Combating "Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend"-ism

[MarxSchmarx]

This is a common pathology on the left. There is a lot of lipservice, I think, to notions that "oh Iran/North Korea/Assad/whatever" is terrible. But then, all too often, there is a tendency to be somewhat smirky when they somehow gain the upper hand. For instance, I have met more than a few self-identified "leftists" who are more OK with Iran getting nuclear weapons if it means a net loss for the American state.

Of course we all realize these views are incredibly reactionary, and to be sure the right-wing of western countries is keen to promote this "well the US gov't is fighting 'islamofascism' so let's support it herr derp." I mean it was this "enemy of my enemy" thinking that led to the Taliban.

So it was when thinking about this that I came across the video of the Iranian public hanging at the park. Now that is the kind of the image that really rubs leftists the wrong way in a visceral level. It represents teh bourgeois perpetrating violence against poor people (the victim in question was never killed). It is reactionary. It appeals to the basist instincts and is the sort of crap that has happened and is happening to leftists. It occurred to me that all the talk of the horrific state repression, sexist bigotry, etc... in Iran is not viscerally conveyed because it is written and presented as massive walls of text that read like a legal disclaimer on some household appliance.

It occurred to me taht the denunciations we frequently make of the likes of Assad or Kim Jong Il just aren't as credible when they are not accompanied by something dramatic as the video of a public execution. But perhaps if that is what it takes for others to realize the limits of "enemy of my enemy is my friend" thinking, then perhaps we shouldn't be ashamed about promoting it. Thoughts?

[Ostrinski]

The "enemy of my enemy is my friend" line for communists is a forfeiture of class independence. Saying that we ought to support a state or organization that is incredibly reactionary or anti-communist is an abandonment of the goal of communism and you may as well be telling us to vote liberal. It's liquidationist.

[Geiseric]

This is a common pathology on the left. There is a lot of lipservice, I think, to notions that "oh Iran/North Korea/Assad/whatever" is terrible. But then, all too often, there is a tendency to be somewhat smirky when they somehow gain the upper hand. For instance, I have met more than a few self-identified "leftists" who are more OK with Iran getting nuclear weapons if it means a net loss for the American state.

Of course we all realize these views are incredibly reactionary, and to be sure the right-wing of western countries is keen to promote this "well the US gov't is fighting 'islamofascism' so let's support it herr derp." I mean it was this "enemy of my enemy" thinking that led to the Taliban.

So it was when thinking about this that I came across the video of the Iranian public hanging at the park. Now that is the kind of the image that really rubs leftists the wrong way in a visceral level. It represents teh bourgeois perpetrating violence against poor people (the victim in question was never killed). It is reactionary. It appeals to the basist instincts and is the sort of crap that has happened and is happening to leftists. It occurred to me that all the talk of the horrific state repression, sexist bigotry, etc... in Iran is not viscerally conveyed because it is written and presented as massive walls of text that read like a legal disclaimer on some household appliance.

It occurred to me taht the denunciations we frequently make of the likes of Assad or Kim Jong Il just aren't as credible when they are not accompanied by something dramatic as the video of a public execution. But perhaps if that is what it takes for others to realize the limits of "enemy of my enemy is my friend" thinking, then perhaps we shouldn't be ashamed about promoting it. Thoughts?

You tell them to get a grip on reality, and let them know that Assad and Iran's government kills union organizers daily, so supporting those dictatorships of the bourgeoisie is betraying the international working class.

[Pawn Power]

The distinction here you have to make is around whether or not one's 'enemy' is a particular state/administration or whether it is capitalism/systematic oppression.

[Decolonize The Left]

But perhaps if that is what it takes for others to realize the limits of "enemy of my enemy is my friend" thinking, then perhaps we shouldn't be ashamed about promoting it. Thoughts?

Context is everything, my friend. In your OP example, yes, the use of this notion is terribly misguided. It betrays either very little materialist understanding of the situation or a momentary flight into emotional reaction.

But we should be careful to differentiate between a rather common usage of the term, such as in the OP, and a truly strategic usage. For the notion 'an enemy of an enemy is my friend' is indeed a valuable and vital part of strategy and many wars have been won through its implementation. So I do not think we should be ashamed about promoting it, but should be careful about in which context we use it and the limitations of its use.

