Censorship hurts working class

[Severian]

Editorial from this week's issue of The Militant: (http://www.themilitant.com/2006/7008/700820.html)

Censorship hurts working class

Top officials of imperialist democracies have cast a sympathetic ear to charges by majority Muslim states that caricatures of Prophet Muhammad published last fall in a Danish newspaper are blasphemous, offensive, and should have never been printed. Such feigned sensitivity to “religious sensibilities” is a cover for advancing censorship and other attacks on democratic rights.

Calls to ban the controversial cartoons are reactionary and should be vigorously opposed.

The thrust of such demands, and the character of the campaign to promote them by capitalist regimes in the Middle East and elsewhere, are lending a hand to the imperialist powers worldwide. Washington and the bourgeoisies across Europe are having a heyday with this controversy.

What a help to Washington’s efforts to solidify support in Europe—from Copenhagen to Amsterdam and Warsaw, from London, to Paris, Madrid, and Rome—for military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. What a help to their escalating threats against Iran, which is in greater danger from imperialist assault now than at any time since the 1979 popular revolution that overthrew the U.S.-backed regime of the shah.

What a boost to efforts by the rulers across the imperialist world to try to win popular backing, to sow confusion, as they press step by step to encroach on the political rights of working people and the oppressed to speak, publish, organize, and act.

Working people have no interest in supporting censorship laws of any kind, whether they are purportedly directed against pornography, so-called hate literature, blasphemy, or slandering the socialist state. Making Holocaust denial a legal offense—which has spread across Europe—is also an example of rationalizing new crimes as “politically correct” that is becoming rampant in the capitalist world. The main targets of all such laws are ultimately workers, farmers, and their organizations.

Demands to enforce censorship strengthen the hand of the capitalist ruling class to boost domestic spying on phone calls and e-mail, to expand the power of cop agencies to demand libraries hand over lists of individuals based on what they read, or to undermine the right to privacy.

In a recent column, Patrick Buchanan, an incipient fascist politician in the United States, claimed that “Muslims are simply more devout and resolute in defense of their faith than the milquetoast Christians of modernity” and they don’t believe “freedom of speech and the press should protect those who blaspheme their God or prophet.”

The opposite is true. Muslims, like other believers, are divided into classes. Among the swelling ranks of working people—from the Middle East to North America, from Europe to Africa, Asia, and the Pacific—there is a growing convergence among those who recognize the need to safeguard and extend democratic rights in order to defend the life and limb of the working class and its allies, and to fight for a world without class exploitation, national oppression, or sex discrimination.

Related news article on this controversy (http://www.themilitant.com/2006/7008/700804.html)

Discussion? I thought it might be useful to have a fresh start since the existing threads on this subject have become fairly clogged.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't think this is about either "Free speech" or "Devoutness". Muslems and Arabs are pissed and have every right to be.

In the US, the mass media are portraying the outrage against these comics in total isolation; as though the US wasn't occupying countries in the middle east and supporting dictators in others as well as Israel; as though there was no opression and anti-immigrent sentiment in Europe where Danish anti-immigrent/anti-muslem bigots try and get laws passed and French schools don't let muslem children wear certain clothes and so on.

Free-speech dosn't exist in a la-la land where real conditions of opression and power do not exist. Here's an example:

- An Irish-American sees a cartoon that shows a drunk irishman passing out at his job; the Irish-american and shrughs and laughs at the cartoon.
-An African-American sees a cartoon of a black "welfare queen" living off welfare and having kids just to get benifits. The African-American gets pissed and starts a protest against the cartoon.

So it is a "clash of civilizations"? Can Irish take a joke better than black people? Of corse not, the difference is that the Irish-American dosn't have to worry about not getting a job because an employer thinks he will get drunk. Black people do have to worry about racist stereotypes because there is a very real chance some cop will think that they are guilty just for being black or some employer will not promote them because he thinks that black people are lazy like in the "welfare queen" sterotype.

[piet11111]

having seen those cartoons i found that they where designed to be insulting they where not witty or funny at all.

it seems to me they where made to offend and such an act should be condemned.
especially when you consider the volatile state of the most violent muslims then to me it seems extraordinarely stupid to put those cartoons in a news paper.

i dont mind religion to be attacked but offending them does not accomplish anything and it is certainly tough to talk to them if they refuse to listen.

[RaiseYourVoice]

As rightly mentioned, this is not about freedom of speech. (which is limited by private cooperations controling all the mass media (propaganda))
This is about respect. This world is not divided by religion, races, states, or any of that kind, it is only divided by class. It is though in the very interesst of the ruling class and also our leaders, to convince people that all i mentioned above DOES divide us, because that way you always have someone to blame apart from the system and the oppressors. We are told "the evil muslims" they are told "the evil christians" and that is just a means of protecting two oppressive systems.

We make fun of them -> they burn ours flags -> hatred is growing (right wing partys all over europe are gaining support these days)
We build nuclear bombs -> they build nuclear bombs -> we forbid it -> they do it all the same -> war -> a new free market

Well who do you think is the winner of this?

Its capitalists, they are the happy 3rd in this conflict. do you think manager of NIKE will care? do you think the oil monarchs will care? no they are not in danger, they only profit.

This is all just a part of economic imperialism and globalised capitalism. thats why we have to fight any form of religious descrimination, racial descrimination and everything else that wants to divide the workers in the world in order to keep them from meeting their destiny

[fernando]

Hmm perhaps a bit off topic, but you must have heard of Iran's reaction in which they posted a competition of who can draw the best holocaust cartoon. Now Israel is joining it, some Israeli guy is organising a contest in who can draw the best holocaust cartoon...I dunno normally Im annoyed by Israel due to their treatment of Palestine, but this is simply highly amusing :lol:

[piet11111]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 02:29 PM
Hmm perhaps a bit off topic, but you must have heard of Iran's reaction in which they posted a competition of who can draw the best holocaust cartoon. Now Israel is joining it, some Israeli guy is organising a contest in who can draw the best holocaust cartoon...I dunno normally Im annoyed by Israel due to their treatment of Palestine, but this is simply highly amusing :lol:
:o israeli's joining in the competition :lol:

now thats an impressive means of handling this i respect that a lot.

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 09:05 PM
I don't think this is about either "Free speech" or "Devoutness". Muslems and Arabs are pissed and have every right to be.

In the US, the mass media are portraying the outrage against these comics in total isolation; as though the US wasn't occupying countries in the middle east and supporting dictators in others as well as Israel; as though there was no opression and anti-immigrent sentiment in Europe where Danish anti-immigrent/anti-muslem bigots try and get laws passed and French schools don't let muslem children wear certain clothes and so on.

Free-speech dosn't exist in a la-la land where real conditions of opression and power do not exist. Here's an example:

- An Irish-American sees a cartoon that shows a drunk irishman passing out at his job; the Irish-american and shrughs and laughs at the cartoon.
-An African-American sees a cartoon of a black "welfare queen" living off welfare and having kids just to get benifits. The African-American gets pissed and starts a protest against the cartoon.

So it is a "clash of civilizations"? Can Irish take a joke better than black people? Of corse not, the difference is that the Irish-American dosn't have to worry about not getting a job because an employer thinks he will get drunk. Black people do have to worry about racist stereotypes because there is a very real chance some cop will think that they are guilty just for being black or some employer will not promote them because he thinks that black people are lazy like in the "welfare queen" sterotype.
wow. one of the best posts i've read here on the topic.

i agree completely.

[Proletar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 12:46 PM
having seen those cartoons i found that they where designed to be insulting they where not witty or funny at all.

it seems to me they where made to offend and such an act should be condemned.
especially when you consider the volatile state of the most violent muslims then to me it seems extraordinarely stupid to put those cartoons in a news paper.

i dont mind religion to be attacked but offending them does not accomplish anything and it is certainly tough to talk to them if they refuse to listen.
Im from denmark and im followed the conflict from the start and its just one big mistake.
The Danish newspaper who postet the images is not a propaganda rightwing anti-muslim paper.
The newspaper made these drawing to start a dicusion about free speech not to insult. Then some danish imam's have been spreading lies in other countries about the facts so the conflict growed.
The Danish "president" have nothing to do with it he just wont give a apology because he wont interfer with what a newspaper writes because we have free speech.

There are false pictures are you sure you have seen the right pictures?

[piet11111]

i saved them to my HD i will list the ones i have.

- a cartoonists sweating under a lamp looking over his shoulder while drawing an arabic man with mohammed written above the arabic man.
- a pencil necked white guy with glasses wearing a turban with an orange dropping on his head with pr stunt written on the orange he also has a very simplistic drawing of a man with a beard and turban (the rest of his body are stripes like a child would draw it)
- an arabic man walking through the desert with a donkey and a stick in his hands.
- a couple of things with a davids star as eyes and the islamic moon as a mouth with the text "prophet daft and dumb keeping woman under thumb" <- this one has to be fake
- a man with a bomb turban
- a boy infront of a schoolboard
- the drawing where suicide bombers stand in front of heaven with mohammed saying "stop stop we have run out of virgins"

[Entrails Konfetti]

So far among the religions there seems to be a consensus on censoring what they deem as "blasphemous". The problem here is that if the press takes up this stance, things can be read into so far that anything will seem blasphemous.

A story on an African Teen being beaten by police may be scratched due to the radical-theologist idea that its wrong to question authority.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 04:05 AM
Free-speech dosn&#39;t exist in a la-la land where real conditions of opression and power do not exist.
Indeed. It exists in a world where:

*The employing class is on an offensive against the working class, including our democratic rights. No matter what pretext they use to expand their repressive powers, including their censorship powers....those powers will be used against us. We desperately need the greatest possible democratic rights in order to organize and fight back...it is not an abstract question that can be brushed aside.

*As you say, the U.S. and other imperialist powers are occupying some majority-Muslim countries, and gearing up for war against others. And as the Militant points out, the demands for banning these cartoons have only aided this war drive. Particularly the sponsorship by the Syrian and Iranian governments of violent attacks on the Danish embassies in those countries, has been a godsend for Washington.

* Anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim politicians have long claimed that Muslim immigration is a threat to democracy. The Jyllands Post cartoons may well have been a deliberate provocation aimed at proving this - in which case those demanding the cartoons be banned have fallen neatly into the trap. Certainly the demands for censorship, blasphemy laws, etc have aided this anti-immigrant political agenda.

(As Raise Ya Voice correctly points out...while for some reason still saying "this is not about free speech&#33;")

Come out of "la-la land," as you put it, for a moment and consider: when someone demands these cartoons be censored, who is supposed to carry out that censorship? The capitalist state.

It&#39;s a fairly basic element of class-based politics: we don&#39;t look to the ruling class to solve our problems, and we don&#39;t help them solve theirs.

[BattleOfTheCowshed]

The Danish newspaper who postet the images is not a propaganda rightwing anti-muslim paper.

Jyllands-Posten was the official paper of the Conservative People&#39;s Party up until 1938, and after that has described itself as an independent right-wing newspaper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten). How is it not a right-wing paper?


The newspaper made these drawing to start a dicusion about free speech not to insult. Then some danish imam&#39;s have been spreading lies in other countries about the facts so the conflict growed.

If this is true then why didn&#39;t they just write an article about free-speech issues regarding religion and Islam? It is obvious that these cartoons were meant to be insulting, incendiary, and meant to provoke anger among Muslims.



There are false pictures are you sure you have seen the right pictures?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Post...ons_controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy)

http://cryptome.org/muhammad.htm

[BattleOfTheCowshed]

*The employing class is on an offensive against the working class, including our democratic rights. No matter what pretext they use to expand their repressive powers, including their censorship powers....those powers will be used against us. We desperately need the greatest possible democratic rights in order to organize and fight back...it is not an abstract question that can be brushed aside.

I agree that we need all the democratic rights we can get. However, I don&#39;t particularly see this issue as being a crux issue for free speech. Do you really see the U.S. banning criticism of religion over this issue? I personally haven&#39;t seen any legitimate calls for censorship or any signs of impeding censorship, but you can try and show me examples to the contrary. It seems to me as if you are painting two mutually exclusive arguments. I don&#39;t see why we can&#39;t argue that the anger that these cartoons sparked is legitimate as well as arguing that free speech is a right. After all, I don&#39;t think any of us is arguing against the legality of printing this shit, we&#39;re just arguing against the right-wing, imperialist foreign policy that the West practices in the Middle East, which is the source of the anger.


*As you say, the U.S. and other imperialist powers are occupying some majority-Muslim countries, and gearing up for war against others. And as the Militant points out, the demands for banning these cartoons have only aided this war drive. Particularly the sponsorship by the Syrian and Iranian governments of violent attacks on the Danish embassies in those countries, has been a godsend for Washington.

* Anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim politicians have long claimed that Muslim immigration is a threat to democracy. The Jyllands Post cartoons may well have been a deliberate provocation aimed at proving this - in which case those demanding the cartoons be banned have fallen neatly into the trap. Certainly the demands for censorship, blasphemy laws, etc have aided this anti-immigrant political agenda.

The same goes for these arguments. It seems as if you are trying too hard to play by "their game". Just because there are seperate parameters in mainstream politics doesn&#39;t mean that we can&#39;t advocate that Muslims have a right to be angry and that we should be anti-war and that anti-immigrations laws are wrong.


Come out of "la-la land," as you put it, for a moment and consider: when someone demands these cartoons be censored, who is supposed to carry out that censorship? The capitalist state.

Thats true for all laws though, that doesn&#39;t mean that we shouldn&#39;t take risks and support struggle when it arises around the globe.


It&#39;s a fairly basic element of class-based politics: we don&#39;t look to the ruling class to solve our problems, and we don&#39;t help them solve theirs.

I&#39;m not sure what your arguing here? Are you saying we would be helping the ruling class solve their problem? Who exactly do you think the ruling class is fighting against in this situation? In my view, I see this as a struggle between imperialist oppressors and the oppressed, and thus a struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

[chebol]

Racist cartoons: Why Muslims have a right to be angry
Doug Lorimer
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/656/656p24.htm

quote:
"Western defenders of the publication of the caricatures of Mohammed have claimed that the newspapers were simply exercising “free speech”. But Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that first published the cartoons, refused in April 2003 to print drawings caricaturing Jesus Christ, on the grounds that “they will provoke an outcry” from Christians.

