Hezbollah and Israel [Archive]

Forward Union

30th July 2006, 20:26

Originally posted by black banner black [email protected] 30 2006, 05:12 PM
No, because I don't support the burning of religious structures. You dodged my question about this.

What question :unsure:

...oh "And when they kill practicing Jews and Muslims? "

Of course I don't support that bit, but this "critically" tag is a brilliant all-purpose cop out. I can back anything and as soon as someone points out something ugly like racism or nationalism I can yell "critically!"

One is an invading army that is killing a shit ton of people? I support the Lebanese people's right to resist occupation. In some cases that means supporting Hezbollah. The Lebanese communists on the ground there don't seem interested in fighting Hezbollah right now and they're in a lot more danger than you from those same people. Hmm...

But what you're doing, is analysing from an extreamly nationalist and deeply reactionary perspective. Countries don't actually exist, they are an enforced superstition. So when you say that a country is occupied by another, in class terms you mean that the class of one country now share the same rulers as another. In which case their goal hasn't changed, their own emancipation, not their nations emancipation. Channeling their efforts into national emancipation is exactly what the far right want us to do. This nationalist movement, will just lead to the formation of an "indigenous" ruling class as opposed to a "foreign" one. So it makes no difference to the proles who wins, but as long as the fighting goes on, working people will die.

I think it's utterly treacherous of the communist party, to tell the people to stop fighting for their own emancipation, and to rally around the flags of Lebanon and Hezbollah, and fight for race and nation. And there's no bullhsit about it, that's what's happened.

The communist party have ordered it's followers to support an anti-semitic, islamicist group.

I've no love lost for Hezbollah but I recognize their position in the reality of the situation over there.

Of course, Anti-semites grabbing a change to throw what they've got at the jews, and to further their Islamic agenda to wipe out homosexuality and any equality for women.

What a stupid question. The workers, of course, but right now the workers in Lebanon are saying that Hezbollah should be supported in the short term.

Some workers are saying that, others aren't. Any Communist party that supports an anti-semitic group in any circumstances is clearly no representative of class conciosu workers. Then again, most workers supported Hitler in the 1930s, the point is, no religious anti-semites should ever be supported for any period of time by the working class. They should be violently opposed, we as working people should unleash hell on our rulers, whether they are imperialist, indigenous, Islamic, Jewish, Christian whatever.

Id rather be the only person arguing for self-emancipation, than to compromise my views, not even to the bourgeoisie, but to Islamic fundamentalists. Screw all this selling out to the enemy in times of national crisis shit.

EnragÃ©

30th July 2006, 21:15

But what you're doing, is analysing from an extreamly nationalist and deeply reactionary perspective. Countries don't actually exist, they are an enforced superstition. So when you say that a country is occupied by another, in class terms you mean that the class of one country now share the same rulers as another.

Tanks and soldiers in your streets and bombs being dropped on your house actually do exist. If that were to happen to me I'd support anything fighting to get rid of the tanks and soldiers and bombs on my house killing my friends and family.

Or is that reactionary too?

Or in class terms, in regard to the lebanese working class the israeli working class is slightly above them.
As in labor aristocracy.
To free yourself from imperialist rule alone might not be the only thing necessary, but it sure is a step ahead.

Look its nice to be purist (i guess..for some :wacko: ) but take a look at the circumstances.

Channeling their efforts into national emancipation is exactly what the far right want us to do

Well then we shouldnt channel efforts into national emancipation but stopping tanks rolling through the streets, soldiers killing innocents, bombs dropped on refugee shelters.
I dont care if they are free in name, if they have their own "country", but it would be kinda nice to see you know...people living without having to fear an israeli bullet will pierce your skull. :angry:

Also, it might be a bit difficult to have yourself a communist revolution with like..you know...soldiers with machineguns shooting everything that moves. <_<

This nationalist movement, will just lead to the formation of an "indigenous" ruling class as opposed to a "foreign" one. So it makes no difference to the proles who wins, but as long as the fighting goes on, working people will die.

hmm relative peace and stability......or the threat of airstrikes, raids, tanks rolling down your streets whenever the Israelis feel like it, exploitation of the people there as an even cheaper part of the proletariat without rights and without a realistic possibility of ever gaining those rights..

I wonder what is better... :blink:

I think it's utterly treacherous of the communist party, to tell the people to stop fighting for their own emancipation, and to rally around the flags of Lebanon and Hezbollah, and fight for race and nation. And there's no bullhsit about it, that's what's happened.

No it shows the CP has a sense of reality which some here seem to lack, to tell the people to put aside their apprehension of fighting alongside islamists to ensure that the Israelis get kicked out so that the people stop dying.
Thats what happened.

Any Communist party that supports an anti-semitic group in any circumstances is clearly no representative of class conciosu workers

No they support resistance against the murder of their people, a resistance which the Hezbollah happens to be the biggest part of.

Hey
come up with a PRACTICAL solution instead of tearing down the LCP's solution.
Not "continue to support class-war"..but practical
what should communists in lebanon DO?
start a war on the hezbollah and israel at the same time?
run away while the people die? (yeh that'll help class war)
what?

YKTMX

30th July 2006, 22:28

Wow, the collective lobotomy of the anarchist movement must be really gathering place. Whereas once they could call upon the minds of Kropotkin and Durrutti, now they're reduced to the insane ramblings of the social misfits in Class War. I don't object to the silly jokes or even the racist ones ("if the slogan really wanted to fit then the SWP should have handed out placards proclaiming 'WE ARE ALL SH'ITE'"). One gets used to the macho, young white male tesosterone fuelled nutcases of the antichrist movement. This statement will, of course, have no effect on the struggle either here or in the Lebanon. The anarchists have no links to the organised working class they claim to speak for either here or in Lebanon.

Their "action" is limited to putting stickers on the tube, getting drunk and having fights with the police. Similarly, the oppressed people of the Lebanon and the heroic brothers and sisters in the resistance will go on fighting back. Unless, right now, in some damp bunker in Southern Lebanon, a conversation like this is taking place:

"What? London Class War has told us to put down our arms? Shit!"
"Yes, whereas before I was resolute in wanting to defend myself and my community from Zionist babykillers, now I'm really conflicted"
"Fancy getting drunk and throwing petrol bombs at stuff instead?"
"Do I?!"

black magick hustla

30th July 2006, 22:45

Originally posted by black banner black [email protected] 30 2006, 11:22 AM
Supporting resistance to imperialist aggression doesn't mean supporting the resisting groups without any criticism. I support Hezbollah and all Lebanese fighters in resistance to Israeli's assault, but that is the only thing I support Hezbollah on. Its easy to be picky and "pure" when the guns and bombs aren't directed at you, but our Lebanese comrades don't have such a luxury.
this

I support hezbollah only as an anti-imperialist force. Ultimately, such forces help undermine the power of imperialists, global capital, and thus capitalism.

It is just a pragmatic approach.

While it is true that lebanese working class resistance is canalizing into islamic radicalism (what a shame) that doesn't changes the fact that hezbollah IS a reactionary organization. Throwing random rockets to Israel in the hope of killing random israeli kids or working class chaps is not my cup of tea.

Wow, the collective lobotomy of the anarchist movement must be really gathering place. Whereas once they could call upon the minds of Kropotkin and Durrutti, now they're reduced to the insane ramblings of the social misfits in Class War. I don't object to the silly jokes or even the racist ones ("if the slogan really wanted to fit then the SWP should have handed out placards proclaiming 'WE ARE ALL SH'ITE'"). One gets used to the macho, young white male tesosterone fuelled nutcases of the antichrist movement. This statement will, of course, have no effect on the struggle either here or in the Lebanon. The anarchists have no links to the organised working class they claim to speak for either here or in Lebanon.

Their "action" is limited to putting stickers on the tube, getting drunk and having fights with the police. Similarly, the oppressed people of the Lebanon and the heroic brothers and sisters in the resistance will go on fighting back. Unless, right now, in some damp bunker in Southern Lebanon, a conversation like this is taking place:

"What? London Class War has told us to put down our arms? Shit!"
"Yes, whereas before I was resolute in wanting to defend myself and my community from Zionist babykillers, now I'm really conflicted"
"Fancy getting drunk and throwing petrol bombs at stuff instead?"
"Do I?!"

What a predictable trot.

Jamal

30th July 2006, 22:52

Well, where should I start?

While I am writing this, I here the Israeli warplanes humming in the sky. I'm wondering who is the next victim, will it be someone I know? A reletive maybe, maybe a friend, or another innocent victim. Or even maybe, it could be me :(

What do you advise me to do? Just tell me?

Any Communist party that supports an anti-semitic group in any circumstances is clearly no representative of class conciosu workers.

The LCP is not supporting Hezbollah on their anti-semitism or any of their wrongs, but on the one thing they are doing right and which is the resistance.

I am not with Hezbollah, not on their ideas nor beleifs nor anything else, just resistance man why don't you get that?

The situation here is critical, people like you can be pure and can be picky but people like me don't really have a choice...

YKTMX

30th July 2006, 22:57

What a predictable trot.

You're stupid enough to think that's an insult.

RevSouth

30th July 2006, 23:06

Originally posted by Additives [email protected] 30 2006, 11:40 AM
Hezbollah are violently anti-communist, homophobic, anti-worker, anti-semitic, they are extremely pro-islam, pro homophobia, sexism and all other manner of reactionary religious bullshit ideas some of which I have already listed.

Hezbollah do not represent the working class, the poor, the oppressed. They represent a bullshit religious ideal, that simply wants to see imperialism redefined in their favour, they don't give a flying fuck about proletarian power, and they have already shown their desire to send proles to their deaths in the name of allah. If Hezbollah won, we, the workers would be in a far worse position in the middle east.
Part of the reason Hezbollah has support from the average southern Lebanese Shi'ite is exactly the same reason you are wrong. Hezbollah prvides many social programs for the common people, the oppressed, you might say. Medical help, food programs, etc. are provided for the populace free of charge, something Israel or Lebanon never did. I do not personally support Israel or Hezbollah, but the Israelis definitely care less about Lebanese civilians than Hezbollah does.

black magick hustla

30th July 2006, 23:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 07:58 PM

What a predictable trot.

You're stupid enough to think that's an insult.
Oh, of course it is!

such a predictabilty points out the vapidity and poverty of trotskyism. Siding uncritically with the underdog just for being the underdog. It doesn't matters that such underdog kills random israeli workers just for being you know--from Israel.

But of course, what could be expected from the likes of you.

Forward Union

30th July 2006, 23:13

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 06:16 PM
Tanks and soldiers in your streets and bombs being dropped on your house actually do exist. If that were to happen to me I'd support anything fighting to get rid of the tanks and soldiers and bombs on my house killing my friends and family.

Or is that reactionary too?

What a loaded question. You are trying to equate Hezbollah to Poor peoples resistance against tanks and bombs. This isn't the case. Of course resistance to military force isn't reactionary. But Hezbollah are attacking Israeli working people, and have desires to massacre Lebannese people aswell, on an anti-semitic, homophobic, chauvanist, and sexist basis. Of course I understand why many working people are lead to support them, in the same way I understand why many workers have been tricked into supporting other racist and religious causes.

To free yourself from imperialist rule alone might not be the only thing necessary, but it sure is a step ahead.

I could perhaps agree with this in a different context, but I am having a dig at Hezbollah specifically. And so, assuming you are supporting Hezbollah over Israli imperialism, I can't possibly see how having a Racist, Nationalist, Homophobic, Sexist class of bigots running you is a step ahead, at the very most, it's a step sideways, but looking at the policies of both fuckwits, I'd rather live under Israeli rule than Hezbollah.

Look its nice to be purist (i guess..for some :wacko: ) but take a look at the circumstances.

What do you mean by purist? If not supporting anti-semitism is purist, and circumstance can justify support for anti-semitism, then I take great pride in being called a purist.

Well then we shouldnt channel efforts into national emancipation but stopping tanks rolling through the streets, soldiers killing innocents, bombs dropped on refugee shelters.

I am totally In agreement. My objection is not to the prevention of the reactionary war, but in what from the resistance takes. We have seen a level of cross Israli-Arab working class demonstration against this. It's a shame it hasn't manifested itself as a more militant working class force against the ruling class' conflict, but Hezbollah are the antithesis to "stopping the war and the killing of innocents" they don't want to stop war and the killing of innocents, they want to massacre Jews, gays, communists ect. Not only in Lebanon, but worldwide (!)

I dont care if they are free in name, if they have their own "country", but it would be kinda nice to see you know...people living without having to fear an israeli bullet will pierce your skull. :angry:

Again this is beside the point. Why would I object to a state of reality where someone wont fear being shot by an Israeli soldiers? The real point however, is that if not being shot by the Israelis means the fear of being shot by Hezbollah for being gay, or the continuation of a race war where jews are persecuted. Then I cannot support that movement at any stage. I must violently oppose it. I don't care "who" is shooting the working class, be it Hezbollah or the Israelis.

Also, it might be a bit difficult to have yourself a communist revolution with like..you know...soldiers with machineguns shooting everything that moves. <_<

"oh communist revolution is impossible, our foes are too mighty" sorry, Im not buying that. I think what you perhaps meant to say, is that there is no effective communist movement that is capable of posing a practical alternative. I agree, so lets support the anti-semite religious nutjobs?? no we must work toward a communist resistance.

hmm relative peace and stability......or the threat of airstrikes, raids, tanks rolling down your streets whenever the Israelis feel like it, exploitation of the people there as an even cheaper part of the proletariat without rights and without a realistic possibility of ever gaining those rights..

By peace and stability, you must mean scenes like this (http://www.ncr-iran.org/images/stories/repression/execution-4.jpg) and this (http://www.interet-general.info/IMG/iran-execution-femme-1.jpg) because under Hezbollah, we may well see some of the most violent repression or Gays, Jews, Women, and trade union leaders in Lebanese history. Of course Fascism offers peace and stability, and it can indeed deliver. What we sould see if we backed hezbollah, would be an islamic dictatorship, with dreams of conquering Israel, and initiating the final solution in the middle east (and later worldwide). Of course, like other Islamic dictatorships, this is expressed in nothing more than rhetoric. But to be honest, my attitude toward Hezbollah, would be the same as my attitude toward home grown racist groups like Combat18, fight it from the very beginning and give them not a inch of space in which to grow. I would rather hang myself that support an anti-semitic organisation, even "critically"

What's more, I can see that although you haven't addressed it, it is underlying all your arguments "yea hezbollah are the nazis of the middle east, but I'll support them to a point and then after that we can oppose them" if that point ever came, they'd turn the guns on you.

I wonder what is better... :blink:

I wonder to, let's look at the options, Israeli imperialism, or an Islamo-fascist regime, violently massacring working people, and no doubt engaging in war with Israel until one of them is defeated (so the idea that supporting racist war mongers will bring peace seems flawed to me). Sounds like whoever wins, we loose. So Im going to continue arguing for a third option. Because im not going to submit to either fascist forces.

No it shows the CP has a sense of reality

Again, if having a sense of reality means supporting anti-semite, war mongers, hell bent on the obliteration of the organised working class and a life of submission to Allah. I can't possibly claim to have a sense of reality.

which some here seem to lack, to tell the people to put aside their apprehension of fighting alongside Islamises to ensure that the Israelis get kicked out so that the people stop dying.
Thats what happened.

Supporting anti-semites, allying with the boss class, is the most heinous act any so called revolutionary could ever perfom, (and using the term revolutionary in this context utterly disgusts me) in their Jihad against the west, is going to somehow stop war, then my comprehension of their reality is confirmed; utterly non-existent.

No they support resistance against the murder of their people, a resistance which the Hezbollah happens to be the biggest part of.

"Their people", being the Lebanese, the bosses the imams and the loyal working people ect not the Working class like it should be, but based on some blatantly chauvinist ideal invented by the bourgeoisie of the Arab nations. Hezbollah are an enemy of the Working class. They want to murder the communist movement, they want to obliterate working class resistance and prop up an islamic dictatorship, they want to spread a race war against jews everywhere. If I were a communist I too would support resistance against the murder of my people, the working class, Hezbollah are not part of the resistance they are part of the oppressing class. Perhaps they are not yet in a position to begin their genocide, of gays, lesbians, jews, I hope they never are. Communists should fight these nutcases as they fight nazis.

what should communists in lebanon DO?

Im not entirely sure on the capacity of the communists in the region, so this comment is made in some degree of ignorance. Their goals should be to fight for the emancipation of working people, against all manifestations of Tyranny, whether Israeli or Islamic foreign or domestic through armed struggle if possible. If this is simply not possible, the goal should be to make it possible. Armed revolution is a distant dream here in the UK too, im not about to support some anti-semites like the National front because they're against capitalism.

RedKnight

30th July 2006, 23:20

If it wasn't for the anti-semitism and terrorism of hezbollah, the I.D.F. wouldn't be there in the first place. I am greatly sorry though about the collateral damage to civilians, who are caught up in the crossfire. This whole arguement is circular reasoning. If the Israelis hadn't attacked, we wouldn't have to back hezbollah. And if hezbollah and other islamic terrorists didn't exist Israel wouldn't have a motive to invade in the first place.

Forward Union

30th July 2006, 23:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 07:29 PM
Whereas once they could call upon the minds of Kropotkin and Durrutti, now they're reduced to the insane ramblings of the social misfits in Class War.
So far in your post, I have read nothing but flame-bait and slander, which I may read as an attempt to derail this thread into a pretty anti-anarchist rambling. Do you care to join the realms of discussion or continue toward the wonderful world or warning points?

Their "action" is limited to putting stickers on the tube, getting drunk and having fights with the police.

Is that what your papers tell you, or based on your brilliant understanding and involvement with the growing anarchist movement? Stickers on the tube?, yea im guilty of that, but I wouldn't place it under the category of political action. Getting drunk?, don't you? I do, nothing to do with politics though unless your being a puritan right? Is drinking not kosher or something? And as for fights with the police? well, they started it. But again you are ignoring the masses of actions that the Libertarian communists have done that don't fit into your narrow minded stereotype. I would list some such as' but this is far too off topic, maybe in a seperate thread. Please don't reply to this, I would like this thread to remain on topic.

"What? London Class War has told us to put down our arms? Shit!"
"Yes, whereas before I was resolute in wanting to defend myself and my community from Zionist babykillers, now I'm really conflicted"
"Fancy getting drunk and throwing petrol bombs at stuff instead?"
"Do I?!"

So amongst all the red-eyed flaming, the single criticism you have actually brought to the table is "Your solution isn't practical, all things considered" To which I reply, "no shit"

Please be more concise. It makes this whole debate much easier for all of us.

And in responce to this illusion that anarchism dosn't exist in the region, although I appologise in some instances I was unable to bring up lebanese Anarchist groups websites, as many groups don't have internet acess, some sites have explitic references to the movements though,

http://www.labourstart.org/docs/en/000351.html
http://www.awalls.org/
http://www.wsm.ie/story/938
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/ws/cedar48.html
http://www.Jewdas.com
http://www.geocities.com/capitolHill/7017/wssa_2_2inter.html

Forward Union

30th July 2006, 23:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 07:58 PM

What a predictable trot.

You're stupid enough to think that's an insult.
Ok time for me to start "moderating" :P

marmot, please don't use slurs like "what a predictable trot" It's not likely to enhance the debate, and will enevitably lead to some silly flame war.

Same to YTKMX, please don't respond with a similar degree of infantle slander, and please try not to derail this into an anti-anarchist rambling.

I understand you feel passionatly about this, so do I... we can debate constructively.

Forward Union

30th July 2006, 23:34

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 08:07 PM
Hezbollah prvides many social programs for the common people, the oppressed, you might say. Medical help, food programs, etc.
This isn't what I meant. Charity work is all very nice, many white supremacist groups here in the UK donate food and clothing to the whites in Croatia, dosn't make them working class heros. <_<

Both the white supremacists and the Hezbollah want to obliterate the egalitarian movements, the communists the anarchists, the trots, and erradicate Jews worldwide. And use proles as tools for their religious and nationalist supremacist ideals, This is why they are anti-working class.

Forward Union

30th July 2006, 23:45

While I am writing this, I here the Israeli warplanes humming in the sky. I'm wondering who is the next victim, will it be someone I know? A reletive maybe, maybe a friend, or another innocent victim. Or even maybe, it could be me

If this is an attempt at a criticism, it's wasted on me, because im not pro-national war.

What do you advise me to do? Just tell me?

Firstly, I don't see myself as capable of ordering another human being who is capable of thinking for themselves. However, if I were in your position I would link up with or form a libertarian workers federation, and affiliate with the IAF. Even If I were a voice in the wilderness, rather that than compromise my beliefs with the boss class.

The LCP is not supporting Hezbollah on their anti-semitism or any of their wrongs, but on the one thing they are doing right and which is the resistance.
But if they are practically supporting an anti-semitic group, through food aid, arms, or attending pro-Hezbollah rallies, (baring in mind that here in the UK, not violently attacking such groups is deemed dangerously anti-worker) then I still have no respect for the bosses of this group either. And consider them class traitors.

I am not with Hezbollah, not on their ideas nor beleifs nor anything else, just resistance man why don't you get that?

I get that, which bit didn't you think I get. If you were with Hezbollah, you'd be banned.

The situation here is critical, people like you can be pure and can be picky but people like me don't really have a choice...

what is this "purity" and why is it a bad thing?

YKTMX

30th July 2006, 23:54

Same to YTKMX, please don't respond with a similar degree of infantle slander, and please try not to derail this into an anti-anarchist rambling.

Your thread titles contains the word "Hezbollocks" and you link to an article that contains the term "Islamo-trottery", so please, get off your hobby horse. If you don't want your infantile pseudo radical ideology and its ridiculous protagonists to be ridiculed, then keep it yourself.

Do you care to join the realms of discussion or continue toward the wonderful world or warning points?

Where have I insulted any member of this board?

Or is polemic and satire now "outlawed" as well, comrade?

Please don't reply to this, I would like this thread to remain on topic.

There are thousands of threads on this topic, comrade. You started this thread because you want to offer up for debate a particularly anarchist response to the crisis. If you wish to do so, comrade, you and the insane ramblings of the people you support offer yourself up for a thorough roasting.

That is politics, bub.

"Your solution isn't practical, all things considered" To which I reply, "no shit"

I don't think the fact that they're impractical is the main fault with your ideas regarding this situation. The main fault would be their racism, petit bourgeois phrase mongering, capitulationism, moral equivalency and complete and utter inability or unwillingness to address the material situation as it exists or the forces at work under neath the various ideological "cloaks".

Forward Union

31st July 2006, 00:13

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 08:55 PM
Your thread titles contains the word "Hezbollocks" and you link to an article that contains the term "Islamo-trottery", so please, get off your hobby horse. If you don't want your infantile pseudo radical ideology and its ridiculous protagonists to be ridiculed, then keep it yourself.

Of course, but you're proving yourself to be much more sensible aren't you. Regardless, the discussion has clearly developed past the original article, any more reckless flaming, an I may have to start warning people and just close the thread alltogether. :mellow:

Where have I insulted any member of this board?

Or is polemic and satire now "outlawed" as well, comrade?

You have attempted to derail the thread. As soon as you came in, your criticisms were about the Class War federation, and the anarchist movement, and don't try and bullshit me, I know you wanted to stir up the anarchists, your puritan criticisms of Anarchism such as stickering the tube and drinking are nothing to do with Hezbollah. The thread is clearly about whether or not it is justifiable to support anti-semites, in the face of imperialism.

There are thousands of threads on this topic, comrade. You started this thread because you want to offer up for debate a particularly anarchist response to the crisis. If you wish to do so, comrade, you and the insane ramblings of the people you support offer yourself up for a thorough roasting.

There are many other threads on this topic, you're right. And I am facing criticism, and debating it with much enjoyment, but regardless of these two facts, you are not allowed to derail it. Im giving you a verbal warning to either respond to the issues in this thread or post somewhere else.

I don't think the fact that they're impractical is the main fault with your ideas regarding this situation

Then say so to begin with.

The main fault would be their racism, petit bourgeois phrase mongering, capitulationism, moral equivalency and complete and utter inability or unwillingness to address the material situation as it exists or the forces at work under neath the various ideological "cloaks".

Interesting criticisms. In what way is Class War being Racist? is it in refusing to support anti-semites over Imperialism, and didn't the SWP chant "we are all Hezbollah"? if you were indeed Hezbollah, you would actually be homophobic, sexist, Islamic, anti-semites. As for being guilty of petit bourgeois phrase mongering, this is of course deliberate, and tongue in cheek. But what's more petit bourgeois is backing a political group you fundamentally disagree with because they are fighting anti-imperialism. As for capitulationism, I can see why it would be misinterpreted this way, but I assure you this is not the intended message. As for moral equivalence, I assume you mean Hezbollah and Israel, both ferocious enemies of the working class, perhaps not equally so, but im not prepared to back one because it's fluffier. Material situation? One ruling class is sending people to kill other working people of a different ruling class, and using a frankenstien mix of Chauvinism, Racism and Nationalism to get them to do it. And Class war are emphasising the class aspect while the SWP (critically) support some anti-semite Muslim-fascist fuckwits who are fundementally homophobic, racist, chauvanist and anti-communist. Are you really all Hezbollah?

Or have I missed something?

Jamal

31st July 2006, 00:30

. But Hezbollah are attacking Israeli working people, and have desires to massacre Lebannese people aswell, on an anti-semitic, homophobic, chauvanist, and sexist basis. Of course I understand why many working people are lead to support them, in the same way I understand why many workers have been tricked into supporting other racist and religious causes.

Who the fuck told you about that? Its not true!

We have seen a level of cross Israli-Arab working class demonstration against this. It's a shame it hasn't manifested itself as a more militant working class force against the ruling class' conflict, but Hezbollah are the antithesis to "stopping the war and the killing of innocents" they don't want to stop war and the killing of innocents, they want to massacre Jews, gays, communists ect. Not only in Lebanon, but worldwide (!)

Stop saying stuff just because you heard them at some western media! Base your point of view next time to facts and not just peoples opinions!

I live in Lebanon and know what is really happening, what your saying here is wrong, its just not true! "They want to massacre Jews, gays and communists" NO! Thats not it, they want to defend their country and retreive the conquered land and the captives in the Israeli prisions and to get the mine-map of all the mines Israel left in Lebanon. and who ever told you that they whant to massacre gays? Thats also not true. Never happened and no gays have been opressed by any of Hezbollah members, I'm here in Lebanon, I know!!! And now, they actually apreciate the communists on their patriotic stand in this war. You are not basing your debate on facts next time!

no we must work toward a communist resistance.

There is already a communist resistance, its called jammoul(The Lebanese National Resistance Front) and it is curently fighting side by side with Hezbollah

While I am writing this, I here the Israeli warplanes humming in the sky. I'm wondering who is the next victim, will it be someone I know? A reletive maybe, maybe a friend, or another innocent victim. Or even maybe, it could be me

If this is an attempt at a criticism, it's wasted on me, because im not pro-national war.

Its not criticism, I'm just trying to show you what I'm feeling right now!

What do you advise me to do? Just tell me?

Firstly, I don't see myself as capable of ordering another human being who is capable of thinking for themselves. However, if I were in your position I would link up with or form a libertarian workers federation, and affiliate with the IAF. Even If I were a voice in the wilderness, rather that than compromise my beliefs with the boss class.

ADVISE NOT ORDER! and besides I am sure as hell not compromising my beliefs by being with Hezbollah on this front!

The LCP is not supporting Hezbollah on their anti-semitism or any of their wrongs, but on the one thing they are doing right and which is the resistance.

But if they are practically supporting an anti-semitic group, through food aid, arms, or attending pro-Hezbollah rallies, (baring in mind that here in the UK, not violently attacking such groups is deemed dangerously anti-worker) then I still have no respect for the bosses of this group either. And consider them class traitors.

They are only supporting the RESISTANCE!
GET IT! GET IT! GET IT!

what is this "purity" and why is it a bad thing?

Its not a bad thing, its rather not realistic and canot be aplied to real life.

If it wasn't for the anti-semitism and terrorism of hezbollah, the I.D.F. wouldn't be there in the first place. I am greatly sorry though about the collateral damage to civilians, who are caught up in the crossfire. This whole arguement is circular reasoning. If the Israelis hadn't attacked, we wouldn't have to back hezbollah. And if hezbollah and other islamic terrorists didn't exist Israel wouldn't have a motive to invade in the first place.

The civillians are not caught up is a crossfire, they are directly being fired appon as skape-goats and not by mistake! (Going by what ever you here on tv is very stupid by the way!)

YKTMX

31st July 2006, 00:45

Of course, but you're proving yourself to be much more sensible aren't you.

Appearing "sensible" is not my main objective.

Regardless, the discussion has clearly developed past the original article, any more reckless flaming, an I may have to start warning people and just close the thread alltogether.

Reckless flaming?

You post a polemic from an organisation you presumably support containing jokes and sectarian snipes. I posted a reply containing jokes and sectarian snipes. Something sniped at me in kind. The only person complaining seems to be you.

You have attempted to derail the thread. As soon as you came in, your criticisms were about the Class War federation, and the anarchist movement, and don't try and bullshit me, I know you wanted to stir up the anarchists

Well obviously :)

The thread is clearly about whether or not it is justifiable to support anti-semites, in the face of imperialism.

Why start it then? There are literally dozens of similar threads.

And I am facing criticism, and debating it with much enjoyment, but regardless of these two facts, you are not allowed to derail it.

What am I "derailing" it into? You posted the article containing the phrase "islamo-trottery", not me, so obviously these "facts" didn't bother you too much at the time.

And, while we're at it, when discussing the "views" of a given organisation, it's perfectly acceptable to critique the ideological origins of such a group. If I posted some SWP "thoughts", I'd expect nothing less from the ultra-leftists, tankies and the their ilk. It's part of the fun. If you wish to have your "sensible" views respected by honourable gentlemen, go and become an MP.

In what way is Class War being Racist?

This argument is crap - Hezbollah isn't a nationality or a racial epithet, it is a political party/militia, if the slogan really wanted to fit then the SWP should have handed out placards proclaiming 'WE ARE ALL SH'ITE'.

is it in refusing to support anti-semites over Imperialism, and didn't the SWP chant "we are all Hezbollah"? i

Anti-semitism in Islamic society exists and is real. It's also mainly a product of years of Zionist barbarism. The way to combat it is for Israel to be removed as a political entity and for the Jewish population of Palestine to be made equal citizens to the Arabs living there. The way to combat it is not to leave the Islamic people to the whims of American and Israeli imperialism just because you "object" to some of their language.

you would actually be homophobic, sexist, Islamic, anti-semites.

Interesting. What's wrong with being Islamic, comrade?

As for being guilty of petit bourgeois phrase mongering, this is of course deliberate, and tongue in cheek.

Well, thank goodness for that.

One ruling class is sending people to kill other working people of a different ruling class

Yes, and one of the ruling classes is backed by the biggest military and economic power in the world, has vast military and ideological resources, is murdering civilians by the dozen and getting away with it, is backed by OUR own government, and the other is barely strong enough to rule its own country.

It's our duty, in this case, to back the right of the Lebanese people to organise themselves for practical self-defense. I support their right to do this unconditionally, whatever their political proclivities.

nd Class war are emphasising the class aspect

What they're engaged in is pointless phrase mongering to make themselves feel better. It has no practical purpose. And if you want to spend your entire life looking down on the oppressed and siding with imperialism because you disagree with them about sodomy, then that's your prerogative.

Just don't pretend it has anything do with the working class, resistance or liberation.

Comrade-Z

31st July 2006, 02:46

I think Lenin's slogan would be of use right now:

"Turn the imperialist war into a civil war!"

Meaning, Israelis, rise up and overthrow your government. Lebanese, rise up and overthrow Hezbollah. Workers of both countries, stop killing each other, and turn your guns on your masters.

Not practical? What do we need to do to make it practical? That's what I want to know.

Comrade-Z

31st July 2006, 03:15

Let's apply some of these comments with an analogy to the eastern front of WWI:

The workers [of Russia] would be in a better position if their country was completely demolished and [Germany] victorious? Uh... no, actually I think that would strengthen the [Czarists] even more.

One is an invading army that is killing a shit ton of people? I support the [Russian] people's right to resist occupation. In some cases that means supporting [the Czar]. The [Russian] communists on the ground there don't seem interested in fighting [the Czar] right now and they're in a lot more danger than you from those same people. Hmm...

I've no love lost for [the Czarist regime] but I recognize their position in the reality of the situation over there.

What a stupid question. The workers, of course, but right now the workers in [Russia] are saying that [the Czar] should be supported in the short term.

Tanks and soldiers in your streets and bombs being dropped on your house actually do exist. If that were to happen to me I'd support anything fighting to get rid of the tanks and soldiers and bombs on my house killing my friends and family.

Or is that reactionary too?

Or in class terms, in regard to the [Russian] working class the [German] working class is slightly above them.
As in labor aristocracy.
To free yourself from imperialist rule alone might not be the only thing necessary, but it sure is a step ahead.

Look its nice to be purist (i guess..for some wacko.gif ) but take a look at the circumstances.

Well then we shouldnt channel efforts into national emancipation but stopping tanks rolling through the streets, soldiers killing innocents, bombs dropped on refugee shelters.
I dont care if they are free in name, if they have their own "country", but it would be kinda nice to see you know...people living without having to fear a [German rifle shot] will pierce your skull.

Also, it might be a bit difficult to have yourself a communist revolution with like..you know...soldiers with machineguns shooting everything that moves.

hmm relative peace and stability......or the threat of airstrikes, raids, tanks rolling down your streets whenever the [Germans] feel like it, exploitation of the people there as an even cheaper part of the proletariat without rights and without a realistic possibility of ever gaining those rights..

I wonder what is better...

No it shows the CP has a sense of reality which some here seem to lack, to tell the people to put aside their apprehension of fighting alongside [Czarists] to ensure that the [Germans] get kicked out so that the people stop dying.
Thats what happened.

Hey
up with a PRACTICAL solution instead of tearing down the [Mensheviks'] solution.
Not "continue to support class-war"..but practical
what should communists in lebanon DO?
start a war on [the Czar] and [Germany] at the same time?
run away while the people die? (yeh that'll help class war)
what?

These are all the same types of arguments that the Mensheviks, Kadets, the Provisional Government, and other such types in Russia used for perpetuating that barbaric war.

PRC-UTE

31st July 2006, 04:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 07:58 PM

What a predictable trot.

You're stupid enough to think that's an insult.
More like he's stupid enough to think you're a typical trot.

There's about 15,000 tiny Trot sects and I'd wager that 90% are crawling over themselves to condemn Hezbollah in stronger words than each other.

It's actually this silly "class war" statement that is typically Trot-like.

EnragÃ©

31st July 2006, 05:08

You are trying to equate Hezbollah to Poor peoples resistance against tanks and bombs

No i dont.
Where do i say "poor people's resistance = hezbollah"?
where is it even implied?

I said:
"Tanks and soldiers in your streets and bombs being dropped on your house actually do exist. If that were to happen to me I'd support anything fighting to get rid of the tanks and soldiers and bombs on my house killing my friends and family."
[emphasis added]

But Hezbollah are attacking Israeli working people, and have desires to massacre Lebannese people aswell, on an anti-semitic, homophobic, chauvanist, and sexist basis. Of course I understand why many working people are lead to support them, in the same way I understand why many workers have been tricked into supporting other racist and religious causes

The point what many have been trying to make all along is that we dont support hezbollah in everything they do, in fact I only support them on resisting military aggression.

Honestly, is that so hard to grasp?

Im not saying we should go out and wave around a hezbollah flag, im saying we should support their fight against Israeli aggression while remaining critical of the rest they do

I could perhaps agree with this in a different context, but I am having a dig at Hezbollah specifically. And so, assuming you are supporting Hezbollah over Israli imperialism, I can't possibly see how having a Racist, Nationalist, Homophobic, Sexist class of bigots running you is a step ahead, at the very most, it's a step sideways, but looking at the policies of both fuckwits, I'd rather live under Israeli rule than Hezbollah.

They dont "live under hezbollah" they live under the Lebanese government which has like 2 hezbollah ministers.'

Also, i think you exagerate the asshole-ness of hezbollah but thats basicly besides the point. Hezbollah do alot of good things too (social programs etc).

The point is that expulsion of the israelis with the help of hezbollah and the communist party supporting hezbollah in that will not lead to hezbollah ruling lebanon. It will however bring peace and stability to the region so that things develop in the right direction.

What do you mean by purist?

that you cant simply apply textbook measures to everything.

You can yell all you want "the Israeli, palestinian and lebanese working class should unite against their masters and stop fighting eachother" and thats it (no feel with reality on the ground whatsoever) but that doesnt make it actually happen.

My objection is not to the prevention of the reactionary war, but in what from the resistance takes

Communists can do 2 realistic things here
either start their own militia and fight alongside the hezbollah due to necessity against israeli resistance (which they are doing)
or they stay clear of whatever armed existance for fear of being "associated" to hezbollah, thereby alienating the entire lebanese population

you cant wave your magic wand and make hezbollah dissappear, its a fact, and it should be dealt with. Joining in with the resistance will increase the standing of revolutionary leftism, it will become a rival of hezbollah perhaps. If you steer clear of armed resistance against the israelies you will only be marginalized.

In fact communists decide what form the resistance takes
either it is purely islamic
or it is islamic with a secular, communist militia as well

what would you rather have?

We have seen a level of cross Israli-Arab working class demonstration against this

Again
either a purely islamic resistance with jew hatred all around
or a predominantly islamic resistance with a secular, communist militia fighting as well, pledging its solidarity to ALL working class people and thereby posing an alternative for joining hezbollah.

again, the 2nd one seems better to me.

The real point however, is that if not being shot by the Israelis means the fear of being shot by Hezbollah for being gay, or the continuation of a race war where jews are persecuted.

first, do they even do this?

and second, how will you better be able to combat this? As group of people who actively fought alongside the hezbollah against the israelis, or as a marginalised fringe group?

oh communist revolution is impossible, our foes are too mighty

You try having a communist revolution with no infrastructure, tanks rolling down the streets, trained soldiers at every corner shooting everything that moves.

good luck with that

Revolutions can get smashed you know.

is that there is no effective communist movement that is capable of posing a practical alternative

yep

I agree, so lets support the anti-semite religious nutjobs?? no we must work toward a communist resistance

I agree, but a communist resistance is going to have to fight alongside hezbollah to get the israeli military out first if they are going to pose a true alternative.

After that, they will be adversaries, ofcourse.

By peace and stability, you must mean scenes like this and this because under Hezbollah, we may well see some of the most violent repression or Gays, Jews, Women, and trade union leaders in Lebanese history

There is no such thing as "under hezbollah"
They kicked the israelis out six years ago, has lebanon been a hezbollah fiefdom a la Iran?
(as far as i know) nope.

Lebanon isnt just hezbollah for fuck sake.

What we sould see if we backed hezbollah, would be an islamic dictatorship, with dreams of conquering Israel, and initiating the final solution in the middle east (and later worldwide).

The only way hezbollah is ever going to seize power ANYWHERE is if they declare southern lebanon independent from the rest of lebanon (the south is the only place they have a majority and they are intent on establishing an islamic republic through democratic means) AND we keep *****ing from the sidelines.

Honestly, if you think the left as a whole giving up support for hezbollah (for as far as they are providing it) would change a goddamn thing you would be sadly mistaken. However if we support the resistance against the israeli aggression (NOT hezbollah as a whole) and start a communist resistance, THEN we can change things, then we can pose an alternative...NOT if we keep *****ing from the sidelines.

What's more, I can see that although you haven't addressed it, it is underlying all your arguments "yea hezbollah are the nazis of the middle east, but I'll support them to a point and then after that we can oppose them" if that point ever came, they'd turn the guns on you.

well yeah
so whats a better position for us to be?
Marginalised because we didnt want to get involved in a resistance some nasty people were involved in as well, or well armed, with a good support base?

I wonder to, let's look at the options, Israeli imperialism, or an Islamo-fascist regime, violently massacring working people, and no doubt engaging in war with Israel until one of them is defeated (so the idea that supporting racist war mongers will bring peace seems flawed to me). Sounds like whoever wins, we loose. So Im going to continue arguing for a third option. Because im not going to submit to either fascist forces.

Again
the defeat of the israelis will NOT lead to an Islamo-Fascist regime...if it would, there would've been one SIX YEARS AGO when hezbollah kicked out the israelis for the first time.

Especially if the communist resistance takes off, this will not happen.

Supporting anti-semites, allying with the boss class, is the most heinous act any so called revolutionary could ever perfom, (and using the term revolutionary in this context utterly disgusts me) in their Jihad against the west, is going to somehow stop war, then my comprehension of their reality is confirmed; utterly non-existent.

First of all, there is no "jihad against the west". "Jezus christ" what have you been watching? FOX?
Jihad, by its very nature is DEFENSIVE, and in this case its goal is to get the west out of the middle east, not to destroy the west.

Also, we wouldnt support anti-semites, we would support them in the few good things they do. There's a big difference.
Also, not supporting the resistance against the israelis and continuing to ***** from the sidelines while the people suffer would only strengthen hezbollah.
They can say "see, those godless communists, they dont care about the lebanese"

"Their people", being the Lebanese, the bosses the imams and the loyal working people ect not the Working class like it should be, but based on some blatantly chauvinist ideal invented by the bourgeoisie of the Arab nations. Hezbollah are an enemy of the Working class.

for the last fucking time, im not saying they aren't.

But *****ing from the sidelines and refusing to fight alongside them would only be a victory for hezbollah, and marginalize any communist movement that exists there.

They want to murder the communist movement, they want to obliterate working class resistance and prop up an islamic dictatorship

Yep
and what you are proposing would greatly help them.
Who do you think is easier to wipe out?
A marginalized movement of people who stood and watched as lebanon was destroyed, or that dedicated group of people who fought against the invader, against the murderers, against the imperialists and thereby accumulated quite the large support base of people thinking to themselves "hey those commie militia people arent too bad, they actually make some sense!"

Im not entirely sure on the capacity of the communists in the region, so this comment is made in some degree of ignorance. Their goals should be to fight for the emancipation of working people, against all manifestations of Tyranny, whether Israeli or Islamic foreign or domestic through armed struggle if possible. If this is simply not possible, the goal should be to make it possible. Armed revolution is a distant dream here in the UK too, im not about to support some anti-semites like the National front because they're against capitalism.

I said practical
not abstract, idealist, and far from every day reality.

fight for emancipation of working people? how are they to do this then with bombs flying everywhere and the working people getting killed?
etc etc

These are all the same types of arguments that the Mensheviks, Kadets, the Provisional Government, and other such types in Russia used for perpetuating that barbaric war.

with the tiny difference that there is absolutely NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER of a revolution breaking out in lebanon.

get a grip on reality.

