"Meet ISIS's worst nightmare"

[BIXX]

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/08/167994-meet-isiss-worst-nightmare-women-battalion-kurdish-fighters/

"As ISIS has swept across northern Iraq, they have become known for their atrocities towards women. For example, Yazidi women have been abducted by ISIS to become sex slaves for their fighters. However, here’s a group of women that aren’t preparing to flee ISIS but instead are preparing to meet them with their AK-47s.
Meet the 2nd Peshmerga Battalion, who are a battalion of Kurdish fighters – and they just happen to be an all-female battalion as well. They’re front line soldiers, some of whom have been fighting for years, and they’re eager to face ISIS.
From the New York Post:
Hundreds of mothers, sisters and daughters have taken up arms and devoted their lives to protecting Iraq’s Kurdish population against the threat of the Islamic State.
Known as the women peshmerga of the 2nd Battalion, the group is made up of 550 female fighters led by Col. Nahida Ahmad Rashid, Barcroft reports.
The soldiers have not yet faced the Islamic State since the terrorists seized control of towns in Kurdistan, but the group has carried out in-depth exercises in the scorching heat of Sulaymaniyah to prepare themselves for battle.
Kurdistan is one of the few Muslim countries where women are allowed to serve in the military, let alone serve in a combat role. Either way, ISIS, which likes to deny women their basic rights, is going to have hell on its hands when it faces these women.
It would be a great irony if ISIS met its defeat at the hands of these Kurdish women. Try to stone these women to death, ISIS scum, and you just might wind up double-tapped."

I honestly don't know shit about the situation in the Middle East but I thought this was kinda interesting.

[TheBigREDOne]

Thats. Fucking. Awesome. ;)

[Devrim]

Nationalist gangs armed by the Western powers have somehow turned into leftists wet dreams. It's quite depressing.

Devrim

[DOOM]

Nationalist gangs armed by the Western powers have somehow turned into leftists wet dreams. It's quite depressing.

Devrim

Well it's applied antifascism.

[Atsumari]

The victory of the Kurdish factions, even the awful ones such as the PUK and KDP are preferable over ISIS, even if they are anti-imperialist.

[DOOM]

The victory of the Kurdish factions, even the awful ones such as the PUK and KDP are preferable over ISIS, even if they are anti-imperialist.

ISIS is anti-imperialist?

[Atsumari]

They are against Israeli, European, and American involvement in the Middle East and a lot of their rhetoric includes anti-colonialism as well. People outside the left who are anti-left can be anti-imperialist just like people outside the left can be anti-capitalist.
Of course that does not make them any less despicable.

[The Red Star Rising]

The victory of the Kurdish factions, even the awful ones such as the PUK and KDP are preferable over ISIS, even if they are anti-imperialist.
ISIS dreams of an empire stretching from Morocco to New Guinea. They're hardly anti-imperialists.

[Devrim]

Well it's applied antifascism.

It's a pretty good example of the reactionary nature of anti-fascism.

Devrim

[human strike]

Kurdistan Workers' Party also has women's units in Turkey, Iran and now Iraq.

[Tim Cornelis]

^
Technically, the PKK does not operate in Iran. That's the PJAK.

Anti-imperialism without anticapitalism is not anti-imperialism. The Islamic State is not anti-imperialist.

[DOOM]

It's a pretty good example of the reactionary nature of anti-fascism.

Devrim
I never said anything different. Like the allied forces back in WW 2, the militias fighting against ISIS now are reactionary by their nature, as they're a product of bourgeois ideology. However, a bourgeois democracy needs to be defended against fascism, as the latter one is absolutely not preferable.
But I guess you don't make any difference between bourgeois democracy and fascism.

[human strike]

^
Technically, the PKK does not operate in Iran. That's the PJAK.

Same difference.

[aty]

The female forces of Peshmerga are paper products, they have not seen action. Only the females in PKK, YPG and PJAK are actively fighting on the same terms as men.

[Rafiq]

^
Technically, the PKK does not operate in Iran. That's the PJAK.

Anti-imperialism without anticapitalism is not anti-imperialism. The Islamic State is not anti-imperialist.

Also anti Imperialism can only be fought by a global class conscious proletariat. Take countries like Vietnam: they're one of the largest manufacturers for US products today. What did national liberation even accomplish?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Nationalist gangs armed by the Western powers have somehow turned into leftists wet dreams. It's quite depressing.

Devrim

Is the alternative here, better? What's your opinion on the subject? I would much rather hear of a badass all female combat battalion of devil worshippers more so than I would hearing about the continued rape and sexual slavery of a whole generation of Iraqi women.

[Per Levy]

Is the alternative here, better? What's your opinion on the subject? I would much rather hear of a badass all female combat battalion of devil worshippers more so than I would hearing about the continued rape and sexual slavery of a whole generation of Iraqi women.

cause every kurd is of the yazidi faith right?


I never said anything different. Like the allied forces back in WW 2, the militias fighting against ISIS now are reactionary by their nature, as they're a product of bourgeois ideology. However, a bourgeois democracy needs to be defended against fascism, as the latter one is absolutely not preferable.
But I guess you don't make any difference between bourgeois democracy and fascism.

oh ou mean those bourgeois democracies that right after beating those fascist forces used them right away against workers, against new enemies? its like the kapp coup and the workers who stood up and defended the weimar republic, once the coup was beaten the weimar republic send the same troops who just supported the coup to smash the rebelling workers and killing lots of them. anti-fascism as its best.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

cause every kurd is of the yazidi faith right?

