Hezbollah: article on its class nature

[Severian]

Now with more data! See end of post.

from the new issue of the Militant (http://www.themilitant.com/2006/7032/703255.html)
Hezbollah: a bourgeois party modeled on Tehran

BY PAUL PEDERSON
In a recent opinion piece published in the New York Times, Robert Pape, a political science professor at the University of Chicago, compared Hezbollah, the organization in Lebanon targeted in the recent Israeli assault, to the “multidimensional American civil-rights movement of the 1960s.”

The Workers World Party presented a similar portrait of the group, saying in an August 10 statement that Hezbollah has “rallied the forces fighting against Zionist expansionism” and “taken up the mantle of the resistance to U.S. imperialism.”

Other middle-class radicals protesting Tel Aviv’s bloody invasion of Lebanon have presented similar views.

But these are not accurate portrayals of Hezbollah, or Hizb’Allah, the “Party of God.”

Hezbollah is a bourgeois political party, not a religious group, with extensive capitalist investments. Its primary goal is to set up an “Islamic Republic” in Lebanon, modeled on the government of Iran, its main backer. It was founded in the early 1980s by a group of Shiite clerics working with the government of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in Iran. These clerics remain the central leaders of the group.

Khomeini’s government came to power after the 1979 Iranian revolution that toppled the U.S.-backed regime of the shah. That was a profound political and social upheaval that opened political space for workers and peasants, women, youth, and oppressed nationalities. The cleric-dominated bourgeois regime, however, unleashed a counterrevolution attempting to stifle the gains of the working-class revolt that threatened the interests of the propertied classes.

Hezbollah’s founders in Lebanon adopted the same name used by extralegal squads in Iran that physically attacked workers’ organizations that didn’t agree with the course of the Khomeini government. That course led to the reversal of most of the gains of the 1979 revolution.

“Iran’s financial involvement in the bulk of our development and social services is not a secret,” said Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s current general secretary, according to Ahmad Nizar Hamzeh, author of In the Path of Hizbullah.

Hezbollah’s military forces were trained and are supplied by the government of Iran in cooperation with Damascus.

These ties have enabled Hezbollah to develop a vast system of political patronage, public works, and social services through which the party ensures support in local and national elections.

Among its key sources of funds are “Hizbullah’s business investments, taking advantage of Lebanon’s free market economy,” says Hamzeh in his book. “While figures are not available about Hizbullah’s investments, reportedly the party has established a commercial network that includes dozens of supermarkets, gas stations, department stores, restaurants, construction companies, and travel agencies.”

A 1996 poll to determine popular support for Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, said Judith Palmer Harik, a professor of political science at the American University of Beirut, showed that “44 percent of the Shiites sampled of high socio-economic status indicated affiliation with Hezbollah.”

Roots of Hezbollah

Hezbollah emerged in the early 1980s as one of the groups that took part in the resistance to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and subsequent occupation of part of the country by Tel Aviv at the time. But it was modeled from the beginning after the capitalist government in Tehran.

That government came to power following a mass popular insurrection led by the working class that toppled the Iranian monarchy. The movement that overthrew the shah had the potential to lead to workers and peasants taking political power. However, there was no working-class leadership strong enough to push the revolution in that direction.

As an editorial in the July 7, 2003, Militant said, (http://www.themilitant.com/2003/6723/672320.html)it is not true that “the current Iranian regime, in a warped form, is a defender of the remaining gains of the revolution.” The editorial pointed out that “there remains little momentum from the 1979 revolution today. It’s been more than 20 years since the early 1980s when the Iranian toilers poured to the battlefront to defend their country from the U.S.-inspired invasion by Baghdad aimed at destroying the gains of the anti-shah revolt.

“The great revolution against the monarchy did strengthen the Iranian nation vis-à-vis imperialism. It was truly one of the magnificent popular revolutions of the last quarter of the 20th century. But after 24 years the gains in the relationship of forces have been eroded.”

From the early years of the revolution, the Khomeini government used not only state power but goon-type forces to target workers’ groups and others it felt may threaten the interests of the propertied classes.

In her book Modern Iran: Roots and Results of Revolution, historian Nikki Keddie says the Khomeini regime had ties to “paralegal forces like…the violent groups called hezbollah. These groups disrupted demonstrations and attacked dissidents.”

Targets included socialists and trade union leaders who sought to advance independent working-class political action.

It is those methods and that course that Hezbollah’s leadership has worked to emulate, not the working-class traditions of the U.S. civil rights movement.

(BTW, Also from this week's Militant, a general news article: (http://www.themilitant.com/2006/7032/703205.html): "As the Israeli rulers fell short of their goal of breaking the back of Hezbollah’s militias through their month-long invasion of Lebanon....")

