Iraq, Islam and Communism - to what extent should we interde

[Comrade H]

This is a hypothetical question for you. From the scenes we see on the news these days it is clear that there is a strong Muslim voice present in Iraq, inflamed by the preachings of the leaders. This has the possibility (though unlikely, given the current U$ stnace) to tunr Iraq into a muslim fumdamentla state like the old Afganistan. Obviously education and equality will go some way to calming the population, but we should not underestimate the influence of the clerics. My question therefore is, if a Socialist force was occupying Iraq, should we take n active role in stopping this fundamentalism (such as arresting clerics, and manipulating propoganda against them), even though this goes against people's basic freedom to choose.

My personal opinion is that there isn't really room for any sort of religion in a modern socialist society. Obviously we should let people make descisions for themselves, but not at the risk of having crazed fundamentalists condemning Jihad on the rest of humanity. As far as I see it, where active prevention/ disuasion of fundamentalism is concerned, the ends justify the means.

Let me know what you think. Bye Comrades

[Severian]

It would be an error to think that socialist revolution could be spread by foreign invasion. Even if a socialist country had the military power the U.S. had, it should not go around using it as the U.S. does.

A good example is Cuba's military interventions in Africa: at the request of Angola and Ethiopia, helping them to fight off foreign invasions. Not interfering in their internal affairs, or trying to impose government's of Cuba's choosing on them. (Neither government was socialist, whatever they called themselves.)

The bad example would be the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan: imposing the PDPA faction of the Kremlin's choosing as the Afghan government, when the PDPA had a very narrow popular base, and could bring change only by decree and military force, not by helping workers and peasants to bring about change by their own actions. We know how that worked out.

[Republican Guard]

Quote: from Comrade H on 12:58 pm on May 7, 2003

My personal opinion is that there isn't really room for any sort of religion in a modern socialist society. Obviously we should let people make descisions for themselves, but not at the risk of having crazed fundamentalists condemning Jihad on the rest of humanity. As far as I see it, where active prevention/ disuasion of fundamentalism is concerned, the ends justify the means.

Let me know what you think. Bye Comrades


No room for religion in a modern socialist society? Last time I checked, freedom of religion - or of a lack thereof - was a fundamental right in the "ideal" communist state. In fact, one of the USSRs' big mistakes was to brutally suppress religion and promote/enforce atheism.

I think that all religions should be accepted in any society, communist or not. By outlawing religion, you create another fascist state.

The only danger is when you allow religion to reach fanatical levels, or with religions that have the destruction of other religions as their agenda. Fanatical religious extremists are responsible for more death and suffering than any other entity in the history of the world, ever...

- WW2 (Christianity)
- Crusades (Christianity)
- 9/11 (Islam)
- Palestine (Judaism)
- Operation Iraqi Freedom (Evangelical Christianity)
- Mongol Hordes (whatever)
- etc.

I'm a christian myself, but am very upset with those who impose their own religion and fail to accept others. Missionary work and preaching is fine. Bombing Iraq then sending in Evangelical Christian missionaries as "charity workers" isn't.

s.

[Comrade H]

Sorry. When I said that i believed that there wasn't really room for any sort of religion in a modern socialist society, my justification was that science and education would disporve it, while social equality would reduce the need for it. People would voluntarily give it up, that descision wouldn't be imposed on anyone (as happened in Stalin Russia). The only (possible) exception is when a religion incites crowds to vilonece, and diminishes the social status of groups (i.e women, homosexuals). That's why I proposed the original question. Thanks, Just wanted to clarify.

[redstar2000]

My views on communism and religion are sufficiently well known on this board not to require repetition here (see the sticky thread "Communism & Religion" in Theory and follow the links on page 1).

But let's talk about a real situation...Iraq under U.S. military occupation.

Presumably, as communists, we would attempt to inspire vigorous opposition to the occupation, would we not?

And yet, even more fanatical opposition would come...is coming right now, from muslim fundamentalists.

What do we do? Would we form some kind of anti-occupation coalition with the muslim fundamentalists, realizing that the day the American troops leave, we'd go for each others' throats?

Or would we actively propagandize against Islam and in favor of secular communism for Iraq? Even though we'd know that such a course would make us pretty unpopular for a long time to come?

I would favor the latter course if I were actually in Iraq right now...but this is the kind of "real world" situation that communists must learn to deal with.

:cool:

[Severian]

Better than the original topic.