No, but Yazidi were mentioned first in the article in the OP and that's I phrased it as such. Calm down.


oh ou mean those bourgeois democracies that right after beating those fascist forces used them right away against workers, against new enemies? its like the kapp coup and the workers who stood up and defended the weimar republic, once the coup was beaten the weimar republic send the same troops who just supported the coup to smash the rebelling workers and killing lots of them. anti-fascism as its best.

I don't really understand why exactly some, are arguing against antifash, considering, if you're not against, or let's say, idk, "anti" fascism, then where does the leave you? A collaborationist? Supporter? Enabler? What?

[Sasha]

I don't really understand why exactly some, are arguing against antifash, considering, if you're not against, or let's say, idk, "anti" fascism, then where does the leave you? A collaborationist? Supporter? Enabler? What?

there is a long running misunderstanding by the resident "stuck in the interbellum" theorists of mostly the left-com and "orthodox-marxism" varieties that think that radical anti-fascism still equals bourgeois collaborating popular front'ism.
while their criticism surely is still somewhat valid when it comes to "antifascism" as propagated by useless (neo-)trots as the SWP their kneejerk, stuck in the year nineteensomuch, reaction towards the term when it comes to community bases anti-fascist self defense it as silly and useless as their own stalinoid detractors always waving lenins "an infantile disease" in their face....

[DOOM]

cause every kurd is of the yazidi faith right?



oh ou mean those bourgeois democracies that right after beating those fascist forces used them right away against workers, against new enemies? its like the kapp coup and the workers who stood up and defended the weimar republic, once the coup was beaten the weimar republic send the same troops who just supported the coup to smash the rebelling workers and killing lots of them. anti-fascism as its best.

For god's sake, just fuck the workers for one time.
Jesus do you really believe there is no qualitative difference between being put in fucking death camps for defending homosexuality and the bourgeois status quo?
R-r-revolutionary subject my ass

[DOOM]

there is a long running misunderstanding by the resident "stuck in the interbellum" theorists of mostly the left-com and "orthodox-marxism" varieties that think that radical anti-fascism still equals bourgeois collaborating popular front'ism.
while their criticism surely is still somewhat valid when it comes to "antifascism" as propagated by useless (neo-)trots as the SWP their kneejerk, stuck in the year nineteensomuch, reaction towards the term when it comes to community bases anti-fascist self defense it as silly and useless as their own stalinoid detractors always waving lenins "an infantile disease" in their face....

I don't want to start off a tendency fight, but jesus I don't believe left-coms realize how much they're relativizing fascism while being the biggest crybabies when it comes to stalinism. It's just hilarious

[bricolage]

^
Technically, the PKK does not operate in Iran. That's the PJAK.
Can someone help me out with the different Kurdish political groups. I have very limited, mostly wikipedia sourced, knowledge on this.

I know PKK also has an affiliate in Iraq that is pretty tiny. Then there is PYD in Syria who I understand are linked to them too, are they the largest Kurdish group in Syria?

Iraqi Kurdistan is governed by Barzani's lot who are a lot more centrist/populist, have they clashed with the PKK/PJAK grouping?

Who else have I missed?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

For god's sake, just fuck the workers for one time.
Jesus do you really believe there is no qualitative difference between being put in fucking death camps for defending homosexuality and the bourgeois status quo?
R-r-revolutionary subject my ass

I wouldn't say all that. Considering, what happened on the German states in the past or what have you, doesn't exactly have bearing on preset day Iraq. Even assuming this is true, however, whatever they are trying to say, I think your point about death camps shouldn't be over-looked considering were talking about genocide, sexual slavery, rapes, pediatric cranium removal, and other such things. This absolutely should be combatted. It really upsets me to see fellow Muslims do this and even worse, do so in the name of the deen. It's sick.

What also sick is being against resistance movements in this situation. Considering also that all of these conversations both on RL and elsewhere aren't going to effect the situation at all, on any meaningful way. All we can do is comment. Cuz I mean, it's pretty fucked to sit behind a computer screen and denounce people taking an aggressive tone and defending themselves. Yes, the bourgeoisie will, once this has passed, turn and go back to their business of stepping one the proletariat's proverbial nuts. But there too, the Iraqi proletariat would go back resisting said exploitation. The only qualitive change here is there would be no ISIS and some lives saved.

[Sasha]

PKK/PJAK/YPG/KCK are all essentially the same.

The two main other Kurdish groups are the KDP (barzanis party) and the PUK.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

For god's sake, just fuck the workers for one time.

How about no?


Jesus do you really believe there is no qualitative difference between being put in fucking death camps for defending homosexuality and the bourgeois status quo?
R-r-revolutionary subject my ass

So, when the war against Nazi Germany ended, which state continued to have all the Nazi-era laws against homosexuality on file and apply them vigorously? Why, the liberal- and social-democrat-led Bonn regime did. Which state used armed police to massacre an ethnic group in its own capital while running concentration camps in territory under military occupation? The "democratic anti-fascist" France did. And so on.