***

In response to Chebol's questions, I managed to get more data about Hezbollah's support among people with vaying "socio-economic status".

This is from the survey by Judith Palmer Harik mentioned in the article above.
I had to write it down and type it in, due to limitation in a certain university library's computers. It's a survey of the political opinions of Lebanese Shi'a.

Table 6 - SES is socio-economic status
Preferred Party High SES Medium SES Low SES
Amal 35 22 39
SSNP 21 24 14
Hezbollah 44 53 47
Total 100 99 100

SSNP is the Syrian Social National Party, a secular (nonconfessional) party founded by Christians, which advocates a merger of Lebanon and Syria.

Harik's comment on this: "When SES was correlated with political preference, the association was extremely negligible, a result which runs counter to the view that the Shiite community is composed of desperate individuals whose material deprivation strongly influences their political choices.

This is contrary to the researcher's own working hypothesis - that Hezbollah's support would derive from those who were economically deprived, as well as highly religious and politically alienated. (The last 2 parts of that hypothesis were less strongly refuted, there were moderate correlations there.)

She also points out that her working hypothesis is the dominant academic view, or assumption, on who supports Islamist groups. This is also commonly repeated in the media - and my many leftists, including on this board. In the case of Lebanon, at least, it's been disproved.

Anybody else who wants to read the whole study, you can access it in the jstor.org database from many university libraries. It's called "Between Islam and the System."

[Vinny Rafarino]

It appears our resident supporters of Hezbollah are going to conveniently ignore this topic.

I don't blame them...how embarrassing...

[Emperor Ronald Reagan]

That Hezbollah is Iranian backed is true. So what? More in spirit, not so much that they are under Iranian or Syrian control. The truth is that EVERYONE in the Middle East is "backed" by someone, unless they have their own state. Hezbollah leaders have made it clear that they are independent operators, from the West, from the Syrians, and from the Iranians.


Originally posted by Severian
Hezbollah is a bourgeois political party, not a religious group, with extensive capitalist investments

"Extensive capitalist investments" .. such as providing medical, educational, and humanitarian work? Running schools and hospitals? Protecting the Wazzani Springs pump that provides vital water to local villages? Sounds like an entity with "extensive capitalist investments" indeed.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 20 2006, 07:05 AM
It appears our resident supporters of Hezbollah are going to conveniently ignore this topic.

I don't blame them...how embarrassing...
1) Because it's a total non-issue.
2) The article is poor and doesn't even go near the subject it pretends to

The Iranian Mullahs have a coincedental interest in defeating American Imperialism - hardly a "revelation". If we're judging social movements by the things they "back", then what does it say about the Cuban revolution than Castro supporting the Soviets crushing the Prague Spring?

The article promises to tell us about the "class" nature of Hezbollah, but it does no such thing. It doesn't tell us why the Arab poor and working classes overwhelmingly support Hezbollah, or how Hezbollah attracts its day-to-day fighters and activists from the overwhelmingly poor districts it works in and represents. It doesn't explain why most workers are attracted to the anti-imperialist ideology of Hezbollah and not the leftist groups people like Severian are infatuated with.

Also, no one seems able to explain why such a thoroughly "bourgeois" outfit would have such a massive interest in defeating imperialism. Surely if Hezbollah were to kick Zionist Imperialism out the middle East, this would constitute a revolution i.e. a total upheaval in the social and political organisation of the Middle East. Would this then constitute a "bourgeois revolution"? In 2006? Does this mean that the Middle East is the only place where the bourgeoisie still have a progressive role to play and are willing to play iy?

Bizarre.

[Scottish_Militant]

The Iranian Mullahs have a coincedental interest in defeating American Imperialism - hardly a "revelation".

Fair enough, but you SWPers like to slaughter Stalin whenever possible and, regardless of your opinions you could hardly call him "pro-American/pro-imperialists", so why is it one rule for Stalin and another rule for Islamic Fundies??

[Jamal]

What does this artical have to do with the resistance Hezbollah is contibuting to the cause against imperialism and against occupation? Do you think that people who support Hezbollah in this forum support them because they are allyed with Iran? Or because Khomeini's regime is not going along with the Iranian revolution's theories? WTF!?!

This whole artical proves nothing!


It appears our resident supporters of Hezbollah are going to conveniently ignore this topic.

I don't blame them...how embarrassing...

Yes! Oh my god, how shocking!!! :o

don't worry, we will commit suicide right away :wacko:

[Rawthentic]

You dont get it dont you? Obviously not. We support Hizb'Allah on an anti-imperialist stance, so get the fuck over it. The reason we are against them as well is because they represent a fascist ideology.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 09:58 PM

The Iranian Mullahs have a coincedental interest in defeating American Imperialism - hardly a "revelation".

