Is Islamism Right Wing ?

[leftwinger2007]

Is Islamism Right Wing ? Yes I know not all Muslims are Islamists Islam is a Religion but Im asking about Political Islam known as Islamism. What I mean by are Islamists Right Wing and Islamism Right Wing is because Islamists believe according to their Quran and the Hadiths that Non Muslims should pay a Tax called Jizya and Muslims pay a Charity Tax called Zakat which is 2.5% a Flat Tax Across The Board For the Rich/Wealthy the Elites as well as Lower Classes and Sadaqah which is Voluntary Charity and they are for Private Property and they believe in a Class System and mixing Religion with Politics I just believe that the Political Views of Islamists have more in common with Right Wing Conservatives and Republicans and Libertarians and Capitalists than with Leftists yet the Right Wing claims the Left has an alliance with Islamism thank you for your time anyone agree ?



Qasim Sheikh, Phoenix, Arizona, June 21, 2012,
Islam against abortion. Republican party against abortion. Islam for protection of marriage. Republican party for protection of marriage. Islam for Zakat (flat tax) Republican party for flat tax. Islamic World history based on free market principals. Republican Party for free marketing principals. Islam for prayer in schools. Republican Party for prayer in schools. Islamic history, all great Caliphs like Umar II, had a golden age because he was fiscally responsible. Republican party values for fiscal responsibility. Obama for abortion - haram. for g** marriage - haram. for more riba and national debt - haram. Obama - haram haram haram! But of course Republican party has Muslim haters. If core moderate Republicans can take over the party and end islamophobia, then Muslims should vote for Romney. I think Romney is just a watered down Republican who mainly has had a liberal policy past. Moreover, I like Romney because he came in the defense of Pakistan and added that Pakistan at the core will always be our ally. For that reason, I will vote for Romney. Obama hates Pakistan and criticizes Pakistan more than any other President in US history. His VP Biden is drowning on donations from Hindu Right Wing think tanks. I will vote for Romney!

[Heretek]

Any religious doctrine is right wing. Religion is inherently opposed to leftism.

Islamism and Republicans are similar because they are both wing, and they hate each other because they are right wing. Republicans hate Islam because it isn't Christianity, and because it is composed of people who look different. Islam views the other rightists the same. Because they are not the same, they are inherently hostile, as per all rightists. The only reason Islamism is associated with leftism is smear campaigns designed to conflate leftism with 'foreign barbarians, and that's why im voting trump.' A defense of workers and civilians who happen to be Muslim or live in Islamist sections of the world is not a support of Islamism.

We stand for the abolition of state, religion, and class, something Islamism as just described is opposed to. Just like the rest of the right

[Antiochus]

Islamists are basically a sort of a flavor of fascism within the political context of the Middle East and wider Islamic world.

[Discordant element]

It is fascism. Any movement that is authoritarian (which it totally is), with extremely intolerant views and practices, which imposes itself through violence, is fascist. Also, US "democracy" also fits in this description with a bit of squeezing.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Is Islamism Right Wing ?

Simple question with a simple answer - yes. Just like political Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism etc. There are some principles in various religions which point towards economic redistribution of course, but that does not in itself make political systems grounded in a particular religion any less reactionary from a contemporary standpoint.

[ComradeAllende]

Islamism is a reactionary movement that seeks to usher in a modern version of the Umayyad Caliphate, i.e. a neo-feudal apparatus based on agriculture and mercantile commerce. This is in stark contrast to the secular nationalist movement of the 1950s and 60s, which included Muslims but opted for a more secular and Pan-Arabic (rather than Pan-Islamic) perspective, as well as focusing heavily on industrial development. So on that note, I'd say Islamism is right wing.

Nevertheless, there is an important distinction between the reactionary puritanism of Islamic fundamentalism and the fascism of the Nazis: the nation-state. The Islamists have no reverence nor use for the nationalistic propaganda and esprit de corps that galvanized fascist shock troops in the 20s and 30s; they wish to establish theocratic rule according to extreme Wahhabist tenets and mimic the caliphs of the old Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates. In that sense, I'd argue that the Islamists have more in common with the clerical-fascism of the Action Francaise and the Spanish Falangists then with the imperialistic and overtly-paganistic fascism of the Third Reich and Mussolini's Italy.