The double standard applied by the Western corporate press does not only relate to religious matters. When a cartoon appeared in the British Independent in 2003, depicting Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon — who was found responsible by an official Israeli inquiry for the murder of Palestinian refugees, including children, during the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon — eating the head of a Palestinian child while saying: “What&#39;s wrong? You&#39;ve never seen a politician kissing babies before?”, Zionist Jews and the Western corporate media condemned the cartoon as “anti-Semitic”.

When a new TV series “Knight Without a Horse”, containing strong criticism of Israel&#39;s treatment of the Palestinians, was produced by the private Egyptian Dream TV company in 2002, the US government, with the backing of Israel, used its diplomatic personnel to try to stop the series being broadcast on private Arab TV stations.

It’s not just the double standards of the Western corporate media that have generated Muslims&#39; anger over the supposedly “satirical” depiction of Mohammed. As the February 6 Detroit-based Arab-American Weekly observed: “This double standard extends beyond issues of free speech to actual policy in the region. When the US was attacked on 9/11, we responded a month later, unleashing our total firepower on Afghanistan and later on Iraq. But when Palestinians respond to 60 years of brutal occupation and state-sponsored terrorism with stones and people strapping bombs to their bodies as their only weapons, the US wants them to lay down their &#39;arms&#39; before even talking with them. Yet Israel has the world&#39;s fourth strongest army and more than 200 nuclear weapons in its arsenal.” "

[chebol]

And for what it matters (which probably isn&#39;t a lot), Jyllands-Posten were Nazi collaborators during WWII. It doesn&#39;t matter because it is clear that they don&#39;t need the Nazis to justify their right-wing idiocies.

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 06:49 PM
Racist cartoons: Why Muslims have a right to be angry
Doug Lorimer
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/656/656p24.htm

quote:
"Western defenders of the publication of the caricatures of Mohammed have claimed that the newspapers were simply exercising “free speech”. But Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that first published the cartoons, refused in April 2003 to print drawings caricaturing Jesus Christ, on the grounds that “they will provoke an outcry” from Christians.

The double standard applied by the Western corporate press does not only relate to religious matters. When a cartoon appeared in the British Independent in 2003, depicting Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon — who was found responsible by an official Israeli inquiry for the murder of Palestinian refugees, including children, during the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon — eating the head of a Palestinian child while saying: “What&#39;s wrong? You&#39;ve never seen a politician kissing babies before?”, Zionist Jews and the Western corporate media condemned the cartoon as “anti-Semitic”.

When a new TV series “Knight Without a Horse”, containing strong criticism of Israel&#39;s treatment of the Palestinians, was produced by the private Egyptian Dream TV company in 2002, the US government, with the backing of Israel, used its diplomatic personnel to try to stop the series being broadcast on private Arab TV stations.

It’s not just the double standards of the Western corporate media that have generated Muslims&#39; anger over the supposedly “satirical” depiction of Mohammed. As the February 6 Detroit-based Arab-American Weekly observed: “This double standard extends beyond issues of free speech to actual policy in the region. When the US was attacked on 9/11, we responded a month later, unleashing our total firepower on Afghanistan and later on Iraq. But when Palestinians respond to 60 years of brutal occupation and state-sponsored terrorism with stones and people strapping bombs to their bodies as their only weapons, the US wants them to lay down their &#39;arms&#39; before even talking with them. Yet Israel has the world&#39;s fourth strongest army and more than 200 nuclear weapons in its arsenal.” "
oooh oooh oooh i got that paper yesterday :)

[chebol]

Where&#39;d you get it? :)

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian
The employing class is on an offensive against the working class, including our democratic rights.

Evidently, Severian (and, presumably, The Militant) continues to believe that there really "are" such things as "democratic rights" in late capitalist societies...and that even workers "have them".

Astonishing&#33;

But, I suppose, not unexpected. Perhaps they&#39;ll soon be celebrating "Law Day" instead of Mayday. :lol:

I would offer the following "rule of thumb": if it&#39;s "legal", then it&#39;s probably harmless to the ruling class and may even be helpful.

That doesn&#39;t mean the converse is true, of course. That which is "illegal" may or may not be harmful to the ruling class...it depends.


We desperately need the greatest possible democratic rights in order to organize and fight back...

I guess when the ruling class makes proletarian revolution "legal", then we&#39;ll have a real shot. :lol:

All significant resistance to the despotism of capital is, by definition, illegal.

The only way to defeat the censorship of revolutionary ideas is to defy it.

Say what you think needs to be said and tell the censors (official or unofficial) to go fuck themselves.

I frankly do not understand the desire to cloak one&#39;s critique of capitalism in a superstitious concern for "democratic rights".

As if abstract "democracy" were some "supreme value" that "stands above" earthly matters...like which class owns the means of production and holds state power.

In the past, workers have indeed struggled for "democratic rights"...without significant success. Under the despotism of capital, "democracy" means whatever the ruling class says it means.

If you say that "censorship is undemocratic", the U.S. ruling class can counter with dozens of its Supreme Court decisions that assert that censorship is perfectly consistent with democracy provided only that the government can demonstrate a "compelling state interest" in the particular censoring that it wants to do.

I think similar examples are probably abundant in every capitalist "democracy".

So what do we gain by accepting their framework of controversy about the Danish cartoons or anything else?

The people who printed the cartoons are not interested in "free speech" for us...they&#39;re opposed to that.

And the people protesting the cartoons are even more vehemently opposed to us...they&#39;d chop our commie heads off if they got the chance.

Why then the "eagerness" to become embroiled in this quarrel among reactionaries?

To "pick a side" to support...when they&#39;re all bastards&#33;

What are the possible outcomes of this cartoonish controversy?

1. The Danes pass a retroactive anti-blasphemy law and the cartoon publishers are fined and/or jailed.

2. The Danes refuse to back down...and stop selling anything in the Muslim world.

3. Some more western embassys get burned down.

4. A torrent of mindless rhetoric about the clash of Christian and Muslim "civilizations" pollutes the arena of public discourse.

What does any of that crap have to do with us or with what we want???

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by BattleOfTheCowshed+--> (BattleOfTheCowshed)Do you really see the U.S. banning criticism of religion over this issue?[/b]

It is not impossible that in a few years there will be a whole new set of anti-blasphemy laws in America - which will likely protect Christianity with "gusto".

However, recently in Britain there was a "Religious Hatred" bill which would give certain Religious groups the same protection as certain racial groups. This bill sort of passed....


BBC News
MPs have approved a bill to outlaw inciting religious hatred, although the government&#39;s original plans were partially defeated after Lords and then MPs forced through amendments.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4666908.stm

As I understand it, this new bill does protect Christians and Muslims the same way the "Racial Hatred" laws protect certain ethnic groups - this includes Jews because there is a "social notion" that Jews are a distinct ethnic group.

So basically, if one went to a Pro-Choice rally and said some anti-Religious things, or if they got into a fight with a Pro-Life Christian, the punishment they would receive would be far more severe.

Plus I could well imagine certain threads on this board in the Religion sub-forum, could be illegal under these laws and if the Police really wanted to, they could possibly convict British members of this board.

Imagine what Marat would be saying if he were alive today&#33; :lol:

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by Severian+Feb 17 2006, 09:20 PM--> (Severian @ Feb 17 2006, 09:20 PM)
[email protected] 17 2006, 04:05 AM
Free-speech dosn&#39;t exist in a la-la land where real conditions of opression and power do not exist.
Indeed. It exists in a world where:

*The employing class is on an offensive against the working class, including our democratic rights. No matter what pretext they use to expand their repressive powers, including their censorship powers....those powers will be used against us. We desperately need the greatest possible democratic rights in order to organize and fight back...it is not an abstract question that can be brushed aside.

*As you say, the U.S. and other imperialist powers are occupying some majority-Muslim countries, and gearing up for war against others. And as the Militant points out, the demands for banning these cartoons have only aided this war drive. Particularly the sponsorship by the Syrian and Iranian governments of violent attacks on the Danish embassies in those countries, has been a godsend for Washington.

* Anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim politicians have long claimed that Muslim immigration is a threat to democracy. The Jyllands Post cartoons may well have been a deliberate provocation aimed at proving this - in which case those demanding the cartoons be banned have fallen neatly into the trap. Certainly the demands for censorship, blasphemy laws, etc have aided this anti-immigrant political agenda.

(As Raise Ya Voice correctly points out...while for some reason still saying "this is not about free speech&#33;")

Come out of "la-la land," as you put it, for a moment and consider: when someone demands these cartoons be censored, who is supposed to carry out that censorship? The capitalist state.

It&#39;s a fairly basic element of class-based politics: we don&#39;t look to the ruling class to solve our problems, and we don&#39;t help them solve theirs. [/b]
You let your distain for religion cloud your reason and you are putting yourself basically in a position of supporting the imperialists.

Let&#39;s look at where these "stereotypes" are comeing from: Hmm, Islam as a violent religion (their prophit with a bomb/turbin). So what is this free speech saying? Islam is violent; Muhammed is like a terrorist and so on. Who&#39;s intrestss are served from "westerners" having this view of muslems in particular and arabs in general?

If black people had organized to get "Amos and Andy" off the airwaves or to stop a minstral show, would you have argued that these irrational negros are trying to take away our "free-speech"?

Bourgie rights should be defended, but not if it means supporting racism and opression&#33;

The rest of your argument is basically a strw-man in which you criticize me for going to the government to have them censor cartoons. I didn&#39;t claim that, only that we should combat the view of this as "a clash of civilizations" on the grounds that it is an anti-marxist view of the world and supports the Imperialist justifications, retroactivly, for Imperial control of Iraq and so on.

[BattleOfTheCowshed]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Feb 18 2006, 10:05 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Feb 18 2006, 10:05 AM)
Severian
The employing class is on an offensive against the working class, including our democratic rights.

Evidently, Severian (and, presumably, The Militant) continues to believe that there really "are" such things as "democratic rights" in late capitalist societies...and that even workers "have them".

Astonishing&#33;

But, I suppose, not unexpected. Perhaps they&#39;ll soon be celebrating "Law Day" instead of Mayday. :lol:

I would offer the following "rule of thumb": if it&#39;s "legal", then it&#39;s probably harmless to the ruling class and may even be helpful.

That doesn&#39;t mean the converse is true, of course. That which is "illegal" may or may not be harmful to the ruling class...it depends.


We desperately need the greatest possible democratic rights in order to organize and fight back...

I guess when the ruling class makes proletarian revolution "legal", then we&#39;ll have a real shot. :lol:

All significant resistance to the despotism of capital is, by definition, illegal.

The only way to defeat the censorship of revolutionary ideas is to defy it.

Say what you think needs to be said and tell the censors (official or unofficial) to go fuck themselves.

I frankly do not understand the desire to cloak one&#39;s critique of capitalism in a superstitious concern for "democratic rights".

As if abstract "democracy" were some "supreme value" that "stands above" earthly matters...like which class owns the means of production and holds state power.

In the past, workers have indeed struggled for "democratic rights"...without significant success. Under the despotism of capital, "democracy" means whatever the ruling class says it means.

If you say that "censorship is undemocratic", the U.S. ruling class can counter with dozens of its Supreme Court decisions that assert that censorship is perfectly consistent with democracy provided only that the government can demonstrate a "compelling state interest" in the particular censoring that it wants to do.

I think similar examples are probably abundant in every capitalist "democracy".

So what do we gain by accepting their framework of controversy about the Danish cartoons or anything else?

The people who printed the cartoons are not interested in "free speech" for us...they&#39;re opposed to that.

And the people protesting the cartoons are even more vehemently opposed to us...they&#39;d chop our commie heads off if they got the chance.

Why then the "eagerness" to become embroiled in this quarrel among reactionaries?

To "pick a side" to support...when they&#39;re all bastards&#33;

What are the possible outcomes of this cartoonish controversy?

1. The Danes pass a retroactive anti-blasphemy law and the cartoon publishers are fined and/or jailed.

2. The Danes refuse to back down...and stop selling anything in the Muslim world.

3. Some more western embassys get burned down.

4. A torrent of mindless rhetoric about the clash of Christian and Muslim "civilizations" pollutes the arena of public discourse.

What does any of that crap have to do with us or with what we want???

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
I agree with your argument about democratic rights. However, I&#39;m still not convinced about the whole "these people are our enemies" argument. It seems like a lot of people are viewing this as a simple religious debate. I think that ignores the context of the situation, i.e. the wars in the middle east, Islamophobia in the West etc. I really see these riots/protests as being far more about anger against the West in general, for all of its actions, and not just simply for one religious faux-paus or what have you. Yes, the people who are often coordinating these things, i.e. the leaders and religious elites are probably vehemently anti-Leftist. However, I don&#39;t really see the average Muslim protesting to be protesting against the Left or atheism or whatever, and in favor of their religion, I think they&#39;re just exasperated at the whole situation. I thought it was interesting that you argued against accepting the mainstream framework over these cartoons and then talked about how this whole situation could just lead to more discourse over the "clash of civilizations" BS. Isn&#39;t accepting that this debate is over religion, and over Islam, and not over the situation in the middle east and imperialism, in essence, accepting the mainstream framework? I mean, I think one of the goals of the West has been to inextricably link what is happening in the Middle East to religion and Islam as much as possible, to give them justification for going in and "civilizing" these "barbarians" and all that BS. Why accept this view of Muslims as being some fundamentalist zealots who are only concerned with religion? In my view, they have other concerns as well, such as the daily oppression they face at the hands of their govts. and the West. Of course, this whole situation brings up the issue of religion and revolutionary-ness. I agree with gravedigger that people seem to be blinded by their anti-religious viewpoints on this issue. I of course am an atheist and beleive in the eventual destruction of religion, but should we really hold it against these individuals in the Middle East that they happen to be Muslim? Especially in a world where, lets face it, the majority of the world is religious? Do we expect them to somehow suddenly "come to the realization" that religion is bad and break free from it? Seems a bit unrealistic to me.

