The dissaperence of the secular left in the 'Arab'(Persian, Afghan, etc) world.

[Rafiq]

Any reason as to why that is?

Most of the militant secular 'left' are now just lapdogs for Islamist organizations. We used to have very strong Communist and revolutionary socialist parties, even a lot of Anarchist ones, too.

All of that changed in the Late 80's and 90's.

From a Materialist point of view, how can we understand how the Islamist parties grew while the Secular left shrank? What was so appealing about them to the populace?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I think that because of American imperialism the damage caused the religious extremists to be vocal and take direct action.This in turn swayed a large number of people over to te reactionary side while shrinking the revolutionary side.

Just my guess but I think that might have been why.

[Brah Brah Bro]

zizek talks about this in afghanistan and the decline of the communist party there, in the context of the cold war us imperialism was always ready to back religious zealots to smash anything vaguely leftist

[Tablo]

From my understanding they all seem to still be around, just outlawed in their home countries. The middle-east and surrounding areas really do seem to be having a resurgence of left-wing politics from what I can tell.

[L.A.P.]

Zizek gave a pretty good analogy on the issue. Kansas is a hub for Christian fundamentalism but who would've known that it was once a place of very strong labor and leftist movements? Same goes for Afghanistan, who knows that Afghanistan once had secualr values and many female politicians?

The revolutionary groups were basically crushed by the United States through direct military action and funding of Islamist groups. Then once the Soviet Union collapsed, the Islamists were the only ones left to represent the Middle East's struggle against imperialism. The Islamist groups played really good politics, they could give a few lectures on a political science course.

[Zealot]

Pretty much what everyone else has said. Imperialists backed anyone who was against the left, who in the middle east were often religious extremists, particularly during the cold war. Now they have become one of the only bastions of anti-imperialism in the middle east which only garners more support to their ridiculous ideas. Also, muslims are (usually) going to stand with other muslims against anything they perceive as threatening to their religion or way of life, especially the extremists, which is what provoked the Soviet war in Afghanistan.

[Susurrus]

I know that secular leftists played a large role in the Iranian revolution, but were then oppressed by the extremists. Maybe something similar? Also, I should think that perhaps leftists were considered a bigger threat than extremist muslims by the governments of the middle east.

[Devrim]

I think that there are a few points that are worth considering in relation to this discussion:

1) There were always strong nationalist overtones to the 'left' across the entire Middle East.

2) At the end of the 1970s/start of the 1980s, the working class suffered two massive defeats in the Middle East, the Islamicists taking over the Iranian revolution, and the Coup in Turkey. Both of these major events resulted in massive repression against the working class and socialist organisations.

3) This can be situated in an international context in that the period from the late 1960s to the early/mid 1980s was a period of intense class struggle. The crisis had returned after the post-war boom, and the period opening with May 1968 in France and the hot autumn in Italy continued through the 1970s with its high points probably being the mass strike in Poland 1980-1, the mass strike in Iran, and the 'Winter of Discontent' in Britain. After this the working class went onto the defensive. The point here being that the general trends in the class struggle can be understood internationally, and that the Middle East is not a region apart from them.

4) The rise of political Islam in the same period was supported directly by the Western Imperialists, and local powers, as an opposition to 'secular' left. This is evident most clearly in Afghanistan from 1979, where the US backed various Islamic groups against the Soviet Union, but can also be seen in Palestine, where HAMAS was aided by Israel as a counterweight to Fatah, and in most countries of the region.

5) The prestige of the Iranian revolution, and the Iranian state's willingness to export the revolution gave groups such as Hezbollah the necessary financial and logistic backing to increase their prestige, particularly following the 'Conference for the Downtrodden' in Tehran in 1982.

6) With the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989 much of the secular left found itself considerably weekend both ideologically, and in some cases financially.

7) A weekend left faced with a growing Islamicist movement ended up tailing it in its 'anti-imperialism' and nationalism.

Devrim

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Just a quick point: the Arab and Persian (Iranian!) worlds are vastly different, culturally. It's a mark of disrespect to call a Persian an Arab.

[Devrim]

Just a quick point: the Arab and Persian (Iranian!) worlds are vastly different, culturally. It's a mark of disrespect to call a Persian an Arab.