Severian

31st July 2006, 05:31

Originally posted by Additives [email protected] 30 2006, 04:39 AM

Lebanon is being turned into a grotesque war-games board as the real protagonists - The USA and Iran use their proxies to slug it out.

Neither the Israeli army nor Hezbollah give a flying fuck about 'their' civilians, except as bloody totems to hang in front of the cameras of the world's press in order to justify their own next atrocity.

http://www.londonclasswar.org/newswire_hezbollocks.php
What's up with the popularity of "A plague on both your houses equally"? Well, I know what's up: it's cheap, it's easy, it doesn't require you to actually think or take a stand which might expose you to some fire, politically or otherwise.

What are the odds that in the real world, two "asymmetric" sides would turn out to actually deserve equal condemnation? Not high. So right off the top you can tell this kind of position isn't driven by the actual situation in Lebanon, but by the somebody's situation in London.

More Fire for the People

31st July 2006, 05:37

Anti-semitism in Islamic society exists and is real. It's also mainly a product of years of Zionist barbarism. The way to combat it is for Israel to be removed as a political entity and for the Jewish population of Palestine to be made equal citizens to the Arabs living there. The way to combat it is not to leave the Islamic people to the whims of American and Israeli imperialism just because you "object" to some of their language.
What a lovely pipedream! And who exactly is going to stop secterian violence when this happens? Shi'ites hates Sunnis, Sunnis hate Shi'ites, Sunnis and Shi'ites hate Jews, all the while Christians and atheists are being blown to bits.

The only solution to the current problem is to develop a secular, progressive organization representing the interests of the oppressed peoples. Not the YKTMX-option of ditching workers' struggle so that the petty-bourgeois and smalltime bourgeois Islamic guerillas can have their way with the Levantine working class.

Nothing Human Is Alien

31st July 2006, 05:42

Communists need to fight for a class struggle (in Israel, Palestine and Lebanon) response to the Zionist's aggression. If they [workers and farmers in these three countries] have the ability to physically battle Israeli invaders, they should.. and if they're guns are pointed at the same Israeli tanks as Hezb'allah, so be it.. but it must never be forgotten that the minute the Islamacists will turn their guns on them the minute they get the chance to.. otherwise you could end up with something like the Iranian revolution.

It is sort of similar to this statement: "The relationship of the revolutionary workers' party to the petty-bourgeois democrats is this: it cooperates with them against the party which they aim to overthrow; it opposes them wherever they wish to secure their own position." - Marx and Engels

x_ihag

31st July 2006, 11:59

live in Lebanon and know what is really happening, what your saying here is wrong, its just not true! "They want to massacre Jews, gays and communists" NO! Thats not it, they want to defend their country and retreive the conquered land and the captives in the Israeli prisions and to get the mine-map of all the mines Israel left in Lebanon. and who ever told you that they whant to massacre gays? Thats also not true. Never happened and no gays have been opressed by any of Hezbollah members, I'm here in Lebanon, I know!!! And now, they actually apreciate the communists on their patriotic stand in this war

Jamal how can u be so sure, we both live in lebanon and i support u in all what u said in all the thread's but i cant agree with this u cant defend hezbullah to that point !!!! do u beleive that they just want to defend our counrty and bla bla bla,well i dont beleive so ! i think they have bigger plans than this one,let say their is no war anymore at all !! what do u think hezbullah will try to do ?!?! i mean what will be he's role in the lebanese political life ?!?!?!
well i advise u not to beleive everything said by hezbullah about apreciating and everything,btw who kicked jammoul's ass and why ?!?!
well i dont get how u can trust hezbullah that much !!!!

Forward Union

31st July 2006, 12:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 09:31 PM
Who the fuck told you about that? Its not true!

Civilian's: "Hezbollah's attacks in Israel on Sunday and Monday were at best indiscriminate attacks in civilian areas, at worst the deliberate targeting of civilians. Either way, they were serious violations of international humanitarian law and probable war crimes, Human Rights Watch said today" - 'Scoop' Independant news provider

Jews: "It is an open war until the elimination of Israel and until the death of the last Jew on earth...they are a cancer which is liable to spread again at any moment" -Statement by Hezbollah

Homophobia and sexism: "follows a distinct version of Islamic Shia ideology developed by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, leader of the Islamic Revolution in Iran" - Wikipedia

Stop saying stuff just because you heard them at some western media! Base your point of view next time to facts and not just peoples opinions!

Which bit is part of this great conspiracy and which parts are lies. Were there not really any working class rallies? or Did hezbollah not really make those statements about Jews? and what makes you think I got this information from a bias media source?, and what evidence do you have to prove these facts wrong. Your ranting, un-backed amount's to little more than complaint.

I live in Lebanon and know what is really happening, what your saying here is wrong, its just not true! "They want to massacre Jews, gays and communists" NO!

Hezbollah have said otherwise im afraid.

Thats not it, they want to defend their country and retreive the conquered land and the captives in the Israeli prisions and to get the mine-map of all the mines Israel left in Lebanon.

I never said they didn't. But the proof is in the pudding no doubt, you quite clearly here have exposed them as a nationalist movement, what concern is it too the class struggle which bunch of bosses own a certain bit of land? none. The most you could stress, is that in a freer and more open dictatorship, the workers have more room too organise, and If Hezbollah have admitted a desire to follow the Iranian model of leadership, then the working class would be better under Israeli rule. Fortunately these are not the only two options.

and who ever told you that they want to massacre gays? That's also not true. Never happened and no gays have been oppressed by any of Hezbollah members, I'm here in Lebanon, I know!!! And now, they actually appreciate the communists on their patriotic stand in this war. You are not basing your debate on facts next time!

Who told me they want to massacre gays? "The organisation views an Islamic republic, on the Iranian model" (wiki) and then I simply need to turn to a, the treatment of homosexuals in Iran, and b) what the Koran says about homosexuality.

The fact that communists support a patriotic war is simply unbelievable. Communism is anti-nationalist, anti-chauvanist and should be screaming "Fuck Lebanon" "fuck Israeil" "up the workers" It's a twisted perversion of interests, peddled by the ruling classes to get working people to fight their patriotic war. Fuck Patriotism.

There is already a communist resistance, its called jammoul(The Lebanese National Resistance Front) and it is curently fighting side by side with Hezbollah

Again, any group that sacrifices the interests of it's class, and allies with some of the most vile anti-semitic monsters, our class enemies, the bosses and the imams, simply under the banner of patriotism, are not communists. They are class traitors, they are moribund as a class struggle movement and as workers we should fight for our class not our nation, for we have no nation, and not engage in combat with the workers of other nations to further the cause of some Islamic Jihad.

They are only supporting the RESISTANCE!
GET IT! GET IT! GET IT!

In what way are they supporting the resistance. Because as I said, Hezbollah are not a group that should be ignored, they are a threat to our movement in the middle east. They want to form an Islamic Republic, which last time I checked was not something communists stood for, and therefor for this reason and many others they are not our equals they are enemies, and we should oppose them as an organisation, and attack them. At least in theory, at what point would you stop supporting them critically, and engage them as class enemies?

Its not a bad thing, its rather not realistic and canot be aplied to real life.
Why not?

Forward Union

31st July 2006, 12:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 09:46 PM
You post a polemic from an organisation you presumably support containing jokes and sectarian snipes. I posted a reply containing jokes and sectarian snipes. Something sniped at me in kind. The only person complaining seems to be you.

Whatever, the point is that there is a discussion underway, and this who started what debate is really tiring and I have no interest in continuing it.

Why start it then? There are literally dozens of similar threads.

Don't like it? Press 'back a page'

What am I "derailing" it into? You posted the article containing the phrase "islamo-trottery", not me, so obviously these "facts" didn't bother you too much at the time.

personally I didn't expect so much interest to be sparked by it, having already posted a statement by the French Anarchist federation. But now that there is a discussion underway, it would be nice to carry on...

And, while we're at it, when discussing the "views" of a given organisation, it's perfectly acceptable to critique the ideological origins of such a group. If I posted some SWP "thoughts", I'd expect nothing less from the ultra-leftists, tankies and the their ilk. It's part of the fun. If you wish to have your "sensible" views respected by honourable gentlemen, go and become an MP.

Fair enough, but It would be nicer, if there were a separate thread criticising the organisation as a whole, now that the thread has taken a different direction.

This argument is crap - Hezbollah isn't a nationality or a racial epithet, it is a political party/militia, if the slogan really wanted to fit then the SWP should have handed out placards proclaiming 'WE ARE ALL SH'ITE'.

Neither the Shi'ite or the SWP are a race. If taking the piss out of Islam and the SWP makes one a racist then I better join Stormfront, asap. :lol:

Anti-semitism in Islamic society exists and is real. It's also mainly a product of years of Zionist barbarism. The way to combat it is for Israel to be removed as a political entity and for the Jewish population of Palestine to be made equal citizens to the Arabs living there. The way to combat it is not to leave the Islamic people to the whims of American and Israeli imperialism just because you "object" to some of their language.

Again boiling the entire resistance down to Hezbollah, an organisations who's interest lie in promoting anti-semitism. And so any realistic campaign to stamp out anti-Semitism in the region would no doubt involve conflict of one sort or another with Hezbollah.

Interesting. What's wrong with being Islamic, comrade?

The same thing that's wrong with being Christian. The real question however, is what's wrong with Islam. To which I can only ask if you have ever actually read the Qu'ran. It's religious, Sexist, Homophobic, Racist, and to rehash some very old rhetoric, 'an opium'. I oppose Islam and muslims in the same capacity that I, as a materialist violently oppose Christianity and christians. Im willing to accept that some people have bullshit ideas, but reserve the right to oppose them. It's a pile of superstitious bullshit, I militantly oppose organised Islam.

Yes, and one of the ruling classes is backed by the biggest military and economic power in the world, has vast military and ideological resources, is murdering civilians by the dozen and getting away with it, is backed by OUR own government, and the other is barely strong enough to rule its own country.

All valid criticisms, but then again, im not pro Israel.

It's our duty, in this case, to back the right of the Lebanese people to organise themselves for practical self-defense. I support their right to do this unconditionally, whatever their political proclivities.

And this is where we disagree, I cannot support Racists in any circumstances. I can put aside practical combat with them, and combat a bigger enemy for the time being, but could never betray my class and support them in the face of national invasion.

What they're engaged in is pointless phrase mongering to make themselves feel better. It has no practical purpose. And if you want to spend your entire life looking down on the oppressed and siding with imperialism because you disagree with them about sodomy, then that's your prerogative.

So you have the illusion that you, as a working class britain have the ability to stop the war in Lebanon? Marches, pickets, meetings, and paper-selling wont stop the bombs. Of course this is just an article, and as such can't do anything, it's cant come out of the printer, get a gun and go fight for the workers, nor can the articles that support your standpoint, they are afterall, just articles. Militant direct action against Israel, might, it's unlikely given our capacity as a class, but the national meeting tomorrow should see what forms of violent action we can take to damage the Israeli war machine. I suspect the answer is little next to nothing. But it will be interesting to see what ideas come up. As for siding with the imperialists? Not really. It's not as black and white as "if you oppose Hezbollah, you support Israel"

Forward Union

31st July 2006, 13:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 02:09 AM
I said:
"Tanks and soldiers in your streets and bombs being dropped on your house actually do exist. If that were to happen to me I'd support anything fighting to get rid of the tanks and soldiers and bombs on my house killing my friends and family."
[emphasis added]

Fair enough, I misread. But Im glad you admit your support for anti-semitic organisations.

The point what many have been trying to make all along is that we dont support hezbollah in everything they do, in fact I only support them on resisting military aggression.

Honestly, is that so hard to grasp?

It's a very complicated way of justifying practically supporting anti-semites. Allow me now to drag this into reality, In what way have you supported Hezbollah in their resistance?

Im not saying we should go out and wave around a hezbollah flag, im saying we should support their fight against Israeli aggression while remaining critical of the rest they do

I support working class resistance to all forms of oppression. Not Lebanon's right to national identity. And unfortunately, my pro workerist standpoint puts Hezbollah as a class enemy, to which our reaction should be to combat them also.

They dont "live under hezbollah" they live under the Lebanese government which has like 2 hezbollah ministers.'

Their ultimate goal is an Islamic republic, and the systematic extermination of the jews. At what point do you stop supporting them and say "uh oh, they've got a little too close to power now, let's stop supporting them" and what's wrong with me giving Combat 18 and the Nazi party money to produce anti-isreali leaflets?

The point is that expulsion of the israelis with the help of hezbollah and the communist party supporting hezbollah in that will not lead to hezbollah ruling lebanon. It will however bring peace and stability to the region so that things develop in the right direction.

No, but after the Israeli tanks are gone, I would hope that the communists turn their guns on Hezbollah and the Lebanese and engage in class war against them. So peace and stability as a general goal, is not in the interests of our class.

You can yell all you want "the Israeli, palestinian and lebanese working class should unite against their masters and stop fighting eachother" and thats it (no feel with reality on the ground whatsoever) but that doesnt make it actually happen.

I never said it would actually happen, but at the moment, it's not likely to happen anywhere. That hasn't stop you signing up to the cause though has it?

you cant wave your magic wand and make hezbollah dissappear, its a fact, and it should be dealt with. Joining in with the resistance will increase the standing of revolutionary leftism, it will become a rival of hezbollah perhaps. If you steer clear of armed resistance against the israelies you will only be marginalized.

You're throwing up the same arguments used to justify reformism, or so called socialists in the Labour party. "If we don't partake in bourgeois politics, we don't have a voice" what crock of shit. Im not up for compromise with the boss class unlike you, in my eyes it's selling out. The ideal of the capitalists, to whore yourself for better standing.

In fact communists decide what form the resistance takes
either it is purely islamic
or it is islamic with a secular, communist militia as well

what would you rather have?

I'd rather see an inter Israeli-arab working class 'secular' organisation, that condemned Hezbollah, and exposed it as the class enemy it is.

Again
either a purely islamic resistance with jew hatred all around
or a predominantly islamic resistance with a secular, communist militia fighting as well, pledging its solidarity to ALL working class people and thereby posing an alternative for joining hezbollah.

again, the 2nd one seems better to me.

Agreed.

first, do they even do this?

Race war is in their rhetoric.

and second, how will you better be able to combat this? As group of people who actively fought alongside the hezbollah against the israelis, or as a marginalised fringe group?

Again the ideology of the reformist shines through "we have more influence from within!" it is quite clear from decades of attempting to change reactionary groups from within that it leads to nothing more than a huge waste of time, and a stagnation of radical class action.

You try having a communist revolution with no infrastructure, tanks rolling down the streets, trained soldiers at every corner shooting everything that moves.

If they don't have an infrastructure they should build one.

I agree, but a communist resistance is going to have to fight alongside hezbollah to get the israeli military out first if they are going to pose a true alternative.

After that, they will be adversaries, ofcourse.

In that case, most of this debate (between us) has been a misunderstanding, I was trying to see if this was your position. And I don't disagree, my major concern is not with "not fighting Hezbollah at the moment" but with supporting them, as the SWP chanted "we are all Hezbollah"

There is no such thing as "under hezbollah"
They kicked the israelis out six years ago, has lebanon been a hezbollah fiefdom a la Iran?
(as far as i know) nope.

No, but the Hezbollah movement has grown, and like here in the UK, we as class conscious workers must fight the fascists, the religious nutjobs, the allies of the bosses, militantly. We should trash their meetings, burn their propaganda, attack their members and make sure they have no platform. I wouldn't start supporting no matter what state 'my nation' was in.

well yeah
so what's a better position for us to be?
Marginalised because we didn't want to get involved in a resistance some nasty people were involved in as well, or well armed, with a good support base?

I don't object to resistance. I object to sleeping with Hezbollah, on the grounds that it makes us more popular.

Also, we wouldn't support anti-semites, we would support them in the few good things they do. There's a big difference.
Also, not supporting the resistance against the israelis and continuing to ***** from the sidelines while the people suffer would only strengthen hezbollah.
They can say "see, those godless communists, they don't care about the lebanese"

I don't care about the Lebanese as a whole, Lebanese bosses and rulers can eat my shit. I care about the working class, but heres the interesting thing. For all your accusations of me "standing at the sideline" what have you done, but the same from a different standpoint? the SWP have sold papers (well done guys) whereas we as an anarchist movement are planning Direct and militant action against Israel, in collaboration with other Libertarian communist groups in the region. Unfortunately for me, I don't live there, and there is very little I can actually do. Most class based action I can take, is directed against the UK government...but i digress.

for the last fucking time, im not saying they aren't.

Then no form of support for our enemies is acceptable.

Yep
and what you are proposing would greatly help them.
Who do you think is easier to wipe out?
A marginalised movement of people who stood and watched as lebanon was destroyed,

Im not advocating apathy, am I!

fight for emancipation of working people? how are they to do this then with bombs flying everywhere and the working people getting killed?
etc etc

So as soon as theorise a bit of fighting between nations, we have to pick sides and fight for out nation (because otherwise we're not popular) forgive me for disagreeing.

with the tiny difference that there is absolutely NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER of a revolution breaking out in lebanon.

get a grip on reality.

For a moment then, I thought I was in OI "there's no revolution coming anytime soon! why not get involved in party politics or get shares, and make yourself happy" this is afterall what reality is composed of isn't it, business and capitalism. And We don't have much chance to overthrow it anytime soon, so let's boost our chances by supporting the bosses, otherwise they might get more influence than us.

Forward Union

31st July 2006, 13:40

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 31 2006, 02:38 AM

Anti-semitism in Islamic society exists and is real. It's also mainly a product of years of Zionist barbarism. The way to combat it is for Israel to be removed as a political entity and for the Jewish population of Palestine to be made equal citizens to the Arabs living there. The way to combat it is not to leave the Islamic people to the whims of American and Israeli imperialism just because you "object" to some of their language.
What a lovely pipedream! And who exactly is going to stop secterian violence when this happens? Shi'ites hates Sunnis, Sunnis hate Shi'ites, Sunnis and Shi'ites hate Jews, all the while Christians and atheists are being blown to bits.

The only solution to the current problem is to develop a secular, progressive organization representing the interests of the oppressed peoples. Not the YKTMX-option of ditching workers' struggle so that the petty-bourgeois and smalltime bourgeois Islamic guerillas can have their way with the Levantine working class.
thank you!

Forward Union

31st July 2006, 13:41

Originally posted by Comrade-[email protected] 30 2006, 11:47 PM
I think Lenin's slogan would be of use right now:

"Turn the imperialist war into a civil war!"

Meaning, Israelis, rise up and overthrow your government. Lebanese, rise up and overthrow Hezbollah. Workers of both countries, stop killing each other, and turn your guns on your masters.

Not practical? What do we need to do to make it practical? That's what I want to know.
I agree totally.

Forward Union

31st July 2006, 13:44

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 02:32 AM
it's cheap, it's easy, it doesn't require you to actually think or take a stand which might expose you to some fire, politically or otherwise.
Class war are heavily involved in the class struggle at home. However for all your bold words, what have you done for the workers in the region? been on a march? Well done, we're plannign direct action against Israel tomorrow, so because of my practical involvement, my oppinions are more valid. <_<

What are the odds that in the real world, two "asymmetric" sides would turn out to actually deserve equal condemnation? Not high.

Since when did we side with the weaker ruling class?

Hit The North

31st July 2006, 16:17

A few points I'd like to make:

1. War is not a theoretical puzzle for the Left - it is a real, human tragedy where innocent workers pay the biggest price. Yesterday, the Israeli's bombed one building and killed 60 people (34 children). Why were the people there? They were hiding because they were too poor to flee the city. More affluent Lebonese citizens had evacuated the area days ago.

Our first demand should be an end to the war and, futher, that the aggressor (Israel) be held account for war crimes.

2. With the likelyhood that the war continues, we need to speak out for the population under attack and this may mean supporting the leadership of their resistance, whether we like it or not. To do otherwise is to stand on the sidelines. This is especially true for the revolutionary left of Lebanon. If the Communists are strong enough to organise seperately from the Islamists then they should. If, however, they are not, then they need to offer unconditional support to Hezbolla. The alternative is to become a mere observer and end up uttering abstract slogans while lebonese workers are slaughtered in their hundreds.

3. It is a duty of all communists (I can't speak for the Anarchists) to oppose imperialism in all its forms. Why? Because every blow struck against imperialism weakens our ruling class who depend upon it. The enemy is always at home. Secondly, because the victory of Western imperialism in the Middle East is the surest way of strengthening the hold of reactionary Islamic ideas and organisation in the region.

Forward Union

31st July 2006, 16:27

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 31 2006, 01:18 PM
and this may mean supporting the leadership of their resistance, whether we like it or not.
I agreed up to here.

To do otherwise is to stand on the sidelines.

No it's not! this is more of the same bullshit the working class has been fed for centuries. Not to stand up for themselves but to rally around some god-awful dictator. All it has ever achieved is the replacement of a foreign ruling class with a domestic one.

This is especially true for the revolutionary left of Lebanon. If the Communists are strong enough to organise seperately from the Islamists then they should. If, however, they are not, then they need to offer unconditional support to Hezbolla.

We can't beat the anti-semites, let's support them??. I really fail to grasp the reasoning. Unlike some of the people here who hide behind the "critically" barrier, you have blatnently anounced support for anti-semitism, unconditionally :( . Im absolutely astonished...

Hit The North

31st July 2006, 16:36

We can't beat the anti-semites, let's support them??. I really fail to grasp the reasoning. Unlike some of the people here who hide behind the "critically" barrier, you have blatnently anounced support for anti-semitism, unconditionally sad.gif . Im absolutely astonished...

Support is given not for anti-semitism, but for the struggle against Israeli aggression. If you're astonished by this, then it's because you see everything through the lens of ideology and fail to reflect on the immediate material conditions which exist - ie. the indiscriminate slaughter of Lebonese workers.

EnragÃ©

31st July 2006, 16:45

Fair enough, I misread. But Im glad you admit your support for anti-semitic organisations.
:wacko:

I do not support anti-semitic organisations, i support resistance against imperialism, i support that which fights to stop the killing of the lebanese.

It's a very complicated way of justifying practically supporting anti-semites. Allow me now to drag this into reality, In what way have you supported Hezbollah in their resistance?

I would start a leftist militia, fight alongside hezbollah against the israelis, if i have some intelligence on the whereabouts of isreali troops, i'd tell 'em. If you mean what I have been able to do now, where i am, from europe? Well discussions like these, and vocal support. What else can i do? If i were in London, i probably would be in Afed or SolFed but where i am now there is no such thing.

I support working class resistance to all forms of oppression. Not Lebanon's right to national identity. And unfortunately, my pro workerist standpoint puts Hezbollah as a class enemy, to which our reaction should be to combat them also.

omg you're frustrating.

I DONT GIVE A FUCK ABOUT LEBANONS "right to national identity"

THis is about real live things not about abstract bullshit.

People are DYING, they are being MURDERED by imperialist aggression...now ANY resistance AGAINST this aggression has my SUPPORT.

thats it.
We can fight hezbollah when the time comes, but for now, in this fight, we're going to have to fight alonside them.

Their ultimate goal is an Islamic republic, and the systematic extermination of the jews. At what point do you stop supporting them and say "uh oh, they've got a little too close to power now, let's stop supporting them"

as soon as the israelis are GONE or when they start shooting US instead of the israelis, whichever is earlier.

also i dont know where you got that translation but translations from arab to english are known to be full of purposed errors, for instance, ahmadinejad never said "Israel should be wiped off the map" he said something along the lines of the current regimes in israel and the US having to be replaced.

and what's wrong with me giving Combat 18 and the Nazi party money to produce anti-isreali leaflets?

Hmm well i dont know, perhaps because there is no reason to give them money?!

Im not saying "give hezbollah money" im saying "fight alongside them untill the imperialists have fucked off, because there is simply no other sane thing to do given the circumstances"...perhaps its me but i dont see tanks from another nation rolling through your streets, bombs falling on London, and your friends and family being killed.

So no, dont give them money.
duhh
:blink:

No, but after the Israeli tanks are gone, I would hope that the communists turn their guns on Hezbollah and the Lebanese and engage in class war against them. So peace and stability as a general goal, is not in the interests of our class.

If the communists are strong enough, ok, im all for it.

I never said it would actually happen, but at the moment, it's not likely to happen anywhere. That hasn't stop you signing up to the cause though has it?

No, but it does mean that i come up with real, practical solutions to a problem which are still beneficial to class war though it wont give us victory within the blink of an eye.

. Im not up for compromise with the boss class unlike you, in my eyes it's selling out. The ideal of the capitalists, to whore yourself for better standing.

You're throwing up the same arguments used to justify reformism, or so called socialists in the Labour party. "If we don't partake in bourgeois politics, we don't have a voice" what crock of shit

:blink:
*bangs head against the wall*
hmm that felt good...

that indeed is a "crock of shit" (whats a crock anyway never got that expression), but its not the same.

What i am proposing is we join in an anti-imperialist fight to protect the people, instead of standing at the sidelines watching them die.
Your analogy doesnt hold up since our goal would forever be revolution, and what we fight for against the israelis would be revolution, but we just ally ourselves to get the tanks of our streets, to get the israeli's to stop killing our friends and family with some shitty militia. We cant avoid doing that because well, they're powerful, and without them we cant defeat the israelis.

We dont however actually need bourgeois politics AT ALL.

Im not up for compromise with the boss class unlike you, in my eyes it's selling out. The ideal of the capitalists, to whore yourself for better standing.

where do i compromise?
Where do i say "lets throw away our goal, our ideals"?
All im saying is we have to do what is necessary to get the israelis out, which for any communist militia in lebanon would be to ally with hezbollah (NO compromising of ideas involved)

where do i whore myself for better standing?
Its not like we would do anything we wouldnt be doing if hezbollah didnt even exist, that is fighting imperialist aggression.

I'd rather see an inter Israeli-arab working class 'secular' organisation, that condemned Hezbollah, and exposed it as the class enemy it is.

err yea
wouldnt we all?
and i'd also like it if pigs could fly, imagine how fun that'd be :D

problem is
aint possible.

Or if you think it is, fly over there and start the organisation?

good luck comrade =)

Also, im sure the communist milita could, or already has, established ties with the israeli communist party and the palestinian people's party, and im sure they condemn hezbollah for certain things.
Point is, for the time being we cant do anything sane but to fight alongside hezbollah.

Race war is in their rhetoric.

Solidarity, freedom and communism was in Stalin's rhetoric too

did he do any of it?

Again the ideology of the reformist shines through "we have more influence from within!" it is quite clear from decades of attempting to change reactionary groups from within that it leads to nothing more than a huge waste of time, and a stagnation of radical class action.

Err NO
where do i say "lets join hezbollah"?!
Where do i say "lets follow hezbollah's orders"?!

I say start a commie militia (which they have done) and ally for the time being with hezbollah to get the biggest threat OUT (which they have done)

By doing this you pose an alternative to people who dont like hezbollah but dont like their friends and family getting killed either.
You know, the category where 99,99%% of all leftists would fall in, and i hope you'd be one of 'em

If they don't have an infrastructure they should build one.

hmm yes why dont you fly over there and start building a road with barrels of israeli guns aimed at your skull, with an israeli tank poised to blow you to pieces, and with israeli planes fully loaded with instruments of destruction flying over the 10 feet of tarmac you were able to complete for the day.

In that case, most of this debate (between us) has been a misunderstanding, I was trying to see if this was your position. And I don't disagree, my major concern is not with "not fighting Hezbollah at the moment" but with supporting them, as the SWP chanted "we are all Hezbollah"
:huh:
well then stop saying no to any form of working together between hezbollah and a leftist militia, because realistically you're going to have to work together against the israelis. :blush:

hmm yes
im getting more and more fed up of the SWP
cuz as i said
"Im not saying we should go out and wave around a hezbollah flag" which the SWP is apparently doing

"wh00t wh00t lets support everything in its entirety (sp?) that kills something we dont like!"

reminds me of the dutch new communist party supporting Milosevic :rolleyes:

No, but the Hezbollah movement has grown, and like here in the UK, we as class conscious workers must fight the fascists, the religious nutjobs, the allies of the bosses, militantly. We should trash their meetings, burn their propaganda, attack their members and make sure they have no platform. I wouldn't start supporting no matter what state 'my nation' was in.

I'm not talking about the state of "my nation", im talking about the state of not being able to cross the street or not knowing if you or your friends and family will be alive tomorrow.
That "state" of whatever needs to be fought.

As for burning propaganda, all for it.
As for trashing meetings and attacking members, well depends on if you are a 5 man-strong splintergroup with no way of explaining to anybody why you do what you do, or a ten-thousands strong (or stronger) movement with a good apparatus of distributing the truth.
Those members often join Hezbollah because they are poor etc, they cant help that they have been brought up in an islamic atmosphere. If you just out of the blue start attacking them you will alienate them even more.

Attack the leadership and try to win the membership over to your side.

I object to sleeping with Hezbollah, on the grounds that it makes us more popular.

define "sleeping with hezbollah"?

Im not saying we should go out and have ourselves a little pogrom with hezbollah, im saying we should fight israeli aggression, which practically leads to fighting alongside and supporting hezbollah FOR THE TIME BEING and on THIS ISSUE ALONE.

I don't care about the Lebanese as a whole, Lebanese bosses and rulers can eat my shit. I care about the working class

whatever thats what i meant, my point still stands.

For all your accusations of me "standing at the sideline" what have you done, but the same from a different standpoint? the SWP have sold papers

wait wait :lol:

do you think im SWP? :lol:

well im not.

To be honest i was heavily influenced by the dutch sister organisation, they in fact pretty much caused me to become revolutionary left, and still often debate with and just talk to a good comrade inside it, but the time where i was planning to join it is long gone. Also, that sister org is a hell of a lot better than the SWP, though they as well seem pretty intent on selling their paper.

But you can read on the internet anyway so yeh :
some good articles from time to time, honestly

whereas we as an anarchist movement are planning Direct and militant action against Israel, in collaboration with other Libertarian communist groups in the region. Unfortunately for me, I don't live there, and there is very little I can actually do. Most class based action I can take, is directed against the UK government...but i digress.

well i'm not able to do anything. No groups around here whatsoever.

Im not advocating apathy, am I!

You're not?
What are you advocating then?

Jammoul is fighting with, but is not a part of, hezbollah. They stand opposed to their ideology and will become adversaries of hezbollah after the israelis are gone.
Now what else would you have them do?
Attack hezbollah now? :huh:
Talk about insane, suicidal, and detrimental to the cause.

So as soon as theorise a bit of fighting between nations, we have to pick sides and fight for out nation (because otherwise we're not popular) forgive me for disagreeing.

Err no

i was asking what would you PRACTICALLY do?

communists arent fighting over there "for their nation" they are fighting to stop people from getting killed, to protect the people.
A dead people cannot revolt, now can they.

For a moment then, I thought I was in OI "there's no revolution coming anytime soon! why not get involved in party politics or get shares, and make yourself happy" this is afterall what reality is composed of isn't it, business and capitalism. And We don't have much chance to overthrow it anytime soon, so let's boost our chances by supporting the bosses, otherwise they might get more influence than us

Err

huh?

wtf dude(tte?)

there is one key difference, which you cannot deny, between russia 1917 and lebanon 2006
in russia in 1917 the revolution was about to break out
in lebanon, there is a very weak movement at best

therefore the analogy was more than flawed.

Forward Union

31st July 2006, 16:48

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 31 2006, 01:37 PM
Support is given not for anti-semitism, but for the struggle against Israeli aggression.
Well, that's not unconditional support for Hezbollah then is it? Which is what you claimed initially.

the indiscriminate slaughter of Lebonese workers.

So the only reason you support Hezbollah, is because they are the underdog? Why?, I'd love to see the fuckers obliterated, smashed to bits and pulvierised into the dustbin of history. I support Israels attempts to destroy Hezbollah, as much as I support Hezbollahs attempts to destroy Israel, but ultimately I oppose them both becasue they are both killing workers, and have aims that not only disagree with proletarian power, but are the antithesis to what we stand for.

As was said earlier, if the material conditions for proletarian revolution do not yet exist, we as communists, should only be interested in trying to achieve such conditions, and siding with the enemy has never, and will never be in our interests.

Hit The North

31st July 2006, 17:07

Originally posted by Additives Free+Jul 31 2006, 02:49 PM--> (Additives Free @ Jul 31 2006, 02:49 PM)
Citizen [email protected] 31 2006, 01:37 PM
Support is given not for anti-semitism, but for the struggle against Israeli aggression.
Well, that's not unconditional support for Hezbollah then is it? Which is what you claimed initially.

[/b]
The support is unconditional because it recognises the reactionary nature of Hezbollah but does not use that as an excuse for not supporting the immediate struggle against Israeli aggression.

So the only reason you support Hezbollah, is because they are the underdog?

No, I support them because they are the main resistance. This support is limited only to the immediate struggle.

As was said earlier, if the material conditions for proletarian revolution do not yet exist, we as communists, should only be interested in trying to achieve such conditions, and siding with the enemy has never, and will never be in our interests.

And how will the material conditions ever arise in the Lebanon if you don't stand up against the Israeli bombing of the economic infrastructure? Moreover, having done nothing to defend Lebonese workers against their extermination will hardly win working class support to your cause.

Being a revolutionary does not mean being in a cult. It's not a case of only giving support to people who think exactly like yourself.

Meanwhile, abstract propaganda never won a thing.

YKTMX

31st July 2006, 17:15

Don't like it? Press 'back a page'

You're the one who is complaining, not me.

Again boiling the entire resistance down to Hezbollah, an organisations who's interest lie in promoting anti-semitism.

Why?

And so any realistic campaign to stamp out anti-Semitism in the region would no doubt involve conflict of one sort or another with Hezbollah.

Are you suggesting that the most important task right now is "stamping out" anti-semitism?

It's religious, Sexist, Homophobic, Racist, and to rehash some very old rhetoric, 'an opium'.

When Marx used that phrase, it wasn't rhetoric. People like you who don't understand what he meant have reduced it to mere rhetoric. Marx was involved in a historical analysis of the origins of religion under capitalism. It's not that Islam is "wrong" or "bad", but only that it provides other worldly solutions to real world problems.

Your moralistic "anti-religionism" has nothing to do with Marx, so please, don't quote him.

Im willing to accept that some people have bullshit ideas, but reserve the right to oppose them.

That's not a materialist analysis.

but could never betray my class and support them in the face of national invasion.

You'll never have to. You'll never know war and violence and occupation, so it'll never be an issue. It'll merely exist in your head, where you do battle with "anti-semites" and evil Islamists running amok. It's a fantasy.

So you have the illusion that you, as a working class britain have the ability to stop the war in Lebanon?

No, I support Hezbollah precisely because I don't believe that Westerners can "help" the Lebanese people. Only the Lebanese masses, through organised national resistance can defend themselves from the baby killers.

We can, of course, show solidarity and "pressure" our own ruling class, but only through the resistance of the Lebanese people, led by Hezbollah, will the Zionists be defeated.

Then again, what's their position on female circumcision?

It's not as black and white as "if you oppose Hezbollah, you support Israel"

Practically, it is.

In fantasy land, it's not, I accept that.

Forward Union

31st July 2006, 17:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 01:46 PM
I would start a leftist militia, fight alongside hezbollah against the israelis, if i have some intelligence on the whereabouts of isreali troops, i'd tell 'em. If you mean what I have been able to do now, where i am, from europe? Well discussions like these, and vocal support. What else can i do? If i were in London, i probably would be in Afed or SolFed but where i am now there is no such thing.
Youd get kicked out of either for supporting Hezbollah.

THis is about real live things not about abstract bullshit.

What's abstract and bullshit about proletarian revolution?

People are DYING, they are being MURDERED by imperialist aggression...now ANY resistance AGAINST this aggression has my SUPPORT.

Then you're just being an irrational idiot what kind of response is "OMG THATS TERRIBLE I WILL SUPPORT ANYTHING AGAINST IT"

We can fight hezbollah when the time comes, but for now, in this fight, we're going to have to fight alonside them.

You have failed to explain why this is the case though. It sounds more like you want us to side with boss class.

Hmm well i dont know, perhaps because there is no reason to give them money?!

But they are anti-Israeli imperialism, if the money goes into fighting that, then what's the problem?

Im not saying "give hezbollah money" im saying "fight alongside them untill the imperialists have fucked off, because there is simply no other sane thing to do given the circumstances"...perhaps its me but i dont see tanks from another nation rolling through your streets, bombs falling on London, and your friends and family being killed.

What's that got to do with anything? did I claim I was living in a warzone? Anyway let me rephrase the question, would you give the same level of support to C18 as you would to Hezbollah?

What i am proposing is we join in an anti-imperialist fight to protect the people, instead of standing at the sidelines watching them die.

I support the people in that situations right to do so, but as a UK citizen, this is outside my sphere of influence. I can however fight imperialism at home, but I think that's what you meant.

Your analogy doesnt hold up since our goal would forever be revolution, and what we fight for against the israelis would be revolution, but we just ally ourselves to get the tanks of our streets, to get the israeli's to stop killing our friends and family with some shitty militia. We cant avoid doing that because well, they're powerful, and without them we cant defeat the israelis.

If my choice were between death, and supporting Hezbollah, I would choose death.

where do i compromise?
Where do i say "lets throw away our goal, our ideals"?
All im saying is we have to do what is necessary to get the israelis out, which for any communist militia in lebanon would be to ally with hezbollah (NO compromising of ideas involved)

Well, it's a bit confusing for me because im the only one arguing in favour of the working class here, so forgive me for muddling up your points with others. But as I understand it, you don't actually advocate support of Hezbollah, you just don't think it's worth engaging them yet. This isn't support, support by definition means "To aid the cause, policy, or interests of" if you support Hezbollah, that's more than a compromise, that's total anti-working class treachery.

Or if you think it is, fly over there and start the organisation?

are you saying there are no libertarian movements in that region?

Solidarity, freedom and communism was in Stalin's rhetoric too

did he do any of it?

So you're banking on the fact that although they say they want to wipe out the jews, they don't mean it...I think I'll put all my eggs in another basket.

where do i say "lets join hezbollah"?!
Where do i say "lets follow hezbollah's orders"?!

See definition: "support"

hmm yes why dont you fly over there and start building a road with barrels of israeli guns aimed at your skull, with an israeli tank poised to blow you to pieces, and with israeli planes fully loaded with instruments of destruction flying over the 10 feet of tarmac you were able to complete for the day.

A few things, mainly because im involved in the class struggle for workers emancipation here, secondly, because there are groups doing that there anyway, and thirdly the question isn't fair, because im a UK citizen there would be more controversy surrounding my death than say, a Lebanese worker.

hmm yes
im getting more and more fed up of the SWP
cuz as i said
"Im not saying we should go out and wave around a hezbollah flag" which the SWP is apparently doing
"wh00t wh00t lets support everything in its entirety (sp?) that kills something we dont like!"

reminds me of the dutch new communist party supporting Milosevic :rolleyes:

I totally agree with this, however only a few moment's ago I read "ANY resistance AGAINST this aggression has my SUPPORT" You are confusing me.

Those members often join Hezbollah because they are poor etc, they cant help that they have been brought up in an islamic atmosphere. If you just out of the blue start attacking them you will alienate them even more.

Those members often join The nazi party because they are poor etc, they cant help that they have been brought up in an anti-semitic atmosphere. If you just out of the blue start attacking them you will alienate them even more

define "sleeping with hezbollah"?

See definition: "support"

Im not saying we should go out and have ourselves a little pogrom with hezbollah, im saying we should fight israeli aggression, which practically leads to fighting alongside and supporting hezbollah FOR THE TIME BEING and on THIS ISSUE ALONE.

fair enough.

You're not?
What are you advocating then?

Militant support for the Libertarian-Communist organisations struggling against all oppression, whether it be from Hezbollah or Israel...

Jammoul is fighting with, but is not a part of, hezbollah. They stand opposed to their ideology and will become adversaries of hezbollah after the israelis are gone.
Now what else would you have them do?
Attack hezbollah now? :huh:

Of course not, but there is a difference between not attacking them, and supporting them.

was asking what would you PRACTICALLY do?

Join and support my local Libertarian Communist org.

therefore the analogy was more than flawed.

So it would be ok to support the Czar, if revolution wasn't going to break out?

Forward Union

31st July 2006, 17:30

Why?

Why what?! why are they anti-semitic?

Are you suggesting that the most important task right now is "stamping out" anti-semitism?

No. There is a difference between not prioritising the destruction of anti-semitism yet, and supporting it.

When Marx used that phrase, it wasn't rhetoric. People like you who don't understand what he meant have reduced it to mere rhetoric. Marx was involved in a historical analysis of the origins of religion under capitalism. It's not that Islam is "wrong" or "bad", but only that it provides other worldly solutions to real world problems.

But Religion is 'wrong' and 'bad' (to word it like an infant). Including Islam, Its superstitious, sexist, homophobic, chauvinist, all attributes of a bad idea, with no roots in scientific reality, we as communists should violently oppose this bullshit.

No, I support Hezbollah precisely because I don't believe that Westerners can "help" the Lebanese people. Only the Lebanese masses, through organised national resistance can defend themselves from the baby killers.

So you have thrown away and dismissed your support of class struggle in the region, and istead now, support Islamic extremism and anti-semitism, because anti-semitism to you, is a more 'credible' alternative. Maybe you should reconsider your politics?

Then again, what's their position on female circumcision?

Whose? The Jews or the muslims? or were we talking about groups?

Practically, it is.

"So all the remarks made by anyone who talks to you in the name of political realism, men of State, teachers (who are the servants of men of State), theorists, journalists, all the intellectuals who pass through classrooms like this and in their speechifying talk with the calm, tolerant words of the realist state that in any case nothing else is possible, reality is what it is, it is necessary' to make sacrifices; there, these people are swindling you. They are swindling you because you can do something else, because any one of us is capable of rising up in the name of our wounded dignity before such a swindle. Because any one of us can realise we have been swindled, because we have finally realised what is being done to our detriment. And in rising up against it all we can change not only the reality of things within the limits that it is possible to know them, but also one's life, make it worthy of being lived" -Alfredo M. Bonanno

Hit The North

31st July 2006, 17:58

AF

QUOTE
You're not?
What are you advocating then?

Militant support for the Libertarian-Communist organisations struggling against all oppression, whether it be from Hezbollah or Israel...

Fine. So how does that relate to the present imperialist aggression?

EDITED TO ADD:

Well, it's a bit confusing for me because im the only one arguing in favour of the working class here, so forgive me for muddling up your points with others.