[BattleOfTheCowshed]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Feb 18 2006, 11:20 AM--> (Armchair Socialism @ Feb 18 2006, 11:20 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected]
Do you really see the U.S. banning criticism of religion over this issue?

It is not impossible that in a few years there will be a whole new set of anti-blasphemy laws in America - which will likely protect Christianity with "gusto".

However, recently in Britain there was a "Religious Hatred" bill which would give certain Religious groups the same protection as certain racial groups. This bill sort of passed....


BBC News
MPs have approved a bill to outlaw inciting religious hatred, although the government&#39;s original plans were partially defeated after Lords and then MPs forced through amendments.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4666908.stm

As I understand it, this new bill does protect Christians and Muslims the same way the "Racial Hatred" laws protect certain ethnic groups - this includes Jews because there is a "social notion" that Jews are a distinct ethnic group.

So basically, if one went to a Pro-Choice rally and said some anti-Religious things, or if they got into a fight with a Pro-Life Christian, the punishment they would receive would be far more severe.

Plus I could well imagine certain threads on this board in the Religion sub-forum, could be illegal under these laws and if the Police really wanted to, they could possibly convict British members of this board.

Imagine what Marat would be saying if he were alive today&#33; :lol: [/b]
I still don&#39;t see why this issue is the crux of the matter though. Yes, they could pass anti-free speech laws because of this issue. They could do that anytime they wanted to, over any issue they pleased. I for one view this as being part of a wider anti-imperialist struggle and would not sacrifice my support of the right of Muslims to be angry about this issue in order to influence mainstream Western opinion or anything like that in some vain attempt to hold on to ever-receding bourgeois rights.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by BattleOfTheCowshed
I really see these riots/protests as being far more about anger against the West in general, for all of its actions, and not just simply for one religious faux-pas or what have you.

Well, that&#39;s not the "public face" of these protests; they&#39;re not carrying banners saying "U.S. Get Out of Iraq" or "Get Out of Afghanistan".

In fact, you have to ask yourself that if this is "about" western imperialism, how come it didn&#39;t happen when the U.S. invaded Afghanistan or Iraq?

How come it didn&#39;t happen long ago over the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians?

It seems to me that you are trying to put a "progressive spin" on the actions of reactionaries in honest support of a reactionary cause.

I think that all of the protests are not only led and inspired by Islamicists but that the participants are also Islamicists&#33; They really do hate modernity with a sincere religious passion.

Just as their Christian counterparts in the west do. Someone in one of these threads quoted the Christian fascist Pat Robertson as expressing admiration for the Muslims "in defense of their faith" while criticizing American Christians for their lack of fundamentalist fervor.


Isn&#39;t accepting that this debate is over religion, and over Islam, and not over the situation in the middle east and imperialism, in essence, accepting the mainstream framework?

Actually, the mainstream framework here seems to be "medieval Islam" vs. "western free speech".

The "western free speech" arguments are all utterly hypocritical, of course. But Islam really is medieval&#33;

Some western lefties try to raise the issue of western imperialism...but that&#39;s not what the Islamicist protesters talk about at all. At best, they might make a passing reference to the American gulag in Guantánamo. But even then, it&#39;s not the torture that really bothers them...it&#39;s pissing on the Qu&#39;ran and flushing it down the toilet.

The reason that a lot of European lefties have "supported" the cartoonists is pretty clear. They are "Islamophobic" and with pretty good reason to be&#33; Europe has been moving in a secular direction for a long time now...and they don&#39;t want to see that progressive movement halted or reversed by the growth of a medieval superstition in their midst.

That seems to me like a pretty sensible position on their part.


I think one of the goals of the West has been to inextricably link what is happening in the Middle East to religion and Islam as much as possible, to give them justification for going in and "civilizing" these "barbarians" and all that BS.

The secular imperialists in this country want "domesticated Islamicists" -- they don&#39;t really care what sort of barbarism is imposed on Muslim countries as long as their rulers obey U.S. orders.

Christian fascists probably do envision the ultimate conversion of all Muslims to Christianity -- at gunpoint if necessary. But their influence on foreign policy is probably not yet all that significant at this point.

The U.S. would still have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq even if the whole ruling class here were "hard core atheists". :lol:


Do we expect them to somehow suddenly "come to the realization" that religion is bad and break free from it?

Until they do, they&#39;ll remain "face down in a barrel of shit".

That&#39;s the "lesson of history". :(

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 08:58 PM
Where&#39;d you get it? :)
from a resistance dude at railway square :D he was cool.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well, that&#39;s not the "public face" of these protests; they&#39;re not carrying banners saying "U.S. Get Out of Iraq" or "Get Out of Afghanistan".
This is very true, but no one here is argueing that these protests are aboutprotesting imperialism, but that the anger which is the driving force behind these protests (despite the particular expression this anger has found: i.e. religious) is due to anti-immigrent backlashes in europe and UK/UK imperialism in the Middle East.


In fact, you have to ask yourself that if this is "about" western imperialism, how come it didn&#39;t happen when the U.S. invaded Afghanistan or Iraq?That&#39;s like asking why black people didn&#39;t oppose police brutality in this instance or that, but then rioted in Watts when the cops killed a kid.


I think that all of the protests are not only led and inspired by Islamicists but that the participants are also Islamicists&#33; They really do hate modernity with a sincere religious passion. Any whay is this? Because, as imperialist bigots claim, arabs are just crazed fundamentalists and it must be something in the air or the blood that makes them this way and hate or freedom. Or is it because in the middle east, Islamists are the only ones adressing imperialism.


Some western lefties try to raise the issue of western imperialism...but that&#39;s not what the Islamicist protesters talk about at all. At best, they might make a passing reference to the American gulag in Guantánamo. But even then, it&#39;s not the torture that really bothers them...it&#39;s pissing on the Qu&#39;ran and flushing it down the toilet.


The reason that a lot of European lefties have "supported" the cartoonists is pretty clear. They are "Islamophobic" and with pretty good reason to be&#33; Europe has been moving in a secular direction for a long time now...and they don&#39;t want to see that progressive movement halted or reversed by the growth of a medieval superstition in their midst.Ok, so now you&#39;re attacing the anger of the opressed while justifying the anger of the opressor?&#33;

I would like to see a secular middle east and a secular world. I would also like to see real democracy in the middle east... so do I support imperialism to instal its corrupt form of "democracy"? No. For the same reasons, marxists should not support secularism in europe when it is less about reason and science than about opression, demonization of immigrents, xenophobia, and white-european supremacy.



Do we expect them to somehow suddenly "come to the realization" that religion is bad and break free from it?Only if there is a strong alternative. Specifically, radicals in Europe should be trying to form protests against the bigotry of the cartoon or try to get their unions to pass resolutions condemning this bigotry and connect this to fighting for immigrent rights.

I read about this a long time ago, so I don&#39;t think I got all the facts straight. But the gist, as best as I can recall goes like this: when Italy invaded Ethiopia, black nationalists in NYC planned a protest in an Italian section of town and the CP organized a bunch of anti-fascist Italian immigrents to join and effectivly what might have been an angry anti-italian protest became a united anti-fascist protest.

This is what we need to be doing. We need to recognize the racism of these cartoons and be figureing out way in which we can protest in solidarity, while bringing into sharper focus that the real clash here is between imperilaism and humanity, not one group or regular people against another.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Gravedigger
This is very true, but no one here is arguing that these protests are about protesting imperialism, but that the anger which is the driving force behind these protests (despite the particular expression this anger has found: i.e., religious) is due to anti-immigrant backlashes in Europe and US/UK imperialism in the Middle East.

Why are you so unwilling to take the Islamicists at their word? They haven&#39;t said crap about anti-immigrant backlashes or imperialism.

Who are you -- "westerner" -- to decide what they "really mean"? Are they "incapable" of articulating their own concerns?

It looks to me like they mean what they say&#33;

Just as the Christian fascists mean what they say.

By your logic, we&#39;d start talking about supporting Christian fascism as an "expression" of "alienation from capitalism" or some such nonsense.

No&#33;


Any why is this?

Islamicists hate modernity because it totally trashes everything that they hold to be "sacred".

Christian fascists in the U.S. feel the same way...for the same reason.


Ok, so now you&#39;re attacking the anger of the oppressed while justifying the anger of the oppressor?&#33;

That&#39;s an outstandingly dumbass remark&#33; :angry:

The Islamicists are, whenever they get the chance, "world class" oppressors; c.f. Iran.

The European left has oppressed no one. It&#39;s never had the power to do so.


Marxists should not support secularism in Europe when it is less about reason and science than about oppression, demonization of immigrants, xenophobia, and white-European supremacy.

Heading off to the mosque, eh?

Better make sure to leave your "Marxism" at home. :lol:


...not one group of regular people against another.

Islamicists are not "regular people"...they are intransigent enemies of human liberation.

A few of them are involved in armed struggle against U.S. imperialism in Iraq and Afghanistan...and I&#39;m willing to support them because they&#39;re doing something progressive "inspite of themselves". Most Islamicists couldn&#39;t care less about imperialism or oppression...except that they lust for the chance to do that stuff themselves.

Consequently, I don&#39;t see why revolutionary Marxists should give a rat&#39;s ass about what happens to the bastards.

As to immigration, my policy would be atheists only&#33; :lol:

Alas, that is far into the future. But I think it will be eventually true or something very close to that. What really civilized polis would want immigrants that believed in things that don&#39;t exist?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by redstar2000+--> (redstar2000)It looks to me like they mean what they say&#33;[/b]

I do agree with that, and I actually ran across an interesting piece about a young Muslim singer in today&#39;s Indpendent....


Originally posted by Fanatics tell Muslim singer: We&#39;ll kill you+--> (Fanatics tell Muslim singer: We&#39;ll kill you)A Muslim pop singer has been forced to hire bodyguards to protect her during a visit to Britain next month after she received a string of death threats from religious extremists.[/b]

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_brit...ticle346376.ece (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article346376.ece)

Fanatics right? ....we&#39;d expect that kind of behaviour from them, but there are a few "hints" in the article that it&#39;s more than a few particularly pious people threatening this lady....


Fanatics tell Muslim singer: We&#39;ll kill [email protected]
"I had no plan to court controversy or anger people in my community. I wanted to make people think and confront my own fears as a Muslim woman," she said. Soon, though, she was dubbed "the Muslim Madonna". And then came hate mail and abuse from extremists.

"I have been on the verge of a breakdown. Middle-aged men have spat at me in the street and I have had people phone me and tell me they were going to cut me up into pieces. I became this figure of hate simply because of what I do and wear."

The internet article actually has a bit that wasn&#39;t in the Sunday paper....


&#39;Set up UK Sharia law districts&#39;
Four in 10 British Muslims want Sharia law introduced in parts of the UK, a poll of 500 Muslims revealed last night. One in five also expressed sympathy with the "feelings and motives" of the 7 July suicide bombers.

But the survey, carried out by ICM in the wake of Muslim protests around the world over cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohamed, showed that 91 per cent of Muslims in this country feel "loyal" to Britain. Just 1 per cent * or, according to the sample, five people * approved of the suicide attacks in London that killed 52 people.

Sharia law, which is practised in large parts of the Middle East, specifies stonings and amputations as routine punishments. Religious police are responsible for bringing suspects before special courts.

Sharia should be introduced in "predominantly Muslim" areas of Britain, according to 40 per cent of those polled; 41 per cent opposed the move.

Sadiq Khan, the Labour MP for Tooting, who was appointed to the Government&#39;s Muslim taskforce in the wake of the 7 July attacks, said the findings were " alarming".

I&#39;d say that&#39;s more than "alarming", I&#39;d say it&#39;s fucking terrifying that 4 in 10 Muslims would happily stone my mother to death for not covering up.

Any yet, criticism of this is no doubt "Islamphobia". :huh:

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 07:32 AM
Why are you so unwilling to take the Islamicists at their word? They haven&#39;t said crap about anti-immigrant backlashes or imperialism.


I am not taking Islamists at their word. How could I? As you have pointed out several times, the religious leadership on this issue have not been talking about anti-immigrent backlashes in Europe or the occupation of Iraq. My point is that we should have the stance that people in the middle east and european arabs and muslems have a right to be upset.

If there was a contest in the US lampooning Malcom X, and a large number of black people were upset, but it was only the nation of Islam calling for protests. Would you say, oh well the NOI has some very backwards beliefs, so I guess it&#39;s damned if you do and damned if I don&#39;t on this event?

Of corse not, you would recognize the caroons as being a racist attack against an opressed group which needs to be stood up to despite the particular leadership at that time.


Who are you -- "westerner" -- to decide what they "really mean"? Are they "incapable" of articulating their own concerns?What, identity politics now?

Yeah, as a westerner, we should be protesting racist shit like thoes cartoons even if there was no arab or muslem response.


By your logic, we&#39;d start talking about supporting Christian fascism as an "expression" of "alienation from capitalism" or some such nonsense.

No&#33;No, by my logic, marxists stand up to xenophobia, and racism and fight for worker solidarity. By your logic sometimes xenophobia is justified if a group of people generally have poor politcs because religion is a large social force amoung that group of people. See below:


As to immigration, my policy would be atheists only&#33; :lol:

Alas, that is far into the future. But I think it will be eventually true or something very close to that. What really civilized polis would want immigrants that believed in things that don&#39;t exist?

Joining the minutemen anytime soon? I mean many latin american immigrents are religious... catholic many of them and that&#39;s one mightily backward religious organization.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 19 2006, 02:05 PM
I&#39;d say that&#39;s more than "alarming", I&#39;d say it&#39;s fucking terrifying that 4 in 10 Muslims would happily stone my mother to death for not covering up.