I don't think the fact that there are some differences means that it is impossible to talk about the common things within the region. Yes, Persians are not Arabs, neither are Turks, Kurds, and various other minorities. Nevertheless, the region does share a common history, geography, and culture (influenced by Islam) to a certain extent.

Devrim

[Ismail]

It didn't help that the Soviet revisionists worked hard to associate secular and "socialist" politics with opportunists such as Nasser, a friend of Tito, jailer of communists, and the main backer of "Pan-Arabism," which was a petty-bourgeois movement bound to never be realized. Soviet aggression in Afghanistan further alienated many Arabs from anything remotely socialist. There was also the "Tudeh" party in Iran which was seen as a pawn of Soviet social-imperialism, particularly after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

It was a combination of the machinations of both the USA and USSR, and their respective client states, which undermined the popularity of genuinely socialist politics in the region.

[Rafiq]

Just a quick point: the Arab and Persian (Iranian!) worlds are vastly different, culturally. It's a mark of disrespect to call a Persian an Arab.

I think that's a bit borderline Racist, no? I mean what's wrong with being Arab?

Would you say it's a mark of disrespect to call an Arab an Indian or Persian? I don't think so.

I don't think there is anything disrespectful for a person who doesn't know much about the area to accidently call a Persian an Arab. Considering both cultures are mere social constructions.

[Rafiq]

[QUOTE=Ismail;2245514 Soviet aggression in Afghanistan further alienated many Arabs from anything remotely socialist. There was also the "Tudeh" party in Iran which was seen as a pawn of Soviet social-imperialism, particularly after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
[/QUOTE]

I don't think a lot of Arabs had a problem with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. They knew the Taliban was being backed by the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, three states that a lot of Arabs despised.

[Ismail]

I don't think a lot of Arabs had a problem with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. They knew the Taliban was being backed by the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, three states that a lot of Arabs despised.The Taliban didn't exist until 1994. The Soviets left Afghanistan in 1989 and the government was overthrown in 1992. Try again.

[Rafiq]

The Taliban didn't exist until 1994. The Soviets left Afghanistan in 1989 and the government was overthrown in 1992. Try again.

Whatever, the Muhajadeen. My point still stands. It's like "Oh yeah, you totally got me" :rolleyes:

Those same religious extremists that were fighting the Soviet Union later became the Taliban. It's not as if they were progressive before and then they became reactionary.

The Muhajadeen was organized none other than the Afghan landowners, what a coincidence! Guess who they sent out to fight the Soviets? Their Peasants! Wow! That's like, never happened before!

makes me wonder why Hoxha supported them? Oh wait! It's because Hoxha is a fucking piece of shit! A reactionary at best, an enemy of the international proletariat.

[Devrim]

It didn't help that the Soviet revisionists worked hard to associate secular and "socialist" politics with opportunists such as Nasser, a friend of Tito, jailer of communists, and the main backer of "Pan-Arabism," which was a petty-bourgeois movement bound to never be realized. Soviet aggression in Afghanistan further alienated many Arabs from anything remotely socialist. There was also the "Tudeh" party in Iran which was seen as a pawn of Soviet social-imperialism, particularly after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

It was a combination of the machinations of both the USA and USSR, and their respective client states, which undermined the popularity of genuinely socialist politics in the region.

There is a certain truth in this. Certainly the Middle East became one of the central zones where the rivalries between the two major imperialist powers, the USA and the USSR, were played out.

What is incorrect here is the idea that this was something that happened solely under the 'revisionists'. Not only had the USSR under Stalin backed various anti-socialist nationalist movements in the Middle East, including that of Mustafa Barzani, Kurdish nationalist and father of current KDP leader, and President of Iraqi Kurdistan, Massoud Barzani, but it was also the first country to formally recognise the State of Israel. Both of these events happened during Stalin's time, and indeed Barzani even met with Stalin in Moscow.

Nor was this foreign policy something that emerged only in Stalin's time. Under Lenin, the USSR provided guns and gold to the Turkish nationalists in their 'War of Liberation', guns, which were later used to massacre the leadership of the young Turkish Communist Party, as well as hundreds of communists and militant workers.

Devrim

[OHumanista]

As everyone already pointed out, US and other westerners backed such movements to fight the left. Also the soviet involvement also served to dismantle the left.

