Daesh and the Sparticists

[CyM]

Can someone explain to me the spartacist position on Daesh. Do they support them?

[Fourth Internationalist]

There was a thread about it a while back, http://www.revleft.com/vb/spartacist-league-backs-t191247/index.html?t=191247&highlight=isis. A lot of different answers given, very interesting read.

EDIT: Here is another one, http://www.revleft.com/vb/communalism-t194803/index.html?t=194803. Very interesting thread as well.

[CyM]

Yes, very interestin and that they do support Isis:

"The fact that all these forces are “boots on the ground” for imperialist intervention means that revolutionary Marxists have a military side with ISIS when it targets the imperialists and their proxies, including the Syrian Kurdish nationalists, the pesh merga, the Baghdad government and its Shi’ite militias"

Which of course, makes spartacists the enemies of the Arab working class. Objectively sympathizing with fascism. Their reasoning is nonsense.

I wonder what the splinters from spartacism have done to distance themselves from this reactionary position. Like yours for example? Does it share the same support for Saudi-backed fascist death squads?

[VivalaCuarta]

OMG Daesh are pure evil! They are barbarians who behead and rape! Civilized people don't cut off people's heads with swords, we use precision-guided munitions and prefer to asphyxiate or liquefy our enemies with white phosphorous and napalm. And we only use nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction when it is absolutely necessary.

I am glad that this important issue is being debated now, that Obama has called the entire left to the great and noble jihad against the new greatest evil threatening the world. All must take a stand. You are either with us or against us. Do your duty, leftists.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

There was a thread about it a while back, http://www.revleft.com/vb/spartacist-league-backs-t191247/index.html?t=191247&highlight=isis. A lot of different answers given, very interesting read.

EDIT: Here is another one, http://www.revleft.com/vb/communalism-t194803/index.html?t=194803. Very interesting thread as well.

Their position on this is almost be funny. "Military support" is utterly meaningless verbiage. Are they spending their trust funds or "profits" from selling Worker's Vanguard on AKs to ship to ISIS? If they did, they will get their asses thrown in jail for supporting terrorism. They basically want to be able to excuse seeing ISIS as somehow anti-Imperialist without putting themselves in the position of politically defending religious reaction.

Also, the approach seems remarkably theological, even by the standards of small Marxist sects. The argument regarding Italy's invasion of Ethiopia and Trotsky's support for Selassie, and use of it as a framework to analyze this situation is a stretch. There are so many differences between the contexts I wouldn't know where to begin.


OMG Daesh are pure evil! They are barbarians who behead and rape! Civilized people don't cut off people's heads with swords, we use precision-guided munitions and prefer to asphyxiate or liquefy our enemies with white phosxphorous and napalm. And we only use nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction when it is absolutely necessary.

I am glad that this important issue is being debated now, that Obama has called the entire left to the great and noble jihad against the new greatest evil threatening the world. All must take a stand. You are either with us or against us. Do your duty, leftists. http://www.artsjournal.com/engage/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/StrawMan.jpg

[The Feral Underclass]

OMG Daesh are pure evil! They are barbarians who behead and rape! Civilized people don't cut off people's heads with swords, we use precision-guided munitions and prefer to asphyxiate or liquefy our enemies with white phosphorous and napalm. And we only use nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction when it is absolutely necessary.

I am glad that this important issue is being debated now, that Obama has called the entire left to the great and noble jihad against the new greatest evil threatening the world. All must take a stand. You are either with us or against us. Do your duty, leftists.

The worst post I've read in 2016.

It's like a logical fallacy wrapped in a logical fallacy.

[CyM]

Let's be clear here. Isis, and the rest of the wahhabist fascists, only exist because of American imperialism's drive to support counterrevolutionary forces in the Middle East and Near East.

They are not a part of the traditions of the region, which are revolutionary: socialist, communist and secular left nationalist.

In Palestine, the PFLP communists were quite a large force, almost as large as Fatah, which was "left nationalist" for most of its existence. Hamas was the far right religious counterweight. The only point of support Israel could find against the dominant Palestinian factions. Money and arms were passed on to them by the mossad as a result, before they were strong enough to bite the hand that fed them.

In Afghanistan, a Stalinist coup backed by Soviet invasion was fought by the Americans by arming the medieval forces to resist the atheists redistributing the land. I think the invasion was a mistake, but it can't be denied that this arming of bin laden, as well as the recruitment out of Saudi Mosques, was the building up of a whabbist fascist army for the first time. You guessed it: until they were strong enough to bite the hand that fed them.

Isis itself came from the early days of financing and arming of wahhabist fascists by Obama to overthrow Assad. Again, before they were strong enough to bite the hand that fed them.

And now there's been talk of starting it all over again by arming "moderate islamists", including alqaeda. Who will of course, promptly turn around and bite the hand that fed them.

The struggle against Isis can only be won through a revolutionary struggle against imperialism.

But white folks who come and tell us Arabs that they want to give military aid to Isis are fascist sympathizers and should be treated as such.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I posted the other threads because I believe they make my position clear enough without having to get involved in another thread, which will probably end up with accusations relating to their position on age-of-consent laws which always occurs. I am not a supporter of the ICL, so you will have to email them if you want to know exactly what they mean in their article(s).

My position is the standard Marxist/Trotskyist position on intercommunal conflicts. No support to any side but I am glad when imperialists are attacked no matter who does it. This position is reflected in the debate between the ICL/LFI and the IBT over the destruction of an imperialist military base in Lebanon in 1983, which is summarized here:


A revolutionary class cannot but wish for the defeat of its own government in a reactionary war, and cannot fail to see that the latter's military reverses must facilitate its overthrow. (Lenin, ".Socialism and War", August l9l5, Collected Works, Vol 2l, p.3l5.)

We are for the defeat of American forces - and all other imperialist forces - in the Near East, in Central America, and anywhere else that is on the agenda.

The only consistent fight against imperialism is the struggle of the proletariat under the leadership of the vanguard revolutionary party. But we are for the defeat of imperialism in the real and actual battles in which it is involved. We do not require imperialists to be defeated only by consistent anti-imperialists. We are in fact defeatists even in wars between different imperialist camps - in those cases defeatists on both sides. We are certainly for the defeat of American imperialism - and French - in Lebanon. Bolsheviks welcome the destruction of the imperialist headquarters in Beirut.

http://www.bolshevik.org/history/ICL/Lebanon.html

[Sharia Lawn]

I think it's pretty telling that this thread even exists, as it is clearly nothing other than a deliberate attempt to tendency troll based on what has gone down in another thread. In the learning forum no less! But as anybody who has been here long enough knows, this sort of thing is okay depending on whether you support the tendency that is popular among the circle of people who reign over the forum.

It's no secret that in the past I have been critical of the way the SL phrases its position on ISIS. I do think it is rich, though, when they are being criticized by somebody in the IMT for supporting "Islamic fascists" (Really? CyM, if you want to consider yourself a Trotskyist, you might want to learn what fascism actually is instead of recycling right-wing phrases like Islamo-fascism.).

If the ICL expressing support for military setbacks on western imperialism inflicted by ISIS is support, then the Militant's press on what they called "the Iranian revolution" which was LED clearly by the Ayatollah's is a full-throated endorsement of reaction. http://www.marxist.com/iranian-revolution-grant090279.htm

And what about Afghanistan? While the SL is routinely mocked here for hailing the red army and brandishing the achievements of various stalinist stooges in advancing the quality of life of women, the Grantites were clear where they stood:

"The Russian intervention in Afghanistan must be condemned, despite its progressive aspects, because it is spitting at the opinions of the world working class."

https://www.marxists.org/archive/grant/1980/01/afghanistan.htm

Do you disavow these positions CyM, or do you support what by your own contention are "islamic fascists," too? On questions of class principle, you buckled then just as on the anti-imperialism question - THE class-line question of the age - you are buckling to popular opinion now in the name of fighting the "anti civilization fascist Islamic savages."

I think this clears up how principled these attacks are on the SL for "supporting islamic fascists" really are, in case it wasn't already clear why this thread exists in the first place.

[blake 3:17]

There are precedents within Trotskyism starting with Trotsky himself -- the call for support of Abyssinia and Hailie Selassie against Italism fascist imperialism.

There is absolutely legitimate anti imperialist and anti colonial resistance that doesn't always pass an academic PC Left test. Of course not.

Why am I spending New Years discussing Spart garbage? :wub:

[Sasha]

Money and arms were passed on to them by the mossad as a result, before they were strong enough to bite the hand that fed them.

Shin Bet, not Mossad, relevant difference actually.

Article about Israels actual involment with hamas; http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123275572295011847

[CyM]

There is nothing anti imperialist about daesh. And it's ridiculous that so many white people think so.

There is also such a thing as the proletarian military policy, proposed by trotsky during the fight against Hitler, which is more appropriate to this situation than defeatism.

Essentially it goes: yes, the fascists must be crushed. But who will defeat them? The bourgeois who financed and armed them at the beginning and then gave france over to them rather than arm the workers to fight them? No, of course not. The workers can't count on the bourgeois not to stab us in the back and sell us out to Hitler. We must take power into our own hands and run a revolutionary war against fascism.

Only a revolutionary policy, to guillotine the Saud family and establish a socialist federation of the middle East, a heaven on earth, can provide an alternative to Wahhabi fascism.

[Sharia Lawn]

There is nothing anti imperialist about daesh. And it's ridiculous that so many white people think so.

There isn't anything anti-imperialist about their program. There is something anti-imperialist when they, you know, militarily target imperialist forces. If you want to pretend that taking out an American fighter jet isn't anti-imperialist, this just shows where your allegiances lie. With your own imperialist bourgeoisie.


There is also such a thing as the proletarian military policy, proposed by trotsky during the fight against Hitler, which is more appropriate to this situation than defeatism.

Essentially it goes: yes, the fascists must be crushed. But who will defeat them? The bourgeois who financed and armed them at the beginning and then gave france over to them rather than arm the workers to fight them? No, of course not. The workers can't count on the bourgeois not to stab us in the back and sell us out to Hitler. We must take power into our own hands and run a revolutionary war against fascism.The PMP was about having proletarians enlist in the military and use slogans approximating workers' militias as transitional demands to smash that particular imperialist body of armed men. It was a tactic applied to workers in imperialist countries. Our discussion here is about what position the workers in imperialist countries should take in regards to setbacks on the imperialist military in the semi-colonial countries by the people who live there.


Only a revolutionary policy, to guillotine the Saud family and establish a socialist federation of the middle East, a heaven on earth, can provide an alternative to Wahhabi fascism.you keep using that word, but I don't think you know what it means.

[CyM]

Yes, the policy doesn't apply verbatim. We should oppose any imperialist intervention, but we should be supporting revolutionary resistance against daesh. And yes, even cheering when daesh commanders die.

The idea that the victory of Daesh is the "lesser evil" in this case, as WWI defeatism applied here would mean, is nonsense that means defeatism is not at all applicable in this situation. It is far more related to the proletarian military policy: fight the fascists as the greater evil, but arm the workers and overthrow the bourgeois imperialists to guarantee our victory.

The imperialists will not defeat Isis. Only the revolutionary masses can.

It's no accident the YPG are the only serious force on the ground at the moment.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

There are two big absurdities (among others) with the Spartacist view as far as I can see:

(1) If you support ISIS attacking the US, and you view organizations on the ground like the PYD as American proxies, you are in effect supporting ISIS victories against these forces. In that case, you are unintentionally celebrating the fact that Yazidis, Christian Assyrians, Kurds, atheists, secular Sunnis, Shiites, Alawites and so on will be liquidated. That is the logical consequence of ISIS "defeating" the "proxies" of American imperialism. There are legitimate ideological criticisms of groups like the PYD, but the fact is that Kurds, Assyrians and others are joining groups like this for self preservation and self defense against both ISIS and the local despots. That the PYD tells an American jet where ISIS fighters are hiding does not mean that their cause has been wholly appropriated by American imperialism, or that we should celebrate their defeat by barbarians like those in ISIS.

(2) ISIS is a transnational organization with global aspirations, not an Ethiopian Emperor or Brazilian Junta. If they actually succeed in their goals (which is highly implausible, for obvious reasons), aside from implementing religious genocide and enforcing strict religious law they would no doubt go about pursuing an imperialist agenda. They have spread from Iraq to Syria, then back to Iraq, to Libya, to Afghanistan, to Yemen, to Egypt and beyond. These are not "locals" fighting against Imperialist intervention, they are an internationalist movement whose goals are not defensive but offensive.

ISIS is the metastasized cancer caused by international imperialism. Supporting it as a means of undermining Western imperialism is no less naive or foolish than supporting Western imperialism as a method for destroying reactionaries.

[Emmett Till]

There is nothing anti imperialist about daesh. And it's ridiculous that so many white people think so.

There is also such a thing as the proletarian military policy, proposed by trotsky during the fight against Hitler, which is more appropriate to this situation than defeatism.

Essentially it goes: yes, the fascists must be crushed. But who will defeat them? The bourgeois who financed and armed them at the beginning and then gave france over to them rather than arm the workers to fight them? No, of course not. The workers can't count on the bourgeois not to stab us in the back and sell us out to Hitler. We must take power into our own hands and run a revolutionary war against fascism.

Only a revolutionary policy, to guillotine the Saud family and establish a socialist federation of the middle East, a heaven on earth, can provide an alternative to Wahhabi fascism.

The "proletarian military policy" or PMP was a desperate idea Trotsky put forth shortly before he was assassinated, after the Blitzkrieg ran over France. Trotsky at the time was expecting England to fall momentarily, in one of his last interviews he expressed puzzlement as to why Churchill was making all sorts of macho statements, as obviously he'd have to flee to Canada shortly. It looked as if Hitler was going to conquer the world.