Fair enough, but you SWPers like to slaughter Stalin whenever possible and, regardless of your opinions you could hardly call him "pro-American/pro-imperialists", so why is it one rule for Stalin and another rule for Islamic Fundies??
The Soviet Union was an imperialist state.

This is about anti-imperialism, not anti-Americanism.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 02:25 PM
The Iranian Mullahs have a coincedental interest in defeating American Imperialism - hardly a "revelation".
The article's main point, of course, is not that Hezbollah is supported by Iran.

Rather, the point is that it is modelled on Iran. As the headline says - couldn't you at least have read that?

It was organized in imitation of groups that carried out rightist violence against working people in Iran...and has at least some record of doing the same in Lebanon.


The article promises to tell us about the "class" nature of Hezbollah, but it does no such thing. It doesn't tell us why the Arab poor and working classes overwhelmingly support Hezbollah, or how Hezbollah attracts its day-to-day fighters and activists from the overwhelmingly poor districts it works in and represents.

From the article:
A 1996 poll to determine popular support for Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, said Judith Palmer Harik, a professor of political science at the American University of Beirut, showed that “44 percent of the Shiites sampled of high socio-economic status indicated affiliation with Hezbollah.” That's probably more than in the Shi'a population as a whole, which is split between Hezbollah, Amal and other parties.


Also, no one seems able to explain why such a thoroughly "bourgeois" outfit would have such a massive interest in defeating imperialism.

The bourgeoisie of different nations has conflicting interests, obviously. Also worth keeping in mind that the Lebanese bourgeoisie is divided between the different religious sects, with conflicting interests. They fought a civil war recently, you may recall.


Surely if Hezbollah were to kick Zionist Imperialism out the middle East, this would constitute a revolution i.e. a total upheaval in the social and political organisation of the Middle East. Would this then constitute a "bourgeois revolution"? In 2006? Does this mean that the Middle East is the only place where the bourgeoisie still have a progressive role to play and are willing to play iy?

Interesting line of reasoning. A bourgeois revoluion is impossible; you think Hezbollah is trying to lead a revolution and plays a progressive role; therefore Hezbollah is not bourgeois.

Not only is this "logic" perfectly sealed against contact with the facts, it is reversed.

Factually, Hezbollah is bourgeois. If you think it is playing a progressive role, then you are acting, in practice, as if the bourgeoisie was playing a progressive role. Which is typical of the British SWP and "state caps" generally, from RESPECT Popular Frontism to your love affair with the rightist bourgeois forces commonly called "Islamists" or "Islamic fundamentalists".

That doesn't become any less a sellout, a political subordination to the bourgeoisie, because you play some terminology games and declare Hezbollah isn't bourgeois. The real world doesn't depend on the contents of your head, or the words you use.

"If Hezbollah were to kick Zionist Imperialism out of the middle East"? Well, have they? No. So that's not a fact and you can't base your conclusions on it.

They did kick Israel out of Lebanon, and good. Did that constitute a revolution? Clearly not. It didn't end the capitalists' privileges and power, or even replace Lebanon's confessional political system with a secular democracy. Pretty easy to understand why a section of the Lebanese bourgeoisie would support it, then...as in fact they did.


(Jamal)What does this artical have to do with the resistance Hezbollah is contibuting to the cause against imperialism and against occupation?

What does your post have to do with this thread?


(Reagan)"Extensive capitalist investments" .. such as providing medical, educational, and humanitarian work? Running schools and hospitals?

From the article: Among its key sources of funds are “Hizbullah’s business investments, taking advantage of Lebanon’s free market economy,” says Hamzeh in his book. “While figures are not available about Hizbullah’s investments, reportedly the party has established a commercial network that includes dozens of supermarkets, gas stations, department stores, restaurants, construction companies, and travel agencies.” That's what finances the charity works. The actual president Reagan was also big on religious charity as the answer to social problems.

Vinny's still right: Hezbollah's fans are ignoring the article. They're obviously posting without reading it (and in some cases without even reading its headline).

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 06:18 PM
The Soviet Union was an imperialist state.

This is about anti-imperialism, not anti-Americanism.
The flip side of your coin - Devrimankara et al - have been saying Hezbollah is a tool of Syrian and Iranian "imperialism." I pointed out to them - in another thread - that is nonsense, you have to look at the economic basis of imperialism like anything else.

The same is true of the Soviet Union. It was not exporting capital or exploiting other countries - even less than Syria or Iran is. It subsidized other countries and the less developed areas of the USSR. It was not "imperialist" in the sense that communists have used that term for decades.

And does your explanation mean you wouldn't oppose Stalinism in a weaker state, like north Korea or Albania? What crap. "Imperialism" has never been the reason for a communist opposition to Stalinism.