[Ismail]

Those same religious extremists that were fighting the Soviet Union later became the Taliban. It's not as if they were progressive before and then they became reactionary.Is that why most of the Mujahideen opposed the Taliban and formed the Northern Alliance? Is that why Burhanuddin Rabbani, a former high-ranking Mujahdin leader and one-time leader of Afghanistan, was killed recently by the Taliban?

The Mujahidin were led by reactionaries, but they were able to gain ground because the Soviet invasion. It turned the conflict from rebellions against an unpopular and revisionist regime into a "holy war" for Arabs to join in against what was seen as an atheist superpower.


makes me wonder why Hoxha supported them? Oh wait! It's because Hoxha is a fucking piece of shit! A reactionary at best, an enemy of the international proletariat.Hoxha didn't "support" the Mujahidin, he supported the resistance to Soviet social-imperialism. There were Maoist and pro-Hoxha groups involved in anti-regime activities, you know.

You're free to support resolute communists like Gorbachev and Najibullah, I'd rather support actual communists who are opposed to imperialism. I also like how Hoxha denouncing the Soviet invasion makes him a reactionary and an "enemy of the international proletariat," because apparently the working masses across the earth demanded that the Soviets invade.


What is incorrect here is the idea that this was something that happened solely under the 'revisionists'. Not only had the USSR under Stalin backed various anti-socialist nationalist movements in the Middle East, including that of Mustafa Barzani, Kurdish nationalist and father of current KDP leader, and President of Iraqi Kurdistan, Massoud Barzani, but it was also the first country to formally recognise the State of Israel. Both of these events happened during Stalin's time, and indeed Barzani even met with Stalin in Moscow.Iraq at the time was basically a British neo-colony. Radio Yerevan was one of the few places where the Kurdish language could be broadcast and the domestic situation in Iraq wasn't exactly favorable towards the creation of a communist party in the Kurdish regions.

The recognition of Israel was an obvious blunder, based on both the widespread "socialist" sentiment within Israel proper and with Stalin believing that it would have undermined British colonialism. The USSR broke off relations with Israel in 1952.

[Rafiq]

Is that why most of the Mujahideen opposed the Taliban and formed the Northern Alliance? Is that why Burhanuddin Rabbani, a former high-ranking Mujahdin leader and one-time leader of Afghanistan, was killed recently by the Taliban?

That's complete bullshit, the Northern Alliance was formed mainly by Afghanis opposed to the Taliban and supporters of the former government. Some assholes from the Mujaheddin joined in, probably because they were Shia Muslims who opposed the Salafi Taliban, yet were most likely just as reactionary.



The Mujahidin were led by reactionaries, but they were able to gain ground because the Soviet invasion. It turned the conflict from rebellions against an unpopular and revisionist regime into a "holy war" for Arabs to join in against what was seen as an atheist superpower.

No it didn't, and, enough with this antimarxist 'revisionist' slandering. No one in Afghanistan gave five fucks about the government being 'Revisionist'. Secondly, I find that a bit ignorant, considering Islamists from all over the world joined and not just 'Arabs' (hur hur all them sand people r da same!1).

I doubt the Muhajedin was as popular as the 'Revisionist' government. The only places where they were popular were the uneducated places and in the Chinese and Albanian government (Is there a difference?).



Hoxha didn't "support" the Mujahidin, he supported the resistance to Soviet social-imperialism. There were Maoist and pro-Hoxha groups involved in anti-regime activities, you know.

So he supported the Mujahidiyan reactionaries. There is no such thing as just supporting 'the resistance' because the only resistance was them. I don't care if there were tiny, irrelevant Hoxhaist and Maoist groups that consisted of like three people each, they were largely just asslickers for the Islamists.



You're free to support resolute communists like Gorbachev and Najibullah, I'd rather support actual communists who are opposed to imperialism. I also like how Hoxha denouncing the Soviet invasion makes him a reactionary and an "enemy of the international proletariat," because apparently the working masses across the earth demanded that the Soviets invade.

That's the difference, I don't support the Bourgeois soviet regime or the Reactionary Islamists, I see no interest for any proletarian to support them. Hoxha is a reactionary because he wanted a world return to a previous state of affairs, non-revisionist Stalinism. He was an enemy of the international proletariat for many reasons, none of which is for opposing the Soviet Union.