[Exterminatus]

It is fascism. Any movement that is authoritarian (which it totally is), with extremely intolerant views and practices, which imposes itself through violence, is fascist. Also, US "democracy" also fits in this description with a bit of squeezing.

But you see, Communism can be described as such too. We are authoritarian, we are extremely intolerant of certain views and practices and we will utilize violence to supersede the existing order - in fact, we already did all of these in the past. The problem is that this is ahistorical, liberal definition of Fascism whose function is to delegitimize every movement hostile to liberalism. For Marxists, Fascism is reactionary movement intent on establishing itself as the alternate modernity to the current trajectory of capitalism (i.e. liberalism). If we take Middle East, then Islamism is most certainly this. Let's remember that Islamism is most of all a reaction to globalization and prior to that, to secular, modernizing forces in the region.

[Heretek]

But you see, Communism can be described as such too. We are authoritarian, we are extremely intolerant of certain views and practices and we will utilize violence to supersede the existing order - in fact, we already did all of these in the past. The problem is that this is ahistorical, liberal definition of Fascism whose function is to delegitimize every movement hostile to liberalism. For Marxists, Fascism is reactionary movement intent on establishing itself as the alternate modernity to the current trajectory of capitalism (i.e. liberalism). If we take Middle East, then Islamism is most certainly this. Let's remember that Islamism is most of all a reaction to globalization and prior to that, to secular, modernizing forces in the region.

These arguments always make me question the various political compasses that float around. It's simply never certain when they put communism on the left-authoritarian scale if its bourgeois reaction and hyperbole, or an actual sympathizer accurately describing it as it relates to our opposition to liberalism(it generally isn't, since the authoritarian scale is always something about state control).

[Konikow]

It is fascism. Any movement that is authoritarian (which it totally is), with extremely intolerant views and practices, which imposes itself through violence, is fascist. Also, US "democracy" also fits in this description with a bit of squeezing.

Wow, I never suspected that I was a fascist!

Authoritarian? Totally!
Extremely intolerant views and practices? Yes and yes!
Imposes itself through violence? I don't advocate violence.

Two out of three. Either I'm a fascist or you're a liberal.

[pepezefrog]

i think the issue isnt islam itself, nor is it muslims, but rather the way muslims interpret the world around them. the recent rise in right wing conservative and reactionary islam was caused by western capitalism imperialism that caused unstable political situations in the middle east. though i do agree that immigration need to be controlled and some surveillance on the suspected muslims can be justified, in the long run we should try our best to slowly radicalize muslims and make them compatible with the progressive world.

- - - Updated - - -

ignore people who call you fascist, comrade, they're no different from the liberals who think communists and nazis are the same because "muh horseshoe theory"

[Konikow]

immigration need to be controlled and some surveillance on the suspected muslims can be justified, in the long run we should try our best to slowly radicalize muslims and make them compatible with the progressive world.

Fuck off you apologist for the imperialist police state.

[Pancakes Rühle]

Enjoy the banhammer coming your way.

You should go ahead, in your spare time afterwards, and check out Edward Said's Orientalism.

[Heretek]

Please, no one gets banned here anymore. Unless of course for political gain of the moderators.

Also congratulations to Konikow for the first post that hasn't been laced with sarcasm (hopefully)

[DOOM]

It is fascism. Any movement that is authoritarian (which it totally is), with extremely intolerant views and practices, which imposes itself through violence, is fascist. Also, US "democracy" also fits in this description with a bit of squeezing.
That's a lazy definition of fascism unless you believe that the proletarian dictatorship is fascist as well.

[Sewer Socialist]

That's a lazy definition of fascism unless you believe that the proletarian dictatorship is fascist as well.

it also implies that fascism is as old as civilization

[macsrw]

I tend to be careful when dropping the f-bomb. Fascism is notoriously difficult to pinpoint, but I think that it does have certain characteristics which can be applied to certain forms of Islamism (namely, the balls-out Salafi-Jihadist ideology of Al Qaeda and ISIS). I dont think that Islamism in general is inherently one thing or another, and you could have left-wing groups motivated by Islam as easy as right wing ones (though, to be fair, religion does tend to favour the traditional, which lends itself naturally to the right). I think we need to realize that Islamism is not a catch-all ideology before we try to label it as right or left wing. Simplifying it as such is like saying that all political movements based around Christianity are necessarily right wing- lots are, but that completely discounts Liberation Theology and other historical left-leaning forms of political Christianity.