Any yet, criticism of this is no doubt "Islamphobia". :huh:
Oh, my god, you had better hide your mother&#33;

Bullshit. There is no middle-eastern National Front in the UK. THe ruling class isn&#39;t pushing for pro-islamic legislation and threatening to deport anglos.

There is an anglo national front though. Tony Blair is proclaiming that he will deport whomever displeases him.

My prediction is that European radicals who do not take a good stance on these issues and who do not understand how racism is one of the most effective tools of the ruling class are going to be like the "second international" of the next decades.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Gravedigger+--> (Gravedigger)Oh, my god, you had better hide your mother&#33;[/b]

That&#39;s not the point.

The point was that you have said that the protests were about X, where as as far as I can see the protests were about Y.

The protests as far as I can tell have been about Islam, and the "progressive slant" of them being about larger events in the Middle East seems to have been added by "outside forces".

Basically, people are pissed because Islam was mocked and not because Baghdad was bombed.

Indeed, you and other people seem to have equated a Muslim political "gripe" with Arabs in general, but everything I&#39;ve seen or read from secular Arabs has condemned the protests, like this....

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46336


Gravedigger
My prediction is that European radicals who do not take a good stance on these issues and who do not understand how racism is one of the most effective tools of the ruling class are going to be like the "second international" of the next decades.

I have mentioned a couple of times in other threads, that the only way someone can view these cartoons as racist, is if they equate being Arab (brown) with being a Muslim.

Something you seem quite happy to do.

[Kaga]

Think about if the pictures were about jews.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 12:01 AM
Do you really see the U.S. banning criticism of religion over this issue?
It&#39;s more of a possiblity in Europe, as the editorial and news article mention. A.S. mentioned some of the proposed bills in Britain.

Blasphemy against Christianity and Judaism is already illegal in Britain, and there&#39;s a proposal to extend this to Islam. IMO the law against blasphemy should be repealed instead, and any attempt to actually enforce it against anyone should be opposed.


I personally haven&#39;t seen any legitimate calls for censorship or any signs of impeding censorship

Many of these demonstrations are calling for it, and it&#39;s those calls which are the subject of the editorial.


I don&#39;t see why we can&#39;t argue that the anger that these cartoons sparked is legitimate as well as arguing that free speech is a right.

I agree.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 12:52 PM
If black people had organized to get "Amos and Andy" off the airwaves or to stop a minstral show, would you have argued that these irrational negros are trying to take away our "free-speech"?
....
The rest of your argument is basically a strw-man in which you criticize me for going to the government to have them censor cartoons. I didn&#39;t claim that, only that we should combat the view of this as "a clash of civilizations" on the grounds that it is an anti-marxist view of the world and supports the Imperialist justifications, retroactivly, for Imperial control of Iraq and so on.

Who&#39;s setting up a straw man?

If you don&#39;t favor banning these cartoons and other "defamation of Islam"...then good. You don&#39;t have any reason to object to the Militant&#39;s editorial.

Which certainly does not support the "clash of civilizations" view, nor does it "let your distain for religion cloud your reason"; on the contrary it concludes:
Muslims, like other believers, are divided into classes. Among the swelling ranks of working people—from the Middle East to North America, from Europe to Africa, Asia, and the Pacific—there is a growing convergence among those who recognize the need to safeguard and extend democratic rights in order to defend the life and limb of the working class and its allies, and to fight for a world without class exploitation, national oppression, or sex discrimination.


Bourgie rights should be defended, but not if it means supporting racism and opression&#33;

But defending bourgeois-democratic rights does necessarily mean defending the rights of everyone, even racists and oppressors. In the example you gave, I certainly would argue against anyone who demanded the government ban Amos and Andy, or that they should deny a permit for Nazis to march for that matter.

If you don&#39;t support free speech for those you oppose...then what is your defense of free speech worth? Everyone, even fascists, supports free speech for themselves&#33;

But in order to effectively defend even yourself...its necessary to appeal to those who disagree with you, to defend your rights. If you haven&#39;t opposed the censorship of everyone all along....you&#39;ll come off like a hypocrite trying to do that.

[Severian]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Feb 18 2006, 04:05 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Feb 18 2006, 04:05 AM)
Severian
The employing class is on an offensive against the working class, including our democratic rights.

Evidently, Severian (and, presumably, The Militant) continues to believe that there really "are" such things as "democratic rights" in late capitalist societies...and that even workers "have them". [/b]
Uff da&#33; You&#39;ve already postponed proletarian revolution to the indefinte future, Redstar. If you can&#39;t defend bourgeois democracy, what do you have left?

[Severian]

Redstar wrote:

The reason that a lot of European lefties have "supported" the cartoonists is pretty clear.

Incorrect unstated assumption, it&#39;s like saying "The reason you haven&#39;t stopped beating your wife is pretty clear."

It&#39;s not clear that a lot of European lefties have supported the cartoonists, never mind the reason.

Probably the biggest European left group is the French Communist Party.
In a Jan. 6 statement, the French Communist Party said that while freedom of expression, including freedom of the press, “is one of the pillars of democracy,” it nonetheless has limits, “notably concerning publications with a defamatory character or inciting to hatred.” The FCP said the cartoons “legitimately arouse indignation and anger among Muslims,” which they “have a right to express freely.” But, the party said, this does not justify violence and threats, which it “condemns … with the greatest firmness.”
link (http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/8538/1/308)

Other groups have taken other positions, of course; but I haven&#39;t seen any group taking your position.


Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 03:55 PM
I think that all of the protests are not only led and inspired by Islamicists but that the participants are also Islamicists&#33; They really do hate modernity with a sincere religious passion.
That&#39;s factually not the case - they&#39;re certainly not all &#39;organized by Islamicists&#39;. Many protests were sponsored by non-fundamentalist governments of majority-Muslim countries.

In another thread, I linked a NY Times article on this. The Militant news article I linked in this one summarizes the history of these protests also:
Initially, two months of campaigning by individuals and groups in Denmark to force the paper to apologize gained little support, including among Muslims.

This changed, however, after a December meeting of the Organization of the Islamic Conferences (OIC), which is made up of 56 majority Muslim states. Meeting in Mecca, the OIC condemned in its closing communiqué “the recent incident of desecration of the image of Holy Prophet Muhammad in the media of certain countries” and the use “of freedom of expression as a pretext to defame religions.”

The Islamic, Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, comprising more than 50 states, then called on member nations to impose a boycott on Danish products. In early January the Jordanian parliament condemned the cartoons, as did other governments of majority Arab countries, after a Norwegian and other European newspapers reprinted the disputed illustrations. By the end of the month, the governments of Saudi Arabia and Libya withdrew their ambassadors from Denmark.

Protests flared up in early February. Major actions took place in more than 15 countries largely in Africa, Asia, and the Pacific—including Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Kenya, Malaysia, the Philippines, Turkey, and the West Bank and Gaza. Some protests have had the tacit backing of local authorities. Bourgeois opposition and other groups, such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, have called others.

As for whether the participants are "all Islamicists" who "hate modernity"....that&#39;s harder to verify, since I don&#39;t have your ability to read the minds of large numbers of people at long distances.

But the issue seems to have at least some appeal to broader layers of the population in majority-Muslim countries; or governments and opposition groups wouldn&#39;t be competing to tap it.

Unless of course you think the population at large of these countries are all religious fanatics who "hate modernity".

[BattleOfTheCowshed]

Why are you so unwilling to take the Islamicists at their word? They haven&#39;t said crap about anti-immigrant backlashes or imperialism.

I&#39;m not unwilling to take the Islamicists at their word. I have no doubt that their is a portion of Muslims worldwide who are as you described, anti-Leftist, anti-modernity etc. My argument is that the majority of these people are not protesting out of some deep-seated religious fundamentalism, but because to put it quite simply, Islamicists are in many of these countries, the only people who are actively and strongly arguing against the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, the only group strongly supporting Palestine, the only people advocating easier immigration to Europe etc. For the most part the existing leftist groups in the Middle East either tow the mainstream liberal Western line, or are remnants of older authoritarian parties. I&#39;m not surprised that Muslims haven&#39;t joined them.


Who are you -- "westerner" -- to decide what they "really mean"? Are they "incapable" of articulating their own concerns?

I&#39;m not deciding what they really mean, I&#39;m telling you why I believe so much Middle Eastern resistance is exhibited through Islamicism. As gravedigger noted, the fact that I am a westerner does not exclude me from being able to condemn attacks like these when I see em.


It looks to me like they mean what they say&#33;

Just as the Christian fascists mean what they say.

By your logic, we&#39;d start talking about supporting Christian fascism as an "expression" of "alienation from capitalism" or some such nonsense.

No&#33;

I don&#39;t believe the theoretical origins of Christian or Islamic fascism lie in alienation. However, I do believe that many, many individuals are attracted to religion, and in some cases, fundamentalist religion because of the poor state of their lives, which is usually due to economic exploitation. This may come as a surprise to you, but: A. the majority of the working class in the world is religious, B. people like Pat Robertson receive much of their funding from working class people. Marx once said "Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people." and indeed I have personally seen many people who have been oppressed by capitalism, the state etc. retreat into religion as their only solace in life. Does that mean I support religion or think its good? Obviously not. Nonetheless, I refuse to hold religious sentiment as some kind of evidence that a person is counter-revolutionary or will forever be religious.


Islamicists hate modernity because it totally trashes everything that they hold to be "sacred".

Christian fascists in the U.S. feel the same way...for the same reason.

Yep, Islamic leaders do feel this way. Why shouldn&#39;t they? Its in their interest to keep people oppressed with religion. However, the fact of the matter is that the same true was for much of the world, including the West, not too long ago. Yet as we have seen, the first world has had a drift away from religion and towards secularism, partly led by the fact that individuals have realized that it is in their material interest to move towards secularism, advances in technology, modernity etc. You seem to believe that Muslim people are somehow special and have failed to come to this realization because they are quite simply religious zealots who (unlike the rest of humanity) are able to overlook their material environment and keep up their support for religion. The alternative explanation is that quite simply their progress has been stunted by oppression, which has been supported historically by the imperialist West.



Ok, so now you&#39;re attacking the anger of the oppressed while justifying the anger of the oppressor?&#33;

That&#39;s an outstandingly dumbass remark&#33; :angry:

The Islamicists are, whenever they get the chance, "world class" oppressors; c.f. Iran.

The European left has oppressed no one. It&#39;s never had the power to do so.

The oppressor was not the European left. This was an attack perpetrated by the European right-wing. And you have plainly justified their anger, because of course the people on the receiving end were religious.



Marxists should not support secularism in Europe when it is less about reason and science than about oppression, demonization of immigrants, xenophobia, and white-European supremacy.

Heading off to the mosque, eh?

Better make sure to leave your "Marxism" at home. :lol:

It seems to me like gravedigger has a valid point. Oppression and racism have often taken on the veneer of promoting "civilized values". After all, fascist Italy only invaded Ethiopia to "civilize" those "barberous" people right? Yet you scoff at his remark and suggest hes a Muslim or something?



...not one group of regular people against another.

Islamicists are not "regular people"...they are intransigent enemies of human liberation.

A few of them are involved in armed struggle against U.S. imperialism in Iraq and Afghanistan...and I&#39;m willing to support them because they&#39;re doing something progressive "inspite of themselves". Most Islamicists couldn&#39;t care less about imperialism or oppression...except that they lust for the chance to do that stuff themselves.

Consequently, I don&#39;t see why revolutionary Marxists should give a rat&#39;s ass about what happens to the bastards.

Hmmm, yes, of course those people fighting in Iraq are fighting to kick out Americans because they are simply lusting to become an empire themselves and terrorize others, they are simply lusting for the chance to support their oppressive rulers.....That Iraqi kid tired of US occupation, tired of backward regimes ruling him? He happens to consider himself religious, so lets have the US army kill him&#33; after all, his religion will make him counter-revolutionary right? And hes not a "regular person" after all...


As to immigration, my policy would be atheists only&#33; :lol:


A communist taking the exact same position as many rght-wing European political parties. Delightful.


Alas, that is far into the future. But I think it will be eventually true or something very close to that. What really civilized polis would want immigrants that believed in things that don&#39;t exist?

I don&#39;t mind. Most of the immigrants to the US are religious, and I welcome them with open arms. I&#39;m a bit realistic and I won&#39;t hold it against people that they&#39;ve been too busy trying to eek out a living to break out of the entire paradigm of their former society and come to a particular philosophical conclusion.

[BattleOfTheCowshed]

Originally posted by Gravedigger
Oh, my god, you had better hide your mother&#33;

That&#39;s not the point.

Yes it is, the point is that you have accepted the Western view of Islam, hook, line and sinker. The same view which is used to justify further imperialist action. "Oh god, these people would kill my mom if they could, we have to fight em&#33;"


The point was that you have said that the protests were about X, where as as far as I can see the protests were about Y.

Yes, and to many people the American revolution was about a freedom-loving minority fighting off tyranny. Others would say that it was a conflict between two economic classes. Similarly, some would say that the conflict in the Middle East is between a freedom-loving West and an evil, barbaric people in the Middle East. George W. Bush would say this, and so apparently, would you. Others would say that this is a conflict involving capitalism and imperialism.


I have mentioned a couple of times in other threads, that the only way someone can view these cartoons as racist, is if they equate being Arab (brown) with being a Muslim.

Something you seem quite happy to do.

With reason. We are commenting on the nature of these cartoons, not saying that we accept the views set forth by their perpetrators. To many racists in the West, Muslims do equal Arabs. These cartoons included depictions of Arab Muslims and were directed at Muslim immigrants to Europe which are overwhelmingly Arab. Just because we are commenting on the racist nature of these cartoons does not mean we accept them. By your logic, stating that "the Nazis viewed non-whites as being non-Aryans" would automatically mean that one accepts the concept of "Aryan-ness" and the Nazis views :-/. Furthermore, a question for you is: if the anger over these cartoons is really a religious matter and has nothing to do with the geopolitical events of the world, then why is most of the anger occuring in the Arab middle east and in central Asia, areas of American imperialism, and not in Indonesia, or South East Asia, where much of the worlds Muslim population exists?????