[rev]

What never made sense to me is the opinion that YKTMX shares here:

Also, no one seems able to explain why such a thoroughly "bourgeois" outfit would have such a massive interest in defeating imperialism.

That's just the thing- because you oppose someone else's imperialism, it doesn't mean you aren't or can't be imperialist yourself. The US has opposed the imperialism of others; Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, the British, the Spanish, and countless other nations have had, like you said, "a massive interest in defeating imperialism." The British were sure as hell opposed to the imperialism of Germany, both in 1900-1920 and 1933-1945, or opposed to the imperialism of the Spanish or Portuguese empires of yore.

Nationalism is a poison; an anti-imperialism tainted with it is as worthless as the Soviet Union's claims of persuing "peace on earth" and the USA's claims of "freedom for all."

[chebol]

Naturally YKTMX has posted something stupid enough to ruin his point. You actually read Castro's statement of "support" for the Soviet Invasion of Czechoslovakia? I didn't think so.

It never ceases to amaze me how so many supposed "marxists" are somehow unable to differentiate between inter-imperialist 'nationalist' rivalry, and the nationalism of the colonised and the role that plays in challenging Imperialism, highlighting both it's contradictions and weaknesses.


“44 percent of the Shiites sampled of high socio-economic status indicated affiliation with Hezbollah.”

And how much higher was the affiliation with Hezbollah amongst the lower socio-economic bands? Throwing one figure around out of context is misleading...

[Scottish_Militant]

Originally posted by YKTMX+Aug 21 2006, 12:18 AM--> (YKTMX @ Aug 21 2006, 12:18 AM)
[email protected] 20 2006, 09:58 PM

The Iranian Mullahs have a coincedental interest in defeating American Imperialism - hardly a "revelation".

Fair enough, but you SWPers like to slaughter Stalin whenever possible and, regardless of your opinions you could hardly call him "pro-American/pro-imperialists", so why is it one rule for Stalin and another rule for Islamic Fundies??
The Soviet Union was an imperialist state.

This is about anti-imperialism, not anti-Americanism. [/b]
Don't you have a rather damning position on Cuba, DPRK and Venezuela though? Does something only qualify as anti-imperialism when it's followers wear turbans?

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by Severian+Aug 21 2006, 01:45 AM--> (Severian @ Aug 21 2006, 01:45 AM)
[email protected] 20 2006, 06:18 PM
The Soviet Union was an imperialist state.

This is about anti-imperialism, not anti-Americanism.

The same is true of the Soviet Union. It was not exporting capital or exploiting other countries - even less than Syria or Iran is. It subsidized other countries and the less developed areas of the USSR. It was not "imperialist" in the sense that communists have used that term for decades.

And does your explanation mean you wouldn't oppose Stalinism in a weaker state, like north Korea or Albania? What crap. "Imperialism" has never been the reason for a communist opposition to Stalinism. [/b]
This is just factually inaccurate. The Soviets exported massive amounts of Capital, complex manufactured goods, into the Eastern bloc states and Cuba - and China in the early days. This capital was "excess capital" - capital that can't be invested at home - in the sense Lenin outlined. Furthermore, this "trade" was even more skewed in Soviet favour by the fact that the complex means of production that this capital was used to create made the satellites dependent on future Soviet trade to "keep them going". We've seen how this type of deal totally devastated the African economies in the seventies and eighties.

The goods sold to the eastern states were often sold at above market prices. As well as this very unequal economic relationship, the Soviets absolutely dominated the social structures of these states. Most of the Stalinist bureaucracies come off like latter-day versions of the Indian Raj. Not to mention the constant threat of military intervention if the natives became "too restless".

The fact that you still defend this state of affairs as some kind of twisted "socialist internationalism" speaks to an absolute derth of intellectual integrity on your part.

As for proposition about "weaker" Stalinist states: I don't see how it follows. I supported the rights of the workers in these states to fight for their political freedom and national self-determination. Disgruntled bureaucrats like Hoxha and their Machiavellian approach to Marxism hardly interest me.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by Scottish_Militant+Aug 21 2006, 09:28 AM--> (Scottish_Militant @ Aug 21 2006, 09:28 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 12:18 AM

[email protected] 20 2006, 09:58 PM

The Iranian Mullahs have a coincedental interest in defeating American Imperialism - hardly a "revelation".

Fair enough, but you SWPers like to slaughter Stalin whenever possible and, regardless of your opinions you could hardly call him "pro-American/pro-imperialists", so why is it one rule for Stalin and another rule for Islamic Fundies??
The Soviet Union was an imperialist state.

This is about anti-imperialism, not anti-Americanism.
Don't you have a rather damning position on Cuba, DPRK and Venezuela though? Does something only qualify as anti-imperialism when it's followers wear turbans? [/b]
Let's see.