IMO "Islamic fundamentalism" has such a following because they're filling a vacuum. Like in 1979 in Iran, why did Khomeini end up in the leadership of the revolution?

Well, under the Shah's repression, other forces that might have led it were wiped out. Plus, the Iranian Communist Party had made a lot of mistakes, to put it mildly, in the past, so it seemed to many people like the "Islamic fundamentalists" were more revolutionary, stronger in their opposition to the shah and to U.S. imperialism.

Same thing today in Iraq.

So communists in Iraq would have to 1) to show themselves among the strongest, most effective opponents of the occupation. Otherwise, the millions of Iraqis who profoundly resent the occupiers will be left with no alternative but the ayatollahs.

2) Yes, work with the Islamists, and anyone else who opposes the occupation. Right now, they have a bigger following among working people in Iraq than anyone calling themselves communist, that's for sure.

And that's what the "united front" was invented for, winning over the masses awat from another leadership. Put THEM in the situation of saying, we won't work with you, you're godless communists.

Then they'd be disrupting unity against the occupation. Then the communists would clearly be the people who really oppose it the occupiers most strongly.

[redstar2000]

No question about it, Severian, the "united front" against some outstanding reactionary evil has always been an attractive strategy for communists.

Historically, the way things have usually (always?) worked out is that after the "united front" wins, the communists get fucked.

Maybe our side was just "unlucky"; maybe there's something fundamentally wrong in the way communists have done this in the past; maybe the whole strategy is a mistake.

But the track record of "united front" work by communists has been absolutely abysmal.

It seems to me that more is required here than just verbal gymnastics. If we were to try a strategy like this in Iraq, how are we to give ourselves a chance to win after the occupation forces withdraw?

And, by the way, another specific condition of this situation is that (reportedly) the United States plans to install a large and permanent military base in Iraq to "keep the natives in line".

Thus it might well turn out that a "united front" could not hope to win for many decades. Perhaps it would make more sense to directly attack the beliefs of the fundamentalists as stupid and reactionary...and await developments elsewhere. (The U.S., like all empires, will sooner or later over-extend itself...creating new opportunities for resistance all over the world.)

I am by no means any kind of "authority" on the Middle East or Islam; but it does seem obvious to me that this religion has consistently opposed the development of modern thought, including class consciousness, among the Arab people (and others).

If communists don't oppose it now, who will? And when?

:cool:

[Severian]

Heh. The record of communists succeeding by means of united front tactics is abysmal? You might as well say the record of communists succeeding is abysmal, as everybody who ever led a revolution used united-front methods, whether or not they called 'em that.

Now Popular Front, that's something else. But there's enough stuff out there on the distinction that I don't specially feel like repeating the ABCs here.

You against labor unions too? It ever occur to you that they're a form of united front, where workers of every possible political view act together on the points they can agree on?

I'm all for combatting reactionaries who act in the name of Islam. But if you're less solidly against imperialism than they are, then who is really more reactionary, you or them? Actions speak louder than words...

There's been an interesting cautionary example in the news lately. The Mujahedeen Khalq from Iran. They started out as a leftist-oriented opposition to the shah. After the revolution, opposed Khomeini - without regard to anything else, including whether the Iranian working class WANTED to overthrow Khomeini yet, or the role of imperialism.

Started a terrorist campaign against the will of the Iranian people. Began operating out of Iraq, supported by the Saddam Hussein regime, at the time conducted an imperialist-supported attack on the Iranian revolution. Eventually became nothing but a tool of that regime, even serving as an internal security force for it.

Currently, the Mujahedeen Khalq are trying to switch sponsorship from Baghdad to Washington, to become an instrument of Washinton's hostility to Iran rather than Washington. Only question is whether Washington will accept their allegiance.

Just a little cautionary tale on the dangers of forgetting who is the main enemy of humanity.

Edit: thought I should comment on this:
"I am by no means any kind of "authority" on the Middle East or Islam; but it does seem obvious to me that this religion has consistently opposed the development of modern thought, including class consciousness, among the Arab people (and others). "

One could say this of religion in general. But as an antidote to thinking that Islam is the problem, rather than reactionary class forces using Islam as a cover, consider Malcolm X, or better yet, all those people who went out to pray towards Mecca during breaks in the Baku Congress.

