Hamas and Friends

[Comrade Crow]

What do people here think about groups like Hamas, al-Qaeda, and others?

[Tommy4ever]

Reactionary groups that deserve no support from the Left. But the 'Anti-Imperialist' crowd still love them. You know, cause they are against the Amerikkkkkkkkkkkkkkkan$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

[Comrade Crow]

Reactionary groups that deserve no support from the Left. But the 'Anti-Imperialist' crowd still love them. You know, cause they are against the Amerikkkkkkkkkkkkkkkan$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

This is what I expected. I expected the majority probably to say they have reactionary politics and thus shouldn't be supported but I figured there would be some here whom would say they critically support them do to them being ant-imperialist and all this.

[Ocean Seal]

Reactionary groups that deserve no support from the Left. But the 'Anti-Imperialist' crowd still love them. You know, cause they are against the Amerikkkkkkkkkkkkkkkan$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
I fully assure you, we don't love them. But hey, we should wait around until we find groups that pass your leftie bar exam and then we should resist imperialism. I mean its not like people live in Afghanistan or Palestine who are detrimentally affected by imperialism.

[Tommy4ever]

I fully assure you, we don't love them. But hey, we should wait around until we find groups that pass your leftie bar exam and then we should resist imperialism. I mean its not like people live in Afghanistan or Palestine who are detrimentally affected by imperialism.

Mabye you shouldn't be so focused on Anti-Imperialism that you abandon class struggle and any ideas of socialism and back blatant reactionaries.

[The Douche]

I support the defeat of imperialism everywhere that it touches.

Some will say that means I "support" groups like Hamas, or Gadaffi. Whatever...

[redSHARP]

i cant bring my self to support these reactionaries such as al Qaeda.

hamas is a bit different, and i would need to do more research in order to form a better position.

[Commie73]

I fully assure you, we don't love them. But hey, we should wait around until we find groups that pass your leftie bar exam and then we should resist imperialism. I mean its not like people live in Afghanistan or Palestine who are detrimentally affected by imperialism.


Imperialism isnt something that is imposed on nations. There are no oppressing and oppressed nations, there are just nations, non of which act in the interests of the working class. We cant support one bourgeois faction over another, we have to support the working class.

[Tablo]

Why do people always group Hamas and Al Qaeda together? They are worlds apart in ideology, support, and practice. I don't support them at all, but I also don't support imperialist powers. Some people don't seem to understand I don't support the imperialists or the reactionary groups that happen to be fighting the imperialists.

[a rebel]

Reactionaries vs. Imperialists, nobody wins. The middle east is a clusterfuck

[Geiseric]

So wait would the anti imperialists support modern day nazis if they claimed to be "anti western imperialist"? I'm not being sarcastic and a douche like i usually am, i just want to know what the difference is. It seems to me that anti imperialists support ANYBODY against neo liberal imperialism, even if they're obviously anti socialist or not even leftist.

[Commie73]

So wait would the anti imperialists support modern day nazis if they claimed to be "anti western imperialist"? I'm not being sarcastic and a douche like i usually am, i just want to know what the difference is. It seems to me that anti imperialists support ANYBODY against neo liberal imperialism, even if they're obviously anti socialist or not even leftist.


Basically yeah. Trotsky wrote some crap that said communists should support fascist brazil if it was at war with imperialist Britian.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Basically yeah. Trotsky wrote some crap that said communists should support fascist brazil if it was at war with imperialist Britian.First off, he didn't say he would support it because fascism was somehow better, but because of the consequences of what would happen in the case of Brazil's victory.

It was an interview with Mateo Fossa.


Fossa: What can you say on the liberating struggle of the peoples of Latin America and of the problems of the future? What is your opinion of Aprismo?