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 19 2006, 07:27 PM
The point was that you have said that the protests were about X, where as as far as I can see the protests were about Y.
I&#39;m not saying that this arger is an organized responce to certain opression; I&#39;m saying that the anger which is then organized as this or that protest about specific things is the result of opression in Europe and the US invasion and that anger is completely justified even though people are making ISlamicist conclusions rather than marxist ones.

I would love for arab immigrents and people from Iraq and Iran and Afganistan to be drawing radical marxist conclusions. But that&#39;s not going to happen when marxists don&#39;t respond and give their explainations for opression, Imperialism, and racism. It is definatly never going to happen when european marxists, wash their hands of the anti-immigrent backlash because many of the immigrents have backwards views.


Basically, people are pissed because Islam was mocked and not because Baghdad was bombed.So basically you share the view of the US media which says this is all because Muslems have no sense of humor... or you agree with Pat Robertson and his ilk who say it is due to the inherent "devoutness" of muslems.


I have mentioned a couple of times in other threads, that the only way someone can view these cartoons as racist, is if they equate being Arab (brown) with being a Muslim.So the image of an ARAB Allah with a turbin shaped like a bomb is a witty critique of religion, not a racist stereotype&#33;? Or are you playing a cute little game of semantics - it&#39;s not racist, because it is religion, not race that is the target.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)If you can&#39;t defend bourgeois democracy, what do you have left?[/b]

Oh, just the idea that revolutionaries should at least be willing to mention the revolutionary option to the working class from time to time. :lol:

Instead of mindlessly stirring ourselves up over quarrels between reactionaries...as in this thread.


That&#39;s factually not the case - they&#39;re certainly not all &#39;organized by Islamicists&#39;. Many protests were sponsored by non-fundamentalist governments of majority-Muslim countries.

Yeah, they trot out their "house fundamentalist" to "cry havoc" in hopes of co-opting the "issue".

Who cares?


As for whether the participants are "all Islamicists" who "hate modernity"....that&#39;s harder to verify, since I don&#39;t have your ability to read the minds of large numbers of people at long distances.

But the issue seems to have at least some appeal to broader layers of the population in majority-Muslim countries; or governments and opposition groups wouldn&#39;t be competing to tap it.

Looks to me like you&#39;re perfectly willing to try. Neither of us can "read minds"...but some hypotheses are clearly more plausible than others.

I don&#39;t think "average Muslims" give a rat&#39;s ass about cartoons in Denmark; but Islamicists have clearly seized on the "issue" as a way to inflame their own ranks with "divine fury"...and some governments in the area likewise find it a useful diversion.

Once more, who cares?

Aside from the reactionaries involved in this squabble?


I certainly would argue against anyone who demanded the government ban Amos and Andy, or that they should deny a permit for Nazis to march for that matter.

By modern standards, Amos and Andy would be considered unacceptably racist. In the 1930s and 40s, this extraordinarily popular radio comedy program was possibly the first exposure to African-American culture (stereotypical as it was) that ordinary American white people ever experienced.

It was the first time that African-Americans were presented in the mainstream media as humans instead of "dark sub-human threats". In a way, I think it actually subverted the virulent racism of that era.

Compare it to the modern media portrayal of African-American males -- dope dealers, pimps, violent gangsters...some "thing" to be afraid of.

Meanwhile, let&#39;s leave Severian to "defend bourgeois democratic rights" by approving "parade permits for Nazis". :lol:


Gravedigger
Joining the minutemen anytime soon? I mean many Latin American immigrants are religious... Catholic many of them and that&#39;s one mightily backward religious organization.

There are major capitalists here who&#39;ve already decided that they can&#39;t do without importing cheap labor...and religion is not a consideration with them.

Neither the "Minutemen" nor anyone else is going to "stop that" from happening.

In the "big picture", it&#39;s likely that this will serve to create a delay in successful proletarian revolution here. But I don&#39;t think it will be a significant delay.

There are Catholic fundamentalists -- Opus Dei for example -- but they lack "mass appeal".

Seventy years ago, there was a Christian fascist version of Catholicism with considerable appeal in the U.S. But I don&#39;t think Mexican immigration is going to "revive" that.

On the contrary, I expect Mexican immigrants to be secularized almost as fast as "native born" Americans are being secularized. Too slowly...but still happening.

I expect a fair number of Muslims in Europe are also being slowly secularized; but it&#39;s the Islamicists who "get all the headlines". The doctrine of "multi-culturalism" encourages this...almost a post-modernist version of what used to just be called segregation. :o

Judging from the poll that Armchair Socialism mentioned, the Islamicists want ghettos in the U.K. where they can impose their medieval practices without hindrance.

Want to support that???

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by BattleOfTheCowshed+--> (BattleOfTheCowshed)....the point is that you have accepted the Western view of Islam, hook, line and sinker.[/b]

What "view" is this? ....that Islam is a barbaric Medieval superstition?

If you like, we can browse over the Qu&#39;ran and discuss the history of Islam in order to judge whether this "view" is accurate or not.


Originally posted by BattleOfTheCowshed+--> (BattleOfTheCowshed)To many racists in the West, Muslims do equal Arabs.[/b]

And to you, when viewing these cartoons.

However, what would you say to secular Arabs living in danger because of Political Islam and their attempts to discredit Islam? ....would you say "it&#39;s nice that you are doing your best to stop the influence of this reactionary superstition, but if it gets offended, I&#39;m afraid I&#39;m going to switch sides and stand in line pissing and moaning with the pious about the offence caused by these cartoons"?

I linked a piece earlier that appeared in Events and Propaganda which was supported by three Middle Eastern Women&#39;s Rights groups. These people are doing their best to stop the harmful effects that Islam has on women, but you would rather support the Religious Groups than the Groups who are trying to stop the Religion and have to deal with its consequences daily.

Mind boggling.


Originally posted by BattleOfTheCowshed
....and not in Indonesia, or South East Asia, where much of the worlds Muslim population exists?????

I&#39;d say that people in this part of the world are not only concerned with rebuilding large sections of their countries, but are also pretty pissed at "Allah" for destroying their countries in the first pace.

There was a major flood (?) in Portugal (?) in around the 16th century which totally undermined the basis for Christianity. I wouldn&#39;t be too surprised if the Tsunami did the same thing there.


Originally posted by Gravedigger
I would love for arab immigrents and people from Iraq and Iran and Afganistan to be drawing radical marxist conclusions. But that&#39;s not going to happen when marxists don&#39;t respond and give their explainations for opression, Imperialism, and racism.

No, "radical marxist conclusions" will come when there is a material base for this, not because some Marxists say some nice things.

The only thing that will ever get you is support - we need a revolutionary working class.


[email protected]
....or you agree with Pat Robertson and his ilk who say it is due to the inherent "devoutness" of muslems.

And the bastard even forgot my pay-cheque this week. :lol:


Gravedigger
So the image of an ARAB Allah with a turbin shaped like a bomb is a witty critique of religion....

I thought it was Mohammad who was drawn? ....and Mohammad - if he existed at all - was an Arab, he lived in the Middle East.

Would the cartoons have been "racist" if Mohammad was a "white guy"?

Anyway, as far as I&#39;m aware the Qu&#39;ran does support suicide bombing - and I think the Bible probably does too.

[BattleOfTheCowshed]

Originally posted by BattleOfTheCowshed+--> (BattleOfTheCowshed)....the point is that you have accepted the Western view of Islam, hook, line and sinker.

What "view" is this? ....that Islam is a barbaric Medieval superstition?

If you like, we can browse over the Qu&#39;ran and discuss the history of Islam in order to judge whether this "view" is accurate or not.[/b]

No. I was clearly referring to your comment about the whole of Muslims being barbarous and "willing to kill your mother". If we are to debate religious history, lets do so for all religions, and not just Islam. The existant of religious extremists in a faith does not mean all of the practitioners of it are also extremist.



Originally posted by BattleOfTheCowshed+--> (BattleOfTheCowshed)To many racists in the West, Muslims do equal Arabs.

And to you, when viewing these cartoons.
[/b]

Hmm, interesting, you selectively quoted one sentence from what I wrote, and disregarded the rest where I explained that recognizing that certain views exist does not mean endorsing them. As if that weren&#39;t enough, you also disregarded gravedigger&#39;s post where he addresses this claim of yours.


However, what would you say to secular Arabs living in danger because of Political Islam and their attempts to discredit Islam? ....would you say "it&#39;s nice that you are doing your best to stop the influence of this reactionary superstition, but if it gets offended, I&#39;m afraid I&#39;m going to switch sides and stand in line pissing and moaning with the pious about the offence caused by these cartoons"?


It depends. If someone were trying to discredit Islam and promote some Western hegemonic view of the world that ascertains that the West needs more imperialist ventures aimed at "civilizing" the third world, I would say "Nice knowing ya ;)". If someone were arguing for rationality and trying to bring enlightenment to the followers of Islam, I would say, "I stand in solidarity. Too bad people like Armchair Socialism take a reactionary point of view in this matter, which simply pressures more and more Muslims into Islamic fundamentalism as the only release valve for their anger, which in turn endangers you more". The only one here who has switched sides is you, who now shares an identical view of Islam as George W. Bush and Pat Robertson. And if anger over a racist cartoon equals "pissing and moaning" to you, then I think that says far more about you than me.


I linked a piece earlier that appeared in Events and Propaganda which was supported by three Middle Eastern Women&#39;s Rights groups. These people are doing their best to stop the harmful effects that Islam has on women, but you would rather support the Religious Groups than the Groups who are trying to stop the Religion and have to deal with its consequences daily.


No, what I am saying is that women&#39;s rights in the Middle East will never come about until capitalism is abolished, Islam is abolished, and democracy is initiated. You have accepted the Western paradigm of a "clash of civilizations" which is what allows the West to continually perpetuate economic exploitaton and military imperialism in the Middle East. As long as the West is involved in the Middle East, there will be no democracy, exploitation will abound and the work of those Women&#39;s rights groups will amount to absolutely nothing. And the ability of the West to engage in these types of conflicts rests on the beliefs of people like you that their is some sort of culture clash going on. I myself support the masses of the population in these countries who are demonstrating their anger at the West through these protests.



Originally posted by BattleOfTheCowshed
....and not in Indonesia, or South East Asia, where much of the worlds Muslim population exists?????

I&#39;d say that people in this part of the world are not only concerned with rebuilding large sections of their countries, but are also pretty pissed at "Allah" for destroying their countries in the first pace.

There was a major flood (?) in Portugal (?) in around the 16th century which totally undermined the basis for Christianity. I wouldn&#39;t be too surprised if the Tsunami did the same thing there.

Yes, the Indonesians are rebuilding their country after the tsunami. If that is the reason that they arent out protesting then please explain to me why Pakistan, which just experienced a massive and drastic earthquake (more recently than the tsunami) was also the site of massive protests. The tsunami happened on the shores, why aren&#39;t people in Jakarta pissed? Also, I have seen zero evidence that anyone in these countries has blamed Allah for the tsunami or that there has been any move away from Islam in these countries. Do you have any evidence for this??????

Also, I have no doubt that the catastrophe in Portugal (I&#39;m assuming you are referring to the earthquake that Voltaire mentions in Candide, which occured in real life) helped destablize religion for a while. However, considering that Portugal was ruled by a Catholic right-wing military dictatorship from 1933 to 1974, I highly doubt that the earthquake "undermined the basis for Christianity".



Originally posted by Gravedigger
I would love for arab immigrents and people from Iraq and Iran and Afganistan to be drawing radical marxist conclusions. But that&#39;s not going to happen when marxists don&#39;t respond and give their explainations for opression, Imperialism, and racism.

No, "radical marxist conclusions" will come when there is a material base for this, not because some Marxists say some nice things.


Agreed. The curious thing is this mixes up your previous argument. Marx argued that Marxist conclusions about society could only be borne out through struggle and material conditions. It is obvious that neither of these yet exists in the Middle East and thus they are still stuck in religious-mode. Yet you still seem to view them as class-enemies and support attacks against them. It is therefore shocking that you use this point to support your arguments, since, logically extending them we would arrive at the conclusion that you would support, say, the King of England or the King of France crushing the chartists and the working class back in their day. After all, these people were religious (how could they not be, they had not experienced the struggle that would allow them to escape these bonds), but according to you, thats fine, they are still class enemies.



[email protected]
....or you agree with Pat Robertson and his ilk who say it is due to the inherent "devoutness" of muslems.

And the bastard even forgot my pay-cheque this week. :lol:

Hahahahahaha. Not. Gravedigger is right on the money. There is something to the fact that you share a viewpoint with Pat Robertson, it is that you are viewing this from a pro-Western idealistic viewpoint. How very Marxist of you, and your only rebuttal is a joke?

Lets analyze your following comments though...



Gravedigger
So the image of an ARAB Allah with a turbin shaped like a bomb is a witty critique of religion....

I thought it was Mohammad who was drawn? ....and Mohammad - if he existed at all - was an Arab, he lived in the Middle East.

Would the cartoons have been "racist" if Mohammad was a "white guy"?

#1. Gravedigger confused &#39;Mohammad&#39; and &#39;Allah&#39;, big deal.
#2. Gravedigger capitalized &#39;Arab&#39; because you kept bringing up your claim that these cartoons were not racist. He wanted to point out that these cartoons specifically target Arabs. You either have a short attention span or were attempting to dance around the question.
#3. You have yet to address whether in fact you view these cartoons as insulting, provocative racist cartoons, or whether they are what you in fact seem to believe: that they are some kind of enlightened rational criticism of Islam. (From the Jyllands-Posten no less&#33;)


Anyway, as far as I&#39;m aware the Qu&#39;ran does support suicide bombing - and I think the Bible probably does too.

The Quran does support war against non-Muslims. However, I thought we were here to debate the anger and response to these Danish cartoons, not theology. Unless, that is, you have the very naive conception that all Muslims accept all Quranic law to a T.