No, you're arguing in favour of an abstract working class, not the actual one that is being butchered by the Israelis.

YKTMX

31st July 2006, 18:53

Why what?! why are they anti-semitic?

Aye.

No. There is a difference between not prioritising the destruction of anti-semitism yet, and supporting it

I don't support anti-semitism. Just like (some) of the people who backed the Vietcong didn't support Stalinism.

t). Including Islam, Its superstitious, sexist, homophobic, chauvinist, all attributes of a bad idea

That's not a materialist analysis. A materialist analysis would emphasise the material roots of an "idea", not whether it's "good" or "bad". Ideas don't rise and fall principally because they are "defeated" by "scientific reason". The way to defeat "superstition" is not by ridiculing the faithful and burning down their buildings. The way to defeat it is by destroying the structures that create and reinforce those ideas.

So you have thrown away and dismissed your support of class struggle in the region, and istead now, support Islamic extremism and anti-semitism, because anti-semitism to you, is a more 'credible' alternative. Maybe you should reconsider your politics?

Most Arab working class people support the resistance; most Lebanese working class people support the resistance; most Lebanese leftists support and or take part in the resistance; most Lebanese left organisations support the resistance.

The idea that you and the out of touch antichrist movement are the "voice" of the working class in this struggle is stupid beyond belief.

And in rising up against it all we can change not only the reality of things within the limits that it is possible to know them, but also one's life, make it worthy of being lived" -Alfredo M. Bonanno

http://library.flawlesslogic.com/qana_2.jpg

Say no to Hezbollah!
Say no to anti-semitism!

Forward Union

31st July 2006, 19:13

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 31 2006, 02:59 PM
Fine. So how does that relate to the present imperialist aggression?

That's an essay and a half :lol:

No, you're arguing in favour of an abstract working class, not the actual one that is being butchered by the Israelis.

No, im the only one arguing for working class emancipation without compromise with their class enemies.

Forward Union

31st July 2006, 19:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 03:54 PM
Aye.

Why ask a question like "why are they anti-semitic" , why is anyone racist? have you forgotten; it serves as a useful, distraction from class based organisation. A working class fighting itself is no threat to the bourgeoisie.

I don't support anti-semitism. Just like (some) of the people who backed the Vietcong didn't support Stalinism.

If you support Hezbollah, and chant "we are all hezbollah" then of course you're supporting anti-Semitism and more than that claiming you're all anti-semites, as the furthering of their cause is the furthering of anti-semitism.

That's not a materialist analysis. A materialist analysis would emphasise the material roots of an "idea", not whether it's "good" or "bad". Ideas don't rise and fall principally because they are "defeated" by "scientific reason". The way to defeat "superstition" is not by ridiculing the faithful and burning down their buildings. The way to defeat it is by destroying the structures that create and reinforce those ideas.

Such as Hezbollah. But what is more amusing is your attempt to justify religion using Materialism... you asked what was wrong with muslims, and I said Islam. Do you think im wrong? is religion a virtue or a vice in your eyes?

Most Arab working class people support the resistance; most Lebanese working class people support the resistance; most Lebanese leftists support and or take part in the resistance; most Lebanese left organisations support the resistance.

I support elements of the resistance too, just not the wanna-be-fascist-coup called "The party of God" part.

The idea that you and the out of touch antichrist movement are the "voice" of the working class in this struggle is stupid beyond belief.

who said they were?

Say no to Hezbollah!
Say no to anti-semitism!

Allah Ackbar!
http://www.cornermark.com/hiddenfolder/enemies/hezbollah_hamas_nazi_salute.jpg

Revolution67

31st July 2006, 19:52

"Hizballah's military mission is principally to defend Lebanon from Israeli intrusion and secondarily to destroy the Jewish state. As an Islamist group under Iran's sway, Hizballah would like to see Islamic rule in Lebanon." My dear comrades on the board still want to support this religio-fascist reactionary group? If I were a Lebanese, defending my nation against external aggressors, I would kill a Hezbollah fighter for every two enemy soldiers. The external aggressor is a short term threat, but the enemy within is far more dangerous.

EnragÃ©

31st July 2006, 20:49

Youd get kicked out of either for supporting Hezbollah.

Look i DONT SUPPORT HEZBOLLAH...i SUPPORT RESISTANCE AGAINST ISRAELI AGRESSION, which hezbollah happens to be the predominant part of.

Seeing you'd kick me out
what should i do now? :mellow: join SWP?
what other option do i have?

See..how marginalize yourself.. :(

What's abstract and bullshit about proletarian revolution?

Its not

Whats abstract and bullshit is calling for the world to rise up and thats it, retreating yourself from any form of reality, not supporting a fight against injustice because it wont directly lead within the blink of an eye to what we want.

Then you're just being an irrational idiot what kind of response is "OMG THATS TERRIBLE I WILL SUPPORT ANYTHING AGAINST IT"

No i'm not being irrational, im putting myself in the shoes of the lebanese in the south. I would want the KILLING TO END, and therefore support anything which brings it closer, that doesnt mean i'd fully support hezbollah, that means i'd support resistance against israeli aggression, which hezbollah happens to be the biggest part of, partly because some are too purist to fight alongside them against the israelis.

You have failed to explain why this is the case though. It sounds more like you want us to side with boss class.

We'll have to fight alongside hezbollah because they are a highly organised, highly effective militia which controls from a military point of view the entire south. So any armed action from communists against the israelis (which will have to be in the south because thats where the aggression is taking place) will logically mean we need at least some form of co-operation with hezbollah. Also, fighting against the same enemy simply is fighting alongside someone, unless you intend to attack hezbollah as well which would be quite moronic under the current circumstances.

what do you think i am?
some sort of bourgeois infiltrator?
why would i want us to "side with the boss class"?!

Also, the militiamen of hezbollah are mostly poor working clas, fighting with them might open their eyes to an entire new world of ideas.

But they are anti-Israeli imperialism, if the money goes into fighting that, then what's the problem?

Because its not NECESSARY, it serves NO purpose, also you cant equate radical shi'ism with nazism. They both suck, but they are pretty fucking different.

as for hezbollah members giving the "nazi salute"

"The association with Nazism has been so strong that the salute has rarely been used by non-Nazi organizations since the end of World War II. There are several exceptions; one is the Republic of China (Taiwan), where the salute is still used during the swearing of oaths in inaugurations. The salute is also still used by some Palestinian militant groups. It is also known to be used by the Tamil separatist organization, the LTTE, while saluting their leader Velupillai Prabhakaran."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_salute#..._oath_to_salute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_salute#From_oath_to_salute)

So i guess all those groups are nazi too? Never knew that Taiwan was Nazi...

Look, if it were possible to work around hezbollah then im all for it, but thats not possible if you actually want an end to this act of israeli imperialism. Hezbollah isnt some splintergroup, its a well organised, large political and military organisation.

What's that got to do with anything? did I claim I was living in a warzone? Anyway let me rephrase the question, would you give the same level of support to C18 as you would to Hezbollah?

no because
1. they're far from the same kind of organisation
2. there is no necessity, no reason to support C18

The necessity to support the RESISTANCE carried out by hezbollah comes forth out of the situation of that warzone, thats what it has got to do with it.

In peace, who the hell would support hezbollah on the left in anyway? Nobody in their right(or well, left) mind would.

If my choice were between death, and supporting Hezbollah, I would choose death.

Alrighty then, have fun being dead, we'll make a statue for you someday cuz it seems thats what you want...martyrdom, who gives a fuck about a better world, you just want to be a martyr <_<

Dead people cant make revolutions.

Also, im not saying, "support hezbollah" im saying "support resistance against israeli aggression".

I support the people in that situations right to do so, but as a UK citizen, this is outside my sphere of influence. I can however fight imperialism at home, but I think that's what you meant.

Yep
and also i was placing myself in the shoes of a lebanese leftist again..

Well, it's a bit confusing for me because im the only one arguing in favour of the working class here, so forgive me for muddling up your points with others.
But as I understand it, you don't actually advocate support of Hezbollah, you just don't think it's worth engaging them yet. This isn't support, support by definition means "To aid the cause, policy, or interests of" if you support Hezbollah

look i never said "support hezbollah" or if i did thats not exactly what i meant.
What i mean, and i've said this a number of times already, that i support resistance against israeli imperialism, and hezbollah is a part of that. Regarding hezbollah, i ONLY support their resistance against israel, not any of their other goals. Now, thats what is meant by "critically supporting".

In practical terms this means that i support Jammoul (the communist militia) in fighting alongside Hezbollah against the israelis, and that i believe that after the israelis are gone Jammoul and Hezbollah should become adversaries again (which is nothing more than logical).

are you saying there are no libertarian movements in that region?

Well, are there?

and i was more talking about "an inter Israeli-arab working class 'secular' organisation, that condemned Hezbollah, and exposed it as the class enemy it is."

Which i would like to see too but isnt exactly realistic right now (ofcourse it should be a goal but thats not the point here)
so thats why i say, if you think you know it all
"fly over there and start the organization"

So you're banking on the fact that although they say they want to wipe out the jews, they don't mean it...I think I'll put all my eggs in another basket.

No but you were talking like hezbollah has been committing attrocities all the time for the last 6 years, and now it appears you only based yourself on their rhetoric.

And again, i dont support hezbollah's ideology, only their resistance against the israeli aggression. A defeat for the israelis will not lead to an "islamofascist dicatorship", especially if communists had a hand in that defeat.

A few things, mainly because im involved in the class struggle for workers emancipation here, secondly, because there are groups doing that there anyway, and thirdly the question isn't fair, because im a UK citizen there would be more controversy surrounding my death than say, a Lebanese worker.

wait wait i was trying to make a point about the CIRCUMSTANCES. As in you CANT build infrastructure with tanks rolling down the streets etc. I highly doubt people are able to do anything constructive right now in lebanon exactly because of those circumstances, the only time when they will be able to actually do anything constructive will be when those circumstances change, i.e when the israelis are beaten back.
Also, what the hell does the third thing has to do with anything anyway?

I totally agree with this, however only a few moment's ago I read "ANY resistance AGAINST this aggression has my SUPPORT" You are confusing me.

I dont support hezbollah, i support resistance against israeli aggression. I dont support hezbollah in its entirety, only in them resisting the israelis.

Thats the whole point.
I am disgusted by the SWP saying "we are all hezbollah" because that is bullshit, "we are all lebanese", yes, "we are all fighters against israeli aggression", ok, but not "we are all hezbollah" simply because hezbollah does ONE THING right for a change (i.e resisting israelis)

Those members often join The nazi party because they are poor etc, they cant help that they have been brought up in an anti-semitic atmosphere. If you just out of the blue start attacking them you will alienate them even more

erm yes.
My position is the same against nazis.

Attack the leadership, try to change the minds of the membership if possible.

My brother used to be a nazi, he's not anymore.
Or should we just have shot him when he still was?

fair enough.

well then what the hell are you *****ing on about :P

thats whats jammoul is doing!

Militant support for the Libertarian-Communist organisations struggling against all oppression, whether it be from Hezbollah or Israel...

ok, good.

but what do you think takes precedence in southern lebanon now?
Oppression from israel.

how do you get rid of it?
By fighting alongside hezbollah for the time being.

after that we can take on hezbollah if we're strong enough, and if not we keep going untill we are.

Of course not, but there is a difference between not attacking them, and supporting them.

All there is in form of support is that they fight alongside eachother because there simply is no other way. You cant effectively fight the israelis if you work around hezbollah (if it even is in any way possible, which i highly doubt)

Join and support my local Libertarian Communist org.

and what would that group be doing in the lebanese warzone?

So it would be ok to support the Czar, if revolution wasn't going to break out?

If the only way of stopping the germans raping and pillaging the villages of my friend and family is fighting alongside the czar's army
yes.

bcbm

31st July 2006, 20:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 09:54 AM
The idea that you and the out of touch antichrist movement are the "voice" of the working class in this struggle is stupid beyond belief.
Ahem... not all anarchists see eye-to-eye on this issue.

Forward Union

31st July 2006, 21:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 05:50 PM
Look i DONT SUPPORT HEZBOLLAH...i SUPPORT RESISTANCE AGAINST ISRAELI AGRESSION, which hezbollah happens to be the predominant part of.

Seeing you'd kick me out
what should i do now? :mellow: join SWP?
what other option do i have?

See..how marginalize yourself.. :(

hey if you join the SWP that's your problem. You can support parts of the resistance, say how you'd like it to go, and condemn Hezbollah as class enemies, there is little more.

Whats abstract and bullshit is calling for the world to rise up and thats it, retreating yourself from any form of reality, not supporting a fight against injustice because it wont directly lead within the blink of an eye to what we want.

And who has done that?

No i'm not being irrational, im putting myself in the shoes of the lebanese in the south. I would want the KILLING TO END, and therefore support anything which brings it closer, that doesnt mean i'd fully support hezbollah, that means i'd support resistance against israeli aggression, which hezbollah happens to be the biggest part of, partly because some are too purist to fight alongside them against the israelis.

This doesn't make sense, I don't support Hezbollah, but I support the resistance, and Hezbollah is a part of it, so I support Hezbollah.

We'll have to fight alongside hezbollah

No we don't

because they are a highly organised, highly effective militia which controls from a military point of view the entire south.

These are reasons to fight against Hezbollah.

So any armed action from communists against the israelis (which will have to be in the south because thats where the aggression is taking place) will logically mean we need at least some form of co-operation with hezbollah.

Hezbollah want us dead, but have to face Israel for now. I wouldn't want to co-operate with these genocidal maniacs even in a life or death situation.

Also, fighting against the same enemy simply is fighting alongside someone, unless you intend to attack hezbollah as well which would be quite moronic under the current circumstances.

Of course it wouldn't be practical to combat Hezbollah now.

what do you think i am?
some sort of bourgeois infiltrator?
why would i want us to "side with the boss class"?!

YTKMX pretty much has. His party seem to think they are Hezbollah

Also, the militiamen of hezbollah are mostly poor working class

This point is irrelevant. Most reactionary movements and even imperialist militaries are built on the working class, because some of the proles bosses, tell them to do it, thought direct order and brainwashing.

Because its not NECESSARY, it serves NO purpose, also you cant equate radical shi'ism with nazism. They both suck, but they are pretty fucking different.

as for hezbollah members giving the "nazi salute"

Don't take it that serious dude,

So i guess all those groups are nazi too? Never knew that Taiwan was Nazi...

But of course there are parallels between Hezbollah and anti-semitic fascist organisations backed by the working class.

Look, if it were possible to work around hezbollah then im all for it, but thats not possible if you actually want an end to this act of israeli imperialism. Hezbollah isnt some splintergroup, its a well organised, large political and military organisation.

More reasons to oppose it. Not side with it.

The necessity to support the RESISTANCE carried out by hezbollah comes forth out of the situation of that warzone, thats what it has got to do with it.

But hypothetically, if Combat 18 were in Hezbollahs position, you'd support them even though they are nazis, simply because they are part of the resistance...

In peace, who the hell would support hezbollah on the left in anyway? Nobody in their right(or well, left) mind would.

And in war we see who the cowards are that side with the fascists to grab on to some form of stability...

Alrighty then, have fun being dead

If it means I can be rid of this bloody topic!

Also, im not saying, "support hezbollah" im saying "support resistance against israeli aggression".

So am I, but not at the expense of supporting Hezbollah.

look i never said "support hezbollah" or if i did thats not exactly what i meant.
What i mean, and i've said this a number of times already, that i support resistance against israeli imperialism, and hezbollah is a part of that.

See my first comment.

Regarding hezbollah, i ONLY support their resistance against israel, not any of their other goals. Now, thats what is meant by "critically supporting".

I've already criticised this point, I don't want to keep doing so.

Well, are there?

and i was more talking about "an inter Israeli-arab working class 'secular' organisation, that condemned Hezbollah, and exposed it as the class enemy it is."

Yes, there are, most of the Lebanese ones don't have websites, but I made some relevant link one page back.

Which i would like to see too but isnt exactly realistic right now (ofcourse it should be a goal but thats not the point here)
so thats why i say, if you think you know it all
"fly over there and start the organization"

Most of our demands are not realistic, but we fight for them in the face of our rulers. I don't side with the nazis here in the face of capitalism, and I wouldn't side with Hezbollah in the face of Israel.

No but you were talking like hezbollah has been committing attrocities all the time for the last 6 years, and now it appears you only based yourself on their rhetoric.

Well, what else can I base a judgement of their desires on other than their statements and demands? considering of course, that they have had no practical opportunity to begin a holocaust.

I dont support hezbollah, i support resistance against israeli aggression. I dont support hezbollah in its entirety, only in them resisting the israelis.

How does one aid the cause, policy, or interests of Hezbollahs resistance, without somehow aiding the cause, policy, or interests of the organisation at large?

My brother used to be a nazi, he's not anymore.
Or should we just have shot him when he still was?

If I had met him, knowing his ideology, and believed my chances in combat to be successful, I would have done my best to do him damage.

but what do you think takes precedence in southern lebanon now?
Oppression from israel.

how do you get rid of it?
By fighting alongside hezbollah for the time being.

I agree with you on everything except this siding with Hezbollah bollocks.

and what would that group be doing in the lebanese warzone?

Fighting for proletarian power.

If the only way of stopping the germans raping and pillaging the villages of my friend and family is fighting alongside the czar's army
yes.

Fuck that fora game of soldiers. I'd fight both the fuckers.

31st July 2006, 21:35

It seems that Additives Free's view on this issue is completely black and white; in other words, if you support certain actions that Hezbollah takes, then you must be supporting Hezbollah itself. This is a ridiculous perspective that can hardly be taken seriously. Moreover, this attitude of puritanism is completely devoid of material reality and essentially marginalizes the working class movement to such an extent that it no longer exists.

Marion

31st July 2006, 22:29

I'm happy to let Additives Free speak for him/herself, but I don't really think the anarchist/ultra-left view on this can be categorised as black and white. Not entirely sure of my own position on this, but I see the logic in their argument.

My view of it is that they start with the presumption that the destruction of capitalism is paramount and that the change of one set of leaders for another does absolutely nothing to bring about the destruction of capitalism. As a result, the priority is to keep the idea of anti-capitalism alive in a difficult time and to argue strongly against the approach of Hezbollah as well as the Israelis. It is not to automatically join in with the most succesful group or do what the "Lebanese masses" do - unless you want to make tailing behind everyone else your main political philosophy.

Personally I think it is possible to critique this view if it argues that there is no difference between Hezbollah or Israel or that nothing at all should be done in practical terms (neither of which I think Additives Free argues, but I may be wrong on that).

Out of interest, how do you disentangle support for Hezbollah's resistance from support for Hezbollah? Do you think Hezbollah see the resistance purely as resistance against Israel or simultaneously as a way of achieving various political objectives (being seen as defenders against the infidel, regaining their status in Lebanon etc)?

31st July 2006, 22:41

I'm happy to let Additives Free speak for him/herself, but I don't really think the anarchist/ultra-left view on this can be categorised as black and white.

I was analyzing AF's view on the issue and not the anarchist/ultra-left's views as a whole.

Out of interest, how do you disentangle support for Hezbollah's resistance from support for Hezbollah? Do you think Hezbollah see the resistance purely as resistance against Israel or simultaneously as a way of achieving various political objectives (being seen as defenders against the infidel, regaining their status in Lebanon etc)?

What we have here is two ruling bodies fighting against one another. One is the imperialist power, and the other is the local power. What the workers in this area see as the problem right now is the imperialist power (Israel). That is why Hezbollah has such massive support. People are siding with them because of how effective they are against Israeli imperialism. The fight against Hezbollah will only start once the fight against Israeli imperialism is over.

Now, we can work towards fighting Israeli imperialism while also developing a proletarian movement within Lebanon. For example, I support resistance fighters in Iraq against American imperialism; however I am in complete support of the IFC and will work towards promoting that over the fundamentalist resistance. We have to think that the IFC probably won't come out as the victors in this battle, as they aren't even a prominent force against the other two (US imperialism and fundamentalist resistance). However, we can support the Iraqi resistance in its actions against American imperialism now while also building the IFC for a proletarian movement later.

Marion

31st July 2006, 23:57

Cheers for the reply KC...

Just so I'm clear on what your pov is - do you support the IFC and, in addition, the Iraqi resistance in general or do you only support the IFC (or is there something else)?

I know you say "the fight against Hezbollah will only start once the fight against Israeli imperialism is over". How do you see supporting a fight that is largely caught up in the nature of Hezbollah and is likely to strengthen them hugely if it succeeds as helping in the fight against Hezbollah?

Tbh, I think its interesting to look at the anarchists in the Spanish Civil War and the self-critique that the attempt to focus on primarily defeating Franco rather than waging the revolution (thereby defeating Franco) contributed heavily to the situation where there was either the devil or the deep blue sea - Stalinist or Fascist controlled Spain. I don't think that this is necessarily a completely parallel situation, but its an interesting one...

PS I know you were criticising Additives Free and not necessarily the ultra-left/anarchist view I put forward. I'm not sure how much they differ (wouldn't want to make assumptions on AF's view).

EnragÃ©

1st August 2006, 00:32

hey if you join the SWP that's your problem. You can support parts of the resistance, say how you'd like it to go, and condemn Hezbollah as class enemies, there is little more.

the hezbollah's ideology is ofcourse antithetical to the cause of revolution, however I never said i supported their ideology. I support their resistance against Israel.
There's a difference.
Hezbollah (leadership) are class enemies, fine, if you want to hear that. Point is it doesnt change anything, it doesnt make me any less supportive of their anti-imperialist resistance.

Point is
i dont want to fucking join the SWP. I agree with anarchist-communism/anarchosyndicalism (not that they're the same but im not out on what i think is "best"), it just appears at least some of them are..well.. puritanical *****es when it comes to practice, when it comes to presenting practical solutions to practical problems.
And this would lead to me, as you said, getting kicked out :mellow:

The world is not black and white, there are shades of grey.
Ofcourse, capitalism is black, the bourgeois are black, and the cause of liberation, revolution, justice, equality is white, but there's more to the world than just these two sides.

And who has done that?

thats what you are advocating, like continuously

This doesn't make sense, I don't support Hezbollah, but I support the resistance, and Hezbollah is a part of it, so I support Hezbollah.

no
I dont support hezbollah, I do support the resistance, hezbollah is a part of the resistance, i do support hezbollah resisting.

actually makes a hell of a lot of sense.

These are reasons to fight against Hezbollah.

If you are bent on martyrdom, yes, if you actually want to make a difference, no.

Those are reasons why you cannot work around hezbollah if you're going to resist against israeli aggression.

Hezbollah want us dead, but have to face Israel for now. I wouldn't want to co-operate with these genocidal maniacs even in a life or death situation.

well we want Hezbollah dead, but have to face israel for now.
So we're in agreement.

Of course it wouldn't be practical to combat Hezbollah now.

then what are you on about?

YTKMX pretty much has. His party seem to think they are Hezbollah

Dont take a moronic, simplistic chant that serious.
It disgusted me too, but it was just bad chanting.

This point is irrelevant. Most reactionary movements and even imperialist militaries are built on the working class, because some of the proles bosses, tell them to do it, thought direct order and brainwashing

no its not irrelevant.
Those members of hezbollah are who we fight for
declaring war on them for no apparent reason (certainly not to the average hezbollah militiamen) would accomplish exactly jack shit.

Also, as they are working class, their resistance against the imperialists is at least some sort of working class, popular resistance...its just misguided..but it doesnt mean that there is anything wrong with the anti-imperialist resistance

But of course there are parallels between Hezbollah and anti-semitic fascist organisations backed by the working class.

and there are parallels between revolutionary shi'ism and revolutionary leftism.
(did you know there is a concept of "social revolution" against "Tyranny" in revolutionary shi'ism :lol: )
so what?

More reasons to oppose it. Not side with it.

Err no, more reasons why we cant work around it, no matter how much we should want to do so, its simply not possible.

But hypothetically, if Combat 18 were in Hezbollahs position, you'd support them even though they are nazis, simply because they are part of the resistance...

Honestly, you cant compare the two.

If it means I can be rid of this bloody topic!

:P its a *****, no?
anyway at least you have the guts to continue this discussion instead of just ignoring it, i respect that.

And in war we see who the cowards are that side with the fascists to grab on to some form of stability...

Err no.
In war we see reasonable people who'd like to see an end to the indiscriminate killing and imperialist aggression and the puritanical *****es who can only stand on the sidelines condemning everybody.

So am I, but not at the expense of supporting Hezbollah.

Fine be that way, be marginalized, and let the killing continue.
And again there's a difference between supporting hezbollah and supporting hezbollah standing up to imperialism.

Yes, there are, most of the Lebanese ones don't have websites, but I made some relevant link one page back.

good :)

what are they doing? (not saying, doing)

Most of our demands are not realistic, but we fight for them in the face of our rulers. I don't side with the nazis here in the face of capitalism, and I wouldn't side with Hezbollah in the face of Israel.

we dont fight with nazis because we dont have anything in common, besides wanting a different system. They want more exploitation and hierarchy, we want none.

Hezbollah's resistance against the Israelis i support because we have a thing in common with that; wanting an end to imperialism, to people dying because of israeli shells and rockets

Well, what else can I base a judgement of their desires on other than their statements and demands? considering of course, that they have had no practical opportunity to begin a holocaust.

The point was that a defeat for israel at the hands of hezbollah would not lead to a holocaust, or an islamofascist regime, because if that were so there would've already have been one.

also do you have a link or something to their programme where it says all that?

How does one aid the cause, policy, or interests of Hezbollahs resistance, without somehow aiding the cause, policy, or interests of the organisation at large?

By fighting alongside the Hezbollah as an independent, democratic, free communist militia. It provides an alternative for Hezbollah, a rival, an adversary on the long term.

If I had met him, knowing his ideology, and believed my chances in combat to be successful, I would have done my best to do him damage.

yeh
nevermind actually trying to change someone's mind
:wacko:
Lets kill everyone who disagrees! WOOOW! What? Ask questions? Debate? Nah! I wants to kill, makes me feel all radical!

I agree with you on everything except this siding with Hezbollah bollocks.

By fighting israel you side with hezbollah.
Wanting to effectively fight israel leads to at least some form of contact and co-ordination with hezbollah.

Fighting for proletarian power.

great
another abstract statement =\

...and this would mean in practice that that group...?

Fuck that fora game of soldiers. I'd fight both the fuckers.

Ignoring that there is great revolutionary potential amongst those soldiers?

also,
you seem bent on martyrdom, yet again, instead of actually trying to make a substantial, positive difference.

I think its interesting to look at the anarchists in the Spanish Civil War and the self-critique that the attempt to focus on primarily defeating Franco rather than waging the revolution (thereby defeating Franco) contributed heavily to the situation where there was either the devil or the deep blue sea - Stalinist or Fascist controlled Spain

I was thinking about that too, but there is one extremely big difference

in lebanon revolutionary leftism is a fringe ideology, in spain libertarian communism was predominant.
Also, the situation went downhill only after the CNT/FAI and the POUM let itself get coerced into following orders from the stalinists.
Nowhere are we proposing the commies in lebanon should submit to Hezbollah.

How do you see supporting a fight that is largely caught up in the nature of Hezbollah and is likely to strengthen them hugely if it succeeds as helping in the fight against Hezbollah?

Why would it strenghten hezbollah?
They already control the areas where they are prone to get much support, and the left is marginal. In some way, we have everything to gain, nothing to lose.
If the commies participate in the resistance, necessarily alongside hezbollah, they'd not only be doing the right thing (defending the people) but also putting themselves on the map, gathering support.

Forward Union

1st August 2006, 12:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 09:33 PM
the hezbollah's ideology is ofcourse antithetical to the cause of revolution, however I never said i supported their ideology. I support their resistance against Israel.
There's a difference.
Hezbollah (leadership) are class enemies, fine, if you want to hear that. Point is it doesnt change anything, it doesnt make me any less supportive of their anti-imperialist resistance.
In which case I have a semantic disagreement, saying you oppose Hezbollah, but will refrain from attack on a beneficial and practical basis, is not "support" is it?

And this would lead to me, as you said, getting kicked out :mellow:

The reality is, whenever the issue of some war in another country comes up, someone will point out that this is far beyond our reach, and bring up a local issue that we can actually do something about. So ideology means fuck all to me in practice, I can say I support someone in a far away country and spend my time going on marches, or attempt to do what they would do in my situation, and fright against oppression here.

And as I have very little to contribute practically to the situation, I may as well be as puritanical, and brutally honest as I want. Because whatever I say from here will have little impact on what happens there. I mean, saying you support Hezbollah, doesn't mean you've actually done anything now does it? :P

However, there are libertarian movements in the region, and there is a meeting in London today on ideas for Direct action against the Israeli state, so I will put some of my time and effort into these projects, if they seem to me to be worthwhile.

actually makes a hell of a lot of sense.

Brings me back to a semantic disagreement, I wouldn't call that support so much as, and uneasy tolerance.

Also, as they are working class, their resistance against the imperialists is at least some sort of working class, popular resistance...its just misguided..but it doesnt mean that there is anything wrong with the anti-imperialist resistance

They are working class, yes. But not acting in the interests of their class, rather they are acting in the interests of their Islamic power-structure. However, I don't think this is where we disagree...

and there are parallels between revolutionary shi'ism and revolutionary leftism.
(did you know there is a concept of "social revolution" against "Tyranny" in revolutionary shi'ism :lol: )
so what?

But as a practical revolutionary model, it's far closer to European fascist and nazi models like the Freicorps, than Libertarian communist ones like the CNT, in a way that does indeed matter to us as revolutionaries. When we say we support such a group, we claim positive association, and I don't want to be associated with the fuckers.

Err no, more reasons why we cant work around it, no matter how much we should want to do so, its simply not possible.

Again, not working against something, and claiming any level of support for it, are two different things.

Honestly, you cant compare the two.

Dodging the point, but I'd rather direct it at YTKMX, because he's far more supportive of combat18, I mean Hezbollah.

:P its a *****, no?
anyway at least you have the guts to continue this discussion instead of just ignoring it, i respect that.

Same, but to be fair this is what the board is for :P It's nice not to have a really personal flame war for once.

Err no.
In war we see reasonable people who'd like to see an end to the indiscriminate killing and imperialist aggression and the puritanical *****es who can only stand on the sidelines condemning everybody.

Well as I said earlier, what choice do I have but to stand on the sidelines, apart from the people that live there, we're all on the sidelines. Claiming to support a group that isn't standing on the sidelines doesn't put you in the action. We don't have to support anything we disagree with

good :)

what are they doing? (not saying, doing)

(I'll get back to this point in a moment)

we dont fight with nazis because we dont have anything in common, besides wanting a different system. They want more exploitation and hierarchy, we want none.

Of course, but from a PR point of view, how would it look, for eternity in history, if we ever collaborated with the nazis? Baring in mind there are enough misconceptions about our ideals as it is.

The point was that a defeat for israel at the hands of hezbollah would not lead to a holocaust, or an islamofascist regime, because if that were so there would've already have been one.

If Israel were defeated, who would claim victory? Hezbollah, do you realise how much that would boost the organisation? they would have defeated Israel ffs!

also do you have a link or something to their programme where it says all that?

Their ideology? Wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah#Ideology) if you want to follow it up, look at the Iranian model they want to emulate, and scroll down to see their statements on the final solution, I have already quoted some of it here.

By fighting alongside the Hezbollah as an independent, democratic, free communist militia. It provides an alternative for Hezbollah, a rival, an adversary on the long term.

In which case again, I don't have a problem with not fighting Hezbollah for the moment, (though I would hope this to be a practical decision on the part of the members involved in the alternative) I do have a problem with Support. But i think what you call support, I call not supporting, but not doing anything to them at the moment.

yeh
nevermind actually trying to change someone's mind
:wacko:
Lets kill everyone who disagrees! WOOOW! What? Ask questions? Debate? Nah! I wants to kill, makes me feel all radical!

As a general rule, (and think what you will of this approach), I will, normally, refuse to debate with a Nazi. As soon as you enter a debate, you have given them a platform to voice their opinions, and validated their legitimacy and right to exist. I think if we unleash as much disruption and violence on them as possible, infiltrate them, rip them apart, trash their meeting rooms, shred down every poster and sticker, beat up their members, hack their websites... they simply wont be able to organise, and many people will be put off.

It's rare that rational argument will ever get through to a nazi, because they're not rational thinkers. I do however know of some occasion whereby the individual was open minded, and abdicated their position in their little Nazi club. But as stated, it's very rare.

Jamal

1st August 2006, 12:46

Additives Free, before you can commit to a dialectic approach, you need to know that you have to understand what you are saying and then think of it very well and afterwards you say it; and if someone says something to you, you hear it first then think of it (and by the way, you don't have to quote and reply every thing your dialectic opponent says). Open your mind set it free, god-dam-it you have the same idea and every time someone says anything else you restate your idea. And as a proof that you don't understand what your saying, you tried to be smart thinking that you compared Hezbollah to Hitler and his Nazi pricks but you put 2 Hezbollah pictures , one of people graduating, and another for the Qowwat rightist Christian party in Lebanon.

First of all, the last two have nothing to do with Hezbollah; and another thing is that if the Nazis have this kind of salute, it doesn't mean that everybody doing it is a Nazi they do not monopolize it you know.

50% of the world or even more are racist people, you cannot delete them or not take them into consideration or what ever your trying to do, and its not wrong to be with them in the points that they are right in and not be with them in the stuff that they are wrong in. Nobody is good or bad, it's not a Hollywood movie, in real life its all relative. Something in someone is good and another is bad, even Hitler had some good traits no body is just bad.

I only support Hezbollah on their resistance;
Hezbollah is a racist anti-Semite.

I'm not with them in their racism or anti-Semitism, I'm just pro their resistance;
So you mean to say you are an anti-Semite.

NO! I'm just with them in their RESISTANCE!
They are racists and anti-Semites!

I just said I'm only with them in their resistance and not their other fundamental ideas;
Just admit it, you're an anti-Semite

NO! I am with them only in the part where they resist in;
Hezbollah is a racist fascist anti-Semite, you are not a leftist!

AAAAAAAAAHHHH!!!!
WHEN DO YOU STOP!!!

Believe me, if I hate you its not because of your race, religion or whatever, its just because of your personality.

EnragÃ©

1st August 2006, 17:55

In which case I have a semantic disagreement, saying you oppose Hezbollah, but will refrain from attack on a beneficial and practical basis, is not "support" is it?

Fighting alongside it and co-ordinating attacks to get rid of the israelis is, now isnt it?
Which is preferable to dying while inflicting no damage whatsoever on the israeli warmachine.

But its only support for RESISTANCE, not their bullshit ideas.

The reality is, whenever the issue of some war in another country comes up, someone will point out that this is far beyond our reach, and bring up a local issue that we can actually do something about. So ideology means fuck all to me in practice, I can say I support someone in a far away country and spend my time going on marches, or attempt to do what they would do in my situation, and fright against oppression here.

dont really get you here
anyway i'd go on marches and do direct action and vocally support resistance against israeli aggression.

And as I have very little to contribute practically to the situation, I may as well be as puritanical, and brutally honest as I want. Because whatever I say from here will have little impact on what happens there. I mean, saying you support Hezbollah, doesn't mean you've actually done anything now does it?

Reaching out, vocally supporting the resistance, as well as vocally supporting other things about which in practice you can do very little, is how you

a) get attention
b) get members/comrades
c) create some unrest in society

way better than nothing

However, there are libertarian movements in the region, and there is a meeting in London today on ideas for Direct action against the Israeli state, so I will put some of my time and effort into these projects, if they seem to me to be worthwhile.

Cool.
Though ofcourse in practice i actually cant do anything, let me just say, good luck and wish i was there. ;)

But as a practical revolutionary model, it's far closer to European fascist and nazi models like the Freicorps, than Libertarian communist ones like the CNT, in a way that does indeed matter to us as revolutionaries. When we say we support such a group, we claim positive association, and I don't want to be associated with the fuckers.

well yea.
but we dont support the ideology
we support the fact that they resist the israelis.

Again, not working against something, and claiming any level of support for it, are two different things.

read what i said earlier about the level of support.

Same, but to be fair this is what the board is for It's nice not to have a really personal flame war for once.

true ;)

Well as I said earlier, what choice do I have but to stand on the sidelines, apart from the people that live there, we're all on the sidelines. Claiming to support a group that isn't standing on the sidelines doesn't put you in the action. We don't have to support anything we disagree with

The point is we CAN do something. We CAN go out on the streets and pledge solidarity with resistance against imperialist aggression.
which is what i would do were i not in some shitty poor excuse of a city in the south of a country which barely has a movement outside of the west to begin with.

Of course, but from a PR point of view, how would it look, for eternity in history, if we ever collaborated with the nazis? Baring in mind there are enough misconceptions about our ideals as it is.

If we're talking about PR how would it look if we left the lebanese to die simply because we dont want to be associated with hezbollah?

Look, for all intents and purposes hezbollah still is an insurrectionary organisation originating from a response to oppression (resistance to the israeli occupation up untill 2000). Nazism is not.
Its like black nationalism in comparison with white nationalism, its both wrong, both fucked, but the different origines have to be taken into an account.

If Israel were defeated, who would claim victory? Hezbollah, do you realise how much that would boost the organisation? they would have defeated Israel ffs!

Err yes
and how does not participating in the resistance change this? Its not like the commies are big enough to actually change the course of the war (i think)
At least to people on the ground who saw communists defending them, they know that "the communists fought too! ...they're not too bad...i thought they liked killing muslims and boiling babies, but instead they defended us and that one guy/gal even saved my son!" ;)
If we participate, hezbollah would lie that they alone won, if we dont, they're actually telling the truth.

Their ideology? Wiki article if you want to follow it up, look at the Iranian model they want to emulate, and scroll down to see their statements on the final solution, I have already quoted some of it here.

"The organization views an Islamic republic, on the Iranian model, as the ideal and eventual form of state.[citation needed] However, as their conception of an Islamic republic requires the consent of the people, and since Lebanon remains a religiously and ideologically heterogeneous society (see Demographics of Lebanon), their political platform revolves around more mundane issues.["

well we have nothing to fear really.

"In an interview with the Washington Post Hassan Nasrallah tells: "It is unacceptable, it is forbidden, to harm the innocent. If there are American tourists, or intellectuals, doctors, or professors who have nothing to do with this war, they are innocent, even though they are Americans, and it is forbidden."

hmm :)

"An anonymous page on Hezbollah's website marks a distinction between "Zionist ideology" and Judaism. It sees the rejection of Zionism as an attitude hold across "races, religions, and nationalities". It likens Zionism to "the concept of creating 'Israel' by the use of force and violence, by stealing the Arabs’ lands and killing Palestinians". "[O]pposing the Zionists ideology is not opposing setting a home for Jews"."

Sooo
they dont actually want to kill all the jews

Three things comprise our minimal demand: an [Israeli] withdrawal from South Lebanon and the Western Bqa’ Valley, a withdrawal from the Golan, and the return of the Palestinian refugees. On the the future of the State of Israel he expounds: "Everybody talks nowadays about accepting the reality and coexistence, or any other form of settlement with Israel." However, he views "realism in a different way". To him, "Israel is an illegal usurper entity, which is based on falsehood, massacres, and illusions, and there is no chance for its survival."[57]

omg
I actually agree

"Speaking at a graduation ceremony in Haret Hreik, Nasrallah announced on October 22, 2002: "if they all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide."[58][59] The New York Times qualifies this as "genocidal thinking"[60], whereas the New York Sun likens it to the 1992 Hezbollah statement, which vowed, "It is an open war until the elimination of Israel and until the death of the last Jew on earth."[61] Michael Rubin qualifies his goal as genocide too, quoting Nasrallah ruling out "co-existence with" the Jews or "peace", as "they are a cancer which is liable to spread again at any moment."[62"

Well then.
The most we can say about hezbollah's stance on jews is that it is inconsistant

On the one hand they say that they do not oppose the setting of a home for jews, on the other hand they say they want to wipe them all out.

In which case again, I don't have a problem with not fighting Hezbollah for the moment, (though I would hope this to be a practical decision on the part of the members involved in the alternative) I do have a problem with Support. But i think what you call support, I call not supporting, but not doing anything to them at the moment

well there is going to have to be some form of communication and co-ordination, because, as said earlier, hezbollah controls the entire south so its impossible to do anything without them knowing, and perhaps even approving.

As a general rule, (and think what you will of this approach), I will, normally, refuse to debate with a Nazi. As soon as you enter a debate, you have given them a platform to voice their opinions, and validated their legitimacy and right to exist. I think if we unleash as much disruption and violence on them as possible, infiltrate them, rip them apart, trash their meeting rooms, shred down every poster and sticker, beat up their members, hack their websites... they simply wont be able to organise, and many people will be put off.

well i wouldnt debate with them on an open forum(because of the reasons you stated) , but if i can argue with them personally, if possible, i will.

as for the rest i largely agree.

It's rare that rational argument will ever get through to a nazi, because they're not rational thinkers. I do however know of some occasion whereby the individual was open minded, and abdicated their position in their little Nazi club. But as stated, it's very rare.

true
my brother actually stopped being somewhat of a nazi when he got off the speed :lol: talk about typical

Forward Union

2nd August 2006, 13:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 09:47 AM
you compared Hezbollah to Hitler and his Nazi pricks but you put 2 Hezbollah pictures
Don't be arrogant please, and don't take that silly little picture as anything more, I didn;t even make it, it's from Jihadwatch.

I only support Hezbollah on their resistance;
Hezbollah is a racist anti-Semite.

And I pose you a question, how does one support their resistance without somehow aiding their agenda? because if they win, we loose.

Just admit it, you're an anti-Semite

Who me? :lol:

you are not a leftist!

Your right there, im not sure I would identify myself as a leftist, but this is semantic.

EnragÃ©

2nd August 2006, 20:59

because if they win, we loose.

but we dont want them to win completely

we want them to kick the israelis out, thats all
in which case we dont loose

Janus

2nd August 2006, 21:30

And I pose you a question, how does one support their resistance without somehow aiding their agenda?
Political support is one thing but just because your guns point in the same way doesn't mean that your ideologies are similar.

You have more to loose if a foreign nation wins and takes over so it's more or less a military/strategical decision.

Jamal

2nd August 2006, 22:48

Just admit it, you're an anti-Semite

Who me?

you are not a leftist!

Your right there, im not sure I would identify myself as a leftist, but this is semantic.

Ah don't be stupid, you know I was portraying what was happening and how you discuss the matter.

And I pose you a question, how does one support their resistance without somehow aiding their agenda? because if they win, we loose.