I think the Venezuelan revolution is authentically anti-imperialist. I think the Bolivarian revolution is a mass movement and has involved mass participation to a much greater extent than the Cuban revolution. Same goes for the events in Bolivia.

The DPRK - I don't know enough about to comment.

Cuba - I think the revolution has found, latterly, an anti-imperialist bent. It's always had a anti-American edge - or, actually, Castro decided it was "anti-imperialist" when he realised the Americans wouldn't support him. I think putting yourself amongst the "socialist camp" for 5 decades and supporting the Soviet Union implicitly for that amount of time are not the actions of someone who is actually "anti-imperialist" in any consistent sense.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

I think putting yourself amongst the "socialist camp" for 5 decades and supporting the Soviet Union implicitly for that amount of time are not the actions of someone who is actually "anti-imperialist" in any consistent sense.

Are you arguing the Soviet Union was imperialist?

I am not arguing for or against, I'm just curious.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 04:32 PM

I think putting yourself amongst the "socialist camp" for 5 decades and supporting the Soviet Union implicitly for that amount of time are not the actions of someone who is actually "anti-imperialist" in any consistent sense.

Are you arguing the Soviet Union was imperialist?

I am not arguing for or against, I'm just curious.
Yes.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 09:01 AM

This is just factually inaccurate. The Soviets exported massive amounts of Capital, complex manufactured goods, into the Eastern bloc states and Cuba - and China in the early days.
Oh bullshit. "Complex manufactured goods" are not automatically capital. As Marx explained, that depends on the social relations of production.

You are asssuming, as premise, your conclusion that they were exporting capital. Did the USSR continue to own these machines and factories? Did they receive a share of their profits? No.

Heck, even assuming the USSR was capitalist, does their export of manufacturing machines automatically = export of capital? No. If a Brazilian capital buys CNC lathes from a U.S. company, to set up a Brazilian-owned machine shop, that's not imperialist export of capital.

The export of these means of production was part of the Soviet subsidy that made their "empire" the opposite of profitable.

It was Russia that cut loose the less developed parts of the USSR, remember? Which had shown no desire for independence. Why? 'Cause they were expensive to Russia - and Russia was subsidizing their development. With some amazing results - access to electricity at rates comparable to the First World, for example.


The goods sold to the eastern states were often sold at above market prices.

Bullshit again! The reverse was true. That's why Gorbachev abolished the non-market COMECON trading relationship - it was draining the Soviet budget. All trading relations were put on a market basis.


As well as this very unequal economic relationship, the Soviets absolutely dominated the social structures of these states. Most of the Stalinist bureaucracies come off like latter-day versions of the Indian Raj. Not to mention the constant threat of military intervention if the natives became "too restless".

Not in dispute. The question is, was it imperialism in the sense Lenin wrote about - finance capital, the export of capital, striving to expand their share of the world market, and all that. If not, no need to automatically apply the 20th-century communist policy towards finance-capital imperialism.


The fact that you still defend this state of affairs as some kind of twisted "socialist internationalism" speaks to an absolute derth of intellectual integrity on your part.

That's a fiction - both in substance, and in detail. Your quote "socialist internationalism" is fabricated in the best Redstar tradition. One could even say, the Stalinist tradition. It appears nowhere in the thread before your post.

This "speaks to an absolute derth of intellectual integrity on your part."


As for proposition about "weaker" Stalinist states: I don't see how it follows.

Then you need to have your eyes checked. Scottish Militant asked you why you're so soft on Islamism yet so hard on Stalinism. Your only reply was "imperialism." But I repeat myself - which happens why I try to pin down a weasel.

[YKTMX]

Did the USSR continue to own these machines and factories? Did they receive a share of their profits? No.

So? They export excess capital that they can't invest in their own state economies to smaller centres of capital, which they can easily dominate. These regimes are kept politically and economically subordinate to the Soviet Union, which offers the ruling classes of these semi-states (let's be honest, East Germany was never a "state" in the proper sense of the world) a degree of "protection".


If a Brazilian capital buys CNC lathes from a U.S. company, to set up a Brazilian-owned machine shop, that's not imperialist export of capital.

OK, let's follow that analogy. Let's say a U.S company "gives" a Brazilian capitalist CNC latches at below market prices, in return for which the Brazilian capitalist ruthlessly defends the interests of American capitalism, ensures that he only buys "American-made" goods and makes sure that the Brazilian state is a proxy of the American one, would you consider this relationship "imperialist"?

Or perhaps it's "capitalist-internationalist-brotherly love"?


It was Russia that cut loose the less developed parts of the USSR, remember?

This is totally bizarre.

Russian gives Belarus oil and gas at deflated prices NOW. What is your analysis of this policy? Perhaps this is some kind of weird hangover from "workers' state solidarity"?