[bricolage]

Ok, so KDP and PUK rule in Iraqi Kurdistan.
PKK are still the largest Kurdish group in Turkey?
Who controls the Kurdish held areas in Syria?
And am I right in thinking that it's in Iran that the Kurds have least (none?) political/military power?

[DOOM]

I wouldn't say all that. Considering, what happened on the German states in the past or what have you, doesn't exactly have bearing on preset day Iraq. Even assuming this is true, however, whatever they are trying to say, I think your point about death camps shouldn't be over-looked considering were talking about genocide, sexual slavery, rapes, pediatric cranium removal, and other such things. This absolutely should be combatted. It really upsets me to see fellow Muslims do this and even worse, do so in the name of the deen. It's sick.

I did this to reflect the similarities between german fascism and islamism (Rafiq and I explained this in that other thread). However, of course it's exaggerated to bring death camps and naziesque bloodlust in at this stage, but if we give ISIS enough time, space and capacities, they would proceed to do similar things.


What also sick is being against resistance movements in this situation. Considering also that all of these conversations both on RL and elsewhere aren't going to effect the situation at all, on any meaningful way. All we can do is comment. Cuz I mean, it's pretty fucked to sit behind a computer screen and denounce people taking an aggressive tone and defending themselves. Yes, the bourgeoisie will, once this has passed, turn and go back to their business of stepping one the proletariat's proverbial nuts. But there too, the Iraqi proletariat would go back resisting said exploitation. The only qualitive change here is there would be no ISIS and some lives saved.

Absolutely and I would already be quite happy if this happens

[DOOM]

How about no?



So, when the war against Nazi Germany ended, which state continued to have all the Nazi-era laws against homosexuality on file and apply them vigorously? Why, the liberal- and social-democrat-led Bonn regime did. Which state used armed police to massacre an ethnic group in its own capital while running concentration camps in territory under military occupation? The "democratic anti-fascist" France did. And so on.

Please don't tell me you see no qualitative difference between these atrocities and the giant shitload Nazi Germany and Italy are responsible of.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Please don't tell me you see no qualitative difference between these atrocities and the giant shitload Nazi Germany and Italy are responsible of.

So what's the supposed qualitative difference? I think that to someone killed and thrown in the Seine, it's the same if this was done by the Vichy police or the police of democratic, anti-fascist France. The logic of bourgeois rule remains the same.

[Tim Cornelis]

It's easy talking when you don't have genocide knocking on your door... Liberal democracy, when socialist revolution is not within reach, is certainly preferable. Liberal democracy's repressive functions are more relaxed allowing some political freedom and therefore the ability of communists to organise. Of course, this does not mean we should expect leniency from the liberal democrats, as Marx wrote:

"To be able forcefully and threateningly to oppose this party, whose betrayal of the workers will begin with the very first hour of victory, the workers must be armed and organized. The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition, and the revival of the old-style citizens’ militia, directed against the workers, must be opposed. Where the formation of this militia cannot be prevented, the workers must try to organize themselves independently as a proletarian guard, with elected leaders and with their own elected general staff; they must try to place themselves not under the orders of the state authority but of the revolutionary local councils set up by the workers. Where the workers are employed by the state, they must arm and organize themselves into special corps with elected leaders, or as a part of the proletarian guard. Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. The destruction of the bourgeois democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible – these are the main points which the proletariat and therefore the League must keep in mind during and after the approaching uprising."

" As soon as the new governments have established themselves, their struggle against the workers will begin. If the workers are to be able to forcibly oppose the democratic petty bourgeois it is essential above all for them to be independently organized and centralized in clubs. At the soonest possible moment after the overthrow of the present governments, the Central Committee will come to Germany and will immediately convene a Congress, submitting to it the necessary proposals for the centralization of the workers’ clubs under a directorate established at the movement’s center of operations. The speedy organization of at least provincial connections between the workers’ clubs is one of the prime requirements for the strengthening and development of the workers’ party; the immediate result of the overthrow of the existing governments will be the election of a national representative body. Here the proletariat must take care: 1) that by sharp practices local authorities and government commissioners do not, under any pretext whatsoever, exclude any section of workers; 2) that workers’ candidates are nominated everywhere in opposition to bourgeois-democratic candidates."

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm

The historical conditions have claimed, but I think this approach is still quite valid.

--------------------------

PKK (Turkey), PYD (Syria), PCDK (Iraq), and PJAK (Iran) are member-parties of the Koma Civaken Kurdistan (KCK).


Ok, so KDP and PUK rule in Iraqi Kurdistan.
PKK are still the largest Kurdish group in Turkey?
Who controls the Kurdish held areas in Syria?
And am I right in thinking that it's in Iran that the Kurds have least (none?) political/military power?

The BDP is the largest Kurdish political group in Turkey.

The Kurdish held areas are controlled by TEV-DEM; which is largely controlled by the PYD. There have been attempts made to shift power to the Supreme Kurdish Committee which is half PYD and half 12 other Kurdish and Syriac parties; but PYD is still supreme in practice, even arresting political opponents.

The PCDK seems to be smaller than the PJAK. The PCDK has no fighting force and received only 1,700 votes in the last elections. The PJAK, at least, had a fighting force of a few hundred militants. The PJAK was in combat with Iranian forces from 2004 until they retreated in 2011, some minor skirmishes have taken place since then as far as I know. Not that there were large fights before.

