Log in

View Full Version : Do leftists ALWAYS side with the oppressed?



mojo.rhythm
16th November 2015, 12:17
Do leftists ALWAYS side with the oppressed?

I feel like, as a leftist, solidarity with the oppressed should be beyond question. It should be on the level of truism: "siding with the loser" as Chomsky says.

And no, I'm not talking about small-l liberal "sympathy" or "tolerance" or any of that crap. I mean full-scale solidarity, as in "If you are attacked by your oppressors, we are with you, through thick and thin; and we will be by your side defending you until the end. An injury to one group of the oppressed is an injury to all of us."

Which brings me to Muslims.

Are Muslims oppressed in Australia (my country)? Yes they are. The media typecasts them as terrorist sympathizing intolerant wackjobs; they are subjected to night raids by the Australian Federal Police on trumped up charges; they spat on and harassed; the women have their hijabs ripped off and hot coffee spilled on them; local communities mobilize to try and stop mosques being built; the government funds national enquiries into Halal certification, and so on.

On an individual basis, these kinds of things happen to everyone, no doubt. But are you more likely to have these things happen to you because you are Muslim (and Arab)? Absolutely. If that isn't oppression then I don't know what is.

Therefore, the point of departure should be unflinching solidarity with our Muslim brothers and sisters against the state and against the far-right racists who seek to demonize, harrass and inflict violence upon them.

On the other hand...

There is a plot twist to the whole story. And it is why I have such cognitive dissonance.

The issue: What if the oppressed are, themselves, highly reactionary?

Yes, Muslims are oppressed. Yes, they are unfairly persecuted and exploited and treated unfairly. Yes, leftist solidarity with Muslims should be reflexive.

However, many of our Muslim brothers and sisters, unfortunately, have political opinions which I regard as absolutely beyond the pale.

That isn't to say all of the political opinions held by a majority of Muslims are disagreeable; for example, we share the aspirations for the liberation of Palestine, the opposition to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and contempt for the imperialist adventurism of the world's leading superpower. We share distaste for the hypocrisy of Western governments when they single out atrocities by Islamic extremists for condemnation while turning a blind eye to all the hideous atrocities those same governments have helped perpetuate. We both agree that the media aids and abets this hypocrisy on a daily basis.

But, there are also major political differences. The differences are stark, and they unsettle me to a large degree. For example, as a leftist, I am 100% for radical gender equality; polls show that most of our Muslim brothers/sister are not. I am completely pro-gay and detest homophobia; polls, unfortunately, show that most of our Muslim brothers and sisters feel the opposite way - 70% of young Muslims in the UK think homosexuality should be criminalized, for example. Although stridently anti-Israel, I am repulsed by anti-Semitism; polls show that a majority of our Muslim brothers and sisters ARE anti-Semitic. I am for secularism and religious freedom (i.e. religion should be a private matter and you shouldn't be able to impose it on others); polls show that, in the UK, a disturbing number of Muslims believe that you should be killed dead for leaving Islam. I could go on but I think you get the picture.

But I'm interested in your thoughts. What do you think about siding with oppressed groups that have reactionary beliefs? Do you see any contradictions or tensions in the idea? If so, how do you resolve them?

Thanks 'rads.

EDIT: reformatted -- Tim Cornelis

Anglo-Saxon Philistine
16th November 2015, 12:26
Please consider using the standard font size; as it is your post is extremely unreadable.

Do socialists side with the oppressed? No, not in the way you seem to be implying. We are against all oppression, for all democratic rights. But we don't simply support whatever is popular among oppressed groups. If most women are racist, we don't become racist. If most Roma are misogynist, we don't become misogynist etc. We don't simply parrot things that are popular; that would be tailism. Ours is an independent and socialist struggle against all oppression, not tailing one or several populist positions popular among the oppressed.

Zoop
16th November 2015, 12:32
I wouldn't call any homophobe or sexist my "brother" or "sister". That's way too comradely. They are my enemy, and I do not extend my solidarity towards them as individuals.

But when it comes to a group being oppressed, I show my solidarity, firstly, because the principle of a group being oppressed precisely because of their religious beliefs is obscene, and secondly, all the people considered to be within that group aren't all reactionaries. The only justification you could provide for withholding solidarity is the idea that they are a monolithic entity with the same beliefs and ideas, which as we know isn't true, obviously.

Comrade #138672
16th November 2015, 12:52
Wow. Polls say Muslims are anti-Semitic. That must be very scientific shit!

mojo.rhythm
16th November 2015, 12:56
When I say stand in them with solidarity, I was thinking more along the lines of "siding with them if they are being singled out for discriminatory treatment by the state."

For example: a couple of months ago, a bus carrying a load of fascist idiots from the United Patriot's Front (the Aussie version of the EDL) was caught with a gun on board, in the lead up to one of their rallies (which we counter-demonstrated against). If some Islamic group was caught in the same situation, the gun would be seized, they'd be arrested and the rally would be instantly banned.

We'd stand in total solidarity with them (the Islamic group) and demand their right to equal treatment.

olahsenor
16th November 2015, 13:33
Leftists sides with the 'utterly behaved individual': non-sexist, non-racist, gentlemanly non-chauvinistic person. It took me several years to appreciate the goodness of the Left and become Left. "You can know one by his fruits (deeds) and by the words coming out of his mouth"- _____ .

Emmett Till
18th November 2015, 19:50
When I say stand in them with solidarity, I was thinking more along the lines of "siding with them if they are being singled out for discriminatory treatment by the state."