And it was a bad one. In America it was never implemented, as the idea of trade union run military training was irrelevant, the American imperialists were not about to knuckle under to Hitler. In most of the rest of the world it was even more irrelevant.

But it had a downright negative impact in England, where it if implemented would have turned the British Trotskyists into Churchill's military auxiliaries. Playing around with the PMP was one of the things that did in British Trotskyism. Healy's enthusiasm for the PMP, unlike other British Trotskyists, was one of the main reasons why Cannon made the big mistake of supporting Healy in the Brit factional battles. Indeed Healy's true enthusiasm for the PMP was an early sign that he was ... Healy. The other big enthusiast was your Grant, the reformist implications of the PMP certainly helped make Grant into a "Grantite."

Nobody is perfect. I think if Trotsky had lived longer he would have dropped the idea, especially after the battle of Moscow making it clear that imminent worldwide fascist triumph was not on the agenda. For all practical purposes the American SWP did drop the idea, while continuing to hand out the occasional PMP leaflet. For more on the PMP and Trotskyist policies during WWII,

https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/document/icl-spartacists/prs2-pmp/index.htm

[Aslan]

Can someone explain to me the spartacist position on Daesh. Do they support them?

Although I don't consider myself a Spartacist. However, in the name of Lols I will troll the Trotskyist wanna-bes by calling myself a Spartacist.

ISIL is the definition of a Reactionary movement. A theocratic murderous movement similar in some respects to the Khmer Rouge. The Wahhabi Islamic movement's goldenboy, murderer of thousands and destroyer of millions of lives. However, Islamic caliphate is just what the crazy soldiers and Al-Bagdadi justify. ISIL itself is led by former Ba'athist party generals under Sadam Hussein, power-hungry people who want to take the wealth they lost from America. These generals are in fact the the reason why ISIL has been succesful. Turkey (a on and off ally of ISIL) has been resuming secret trade with ISIL in a small strip of land which is ISIL's lifeline. ISIL also gets funding from gulf Sheiks and its oil supply.

ISIL is against Rojava, the banner carrier of the revolutionary left. We shouldn't be supporting Assad, we should be supporting Rojava. We should treat Rojava are allies to both Socialist movements and liberators of women to the barbaric Arabian tradition.

It should be noted that the war against ISIL was caused by America in the first place. As America gave weapons to the ''moderate rebels'' that would eventually mesh with Al-Qaeda in Iraq and Syria to form ISIL. American imperialism and hegemony is tied to ISIL. America has destabilized yet another region in the Islamic world, along with Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Mali, and Sudan.

[Emmett Till]

There is nothing anti imperialist about daesh. And it's ridiculous that so many white people think so...



But not if black people do? Not a hypothetical question, if there is anyone in America who would actually call daesh "anti-imperialists" it would be Third Worldists and black nationalists.

Nor, by the way, are the Spartacists an all white organization.

[Emmett Till]

Yes, the policy doesn't apply verbatim. We should oppose any imperialist intervention, but we should be supporting revolutionary resistance against daesh. And yes, even cheering when daesh commanders die.

The idea that the victory of Daesh is the "lesser evil" in this case, as WWI defeatism applied here would mean, is nonsense that means defeatism is not at all applicable in this situation. It is far more related to the proletarian military policy: fight the fascists as the greater evil, but arm the workers and overthrow the bourgeois imperialists to guarantee our victory.

The imperialists will not defeat Isis. Only the revolutionary masses can.

It's no accident the YPG are the only serious force on the ground at the moment.

Whatever the YPG is, it is certainly not a "proletarian" force. The bulk of the Syrian proletariat by now has, wisely, fled the country. "Rojava" is a particularly economically backward area, which had little proletariat before the civil war broke out, and less now.

[Emmett Till]

There are two big absurdities (among others) with the Spartacist view as far as I can see:

(1) If you support ISIS attacking the US, and you view organizations on the ground like the PYD as American proxies, you are in effect supporting ISIS victories against these forces. In that case, you are unintentionally celebrating the fact that Yazidis, Christian Assyrians, Kurds, atheists, secular Sunnis, Shiites, Alawites and so on will be liquidated. That is the logical consequence of ISIS "defeating" the "proxies" of American imperialism. There are legitimate ideological criticisms of groups like the PYD, but the fact is that Kurds, Assyrians and others are joining groups like this for self preservation and self defense against both ISIS and the local despots. That the PYD tells an American jet where ISIS fighters are hiding does not mean that their cause has been wholly appropriated by American imperialism, or that we should celebrate their defeat by barbarians like those in ISIS.

Except that due to refugee flight to and from "Rojava," the majority population of the area is now Sunni Arab, and sure enough we are getting reports of ethnic cleansing of uncooperative Sunni refugees who had fled to "Rojava" by the PYD now.

And then you had the fall of ISIS-held Fallujah last year to US bombs, Iranian sectarian militia and Barzani Kurdish forces last year. City was sacked, mass murder proceeded.

No PYG participation there, but the PYG plus Yazidi militias seized an ISIS held town in Iraq a few months ago, and you had burning and looting by ... the Yazidis.

ISIS is simply the most brutal of the sectarian militias ravaging the region, and the PYG perhaps the least. But they are all of the same kidney ultimately.


(2) ISIS is a transnational organization with global aspirations, not an Ethiopian Emperor or Brazilian Junta. If they actually succeed in their goals (which is highly implausible, for obvious reasons), aside from implementing religious genocide and enforcing strict religious law they would no doubt go about pursuing an imperialist agenda. They have spread from Iraq to Syria, then back to Iraq, to Libya, to Afghanistan, to Yemen, to Egypt and beyond. These are not "locals" fighting against Imperialist intervention, they are an internationalist movement whose goals are not defensive but offensive.

ISIS is the metastasized cancer caused by international imperialism. Supporting it as a means of undermining Western imperialism is no less naive or foolish than supporting Western imperialism as a method for destroying reactionaries.

ISIS has become something like an Internet meme in the Middle East, because they are the only force not aligned directly with US imperialism these days. Even Al Q'aida, like the "Nusra Front" in Syria, is playing footsie with the US, as they did in Libya vs. Q'addafi. So if some Sunni fundamentalist angry over the destruction of Libya and Syria and Iraq by US imperialism wants to strike out, he proclaims himself to be the local branch of ISIS these days instead of Al Q'aida.

Obviously one shouldn't give them political support, but insofar as they fight the US or US proxies, then one should be on their side. And trying to claim that the PYG are anything other than US allies this point is absurd, for the simple reason that the PYG proclaims itself publicly to be allied with America, you need just to look at their public statements on their websites. Yes, they criticize America sometimes, so do the English and the French. Though they are also friendly to Russia, which could cause problems.

After all, ISIS has killed at most some ten, 20 thousand people. The US in the Middle East has killed millions.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Except that due to refugee flight to and from "Rojava," the majority population of the area is now Sunni Arab, and sure enough we are getting reports of ethnic cleansing of uncooperative Sunni refugees who had fled to "Rojava" by the PYD now.

And then you had the fall of ISIS-held Fallujah last year to US bombs, Iranian sectarian militia and Barzani Kurdish forces last year. City was sacked, mass murder proceeded.


Yes there have been reports of ethnic cleansing by the PYD, and if it has happened it should be criticized. I've heard conflicting reports on whether or not the ethnic cleansing actually happened though, or whether or not they were just isolated incidents.



No PYG participation there, but the PYG plus Yazidi militias seized an ISIS held town in Iraq a few months ago, and you had burning and looting by ... the Yazidis.

ISIS is simply the most brutal of the sectarian militias ravaging the region, and the PYG perhaps the least. But they are all of the same kidney ultimately.
Again, this should be condemned, but whereas ISIS makes this a part of their political program, it does not seem to be so with the Kurdish groups. Whatever criticisms one might have of the PYD, they have made alliances with Arab, Assyrian and other groups in the area.



ISIS has become something like an Internet meme in the Middle East, because they are the only force not aligned directly with US imperialism these days. Even Al Q'aida, like the "Nusra Front" in Syria, is playing footsie with the US, as they did in Libya vs. Q'addafi. So if some Sunni fundamentalist angry over the destruction of Libya and Syria and Iraq by US imperialism wants to strike out, he proclaims himself to be the local branch of ISIS these days instead of Al Q'aida.
... except the level of integration and international recruitment by ISIS reaches levels unseen by al Qaeda. He may just found the "local branch" if ISIS, but he will feed fighters and money into Syria and Iraq, which can then be fed by ISIS elsewhere.



Obviously one shouldn't give them political support, but insofar as they fight the US or US proxies, then one should be on their side. And trying to claim that the PYG are anything other than US allies this point is absurd, for the simple reason that the PYG proclaims itself publicly to be allied with America, you need just to look at their public statements on their websites. Yes, they criticize America sometimes, so do the English and the French. Though they are also friendly to Russia, which could cause problems.
First, there is a critical difference between making a strategic alliance, even out of desperation, and being an actual proxy. The fact is that the PYD is not an organization which the US wants to win in the long term, it's just a grouping that the US sympathizes with out of purely short term interest, and do not doubt that the PYD knows this. Ultimately, the US's interests lie with Turkey, not some random Kurdish cantons.

Second, no we should not be on their side, when the consequence of ISIS defeating the PYG is that populations will be vulnerable to sexual exploitation, slavery and genocide at the hands of their new masters.



After all, ISIS has killed at most some ten, 20 thousand people. The US in the Middle East has killed millions.Well, for one thing ISIS is a consequence of instability caused by US intervention, and for another they have been around for less time and as of right now have a more limited scope. So I don't think this kind of Utilitarian reasoning holds up in this case.

[Tim Cornelis]

One element that weaves into the political support for (not to) the military wing of ISIS is the idea that a defeat of imperialist forces will somehow inspire the working classes. Of course Trotsky believed this, so a good orthodox Trotskyist will seek to emulate this. But there is no organised working class to take advantage of an imperialist defeat, the conditions in which this would apply (even if existent it's dubious how that would work) don't exist. Additionally, the military power and the political power of Daesh cannot be separated. (where's the dialectics maaan?) One cannot exist without the other, so it's meaningless to force a separation between the two. Support for the military campaigns of Da'esh means support for the political expansion of Da'esh.

This position isn't so far removed from unorthodox Trotskyists rallying behind Hamas or Hezbollah, though. If anything orthodox Trotskyists are more consistent, pushing an argument to its ridiculous conclusion. Unfortunately, they have not caught on to the ridiculousness -- a disturbing lack of self-awareness.

One Spart sympathiser, I recall, had found a reason to disagree with this position. I suspect they felt, on some level, that support for Da'esh was indefensible, but cognitive dissonance forced them to not make the connection with their political ideas. To not support Da'esh, this person came up with the gem that the inability of Da'esh to inflict damage and defeat on imperialist forces meant that it would not lead to the scenario described above, and therefore Da'esh warranted no support. The only problem that they claimed to see was that Da'esh wasn't strong enough. Of course, the logical thing to do, if this is the case, would be to call on people to join Da'esh to strengthen the anti-imperialist resistance.

Is it anti-imperialist to shoot down an American war plane? It does nothing to undo the social relationships and structures which, ultimately, lie at the heart of the imperialist world system. Communism is anti-imperialism, the only meaningful anti-imperialism anyway.

[JaffaRed]

This sounds like a mirror-image of the support of the arch-butcher Assad and sometimes even Putin, i.e. Russian imperialism and its proxies, by assorted revisionists such as the Israeli Communist Party* and other tankies all over the world. I even know some anarchists who seem friendly to the "Ukrainian Revolution" of the past few years, which in reality is full of neo-Nazi scum; and revisionists who support the People's Republic of Donetsk" which is more or less a proxy for Russian imperialism.

Assad, by the way, is a much worse butcher than ISIS, in terms of the number of people his regime killed in the Syrian Civil War. But he seems to have gained a certain level of a positive reputation in the west, especially among tankies.

Once you believe in the "lesser evil" theory and in "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", all sorts of wacky situations are bound to arise.

* They supported Assad in their Arabic publications but do not publish support in him in Hebrew, fearing that this "will alienate Jewish voters".

[The Feral Underclass]

Whatever the YPG is, it is certainly not a "proletarian" force.

What constitutes a "proletarian" force and why is the YPG not one?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Is it anti-imperialist to shoot down an American war plane? It does nothing to undo the social relationships and structures which, ultimately, lie at the heart of the imperialist world system. Communism is anti-imperialism, the only meaningful anti-imperialism anyway.

This is a pretty big sticking point for me, too. It is a crude understanding of anti-Imperialism that holds that a military defeat undermines the imperial order. It is hard to find a force against imperialism less sympathetic than the Plains Indians army which faced Custer, who handily defeated the US cavalry. However, the 200 or so dead American cavalrymen did absolutely nothing to change the outcome of manifest destiny. On the contrary, it just led the federal government to heighten its efforts. Yet here we have this fantastical idea of ISIS somehow undermining the world's biggest empire by shooting down some jets despite their lack of anti-air infrastructure, or wiping out Kurdish militia "proxies" who are defending the very survival of the Kurdish people of Syria.

In Vietnam, military defeats did undermine French and American imperialism, but there's no law which connects military defeat to the defeat of imperialism.


What constitutes a "proletarian" force and why is the YPG not one?