Trotsky: I am not sufficiently acquainted with the life of the individual Latin American countries to permit myself a concrete answer on the questions you pose. It is clear to me at any rate that the internal tasks of these countries cannot be solved without a simultaneous revolutionary struggle against imperialism. The agents of the United States, England, France (Lewis, Jouhaux, Toledano, the Stalinists) try to substitute the struggle against fascism for the struggle against imperialism. We have observed their criminal efforts at the recent congress against war and fascism. In the countries of Latin America the agents of “democratic” imperialism are especially dangerous, since they are more capable of fooling the masses than the open agents of fascist bandits.
I will take the most simple and obvious example. In Brazil there now reigns a semifascist regime that every revolutionary can only view with hatred. Let us assume, however, that on the morrow England enters into a military conflict with Brazil. I ask you on whose side of the conflict will the working class be? I will answer for myself personally—in this case I will be on the side of “fascist” Brazil against “democratic” Great Britain. Why? Because in the conflict between them it will not be a question of democracy or fascism. If England should be victorious, she will put another fascist in Rio de Janeiro and will place double chains on Brazil. If Brazil on the contrary should be victorious, it will give a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness of the country and will lead to the overthrow of the Vargas dictatorship. The defeat of England will at the same time deliver a blow to British imperialism and will give an impulse to the revolutionary movement of the British proletariat. Truly, one must have an empty head to reduce world antagonisms and military conflicts to the struggle between fascism and democracy. Under all masks one must know how to distinguish exploiters, slave-owners, and robbers!

[Commie73]

First off, he didn't say he would support it because fascism was somehow better, but because of the consequences of what would happen in the case of Brazil's victory.

It was an interview with Mateo Fossa.

I didnt say that these people think the reactionaries are better, im criticizing them for supporting a bourgeois faction and giving up on class struggle. Ive read that trotsky quote quite a few times, its still wrong and in no way an internationalist position.

[Comrade Crow]

Why do people always group Hamas and Al Qaeda together?

Because I'm Muslim and I'm curious as to what the general opinions are of Hamas and also groups like al-Qaeda and other various anti-imperialist, Islamist groups, that's why.

[Aspiring Humanist]

Al-Qaeda and Hamas are reactionaries who wouldn't install a socialist program if they got what they wanted...without groups like those imperialist powers would be able to dominate the region though. You'll find that revleft supports overt marxist-leninist groups like PFLP, PKK etc.

[flobdob]

Mabye you shouldn't be so focused on Anti-Imperialism that you abandon class struggle and any ideas of socialism and back blatant reactionaries.

Maybe if you actually took a step back, you'd realise that we are anti-imperialists precisely because we recognise it as being an essential element of the class struggle.

We "support" Hamas because we support the struggle against imperialism - monopoly capitalism. We recognise that Israel is the key link for imperialism in the Middle East - the lynchpin for domination of the entire region. We don't support the struggle for fashionable reasons, nor religious reasons, or even because of the injustice of the zionist occupation. We support the struggle of the Palestinian people for national liberation because it means the crumbling of the entire edifice of imperialism in the Middle East. That means the strengthening of the working class movement in both the oppressed and the imperialist countries. Their struggle is our struggle, and we support all forces who help us along this way.

[Rafiq]

What motive would we, the International proletariat, have to support Hamas or Al Queda?

[Die Rote Fahne]

What motive would we, the International proletariat, have to support Hamas or Al Queda?

It has to be analyzed, whether or not the defeat of NATO/USA by the reactionary Islamists would benefit the working class in the NATO nations as well as the middle east nations.

It's all about the wighing the benefits.

[Ingraham Effingham]

Is the enemy of my enemy my friend? or my enemy?

[Catma]

Trotsky's approach in the interview was correct; his analysis was (in my view) wrong. Unless there has been a massive shift in consciousness since then, his predictions seem absurd. When a nation is attacked by an external aggressor, it only tends to solidify the existing political structures. And to claim that, upon a victory, the people of that nation would be so overtaken by an impulse of democratic consciousness that they would overthrow their victorious leader... seriously? That's a hell of a leap of faith.

On a broader point, what is the goal of anti-imperialism? It must have a concrete purpose and analysis. It isn't enough to point to the empire du jour and oppose it. Empires will come and go as long as capitalism is around. Dropping one will just bring about another.

An argument that could be made is as follows: the ONLY time a full-scale international revolution is possible is during the turnover period between two empires. If you accept that premise, then opposing an empire almost justifies itself; ALMOST because there may be other conditions and preparations that need to be made more favorable if the revolution is to succeed. For example, if the forces of the left are generally scattered and disorganized, and the reaction worldwide is better positioned, it might not make sense to try to hasten an empire's downfall.

To reiterate the point - imperialism is to be opposed only if there is a reasonable expectation of a benefit for the revolution. Which means it probably doesn't make sense to support reactionary regimes over imperialists.

[flobdob]

Trotsky's approach in the interview was correct; his analysis was (in my view) wrong. Unless there has been a massive shift in consciousness since then, his predictions seem absurd. When a nation is attacked by an external aggressor, it only tends to solidify the existing political structures. And to claim that, upon a victory, the people of that nation would be so overtaken by an impulse of democratic consciousness that they would overthrow their victorious leader... seriously? That's a hell of a leap of faith.

On a broader point, what is the goal of anti-imperialism? It must have a concrete purpose and analysis. It isn't enough to point to the empire du jour and oppose it. Empires will come and go as long as capitalism is around. Dropping one will just bring about another.

An argument that could be made is as follows: the ONLY time a full-scale international revolution is possible is during the turnover period between two empires. If you accept that premise, then opposing an empire almost justifies itself; ALMOST because there may be other conditions and preparations that need to be made more favorable if the revolution is to succeed. For example, if the forces of the left are generally scattered and disorganized, and the reaction worldwide is better positioned, it might not make sense to try to hasten an empire's downfall.

To reiterate the point - imperialism is to be opposed only if there is a reasonable expectation of a benefit for the revolution. Which means it probably doesn't make sense to support reactionary regimes over imperialists.

This is amongst the biggest pile of nonsense I have seen since an article by the AWL. "Imperialism is to be opposed only if there is a reasonable expectation of a benefit for the revolution"? Imperialism is monopoly capitalism. Imperialism cannot be progressive, it cannot benefit the working class - indeed, to consider it as being such is to undermine the entire material reason for socialism: ie, that capitalism has ceased to play a progressive role in human society.

We oppose imperialism because it is monopoly capitalism. We recognise it breeds structural relationships that enable imperialist countries to exist parasitically off the backs of the working class and exploited the world over. It is a peculiar disease of the imperialist nations to set conditions on supporting those groups who objectively benefit the working class movement - those groups who are fighting imperialism at the forefront. That, unsuprisingly, isn't the likes of the Labour Party or the SWP - it's groups like Hamas, PFLP, FARC-EP, CPP, etc. We unite with their struggle because their struggle is our struggle - not because we have some kind of particular love for revolutionaries in far flung countries.

[flobdob]

edit - whoops doublepost

[Black Sheep]

I fully assure you, we don't love them. But hey, we should wait around until we find groups that pass your leftie bar exam and then we should resist imperialism. I mean its not like people live in Afghanistan or Palestine who are detrimentally affected by imperialism.
God fucking fuck dammit, you don't have to support fucked up regimes to condemn imperialism!
If patients with an X disease are resistant to Y disease, you don't have to support the X disease to fight Y.
You just have to kill all the microbes.Because they will ultimately both kill the patient.

[Per Levy]

We "support" Hamas because we support the struggle against imperialism - monopoly capitalism.

so you "support" reactionarys who are totally anti-communistic/anti-leftist and who give a damn about the working class, because their the "lesser" evil?


We recognise that Israel is the key link for imperialism in the Middle East - the lynchpin for domination of the entire region.

and saudi arabia, turkey, jordan and others are not lynchpins for imperialism?


We don't support the struggle for fashionable reasons, nor religious reasons, or even because of the injustice of the zionist occupation. We support the struggle of the Palestinian people for national liberation because it means the crumbling of the entire edifice of imperialism in the Middle East.

except of course, that the other pro imperial goverments would still be there to fill the role of israel, not to mention that when palistine would become a nation state it probally would be another bourgeoisie state with a strong reactionary party(hamas).