(Edited by Severian at 1:24 am on May 12, 2003)

[Donut Master]

Were it a TRUE democracy in Iraq (it won't be under the US, unfortunately) and an election were held, the Islamic fundies would probably win. Unfortunate as this is, if that's what the majority wants, that's what they get. Of course, were I in Iraq, I would fight against an Islamic state every chance I get. It's really a mess over there.

[Dirk2950]

I find the thought that there is no room for religion in a modern state is despisable. I read many people on different forums cite examples such as crusades and witch burnings to argue that religion is barbaric, while they convieniently ignore that some of the greatest murderes of all times, like Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot were fanatical atheists.
(I myself are an agnositic, I just get sick of strong anti religious sentiment wich I regard as no better then racism)
No amount of science will ever disprove religion- atheists have been doing that for hundreds of years, and it all comes down to the inevitable conclusion that both theism and atheism are faith- one in the existance, the other of the lack of a god.
And it is possible to create a humane, modern nation wich has a sizable muslim population. Just look at Turkey, though sadly there aren't any other good examples- yet.

[Luna]

I don't say religion is good or bad but I think the problem is from how it is used. Religion should be practice in homes and mosquees or churches. It should not be public but private. Political leaders should not use religion and religious leaders should not talk politics.

[redstar2000]

"And it is possible to create a humane, modern nation which has a sizable muslim population. Just look at Turkey."

Turkey may appear to be "humane" compared to Iran or "Saudi" Arabia...but if you were to interview some Kurds in that country, "humane" is not a word that I would expect to turn up in the conversation.

Severian, the matter of labor unions as a kind of "united front" is a distraction; what we're discussing is if or in what way we should "unite" with muslim reactionaries against U.S. imperialism...presupposing we were "on the ground" in Iraq.

First of all, let's face it, we are not suicide-bomber types and they are. So by your criterion of "action"...they are going to look far more "heroic" and "romantic" and "attractive" than we are.

They are also going to kill more occupation troops than we will; partly because there are many more of them than there are of us and partly because losses are of no importance to them while any losses of our people would be very serious...there are not that many of us to begin with.

No matter what we do, they (the muslim fundamentalists) will have the "high ground"...at least to begin with.

It is possible that communists might organize a "worker-centered" resistance movement...concentrating on strikes and sabotage to make life difficult for the occupation forces. Quite possibly when the occupation forces finally withdraw, the muslim fundamentalists will find that their mostly rural supporters lack the "stiffness" of the communist-influenced urban working class.

But I frankly believe that any kind of alliance with muslim fundamentalists...especially in a "junior" position...would be a bad move. It would cede to them a legitimacy that they don't really deserve...and that we should be struggling against.

And, beyond that, a few platitudes about the reactionary social role of religion is really inadequate...these bastards have always shown themselves to be our enemies, often with even more vigor than the capitalist class itself.

To be sure there have been occasional religious figures who have shown some sympathy for the working class and even communism; that doesn't change my observation that in general and by a wide majority religious institutions and their spokespersons have been in bitter opposition to the emancipation of the working class.

It seems to me that the casual disregard of that fact by communists has cost us heavily.

We should stop that.

:cool:

Dirk2950, your attempt to equate atheism and theism (both matters of "faith"...) is, from a scientific standpoint, untenable. The scientist says: "show me evidence for the existence of god." The theist is silent or begins yapping about faith. That's a clear difference...and one that obviously favors atheism.

Indulge in whatever verbal gymnastics you wish in order to maintain your "neutrality"...but expect them to be challenged on a pretty regular basis.

(Edited by redstar2000 at 11:43 pm on May 12, 2003)

[Severian]

What gives these religious figures their significance, Redstar, is that large numbers of working people in Iraq look to them for leadership. If that wasn't true, nobody would be paying any attention to them.

So the union analogy is entirely appropriate. Kinda vivid, even, thinking of the UAW local I belonged to 'til recently and all the Bible-thumping evangelicals who also belonged to it.

"We're not suicide bomber types and they are."

Heh. Ironic on a board called "Che lives." "Wherever death may surprise us, it shall be welcome", remember? The Rebel Army even had a unit called the "Suicide Squad."

May I remind you that ALL factions in Palestine are making use of suicide bombings at present. The non-Islamist ones actually have a larger pool of volunteers to draw on, potentially, as the Islamists refuse to accept women in this capacity...

And at the moment, the Shi'a Islamists in Iraq are not organizing suicide bombings against the occupation, are they? They're organizing mass demonstrations. While the Iraqi Communist Party isn't doing that, fails to make any clear call for the imperialists to get out, blathers about the UN, etc.