The implication of what Emmit said was that it was demographic. However, this seems curious to me. Are we saying most Syrian Kurds are peasants? Syria was a lower middle income country and Rojava was not wholly deindustrialized. I have read of "worker's councils" being organized, although I know nothing of their composition or practical function. So it seems like there are workers which are members, and these workers are being engaged in the process of decision making. I've had a hard time finding unbiased analyses of Rojava however.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I hope that the sane people who both view this page and consider themselves socialists will see the absolute insanity and absurdity of some of the positions taken here.

The left's history of splits of split from sects of sects of historical Social Democrat/Communist political parties has led to historical analyses that are just plain wrong, but are supported by incredible fallacies of logic.

ISIS is an imperial force, in that they want to conquer swathes of land and rule local populations not based on the needs and wants of local human beings, but of some brutal doctrine steeped in religious language, but that is essentially one of dictatorship through terror.

As well as the arguments against ISIS that have been raised in this thread, there is one key thing that some of the more absurd analyses in this thread miss: view ISIS as an 'anti-imperialist' group all you want. Celebrate the downing of a US fighter jet as some brave, anti-imperial action. But at the end of the day, nobody - not the local political powers-that-be, nor the western imperialists, nor the local people on the ground, nor local and regional fighters in the middle east, will support a group like ISIS that rules by cutting people's heads off, stripping women of practically all of their rights, and ruling according to terror and diktat rather than justice and democracy. Therefore, even if one did take an anti-imperialist line, it would be stupid to say that being pro-ISIS is anti-imperialist, since ISIS cannot win. They won't win, because nobody will support them. Therefore, supporting anti-imperialism by supporting ISIS is a pretty bad bet.

Not to mention that no decent human being should support any group that sees rape, war, torture, and execution as legitimate actions.

[VivalaCuarta]

Not to mention that no decent human being should support any group that sees rape, war, torture, and execution as legitimate actions.

+1000 comrade. Let's not get sidetracked. The bottom line is, we are at war, Obama told us. ISIS is the enemy, and they are worse than Hitler, just like Saddam was. Bombs away!

[Fourth Internationalist]

+1000 comrade. Let's not get sidetracked. The bottom line is, we are at war, Obama told us. ISIS is the enemy, and they are worse than Hitler, just like Saddam was. Bombs away!

To be quite honest, your replies could be much better if they actually addressed what others say. By giving sillier answers to silly arguments, it looks like you don't have a real good reply. You could give just as long of a reply (a couple sentences) that actually addresses others' points.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

There is nothing anti imperialist about daesh. And it's ridiculous that so many white people think so.

Perhaps. However, the SL has made it clear that they do not regard Daeš as "anti-imperialist" (a term that has found limited use in SL and ICL publications).

Yes, Daeš is monstrous. So are other participants in this quagmire, including the PKK and their many front groups. But what caused this monster to appear is imperialist intervention. If, for now, the monster has turned against its masters, and is disrupting the ability of the imperialist coalition to influence events in Syria, then it follows that the proletariat "has a side" with Daeš when it attacks imperialism (not in general, and obviously the political programme of Daeš, including Sunni sectarianism, is anti-worker to the core). The only problem I have with the formulation - and I've given this some thought - is that it amounts to posturing. There are no proletarian forces in this situation that we could call to.

But once more: however this war develops, a lot of workers are going to die in gruesome sectarian massacres. If the US-led coalition "defeats" Daeš, tomorrow there will be another Daeš, then another one, and so on - until the imperialist forces withdraw. That is the most we can hope for. Is that unpleasant? Yes, it is. But it's no different than e.g. Rwanda. Then we ought to have called for the "benevolent" French imperialists to leave. Even if at that time we would have been called names and attacked as cheering on the genocide.


There is also such a thing as the proletarian military policy, proposed by trotsky during the fight against Hitler, which is more appropriate to this situation than defeatism.

And the SL rejects the PMP. Rightly, too - it was a sop to Allied militarism. It was also blatantly inconsistent, and prostituted the Fourth International to Dimitrovite pop-frontist anti-fascism (I don't recall Trotsky making similar proposals to Ley, the German trade union overseer).


Only a revolutionary policy, to guillotine the Saud family and establish a socialist federation of the middle East, a heaven on earth, can provide an alternative to Wahhabi fascism.

Quibbles about the word "fascism" aside, that is true. We stand for a socialist federation of the Middle East. But the fight for socialism will not be engendered by cooperating with imperialism. And if the US intervention were to collapse, it would provide an overwhelming impetus to the struggles of the workers and oppressed masses.


(1) If you support ISIS attacking the US, and you view organizations on the ground like the PYD as American proxies, you are in effect supporting ISIS victories against these forces. In that case, you are unintentionally celebrating the fact that Yazidis, Christian Assyrians, Kurds, atheists, secular Sunnis, Shiites, Alawites and so on will be liquidated.

This sort of reasoning can be used to attack any sort of defeatism, except in situations where the defeat of one side will not favour another temporarily - i.e. blatantly counter-factual situations. When socialists of the pre-war period opposed e.g. Italy and its imperialist ambitions, does this mean they supported massacres committed by Arab and Turkish forces?

[The Feral Underclass]

+1000 comrade. Let's not get sidetracked. The bottom line is, we are at war, Obama told us. ISIS is the enemy, and they are worse than Hitler, just like Saddam was. Bombs away!

The argument that anyone who opposes ISIS supports imperialism is fallacious and no amount of hyperbole is going to change that.

[blake 3:17]

I've a bit of quarrel with many people on this thread in that they don't support Boycotts Divestment and Sanctions on Israel http://bdsmovement.net/

What I would I like to see is a boycott divestement and sanctions movement happen in relation to Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are straight up fascists, and I could care less what some ortho Trot has to say on it.

[Emmett Till]

What constitutes a "proletarian" force and why is the YPG not one?

A force made up of those with a proletarian relationship to the means of production.

The "Rojava" area was always economically highly undeveloped in Syria, and what it may once have had of a proletariat have been deproletarianized and lumpenized after years of civil war and devastation.

What production takes place is on a petty commodity-producing basis. Peasants, artisans and petty traders. There are very few capitalists or proletarians in "Rojava" at this point, and the PYG is petty bourgeois in both social composition and ideology.

[Art Vandelay]

It's rich to see a IMTer criticize the ICL's line on daesh in the fashion displayed in this thread. He should probably take a good long hard look in the mirror before doing so however, given where his organization falls on class questions. The IMT has a history that any Marxist should be ashamed of being associated with and anyone famiar with the history of Trotskyism is well aware of it. What is also quite ironic, is that as a Canadian and member of the IMT, I'd hazard a guess that CYM is also a member of the NDP - an organization that is a staunch supporter of the Isreali state. If you want to talk about support for reactionary forces, that would be a good place to start.

This thread was a clear tendency-bait by an admin.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

+1000 comrade. Let's not get sidetracked. The bottom line is, we are at war, Obama told us. ISIS is the enemy, and they are worse than Hitler, just like Saddam was. Bombs away!

I don't know what you're trying to achieve with poorly executed sarcasm (if that's what you're attempting?), it's shows you to be quite boring.

If you bothered to do the most basic research you'd realise i'm not American and this is Revleft so i'm not a capitalist nor a supporter of imperialism.

I'm happy to have a civil discussion when you decide that there's space in your revolution for more than the half a dozen people in the world who share your exact views.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

This sort of reasoning can be used to attack any sort of defeatism, except in situations where the defeat of one side will not favour another temporarily - i.e. blatantly counter-factual situations. When socialists of the pre-war period opposed e.g. Italy and its imperialist ambitions, does this mean they supported massacres committed by Arab and Turkish forces?

Whatever the positions of pre-war Socialists, I don't think endorsing the victories of a declining Ottoman Imperialism is the best way of opposing a rising Italian Imperialism. Neither side in that conflict really differed all that much, except Turkey happened to be poorer and weaker. Both empires used atrocities to preserve or establish their political and economic dominance over colonial empires.

I'm not saying this because the PYD is some great group. We should retain a critical distance with their organization. However, celebrating their defeat at the hands of Daesh doesn't make sense.


The "Rojava" area was always economically highly undeveloped in Syria, and what it may once have had of a proletariat have been deproletarianized and lumpenized after years of civil war and devastation.

What production takes place is on a petty commodity-producing basis. Peasants, artisans and petty traders. There are very few capitalists or proletarians in "Rojava" at this point, and the PYG is petty bourgeois in both social composition and ideology.

Are there sources on this? From what I've read, much of Rojava (with some exceptions like Kobane or recently captured areas) is comparatively peaceful by Syrian standards.

Also, the same could be said of other countries or regions going through a "proletarian revolution."

[Exterminatus]

Why must we choose to support anyone when all sides are doombringers to the working people of middle east? I think this is just another example that demonstrates us total impotence of the left.

[Aslan]

Don't you people see that bombing the middle east will make things worse. The reason why ISIL exists is because these people are angry that Arabia is being bombed and Sunni muslims are being exploited. Thats why ISIL is so tempting to these young people, they're tired of being oppressed. The catalyst to the birth of ISIL was first the Arab spring, which opened the eyes of these youngsters to the oppressive governments in Arabia. Then the Syrian protests, whose participants were eventually the people fighting now. ISIL's best tool for propaganda is that it offers a ''solution'' to that by creating a place where Sunni Muslims are safe!

The EU is playing into the hands of ISIL right now! The closing of borders has isolated these people and now they have a tempting offer of revenge. The Paris attacks will lead to even more of these events, more terrorist attacks, more European xenophobia, more alienation of the Arab proletarians, and finally the misleading of these people into ISIL.

Now keep in mind that there will always be bloodthirsty psychos in all fronts. Syrian government has it, Rojava has, and ISIL has it too.

The only way we can defeat ISIL is to cease all wars in the middle east! Declare the former governments the legitimate governments (Assad for example). Then begin a campaign of rebuilding and redistribution of these people back to their homes. All nations have to be involved (USA, Russia, Iran, Turkey, China etc.) As the area rebuilds itself.

Further on, we leftists need to establish a stronghold in the area, if that means cooperation with Rojava, so be it. We need to get these angry people to understand socialism. The only communist organizations I know in the Mid-east are Marxist-Leninist groups, Which are not what we want.

[Tim Cornelis]

I'm not sure whom you're talking to Aslan, no one's advocating war or bombing. But it's funny how your logic seems valid, until the point that you advocate restoring Assad to legitimacy by international actors. Surely, he, having murdered 8 times more people than Da'esh, is one of those oppressive tyrants that creates fertile ground for Da'esh? There is no future with Assad, he feeds Sunni extremism.

[Fourth Internationalist]

"Stalinists" in Brazil defend Assad and Putin against "Imperialism", they are as fallacious as our "Trotskyst" friend here.

Please, guys, stop supporting things "because previous marxists did it" without an analysis or even thinking on it for a second, IT IS SIMPLY RIDICULOUS!

They were in situations where they though such positions and tactics would benefit the class struggle, the thoughtless defense of such archaic tactics just because they were once employed is not only ignoring DiaMat, HisMat or even logic itself, it is an ABERRATION (And here I judge correct to employ the term PHILISTINE to describe such people...)

I have not seen ONE EXAMPLE where such "Stalinists" or "Trotskysts" gave actual explanation of how such positions and tactics would help the proletariat smash the bourgeois State and society. They "Oppose Imperialism" of the "traditional Imperialist" and ignore that Daesh is a Fascist State and that Russia is a informal populist dictatorship. They just blindly follow these positions, and in the process alienate the proletariat.

I think it is rather ridiculous for you to assume that others simply follow some random dogma for no reason whatsoever whereas you yourself, of course, are some pure truth-seeking lover of logical thinking. I'm sure you do think deeply about the political positions you take and profess to be true, but so do most other people with strong political convictions.

[Guardia Rossa]

"Stalinists" in Brazil defend Assad and Putin against "Imperialism", they act in the same logic of our "Trotskyst" friend here.

Such tactics had an context: bipolar Cold War. Supporting self-determination and supporting nations against US and/or USSR directly weakened Imperialism and the bourgeoisie, making it easier to push class struggle against them.

Which is the problem of such tactics? Firstly, they are not supporting national liberation movements, they are supporting dictatorships and fascist states. Second, there is no organized proletariat pushing class struggle to their favour, as it was already pointed out. The only thing resulting from a successful Daesh is the murder of thousands and a new Fascist state emerging in middle-east, the same goes to Assad.

That is why such geopoliticist positions today is simply an aberration and a show of stupidity of modern "Stalinist" and "Trotskyst" petit-bourgeoisie, positions which alienate more the proletariat from such "Communist Parties" than any propaganda by the bourgeoisie.

EDIT: 4th, after my anger was through, I re-wrote my "wonderful" post to point out why these ideas are archaic. They are a shadow of our past and a symptom of our incompetence.
I do not have any position. I just see as stupid to take past positions just because people once defended them. I still await someone to present something better then supporting the arab proletariat in it's struggle against Assad and Daesh.

[Fourth Internationalist]

EDIT: 4th, after my anger was through, I re-wrote my "wonderful" post to point out why these ideas are archaic. They are a shadow of our past and a symptom of our incompetence.
I do not have any position. I just see as stupid to take past positions just because people once defended them. I still await someone to present something better then supporting the arab proletariat in it's struggle against Assad and Daesh.

No one is taking their position simply because it was done in the past. My post above applies here too: it is ridiculous to assume you are simply thinking logically in arriving to your "correct" position whereas others with the "wrong" position are simply too stupid to analyze what political positions they uphold and, instead, uphold them because they are the equivalent to some other positions taken by some other people in the past. I could easily make the same, ambiguous, useless argument about anyone here, including you.