Left or Right, Religion is best left out of politics, but such a divorce is not easy. It is best to approach the intersection of religion and politics with a highly nuanced eye.

[Radical Atom]

Left or Right, Religion is best left out of politics, but such a divorce is not easy.

Quite the opposite, religion is inseparable from politics, religion IS (part of) politics: one needs only to look at the machinations and maneuvering behind any religious movement or "sectarian" conflict, look at the geopolitics that certainly fueled interest on starting the crusades; the Inquisition, which targeted (among others) sects that threatened the wealth and the interests of the Church; look at how in Northern Ireland the British favored and gave privileges the protestant population not for sectarian reasons but because since the colonization of Ireland they had been mainly English colonists; Stalin's "rehabilitation" of the Orthodox Church during WWII; Hell, during the middle ages the clergy had been a class on its own! The only way to separate religion from politics is to abolish religion itself.

I could concede on the other hand that spirituality can be separate from politics (probably what you refer as "religion" in your post), which is probably as old as homo sapiens; and in our earliest times it was a way to try to explain the world around our ancestors. I think that while most "spiritual" people think it does something for them, it's more detrimental than helpful. People need to face their problems and frustrations to solve them, not mis-direct them through superstition into another "new and improved" and conveniently vague Big Other. For me the problem of spirituality is that no matter how "pretty" or "balanced" or whatever it looks, it still is superstition.

Nobody argues that religious people cannot be progressive and fight for the oppressed (except maybe new atheist types, which ironically tend to be virulently right-wing) but I think it's more of a matter of people being able to be decent human beings despite their reactionary/superstitious beliefs, not the other way around.
(Someone else might be able to offer a more in depth criticism of Liberation Theology though, I don't know enough about it to get to much into it right now.)

On to the main question, Islamism isn't necessarily fascist, although there can be a Fascism that is Islamist (Turkey is certainly on that direction). It is definitely reactionary and is to be opposed by all communists.

[adogz]

It is fascism. Any movement that is authoritarian (which it totally is), with extremely intolerant views and practices, which imposes itself through violence, is fascist. Also, US "democracy" also fits in this description with a bit of squeezing.
This would also describe a lot of tankies and antifa with a bit of squeezing

[(A)]

Fascism is hard to pinpoint because it is so misunderstood and has many diffrent interpritation. American patriotism, National Socialism, Religious Theocracy, All of these CAN fit into the ideology of Fascism.

Benito Mussolini described fascism in Doctrine of Fascism as follows:
Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State.


The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State—a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values—interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.


...everything in the state, nothing against the State, nothing outside the state.


Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his immanent relationship with a superior law and with an objective Will that transcends the particular individual and raises him to conscious membership of a spiritual society. Whoever has seen in the religious politics of the Fascist regime nothing but mere opportunism has not understood that Fascism besides being a system of government is also, and above all, a system of thought.




Facism in his terms is Absolute Statism and (In my terms) the direct opposite of Anarchism.


The Encyclopedia of Marxism defines fascism as "right-wing, fiercely nationalist, subjectivist in philosophy, and totalitarian in practice", and identifies it as "an extreme reactionary form of capitalist government." It lists nine fundamental characteristics of fascism:


