The secular state is non-negotiable!

[Cheung Mo]

I think the real challenge for the left is figuring out how to fight Islamism (which is as real a threat to the rights of women, sexual minorities, and religious minorities as any other totalitarian and theocratic ideology) without persecuting Muslims, as the right and the false left, motivated by equally evil and backwards ideologies, have done.

In the Middle East, we must back democratic, socialist, and feminist organisations that fight ruthlessly against the scourges of both Islamism and American imperialism (i.e. RAWA, The Labour and Communist Party of Iran). Within our own borders, we must be willing to use our legal frameworks and our democratic institutions to crush all attempts by those with anti-secularist ideas to corrupt our political institutions and threaten our civil liberties, whether these ideas are fundmentalist Christianity, Hindutva (its consequences for the people of India and Nepal have been dire), Islamism, or the descipable mixture of leader-worship and atheism imposed upon the masses by Stalinists and by followers of Juche.

[Si Pinto]

Friend,

A quick glance through the history books will show that Christianity, Judaism, Sikhism, Hinduism etc, have been just as a big a 'threat' to women and minority groups as Islam ever has.

Even today in our so called 'modern' society there are still debates as to whether women should be allowed to be priests, whether abortion should be legal, whether homosexuality should be 'allowed'.

You say that we must 'fight ruthlessly' against Islam and American imperialism.

Have a look at the world and you'll see that it is Islamists who are doing most of the fighting against American imperialism. I don't agree with the methods they use, or the ultimate goals they aim for, but then I don't agree with Christians, Jews etc either.

Religion (of whatever type) has no place in a communist society, we must teach people to have faith in themselves, their friends and society in general, to take hold of their own destinies rather than leave it in the hands of a god, or gods.

Religion has always been a 'pill' that is given to the masses to make them put up with how meaningless their lives are, "don't worry about how crap your life is at the moment because when you die you'll have the time of your life" is the message of ALL religions, and (unfortunately) people believe it.

Until we get the populace to throw away their religious straightjackets we will NEVER have the socialist world we all want.

[LSD]

Originally posted by Cheung Mo+--> (Cheung Mo)I think the real challenge for the left is figuring out how to fight Islamism[/b]

I would say that that's an important task of the modern left, but I would hardly call it a "challange".

Opposition to Islamism is a given for leftist, with the exception of those poor fools who have deluded themselves into thinking that Islam can be somehow "progressive".


Originally posted by Cheung Mo+--> (Cheung Mo)In the Middle East, we must back democratic, socialist, and feminist organisations that fight ruthlessly against the scourges of both Islamism and American imperialism[/b]

Obviously!

Seriously, CM, I really doubt that anyone on this board is going to dispute that statement. The need to support progressive secular forces in the middle east is so obvious that it's practically axiomatic.


Originally posted by Si Pinto
A quick glance through the history books will show that Christianity, Judaism, Sikhism, Hinduism etc, have been just as a big a 'threat' to women and minority groups as Islam ever has.

Absolutely.

It doesn't matter which "God" a religion "worships", religion by its nature is a regressive and oppressive institution. It is "faith" itself which stultifies social progress and entrentches reactionary values.

So whether we're talking "Allah", "Jesus", or "Vishnu", once "faith" takes a role in public policy, someone will be oppressed.


Si [email protected]
Even today in our so called 'modern' society there are still debates as to whether women should be allowed to be priests, whether abortion should be legal, whether homosexuality should be 'allowed'.

Perhaps, but the line has nonetheless moved.

Yes, we're still fighting conservatives and traditionalist, but in all probabiltiy we always will be. What matters is that, despite their best efforts, we've moved the line of battle forwards.

So instead of arguing about whether or not homosexuals are "sick" or whether or not women "are people", we're debating gay marriage and women's reproductive rights.

In the last 50 years we've gone from outlawing gay sex to legalizing gay marriage that's a shift that cannot be ignored. And, indeed, cannot end.

For once this battle is done, a new one will emerge. There will always be needed change and there will always be those afraid of what that change will be. But so long as we keep moving forward, we're winning.

It's slow and it's frustrating, but it's also unavoidable.


Si Pinto
Have a look at the world and you'll see that it is Islamists who are doing most of the fighting against American imperialism.

So what?

"The enemy of my enemy" is not "my friend". Remember, fascists and primaticist likewise oppose the present socioconomic order; and yes, so do religious zealots of all stripes.

But, when neo-nazis firebomb a McDonalds because it dared to hire illegal immigrants, our support cannot go to the perpetrators. It doesn't matter how much we may hate McDonalds or, in the case, American imperialism in general, we still cannot ally ourselves with real and unaltering enemies of progress.

Instead we must simultaneously condemn imperialism and Islamic fundamentalism; with the obvious caveat that action can be ideology-notwithstanding from our perspective, e.g., the Iraqi insurgency.

[Si Pinto]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 02:53 PM
"The enemy of my enemy" is not "my friend". Remember, fascists and primaticist likewise oppose the present socioconomic order; and yes, so do religious zealots of all stripes.