The recognition of Israel was an obvious blunder, based on both the widespread "socialist" sentiment within Israel proper and with Stalin believing that it would have undermined British colonialism. The USSR broke off relations with Israel in 1952.

Israel was a puppet state for the USSR initially, but when it became a puppet state for the other Imperialists they broke off relations. Nothing to do with Socialist 'sentiment'.

[Ismail]

That's complete bullshit, the Northern Alliance was formed mainly by Afghanis opposed to the Taliban and supporters of the former government. Some assholes from the Mujaheddin joined in, probably because they were Shia Muslims who opposed the Salafi Taliban, yet were most likely just as reactionary.The "former government" that the Taliban overthrew was the Mujahidin, who held power from 1992-1994. I'm also pretty sure that Massoud and Rabbani were not fond of the Taliban.


No it didn't,Yeah, the Soviets received a warm reception all across the Arab world for invading Afghanistan, right?


No one in Afghanistan gave five fucks about the government being 'Revisionist'."No one in [the entire world] gave five fucks about the surplus-value extracted from the proletariat by the bourgeoisie."

Or, you know, the vast majority of Afghans, being peasants, would have no conception of "revisionism" or "surplus-value" or anything. Argumentum ad populum is not a valid way of debate. Things are true independent of people knowing or "caring" about them.


Secondly, I find that a bit ignorant, considering Islamists from all over the world joined and not just 'Arabs' (hur hur all them sand people r da same!1).The subject is the "Arab world," dippy.


Israel was a puppet state for the USSR initially, but when it became a puppet state for the other Imperialists they broke off relations. Nothing to do with Socialist 'sentiment'.Israel was a Soviet puppet state? Maybe in the minds of Neo-Nazis.

Also tens of thousands (if not millions) of Soviet Jews praised the formation of Israel and held huge rallies and temple services in the USSR. The leading parties in Israel all claimed to be "socialist" in some form. The Arabs, by contrast, were seen as being under the pawn of the British colonialists.

Here's an example of a Soviet view of Israel from 1949: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv12n2/ehrenburg.htm

[Rafiq]

The "former government" that the Taliban overthrew was the Mujahidin, who held power from 1992-1994. I'm also pretty sure that Massoud and Rabbani were not fond of the Taliban.

No, the former government I am referring to was the Soviet backed government. Not the shit hole petty Islamist one.



Yeah, the Soviets received a warm reception all across the Arab world for invading Afghanistan, right?

The Arab world isn't some fucking unified Ideological current. Some did, and some did not.



The subject is the "Arab world," dippy.

No, it's regarding the Arab, Persian and Afghan world. We are talking about Afghanistan right now, not the Arab world.



Israel was a Soviet puppet state? Maybe in the minds of Neo-Nazis.

Also tens of thousands (if not millions) of Soviet Jews praised the formation of Israel and held huge rallies and temple services in the USSR. The leading parties in Israel all claimed to be "socialist" in some form. The Arabs, by contrast, were seen as being under the pawn of the British colonialists.

Here's an example of a Soviet view of Israel from 1949: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv12n2/ehrenburg.htm

No one is doubting the proletarian organizations in Israel during the time were very progressive.

What I am saying is that the Soviet government could give two shits if Israel was socialist or not.

[Ismail]

The Arab world isn't some fucking unified Ideological current. Some did, and some did not.And I'm willing to bet a lot less would have gone to Afghanistan had the Soviets not intervened. Mainly because without Soviet troop support the revisionist government in Afghanistan wouldn't have lasted much longer.

[Rafiq]

And I'm willing to bet a lot less would have gone to Afghanistan had the Soviets not intervened. Mainly because without Soviet troop support the revisionist government in Afghanistan wouldn't have lasted much longer.

Only the Saudi Islamists started going to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. Yet you speak as if they are representatives of the Arab world.

[Rusty Shackleford]

An Iranian friend of mine explained the situation in the Iranian Revolution to me with this point:

The shah repressed all opposing political organizations including communists, liberals, socialists, trade unionists, and so on. The only place that could not be touched by the government was the Mosques. So, out of that grew the Islamist Revolution because the only place of political speech was the Mosque.

[Devrim]

Iraq at the time was basically a British neo-colony. Radio Yerevan was one of the few places where the Kurdish language could be broadcast and the domestic situation in Iraq wasn't exactly favorable towards the creation of a communist party in the Kurdish regions.

