iraqi Insurgency?

The fundamental question is this: Is Imperialism ever the solution?

I think that if left to their own devices, the working people of the Middle East will do as working people on all continents have done, and affirm their own rights.

Socialism was a strong current in the Arab/Muslim world, and as we know it was the CIA and western imperialism that nurtured Islamic reaction.

Just as the Shah was cast down, just as Shola y Jawied rose up from the allegedly irrational rabble of Afghanistan, just as the masses of the middle east have a long and colourful history of strikes and demonstrations, armed struggles and liberation wars, and ferocious resistance for generations, I have the utmost confidence that they can handle their local exploiters.

As the workers of other countries, our solidarity can best be expressed by pushing for the removal of all external forces of intervention in all countries, and allowing internal struggles to be decided by the people themselves in these countries.

So, the issue is not "For" or "Against" the Taliban; the issue is the effects of imperialism across the middle east, the affirmation of soveriegnty for all oppressed nations, and removing the yolk of foriegn domination so that the order of the day in former neo-colonies can be class war, now that their national liberation war has been completed.

[Palingenisis]

The Taliban is reactionary, just as objectively the same can be said about any insurgent group that ultimately expresses the aims of small agricultural producers.

.

Are the Zapatistas objectively reactionary? Utopian and misguided maybe...Reactionary no.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Are the Zapatistas objectively reactionary? Utopian and misguided maybe...Reactionary no.

Good question. Maoist or Guevarist groups like FARC, the Naxalites, Sendero Luminoso, the CPN(M), express the interests of small agricultural producers. Are they objectively reactionary? Without connecting their struggle with that of the urban working classes, however small, perhaps ultimately they are. Is it fair to equate any of these groups at whatever stage of their struggle, with that of the Taliban?

As PF said, perhaps we have to look at an organizations role in connection to the specific stage of a struggle and not take an idealist view.

[Barry Lyndon]

Soviet Dude:

Here are some racist Islamophobic liberal pro-US imperialists for you that leftists should never work with:
http://arabinfomall.bibalex.org/Attachments/Logos/monogram.jpg
http://www.rawa.org/index.php

A Marxist organization that has consistently fought against Islamic fundamentalists AND US imperialism for over 30 years.
But no, 'Communists' sitting in armchairs in the USA and Europe should cheerlead for the very people who want to cut their throats.
As a Marxist, I consider things like women's rights to be of equal importance to anti-imperialism, not something to be just thrown under the bus when its inconvenient. All the Communist regimes in Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba, and yes, Afghanistan made women's rights a cornerstone of their revolution.
For someone who screams racist at the drop of a hat, it is you who is a racist, because you clearly don't value the lives of socialists that much when they have brown skin. And you hail mysoginistic, anti-communist, homophobic reactionaries who murder little girls for going to school.

That is not Marxism, that is not proletarian internationalism, that is an infantile inverted nationalism, a mindless support for whoever is opposed to the USA at the moment. The point of being a Marxist is not 'fuck the USA!', it is opposing capitalism, imperialism, feudalism, racism, sexism, homophobia, and all forms of exploitation and oppression wherever they are and whoever is committing it.

How dare you slander brave Afghan leftists and praise their tormenters and killers. Shame on you.

[khad]

RAWA was formed as a Pakistani intelligence front organization to oppose Daoud and restore the King, Zahir Shah. In fact, the official line of RAWA was for the restoration of the king until the old fuck died in 2007. They claim that no one suffered under the monarchy.

When the PDPA came to power, RAWA aggressively sabotaged the government's efforts to empower the women of Afghanistan. To this day they spread lies about how the PDPA never educated women and instead built night clubs. They continue to slander women who worked as doctors and educators for the Afghan socialist government.

Really, they can go to hell with all their child raping mujahideen buddies.

[bricolage]

"The need for a 'business model' that gets around this"
So socialism is about a 'business model' now? :roll:


Which means a "business model" that can thrive even without donor tax deductibility, that appeals to working-class donors and not philanthropists, and that raises explicitly political messages.
This is ridiculous, later on you speak of insurance, earlier on you've spoken of other social services. Do you realise how much money this would cost? Do you realise how many working class donors you are going to need for this? Do you realise that most working class people are fighting tooth and nail to defend their living standards at the moment, constantly under attack by capital? Do you really think they are going to start donating to your ludicrous 'business model'?


The Bolsheviks succeeded because they followed as much of the Revolutionary Strategy of the Center as they could, despite czarist limitations.
I don't really care for your historical fabrications.


Far from it. My premise is that real parties are real movements and vice versa.
Your premise is quite irrelevant when the outcomes of your actions are going to lead to nothing approaching this.


I don't like party-movements building co-ops, either, in the sense of cooperative businesses (like farms and especially "mutual" banks) flooding the economy. The sports clubs, funeral homes, supplementary workers' insurance, etc. could be operated by party's "cooperative union" arm, though. The cooperative talk is definitely walking a fine line.
Once again I have no idea what your gibberish is about.

[Ned Kelly]

You are simply not a revolutionary if you support the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The Taliban were one of the most oppressive regimes of modern times, not only executing Marxists, but denying girls an education, and women any basic rights at all, no if's or buts about that. And Al-Qaeda are an openly IMPERIALIST force.

[Barry Lyndon]

RAWA was formed as a Pakistani intelligence front organization to oppose Daoud and restore the King, Zahir Shah. In fact, the official line of RAWA was for the restoration of the king until the old fuck died in 2007. They claim that no one suffered under the monarchy.

When the PDPA came to power, RAWA aggressively sabotaged the government's efforts to empower the women of Afghanistan. To this day they spread lies about how the PDPA never educated women and instead built night clubs. They continue to slander women who worked as doctors and educators for the Afghan socialist government.

Really, they can go to hell with all their child raping mujahideen buddies.

Any evidence for your attacks on RAWA? Just because it comes from the mouth of Khad does not mean it is true.

[Devrim]

[LOL at your "squatter milieu" remark - the appeals to lumpen-scum never ceases to amuse me.]

Is Jacob using this thread to see how many absolutely absurd ill-informed remarks he can make? I thought the one about Israel and Lebanon 'both sometimes mentioned as candidate members of the European Union', which he still hasn't provided any documentation to support despite being asked politely, was surreal enough and complete demonstration that he was living in his own little world, but this one shows that his own little world is deeply influenced by the far right press.

On television and in those sort of papers you see pictures of 'dirty hippies and squats'. Of course these pictures are meant to demonise squatters, and obviously Jacob has been taken in by this and added his own bizarre twist.

I can only talk about places that I know, but I squatted in London in the 1980s. At the time I was a bricklayer and then later a postman. This sort of demographic fitted the people I knew who were squatting in London much better than the term 'Lumpen-scum'. In fact, material conditions in England at the time meant that squatters were far more likely to be working than unemployed as the unemployed recived 'housing benefit' from the municipality, which paid for their rent. In 1979 there were 50,000 squtters in England (with 30,000 in London). Are we really supposed to believe that all of these people were 'lumpen scum'? In the 1980s the number rose dramatically, and I seem to recollect seeing figures for 100,000 squatters in London. Are we seriously to believe that the amount of 'lumpen scum' increased more than threefold or was it perhaps that as the Thatcher government introduced more and more serve attacks on public spending and deeper and deeper cuts more and more people were forced to squat as a practical way of living during a housing crisis.

In Istanbul, where I also squatted, the situation is far worse. Wiki puts it like this:


[B]Gecekondu (plural gecekondular) is a Turkish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_language) word meaning a house put up quickly without proper permissions, a squatter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squatting)'s house, and by extension, a shanty or shack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shack). Gecekondu bölgesi is a neighborhood made of those gecekondular.

In Turkish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_language), gece means "at night" and kondu means "placed" (from the verb konmak, "to settle" or "to be placed"); thus the term gecekondu comes to mean "placed (built) overnight". And bölge means a "zone", "district" or even "region", so a gecekondu bölgesi is a "suddenly built-up shanty-neighborhood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanty_town)."
In common usage, it refers to the low cost apartment buildings or houses that were constructed in a very short time by people migrating from rural areas to the outskirts of the large cities. Robert Neuwirth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Neuwirth) writes in his book Shadow Cities that these squatters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squatting) are exploiting a legal loophole which states that if one starts building after dusk and moves into a completed house before dawn the same day without having being noticed by the authorities, then the next day the authorities are not permitted to tear the building down but instead must begin a legal proceeding in court (and thus it is more likely one can stay). Such buildings may be constructed without going through the necessary procedures required for construction, such as acquiring building permits, and can be very densely populated. Neuwirth states that "half the residents of Istanbul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanbul) - perhaps six million people* - dwell in gecekondu homes".[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gecekondu#cite_note-0)


So according to Jacob's half baked ideas adapted from the right-wing press half of the residents of Istanbul are 'lumpen scum'. I saw estimates within the last decade** that said that 60% of the population of Ankara lived in suatted buildings. Given that the population of Ankara is about 5,000,000 this would mean that 3,000,000 lived in squatted buildings.

To me this stigmatising of ordinary working class people is as offensive as his suggestions that anarchist demonstrators in Greece were hooligans who should be handed over to the police. What links both of his characterisations is that they have both come directly from the right-wing media, and been tinted slightly with his absurd political gloss.

Bricolage asked on a particular point if he was serious earlier in the thread:


you really think hezbollah are trying to emulate the SPD?
seriously?