Why is it that they would give Belarus energy at deflated prices but they would raise the price on Ukraine? Why is it that Putin's Russia seems so very similar to Soviet Russia when one was a "workers' state" and one is a capitalist state? Why is it that Putin and Russian reactionaries call the collapse of the Soviet Union "the greatest catastrophe in Russian history"? Is Putin somehow "contra" the interests of Russian capitalism? Doesn't he "know" of your analysis? Perhaps you should write to him concering this matter.


Why? 'Cause they were expensive to Russia - and Russia was subsidizing their development.

So? Imperialism is all about creating centres for greater capital accumulation. As I said before, it's similar to the policy viz-a-ve Africa in the 70's. You loan them money for absolutely ludicrous capital projects (dams, heavy industry etc) by which you "rope them in" for 40 years of replacement parts (which they have no option but to by) "servicing" and "expertise". When they default, or the natives get restless, you send in the tanks (or the IMF).

Presumably Sev thinks that the US rebuilt Western Europe, which was just bankrupt after the way, because the American ruling class are just "nice guys".

Fancy a loan? Don't want to pay it back for a million years? Fancy subordinating your foreign policy to the United States government so we can beat the Communists?

Call "Marshall Aid Plan" on 0800 CAPITALISM


That's why Gorbachev abolished the non-market COMECON trading relationship - it was draining the Soviet budget. All trading relations were put on a market basis.

Well, it was complicated. It depends on your definition of "market prices". It's pretty much accepted that Soviet manufactured goods were not, generally, of a high quality. That is, if Ford is trying to sell you a four-door car with a 2 litre engine, and the Soviet state auto-firm is trying to sell you one, and they're both the same price, then you would buy Ford. Unless, of course, you have a "duty" to your socialist brothers, in which case you end up driving a Moskvitch :lol:

And it breaks down when the Stasi are chasing you :lol:


cottish Militant asked you why you're so soft on Islamism yet so hard on Stalinism. Your only reply was "imperialism." But I repeat myself - which happens why I try to pin down a weasel.

I'm not "soft" on Islamism.

I support all anti-imperialist movements, even if they are "Islamist" in content.

[Scottish_Militant]

I support all anti-imperialist movements, even if they are "Islamist" in content.

You say "I support..." but what does this actually mean? Cheerleading something uncritically, or making a class based analysis from a pro-working class perspective?

What does your "support" actually give these movements? And what would be entirely "anti-imperialist" about any movement which is pro-capitalist? Because imperialism, as you will know if you have studied Marxism, is the highest stage of capitalism. An inevitable development from capitalism, an unavoidable occurance.

Comrade I do not necceserally disagree with all you are saying but you seem to trip yourself up with these "I support" lines, when all that "support" does is hand you tons baggage from that particular group or movement.

Do you think the Hezbollah militants are telling eachother that they have full support from YKTMX on Rev-Left?

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 02:17 AM

“44 percent of the Shiites sampled of high socio-economic status indicated affiliation with Hezbollah.”

And how much higher was the affiliation with Hezbollah amongst the lower socio-economic bands? Throwing one figure around out of context is misleading...
That is an interesting question. I did some searching earlier, because I was asking myself....something similar. The quote's apparently from a paper called "Between Islam and the System: Sources and Implications of Popular Support for Lebanon's Hizballah" by Judith Palmer Harik.

You can read the whole paper (if you're willing to subscribe to the Journal for Conflict Resolution. (http://jcr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/40/1/41) Or the abstract, on that link. It says in part:

"Using 1993 survey data, the study found that Hizballah adherents were less likely than expected to be deeply religious, to have a low socioeconomic status, and to have a strong political alienation." Emphasis added for relevance.

One study, available on the web, footnotes Harik's paper for this statement:
"A survey of Hizballah adherents found that despite its rhetoric, the party was not in fact the representative of the lower class, but rather that the bulk of support came from the middle and upper classes."source (http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2004/jan/baylounyJan04.asp)

So your question shoudl be: how much lower is Hezbollah affiliation among the lower socio-economic bands?

Which isn't surprising; studies of other Islamist groups have found them fairly middle-to-upper class, despite their rhetoric.

[chebol]

YKTMX:

Cuba - I think the revolution has found, latterly, an anti-imperialist bent. It's always had a anti-American edge - or, actually, Castro decided it was "anti-imperialist" when he realised the Americans wouldn't support him. I think putting yourself amongst the "socialist camp" for 5 decades and supporting the Soviet Union implicitly for that amount of time are not the actions of someone who is actually "anti-imperialist" in any consistent sense.

Once again you can't help but come across as an ignoramus. The "revolution has found, latterly, an anti-imperialist bent"????!??!? So, for all those decades when Cuba was supporting the national liberation movements of Asia, Africa and Latin America they weren't being anti-imperialist!???!? But now the USSR is gone, and Cuba is doing the same thing it always has, they are being anti-imperialist?!?!?!?!