For example: a couple of months ago, a bus carrying a load of fascist idiots from the United Patriot's Front (the Aussie version of the EDL) was caught with a gun on board, in the lead up to one of their rallies (which we counter-demonstrated against). If some Islamic group was caught in the same situation, the gun would be seized, they'd be arrested and the rally would be instantly banned.

We'd stand in total solidarity with them (the Islamic group) and demand their right to equal treatment.

Right.

For an even better example, look at the Hutus in Rwanda, a majority population subject to decades of downright vicious repression by the Tutu ruling minority.

Should we solidarize themselves against that repression and mistreatment, going on to this day? Yes.

But should we solidarize with their response, successfully revolting a couple decades ago and killing hundreds of thousands of Tutsis? I think not.

swims with the fishes
18th November 2015, 20:41
a lot of muslims are against western imperialism if it effects them, they don't give a shit about anyone else. its a sort of twisted internationalism that only applies to the in-group

#FF0000
18th November 2015, 21:06
The issue: What if the oppressed are, themselves, highly reactionary?

You challenge their ideas. What's else is there to do?

Sinister Cultural Marxist
18th November 2015, 23:13
Do leftists ALWAYS side with the oppressed?

I think your question is SHOULD leftists always side with the oppressed. Plenty of leftists in history did not stand on the side of all oppressed people, from homosexuals to ethnic and religious minorities to those with psychiatric conditions. In fact, they participated in the oppression itself (in the case of the gay community, the Cuban government recognized this fact and apologized for it). In almost all cases, this was a political failure, not something which should have been the case.

ComradeAllende
19th November 2015, 04:46
Theoretically, yes; the left stands for the end of oppression and the liberation of all mankind. In practice, the evidence is mixed; many Communists (usually Leninists and fellow travelers) stayed silent when Stalin and other "Marxist-Leninist" leaders persecuted their peoples, yet at the same time many Communists and anarchists worked for the civil rights of ethnic minorities, women, and LGBT individuals across the world.

I think the question ought to relegated to one of choice: whether the left should always side with the oppressed. I would say yes, although that would not necessarily mean that I endorse every belief of that group. Many blacks oppressed by Jim Crow held conservative views on homosexuality, and many working class whites are bigoted against blacks; I personally oppose their beliefs, but that does not necessarily preclude me from working with both groups to organize a proletarian movement in the name of general human liberation. I don't think that the Left can "write off" any particular group anymore; we must engage with everyone to rebuild the socialist movement, even blue-collar Trump fans and Farrakhan-lovers.

Alan OldStudent
19th November 2015, 10:26
Hello Mojo,

You ask this:

Do leftists ALWAYS side with the oppressed?...I feel like, as a leftist, solidarity with the oppressed should be beyond question. It should be on the level of truism: "siding with the loser" as Chomsky says.
And then you follow up that observation with this question:


The issue: What if the oppressed are, themselves, highly reactionary?

Yes, Muslims are oppressed. Yes, they are unfairly persecuted and exploited and treated unfairly. Yes, leftist solidarity with Muslims should be reflexive.

However, many of our Muslim brothers and sisters, unfortunately, have political opinions which I regard as absolutely beyond the pale.


I would say that leftists should, beyond question, stand in solidarity with the oppressed with the following caveat: We support them and even assist them in their fight against their oppression. We do not support any reactionary activity that a few of them may choose to engage in.

In the case of Muslims, this would mean supporting their rights to religious freedom, free speech, nondiscrimination, to freely wear religious garb, and so on. However, we would not support the right of Muslims to kill nonbelievers, blasphemers, and we would oppose any attempts to legislate religious orthodoxy, etc.

I happen to live in the United States, and there just isn't that much Islamic "terrorism" here. It's Christian terrorists who scare me. Most American Muslims are opposed to killing nonbelievers and blasphemers. And I'm no more bothered by Muslim women freely choosing to wear a hijab out of a sense of modesty than seeing a Jew wearing a kitab or a Catholic wearing a crucifix. I don't believe in God or religion, but I really don't care if anyone else does unless they force it on me.

I mention all this because islamophobic bigotry reminds me so much of the kind of anti-Jewish rhetoric that Europe's fascists spewed to justify the Holocaust. Jews were accused of infiltrating, trying to take over, having lots of money, being in a conspiracy with the Rothchilds-Roosevelts-bankers-and Bolsheviks.

During the 1930s and 1940s, American anti-Semitic right-wingers opposed admitting Jewish victims of Nazi persecution into the United States. They used much the same kind of language that American state governors currently are using to exclude Syrian refugees. In my life, I've had experience with far more Jew-baiting from Christians than Muslims.

***AOS***
___
___
___

Vladimir Innit Lenin
19th November 2015, 17:17
Please consider using the standard font size; as it is your post is extremely unreadable.

Do socialists side with the oppressed? No, not in the way you seem to be implying. We are against all oppression, for all democratic rights. But we don't simply support whatever is popular among oppressed groups. If most women are racist, we don't become racist. If most Roma are misogynist, we don't become misogynist etc. We don't simply parrot things that are popular; that would be tailism. Ours is an independent and socialist struggle against all oppression, not tailing one or several populist positions popular among the oppressed.

An excellent post^^.

I would add that the reason we act in the way described above, is that you can't have a healthy debate if people are oppressed to the point where their rights to expression, assembly, and the basic rights of life are threatened. For example, you cannot fairly expose the reactionary elements of some of the more conservative elements of Islam whilst all muslims are being racially stereotyped in the media, attacked in the streets, and bombed from the air simply because they are muslim. Whatever someone's religious, philosophical, and moral beliefs, they deserve basic human rights and to be free of oppression, especially when the motivation of that oppression is for capital to further entrench its power in society.