[Guardia Rossa]

No one is taking their position simply because it was done in the past. My post above applies here too: it is ridiculous to assume you are simply thinking logically in arriving to your "correct" position whereas others with the "wrong" position are simply too stupid to analyze what political positions they uphold and, instead, uphold them because they are the equivalent to some other positions taken by some other people in the past. I could easily make the same, ambiguous, useless argument about anyone here, including you.

So explain why we should support Daesh, could you?

[Fourth Internationalist]

So explain why we should support Daesh, could you?

I do not think we should.

[Guardia Rossa]

I do not think we should.

Good, I explained the why of my argument, which is that the conditions changed, and if you don't support such strategies I still don't see much point in this.

I usually take a few minutes editing after I post (I usually re-write it, up to thrice) so don't be shocked if it appears stupid.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Good. I explained the why of my argument, which is that the conditions changed. If you don't support such strategies I still don't see much point in this.

I usually take a few minutes editing my post after I post it (I re-write it usually thrice) so don't be shocked if it appears stupid. It's because it is.

Of course, no one, including the ICL, would outright answer "Why should we support the Islamic State?" because they do not think their position is simply "supporting the Islamic State".

[Guardia Rossa]

Yes, yes, it's "Anti-Imperialism"

[Fourth Internationalist]

Yes, yes, it's "Anti-Imperialism"

It's not so simple as a choice between "Support the Islamic State as an anti-imperialist force!" or "Down with the Islamic State!". I would say "Down with the imperialists! Even when the Islamic State rightfully attacks the imperialist forces, the Islamic State remains another one of our many enemies which must go down! Only proletarian revolution can defeat imperialism and the Islamist monsters it creates!"

[Aslan]

I'm not sure whom you're talking to Aslan, no one's advocating war or bombing. But it's funny how your logic seems valid, until the point that you advocate restoring Assad to legitimacy by international actors. Surely, he, having murdered 8 times more people than Da'esh, is one of those oppressive tyrants that creates fertile ground for Da'esh? There is no future with Assad, he feeds Sunni extremism.

I was saying it to people who want to support ISIL on the grounds of it being 'anti-imperialist'. Also I was doing it to talk about the fact that non-tankie socialist organizations need to reach out to the angered Arabian proletariat.

Who could take Assad's place? If you gave legitimate candidate that could hold the Islamic world and participate in the things I listed. I will completely agree with you. The non-ISIL rebels are American puppets who will just bring a weak government. And Rojava, they may in your opinion be a ''bourgeois democracy'' is just for Kurdistan.

Who else? The vacuum from a non-Assad Syria will most likely leave more dead than if he stayed in power. Sunni, Shia, Druze, Alawite, Assyrian, Kurdish, Christian, Wahhabi, etc. would tear down the Syrian government like Weimar Germany. Soldiers of the Government with no morale would either leave, defect, or run away from battle. Syria into an even worse and horrific position than it had with Assad.

[John Nada]

I find the Sparts' support for a Daesh victory strange. Not because it's morally repulsive(it is), but because it chauvinist and opportunist line contrary to Marxism. Here's an organization, which in spite of its name is based in imperialist nations(like many "internationalists") oppressing the nations of the Middle East, calling for reactionary defeatism of said oppressed nations. For the defeat of the Arab and Kurdish nations at the hands of a fascist, anti-communist, theocratic, semi-feudalist, settler-colonial and expansionist state. Mechanically misapplying defeatism for imperialist nations(for which it's correct) to struggles in oppressed nations(where defenseism is just). As Lenin said:
But from a Marxist viewpoint, such general and abstract definitions as “unpatriotic” are of absolutely no value. The fatherland, the nation are historical categories. I am not at all opposed to wars waged in defence of democracy or against national oppression, nor do I fear such words as “defence of the fatherland” in reference to these wars or to insurrections. Socialists always side with the oppressed and, consequently, cannot be opposed to wars whose purpose is democratic or socialist struggle against oppression. It would therefore be absurd to deny the legitimacy of the wars of 1793, of France’s wars against the reactionary European monarchies, or of the Garibaldi wars, etc.... And it would be just as absurd not to recognise the legitimacy of wars of oppressed nations against their oppressors, wars that might break out today—rebellion of the Irish against England, for instance, rebellion of Morocco against France, or the Ukraine against Russia, etc.... https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/dec/15b.htm The fight in subjugated nations against feudalism and reactionary elements is just as important and revolutionary as the fight against colonialism and imperialism. Landlords and clergy(like Daesh's sheiks, emirs and mullahs) are as much an enemy as the comprador-bourgeoisie. It is impossible to fight imperialism without combating the former.

It's not anti-imperialism if it leads to a reactionary, semi-feudal, anti-democratic, anti-socialist, expansionist state supported by the sub-imperialist US-proxies like Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Daesh is a counterrevolution dictatorship of military officers, clergy, lumpenproletarians and landlords that will subvert, block and attack any progressive and socialist anti-imperialist movements, now or in the future. By virtue its neither a democratic nor socialist anti-imperialist force. I don't think any socialists of any strip support them in the region, and many actively oppose them(often not just on keyboards).

Daesh is a state imposed upon the Arab nation that's invading and attempting to annex Kurdistan with the support of NATO member Turkey. It's specifically attacking a democratic and socialist revolution in progress for decades led by workers and poor peasants. Which said Sparts supposedly "critically supported" until it became politically inconvenient. Strangely I see no calls for revolutionary defeatism in Daesh's unjust war which the Arab proletariat and national minorities' interest will not benefit.:confused:
But ISIS today is in battle against the local tools of U.S. imperialism, the main enemy of the world’s working people. A setback for the U.S. in Syria might give pause to Washington in its military adventures, including by encouraging opposition at home. Such opposition adds to the tinder that must be ignited in class struggle against the capitalist rulers who, in their quest for ever greater profits, beat down the workers, black people and immigrants.Accelerationism. If things get worse for the Arabs and Kurds, the "opposition" will get more support in those countries with real revolutionary workers, like the US.:rolleyes: The masses will see the correctness of the ICL-FI line, spontaneously join them and they'll lead the global revolution! Just like the October Revolution!:laugh:
What constitutes a "proletarian" force and why is the YPG not oneA proletarian force must be a small petit-bourgeois sect in the 1st-world, or a deformed workers' state like China and its deformed workers' neo-colony north Korea.:rolleyes: Apparently the YPG, with more proletarians than a bunch of 1st-world sects combined, isn't one because it's in the 3rd-world. Since imperialism, with its uneven development, didn't let Rojava develop its productive forces enough to have a revolution(as put forth by Deng Xiaoping theory), they supposedly can't have a revolution till the white man"advance workers" finally gets around to it(as theorized by Karl Kautsky).:(

[The Feral Underclass]

A force made up of those with a proletarian relationship to the means of production.

How does this relationship manifest itself? Can you explain that? I don't mean what is the relationship, obviously I understand what a proletarian is and how they are related to the means of production, but I want to understand how you imagine this relationship manifests itself. In other words what does it look like?


The "Rojava" area was always economically highly undeveloped in Syria, and what it may once have had of a proletariat have been deproletarianized and lumpenized after years of civil war and devastation.

What production takes place is on a petty commodity-producing basis. Peasants, artisans and petty traders. There are very few capitalists or proletarians in "Rojava" at this point

This doesn't seem to relate to reality. Agriculture, food and oil production are the biggest industries in Rojava. Much of it is collectivised and run by councils made up of those workers who work in the industries.


and the PYG is petty bourgeois in both social composition and ideology.

Do you mean the PYD or the YPG? Yes, the PYD is terrible and should be opposed.

[Rafiq]

There is a lot of confusion about ISIS here, so I would like everyone to take some time to read this, from a post I made earlier:


Look how opportunistically such phenomena is conceived in terms of a purported dichotomy between human rights liberalism and religious (ethnic, national, whatever is within proximity) fundamentalism. The reality is that the two are conditions of each other - ISIS are NOT these crazy fanatics, they are vulgar thugs, repressed hedonists, turning blind eyes to the most perverse and disgusting indulgences (just as the Catholic church does vis a vis pedophilia). We Communists are the real fanatics, we are the real hypothetical, abstract demon that haunts the minds of bourgeois ideologues, we are the real demons whom they project upon the ISIS cowards.

The US state department released a propaganda film - designed for mass consumption - comparing ISIS's destruction of cultural sights to the Soviet demolition of the Christ the savior cathedral in the 1930's. Be suspicious of bourgeois sentiment against ISIS IDEOLOGICALLY - of course, we want to see them crushed, but the point is that what SCARES people about ISIS is not simply that they behead people and whatever, it is the fact that they are thought to be disrupting sacred domains of life. But the truth is that nothing is further from the truth. Watch this video:

RN3ktXbLzlY

In fact ISIS is trying desperately NOT to come off this way - they want to come off as even greater protectors of everyday life in all its banality. The video EXPLICITLY claims ISIS is maintaining order and "business as usual". ISIS does not offer a radical critique of (near eastern) society, it offers a critique of society's inability to maintain itself, it critiques society's inability to feed the hunger of capital, sustain institutions of private property in a more proficient manner, at a much deeper pathological level. ISIS is not extremist enough - they are normal, all too normal.

Liberals will watch this video and think that underlying all of this "normality" is something much darker. But it's a childish naivety on their part: What we don't want to admit is the fact that ISIS has more or less become a legitimate power in Mosul, it isn't simply putting it's citizens in chains - the 'business as usual' function of capitalism is completely left intact, and this is what puzzles people who watch the video. Of course it's propaganda, but Mosul is home to 2 million people. What resistance has been put up, at a significant level? Of course there is fear - but its present inhabitants, the Sunni population, were living in such hell before, for them, ISIS is really not all that different. I do not mean to say ISIS is no worse, but that in the context of the conditions faced by the impoverished Sunni population in Iraq, ISiS is no less legitimate than the previous government, riddled with corruption.


It is silly to counter the Spart's defense of ISIS in terms of claiming htat ISIS "is a product of US imperialism". This is an attitude which is thoroughly condescending, chauvinistic towards the peoples of the near east.

The Arabs, the peoples of the near east in general have their own political discourse, struggles and controversies. That the actions of US intervention allowed for certain elements which proceeded it to assume power, does not mean that the US has the power to simply push the right buttons to lead to this or that situation.

What all of this talk fails to take into account is simple: HOW DOES ISIS (or hezbollah, the muslim brotherhood, hamas, Assad, any other phenomena) relate to the ACTUAL political controversies and struggles of the near eastern people's themselves? What does supporting ISIS actually mean insofar as it concerns the progressive peoples of the Near East? The peoples of the near east are not passive animals who can be herded in this or that direction. Like the people's of Africa (where similar, stupid arguments are leveled), these are a people who are just as historical, full of historic vitality and passion as any other. The true significance of ISIS is NOT that it was "the product of US imperialism" (as if the brown people are stupid animals) - the point is that ISIS represents a barbarism which is modern, which is present in all of our societies - we all can potentially have our own ISIS's.

So in order for one to be truly in solidarity with the progressive peoples of the Near east, they must understand their predicimant in terms of the global totality: Supporting ISIS should be received with the same ridicule as supporting any other kind of Fascism. Why is this tolerated? Why, even, is CRITICAL SUPPORT, TACTICAL SUPPORT in ANY way tolerated for an organization like ISIS? What is the policy on paying ANY KIND of lip service to western Fascism here?

I propose, in the spirit of world solidarity, that a zero tolerance policy on any kind of support, critical or otherwise, for Islamists be met with the same treatment as Fascism. Obviously not because "they are the same" for our own conditions, but because Islamism represents something for people there, that Fascism does here (regardless of its popularity).

[Fourth Internationalist]

I find the Sparts' support for a Daesh victory strange.

Where do they call for the victory of the Islamic State?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

It's not so simple as a choice between "Support the Islamic State as an anti-imperialist force!" or "Down with the Islamic State!". I would say "Down with the imperialists! Even when the Islamic State rightfully attacks the imperialist forces, the Islamic State remains another one of our many enemies which must go down! Only proletarian revolution can defeat imperialism and the Islamist monsters it creates!"

Would you say "Down with the Japanese Empire! Even when they rightly attack US forces ..."? ISIS doesn't attack US forces to undermine imperialism as such, they do so because they want to replace the US, Russia, Iran, Israel and Saudi Arabia as the dominant forces in the region. Of course, considering the balance of power, this is an utterly quixotic goal, but that fact should not distract us from the utterly reactionary and revanchist nature of their movement.

Moreover, it is naive to think that a handful of military defeats would lead to the end of Western imperialism in the middle east.


Where do they call for the victory of the Islamic State? When they celebrate their "victories" over US forces and simultaneously condemn the indigenous resistance to Daesh as American "proxies" (thus condemning those indigenous peoples to the kind of conquest and enslavement shown to Shiites, Christians and Yazidis).

[Fourth Internationalist]

Would you say "Down with the Japanese Empire! Even when they rightly attack US forces ..."? ISIS doesn't attack US forces to undermine imperialism as such, they do so because they want to replace the US, Russia, Iran, Israel and Saudi Arabia as the dominant forces in the region. Of course, considering the balance of power, this is an utterly quixotic goal, but that fact should not distract us from the utterly reactionary and revanchist nature of their movement.

I would not say that in regards to Japan because a conflict between the U.S. and Japan is an inter-imperialist conflict where both sides are equally condemnable. In conflicts of imperialist countries against semi-colonial countries or conflicts which occur in said countries, we must be clear that as communists, especially communists in the imperialist centers of the world, are for the defense of the oppressed people in countries ravaged by imperialism. We must also be clear that this defense can only be permanently sustained through revolution, as always. I don't think the ICL articles on the subject does well in explaining that, but it is clear that they don't see them as some good-hearted anti-imperialists. Trotskyists understand any bourgeois leadership in any oppressed country would capitulate to the imperialists, even if it were reluctant and were still an "enemy" of the imperialist countries, like Iran.