But, when neo-nazis firebomb a McDonalds because it dared to hire illegal immigrants, our support cannot go to the perpetrators. It doesn't matter how much we may hate McDonalds or, in the case, American imperialism in general, we still cannot ally ourselves with real and unaltering enemies of progress.

Instead we must simultaneously condemn imperialism and Islamic fundamentalism; with the obvious caveat that action can be ideology-notwithstanding from our perspective, e.g., the Iraqi insurgency.
Friend,

As I said in my post, I do not support the Islamic fundamentalists in anyway, shape or form, but we musn't get drawn into a 'holy war', (which Bush and Blair want us to fight every bit as much as the governments of Iran, Palestine etc), simply to achieve our goals of destroying Islam as a religion, because if the capitalists win (with our help) they will not replace those governments with model-socialist societies, they will be replaced by US/UK friendly puppets who will replace religious fundamentalism, with material capitalism.

We will have won nothing, but will have helped our real enemies to a famous victory.

[LSD]

As I said in my post, I do not support the Islamic fundamentalists in anyway, shape or form, but we musn't get drawn into a 'holy war'

Obviously not.

But we likewise need to make it clear that while we oppose imperialism and encourage it's defeat, we do not consider "Islamism" a valid method of opposing it.

Historically, fundamentalist Islam is just as likely to be co-opted by imperialists as it is to do battle with them; and so while individual acts may be to our class advantage in the short-run, the movement is nonetheless our intractable enemy.

[Si Pinto]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 06:38 PM
But we likewise need to make it clear that while we oppose imperialism and encourage it's defeat, we do not consider "Islamism" a valid method of opposing it.

Historically, fundamentalist Islam is just as likely to be co-opted by imperialists as it is to do battle with them; and so while individual acts may be to our class advantage in the short-run, the movement is nonetheless our intractable enemy.
Absolutely,

Along with with every other 'religion'.

But that is a very thin line to tread.

Here is how I see the thing developing, if we can get the timing right.

I foresee a time in the not-to-distant future when the US and maybe the UK will be reduced to 'conscripting' soldiers to go and fight, like they did in the 1960's. It would be at that point that we would need to make our stand.

I would like to see a situation like that which occured in the USA at the time, when many people refused to be drafted, burning their callup papers etc.

On the other side, the moderate muslims would have to do the same.

If the numbers were large enough, the effect could be huge!

You would then have a tangible force of 'antiwar' protestors on both sides, estranged from their religious/political leaders, and with the right leadership that number would grow.

But get it wrong and we risk being embroiled in one of the bloodiest conflicts in the history of mankind.

[Body Count]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 06:38 PM
But we likewise need to make it clear that while we oppose imperialism and encourage it's defeat, we do not consider "Islamism" a valid method of opposing it.

Seems to be doing a damn good job as of today.........:lol: Well, a better job then ANYONE ELSE...thats for damned sure.

I disagree, I say, WHATEVER IT TAKES to throw out imperialism....if anything, REGARDLESS of what kind of leftist you are, we ALL should understand that it is imperialism, exploitation, and oppression of third world countries that is holding them down today.

Islam will have its time to fry......all in due time....however, its certainly not some fucking american imperialist job to do that!

[Body Count]

Truthfully, I think that many are getting too caught up on the idea of "radical islamism"" in the first damned place....terms like "Islamism", "Islamofascist", "Radical Islam", are BULLSHIT and western centric to me. First of all, this is done by by bigots far too often.....anytime anyone fights the power structure they are labeled as some sort of crazy rebel or zealot of some sort. Maybe the dudes just want fucking imperialist off their fucking land? Hell, if I was in Iraq, I'd certainly consider joining an anti-american group....and if it was a islamic group that offered the best chance to kill imperialist...I might join them.

Secondly, its not as those christians in america are some moderate, progressive, church going, peaceful citizens......they are just as fucking "radical" as anyone else....the difference is that we don't label US soldiers as terrorist......

[Body Count]

Let those in the Middle East and North Africa fight there own battles!

Who are we to say that a "secular state is non-negotiable"? Sure, in the long run, however at the moment.....expecting this is simply gaing against the material conditons of the present. It would be great if all of a sudden, everyone in Iraq just up and realized that religion is false, and that they should be fighting both to throw out imperialist AND form a secular state, BUT, from everything that I know of the situation...that simply doesn't seem plausible or likely at the moment.

When you get down to it, the situation is as follows : One one side you've got Imperialist americans doing what they do best, which is invaded a smaller, less powerful, less prosperous, country, and are looking to steal oil and install a puppet government of some sort. On the other side, there are those that are opposed to this imperialism, who are killing imperialist, and who are also muslims who often get referred to as crazy religious zealots when in fact they are killing the religious zealots who invaded them in the first damned place! Now, while we of course all would love for some sort of secular state to come out of this, based on my own personal observations, this simply is not going to happen. Therefore, I can only really hope for the anti-imperialist to win....and of course, if all went as planned, religion would later be overthrown as well.

[LSD]

Seems to be doing a damn good job as of today......... Well, a better job then ANYONE ELSE...thats for damned sure.

Nonsense.

Fundamentalist Islamicism is just as likely to be co-opted by imperialism as it is to do "great battle" against it. For every Iran, there's a Saudi Arabia; and for every "Taliban", there's a "Northern Alliance".