So what was Cuba doing in Vietnam, Angola, Nicaragua, the Congo and elsewhere; and criticising the invasion of Czechoslovakia? Furthering Soviet Imperialism!!?!?!?!?? :wacko: :blink: :lol: :wacko:

Crucial to your point, and why it's so off the wall, is this
supporting the Soviet Union implicitly. I'll say it time, and I'll say it again (and you will as a matter of course shut your eyes and ears and go "lalalalalalala" again) - the Cuban intervention in Angola was done against the Soviets' wishes. Castro criticised the soviet tanks in Prague. And the Cuban leadership fought for years against Stalinist bureaucratism in the Cuban CP, including especially the two important battles against Anibal Escalante, who was the leader of a Moscow-backed and financed secret faction aiming to overthrow Fidel and bring Cuba under the USSR's control.

Sev, it would be good to get a look at the whole article. Nevertheless, and despite the fact I have no concrete data to back me up atm, there is considerable support for Hezbollah amongst lower strata of Lebanese society (especially Shiite). For example, recent polls put total support for Hezbollah at somewhere near 80% as a result of the conflict, a figure which will no doubt recede rapidly in the near future as the bombing and incursion slows.
It is far from surprising that they have a considerable middle-class support base, and possibly a higher proportion that they have amongst workers. Hezbollah is primarily a national liberation movement, which has a particular attraction to bourgeois and petty-bourgeois layers, as well as proletarian. But they are far from exclusively backed by only one class.

The challenge in the immediate term is:

1. Realise the need for a strengthening of the lebanese left (which ought to take no advice from those western leftists who try to pontiously wash their hands of Hezbollah because it is an "islamist" organisation). Such a strengthening can only come by the left fighting alongside Hezbollah against imperialism, whilst winning people away from the reactionary elements of their ideology to a working class perspective.
2. Make sure that in supporting Hezbollah we don't substitute the lack of a coherent leading left force in Lebanon by bringing in Hezbollah as the "quick-fix" to all Lebanon's woes.
3. That we don't make the similarly all-too-easy arm-chair mistake of eschewing support for Hezbollah because of our "dislike" of their politics as a whole, or because they are in some way religious (worse, muslim). Worse, out of an ignorance of their politics and in the belief that they are "islamo-fascists".

We ought to be wholeheartedly supporting the struggle of the Lebanese people against Israel's aggression. At this moment, the key, vital, actor in that struggle is Hezbollah, and an investigation of their politics and their actions shows that they are 'worthy of' our support, as they are of the support of the Lebanese people, which they have, not due their entire political platform, but because they actually fight in defence of the people of Lebanon - proletarian or otherwise.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 06:35 AM
Sev, it would be good to get a look at the whole article. Nevertheless, and despite the fact I have no concrete data to back me up atm, there is considerable support for Hezbollah amongst lower strata of Lebanese society (especially Shiite).
Sure, but that's a fairly vague statement. Both "considerable" and "support" are open to interpretation.


For example, recent polls put total support for Hezbollah at somewhere near 80% as a result of the conflict, a figure which will no doubt recede rapidly in the near future as the bombing and incursion slows.

They're measuring something different than Harik is.

That's more like: support for the armed resistance to the Israeli occupation. Which, now, mostly consists of Hezbollah fighters. Support for Hezbollah over Israel, maybe.

Harik is measuring support for Hezbollah relative to other Lebanese parties. In that, it appears, Hezbollah is mostly based among the upper and middle classes. Which is part of how it finances its famous charities, with which it attempts to buy the support of workers and working farmers.


But they are far from exclusively backed by only one class.

Sure. What bourgeois party is? No bourgeois party would amount to anything if it had to rely only on the support of the bourgeoisie - there aren't enough of them.



The challenge in the immediate term is:

1. Realise the need for a strengthening of the lebanese left (which ought to take no advice from those western leftists who try to pontiously wash their hands of Hezbollah because it is an "islamist" organisation). Such a strengthening can only come by the left fighting alongside Hezbollah against imperialism, whilst winning people away from the reactionary elements of their ideology to a working class perspective.

I tend to agree. But why should they take advice from any western leftists? Tactics - and alliances with other class forces are always tactical - are best decided on the scene.


2. Make sure that in supporting Hezbollah we don't substitute the lack of a coherent leading left force in Lebanon by bringing in Hezbollah as the "quick-fix" to all Lebanon's woes.

Absolutely, and this is fundamentally strategic and not just tactical. It's a matter of class independence.

The basic reason I started this thread. Whitewashing Hezbollah as somehow not bourgeois, not an enemy of working people - is part of an international orientation of subordinating class independence to bourgeois forces.