Right Wing: Fascists are fervently against: Marxism, Socialism, Anarchism, Communism, Environmentalism; etc – in essence, they are against the progressive left in total, including moderate lefts (social democrats, etc). Fascism is an extreme right wing ideology, though it can be opportunistic.
Nationalism: Fascism places a very strong emphasis on patriotism and nationalism. Criticism of the nation's main ideals, especially war, is lambasted as unpatriotic at best, and treason at worst. State propaganda consistently broadcasts threats of attack, while justifying pre-emptive war. Fascism invariably seeks to instill in its people the warrior mentality: to always be vigilant, wary of strangers and suspicious of foreigners.
Hierarchy: Fascist society is ruled by a righteous leader, who is supported by an elite secret vanguard of capitalists. Hierarchy is prevalent throughout all aspects of society – every street, every workplace, every school, will have its local Hitler, part police-informer, part bureaucrat – and society is prepared for war at all times. The absolute power of the social hierarchy prevails over everything, and thus a totalitarian society is formed. Representative government is acceptable only if it can be controlled and regulated, direct democracy (e.g. Communism) is the greatest of all crimes. Any who oppose the social hierarchy of fascism will be imprisoned or executed.
Anti-equality: Fascism loathes the principles of economic equality and disdains equality between immigrant and citizen. Some forms of fascism extend the fight against equality into other areas: gender, sexual, minority or religious rights, for example.
Religious: Fascism contains a strong amount of reactionary religious beliefs, harking back to times when religion was strict, potent, and pure. Nearly all Fascist societies are Christian, and are supported by Catholic and Protestant churches.
Capitalist: Fascism does not require revolution to exist in capitalist society: fascists can be elected into office (though their disdain for elections usually means manipulation of the electoral system). They view parliamentary and congressional systems of government to be inefficient and weak, and will do their best to minimize its power over their policy agenda. Fascism exhibits the worst kind of capitalism where corporate power is absolute, and all vestiges of workers' rights are destroyed.
War: Fascism is capitalism at the stage of impotent imperialism. War can create markets that would not otherwise exist by wreaking massive devastation on a society, which then requires reconstruction! Fascism can thus "liberate" the survivors, provide huge loans to that society so fascist corporations can begin the process of rebuilding.
Voluntarist Ideology: Fascism adopts a certain kind of “voluntarism;” they believe that an act of will, if sufficiently powerful, can make something true. Thus all sorts of ideas about racial inferiority, historical destiny, even physical science, are supported by means of violence, in the belief that they can be made true. It is this sense that Fascism is subjectivist.
Anti-Modern: Fascism loathes all kinds of modernism, especially creativity in the arts, whether acting as a mirror for life (where it does not conform to the Fascist ideal), or expressing deviant or innovative points of view. Fascism invariably burns books and victimises artists; artists who do not promote the fascists ideals are seen as “decadent.” Fascism is hostile to broad learning and interest in other cultures, since such pursuits threaten the dominance of fascist myths. The peddling of conspiracy theories is usually substituted for the objective study of history.

[macsrw]

On to the main question, Islamism isn't necessarily fascist, although there can be a Fascism that is Islamist (Turkey is certainly on that direction). It is definitely reactionary and is to be opposed by all communists.

Yes and no. Islamist movements are as different from one another as are communist movements (sit a Maoist, a Trotskyist, and an Orthodox Marxist at a bar, and see what happens). Islamism should be taken in a case by case framework. In no cases is it desirable to have Islamist movements dominating politics, but the reality is that they exist, and sometimes should be opposed without reservation (ISIS, the AKP, whatever the Nusra Front is calling itself this week). In other cases, the Islamist groups should be cautiously supported, like Hezbollah during its 2006 war with Israel. The fact is that while these groups are always reactionary, they are also almost always anti-Imperialist, and in many cases they are leading the fight against the soldiers of Empire. In other cases, they are the voice of the poor, and they have to be dealt with carefully- many of the urban poor in Egypt supported the MB instinctively because the MB were the only ones effectively supporting them during the Mubarak years, and this should not be simply dismissed.

Again, I think this is very case by case. Leftists should be willing to work with Hezbollah on some issues, but never to touch the Salafist groups with a 10 foot poll. It would be nice if there was a big and strong Communist presence in the Middle East (or, for that matter, anywhere else in the world in 2016) but there is not. The fact is that the base of Islamism is essentially the base of any left wing movement- the people, especially those crushed by poverty and empire. While I ultimately agree that Islamism (in all of its forms, even the social justice minded ones) is essentially reactionary, I think that opposition to it has to be careful and selective. There are times when Islamists are the only ones on the ground assisting the poor and fighting against imperialism, and that wins big respect from many many people who are needed in order to build mass movements. Pissing those people off is not a strategically wise move.