In a way I was surprised by the question. I find it quite hard to understand why anyone on here would even slightly consider taking Jacob seriously.

Devrim

*Istanbul has grown massively since this time and 6,000,000 would no longer be anywhere near half the population.
**The numbers are probably much lower now as there have been massive clearance programmes.

[bloodbeard]

I did not read the thread so, I really apologize in advance if someone already made this point. We do not need to support or oppose the taliban... why is it even necessary? We can sympathize with the people effected by US imperialism (including sympathy for resistance groups) in those countries invaded by the US, but that hardly qualifies as support! I personally would never support such organizations like Al Queda, as we can still oppose imperialism without supporting such organizations.

[Devrim]

After responding to the troll back to the topic:


this thread would probably be better if people tried actually discussing instead of calling each other racists, chauvinists, imperialists, etc.

a pipe dream, i know.

Yes, it would be nice wouldn't it. As I have mentioned before, calling people racists seems to be the standard debating tool of much of the American left. The idea of them stopping is indeed, as you say, a 'pipe dream'.

The actual thread is about 'supporting the Taliban and al-Qa'ida'. Of course the first thing to be clear about is that almost certainly nobody on this thread 'supports' either of them in any meaningful way. It is sort of the 'support' that a ten year old kid in Montana who has never been outside the state has for the New York Yankees. Actually it is probably less as at least he might have a jersey, which would have made some financial contribution.

This idea has already been addressed:


i'd be willing to bet a significant amount of money that the feelings (not "support") of some internet leftist kids about what is going on in afghanistan probably mean fuck-all in terms of what is happening on the ground.


what part are you having trouble understanding? the feelings expressed by leftists here in no way effects the situation of the taliban or us imperialism and hardly amount to "support" in any meaningful sense.


Well, yes, this is just a pissing contest.

I'm going to make the assumption that the majority of the posters in this thread are from either the UK or United States - in which case, if we really wanted to oppose Western Imperialism, we wouldn't need to either 'support' or 'oppose' the Taliban. But we can anyways, just for shits and giggles.


zomg yea we totally support them, they are like so awesoem!!111

Seriously, though, aren't discussions like this kind of abstract? If one wanted to take up the position of "supporting" the Taliban, what would they do? Write sympathetic articles whenever they kill some soldiers? Campaign for them on the streets? I'd pay to see that. :lol: It's actually one of the most annoying and silly discussions on the left, about how "socialists have to support X or Y". Why should they?

Most of these decelerations of support are just superfluous. The following is particular ridiculous:


I support the Taliban in their struggle against Imperialism. But I also support the Muslim Proletariat in their struggle against the Taliban.

What on Earth does this mean in real terms? What do you do to 'support the Muslim Proletariat in their struggle against the Taliban'?

The question is not completely academic though, and the reason why is summed up quite well here:


Because its part of wider question to how we should approach reactionary anti-imperialists in our own countries.

Look at my last post....People who are progressive and socialist have asked me to give money for the defense campaign of a clerical-fascist because he is against the Brits.

Not everybody who posts on here is from the US, and some posters are from countries with large 'anti-imperialist' movements.

How communists understand these movements is actually a crucial question.

Soviet Dude has one point right:


What this means is that for a communist, it is literally unthinkable to do anything else but call for a defeat of your own government.

There is no connection between this and his next sentence though:


This means supporting the Taliban, and any other forces in Afghanistan fighting US imperialism.

Actually 'supporting the Taliban' is pretty meaningless phrasemongering in the US. What is important is that socialists in America oppose the imperialist manoeuvrings of their own bourgeoisie.

In countries where there is imperialist intervention the attitude revolutionaries take is much more crucial. One poster though this was a bit of a joke:


This all coming from a person who sides with a group that doesn't even come close to Communism in the first place. I don't give two shits about any group seeking to replace one form of bourgeoisie rule with another. Following this ignorant position we might as well endorse the NSDAP as resisting 'Versailles Imperialism' :rolleyes:

And it would be a joke if it weren't for the fact that communists in Germany did support nationalist agitation against 'Versailles imperialism', and some of them even took it to the point of rallying people against the Jews, of course in the stereotypical form of the 'hooked nosed Jewish capitalist'.


Very, very, very good point.....A lot of "third world" nationalists DID have sympathy with Hitler (Gandhi to comes to mind and Sean Russell aswell as the Breton seperatists disagreed themselves practising real politick).

Plus Germany was an oppressed nation in many ways when Hitler came to power.

By 1923 at the latest the Soviet Union was doing military deals with the German state, and this continued until the German invasion in 1941. Of course some of this was based on 'real politic', but partly it was based, initially at least, on support for Germany as an 'oppressed nation'.

Of course Russia guns were used to kill Germany workers and communists, just as they were in Turkey, another country where the Comintern supported (and here I mean really supported with gold, guns and military advisers, not the sort of support we see here on RevLeft) the nationalist movement, and continued to do so, even after it massacred communists and workers.

The whole idea of the 'oppressed nation' leads people into deeply reactionary positions.

If the examples of Soviet support for German and Turkish nationalism, funnily enough the perpetrators of the two biggest twentieth century genocides, isn't enough, I would like to give a more current example, and this relates directly to Palingenisis point about why these discussions are relevant.

There is a party in Turkey called the İşçi Partisi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_Party_%28Turkey%29). It is a sort of Maoist party, which used to support the PKK and Kurdish nationalism. Now it supports the Turkish military, and works hand in hand with the Grey Wolves (Turkish fascist who make most European Nazis look like rather nice people at a tea party). What change could have brought this about? It is actually quite simple. There was no change of ideology, just a change of analysis. All that it needed was for them to decide that in fact Turkey was an oppressed nation, and there were are, headlines in their magazine stating things such as 'Today there is no left and right, only patriots'.

Now this may all seem a bit bizarre, but what would people like 'Soviet Dude' suggest that communists in Turkey do if he decided it was an 'oppressed nation'?

What would he suggest we do if Turkey came into conflict with the US?

This may seem a bit of an academic question. After all Turkey is a member of NATO and officially part of the US block. Nevertheless, it is a country that has openly resisted US demands, such as when it refused them access to its airspace and facilities in the Gulf War. It is a country with high levels of anti-US feeling, the highest grossing Turkish film ever is about the conflict between the Turkish and US intelligence services in Northern Iraq. The best selling Turkish novel ever ends with the hero, a Turkish agent detonating a nuclear device in New York. Turkey constantly accuses America of arming Kurdish nationalist guerrillas in Turkey, and during the last Turkish invasion of Northern Iraq, there were reports in the media of low level military clashes between Turkish and US troops. I don't think a war is at all likely, but it is not absolutely unthinkable.

And what would he have us do if there was war? If his posts on this and other subjects are anything to go by, he would have us support the state, and national defence. No question about it.

It is funny how he said:
What this means is that for a communist, it is literally unthinkable to do anything else but call for a defeat of your own government.

For some reason he doesn't think it applies to countries in conflict with the US though.

Devrim

[Devrim]

There are a few other points on this thread that I wanted to address, but the last post seemed to go on a bit long:


Most Western Leftists are fucking petty-bourgeois idiots who ultimately side with their own imperialists. The people of Afghanistan have had a communist revolution and have made heroic sacrifices against Western imperialism. The people of Afghanistan are much smarter and more courageous than the pseudo-Left trash in the West will ever hope to be. They have shown they are capable of much more than the majority of the moronic Western Left will ever be.

First writing a whole paragraph in bold doesn't convince people of anything apart from the fact that you are a bit 'angry'. Secondly it is obviously untrue. Most western leftists aren't if petit-bourgeois means small property owners and businessmen. Most of them are working class, even if a great many might fit into what is called 'the middle class' by sociologists'.

If on the other hand it is just an insult, you are of course free to use it as you like.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Good question. Maoist or Guevarist groups like FARC, the Naxalites, Sendero Luminoso, the CPN(M), express the interests of small agricultural producers. Are they objectively reactionary? Without connecting their struggle with that of the urban working classes, however small, perhaps ultimately they are. Is it fair to equate any of these groups at whatever stage of their struggle, with that of the Taliban?

Basically, yes they are.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Also its important to understand that the Taliban isnt mainstream Islam.

It is to Islam what these psychoes are to Christianity...http://www.godhatesfags.com/

I thing that this misunderstands the situation. As I understand it the 'God Hates Fags' are basically one extended family of religious loons, whereas the Taliban are a massive organisation that was large enough to manage to take control of a country.

Of course to most Muslims the ideas that they stand for are very divorced from mainstream Islam, but they are not as marginal as you suggest.


I think that the point being made in the OP is valid; however, I don't think it's fair to target the Talib'an and Al Qa'ida as some kind of "special" groups. There are groups all over the world that kill civilians and innocents much in the same way that the Talib'an and Al Qa'ida do, and so to treat them as some kind of "special case" is just accepting the "western propaganda" that treats them as such.

I think that this is an important point. Communists need more of an analysis than 'they are crazies'. I think that they reflect the weight of the remenants of feudalism in Afghanistan. Organisations like HAMAS and Hezbollah on the other hand reflect more modern capitalist ideas, because they are products of a more 'developed' capitalist society*.

Devrim

*Gaza is the most densely populated urban area in the world, and Lebanon has a smaller agricultural sector than, for example, Greece.