Easy, by only supporting them in their resistance. Don't make it so complicated, its not like that over here, its the first time I hear that in theory its more complicated than real life; just, relax.

southernmissfan

2nd August 2006, 23:08

Hezbollah is fighting imperialism, so in this respect they are progressive. Ideaology wise, of course we should oppose them. I don't think there is any conflic there. The problem is that some of you would rather the imperialists win in Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, etc., so you can sit on some sort of moral high-ground.

Imperialism is the driving reactionary force in the world. Why do you think Islamic fundamentalism is so popular in the Muslim world today? What do you think caused the Iranian Revolution? The Muslim world is largely pre-capitalist, both in mindset and economy, and a wave of barbaric fundamentalism was unleashed in the backlash against imperialism. But as long as the people are being raped by imperialism, progress cannot be made and it only strengthens the Jihadists. If the Jihadists are fighting the imperialists, then good.

Probably the only keeping the regime in Tehran alive is the threat of imperialism. Otherwise, the people (especially the youth) would have probably already revolted by now, killing a lot of imams and establishing a secular, modern capitalist nation.

Marion

3rd August 2006, 00:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 08:09 PM
The problem is that some of you would rather the imperialists win in Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, etc., so you can sit on some sort of moral high-ground.

I'm not entirely sure I agree with their viewpoint, but that's not true. Those standing firmly against any association with Hezbollah are largely doing so because they believe that the priority is the destruction of capitalism and they believe that support or fighting alongside Hezbollah will do nothing whatsoever to achieve that and will, in fact, be deleterious to it.

southernmissfan

3rd August 2006, 00:34

Originally posted by Marion+Aug 2 2006, 09:30 PM--> (Marion @ Aug 2 2006, 09:30 PM)
[email protected] 2 2006, 08:09 PM
The problem is that some of you would rather the imperialists win in Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, etc., so you can sit on some sort of moral high-ground.

I'm not entirely sure I agree with their viewpoint, but that's not true. Those standing firmly against any association with Hezbollah are largely doing so because they believe that the priority is the destruction of capitalism and they believe that support or fighting alongside Hezbollah will do nothing whatsoever to achieve that and will, in fact, be deleterious to it. [/b]
That may be the justification, but the overall implication remains the same.

x_ihag

3rd August 2006, 01:01

And I pose you a question, how does one support their resistance without somehow aiding their agenda? because if they win, we loose
relax its not that complicated

Marion

3rd August 2006, 10:49

Originally posted by southernmissfan+Aug 2 2006, 09:35 PM--> (southernmissfan @ Aug 2 2006, 09:35 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 09:30 PM

[email protected] 2 2006, 08:09 PM
The problem is that some of you would rather the imperialists win in Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, etc., so you can sit on some sort of moral high-ground.

I'm not entirely sure I agree with their viewpoint, but that's not true. Those standing firmly against any association with Hezbollah are largely doing so because they believe that the priority is the destruction of capitalism and they believe that support or fighting alongside Hezbollah will do nothing whatsoever to achieve that and will, in fact, be deleterious to it.
That may be the justification, but the overall implication remains the same.[/b]
I'd disagree. By saying that it's their "justification" you are implying that they have some other reason (presumably taking the moral high ground) and merely justify it by talking about commitment to anti-capitalist practices and theory. I think its possible to disagree about the implications of this, but to try and claim they're just interested in moral purity and covering it up with a veneer of anti-capitalist talk seems very wrong to me.

southernmissfan

3rd August 2006, 23:22

Whether it's deliberate or not is up for debate, but there is no question that there are a lot of people here who looks at a situation, and if such and such doesn't fit in with their brand of communism/anarchism, it is automatically dismissed. Analysis, based on historical materialism and material conditions is dismissed in favor of idealism.

Alf

4th August 2006, 02:38

I basically support Additives Free, who is attempting to stand up for the principle of working class autonomy and internationalism in the midst of all this barbarism.

Hizbollah is not resisting imperialism - it is part of it. Those who arm it, Syria and Iran, are also imperialist powers, even if they are the weaker ones in this case. But other, bigger powers are also trying to use this crisis to get at the US, such as France and Russia. They would not hesitate to use Hizbollah directly if it suited them.

Hizbollah is certainly not defending the population from Israeli bombs - on the contrary, they are drawing the bombs towards them. Nationalist gangsters like this always use the population as a shield, as hostages. It helps to recruit young angry people revolted by the attacks of the bigger power. When Hizbollah launched its attacks on Israeli positions it must have known that the Israelis would respond - they were already waging a massive and brutal offensive in Gaza in response to an almost identical raid and kidnapping by Hamas/Islamic Jihad. Hizbollah's attitude to the population of Lebanon is one of utter cynicism.

Those who argue against AF's position talk a lot about being practical and realistic and opposing purism and all the rest. All their realism boils down to joining one side of an imperialist war against the other. Or else they console themselves with pure fantasy, like New Kind of Soldier who talks about:

"fighting alongside the Hezbollah as an independent, democratic, free communist militia. It provides an alternative for Hezbollah, a rival, an adversary on the long term".

When does the working class form armed militias? When it is on the verge of revolution. When it has already formed mass organisations like the soviets. It cannot form armed militias when it being driven off the terrain of defending its most basic interests and dragged into the 'Sacred Union' of the nation. The workers of Israel and Lebanon are currently caught in a deadly trap and are being pushed to support their own bourgeoisies out of terror, out of fear for their lives. The class struggle in both countries is, for the moment, being completely drowned by this wave of nationalist hysteria.

There are moments when communists have to accept that the tide is against them - as did revolutionaries in 1914, when the workers were marching off to war singing patriotic songs. They knew that there was no immediate possibility of revolution or mass struggle against the war, and that the slightest sign of opposition to the war - whether through strikes against the increased rates of exploitation, or desertions from the fronts, or through the propaganda activity of political minorities who had stayed loyal to internationalism when the majority social democratic parties had succumbed to war fever - would at that stage be a vital step forward. Right now one internationalist statement produced by a small group in Israel or Lebanon would have far more importance than all the leftists' 'pragmatic' support for Hizbollah or their fantasies about forming 'independent communist militias'.

The working class in the Middle East - in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as Israel and Lebanon - needs the solidarity of those sections of the international working class who are not directly caught up in this kind of barbarism. The best way to develop that solidarity is by developing the struggle against 'our own' bosses and their state.

EnragÃ©

4th August 2006, 02:48

When does the working class form armed militias? When it is on the verge of revolution

whenever they want.

Ofcourse its not realistic to arm the entire working class now, but militias can be made.

Jammoul is an example.

When it has already formed mass organisations like the soviets. It cannot form armed militias when it being driven off the terrain of defending its most basic interests and dragged into the 'Sacred Union' of the nation

that would make it difficult to form good-sized militias, but not impossible. And im not saying that we can field an enormous militia, im saying we should strive to creating one, even if its small, because it can take a stand for our ideals, for our interests which otherwise would indeed be "completely drowned by this wave of nationalist hysteria. "

They knew that there was no immediate possibility of revolution or mass struggle against the war, and that the slightest sign of opposition to the war - whether through strikes against the increased rates of exploitation, or desertions from the fronts, or through the propaganda activity of political minorities who had stayed loyal to internationalism when the majority social democratic parties had succumbed to war fever - would at that stage be a vital step forward.

Which is exactly my point.
The creation of even a small militia, of other means to stand up for what is right, to defend our interests, is a VITAL STEP FORWARD, even if this means working together with other political groups for whom we have no love, but with whom we simply have to work with because of circumstance.

their fantasies about forming 'independent communist militias'.

http://www.jammoul.co.nr
(that, comrade, is the site of an independent communist militia in Lebanon, fighting against the israelis)

statements do not stop the killing
action does

Jamal

4th August 2006, 02:53

The best way to develop that solidarity is by developing the struggle against 'our own' bosses and their state.

you must be jocking :o !!!
you want us to develop a struggle against our own bosses and their state?
WTF!
people are dying here, its a war! Israel is already inside Lebanon and instead of resisting the occupation you want us to develope a struggle against our own bosses and their state? the whole country will fall appart Israel will take part and Syria will take the rest.
If we take up arms against the invading army we will be doing the right thing wich is defending our selves and resisting.

Alf

4th August 2006, 10:58

EnragÃ©

4th August 2006, 15:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 07:59 AM
Jammoul - one look at their site and I know they have nothing to do with the proletariat: National Resistance, Lebanese CP, Stalinism. That's not an independent workers' militia, that's the left wing of capital.
:huh:

Not the point

Even if what you say its true, then the existence of jammoul is still proof that a non-islamic, communist (though if what you claim is true, in name only) militia in Lebanon exists.

So why would an actually independen commie militia NOT be possible?

purist.

The international brigades were stalinist too, but do you condemn every single member? Do you condemn their fight against fascism?!

Forward Union

4th August 2006, 15:20

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 11:54 PM
you want us to develop a struggle against our own bosses and their state?
WTF!
Jamal discovers communism. :lol:

EnragÃ©

4th August 2006, 15:29

Originally posted by Additives Free+Aug 4 2006, 12:21 PM--> (Additives Free @ Aug 4 2006, 12:21 PM)
[email protected] 3 2006, 11:54 PM
you want us to develop a struggle against our own bosses and their state?
WTF!
Jamal discovers communism. :lol: [/b]
context is a wonderful thing :wub:

Jamal

4th August 2006, 15:29

Jammoul - one look at their site and I know they have nothing to do with the proletariat: National Resistance, Lebanese CP, Stalinism. That's not an independent workers' militia, that's the left wing of capital.

hey! all of you leftists in Lebanon, you have no right to exist!

A smart guy called Alf just had a look at one of the sites of the best things you ever came up with, the frute of the 82 years you have been here and came up with a conclusion that it is just a capitalist scam! go shoot your selves.

Well a question, you should have no difficulty in answering it taking that only one look at a site was enough for you to come up with a conclusion like that, if Jammoul is not a left than who is?

Alf

4th August 2006, 20:29

Alf makes no claim to being smart and inventing these positions by himself. They are those of a real proletarian tradition, the international communist left. That all forms of Stalinism represent the bourgeois counter-revolution was a position they had definitively clarified by the second world war, and in some cases well before that.

To a New Kind of Soldier: I fear that if you are not careful you will become a very old kind of soldier, a proletarian who has been duped into participating in an inter-imperialist war. Like those who went off to the front in 1914 with a "slave song on their lips", as Rosa Luxemburg put it; like those who joined the International Brigades in the 1930s, when the Spanish workers' uprising of July 1936 had already been turned into its opposite: a rehearsal for the next world carnage. Like the workers of 1939-45 who fought for their masters under the pretext of fighting fascism or defending the 'socialist fatherland'. But take heart: rebellion against the war machine is always possible: Russia and Germany in 1917-18; Barcelona in May 1937; and even at the end of the terrible defeat of the proletariat that was World War Two, the strikes in Italy in 1943.

With regard to your question, a "communist militia" is not possible in Lebanon at this juncture because the proletariat is being utterly disorganised by the war. It is not even fighting to defend its most basic material interests with its own methods of struggle. How could it form the equivalent of the Red Guards in a situation like this?

The left communist organisation I belong to is the International Communist Current: www.internationalism.org

EnragÃ©

5th August 2006, 02:42

Like those who went off to the front in 1914 with a "slave song on their lips",

a completely different situation

I'm not saying we should join hezbollah for fuck sake.

like those who joined the International Brigades in the 1930s

what the fuck was wrong with them?
Sure the IB's were stalinist controlled, but most people in it were good people, and they fought the good fight.

As far as i know, they also never fought the CNT or the POUM

Like the workers of 1939-45 who fought for their masters under the pretext of fighting fascism or defending the 'socialist fatherland

:huh: So it would've been just fine for hitler to have controlled europe?

To wipe out ALL the jews?
To smash any class struggle based initiative with the utmost force?

Class war would've always taken precedence in relation to the "war effort" against the fascists, but the war still had to be won.

With regard to your question, a "communist militia" is not possible in Lebanon at this juncture because the proletariat is being utterly disorganised by the war

So...even though jammoul, a commie militia, EXISTS you still claim such a militia is impossible?
Even IF they are stalinists, "left wing of capital" (I bet you copied that straight from a manifesto), even then, their mere existance proves that a militia can be organised.

for fuck sake, all it takes is a couple of people getting together, acquiring some arms, and there you have your militia. Sure it wont be big, but there's no organisation on earth which didnt start out small.

How could it form the equivalent of the Red Guards in a situation like this?

look im not saying it will be HUGE or even have that much of an impact on the whole war, but it would be A START of something bigger. It would show people there that communists are good people, that they CARE instead of just sitting behind desks saying "well you all suck" whilst little babies' body parts are strewn accross lebanese villages.

Alf

5th August 2006, 10:17

I repeat: Stalinists are not communists. They are part of capitalism. As Marx said, you don't judge an individual by what he says of himself.

We disagree about this war because we disagree that all wars in this epoch are imperialist, including the second world war.

Jamal

5th August 2006, 16:15

We disagree about this war because we disagree that all wars in this epoch are imperialist, including the second world war.

I disagree on every war, but if I disagree and sit back while every body gets killed next to me, what would my disagreeing do?

Acting and not just talking is what we should do! Hezbollah is a fundimentalist, racist... organization, well Israel is not only targeting Hezbollah. If it was, to hell with them!

About 11 people I know died in this war, Its against everyone not Hezbollah, not the muslims, not the christians, not the athiests, EVERYONE!

There was a nabourhood in the southern village of Sarifa called the nabourhood of Moscow. 90% of its population are communists, It was the first nabourhood in all the south to be leveled to the ground by tons of missiles. Many are still under the ruins. How can the communists not fight? How can Jammoul cease to exist?

EnragÃ©

6th August 2006, 05:38

listen to this guy for fuck sake!

he actually lives there

you fucking purists!

Its not some abstract fuckin thing, ITS PEOPLE DYING, including good people.

Martin Blank

6th August 2006, 10:20

Originally posted by Alf+Aug 3 2006, 06:39 PM--> (Alf @ Aug 3 2006, 06:39 PM)Hizbollah is not resisting imperialism - it is part of it. Those who arm it, Syria and Iran, are also imperialist powers, even if they are the weaker ones in this case. But other, bigger powers are also trying to use this crisis to get at the US, such as France and Russia. They would not hesitate to use Hizbollah directly if it suited them. [/b]

Say what?! Syria and Iran are imperialist? By what definition? I mean, if your only criterion for considering a state to be imperialist is that they are "militarily aggressive", then I suppose that you can say that. But that is a shallow and impressionistic method of analysis. Neither of these two countries have the means to extend credit or otherwise export finance capital, which is what allows for the ability to dominate countries as semicolonies. For that matter, neither of them are even able to export either industrial or banking capital to their neighbors. To call them imperialist is to render the term itself useless. You may as well call Palestine an imperialist state, too.

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 06:39 PM
Hizbollah is certainly not defending the population from Israeli bombs - on the contrary, they are drawing the bombs towards them. Nationalist gangsters like this always use the population as a shield, as hostages. It helps to recruit young angry people revolted by the attacks of the bigger power. When Hizbollah launched its attacks on Israeli positions it must have known that the Israelis would respond - they were already waging a massive and brutal offensive in Gaza in response to an almost identical raid and kidnapping by Hamas/Islamic Jihad. Hizbollah's attitude to the population of Lebanon is one of utter cynicism.

There is a certain truth to this. Prior to the opening of the invasion of Lebanon, Hizb'allah had talked about the need for an "all-out war" with Israel. And, yeah, they surely knew, if only by the asymmetrical response of Tel Aviv to the capture of Gilad Shalit in Gaza, that their raid and capture of two IDF soldiers would lead to that "all-out war". Nevertheless, it has become clear that Israel is not discerning between civilians and Hizb'allah guerrillas -- the massacres at Qana and Alit al-Shahab (sp? -- remembering the name from memory) recently have shown that.

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 06:39 PM
When does the working class form armed militias? When it is on the verge of revolution. When it has already formed mass organisations like the soviets.

This is one of the most wooden and sterile comments I've seen in a long time. When does the working class form armed self-defense organizations? When it becomes necessary -- when it is known to be a matter of life or death. The history of the class struggle is replete with such examples. We are seeing this today in Iraq, where workers have organized self-defense units to fend off the occupation soldiers (who are often acting as strikebreakers and unionbusters) and the "resistance" groups (who either want to blow up the workplaces or massacre the workforce to "make a statement").

Speaking concretely, it is not fantasy to organize workers' self-defense forces in Lebanon today. In many ways, it is happening now. The problem is that these spontaneously-formed militia are ending up in the ranks of Hizb'allah, because, apart from Jammoul, the left in Lebanon is abstaining from the struggle against the invasion. This is the time for communists to show and prove, not stand back and wait. Even if the organization was small-scale -- a few neighborhoods or a few workplaces -- it would be a significant advance for the class struggle in Lebanon. It would provide a small but recognizable alternative pole of attraction to Hizb'allah, add to the fight against the invasion (albeit on its own terms, not those of either the Siniora government or Hizb'allah), and lay the basis for a stronger class struggle against capitalist rule in Lebanon.

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 06:39 PM
It cannot form armed militias when it being driven off the terrain of defending its most basic interests and dragged into the 'Sacred Union' of the nation. The workers of Israel and Lebanon are currently caught in a deadly trap and are being pushed to support their own bourgeoisies out of terror, out of fear for their lives. The class struggle in both countries is, for the moment, being completely drowned by this wave of nationalist hysteria.

First of all, this is not the case with Israel, where increasing numbers are coming to realize that this war has nothing to do with "fighting terrorism". Internally, Israel is facing one of its greatest crises; for the first time since the founding of the state, there are deep public divisions both within the ruling class and in society as a whole over this war.

Second, this may also not be the case in Lebanon. I am hearing conflicting reports about the level of support Hizb'allah is actually receiving among working people. It may very well be the case that the "support" they are finding is more in spite of than because of them. In that case, it is clear that the only reason they are receiving such support is because few others are actually stepping up to fight off the Israelis. Such a political vacuum demands communists engage in active organizing. Revolutions are better made than anticipated.

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 06:39 PM
There are moments when communists have to accept that the tide is against them - as did revolutionaries in 1914, when the workers were marching off to war singing patriotic songs. They knew that there was no immediate possibility of revolution or mass struggle against the war, and that the slightest sign of opposition to the war - whether through strikes against the increased rates of exploitation, or desertions from the fronts, or through the propaganda activity of political minorities who had stayed loyal to internationalism when the majority social democratic parties had succumbed to war fever - would at that stage be a vital step forward. Right now one internationalist statement produced by a small group in Israel or Lebanon would have far more importance than all the leftists' 'pragmatic' support for Hizbollah or their fantasies about forming 'independent communist militias'.

An "internationalist statement" that has no concrete basis -- i.e., that is not coupled with organization and action -- isn't worth the paper its printed on. Paper appeals won't stop a bullet or a bomb, and are lousy at stopping someone from bleeding to death. This is not a game, comrade. These are real people dying. Either communists do something about it or they should just give up the ghost.

[email protected] 3 2006, 06:39 PM
The working class in the Middle East - in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as Israel and Lebanon - needs the solidarity of those sections of the international working class who are not directly caught up in this kind of barbarism. The best way to develop that solidarity is by developing the struggle against 'our own' bosses and their state.

Communists are not about shallow cheerleading or hollow "solidarity". They are about organizing for the revolution. Should we who are in other states be organizing against "our own" bosses and their state? Certainly. For that matter, so should the communists of Israel, Palestine and Lebanon. Transforming this punitive war into class war should be the chief task of all three. In Lebanon, this also means organizing concretely to stop the Israeli invasion through all means available to it. To do otherwise is to strengthen the very reactionary forces you oppose with your words.

This means organizing workers' self-defense. This means organizing neighborhood- and workplace-based aid and relief for those who are without food, water or medical care. This means organizing neighborhood and workplace assemblies to coordinate this activity and take over the services that neither the capitalist state nor the Hizb'allah forces can provide. This means acting like a political organization that is serious about building a revolutionary movement, not a debating society that is indifferent to the deaths of people who never asked for this war.

Jamal, I hope you read this. You are in a position to begin this kind of organizing. Simply leaving it all to Hizb'allah will only strengthen them, especially if they are able to push the Israelis back to the border. Please, get your friends and neighbors together. Hold a meeting. Get things started. There is an old saying here in the U.S.: "Don't mourn -- ORGANIZE!"

Now is the time to organize, comrade, not continue to argue with all of us. If you want to organize, I and, I am sure, others here are willing to do what we can to assist.

Miles

Alf

6th August 2006, 14:15

By what definition is Iran imperialist? Not by Lenin’s perhaps, but certainly by Rosa Luxemburg’s:

"Imperialism is not the creation of any one or of any group of states. It is the product of a particular stage of ripeness in the world development of capital, an innately international condition, an indivisible whole, that is recognisable only in all its relations, and from which no nation can hold aloof at will".

In other words, all states are imperialist in this epoch of capitalist decay. Communists do not defend the weaker imperialisms against the stronger ones. So-called national wars are now all imperialist wars.

More importantly, if this, or the next, conflict escalates into a regional conflict directly involving Iran, will you defend Iran and Syria against Israel and the US because they are “not imperialist?”.

Some posters have claimed that the ‘Worker Communist Parties’ of Iraq and Iran (and presumably also their affiliate the Communist League, which I have only just discovered) are ‘Bordigist’. This is not true. Bordigism is part of the tradition of the Italian communist left, one of the few currents to stay loyal to internationalism during the counter-revolutionary days of the 30s and 40s, above all through its refusal to ‘defend democracy against fascism’ in 1939-45, ie to participate in the second imperialist world war.

The ‘Worker-Communist Parties’, by contrast, have a different origin – Iranian Stalinism and Kurdish nationalism, which they have never seriously broken from:
http://en.internationalism.org/wr/293_wpiran.html.

This is why we reject the idea that the so-called ‘workers militias’ set up in Iraq by the WCPI have a proletarian character. The WCPI remains a radical Stalinist organisation with a programme for taking control of Iraqi capitalism.

There have been expressions of the class struggle in Iraq since the invasion, but the working class there is in a profoundly unfavourable situation, facing the imminent danger of sectarian ‘civil war’. In order to be able to set up self-defence units (which, it is true, can exist at a lower level of struggle than Red Guard type organs) it needs to be able to develop its struggle for basic class demands.

In Lebanon right now, under the twin terror of Israeli bombs and the ‘Resistance’, this is perhaps even more difficult. I am not talking about spontaneous efforts to help neighbours, feed the hungry, shelter the homeless. All that is no doubt happening, as it happened in New Orleans after Katrina. But for this to take on a real class character independent of the nationalist Resistance, such efforts would have to connect to a movement for class demands which would inevitably come up against the nationalists. In the absence of such a movement, spontaneous efforts of this type are being recuperated by the ‘Resistance’ which already has a totalitarian grip over the local population, just as Hamas does in Gaza.

It is not “purist” to argue that the interests of the working class conflict at every level with the interests of the nationalist bourgeoisie. It is a lesson paid for in working class blood.

EnragÃ©

6th August 2006, 14:20

But for this to take on a real class character independent of the nationalist Resistance, such efforts would have to connect to a movement for class demands which would inevitably come up against the nationalists.

At the moment, the working class poeple need to get out of this mess alive. Class interest is survival.

thats it.

So thats why i say, organise a militia (as they have done) and fight with anyone willing to defend the people (as they have done)

hurrah
problem solved.

Jamal

6th August 2006, 14:25

Jamal, I hope you read this. You are in a position to begin this kind of organizing. Simply leaving it all to Hizb'allah will only strengthen them, especially if they are able to push the Israelis back to the border. Please, get your friends and neighbors together. Hold a meeting. Get things started. There is an old saying here in the U.S.: "Don't mourn -- ORGANIZE!"

Well comrade what I am doing here, me and some of my leftist friends, is getting refugees to a safe place and providing them with food and shelter. That's the best we can do now. But when the fight gets near us, be shure as hell we will become an organized militia, part of Jammoul maybe, and we will defend ourselves and everything we believe in!

kifl

6th August 2006, 15:48

my question is if hezbollah militiamen are firing at you, what would you do.
I already know that you would fire at israeli soldiers.
And what if it were lebanese christian militia who had sided with israel, or possibly druze, or bedoins that had joined the israeli army(not conscripted or forced in any way)?

What'cha gonna do when it turns out that perceived friend is an enemy?

RedKnight

6th August 2006, 19:10

If the arab proletariat works with hezbollah to fight against Israeli zionism, and the Israeli proletariat joins with the I.D.F. to fight against muslim clerical fascism, when does the violence end? An eye for an eye and the world will go blind. The killings will only end once the arabs love there children more than they hate the Jews, and vice versa. P.S. Worker-Communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_Communist_Party) was devised by Mansoor Hekmat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansoor_Hekmat), who became aware of Communism long after the death of Stalin. Are you sure that you're not confusing them with the Iraqi Communist Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Communist_Party), which is the oldest political party in iraq? I for one support worker-Communism, and believe that is the middle east's best hope for peace and justice.

Tarik

6th August 2006, 19:15

I think so too

Alf

6th August 2006, 19:49

I am not confusing them. Their origins lie in the Unity of Communist Militants and Komalah, then the 'Communist Party of Iran'. I have no doubt that many sincere militants have been drawn towards them, because at first sight they do appear to be very 'left'. In the USA and western Europe a number of people have mistakenly confused them with the intenationalist communist left, but there is a class divide between the two. Check the link to the ICC's website I put in a previous post for an article stating our position on this organisation.

EnragÃ©

6th August 2006, 20:21

alright lets take a look at that shitty article

the radical Stalinist language of the UCM, under its founder Mansoor Hekmat

:huh: Stalinist?

"Hekmat supported the "return to Marx", and theoretised that the working class is to rely only on itself - arguing that it had been the only class to impose benefic change in the 20th century. He denied that either the Soviet Union or the People's Republic of China would have been socialist countries, and presented them as nationalist-bourgeois systems that had not abolished either exploitation or wage slavery, and had not communized the means of production.

Partly inspired by Council communism, he emphasised propaganda and internal organization, arguing that "communism on the margin of society is not communism at all". Hekmat sought to combine the revolutionary effort with struggles such as that for women's rights. Impressed by the tragedies of the Rwandan Genocide and the Yugoslav wars, he defended a humanist vision"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansoor_Hekmat

oh yes that sounds stalinist to me!

It was also, to this end, involved in a front with the Stalinist Kurdish Democratic Party – a party even the UCM admitted was bourgeois (see WR 57)

Hmm well yes, who gives a fuck? If the choice is either a bourgoeis republic or an Islamic State, i'd rather have a bourgeois republic
and again
stalinist?

"The Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran in Kurdish(Hîzbî Dêmokiratî Kurdistanî Êran) is a Kurdish opposition group in Iranian Kurdistan which seeks the attainment of Kurdish national rights within a democratic federal republic of Iran. The current General Secretary of the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan is Mustafa Hijri"

How...stalinist of them :blink:

Oh wait, or is it because they were supported at one time by the soviet union?!
Yes ofcourse, if thats the case you simply HAVE to be stalinist :lol:

Komala was actively engaged in mobilising workers and peasants for a local imperialist war

Yea cuz wanting freedom from an oppressive regime, wanting to be able to control the place where you live yourself, that is so extremely imperialist.

so the IRA and the INLA are imperialist?
so the vietcong was imperialist?
etc etc

The alliance with Komala in the ‘liberated’ areas of Kurdistan offered a political base for the growth of the UCM after the massive repression launched in June 1981.

well pretty smart move of the UCM now wasnt it.

Essentially the working class and any continuing struggles in the cities were used as an adjunct to the nationalist struggle of Komala, and the peshmerga force was seen by the CPI as ‘the military wing of the working class movement in Kurdistan’.

Or you could see it as the working class trying to get control in one part of the country first because its simply impossible to do so in the rest.

essentially on the grounds of its links to Kurdish nationalism and its advocacy of a popular front policy disguised as the demand for a ‘democratic revolution’ in Iran.

I'm fine with kurdistan having its own state. In fact, lets all have a "state" in each reasonably sized area, and have a federation!
long live decentralization

And honestly, what are the better circumstances to develop class struggle? An islamic state which smashes everything into the ground and brainwashes the whole people with the most reactionary of thoughts, or a UK [or whatever] styled democracy?

its support for the so-called “right to self-determination"

omg! stalinists! <_<

yea, cuz a group of people deciding what to do on their own, we certainly dont want that

In other words, for the WCPI in Iraq the problem is that the US is not interested in establishing a ‘genuinely secular’ bourgeois regime

err no
its one problem on the short term.

the WCPI has also hailed the French bourgeoisie for banning the hijab in schools, in the name of defending secularism and pushing back ‘political Islam’

Well though i disagree, there are many leftists (no, not stalinists, not everyone you disagree with is a stalinist, get that through your thick skull and those of that org of yours) who feel the same.

From the viewpoint of the WCPI it is certainly an understandable position.

For its own part, the WCPI calls for the immediate withdrawal of the US-led troops in Iraq, the disarming of the militia forces and the establishment of “an alternative government which stems from an inclusive conference for the representatives of all political organizations and mass organizations” (Workers’ Liberty, 12.9.04). Given the state of disintegration in Iraq this is likely to remain a political fantasy, but even if it came true, such a regime would be nothing but a bourgeois popular front.

err yeah
so?
If the left in iraq was strong enough they would've taken control already.

That simply is the best thing possible on the short term, and such a regime would give them the space to organise, to become bigger, to develop class struggle further.

Meanwhile, the WCPI’s proposed alternative to US troops - a multinational UN force to provide ‘security and stability’ - would simply replace US-British imperialism with no less predatory French, German or Russian imperialist powers, who would not hesitate to crush genuine proletarian struggles.

I agree.
But thats simply a flaw in the policy of the WCPI, not something structural. This has to be overcome by discussion, in solidarity.

I dont agree with the anti-semitism of some of the great anarchist thinkers, but that doesnt mean i throw all their works out the window.

anyway

I suggest you change the name of your site to sectarianism instead of internationalism

have fun being all mechanical and purist and cut off from reality and stuff <333

Marion

6th August 2006, 23:03

Couple of quick points:

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 05:22 PM
alright lets take a look at that shitty article

Obviously you disagree with the ICC on this, but not sure that this helps matters at all. Given Alf hasn't had a go at you it doesn't reflect well on you (not that this means your arguments aren't right, which is another matter entirely...)

so the IRA and the INLA are imperialist?
so the vietcong was imperialist?
etc etc

I think Alf's definition of imperialism earlier would be helpful here. Would be genuinely interested to hear your view on it though.

I'm fine with kurdistan having its own state. In fact, lets all have a "state" in each reasonably sized area, and have a federation!
long live decentralization

Why would this bring us any nearer Communism?

And honestly, what are the better circumstances to develop class struggle? An islamic state which smashes everything into the ground and brainwashes the whole people with the most reactionary of thoughts, or a UK [or whatever] styled democracy?

I'm sure the argument would be that the best circumstance to develop class struggle would be the circumstance where class struggle hsabeen consistently pushed...

Anyway, I've enjoyed the discussion so far (am probably more sympathetic to the ICC pov than most people but am not entirely sure) and have appreciated all the views put forward.

BurnTheOliveTree

6th August 2006, 23:35

I don't think the left can be seen lending support to Hezbollah, who are clearly lunatics. Even if they are right in resisting Israel, it is a dangerous link to make...

-Alex

James

7th August 2006, 00:00

It is sheer folly to ignore the fact that hez. are "islmaic fundamentalists" linked heavily to iran. Both wish to see the destruction of israel, and most probably jews in general (holocaust denial, see the president, is often a sign of such a desire). This is important to remember, yet many seem not to do so (for example many in the stop the war movement).

Israeli perspective is hard for the rest of the "west" to understand. It's the equivalent of 7/7's happening regularly, a recent history of total war with many if not all her neighbours, and what seems to be a hostile international community (take for example the wall; what's the alternative given?).

I don't blame israel for wanting to sweep the area to the old 2000 occupation line. It would be fantastic if an international force is deployed, with TEETH and a will and mandate to use them if needs be (and not run away at first sign of trouble). Israel however is not stupid. It isn't going to rely on loosely (i.e. poorly) networked forces (which will probably be reasonably unproductive/enthusiastic for the job) to root out and destroy terrorists (they target israeli civilians on purpose for a political purpose, they shelter behind civilians on purpose for a similar effect. This is how the UN post seems to have been hit).

Maybe it will allow the international force to have a go at making peace after it has cleared a decent amount of lebanon, but untill then hez will keep on achieving it's aim of the death of innocents (on both sides of the border).

Martin Blank

7th August 2006, 05:24

Originally posted by Alf+Aug 6 2006, 06:16 AM--> (Alf @ Aug 6 2006, 06:16 AM)By what definition is Iran imperialist? Not by Lenin’s perhaps, but certainly by Rosa Luxemburg’s:

"Imperialism is not the creation of any one or of any group of states. It is the product of a particular stage of ripeness in the world development of capital, an innately international condition, an indivisible whole, that is recognisable only in all its relations, and from which no nation can hold aloof at will".[/b]

Luxemburg's comment in The Junius Pamphlet is more of a reference to the overall epoch. What she's saying is that even states with the most backward development will be caught up in the imperialist epoch -- i.e., there will not be an "imperialist world" and "non-imperialist world".

At the same time, Luxemburg's definition of imperialism is problematic. It is impressionistic and unscientific. It sees competition as the basis of imperialism, not the development of the mode of production. In this sense, Luxemburg's understanding of imperialism does not differ fundamentally from Kautsky's. In fact, they both start from the same place: competition and investment in agrarian countries.

(Should I mention that Kautsky's supra-imperialism also stems from this method?)

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 06:16 AM
Some posters have claimed that the ‘Worker Communist Parties’ of Iraq and Iran (and presumably also their affiliate the Communist League, which I have only just discovered) are ‘Bordigist’. This is not true.

The League is not an "affiliate" of the Worker-Communist parties. We work with them on certain issues, but we do not come from the same political traditions as them.

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 06:16 AM
This is why we reject the idea that the so-called ‘workers militias’ set up in Iraq by the WCPI have a proletarian character. The WCPI remains a radical Stalinist organisation with a programme for taking control of Iraqi capitalism.

Which is, of course, why the Worker-Communist Party of Iraq has been setting up Workers' Councils. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 06:16 AM
There have been expressions of the class struggle in Iraq since the invasion, but the working class there is in a profoundly unfavourable situation, facing the imminent danger of sectarian ‘civil war’. In order to be able to set up self-defence units (which, it is true, can exist at a lower level of struggle than Red Guard type organs) it needs to be able to develop its struggle for basic class demands.

Even under "unfavorable" conditions, organizing is possible. You make it sound as if workers can only organize as long as conditions are "favorable", which, under capitalism, are very short-lived. Communists have to be able to organize under all conditions, and in ways that themselves influence their development. Your method seems to treat the working class as a passive object, not as an active subject.

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 06:16 AM
I am not talking about spontaneous efforts to help neighbours, feed the hungry, shelter the homeless. All that is no doubt happening, as it happened in New Orleans after Katrina. But for this to take on a real class character independent of the nationalist Resistance, such efforts would have to connect to a movement for class demands which would inevitably come up against the nationalists. In the absence of such a movement, spontaneous efforts of this type are being recuperated by the ‘Resistance’ which already has a totalitarian grip over the local population, just as Hamas does in Gaza.

So, until the working class is organized into a mass movement to overthrow capitalism, we should do nothing but issue paper proclamations? How does the working class organize under such conditions? Or, more to the point, does it organize, or does it wait for conditions to become "favorable"?

[email protected] 6 2006, 06:16 AM
It is not “purist” to argue that the interests of the working class conflict at every level with the interests of the nationalist bourgeoisie. It is a lesson paid for in working class blood.

I certainly wouldn't call your method "purist".

Miles

Martin Blank

7th August 2006, 05:30

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 06:26 AM
Well comrade what I am doing here, me and some of my leftist friends, is getting refugees to a safe place and providing them with food and shelter. That's the best we can do now. But when the fight gets near us, be shure as hell we will become an organized militia, part of Jammoul maybe, and we will defend ourselves and everything we believe in!
Well, comrade, let me know what we can do to help. I'll talk to comrades involved in the Red Star Society about what we can do also.

Miles

Alf

7th August 2006, 11:46

Luxemburg's definition of imperialism "impressionistic"? She wrote a major theoretical work, The Accumulation of Capital, to develop the marxist understanding of imperialism and its underlying dynamic in the capitalist mode of production. Luxemburg's method led her to predict the onset of a series of catatrophic imperialist wars; Kautsky's 'superimperialism' led him to the idea that capitalism could function happily without imperialist wars. It is ridiculous to equate the two, unless you go back to a time when Kautsky was still a marxist.

Workers' councils cannot be "set up" by a political party, above all not a leftist one.

I think I made it clear enough that the working class needs to struggle for the defence of its basic interests, however difficult the circumstances. But that very struggle will lead it into conflict with the nationalists, above all in times of open imperialist war.

Devrim

7th August 2006, 14:56

Originally posted by Communist League
This is why we reject the idea that the so-called ‘workers militias’ set up in Iraq by the WCPI have a proletarian character. The WCPI remains a radical Stalinist organisation with a programme for taking control of Iraqi capitalism.

Which is, of course, why the Worker-Communist Party of Iraq has been setting up Workers' Councils. :rolleyes:[/b][/quote]

Miles, do you have any idea what a workers' council actually is? It is a delegate council representing workplace based mass assemblies. It is not something that is just set up by a political party. For a start to have a workers' council you need to have a mass movement of workplace assemblies. Otherwise there is nothing for them to unite. These things only emerge in intense periods of class struggle. Which I certainly don't see happening in Iraq at the moment. Even when they are set up, they are not set up by political organisations. Political organisations may call for them, but they arise organically from within the working class. Do you think that the Bolshevik party set up soviets in 1917? Of course they didn't. This is not to say that members of the party weren't involved in setting them up, as were Mensheviks, SR's, anarchists, and non-party workers.

To say that the Worker Communist Party is setting up workers’ councils simply is ludicrous.

Devrim

EnragÃ©

7th August 2006, 15:32

Obviously you disagree with the ICC on this, but not sure that this helps matters at all. Given Alf hasn't had a go at you it doesn't reflect well on you (not that this means your arguments aren't right, which is another matter entirely...)

yeh true

it was a shitty article though :lol:

I think Alf's definition of imperialism earlier would be helpful here. Would be genuinely interested to hear your view on it though.

"Imperialism is not the creation of any one or of any group of states. It is the product of a particular stage of ripeness in the world development of capital, an innately international condition, an indivisible whole, that is recognisable only in all its relations, and from which no nation can hold aloof at will"

honestly, it all sounds nice, but what does it mean in practice?
So no nation cannot be not-imperialist?
Why not?

Imperialism is wanting to have an empire and acting on getting it through policy.
Wanting an independent nation is not imperialism.
Sure, capitalist enterprises "colonising" foreign markets might be considered a for of imperialism (if you go by the labor aristocratic theory), but still, the actual creation of a new nation has nothing to do with at.

Why would this bring us any nearer Communism?

Well yes actually, certainly if its democratic.

Having a federative form of government is useful because in communism it will be a federation anyway.

Also the elimination of any desire to have your own (semi)state by actually getting it, is good for class struggle in general.

If you are oppressed by a central government far away, its harder to see the oppressors living next to you.
By eliminating the central government, those oppressors come into sight.

I'm sure the argument would be that the best circumstance to develop class struggle would be the circumstance where class struggle hsabeen consistently pushed...

And well where can those be best pushed in a consistent manner?
In an islamic fundamentalist state with children being brainwashed everyday to worship some dude in the sky and where any dissent is immediately smashed, or a secular democratic state where you can organise to a much greater degree?

I think I made it clear enough that the working class needs to struggle for the defence of its basic interests, however difficult the circumstances. But that very struggle will lead it into conflict with the nationalists, above all in times of open imperialist war.

a basic interest of the working class is to get rid of tanks, bombs, and airplanes dropping bombs.
That interest is the same as "the nationalist"s, so for this, and for this alone we can work together with 'em.

Miles, do you have any idea what a workers' council actually is? It is a delegate council representing workplace based mass assemblies. It is not something that is just set up by a political party. For a start to have a workers' council you need to have a mass movement of workplace assemblies. Otherwise there is nothing for them to unite. These things only emerge in intense periods of class struggle. Which I certainly don't see happening in Iraq at the moment. Even when they are set up, they are not set up by political organisations. Political organisations may call for them, but they arise organically from within the working class. Do you think that the Bolshevik party set up soviets in 1917? Of course they didn't. This is not to say that members of the party weren't involved in setting them up, as were Mensheviks, SR's, anarchists, and non-party workers.

To say that the Worker Communist Party is setting up workers’ councils simply is ludicrous.

members are laying the groundwork and the WCP is supporting them getting set up then.

Martin Blank

7th August 2006, 16:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 03:47 AM
Luxemburg's definition of imperialism "impressionistic"? She wrote a major theoretical work, The Accumulation of Capital, to develop the marxist understanding of imperialism and its underlying dynamic in the capitalist mode of production. Luxemburg's method led her to predict the onset of a series of catatrophic imperialist wars; Kautsky's 'superimperialism' led him to the idea that capitalism could function happily without imperialist wars. It is ridiculous to equate the two, unless you go back to a time when Kautsky was still a marxist.
Well, in many respects, you have to go back to when Kautsky was seen as a "Marxist" -- and, for some, THE "Marxist" -- to see the origin of the problem. Kautsky, in his "Marxist" days, was regarded by an entire generation of leftwing social-democrats, including Lenin and Luxemburg, as their chief theoretician. The problem, however, is that Kautsky had several methodological problems that caused him to fundamentally differ from Marx and Engels.

One of the chief theoretical errors of Kautsky was his acceptance of a Weberian approach to class -- an approach that places relations to the market above relations to productive forces at the center of the analysis. Kautsky was consistent in the application of this theoretical error: his Weberian approach not only influenced his understanding of class relationship, they also became a central part of his analysis of imperialism. Both Lenin and Luxemburg also took parts of Kautsky's errors and applied them in their own work -- Lenin applied a Weberian approach to his understanding of the relationship between workers and the petty bourgeoisie; Luxemburg applied a Weberian approach to her understanding of imperialism and colonialism.

If we go by Luxemburg's method, and see imperialism and imperialist wars as a product of "competition", what happens where there is no more "competition" to be had? This is where Kautsky's theory of supraimperialism comes in. Yes, Kautsky's supraimperialism differed from Luxemburg's analysis, but that is only because Kautsky followed his method to its logical conclusion, and Luxemburg did not. Nevertheless, both of their methods have their basis in the same theoretical errors. Moreover, predicting "a series of catastrophic imperialist wars" is not very impressive, I must say. Let's be real about it: the Trotskyists have predicted 15 of the last three "catastrophes" the world has seen, too.