Which is the basic reason "Islamic radicalism" developed in the first place.

[redstar2000]

Unless I miss your point, Severian, you appear to be suggesting that because a large portion of the Iraqi working class takes muslim fundamentalism seriously, that we are, what, compelled to ally ourselves with them? Or, at least, to treat them with some kind of deference?? Or???

I don't see that at all, frankly. Indeed, that seems to me to be all the more reason to attack their fundamentalist views.

It is quite true, except for a couple of incidents, that the fundamentalists have not yet gone in "big time" for suicide bombing...but it's the logic of their position and, let's face it, what other options do they have? How many demonstrations will people go to before they get weary? "Kill an infidel, Go to Paradise" is a "natural" for them.

Here's why the UAW local analogy doesn't work: the evangelicals didn't demand a clause in the contract that compelled all union members to obey the 10 Commandments as a condition of employment and union membership, did they? I would have no problem dealing with those dickheads in the context of a union local, though I wouldn't pass up the chance to make them look bad. It's different in Iraq.

Your remarks about the Che-Lives board were a bit unkind, don't you think? Are you suggesting that we should take up suicide-bombing "in the name of Che"? Are you volunteering?

Actually, I agree with you about the actual Iraqi "communists", who indeed are not really communists at all (they like Sweden as a model). The absence of a secular revolutionary alternative to the muslim fundamentalists is certainly key to the latter's strength among the masses in the Arab world and elsewhere.

But when a real communist alternative emerges, as it surely will, my argument is that they must attack religious fundamentalism along with the occupation...otherwise they would be just wasting their time; when the occupation forces left, another Iran-type regime would be installed and whatever communists didn't make it across the border in time would be jailed or killed.

That's not smart!

:cool:

[redstar2000]

Here is a rather interesting report on the current situation in Iraq...

http://www.sf-frontlines.com/modules.php?o...order=0&thold=0 (http://www.sf-frontlines.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=328&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0)

If accurate, it looks as if the people there have "some room" in which to organize resistance.

:cool:

[Dirk2950]

Redstar: I was pointing out that it would be impossible to disprove the existance of God, nothing more.
And what exactly do you mean when you speak of "attacking" religious fundamentalism?

[Severian]

I really think you need to review the ABCs of what a united front is before continuing this discussion, Redstar. May I recommend Lenin's pamphlet on "Left-wing communism".

[redstar2000]

Dirk2950, when I say attack religious fundamentalism, I mean attack it...do everything we can to expose it for the rotten superstitious repressive pile of shit that it is.

Severian, I have a whole box full of copies of Lenin's Left-Wing Communism; An Infantile Disorder. I use it for cat litter!

:cool:

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

I love the irony.....

Prior to any talk of a new Islamic state in Iraq, everyone was harping on about "Let the people decided what they want."

It seems as though a lot of the people have decided they want an Islamic state.

YET, you all, just like the Americans will do, say that an Islamic state is wrong. So tell me, did anyone ever REALLY want what the Iraqi people wanted in THEIR country?

From some of your statments, it seems you lot are no more diplomatic and democratic than the American imperialist.

(Edited by Socialsmo o Muerte at 10:39 pm on May 14, 2003)

[redstar2000]

Well, Socialsmo, I think you kind of missed the terms of the discussion.

What we've really gotten into here is a question of what communists should do in Iraq? At least at such time as real communists emerge there.

As far as the United States presence is concerned, I would be delighted to see them driven out of Iraq in disarray...no matter who did it.

In my view, any defeat of U.S. imperialism is welcome, no matter what the source.

Since neither Serverin nor myself are Iraqi nationals, you could, I suppose, fairly reproach us for speculating on the basis of inadequate information.

But, as I'm sure you know, communism is international...communists in one country will often offer suggestions to communists in other countries and no one takes it amiss or is upset about it. Like other sciences, Marxism disregards national boundaries in pursuit of knowledge.

So we're not being "ironic", Socialsmo, we're doing something that communists are supposed to do.

:cool:

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 4:57 pm on May 14, 2003
Dirk2950, when I say attack religious fundamentalism, I mean attack it...do everything we can to expose it for the rotten superstitious repressive pile of shit that it is.

Severian, I have a whole box full of copies of Lenin's Left-Wing Communism; An Infantile Disorder. I use it for cat litter!

:cool:


Well, forgive me for misinterpeting that comment as opposing an Islamic state