[che-Rabbi]

These cartoons are transparently racist, the news paper who origionaly published them is a far right anti-immigration paper, so its no wonder but also, a hand full of imams took cartoons to the arab world to show them what the christian world thought of them.. but ooops, most of the cartoons they took werent even published. When one the these pin heads was "confronted", i use quotes because it was on cnn, he just played dumb and made america that much more islamophobic.

The real problem is that people think that its a war with islam but its a war within islam. Every time something like these cartoons getting published, torture at prison X or Ann coulter opening her mouth, more and more arabs turn to radical islam for solutions.

[Severian]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Feb 19 2006, 08:11 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Feb 19 2006, 08:11 PM)
Severian
If you can&#39;t defend bourgeois democracy, what do you have left?

Oh, just the idea that revolutionaries should at least be willing to mention the revolutionary option to the working class from time to time. :lol: [/b]
You think there&#39;s a revolutionary option? Don&#39;t you say the objective conditions for proletarian revolution won&#39;t be ready for a long time? Aren&#39;t you the same guy who says it&#39;s too early to be calling for proletarian revolution. I had that quote in my sig a little while ago, with a link, remember?

So yeah, all you can do is "mention" it "from time to time". If you were a bourgeois democrat, at least you&#39;d be good for that; as it is you&#39;re good for nothing.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by BattleOfTheCowshed+--> (BattleOfTheCowshed)Too bad people like Armchair Socialism take a reactionary point of view in this matter, which simply pressures more and more Muslims into Islamic fundamentalism as the only release valve for their anger, which in turn endangers you more.[/b]

Now we have a "real explanation" for the rise of Islamicism...it&#39;s a few "reactionary ultra-leftists" like Armchair Socialism who "pressure more and more Muslims" into Islamic fundamentalism.

This sniveling argument has been raised countless times in the Religion subforum...when we have been repeatedly advised not to harshly criticize Christianity because that will just "drive the Christians further to the right".


No, what I am saying is that women&#39;s rights in the Middle East will never come about until capitalism is abolished, Islam is abolished, and democracy is initiated.

How does it help to "abolish Islam" by sucking up to the Islamicists?

By telling people that Islamicist anger "is justified"?


You have accepted the Western paradigm of a "clash of civilizations" which is what allows the West to continually perpetuate economic exploitation and military imperialism in the Middle East.

The "clash of civilizations" paradigm is relatively new...or, if you wish, a revival of the 19th century Euro-centric view of the world.

What allows the Western capitalist class to "continually perpetuate economic exploitation" is military and technological superiority.

Along with the happy collaboration of a horde of Islamicist quislings, of course. U.S. imperialism is just fine with some Islamicists...the ones who know their place and carry out their orders.

Trying to convert Islamicist religious fury into an "avatar" of "anti-imperialism" is a transformation that not even "dialectics" can manage.

Only western guilt-ridden white liberals can pull it off...and even then only with people who know next to nothing about either Islam or imperialism.

But it certainly is a spectacular diversion, isn&#39;t it? Even on this board, we&#39;re piling up the megabytes "discussing" the bullshit...as if it could possibly make any difference for us.

What could be funnier than the "contest" between "lefties" who stand up for free speech for reactionaries vs. those who stand up for the sanctity of Muhammad.

What a sick joke&#33;


You have yet to address whether in fact you view these cartoons as insulting, provocative racist cartoons, or whether they are what you in fact seem to believe: that they are some kind of enlightened rational criticism of Islam.

How about neither&#33;

In the eyes of the Islamicists, the cartoons were blasphemous...an offense punishable by death.

To the extent that the Islamicist fury has served to further discredit religion in general and Islam in particular, that&#39;s a progressive development.


Severian
...as it is you&#39;re good for nothing.

Thanks for your support. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by BattleOfTheCowshed+--> (BattleOfTheCowshed)If we are to debate religious history, lets do so for all religions, and not just Islam.[/b]

Fine by me, but unless you haven&#39;t realised - this thread is about Islam&#33;

So really, if we want to have a coherent debate we should at least try to keep the debate "on topic".


Originally posted by BattleOfTheCowshed+--> (BattleOfTheCowshed)Hmm, interesting, you selectively quoted one sentence from what I wrote....[/b]

I think the reader will draw their own conclusions as to whether I&#39;m "disregarding" your debate or not.


Originally posted by BattleOfTheCowshed
And if anger over a racist cartoon equals "pissing and moaning" to you, then I think that says far more about you than me.

Muslims consider these particular cartoons blasphemous and blasphemy is not racism.


Originally posted by BattleOfTheCowshed
You have accepted the Western paradigm of a "clash of civilizations"....

No I haven&#39;t.

I have pointed out that there are groups of people in the Middle East who are doing their best to discredit Islam and that these people are in direct opposition to the people protesting these cartoons.

Perhaps you also support the Christians who protest "blasphemous" productions - Jerry Springer the Opera - after all, if you opposed them than you&#39;d be taking "a reactionary point of view in this matter, which simply pressures more and more Christians into Christian fascism".


Originally posted by BattleOfTheCowshed
I myself support the masses of the population in these countries who are demonstrating their anger at the West through these protests.

Well I "support" the "masses of the population" who are doing this kind of stuff....


Originally posted by BBC News
Attacks by insurgents on Iraq&#39;s oil industry cost the country &#036;6.25bn (£3.6bn) in lost revenue during 2005, according to the Iraqi oil ministry.

A total of 186 attacks were carried out on oil sites last year, claiming the lives of 47 engineers and 91 police and security guards, a spokesman said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4729178.stm

That seems a more effective way to "demonstrate their anger".


Originally posted by BattleOfTheCowshed
Do you have any evidence for this??????

No, it was a speculation on my part.


Originally posted by BattleOfTheCowshed
....but according to you, thats fine, they are still class enemies.

Today the Chartists probably would be considered "class enemies" - at the very least they&#39;d be considered Reformist morons.

Times change. :)


Originally posted by BattleOfTheCowshed
#2. Gravedigger capitalized &#39;Arab&#39; because you kept bringing up your claim that these cartoons were not racist. He wanted to point out that these cartoons specifically target Arabs. You either have a short attention span or were attempting to dance around the question.

Well Mohammad - if he existed - would most likely be an Arab. Therefore if someone wished to draw him accurately, they would draw him with "Arab features" - the same way that Jesus drawn accurately would be drawn as an Arab.

Do you have a problem with Mohammad the human being being consider to be of Arabic descent?


Originally posted by BattleOfTheCowshed
#3. You have yet to address whether in fact you view these cartoons as insulting, provocative racist cartoons....

I&#39;ve addressed this in other threads in the Religion sub-forum.


Originally posted by BattleOfTheCowshed
....or whether they are what you in fact seem to believe: that they are some kind of enlightened rational criticism of Islam.

Well I don&#39;t particularly care whether they are "enlightened" critiques or not.

You - like someone else I was debating this issue with - seem to think Religion can only be criticised in an "enlightened" manner. Which would make you a Conservative amongst the revolutionaries of 1789.


Originally posted by BattleOfTheCowshed
The Quran does support war against non-Muslims. However, I thought we were here to debate the anger and response to these Danish cartoons, not theology.

Yeah, but lets get this staright....

1) The cartoon depicted Mohammad as an Arabic looking suicide bomber.

2) Mohammad was most likely of Arabic descent.

3) The "holy book" supports "suicide bombing" non-Muslims.

4) Therefore the cartoon from the looks of things gave a relatively accurate portrayal of the "holy prophet".

So therefore, what&#39;s there to be angry about except the blasphemy of drawing Mohammad?


[email protected]
Unless, that is, you have the very naive conception that all Muslims accept all Quranic law to a T.

Well proper Muslims do.


redstar2000
Now we have a "real explanation" for the rise of Islamicism...it&#39;s a few "reactionary ultra-leftists" like Armchair Socialism who "pressure more and more Muslims" into Islamic fundamentalism.

My power it seems, knows no bounds&#33; :lol:

[Severian]

Update: Here&#39;s a letter to the editor response discussing this editorial, and a response by the Militant.

I have been reading the Militant for 35 years and rarely disagree with its positions. However, I think the Militant has gotten the analysis of the cartoons of Muhammad wrong.

The issue is not one of censorship. The imperialist media want to frame it that way and the Militant has taken the bait. The cartoons are a furthering of the racist and war-mongering attacks on Arabs and Muslims as the imperialists step up their attacks on the Middle East.

The genuine outpouring of rage by Muslims is not a call for censorship but a reply to this demeaning assault.

It used to be common in the U.S. to have overtly racist cartoons, movies and radio/TV shows. Denny’s restaurants were named “Sambos” and were complete with racist murals.

These depictions are no longer acceptable, not because of censorship but because of the gains of the civil rights movement. If an editorial cartoonist depicted Martin Luther King with a Sambo face, the outrage of Black Americans would be well justified. If the paper retracted its racist cartoon, it would be a victory and a reflection of a relationship of class forces.

Similarly, the cartoons of Muhammad must be seen as part of the propaganda war that inflames anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiment. The appropriate response is to take to the streets and denounce it. If the capitalists use this to attack civil liberties, it is not the fault of Muslims (or Blacks) for speaking out.

Eric Huffman
Seattle, Washington
link (http://www.themilitant.com/2006/7011/701135.html)

Banning Danish cartoons
is trap for working people
(Reply to a Reader column)

BY SAM MANUEL
Reader Eric Huffman writes that the Militant got wrong the analysis of the controversy over the publication by a Danish right-wing newspaper of cartoons of Muhammad. “The cartoons,” he says, “are a furthering of racist and war-mongering attacks on Arabs and Muslims as the imperialists step up their attacks on the Middle East.”

But calls to censor the cartoons, pressed mainly by capitalist governments and state-sponsored clerics in majority-Muslim countries, fall into that very trap. They allow the imperialist powers to pretend to take the moral high ground and to appear in the eyes of millions of working people throughout the world as defenders of free speech and democratic rights, and as opponents of attempts to impose religious tenets on them.

Huffman further states, “The genuine outpouring of rage by Muslims is not a call for censorship but a reply to this demeaning assault.” The Militant article and the accompanying editorial kept their fire on Washington and other imperialist powers, not on the thousands of Muslims who undoubtedly joined protests because they felt their beliefs had been insulted.

But Huffman ignores the fact that no large protests occurred until several capitalist regimes in the Middle East and international bodies they dominate threw their weight behind them. Washington took full advantage of the tacit backing of the protests by the governments of Iran and Syria—particularly the burning of the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Syria while police stood by—to advance its campaign of presenting these governments as “rogue regimes” and win broader support across Europe for its “war against terrorism.”

The call by the largest Iranian daily for an international competition for cartoons on the Holocaust, and the posting of a cartoon by the Arab-European League of Nazi death-camp victim Anne Frank in bed with Adolph Hitler, further underscored the bankruptcy of the bourgeois leaderships of so-called Islamist movements.

Contrary to Huffman’s analogy this course has nothing in common with the mass, proletarian-led social movement against racist segregation in the United States from the 1950s to the early 1970s. As Huffman himself points out that movement focused its fire on the segregationist policies of state governments in the South and the federal government’s complicity with them. In doing so it maximized the numbers of people, Black and white, who could be mobilized to take action against racist discrimination. Segregation was ended and racist prejudice was pushed back through countermobilization against racist and fascist-like attacks, not through censorship.

Calls for censorship go in the opposite direction. They close down room for the broadest possible discussion, debate, and education. They undermine the capacity of working people and their allies to politically isolate and defeat those espousing racist, or for that matter religious, hatred. They lead toward advocating laws that make denying the Holocaust a crime as a way to oppose anti-Semitism, and others that proscribe “hate crimes” as the tool to fight anti-woman violence.

All such measures to suppress speech or organizations, “no matter whom they are directed against in the beginning, in the end inevitably bear down upon the working class,” Russian revolutionary leader Leon Trotsky explained in the 1939 article excerpted on the facing page. “The workers must learn how to distinguish between their friends and their enemies according to their own judgment and not according to the hints of the police.”
link (http://www.themilitant.com/2006/7011/701136.html)

Here&#39;s the Trotsky article the response refers to. (http://www.themilitant.com/2006/7011/701158.html)

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Trotsky
The outlawing of fascist groups would inevitably have a fictitious character: as reactionary organizations they can easily change color and adapt themselves to any kind of organizational form since the influential sections of the ruling class and of the governmental apparatus sympathize considerably with them and these sympathies inevitably increase during times of political crisis....

But whatever the situation in the USSR may be, the working class in the capitalist countries, threatened with their own enslavement, must stand in defense of freedom for all political tendencies, including their own irreconcilable enemies.

Sounds more like a declaration of the American Civil Liberties Union than a statement by any kind of revolutionary.

It&#39;s true enough that repressive legislation in a bourgeois state is almost always targeted against the working class...no matter what its nominal objective.

No one, I think, would argue that we should "fight" for a bourgeois law that "bans" Nazism...because we know that (1) it really wouldn&#39;t work and (2) provisions of that law would be twisted to be used against us.

But the idea that we should "defend" freedom for Nazis or any other reactionaries is equally absurd&#33;

First of all, we will not benefit from the outcome...under capitalism, we will continue to be repressed regardless of the laws.

Second, the reactionaries that we "defend" will not return the favor. They are more than happy to see us repressed, officially or unofficially.

Trotsky clearly imagines that bourgeois "legality" actually "means something"...that bourgeois "democratic rights" is a thing that actually exists.

Within a few years of writing that article, supporters of Trotsky in the U.S. were sent to prison for simply having Trotskyist ideas and communicating those ideas to others.

Their "democratic rights" were simply so much used toilet paper&#33;

After the last six decades of experience with "democratic rights" in the U.S., The Militant remains completely clueless about the null content of such a concept.