[Devrim]

there is a long running misunderstanding by the resident "stuck in the interbellum" theorists of mostly the left-com and "orthodox-marxism" varieties that think that radical anti-fascism still equals bourgeois collaborating popular front'ism.
while their criticism surely is still somewhat valid when it comes to "antifascism" as propagated by useless (neo-)trots as the SWP their kneejerk, stuck in the year nineteensomuch, reaction towards the term when it comes to community bases anti-fascist self defense it as silly and useless as their own stalinoid detractors always waving lenins "an infantile disease" in their face....

No left communist would oppose people defending themselves from fascists.That is not the discussion here. What people are proposing here is siding with a reactionary nationalist organisation backed by the Western powers against another reactionary organisation.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Ok, so KDP and PUK rule in Iraqi Kurdistan.
PKK are still the largest Kurdish group in Turkey?
Who controls the Kurdish held areas in Syria?
And am I right in thinking that it's in Iran that the Kurds have least (none?) political/military power?

Yes
Yes
The PYD, part of the PKK
I'd say in Armenia.

Devrim

[Rafiq]

No left communist would oppose people defending themselves from fascists.That is not the discussion here. What people are proposing here is siding with a reactionary nationalist organisation backed by the Western powers against another reactionary organisation.

Devrim

You're missing the ideological aspect of this and it's fundamental social implications. ISIS is not simply reactionary. It is pre-modern. It is adamantly anti-enlightenment. All of the achievements of the past two centuries are rendered illegitimate and void in their universe. I don't have qualms with criticizing or denouncing the PKK. But it's ridiculous to compare them to ISIS.

[Devrim]

You're missing the ideological aspect of this and it's fundamental social implications. ISIS is not simply reactionary. It is pre-modern. It is adamantly anti-enlightenment. All of the achievements of the past two centuries are rendered illegitimate and void in their universe. I don't have qualms with criticizing or denouncing the PKK. But it's ridiculous to compare them to ISIS.

So what are you suggesting? Is it that people support the Kurds and the Western powers against them?

Devrim

[Sasha]

PKK (Turkey), PYD (Syria), PCDK (Iraq), and PJAK (Iran) are member-parties of the Koma Civaken Kurdistan (KCK).



The BDP is the largest Kurdish political group in Turkey.

While there is more space between the PKK and the BDP then its (banned) predecesors and I think you can't say anymore that the BDP is the political wing of the PKK but I think its clear there is still lots of influence of the PKK/KCK in the party and one could certainly group them more together than as opposing forces.

[Comrade #138672]

Also anti Imperialism can only be fought by a global class conscious proletariat. Take countries like Vietnam: they're one of the largest manufacturers for US products today. What did national liberation even accomplish?Are you suggesting that national liberation does not offer any gains to the proletariat as a whole? Tell me if I am wrong. I would like to hear your opinion on this.

How can the proletariat develop class consciousness properly, if it is severely oppressed by imperialist powers? National liberation has, in itself, little to do with socialism, much like a bourgeois revolution, but is it not a prerequisite for a socialist revolution to take place?

What about the worldwide support for the liberation of the Palestinians? This is clearly a national liberation movement, but at the same time it seems to aid in the creation of a global class consciousness as well. Are you supporting this? Are you opposed to it? Or do you think it is just a waste of time?

[Rafiq]

So what are you suggesting? Is it that people support the Kurds and the Western powers against them?

Devrim

I don't know what you mean by support. The Kurds and western powers are going to fight ISIS with or without our support. If they relied on Leftists for making their decisions the situation would be very different. If it is a given that they will engage ISIS, then the question is whether we oppose such acts. I can't honestly say I would oppose Kurdish endeavours against the Islamists, indiscriminate of who is supporting them. I mean, it's easy to say. But would you REALLY be able to condemn a Kurdish offensive against ISIS? There are things that play out that are in our favor strategically. This doesn't warrant support, or opposition. What does the proletariat have to lose from the destruction of ISIS? The reinforcement of capitalism? The same capitalism which Communism is derived from, the same Liberalism without which there is no (ideological) basis for Communism to exist?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

No left communist would oppose people defending themselves from fascists.That is not the discussion here. What people are proposing here is siding with a reactionary nationalist organisation backed by the Western powers against another reactionary organisation.

Devrim

ISIS also has a lot of weaponry and is backed by wealthy states as well. In light of this, how else are the Kurds supposed to defend themselves properly? Why not just take Western guns, ammo, and money and just disregard their advice and so on? That would make sense to me. Additionally, are we not talking about the same group of people who endured systematic gas attacks, kidnapping, murder, rape, torture and so on under Saddam?

[PhoenixAsh]

I see no qualitative difference between radical & political Islam as formulated by IS and fascism for the people involved.

For all intents and purposes on paper this is clear cut. An imperialism induced conflict between mostly reactionary forced. So theoretically one should not take sides in this conflict.

In real life however...waving theory around when entire populations are ethnically cleansed by a group of people who think they have the religious obligation to whipe out every one who opposes them to the last man, woman and child and have that religious duty as long as a tiny segment of these people oppose them and other swats of the population are either severely oppressed or brought into direct slavery...