Moreover, it is naive to think that a handful of military defeats would lead to the end of Western imperialism in the middle east.

That is true. The ICL article is clear that revolution in the U.S. is needed.


When they celebrate their "victories" over US forces and simultaneously condemn the indigenous resistance to Daesh as American "proxies" (thus condemning those indigenous peoples to the kind of conquest and enslavement shown to Shiites, Christians and Yazidis).

That is a good point, and one of the problems with the ICL's analysis. It sees the Islamic State as the only non-U.S. backed force in the region. The situation is far more complex, especially because there are groups that are armed strategically by the U.S. that could not simply be qualified as proxies for U.S. imperialism, and yet some others are effectively proxies. But still I would argue they would not view the victory of the Islamic State as a desirable end goal, which is what "advocating for the victory of the Islamic State" sounds like to me.

[Rudolf]

That is a good point, and one of the problems with the ICL's analysis. It sees the Islamic State as the only non-U.S. backed force in the region.



This is what i don't get. Even if we're to consider IS as the only non-US backed force in the region (although what about Assad?) we have to acknowledge that IS has links with Turkey and thus the military alliance of western imperialism (nato).

[Fourth Internationalist]

This is what i don't get. Even if we're to consider IS as the only non-US backed force in the region (although what about Assad?) we have to acknowledge that IS has links with Turkey and thus the military alliance of western imperialism (nato).

While Turkey uses the Islamic State for some of its own nasty purposes in its regional conflicts, I don't believe that qualifies it as a proxy for NATO imperialism, just like some groups being strategically armed by the U.S. does not mean they are necessarily proxies for U.S. imperialism.

You mention Assad, which is interesting, because I nearly forgot about him and I can't really find much on the ICL website talking about his regime in reference to their position on the Islamic State when it attacks imperialist forces. I think they would have the same position on the Assad regime as they do on the Islamic State if both conduct attacks against imperialist forces, but I am not sure.

EDIT:
Washington could very well switch to supporting ISIS under certain conditions—for example, against the Assad regime in Syria, which is decidedly not a part of the U.S. military alliance despite its best efforts.

http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/1055/isis.html (the original article which first mentions their position on the Islamic State)

Also says later on that Assad and the Kurds are the main enemies of the Turkish government. That's about it. Perhaps they could answer if the issue was brought up to them.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I would not say that in regards to Japan because a conflict between the U.S. and Japan is an inter-imperialist conflict where both sides are equally condemnable. In conflicts of imperialist countries against semi-colonial countries or conflicts which occur in said countries, we must be clear that as communists, especially communists in the imperialist centers of the world, are for the defense of the oppressed people in countries ravaged by imperialism. We must also be clear that this defense can only be permanently sustained through revolution, as always. I don't think the ICL articles on the subject does well in explaining that, but it is clear that they don't see them as some good-hearted anti-imperialists. Trotskyists understand any bourgeois leadership in any oppressed country would capitulate to the imperialists, even if it were reluctant and were still an "enemy" of the imperialist countries, like Iran.


ISIS is not an imperialist world power as Japan was during WWII, but their agenda is no less dangerous. It is good to recognize that they are not virtuous anti-imperialists in any way, shape or form, but we should call for the next step and recognize ISIS as essentially reactionary. They aren't local resistance to imperialism, they are an international movement of violent reactionaries. Their desire is to export political reaction throughout the Islamic world, and the existence and success of a so-called "caliphate" in Syria and Iraq only serves to legitimize that effort.



That is true. The ICL article is clear that revolution in the U.S. is needed.
We can expand that point, and argue too that Western defeats don't necessarily serve to empower revolutionary forces in the US, either. So the utility of ISIS shooting down a plane or wiping out some US-armed Kurds really has no relevance on whether there is a revolution in the US or in Syria. If anything, it could just herald an expansion of US involvement, and as a consequence more dead Americans and Syrians.


That is a good point, and one of the problems with the ICL's analysis. It sees the Islamic State as the only non-U.S. backed force in the region. The situation is far more complex, especially because there are groups that are armed strategically by the U.S. that could not simply be qualified as proxies for U.S. imperialism, and yet some others are effectively proxies. But still I would argue they would not view the victory of the Islamic State as a desirable end goal, which is what "advocating for the victory of the Islamic State" sounds like to me.They may not think of themselves as advocating for the victory of the Islamic state, but that's the consequence of viewing all those trying to defend themselves from Daesh as American proxies. For one thing it fails to recognize that, as the dominant world power in the region (and as the lead of NATO), concentrating on the immediate threat posed by ISIS requires these groups to make strategic priorities. For another, it negates the agency of the local movements to respond rationally to the conditions they face, by turning their sovereign choices into those made simply to realize American interests. This is especially true of a Kurdish force that is highly mistrusted by NATO member Turkey, as it gives some cover on their northern flank from the threat of Turkish Imperialism.


While Turkey uses the Islamic State for some of its own nasty purposes in its regional conflicts, I don't believe that qualifies it as a proxy for NATO imperialism, just like some groups being strategically armed by the U.S. does not mean they are necessarily proxies for U.S. imperialism. I agree with you, although it would be nice to see the Spartacists acknowledge that about the groups they dismiss as US proxies, too. Granted, the US support for the PYD is more explicit and tangible than Turkish support for ISIS, but the fact of the matter remains that leaving ISIS alone serves the short term interests of Turkey in Syria in preserving their colonial domination of the Kurdish regions, and their political and economic expansion in the Arab world.

[KurtFF8]

http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/1055/isis.html (the original article which first mentions their position on the Islamic State)

Also says later on that Assad and the Kurds are the main enemies of the Turkish government. That's about it. Perhaps they could answer if the issue was brought up to them.

It seems that they just have a very confused position here.

Take these contradictory sentiments:


It goes without saying that we internationalist communists are die-hard enemies of the ultra-reactionary social and political program of ISIS, whose methods of rooting out “apostates” amount to mass slaughter. We condemn communal atrocities on all sides. ISIS is itself the imperialists’ creation, having emerged out of the intercommunal slaughter triggered by the U.S. occupation. It counts as precursors those who cut their teeth as jihadis in the CIA-backed war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Washington could very well switch to supporting ISIS under certain conditions—for example, against the Assad regime in Syria, which is decidedly not a part of the U.S. military alliance despite its best efforts.


But ISIS today is in battle against the local tools of U.S. imperialism, the main enemy of the world’s working people. A setback for the U.S. in Syria might give pause to Washington in its military adventures, including by encouraging opposition at home.

And the absurdity of this sentiment:

Championing the Kurds in the current conflict can only mean lending support to imperialist plunder.

So they claim that championing the Kurds quest for self determination (mostly led by actual left wing revolutionary forces by the way) can only lead to "imperialist plunder" while at the same time "critically" supporting the group that explicitly wants to commit genocide against the Kurdish population. Give me a break.

I guess these absurd politics really flow from the ultra sectarian formulations from groups like this that always focus on trying to distinguish your line from other left wing groups because we all know that that's the most important thing to do!

We can see this in this very article you've posted for example:

Thus, the New Anti-Capitalist Party in France and some leaders of the Left Party in Germany (not to mention the bourgeois German Greens) have called on their respective capitalist governments to arm the Kurds in Kobani.

So to me it's almost just a contrarian position. A weak attempt to bash other left wing groups and (as usual) focus on attacking other left groups instead of focusing on building your own organization. Only in this case, they're calling for the left to support a reactionary group that is openly at war with left wing groups in the very region the article is about.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I largely agree with sentiments in the above two posts about the ICL position on "U.S. proxies" in the region, which is my biggest criticism of the ICL article. Other details I disagree with, but I don't really wish to debate them out.

[Le Libérer]

FYI-

Board Policy (http://www.revleft.com/vb/policy-endorsement-daesh-t194996/index.html) on support of Daesh

[CyM]

Good reminder. Apologists for fascism have no place on this platform. And fascism comes in forms that don't necessarily display a swastika.

[Rudolf]

So is the ICL in effect banned from revleft now? 'cause it does sound like apologism to me.

[VivalaCuarta]

Not surprising that the imperialist apologist "leftists" who run this board would resort to such measures. Just for the record, let me state that I oppose banning or otherwise censoring ICL supporters or anyone else on these fake anti-fascist (really cravenly pro-imperialist) grounds.

I will also note that I am not a supporter of the ICL, which I view as having capitulated to the pressures of imperialism and its "death of communism" propaganda, and that I agree with the following quote from a recent Internationalist article (http://www.internationalist.org/democratsandersaboardthewaronterrorbandwagon1512.h tml):


While Sanders supports Obama’s bombing war, Trotskyists call for working-class action to drive the U.S. and NATO from the Middle East, understanding that all real blows against the imperialist aggressor forces (even by reactionaries such as the Sunni I.S. or Iraqi Shiite militias) are in the interests of the workers and oppressed, and siding with Syria and Russian forces against U.S./NATO attack.

[KurtFF8]

Not surprising that the imperialist apologist "leftists" who run this board would resort to such measures

Who here has apologized for imperialism?

You're not really trying to say that opposing Daesh means you support imperialism are you?

[Rudolf]

Not surprising that the imperialist apologist "leftists" who run this board would resort to such measures.


Wait, revleft is run by apologists of imperialism? I didn't know that. Any proof?

[Fourth Internationalist]

You're not really trying to say that opposing Daesh means you support imperialism are you?

VivalaCuarta did not say that, nor is it the position of the ICL or the LFI. Their position is that if someone, anybody, attacks the imperialists, it is necessarily a good thing even if everything else they do is wrong. So if a Shiite militia were to down a U.S. drone, that single action is good even if they do it for entirely the wrong, most reactionary reasons. That's their position, I believe. The ICL is particularly sloppy in its writing on this issue, to a point of being very wrong on a number of things.

[VivalaCuarta]

There are certain holy and just wars, wars for great ideals like freedom, anti-fascism, etc., against enemies so vile that, given thousands of years in an alternative universe, they might approach the bloody record of imperialist depravity, wars in which the bourgeoisie has made it clear that all revolutionary respectable leftists must demonstrate their respectability and observe reasonable limits of decorum and all-around good taste. This is one of those wars. The rules must be enforced. Civilization is at stake.

[Rudolf]

There are certain holy and just wars, wars for great ideals like freedom, anti-fascism, etc., against enemies so vile that, given thousands of years in an alternative universe, they might approach the bloody record of imperialist depravity, wars in which the bourgeoisie has made it clear that all revolutionary respectable leftists must demonstrate their respectability and observe reasonable limits of decorum and all-around good taste. This is one of those wars. The rules must be enforced. Civilization is at stake.


I'll take that as a no then.

Do you think the bourgeoisie gives a fuck? We are all irrelevant and our irrelevancy has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not someone supports this or that imperialist war or has a weird kneejerk reaction of supporting some reactionary fucks just because the US is bombing them this week.

[Armchair Partisan]

It's a bit sad that we have come to the point that we have to be actively reminded not to apologize for Da'esh.:grin: Nonetheless, while I oppose everything and anything Da'esh has stood for, ever, and would not ever dream of defending them even in the slightest, I am worried about the explicit threatening tone of the thread that proclaimed this policy. It just never is a good sign IMO when I have to be afraid of making certain types of post, and I am worried that like loosely defined "blank cheque" laws IRL that can be used to detain anyone if necessary, so is this policy likely to become an excuse to ban people based on emotional reactions or (worse yet) personal grudges. Would it, for example, be forbidden to claim that Da'esh is not fascist, but another kind of ultra-reactionary and particularly hateful far-right formation? (Not saying it is or isn't.) Or to defend the ICL while disagreeing with their policy on Da'esh? (Not saying I wish to.) Or to say that there are greater threats to the working class movement of the Middle East than Da'esh? (Very much not saying that either.)

I mean, the most worrying part, perhaps, is how it's phrased that "any form of apologism" is bannable. Sounds sensible, except that is a very loose definition, especially on Revleft, where hyperbole runs so rampant in the flamewars that pass for debates in some threads that "apologism for [insert something bad here]" is a relatively mild insult compared to the average standards. Can we trust our admins (all of them!) to be more reasoned in this regard?

And with that, I bow out of the thread.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I think the new policy should extend to all people who sympathize with any groups that """supports""" any form of Islamism. We'd have a lot more people to ban ;)

As said earlier:


I think it's pretty telling that this thread even exists, as it is clearly nothing other than a deliberate attempt to tendency troll based on what has gone down in another thread. In the learning forum no less! But as anybody who has been here long enough knows, this sort of thing is okay depending on whether you support the tendency that is popular among the circle of people who reign over the forum.

It's no secret that in the past I have been critical of the way the SL phrases its position on ISIS. I do think it is rich, though, when they are being criticized by somebody in the IMT for supporting "Islamic fascists" (Really? CyM, if you want to consider yourself a Trotskyist, you might want to learn what fascism actually is instead of recycling right-wing phrases like Islamo-fascism.).

If the ICL expressing support for military setbacks on western imperialism inflicted by ISIS is support, then the Militant's press on what they called "the Iranian revolution" which was LED clearly by the Ayatollah's is a full-throated endorsement of reaction. http://www.marxist.com/iranian-revolution-grant090279.htm

And what about Afghanistan? While the SL is routinely mocked here for hailing the red army and brandishing the achievements of various stalinist stooges in advancing the quality of life of women, the Grantites were clear where they stood:

"The Russian intervention in Afghanistan must be condemned, despite its progressive aspects, because it is spitting at the opinions of the world working class."

https://www.marxists.org/archive/grant/1980/01/afghanistan.htm

Do you disavow these positions CyM, or do you support what by your own contention are "islamic fascists," too? On questions of class principle, you buckled then just as on the anti-imperialism question - THE class-line question of the age - you are buckling to popular opinion now in the name of fighting the "anti civilization fascist Islamic savages."