[khad]

Any evidence for your attacks on RAWA? Just because it comes from the mouth of Khad does not mean it is true.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/revolutionary-association-women-t108337/index.html?p=1437021#post1437021

[TheGodlessUtopian]

No,in no way,shape,or form would I ever give even an iota of support to either of these fascist-esque,reactionary organisations.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Is Jacob using this thread to see how many absolutely absurd ill-informed remarks he can make? I thought the one about Israel and Lebanon 'both sometimes [being] mentioned as candidate members of the European Union', which he still hasn't provided any documentation to support despite being asked politely, was surreal enough and complete demonstration that he was living in his own little world, but this one shows that his own little world is deeply influenced by the far right press.

On television and in those sort of papers you see pictures of 'dirty hippies and squats'. Of course these pictures are meant to demonise squatters, and obviously Jacob has been taken in by this and added his own bizarre twist.

First the discussion on Israel and Lebanon are irrelevant to the subject at hand, unlike Hezbollah. Second, Palin's mention of "squatter milieu" was more a reference to squatters in the more developed countries.

But just for the sake of reference:

http://www.jpost.com/home/article.aspx?id=49834

[Ravachol]

I will see if I can find links tomorrow....But in the past anarchist in London, Zurich and I think also in Amsterdam and Germany have sucessfully defended squats from the police....Did the majiority of even working class people in England and Switzerland agree with them doing so?
Im far from sure that was the case...Therefore they were acting in an undemocratic manner....That doesnt bother me at all (even though Im a Gothonic-Stalinist Ive lived in squats and dont have any problemn with squating) but it does go against anarchism in general. Its being pretty dictatorial.


This logic is flawed at multiple points:

- Most squatters aren't Anarchists by any stretch of the word. You're taking the squatting milieu as the biggest example of the Anarchist movement which is rather ridiculous. Most of the squatting milieu is surprisingly reformist or apolitical, which is one of it's biggest problems.

- As an extension of the first point, in some countries the squatting milieu has failed to build a network of material relevance to the working class (in which the Italian Autonomists and the Greek anarchists do succeed). This results in a lack of organic connection between the act of squatting and working class struggle for housing in turn resulting in the 'squatting milieu' as a more or less seperate ghetto.

- You assume that the implicit approval of the full working class is necessary for any act to be 'class struggle'. But this completely ignores the hegemony of the logic of Capital and the resultant dominance of it's discourse. There's usually opposition to strikes, factory takeovers,etc. from parts of the working class due to this hegemony. Are we to reject these acts of class struggle then? I think not.

- I don't see what anything of this has to do with Anarchism. Anarchism isn't rooted in some liberal nonsense about majority approval of 'society' (whatever that may be). Following that line, class struggle itself is 'undemocratic' since it ignores the 'needs' of the bourgeosie :rolleyes: Anarchism is about democratic and self-managed class struggle.

[Devrim]

First the discussion on Israel and Lebanon are irrelevant to the subject at hand, unlike Hezbollah.

Which doesn't mean that you can make completely nonsensical statements without any evidence whatsoever, and expect people not to mock you. No, it is not on the point, but then little of your trolling is.


Second, Palin's mention of "squatter milieu" was more a reference to squatters in the more developed countries.

Is that more developed than England, which was one of my two examples?


I can only talk about places that I know, but I squatted in London in the 1980s. At the time I was a bricklayer and then later a postman. This sort of demographic fitted the people I knew who were squatting in London much better than the term 'Lumpen-scum'. In fact, material conditions in England at the time meant that squatters were far more likely to be working than unemployed as the unemployed recived 'housing benefit' from the municipality, which paid for their rent. In 1979 there were 50,000 squtters in England (with 30,000 in London). Are we really supposed to believe that all of these people were 'lumpen scum'? In the 1980s the number rose dramatically, and I seem to recollect seeing figures for 100,000 squatters in London. Are we seriously to believe that the amount of 'lumpen scum' increased more than threefold or was it perhaps that as the Thatcher government introduced more and more serve attacks on public spending and deeper and deeper cuts more and more people were forced to squat as a practical way of living during a housing crisis.

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Dev, read my link re. Israel.


This logic is flawed at multiple points:

- Most squatters aren't Anarchists by any stretch of the word. You're taking the squatting milieu as the biggest example of the Anarchist movement which is rather ridiculous. Most of the squatting milieu is surprisingly reformist or apolitical, which is one of it's biggest problems.

- As an extension of the first point, in some countries the squatting milieu has failed to build a network of material relevance to the working class (in which the Italian Autonomists and the Greek anarchists do succeed). This results in a lack of organic connection between the act of squatting and working class struggle for housing in turn resulting in the 'squatting milieu' as a more or less seperate ghetto.

I'll take your word on your first two points, hence my derision towards the squatting milieu and my preference for tenant strikes, organized home occupations, and such.

[Die Neue Zeit]

his suggestions that anarchist demonstrators in Greece were hooligans who should be handed over to the police

Folks, Devrim has a tendency to mischaracterize what I've said for his own purposes.

In this instance, not every anarchist demonstrator in Greece is a Black Bloc hooligan, the type that likes to smash windows.

[Devrim]

^^^ Dev, read my link re. Israel.

What you said was:


Another irony: Lebanon and Israel are the two most Europe-oriented countries in the Middle East, both sometimes mentioned as candidate members of the European Union.

What you provided was one instance of an eccentric Israeli minister saying he thought it was a good idea, and being immediately knocked back by the EU. I mean, I could mention myself as a potential candidate for the British throne, but I wouldn't expect anyone to take it seriously.

Regardless of this, you did use the words 'both', and 'sometimes', which first implies also Lebanon, and second means is mentioned at least with some regularity.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Folks, Devrim has a tendency to mischaracterize what I've said for his own purposes.

In this instance, not every anarchist demonstrator in Greece is a Black Bloc hooligan, the type that likes to smash windows.

Here is what you said. First you asked it as a question:


That raises a theoretical question: should revolutionary demonstrators isolate Black Bloc hooligans and practically hand them over to the cops?


I didn't even say that "Black Bloc"-istas were ultra-left. They're just hooligans, and not even insurrectionist anarchists.
...
To all of you guys freaked out by my response: again, I'm with Chocobo and vyborg in defending anarchists, but I'm just upping the ante against mere hooligans. Vyborg's suggested tactic is commendable for being more preventative (threats to beat the living shit out of hooligans), but in case hooligans have penetrated worker protests, they should be beaten up and then handed over.

People can look at the threads themselves if they think I might be 'mischarecterising' anything.

Your characterisation of demonstrators as hooligans is akin to your characterisation of squatters as 'lumpen scum', and is lifted virtually word for word from the right wing press.

Devrim

[Palingenisis]

- Most squatters aren't Anarchists by any stretch of the word. You're taking the squatting milieu as the biggest example of the Anarchist movement which is rather ridiculous. Most of the squatting milieu is surprisingly reformist or apolitical, which is one of it's biggest problems.



I realise that but anarchist groups like the Wombles have been more active around that issue than any M-L groups that I know of.

I realise most people squat because either they have to or they dont want to deal with landlords, it can be nicer, etc.

[Palingenisis]

Is Jacob using this thread to see how many absolutely absurd ill-informed remarks he can make? I thought the one about Israel and Lebanon 'both sometimes [being] mentioned as candidate members of the European Union', which he still hasn't provided any documentation to support despite being asked politely, was surreal enough and complete demonstration that he was living in his own little world, but this one shows that his own little world is deeply influenced by the far right press.
.

Some people in London who can easily afford to rent prefer to squat because the atmosphere in some squats can be quite good. However in Dublin the police have reacted very quickly and heavy handedly to any attempt to establish proper squats which is a pain because rent here can be stupidly expensive and Irish landlords are notorious assholes. Even the semi-anarchist social centre is in a rented property. The squats you do find here are generally burnt out council flats in very tough estates and filled with various kinds of drug addict. It may well be the same way where Jacob lives.

[Palingenisis]

I thing that this misunderstands the situation. As I understand it the 'God Hates Fags' are basically one extended family of religious loons, whereas the Taliban are a massive organisation that was large enough to manage to take control of a country.

Of course to most Muslims the ideas that they stand for are very divorced from mainstream Islam, but they are not as marginal as you suggest.
.

Okay I take your point though the situation in Afghanistan is very a particular one. Lets put it this way....Someone opposing Franco in the 1930s wasnt necessarily being anti-Roman Catholic anymore than opposing Political Wahabism today makes you Islamophobic as Soviet Dude was asserting.

[Ravachol]

^^^ Dev, read my link re. Israel.



I'll take your word on your first two points, hence my derision towards the squatting milieu and my preference for tenant strikes, organized home occupations, and such.

Squatting as an act is a direct re-appropriation of housing from the clutches of the bourgeoisie, it is effectively an indefinate tenant strike. What is necessary is the linking up of housing struggles (tentant strikes, squatting,etc.) into the formation of autonomous zones organised against state and Capital.



I realise that but anarchist groups like the Wombles have been more active around that issue than any M-L groups that I know of.


In germany most of the squatting scene is heavily influenced by Marxism, the entire Autonomen and K-Gruppe (Kommune Gruppe) scene has it's roots and analysis in Marxism, sometimes even ML.

In Italy the squatting scene is rooted in Autonomism (not the same as the Dutch/German Autonomen milieu) which originated from the left-Leninist Operaist current.