I am not sure what political point you are trying to make here, but your facts are completely wrong. Following the defeat of the al-Wathbab uprising in 1948, the Iraqi Communist Party was in disarray. Of course one of the main reasons for this can be put down to the repression, but the fact that the party was obliged to follow the twists and turns of Soviet foreign policy especially support for the allied powers from May 1942, which effectively allied them with the state, and the neo-colonial power, and the recognition of the State of Israel in 1948 both played their parts in the collapse of the Party.

At this point the centre of the party was moved to Iraqi Kurdistan, and by 1950 contrary to your claims, far from the situation being unfavourable in Kurdistan. Kurds probably constituted a majority of the party.

The point about the language is equally disconnected from reality. Unlike in Turkey, the Kurdish language in Iraq has never been suppressed, and during the period under discussion could be heard in numerous state institutions, such as primary schools where it was the medium of instruction and had been since the 1931 local language law.

What this has to do with the Soviet Union backing bourgeois nationalists though is beyond me.


The recognition of Israel was an obvious blunder, based on both the widespread "socialist" sentiment within Israel proper and with Stalin believing that it would have undermined British colonialism. The USSR broke off relations with Israel in 1952.

You are quite right that Stalin believed that recognition of the State of Israel would have 'undermined British colonialism'. However, I don't see any thing here connected to the interests of the working class, but rather a cynical move in the struggle between rival imperialist powers. Undoubtedly given the development of the geo-political situation it was a 'blunder', but it was a blunder in that it failed to serve the interests of the Soviet state.

Following this 'blunder' the Soviet Union shifted it support and adopted a policy of, as you put it,:


work[ing] hard to associate secular and "socialist" politics with opportunists such as Nasser, a friend of Tito, jailer of communists, and the main backer of "Pan-Arabism," which was a petty-bourgeois movement bound to never be realized.

The point is that in neither case was the interests of the working class the determining feature, but rather the interests of Soviet foreign policy, the policy of an imperialist state.

It seems strange that you can recognise that the policy of supporting various nationalist groupings across the region was a tool of Soviet imperialism after 1953, but not before.

Devrim

[Devrim]

An Iranian friend of mine explained the situation in the Iranian Revolution to me with this point:

The shah repressed all opposing political organizations including communists, liberals, socialists, trade unionists, and so on. The only place that could not be touched by the government was the Mosques. So, out of that grew the Islamist Revolution because the only place of political speech was the Mosque.

I think that there was actually a bit more to it than this, Rusty.

What overthrew the Shah in Iran in 1979 was the mass strike and the power of the working class. The ICC put it quite well at the time:


...the strikes of the Iranian workers were the major, political element leading to the overthrow of the Shah's regime. Despite the mass mobilisations, when the ‘popular' movement - regrouping almost all the oppressed strata in Iran - began to exhaust itself, the entry into the struggle of the Iranian proletariat at the beginning of October 1978, most notably in the oil sector, not only refuelled the agitation, but posed a virtually insolvable problem for the national capital, in the absence of a replacement being found for the old governmental team. Repression was enough to cause the retreat of the small merchants, the students and those without work, but it proved a powerless weapon of the bourgeoisie when confronted with the economic paralysis provoked by the strikes of the workers.

Yes, there was activity around the mosque, but the dynamic force behind the overthrow of the Shah was not that, but the struggles of the working class organised through its strike committees and councils.

Devrim

[blackandyellow]

In same cases they were physicaly destroyed, often by the movements they originaly supported e.g. by Khomeni in Iran, or by the Nasserites in Egypt


On a seperate note though, I read in a Tariq Ali book about Mujahidins in Iran before the revolution often adopting Marxist rhetoric, and in some cases come out proclaiming to be Marxists. This group was called Peikar, and was apparently quite large. Any more info on them?

[Devrim]

On a seperate note though, I read in a Tariq Ali book about Mujahidins in Iran before the revolution often adopting Marxist rhetoric, and in some cases come out proclaiming to be Marxists. This group was called Peikar, and was apparently quite large. Any more info on them?

It is usually written 'Peykar' in Latin script. They were a split from the People's Mujahedin of Iran, which is different from the Mujahedin in Afghanistan. They were repressed after the PMOI bombing campaign in 1981.

Devrim