But again, no mercy for fascist movements like AKP, ISIS, Al Nusra, Boko Haram, etc.

[Antiochus]

Fascists (i.e Nazi Germany) was not against environmentalism. Indeed many of their garbage propaganda posters aimed to jusxtapose a caricature of the USSR as basically Sauron's Mordor (dirty, filled with putrid industry) while Germany was a natural paradise.

[(A)]

Can you back that claim up outside or propaganda? Did the Nazis have any real Environmentalist programs that where put into effect during Hitlers reign? Or was their "environmentalism" actualy Bullshit Nationalism and Propaganda ment to make them feel good about being German and make everyone else look dirty.

The list provided is a general list of Fascist tendency's... not a one on one comparison to Nazism.

[Radical Atom]

macsrw
Depends on what is your opinion on or definition of "anti-imperialism", and if you believe (whatever it means to you) it is still relevant to the XXI century or not. I don't.
The "anti-imperialism" espoused by contemporary stalinists, maoists and trotskyists is nothing but a platitude, a term both loaded and empty; a relic from the times of the cynical realpolitik of cold warriors. It's glorified lesser-evilism. For some people it even translates to "not the USA/NATO".
Why isn't opposing the Russian Federation (a significantly oligarchic and anti-democratic imperialist country) regarded as "anti-imperialist" as opposing the US? It's not like you can't do both. It's because the empty shell that "anti-imperialism" is today is based on an obsolete mindset.
We do not live in colonial times, we live in a globalized world, capitalist from top to bottom (some places more progressive than others nonetheless), where as of now there is only imperialism vs imperialism, and the imperialism of today works differently from the imperialism of the XIX century. The Vietnamese under the French did not live under the same circumstances than the Iraqis do under their US puppet regime now. They still are exploitative and oppressive relationships, no one can't argue otherwise, but the key here is that these relationships are different from one another.
"Cautiously" supporting Hezbollah means "cautiously" supporting the interests of a particularly reactionary capitalist regime which is Iran, just as supporting pro-russian separatists means supporting another particularly reactionary capitalist and imperialist nation. You can't just pick what you support from them and what not, well technically you can, but they'll do what you support and what you don't anyway.
No one can be truly anti-imperialist as of now because there is no worker's movement to meaningfully oppose it. And picking a geopolitical side means picking an imperialist side, there is no proletarian or revolutionary side.

Why make an exception with one utterly reactionary group over the others? Do you think Hezbollah holds a much more progressive view on the social role of women than say, Al-Qaeda? You said it yourself that they are always reactionary, what could be possibly be gained by leftists in supporting these groups? Would you support Quebecois white nationalist christian terrorists if they attacked Canadian interests? What about the openly fascist pro-russians from Donetsk, Crimea, etc. who just happen to be on the "not NATO" side? Of course Islamists are very different and opposed with each other, but that is due to them being after the same thing, their interests .
Scum is scum. Nationalism of the oppressed is still nationalism. And anti-imperialist reactionaries are still reactionaries.
The only side we must pick is our side; the side of the oppressed, the marginalized, the disturbed, the alienated, the exploited, the brutalized.
I'm not saying that you should have not felt great about Israel getting rightfully kicked in the arse, I'm just saying there's a world of a difference between that and supporting Hezbollah or any other enemy of the working class.

I know where you are coming from, many years ago I may have said in your position something similar to what you posted, so please do not take my relative harshness as a personal attack. In my case and I assume it is the same for many others it mostly came from a feeling of desperation, of impotence: the world is going to shit and there's nothing we can do about it. I know how compelling it can be to feel like you are the side of the ones sticking it to the big guy when there's no better option. But herein lies the mistake, communists do not rely sentimentality; we are materialists. We do not act out of spite but from knowledge.

[ComradeAllende]

Can you back that claim up outside or propaganda? Did the Nazis have any real Environmentalist programs that where put into effect during Hitlers reign? Or was their "environmentalism" actualy Bullshit Nationalism and Propaganda ment to make them feel good about being German and make everyone else look dirty.