[fionntan]

Eireislam: For a few dollars more


"The Taliban are the natural enemies on the United states of America. The Taliban oppress women, rule by barbaric shariat Law and threaten peace and stability world wide as they seek to export their ideology, oh and they kill Americans of course" This has always been more or less the official line out of the Washington Industrial & Military Complex during the ‘00’s. The Taliban had to be defeated at all cost. There was no compromise. "After all we did not compromise with Hitler"

Flash forward a decade and America has been reduced to a tired, bewildered and shriveled shadow of its former self. A calcifying monument to the fall of empires. An over burdened military from an adventure which has dug a fiscal grave 3 Trillion dollars deep. America is constantly at any time teetering on the edge of economic oblivion ready to drag the entire Western World with it. They can no longer afford to stay in Afghanistan. The Taliban are now stronger, more assertive and more popular than at any time since the 2002 invasion. Americas allies in the region as well as within NATO are as rats fleeing a sinking ship. Pakistan and Iran both neighbors of Afghanistan see the bloody nose of ol'Liberty as she leans against the ropes and they know they can win on points. All they have to go is last the round. She's spent.

American political and military spinsters talks of final victory and "getting out" yet they cannot explain what that word “victory” exactly should mean. How do you define victory and how do you measure it. They cannot even agree on what it is that they now want to achieve.

Washington is now at this very moment actively seeking a compromise with the Taliban. This “compromise” would involve the Taliban signing a peace agreement, denouncing al Qaeda and entering into the democratic process (although to this moment there is no democracy in Afghanistan) . The outcome? The Taliban, out of power for a decade, being at war with the world’s only Superpower, undefeated, return to their original position as rulers of Afghanistan. The only amendment would be that they would be recipients of hundreds of millions of dollars of funding from America and the rest of the international community, in control of a security apparatus of 100,000 plus men and would have effectively defeated the Western Worlds entire combined military and economic might. Yah victory....


Same Taliban but for a few dollars more.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Here is what you said. First you asked it as a question

Yes I did, to stir discussion on tactics.

Read the third post you quoted: "They're just hooligans, and not even insurrectionist anarchists."

Venn Diagram Logic 101, Circles A and B overlapping but never covering each other completely: Circle A is for anarchists, and Circle B is for hooligans.

Now back on topic. :)

[William Howe]

Not one bit do I support their leaders' goals, of oppression and establishment of totalitarian Islamic control.

However, the insurgents, Taliban or otherwise, I do support. They're simply fighting the Coalition to maintain national sovereignty and independence, a noble cause.

[M-26-7]

No, I do not support the Taliban.
I could not, would not, in a house.
I would not, could not, with a mouse.
I would not support them with a fox.
I would not support them in a box.
I would not support them here or there.
I would not support them anywhere.
I would not support the Taliban.
I do not like them, Sam-I-am.

[Tablo]

Not one bit do I support their leaders' goals, of oppression and establishment of totalitarian Islamic control.

However, the insurgents, Taliban or otherwise, I do support. They're simply fighting the Coalition to maintain national sovereignty and independence, a noble cause.
So it is a noble cause to start an organization to fight over control of working populations and resources? :confused:

[Die Neue Zeit]

No, I do not support the Taliban.
I could not, would not, in a house.
I would not, could not, with a mouse.
I would not support them with a fox.
I would not support them in a box.
I would not support them here or there.
I would not support them anywhere.
I would not support the Taliban.
I do not like them, Sam-I-am.

"I like green eggs and ham": are you saying there are closet Taliban supporters here?

[Os Cangaceiros]

It is a little strange that people would "support" a group that wouldn't think twice about executing them.

Muslim militants generally hold a pretty dim view of communists. Hezbollah (for example) engaged in a wave of killings against hundreds of communist party members in Lebanon during the mid-80's, as well as denouncing the USSR in Lebanese papers. It's a scenario that has been repeated in multiple countries, from Iran to Afghanistan.

[NGNM85]

" Do any of you actually support the Taliban and Al Qaeda?"


Several of the more long time posters on revleft have been complaining about the plummeting level of discourse on Revleft for years now ( myself included,), but just when we think that the bar can't get lower, it does.

The internet is an asylum, an intellectual sewer. It’s surprising discourse is as civil and coherent as it is. That’s not to say there isn’t a fair percentage of lunacy and vitriol, but that’s par for the course.


Among the recent gems, there is currently a thread in "learning" concerning whether or not V.I. Lenin was a "Monster" (Apparently the validity of an insult is the starting point for a debate that presents itself as rational),

The premise is actually quite valid. Nobody is suggesting Lenin was a werewolf. The title may be unnecessarily emotive and perhaps hyperbolic, however, the question of whether the actions of the Bolshevik party under Lenin are ethically defensible, and/or consistent with the core principles of socialism, the ‘spirit’ of socialism, if you will, (They aren’t, and it isn’t.) is quite prescient. Especially considering Leninism is a significant departure from the mainstream tendencies in socialist thought, and was criticized at the time, by Left-Communists like Luxemburg and Pannekoek, and has been historically criticized by Anarchists, including Bakunin, Kropotkin, Berkman, Emma Goldman, up to Noam Chomsky.


and now we have this recent thread, which is seeking to bully people into a dichotomy of "For" or "Against" the combattant forces in Afghanistan, when the reality of the situation is much more complicated then that.

The political, social, and economic landscape of the Middle East is extremely complex. Whether or not the Taliban, or Al-Qaeda are good organizations is not.


The Original poster opens up the discussion by taking that stand that anyone who "actually supports" these forces is taking "the whole fight Western imperialism thing too far".

Anyone, especially any self-proclaimed Leftist, who suggests that Al-Qaeda deserves any kind of support, has gone off the deep end.


This in itself raises questions.


In the struggle against western imperialism, how far is too far?

In the struggle to defeat an occupying foriegn power, what is un-acceptable?

How far would you be willing to take it?

Is moderation required in the scope of a revolutionary armed struggle, and if so, in what way?

Well, one should perform a kind of utilitarian calculus. The choice to resort to violence should be based on the circumstances. It should be guided by the Hippocratic principle; “First, do no harm..” The situation obviously has to be grave enough to warrant violence, and the violence also has to be within sensible proportion. This also can only be considered after non-violent methods. Again, this is circumstance-dependent, in police states like China, or Russia, any Libertarian social movement would almost inevitably have to use violence at some point because they are police states with essentially no mechanisms for the populace to express themselves or make any kind of change. In the West, however, we have guaranteed legal rights, we can form political parties, we can vote and agitate, so there’s a different standard. Lastly, one must be as positive as one can possibly be that said action will not be counterproductive, and make things even worse.

How far would I be willing to take it? Not as far as you, from the sound of things.


The unspoken implications of this point of view are also that these islamic insurgencies are the greater evil to western imperialism in the middle east.

Not necessarily, no. I have no problem condemning both, in fact, I condemn them both by the very same standard.


Now, comparing the carnage, destruction and body counts next to one another, one sees that this is a fallacious argument. Whether or not Western imperialism is ideologically motivated to the same extent as Taliban Mullahs, the fact remains that in practice it is equally reactionary, and it leaves more bodies in it's wake.

There’s an element of truth to that, but there are also differences. The pentagon has certain specific political goals and agendas, that’s not to say that they are good or justified, mind. (They aren’t.) They are concerned with the achievement of these political goals, and if they were able to achieve them without violence, they very probably would. There are at least certain individuals within Al-Qaeda and the Taliban who have deliberately targeted civilians, who are, and have been, expressly dedicated to killing as many noncombatants as humanly possible.


As for the Taliban and Al Qaeda, just that fact that you have chosen to classify the two in the same sentence tells me that you are very heavilly influenced by the narratives that are available to you on Television.

We should look at the media critically, however, we shouldn’t dismiss everything simply because it’s mainstream. I think the mainstream view of gravity is pretty spot-on. That the mainstream media say that Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are primarily thugs and murderers is not important, what is important is that it’s true.


Other than that, the Taliban, as with other Islamic oriented insurgencies around the world, is a dynamic force, and we must recognize the role that it has to play in different political climates.


Prior to the NATO invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the Taliban was a reactionary force with almost no redeeming features.

The Taliban is still generally devoid of redeeming features. Al-Qaeda absolutely has no redeeming features, whatsoever.


After the invasion though, the Taliban was thrown into the default role of the largest, most organized, most heavilly armed insurgency in Afghanistan.


It is in this capacity, as the forces on the ground in Afghanistan resisting United States imperialism, that they have attracted many to their banner, and that they are playing a national liberation role.

No, they are fighting the foreign troops in their country. They aren’t interested in national liberation, they’re fighting for a different kind of oppression, their preferred brand of oppression. The real targets of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, are the people of the Middle East. That’s why Al-Qaeda blows up Mosques frequented by Muslim moderates, as well as American convoys.


After the imperialists withdraw from Afghanistan (under one circumstance or another), the role played by the Taliban (and like minded islamic insurgencies) will change again, and we will re-evaluate them once more.


In every revolutionary situation, there are reactionary class forces that can become temporarilly radicalized,and this is especially the case in a cross-class national liberation movement, where the local exploiters and reactionaries often chaffe under the heel of domination by foriegn exploiters and reactionaries.

For Afghanistan at this time, the first precondition to putting Afghanistan on a path to it's own development, is for foriegn intervention/domination to be expelled, and for Afghanistan to take charge of it's own destiny.

Will this lead to reactionary state power? Most likely, yes. Such is the case with a class society, but at least then Afghanistan will be placed into the same position as the rest of the countries on Earth, with the agenda of the working class being able to shift from confronting the immediate problem of the foriegn military occupiers, to being able to turn their attention to their domestic garden variety exploiters and affirming their own rights.