I don&#39;t suppose they&#39;ll ever learn to distinguish between bourgeois liberal "happy talk" and what it really means to be a revolutionary in a capitalist despotism.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Severian]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Mar 11 2006, 04:03 AM--> (redstar2000 &#064; Mar 11 2006, 04:03 AM)
Trotsky
The outlawing of fascist groups would inevitably have a fictitious character: as reactionary organizations they can easily change color and adapt themselves to any kind of organizational form since the influential sections of the ruling class and of the governmental apparatus sympathize considerably with them and these sympathies inevitably increase during times of political crisis....

But whatever the situation in the USSR may be, the working class in the capitalist countries, threatened with their own enslavement, must stand in defense of freedom for all political tendencies, including their own irreconcilable enemies.

Sounds more like a declaration of the American Civil Liberties Union than a statement by any kind of revolutionary. [/b]
Unlike the ACLU, Trotsky was not advocating providing lawyers for accused fascists.

The SWP pointed out, around that time, that there were no shortage of cases involving persecuted workers for the ACLU to work on. The ACLU chose to take up the cases of persecuted fascists instead to show their impartiality or some such liberal nonsense.

Edit: and for crying out loud, the sheer unreal arrogance of implying Trotsky was not "any kind of revolutionary"?

Revolutions led by Trotsky along with others: 1
Revolutions participated in by Redstar in any way: 0

ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS&#33;


It&#39;s true enough that repressive legislation in a bourgeois state is almost always targeted against the working class...no matter what its nominal objective.

No one, I think, would argue that we should "fight" for a bourgeois law that "bans" Nazism...because we know that (1) it really wouldn&#39;t work and (2) provisions of that law would be twisted to be used against us.

Which is exactly what Trotsky said in that article. And it is necessary to say it aloud if you&#39;re trying to keep people from being misled into supporting such laws.

Is this one of those fence-sitting "neither support nor oppose" things? Besides being inherently wishy-washy, that stance is extra-pointless here.

You&#39;ve just said yourself that "repressive legislation in a bourgeois state is almost always targeted against the working class...no matter what its nominal objective."

So we&#39;re not allowed to oppose repressive legislation that is targeted against the working class? If you have some doctrine that keeps you from doing so, it&#39;s a sectarian doctrine which gets in the way of the class struggle. "Communists have no interests separate and apart from those of the working class as a whole."


But the idea that we should "defend" freedom for Nazis or any other reactionaries is equally absurd&#33;

Fabricating quotes again? That "defend" does not appear in the article. Nor does Trotsky call for setting up defense committees for them, etc....he simply says he&#39;s "decidedly against the suppression of either of them." (The Nazis or the Comintern.) See above for why this is correct.


First of all, we will not benefit from the outcome...under capitalism, we will continue to be repressed regardless of the laws.

That&#39;s what you say about everything: we&#39;ll be repressed no matter what.

But in fact repression is more intense at some times than others, and is more successfully resisted by some than others&#33; See below for details.


Second, the reactionaries that we "defend" will not return the favor. They are more than happy to see us repressed, officially or unofficially.

Why did that even need saying? Obviously no such hope was ever stated by Trotsky or any other communist as a reason for opposing such laws and repressive moves.


Trotsky clearly imagines that bourgeois "legality" actually "means something"...that bourgeois "democratic rights" is a thing that actually exists.

Rights are not a thing; they are a social relation. They are not merely words on paper; they are a widespread popular expectation and the product of revolutions and social struggles.

To roll them back is not easy. But if some people can be jailed for their ideas, the expectation is reduced; it is easier to jail the next bunch.


Within a few years of writing that article, supporters of Trotsky in the U.S. were sent to prison for simply having Trotskyist ideas and communicating those ideas to others.

Their "democratic rights" were simply so much used toilet paper&#33;

Well, gee, that didn&#39;t exactly happen "regardless of the laws", did it? The leaders of the Socialist Workers Party were sent to prison under a law - the Smith Act.

The precedent mattered too - leaders of the German-American Bund had previously been sent to jail under the same law. With the support of the Communist Party USA.

The Communist Party USA supported the prosecution of the SWP leaders too.

But the party was not destroyed or driven underground - because the SWP and others carried out an effective defense campaign. Appealing to others to support the SWP&#39;s democratic rights, regardless of whether they agreed with the SWP&#39;s ideas.

The defendants received light sentences; the Roosevelt administration paid a political price and did not repeat the experience.

In contrast, in the wake of WWII, the Communist Party suffered heavily from repeated Smith Act prosecutions. It had a hard time getting many people to defend it, because the Communist Party had supported the persecution of others. It was seen as hypocritical for the CP to call on anyone to defend its democratic rights.

The CP was isolated within the labor movement; from Black civil rights fighters; from almost everyone who might have helped defend it.

The consequences are well-known, and generally called "McCarthyism." The effect was a major setback for the working class in this country.

Our actions have consequences; it matters what strategy and tactics we adopt.


After the last six decades of experience with "democratic rights" in the U.S., The Militant remains completely clueless about the null content of such a concept.

Well, gee, do you wanna consider the possibility that the Militant knows something after six decades of experience with defense campaigns, many of them successful? From attempts to revoke its mailing rights during WWII, to a harassment lawsuit by the coal bosses going on right now. (http://www.themilitant.com/2005/DefMilitant/DefMilitant.html)

&#39;Course, you&#39;ll never threaten the bottom line of the exploiters, so you don&#39;t have to worry about that kind of thing. I&#39;ve learned from personal experience that it&#39;s never abstract ideology that gets you in trouble; it&#39;s always the living class struggle. For the examples I just gave, it was opposing racist discrimination during WWII; supporting miners&#39; fight to organize today.

For the Smith Act prosecutions, it was their role in the labor movement, particularly the Minneapolis Teamsters; and their role in promoting opposition to WWII within the labor movment.

The SWP and the Militant have gotten into trouble again and again; and they&#39;re still here. They&#39;ve pushed back many of the repressive moves against them; even taken the offensive against the FBI with one of the earliest anti-COINTELPRO lawsuits. By far the most successful of them.

The communist approach to defending democratic rights has proven successful again and again. How about your New Left radical rhetoric approach of denying there are democratic rights to defend? How has that worked out?

Hm...there is no more New Left, is there?

[Vanguard1917]

Severian:

Edit: and for crying out loud, the sheer unreal arrogance of implying Trotsky was not "any kind of revolutionary"?

Revolutions led by Trotsky along with others: 1
Revolutions participated in by Redstar in any way: 0

:o

I agree with pretty much everything you&#39;ve said here, and it&#39;s good to see that the Militant has taken a progressive stance on this whole controversy. &#39;Unfortunately&#39;, the SWP in Britain has once again betrayed one of the key principles of the Marxist tradition. Not content with organising No Platform For Racists (which essentially demands that the bourgeois state ban the British National Party), they have again used their populist insticts to call for restrictions on the &#39;islamophobic press&#39;.

Freedom of speech and expression is being attacked by the bourgeois state through the back door, using notions like &#39;press responsibility&#39;. Marxists defend full free speech, even for scum.

Here&#39;s a good article by the Weekly Worker in Britain on the issue:

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/612/cartoons.htm

The Militant:

They allow the imperialist powers to pretend to take the moral high ground and to appear in the eyes of millions of working people throughout the world as defenders of free speech and democratic rights, and as opponents of attempts to impose religious tenets on them.

Exactly. The bourgeois state is allowed to look like some kind of neutral arbiter of &#39;democracy&#39;.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)Fabricating quotes again? That "defend" does not appear in the article.[/b]


Originally posted by [email protected]
...the working class in the capitalist countries, threatened with their own enslavement, must stand in defense of freedom for all political tendencies, including their own irreconcilable enemies.


Severian
So we&#39;re not allowed to oppose repressive legislation that is targeted against the working class?

You can if that&#39;s all you want to do. There are plenty of bourgeois liberals who&#39;ll be glad to work with you on that sort of thing.

I think the communist response is defiance&#33;


[Rights] are not merely words on paper...

Yes, they are merely "words on paper"...to be discarded at any time the ruling class thinks advantageous.

To tell people that they "have rights" under capitalism is a lie&#33;

Or, if sincerely meant, a sign of simple confusion.


The communist [sic] approach to defending democratic rights has proven successful again and again.

:lol: :lol: :lol:


Hm...there is no more New Left, is there?

Pace University SDS Students Face Secret Service Probe (http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2006/03/66053.html)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Vanguard1917]

Redstar:

Yes, they are merely "words on paper"...to be discarded at any time the ruling class thinks advantageous.

To tell people that they "have rights" under capitalism is a lie&#33;

Why is it a lie? People do have certain rights in capitalist society. In advanced capitalist societies today, people have various political and social rights: rights to form independent political parties, rights to organise into trade unions, rights to hold elected state politicians to account at election time, rights to press freedom, etc.

These are rights that working class people have fought for (often heroically) and won. To deny that such rights exist is to degrade the struggles of past generations of workers.

These rights are under constant attack by capitalist society. We have a duty to defend democratic rights and fight to extend democratic rights.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917
We have a duty to defend democratic rights and fight to extend democratic rights.

You may have such a "duty".

I don&#39;t.

No revolutionary has such a "duty"...any more than a revolutionary has a "duty" to fight for reforms.

Like almost all contemporary Leninists, you are really a social democrat at heart.

You have every right to be that, of course...it would just make things so much less confusing if you would stop calling yourself a "Marxist" or a "revolutionary".

You have no right to those honorable titles.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Vanguard1917]

Like almost all contemporary Leninists, you are really a social democrat at heart.

You have every right to be that, of course...it would just make things so much less confusing if you would stop calling yourself a "Marxist" or a "revolutionary".

You have no right to those honorable titles.

Okay, but you haven&#39;t dealt with the point i made in the post: that certain democratic rights do exist in capitalist society, rights that were fought for and won (in the process of past class struggles); that to deny that such rights exist is to degrade the social and political significance of past struggles; and that such rights must be defended and extended, due to the fact that they are under constant attack by the capitalist state in times of class struggle.

If the anti-trade union Combination Laws of the first half of 19th century Britain were not repealed, trade unionism wouldn&#39;t have developed, workers would have been less organised and they would have had less means through which to confront their bosses. The same goes for fights against restrictions on the right to vote, on the right to organise into independent political parties and on the right to a free press - all of which had a positive impact on working class politicisation and, to a degree, on the spreading of socialist ideas.

At the same time, in the 1980s, the Thatcher government&#39;s war on the trade unions, and the subsequent legal restrictions on trade union rights which were introduced (such as the ban on secondary picketing), had a very significant negative impact on the working class movement.

Every reactionary bourgeois movement in 20th century capitalist society has either further restricted or completely destroyed parliamentary democracy and the social rights that have been won by past generations of people.

I&#39;m in no way saying that bourgeois democracy must be defended for its own sake. I&#39;m merely saying that bourgeois restrictions on democracy are, in times of class struggle, always part of a wider assualt on the working class and on the gains of the working class in capitalist society.

[redstar2000]

Sometimes I forget how often this stuff has come up in the past...

Our "Democratic Rights"? (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1093657781&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

But why should a Leninist listen to me? :lol:


Originally posted by Lenin
Take the fundamental laws of modern states, take their administration, take freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, or “equality of all citizens before the law,” and you will see at every turn evidence of the hypocrisy of bourgeois democracy with which every honest and class-conscious worker is familiar. There is not a single state, however democratic, which has no loopholes or reservations in its constitution guaranteeing the bourgeoisie the possibility of dispatching troops against the workers, of proclaiming martial law, and so forth, in case of a “violation of public order,” and actually in case the exploited class “violates” its position of slavery and tries to behave in a non-slavish manner. Kautsky shamelessly embellishes bourgeois democracy and omits to mention, for instance, how the most democratic and republican bourgeoisie in America or Switzerland deal with workers on strike.

The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/prrk/democracy.htm)

Makes you wonder, doesn&#39;t it? What Lenin would have to say about all his followers now. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Vanguard1917]

Lenin points out many times that revolutionaries should make use of bourgeois democracy, as he does in that piece you linked:

This does not mean that we must not make use of bourgeois parliament (the Bolsheviks made better use of it than probably any other party in the world, for in 1912-15 we won the entire workers’ curia in the Fourth Duma). But it does mean that only a liberal can forget the historical limitations and conventional nature of the bourgeois parliamentary system as Kautsky does.

And it&#39;s worth remembering that Lenin was attacking bourgeois democracy against the treacherous leaders of the socialist movement across Europe. Lenin was writing at a time when the dynamics of society were fundamentally different from today. He was writing at a time when a real life working class movement was putting forward a progressive real life alternative to bourgeois democracy throughout Europe.

We don’t have a movement like that today worth speaking of – anywhere. Attacks on bourgeois democracy are coming, maybe ironically, from middle class liberals. The idea that the press must be &#39;responsible&#39;, the idea that there should be laws against &#39;inciting violence and hatred&#39;, the idea that the state should restrict the democratic rights of the far-right, the idea that free speech should be limited if that free speech attacks &#39;liberal democracy&#39;, and so on.

Such arguments against bourgeois democracy aren&#39;t coming from the working class. They come from backward middle class anxieties. Such arguments against bourgeois democracy do not benefit the prospects of a future working class movement in any way.

Instead, seeing as they come from the middle classes, such undemocratic arguments, and the undemocratic laws that are subsequently passed, will very likely be advocated and used against a future working class movement. Socialists incite violence and hatred; the socialist press is &#39;irresponsible&#39;; socialists want a radical alternative to &#39;liberal democracy&#39;. We are guilty of all those things and much more&#33;

[Vanguard1917]

You say this, with which i agree:

Redstar:

Instead, we should be honest with our class: everything you have and everything you may possibly gain comes from fighting like hell against the ruling class, period&#33;

Then you go on to say this:


Should we, as communists, tell the working class that they have "rights" in bourgeois "democracy" that they should "defend"?

If you do that, then what you&#39;re really doing, like it or not, is conferring legitimacy on the dictatorship of capital. You are pretending that something is "real" when, in fact, it is not real.

Why can&#39;t you defend something which you have fought for and won, and still strive to fight for more at the same time?