So while Islam may appear to be a "progressive" enemy of imperialism, it is actually a far more flexible and memetic entity, able to graft onto any popular movement, no matter the ideological undertones.

And the fact that in this instance, it happens to be "fighting" a "common enemy", cannot be taken as an indication that it is in any way a real or potential "ally" of progressive leftism.

I've used this example before, but it bears repeating: what if a neo-nazi group were to vandalize a McDonalds because it hired immigrants? Should we support that "attack" against our "collective enemy" or should we condemn it as the racist filth it is.

Political Islam is no different. It may view the US as its enemy as well, but that is merely due to the unavoidable nature of American imperialism. That is, it's so blatantly obvious that it's Americans and American corporations at the heart of the middle east's problems, that no movement even claiming "liberate" legitimacy could ignore it.

Despite that, though, political Islam actually manages to still relegate American imperialism to a "product" of a "greater problem": specifically, the "abandonment of Allah's word" and the "defilement of his holy places". So if only the Islamic world were to adopt Salafic "law" and unify as one Islamic empire, the premise goes, the problems of Imperialism would "dissapear".

Not only that, but even the US itself is often portrayed as some sort of "puppet" of the true enemy, namely the "Jews".

So while, superficially, Islam is fighting the same imperialist enemy, in reality it is merely using an anti-imperialist line to support its own ultimately imperialist and theorcratic aims.

That makes Islam as much an enemy of communism as any other regressive "traditionalist" ideology present or historical.

Remember, "National Socialism" was also predicated on mock-"socialist" principles and in 1918, Germany was a defeated nation; occupied by foreign governments, crippled by imperialism. And so one could make the argument, and indeed many did, that an ideology like National Socialism was "progressive" for its time.

Even more dangerously, one could make the argument that Naziism could be "used" to fight a "common enemy". That's what the KPD thought, after all, when they allowed the Nazis to combat the liberals without serious challange.

Indeed, the KPD even removed "Jewish-sounding" candidates from their slate so that the Nazis would have less to attack them on. Better, they figured, to let the Nazis and the socialists (or "social fascists" as they called them) duke it out than to get involved.

I think we all know how that turned out. <_<

So why weren&#39;t the Nazis ultimately progressive? Why didn&#39;t their, initially, anti-imperialist stand turn out "for the best"? Because class relationships are more important than ideological "convictions".

The Nazi party for all its bluster about "German workers" was primarily a petty-bourgeois party which promised the traditional order and stability of "German life" against the "decadence" and instability of rapidly rushing modernity.

That is precisely what political Islam is offering the middle east today. Although this time it is the enormous Muslim peasant population playing the part of the German artisans circa 1928.

The leaders of political Islam are all decidely petty-bourgeois or bourgeois, while the rank and file is virtually all peasant and serf. The proletariat, however has nothing to gain from it and so the international proletariat movement cannot support it.

It&#39;s anti-imperialism that we must fight for, not it&#39;s ugliest "bastard child"&#33;


I disagree, I say, WHATEVER IT TAKES to throw out imperialism....

Really? What if it takes fascism?

Again, "National Socialism" also began as an anti-imperialist movement and many in the German left felt the same way about the Nazis as you do about the "Islamists".

The KPD thought that the Nazis could be "used" to fight the "common enemy", namely the conservatives and "social fascists" of the moderate left. Instead, of course, they were destroyed by their own short-sighted naivite.

We really can&#39;t afford to repeat that mistake.


Secondly, its not as those christians in america are some moderate, progressive, church going, peaceful citizens......they are just as fucking "radical" as anyone else....the difference is that we don&#39;t label US soldiers as terrorist....

Oh, come on... :rolleyes:

I&#39;ll be the first to admit the radical insanity of the American Christian right, but to compare the Christian conservative movement with fundamentalist "Islamism" is patently absurd.

Yes, we are still fighting religious conservatives in the west; by all indications we will keep on fighting them until religion is finally destroyed. What matters though is not that the battle is ongoing, but how the battle is progressing.

While the middle east is moving closer and closer to radical theocracy and minority rights are further and further eroded, the debate in the west is over "gay marriage" and "abortion rights".

The line, you see, has moved.

Unfortunately, in the Islamic world, imperialism and economic ruin have lead to cultural stagnation and the line has stayed pretty much where it was four or five centuries ago. So, is the solution to end imperialism? Absolutely. But it&#39;s not enough to just say that foreign occupation must end "at any cost"; human societal dynamics are simply not that reducable.


Therefore, I can only really hope for the anti-imperialist to win....

Well, of course&#33;

Again, I am in no way contending that anti-imperial efforts should not be supported, merely that there is fundamental difference between supporting one side in a fight and supporting them in general.

Stalinism was one of the most brutal forms of oppressive government this century experienced, but it was nonetheless the undeniably lesser evil when it battled Naziism.

Does that mean that Stalinism should have been "supported" in 1941? Of course not. It just means that the Red Army should have been.

Likewise, we must support any anti-imperialsit movements insofar as their anti-imperialist efforts go, but no further. That means supporting the individuals fighting against direct US occupation and indirect US puppet rule; but not supporting the "organizations" they are ostensibly fighting on behalf of.