The list provided is a general list of Fascist tendency's... not a one on one comparison to Nazism.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/55/Bolschewismus_ohne_Maske2.jpg/699px-Bolschewismus_ohne_Maske2.jpgg

To the degree the Nazis had any philosophical depth, one of their main gripes against bourgeois society (particularly industrial capitalism) was the presence atomizing tendencies that drove apart society and alienated elements of the population against the nation-state (proletarian internationalism, for instance). Part of this was due to the very rapid progress of the Industrial Revolution; Romantic authors (and American muckrakers) lampooned the putrid conditions of urban slums, where dispossessed/unemployed peasants moved to find work in the "satanic mills". The Nazis envisioned a sort of futuristic agrarian utopia, where the Volk would roam freely in the militaristic style of old feudal knights. They even tried to bring back an extinct species of cattle (the aurochs) for the future Ubermensch to tame and graze on the fields of Poland and Russia (after the original inhabitants were enslaved and butchered, of course).

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/aurochs-how-hitler-goering-resurrected-extinct-species-make-nazi-super-cows-1482161

[John Nada]

Yes Islamism is fucking right-wing. Almost without exception various Islamists orgs attack leftists. That Islamists have bitten the hand that fed them doesn't make them "allies".
The "anti-imperialism" espoused by contemporary stalinists, maoists and trotskyists is nothing but a platitude, a term both loaded and empty; a relic from the times of the cynical realpolitik of cold warriors. It's glorified lesser-evilism. For some people it even translates to "not the USA/NATO".
Why isn't opposing the Russian Federation (a significantly oligarchic and anti-democratic imperialist country) regarded as "anti-imperialist" as opposing the US? It's not like you can't do both. It's because the empty shell that "anti-imperialism" is today is based on an obsolete mindset.They make the mistake of thinking anti-American=anti-imperialists. The US isn't the only imperialist power, even if it's on top. It's like claiming supporting a smaller slave owner against a bigger one makes it abolitionism. The social-imperialist defencist of the Second International(who claimed things like German imperialism wasn't as bad as British imperialism, and vis versa) turned ass-backward.

One thing I've never seen in the argument against Russia and China being imperialist is proving that they're semi-colonies. Both are not dominated by imperialist powers anymore than Italy or Spain(which their imperialist status isn't disputed). And if Russia and China somehow are just more powerful semi-colonies, why treat Putin and Xi any different than compradors like Temur, Modi, Zuma, Erdogan and Saud?

This article has some relevance on the topic of this thread and the false "anti-imperialism" of reactionaries like Islamist: http://kersplebedeb.com/posts/false-front-the-left-and-the-anti-imperialist-right/

[Strannik]

Why wouldn't Islamism be right-wing? Militant islamist movements were from beginning composed by most reactionary, nationalistic bourgeois individuals and promoted by US in order to combat any and all progressive tendencies in their states of origin: materialism, education, democracy and class identity. These are reactionary nationalist movements with only difference being the pan-arabic character of islamic faith.
On the other hand, it seems to me Lenin once thought all nationalist independence movements should be supported while at the same time supporting oppressed classes in resulting microstates. A gang leader is easier to topple than an emperor.

[(A)]

I think it is important (Hopefully it does not need to be said) that while the left opposes Religion; that does not mean anyone here should generalize or unthinkingly oppose the individuals who practice a faith.

Anti-Islam, Pro Muslim.
Anti-Christianity, Pro christian.
Anti-Judiasm, Pro-Jew.

While I dont agree with the faiths of these people attacking them directly because of their faith is not what anyone should stand for. Only a persons actions should be used to Judge them and not their beliefs.
Support for Muslim refugees. Support for Israeli Anarchists who oppose Zionism, Support for Christians who embrace sexual and gender equality.

[Antiochus]

Why not support their racism then? Or homophobia? They are elements of false-consciousness as well. Lets not play around. Communists stand for the destruction of religion. Always have. The moment we do not is the moment it becomes a worthless movement incapable of actually creating a new society.

And that means (if we need to) burning down the Vatican and the Kabaa. Such statements horrify both the bourgeois deist and the fundamentalist. And that really shows one where the lines are drawn.