Wouldn&#39;t the illegitimacy of bourgeois democracy best be proved actively rather than passively? In other words, let&#39;s test bourgeois democracy on its own turf. Let&#39;s show the working class as a whole that bourgeois democracy can only go so far. We show that bourgeois society is undemocratic regardless of how it&#39;s politically led; that by vowing to defend the interests of capital, the bourgeois state has already prioritised the interests of a minority; that bourgeois society is inherently undemocratic.

But we can only do this actively. And i think that we have to confront bourgeois politics on its own turf in order to attack the hegemony of bourgeois politics.

The last thing we need at the moment are more restrictions on democratic rights - especially restrictions on freedom of speech. The working class needs to be free to make up its own mind. Working class people are not vulnerable children that are easily led astray by fascists, jihadists or &#39;islamophobic&#39; cartoonists. If we help the bourgeois state to restrict free speech now, we will be next. Rather than trying to push the boundaries of bourgeois democracy in order to expose its underlying limitations, we&#39;re effectively doing the opposite.

For example, when the SWP in Britain calls for bans on inconsequential political parties (the parties of the far-right) and on a some cartoons, the bourgeois state is allowed to play the role of some kind of neutral defender of democracy - and this is, as the Militant points out, &#39;in the eyes of millions of working people throughout the world&#39;. It&#39;s that simple.

Don&#39;t underestimate the impact that &#39;democracy-as-an-idea&#39; has on the working class, and the vital role that it plays for sustaining bourgeois hegemony in advanced capitalist countries. That hegemony needs to be challeged actively and directly.

[piet11111]

Why can&#39;t you defend something which you have fought for and won, and still strive to fight for more at the same time?

because that "something" is hardly more then giving candy to a baby.
it can be very easily be taken away (with a "patriot" act for instance)

the only reason we got concessions from the capitalists was because they feared us.
instead of taking the concession from them we should push on and get rid of them once and for all.

[Vanguard1917]

piet11111:


Why can&#39;t you defend something which you have fought for and won, and still strive to fight for more at the same time?

because that "something" is hardly more then giving candy to a baby.
it can be very easily be taken away (with a "patriot" act for instance)

the only reason we got concessions from the capitalists was because they feared us.
instead of taking the concession from them we should push on and get rid of them once and for all.

Did you read the whole post, or did you just bother to read that line that you quote?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917
Why can&#39;t you defend something which you have fought for and won, and still strive to fight for more at the same time?

Since my youth, I have never "lifted a finger" for bourgeois "democracy" and see no reason to start now.

It&#39;s all a fraud and I see no reason to pretend otherwise.


Wouldn&#39;t the illegitimacy of bourgeois democracy best be proved actively rather than passively?

It&#39;s already known to anyone who&#39;s been paying attention.


Let&#39;s show the working class as a whole that bourgeois democracy can only go so far.

They already know; why do you think so many people in the lower socio-economic strata don&#39;t even bother to register to vote anymore?


And I think that we have to confront bourgeois politics on its own turf in order to attack the hegemony of bourgeois politics.

That social democratic perspective has been disproved since 1914.

Go ahead and do it some more, if you like.

No one will even notice.


The last thing we need at the moment are more restrictions on democratic rights - especially restrictions on freedom of speech.

The bourgeoisie is not interested in "what we need"...and will do as it pleases unless there are millions of people in the streets constantly.


If we help the bourgeois state to restrict free speech now, we will be next.

I think that must be aimed at the SWP (UK)...doesn&#39;t apply to anything I&#39;ve said.

Unless you&#39;re bringing up the headscarf ban in France.


Don&#39;t underestimate the impact that &#39;democracy-as-an-idea&#39; has on the working class...

In its bourgeois forms, less and less with every passing decade. In the U.S., the "Patriot Act" passed almost without any significant opposition...and there&#39;s more to come.

As the end of "old" capitalism approaches, the naked character of its despotism perforce becomes more and more obvious.

Appealing to people to "restore bourgeois democracy" is just plain absurd...it cannot be done.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Vanguard1917]

They already know; why do you think so many people in the lower socio-economic strata don&#39;t even bother to register to vote anymore?

That&#39;s true. Electoral turnout has dropped throughout most of the West. The parties of government are increasingly detached from voters. And the politics of parliamentary parties is more and more detached from people.

It is true that people are increasingly cynical about governments. But cynicism is not a progressive sentiment. In the absense of any alternatives being put forward by the working class, cynicism about existing bourgeois institutions cannot have any progressive potential. It just gives way to further decay of those institutions with nothing progressive emerging to replace them.

If there is no working class movement in society, cynicism of existing bourgeois institutions can only give way to the emergence of further reaction. In some ways, Nazi Germany is an example of this. The defeat of the working class, coupled with the decay of bourgeois democracy, brought about perhaps the most reactionary bourgeois movement (with its base in the petit-bourgeoisie) that history has ever seen.


Appealing to people to "restore bourgeois democracy" is just plain absurd...it cannot be done.

I don&#39;t want to &#39;restore&#39; anything. We can&#39;t travel back in time. If anything needs to be restored, it is the dynamic to push society forward. That dynamic is almost completely absent today.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917
It is true that people are increasingly cynical about governments. But cynicism is not a progressive sentiment.

I disagree. Cynicism about the prevailing social order and all of its institutions is a "stage" that must be "passed through" on the way to outright hatred&#33;

Indeed, anything that we can do to increase hatred of the existing social order (and its most prominent personalities) accelerates the revolutionary process.


If there is no working class movement in society, cynicism of existing bourgeois institutions can only give way to the emergence of further reaction.

"Further reaction" is inevitable. It is what decaying ruling classes do.

Or, parts thereof. Since you mentioned Germany, a closer look is instructive.

The "mass base" for Nazism came from rural peasants (a class in decay), urban petty-bourgeoisie (also a class in decay), and civil servants...a class that thought of itself as "being in decay" even though it actually wasn&#39;t.

The ruling class in the Weimar Republic was actually divided into thirds.

1. The old Prussian landed aristocracy -- they despised the Nazis as "rabble" but were willing to accept them in the hopes that Hitler would restore Germany&#39;s "imperial greatness" and even bring back the Kaiser. They were a class in decay.

2. The older industrial bourgeoisie (Krupp, et.al.) who feared working class revolution more than anyone and who expected the Nazis to "restore order"...that is, make workers into near-slaves. When the Nazis revived actual slave-labor after the beginning of World War II, these were the capitalists who benefited the most.

3. The newer industrial bourgeoisie who, producing primarily for the export market, actually preferred the Social Democrats and only reluctantly acquiesced to the Nazi seizure of power. The autarkic economic policies of the Nazis meant that they benefited least from the Third Reich.

Someone would do well to make such a class analysis of the U.S. at the present time. I lack the expertise myself...but I think it would be revealing to see what classes (or sub-classes) enthusiastically support Christian Fascism here -- and whether that support can be expected to increase or decrease.

There is, of course, no "working class movement" in the U.S. now...and we don&#39;t have any way of knowing when one will emerge.


If anything needs to be restored, it is the dynamic to push society forward. That dynamic is almost completely absent today.

There is probably no "dynamic" left...the "old" capitalist countries are reaching "the end of the line".

There&#39;s no place left for capitalism to go but downwards in the "old" capitalist countries...slowly or swiftly as circumstances vary.

This is what makes the Leninist attempts to revive social democracy so pathetic. You are trying to raise up a dead man from the grave.

Lazarus, come forth&#33;, you beseech.

But nothing happens.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 06:32 AM
I agree with pretty much everything you&#39;ve said here, and it&#39;s good to see that the Militant has taken a progressive stance on this whole controversy. &#39;Unfortunately&#39;, the SWP in Britain has once again betrayed one of the key principles of the Marxist tradition. Not content with organising No Platform For Racists (which essentially demands that the bourgeois state ban the British National Party), they have again used their populist insticts to call for restrictions on the &#39;islamophobic press&#39;.

That kind of thing&#39;s going to become more and more common. As more and more left groups throw out even the pretense of Marxism.


Here&#39;s a good article by the Weekly Worker in Britain on the issue:

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/612/cartoons.htm

I thought that was pretty good too...if you&#39;re going to write an editorial mostly about the British SWP.

***

Your point about widespread cynicism is interesting, I think. And basically right.

It&#39;s positive, to a degree, that people have lost confidence in the bosses&#39; parties and political systems. It adds to the possibilities of striking forward for something else.

But that possibility hasn&#39;t been realized. It has to be recognized that the growing disillusionment hasn&#39;t so far resulted in any mass working-class fightback; so far it&#39;s coincided with a general retreat.

Disillusionment with bourgeois democracy can potentially aid rightist solutions as easily as proletarian solutions.

[Vanguard1917]

Redstar:

I disagree. Cynicism about the prevailing social order and all of its institutions is a "stage" that must be "passed through" on the way to outright hatred&#33;

Indeed, anything that we can do to increase hatred of the existing social order (and its most prominent personalities) accelerates the revolutionary process.

Increasing cynicism of capitalism and its institutions, at a time when no force in society is putting forward a progressive alternative, is having a negative affect on the idea economic progress, and it is giving rise to a whole host of backward sentiments in society, politics and general culture. Without a working class movement, cynicism of current society cannot be progressive.


"Further reaction" is inevitable. It is what decaying ruling classes do.


There is probably no "dynamic" left...the "old" capitalist countries are reaching "the end of the line".

There&#39;s no place left for capitalism to go but downwards in the "old" capitalist countries...slowly or swiftly as circumstances vary.

I think &#39;decay&#39; is too strong a word to use here to describe capitalism today. &#39;Stagnant&#39; is more accurate.

Studies of today&#39;s world economy show that capitalism is not going through any major crisis and that this is a long-term trend. But they also show that it isn&#39;t experiencing any major growth either. Capitalism is stagnant and &#39;sluggish&#39;, but not in crisis. Business cycles are a lot flatter than they were. The level of economic volatility in the US, Britain and most of Western Europe is lower today than it has ever been since the 19th century.

I agree that the mature capitalist economies of the West do not have much dynamic of growth left in them - but large levels of growth in parts of the East (especially China) are &#39;compensating&#39; for the lack of growth in the old capitalist economies and are preventing crises in the world economy.

Crucially, also, the lack of a worldwide working class opposition to capitalism has given capitalism more breathing space; in many ways, capitalism has more room to manoeuvre than it did in past periods of class struggle. And with the retreat of the anti-imperialist movement in the periphery, world capitalism can be more flexible. But this has not given way to a more dynamic world economy. Stagnation and decreased economic volatility in the West means that the inner dynamic needed for large-scale economic boom isn&#39;t there. When compared to before, there is very little &#39;boom-and-bust&#39; going on in the Western economies. Without major booms in the economy, there cannot be major economic crises - and major crises and busts in the capitalist economy have historically given way to greater levels of working class militancy.

If we&#39;re seeing decay of the ruling class today, it is a product of capitalist stagnation - not crisis. On the other hand, the decay seen in inter-war Germany was a product of one of the worst economic crises that has ever been seen in capitalist Europe.

If capitalism is approaching "the end of the line", it&#39;s because the mature capitalist economies increasingly lack the inner, self-sustaining dynamic required for growth. But it&#39;s not due to a working class oppsition to capitalism. There isn&#39;t one. This is a subjective problem as much as it&#39;s an objective problem.

Severian:

I thought that was pretty good too...if you&#39;re going to write an editorial mostly about the British SWP.

A lot of their aticles are like that. They feel that any communist party in Britain today has to go through the SWP. This is one of their key mistakes.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)Disillusionment with bourgeois democracy can potentially aid rightist solutions as easily as proletarian solutions.[/b]

Quite possibly. The problem, as the German capitalist class discovered, is that "rightist solutions" don&#39;t solve anything except temporarily and catastrophically. The "fascist option" is always seductive...but what if they lose the big war?

German and Japanese capitalism managed to survive the catastrophe and even prosper...thanks to generous assistance from the U.S. ruling class. But a lot of capitalist individuals perished in the rubble. And there&#39;s no guarantee that a future defeat might not be at the hands of far more punitive adversaries...recall that some political figures in the U.S. wanted to reduce a defeated Germany to "third world" levels after the Allied victory.


Vanguard1917
Increasing cynicism of capitalism and its institutions, at a time when no force in society is putting forward a progressive alternative, is having a negative affect on the idea [of] economic progress, and it is giving rise to a whole host of backward sentiments in society, politics and general culture.

That likewise "comes with the territory". Social orders in decay throw up all sorts of cults, superstitions, weird fads, etc.

IF Marx was right, then a revolutionary working class movement will spontaneously emerge at the appropriate moment...assuming that this is really the approaching "end of the line" for capitalism in the "old" capitalist countries.

For revolutionaries to attempt to revive social democracy in order to "give people hope" is simply foolishness...and, moreover, can&#39;t be done anyway&#33;


I think &#39;decay&#39; is too strong a word to use here to describe capitalism today. &#39;Stagnant&#39; is more accurate.

If you prefer...I won&#39;t dispute terminology at this point. You know as well as I that "grow or die" is as close to an "iron law" of capitalism as there is. A "stagnant" capitalism must start to decay in a very short period of time.

I have read that in the U.S., average real wages are now at the level they were in 1964 and average weekly working hours have reached levels not seen since 1928.

I don&#39;t know the numbers for other "old" capitalist countries but I see no reason why they should be markedly different...or any foreseeable way in which they might be expected to change "for the better".


I agree that the mature capitalist economies of the West do not have much dynamic of growth left in them - but large levels of growth in parts of the East (especially China) are &#39;compensating&#39; for the lack of growth in the old capitalist economies and are preventing crises in the world economy.

For a while. Young capitalist economies are very dynamic...but also prone to severe crises of overproduction. What will happen when China, et.al., have their first major depression?


Crucially, also, the lack of a worldwide working class opposition to capitalism has given capitalism more breathing space...

Temporarily.


But it&#39;s not due to a working class opposition to capitalism. There isn&#39;t one.

If Marx was right, there will be.

What we should be doing is trying in whatever ways we can to build that...and quit dicking around with social democratic illusions.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif