Theistic and/or Fascistic Growth Does Need World Collaboration to Deal with

[erupt]

Theists, specifically the militant variant rearing its head currently, and fascists need worldwide solidarity to smash them at this point. The international worker's movement is not strong enough at this epoch in modern history, nor does it have the solidarity needed, just like international bourgeois politicians and nation-states do not.

Obviously all Coalition members including France and Iraq, who seem to be partnering with Iran and Russia at this point, have something personal to gain in some form of capital. Whether it be a crate of rare Nazi-era MG-42 machine guns or all that oil, there' s capital in ISIS/ISIL/DA'ESH held geography to be procured.

My point is, or question rather, is, is it time to all come together to smash one of the most reactionary elements on this planet?

I truly am at odds with myself; but I know sometimes enemies must ally to destroy a greater enemy; I truly doubt World War II is necessary to mention, but I will:

-The Soviet Union and the United States had their Lend-Lease Act (along with Great Britain), and donated as well as traded many things such as chromite, titanium ore, and on the U.S. side, Sherman tanks, jeeps, guns, etc.

-Nationalist China and Communist China temporarily, albeit not completely, worked together against Imperial Japan.

-The U.S. gave war materlel to Ho Chi Minh and the Vietnamese Nationalist groups. In fact, many U.S. servicemen encountered U.S. (donated) and Japanese (captured) WWII weaponry in the Korean and Vietnamese conflicts, as well as those Communist China donated to the North of both previously mentioned nations.

-The Americans and British gave war materiel to both the Serbian Nationalist group the Cetniks under Mihailovich, as well as the Yugoslav Partisans under Tito; the Soviets supplied the Partisans, as well.

Other examples are profuse; my point and question are, is it sometimes necessary to ally with bourgeois politicans to combat far-right elements obviously in power?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

My point is, or question rather, is, is it time to all come together to smash one of the most reactionary elements on this planet?

I truly am at odds with myself; but I know sometimes enemies must ally to destroy a greater enemy; I truly doubt World War II is necessary to mention, but I will

The problem is that most of us here are members of tendencies that see Stalinist collaboration with the democratic imperialism of the Allies as one of the many, many betrayals of the world revolution by the Stalinists. Our line in WWII was for dual defeatism.

All this talk about some sort of cataclysmic confrontation between Order and Progress and Civilisation on one side and Islamo-fascist barbarism whatever on the other is simply hilarious. One of the major contributors to the anti-Daesh side is Iran, a country known for its extreme secularism of course.

[Rudolf]

What i find telling is what's implied: that the bourgeoisie has an inherent interest in taking on theocrats... it's just not the case. How legitimate do you think western states are in their opposition to the salafi movement when their opposition to salafists isn't total but relative? They condemn IS one day and host lavish banquets for Saudi officials the next.

Their opposition is one based on their factional interests as capitalists. When confronted with an independent working class movement they will see the likes of IS as their allies against us.

[Sibotic]

I doubt that the proletarian movement has that much to contribute to this pseudo-conflict, except their submission. It hardly seems particularly to make sense to conflate fascism, which was in any case (for instance in Nazism) at odds with for instance the Social Democratic Party and hence most 'socialists' of their time, nonetheless this would basically amount to an abstract defence of 'liberalism' which has nothing to do with working class interests or the world situation, and in brief has nothing really to offer the working class. Just because the Western media was going to compare anything it disliked particularly to 'fascism,' despite the West of course having been the focal point of capitalism and its neoliberal form, this doesn't justify supporting intervention on the behalf of those states which were associated with neoliberalism. The critiques of fascism at least try to portray this as a question related to working-class issues, or concrete economic issues generally, rather than just their being abstractly 'far-right' on some spectrum which might be fairly artificial, which wouldn't have really determined the decision one way or another so far as capitalism on the other side is concerned.