Miles

Marion

7th August 2006, 16:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 12:33 PM
If you are oppressed by a central government far away, its harder to see the oppressors living next to you.
By eliminating the central government, those oppressors come into sight.
Any practical examples of this? Seems to me that federal countries are no closer to communism in practice than non-federal countries. And very small countries where oppressors are "in sight" are no closer to communism than very large countries.

I don't think its a matter of being able to "see the oppressors". Ultimately, the oppressors aren't actually people - its the social relationship we all live within and what's important is understanding this system.

Martin Blank

7th August 2006, 16:52

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 06:57 AM
Miles, do you have any idea what a workers' council actually is? It is a delegate council representing workplace based mass assemblies. It is not something that is just set up by a political party. For a start to have a workers' council you need to have a mass movement of workplace assemblies. Otherwise there is nothing for them to unite. These things only emerge in intense periods of class struggle. Which I certainly don't see happening in Iraq at the moment. Even when they are set up, they are not set up by political organisations. Political organisations may call for them, but they arise organically from within the working class. Do you think that the Bolshevik party set up soviets in 1917? Of course they didn't. This is not to say that members of the party weren't involved in setting them up, as were Mensheviks, SR's, anarchists, and non-party workers.

To say that the Worker Communist Party is setting up workers’ councils simply is ludicrous.

Devrim
Well, first of all, I didn't know you were such an expert on forming workers' councils. Tell me, how many have you set up over the years?

The Workers' Councils that are being set up in Iraq are both based in workplaces and in neighborhoods. They are organized together in the Federation of Workers' Councils and Unions of Iraq, which is much larger and broader than the WCPI. They are part of a mass workers' movement that is also fighting on the political battlefield against the Quisling al-Maliki government.

The last three years have been an intense period of class struggle in Iraq, with workers having to fight against government and occupation authority attempts to break strikes and bust independent unions, as well as defend their workplaces against groups affiliated with the "resistance" that either attempt to sabotage or slaughter the workforce. The situation in Iraq since 2003 has been ripe for the mass independent organization of workers, and it has been the WCPI that has had enough sense to see that.

This should also give you an idea about how these Workers' Councils are being organized. The WCPI is calling for them and helping to organize them, but, yes, the workers themselves are running them. Unfortunately, they seem to be the only self-described communist organization in Iraq that is doing so. The rest seem to think it better to collaborate with the occupation (the "official" Iraqi CP), with the "resistance" (the other dissident Communist parties), or otherwise do nothing (the Maoists, the "Left" WCPI affiliated to the WCPIran).

I can figure where your current would be in Iraq today ... if you were there, that is.

Miles

Alf

7th August 2006, 17:51

Again: the whole idea that workers councils are on the agenda in Iraq today is based on a complete overestimation of the level of class struggle there. The barbarism we see every day is a clear expression of this: it shows what capitalism has in store for us all if we allow ourselves to be pulled into the faction fights of the ruling class. The reality is that the working class in Iraq is experiencing the greatest difficulty in struggling at the most basic level. Historically, workers' councils have appeared as an expression of the mass strike, a situation in which the working class begins to affirm itself as a distinct social and political force. This is quite evidently not the case in Iraq today.

It is rather significant that we are told about a 'Federation of Workers Councils and Trade Unions'. The working class created the council form at the beginning of the 20th century because the trade union form no longer served the needs of the mass struggle. In other words, real workers councils will appear in opposition to the trade unions.

The WCPI has the classic Stalinist approach in setting up all kinds of front organisations. The Iraqi Freedom Congress is one, and the 'Federation of Workers Councils and Trade Unions' is another. It is part of its strategy for creating a Popular Front that can take charge of the state when the other bourgeois factions are discredited.

Devrim

7th August 2006, 18:02

Well, first of all, I didn't know you were such an expert on forming workers' councils. Tell me, how many have you set up over the years?

I have set up no workers’ councils. The nearest thing that I have been involved in is mass meetings during strikes, which although it is the beginning of the process, is a very long way from workers councils. I doubt that anybody on these boards have been involved in workers councils either. I am aware of what a workers' council is though.

The last three years have been an intense period of class struggle in Iraq, with workers having to fight against government and occupation authority attempts to break strikes and bust independent unions, as well as defend their workplaces against groups affiliated with the "resistance" that either attempt to sabotage or slaughter the workforce. The situation in Iraq since 2003 has been ripe for the mass independent organization of workers, and it has been the WCPI that has had enough sense to see that.

The last three years in Iraq have been terrible for the working class. That is not to say that there has been no class, and I am sure that most of it is unreported in the bourgeois press. However, I think to say that it has been 'an intense period of class struggle' is a gross exaggeration. Iraq is not in a pre-revolutionary situation. Far from it the working class in Iraq is fragmented by sectarianism, and being pulled into the idea of national defence. I think that you are in danger of turning your political fantasies into reality. I fail to believe that '[t]he situation in Iraq since 2003 has been ripe for the mass independent organization of workers'.

I can figure where your current would be in Iraq today ... if you were there, that is.

As you quite rightly point out, I am not there. I do however live in the Middle East, and I am aware of the increase of nationalism, and sectarianism right across the region. The working class in the entire Middle East is in immense danger of being dragged, so far into this cycle that it could lose the ability to act as a class for itself. This is not to say that the WPCI is in the wrong when it argues against both sides in the war, and says that the focus must be on the defence of working class interests. This is something that they are very right on. It still remains ludicrous to state that they are setting up workers' councils though.

Just out of interest where do you figure that my current would be?

Devrim

EnragÃ©

7th August 2006, 18:22

Originally posted by Marion+Aug 7 2006, 01:49 PM--> (Marion @ Aug 7 2006, 01:49 PM)
[email protected] 7 2006, 12:33 PM
If you are oppressed by a central government far away, its harder to see the oppressors living next to you.
By eliminating the central government, those oppressors come into sight.
Any practical examples of this? Seems to me that federal countries are no closer to communism in practice than non-federal countries. And very small countries where oppressors are "in sight" are no closer to communism than very large countries.

I don't think its a matter of being able to "see the oppressors". Ultimately, the oppressors aren't actually people - its the social relationship we all live within and what's important is understanding this system. [/b]
well in vietnam, first the french were kicked out (central government far away) then the communist resistance took over in the north and started fighting in the south against some puppet government.

Probably not the best example, but the whole thing seems like common sense.

The federalism thing is central to libertarian communism.

if you're some stalinist, well, the USSR was a federation?

The oppressors are actual people. It is a social relationship but represented by people.
Look i can rephrase it into; the central government's oppression outshadows the local oppression.

Martin Blank

7th August 2006, 19:26

[i]Originally posted by Alf+Aug 7 2006, 09:52 AM--> (Alf @ Aug 7 2006, 09:52 AM)Again: the whole idea that workers councils are on the agenda in Iraq today is based on a complete overestimation of the level of class struggle there. The barbarism we see every day is a clear expression of this: it shows what capitalism has in store for us all if we allow ourselves to be pulled into the faction fights of the ruling class. The reality is that the working class in Iraq is experiencing the greatest difficulty in struggling at the most basic level. Historically, workers' councils have appeared as an expression of the mass strike, a situation in which the working class begins to affirm itself as a distinct social and political force. This is quite evidently not the case in Iraq today.[/b]

I have to admit, I feel like I'm arguing with someone from the old DeLeonist Socialist Labor Party. They, too, cannot seem to do anything other than argue according to a very narrow schema of how things are going to go.

Your position on Iraq seems to boil down to doing nothing. You correctly argue that "allow ourselves to be pulled into the faction fights of the ruling class" leads workers down the path to barbarism. But organizing workers into a mass movement, including the organization of Workers' Councils and independent unions, to fight against both the occupation and the "resistance" is "based on a complete overestimation of the level of class struggle". So, what's the alternative? Sit back and let the whole situation descend into communal slaughter and barbarism?

Historically, workers' councils and assemblies have appeared under a number of circumstances, of which "as an expression of the mass strike" is only one example. The Workers' Councils of Germany in 1918 came out of the collapse of the imperial government at the end of the World War. The Soviets of Russia in 1905 came out of a spontaneous upheaval. The Workers' Councils of Hungary in 1956 also came out of a spontaneous uprising. The workers' councils in Italy and France in 1944 came out of the collapse of the Fascist governments. The history of the 20th century has shown that workers' councils and assemblies develop in periods when workers are compelled to organize to defend their most basic interests. This is as much the case in Iraq today as it was in any of the above examples.

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 09:52 AM
It is rather significant that we are told about a 'Federation of Workers Councils and Trade Unions'. The working class created the council form at the beginning of the 20th century because the trade union form no longer served the needs of the mass struggle. In other words, real workers councils will appear in opposition to the trade unions.

... Or, alternatively, workers' councils serve one role and unions serve another. That is, the trade union form was inadequate to meet all the needs of the class struggle -- the trade unions could not organize a political struggle, the workers' councils could. This has been the relationship between unions and workers' councils throughout the last century.

[email protected] 7 2006, 09:52 AM
The WCPI has the classic Stalinist approach in setting up all kinds of front organisations. The Iraqi Freedom Congress is one, and the 'Federation of Workers Councils and Trade Unions' is another. It is part of its strategy for creating a Popular Front that can take charge of the state when the other bourgeois factions are discredited.

A "popular front" with whom?! With what section of the bourgeoisie? Honestly, I think the only reason you call what they're doing a "popular front" is because they're not part of the ICC, so they must be automatically "reformist" and "the left wing of capital".

And people here call us sectarian. :rolleyes:

Miles

Martin Blank

7th August 2006, 20:07

Originally posted by devrimankara+Aug 7 2006, 10:03 AM--> (devrimankara @ Aug 7 2006, 10:03 AM)I have set up no workers’ councils. The nearest thing that I have been involved in is mass meetings during strikes, which although it is the beginning of the process, is a very long way from workers councils. I doubt that anybody on these boards have been involved in workers councils either. I am aware of what a workers' council is though.[/b]

Admittedly, the question was unfair. The point I was trying to make is that neither of us is in a position to lecture the other.

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 10:03 AM
The last three years in Iraq have been terrible for the working class. That is not to say that there has been no class, and I am sure that most of it is unreported in the bourgeois press. However, I think to say that it has been 'an intense period of class struggle' is a gross exaggeration. Iraq is not in a pre-revolutionary situation. Far from it the working class in Iraq is fragmented by sectarianism, and being pulled into the idea of national defence. I think that you are in danger of turning your political fantasies into reality. I fail to believe that '[t]he situation in Iraq since 2003 has been ripe for the mass independent organization of workers'.

How would you define a pre-revolutionary situation? What criteria would you use? Since you use a different method of defining imperialism, I figure I should ask about this too before I say anything more.

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 10:03 AM
As you quite rightly point out, I am not there. I do however live in the Middle East, and I am aware of the increase of nationalism, and sectarianism right across the region. The working class in the entire Middle East is in immense danger of being dragged, so far into this cycle that it could lose the ability to act as a class for itself. This is not to say that the WPCI is in the wrong when it argues against both sides in the war, and says that the focus must be on the defence of working class interests. This is something that they are very right on. It still remains ludicrous to state that they are setting up workers' councils though.

I don't know what else you could call them? They are democratically-elected assemblies of working people, organized either at the point of production or in working-class neighborhoods (an understandable and legitimate form, given the level of unemployment), and not only enforcing workers' rights in the economic arena but also, in increasing cases, taking control of distinct areas and organizing basic services.

[email protected] 7 2006, 10:03 AM
Just out of interest where do you figure that my current would be?

Given what you and Alf have said, it sounds like you would be sitting back and just watching events unfold, and issuing an "internationalist statement" here and there. You certainly don't sound like you're willing to do any kind of organizing that is aimed at building a workers' movement against capitalist rule under the current conditions. You seem to want to wait for some far-off "favorable" situation to develop before doing anything other than organize a few people into a section of the ICC.

If I am wrong, then tell me what you would do under the current conditions. If you have a better idea of what to do, I'm all ears.

Miles

EnragÃ©

7th August 2006, 20:17

They are democratically-elected assemblies of working people, organized either at the point of production or in working-class neighborhoods (an understandable and legitimate form, given the level of unemployment), and not only enforcing workers' rights in the economic arena but also, in increasing cases, taking control of distinct areas and organizing basic services.

do you have some articles about this?

sounds great.

finally something worthy to whole-heartedly support in iraq (instead of just one element)

Martin Blank

7th August 2006, 20:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 12:18 PM

They are democratically-elected assemblies of working people, organized either at the point of production or in working-class neighborhoods (an understandable and legitimate form, given the level of unemployment), and not only enforcing workers' rights in the economic arena but also, in increasing cases, taking control of distinct areas and organizing basic services.

do you have some articles about this?

sounds great.

finally something worthy to whole-heartedly support in iraq (instead of just one element)
The websites of the WCPI and FWCUI have articles about them. Some of them are in English.

http://www.wpiraq.net/english

http://www.uuiraq.org/

Miles

Leo

7th August 2006, 21:47

Originally posted by NewKindOfSoldier+--> (NewKindOfSoldier)honestly, it all sounds nice, but what does it mean in practice?
So no nation cannot be not-imperialist?
Why not?[/b]

Because the very 'nature' of nation-states require more growth and more exploitation.

Originally posted by NewKindOfSoldier+--> (NewKindOfSoldier)Imperialism is wanting to have an empire and acting on getting it through policy. Wanting an independent nation is not imperialism.[/b]

First of all, you can't have an independent nation without wanting an empire. A nation state does not have any difference in its practice an a multi-nation state. The nationality of the oppressed doesn't matter. Also, wanting an independent nation is ultra-nationalism, another reason for it to be very imperialistic.

Originally posted by NewKindOfSoldier
members are laying the groundwork and the WCP is supporting them getting set up then.

Those so-called councils seem to be happening with the orders of the centralized Central Commitee of the WCP. Weren't you supporting decentralization? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Miles
The WCPI is calling for them and helping to organize them, but, yes, the workers themselves are running them.

I think when WCPI wants councils to be organized, the person who runs the council practically becomes their employer and runs the council accordingly to the will of the central commitee. Yeah, very not stalinist...wait a minute! :rolleyes:

The thing is, workers councils are real when they are organized by the workers, not when the central commitee of a party wants them to publicize itself.

Originally posted by Miles
Or, alternatively, workers' councils serve one role and unions serve another. That is, the trade union form was inadequate to meet all the needs of the class struggle -- the trade unions could not organize a political struggle, the workers' councils could. This has been the relationship between unions and workers' councils throughout the last century.

Trade unions work for negotiating conditions for the working class while they are breaking a strike. Trade unions can not be revolutionary anymore, they have became reformist by their nature.

Originally posted by Miles
A "popular front" with whom?! With what section of the bourgeoisie?

Secular nationalists perhaps? Or moderate left-religious groups? (such as General Union of Oil Employees in Basra) Or maybe left leaning kurdish nationalists? Maoists even? Who knows what they are thinking, there are so many little groups for them to join their forces with.

[email protected]
How would you define a pre-revolutionary situation? What criteria would you use? Since you use a different method of defining imperialism, I figure I should ask about this too before I say anything more.

Class consciousness would probably work pretty well as a criteria. It tends to be weak in warzones, under occupations. Nationalists manage to get more attention and support.

Miles
I don't know what else you could call them? They are democratically-elected assemblies of working people, organized either at the point of production or in working-class neighborhoods (an understandable and legitimate form, given the level of unemployment), and not only enforcing workers' rights in the economic arena but also, in increasing cases, taking control of distinct areas and organizing basic services.

They have no power or autonomy. They are controlled by high-ups in the party.

Given what you and Alf have said, it sounds like you would be sitting back and just watching events unfold, and issuing an "internationalist statement" here and there. You certainly don't sound like you're willing to do any kind of organizing that is aimed at building a workers' movement against capitalist rule under the current conditions. You seem to want to wait for some far-off "favorable" situation to develop before doing anything other than organize a few people into a section of the ICC.

Miles, why do you make this sound so personal? This is not about the will of the few, organizing and saving the day. Nationalism and fundmentalism is incredibly strong in the Middle East, especially in Iraq. Workers will organize when they have class consciousness, and we should do our best to help workers develop class consciousness, by any means (including issuing an internationalist statement which is extremely important), but workers class consciousness also depends on the material conditions. WCPI might have a tiny, very tiny chance to make a coup in Iran, but they can't make a proletarian revolution, because a proletarian revolution is done by the proletariat, not the central commitee of a political party.

EnragÃ©

7th August 2006, 23:46

Because the very 'nature' of nation-states require more growth and more exploitation.

do they now? :huh:

First of all, you can't have an independent nation without wanting an empire.

oh i guess the IRA and the vietcong were mistaken then, as well as countless other movements.

Also, wanting an independent nation is ultra-nationalism, another reason for it to be very imperialistic.

Nonsense, wanting an independent country is most often simply wanting the troops of another country off your streets, wanting the end of interference in the national politics by another country.

whats "ultra-nationalist" about that?

As i see it there are two different kinds of nationalism
1; "we want to get rid of foreign interference"
2; "we want to impose our will in every country cuz we're simply the best"

i'd sooner call the second one ultra-nationalist than the first one.

Those so-called councils seem to be happening with the orders of the centralized Central Commitee of the WCP. Weren't you supporting decentralization?

first, where's your proof of this?

second, even if its the case, it beats what the rest is doing.

Leo

8th August 2006, 00:15

do they now?

Um, yeah, otherwise they are weak, poor and their existance is always under threat.

oh i guess the IRA and the vietcong were mistaken then, as well as countless other movements.

Actually yes, they were mistaken. And all those countless movements created was nation states with no opposition to the global system.

Nonsense, wanting an independent country is most often simply wanting the troops of another country off your streets, wanting the end of interference in the national politics by another country.

When you care about the nationality of your oppressor, you have became an oppressor as well. Modern nation states exist to oppress the workers.

As i see it there are two different kinds of nationalism
1; "we want to get rid of foreign interference"
2; "we want to impose our will in every country cuz we're simply the best"

i'd sooner call the second one ultra-nationalist than the first one.

I would sooner call the second one ultra-nationalist than the first one, but the second one is where the first one leads to. When you want an independent nation state, you state that you prefer people from your ethnicity to rule over you instead of foreigners. When the working class wants an independent nation states, this would show us that their class consciousness is really low if not non existent and they are following their local bourgeoise and their imperialistic interests.

first, where's your proof of this?

WCPI is a Leninist party (with some maoist and kurdish nationalist tendencies) that organizes accordingly to democratic centralism. It's what they do. The party is hiearchical. Members of the organization obey the will of the central commitee without questioning it. If WCPI sets up something, it has been issued by their central commitee.

second, even if its the case, it beats what the rest is doing.

They are a small political organization thats sole purpose is to make the central commitee members the rulers of the state. They have a very tiny chance for having that sort of coup and even if they do take over the state, they have no chance at all for success.

EnragÃ©

8th August 2006, 00:41

Um, yeah, otherwise they are weak, poor and their existance is always under threat.

they are? :huh:

Actually yes, they were mistaken. And all those countless movements created was nation states with no opposition to the global system.

Not the point, the nation states didnt develop into imperialist powers.

Or does the republic of ireland currently occupy another nation?

When you want an independent nation state, you state that you prefer people from your ethnicity to rule over you instead of foreigners

not necessarily.
They might just want the soldiers off the street, the midnight raids by the occupiers gone, the tanks gone etc etc.

When the working class wants an independent nation states, this would show us that their class consciousness is really low if not non existent and they are following their local bourgeoise and their imperialistic interests.

ever heard of the irish citizen army?

WCPI is a Leninist party (with some maoist and kurdish nationalist tendencies) that organizes accordingly to democratic centralism. It's what they do. The party is hiearchical. Members of the organization obey the will of the central commitee without questioning it. If WCPI sets up something, it has been issued by their central commitee.

Well then
does that mean that those workers councils are being bossed around by the WCPI?
Helping out to set them up doesnt mean controlling them.

Also, democratic centralism in theory, is nothing wrong with. Depending on the size of the party (the bigger, the more democratic centralism is authoritarian) it might not be so bad at all.

They are a small political organization thats sole purpose is to make the central commitee members the rulers of the state. They have a very tiny chance for having that sort of coup and even if they do take over the state, they have no chance at all for succesl.

sigh

oh yes the stalinist bastard-complex again

If it follows hekmatism they'll do no such thing.

Jamal

8th August 2006, 01:04

If the arab proletariat works with hezbollah to fight against Israeli zionism, and the Israeli proletariat joins with the I.D.F. to fight against muslim clerical fascism, when does the violence end? An eye for an eye and the world will go blind.

That is not the point, what you are saying meens that the two countries are attacking each other, its not the case! Israel is attacking Lebanon, we are at a point of self defence here.

. The killings will only end once the arabs love there children more than they hate the Jews, and vice versa

:wacko: :angry:
I don't know if I should either laugh or cry!
Where do you live, Washington DC?
Sorry to say this but stupid, stupid, stupid post comrade!!!

I don't blame israel for wanting to sweep the area to the old 2000 occupation line. It would be fantastic if an international force is deployed, with TEETH and a will and mandate to use them if needs be (and not run away at first sign of trouble). Israel however is not stupid. It isn't going to rely on loosely (i.e. poorly) networked forces (which will probably be reasonably unproductive/enthusiastic for the job) to root out and destroy terrorists

There is a mixture of anger and frustration inside me now.
don't blame Israel for killing up till now 950 civillians, for injuring 3000. Too many massacres happened for Israel to get away from this and not being a war criminal. The amount of destruction that happened in Lebanon amounts to aproximately 1.5 Heroshima bombs. Yet you say:"don't blame Israel".
By the way, what gives it the right to do that? I can't belive that you are saying that no body shoul blame a country for occupying another!
You really want a NATO force so bad, don't you! I don't want to reply to that, I just feel too nosiated already from all you said.
For this post I just can reply like I replied stupid, stupid, stupid post!

as for this

(they target israeli civilians on purpose for a political purpose, they shelter behind civilians on purpose for a similar effect. This is how the UN post seems to have been hit).

1-yeah right, that's why the number of soldiers killed is far greater than the number of civillians. 2-WTF!!! Taking it that it actually happens, does Israel have the right to fire on the civillians to get to HEzbollah? In a hostage situation, what does the police do? kill the hostages to kill the theif? WTF!!! 3- So what you are saying is that Hezbollah hid in the UN post! HHAAAAHAHAHAHA :D
Thats a laugh!
What happend was that Israel INTENTIONALLY fired with its artilary on it, but missed so it called in an airstrike. How can it be un intentional? An airstrike is so precise that on the road of Tyre it fired a missil on two people riding a motorcycle and hit them a direct hit, how precise can you be? and after the artilary bombardment fail they called in the airstrike so what the hell!!!

Leo

8th August 2006, 01:04

Not the point, the nation states didnt develop into imperialist powers.

Or does the republic of ireland currently occupy another nation?

ever heard of the irish citizen army?

ICA was a nationalist organization and Republic of Ireland is a capitalist country with its own ruling class and it would go into an imperialist war if it was necessary.

not necessarily.
They might just want the soldiers off the street, the midnight raids by the occupiers gone, the tanks gone etc etc.

Tanks and soldiers from your country who are in the streets for some reason can actually be much worse than foreigners. The nationality of the oppressor is not a criteria for the level of oppression. Trust me, I know this very well <_<

Well then
does that mean that those workers councils are being bossed around by the WCPI?
Helping out to set them up doesnt mean controlling them.

It means every action of those councils are dictated by the WCPI. That's how those parties work.

RedKnight

8th August 2006, 03:28

That is not the point, what you are saying meens that the two countries are attacking each other, its not the case! Israel is attacking Lebanon, we are at a point of self defence here. No, israel is targeting there attacks at hizbollah occupied territory, which is a state within a state. They are trying to uproot hizbollah from positions on the border, from which they fire missles into israel. My point is simply that you want to attack israel because lebanese civilians are being slaughtered in the process of israeli airstrikes, and the israelis want to retaliate for missles being fired at israeli villages. Like one american folk song's lyrics say,
Young man going down a long dusty road. Ignites a bomb, and then it explodes. He's on a train bound for hell. He's gonna take them with him. He's gonna take them with him, on a train bound for hell. The destination's the pits. But they'll travel well. They're gonna travel well, on a train bound for hell. Young man flying in his plane. Raining down destruction and pain. Killing his brothers, just like Cain. He's on a train bound for hell. He's gonna take them with him. He's gonna take them with him, on a train bound for hell. The destination's the pits. But they'll travel well. They're gonna travel well, on a train bound for hell. Now you may think one cause is just, and the other is lame. But it really doesn't matter they ended up the same. On a train bound for hell. They all went together, on a train bound for hell. The destination was the pits, but they traveled well. Yeah they traveled well, on a train bound for hell.

EnragÃ©

8th August 2006, 04:29

ICA was a nationalist organization and Republic of Ireland is a capitalist country with its own ruling class and it would go into an imperialist war if it was necessary.

thats because the ICA never became a dominant current.
The ICA wanted a socialist republic, which wasnt possible under british rule, so they fought against it, simple.

Define "necessary"

as in, if some country invaded it?
THATS NOT AN IMPERIALIST WAR :mellow:

Tanks and soldiers from your country who are in the streets for some reason can actually be much worse than foreigners. The nationality of the oppressor is not a criteria for the level of oppression. Trust me, I know this very well

they do not generally patrol their own streets.
anyway, you're dodging the point

It means every action of those councils are dictated by the WCPI. That's how those parties work.

prove it.

"thats how those parties work" is not proof. WCPI is hekmatist and if they adhere to that they dont do that.

No, israel is targeting there attacks at hizbollah occupied territory, which is a state within a state. They are trying to uproot hizbollah from positions on the border, from which they fire missles into israel. My point is simply that you want to attack israel because lebanese civilians are being slaughtered in the process of israeli airstrikes, and the israelis want to retaliate for missles being fired at israeli villages

hezbollah does not occupy, most of the people support them. They are a valid resistance movement.

Israel is attacking to reassure its control of the region. The kidnapping of israeli soldiers was a valid action against an injustice; thousands of lebanese and palestinians still being in prison.

If israeli troops would be fuckin up my village, regardless for what reason, i'd fight back and defend my family.

RedKnight

8th August 2006, 05:38

hezbollah does not occupy, most of the people support them. They are a valid resistance movement.

Israel is attacking to reassure its control of the region. The kidnapping of israeli soldiers was a valid action against an injustice; thousands of lebanese and palestinians still being in prison.

If israeli troops would be fuckin up my village, regardless for what reason, i'd fight back and defend my family. Why do they not then file a writ of habeas corpus, in order to get them released?

pandora

8th August 2006, 05:58

Jamal claims to be living in Lebanon at this time and to be a member of the Lebanese Communist Party. He claims he hears Israeli planes as he is writing. Having been in some unbelievable difficult circumstances myself I will believe him for this argument.

I think his position warrants more strength to his opinion even if according to the article:

Lebanon has a radical history, albeit one distorted by the chains of Leninist communism, but this has been written out of the Brit left's history books in their rush to embrace Islamo-trottery.

Now whether or not one sees the Leninist view as overly authoritarian or not, the point is that Jamal speaks from the role of a Lebanese Communist currently facing the Israeli invasion and therefore is not some pedantic test of theories but a first hand account of the decisions real people on the ground are forced to make.

One problem is that the country of Lebanon is underfunded militarily and must rely on relief from Hezbollah which it has no control over. This has led to over simplified statements supporting the Hezbollah. As far as radical Islamic organizations go Persian friends tell me Hezbollah is a different animal. They often use diplomatic relations, do not go around bearded and are not as extreme, rather they are modern army formed from donations around the Islamic world to fend off Israel, and currently they are doing what they were formed to do. The Shiites represent 1/3 of the population, but the poorest third and Hezbollah provides education, shelter, and medical services for this population while the government wanes in support.

Hezbollah's strength is the result of greedy reactions by the nation's leaders to pawn off the problems of it's poorest constitutients on Hezbollah. However, this war has taken a new turn with the polluting of the coast. This is out and out economic warfare, and what it shows is that Israel is not angry over two soldiers, but is systematically destroying Lebanon because Lebanon was becoming the Paris of the Middle East with the new Marriot, and a real economic threat, which is why they also bombed the airport. Their target is not Hezbollah, although they hate them, but the tourist industry which was raising conditions in Lebanon to create a real hegemonic threat to their stability in their limited view. This is the real horror of this war, that it was commited out of jealousy and fear of someone else being able to finally do well after 30 years of rebuilding Lebanon, Lebanon was finally open for business again. Hezbollah was already being addressed as far as backing down from kidnappings to protect tourism.

A real working class alternative is desperately needed - one that recognises that there can be no peace whilst borders are drawn by reference to the Torah, and International policy is determined in Washington by consulting the Book of Revelations.

This is very funny, and very true. When dealing with religious extremists in the White House and in Israel there can be little peace because anytime things begin to calm they create another action to try and gain another "Holy City" or temple space, some of them hoping to destroy the planet through their actions so they can open the "Book of Life" in their lifetime without having to die.

Such individuals are so selfish that they do not even care for their own children or children's children more concerned with their own survival and fear of death that they would destroy the entire planet as not to die. This is true insanity, and I blame the insecurity over death in our culture coupled with fictious additions to the Book of Revelations brought about by some guy John in the 1800's that caused all this Fundamentalist fervor. As a Socialist Buddhist, my response to all this killing over some belief in a patriarchal guy with a long beard is a sad one, for even if they were able to destroy the planet (if she doesn't destroy this mold destroying her first) and their deity existed for them in their mind, the response would be a quick flush down the toilet for killing every being on the planet over their fear of death.

That being said, lets look at Jamal's writing

Well, where should I start?

While I am writing this, I here the Israeli warplanes humming in the sky. I'm wondering who is the next victim, will it be someone I know? A reletive maybe, maybe a friend, or another innocent victim. Or even maybe, it could be me :(

What do you advise me to do? Just tell me?

Any Communist party that supports an anti-semitic group in any circumstances is clearly no representative of class conciosu workers.

The LCP is not supporting Hezbollah on their anti-semitism or any of their wrongs, but on the one thing they are doing right and which is the resistance.

I am not with Hezbollah, not on their ideas nor beleifs nor anything else, just resistance man why don't you get that?

The situation here is critical, people like you can be pure and can be picky but people like me don't really have a choice...

The situation is that he is reduced to any means necessary of resistance for his nation against an outside aggressor. This is a violation of his nation state. Until we are able to get rid of such things to protect different ethnicities it is something we must value. His nation is being attacked by an outside aggressor and he is forced to support their resistance without other means to resist Israel.

Israel is creating greater reliance on Islamic Fundamentalists in nations which before were pro-Western and pro-business. I think Lebanon's over focus on business made it a target and also made it's poor more open to Hezbollah, the state left Hezbollah providing things the state had provided before. Likewise Israel is forcing Lebanon into an extreme position in able to label it a terrorist state, but in able to do so it must bomb and destroy most of the country to force it's normally peaceful and mixed ethnicity and religion country to accept Hezbollah as their only hope and thereby create the reason for the West to damn it and every man woman and child in it to massive destruction.

Pay attention boys and girls they don't teach you this stuff at school. Lebanon is being destroyed so that the country will side with Hezbollah creating negative spin against one of the most mixed and peaceful nations in the Middle East. A tourist vacation spot. If this is done nothing is safe. And that is the real point. Washington is trying to say that all Middle Eastern people regardless of heritage or religion are inherently evil and must be destroyed. As a Middle Eastern Jew I find that repugnant, if I were in Lebanon right now, I should be destroyed.

Obviously having Jewish heritage I am not anti-semitic (I hate myself, I hate myself) no I love myself and my uncle Meyer and greatgrandmother Laturu who lived next store to Lebanon on an island. I don't think Laturu would have approved of Israel's actions either so much destruction of children and the sea. She would have clicked her tongue and nodded her head.

Anarchist Freedom

8th August 2006, 09:33

Edit.

Rosa Lichtenstein

8th August 2006, 09:51

Anarchist Freedom, I can't believe you have just posted this.

I am a Jewess; I have to tell you that I am ashamed of the the way the Zionist state has 1) kicked the Palestinians off their land (and then have the brass-faced cheek to claim 'victimhood' when they fight back); 2) repeatedly brutalised surrounding Arab countries (and then wonder why their racist state is hated); 3) used overwhelming US-suppled firepower to kill Lebanese civilians and Palestinians indiscriminately, 4) guarded the middle east for US imperial oil interests.

When the oil runs out, watch the uSSa drop Israel like a hot brick.

As far as Arabs and Jews getting on is concerned, they managed to do that for hundreds of years before the west helped screw with them.

One solution: a secular state in Palestine; no imperial interference.

Victory to the resistance!

Martin Blank

8th August 2006, 09:56

Since my first response to this, which I felt more succinctly summed up my views, was unceremoniously removed, I guess I have to go with the long version.

Originally posted by Leo Uilleann+Aug 7 2006, 01:48 PM--> (Leo Uilleann @ Aug 7 2006, 01:48 PM)
[i]Originally posted by Miles+--> (Miles)The WCPI is calling for them and helping to organize them, but, yes, the workers themselves are running them.[/b]

I think when WCPI wants councils to be organized, the person who runs the council practically becomes their employer and runs the council accordingly to the will of the central commitee. Yeah, very not stalinist...wait a minute! :rolleyes:

The thing is, workers councils are real when they are organized by the workers, not when the central commitee of a party wants them to publicize itself.[/b]

There are people here who are familiar with how the WCPI operates, including me. This comment, to put it nicely, has no basis in reality and sounds more like a case of "sour grapes" than anything else.

Time and again, these comrades have talked about what they would not do, but say nothing about what they would do. Could that be because, apart from a few paper proclamations written for their own supporters internationally, they would do nothing under the current circumstances ... except, perhaps, run away?

Originally posted by Leo Uilleann+Aug 7 2006, 01:48 PM--> (Leo Uilleann @ Aug 7 2006, 01:48 PM)
Miles
Or, alternatively, workers' councils serve one role and unions serve another. That is, the trade union form was inadequate to meet all the needs of the class struggle -- the trade unions could not organize a political struggle, the workers' councils could. This has been the relationship between unions and workers' councils throughout the last century.

Trade unions work for negotiating conditions for the working class while they are breaking a strike. Trade unions can not be revolutionary anymore, they have became reformist by their nature.[/b]

This comment is so laughable that I don't even know where to begin! Have you ever been in a union? Have you ever been involved in either contract negotiations or strike organizing? Are unions reformist? Well, most of them are. Is that the same as unions "work for negotiating conditions ... while they are breaking a strike"? No. Drawing an equal sign between the two might sound r-r-r-revolutionary, but it's just plain ignorant and infantile.

Originally posted by Leo Uilleann+Aug 7 2006, 01:48 PM--> (Leo Uilleann @ Aug 7 2006, 01:48 PM)
Miles
A "popular front" with whom?! With what section of the bourgeoisie?

Secular nationalists perhaps? Or moderate left-religious groups? (such as General Union of Oil Employees in Basra) Or maybe left leaning kurdish nationalists? Maoists even? Who knows what they are thinking, there are so many little groups for them to join their forces with.[/b]

What secular nationalists? They're either in the Quisling government or in the "resistance". Kurdish nationalists? The WCPI opposes the breakup of Iraq, so the nationalists will continue to do what they've done when they "encounter" worker-communists: shoot at them. Maoists? Puh-lease! There are something like three Maoists in all of Iraq!

I saved "moderate left-religious groups" for last because it is perhaps the most ridiculous of all the statements. I thought I had heard everything, but describing a union as being merely a "moderate left-religious group" sure takes the cake and tray. That's like calling the Second World War a minor border skirmish!

Originally posted by Leo Uilleann+Aug 7 2006, 01:48 PM--> (Leo Uilleann @ Aug 7 2006, 01:48 PM)
Miles
How would you define a pre-revolutionary situation? What criteria would you use? Since you use a different method of defining imperialism, I figure I should ask about this too before I say anything more.

Class consciousness would probably work pretty well as a criteria. It tends to be weak in warzones, under occupations. Nationalists manage to get more attention and support.[/b]

The only reason why nationalists have "managed to get more attention and support" throughout the 20th century is because communists have either stood on the sidelines or backed the nationalists, and have often refused to fight for an independent line. And as is often the case, when communists have attempted to organize and push forward, the other so-called "communists" either call them a "fifth column" or accuse them of "forcing historical events". In both cases, these elements have ended up empowering the nationalists -- either through abdication or through capitulation.

In this discussion, we've seen both of these elements -- the capitulators and the abdicators -- at work.

Leo [email protected] 7 2006, 01:48 PM

Miles
[quote][b]Given what you and Alf have said, it sounds like you would be sitting back and just watching events unfold, and issuing an "internationalist statement" here and there. You certainly don't sound like you're willing to do any kind of organizing that is aimed at building a workers' movement against capitalist rule under the current conditions. You seem to want to wait for some far-off "favorable" situation to develop before doing anything other than organize a few people into a section of the ICC.

Miles, why do you make this sound so personal? This is not about the will of the few, organizing and saving the day. Nationalism and fundmentalism is incredibly strong in the Middle East, especially in Iraq. Workers will organize when they have class consciousness, and we should do our best to help workers develop class consciousness, by any means (including issuing an internationalist statement which is extremely important), but workers class consciousness also depends on the material conditions. WCPI might have a tiny, very tiny chance to make a coup in Iran, but they can't make a proletarian revolution, because a proletarian revolution is done by the proletariat, not the central commitee of a political party.

It's not personal, it's political. And, from my perspective, your politics do nothing but aid the very forces you say you oppose. As the old saying goes, when the going gets tough, you all get going ... and don't stop until you're as far away as you can get. Or, to put it in more direct language, you "run away".

Your words, and the words of your comrades, might hold more weight if your comrades weren't so inclined to chicken out at the first sign of danger. Your comrades not only advocate abdicating your responsibilities as communists in theory and words, they also advocate abdicating them in action, with your feet.

Running away from danger might be funny in a Monty Python movie, but in the class struggle it just gets workers killed.

Miles

Nothing Human Is Alien

8th August 2006, 10:06

The only reason why nationalists have "managed to get more attention and support" throughout the 20th century is because communists have either stood on the sidelines or backed the nationalists, and have often refused to fight for an independent line. And as is often the case, when communists have attempted to organize and push forward, the other so-called "communists" either call them a "fifth column" or accuse them of "forcing historical events". In both cases, these elements have ended up empowering the nationalists -- either through abdication or through capitulation.

In this discussion, we've seen both of these elements -- the capitulators and the abdicators -- at work.

I totally agree comrade, and this is what I've tried to get across in debates in the CC (and in here in the politics forum if I remember correctly).

Those who say that a revolution isn't "on the menu" while a foreign power invades must have forgotten about Viet Nam........

The bourgeoisie of the imperialist-oppressed countries have proven that they are uncapable or unwilling to break free from the chains of imperialism. In those countries, the task of national liberation has fallen to our class long ago.. and of course we need to carry those struggles through, to socialist revolution, if the break with imperialism is going to be for real.

This is what el Che was talking about when he said "Each time a country is freed, we say, it is a defeat for the world imperialist system, but we must agree that real liberation or breaking away from the imperialist system is not achieved by the mere act of proclaiming independence or winning an armed victory in a revolution. Freedom is achieved when imperialist economic domination over a people is brought to an end."

Marion

8th August 2006, 11:03

CL - your charge of cowardice is totally unwarranted. What is your evidence for it? The position of those arguing against you does lead to not taking any sort of sides in the Lebanon - Israel issue, but this does not equate to "running away" or "chickening out".

If you want to argue about courage, I'd argue it takes more to argue a relatively unpopular position (the rejection of involvement in "national liberation" in favour of a truly working-class position) in countries such as Turkey where this isn't a popular position at all and the room to argue this type of thing is relatively small, than to sit in the UK or USA and argue in favour of armed involvement in Lebanon.

Ultimately, however, bringing up this issue is largely irrelevant. There are some on this board who would be prepared to fight (and may well do so) in Lebanon and their bravery and commitment is to be respected. It doesn't mean that their political viewpoint is necessarily right.

Martin Blank

8th August 2006, 11:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 03:04 AM
CL - your charge of cowardice is totally unwarranted. What is your evidence for it? The position of those arguing against you does lead to not taking any sort of sides in the Lebanon - Israel issue, but this does not equate to "running away" or "chickening out".

Marion, you're not paying attention. In this thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=53762&st=50), Jamal asks, "I will ask you a question, what is better: to fight under the national flag defending the people of the country or die in your home or just run away?" DevrimAnkara responds: "I would say that to just run away is best."

Next time you want to speak up, do your homework.

Miles

ON EDIT: To be clear, I don't think people should fight "under the national flag". I do think they should fight, but under their own flag -- preferrably a red flag. But I think that the point to this is to ask: Do you fight, or do you run? DA answered that quite clearly.

Marion

8th August 2006, 11:42

Did read that bit and do my homework, blah blah blah - chill out and don't get so stressed!

In response to Jamal's post Devrim was clearly saying that he believed that it was better not to be involved in the Lebanon - Israel issue than to get involved. That's been pretty clear from everything he posted. However, I feel that your post tried to change what was a matter of politics into slurs on people's personal courage. If I'm asked whether I'd fight for A or B and I hate both options or think neither is helpful my decision to opt out is not necessarily anything to do with courage.

Of course, its possible to people to criticise Devrim's approach as poltically useless (and that's what this debate is, in part, about and I've welcomed your posts on this issue), but to say that people are "chickening out" and imply that their politics are in some way a cover for a lack of guts is below the belt. I suppose the best argument you could make is that you didn't mean to imply any personal or moral judgement but that your use of vocabulary was unhelpful.

I don't think its a major point and don't want it to derail the thread as I don't think the whole issue has any real bearing on the important matters being discussed, just that its easier to engage with what everyone is saying without this happening in the background....

Leo

8th August 2006, 12:12

Since my first response to this, which I felt more succinctly summed up my views, was unceremoniously removed, I guess I have to go with the long version.

Your first response was a pathetic spam. You should be happy for its removal.

This comment is so laughable that I don't even know where to begin! Have you ever been in a union? Have you ever been involved in either contract negotiations or strike organizing? Are unions reformist? Well, most of them are. Is that the same as unions "work[ing] for negotiating conditions ... while they are breaking a strike"? No. Drawing an equal sign between the two might sound r-r-r-revolutionary, but it's just plain ignorant and infantile.