I think this clears up how principled these attacks are on the SL for "supporting islamic fascists" really are, in case it wasn't already clear why this thread exists in the first place.

Such actual support to Islamists applies to more groups than just the IMT but also to the CWI and other groups which people on this forum are actually a part of.

[Rudolf]

It's a bit sad that we have come to the point that we have to be actively reminded not to apologize for Da'esh.:grin: Nonetheless, while I oppose everything and anything Da'esh has stood for, ever, and would not ever dream of defending them even in the slightest, I am worried about the explicit threatening tone of the thread that proclaimed this policy. It just never is a good sign IMO when I have to be afraid of making certain types of post,

There's various kinds of posts you can't make though. You're not going to accidentally oppose abortions so why this?



Would it, for example, be forbidden to claim that Da'esh is not fascist, but another kind of ultra-reactionary and particularly hateful far-right formation? (Not saying it is or isn't.)

Let's see shall we?

Im not sure if IS are fascist. Im of the view that fascism has the concept of a national rebirth but ive not heard this about IS. May be it's my ignorance or this is to do with the specifics of the area, it being the spoils of war ~a century ago, so considering the states in the area lack the historic legitimacy of those you find in Europe for example that palingenetic ultranationalism appears different.

Eitherway, they're reactionaries engaging in state-formation.

[Armchair Partisan]

There's various kinds of posts you can't make though. You're not going to accidentally oppose abortions so why this?

My point was that (unlike with abortion) "apologism" for something is pretty vague, considering that it's often brought up as a hyperbolic accusation even when there is no apologia of any sort occurring. Maybe I'm overreacting here, I guess.


Let's see shall we?

Im not sure if IS are fascist. Im of the view that fascism has the concept of a national rebirth but ive not heard this about IS. May be it's my ignorance or this is to do with the specifics of the area, it being the spoils of war ~a century ago, so considering the states in the area lack the historic legitimacy of those you find in Europe for example that palingenetic ultranationalism appears different.

Well, we could say that the Caliphate as an institution serves as a "national rebirth myth" of sorts, although the 'nation' as a concept would probably be used differently here since the Islamic State doesn't want a classic European-style nation-state; they want dominion over all the Muslims of the world, and more. They're certainly an odd little formation.

[Sharia Lawn]

Good reminder. Apologists for fascism have no place on this platform. And fascism comes in forms that don't necessarily display a swastika.

It's a good thing this reminder is being made and "policy" being instituted. The forum almost showed minimal brainwaves on its EEG reading, so it was important to yank the plug before additional signs of life. Nice administrating!

[Le Libérer]

It's a good thing this reminder is being made and "policy" being instituted. The forum almost showed minimal brainwaves on its EEG reading, so it was important to yank the plug before additional signs of life. Nice administrating!

I detect a hint of snarkiness.

Why would a reminder upset you so much?

[CyM]

Isis, like classical fascism, was born of the defeat of the revolution. Islamism in general the defeat of the left national liberation movement in the Arab world, which took the deformed form of officers' coups and Stalinist states. Isis itself, the defeat of the Arab spring revolution.

Loosen up and don't get bogged down in the details of the past forms of fascism. At its base, it is an armed militia that smashes the working class and imposes ultraconservativism everywhere it goes. It has a fanatical following and carries out sectarian mass genocide to roll back everything that has ever been gained by the workers.

Syria was one of those Stalinist regimes until they took the Chinese road and privatized. But at least it was a mostly secular country where even the Muslims got drunk. Anyways. Saudi Arabia was not. A tribal society that found oil and an alliance with the west that would ensure the country would never shift.

It is no accident that, like the Czar financing the Black Hundred fascists in Russia, Saudi Arabia's royal family are the ones behind the fascist gangs that fought the soviets in Afghanistan as well as the ones fighting to bring the country back to the middle ages in Syria.

That being said, no one should believe an invasion would solve this problem. You're free to disagree on whether Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was any less doomed from the start.

[Sharia Lawn]

Isis, like classical fascism, was born of the defeat of the revolution. Islamism in general the defeat of the left national liberation movement in the Arab world, which took the deformed form of officers' coups and Stalinist states. Isis itself, the defeat of the Arab spring revolution.

Loosen up and don't get bogged down in the details of the past forms of fascism. At its base, it is an armed militia that smashes the working class and imposes ultraconservativism everywhere it goes. It has a fanatical following and carries out sectarian mass genocide to roll back everything that has ever been gained by the workers.

"Classical" fascism was borne of the defeat of the revolution. In fact, that is one of the essential and necessary defining features of fascism: that it functions as a middle-class-based bourgeois sop to salvaging capitalism in the face of massive and organized workers' insurrections. Hence the need to resort to extra-judicial violence and the need to counter it with force, no-platform policies, and so on. The islamic reactionaries in Syria who've adopted the IS brand do not have the same function. Only if you strip away Trotsky's materialist understanding of fascism, and focus on surface appearances involving conservative policies, does it make sense to call the IS fascist. If you don't understand this, and you've called yourself a Trotskyist for years, you're missing a big chunk out of the toolbox Trotskyists generally learn quite early in their political education.


It is no accident that, like the Czar financing the Black Hundred fascists in Russia, Saudi Arabia's royal family are the ones behind the fascist gangs that fought the soviets in Afghanistan as well as the ones fighting to bring the country back to the middle ages in Syria.

That being said, no one should believe an invasion would solve this problem. You're free to disagree on whether Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was any less doomed from the start.So I repeat: did you support the position of the IMT? Do you support their call for the Soviets to withdraw and give free reign to what you call "fascists"? Sounds like a clear example of a violation of your own policy.

Simply saying that the Soviets were doomed to fail must mean that people here who are accused of "supporting IS" in terms of anti-US military strikes can just invoke the doomed nature of US intervention as their own excuse. Something tells me that won't be viewed favorably by the reigning monarchs here.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

truly this is a Great Moment in Leftism

[CyM]

The white guilt tourists of "anti-imperialism" speak to the Syrian people as if Isis represents them. Or represents some sort of "resistance to imperialism" when they were financed and armed by imperialism and imported from Saudi Arabia and turkey in its early stages.

The white guilt tourist contorts himself into supporting Isis and Assad as both being anti-imperialist resistance to imperialism. The white guilt tourist gets his jollies by supporting two bloodsoaked sides in a bloody civil war and pointing to America to excuse him.

In the end, he does not see the mass strikes that marked the final days of the Ben Ali regime, and the Moubarak regime, and the Morsi regime. One after the other fell due to mass working class action as well as a movement of the petit bourgeois masses and the youth.

In Libya, the Americans stepped in as soon as the ground began trembling and helicoptered in their chosen factions to take over the movement and brought islamists to power with their bombs. In syria, they tried the same thing. And Isis emerged out of the "moderate rebels" they armed and financed. Till they lost control, as the bourgeois always do with the fascists.

The white guilt tourist fails to see our counterrevolutionary fascist militias for what they are because the white guilt tourist doesn't do our revolution the respect of reading it and analyzing it as well as he's analyzed the Spanish, German, and Italian revolutions and their butchers.

[Sharia Lawn]

The white guilt tourists of "anti-imperialism" speak to the Syrian people as if Isis represents them. Or represents some sort of "resistance to imperialism" when they were financed and armed by imperialism and imported from Saudi Arabia and turkey in its early stages.

The white guilt tourist contorts himself into supporting Isis and Assad as both being anti-imperialist resistance to imperialism. The white guilt tourist gets his jollies by supporting two bloodsoaked sides in a bloody civil war and pointing to America to excuse him.

In the end, he does not see the mass strikes that marked the final days of the Ben Ali regime, and the Moubarak regime, and the Morsi regime. One after the other fell due to mass working class action as well as a movement of the petit bourgeois masses and the youth.

In Libya, the Americans stepped in as soon as the ground began trembling and helicoptered in their chosen factions to take over the movement and brought islamists to power with their bombs. In syria, they tried the same thing. And Isis emerged out of the "moderate rebels" they armed and financed. Till they lost control, as the bourgeois always do with the fascists.

The white guilt tourist fails to see our counterrevolutionary fascist militias for what they are because the white guilt tourist doesn't do our revolution the respect of reading it and analyzing it as well as he's analyzed the Spanish, German, and Italian revolutions and their butchers.

Yeah, so I don't see an answer here as to whether you think the IMT's position of yielding Afghanistan to what you called "fascists" was to be supported. I think if this issue is going to be so major that it requires its own policy, complete with gold-lettered announcement, this is a question that should be pursued equally and not used as to bludgeon and purge out sympathzers of a particular tendency.

And, while workers were participants, even decisive ones, in the overthrow of Mubarak, Ben Ali, etc., they never made a push for workers' power, lacking as they did an organized revolutionary socialist leadership. The IS gained support well after the push had receded, and often in sympathy with how the IS is at least nominally attempting to redraw the map that the imperialists have been drawing and redrawing for centuries. Certainly the IS is reactionary, and it is anti-worker, but it is not fascist. Big difference.

[CyM]

Isis is the fascist product of the failure of the Arab Spring revolution. Further back the failure of the mostly Stalinist colonial revolution in the Arab world and the middle east, including Afghanistan. And of course, all along, active imperialist meddling, relying on the only forces they could rely on to defeat our revolutions: the reactionary backward monarchies and tribal cultists.

The white guilt tourist can't come out and say this, talk about barbarism, only because in the back of his head Isis is a part of our middle eastern traditions. It's not. From the PFLP in Palestine, to the Communist party in Lebanon, to the stalinists baath in Syria and Iran, to the communist government in south yemen, to the worker's councils in the iranian revolution before the islamists conquered it and drowned them in blood, to the nationalization movement in Egypt and Libya, to the Afghan saur revolution botched by top down methods including Soviet invasion, secular left wing forces were the dominant tradition in the middle East.

White Hicks brought middle eastern Hicks the success they have now. Backwards scum, the fascist lumpen and rural petty bourgeois, that is what Isis is.

They'll be wiped out. But by the masses themselves. Not imperialist intervention.

[Sharia Lawn]

Isis is the fascist product of the failure of the Arab Spring revolution. Further back the failure of the mostly Stalinist colonial revolution in the Arab world and the middle east, including Afghanistan. And of course, all along, active imperialist meddling, relying on the only forces they could rely on to defeat our revolutions: the reactionary backward monarchies and tribal cultists.

The white guilt tourist can't come out and say this, talk about barbarism, only because in the back of his head Isis is a part of our middle eastern traditions. It's not. From the PFLP in Palestine, to the Communist party in Lebanon, to the stalinists baath in Syria and Iran, to the communist government in south yemen, to the worker's councils in the iranian revolution before the islamists conquered it and drowned them in blood, to the nationalization movement in Egypt and Libya, to the Afghan said revolution botched by top down methods including Soviet invasion, secular left wing forces were the dominant tradition in the middle East.

White Hicks brought middle eastern Hicks the success they have now. Backwards scum, the fascist lumpen and rural petty bourgeois, that is what Isis is.

They'll be wiped out. But by the masses themselves. Not imperialist intervention.

You're not going to answer the question posed to you of the IMT's desire to leave Afghanis, particularly Afghan women, to the tender mercies of what you call the "fascists," are you? Twice now and you've delivered some weird performance-art-style prose about imagined "white guilt tourists."

[CyM]

Withdrawal from Afghanistan is debatable. I've made clear my opinion that foreign intervention was not the proper approach in Afghanistan, as the top down nature of the revolution meant they never won the countryside. And the invaders coming in would just be recognized as invaders by people who had no idea what the fight was in Kabul.

If you'd bothered reading the article you're critiquing you'd know this. But just as objecting to war on syria is not the same as supporting Isis, neither is objecting to Soviet invasion the same as supporting the Taliban.

You're only confused about this because your own "anti-imperialist" position automatically dogmatically puts you in the position of wishing for Isis military victories. And therefore you can't see a way that someone could object to tankies bombing Afghanistan without that objector also supporting the Mujahedeen.

[Sharia Lawn]

Withdrawal from Afghanistan is debatable. I've made clear my opinion that foreign intervention was not the proper approach in Afghanistan, as the top down nature of the revolution meant they never won the countryside. And the invaders coming in would just be recognized as invaders by people who had no idea what the fight was in Kabul.

If you'd bothered reading the article you're critiquing you'd know this. But just as objecting to war on syria is not the same as supporting Isis, neither is objecting to Soviet invasion the same as supporting the Taliban.

You're only confused about this because your own "anti-imperialist" position automatically dogmatically puts you in the position of wishing for Isis military victories. And therefore you can't see a way that someone could object to tankies bombing Afghanistan without that objector also supporting the Mujahedeen.

I've read the article. You can gussy up your position with a lot of provisos and details, but the reality is that - yes - you supported leaving Afghan women at the mercy of what you call "fascists."

That you don't understand what fascism is, and mistake populist movements in which workers are an organized component with actual socialist movements, is very much linked to this idea that the lack of a "classical" revolution in Afghanistan meant that the Soviets were not capable of absorbing that country as another of its central asian republics. The reason it failed was the pressure of imperialism, including the pressure brought to bear through "socialists" such as yourself. In your analysis of fascism and Afghanistan, politics takes a backseat to movementism, where the masses in action is the be-all and end-all. Impressionism then, impressionism now.

[CyM]

I don't think a voluntary socialist federation of the working class of all peoples can be built at the barrel of a mig. Tankies may disagree. It is not forbidden to be a tankie here, even if you think you're a trot while doing it. But that's a legitimate debate to have. Lenin and Trotsky withdrew from Poland and finland in spite of the fascists threats.

What is not up for debate is whether anyone should cheer victories by fascists, whether in Syria and Iraq, or Germany and Italy.

[VivalaCuarta]

Goddamn it I know what fascism is.

Fascism is the "axis of evil," right? Axis, evil, and everyone on TV says they are worse than Hitler, who was definitely a fascist. Connect the dots.

It's okay to disagree with some imperialist policies guys, but Obama and CNN have made the rules clear here, some enemies are just pure evil. Translate that into leftist language, and they are fascist.

[Sharia Lawn]

I don't think a voluntary socialist federation of the working class of all peoples can be built at the barrel of a mig.

Not any kind of socialism can be built at the barrel of a gun. That's sort of the point of Marx's vision of socialism -- it was to be a liberated society, not a labor camp. The issue of Afghanistan wasn't whether the Stalinists were going to invade and start building socialism. Hell, they were pushing back hard in the opposite direction in the Soviet Union itself. The issue was whether the workers' conquests of 1917, namely the expropriation of the bourgeoisie, would be expanded, against the ideal plans of the Soviet bureaucracy, to encompass a larger part of the globe.


Tankies may disagree. It is not forbidden to be a tankie here, even if you think you're a trot while doing it. But that's a legitimate debate to have.This, from the person who affiliates with a group that thought Nasser's Egypt and Baathist Syria were workers' state. I am beginning to wonder if you even know the history of your own organization. Based on the snarky comments you keep making about other political traditions, I don't think you do. But then, it's not forbidden to be a social democrat here, even if you think you're a Trotskyist while doing it.


Lenin and Trotsky withdrew from Poland and finland in spite of the fascists threats.Not because they were buckling to bourgeois world opinion.


What is not up for debate is whether anyone should cheer victories by fascists, whether in Syria and Iraq, or Germany and Italy.Of course not, but this begs the question of what fascism is -- not to mention, who is 'cheering' fascism anywhere.

[Emmett Till]

I don't think a voluntary socialist federation of the working class of all peoples can be built at the barrel of a mig. Tankies may disagree. It is not forbidden to be a tankie here, even if you think you're a trot while doing it. But that's a legitimate debate to have. Lenin and Trotsky withdrew from Poland and finland in spite of the fascists threats.

What is not up for debate is whether anyone should cheer victories by fascists, whether in Syria and Iraq, or Germany and Italy.

The only definition of "tankie" I've ever seen is supporter of the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956, and maybe the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968. Trotskyists who have supported either are nonexistent except for the Marcyites, whom few even consider Trotskyist these days.

Or do you mean somebody who ever supported Soviet tanks anywhere? How about Stalingrad? Is anybody who supported the Soviet Red Tank Army vs. the Nazi Blitzkrieg a "tankie"? If so, anyone who is not a "tankie" should be banned from Revleft forthwith.

The withdrawal from Finland,or rather the recognition of Finnish independence in 1918, while whatever military aid practical was still being sent to the Finnish Reds, was actually officialized by the then Soviet Commissioner of Nationalities, one J. V. Stalin.

As for Poland, you totally have it backwards. The Red Army was militarily defeated by Pilsudski. The Red Army was not withdrawn from Poland, it was chased out. Lenin supported bringing the revolution to Poland at bayonet point enthusiastically, and Trotsky was the commander in chief.

It could be argued that the experiment was a mistake, but that is merely tactics. According to Trotsky, the invasion would have succeeded except for Stalin's insubordination. Stalin, the commissar for the southern front in the Russo-Polish war, was more interested in liberating Ukraine, where you had a Soviet republic already, than Poland where you did not, so he refused to redeploy his forces against Warsaw instead of against Lviv/Lvov/Lodz, then as now the main city in western Ukraine.

Which he did succeed in capturing by the way, and I can assure you the withdrawal was quite involuntary.

[CyM]

Syria was a deformed worker's state. It was the Soviet Union of the middle East, with a huge bureaucracy and a nationalized planned economy. It had a five hour work day, free healthcare and free university education even for people coming from across the middle East to study at a decent quality university in Damascus. Just like Russia, it had secret police and it had people disappearing in the middle of the night but the "baath style" "socialism" is no different from "socialism with Chinese characteristics" or "north Korean characteristics". Hell, it even began as a relatively healthy underground party, although without Marxist ideas. When the military wing took over, they rounded up the student members and all the branches in Damascus revolted before being smashed.

You've never been to Syria and have no idea what its history is.

Nasser was a bourgeois bonapartist who leaned heavily on the workers, a left bonapartist military officer. He came very close to nationalizing the entire economy, as Syria did. He even asked for technicians from the USSR to carry it out but was discouraged by Brezhnev because the Stalinists in Moscow didn't want to rattle the west. He was, in spite of wiping out communists and baathists, considered to be a bourgeois revolutionary hero who led a national liberation movement and made a botched top down effort for an arab federation.

It is, frankly, alarming that you have no problem critiquing these elements of our history, but find it so hard to see Isis for the counterrevolutionary scum that it is. Especially when contrasted with such a brilliant history as the rise and fall of the colonial revolution and the revolutionary left mass movements of the middle East.

[Sharia Lawn]

Syria was a deformed worker's state. It was the Soviet Union of the middle East, with a huge bureaucracy and a nationalized planned economy. It had a five hour work day, free healthcare and free university education even for people coming from across the middle East to study at a decent quality university in Damascus. Just like Russia, it had secret police and it had people disappearing in the middle of the night but the "baath style" "socialism" is no different from "socialism with Chinese characteristics" or "north Korean characteristics". Hell, it even began as a relatively healthy underground party, although without Marxist ideas. When the military wing took over, they rounded up the student members and all the branches in Damascus revolted before being smashed.

You've never been to Syria and have no idea what its history is.

Nasser was a bourgeois bonapartist who leaned heavily on the workers, a left bonapartist military officer. He came very close to nationalizing the entire economy, as Syria did. He even asked for technicians from the USSR to carry it out but was discouraged by Brezhnev because the Stalinists in Moscow didn't want to rattle the west. He was, in spite of wiping out communists and baathists, considered to be a bourgeois revolutionary hero who led a national liberation movement and made a botched top down effort for an arab federation.

It is, frankly, alarming that you have no problem critiquing these elements of our history, but find it so hard to see Isis for the counterrevolutionary scum that it is. Especially when contrasted with such a brilliant history as the rise and fall of the colonial revolution and the revolutionary left mass movements of the middle East.

Not all counter-revolutionary scum is fascist. IS is counter-revolutionary. It is not fascist, as I explained earlier.

Now, my point in bringing up Nasser and Baathist Syria is that your preaching about socialism not coming at the barrel of the gun (used to justify your folding on the Afghanistan question) doesn't sit easily with your tendency's propensity for finding workers' states in the unlikeliest of places. Don't play "more-democratic-than-thou" games while your tendency's qualified support for bureaucratized dictatorships far exceeds those of practically any other tendency on the forum, including actual Stalinists.

Out of curiosity, if those were deformed workers' states established by a social overturn, when was the counter-revolution in those states? When did Syria and Egypt become capitalist again?

And none of this even gets to the question of the IMT's actual support for the ayatollah-led revolution in Iran. Pretty reactionary stuff, and with a "fascist" leadership (by your definition) to boot.

[CyM]

Tankies in the internet age=the fetishization of Soviet military paraphernalia, to the point of not even being able to admit that soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan was absolutely necessary. I'm not opposed to the red army entering eastern Europe on the back of a defensive war and a wave of revulsion at the Nazis. Everywhere the red army went, they were greeted as liberators (though of course the perversion of stalinist demonization of Germans can be seen here too). This is absolutely not the case in Afghanistan. No support existed for the entry of the red army. They created a trap for themselves and the Americans used it.

Disagreement on this tactical question is perfectly fine, and no one can claim that opposing Soviet intervention equates to supporting the mujahideen anymore than opposing American bombs over Syria makes you a supporter of Isis.

Supporting Isis is not necessary to opposing the war on Syria. You equate the two, and so it is no surprise you equate opposition to the afghan war with supporting Islamist because that's what you're doing here with Syria.

You don't have a principled anti-war position. And that leads to all sorts of contortions and the confusion of backing fascism.

[Sharia Lawn]

Disagreement on this tactical question is perfectly fine, and no one can claim that opposing Soviet intervention equates to supporting the mujahideen anymore than opposing American bombs over Syria makes you a supporter of Isis.

Oh, dear. The Soviet Union did not create the Mujahideen. Imperialism did, and the Soviets were not imperialist. Imperialism also created IS, albeit in a slightly less direct way. Your analogy fails because it does not take this into account.

[CyM]

Egypt was not a worker's state. Syria was, and returned to capitalism following the Chinese road and selling the state industry to themselves beginning in the late nineties and completing some time during the early 2000s. Just like the Chinese bureaucracy with hong kong, they became millionaires by carving out economic interests in their little experimental capitalist sandbox in the occupation of Lebanon over a period spanning since after the Lebanese civil war to the early 2000s.

As for socialism at the barrel of a gun, I said the barrel of a mig. I don't believe in predatory wars, even if carried out by a "socialist bureaucracy". Even the Tibetan invasion had popular support. The afghan invasion did not. The military bureaucracy in Kabul failed to go out to the country and spread news of the revolution to an illiterate people with zero communication to the center. When the red army arrived, the countryside knew nothing about the revolution and invasion except what the islamists and the Americans told them:

Foreigners have come, defend yourselves.

This is a shit situation to send the red army into, and no power in the heavens could have saved the Soviets from bloody defeat in the mountains of this never conquered country. Not even their migs in the heavens.

As for the definition of fascism, it's not at all a debate. But just like you can't see Arab stalinism because it breaks your very dogmatic view of historical processes, you also can't see our fascists. It's like our uniforms confuse you. Isis didn't have Armani to design their clothing. But if you look past the surface, you'll see fascist death squads no different from any other in history. The only thing missing is the mass base, which they do not have.

They represent nothing but themselves, and will be buried by the revolutionary masses, who should place no hope in the foreign powers that created them. The revolution will need to sweep Isis aside, along with Erdogan and the Saudi royals, who are long overdue for their date with the guillotine.

[CyM]

Oh, dear. The Soviet Union did not create the Mujahideen. Imperialism did, and the Soviets were not imperialist. Imperialism also created IS, albeit in a slightly less direct way. Your analogy fails because it does not take this into account.

Irrelevant side detail. The Soviets had no chance in Afghanistan. And the invasion, carried out first through a palace coup inside the afghan communists, was so hamfisted that it actually served as a catalyst for counterrevolution.

[Sharia Lawn]

Egypt was not a worker's state. Syria was, and returned to capitalism following the Chinese road and selling the state industry to themselves beginning in the late nineties and completing some time during the early 2000s. Just like the Chinese bureaucracy with hong kong, they became millionaires by carving out economic interests in their little experimental capitalist sandbox in the occupation of Lebanon over a period spanning since after the Lebanese civil war to the early 2000s.

As for socialism at the barrel of a gun, I said the barrel of a mig. I don't believe in predatory wars, even if carried out by a "socialist bureaucracy". Even the Tibetan invasion had popular support. The afghan invasion did not. The military bureaucracy in Kabul failed to go out to the country and spread news of the revolution to an illiterate people with zero communication to the center. When the red army arrived, the countryside knew nothing about the revolution and invasion except what the islamists and the Americans told them:

Foreigners have come, defend yourselves.

This is a shit situation to send the red army into, and no power in the heavens could have saved the Soviets from bloody defeat in the mountains of this never conquered country. Not even their migs in the heavens.

As for the definition of fascism, it's not at all a debate. But just like you can't see Arab stalinism because it breaks your very dogmatic view of historical processes, you also can't see our fascists. It's like our uniforms confuse you. Isis didn't have Armani to design their clothing. But if you look past the surface, you'll see fascist death squads no different from any other in history. The only thing missing is the mass base, which they do not have.

They represent nothing but themselves, and will be buried by the revolutionary masses, who should place no hope in the foreign powers that created them. The revolution will need to sweep Isis aside, along with Erdogan and the Saudi royals, who are long overdue for their date with the guillotine.

I have no idea, honestly, what about 85% of this post is supposed to be responding to, as it reads like something of a tantrum directed against no one in particular and tilting at arguments made by nobody in the thread.

On the one issue of substance, you are right. I misspoke. In the Grant tradition Egypt was technically not a workers' state under Nasser, but a form of bonapartism just slightly on the side of capitalism. Syria was, however, in their estimation a workers' state, and I would love to know when that counterrevolution occurred.

I would also note that Ted Grant thought that the April coup in Afghanistan in 1978, totally a stalinist contrivance, established a workers' state there. This makes their position on Soviet withdrawal even more contradictory and reactionary. Interestingly, the ICL, which has strangely become the focus of the Board Administration's sniper scope, never considered Afghanistan a workers' state.

[Sharia Lawn]

Irrelevant side detail. The Soviets had no chance in Afghanistan. And the invasion, carried out first through a palace coup inside the afghan communists, was so hamfisted that it actually served as a catalyst for counterrevolution.

And your basis for making this claim about no chance for success is what? Honestly. You think the US was funneling millions in weapons and logistical support to the Mujahideen because the Soviets' chances were so slim that their defeat was a foregone conclusion. The history of Afghanistan from the Daud regime to the ouster of Najibullah is something I happen to know quite a lot about, and I will keep this short by just saying you are so incredibly wrong.