Let those in the Middle East and North Africa fight there own battles&#33;

And the rest of us should what, "keep our mouths shut"?

Should we stay equally silent when our "allies" in the middle east enforce and promote probably the ugliest appartheid system in modern history?

I&#39;m sorry, but I&#39;m just not willing to "tolerate" that kind of naked oppression without speaking out. I really don&#39;t care who they&#39;re fighting; what they are doing is wrong and I will say so&#33; :angry:

[Body Count]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 06:21 PM


Nonsense.

Fundamentalist Islamicism is just as likely to be co-opted by imperialism as it is to do "great battle" against it. For every Iran, there&#39;s a Saudi Arabia; and for every "Taliban", there&#39;s a "Northern Alliance".

So while Islam may appear to be a "progressive" enemy of imperialism, it is actually a far more flexible and memetic entity, able to graft onto any popular movement, no matter the ideological undertones.

I didn&#39;t say it was some sort of perfect enemy to imperialism, I said that at the moment, as a movement, it is the strongest opponent to imperialism and is doing more to stop it then anyone else.

Sure it can be "co-opted"....as can any movement, including "radical leftism".

I don&#39;t support Islamic countries that support imperialism......

Until those on the left begin to fight imperialism........"Radical Islam" will remain the imperialist biggest opponents.


And the fact that in this instance, it happens to be "fighting" a "common enemy", cannot be taken as an indication that it is in any way a real or potential "ally" of progressive leftism.

Of course not........however, I am not talking about a communist revolution or "progressive leftism", I&#39;m talking about anti-imperialism.


I&#39;ve used this example before, but it bears repeating: what if a neo-nazi group were to vandalize a McDonalds because it hired immigrants? Should we support that "attack" against our "collective enemy" or should we condemn it as the racist filth it is.

How is this even valid example?

You said yourself in this example that it was an attack on immigrants....so of course I wouldn&#39;t support this. At least these radical muslims have a correct stance on imperialism.....neo-nazi&#39;s have no correct stances.

If for some off the wall reason, Neo-nazi&#39;s took some progressive stance against imperialism, and they blew up say, the whitehouse.....fuck it, I may "wish them luck" in THAT fight. But this situation is so far off the wall that its completely irrelevent.


Political Islam is no different. It may view the US as its enemy as well, but that is merely due to the unavoidable nature of American imperialism. That is, it&#39;s so blatantly obvious that it&#39;s Americans and American corporations at the heart of the middle east&#39;s problems, that no movement even claiming "liberate" legitimacy could ignore it.

Whats the problem with this?

I view Radical Islam as semi-progressive merely due to its "unavoidable nature" to fight american imperialism........:lol:

It simply is what it is to me.......


Despite that, though, political Islam actually manages to still relegate American imperialism to a "product" of a "greater problem": specifically, the "abandonment of Allah&#39;s word" and the "defilement of his holy places". So if only the Islamic world were to adopt Salafic "law" and unify as one Islamic empire, the premise goes, the problems of Imperialism would "dissapear".

I would support pan-arabism as well (Which I believe is what you&#39;re describing).

Let the entire middle east unite as one people, throw out the imperialist, and then let the people throw out Islam&#33; Whats wrong with that scenario?

I think we disagree on this issue because I simply view this as a matter of priorities.........I view this "fuck em both" attitude as idealistic. Islam isn&#39;t disappearing from Islamic countries anytime soon.......the same way that Christianity isn&#39;t disappearing from the west anytime soon.

I could just as easily ask you why you support womens rights, and queer rights, in America. I mean, aren&#39;t those liberals pushing for this legislation Christians? Do they not waste time on talking about how "loving and caring" the mythical character Jesus was when trying to stop the death penalty?


Not only that, but even the US itself is often portrayed as some sort of "puppet" of the true enemy, namely the "Jews".

I don&#39;t believe in conspiracy theories of "Jews controlling america".....I think that its QUITE OBVIOUS how involved Israel is in americas foriegn policy....its no secret, we openly give them all the military aid that they need. And politicians have constantly stated how important it is to "protect Israel".

Israel is an imperialist nation as well, so I also support Palestinian aggression against them.


So while, superficially, Islam is fighting the same imperialist enemy, in reality it is merely using an anti-imperialist line to support its own ultimately imperialist and theorcratic aims.

That makes Islam as much an enemy of communism as any other regressive "traditionalist" ideology present or historical.

I would think that those fighting imperialist are WELL AWARE of what this actually means.....even if its just wanting to throw out "western ideas" (Whether progressive or not), the mere stance of NOT LETTING A FORIEGN ENEMY CONTROL YOUR NATION is a correct one in my eyes.

And once again....it just is what it is to me. If Osama Bin Laden can "accidently" throw out imperialist, then to be as plain as possible...that would place a smile on my face.

Now does this mean that I would support any old ideology because it "has a chance" to do something progressive? Of course not. I look at the situation as logically as possible......so while Islam has a "great chance" of kicking out western power in the Middle East and North Africa, I wouldn&#39;t support neo-nazi&#39;s as you have implied.

The way I see it, from a purely materialist stance....Osama Bin Laden is no worst then Hugo Chavez........they are both doing whats necessary to throw out imperialism...and thats where the progression stops for them.


Remember, "National Socialism" was also predicated on mock-"socialist" principles and in 1918, Germany was a defeated nation; occupied by foreign governments, crippled by imperialism. And so one could make the argument, and indeed many did, that an ideology like National Socialism was "progressive" for its time.

Germany was an imperialist nation itself....they were just as quick as anyone with there "scramble for Africa"......and the fact of the matter is that they started the war, and put themselves in that dreadful situation. No tears will be shed from me for post-Nazi Germany. Maybe they should have all just moved to the colonies..... <_<

I see this as an invalid comparison to the current situation in the middle east. Western powers fighting each other can&#39;t be compared to the imperialism and colonialism we have seen from the US in the third world.


Even more dangerously, one could make the argument that Naziism could be "used" to fight a "common enemy". That&#39;s what the KPD thought, after all, when they allowed the Nazis to combat the liberals without serious challange.

Unfortunately, there doesn&#39;t appear to be a "KPD" in Iraq right now, at least not from anything I&#39;ve read on the situation. And if there is one, they certainly don&#39;t seem to be the "violent type".....:lol:


Indeed, the KPD even removed "Jewish-sounding" candidates from their slate so that the Nazis would have less to attack them on. Better, they figured, to let the Nazis and the socialists (or "social fascists" as they called them) duke it out than to get involved.

I think we all know how that turned out. <_<

Well, I think this is delving off the topic at hand a bit, but since we are on the subject, I would agree that the KPD made some crucial mistakes that cost everyone a lot of lives.

Once again however, I simply don&#39;t see this as a just comparison.

So why weren&#39;t the Nazis ultimately progressive? Why didn&#39;t their, initially, anti-imperialist stand turn out "for the best"? Because class relationships are more important than ideological "convictions".


The Nazi party for all its bluster about "German workers" was primarily a petty-bourgeois party which promised the traditional order and stability of "German life" against the "decadence" and instability of rapidly rushing modernity.

Maybe if Nazi&#39;s in Germany had been in Cameroon or Algeria instead of an imperialist nation who was getting its JUST DO, and DIDN&#39;T have a strong progressive leftist enemy...maybe then I might have supported them....:lol:


That is precisely what political Islam is offering the middle east today. Although this time it is the enormous Muslim peasant population playing the part of the German artisans circa 1928.

The leaders of political Islam are all decidely petty-bourgeois or bourgeois, while the rank and file is virtually all peasant and serf. The proletariat, however has nothing to gain from it and so the international proletariat movement cannot support it.

The "proletariat" has nothing to gain from the end of imperialism?

Hmm..........

And I reject any ideas of me only having any connection to "the proletariat" as though everyone else is non-human or something....I support the oppressed, exploited, colonized, beaten, down trodden, poor, imprisoned, and sick.


It&#39;s anti-imperialism that we must fight for, not it&#39;s ugliest "bastard child"&#33;

You think that anti-imperialism is correlated only to communism and that simply is not the case.

I WISH that Iraq had more progressive leaders, and not ones that were held down to mystic idea&#39;s of the afterlife and morality, but thats simply not the case.....you act as though I want some Islamic empire.

The way I see it, there was Islamic control in Iraq before the americans entered, and their is going to be an islamic control in Iraq after america leaves (Regardless of who wins...). To be as simple about it as possible, I MIGHT AS WELL hope for the "radical muslims" to win.


Really? What if it takes fascism?

Again, "National Socialism" also began as an anti-imperialist movement and many in the German left felt the same way about the Nazis as you do about the "Islamists".

The KPD thought that the Nazis could be "used" to fight the "common enemy", namely the conservatives and "social fascists" of the moderate left. Instead, of course, they were destroyed by their own short-sighted naivite.

We really can&#39;t afford to repeat that mistake.

I&#39;ve already stated that I see no comparison to this situation.

However, there is nothing NAIVE about what I am saying.....I&#39;m not expecting communism to come out of Iraq if imperialism was overthrown. At least not in the immediate future. However, the situation surely couldn&#39;t be WORST then it is now....if anything, the people would at least have sovereignty. And thats quite a progressive step towards future goals.


Oh, come on... :rolleyes:

I&#39;ll be the first to admit the radical insanity of the American Christian right, but to compare the Christian conservative movement with fundamentalist "Islamism" is patently absurd.

You either missed the point I was making or you are perfect example of it.

"Soldiers emptying the clips, at little kids and their moms, is just like a desperate mother fucker strapped to a bomb"


Yes, we are still fighting religious conservatives in the west; by all indications we will keep on fighting them until religion is finally destroyed. What matters though is not that the battle is ongoing, but how the battle is progressing.

Fortunately, we have the luxury of not having to deal with some foriegn power trying to steal our money, resources, and control us.


While the middle east is moving closer and closer to radical theocracy and minority rights are further and further eroded, the debate in the west is over "gay marriage" and "abortion rights".

The line, you see, has moved.

Sure its moved, but the point I was making was that I was not buying into all of the sensationalized shit you hear on CNN and Fox News about these Islamic countries (Or any non-western country really).


Unfortunately, in the Islamic world, imperialism and economic ruin have lead to cultural stagnation and the line has stayed pretty much where it was four or five centuries ago. So, is the solution to end imperialism? Absolutely. But it&#39;s not enough to just say that foreign occupation must end "at any cost"; human societal dynamics are simply not that reducable.

So its not "enough" to just end imperialism, but its "enough" to end imperialism as long as anti-religion is attached with it?

Or, do we also need to make sure that Iraq goes straight into developing socialism along with ending religion and imperialism?

How, maybe anarchism will see a rise in Iraq and it will become the first commune?

:lol:

Me personally, I&#39;ll *take whats possible for me to get* at this point, wishful thinking won&#39;t do me any good.


Well, of course&#33;

Stalinism was one of the most Again, I am in no way contending that anti-imperial efforts should not be supported, merely that there is fundamental difference between supporting one side in a fight and supporting them in general.

brutal forms of oppressive government this century experienced, but it was nonetheless the undeniably lesser evil when it battled Naziism.

Does that mean that Stalinism should have been "supported" in 1941? Of course not. It just means that the Red Army should have been.

LOL, well then what was the point of all this? Its not like I was saying how fun it would be to live under Islamic rule&#33;


Likewise, we must support any anti-imperialsit movements insofar as their anti-imperialist efforts go, but no further. That means supporting the individuals fighting against direct US occupation and indirect US puppet rule; but not supporting the "organizations" they are ostensibly fighting on behalf of.

I think that this is more a matter of semantics.

Take Palestine and the Hamas for example. Every indivdual makes up these organizations, so I don&#39;t see why throwing out a little support for the Hamas is doing any harm....sure if I knew the name of the individuals who fight Israeli occupation, but its really a non issue.

This sounds like a "support the troops, not the army" argument to me....one that I disagree with entirely.


And the rest of us should what, "keep our mouths shut"?

Should we stay equally silent when our "allies" in the middle east enforce and promote probably the ugliest appartheid system in modern history?

I&#39;m sorry, but I&#39;m just not willing to "tolerate" that kind of naked oppression without speaking out. I really don&#39;t care who they&#39;re fighting; what they are doing is wrong and I will say so&#33; :angry:

JOIN THE US ARMY AND PUT A STOP TO THIS MESS........ :lol:

[LSD]

I didn&#39;t say it was some sort of perfect enemy to imperialism, I said that at the moment, as a movement, it is the strongest opponent to imperialism and is doing more to stop it then anyone else.

The strongest opponent to imperialism is national self-interest. At the moment, that manifests in various ways across the world, but the underlying principle is unchanged.

Yes, Chaves may call his social-democracy anti-imperialism "bolivarian" whereas Iran&#39;s theocratic anti-imperialism is called "Islamic", but the reason that both counries are opposing US interests are identical; and would remain so even if both ideologies dissapeared.

Islamism is not fighting imperialism, people are fighting imperialism. For many of them, Islam is just a convenient excuse because they lack the material understanding to explain their true class motivations.

Our job as radical leftists is to explain the facts to them. Not to "make" them "abandond their faith"; not to "destroy Islam"; just to offer a progressive anti-imperialist stand that, actually, already fits with their specific interests.


Until those on the left begin to fight imperialism........"Radical Islam" will remain the imperialist biggest opponents.

Except that "radical Islam" is not opposed to imperialism&#33;

Some radical Islamicists have opposed some imperial ventures, but the movement itself is entirely concentrated on local theocratic ends.

Equating Islam with anti-imperialism is like equating racism with libertarianism. Sure, most racists don&#39;t like the way that the present government is constituted, but because their motivation and intent is so hopelessly warped, they are fundamentally incompatible with a modern libertarian outlook.

Again, Islamicists do not oppose imperialism. They just oppose the present imperialism; but their aim is to replace it with a "better" more "Islamic" imperialism and as such they are, ultimately, imperialists themselves.

That makes them and their movement our enemy, even if some of the fights they co-opt are in our interest.


If for some off the wall reason, Neo-nazi&#39;s took some progressive stance against imperialism, and they blew up say, the whitehouse.....fuck it, I may "wish them luck" in THAT fight. But this situation is so far off the wall that its completely irrelevent.

And why is it "off the wall"?

Neo-nazi militia groups have been causing damage for decades now. Timothy McVeigh, remember, blew up a large federal office building in Oklahoma.

Tell me, did you support that attack? After all, the US federal government is an oppressive imperialist organization ....so, by your logic, anyone who fights it is "progressive".

You may not like the analogy, but where you are coming from is identical to that of the German leftists who viewd the NSDAP as a useful "ally" against foreign occupation.

It doesn&#39;t matter what Germany&#39;s "history" was. The facts are that in 1918 Germany was an occupied and dominated nation. After all, Persia was once an imperial power as was Turkey. That doesn&#39;t chagne the fact that both are now subject to US imperialist control.

In the same way, post-Versailles Germany was no longer an imperialist power. Rather it was, in many ways, an economic colony of powerful western interests.