First of all, negotiating for conditions is breaking a strike. You can't give me a single example of a revolutionary union operating today.

Kurdish nationalists?

WCPI has lots of kurdish nationalists in its ranks.

What secular nationalists? They're either in the Quisling government or in the "resistance".

I bet WCPI would enjoy drawing allies from both sides.

Maoists? Puh-lease! There are something like three Maoists in all of Iraq!

Worker-communist parties themselves has pretty strong maoist roots and Hekmat himself was smyphatetic to Mao. WCP in Iran was founded when Hekmat joined forces with a Maoist Kurdish Nationalist group.

I saved "moderate left-religious groups" for last because it is perhaps the most ridiculous of all the statements. I thought I had heard everything, but describing a union as being merely a "moderate left-religious group" sure takes the cake and tray. That's like calling the Second World War a minor border skirmish!

General Union of Oil Employees in Basra says:

...We declare our solidarity with the Lebanese people and Islamic resistance and we are proudly greeting them and God with you.

And you were in Iraq and observed this first-hand when exactly?...

Thought so.

This is a laughable way of debating. Were you in Iraq? No. Did you even meet someone from Iraq? Probably not. Are you just defending the WCPI because you organization is affiliated with theirs? Yes.

The only reason why nationalists have "managed to get more attention and support" throughout the 20th century is because communists have either stood on the sidelines or backed the nationalists, and have often refused to fight for an independent line. And as is often the case, when communists have attempted to organize and push forward, the other so-called "communists" either call them a "fifth column" or accuse them of "forcing historical events". In both cases, these elements have ended up empowering the nationalists -- either through abdication or through capitulation.

In this discussion, we've seen both of these elements -- the capitulators and the abdicators -- at work.

You are right while saying that "the only reason why nationalists have 'managed to get more attention and support' throughout the 20th century is because communists have either stood on the sidelines or backed the nationalists, and have often refused to fight for an independent line."

In Iraq WCPI might be organizing but they they have practically no chance of achieving success through their organization and even if they manage to win, they have no chance of becoming succesful because their victory can't be anything but a coup. The majority of the population is sucked up into nationalism and WCPI was not able to be an alternative side. WCPI is doing very little, if nothing, to raise class consciousness. Instead they are organizing to take power and have supporters. The motto of Iraqi Freedom Congress was a 'Free (Independent?) Democratic(Bourgeoise Multi-Party Democracy?) Iraq' and even with such a moderate motto, they are, still a tiny organization.

Iraq was a horrible place before the invasion, it is a horrible place now and it will be a horrible place when the US forces leave. What should be done in Iraq would be raising class consciousness, only then would organizing be aimed at a proletarian revolution instead of a coup.

It's not personal, it's political. And, from my perspective, your politics do nothing but aid the very forces you say you oppose. As the old saying goes, when the going gets tough, you all get going ... and don't stop until you're as far away as you can get. Or, to put it in more direct language, you "run away".

Your words, and the words of your comrades, might hold more weight if your comrades weren't so inclined to chicken out at the first sign of danger. Your comrades not only advocate abdicating your responsibilities as communists in theory and words, they also advocate abdicating them in action, with your feet.

Running away from danger might be funny in a Monty Python movie, but in the class struggle it just gets workers killed.

Your charge of cowardice is totally unwarranted. What is your evidence for it? The position of those arguing against you does lead to not taking any sort of sides in the Lebanon - Israel issue, but this does not equate to "running away" or "chickening out".

[QUOTE]Marion, you're not paying attention. In this thread, Jamal asks, "I will ask you a question, what is better: to fight under the national flag defending the people of the country or die in your home or just run away?" DevrimAnkara responds: "I would say that to just run away is best."

Next time you want to speak up, do your homework.

First of all, what Devrim ment was that it was better to run and survive for the members of the proletariat instead of dying for Hizbullah or whoever, dying under a national flag. In fact workers who run away from such inter-imperialist conflicts have more class consciousness because they are not sucked up into blind nationalism. If you think that people in Lebannon should die under their national flags for the best interests of their state or Hizbullah instead of saying 'Fuck all of this' and running away, then you are no communist at all.

Secondly, we are not inclined to chicken out at the first sign of danger. This sounds even more funny when we are trying to organize in a country that is so dark, that has such an oppressive state, where religious fundementalists and ultra-nationalists are so strong and where even the tiny 'left' factions hate the working class and you are in US. This is not to say organizing in the US is easy, but trust me, it has always been much harder here.

Alf

8th August 2006, 12:13

What choices are being offered on this thread? We have 'anarchists' (Anarchist Freedom) telling us to support the state of Israel and its terrorising of the Lebanese population under the guise of self-defence; we have pro-Stalinists telling us to support the 'Resistance'. In other words, the working class is once again being told to take sides in an inter-imperialist war - like all the other wars in the Middle East since 48, like the Korean war, like the Vietnam war, and like the daddies of them all, World Wars 1 and 2.

The working class position in all such wars is to continue the class struggle against your own bourgeoisie as much as against the 'foreign invader'. It is not to line up with Hizbollah, the PLO, the Vietcong and all the rest, all of whom have a proven record of repressing the working class and murdering its militants. The glorious Vietnamese Stalinists, who we are supposed to see as models, crushed working class movements in Saigon after the second world war and mobilised the population in the interests of Russian and Chinese imperialism against French and US imperialism.

For the soldiers caught up in such wars, what choices do they have? The most direct and open class response has always been fraternisation and mutiny. But workers in uniform have also deserted en masse, like the Iraqi troops did in 91 and 2003. That's a much less positive response, but sometimes it's the only one possible.

For the proletarians caught under massive aerial bombardment, their first priority is indeed to survive: hiding in shelters, retreating to safer areas (that's no doubt what Devrim meant by 'running away', but he can speak for himself) - that is very often the only option. But even in these situations there can collective expressions of discontent. In the Blitz in Britain, for example, the anger of Londoners wasn't always just directed against the 'Germans' but also against the British state for providing such inadequate shelter. These sorts of 'disloyal' protests are usually written out of the history books.

The first thing that communists have to say in this situation is that neither Israel nor Hizbollah are defending the population. Both are dragging them into a barbaric war and offer them the perspective of more and even more destructive wars in future. Revolutionaries have to relate to all the signs of questioning and criticism of the status quo and try to push them forward - either towards a clearer political understanding of the situation, or towards concrete expressions of immediate working class struggle, such as strikes and demonstrations. But in advancing towards the latter, communists have to be absolutely clear that the workers will be faced with violent opposition from the nationalists, whose very purpose is to dragoon the population into the nationalist/imperialist war, not to rebel against it.

JimFar

8th August 2006, 15:02

Rosa wrote:

am a Jewess; I have to tell you that I am ashamed of the the way the Zionist state has 1) kicked the Palestinians off their land (and then have the brass-faced cheek to claim 'victimhood' when they fight back); 2) repeatedly brutalised surrounding Arab countries (and then wonder why their racist state is hated); 3) used overwhelming US-suppled firepower to kill Lebanese civilians and Palestinians indiscriminately, 4) guarded the middle east for US imperial oil interests.

When the oil runs out, watch the uSSa drop Israel like a hot brick.

Concerning the future viability of Zionism, I wrote in another forum the following:

"Well, I would agree with Richard Cohen's characterization of Israel
as a mistake, in his Washington Post column, Hunker Down with History (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/17/AR2006071701154.html)

In fact, I am agreement with writers like Tony Judt and Dan Lazare, who call for a secular binational state in place of Israel and Palestine,
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16671
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20031103/lazare

For the reasons cited by both authors, I don't think that the Zionist project is one that is sustainable over the long run. This is due to both internal and external factors: with the internal factors including the demographic problem facing Israel, since both Israeli Arabs and the Palestinians in the occupied territories have much higher fertility rates than do Israeli Jews. This places the Jewish character of the state of Israel at serious risk over the long term, since within a few decades, Israel could well have an Arab majority. Short of abolishing democracy or ethnic cleansing, that's a serious threat to the Zionist project from within. The major external threat to the Zionist project from without, is the simple fact that Zionism appears to be inherently antagonistic to the national aspirations of the Palestinian Arabs, and of the Arabs, generally. As Dan Lazare points out, most of the early Zionists, from Herzl on, envisioned Israel as being a normal state, that would be at peace with its neighbors. Needless to say, that's not how things have turned out. One of the few early Zionists, who had an even halfway realistic understanding of how things would turn out was the intellectual father of Revisionist Zionism, Z'ev Jabotinsky. In his essay, "The Iron Wall" (http://www.saveisrael.com/jabo/jabowall.htm) , Jabotinsky, argued among other things that the success of the Zionist project required that the Zionists ally themselves with Western imperialists (in his day, the British, Italians, and French) against the national aspirations of the Arabs and other peoples of the Middle East. He wrote:

"We can offer only two things: either money or political assistance or both. But we can offer neither. Concerning money, it is ludicrous to think we could finance the development of Iraq or Saudi Arabia, when we do not have enough for the Land of Israel. Ten times more illusionary is political assistance for Arab political aspirations. Arab nationalism sets itself the same aims as those set by Italian nationalism before 1870 and Polish nationalism before 1918: unity and independence. These aspirations mean the eradication of every trace of British influence in Egypt and Iraq, the expulsion of the Italians from Libya, the removal of French domination from Syria, Tunis, Algiers and Morocco. For us to support such a movement would be suicide and treachery. If we disregard the fact that the Balfour Declaration was signed by Britain, we cannot forget that France and Italy also signed it. We cannot intrigue about removing Britain from the Suez Canal and the Persian Gulf and the elimination of French and Italian colonial rule over Arab territory. Such a double game cannot be considered on any account.

"Thus we conclude that we cannot promise anything to the Arabs of the Land of Israel or the Arab countries. Their voluntary agreement is out of the question. Hence those who hold that an agreement with the natives is an essential condition for Zionism can now say "no" and depart from Zionism. Zionist colonization, even the most restricted, must either be terminated or carried out in defiance of the will of the native population. This colonization can, therefore, continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population -- an iron wall which the native population cannot break through. This is, in toto, our policy towards the Arabs. To formulate it any other way would only be hypocrisy."

Jabotinsky did not mince words here. He also made it quite clear in his essay, that Arab opposition to the Zionist project was not at all irrational. From their perspective, they were quite right to oppose it, since it necessarily threatened their own national aspirations. As he put it:

""Any native people -- its all the same whether they are civilized or savage -- views their country as their national home, of which they will always be the complete masters. They will not voluntarily allow, not only a new master, but even a new partner. And so it is for the Arabs. Compromisers in our midst attempt to convince us that the Arabs are some kind of fools who can be tricked by a softened formulation of our goals, or a tribe of money grubbers who will abandon their birth right to Palestine for cultural and economic gains. I flatly reject this assessment of the Palestinian Arabs. Culturally they are 500 years behind us, spiritually they do not have our endurance or our strength of will, but this exhausts all of the internal differences. We can talk as much as we want about our good intentions; but they understand as well as we what is not good for them. They look upon Palestine with the same instinctive love and true fervor that any Aztec looked upon his Mexico or any Sioux looked upon his prairie. To think that the Arabs will voluntarily consent to the realization of Zionism in return for the cultural and economic benefits we can bestow on them is infantile. This childish fantasy of our "Arabo-philes" comes from some kind of contempt for the Arab people, of some kind of unfounded view of this race as a rabble ready to be bribed in order to sell out their homeland for a railroad
network."

"I think that Jabotinsky was quite right in his assessment and the events of the past eighty years have only shown his analysis to have been correct. Where he goes wrong is in his faith in the continued viability of colonialism, and he clearly saw Zionism as kind of colonialist project. The success of the Zionist project, in his view, required the backing of the imperialist powers (in his day, Jabotinsky spent much time, trying to cultivate support from the British, then the Italians, and later the British again). Now a days, the US plays this role. However, in my judgment, the days of empire are drawing to an end. The colonial empires of Britain and France
are now just a memory. The remaining empire is that of the United States, the world's one superpower. But the day of the US as the world's superpower is gradually coming to an end. The current war in Iraq, has, if it is done anything, shown the limits of US power. This has encouraged increased resistance to US domination from all sorts of forces, not only in the Middle East, but in other parts of the world too, including the United States' own backyard, Latin America. Meanwhile, Russia has begun to make a comeback as a world power, and China may well be on the way to superpower status later in this century.

"Just as the twentieth century was the "American Century," the history of the twenty-first century will the history of the decline of the United States as a superpower. To the extent that Israel has hinged its own continued good fortune to that of the US, this century is not likely to be very kind to Israel, unless she radically changes course."

Martin Blank

8th August 2006, 18:37

Originally posted by Marion+Aug 8 2006, 03:43 AM--> (Marion @ Aug 8 2006, 03:43 AM)Did read that bit and do my homework, blah blah blah - chill out and don't get so stressed![/b]

Not stressed. Just annoyed.

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 03:43 AM
In response to Jamal's post Devrim was clearly saying that he believed that it was better not to be involved in the Lebanon - Israel issue than to get involved. That's been pretty clear from everything he posted. However, I feel that your post tried to change what was a matter of politics into slurs on people's personal courage. If I'm asked whether I'd fight for A or B and I hate both options or think neither is helpful my decision to opt out is not necessarily anything to do with courage.

Comrade, in matters of life-or-death, to "opt out" is a sign of political cowardice. Or, to put it in more "political" language, it is a sign of complete abdication of any intervention into events for fear of having to act in the concrete. Again, it's not personal. I hold no grudge against Devrim or Leo or Alf or any other member of the ICC who holds this position, and I don't think any less of them as individual human beings because of this position. I just think they're politically worthless. Like I said in reply to Leo's post, such a position only gets workers killed.

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 03:43 AM
Of course, its possible to people to criticise Devrim's approach as poltically useless (and that's what this debate is, in part, about and I've welcomed your posts on this issue), but to say that people are "chickening out" and imply that their politics are in some way a cover for a lack of guts is below the belt. I suppose the best argument you could make is that you didn't mean to imply any personal or moral judgement but that your use of vocabulary was unhelpful.

I will readily and immediately agree that my statements do not imply any personal or moral judgement on my part. That is quite true, and I will repeat that as often as it is necessary. However, I do think that, in a time like this, perhaps it is necessary to use some "plain speaking" to get the point across. Leftists seem to not respond to sugary, coded language. They either ignore it or attempt to sugar-coat it more with their reply. It's time to cut to the chase. It's time to get blunt about it. The ICC's position, as expressed in that quote from DA, is dangerous and will get workers killed. And the fact that it doesn't seem to phase them worries me even more.

[email protected] 8 2006, 03:43 AM
I don't think its a major point and don't want it to derail the thread as I don't think the whole issue has any real bearing on the important matters being discussed, just that its easier to engage with what everyone is saying without this happening in the background....

I understand your point.

Miles

Martin Blank

8th August 2006, 19:04

Originally posted by Leo Uilleann+Aug 8 2006, 04:13 AM--> (Leo Uilleann @ Aug 8 2006, 04:13 AM)Your first response was a pathetic spam. You should be happy for its removal.[/b]

Actually, it was, in my view, a fair assessment of your political method.

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 8 2006, 04:13 AM
First of all, negotiating for conditions is breaking a strike. You can't give me a single example of a revolutionary union operating today.

Actually, negotiating for conditions (a contract, essentially) is more like negotiating a cease-fire or armistice during a war. It allows your side to regroup, retool and rearm for the next battle.

As for examples of "revolutionary unions", I never said there were any. Some come close (the IWW comes to mind), but close only counts in horseshoes and with hand grenades.

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 8 2006, 04:13 AM
WCPI has lots of kurdish nationalists in its ranks.

Proof?

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 8 2006, 04:13 AM
I bet WCPI would enjoy drawing allies from both sides.

I'd advise you to keep your money.

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 8 2006, 04:13 AM
Worker-communist parties themselves has pretty strong maoist roots and Hekmat himself was smyphatetic to Mao. WCP in Iran was founded when Hekmat joined forces with a Maoist Kurdish Nationalist group.

And?... That's a throwaway statement. Show and prove the WCPI maintain a Maoist methodology.

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 8 2006, 04:13 AM
General Union of Oil Employees in Basra says:

...We declare our solidarity with the Lebanese people and Islamic resistance and we are proudly greeting them and God with you.

That doesn't make the organization a "left-religious group".

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 8 2006, 04:13 AM
This is a laughable way of debating. Were you in Iraq? No. Did you even meet someone from Iraq? Probably not. Are you just defending the WCPI because you organization is affiliated with theirs? Yes.

Was I in Iraq? No. Have I met comrades from Iraq who are involved in the IFC and FWCUI? Yes. Several times. Have they all been members of the WCPI? No. I live in a location where it is relatively easy to meet these comrades and talk with them. I have taken advantage of that fact.

And, again, we are not an affiliate. We do not come from the Hekmatist tradition. However, we work with the WCPI on issues where we agree. The only organizations we are affiliated to are those involved in the International Working People's Association. And, if you notice, the WCPs are not involved in that organization.

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 8 2006, 04:13 AM
In Iraq WCPI might be organizing but they they have practically no chance of achieving success through their organization and even if they manage to win, they have no chance of becoming succesful because their victory can't be anything but a coup. The majority of the population is sucked up into nationalism and WCPI was not able to be an alternative side. WCPI is doing very little, if nothing, to raise class consciousness. Instead they are organizing to take power and have supporters. The motto of Iraqi Freedom Congress was a 'Free (Independent?) Democratic(Bourgeoise Multi-Party Democracy?) Iraq' and even with such a moderate motto, they are, still a tiny organization.

I get a lot of reports from inside Iraq. Some come from the WCPI and IFC, but others do not. They paint an entirely different picture than what you write here.

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 8 2006, 04:13 AM
Iraq was a horrible place before the invasion, it is a horrible place now and it will be a horrible place when the US forces leave. What should be done in Iraq would be raising class consciousness, only then would organizing be aimed at a proletarian revolution instead of a coup.

Iraq is not like Kuwait or Sa'udi Arabia; it has a large working class that has its own tradition of fighting for its class interests. Iraq has historically had a rich tradition of class struggle. If you had studied their history, you'd know that.

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 8 2006, 04:13 AM
Your charge of cowardice is totally unwarranted. What is your evidence for it? The position of those arguing against you does lead to not taking any sort of sides in the Lebanon - Israel issue, but this does not equate to "running away" or "chickening out".

You already know where it comes from -- all post facto protestations of DA and yourself notwithstanding.

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 8 2006, 04:13 AM
First of all, what Devrim ment was that it was better to run and survive for the members of the proletariat instead of dying for Hizbullah or whoever, dying under a national flag. In fact workers who run away from such inter-imperialist conflicts have more class consciousness because they are not sucked up into blind nationalism. If you think that people in Lebannon should die under their national flags for the best interests of their state or Hizbullah instead of saying 'Fuck all of this' and running away, then you are no communist at all.

I already stated my view on this. I think they should fight, but fight under their own flag, for their own goals (which, in the current situation, includes repelling the Israeli invasion).

Leo [email protected] 8 2006, 04:13 AM
Secondly, we are not inclined to chicken out at the first sign of danger. This sounds even more funny when we are trying to organize in a country that is so dark, that has such an oppressive state, where religious fundementalists and ultra-nationalists are so strong and where even the tiny 'left' factions hate the working class and you are in US. This is not to say organizing in the US is easy, but trust me, it has always been much harder here.

First of all, I'm not the only one here thinking you want to chicken out. Second, you may think it sounds funny, not no one is laughing about your position. If all you're going to do is issue paper proclamations, you're no threat to capitalism. Period. So, yeah, I imagine you'll have some success organizing a section of the ICC wherever you are right now. I wish you the best of luck, but I'm not expecting much.

Miles

Leo

8th August 2006, 19:46

I already stated my view on this. I think they should fight, but fight under their own flag, for their own goals

So wait, let me get this clear: who should they fight against in Lebannon? Israel? Hizbullah? Both? And how will they do it? You want the entire proletariat to become soldiers? You want them to die for one side or the other? You want them to challange two well organized armed sides?

The best interests of the proletariat in an inter-imperialist war zone is to survive, not to die. You are getting ridiculous.

I just think they're politically worthless. Like I said in reply to Leo's post, such a position only gets workers killed.

The ICC's position, as expressed in that quote from DA, is dangerous and will get workers killed.

It gets the workers killed? What the fuck are you talking about? The main point of that position is to make the workers live instead of dying under a national flag. Your position is the one that only gets the workers killed.

Comrade, in matters of life-or-death, to "opt out" is a sign of political cowardice. Or, to put it in more "political" language, it is a sign of complete abdication of any intervention into events for fear of having to act in the concrete.

Fear? What the fuck are you talking about? You call our criticizm of the authoritarian WCPI fear? We would do our best to raise class consciousness and organize workers with class consciousness in Iraq if we were there, but under an active and violent imperialist conflict such as the one in Lebannon, it is acceptable for the workers to leave the imperialist conflict. Now you must notice some basics here, workers don't make revolutions to die. They make it to live. Do you get it? It really is not that hard to understand is it? Or did you think a revolution was an epic tale of bravery and blood? Did you imagine armies of workers killing and dying on your commend while showing an epic courage? Surely not.

Actually, negotiating for conditions (a contract, essentially) is more like negotiating a cease-fire or armistice during a war. It allows your side to regroup, retool and rearm for the next battle.

As for examples of "revolutionary unions", I never said there were any. Some come close (the IWW comes to mind), but close only counts in horseshoes and with hand grenades.

IWW did come close in its time, but my arguement is that there are no cease-fires or armistices during the class war. I also say that there can't be any revolutionary unions anymore. This goes into a more theoretical thread which would go off topic. You can split the thread if you want to.

WCPI has lots of kurdish nationalists in its ranks.

Proof?

Before the american invasion WCP of Iraq only operated in the Kurdish zone. It is common sense. Besides, WCP of Iran was formed with a fusion of Hekmat's little group with a kurdish nationalist - maoist group. WCP of Iran is also very strong in the Kurdish zone in Iraq.

And?... That's a throwaway statement. Show and prove the WCPI maintain a Maoist methodology.

The power of the central commitee and the cult around Hekmat are some hints giving away that background.

That doesn't make the organization a "left-religious group".

Oh really <_<

Iraq is not like Kuwait or Sa'udi Arabia; it has a large working class that has its own tradition of fighting for its class interests. Iraq has historically had a rich tradition of class struggle. If you had studied their history, you'd know that.

Unfortunately nationalist (and national liberation) struggle and religious sect feuds are more common in Iraq than class struggle. Especially under the US Invasion such currents are now even higher and are still rising while class consciousness is declining.

Besides, who are you to say that workers should die in a country that has active war? What difference does that leave between you and an imperialist?

First of all, I'm not the only one here thinking you want to chicken out. Second, you may think it sounds funny, not no one is laughing about your position. If all you're going to do is issue paper proclamations, you're no threat to capitalism. Period. So, yeah, I imagine you'll have some success organizing a section of the ICC wherever you are right now. I wish you the best of luck, but I'm not expecting much.

In Turkey we will raise class consciousness, and we will organize with the workers, but we won't organize merely for having more 'party members' to show off without class consciousness. Remember, the turtle wins the race, we aim a proletarian revolution, not a coup d'etat and making a proletarian revolution is not easy or simple. And you still have no justification at all to accuse us with cowardness. They hanged up seventeen year olds for being revolutionaries in Turkey, you have no idea how brutal it can get here. The point is, we would do our best to organize where ever we are, but we won't organize without raising class consciousness because our aim is a proletarian revolution, not a coup d'etat.

By the way, I am just wondering, what does the CL aim?

Anarchist Freedom

8th August 2006, 21:14

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 8 2006, 02:52 AM
Anarchist Freedom, I can't believe you have just posted this.

I am a Jewess; I have to tell you that I am ashamed of the the way the Zionist state has 1) kicked the Palestinians off their land (and then have the brass-faced cheek to claim 'victimhood' when they fight back); 2) repeatedly brutalised surrounding Arab countries (and then wonder why their racist state is hated); 3) used overwhelming US-suppled firepower to kill Lebanese civilians and Palestinians indiscriminately, 4) guarded the middle east for US imperial oil interests.

When the oil runs out, watch the uSSa drop Israel like a hot brick.

As far as Arabs and Jews getting on is concerned, they managed to do that for hundreds of years before the west helped screw with them.

One solution: a secular state in Palestine; no imperial interference.

Victory to the resistance!
I agree completely I know that Isreal is no angel but the hezbollah are no better by any means. I believe the only solution is a secular palestinen state.

Alf

9th August 2006, 01:44

Just for the record, I am the only one here who is a member of the ICC. But it doesn't make a lot of difference because I am in fundamental agreement with Leo and Devrim. The charge of political cowardice is baseless. We all identify with a political tradition which defended internationalist positions during the second world war, including under the Nazi occupation in France. In those conditions the internationalist left communists had to carry on their activities not only against the Nazis and the Vichy regime, but also against the Stalinist resistance who wanted to shoot them as 'fascist collaborators'. Comrades with similar positions in Italy actually were shot by the 'Partisans'.

An internationalist in Lebanon today would face similar dangers, not only from the Israeli bombardment, but also from Hezbollah who would no doubt not hesitate to murder anyone questioning their domination. 'Supporting the Resistance' on the other hand requires no such political courage because it is the dominant position in Lebanon today - the position of conventional wisdom and thus of the ruling class. The same applies to Israel where the majority of the population are, for the moment at least, backing the government.

Devrim

9th August 2006, 02:07

First, I would like to stress that neither I nor Leo nor any member of the Enternasonalist Komünist Sol in Turkey is a member of the ICC. Yes, we hold positions close to theirs, and we have worked together, but we are not members of the same organisation.

Second, I would like to point out what is the basis of this argument. Whilst both us and Miles seem to hold an internationalist position against the war, we do not agree with him on the prospects of class struggle in Iraq. I think that this is because we actually live in the region, have a general feeling for what is going on, and aren't sitting somewhere in America having leftist fantasies about what is going on in Iraq, or for that matter Lebanon. When I said that running away was a better option than fighting under the national flag, I think you would find that your friends in the Worker Communist party would actually agree with me. Whatever there mistakes are, and I agree with Leo that they are a Stalinist party with its historical roots in Kurdish nationalism (after all one of the main parties involved in their formation was Komala, which sounds like a pretty Kurdish nationalist name to me) they do have a class line on the war.

Actually, members of our group have worked with their people in Turkey in producing internationalist leaflets against the war in Iraq in their places of work. We have major disagreements with them, but on the basic position that the war is anti-working class, we are in agreement. We believe that they are a Stalinist party, and I don't see that there can be any common work on an organisational level, but when people are producing things on a class base in their place of work I think that there can be some agreement, and common activity. I don't know them well personally though I have met them a couple of times, and we have discussed politics without people throwing ridiculous accusations of cowardice at us. Actually when we met we tended to argue on the same side against those who act as recruiting sergeants for imperialist wars. I have even seen one of their supporters distributing our leaflets on demonstrations.

The problem with Miles as I said before is that he mistakes leftist front groups for workers' councils. There are no workers' councils in Iraq. It is a completely ludicrous idea.

The line of argument perused by Miles is a ridiculous one: You have never set up workers councils, you are not in Iraq etc... As if he himself were actually setting up workers' councils in Iraq at the minute.

Let's just turn it around. Have you ever been involved in a mass meeting in a strike, Miles? Have you ever even been to the Middle East let alone Iraq? I have been involved in mass meetings in postman’s strikes in the late Eighties, I live in the Middle East, and have even been to Iraq, admittedly not for many years. The point here is that there is no point. Our ideas are valid, or not in themselves (this is a discussion forum after all). It would be stupid for us to argue that because you have not done these things that your ideas are wrong.

Leo is rightly angry when he talks about people in the US having no idea of the conditions that we operate under. I am sick of leftists in the west suggesting that Middle eastern workers go out, and die for various nationalist factions (to be fair you haven't done that). Our work in this country is hard. Some of our student members have been beaten up by Stalinists for giving out internationalist leaflets on demonstrations. I personally was threatened with prosecution under article 301 of the new penal code a few months ago (This is the law that covers insulting Turkishness, or the Turkish republic. It carries a minimum three year prison sentence. Fortunately it didn't come to anything).

So you sit there in America, and criticise people in the Middle East who are trying to organise around communist politics. To me, and please correct me if I am wrong, it sounds like some middle class American student acting out his leftist fantasies over the internet, and frankly I don't give a fuck what you think.

Devrim Valerian

Martin Blank

9th August 2006, 06:53

Originally posted by Leo Uilleann+Aug 8 2006, 11:47 AM--> (Leo Uilleann @ Aug 8 2006, 11:47 AM)So wait, let me get this clear: who should they fight against in Lebannon? Israel? Hizbullah? Both? And how will they do it? You want the entire proletariat to become soldiers? You want them to die for one side or the other? You want them to challange two well organized armed sides?

The best interests of the proletariat in an inter-imperialist war zone is to survive, not to die. You are getting ridiculous.[/b]

Today, the fight is against the U.S.-Israeli attempt to remake the Middle East in its own image, which is part of the overall plan by the Anglo-American imperialist cartel to redivide the world along terms it finds most favorable.

Under the current conditions, arming and defending one's self is more likely to guarantee survival than just huddling in corners -- or, to say the least, it is not more likely to get you killed. The Israelis are targeting civilians more than they are targeting units of Hizb'allah, and they are targeting civilian areas more than they are targeting locations where military-guerrilla units would be stationed.

I have advocated from the beginning the organization of self-defense forces -- armed units whose chief mission is to defend neighborhoods and communities and workplaces from the invaders. This is not necessarily the same as advocating forming units that will attempt offensive operations. Right now, the main issue is defending the lives of working people (for, to be honest, many of the reasons you and other ICC supporters have mentioned).

I almost hate to point it out, but there is a morbid arithmetic that goes into operating during a time of armed conflict. That has to be remembered. The loss of one class-conscious worker's life in such a situation is awful; however, if that one lost life helped to guarantee the continued existence of 10 other class-conscious workers, then....

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 8 2006, 11:47 AM
It gets the workers killed? What the fuck are you talking about? The main point of that position is to make the workers live instead of dying under a national flag. Your position is the one that only gets the workers killed.

I already explained this above.

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 8 2006, 11:47 AM
Now you must notice some basics here, workers don't make revolutions to die. They make it to live. Do you get it? It really is not that hard to understand is it? Or did you think a revolution was an epic tale of bravery and blood? Did you imagine armies of workers killing and dying on your commend while showing an epic courage? Surely not.

I'm not into petty romanticism, but I'm also not deluded enough to think the revolution is going to be bloodless and automatic. You have to take risks. In situations like those in Iraq and Lebanon, that means doing so with arms in hand. Doing it unarmed will more likely result in your death.

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 8 2006, 11:47 AM
IWW did come close in its time, but my arguement is that there are no cease-fires or armistices during the class war. I also say that there can't be any revolutionary unions anymore. This goes into a more theoretical thread which would go off topic. You can split the thread if you want to.

Infantile foolishness. It would be nice to think that workers can go-go-go without a break or need to regroup, but that is simply not possible. You cannot expect human beings to fight without a break for years and years, especially when you consider that it would be round-the-clock fighting and conflict.

And, in case you're not aware, the IWW still exists -- http://www.iww.org/

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 8 2006, 11:47 AM
Before the american invasion WCP of Iraq only operated in the Kurdish zone. It is common sense. Besides, WCP of Iran was formed with a fusion of Hekmat's little group with a kurdish nationalist - maoist group. WCP of Iran is also very strong in the Kurdish zone in Iraq.

The WCPIraq "only" (not really true, "openly" would be more accurate) operated in the Kurdish zone because it was one of the few places they didn't have to worry about getting raided and killed on a daily basis. They still had to fight off the PUK and other Kurdish nationalist groups, which had the disagreeable habit of wanting to kill every WCPer they encountered, but those engagements were not as frequent.

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 8 2006, 11:47 AM
The power of the central commitee and the cult around Hekmat are some hints giving away that background.

Look, I have my own criticisms of these issues, too. I've had to explain to the comrades in the worker-communist organizations on more than one occasion that Hekmat was human and had his limitations and problems. But, unlike what I get from real cultists, they seem to be more open to that kind of criticism.

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 8 2006, 11:47 AM
Oh really <_<

Yes, really. Just because a leading member of that union makes such comments does not mean that the entire organization fits the category.

Originally posted by Leo Uille[email protected] 8 2006, 11:47 AM
Unfortunately nationalist (and national liberation) struggle and religious sect feuds are more common in Iraq than class struggle. Especially under the US Invasion such currents are now even higher and are still rising while class consciousness is declining.

Besides, who are you to say that workers should die in a country that has active war? What difference does that leave between you and an imperialist?

I am saying workers should defend themselves and their interests, which, in such a situation, is more likely to keep them alive than get them killed.

Leo [email protected] 8 2006, 11:47 AM
In Turkey we will raise class consciousness, and we will organize with the workers, but we won't organize merely for having more 'party members' to show off without class consciousness. Remember, the turtle wins the race, we aim a proletarian revolution, not a coup d'etat and making a proletarian revolution is not easy or simple. And you still have no justification at all to accuse us with cowardness. They hanged up seventeen year olds for being revolutionaries in Turkey, you have no idea how brutal it can get here. The point is, we would do our best to organize where ever we are, but we won't organize without raising class consciousness because our aim is a proletarian revolution, not a coup d'etat.

By the way, I am just wondering, what does the CL aim?

Usually, a Kalashnikov. :D

Seriously, though, you are welcome to see what we are about at our website, which has all of our materials on them.

Miles

Martin Blank

9th August 2006, 07:38

Originally posted by devrimankara+Aug 8 2006, 06:08 PM--> (devrimankara @ Aug 8 2006, 06:08 PM)Whilst both us and Miles seem to hold an internationalist position against the war, we do not agree with him on the prospects of class struggle in Iraq. I think that this is because we actually live in the region, have a general feeling for what is going on, and aren't sitting somewhere in America having leftist fantasies about what is going on in Iraq, or for that matter Lebanon.[/b]

Well, it's nice to know that the petty bourgeoisie in Turkey is just as arrogant as their American counterparts.

Yes, I (as an individual person) am in the U.S. However, I get reports from people who are actually in Iraq on a regular basis. Some of them are from Worker-Communist Party supporters. Some of them, however, are not. I "second source" as much as I can. And when my sources match, I feel confident enough to talk about an issue. Such is the case here.

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 06:08 PM
Let's just turn it around. Have you ever been involved in a mass meeting in a strike, Miles? Have you ever even been to the Middle East let alone Iraq? I have been involved in mass meetings in postman’s strikes in the late Eighties, I live in the Middle East, and have even been to Iraq, admittedly not for many years. The point here is that there is no point. Our ideas are valid, or not in themselves (this is a discussion forum after all). It would be stupid for us to argue that because you have not done these things that your ideas are wrong.

I think you missed the reason why I started with that approach. You have come into this discussion lecturing people about what is and is not a workers' council, as if you were some kind of expert. But as you had to admit, your only experience with workers' councils are from books. Hardly a position of expertise, in my opinion. That was the point.

So, fine, you want to turn it around? OK. No problem. Have I been involved in a mass meeting in a strike? Yes. Several. In fact, I've helped to organize such meetings. Can you say the same? Have I been to the Middle East, let alone Iraq? No, and I never claimed to. However, other comrades and friends of the League have traveled to the Middle East; some make the trip regularly. A few of them go to Iraq periodically, and are keen on reporting about what they see. So, it's not like I'm saying these things from a position of ignorance.

[email protected] 8 2006, 06:08 PM
So you sit there in America, and criticise people in the Middle East who are trying to organise around communist politics. To me, and please correct me if I am wrong, it sounds like some middle class American student acting out his leftist fantasies over the internet, and frankly I don't give a fuck what you think.

You are wrong. Quite wrong. But, if you don't give a fuck what I think, then does it matter that I am an industrial worker who is basing his decisions on multiple reports from various sources? No. The petty bourgeoisie has spoken, and the "yankee prole" should just keep his mouth shut.

And that's fine, I suppose. I've said my piece. The petty bourgeoisie is welcome to prattle on and on about themselves.

Miles

Leo

9th August 2006, 10:36

Under the current conditions, arming and defending one's self is more likely to guarantee survival than just huddling in corners -- or, to say the least, it is not more likely to get you killed.

What an idiotic comment!!! You actually think participating in a war between two well trained forces will not get the workers killed? :blink:

The Israelis are targeting civilians more than they are targeting units of Hizb'allah, and they are targeting civilian areas more than they are targeting locations where military-guerrilla units would be stationed.

First of all, staying and waiting is also not a good option. Hiding or running away migth actually be a better idea for Lebanese workers.

So wait, let's get what you mean clear, you want workers to join the Hizbullah or do you want them to organize against both Hizbullah and Israel? The first option would be getting sucked up into an imperialist conflict and the second option would be suicide.

I have advocated from the beginning the organization of self-defense forces -- armed units whose chief mission is to defend neighborhoods and communities and workplaces from the invaders. This is not necessarily the same as advocating forming units that will attempt offensive operations. Right now, the main issue is defending the lives of working people

And giving them guns that they don't know how to use and sending them to fight against well organized armed forces will defend their lives? That's an incredibly ignorant and idiotic idea Miles.

I almost hate to point it out, but there is a morbid arithmetic that goes into operating during a time of armed conflict. That has to be remembered. The loss of one class-conscious worker's life in such a situation is awful; however, if that one lost life helped to guarantee the continued existence of 10 other class-conscious workers, then....

What you propose would actually get all those 11 workers killed.

I'm not into petty romanticism, but I'm also not deluded enough to think the revolution is going to be bloodless and automatic. You have to take risks. In situations like those in Iraq and Lebanon, that means doing so with arms in hand. Doing it unarmed will more likely result in your death.

Alright, why don't you move to Lebannon then, see if your plan works.

(By the way yes the revolution might be violent but that's not the point.)

Infantile foolishness. It would be nice to think that workers can go-go-go without a break or need to regroup, but that is simply not possible. You cannot expect human beings to fight without a break for years and years, especially when you consider that it would be round-the-clock fighting and conflict.

And, in case you're not aware, the IWW still exists

I know that they still exist but they are pretty small. Besides I checked their site and I didn't encounter anything revolutionary.

The WCPIraq "only" (not really true, "openly" would be more accurate) operated in the Kurdish zone because it was one of the few places they didn't have to worry about getting raided and killed on a daily basis. They still had to fight off the PUK and other Kurdish nationalist groups

They fought them over political disputes. Being a Kurd myself, I know that no party could operate, set aside being powerful, in a Kurdish zone that can't get raided on a daily basis without having strong elements of kurdish nationalism <_<

Look, I have my own criticisms of these issues, too. I've had to explain to the comrades in the worker-communist organizations on more than one occasion that Hekmat was human and had his limitations and problems. But, unlike what I get from real cultists, they seem to be more open to that kind of criticism.

So you see they are organized in a pretty Stalinist way.

Yes, really. Just because a leading member of that union makes such comments does not mean that the entire organization fits the category.

Apparently the thing is that you can't imagine a religious or right wing union. Well, welcome to the wonderful world of middle east. In Turkey, there are even fascist unions.

Usually, a Kalashnikov.

:blink: What?

Well, it's nice to know that the petty bourgeoisie in Turkey is just as arrogant as their American counterparts.

The petty bourgeoisie has spoken, and the "yankee prole" should just keep his mouth shut.

You don't like what we say so you call us petty bourgeoise? Well, randomly calling others petty bourgeoise is a well known tactic, however I don't know why but I would have expect better from you. This proves that you have no idea what a petty bourgeoise is. In this debate, you have been falling down and down, without having any idea on the conditions we operated, you accused us with cowardness for wanting the workers in Lebannon to survive and pointing out the Stalinist organizational structure of the WCPI, then when we told you you had no idea on how we operate or the conditions here you call us petty bourgeoise. No one told you to shut up, no one told you your opinion doesn't matter and you know this, the only reason you are going after this one is because you think it is an opening in the debate that you can use because there isn't any other opening left for you. You are really a pathetic debater Miles.

Martin Blank

9th August 2006, 12:36

Originally posted by Leo Uilleann+Aug 9 2006, 02:37 AM--> (Leo Uilleann @ Aug 9 2006, 02:37 AM)What an idiotic comment!!! You actually think participating in a war between two well trained forces will not get the workers killed? :blink: [/b]

Here we go again.... Let me see if I can get this through your wooden head: I am advocating that workers defend their neighborhoods and workplaces. I am NOT advocating they try to jump into the middle between Hizb'allah and the IDF and start firing. They're not ready for that. Do you get it now, or do I need to get out the crayons and draw you a picture?

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 9 2006, 02:37 AM
First of all, staying and waiting is also not a good option. Hiding or running away migth actually be a better idea for Lebanese workers.

Run ... where?! Israel is bombing from the border to Beirut to the Bekaa Valley -- and everywhere in between (and that's just for now). If they ran to Syria, the Israelis would claim Hizb'allah is in Syria and start bombing refugee camps. If they ran to the IDF lines and asked for refugee status, the Israelis would probably massacre them. They can't even tunnel into the ground, given Israel's use of "bunker busters". So, where are they going to go?

Looking at the situation, running is not an option. It's either fight the invasion, welcome the invasion or die.

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 9 2006, 02:37 AM
So wait, let's get what you mean clear, you want workers to join the Hizbullah or do you want them to organize against both Hizbullah and Israel? The first option would be getting sucked up into an imperialist conflict and the second option would be suicide.

This has been answered over and over again. This, like so many other situations in life, is not an "either-or" situation. I would think that someone from the so-called "communist left" would understand that.

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 9 2006, 02:37 AM
And giving them guns that they don't know how to use and sending them to fight against well organized armed forces will defend their lives? That's an incredibly ignorant and idiotic idea Miles.

Who's sending them anywhere? And who says they don't know how to use a weapon? It's becoming clear that you are not reading what I'm saying, but what you want to read. All of your arguments still sound like excuses to do nothing but pontificate on an Internet discussion board.

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 9 2006, 02:37 AM
Alright, why don't you move to Lebannon then, see if your plan works.

Can't get a passport.

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 9 2006, 02:37 AM
I know that they still exist but they are pretty small. Besides I checked their site and I didn't encounter anything revolutionary.

You didn't answer the main point, though -- which seems to be a common problem with you and your two cohorts. You ignore those points where you get trounced and then read what you want to read into those points where you think you can get some traction. You sure you're not Stalinists?

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 9 2006, 02:37 AM
They fought them over political disputes. Being a Kurd myself, I know that no party could operate, set aside being powerful, in a Kurdish zone that can't get raided on a daily basis without having strong elements of kurdish nationalism <_<

Perhaps that explains why so many of them were killed, eh? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 9 2006, 02:37 AM
So you see they are organized in a pretty Stalinist way.

I see that they have problems, but having problems does not automatically translate into them being Stalinist. Stalinism is something specific, not a blanket label to attach to every group you oppose.

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 9 2006, 02:37 AM
Apparently the thing is that you can't imagine a religious or right wing union. Well, welcome to the wonderful world of middle east. In Turkey, there are even fascist unions.

Actually, I can imagine such unions -- especially rightwing unions, which are common in the U.S. The difference, however, is that a "religious or right wing union" would have such things written into their overall political and organizational principles.

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 9 2006, 02:37 AM

Usually, a Kalashnikov.

:blink: What?

You asked what we aim. It was a play on words -- a joke.

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 9 2006, 02:37 AM
You don't like what we say so you call us petty bourgeoise? Well, randomly calling others petty bourgeoise is a well known tactic, however I don't know why but I would have expect better from you. This proves that you have no idea what a petty bourgeoise is.

Actually, I observe your method of debate and analysis, the way you relate to others on here, and I draw my conclusions. There was nothing "random" about it. And the fact that you could not reject the label -- that you could only attempt to bury it with more lecturing and the language of an exploiter -- means that it was correct.

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 9 2006, 02:37 AM
In this debate, you have been falling down and down, without having any idea on the conditions we operated, you accused us with cowardness for wanting the workers in Lebannon to survive and pointing out the Stalinist organizational structure of the WCPI, then when we told you you had no idea on how we operate or the conditions here you call us petty bourgeoise.

Actually, in this debate, I have attempted many times to make my position clear, and each time you and Alf and DA have done nothing but twist that position to fit your own mechanical conception of how revolutionary politics work. It may very well be true that accusing your organization of cowardice was off the mark, but it still seems like all you're advocating is doing nothing but issuing paper statements and pontificating on Internet discussion boards for fear of having to actually conduct work in the current situation.

Leo [email protected] 9 2006, 02:37 AM
No one told you to shut up, no one told you your opinion doesn't matter and you know this, the only reason you are going after this one is because you think it is an opening in the debate that you can use because there isn't any other opening left for you.

Actually, the language that DA used was meant to shut down the debate. When someone says, "I don't give a fuck what you think," that means that they are done listening and discussing. It has the same meaning as "sit down and shut up"; it has the same meaning as "your opinion doesn't matter". And given who it's from, there is a definite class-based dynamic there (even if DA was ignorant of my class, his class oozes from every line).

So, you're welcome to think of me what you will. So is Alf and so is DA. I really don't care any more. You've made your position (or lack thereof) clear. I've made my position clear (in spite of your distortions). And since you don't give a fuck what I think (DA making that clear, you and Alf showing you think the same through your distortions), we should just end it here.

Miles

Leo

9th August 2006, 13:08

I am advocating that workers defend their neighborhoods and workplaces. I am NOT advocating they try to jump into the middle between Hizb'allah and the IDF and start firing.

How can workers defend their neighnorhoods and workplaces without being sucked up into reactionary militarisic factions? Let's go through some basics. A worker is a person who produces. A soldier is a person who is trained to kill. Therefore a worker is not a soldier. Now, calmly think about what you have been promoting. Do you understand what will happen? Do you understand that unorganized workers have no chance to fight against trained soldiers? Do you want me to draw some pictures to help you understand?

Run ... where?! Israel is bombing from the border to Beirut to the Bekaa Valley -- and everywhere in between (and that's just for now). If they ran to Syria, the Israelis would claim Hizb'allah is in Syria and start bombing refugee camps.

Many are running to Syria, and you know very well that everything will get much more complicated if Israel starts fighting Syria. Many are also coming as refugees to Turkey.

And who says they don't know how to use a weapon?

They are not trained soldiers.

Can't get a passport.

Why not?

You didn't answer the main point, though

Actually I will split the thread to answer your main point but I don't have time right now. My unemployed father wants the compter to look for jobs.

Perhaps that explains why so many of them were killed, eh?

That doesn't prove anything but your lack of knowledge on middle east. PKK', Barzani's and Talabani's factions also killed each other many times. It is political differences, differences of interests.

I see that they have problems, but having problems does not automatically translate into them being Stalinist.

They organize in the same way a Stalinist party organizes.

You asked what we aim. It was a play on words -- a joke.

Ah I see, yeah ok. It is pretty funny.

Actually, I observe your method of debate and analysis, the way you relate to others on here, and I draw my conclusions.

You have no idea about our methods. You were speculating to get the upper hand in the debate. It wasn't only an ugly and unjustified accusation, but it was also completely irrelevant.

There was nothing "random" about it. And the fact that you could not reject the label -- that you could only attempt to bury it with more lecturing and the language of an exploiter -- means that it was correct.

Ah ok, lets reject the label now then. I was more focued on your pathetic debating tactics. We are a proletarian organization. None of our members are petty bourgeoise.

It may very well be true that accusing your organization of cowardice was off the mark, but it still seems like all you're advocating is doing nothing but issuing paper statements and pontificating on Internet discussion boards for fear of having to actually conduct work in the current situation.

As I said, you were wrong, you have no idea on our methods, on how we organize, and you were just speculating for getting the upper hand so you were, and still are talking bullshit.

Actually, the language that DA used was meant to shut down the debate. When someone says, "I don't give a fuck what you think," that means that they are done listening and discussing. It has the same meaning as "sit down and shut up"; it has the same meaning as "your opinion doesn't matter". And given who it's from, there is a definite class-based dynamic there (even if DA was ignorant of my class, his class oozes from every line).

DA is also proletarian so that's another unjustified speculation. Actually he thought you were middle class. What he ment is obvious (and it's not sit down and shut up) but he will explain it himslef if he wants to.

Actually it seems to me as if you are the one who is not even reading our arguements. The fact that you still accuse us with pontificating on Internet discussion boards for fear shows how ignorant you are of our arguements.

We should just end it here.

If you wish.

Martin Blank

9th August 2006, 16:34

Just one small point that I am compelled to address:...

Originally posted by Leo U[email protected] 9 2006, 05:09 AM
We are a proletarian organization. None of our members are petty bourgeoise.

I was curious about this, so I looked into the ICC's documents. The only thing I found in there that comes close to addressing this is from their Platform:

Because of this the vanguard of the class can include individuals who are not sociologically part of the working class but who, by breaking with the class they came out of, identify themselves with the historic class interests of the proletariat.

Now, as those here who know our organization are aware, this sounds similar to the League's viewpoint. However, I notice one key element missing: integration into the proletariat after irreversibly breaking with one's previous class relations. This, in my view, is key.

How does one "break with the class they came out of"? Well, if you're a materialist, you know that the only real way to break with your previous class relations is to integrate into another class. But it does not look like that's what the ICC is talking about. The phrase, "identify themselves with the historic class interests..." is the giveaway. This is idealistic doublespeak for NOT breaking, in a materialist sense, with one's previous class relations, but only "breaking" with them in one's mind.

So, I imagine that, when we get down to it, what we have are a bunch of petty-bourgeois at the core of the ICC who see themselves as "declassed", who "identify" with their view of what the proletariat is, but who have done nothing to fundamentally alter their social being -- that of a petty bourgeois.

Now, such groups can, unfortunately, attract workers by using this dishonest and muddled sleight of hand. I fear that may be the case with the comrades here. If they are actually workers who are caught up in this extreme left of petty-bourgeois socialism, then I apologize for mistaking them for being petty bourgeois themselves. I can only say in my defense that the training they received at the hands of the petty bourgeoisie made it difficult to see clearly.

Miles

Devrim

9th August 2006, 17:12

Miles, maybe you should read other people's posts. I wrote earlier:
First, I would like to stress that neither I nor Leo nor any member of the Enternasonalist Komünist Sol in Turkey is a member of the ICC.
I don't quite see the point of your lastest rant. It seems like you are merely playing with words, but I will let Alf, who is in the ICC, respond to it as it concerns their organisation, not ours.
Devrim

Martin Blank

9th August 2006, 17:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 09:13 AM

First, I would like to stress that neither I nor Leo nor any member of the Enternasonalist Komünist Sol in Turkey is a member of the ICC.
I don't quite see the point of your lastest rant. It seems like you are merely playing with words, but I will let Alf, who is in the ICC, respond to it as it concerns their organisation, not ours.
Devrim
Well, then, what is the relationship between the EKS and the ICC? You seem to agree politically.

Miles

Martin Blank

9th August 2006, 19:21

A postscript:

Originally, I let this comment slide, but, after letting it eat at me for a couple of hours, I thought I should respond.

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 09:13 AM
I don't quite see the point of your lastest rant. It seems like you are merely playing with words...

Well, call it a rant if you'd like, but one thing it is not is "playing with words". There is a fundamental difference between integrating into the proletariat and merely "identifying" with the proletariat.

To integrate one's self into the proletariat means irreversibly leaving behind ties to the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie, which can act as a conduit for bourgeois ideology into the proletarian movement. To "identify" with the proletariat without integrating into it means little more than to mouth words that are alien to your entire existence. It's like knowing the lyrics to a song without knowing the melody.

A lot of organizations talk about requiring their members to "identify" with the proletariat, but most of those same organizations are composed entirely of people from the petty bourgeoisie -- none of whom have made a break with those social relations. At the same time, they tend to see the petty bourgeoisie (as a class) as an "ally" of the proletariat, when in fact it is a clear enemy. This, like Luxemburg's definition of imperialism, has its roots in the anti-Marxist Weberian view of class that Kautsky and other German Social-Democrats brought into the movement.

Our organization has a clear policy on this: We only accept proletarians or young people from proletarian backgrounds as members. We will work with petty-bourgeois elements, but will not accept them as members unless they irreversibly break with their class relations and integrate into the proletariat (usually, this is a process that takes years). We have seen the devastating effects of the dominance of the petty bourgeoisie in the self-described socialist and communist organizations, and drew the appropriate lessons.

So, the last thing I am doing is "playing with words" on this.

But why bring this up, you might ask. To be blunt, because if you are, as Leo said, an organization of all workers and no petty bourgeois, then it becomes especially important to step back and make sure that the positions you are adopting are not laced with the poison of bourgeois ideology wrapped in a "left communist" cloak.

You are welcome to disagree with my view on the tactics and methods to employ in this or that concrete situation. Just be confident that the views you find yourself accepting in the name of some future "unity" fit the inherent class consciousness and class instincts that are endemic to a revolutionary proletarian.

Miles

Leo

9th August 2006, 19:53

Ok, I don't have much time right now so this will be a short answer. I don't really know much about the organizational methods of the ICC so I'll leave the main reply to Alf, but based from what Miles wrote:

Originally posted by ICC+--> (ICC) Because of this the vanguard of the class can include individuals who are not sociologically part of the working class but who, by breaking with the class they came out of, identify themselves with the historic class interests of the proletariat.[/b]

is not much different from this:

Communist League
We only accept proletarians or young people from proletarian backgrounds as members. We will work with petty-bourgeois elements, but will not accept them as members unless they irreversibly break with their class relations and integrate into the proletariat (usually, this is a process that takes years).

Because the phrase 'identify themselves with the historic class interests of the proletariat' is not actually a giveaway but it is some sort of a next step after breaking away with the class.

The ICC does not say "Because of this the vanguard of the class can include individuals who are not sociologically part of the working class but who, by identifing themselves with the historic class interests of the proletariat, broke with the class they came out of." It says the exact opposite. Do you see the difference?

A capitalist who had lost everything and started working as a wage slave had materially broken away from the capitalist class, but he might not see himself as a part of the working class. Being a member of the ruling class leaves deep emotional and intellectual scars. It seems to me that ICC's position is that they don't accept anyone who has been a capitalist in some period unless that person had became a class consciouss proletarian.

This actually shows that ICC is even more selective when it comes to accepting members who had been in a different class than the CL.

Martin Blank

9th August 2006, 23:11

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 9 2006, 11:54 AM
The ICC does not say "Because of this the vanguard of the class can include individuals who are not sociologically part of the working class but who, by identifing themselves with the historic class interests of the proletariat, broke with the class they came out of." It says the exact opposite. Do you see the difference?

A capitalist who had lost everything and started working as a wage slave had materially broken away from the capitalist class, but he might not see himself as a part of the working class. Being a member of the ruling class leaves deep emotional and intellectual scars. It seems to me that ICC's position is that they don't accept anyone who has been a capitalist in some period unless that person had became a class consciouss proletarian.

This actually shows that ICC is even more selective when it comes to accepting members who had been in a different class than the CL.
Now who's playing with words? You cannot be a member of the League without being class conscious. It goes without saying.

And, no, the ICC's position is not necessarily that "they don't accept anyone who has been a capitalist in some period unless that person had became a class consciouss proletarian" (not just bourgeois; petty bourgeois -- the so-called "middle class" -- should also be included in this restriction). They say nothing concrete about how someone comes to "identify" with the proletariat. That, historically speaking, means that their "breaking" is idealist in character -- that they are petty bourgeois posturing as "declassed" elements "identifying" with the class.

Now, that said, I would like to be proven wrong on this. Seriously. I would like Alf to come on here and explain in clear, concrete language what their position is on this and have it match what you're saying -- and, in effect, what our position is too. If he did that, my whole view of the ICC would change.

Miles

Leo

9th August 2006, 23:22

Now who's playing with words? You cannot be a member of the League without being class conscious. It goes without saying.

:lol: How does it feel to get a taste of your own medicine?

And, no, the ICC's position is not necessarily that "they don't accept anyone who has been a capitalist in some period unless that person had became a class consciouss proletarian." They say nothing concrete about how someone comes to "identify" with the proletariat.

It seems quite obvious to me. "Because of this the vanguard of the class can include individuals who are not sociologically part of the working class but who, by breaking with the class they came out of, identify themselves with the historic class interests of the proletariat." So what they mean is that some members who come from different sociological class backgrounds can identify themselves with the historic class interests of the proletariat only by materially breaking with the class they came out of.

Donnie

9th August 2006, 23:35

The reason why so many leftists support this group is because they think that because they are militant and have guns and oppose Israeli imperialism, then they are 'Fucking Great'.

Unfortunately, nobody else seems to see that Hezbollah are the most reactionary bunch of wankers ever. They retain an ideology that is based on submission and cruelty. Islam holds the belief that homosexuals should be stoned to death not to mention Islam believes in the physical disciplining of women..

So let’s paint a picture. Say for example that Hezbollah are successful in fighting off Israeli soldiers in Lebanon and now Hezbollah cross the borders of Israel and start shooting into local villages, they start murdering Israeli children and working people in that country because that's what would happen, I mean if Haret Hreik can say this:

if they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide."-Haret Hreik, Nasrallah (Speaking for Hezbollah)

It is an open war until the elimination of Israel and until the death of the last Jew on earth" -Statement from Hezbollah (1992)

Its obvious Hezbollah have the mentality to carry out these actions.

It's not the Israeli working people that are responsible for imperialism in Palestine, it's the Israeli governments fault and it's religious fundamentalists in Palestine that are using working class Lebanese people as pawns in their own religious-fascist agenda.

The only way to ever resolve this conflict has always been true since the start of the idea of communism and anarchism and that's international working class solidarity, Palestinian and Israeli working people need to unite and fight the main source of the problem which is; Capitalism, State and Religion.

Alf

10th August 2006, 00:36

Welcome Donnie, and well put!

A number of very important questions have come out of this discussion, and, in time, I intend to address as many of them as I can. But this could take a while as I am rather busy at present.

Donnie's post reminded us of the original focus of this thread: a call by Additives Free to challenge the position, held by all the leftist gangs, that revolutionaries should call for some kind of alliance with Hizbollah against Israel. It was my original impression that Communist League, with his 'workers defence units', was providing a radical 'workerist' cover to this alliance. Devrim's post has a somewhat different take on this, so I need to go back over ths thread before saying more about that particular point.

The discussion on sociological versus political criteria for membership of the communist organisation is also a major one. The ICC's position has a long history:

- the Communist Manifesto, which is the source of our own passage from the platform, quoted on this thread. This is the passage in 'Bourgeois and Proletarians' where it even talks about a part of the bourgeoisie, and of the bourgeois ideologists in particular, who go over to the proletariat in a period of acute crisis in the system. I would only add that in the bourgeoisie's decadent period it is far less likely to produce individuals who go over to the proletariat, although this can by no means be ruled out. In practise however, in the present situation, we are more likely to be talking about individuals who come from other non-exploiting classes.
- Lenin's struggle against workerism (the Economists) in What Is To Be Done, where he makes the crucial distinction between an "organisation of revolutionaries" and an "organisation of workers". This issue was also at the heart of the 1903 split between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks.
- Bordiga's critique of the notion of factory cells as the base units of the party - a notion that accompanied the 'Bolshevisation' of the Communist Parties, led by Zinoviev, but really the precursor of Stalinisation.

We clearly reject a purely sociological defintion of the communist militant. If sociological criteria were decisive, Marx, Engels, Luxemburg, Lenin, Trotsky, Pannekoek, Pankhurst and a host of others would have been barred from the communist organisations of their day.

The issue seems to hinge on what "breaking with your class of origin" means. For us again this is a fundamentally political break, although that does not mean purely 'in ideas'; it is indeed proved in practice, through what we do and how we behave. But comrades of proletarian origin also have to break with the influence of bourgeois and petty bourgeois ideology which surrounds and constantly penetrates the working class.

If by breaking you mean some kind of Maoist re-education - sending the petty bourgeois intellectuals to work in the fields or the factories - we are opposed to that idea. Comrades are not forced to take proletarian jobs. A comrade who has broken with the petty bourgeois notions of anarchist individualism might still earn his living as a small trader, for example. That does not mean that some ways of earning a living are not definitely proscribed, especially when they concern the security of the organisation - evidently a revolutionary organisation cannot admit members of the police, for example.

That said, the majority of the ICC's militants are sociologically proletarian, but that is a secondary issue. What distinguishes a proletarian political organisation from a bourgeois or petty bourgeois grouping is first and foremost the political positions it defends.

Jamal

10th August 2006, 01:36

Ok, first of all, to all you people out there that are gonna re open this topic;

Hezbollah doesn't occupy, controle, conquer, take command of... any part of lebanon except 200m2 of a part of Haret Hreik (which was where Nasralla lived and is now below sea level) and the border with Israel. Nothing more! They don't controll the south, don't occupy it or any thing. The Lebanese Army is deployed every where in the south except the border.

And for all of you who hate Hezbollahregarding their Fundimentalism, Hezbollah's idiology and beliefs are worse than that dog turning around under "Donnie". They are fundimentalists:yes, they are rezctionary: yes, Their idiology comes from the middle ages: yes ......... I could go on for hours about them, thats not the point. Everyone knows what Hezbollah is but what leftists are with Hezbollah on is just their resistance! le resistance! el resistance! al mokawama! RESISTANCE!!!!!!!! only resistance!
you can be with a fundimentalist, reactionary party on the front against a shared enemy and not be with it in their idiologies and all other stuff.

Islam holds the belief that homosexuals should be stoned to death not to mention Islam believes in the physical disciplining of women..

yeah and so does Judism, so does Christianity, I don't see any IDF soldiers doing that nor the people in the Vatican! This is outragious! To say Islam contains this, this and that and Hezbollah is an Islamist =>Hezbollah does all these. Come on for fuck sake, be realistic! look at things from ground level!

if they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide."-Haret Hreik, Nasrallah (Speaking for Hezbollah)

It is an open war until the elimination of Israel and until the death of the last Jew on earth" -Statement from Hezbollah (1992)

Let us focuse on the part that says 1992
Things have changed, people have changed. I cannot say that the man is not an anti-semite cause he maybe is but have you heard a simmilar statement from 1992 till 2006 from Nasrallah?

So let’s paint a picture. Say for example that Hezbollah are successful in fighting off Israeli soldiers in Lebanon and now Hezbollah cross the borders of Israel and start shooting into local villages, they start murdering Israeli children and working people in that country because that's what would happen

Quite an artist I see! impressive; you have the vision and the creativity, but you lack the realistic measures. Watch the history channel or read some artical or remember 6 years ago when Hezbollah fought off the Israeli soldiers and did not do what ever your artistic talent and creativity illustated they would do.

And for the many of you that are watching Fox News and CNN, Hezbollah do not hide in inhabited places and hold people as human sheild as the Israeli/American media is saying, come on, we are not living in a hollywood action movie. Even if we where, does the police (IDF) shoot all the hostiges (unfortunate Lebanese civillians) to get the criminal (Hezbollah)? I see there is a contradiction here! If they where taking civillians as human shields, this should work and the Israel shouldn't blow up the whole area into peaces and if they weren't than that is a horrible war crime to target civillians and committ tens of massacres on their behalf.

(Leo Uilleann @ Aug 9 2006, 02:37 AM)
I know that they still exist but they are pretty small. Besides I checked their site and I didn't encounter anything revolutionary.

Jammoul isn't pretty small! They are over a thousand and they are well experianced fighters and by checking their Arabic written site you didn't encounter anything revolutionary! what should I laugh?

(Leo Uilleann @ Aug 9 2006, 02:37 AM)
What an idiotic comment!!! You actually think participating in a war between two well trained forces will not get the workers killed?

Well my friend, workers are dying when they are watching tv, sleeping, talking, eating, laughing, crying... The workers are dying, massacres are being committed on these workers, these workers are diying fighting, running (aah many, many died on the road to Dimascus trying to ascape and avery now and then that road getts hit again and again) or staying still. Let the workers die in honor!

Ah! I forgot what I want to add, whatever.
Get the point! If not then get it already!!!!

Martin Blank

10th August 2006, 06:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 04:37 PM
We clearly reject a purely sociological defintion of the communist militant. If sociological criteria were decisive, Marx, Engels, Luxemburg, Lenin, Trotsky, Pannekoek, Pankhurst and a host of others would have been barred from the communist organisations of their day.

The issue seems to hinge on what "breaking with your class of origin" means. For us again this is a fundamentally political break, although that does not mean purely 'in ideas'; it is indeed proved in practice, through what we do and how we behave. But comrades of proletarian origin also have to break with the influence of bourgeois and petty bourgeois ideology which surrounds and constantly penetrates the working class.

If by breaking you mean some kind of Maoist re-education - sending the petty bourgeois intellectuals to work in the fields or the factories - we are opposed to that idea. Comrades are not forced to take proletarian jobs. A comrade who has broken with the petty bourgeois notions of anarchist individualism might still earn his living as a small trader, for example. That does not mean that some ways of earning a living are not definitely proscribed, especially when they concern the security of the organisation - evidently a revolutionary organisation cannot admit members of the police, for example.

That said, the majority of the ICC's militants are sociologically proletarian, but that is a secondary issue. What distinguishes a proletarian political organisation from a bourgeois or petty bourgeois grouping is first and foremost the political positions it defends.
In other words, the ICC is an organization dominated by the petty bourgeoisie that uses rhetoric about "breaking with the class they came out of" to swindle workers into thinking they are actually a proletarian organization based on a materialist conception of the world, when, in fact, they are the extreme left of the idealist petty-bourgeois left.

I have to admit, sometimes I hate being proven right.

Miles

Alf

10th August 2006, 09:25

Before reaching such a rigorous and well-argued conclusion, perhaps you should first take up the cudgels against Marx, Lenin and Bordiga and show why they were mistaken.

A definition of the petty bourgeoisie would also make things a bit clearer to other people reading this thread.

travisdandy2000

10th August 2006, 10:12

There is an amazing amount on Western arrogance displayed in this thread. Hizzbollah is one of the most pragmatic and forward looking groups in the middle east. They have stated time and again that their goal is not to establish an Islamic state by force, but to spread their ideals through humanitarian and democratic means. They have said many times that they reconize that Lebbanon is a multi-faith nation, and that they cannot hope to establish a Shia theocracy there unless they convince the whole population that it is right. They have done nothing but defeand the population of Lebbanon and fight for the rights of Palestine, while at no point taking a fanatical or extremist point of view.
It is pure nonsense to class Hizzbollah with Al-Queda or other such groups. It is a demonstration of the sad state of the left in the West that we even have to have this argument at all. An hours honest study of Hizzbollah by anyone posting here would clear it up in a minute. Hizzbollah is a pragmatic and democratic movement, that is worthy of our support. I really reach the point of madness when I see people who I should agree with, saying that they are just as bad as the Zionist!

Leo

10th August 2006, 10:47

This will be a short quick point, I don't have much time but, I don't understand what Miles' problem is after reading this comment:

Originally posted by Alf+--> (Alf)The issue seems to hinge on what "breaking with your class of origin" means. For us again this is a fundamentally political break, although that does not mean purely 'in ideas'; it is indeed proved in practice, through what we do and how we behave.[/b]

and this wrtitten by the ICC:

http://en.internationalism.org/joinicc

and this comment:

Originally posted by [email protected]
That said, the majority of the ICC's militants are sociologically proletarian

that is making this comment sound pretty ridiculous

Miles
In other words, the ICC is an organization dominated by the petty bourgeoisie

So as far as I understand, ICC accepts active militants who are politically proletarian and who broke from the class materially accordingly to their actions without taking a look at their bank acounts.

Leo

10th August 2006, 10:49

Jammoul isn't pretty small! They are over a thousand and they are well experianced fighters and by checking their Arabic written site you didn't encounter anything revolutionary! what should I laugh?

I was talking about the IWW (Industrial Workers of the World) actually. The thread kind of went off-topic.

Let the workers die in honor!

I want them to live.

Devrim

10th August 2006, 11:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 07:13 AM
There is an amazing amount on Western arrogance displayed in this thread.
I think most of what you would define as western arrogance is coming from Ankara, which, you are right, is nearly a whole three degrees of longitude west of Beirut.
Devrim

James

10th August 2006, 13:02

Jamal;
In reply to my statement; "I don't blame israel for wanting to sweep the area to the old 2000 occupation line. It would be fantastic if an international force is deployed, with TEETH and a will and mandate to use them if needs be (and not run away at first sign of trouble). Israel however is not stupid. It isn't going to rely on loosely (i.e. poorly) networked forces (which will probably be reasonably unproductive/enthusiastic for the job) to root out and destroy terrorists"
...you said:

There is a mixture of anger and frustration inside me now.
don't blame Israel for killing up till now 950 civillians, for injuring 3000. Too many massacres happened for Israel to get away from this and not being a war criminal. The amount of destruction that happened in Lebanon amounts to aproximately 1.5 Heroshima bombs. Yet you say:"don't blame Israel".

I fail to see the link between what i said, and what you then said. Please, if you intend to reply to my point, try to be relevent. I said that i did not blame israel for wanting to clear the area of a hostile force before an international force moves in. Hezb says that it will stop sending over rockets after israel has left lebanon territory. This is silly to believe. It was hezb that went into israeli territory and kidnapped israeli soldiers. They started their own involvement. The destruction of lebanon is, in a sense, in their interest as it increases their grass root support. So you probably shouldn't believe hezb when they say they will holt hostilities. It would be foolish for israel to think so, thus they will pursue a course of action which is more favourable to them. i.e. clearing the zone of hostile forces. Leaving such a job to a int. force would be silly. They tend to lack;
- will
- ability
- mandate
to do such a task.
Also it should be remembered that lebanon and israel both claim certain bits of territory. So hezb could justify continued attacks on israel even after israeli forces had withdrawn.
Plus you need to examine the political implications. Israel is not going to discredit it's military ability and political will to combat those who attack israel, by pulling out. Such a move would be depicted as israeli defeat. There are many who agrue that the withdrawal from the west bank was wrong for such reasons. Hamas etc depicted it as their victory. Also please remember, israel believes that the only thing understood by it's enemies is sheer force.

So no, i do not blame israel for wanting to defend itself.
no doubt you don't blame hezb for "defending lebanon" (by provoking israeli military action... hmmm only a very foolish person would think that hezb's aim is to simply get israeli soliders out of lebanon. For example, why did they start the whole thing off by kidnapping israeli soliders, so that they could put israeli soldiers on leb soil, thus provoking military action).

By the way, what gives it the right to do that?

What have "right's" got to do with it? If you insist on having an answer: freedom of speech. Are you against freedom of speech?

I can't belive that you are saying that no body shoul blame a country for occupying another!

no i didn't say that. I said that i didn't blame israel for defending it's self.
Remind yourself of the timeline of this event. It was started by hezb. They caused it. Blame hezb, not a nation for doing the one thing it MUST do (i.e. defend itself). Hezb isn't even a democratic government, it is a militia within a state (granted with some elected representatives). Why not blame lebanon itself for failing to take control of it's border regions? Because lebanon couldn't/wouldn't, israel is having to do it for them.

You really want a NATO force so bad, don't you! I don't want to reply to that, I just feel too nosiated already from all you said.
For this post I just can reply like I replied stupid, stupid, stupid post!

Well i thought that you would support an international force (i meant a UN force, although i wouldn't be surprised if NATO have to do the job for the rest of the "international community". again...). Please tell me, what are the alternatives? How else can peace realistically come?

And then in reply to my statement:"(they target israeli civilians on purpose for a political purpose, they shelter behind civilians on purpose for a similar effect. This is how the UN post seems to have been hit)."

You said...

1-yeah right, that's why the number of soldiers killed is far greater than the number of civillians.

Well use some logic. Firstly, israeli solider's are in an offence defensive operation in leb territory. They have gone to the enemy. The enemy are waiting for them. Thus why israeli soliders have died.
Secondly, do you deny hezb sends off rockets? The rockets are aimed at civilian areas. It is a simple terrorist operation.

2-WTF!!! Taking it that it actually happens, does Israel have the right to fire on the civillians to get to HEzbollah? In a hostage situation, what does the police do? kill the hostages to kill the theif?

Well i believe that israel actually, in general, tells the area it is soon to be hit, before it is hit (or at least they did). Thus precautions are being taken to preserve innocent life. What do hezb do? Also think about the sacrifice (from a military point of view) that israel makes every time it does warn areas. The message also gets to hezb.

Israel's primary concern is the preservation of the life of it's citizens. This isn't some "horrid jewish concept", as many have attempted to depict it as (they (hezb) like to quote the bible and depict israeli's as considering themselves to be racially superior, hence israel's actions). It's simple politics. Go back to Hobbes and Locke. The first priority of the government is protection. It's why, according to these political thinkers, people consent to government in the first place.

Lebanon could have preserved the life of it's citizen's much better by taking action against hezb, and maintaining control of it's borders.

WTF!!! 3- So what you are saying is that Hezbollah hid in the UN post! HHAAAAHAHAHAHA
Thats a laugh!
Not according to an email sent by one of the canadians sent just before the attack.

Are you really so stupid to not realise that hezb purposely places itself in civilian areas? Hezb knows that israel will attempt to take measures to protect civilians, even civilians of other nations. It is hezb that has a total disrespect for human life.

Martin Blank

10th August 2006, 16:29

Originally posted by Leo Uilleann+Aug 10 2006, 02:48 AM--> (Leo Uilleann @ Aug 10 2006, 02:48 AM)This will be a short quick point, I don't have much time but, I don't understand what Miles' problem is after reading this comment:

Originally posted by Alf+--> (Alf)The issue seems to hinge on what "breaking with your class of origin" means. For us again this is a fundamentally political break, although that does not mean purely 'in ideas'; it is indeed proved in practice, through what we do and how we behave.[/b]

and this wrtitten by the ICC:

http://en.internationalism.org/joinicc[/b]

OK, well, here's the problem....

These argument I have heard over and over again from the petty bourgeoisie to rationalize and justify their control over a self-described "proletarian" organization. Even the exact formulations are the same.

"For us again this is a fundamentally political break" -- Translation: They have to agree with our program.

"It is indeed proved in practice" -- Translation: They do organizational work.

None of this has anything to do with actually breaking from previous class relations. It only has to do with working as a part of the organization. Alf made this clear in his statement:

Originally posted by Alf
A comrade who has broken with the petty bourgeois notions of anarchist individualism might still earn his living as a small trader, for example. (Emphasis mine)

In other words, a petty-bourgeois exploiter (a manager, a small shopkeeper, an individual producer, a yuppie professional, etc.) can remain a petty-bourgeois exploiter in the ICC ... as long as they have idealistically "broken" from "anarchist individualism".

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 10 2006, 02:48 AM
[b]and this comment:

[quote][email protected]
That said, the majority of the ICC's militants are sociologically proletarian

that is making this comment sound pretty ridiculous

Miles
So as far as I understand, ICC accepts active militants who are politically proletarian and who broke from the class materially accordingly to their actions without taking a look at their bank acounts.

First of all, class isn't defined by income, it's defined by relations to the means of production and relations to other classes.

Second, these petty-bourgeois elements have broken from nothing "according to their actions". These elements still have the ability to exploit (sanctioned by the ICC itself), and they can do while excusing their actions ("but, but, but I'm a communist!"). This is not a communist method. This is the method of the petty-bourgeois left, and it is a cancer within the revolutionary movement.

Miles

P.S.: Alf, this is not the first time this discussion has taken place. I would suggest looking back through previous threads on this subject. (Hopefully, someone will take the time to post them for your and others benefit. I don't have the time right now to do it.)

Alf

10th August 2006, 17:12

Like I said, a definition of the petty bourgeoisie would have helped. A small producer or trader is not the same as an exploiter. But in any case I don't see the point of trying to defend the ICC from a bunch of unsubstantiated assertions about its internal life. That's not really a discussion. It would be more fruitful if you were to answer the points I made about the past positions of the workers' movement. However, this thread is basically about the Lebanon war and I will try to come back to that.

Devrim

10th August 2006, 21:24

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+Aug 9 2006, 02:24 PM--> (CommunistLeague @ Aug 9 2006, 02:24 PM)
[email protected] 9 2006, 09:13 AM

First, I would like to stress that neither I nor Leo nor any member of the Enternasonalist Komünist Sol in Turkey is a member of the ICC.
I don't quite see the point of your lastest rant. It seems like you are merely playing with words, but I will let Alf, who is in the ICC, respond to it as it concerns their organisation, not ours.
Devrim
Well, then, what is the relationship between the EKS and the ICC? You seem to agree politically.

Miles [/b]
You make it sound very sinister. There is nothing here that we are not open about. We come from the same tradition as them, left communism. This means that we agree on a lot of things. Of course we do not follow exactly the same line, or we would be in the same organisation. We worked together with them on our mayday leaflet this year, which they distributed to Turkish workers in England, and Germany on our behalf (There are many Turkish workers in England , and Germany, lots of whom can't speak the local language very well). A copy of the verison that the ICC distrubuted in London is here : http://en.internationalism.org/files/en/Ma...eng+turk_A4.pdf (http://en.internationalism.org/files/en/May_Day_eng+turk_A4.pdf)
I am not sure what tradition the communist legue comes from, but we don't behave like some leftists, especially Trotskyists, denouncing anybody that we don't agree with on the political situation in Ulan Bator.
On the basic positions of communist politics, we are in agreement with the ICC. You can read our basic position statement here: http://en.internationalism.org/wr/295_eks_basicpositions
Please note, the reason that I am giving you links to the ICC website is for no other reason than that on our site these things are in Turkish: http://www.komunistsol.tk/
Just as an aside, we were discussing today what tendency the CL fell into. Leo said that he would have to have a deeper look. I said we should just ask you. It is not immediately recognisable from your website, and the links are eclectic to say the least:

Left Organizations of Interest
» Communist Party of Great Britain
» Irish Republican Socialist Movement
» Prol-Position News (EU publication in English)
» Worker-Communist Party of Iraq (English page)
» Leftist Parties of the World

So apart from the 'Leftist Parties of the World', which is just a listings page, you list a British franchise of Turkish Stalinism, a left Irish nationalist organisation, a left/council communist German magazine, and a Hekamist group.
Now, I know there is a disclaimer at the top, and it only says 'links of interest', but it would be impossible to agree with all of these different groups.

So, where does the CL stand? Actually, I am only asking because Leo said you wouldn't tell me, and we can't be bothered to spend the time trying to work it out from your site.

Devrim

10th August 2006, 21:31

So, where does the CL stand?

We are communists united under the Basic Principles of the Communist League. If you wanted to know where we stood, then you should have read the Basic Principles.

Devrim

10th August 2006, 21:42

Actually, I have just skimmed through them (since you posted that). I think most of them are pretty vague, and could represent any leftist tendency. It did get a little more interesting near the end, but maybe the most interesting thing is the refusal to tell us which tradition you belong to. Leo said you would do this. I can't quite see why though.

Devrim

Alf

11th August 2006, 03:09

Looking back over the posts by members of the US Communist League on this thread confirms me in my view that they are offering a more ‘left’ version of “national defencism” in the current war.

It is true that the posts by Communist League (CL) seem radical at first sight. He stresses the organization of “workers’ self-defence units” to defend neighbourhoods and workplaces. Without going into the question of how such units would arise in the present situation, this in itself would be compatible with an internationalist position.

But when you look at the wider context, it’s not so simple. CL tells us that:

“Today, the fight is against the U.S.-Israeli attempt to remake the Middle East in its own image, which is part of the overall plan by the Anglo-American imperialist cartel to redivide the world along terms it finds most favorable”.

We know that CL is completely opposed to the idea that Iran and Syria are imperialist powers. He sees only one imperialist side in this war – the US/American/ British side (although frankly the British bourgeoisie is quite divided over this one). And “today” the fight is against them. So although CL does not see his “workers self-defence units” initiating “offensive actions” at the moment, it seems pretty clear that they are not there just to defend their neigbourhoodsand workplaces, but to take part in the wider struggle against US/Israeli imperialism.

The point that Devrim, Leo and I have been making in this thread is that if any independent working class organs did appear in the present situation, they would immediately be faced with repression by Hizbollah, so they would certainly have to defend themselves against them as well as against the "invaders" – for example, against Hizbollah's attempts to place missile-launchers in their neighbourhoods, missiles which are aimed at Israeli workers, and which at the same time draw the fire of the Israeli airforce onto the local population.

The CL, however, as represented by the posts of another member, Khayembii Communique, clearly has a different line:

“It seems that Additives Free's view on this issue is completely black and white; in other words, if you support certain actions that Hezbollah takes, then you must be supporting Hezbollah itself. This is a ridiculous perspective that can hardly be taken seriously. Moreover, this attitude of puritanism is completely devoid of material reality and essentially marginalizes the working class movement to such an extent that it no longer exists”.

So it’s OK to support “certain actions” by Hizbollah. And certainly we should be prepared to fight alongside them, or postpone the struggle against them until the “invaders” are defeated:

“What we have here is two ruling bodies fighting against one another. One is the imperialist power, and the other is the local power. What the workers in this area see as the problem right now is the imperialist power (Israel). That is why Hezbollah has such massive support. People are siding with them because of how effective they are against Israeli imperialism. The fight against Hezbollah will only start once the fight against Israeli imperialism is over.”

With regard to this approach, another poster –Marion I think – reminded us of what happened to the Spanish workers who were told that they should “first ally with the Republic against Franco, and then turn their guns on the Republic”: they were gunned down by both Franco and the Republic.

Khavembii goes on to make it clear that his line on Lebanon is based on his support for the “resistance” against US imperialism in Iraq:

“Now, we can work towards fighting Israeli imperialism while also developing a proletarian movement within Lebanon. For example, I support resistance fighters in Iraq against American imperialism; however I am in complete support of the IFC and will work towards promoting that over the fundamentalist resistance. We have to think that the IFC probably won't come out as the victors in this battle, as they aren't even a prominent force against the other two (US imperialism and fundamentalist resistance). However, we can support the Iraqi resistance in its actions against American imperialism now while also building the IFC for a proletarian movement later”.
(the IFC is the Iraqi Freedom Congress, which in my view is the ‘democratic front’ of the Worker Communist Party in Iraq).

It is also worth pointing out that all the CL’s ire and fire on this thread was directed not against the leftists who openly support Hizbollah and any number of other nationalist gangsters, but against the internationalists. To me this is a further expression of their real class loyalties.

Martin Blank

11th August 2006, 04:55

Originally posted by Alf+Aug 10 2006, 07:10 PM--> (Alf @ Aug 10 2006, 07:10 PM)We know that CL is completely opposed to the idea that Iran and Syria are imperialist powers. He sees only one imperialist side in this war – the US/American/British side (although frankly the British bourgeoisie is quite divided over this one). And “today” the fight is against them. So although CL does not see his “workers self-defence units” initiating “offensive actions” at the moment, it seems pretty clear that they are not there just to defend their neigbourhoodsand workplaces, but to take part in the wider struggle against US/Israeli imperialism. [/b]

Yes, we have a difference over the definition of imperialism. Your definition sees every country as imperialist, no matter how underdeveloped and dominated by the Great Power states. A great way to excuse chauvinism, without a doubt, but hardly deals with the reality of the situation. There is a continuity between the ICC's position on imperialism, and their position allowing the petty bourgeoisie into their ranks. They are both grounded in the anti-communist Weberian concept that class is based on "market relations", not production relations.

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 07:10 PM
The point that Devrim, Leo and I have been making in this thread is that if any independent working class organs did appear in the present situation, they would immediately be faced with repression by Hizbollah, so they would certainly have to defend themselves against them as well as against the "invaders" – for example, against Hizbollah's attempts to place missile-launchers in their neighbourhoods, missiles which are aimed at Israeli workers, and which at the same time draw the fire of the Israeli airforce onto the local population.

They would be faced by that, if they appeared in areas controlled by Hizb'allah. However, unlike what you and the western media are saying, Hizb'allah is not to be found throughout the country, but only in certain areas. On the other hand, Israel is bombing throughout the country.

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 07:10 PM
The CL, however, as represented by the posts of another member, Khayembii Communique, clearly has a different line:

“It seems that Additives Free's view on this issue is completely black and white; in other words, if you support certain actions that Hezbollah takes, then you must be supporting Hezbollah itself. This is a ridiculous perspective that can hardly be taken seriously. Moreover, this attitude of puritanism is completely devoid of material reality and essentially marginalizes the working class movement to such an extent that it no longer exists”.

So it’s OK to support “certain actions” by Hizbollah.

Well, if Hizb'allah is going to blow up a tank and stop the movement of a column of IDF forces that would likely end up massacring civilians, I'm not going to denounce them for it. Hell, I might even thank them for it -- knowing full well that the Hizb'allah member I thank now may very well be the one I'm shooting at later. I believe that was KC's point.

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 07:10 PM
And certainly we should be prepared to fight alongside them, or postpone the struggle against them until the “invaders” are defeated:

“What we have here is two ruling bodies fighting against one another. One is the imperialist power, and the other is the local power. What the workers in this area see as the problem right now is the imperialist power (Israel). That is why Hezbollah has such massive support. People are siding with them because of how effective they are against Israeli imperialism. The fight against Hezbollah will only start once the fight against Israeli imperialism is over.”