[CyM]

I have banned Emmett Till and Anglo-Saxon Philistine for fascist apologism in this thread.

[Le Libérer]

After being warned, banned Fourth Internationalist, VivalaCuarta, and Sharia Lawn for violating the anti-fa policy of this board.

[parallax]

I approve this purge. Nice work. I couldn't have done it any better myself.

[Guardia Rossa]

Holy Mother of Tod.

[CyM]

Our no platform policy is not a joke.

[parallax]

Yes, absolutely no platform for revolutionaries.

[Guardia Rossa]

I just hope that we don't get that many purges, I mean, if you ban some 5 more people like: Tim, TFU, Q, Luís and Rafiq, this forum will be more empty of content than it's offsprings.

[Le Libérer]

I just hope that we don't get that many purges, I mean, if you ban some 5 more people like Tim, TFU, Q, Luís or Rafiq, this forum will be more empty of content than it's offsprings.

Thanks for the concern, but we have handled massive purges before.

[parallax]

Thanks for the concern, but we have handled massive purges before.

If by "handled," you mean decimated the active poster population, which has now been whittled down even more dramatically. BTW, do you accept ISIS dinar currency to cover the 32.50 shortage?

[Le Libérer]

If by "handled," you mean decimated the active poster population, which has now been whittled down even more dramatically.

No thats not what I mean by handled. Don't put words in my mouth.

[Guardia Rossa]

"Handled" by becoming a living joke.

Even the degenerate offsprings are making fun of Revleft

[Le Libérer]

"Handled" by becoming a living joke.

Even the degenerate offsprings are making fun of Revleft

Stop derailing this thread.- 1st warning.

If you want to whine, PM an admin.

[Guardia Rossa]

Just ban me. Might help;

[Le Libérer]

Just ban me. Might help;

Banned per user request.

[Invader Zim]

I'm confused. Is the diktat from the BA that IS are fascists now? Now, don't get me wrong, it has been long due that the weird brand of anti-imperialism which results in support for all and any that the US opposes, be given short thrift. But banning them for supporting fascism? This is ill-conceived, over hastey, and betrays a worrying confusion about what fascism was and is.

[Invader Zim]

Our no platform policy is not a joke.

It is when you betray a total misunderstanding of what fascism is. And you aren't banning people for fascist views, you are banning them for being wrong (and they are wrong) in their position on anti-imperialism.

[CyM]

If you would like to debate whether Daesh is fascist, go ahead, in a separate thread since this has gotten a bit long. That debate is perfectly OK to have if we're on the same page that Daesh victories cannot be celebrated. Our position is that it is a form of fascism and we can't have anyone supporting it. You can disagree that it is fascism, but you can't cheer their victories on this board regardless what you wanna call them.

Not attempting to chill discussion or categorization of social phenomena. But acting as anyone who truly believes Daesh is fascist should. I don't think it's acceptable to support it, I don't care what fancy contortions you come up with to justify it.

It's disturbing that we have to remind people that calling for Daesh victories is completely banned here.

[John Nada]

Aw. I still wondered if workers should side with drug cartels and the mafia. Both anti-communist Frankenstein monsters striking blows to US imperialism and its proxies. Much more successfully too. Or Donald Trump because he's against another reactionary bourgeois faction and has way more support from the "real proletariat" than the entire population of Rojava.:(
"You are dictatorial." My dear sirs, you are right, that is just what we are. All the experience the Chinese people have accumulated through several decades teaches us to enforce the people's democratic dictatorship, that is, to deprive the reactionaries of the right to speak and let the people alone have that right. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-4/mswv4_65.htm
If by "handled," you mean decimated the active poster population, which has now been whittled down even more dramatically. BTW, do you accept ISIS dinar currency to cover the 32.50 shortage?
We must follow the rule: Better fewer, but better. We must follow the rule: Better get good human material in two or even three years than work in haste without hope of getting any at all.Better Fewer, But Better (https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/mar/02.htm)

Hey I'd donate, but all I have is change and cash.:(
I'm confused. Is the diktat from the BA that IS are fascists now? Now, don't get me wrong, it has been long due that the weird brand of anti-imperialism which results in support for all and any that the US opposes, be given short thrift. But banning them for supporting fascism? This is ill-conceived, over hastey, and betrays a worrying confusion about what fascism was and is.Some of them were annoying, and maybe it was harsh. But alas, there's still capitalism, and the owner can do whatever they want, even ban me for grammar errors, because of a hangover, whatever. And if someone came on here arguing that Nazbols and the Golden Dawn aren't fascist because,"You don't know fascism! That's in Germany and Italy. They oppose US imperialism!" I think there would be problems.
It is when you betray a total misunderstanding of what fascism is. And you aren't banning people for fascist views, you are banning them for being wrong (and they are wrong) in their position on anti-imperialism.I'd argue that Daesh does match the discription of fascism, even(especially) Trotsky's. However Dimitrov described something like Daesh:
Fascism aims at the most unbridled exploitation of the masses but it approaches them with the most artful anti-capitalist demagogy, taking advantage of the deep hatred of the working people against the plundering bourgeoisie, the banks, trusts and financial magnates, and advancing those slogans which at the given moment are most alluring to the politically immature masses. In Germany -- "The general welfare is higher than the welfare of the individual," in Italy -- "Our state is not a capitalist, but a corporate state," in Japan -- "For Japan without exploitation," in the United States -- "Share the wealth," and so forth.https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/dimitrov/works/1935/08_02.htm#s2 And there are a lot of socialists in predominately Muslim countries that do consider it fascism.

[Invader Zim]

Fine, though you haven't banned people for celebrating IS victories, you have banned them for being qualified in their opposition to IS. And, generous though your offer to allow us to debate whether IS is fascist, you on the BA, have already formed policy based on the wholly ignorant assumption that they are. In other words, you have banned people for supporting 'fascism', yet collectively you don't know what fascism is. The BA is plainly an echo-chamber at this point.

[CyM]

The membership will keep us honest. Believe me, a decision like this is not an easy one and we have done what we believe to be right.

There is no thirst to shut down debate. But I think the line of saying that every blow struck by Isis is a victory for us is just one line too far. I don't think anyone can defend such nonsense and remain here.

Pluralism has its limits.

[Armchair Partisan]

I'm just going to say right now: I called this out yesterday. I called this shit out.

I probably shouldn't say much more: despite what CyM says above, it seems the membership tends to be banned when they try to keep the BA honest, and I have no interest in becoming a martyr.

[Invader Zim]

The membership will keep you honest? When has it in the past? These purges are never honest. And we now find ourselves in the ludicrous situation in which people who do not support IS, but take a qualified "lesser of two evils" position are banned, yet Stalinists and Maoists, who uphold regimes many more tines more brutal than IS and just as reactionary are free to post.

This decision was poor, inconsistent, and manifestly all too easy. Each of these purges serves only to ruin this board.

If you think these individuals are wrong, then show it by tearing up their arguments.

[Luís Henrique]

The key problem with this discussion is that it is predicated, on both "sides", on the idea that we can somehow defeat imperialism by cheering against it.

There is only one correct position for communists in the central countries: to oppose intervention, never mind how awful the forces against which intervention is intended are. That is not because Daesh or the YPG or Assad or those mysterious "moderate rebels" that only Obama and his administration seem able to see are anti-imperialist, but because an imperialist intervention is, well, imperialist. Duh.

Opposing intervention isn't supporting Daesh or Assad, and it is not cheering for those political forces. It is simply fighting against the deployment of American (or British, or French, etc) troops to the region, the bombing of military or civilian targets there, the use of planes to establish no-fly zones, the funding of any of the many sides of the conflict, or sales of weapons to them.

The positions here are kind of wagging the dog. The centre of proletarian politics isn't in backward areas where industrialisation has been arrested by Dutch disease, where the proletariat is weak and unorganised, where the class isn't even constituted as a class. The centre of proletarian politics is in the central areas of capitalism, where a working class is able to minimally self-determine as a political agent. That is to say, Daesh or Assad, or even the YPG winning over their opponents, even if that includes shooting down a few American planes, killing a couple of British spies, or sinking a French destroyer, will not and can not inspire the western proletariat to take action against the western bourgeoisie. Conversely, though, the western proletariat being able to make intervention politically inviable will perhaps inspire the proletariat in the Middle East to organise as an independent political force.

We have to do our duties. Daesh, like the Argentinian Junta, or Vargas, or Hizballah or the People Republic of Donetsk, or Gaddafy, cannot do them for us.

Luís Henrique

[CyM]

This is a two sided struggle. In the west against the front national politics of imperialist reactionaries, and in the middle East against the feudal reactionaries as well as essentially all sides in this conflict.

[Luís Henrique]

This is what i don't get. Even if we're to consider IS as the only non-US backed force in the region (although what about Assad?) we have to acknowledge that IS has links with Turkey and thus the military alliance of western imperialism (nato).

Obviously, even the proxiest proxies aren't just proxies, and will try and undermine their overlords when and if possible and advantageous.

ISIS are proxies of Turkey and Saudi Arabia, which in turn are both proxies of the US. Backstabbing isn't above any of them. Backstabbing also doesn't mean that they magically become something else than proxies.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

VivalaCuarta did not say that, nor is it the position of the ICL or the LFI. Their position is that if someone, anybody, attacks the imperialists, it is necessarily a good thing even if everything else they do is wrong. So if a Shiite militia were to down a U.S. drone, that single action is good even if they do it for entirely the wrong, most reactionary reasons. That's their position, I believe. The ICL is particularly sloppy in its writing on this issue, to a point of being very wrong on a number of things.

So they would support Wako or the Oklahoma bombing or Ammon Bundy?

Luís Henrique

[Durruti's friend]

This announcement is to clarify the Revleft.com policy of no platform for fascism, which includes a strict prohibition of any form of expressed support for or endorsement of the fascist terrorist organization Daesh, aka the Islamic State, ISIS, ISIL etc on our forums.


If you would like to debate whether Daesh is fascist, go ahead, in a separate thread since this has gotten a bit long. That debate is perfectly OK to have if we're on the same page that Daesh victories cannot be celebrated. Our position is that it is a form of fascism and we can't have anyone supporting it. You can disagree that it is fascism, but you can't cheer their victories on this board regardless what you wanna call them.
So, the potential unbanning of posters depends on whether or not we can convince the BA that Daesh is not, in fact, a fascist group? Cool.

Also, if you don't mind me asking, why is support (of any kind, "critical" or not) of the Assad regime and the Baath party allowed on this site if support for the actions of Daesh is a bannable offense? I mean, in the end, the SAA and loyalist militias are responsible for way more death and destruction than IS could ever dream to achieve, and the Baath party has numerous similarities with actual fascism.

(Just to be clear so I don't get banned for some reason, I do not call for support of any side in this conflict - not for ISIS, not for Assad, not for the rebels, nor for the Kurds tyvm and trots can stuff their critical support for reactionaries up their arses.)

[parallax]

The membership will keep us honest.

Yes, here's an example of how the membership is expected to keep you honest:


If you want to whine, PM an admin.

There is more accountability under the Islamic State, probably, than there is on this forum.

These bans were clearly orchestrated because the admins, of whom at least three have present or past affiliations with the CWI and IMT, were furious that some Sparts had dared to call to a person's attention to those organizations' disgraceful cop-loving positions. Which, come to think of it, has more than an incidental link to fascism.

[Le Libérer]

Yes, here's an example of how the membership is expected to keep you honest:



There is more accountability under the Islamic State, probably, than there is on this forum.

These bans were clearly orchestrated because the admins, of whom at least three have present or past affiliations with the CWI and IMT, were furious that some Sparts had dared to call to a person's attention to those organizations' disgraceful cop-loving positions. Which, come to think of it, has more than an incidental link to fascism.
Hmm... you sure have a history of what admins are on this board and seem overly concerned with BA activity to only have 17 posts. *sniff

Warning- Stop derailing this thread or you will receive an infraction.

[Invader Zim]

Hmm... you sure have a history of what admins are on this board and seem overly concerned with BA activity to only have 17 posts. *sniff

And a year's membership. Not that it takes a profound examination of BA policy and actions to note a singular lack of accountability and the malaise this board has fallen into because of what appears to be bi-annual purges of significant portions of the established membership.

[Le Libérer]

Okay, let me do it this way-

Any off topic posts about the BA in this thread will lead to an infraction. This includes recent bannings.

Please stay on topic.

[Art Vandelay]

What. A. Joke.

Congratulations on another successful purge - this one, it appears, carried out by the two most right wing members of the board. When will you two drop the act? The only thing more ludicrous and laughable then your definition of fascism, are your horrendous politics which you are effectively turning this site into an echo chamber for. Also props to CYM, your tendency-bait thread was successful, and you'll now have less reason to duck out of threads when people start calling you out on your blatant reformism.

---
The BA should link to exactly where the users in question posted something that was a bannable offence. 870, for example, explicitly disagreed with the ICL's line on ISIS and yet has become a casualty here. 4th/Emmit Till, as far as I'm aware, weren't members of any organizations and as a result didn't have to toe a party line, so where exactly did they express support for ISIS? VivaLaCuarta seems to have only made troll posts in this thread which, while worthy of an infraction, certainly don't warrant a ban. Sharia Lawn has stated that he has disagreements/criticisms of the ICL's line and their biggest crime seems to be holding CYM's feet to the fire over his hypocritical and anti-Marxist politics.

I'm hoping that I'm not the only one here who wants to see some sort of justification for these actions.

[CyM]

This thread is now thoroughly derailed. I'm locking it.