If left to their own devices, the people of Afghanistan will fight for their own interests the same as any other humyn

When I see people dropping terms like that, it’s like when they talk about ‘Xenu’ or something equally ridiculous, it’s a sign that this person is going off the rails.


being would. During the 90's, from several narratives that I have recieved, the Taliban had a hell of a time keeping things under control, especially in progressive Kabul. For nations that are characterized as prehistoric and socially backwards in all official accounts, I've read some interesting sources about just the amount of damage that the influx of bootlegged tapes of James Camerons "Titanic" from Pakistan caused in Taliban hegemony during the late 90's.


The Taliban is reactionary, just as objectively the same can be said about any insurgent group that ultimately expresses the aims of small agricultural producers.

That said, the circumstances in Afghanistan have cast them into a default role as the main armed opposition to NATO rule.

The problem with lines of thought that thumb their nose at the Taliban (or any domestic insurgency that is taboo for critical analysis,) is that they always are built on the foundations that rule by these insurgents would be worse than foriegn imperialism.

It is for precisely this reason that a myriad of nominally "left" groups have flocked to the banners of the NATO occupation of Afghanistan, rationalizing it as a very progressive step in the development of Afghanistan, and making gratuitous attacks on Islam, when more often then not it is material circumstances that energize new fighters into the insurgency rather than pages of scripture.

A lot of this same rhetoric also applies to Iran.

In Iran, they practically hunt communists for sport. It was the previous electoral candidate Mousavi who, during his reign as Prime Minister, over-saw the execution of thousands of Communists and Islamic Socialists in Iran. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_executions_of_Iranian_political_prisoners (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_executions_of_Iranian_political_prisoners)

From a social, political and economic analysis, the rule of the Ayatollahs is reactionary, a manifestation of a rotten class system that must be over-turned.

That said, should we support external military aggression on Iran? Should we support internal unrest that plays into the strategic goals of imperialism for Iran (the coverage of the Iranian unrest last summer was most blatant in CNN, which featured a montage of the Iranian uprisings following the legacy of the "Colour revolutions" in Europe, and the Tiananmen Square incident in China )?

Iraq is another great example. Saddam Huissen and the Ba'ath party came into power with no insignificant amount of foriegn external intervention, and they then proceeded to murder the communists, trade unionists, womyns movement, etc, etc.

That said, should we have cheered when Saddam was pulled from his spider hole...etc., etc.

You said a lot there, and it’s really difficult, practically, to address each specific item. Let’s stick to the broader area of disagreement. The central issue is that the ‘enemy of my enemy’ is a fundamentally flawed position. You might as well say Anarchists should join with the right wingers and the business lobbies who want to get rid of the welfare state, environmental regulation, financial regulation, etc. Sometimes the enemy of your enemy is another enemy. There’s no rule that says we can’t condemn US foreign policy and condemn Al-Qaeda, in fact, we can condemn them under the exact same criteria.

As someone already pointed out, this whole notion of ‘support’ needs to be put in perspective. Nobody here really has any meaningful connection to these third-world conflicts, we’re really just talking about moral support. However, while, thankfully, a minority, there are individuals here that are so deranged by their dogmatic views that they actually do engage in apologetics for Al-Qaeda. Similarly, there is a greater percentage that engage in apologetics for Stalin, the Khmer Rouge, the PRC, the DPRK, and just about any thugs, murderers, or tyrants that have billed themselves as anti-imperialist, or branded themselves the ‘People’s-Revolutionary-Socialist-Whatever-the-fuck.’ This is a disturbing trend. Clearly, some of these people are so dogmatic, so unhinged by their quasi-religious fervor that they can wax romantic about individuals who very well deserve to be characterized as monsters, and, who are, among other things, staunch opponents of everything Socialism stands for.

A much more sensible position, considering a majority, not you, granted, but a majority of the posters here do live in the United States, is to condemn, and endeavor to end, our governments’ aggression in the Middle East. That is something that is actually productive, and is actually within our sphere of control as we live here, and are in a position to influence US policy.

[M-26-7]

"I like green eggs and ham": are you saying there are closet Taliban supporters here?

Good try, but you have not yet discerned the true meaning of my post.

Look deeper.

[synthesis]

We shouldn't "support" those organizations, but we also can't worry about coming across as "supporters." Wartime propaganda is a powerful thing, and it has led many revolutionary organizations to support their own imperialist power throughout history. Counteracting that propaganda is the first step to building opposition to imperialism at home.

[Victory]

Surely you realise that the United States is killing millions more innocent people than the Taliban will ever do. - And I don’t just mean through war, I mean through its globalisation policies and the economic domination of third world countries.

The Taliban is weakening such imperialism, and thus making Socialist Revolution more likely throughout the world.

[Widerstand]

Surely you realise that the United States is killing millions more innocent people than the Taliban will ever do. - And I don’t just mean through war, I mean through its globalisation policies and the economic domination of third world countries.

Yes.


The Taliban is weakening such imperialism, and thus making Socialist Revolution more likely throughout the world.

No. The Taliban may weaken US imperialism, which I don't think they do on the grander, global scale btw, but their actions surely do not support the socialist cause.

[GreenCommunism]

It is a little strange that people would "support" a group that wouldn't think twice about executing them.

you mean like the bolsheviks and teh anarchist?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

The internet is an asylum, an intellectual sewer. It’s surprising discourse is as civil and coherent as it is. That’s not to say there isn’t a fair percentage of lunacy and vitriol, but that’s par for the course.



The premise is actually quite valid. Nobody is suggesting Lenin was a werewolf. The title may be unnecessarily emotive and perhaps hyperbolic, however, the question of whether the actions of the Bolshevik party under Lenin are ethically defensible, and/or consistent with the core principles of socialism, the ‘spirit’ of socialism, if you will, (They aren’t, and it isn’t.) is quite prescient. Especially considering Leninism is a significant departure from the mainstream tendencies in socialist thought, and was criticized at the time, by Left-Communists like Luxemburg and Pannekoek, and has been historically criticized by Anarchists, including Bakunin, Kropotkin, Berkman, Emma Goldman, up to Noam Chomsky.



The political, social, and economic landscape of the Middle East is extremely complex. Whether or not the Taliban, or Al-Qaeda are good organizations is not.



Anyone, especially any self-proclaimed Leftist, who suggests that Al-Qaeda deserves any kind of support, has gone off the deep end.



Well, one should perform a kind of utilitarian calculus. The choice to resort to violence should be based on the circumstances. It should be guided by the Hippocratic principle; “First, do no harm..” The situation obviously has to be grave enough to warrant violence, and the violence also has to be within sensible proportion. This also can only be considered after non-violent methods. Again, this is circumstance-dependent, in police states like China, or Russia, any Libertarian social movement would almost inevitably have to use violence at some point because they are police states with essentially no mechanisms for the populace to express themselves or make any kind of change. In the West, however, we have guaranteed legal rights, we can form political parties, we can vote and agitate, so there’s a different standard. Lastly, one must be as positive as one can possibly be that said action will not be counterproductive, and make things even worse.

How far would I be willing to take it? Not as far as you, from the sound of things.



Not necessarily, no. I have no problem condemning both, in fact, I condemn them both by the very same standard.



There’s an element of truth to that, but there are also differences. The pentagon has certain specific political goals and agendas, that’s not to say that they are good or justified, mind. (They aren’t.) They are concerned with the achievement of these political goals, and if they were able to achieve them without violence, they very probably would. There are at least certain individuals within Al-Qaeda and the Taliban who have deliberately targeted civilians, who are, and have been, expressly dedicated to killing as many noncombatants as humanly possible.



We should look at the media critically, however, we shouldn’t dismiss everything simply because it’s mainstream. I think the mainstream view of gravity is pretty spot-on. That the mainstream media say that Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are primarily thugs and murderers is not important, what is important is that it’s true.



The Taliban is still generally devoid of redeeming features. Al-Qaeda absolutely has no redeeming features, whatsoever.



No, they are fighting the foreign troops in their country. They aren’t interested in national liberation, they’re fighting for a different kind of oppression, their preferred brand of oppression. The real targets of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, are the people of the Middle East. That’s why Al-Qaeda blows up Mosques frequented by Muslim moderates, as well as American convoys.



When I see people dropping terms like that, it’s like when they talk about ‘Xenu’ or something equally ridiculous, it’s a sign that this person is going off the rails.



You said a lot there, and it’s really difficult, practically, to address each specific item. Let’s stick to the broader area of disagreement. The central issue is that the ‘enemy of my enemy’ is a fundamentally flawed position. You might as well say Anarchists should join with the right wingers and the business lobbies who want to get rid of the welfare state, environmental regulation, financial regulation, etc. Sometimes the enemy of your enemy is another enemy. There’s no rule that says we can’t condemn US foreign policy and condemn Al-Qaeda, in fact, we can condemn them under the exact same criteria.

As someone already pointed out, this whole notion of ‘support’ needs to be put in perspective. Nobody here really has any meaningful connection to these third-world conflicts, we’re really just talking about moral support. However, while, thankfully, a minority, there are individuals here that are so deranged by their dogmatic views that they actually do engage in apologetics for Al-Qaeda. Similarly, there is a greater percentage that engage in apologetics for Stalin, the Khmer Rouge, the PRC, the DPRK, and just about any thugs, murderers, or tyrants that have billed themselves as anti-imperialist, or branded themselves the ‘People’s-Revolutionary-Socialist-Whatever-the-fuck.’ This is a disturbing trend. Clearly, some of these people are so dogmatic, so unhinged by their quasi-religious fervor that they can wax romantic about individuals who very well deserve to be characterized as monsters, and, who are, among other things, staunch opponents of everything Socialism stands for.