You'd suspect that relying on empty analogies here reduces to feelings and outrage, which seems like a strange MO for socialist decisions given that when confronted with terrorism it is surely not without their teleological amibt. It would only seem that this makes any sense if one were to side with them in the first place. In any case it's unlikely that mobilising the working class effectively to defend a freedom predicated on the anarchy of the capitalist market was really sufficient to make that at all an independent movement. It's really a bit of a fake 'war' though, to be brutally honest, and in a sense you're conflating media stories and national PR with a real attempt to do anything on anybody's part.

[ckaihatsu]

What's missing from these comparisons and analyses is that the Islamic State currently forces, and would-force, the practice of Sharia law on everyone, regardless.

So, yeah -- secularism is very much more preferable for any given civil society / domestic policy.

[Emmett Till]

What's missing from these comparisons and analyses is that the Islamic State currently forces, and would-force, the practice of Sharia law on everyone, regardless.

So, yeah -- secularism is very much more preferable for any given civil society / domestic policy.

Pretty funny, reminiscent of the Republican Party's paranoia about sharia law everywhere, including in the USA. Until recently, Canada, allegedly a secular country, was actually enforcing sharia law on Muslims too.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/blog/2008/feb/08/sharialawincanadaalmost

Is current American law, for example, preferable to sharia law? Well, in many of its aspects yes--unless you commit the horrible mistake of being black.

And then we have our most secular country of all, France, where the "Socialist" government is starting to register Muslims for the camps that the National Front will set up when they get in power. (And Donald Trump has now called for creating a "Muslim database.") France, where a Muslim student wearing a headscarf gets thrown out of school, but a cross around your neck, hey no problem.

http://www.spartacist.org/english/wv/1079/us_france.html

Basically, this supersecularism of ckaihatsu is just a disguised form of Islamophobia, the curse of Europe, and now America. Donald Trump/Hollande in "revolutionary" disguise.

[ckaihatsu]

What's missing from these comparisons and analyses is that the Islamic State currently forces, and would-force, the practice of Sharia law on everyone, regardless.

So, yeah -- secularism is very much more preferable for any given civil society / domestic policy.





Pretty funny, reminiscent of the Republican Party's paranoia about sharia law everywhere, including in the USA. Until recently, Canada, allegedly a secular country, was actually enforcing sharia law on Muslims too.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/blog/2008/feb/08/sharialawincanadaalmost


It looks like you didn't read to the end of the article, because here's the last line in it:





[T]he province's premier, Dalton McGuinty, eventually dismissed Boyd's recommendations [that the "Arbitration Act should continue to allow disputes to be arbitrated using religious law."]. He was also forced to ban other religions which had been using faith-based tribunals.


Also, your 'reminiscing' sounds more like a free-association of arbitrary idea linkages.


---





Is current American law, for example, preferable to sharia law? Well, in many of its aspects yes--unless you commit the horrible mistake of being black.


You're describing how the U.S. is institutionally racist. No news there.





And then we have our most secular country of all, France, where the "Socialist" government is starting to register Muslims for the camps that the National Front will set up when they get in power. (And Donald Trump has now called for creating a "Muslim database.") France, where a Muslim student wearing a headscarf gets thrown out of school, but a cross around your neck, hey no problem.

http://www.spartacist.org/english/wv/1079/us_france.html


Okay, well, I advocate neither, and I *oppose* both. (Secularism does not automatically mean that 'all secular-minded people agree on 100% of all social policies, 100%'.)





Basically, this supersecularism of ckaihatsu is just a disguised form of Islamophobia, the curse of Europe, and now America. Donald Trump/Hollande in "revolutionary" disguise.


Nope, wrong -- more political mischaracterizations from yourself.

