Log in

View Full Version : Enemies capitalism has created



Kropotkin
16th August 2006, 03:56
How do we deal with the enemies Capitalism has created after the revolution. For example, say the revolution happened tomorrow in the U.S. I doubt jihadists around the world would care much. They would still see us as an enemy wold they not? Even after u.s. forces were removed from the middle east. They would still consider it a duty to wage holy war against the people of the former united states. Because to them anybody not muslim is an infidel deserving of death. Islam is an imperialist religion as are all religious ideologies.

Bush's policies no doubt have increased radical islam's popularity. So if this problem still exists or another just as bad, when and if a communist revoltion happens, how do we deal with it?

More Fire for the People
16th August 2006, 04:23
Well we are an enemy capitalism has created. Capitalism has created a lot of enemies: workers, ethnic minorities, womyn, queers, and the list goes on. What we need is an organization that promotes radleftists ideas amongst the enemies of capitalism.

Delta
16th August 2006, 05:43
Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 05:57 PM
For example, say the revolution happened tomorrow in the U.S. I doubt jihadists around the world would care much. They would still see us as an enemy wold they not?
Sure, there are some jihadists that would still hate the US, but I don't think they would have all that much support. With the absence of US imperialism, most of their rhetoric would fall on deaf ears.

In any case, if the workers in the US were able to topple the government, the real threat would be from counter-revolutionaries and foreign governments, not religious extremists.

LoneRed
16th August 2006, 05:50
"womyn"


are we really that immature?

ZX3
16th August 2006, 16:19
Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 12:57 AM
How do we deal with the enemies Capitalism has created after the revolution. For example, say the revolution happened tomorrow in the U.S. I doubt jihadists around the world would care much. They would still see us as an enemy wold they not? Even after u.s. forces were removed from the middle east. They would still consider it a duty to wage holy war against the people of the former united states. Because to them anybody not muslim is an infidel deserving of death. Islam is an imperialist religion as are all religious ideologies.

Bush's policies no doubt have increased radical islam's popularity. So if this problem still exists or another just as bad, when and if a communist revoltion happens, how do we deal with it?
Any person seeking to thwart the aims of radical Islamic fundamentalism would be unpopular in those circles in such a circumstance. So no, the new revolutionary government would eventually have to clash with Islamic fundamentalism.

And how could it not? There are many posts on these boards debating whether a socialist community needs to be global. The lands of Islamic fundamenatlism would seem also to be included.

More Fire for the People
16th August 2006, 16:33
Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 08:51 PM
"womyn"


are we really that immature?
Are you really aware of how language shapes the way we construct our world?

Delta
16th August 2006, 20:16
I support the spelling of 'womyn' for anyone who chooses to use it.

Phugebrins
16th August 2006, 21:29
Are these enemies created by capitalism, or just inherited from feudalism? Not that I'm saying capitalism doesn't actively maintain animosity, mind. But since the beginning of recorded history, East-West relations have pretty sour.

CheRev
16th August 2006, 22:11
We would have to do the opposite to what the capitalists are currently doing: talk with them. Understand the root of their grievances. If they're rational problems that we can do something about then we can address them; if they're completely nuts requests then we tell them we can't help and then unfortunately they become an enemy of ourselves through no fault of our own. The main thing is that we reach out to them, explain that things have changed, and set up communication lines.

Xiao Banfa
16th August 2006, 22:40
Even after u.s. forces were removed from the middle east. They would still consider it a duty to wage holy war against the people of the former united states. Because to them anybody not muslim is an infidel deserving of death. Islam is an imperialist religion as are all religious ideologies

It looks like the neoconservatives have done a good job with you.

You, like any hayseed red-state twit are equating Islam with wacky fundamentalism.

But, having said that, even the most extreme islamists believe this current "holy war" is only to eject imperialists from muslim lands.

I propose we ban islamopophes.

Delta
17th August 2006, 00:47
Originally posted by Tino [email protected] 16 2006, 12:41 PM
I propose we ban islamopophes.
I wouldn't support that. It's better to educate people rather than ban them for being uninformed. It's not as annoying and hard to overcome as someone being a religous nut or a capitalist.

bcbm
17th August 2006, 01:32
Originally posted by Tino [email protected] 16 2006, 01:41 PM
I propose we ban islamopophes.
And christophobes, too??

which doctor
17th August 2006, 02:21
Originally posted by Tino [email protected] 16 2006, 02:41 PM
But, having said that, even the most extreme islamists believe this current "holy war" is only to eject imperialists from muslim lands.
Tell that to Iran.

Xiao Banfa
17th August 2006, 03:16
Tell that to Iran.

What the fuck does that mean? Have you been reading too much of the daily telegraph?

ZX3
17th August 2006, 04:50
Originally posted by Tino [email protected] 17 2006, 12:17 AM

Tell that to Iran.

What the fuck does that mean? Have you been reading too much of the daily telegraph?
It means the claim that Islamic fundamentalists simply wish to expel "imperialists" from their lands is crap.