...then that theory gets less clear.

[Broviet Union]

What kind of a Marxist even has a moment's hesitation over the proposition that liberal bourgeois nationalism is preferable to pre-Enlightenment reaction?

[Alexios]

What kind of a Marxist even has a moment's hesitation over the proposition that liberal bourgeois nationalism is preferable to pre-Enlightenment reaction?
Well, that's a bit simplistic since Islam had no equivalent of the Enlightenment. Many Islamists would perceive the things that we associate with reaction to be part of their enlightened period, as shown with all this rhetoric about the Caliphate and the scientific and cultural achievements under it.

[The Modern Prometheus]

They are against Israeli, European, and American involvement in the Middle East and a lot of their rhetoric includes anti-colonialism as well. People outside the left who are anti-left can be anti-imperialist just like people outside the left can be anti-capitalist.
Of course that does not make them any less despicable.

How the hell is ISIS anti-imperialist? They want to impose their radical interpretation of Sunni Islam on everybody in the region and kill all the infidels and anyone too moderate for them. If that does not fit the definition of imperialism i don't know what is.

[Rafiq]

Well, that's a bit simplistic since Islam had no equivalent of the Enlightenment. Many Islamists would perceive the things that we associate with reaction to be part of their enlightened period, as shown with all this rhetoric about the Caliphate and the scientific and cultural achievements under it.

Try again.

The enlightenment wasn't exclusive to Europe. There were intellectual movements derived from enlightenment in the middle east too. it wasn't a different world. Even arab nationalism is very enlightenment based. And nobody gives a flying fuck about the "scientific acheivments of the caliphate" as though it is fresh in their minds. They have nothing to do with it, I doubt most of these rural people know anything about that. People who support them are Sunnis dissatisfied with the Iraqi and Syrian government. There are also an overwhelmingly huge number of Islamist from Europe (who have FUCK ALL to do with any previous caliphate).

There is no "Muslim world". Sure there are vast cultural differences but these were countries colonized by European powers, who therefore were exposed to the enlightenment (not to apologize for colonialism, but they didn't live on another planet). To suggest that the Islamist reaction is somehow perceived to be "their enlightenment" is completely ridiculous. What is more viable is a renaissance comparison, which is still stupid given that there is 1) no social basis for anything similar to that 2) absolutely no correspondence with a robust progressive change in arts, politics and the intellectual sphere. Christ this kind of relativism is disgusting. It's not that "they're different". The Islamists represent the same reaction that gave us Russian anti Semitic conspiracy theories, European neofascism, and a growth in American libertarianism/militia movement. The order of capital has long been universal.

[Rafiq]

Again, if our standards are not universal they do not exist at all.

[Invader Zim]

Try again.

The enlightenment wasn't exclusive to Europe. There were intellectual movements derived from enlightenment in the middle east too. it wasn't a different world. Even arab nationalism is very enlightenment based. And nobody gives a flying fuck about the "scientific acheivments of the caliphate" as though it is fresh in their minds. They have nothing to do with it, I doubt most of these rural people know anything about that. People who support them are Sunnis dissatisfied with the Iraqi and Syrian government. There are also an overwhelmingly huge number of Islamist from Europe (who have FUCK ALL to do with any previous caliphate).

....


What makes you think that the Enlightenment was an actual 'real' thing? Second, surely if 'it' was 'real' then surely 'it' is not an 'it', but in fact a conglomeration of numerous different distinct and in many ways independent intellectual bodies. Third, if we are to assume that the Enlightenment was 'real', then why can it not pertain largely to Western Europe and North America? If it did really exist, which I'm less than convinced by, then it was the product of communication. The construction of the "Atlantic World", a massive communication network, explains why "the Enlightenment" was centred around the Atlantic periphery. That said, the whole notion strikes me as bollocks.

[Rafiq]

Firstly it is inarguable that there was an identifiable and abrupt (compared to previous developments of thought) change in ideology, thought, arts politics and so on that coincided with the bourgeoisie's desire for political power. The transformation of society's superstructure almost completely. This is called the enlightenment.

Secondly, it was a worldly phenomena because capitalism is worldly. It's effects reached the near east and to suggest that they need "their own" enlightenment or anything of semblance is nonsense. They are not a separate universe. We are talking about world history here. Of course it originated and therefore pertained mostly to the west. But it spread through the introduction of capitalist production. It's even more ludicrous, disgusting even to suggest Islamism exists because of some world historical problem, that muslims didn't have their own enlightenment, or that this is the form it is taken. You fail to recognize Islamism as an IMMEDIATE phenomena of capital, just as those vulgar historians categorize it with some kind of transhistorical "cycle" of Islamic revival. This is a problem of today, of today's conditions, not some long overdue event. Anyone who suggests otherwise has absolutely zero experience in engaging the "Muslim world" and don't know what the fuck they're taking about.

[Invader Zim]

Firstly it is inarguable that there was an identifiable and abrupt (compared to previous developments of thought) change in ideology, thought, arts politics and so on that coincided with the bourgeoisie's desire for political power.