[(A)]

And so to stop the racism and Homophobia and supremacy within religion you will indiscriminately kill working class folk for their faith?
Kill the Jews for being Jewish?
Kill the Muslims for believing in Islam?
Kill the Christians for being christian?

Attack not the faith of the believers or their extremists in self defense... but kill anyone who believes differently then you?

I never once said that we should support their religion or that we should not do away with the church and the hierarchy of faith. I simply said that we must not
generalize or unthinkingly oppose the individuals who have faith.

I to stand firmly for the end of religion (Hierarchy) and the end of false-consciousness (Faith)
But not by indiscriminately killing the working class who holds onto this false-consciousness's.

I am simply trying to say that we should not discriminate against refugees because they are Muslims or against Jews for being citizens of Israel.

[Antiochus]

^^Bourgeois ideology at work. Why don't you include a poster of an atheist asiatic Bolshevik (also Jewish) drinking the blood of a blonde Christian maiden because she refused to recant her "beliefs". Its about as accurate as the 'argument' you are presenting.


simply said that we must not
generalize or unthinkingly oppose the individuals who have faith.

We must not generalize or oppose individuals who are capitalists (own property). We must treat them on a case by case basis and if they are nice an fluffy let them keep their rightfully earned property!

[(A)]

So we should support the rounding up of Refugees because they are Muslims? Send them back to where they come from?
Because they are not Atheists?

No support for Muslims until they renounce their faith.

So instead of supporting Muslim refugees you would Join the Fascist in demanding that the borders be closed to them?

What the fuck are you trying to say?

[Antiochus]

God, what a fucking idiot. Isn't the fact that you are trying to conflate the FACT that religion is ideology at work with someone "rufl killing 400 billion people fur thier inocent faith" PROOF that you are nothing more than a petty ideologue for the bourgeoisie? As if the issue at hand really were about killing Muslim refugees or 80 year old Christian grandmothers for not following the "dogmatist" communists. What a motherfucking joke.

We don't support refugees BECAUSE they are refugees. We support refugees because they are invariable of the working class and identical in their social relations to other members of the working class. Communism is inherently atheist. Inherently. That we accept say some 40 year old 'Christian' welder into a communist movement DOES NOT CHANGE the nature of the movement: An atheist one. What you are calling for with your worthless "Pro-Muslim, Pro-Jewish" bullshit is the SEPARATION of these groups from the other members of the working class, for the benefit of their respective ruling classes.

There is nothing to be "pro" about. Judaism and Islam, while persecuted in the West to varying degrees at different times are STILL disgusting religions filled with: Rampant sexism of the most brutal forms (the fact that one of them literally forces women to put blankets on top of them to erase them from society should be enough of an indictment), xenophobia/racism, homophobia. Never mind the fact that these religions, Christianity included (and every other btw) are political in nature. Sometimes they are not political in of themselves (say Christianity) but can be easily wielded by the ruling classes: Franco claimed he was fighting simply to 'save' Christian civilization and to give Catholics the right to still worship in the face of "Communist assaults", the same garbage argument you are spewing now.


See it is very easy to 'agree' with Communist "mantra", if you will. You ask 1000 people and many of them will agree, many of them will even make arguments that it is simply "impossible" and "nice on paper but...". Most of them will say that yeah a classless, stateless, rational society is ideal etc... But so what? Kerensky said he was a socialist. You don't determine if someone is a Socialist because they SAY THEY ARE or because they repeat some worthless phrase that means little in practice. You determine it by which positions they take once an issue has been staked out. That is why when push came to shove so many "socialists" became sycophants of their respective governments in WW1, why many are horrified at 'changing sexual norms' etc...

The exact same applies to atheism. If the issue were simply someone having the 'right' to pray to some magic sugar daddy in their home it wouldn't be an issue at all, now would it? But only a simpleton would think this is what religion is.

[(A)]

That is not what I am saying.

I am saying is that during the discussion of Islam being right wing and opposed to the left we must not discriminate against the working class people who
are members of a particular faith as you seem to want.

I will reiterate I am against religion; But I refuse to discriminate against working class people because of it. Action (Including the action of speech) is all that matters.

Support the working class regardless of their faith or color.
That is all I meant.