Nor has the question originally posed been answered. It seems that many on "the Left" advocate the spread of some sort of socialism to people across the world as being beneficial to them. Except in the "islamic areas" where attempting to resist the rise of the 10th century is considered "imperialist."

The old "imperialist" paradigm will serve the "Left" ill in attempting to grapple with Islamic fundamentalism.

Of course, the indifference to Islamic fundamentalism by the "Left" could also be a cynical tactic- a one step back (I'm sorry, but the Taliban & Co. cannot possibly be considered a political ideal by the "Left", but two step forwards by defending those who also wish to smash the western system).

Xiao Banfa
17th August 2006, 08:13
It means the claim that Islamic fundamentalists simply wish to expel "imperialists" from their lands is crap

I'm sorry but that's crap. Maybe the US media has homogenised such disparate muslim elements such as the nationalist Shia regime and salafist al Qaeda into one big islamic bogeyman, but it's just a spectacle.

The regime in Teheran and al Qaeda are completely different. Anyone with even the most basic idea of middle east politics knows that.

As for Ahmadinejad or even al Qaeda having some secret plan for a global holocaust of infidels, are you sure you haven't been watching Fox news? Cause, that is simply not true.

Kropotkin
17th August 2006, 20:16
Originally posted by Tino [email protected] 16 2006, 07:41 PM

Even after u.s. forces were removed from the middle east. They would still consider it a duty to wage holy war against the people of the former united states. Because to them anybody not muslim is an infidel deserving of death. Islam is an imperialist religion as are all religious ideologies







You, like any hayseed red-state twit are equating Islam with wacky fundamentalism.

If you aren't fundementalist about your religion than you aren't serious about it. And are likely just following it because your parents were members of the particular religion. Or because it is frowned upon to not be religious in your community.

And your insults will get you no where. Perhaps some anger management classes are in order.


But, having said that, even the most extreme islamists believe this current "holy war" is only to eject imperialists from muslim lands.

And once they've done that what? Do you think they will be happy to just rule their little sphere of influence? I suppose you think Hitler just wanted to eject jews and other "inferior" races from Europe? Certainly he had no plans to spread his tyranny elsewhere. Do you think if Christian Fascists gained full control of the U.S. government they would be content just making America christian? They wouldn't want to bring Europe back to its christians "roots" now would they? Or remove Islam from the "holy lands"? Christian Fascism and Islamic Fascism are two sides of the same coin.


I propose we ban islamopophes

Banning somebody from a communist forum for calling a religion imperialist? :lol: Perhaps I'm the only one who sees the irony here.


To clarify my original post. Western imperialism is certainly responsible for this right wing islamic fundementalist movement gaining the power and popularity it has around the world. I think many ordinary muslims who form the soldiers of this movement, and see leftist solutions to imperialism unappealling, are driven by a desire to fight western imperialism. Perhaps in the event of a communist revolution in the west; they would make peace. But their leaders, who without the help of western imperialism, would not be in the positions of power that they are today, I'm not so sure are interested in peace. They use the wests exploitation of the middle east to rally muslims to their cause. But there long term goals I suspect are not to just kick imperialist forces out of the holy lands. Much like Bush says his goal is to stop terrorism when his real goal is to control oil and perhaps wage another crusade against Islam.



We would have to do the opposite to what the capitalists are currently doing: talk with them. Understand the root of their grievances. If they're rational problems that we can do something about then we can address them; if they're completely nuts requests then we tell them we can't help and then unfortunately they become an enemy of ourselves through no fault of our own. The main thing is that we reach out to them, explain that things have changed, and set up communication lines

And I think your method would end most conflict. However, for those situations where your methods do not work, what do we do? Say we sit down and talk with various Islamic groups and work things out with all but one or two. They vow to continue their war. How do we defend ourselves? I don't see using any bourgeoisie methods as viable such as wars etc.

ZX3
20th August 2006, 04:02
Originally posted by Tino [email protected] 17 2006, 05:14 AM

It means the claim that Islamic fundamentalists simply wish to expel "imperialists" from their lands is crap

I'm sorry but that's crap. Maybe the US media has homogenised such disparate muslim elements such as the nationalist Shia regime and salafist al Qaeda into one big islamic bogeyman, but it's just a spectacle.

The regime in Teheran and al Qaeda are completely different. Anyone with even the most basic idea of middle east politics knows that.

As for Ahmadinejad or even al Qaeda having some secret plan for a global holocaust of infidels, are you sure you haven't been watching Fox news? Cause, that is simply not true.
I am certainly aware of the various schisms withim Islam, Shite, Sunni, Alawite ect. It sort of like the schisms one might find on this message board; trotskites, lenninists, anarchists ect.

But I would suggest that Shites in Sunni, no matter what the disagreements are, have more in common with each other than with the catholic church or the secular western state.

just like the Trots and lenninists have more in common with each other than with Milton Friedman.

I would further suggest that the trots and lenninsts here have more in common with george Bush than they do with Ahmadinejad or Osama.

So why be so quick to defend Islamic fundamentalism?

What is it about a theocratic state, which supports the suppresion of women, homosexuals ect; which embraces capitalist economic systems (to a degree anyways), which excites those on the Left?