That means the strengthening of the working class movement in both the oppressed and the imperialist countries.

so by beating israel the whole working class all over the world would have it better?


Their struggle is our struggle, and we support all forces who help us along this way.

yeah go on and support organisations that probally would like to see all communist, anarchist and socialist organisations to be banned and unions probally wont have it better. the point is, reactionary organisations are not pro working class, not matter how "anti-imperialist" they might seem. groups like hamas are enemies of the working class.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Hamas and Friends sounds like the worst morning talk show ever.

Anyway. The leadership of Hamas are p. much across-the-board scumbags. Fuck them. I'm sure that Hamas' base includes at least some members of the working class though, and generally groups like Hamas and Hezbollah and PFLP and Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade provide Palestinians w/ a vehicle through which they can resist the Israeli occupation. That doesn't make the groups themselves any more progressive, though, simply because I don't view capitalism as anything other than a set of social relations that can't be defeated just by a new set of local despots overtaking international despots (a.k.a. the "crumbling ediface of imperialism").

[Jose Gracchus]

This is amongst the biggest pile of nonsense I have seen since an article by the AWL. "Imperialism is to be opposed only if there is a reasonable expectation of a benefit for the revolution"? Imperialism is monopoly capitalism. Imperialism cannot be progressive, it cannot benefit the working class - indeed, to consider it as being such is to undermine the entire material reason for socialism: ie, that capitalism has ceased to play a progressive role in human society.

We oppose imperialism because it is monopoly capitalism. We recognise it breeds structural relationships that enable imperialist countries to exist parasitically off the backs of the working class and exploited the world over. It is a peculiar disease of the imperialist nations to set conditions on supporting those groups who objectively benefit the working class movement - those groups who are fighting imperialism at the forefront. That, unsuprisingly, isn't the likes of the Labour Party or the SWP - it's groups like Hamas, PFLP, FARC-EP, CPP, etc. We unite with their struggle because their struggle is our struggle - not because we have some kind of particular love for revolutionaries in far flung countries.

You contradict yourself. If capitalism has ceased to play a progressive role in human society, than we should not be defending any wing of "anti-monopoly capitalism" or whatever against the rest. I doubt the FARC-EP is actually a working-class party other than rhetoric, and Hamas does not even pretend to be. On what basis should we support Hamas unless you believe there is a "national bourgeoisie" and a "national bourgeois regime" available as a possibility to support. And if so, then implicitly you do think there is a 'friendly' generalized commodity production out there for us to defend.

[Sensible Socialist]

Unless we're deciding which group to join in a revolutionary struggle, I think people should cool off with the term "support." You're declarations of faith in one group over another have no consequence other than to attract others who disagree. If you'd like to do something tangible for a group, then by all means do so and work to attract more people. But if this circle-jerk of anti-imperialist ranting is all you have, keep it to yourself.

Support groups that advance the interests of the working class. Case closed.

[Obs]

So wait would the anti imperialists support modern day nazis if they claimed to be "anti western imperialist"? I'm not being sarcastic and a douche like i usually am, i just want to know what the difference is. It seems to me that anti imperialists support ANYBODY against neo liberal imperialism, even if they're obviously anti socialist or not even leftist.


Basically yeah. Trotsky wrote some crap that said communists should support fascist brazil if it was at war with imperialist Britian.
Yo maybe you ought to let us speak for ourselves instead of running your mouth like a punk.

No, Syd, you're not gonna pin anti-imperialists as nazi-supporters, however much you'd love to do that (and then presumably masturbate with your own faeces in sheer glee). Fascism, by definition, cannot be anti-imperialist - it's the dictatorship of imperialist finance capital. Therefore, if a fascist movement did claim to be "anti-imperialist" (funny, though, seeing as fascist states have a tendency to immediately form, y'know, empires), there'd be nothing for us to do but shake our heads and possibly chuckle. Hamas, though a bourgeois faction, is not fascist, since there are no forces of capital within the State of Palestine capable of actually performing imperialist actions. If there were, this would be a war between imperialist factions, which would be a conflict on a much grander scale, with nothing for leftists to do but advocate and operate revolutionary defeatism.