In response, numerous anti-imperialist forces sprung up, including the then small "National Socialist German Workers&#39; Party" which advocated an explusion of foreign dominance and the establishment of a national German unified state -- the "pan-arabism" of the day, if you will.

And, by all indications, had you been around then, they would have had your full support&#33; :o


Whats the problem with this?

The problem is that people like you percieve this "liberate" grafting as more than it really is; the problem is that people begin to view "Islamism" as somehow progressive as an ideology when it&#39;s actually an intractable imperialist enemy of progressive leftism.

Again, it&#39;s the KPD fallacy all over again and we cannot afford to repeat history here.


I would support pan-arabism as well (Which I believe is what you&#39;re describing).

It wasn&#39;t actually, but we can address this issue if you want.

"Pan-arabism", like all nationalist ideologies, is throrouhly reactionary. Although it has an anti-imperialist element to it (kick out the foreigners and all that...) it is primarily concerned with establishing a racial hegemony in the middle east.

And so, again, I compare it with mid-1920s National Socialism.

You see when these kinds of nationalist movements are in their infancy, they are by nescessity anti-imperialist. Because they emerge in occupied areas, they have no choice but to fight for an explusion of "foreigners".

The direction from which they are approaching this issue, however, is a decidely reactioanry one and one which lends itself towards eventual imperialism itself.

Like Nazi Germany in Austria and Czechia and Poland, once the foundation of "racial" or "ethnic" or "religious" "unity" has been laid, it cannot help but turn into a form of imperialism itself.

It&#39;s what happened in China after &#39;49. Where an anti-imperialist "communist" movement suddently demanded former imperial possessions.

Because they had premised so much of their "arugment" on a national rather than popular appeal, they were forced to attempt "ethnic" expansionism, to mixed results of course.

Well, the situation in the middle east is no different, albeit not quite so far along. National chauvinism or "pan-arabism" may seem like an easy out now, but in the long-term it will destroy more than it constructs.

Anti-imperialism needs to be supported, but racist anti-imperialism cannot be; nor can theocratic for that matter.

When "Islamicsts" or "pan-arabists" join an anti-imperialist fight they are doing so because, on that issue, anti-imperialism happens to be in their interst. And so while we must support that fight we cannot support the reactionary causes that motivate many of the people involved.

Again, it is identical to how supporting the Red Army did not mean endorsing Stalinism. The danger of your position, however, is that you are endorsing the proverbial "Stalin" here and as such are posing a great danger to our actual proletarian interests.


I think we disagree on this issue because I simply view this as a matter of priorities.........I view this "fuck em both" attitude as idealistic. Islam isn&#39;t disappearing from Islamic countries anytime soon.......the same way that Christianity isn&#39;t disappearing from the west anytime soon.

This isn&#39;t about ending religion, it&#39;s about fighting a particularly reactionary and imperialist movement. As you said yourself, Christianity is still alive and well in the west. But it&#39;s social power is nowhere near that of Islam&#39;s in the middle east.

More importantly, though, it must be noted that "political Islam" and Islam are two distinct social forces. Yes, the former is strongly driven by the former; but it is quite possible to destablize the former without even touching the hegemony of the latter.

Eventually, of course, both will have to be eliminated, but in the short-run we can easily oppose the one without "disappearing" the other.


I could just as easily ask you why you support womens rights, and queer rights, in America.

:blink:

That&#39;s a ludidcrous question.

Ending discrimination and oppression helps the marginalized and exploited and serves to weaken the power of the bourgeois state to artificially divide the workers.

Your problem is that you&#39;ve convinced yourself that if you support a fight, you must support all the participants in the fight -- so when it comes to gay rights, you think it means "supporting liberalism"; and when it comes to anti-imperialism, you think it means "supporting Islamists".

What you need to learn is that while certain acts must be supported, the people who commit them; or, more importantly, the people who als support them, need not be&#33;


I would think that those fighting imperialist are WELL AWARE of what this actually means.....even if its just wanting to throw out "western ideas" (Whether progressive or not), the mere stance of NOT LETTING A FORIEGN ENEMY CONTROL YOUR NATION is a correct one in my eyes.

Obviously, but the problem here is that the people you&#39;re supporting have more than that one stance.

Like the Nazis, their anti-imperialism is a cover for an imperialist agenda of their own; and supporting the movement, instead of supporting specific battles, can only lead to tragedy.


Now does this mean that I would support any old ideology because it "has a chance" to do something progressive? Of course not. I look at the situation as logically as possible......so while Islam has a "great chance" of kicking out western power in the Middle East and North Africa, I wouldn&#39;t support neo-nazi&#39;s as you have implied.

Why not?

What if they were better organized and popular? What if they were, say, the second-most popular party in the local legislature, having recieved over 36% of the vote?

If your only reason for not supporting the Nazis today is that they "aren&#39;t popular enough" you need to seriously reconsider your views.

Because in 1932, they were incredibly popular and many on the left made the exact same mistake you&#39;re making now -- believing that regressive petty-bourgeois forces can be "used" by the left.

We really cannot afford to make that mistake again.