A much more sensible position, considering a majority, not you, granted, but a majority of the posters here do live in the United States, is to condemn, and endeavor to end, our governments’ aggression in the Middle East. That is something that is actually productive, and is actually within our sphere of control as we live here, and are in a position to influence US policy.

Hopefully,no one here has any influence on any state policy, anywhere."Support" can be written and/or expressed in slogans and demands. at demos. This can be important.

No one on the left should give any support to the Taliban, Hamas, Hezballah, etc, However its is very important to look at these movements in a materialist context. They are not just an expression of crazy ideas, they have come into existence for reasons. We have to understand this.Nothing exists by itself but is an expression of the interacting forces which produced it.

I hate the Taliban with a passion. They would kill me in a heartbeat. Nevertheless they do, objectively, represent the main focus of resistance to US imperialism. That is their role at this specific period of time. Whenever the US makes its face saving compromise with the Taliban and leaves Afghanistan then there will be a different situation.


Stalin, the Khmer Rouge, the PRC, the DPRK, and just about any thugs, murderers, or tyrants that have billed themselves as anti-imperialist, or branded themselves the ‘People’s-Revolutionary-Socialist-Whatever-the-fuck.

Okay, what is the historic context for these people and movements? Its not enough to talk about "genocidal maniacs killing in the name of socialism", what was the material basis for this?What happened in these societies to create this? I'm not saying there isn't truth to your comment but we need to take the analysis much deeper. For example the US bombing destroyed (if I remember) 3/4 of all buildings in the DPRK. The massive US bombing of Cambodia had much to do with how that society evolved. The "socialist bloc" were poor, weak, countries sometimesdevastated by war and imperialism. Does this have something to do with how they evolved? Nothing exists in a vacuum.We need to understand this before moving on.

[GreenCommunism]

Hopefully,no one here has any influence on any state policy, anywhere."Support" can be written and/or expressed in slogans and demands. at demos. This can be important.

No one on the left should give any support to the Taliban, Hamas, Hezballah, etc, However its is very important to look at these movements in a materialist context. They are not just an expression of crazy ideas, they have come into existence for reasons. We have to understand this.Nothing exists by itself but is an expression of the interacting forces which produced it.

I hate the Taliban with a passion. They would kill me in a heartbeat. Nevertheless they do, objectively, represent the main focus of resistance to US imperialism. That is their role at this specific period of time. Whenever the US makes its face saving compromise with the Taliban and leaves Afghanistan then there will be a different situation.

so how should we act in the demos?


Okay, what is the historic context for these people and movements? Its not enough to talk about "genocidal maniacs killing in the name of socialism", what was the material basis for this?What happened in these societies to create this? I'm not saying there isn't truth to your comment but we need to take the analysis much deeper. For example the US bombing destroyed (if I remember) 3/4 of all buildings in the DPRK. The massive US bombing of Cambodia had much to do with how that society evolved. The "socialist bloc" were poor, weak, countries sometimesdevastated by war and imperialism. Does this have something to do with how they evolved? Nothing exists in a vacuum.We need to understand this before moving on.

finally someone to state the truth! everything oppressive that those regimes did was small in comparison with the harm that imperialism inflicted upon them.

[William Howe]

So it is a noble cause to start an organization to fight over control of working populations and resources? :confused:
No, not over population and resources, but the US is attempting, with Coalition support, to take control of Afghanistan and Iraq, making them capitalist puppets. The insurgents are trying to keep "Afghan" separate from "American", which is a noble cause to me.

[RadioRaheem84]

Leninia Rosenweg, asking NGNM85 to look at things from a materialist perspective is asking too much. I am glad you responded to his argument in fitting matter. You beat me to it.

Standing by while imperialists duke it out with reactionary militias in Afghanistan is something that may aid us in the class struggle as we in turn build up a third force opposing both.

There is a vacuum left over that only radical religious zealots have filled. We need to take that back from them and establish the ground that was held by leftists before us.


NGNM85:That is something that is actually productive, and is actually within our sphere of control as we live here, and are in a position to influence US policy.

Lenina, this should've given you a clue.

[crashcourse]

RAWA was formed as a Pakistani intelligence front organization to oppose Daoud and restore the King, Zahir Shah. In fact, the official line of RAWA was for the restoration of the king until the old fuck died in 2007. They claim that no one suffered under the monarchy.

When the PDPA came to power, RAWA aggressively sabotaged the government's efforts to empower the women of Afghanistan. To this day they spread lies about how the PDPA never educated women and instead built night clubs. They continue to slander women who worked as doctors and educators for the Afghan socialist government.

Really, they can go to hell with all their child raping mujahideen buddies.

Bullshit.



You are simply not a revolutionary if you support the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The Taliban were one of the most oppressive regimes of modern times, not only executing Marxists, but denying girls an education, and women any basic rights at all, no if's or buts about that. And Al-Qaeda are an openly IMPERIALIST force.

^^ this.

[Scary Monster]

Mao Zedong - "We shall support whatever our enemies oppose and oppose whatever our enemies support."

:rolleyes: And this is why China worked with the west in directly supporting south african apartheid and the Mujahideen?

[Victory]

Yes.



No. The Taliban may weaken US imperialism, which I don't think they do on the grander, global scale btw, but their actions surely do not support the socialist cause.

How reactionary of you, the assumption that because the Taliban are Islamic Fascists, that they cannot be progressive.

Have you not checked the Obama Administration budget for 2010?
The Obama Administration has had to cut $50 Million in aid to the Colombia Military in it's war against the FARC due to the spending of the war against the Taliban.

Therefore the Taliban are progressive for the Socialist movement because they are forcing cuts on US aid which is aimed at preventing Socialist Revolutions from succeeding.
The more movements that wage war against the US, the more likely Socialist Revolutions come about and succeed.

The United States cannot afford to fight multiple wars, which is why wars waged against the United States are always progressive, because the principled enemy of Socialism is the United States and the efforts it uses to prevent Socialist Revolution from succeeding.

[Widerstand]

the assumption that because the Taliban are Islamic Fascists, that they cannot be progressive.

I find it very sound o.o

[Victory]

I find it very sound o.o


Have you not checked the Obama Administration budget for 2010?
The Obama Administration has had to cut $50 Million in aid to the Colombia Military in it's war against the FARC due to the spending of the war against the Taliban.

Therefore the Taliban are progressive for the Socialist movement because they are forcing cuts on US aid which is aimed at preventing Socialist Revolutions from succeeding.
The more movements that wage war against the US, the more likely Socialist Revolutions come about and succeed.

The United States cannot afford to fight multiple wars, which is why wars waged against the United States are always progressive, because the principled enemy of Socialism is the United States and the efforts it uses to prevent Socialist Revolution from succeeding.


Please, dispute or just submit to self criticism.

[The Red Next Door]

I'm all with you comrade, believe me. But the problem is not what we want, it's what's already provided for now. The initial problem we're facing is western imperialism. What we need is a militant force to fight against said imperialism. Yes, the Taliban were connected to those counterrevolutionary fighters who overthrew the Soviet-led PDPA. But that's the past & we need to put into account what is today. And what is today is the Taliban being the most powerful anti-imperialist force in Afghanistan. From there, we can then, under a plausible manner, start supporting an armed, revolutionary movement against the Taliban, because we would no longer have to fear of Western Imperialism in taking advantage of the situation & taking over when Afghanistan's weak.

Please do not say something silly like this; you are too smart to say something like that.

[Victory]

Please do not say something silly like this; you are too smart to say something like that.

Please respond, and dispute the quote showing how the Taliban helped to weaken the Colombian military in it's war against the FARC, and thus for this reason, play a progressive role.


Have you not checked the Obama Administration budget for 2010?
The Obama Administration has had to cut $50 Million in aid to the Colombia Military in it's war against the FARC due to the spending of the war against the Taliban.

Therefore the Taliban are progressive for the Socialist movement because they are forcing cuts on US aid which is aimed at preventing Socialist Revolutions from succeeding.
The more movements that wage war against the US, the more likely Socialist Revolutions come about and succeed.

The United States cannot afford to fight multiple wars on many fronts, which is why wars waged against the United States are always progressive, because the principled enemy of Socialism is the United States and the efforts it uses to prevent Socialist Revolution from succeeding.

[NGNM85]

Hopefully,no one here has any influence on any state policy, anywhere.

We obviously do, at least to some limited extent. Moreover, that's a good thing. We can, and should use that.


"Support" can be written and/or expressed in slogans and demands. at demos. This can be important.

That was what I was saying, what others have said, that 'support' in this case just means moral support, nobody here is bankrolling the Taliban, this is all philosophical. Now, that isn't to say it doesn't matter, as I said I think some people are clearly deranged by their views to the point of indulging in apologetics for individuals and organizations that are absolutely indefensible.


"No one on the left should give any support to the Taliban, Hamas, Hezballah, etc, However its is very important to look at these movements in a materialist context. They are not just an expression of crazy ideas, they have come into existence for reasons. We have to understand this.Nothing exists by itself but is an expression of the interacting forces which produced it.

I hate the Taliban with a passion. They would kill me in a heartbeat. Nevertheless they do, objectively, represent the main focus of resistance to US imperialism. That is their role at this specific period of time. Whenever the US makes its face saving compromise with the Taliban and leaves Afghanistan then there will be a different situation.

I agree with about nine-tenths of that.


"Okay, what is the historic context for these people and movements? Its not enough to talk about "genocidal maniacs killing in the name of socialism", what was the material basis for this?What happened in these societies to create this? I'm not saying there isn't truth to your comment but we need to take the analysis much deeper. For example the US bombing destroyed (if I remember) 3/4 of all buildings in the DPRK. The massive US bombing of Cambodia had much to do with how that society evolved. The "socialist bloc" were poor, weak, countries sometimesdevastated by war and imperialism. Does this have something to do with how they evolved? Nothing exists in a vacuum.We need to understand this before moving on.

Oh, it absolutely matters. As I was saying the standard needs to be applied all around, from the DPRK to the Bush administration. I also fully acknowledge that poverty, war, etc. had a substantial influence on creating these atrocities. The CIA invested a substantial amount of money and materiel in the most violent, religious extremist sects in Afghanistan, for just one example. There are a lot of factors. My only point is that alone doesn't mean we should be supporting these individuals and organizations who are, among other things, the bitter enemies of socialism. That's actually about the nicest thing you can say about most of them. There doesn't seem to be any major disagreement, there.

[The Red Next Door]

Please respond, and dispute the quote showing how the Taliban helped to weaken the Colombian military in it's war against the FARC, and thus for this reason, play a progressive role.


Well I hope the taliban keep it up then.

[Soviet dude]

It's hysterical that most of the people whining the loudest about support for the Taliban are basically the same people who basically hate any and all socialist countries, past and present. It should be no coincidence either, to people who understand the pseudo-Left.

By it seems to me, thinking deeper about the ridiculous arguments put forward by various pseudo-Leftists here, on practically any topic, is that they insist on imaginary options. Nothing can ever live up to the standards of an imaginary option. There is always some imaginary path to "real" socialism, or some imaginary alternative to supporting groups resisting imperialism, or some imaginary group who will bring "real" socialism to the already-socialist countries. It's a particularly vulgar sort of idealism, coupled with a strong mixture of any and all bourgeois propaganda, that basically serves the function of trying to poison the Left. If Trotskyism, "Left" Communism, most forms of anarchism, etc, didn't exist, the bourgeoisie would need to invent them. There are no imaginary options in the real world.

Digging deeper with pseudo-Left people usually reveals they understand this as well, as with all the Iran bullshit. The same type of people will insist that they don't support Mousavi, but some imaginary other force who may possibly take control of the 'Green' movement. When pointed out this is a ridiculous pipe-dream and is not going to happen, they don't care, and continue to support the 'Green' movement anyway. They know what a victory for the 'Green' movement really means; a victory for US imperialism.

It's a similar thing with Afghanistan. I support any and all resistance to US imperialism in Afghanistan. The majority of this comes from the Taliban. In a perfect world, it would be coming from the "Marxist-Leninist Revolutionary Insurgent Liberation Army of Afghanistan" or something, but we don't live in a perfect world. If the Taliban can drive out the US invasion, that is a real blow to imperialism and the bourgeoisie and a victory to the world. Even reactionary forces can play a progressive role in history. The bourgeoisie themselves played a very progressive role in destroying feudalism. This is all basic Marxism, and nothing should be controversial about this. But it becomes controversial, because the group doesn't adhere to some ridiculous formula put out by the cult they belong to. And it's not just the Taliban, it's the FARC-EP, PKK, Philiphine guerrillas, Nepalese Maoists, Naxalites, Chavez, etc. Most of the people screaming the loudest hate all these groups as well, and they are explicitly socialist. That should tell the interested reader all they need to know about what this thread is really about; right opportunism masquerading as ultra-Leftism.

With politics like this, is it any wonder these people end up getting shot in revolutions?

[Schwarz]

With politics like this, is it any wonder these people end up getting shot in revolutions?

Wow... Just wow.

[Barry Lyndon]

Even reactionary forces can play a progressive role in history. The bourgeoisie themselves played a very progressive role in destroying feudalism. This is all basic Marxism, and nothing should be controversial about this. But it becomes controversial, because the group doesn't adhere to some ridiculous formula put out by the cult they belong to. And it's not just the Taliban, it's the FARC-EP, PKK, Philiphine guerrillas, Nepalese Maoists, Naxalites, Chavez, etc. Most of the people screaming the loudest hate all these groups as well, and they are explicitly socialist. That should tell the interested reader all they need to know about what this thread is really about; right opportunism masquerading as ultra-Leftism.

Except the bourgeoisie represented a more advanced mode of economic production then fuedalism, while the Taliban are supporters of a fuedalistic theocracy. The analogy does not work.

I in fact have supported and defended the FARC, Chavez, the Nepalese Maoists, and the Naxalites on this forum against ultra-lefts and you know it. It does not follow that I should therefore support some religious reactionaries who stand contrary to all the ideals Marxists stand for, just because they happen to oppose US imperialism at the moment.

[Victory]

Except the bourgeoisie represented a more advanced mode of economic production then fuedalism, while the Taliban are supporters of a fuedalistic theocracy. The analogy does not work.

I in fact have supported and defended the FARC, Chavez, the Nepalese Maoists, and the Naxalites on this forum against ultra-lefts and you know it.

If that is the case, then support the Taliban in it's resistance to US Imperialism.

The Taliban are helping the FARC to advance.


Have you not checked the Obama Administration budget for 2010?
The Obama Administration has had to cut $50 Million in aid to the Colombia Military in it's war against the FARC due to the spending of the war against the Taliban.

Therefore the Taliban are progressive for the Socialist movement because they are forcing cuts on US aid which is aimed at preventing Socialist Revolutions from succeeding.
The more movements that wage war against the US, the more likely Socialist Revolutions come about and succeed.

The United States cannot afford to fight multiple wars on many fronts, which is why wars waged against the United States are always progressive, because the principled enemy of Socialism is the United States and the efforts it uses to prevent Socialist Revolution from succeeding.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

LOL WTF, Hezbollah are Social Democrats?! :laugh:

Is it possible for us leftists to get out of the mythical categories we use from the 1930s?

[Ravachol]

With politics like this, is it any wonder these people end up getting shot in revolutions?

Oh boy... :rolleyes:

Sure, the paris commune, Anarchist catalonia, the Makhnovite movement, self-managed factories all over the world from Argentine to former Yugoslavia, and the endless sprawl of autonomous zones are all 'imaginary options'.

If the process of resisting Capital and constructing communism from below in the here and now is 'imaginary', the entire communist project is. If your only 'real option' is the reactionary likes of the Taliban, count me out.....



If that is the case, then support the Taliban in it's resistance to US Imperialism.

The Taliban are helping the FARC to advance.


Even disregarding the FARC as such, following this logic we might as well support fascist groups around the world which take the heat of anything resembling a socialist movement. Grey Wolves? Support them, if they grow they take the heat of the PKK and DHKP/C! Casa Pound? Support them, if they grow they take the heat of the remnants of the red brigades! Golden Dawn? Support them, if they grow they take the heat of Revolutionary Struggle!

Honestly... :rolleyes:

[Yazman]

Schwarz:

Please do not make 3-word posts. They are against the rules and constitute spam. Consider yourself verbally warned.

Everybody else:

I don't want to see any inflammatory or disruptive posting (this includes irrelevant images). This is obviously a controversial topic and tempers may flare - if you feel frustrated, find somewhere else to vent your frustrations and please do not attack or ridicule other users whether via word or image.

[Red Panther]

Al-Queada might not even exist. Any terrorist group which is anti-imperialist is supposedly led by Al-Queada. All this, everyone over there is out to get us in the West is nonsense!

[chegitz guevara]

Mao Zedong - "We shall support whatever our enemies oppose and oppose whatever our enemies support."

Which is why they ended up supporting South Africa and the USA against the people of Angola.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

There is no such thing as "taking the fight against Western imperialism too far" unless it means that you don't approach it in a dialectical way. The Taliban are neither a communist nor a democratic force and hence can only be deemed reactionary (i.e. historically outmoded). That much we can grasp and agree on. But, at the same time, there is also the fact that they're genuinely fighting for a righteous cause (in spite of many of their tactics and all of their ultimate goals) in struggling for the revolutionary overthrow of the U.S. puppet government in Afghanistan and toward kicking out the foreign occupiers. There is a certain contradiction here that can potentially be made to work to the advantage of the communist revolutionaries in that country. It occurs to me that the reason the Maoists there aren't really making a lot of advances in this obviously revolutionary context is because they're going up against too many forces at once when they don't necessarily need to: they're trying to defeat both the American occupation forces and the Taliban (i.e. the main group leading resistance to the American occupation forces) simultaneously. If conditions permit, I'd think it advantageous for them to form a tactical (i.e. temporary) united front with the Taliban (one in which they retain their political and military independence) toward the specific objective of defeating the occupation forces. This can potentially give the communist elements the breathing room they require to build up a serious, credible revolutionary current of their own and potentially even fundamentally shift the balance of power in the country.

I don't think it's advantageous to the communist side to be dogmatic about who their allies (however low-level) can and cannot be. The genuinely Maoist understanding of contradictions focuses on attacking the main enemy, whoever the main enemy is in any given situation. In Afghanistan's present context, the American and puppet forces are clearly the main enemy. Though we may not really like the Taliban's politics at all, their role here can be somewhat compared to that of the Kuomintang after Japan invaded China. I don't think we should support the Taliban in the sense of cheering suicide bombings of civilians and whatnot, but rather would tend to see them as a potentially useful source of leverage for the communist forces, as explained above. They should be tactically (and not uncritically) defended specifically on those grounds. Imperialist elements are always the main enemy wherever they attempt to aggressively subjugate a nation in a military way, such as the U.S. is doing in Afghanistan now. Hence they should be the immediate focus of attack in that context. That's my view, anyway.

[L.A.P.]

It's hysterical that most of the people whining the loudest about support for the Taliban are basically the same people who basically hate any and all socialist countries, past and present. It should be no coincidence either, to people who understand the pseudo-Left.

By it seems to me, thinking deeper about the ridiculous arguments put forward by various pseudo-Leftists here, on practically any topic, is that they insist on imaginary options. Nothing can ever live up to the standards of an imaginary option. There is always some imaginary path to "real" socialism, or some imaginary alternative to supporting groups resisting imperialism, or some imaginary group who will bring "real" socialism to the already-socialist countries. It's a particularly vulgar sort of idealism, coupled with a strong mixture of any and all bourgeois propaganda, that basically serves the function of trying to poison the Left. If Trotskyism, "Left" Communism, most forms of anarchism, etc, didn't exist, the bourgeoisie would need to invent them. There are no imaginary options in the real world.

Digging deeper with pseudo-Left people usually reveals they understand this as well, as with all the Iran bullshit. The same type of people will insist that they don't support Mousavi, but some imaginary other force who may possibly take control of the 'Green' movement. When pointed out this is a ridiculous pipe-dream and is not going to happen, they don't care, and continue to support the 'Green' movement anyway. They know what a victory for the 'Green' movement really means; a victory for US imperialism.

It's a similar thing with Afghanistan. I support any and all resistance to US imperialism in Afghanistan. The majority of this comes from the Taliban. In a perfect world, it would be coming from the "Marxist-Leninist Revolutionary Insurgent Liberation Army of Afghanistan" or something, but we don't live in a perfect world. If the Taliban can drive out the US invasion, that is a real blow to imperialism and the bourgeoisie and a victory to the world. Even reactionary forces can play a progressive role in history. The bourgeoisie themselves played a very progressive role in destroying feudalism. This is all basic Marxism, and nothing should be controversial about this. But it becomes controversial, because the group doesn't adhere to some ridiculous formula put out by the cult they belong to. And it's not just the Taliban, it's the FARC-EP, PKK, Philiphine guerrillas, Nepalese Maoists, Naxalites, Chavez, etc. Most of the people screaming the loudest hate all these groups as well, and they are explicitly socialist. That should tell the interested reader all they need to know about what this thread is really about; right opportunism masquerading as ultra-Leftism.

With politics like this, is it any wonder these people end up getting shot in revolutions?

Real leftist support right-wing causes, right?:thumbup1::rolleyes:

[Nanatsu Yoru]

Waitwaitwaitwaitwait... are there people actually suggesting they support a sexist, reactionary organisation, even if it is only in the fight against imperialism? The way I see it, these (former US-funded, I might add) groups kill innocents for the sake of a point. I don't see how any communist could support that in any respect.

[Widerstand]

Waitwaitwaitwaitwait... are there people actually suggesting they support a sexist, reactionary organisation, even if it is only in the fight against imperialism? The way I see it, these (former US-funded, I might add) groups kill innocents for the sake of a point. I don't see how any communist could support that in any respect.

Opportunist realpolitik runs deep where people get desperate and lose hope.

[Rafiq]

LOL WTF, Hezbollah are Social Democrats?!

What's so funny?

They have showed they are becoming very Socialist. Wikipedia (Not a very trusted source, but) even lists them as Socialist.

They are definitely much more leftists then they were in the 80's.

[Soviet dude]

There is no such thing as "taking the fight against Western imperialism too far" unless it means that you don't approach it in a dialectical way. The Taliban are neither a communist nor a democratic force and hence can only be deemed reactionary (i.e. historically outmoded). That much we can grasp and agree on. But, at the same time, there is also the fact that they're genuinely fighting for a righteous cause (in spite of many of their tactics and all of their ultimate goals) in struggling for the revolutionary overthrow of the U.S. puppet government in Afghanistan and toward kicking out the foreign occupiers. There is a certain contradiction here that can potentially be made to work to the advantage of the communist revolutionaries in that country. It occurs to me that the reason the Maoists there aren't really making a lot of advances in this obviously revolutionary context is because they're going up against too many forces at once when they don't necessarily need to: they're trying to defeat both the American occupation forces and the Taliban (i.e. the main group leading resistance to the American occupation forces) simultaneously. If conditions permit, I'd think it advantageous for them to form a tactical (i.e. temporary) united front with the Taliban (one in which they retain their political and military independence) toward the specific objective of defeating the occupation forces. This can potentially give the communist elements the breathing room they require to build up a serious, credible revolutionary current of their own and potentially even fundamentally shift the balance of power in the country.

I don't think it's advantageous to the communist side to be dogmatic about who their allies (however low-level) can and cannot be. The genuinely Maoist understanding of contradictions focuses on attacking the main enemy, whoever the main enemy is in any given situation. In Afghanistan's present context, the American and puppet forces are clearly the main enemy. Though we may not really like the Taliban's politics at all, their role here can be somewhat compared to that of the Kuomintang after Japan invaded China. I don't think we should support the Taliban in the sense of cheering suicide bombings of civilians and whatnot, but rather would tend to see them as a potentially useful source of leverage for the communist forces, as explained above. They should be tactically (and not uncritically) defended specifically on those grounds. Imperialist elements are always the main enemy wherever they attempt to aggressively subjugate a nation in a military way, such as the U.S. is doing in Afghanistan now. Hence they should be the immediate focus of attack in that context. That's my view, anyway.

Probably the best thing I've read from you.

Indeed, if communists want to gain any ground, they are going to have to resort to tactics like the Maoists did in China, and as the PFLP does today. The main enemy in China was Japanese imperialism, and not the Kuomintang, just as the main contradiction for the PFLP is the Zionist regime, and not Hamas or Fatah. If communists have any hope of revolution in Afghanistan (again), it won't be because of some ridiculous bullshit about opposing both the Taliban and the US.

It is things like this why Trotskyites, most anarchists, "Left" communists, etc, will always remain completely and utterly irrelevant at best, and friends of bourgeois reactionaries at worst.

[synthesis]

It's more complicated than just "the Taliban vs. the U.S. vs. the Maoists." Afghanistan is a deeply, bitterly divided country with innumerable factions that are immersed in long-standing personal, political, socioeconomic, military and tribal conflicts. Suggesting that "the Maoists should form a temporary alliance with the Taliban" completely ignores the complexity of the situation there.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Soviet dude wrote:
Probably the best thing I've read from you.I'll...try to take that as a compliment. ...:mad:


synthesis wrote:
It's more complicated than just "the Taliban vs. the U.S. vs. the Maoists." Afghanistan is a deeply, bitterly divided country with innumerable factions that are immersed in long-standing personal, political, socioeconomic, military and tribal conflicts. Suggesting that "the Maoists should form a temporary alliance with the Taliban" completely ignores the complexity of the situation there.

I realize every situation has innumerable complexities that cannot be fully understood by outsiders thereto. This, however, doesn't at all mean that we can't develop a certain basic-level understanding of what's going on inside Afghanistan.

[synthesis]

I realize every situation has innumerable complexities that cannot be fully understood by outsiders thereto. This, however, doesn't at all mean that we can't develop a certain basic-level understanding of what's going on inside Afghanistan.

In regards to your argument above, I think it does.

[IndependentCitizen]

Fuck Islamism, it's as bad as Nationalism and Zionism IMO.

I won't support Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, I'll support the average Afghan man and woman who'll pick up their gun to defend their home, their people and and themselves. Whether that target be the Taliban coming to force the people into growing opium, or the heavily armed NATO forces who'll use high explosive weaponry to blow everything up that could be used to house 'terrorists'.

Al-Qaeda and the Taliban only provide the high ranking commanders power, and greed. They'd exploit the poor Muslim youth into committing jihad in the name of their God and book because one guy's interpretation is considerably more fundamentalist. I know a few Muslims who oppose NATO occupation, but refuse to support Al-Qaeda and Taliban.

[t.shonku]

Well in my point of view both Taliban and USA government are facist in their own way,so supporting any one of them is out of the window,but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be ready to take advantage of the coming situation.I think considerable weakening of US forces in Afghanistan coupled with US economic down turn will create a situation or rather a opportunity for communists not only in US but around the world.And they must be ready to exploit such a opportunity

[LeninBalls]

I won't support Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, I'll support the average Afghan man and woman who'll pick up their gun to defend their home, their people and and themselves

Which, you know, is what is generally referred to as the Taliban.

[synthesis]

Which, you know, is what is generally referred to as the Taliban.

That completely ignores, for example, the ethnic aspect of the Taliban, among other things.

[LeninBalls]

That completely ignores, for example, the ethnic aspect of the Taliban, among other things.

I don't see what this has to do with what I said. My point is that the Taliban is not solely a group of radical mullahs, but a lot of it's base is young men, with no intention for feudal Islamic republics, fighting against NATO (who are labelled as the Taliban as a blanket name for all resistance by the West).

[OriginalGumby]

I think this is a terrible topic of discussion given the recent raids by the FBI on so called supporters of terrorism. I suggest ending it.