[Blake's Baby]

The bourgeoisie, even if it is the enemy of another bourgeoise, is never the friend of the working class. Did the Commune or the Petrograd Soviet think 'great! That Prussian/German Army over there is fighting my government, and so am I, I'm sure we'll be great friends!'? No. The bourgeoisie will put aside its quarrels in an instant if class struggle rears its head. The Thiers government was given the time to massacre the Commune wihtout German interference; the revolution in Germany ended WWI (which had dragged on four years) in four days; the French government at Versailles demanded that Germany hand over all its weapons more complex than rifles - but relented and allowed the Reichswehr to keep 30,000 machine guns when it was pointed out that the ('Socialist') government would not be able to suppress its own workers.

All bourgeoises, all governments, all manifestations of capitalism, are our enemies.

[ellipsis]

I dunno about friend, but when it come to defending countries against U.S. imperialism, the bar for me is pretty low. Do I support Iran? no. But I support the US bombing the shit out of them even less.?

[Fourth Internationalist]

Some enemies of my enemies are my friends. For example, liberals, anarchists, and social democrats are my friends, but North Korea, democrats, and Iran are not. It really is a case-by-case basis.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Some enemies of my enemies are my friends. For example, liberals, anarchists, and social democrats are my friends, but North Korea, democrats, and Iran are not. It really is a case-by-case basis.
No they aren't. It is only at the most moral and superficial of levels that we have anything to do with anti-working class Keynesian bastards. If you mean someone who is sympathetic to the far-left, then sure, but to be in support of a liberal government? Just drop the pretense about supporting socialism; in reality you're just feeding an ultimately pro-capitalist group in it's movement to implement regulations that ultimately do not work.

[Let's Get Free]

This is the thing that annoys me the most about general 'left-wing' politics. It seems to me that it's a remnant from Cold War politics, where everything must be boiled down to a simplistic binary, good on one side, bad on the other.

If your politics lead you to support one group of thieves and murderers against another group of thieves and murderers, you should probably reconsider your position

[Rurkel]

For example, liberals are my friends, but... democrats are not.
What is the difference between these two groups?

[B5C]

What is the difference between these two groups?

Matters how you view the Democratic Party & the term Liberal. Is the Democratic Party full of Liberals (Progressives) or Centrist-rightists.

[Fourth Internationalist]

No they aren't. It is only at the most moral and superficial of levels that we have anything to do with anti-working class Keynesian bastards. If you mean someone who is sympathetic to the far-left, then sure, but to be in support of a liberal government? Just drop the pretense about supporting socialism; in reality you're just feeding an ultimately pro-capitalist group in it's movement to implement regulations that ultimately do not work.

Not support them absolutely, but just against conservatives, fascists, etc. Also, being nice to them, rather than calling them anti-working class, is a much more effective way of getting them on our side. Or you could be sectarian and have no progress but still be "pure."

[Fourth Internationalist]

What is the difference between these two groups?

The Democrat Party is center-right, while liberals and progressives are center-left.

[human strike]

I think in no small part this "enemy of my enemy is my friend" mentality is born out of an emphasis on recruitment that exists in the left, not just in terms of building a "mass" organisation, but on an ideological level too. Conceiving of revolution as a question of winning followers, of signing up members, constantly leads to compromises in the search for mass appeal. I think Counterfire is a good example of an organisation on the left that deliberately waters itself down and makes dodgy allegiances, but the same is true of most if not all leftist organisations and many individuals not in an organisation.

I'd also point out that this isn't even necessarily an effective means of recruitment. A number of far-right movement have demonstrated that extremism can be a very effective way of gaining followers. Golden Dawn are a good contemporary example of this fact.

[Thirsty Crow]

But we should be careful to differentiate between a rather common usage of the term, such as in the OP, and a truly strategic usage. For the notion 'an enemy of an enemy is my friend' is indeed a valuable and vital part of strategy and many wars have been won through its implementation. So I do not think we should be ashamed about promoting it, but should be careful about in which context we use it and the limitations of its use.
Examples? Without any, this could mean anything, from intermingling with fascists and nationalists (the so called Schlageter Line in early 20s Germany; the central journal of KPD printing articles of prominent fascists, the head of the party pronouncing that the bourgeoisie has aqcuired an "objectively" revolutionary characteristics, all that national bolshevism bullshit) to supporting the Democrats.