This sounds more like a statement of fact than political advice. They may not be facts to your liking (they're not necessarily to my liking -- I'd prefer that the Lebanese working class was organized and strong enough to sweep both from the field at one stroke), but they are facts.

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 07:10 PM
With regard to this approach, another poster –Marion I think – reminded us of what happened to the Spanish workers who were told that they should “first ally with the Republic against Franco, and then turn their guns on the Republic”: they were gunned down by both Franco and the Republic.

There are times when your forces are strong enough to "split in two and charge both ways". Then there are times when you have to deal with the most immediate threat in order to be able to get to the next threat. In spite of your protests to the contrary, it seems your approach is either you have the strength to deal with all enemies at once or, as was said before, "run away".

You probably would have told the Bolsheviks to not bother with Kornilov unless they could deal with Kerensky at the same time.

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 07:10 PM
Khavembii goes on to make it clear that his line on Lebanon is based on his support for the “resistance” against US imperialism in Iraq:

“Now, we can work towards fighting Israeli imperialism while also developing a proletarian movement within Lebanon. For example, I support resistance fighters in Iraq against American imperialism; however I am in complete support of the IFC and will work towards promoting that over the fundamentalist resistance. We have to think that the IFC probably won't come out as the victors in this battle, as they aren't even a prominent force against the other two (US imperialism and fundamentalist resistance). However, we can support the Iraqi resistance in its actions against American imperialism now while also building the IFC for a proletarian movement later”.
(the IFC is the Iraqi Freedom Congress, which in my view is the ‘democratic front’ of the Worker Communist Party in Iraq).

KC's position is not the League's official position. He has the right to express his personal view, however, as long as the League's position has been stated. And our position on the so-called "resistance" has been stated here on more than one occasion.

[email protected] 10 2006, 07:10 PM
It is also worth pointing out that all the CL’s ire and fire on this thread was directed not against the leftists who openly support Hizbollah and any number of other nationalist gangsters, but against the internationalists. To me this is a further expression of their real class loyalties.

The scabs haven't really been on this thread like you have. I have argued against their positions numerous times in this forum on multiple threads. Do your homework before making stupid comments. It might save you embarassment later.

Miles

Martin Blank

11th August 2006, 05:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 01:43 PM
Actually, I have just skimmed through them (since you posted that). I think most of them are pretty vague, and could represent any leftist tendency. It did get a little more interesting near the end, but maybe the most interesting thing is the refusal to tell us which tradition you belong to. Leo said you would do this. I can't quite see why though.
It's not a matter of "refusing". The fact is that we claim none of the "traditions" of the self-described communist movement of the 20th century as our own. They all have problems and they all fail to measure up to the theoretical and practical standards set by Marx and Engels during their lifetimes.

Yes, many of our founding members came from these "traditions", but most of our members today do not. We decided that our starting point would be to review the experiences of the 20th century and draw the appropriate lessons. We did that before forming the League, and, in some ways, continue to do some of that work today. There are some theories and analyses we find valuable to a communist movement today, and many others that we see as useless to the fight for a classless, communist society.

So, split your bets accordingly. This is the best answer you're going to get.

Miles

Martin Blank

11th August 2006, 05:09

Originally posted by devrimankara+Aug 10 2006, 01:25 PM--> (devrimankara @ Aug 10 2006, 01:25 PM)You make it sound very sinister. There is nothing here that we are not open about. We come from the same tradition as them, left communism. This means that we agree on a lot of things. Of course we do not follow exactly the same line, or we would be in the same organisation.[/b]

First, I didn't mean to sound sinister. That was not the intention. If I sounded like I was implying some kind of hidden or dishonest relationship, I apologize.

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 01:25 PM
We worked together with them on our mayday leaflet this year, which they distributed to Turkish workers in England, and Germany on our behalf (There are many Turkish workers in England , and Germany, lots of whom can't speak the local language very well). A copy of the verison that the ICC distrubuted in London is here : http://en.internationalism.org/files/en/Ma...eng+turk_A4.pdf (http://en.internationalism.org/files/en/May_Day_eng+turk_A4.pdf)

Thanks for the link.

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 01:25 PM
I am not sure what tradition the communist legue comes from, but we don't behave like some leftists, especially Trotskyists, denouncing anybody that we don't agree with on the political situation in Ulan Bator.

Well, that's encouraging. Seriously.

[email protected] 10 2006, 01:25 PM
On the basic positions of communist politics, we are in agreement with the ICC. You can read our basic position statement here: http://en.internationalism.org/wr/295_eks_basicpositions
Please note, the reason that I am giving you links to the ICC website is for no other reason than that on our site these things are in Turkish: http://www.komunistsol.tk/

Thanks for the links. I'll be sure to check them out.

Miles

11th August 2006, 16:23

The CL, however, as represented by the posts of another member, Khayembii Communique, clearly has a different line

Well, here's your problem. You seem to be caught up in attempting to find the "party line" on this issue, when in fact there really isn't one to be found. My views are my own and to say that they are representative of what League members believe on the whole is simply wrong.

So it’s OK to support “certain actions” by Hizbollah.

You disagree? You think that just because their ideology is fucked up that they can't perform an action which is supportable by the left? How about attacking IDF checkpoints? You don't support that?

Khavembii goes on to make it clear that his line on Lebanon is based on his support for the “resistance” against US imperialism in Iraq

Emphasis mine.

CL’s ire and fire on this thread was directed not against the leftists who openly support Hizbollah and any number of other nationalist gangsters

I suggest you check out some of his posts on the Iraqi resistance. You'll find what you're looking for there. The reason he attacked you is because your "cut-and-run" tactics are shit.

nerifr

11th August 2006, 16:45

11th August 2006, 17:06

a Terror Group Are shooting rockets to innocent pepole areas.

Israel is illegal.

israel only want to kill Hizbolla.

Wouldn't that be just great if that were true? I suggest you educate yourself (http://www.moiz.ca/coffin.htm).

http://www.videos.informationclearinghouse.info/lebpic/lebbomb.gif

Airports
Beirut International
Qaleiat domestic
Rayak military
Ports
Beirut
Tripoli
Jounieh
Other transport
Lighthouse, Beirut
Bridges: 62
Fuel stations: 22
Overpasses: 72
Dams: 3
Roads: 600km
Military
Radar installations: 4
Army barracks: 1
Civilian
Private homes: 5,000
Commercial
Tissue paper factory, Bekaa
Bottle factory, Bekaa
Other businesses: 150
Communications
Hezbollah's al-Manar TV station, Haret Hreik, Beirut
MTC mobile phone antenna, Dahr al-Baidar
Utilities
Jiyeh power plant
Sibline power station
Sewage plant, Dair al-Zahrani
Damage to Lebanese infrastructure (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/5218106.stm)

"It used to be that the Red Cross or the Red Crescent, or some sort of health care sign made you immune in some ways on a battlefield. Not so here. We're hearing stories, confirmed stories, now about ambulances actually being attacked. Hospitals actually being bombed, so much so, that they can no longer function."
-Source (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0607/22/cst.01.html)

The UN says almost a third of the dead and wounded are children
-Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5197186.stm)

"an Israeli missile hit two clearly marked Red Cross ambulances that were parked inside the Lebanese town of Qana evacuating civilians—the wounded included a 60-year-old woman and 12-year-old boy who's now in a coma."
-Source (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0607/24/pzn.01.html)

baboon

11th August 2006, 19:35

Hello, I am a supporter of the ICC.
Miles says that Rosa Luxemburg' definition of imperialism "sees... competition at the basis of imperialism, not the development of the mode of production". Competition is fully part of the development of the capitalist mode of production and, more to the point, competition is part of the decay of the capitalist mode of production. In a word, imperialism. As capitalism is a global phenomena (and has been since the beginning of the 20th century) then so too is imperialism. Obviously the largest states are easily identifiable but smaller capitalist states have no option but to be part of an attempt to grab what's already been grabbed by another imperialist concern. This down to proto-state functionaries like the IRA, Hamas, the PLO, and Hizbollah. These smaller elements (and elements like this are involved in more and more shooting wars and imperialist machinations in the last twenty years or so) also, above their local imperialist aspirations, serve that of their various masters at the time, ie, the larger imperialist states.
My position on the present war is down with the war and down with both sides of gangsters. The way some have talked about Hizbollah on this thread, that they have "fed the people" and provided them with medicine show the basic leftist concept of the people as cattle, there to be fed one moment but slaughtered when necessary. Hizbollah "democratic and pragmatic"? Their contempt for the Lebanese people make this true in all its imperialist sense.
And when leftism supports one side in an imperialist war, the sentimentality and hypocrysy that is expressed knows no bounds. Any (fantasy induced) "independent militia" fighting alongside Hizbollah would either have to fight them or join them.

James

11th August 2006, 21:05

"Israel is illegal thus hezb's action is justified"

aaaaaah so the means justifies the ends? Why not actually address what was pointed out. Israel's actions are a consequence of the operations of hezb. The death of innocents is due to hezb.

Also what is the use of the map? (and also the death statistics. Doesn't answer the point that israel drops leaflets. What does hezb do?) Hezb don't have military bases. They are within the popultation. Israel's primary purpose is to protect it's citizens. For the israel state/army to sit on it's hands and not go after these terrorists (yes, they use terror to target innocents to achieve political ends) would be a total failure of its main purpose.
If lebanon refuses/can't deal with the problem israel will have to do it for them. Who else will?

11th August 2006, 21:09

"Israel is illegal thus hezb's action is justified"

aaaaaah so the means justifies the ends?

Don't put shit in quotes when it isn't a quote.

"I'm James and I'm a fucking idiot."

See? It just doesn't work.

James

11th August 2006, 21:14

ok then...

to:

a Terror Group Are shooting rockets to innocent pepole areas.

you simply replied:

Israel is illegal.

Please explain how i misinterpreted your comment.

11th August 2006, 21:20

Please explain how i misinterpreted your comment.

I can honestly say that I have no idea why I wrote that. I think I misinterpreted the quote somehow, but at the time I was rather distracted. Sorry.

Patchd

11th August 2006, 21:20

The death toll is not 300, it is now at least 1000, 10% of those being Hezbollah.

Phalanx

11th August 2006, 21:22

Hizbollah is a terror group and it provoked Israel into this war. However, Israel has killed hundreds of civilians during the operation and it can no longer say that the force it has used is necessary. The deaths of so many innocents is just not justified, whether or not Israel meant to do it.

Alf

11th August 2006, 21:53

As I said before, there is one fundamental class division on this thread: between the internationalists and those who support one side or the other. Even if the latter might be quite happy to kill each other, they share the same class standpoint, the national standpoint, which can only be that of the bourgeoisie. This was true in Marx's day when some national struggles had a progressive role. Marx always understood that they were bourgeois in nature. Today however, capitalism has been in profound decay for the best part of a century - there are no progressive national tasks any more.

To go back to Communist League and the question of 'petty bourgeois' members. CL claims that his group has excised all forms of petty bourgeois practice and ideology from its ranks. But on one rather important issue at least, they are the epitome of petty bourgeois democratism where all opinions are equally valid. CL tells us that it's Khayembii's "opinion" that revolutionaries should support the Iraqi "resistance". This is not, apparently, the position of the CL as a group, but still, on a question as vital as whether you advocate participation in an imperialist war alongside organisations which have the vocation of massacring the Iraqi workers - that's an acceptable "opinion" for a militant of this organisation.

11th August 2006, 22:53

To go back to Communist League and the question of 'petty bourgeois' members. CL claims that his group has excised all forms of petty bourgeois practice and ideology from its ranks. But on one rather important issue at least, they are the epitome of petty bourgeois democratism where all opinions are equally valid. CL tells us that it's Khayembii's "opinion" that revolutionaries should support the Iraqi "resistance". This is not, apparently, the position of the CL as a group, but still, on a question as vital as whether you advocate participation in an imperialist war alongside organisations which have the vocation of massacring the Iraqi workers - that's an acceptable "opinion" for a militant of this organisation.

You're making the same mistakes that all the anarchists that have posted in this thread have made. Supporting Hezbollah's actions against the Israeli state institutions and supporting the fundamentalist Iraqi Resistance's actions against the US occupation are completely different than supporting Hezbollah or the Resistance themselves. My own quote that you provided dispels that myth:

“Now, we can work towards fighting Israeli imperialism while also developing a proletarian movement within Lebanon. For example, I support resistance fighters in Iraq against American imperialism; however I am in complete support of the IFC and will work towards promoting that over the fundamentalist resistance. We have to think that the IFC probably won't come out as the victors in this battle, as they aren't even a prominent force against the other two (US imperialism and fundamentalist resistance). However, we can support the Iraqi resistance in its actions against American imperialism now while also building the IFC for a proletarian movement later”.

This is not, apparently, the position of the CL as a group, but still, on a question as vital as whether you advocate participation in an imperialist war alongside organisations which have the vocation of massacring the Iraqi workers - that's an acceptable "opinion" for a militant of this organisation.

Could you provide a quote where I say that we should fight alongside either the imperialists or the fundamentalists? As far as I know, I've never said that, and I don't believe it right now (nor have I ever). It seems that you're having trouble comprehending these tactics. Maybe you should stick to bourgeois liberalism. It makes you feel just as warm fuzzy on the inside, without all the thinking (or the work!). ;)

Alf

11th August 2006, 23:28

Khayembii says:

"Supporting Hezbollah's actions against the Israeli state institutions and supporting the fundamentalist Iraqi Resistance's actions against the US occupation are completely different than supporting Hezbollah or the Resistance themselves".

You're right, I must be stupid, I just don't understand how you can be for their actions while not supporting them.

I oppose Hizbollah's actions and I'm against them, it seems simpler. I oppose them leading the Lebanese masses into a reactionary capitalist war, I oppose them trying to slaughter as many Israeli civilians as possible, I oppose them "defending the country" because all "countries" are the property and instruments of the enemy class .

12th August 2006, 00:52

You're right, I must be stupid, I just don't understand how you can be for their actions while not supporting them.

The first step to recovery is admitting your problem, so you're on the right track! :)

James

12th August 2006, 00:56

hmmm i must confess i too am a little confused.

"Supporting Hezbollah's actions against the Israeli state institutions and supporting the fundamentalist Iraqi Resistance's actions against the US occupation are completely different than supporting Hezbollah or the Resistance themselves".

How? I understand that saying "hurrah" when an israeli soldier gets shot is not the same as being a card carrying member of hezb, but surely it amounts to a similar sort of thing? By supporting their action you support their aims.

Unless you mean you support their actions but not their aims. In which case you basically mean "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
Now that kind of thinking always blows back in your face...

Jamal

12th August 2006, 01:27

James, you are the living proof of what the Sky News, Fox News and CNN can do to a person.

Martin Blank

12th August 2006, 02:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 01:54 PM
To go back to Communist League and the question of 'petty bourgeois' members. CL claims that his group has excised all forms of petty bourgeois practice and ideology from its ranks. But on one rather important issue at least, they are the epitome of petty bourgeois democratism where all opinions are equally valid.
Only someone from one of the exploiting classes believes their opinion is more important than someone else's, or that only their opinion should be heard. Proletarian democracy respects the opinions of all our brothers and sisters, even when they are wrong.

Miles

travisdandy2000

12th August 2006, 06:05

Hizbollah is a terroist goup that povoked the Zionist ino this war!? How can you call your self a leftist and make such a rectionary statment! Zionism is imperialism plane and simple. Every group of native Arabs has every right to resisit Zionism unto death. "Isreal" has no right to exsist, the facts are clear. Long live Hizbollah! Drive the Zionist to the sea!

travisdandy2000

12th August 2006, 07:12

Here's the truth for you. Anyone who supports the Zionist in any capacity deserves an ass whooping, and I'l be happy to give it. Send me a private message with the time and place and I'll come and make pro-hizzbollah graffitt out of your face.

I am the product of your tyranny. You have dissected the leftovers of my country into bits and pieces of shantytowns, ghettoes and concentrations camps. You have cut off my water supply and left me thirsty while you the Israelis bathe in cooled pools not far from where I live. You have uprooted my trees and desecrated my fields making sure I have no way to sustain myself or those who depend on me. You have cut off medical supplies that treat the wounded and at your checkpoints, you detain and humiliate Palestinians and prevent those who are in dire need of medical assistance to pass through causing my people who are your victims to die at your impromptu borders.

You assassinate my freedom fighters while explaining to the world that you are merely defending your own squatters. You shoot to kill little children who in defiance and courage wield small stones in the name of liberty against you the fiercely armed enemy.

You torture the children and resistance fighters you incarcerate and try to bribe or coerce my people into collaborating against one another. You bulldoze homes and you prevent me from earning a living. You kill me by remote control from your US made Apache helicopters and your settlers who squat on what you have left me of my land throw firebombs into my dwellings and on my passageways, attack my children and womenfolk with guns and clubs and hate.

You occupy my land and on my bloodstained hills station your tanks and armored jeeps in order to shoot off one by one little children playing in the streets.

You take over the Orient House, my one symbol of freedom that was donated by a man worth all Israelis, while at the same time you starve the orphans just across the street.

You shoot out my water tanks and you kill off Palestinian servicemen even though at the time of your brutal massacres, these servicemen were patrolling their land or simply eating their last supper. You cut off my electricity so you can assassinate me more easily in the dank shadows of your dark treachery.

You are cowards and you are afraid of little Palestinian children with stones. You never kill them single handedly. You roam in groups like packs of wild dogs and you are just as vicious if not more so.

You leave me and my people without hope and when you have driven me into a corner and deprived me of all that is human, I react with anger and bitterness. I strap explosives onto my body and search for a place to detonate myself. Yes, I kill your civilians, but this is the price you have to pay for taking away my inalienable rights, the rights that all men are entitled to for your demoniacal oppression of my people.

It is really very simple. God created all men equal and no man better than any other. Yet, somehow you have made it your protocol that Jews are better than all others and that you have the right to come to my land committing rape and plunder yet expect me to thank you for doing so.

Just the other day, a young boy was eating lunch. One of your settlers who came from America threw a firebomb into this boy’s house. His two brothers were killed immediately. But the one boy survived horribly disfigured. His name is Amar Emeera. His scars have turned a once beautiful child into a grotesque being that does not even look human. What did this child do to go through life so horribly disfigured?

You shoot babies point blank while swaddled in their parent’s arms in Palestinian cars going to weddings. You slay Palestinian children going to and from school and you slaughter Palestinian children when they fight your armies with their bare hands. One such child, Mohammed Abu Arrar was shot down and killed when he protested your occupation of his land. Palestinian relatives of the boy kissed his body laid out in his coffin before he was taken away to be buried in the Gaza Strip.

You kill unarmed Palestinian fathers on their way to buy school supplies and books for their children. You have even run out of excuses for the atrocities you continue to perpetrate. You shell the homes of Palestinian families, instantly killing the occupants and then claim that the action was friendly fire from the Palestinians even though the homes were far removed from the scene of the battle and even though remnants of your American made shells are scattered about the demolished homes of the innocent.

You collectively punish 3 million Palestinians half of whom are children who reside on what is left of their own land though you know full well that their only desire is to free themselves from your barbaric cruelty.

You tell the world that you want peace yet at every corner, at every instance, you are as far from peace as the earth is from a different universe speeding in an opposite direction.

You speak peace with the forked tongues of your warmongers and then pretend shock when finally a Palestinian human bomb blows himself up.

You will only be free of the threat of human bombs when you seek a just and comprehensive peace and when you end your occupation of the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine.

Martin Blank

12th August 2006, 07:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 11:13 PM
I am the product of your tyranny.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Oh, please! You're the product of middle-class teenage angst. Only someone firmly ensconced in the comfortable confines of a Great Power country can afford to be so supportive of an organization like Hizb'allah and be considered "leftist".

Miles

RedKnight

12th August 2006, 07:38

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 01:46 PM
im from israel, Im a sozialist.

i cant agree with the war in lebanon , but you cant see the things from outside .
a Terror Group Are shooting rockets to innocent pepole areas.
the IDF is sending flyers from airplanes to warn the innocent citizens in lebanon.
israel only want to kill Hizbolla.
half of the country moved to the center of israel, i have in my house 1 big family that dont have money for hotel so they are staying here.

and the worst thing, next year i have to go to the army for at least 3 years , this is not a good place for a punk like me =)
I'm glad to have first hand perspectives from all people in the area. Thank you for representing the point of view of the Israeli Left. To hear some comrades on this board talk, you'd think that there wasn't any progressive forces in Israel. israel has a Communist party(Maki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Israel)), as well as lebanon. I for one anyway am not anti-jewish. In fact I'm proud to say that I'm a labor zionist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_Zionism.

James

12th August 2006, 14:50

Jamal jamal jamal...

James, you are the living proof of what the Sky News, Fox News and CNN can do to a person.

Alas i do not have access to such news channels so can't comment. Would you kindly give me some examples though? Quote me and show everyone what exactly you mean.
Also, how about you answer my earlier post instead of shooting off one liners? The way you are acting, one may start to wonder whether you avoid doing so on purpose... i wonder why :rolleyes:

nerifr

12th August 2006, 17:08

travisdandy2000 - you are one of the most stupid pepole that i saw here.

Im not a Zionist, but it dosent matter in this topic.
you SUPPORT a RELIGIOUS TERROR RACIST GROUP!!!!!!!
a group that support a JIHAD WAR , sucide bombers, and kiddanpping innocent pepole.

israel have less deaths because 2 million (500,000 of them are israeli arabs) of israel citizens are staying in shelters or moved to the center\south of israel.

I am not agree with all the things that the IDF are doing, but i prefer the IDf on the fucking hizbolla that killing my friends in the north.

i dont know where you live , but the extremly muslims religous groups are the New problem of this world.
Al Qaeda, Hizbolla, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, The muslims brothers , Taliban and others....

Don't Change Your Name

13th August 2006, 00:03

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+Aug 12 2006, 01:33 AM--> (CommunistLeague @ Aug 12 2006, 01:33 AM)
[email protected] 11 2006, 11:13 PM
I am the product of your tyranny.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Oh, please! You're the product of middle-class teenage angst. Only someone firmly ensconced in the comfortable confines of a Great Power country can afford to be so supportive of an organization like Hizb'allah and be considered "leftist".

Miles [/b]
Best post ever

Jamal

13th August 2006, 01:18

im from israel, Im a sozialist.

i cant agree with the war in lebanon , but you cant see the things from outside .
a Terror Group Are shooting rockets to innocent pepole areas.
the IDF is sending flyers from airplanes to warn the innocent citizens in lebanon.
israel only want to kill Hizbolla.
half of the country moved to the center of israel, i have in my house 1 big family that dont have money for hotel so they are staying here.

and the worst thing, next year i have to go to the army for at least 3 years , this is not a good place for a punk like me =)

How can somebody have the right to drop flyers on somebody's land and tell him either you evict your home, the home youve lived in all your life, the one you have all the memories in, or the IDF will make the house collapse on its occupants? Him and his family? Where is the justice in that? Where is the civilization in that? Where is the humane rights? Where's the humanity it self?

you SUPPORT a RELIGIOUS TERROR RACIST GROUP!!!!!!!

ooookkay, so being a zionist, you don't?
Zionism is one of the most terrorist, religious, racist thought the world has layed its eyes appon.

I am not agree with all the things that the IDF are doing, but i prefer the IDf on the fucking hizbolla that killing my friends in the north.

Yeah, well my friends in the south aren't exactly getting the best treatment from the IDF either. So what are you trying to say? Israeli blood is more important that the Lebanese? These new "bunker buster" missiles they are using, as seen in kana, aren't allowing anyone to hide. There is no such thing as a shelter anymore, even the deepest shelter can collapse by one of these missiles. On tv just the other day, a 10 storie buildig in the Dahye fell with one missile.

Jamal jamal jamal...

QUOTE

James, you are the living proof of what the Sky News, Fox News and CNN can do to a person.

Alas i do not have access to such news channels so can't comment. Would you kindly give me some examples though? Quote me and show everyone what exactly you mean.
Also, how about you answer my earlier post instead of shooting off one liners? The way you are acting, one may start to wonder whether you avoid doing so on purpose... i wonder why

you think I am avoiding answering you?
man oh man!
Do you think that at these times, I have nothing better to do than to answer you? god damn it my country is in a bloody war and all I can think of right now is replying to you! 18 people I know, 5 of whom were my freinds died, and all I can think of is replying to you! refugees are sleeping on the streets, and all I have time to do is answering you!? Think it over again.

Ive been helping refugees for about 31 days now. I have 5 hours of sleep each day, 2 hours of internet acces, refugees to put in shelter, provide them with food and mattresses, make educational, entertaning programs for them to try to improve their horrible situation. Some of them had a father, a mother, a sister, a brother, a child.... die. Some of them died infrot of their faces. Yesterday, I asked a child if he new a guy from his village in the south, that huy was my freind, and he's a communist. I used to see him in nearly all the demonstrations I went into, we used to shout out sentences and people would shout out behind us. The small boy answered out saying: "yes, Ahmad was my cousin, he died 2 weeks ago" :(

How do you think is my situation?

DurgleTheTurtle

13th August 2006, 01:44

I hope my friends are okay there. About 20+ of my friends including my teacher are in lebanon. i was asked if i wanted to come but i refused. I hope they are okay..

Jamal

13th August 2006, 02:15

where are they staying?

Comrade-Z

13th August 2006, 03:37

Im not a Zionist, but it dosent matter in this topic.

Oh no, it very much matters in this topic. Listen, I don't support Hezbollah. Earlier in the thread I even said that both sides should "turn the imperialist war into a civil war." But, in the same vein, how the hell can you support the existence of the state of Israel in its current form (theocratic, where muslims living in Israel or the occupied territories can't vote--am I correct on that's how it works?) and call yourself a leftist, or even a non-Zionist? How the hell can you not support a one-state solution encompassing all of current-day Israel, Gaza, and West Bank, with everyone living there of adult age granted the right to vote? Isn't that the absolute minimal standard of capitalist "democracy" to which we hold all other countries in the world? Why is Israel exempt from this and allowed to exist as a theocracy? Just because 6 million Jews got massacred in the Holocaust does not give Jews permission to oppress others.

Besides, how can you support the existence of a state which drafts every single one of its own people for three years? (Well, I guess every man, correct?)

Also, I am curious, do you personally believe in something as irrational as the existence of god? Do you think theocracy can be justified? If so, you are little better than the Hezbollah scum.

you SUPPORT a RELIGIOUS TERROR RACIST GROUP!!!!!!!

Take a look in the mirror.

I am not agree with all the things that the IDF are doing, but i prefer the IDf on the fucking hizbolla that killing my friends in the north.

What do you think Lebanese civilians are thinking? "I am not agree with all the things that Hezbollah are doing, but i prefer Hezbollah on the fucking IDF that killing my friends in the south."

i dont know where you live , but the extremly muslims religous groups are the New problem of this world.
Al Qaeda, Hizbolla, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, The muslims brothers , Taliban and others....

It seems to me that the "new problem of this world," is the same as the problem has ever been--capitalism, with religion of any type coming in at a close second-place. To single out Muslim extremist groups is a joke. Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, any irrational belief structure with supernatural authorities has just about the same capability of unleashing awful things.

travisdandy2000

13th August 2006, 04:44

Oh I am a product of tennage angst? I am a grown man trying to make a living amongst the working class, how many of you can say the same? Hizzbollah is a religious fanatic group? How much do you really know about the platform and positions of Hizzbollah? They are one of the most pragmatic and dynamic groups in the middle east. I would be happy to go and die right now if I thought it would bring an end to the Zionist project, that is what internationalism means. If some paid for me to go to school while, I debated the minute points of Das Kapital with my freinds maybe I would fell different. As for me and mine we have to submit to wage slavery to live.
Openly Classist, Openly anti-imperialist,
http://www.openlyclassist.org.uk/ Travis

travisdandy2000

13th August 2006, 04:51

I apologize for my spelling in the last post, didn't look it over.

Martin Blank

13th August 2006, 12:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 08:45 PM
Oh I am a product of tennage angst? I am a grown man trying to make a living amongst the working class, how many of you can say the same? Hizzbollah is a religious fanatic group? How much do you really know about the platform and positions of Hizzbollah? They are one of the most pragmatic and dynamic groups in the middle east. I would be happy to go and die right now if I thought it would bring an end to the Zionist project, that is what internationalism means. If some paid for me to go to school while, I debated the minute points of Das Kapital with my freinds maybe I would fell different. As for me and mine we have to submit to wage slavery to live.
Openly Classist, Openly anti-imperialist,
http://www.openlyclassist.org.uk/ Travis
Son, do you have any clue who you're attempting to lecture? You might want to do a little homework.

Miles

Devrim

13th August 2006, 16:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 01:45 AM
Oh I am a product of tennage angst? I am a grown man trying to make a living amongst the working class, how many of you can say the same? Hizzbollah is a religious fanatic group? How much do you really know about the platform and positions of Hizzbollah? They are one of the most pragmatic and dynamic groups in the middle east. I would be happy to go and die right now if I thought it would bring an end to the Zionist project, that is what internationalism means. If some paid for me to go to school while, I debated the minute points of Das Kapital with my freinds maybe I would fell different. As for me and mine we have to submit to wage slavery to live.
Openly Classist, Openly anti-imperialist,
http://www.openlyclassist.org.uk/ Travis
They just get more, and more absurd. Now this leftist is talking about going and dying against Israel. It is a second conditional though. Does that mean that he is not actually going to die, and he will in fact sit there in England advocating that workers in the Middle East go, and sacrafice themselves for nationalism.
Devrim

DORRI

13th August 2006, 17:51

you SUPPORT a RELIGIOUS TERROR RACIST GROUP!!!!!!!

Take a look in the mirror.

hear!

Israel is illegal...I can honestly say that I have no idea why I wrote that. I think I misinterpreted the quote somehow, but at the time I was rather distracted. Sorry.

not like you I have strong idea to believe that israel is illegal. it simply needs to study history. remember how they made the living space for the nonpalestinian jews by killing the palestinians who their only sin was living in their house and country in 1948. remember dair-yassin for just an example. A state that is established on the bloods of innocents is illegal.

Alf

13th August 2006, 18:54

As far as communists are concerned, all states are our enemies. Israel is our enemy, Lebanon is our enemy, the Hizbollah or Hamas proto-states are our enemy. We are for class struggle against all capitalist states, and all states in the world are capitalist. Who cares whether they are 'legal' or not? They certainly don't.

These to-ings and fro-ings about 'who started it' in Lebanon are a waste of time. Capitalism in this epoch is permanent war. When does the 'aggression' in the Middle East begin? Perhaps in 1967, perhaps in 1948, perhaps with the Nazi Holocaust, but that was also the result of the carve up at the end of the First World War....As far as we are concerned, all capitalist states are imperialist aggressors. Every single post on this thread which has gone on about 'who started it' has used it as a pretext for supporting one side or the other. But I am encouraged to see that there are still posters saying that we should oppose both, such as Comrade-Z, as well as Leo and Devrim whose outlook is very close to mine.

I found Jamal's post about his situation in Lebanon very moving. I understand that he is facing the most terrible conditions every day. But that still does not make me abandon internationalism and conclude that I should support Hezbollah. If I was in Israel facing Hizbollah rockets I would be as angry at the Israeli government, which uses Hizbollah's attacks as a pretext to pursue its own imperialist designs, as I would be at Hizbollah for trying to massacre Israeli civilians. If I was in Lebanon I would be as angry at Hizbollah for dragging the population into the conflict as I would at the IDF for bombing the shit out of my neighbourhood.

James

13th August 2006, 18:56

Some individuals should stop talking about what is legal and what is illegal.
With one breath the typical anti-israeli shouts "israel is illegal", and then with the other breath denounces the UN etc.
You either believe in international law or you don't.

If you do then it is legal in theory. If you don't believe in it then stop ranting on about it.
(edit: to an extent i agree with alf, sorry i posted at the same time. If you are of that frame of mind such talk of legality is misplaced)

and jamal, i'm sorry, i mistook your comment directed at me to be an attempt to engage me in conversation.

Martin Blank

13th August 2006, 19:54

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 05:19 PM
Do you think that at these times, I have nothing better to do than to answer you? god damn it my country is in a bloody war and all I can think of right now is replying to you! 18 people I know, 5 of whom were my freinds died, and all I can think of is replying to you! refugees are sleeping on the streets, and all I have time to do is answering you!? Think it over again.
Jamal, what do you expect? For so many of these petty-bourgeois leftists, your life and the lives of your family, neighbors, friends and comrades mean nothing. But their opinion means everything.

Miles

James

13th August 2006, 20:11

well hold your horses there cowboy... "and jamal, i'm sorry, i mistook your comment directed at me to be an attempt to engage me in conversation. "

Marion

13th August 2006, 20:15

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+Aug 13 2006, 04:55 PM--> (CommunistLeague @ Aug 13 2006, 04:55 PM)
[email protected] 12 2006, 05:19 PM
Do you think that at these times, I have nothing better to do than to answer you? god damn it my country is in a bloody war and all I can think of right now is replying to you! 18 people I know, 5 of whom were my freinds died, and all I can think of is replying to you! refugees are sleeping on the streets, and all I have time to do is answering you!? Think it over again.
Jamal, what do you expect? For so many of these petty-bourgeois leftists, your life and the lives of your family, neighbors, friends and comrades mean nothing. But their opinion means everything.

Miles[/b]
I don't think this type of comment reflects very well on you Miles. Do you honestly think that you and those who agree with you on this issue care more about the working-class in the Middle East than those of us arguing against you?

Martin Blank

13th August 2006, 20:24

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 12:16 PM
I don't think this type of comment reflects very well on you Miles. Do you honestly think that you and those who agree with you on this issue care more about the working-class in the Middle East than those of us arguing against you?
No, and I never said that. What I said was that there are some petty-bourgeois leftists who value their opinion over the lives of other people. They can be found on all sides of this debate.

Miles

Marion

13th August 2006, 20:24

A speaker at an anti-war rally I was present at over the weekend announced that "we are all Hizbullah".

Thought that might cheer some of you up (though it does make me despair)...

Martin Blank

13th August 2006, 20:27

At the last demonstration I went to, there were signs made by the main antiwar coalition (run by alleged "Marxists") that said "Long Live Hezbollah" and "U.S. Hands Off Muslim Lands".

Miles

nerifr

13th August 2006, 21:37

Dori - first, FUCK YOU
i think that anyone here that support a terror group that their main purpose in HURT innocent pepole , is a fucking idiot, and he cant call himself a communist , socialist, leftist .

you can call yourself a faschist,extremely right-wing or Shahid ..

of course im not happy with what the IDF are doing , but what do you think israel should do?
the lebanon govermant are doing NOTHING, hizbolla , iran and syria toegether are attacking israel .
israel dont have a choice, if you see some israeli tv, you will see some films from lebanon, that some pilots didnt sent bombs because they saw 2 children playing near hizbolla terrorist.

Dori, did you know that before the europeans came to America, Indians lived there ?
what about the french , italian and british states in africa ?
or mybe you want to come back to the roman empire , that conquered eygpt??
even the Great U.S.S.R controlled East europe , so what the point? every country is illegal.

Marion

14th August 2006, 00:24

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+Aug 13 2006, 05:25 PM--> (CommunistLeague @ Aug 13 2006, 05:25 PM)
[email protected] 13 2006, 12:16 PM
I don't think this type of comment reflects very well on you Miles. Do you honestly think that you and those who agree with you on this issue care more about the working-class in the Middle East than those of us arguing against you?
No, and I never said that. What I said was that there are some petty-bourgeois leftists who value their opinion over the lives of other people. They can be found on all sides of this debate.

Miles[/b]

Your earlier comment to Jamal was:

For so many of these petty-bourgeois leftists, your life and the lives of your family, neighbors, friends and comrades mean nothing. But their opinion means everything.

So given that you think us "petty bourgeois leftists" value the lives of working class people as "nothing" I'm not sure why I'm wrong in thinking you're saying you care more for them than us "petty bourgeois" do. Unless you're saying you don't care about them at all either, which wouldn't make sense.

Mind you, I'm very tired and perhaps not thinking straight. If you can give me an example of when someone has held the lives of the likes of Jamal and his comrades or friends are worth "nothing" it would probably help greatly...

Marion

14th August 2006, 00:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 05:28 PM
At the last demonstration I went to, there were signs made by the main antiwar coalition (run by alleged "Marxists") that said "Long Live Hezbollah" and "U.S. Hands Off Muslim Lands".

Miles
Jeez! I'd probably say "Long live Hezbollah" is worse than "We are all Hezbollah" as at least could could perhaps weasel your way out of the latter by paraphrasing it with ("...but only while they are resisting"). But "US Hands off Muslim lands"!!??

Spirit of Spartacus

14th August 2006, 00:36

i think that anyone here that support a terror group that their main purpose in HURT innocent pepole , is a fucking idiot, and he cant call himself a communist , socialist, leftist .

LOL!

And what do you think the angelic Israeli military aims to do? What have they achieved till now except to hurt innocent civilians?

you can call yourself a faschist,extremely right-wing or Shahid ..

Yes, either that, or just a Marxist who knows that sometimes they have to choose sides with the oppressed people...whatever their ideology and whoever speaks up for the oppressed...

of course im not happy with what the IDF are doing , but what do you think israel should do?

Ummm...stop oppressing and killing Arabs, perhaps? <_<

Give way to legitimate Arab demands?

the lebanon govermant are doing NOTHING, hizbolla , iran and syria toegether are attacking israel .

Oh cut out the rants! Give us proof that Hezbollah has no support in Lebanon.

israel dont have a choice, if you see some israeli tv, you will see some films from lebanon, that some pilots didnt sent bombs because they saw 2 children playing near hizbolla terrorist.

Ooooh, how sweet!

Look at our sources...the Zio-Nazi state known as Israeli broadcasts propoganda and our dear socialist/communist/Zionist-sympathiser nerifr swallows it whole. :rolleyes:

Dori, did you know that before the europeans came to America, Indians lived there ?
what about the french , italian and british states in africa ?

Isn't that a perfect justification for the Zionist crimes and their ethnic cleansing of Arab lands? :angry:

Quit the farce, pal. You're trying to justify the Zionist murderers, and you KNOW you can't really do it.

beltov

14th August 2006, 00:42

Hi,

Marion's point about the 'anti-war' demonstrations is important. Far from being 'anti-war' they are PRO-WAR because the leftists who proclaim 'we are all Hizbollah' are only calling for Israel to cease-firing. You never hear them calling on Hizbollah to put down their weapons.

As the ICC have said in a recent report about the pro-war movement in Britain,

Originally posted by "The ‘Peace Movement’ is a war movement"+--> ("The ‘Peace Movement’ is a war movement")Demonstrators internationally are not only being asked to support the current conflict; they are also told to ‘put pressure on western governments’. In this they are being asked to believe that big powers like the US, Britain, France, or Germany could behave in any other way than as imperialist predators. As for the ‘national resistance movements’, they are either already integral to capitalism’s forces of repression and war or have that as an ambition. Capitalist society puts the international working class in conflict with the capitalist state world-wide, but where imperialist war can only lead to increasingly massive destruction, the class war of the working class can lead to a society without national divisions, to the liberation of humanity.
http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2...08_lebanon_gaza (http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2006/0708_lebanon_gaza)
[/b]

Amid all the calls for support for the 'resistance' against Israel and the US - no matter how 'conditional' - I'm reminded of the position of the Italian Communist Left faced with the war in Spain in the 1930s. Against calls for workers to sacrifice themselves for the Republic or Franco they proclaimed: "The order of the day, don't betray!"

"Bilan"
The only way of remaining on the side of the workers, even if the crushing superio*rity of the enemy precludes any possibility of reversing the situation, is by refusing to betray, just as Lenin did in 1914. To desert the military fronts in Spain as an example for the whole proletariat is to disassociate oneself from capitalism. It is to struggle against capitalism and for the working class.

In every country to struggle against one’s own capitalism is to fight in solidarity with the Spanish workers. Any other posi*tion, no matter whether it is embellished with socialist, centrist, or anarchist jus*tifications, can only lead to the crushing of the proletariat in Spain as in the rest of the world.
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/006_bila...ont_betray.html (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/006_bilan_36_dont_betray.html)

The ideological themes of 'anti-fascism' in the 1930s were used to ideologically prepare the working class to slaughter their brothers and sisters during the Second World War. And they succeeded. We're now in a different period where the class struggle is on the rise and holds the perspective of mass strikes against capitalism that give us hope for a real solution to the growing barbarism. But the ideologies of 'anti-imperialism' pose the same risks as those of 'anti-fascism' did in the '30s: of taking the proletariat off its class terrain and leading it to an early grave.

Beltov.

Comrade-Z

14th August 2006, 02:05

i think that anyone here that support a terror group that their main purpose in HURT innocent pepole , is a fucking idiot, and he cant call himself a communist , socialist, leftist .

C'mon. Hezbollah's main purpose is not to "hurt innocent people," but to dislodge all Israeli forces from Lebanese territory, including the Sheeba Farms area, to retrieve the thousands of Lebanese prisoners that Israel still holds captive from previous crises, and (depending on who you talk to), to abolish the Zionist nature of the Israeli state. In addition to this foreign policy, Hezbollah also has a domestic agenda, although that's another issue. But please don't insult our intelligence with such idiotic bullshit as "Hezbollah just wants to kill little babies OMFG!!!!!111"

of course im not happy with what the IDF are doing , but what do you think israel should do?

Israel should withdraw from all of Lebanon (as well as from all other occupied territories, back to pre-1967 borders), return all Lebanese prisoners, grant the Palestinians a state or, if that is unworkable due to Israel's expansionist settlement policies, form a binational state incorporating both present-day Israel and the occupied Palestinian terrotories, with a fully democratic and secular form of government, with freedom of religion, and let the people living there decide on how they want to live (and whether or not they want the state to be Zionist).

If Hezbollah or any other group still chooses to attack Israel after that, then you have some legitimate ground to stand on.

israel dont have a choice, if you see some israeli tv, you will see some films from lebanon, that some pilots didnt sent bombs because they saw 2 children playing near hizbolla terrorist.

Awww, Israel's is a kindler, gentler form of state-sponsored terrorism, it seems. Except for when its military runs over little Palestinian kids throwing rocks at IDF tanks. Or when it uses its high-tech weaponry to unleash hell on its opponents. But that's not "terrorism," that's just "war." :angry:

what about the french , italian and british states in africa ?
or mybe you want to come back to the roman empire , that conquered eygpt??
even the Great U.S.S.R controlled East europe , so what the point? every country is illegal.

So you think a comparison between Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and British imperialism in Africa is legitimate? I think we are starting to agree on things....