Here's a reminder of the *reality*:





As a caliphate, [the Islamic State] claims religious, political and military authority over all Muslims worldwide, and that "the legality of all emirates, groups, states, and organisations, becomes null by the expansion of the khilāfah's [caliphate's] authority and arrival of its troops to their areas".[28][41][42][43]




ISIL aims to return to the early days of Islam, rejecting all innovations in the religion, which it believes corrupts its original spirit. It condemns later caliphates and the Ottoman Empire for deviating from what it calls pure Islam,[176] and seeks to revive the original Wahhabi project of the restoration of the caliphate governed by strict Salafist doctrine. Following Salafi-Wahhabi tradition, ISIL condemns the followers of secular law as disbelievers, putting the current Saudi Arabian government in that category.[192]

Salafists such as ISIL believe that only a legitimate authority can undertake the leadership of jihad, and that the first priority over other areas of combat, such as fighting non-Muslim countries, is the purification of Islamic society. For example, ISIL regards the Palestinian Sunni group Hamas as apostates who have no legitimate authority to lead jihad and see fighting Hamas as the first step toward confrontation by ISIL with Israel.[12][193]




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Pretty funny, reminiscent of the Republican Party's paranoia about sharia law everywhere, including in the USA. Until recently, Canada, allegedly a secular country, was actually enforcing sharia law on Muslims too.

Opposing Shariah law in the US is different than opposing ISIS because of their attempt to impose Shariah law on religious minorities in the Middle East. It's not islamophobia to say that 7th century religious law should not be imposed by the barrel of a Kalashnikov (or that it is, by today's standards, a reactionary legal model to begin with under any circumstances)

[ckaihatsu]

Opposing Shariah law in the US is different than opposing ISIS because of their attempt to impose Shariah law on religious minorities in the Middle East.


I'll actually *disagree* with this distinction and say that, in *this* case, Western intervention is entirely appropriate, hopefully more on the *diplomatic* side of things, because of the nature of Sharia law *anywhere*.

From another thread:





[I]t's *inappropriate* for the Western powers to just *intervene* and bomb the Syrian state, for the same reasons that the U.S. should not have invaded Afghanistan, Iraq, or Libya (etc.).


---





It's not islamophobia to say that 7th century religious law should not be imposed by the barrel of a Kalashnikov (or that it is, by today's standards, a reactionary legal model to begin with under any circumstances)


This is more to the point -- people are people and *no one* should be under duress to perform any kind of sectarian social behavior, due to law.

[Burzhuin]

Our line in WWII was for dual defeatism.
I already stopped wondering why Trotskyists opinion ALWAYS left bad taste in my mouth.


All this talk about some sort of cataclysmic confrontation between Order and Progress and Civilisation on one side and Islamo-fascist barbarism whatever on the other is simply hilarious. One of the major contributors to the anti-Daesh side is Iran, a country known for its extreme secularism of course.
I already expressed my opinion. I would not stop you if you cross border to Iran and join those who fight Islamic Regime in Iran. I do not see a lot of difference between ISIS and Islamic Republic of Iran. As a matter of fact I see that real enemy is Saudi Arabia. And Imperialist Government of USA I do not consider as friendly too. So we have plenty of enemies but I prefer to fight any form of fascism before it groves strong.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I'll actually *disagree* with this distinction and say that, in *this* case, Western intervention is entirely appropriate, hopefully more on the *diplomatic* side of things, because of the nature of Sharia law *anywhere*.


Shariah law should be opposed everywhere, but I think what Emmit Till was referencing were the laws passed by various American counties and states against imposing Shariah law, which are largely ways of building an Islamophobic political base (as there is no chance in hell of Shariah Law actually becoming law in some backwater conservative Tennessee county with a .1% Muslim population). Basically, it is a way for Christian theocrats to energize their political base by creating fantastical and irrelevant enemies.

[ckaihatsu]

Shariah law should be opposed everywhere, but I think what Emmit Till was referencing were the laws passed by various American counties and states against imposing Shariah law, which are largely ways of building an Islamophobic political base (as there is no chance in hell of Shariah Law actually becoming law in some backwater conservative Tennessee county with a .1% Muslim population). Basically, it is a way for Christian theocrats to energize their political base by creating fantastical and irrelevant enemies.


Yeah, acknowledged and agreed.