Unhappily, for this hypothesis, what we usually deem to be the beginning of the Enlightenment, its beginning usually placed in the late 17th century, predates the Age of Revolution, beginning with the American Revolution, in the late 18th century. Appealing though it is to view the Enlightenment as a product of the rise of the bourgeoisie and the advent of modern capitalism, this is not really the case. It is an appeal to the comfortable but fallacious ad hoc ergo propter hoc train of thought. In fact, it seems more likely, if there is a connection, it is the other way around. That the scientific, technological, intellectual and cultural developments of the 17th and 18th century empowered the bourgeoisie.


The transformation of society's superstructure almost completely. This is called the enlightenment.
I think you have a somewhat layman's view of what the Enlightenment was.

But regardless, I am always reminded when people discuss the Enlightenment, the 'Age of Reason' and the 'Scientific Revolution', of Steve Shapin's seminal book The Scientific Revolution which opens with the following sentence:


"There was no such thing as the Scientific Revolution, and this is a book about it."



Secondly, it was a worldly phenomena because capitalism is worldly.

This strikes, as in fact, a projection of the way things are as we live under them across both space and time. In the 18th century, capitalism was far from universal. It was, in fact, in a period of gestation and flourishing in Northern Europe and its diaspora. Its real rise to global hegemony was through exportation of that diaspora via the barrel of a gun, and most of that exportation was at the hands of 19th century empire builders (both formal and informal) rather than their 18th century counter-parts. Afterall, by the end of the 18th century, European empires were in decline, and it was the 19th century which saw revival.


It's effects reached the near east and to suggest that they need "their own" enlightenment or anything of semblance is nonsense. They are not a separate universe.

Of course some of the new cultural and intellectual ideas floating around in the 18th dentury were exported beyond the confines of what is regularly called the 'Atlantic World'. There is no doubt that the problem in considering cultures in isolation is to ignore lines of communication. It unsupprising that the majority of the fabeled Spanish Gold, plundered from the New World during the Early Modern period, would eventually find its way to China. However, to suggest that, during this period, geographical distance and the multitude of opportunities for cultural cross-contamination did not have a limiting impact on the ability of European imperialism to transmit its cultural and intellectual values without considerable dilution is taking this rather too far I would suggest. There is a reason, beyond the mere practicable, why most historians of the 18th century looking at these kinds of issue buy much more into the concept of an 'Atlantic World' than actually think about a 'global' world history.

That said one of the most interesting and, I would suggest under-explored aspects of 18th century history, is the inverted cultural impact of European imperial adventures in that development. There is no coincidence in both Britain and the United States there was a flourishing market for country estates with a particularly 'eastern' facade.


Of course it originated and therefore pertained mostly to the west. But it spread through the introduction of capitalist production.

Well, arguably, by far the most influencial exporter of European culture around the world in this period was not the bourgeoisie, but rather the nonconformist protestant clergy, of whom few (though I do know some historians who certainly do argue it) would argue were of the Enlightenment.


It's even more ludicrous, disgusting even to suggest Islamism exists because of some world historical problem, that muslims didn't have their own enlightenment, or that this is the form it is taken. You fail to recognize Islamism as an IMMEDIATE phenomena of capital, just as those vulgar historians categorize it with some kind of transhistorical "cycle" of Islamic revival. This is a problem of today, of today's conditions, not some long overdue event. Anyone who suggests otherwise has absolutely zero experience in engaging the "Muslim world" and don't know what the fuck they're taking about.

Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else, because I never said that or anything like it. Try arguing with what I did say, as opposed to something of your imagination, because talking to yourself is slightly worrying. My questions regarded how you viewed the Enlightenment and how, if it really did exist, it was transmitted and how successful that transmission was. None of which you have addressed. What I was not engaging in was crude cultural patronizing superiority.


just as those vulgar historians categorize it with some kind of transhistorical "cycle" of Islamic revival.

Who does this? Care to name the offenders?

[Rafiq]

Don't be ridiculous. The late 17th century signified the sophistication of bourgeois political consciousness as well as the foundations of bourgeois-liberal ideology itself. This logically made possible the age of revolutions (which didn't come out of nowhere). The "scientific, technological, intellectual, and cultural developments" were completely bourgeois in nature and were a result of the necessitated acquisition of the superstructure. The age of revolutions, after all, primarily represented the appropriation of political power.

When I say capitalism is wordily, I don't mean the whole fucking world was capitalist. I mean everything that is in the sphere of influence with the west, from trading empires to colonies, formed a component of the world totality. By the early 20th century urban cities in the Middle East were fairly westernized culturally, and this had fuck all to do with protestant missionaries. In universities, the intellectual apparatus was completely modernized and worked from the achievements of bourgeois ideology and the enlightenment. Intellectual, cultural, scientific and technological achievements do not exist exclusively in that which they originate from. Most of the world included in the capitalist totality (Which excludes isolated countries or remote tribes) will experience them, too, or recognize them as hegemonic and adopt them.

Though this is not unique to the Middle East. Most semi-feudal countries were very similar. Urban cities were very different than rural areas. If Islamism represented the forced evacuation of urban cities because of a syndicate of rural classes (like Cambodia) than an argument tracing Islamism to old historical traditions would make sense. But this isn't the case, an increase in religiosity was very much felt in places a few decades earlier were largely modernized.




Who does this? Care to name the offenders?

Olivier Roy, for one. I don't talk out of my ass, Zim.