Maybe if Nazi&#39;s in Germany had been in Cameroon or Algeria instead of an imperialist nation who was getting its JUST DO, and DIDN&#39;T have a strong progressive leftist enemy...maybe then I might have supported them....

That&#39;s exactly what I was afraid of, and exactly where this line of thinking inevitably ends.

Think for a moment about what you just said, if the Nazis had just been in a different country or if thy had just had a different opposition ...they&#39;d have had your support. Without changing a single aspect of their racist fascist imperiaist politics, you can honestly see yourself being a Nazi.

Well, again, Germany in the 20s was an occupied and devastated nation. It wouldn&#39;t too much of a stretch to say that it almost resmbled a Cameoon or Algeria.

That&#39;s why, after all, the Nazis had to adopt such a strong anti-imperialist line and why so much of their message was tailored against "foreign inflitrators"; and it&#39;s why, in large part, they became so very popular.

Indeed, from what you&#39;ve written here so far, had you been a "leftist" in 1930s Germany you&#39;d a been supporting the Nazis yourself.

After all, they were doing the "most against imperialism"... <_<


The way I see it, there was Islamic control in Iraq before the americans entered, and their is going to be an islamic control in Iraq after america leaves

Except that there wasn&#39;t Islamic control in pre-occupation Iraq. There was dictatorial control by Hussein and his brutal "socialist" policies. But it was nonetheless a relatively secular state.

Radical Islam only came in as a powerful force following the US invasion.


Sure its moved, but the point I was making was that I was not buying into all of the sensationalized shit you hear on CNN and Fox News about these Islamic countries (Or any non-western country really).

I don&#39;t watch CNN and Fox News doesn&#39;t broadcast up here so I&#39;m not sureexactly which "sensationalized" stories you&#39;re talking about. In my experience, though, every station exagerates their "news"; that&#39;s how they get ratings after all.

I don&#39;t think that this feature of the capitalistic media, however, has anything to do with the reality on the ground in the middle east.

The simple truth of the matter is that the "Islamic" world today is enforcing the single worst apparteid society in the modern world. And that you are so eager to support and even endorse this form of society as some sort of "cure" to imperialism speaks more about your own misunderstanding of leftism than anything else.


So its not "enough" to just end imperialism, but its "enough" to end imperialism as long as anti-religion is attached with it?

No, so long as a rational understanding is attached with it.

[CubaSocialista]

Originally posted by Body [email protected] 15 2006, 04:59 PM
Truthfully, I think that many are getting too caught up on the idea of "radical islamism"" in the first damned place....terms like "Islamism", "Islamofascist", "Radical Islam", are BULLSHIT and western centric to me. First of all, this is done by by bigots far too often.....anytime anyone fights the power structure they are labeled as some sort of crazy rebel or zealot of some sort. Maybe the dudes just want fucking imperialist off their fucking land? Hell, if I was in Iraq, I&#39;d certainly consider joining an anti-american group....and if it was a islamic group that offered the best chance to kill imperialist...I might join them.

Secondly, its not as those christians in america are some moderate, progressive, church going, peaceful citizens......they are just as fucking "radical" as anyone else....the difference is that we don&#39;t label US soldiers as terrorist......
To me, it&#39;s two equally malevolent paradigms. The Iranians are just as wicked, exploitative, and degenerate as their American counterparts. Let the governments of both nations get what they deserve.

[FidelCastro]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 13 2006, 05:13 PM
I think the real challenge for the left is figuring out how to fight Islamism (which is as real a threat to the rights of women, sexual minorities, and religious minorities as any other totalitarian and theocratic ideology) without persecuting Muslims, as the right and the false left, motivated by equally evil and backwards ideologies, have done.

In the Middle East, we must back democratic, socialist, and feminist organisations that fight ruthlessly against the scourges of both Islamism and American imperialism (i.e. RAWA, The Labour and Communist Party of Iran). Within our own borders, we must be willing to use our legal frameworks and our democratic institutions to crush all attempts by those with anti-secularist ideas to corrupt our political institutions and threaten our civil liberties, whether these ideas are fundmentalist Christianity, Hindutva (its consequences for the people of India and Nepal have been dire), Islamism, or the descipable mixture of leader-worship and atheism imposed upon the masses by Stalinists and by followers of Juche.
Islam is the act of submitting to god, Muslims are those who submit. Islam is the religion they follow. But so do terrorists, and the taliban. In fact, I will be so bold as to call Osama Bin Laden, a Muslim. Why? Because he is a practicing Islamisist. He prays 5 times a day and does not drink alchohol or eat pork. What separates him from the average Saudi, is that he kills innocent people. That&#39;s it on a fundamental level. Fighting Islam is the same as fighting Muslims. I understand what you&#39;re trying to say, and I believe what you are trying to get at is trying to eleminate the bad Muslims so to speak. I agree with getting rid of terrorists.

On a side note however, has anyone ever taken a look at how odd humans are? We are the only species on the planet where Males are the dominant gender. Every other species, it is females. In a sence, they are the dominant gender as they control the continuation of our species. Men, may be more physically enhanced but Females carry a much bigger responsibility and choice.

[chimx]

i stopped reading this the second you said, "islamism"