[Jose Gracchus]

Most historically fascist regimes evolved out of nationalist, revanchist, even nominally anti-capitalist (usually wrapped up in a very vulgar anti-those-imperialist we'll build up ourselves independently kind of way) current. The Nazis and Italian Fascists alike were both upset with the relative treatment their states got at the hand of the "West's" imperialism, which in the case of Germany was probably somewhat valid. It was certainly shorn of its empire, ruled by social democrats, humiliated and made to make reparations to the French. A lot of "anti-imperialist" forces MLs later supported (like the Baathists, Nasserists, left-Peronists) or even priorly supported (the KMT) looked up to both the Bismarck-Hohenzollern and subsequent Nazi model as a way a previously backward and humiliated nation industrialized itself and got out from underneath "decadent" Anglo-French imperialism (which occupied much the same world capitalist imperialist role, culturally, militarily, economically, and socially that the U.S. does today). So I think there is much reason to be wary of those who raise "imperialism" to a fetish, to the point it seems to be as much or more an issue than the social relations under capital. And considering the origin of the Italian fascists in the nationalist syndicalists, and the Strasserists in the Nazi party who wanted something more like a social revolution, I think there's more to say about their anti-capitalist bona fides originally than Hamas, to say nothing of absolute jokes like the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ecuador under Correa (former Finance Minister, and head of the Sovereign and Proud Fatherland Party - hard to find something that sounds that much like the German right in the 20s -, MS in Economics, professor says he's 'not going to do anything foolish'), or Honduras under Manuel Zelaya (who was formerly head of the Honduran Council of Private Enterprise, a rich landowner, rancher and logger, and his father was a participant in this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Horcones_massacre)).

And then there's the truly futile track record with these politics to go by...

I recommend these (http://bthp23.com/Bolivia.pdf) articles (http://home.earthlink.net/%7Elrgoldner/turkey.html) by Loren Goldner.

[flobdob]

so you "support" reactionarys who are totally anti-communistic/anti-leftist and who give a damn about the working class, because their the "lesser" evil?

No, I don't - I support Hamas, who are not the boogeymen you paint them to be.




and saudi arabia, turkey, jordan and others are not lynchpins for imperialism?

Of course they are. Do you however think for a minute that they don't owe their continued existence as they are to the presence of the state of Israel? Recall that all the countries you mention are amongst the strongest friends for the Israeli state - once Israel is removed, these regimes would crumble in moments.




except of course, that the other pro imperial goverments would still be there to fill the role of israel, not to mention that when palistine would become a nation state it probally would be another bourgeoisie state with a strong reactionary party(hamas).
Is this the extent of your reactionary ramblings - to deny the revolutionary struggle of the Palestinian people because they might have some "pro imperial goverments" [sic] "fill the role"? The impetus given by the struggle of the Palestinian people to the revolutionary peoples struggles across the world has, and will continue to be, one of the most important and encouraging struggles to people across the region, if not the entire world.




so by beating israel the whole working class all over the world would have it better?
Yes.



yeah go on and support organisations that probally would like to see all communist, anarchist and socialist organisations to be banned and unions probally wont have it better. the point is, reactionary organisations are not pro working class, not matter how "anti-imperialist" they might seem. groups like hamas are enemies of the working class.

You mean the Hamas who are working alongside communist militants, and are at the forefront of the struggle against the zionist state? Like it or lump it, Hamas are the leading force in the Palestinian struggle, and we support them because of this. You talk a lot of Hamas being enemies of the working class, yet say not a word of Israel - one of the main enemies of the working class and oppressed peoples of the Middle East. A curious choice, if any!

Talk all you like about "enemies of the working class". In the end, Hamas are doing more to advance the interests of the global working class right now than petit-bourgeois "leftists" will ever do.


You contradict yourself. If capitalism has ceased to play a progressive role in human society, than we should not be defending any wing of "anti-monopoly capitalism" or whatever against the rest.

Eh? If capitalism has ceased to play a progressive role, we should not defend those that fight it? Pretty sure I'm not the one contradicting myself...


I doubt the FARC-EP is actually a working-class party other than rhetoric, and Hamas does not even pretend to be.
Great, doubt all you like - grounded in postulation and a vacuum of fact, it changes nothing.


On what basis should we support Hamas unless you believe there is a "national bourgeoisie" and a "national bourgeois regime" available as a possibility to support. And if so, then implicitly you do think there is a 'friendly' generalized commodity production out there for us to defend.

All national liberation struggles are cross-class alliances. Hamas is a revolutionary nationalist organisation, with deep roots in the working class. It is on the forefront of the struggle against imperialism in the Middle East, by being at the forefront of the struggle against zionist Israel. They fight the same enemy as we do. By weakening imperialism they advance the struggle of the working class in both the imperialist and oppressed nations. You can doubt them all you please; it is flagrantly clear that the imperialists, recognising their own class interests when they see them, quake in fear at the Palestinian struggle.

I'm a communist in Britain, the oldest imperialist power. I recognise that my task as a communist is to bring the fight to imperialism in Britain - to bring the chickens back to roost. The working class in an oppressed nation, like Palestine, have a twofold task;

"(a) first, it is the “action” of the nationally oppressed proletariat and peasantry jointly with the nationally oppressed bourgeoisie against the oppressor nation; (b) second, it is the “action” of the proletariat, or of its class-conscious section, in the oppressor nation against the bourgeoisie of that nation and all the elements that follow it.' "(Lenin, A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism)


I fight against imperialism for the advancement of the socialist revolution. That means allying with all forces who are fighting imperialism - on the basis of the internationalist principle that "No nation can be free if it oppresses other nations". Like it or lump it, Hamas are a force on the forefront of the battle against imperialism - and if you can't see that, I would implore you to open your eyes.

[Catma]

This is amongst the biggest pile of nonsense I have seen since an article by the AWL. "Imperialism is to be opposed only if there is a reasonable expectation of a benefit for the revolution"? Imperialism is monopoly capitalism. Imperialism cannot be progressive, it cannot benefit the working class - indeed, to consider it as being such is to undermine the entire material reason for socialism: ie, that capitalism has ceased to play a progressive role in human society.

We oppose imperialism because it is monopoly capitalism. We recognise it breeds structural relationships that enable imperialist countries to exist parasitically off the backs of the working class and exploited the world over. It is a peculiar disease of the imperialist nations to set conditions on supporting those groups who objectively benefit the working class movement - those groups who are fighting imperialism at the forefront. That, unsuprisingly, isn't the likes of the Labour Party or the SWP - it's groups like Hamas, PFLP, FARC-EP, CPP, etc. We unite with their struggle because their struggle is our struggle - not because we have some kind of particular love for revolutionaries in far flung countries.

You're right, I put it badly. Imperialism is always to be opposed. However, if this opposition is to take the form of supporting a reactionary regime, it needs to be considered very carefully whether imperialism or the regime is worse for revolution.

[Smashcapitalists]

I have no hatred of Arab people and I do support the anti-imperialist struggle. However they are religous fundies. I have a problem with that I stand against theocracy and I am against muslim fundementalism do to its oppression against women. I do not think Hamas deserves our respect though they are technically fighting the good fight what society they want to create is abhorent. I would probably considering them Islamo-Fascists. Remember I do not hate all Muslims and love the Arab language and women :wub: I do stand against sexism and other reactionary ideas

[ibn sana]

if someone doesn't support Hamas, then I think they should support the people of Palestine.

Also Hamas killed the al-Qaeda like groups ((some of them) unfortunately fighting their own) in Gaza when somethings happened like the bbc reporter that got kidnapped and when they were planning something can't remember what though.

If Che was still around and was active I am sure he would support Palestine. If I remember right the Jackal supported the Palestinial cause and was a socialist and even bombed people and shot the owner of Marks and spencers, lol.

Mesirine was also going that way but I don't know whether he was much of a socialist or not.