[Invader Zim]

Don't be ridiculous.

So, you are suggesting that the Enlightenment (and I'm still not overly convinced by the concept as a tangiable historical and definable cultural and intellectual movement, again it seems to be a rather convenient label to apply to a whole raft of different and isolated changes that took place in the second half of Early Modernity), the germination of which is usually dated to the 17th century, caused the succession of revolutions in Europe and its diaspora a century later. I take your point that the revolutions were not sudden sporadic events, but required an accumulation of causal factors over a lengthy period of gestation, but I would suggest that there were more immidiate and more important material factors at play. For example, the vast expansion in wealth amongst the middling orders without comensurate political remuneration. I entirely take your point that there were a lot of ideas floating around, dating back to the 17th century, which certainly coloured some of the thought and rhetoric which would come to the fore in the Age of Revolutions, but I think its interesting to ponder how important these were relative to (and perhaps upon) the scientific and economic shifts which defined the 18th century.


The late 17th century signified the sophistication of bourgeois political consciousness as well as the foundations of bourgeois-liberal ideology itself.

In which context? interestingly, much of the language and discourse of bourgeois-liberal ideology didn't really emerge until well into the 18th century. For instance, Charles James Fox (actually, ironically enough the son of a Baron and the grandson of a Duke) wasn't to politicise, in the English lexicon, the term 'radical' until 1797. yet, today, we often talk about 18th Century radicals. I'm slightly uncomfortable with this because it applies a certain touch of our own modernity onto the historical past, applying modern terminology onto people who wouldn't have thought of themselves in such terms. This is something I've been mulling over for a little while actually in broader terms regarding the wider implications of post-modernism and the linguistic turn. I think the way we use language when discussing the past can be pretty problematic in this respect. the term bougeoisie, for example, while appropriate in the French context, doesn't work so well in terms of the historical English speaking world until the 19th century. Surely, it is more appropriate to thenk about this strata in terms of 'middling sorts/orders', which is how they would have defined themselves - rather than projecting back on them. But anyway, I digress.

Back to the point, I would entirely agree that in the 17th century that the bourgeoisie, particularly in France, did become increasingly politicised as it gradually increased in economic power. However, surely the real empowerment of the bougeoisie, and its vast expansion, occured in the late 18th century with the rise of industrial technology? Of course, we can link the Age of Reason and the Scientific Revolution to the Enlightenment, but as noted there isn't a consensus regarding what the Scientific Revolution actually was. So, I guess my point is that surely this is less about the rather intangiable notion of ill-defined cultural movements, and more about material factors - such as the vast expansion bourgeois wealth, numbers, and stratification as a result of increasing industrial output. The result being that the middling orders swiftly began to challenge the traditional elite in terms of financial power and the period of revolutions was the usurping of political power. But this all strikes me as very much a product of material conditions in the second half of the 18th century, as opposed to the rather less tangiable shift(s) in cultural and intellectual output of the previous century.

I would also be interested in seeing if there is a prosopographical survey of Enlightenment figures. So, I guess my next question would be to realistically, rather than your vague to the point of meaninglessness attempt, define what it is you mean by the Enlightenment and to actually link it to material conditions, and then show how that in turn created the material conditions which resulted in revolution.

However, interesting though all this is, the other really interesting idea you spoke of was that of the transmission of the Enlightenment beyond the most prominent communications networks of the 18th century in the northern European diaspora. As noted, i certainly think we can see instances of this clearly manifest themselves during the Enlightenment itself (in both directions), but what I really want is for you to flesh out your ideas on this because it is a very interesting theme. I've actually just been getting into a book which considers these kinds of transnational and trans-continental networks and how they operated as regards paper as a technological, cultural and economic commodity.


When I say capitalism is wordily, I don't mean the whole fucking world was capitalist. I mean everything that is in the sphere of influence with the west, from trading empires to colonies, formed a component of the world totality. By the early 20th century urban cities in the Middle East were fairly westernized culturally, and this had fuck all to do with protestant missionaries. In universities, the intellectual apparatus was completely modernized and worked from the achievements of bourgeois ideology and the enlightenment.

So, when you said that "[t]he enlightenment wasn't exclusive to Europe", you were, in fact, not talking about cross-cultural pollination resulting in the generation of a cultural, intellectual, and scientific movement - what we would normally think of as 'the Enlightenment', but about something totally different and far more contemporary: the impact of cultural imperialism on the region by the 20th century. In which case, we have no argument.


Olivier Roy, for one. I don't talk out of my ass, Zim.

Not to be picky, but Olivier Roy isn't an historian, vulgar or otherwise...

[Tolstoy]

Nationalist gangs armed by the Western powers have somehow turned into leftists wet dreams. It's quite depressing.

Devrim

Thats pretty ass backwards

ISIS is an army funded by Saudi Arabia, an ally of US imperialism and is ultimately acting in the interests of the US and Israel. Yes, they say they hate Israel (much like how the Saudis dont recognize Israel but still secretly negotiate with them) but the fact is, they arent going to go for Israel because Israel has the capacity to annihilate ISIS if they tried that and hteir leadership probably has no real interest in taking over Israel.

ISIS is primarily a problem for Bashir Al-Assad, Iran and the Kurds, the first two who are enemies of US imperialism, the latter one that the US does not care about. While I dont support intervention in the region by the US military, we should still support the resisitance against this scum

[Rafiq]

So, when you said that "[t]he enlightenment wasn't exclusive to Europe", you were, in fact, not talking about cross-cultural pollination resulting in the generation of a cultural, intellectual, and scientific movement - what we would normally think of as 'the Enlightenment', but about something totally different and far more contemporary: the impact of cultural imperialism on the region by the 20th century. In which case, we have no argument.


Firstly, if cultural imperialism was the only explanation for the absence of something as reactionary as Islamism, then this would not account for the fact that backwardness and "non-western" trends persisted in rural areas. Islamism is significant not because it represents a real revival, or some kind of exemplification of national consciousness: It's significant because it is a political intrusion. Also, you're forgetting the fact that (while there WERE inarguably attempts at modernization in the 19th century, successful or otherwise) British and French authorities tended to be much more tolerant of reactionary, conservative elements in Near Eastern societies that were compliant with their rule. The people that were a pain in their ass were the bourgeois radicals, the westernized anti-colonialists who were more European than the Europeans (in the spirit of Hegel, if you will). The colonizer becomes the savage and the savage becomes the champion of civilization, as it goes.

Secondly to say this has "nothing to do with the enlightenment" (whether modernization occurred solely in the 20th century or not, which is doubtful) is ridiculous. The enlightenment was persistent, exposure to enlightenment (and logically, post-enlightenment) ideas through universities is possible long after the enlightenment occurred (in places that were not directly exposed to it). As Marx recognized capitalist development could never have occurred through isolated national development. If we presume that these societies had a place within the global capitalist totality (by the mid 19th century, feudal areas had their place in the capitalist totality, too) then they are irrevocably a part of the world historical order, they have already stepped into "our" universe.

Back to the original point, I define the enlightenment as a radical change in the fundamental ideological foundations of society which encompassed art, politics, philosophy, and so on. The enlightenment was the full appropriation of the superstructure by the bourgeois class. It represented the very foundations by which Communism as an ideology spawned from. How exactly do you define the 'alleged' enlightenment (which leads you to oppose usage of the term)?

[Devrim]

I don't know what you mean by support.

It's a very good point. People talk so often about 'support' that it becomes meaningless. If I genuinely believed that the Kurdish nationalist were creating socialism in the mountains, I would be up there with them. I don't.


If they relied on Leftists for making their decisions the situation would be very different. If it is a given that they will engage ISIS, then the question is whether we oppose such acts. I can't honestly say I would oppose Kurdish endeavours against the Islamists, indiscriminate of who is supporting them. I mean, it's easy to say. But would you REALLY be able to condemn a Kurdish offensive against ISIS?

No, I won't be out on the streets opposing it. The only thing that could do that it a class movement that doesn't exist. I think though that the discussion of whether socialism can be brought about by armed nationalist movements is a valid one, and in the West I think that communists should stand against 'their own states' intervention in the region.

Devrim

[Devrim]

ISIS is an army funded by Saudi Arabia, an ally of US imperialism and is ultimately acting in the interests of the US and Israel. Yes, they say they hate Israel (much like how the Saudis dont recognize Israel but still secretly negotiate with them) but the fact is, they arent going to go for Israel because Israel has the capacity to annihilate ISIS if they tried that and hteir leadership probably has no real interest in taking over Israel.

Kurdish nationalism has also allied itself with the US, and has historically been supported by Israel.


ISIS is primarily a problem for Bashir Al-Assad, Iran and the Kurds, the first two who are enemies of US imperialism, the latter one that the US does not care about. While I dont support intervention in the region by the US military, we should still support the resisitance against this scum

Yet people on here are supporting US intervention to arm the Kurdish nationalists and bomb ISIS.

Devrim

[Raquin]

Well, yes, meet "ISIS' worst nightmare":
http://sofrep.com/36733/iraq-friends-dead-cant-love-woman-im-gonna-die/


“Can you have your commander write you a letter to help you get through the check points?”

“He’s dead.”

“What?”

“He’s dead, Jack.”

“What about your Squad Leader?”

“He’s dead too.”

“Are you kidding me? There must be some officer around there somewhere.”

“Not really. They died or ran away.”

“Dude, are you in charge now?”

“Pretty much.”

Now that he was back in a rear area catching up on some sleep and taking a shower, we had a few minutes to talk. I asked about the media reports here in the US about female PKK fighters and whether or not they were true. He told me that every PKK unit has women in it because they are so depleted and hurting for warm bodies. Most of the women serve in support functions but plenty of them are on the front lines as well. He knew a female PKK fighter who was the real deal and went out on small recce patrols with them until, “half her face got blown off the other day.”

“All my friends are dead, I’ll never love a woman, I’m going to die over here,” he tells me.

[BIXX]

I think that's a different army, yo. I'll have to look at my article again to make sure though.

ETA: it seems the army that I posted about is the Kurdish govt. army.

[Comrade Samuel]

I'd just like to point out that just because a faction is the underdog in an inter-imperialist war that doesn't make them anti-fascist.

That being said, the idea of an all-female military unit battling an organization of marauding rapists does sound rather heroic if you're willing to look at it under a microscope and ignore the fact that they are just being used as pawns by a different empire.