3. That we don't make the similarly all-too-easy arm-chair mistake of eschewing support for Hezbollah because of our "dislike" of their politics as a whole, or because they are in some way religious (worse, muslim). Worse, out of an ignorance of their politics and in the belief that they are "islamo-fascists".

See Scottish Militant's post above, on how does this vebal "support" actually strengthen Hezbollah against Israel? All it does, is miseducate people internationally - in the countries were we live, work, and engage in politics - against class independence, and the reality that the working class must take the lead in the fight against imperialism and every other symptom of capitalist rule.

And, of course, load you up with Hezbollah's "baggage", as he puts it - taking political responsibility for stuff you shouldn't.


We ought to be wholeheartedly supporting the struggle of the Lebanese people against Israel's aggression.

Absolutely. And how can we actually - not just verbally - aid that struggle?

Not by cheerleading for Hezbollah.

Rather, by focusing our demands and fire on our own ruling classes, and demanding they cut off aid to Israel.

Also, by opposing their direct military intervention in Israel, under the banner of the UN.

[Severian]

Now with more data - in response to Chebol's questions. See the last part of the first post in this thread.

[Severian]

A follow-up article on this and related topics from the new issue of the Militant. (http://www.themilitant.com/2006/7033/703350.html)

Among other things takes up the experience of communists in the Iranian revolution.

[commandante rami]

first i live in lebanon thought i am not lebanese here your talking about Hezbollah is fighting for lebanon well thats wrong. to start Hezbollah has done nothing for lebanon but destroy bridges kill people cause more poverty for lebanon i agree that he defends lebanon but when he ment it now he is just making deals with iran israel syrai an U.S. all want to take lebanon because of what it can become its all a plan on lebanon hizbollah is just one toy actually all 8 march and so are 14 march no one wants us to live in lebanon in peace example if 14 march comes up with a solution 8 march refuses and vice versa.

[Sky]

The precedent of the communist movement rejects sectarianism and seeks to establish a popular front with all progressive anti-fascist parties in throwing off the yoke of monopoly capital. The conduct of the Communists in the Lebanese Civil War is an impeccable demonstration of this when together with the Palestinians, Druzes, Amal, Nasserites, and others they valiantly battled the forces of reaction.

Marx and Engels were unequivocal in their rejection of sectarianism. From Chapter 2 of the Communist Manifesto:
The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties. They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole. They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.


It was founded in the early 1980s by a group of Shiite clerics working with the government of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in Iran. These clerics remain the central leaders of the group.
If this is the only evidence to support the accusation that Hezbollah is a bourgeois political party, then the author of this piece has failed to be convincing. Virtually every political party was founded by a group of intellectuals. The Russian Social Democratic Labor Party, after all, was founded through the merger of groups led by the intellectuals Lenin, Plekhanov, Axelrod, Litvinov, etc. The fact of the matter is, Hezbollah reflects the interests of the impoverished Shia community of Lebanon. That Hezbollah is able to organize and lead demonstrations of hundreds of thousands of working people is a manifestation of its proletarian nature.

Hezbollah’s military forces were trained and are supplied by the government of Iran
This is false. Money does continue to come “from Iran” to support Hezbollah, but not the Iranian government, as William Beeman proves. Hezbollah has no need to obtain arms from Iran because there is more than enough for them in Lebanon to use. Both Syria and Iran have in fact denied supplying arms to Hezbollah. Indeed, Syria and Iran did not provide any meaningful assistance to the resistance during the Israeli blitzkrieg in 2006. The two countries just stood idly by. Instead of making the flimsy allegation that Iran and Syria arm Hezbollah, these two countries should be scolded for not having provided sufficient assistance.

[commandante rami]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 01:13 am

This is false. Money does continue to come “from Iran” to support Hezbollah, but not the Iranian government, as William Beeman proves. Hezbollah has no need to obtain arms from Iran because there is more than enough for them in Lebanon to use. Both Syria and Iran have in fact denied supplying arms to Hezbollah. Indeed, Syria and Iran did not provide any meaningful assistance to the resistance during the Israeli blitzkrieg in 2006. The two countries just stood idly by.
ok i agree that money is recived from iran but who said that weapons didn't come from there.this is non scence hezbollah's weapons are syrain and iranian weapons plus if you tell me the lebanese army is stoping arms and the un well first there are underground tunnels also in lebanon pay a soldier and do whatever you damn want any way if you really think 300 rockets a day there was no way all weapons lasted.and also if you say the tunnels were blown well there are still more. anyway its one big scheme on lebanon.

[Splended]

There is no ‘parity of oppression’ between the imperialist USA and its allies (BRITAIN, NATO, ISRAIL) and the anti-imperialist movements and states, whether they are socialist orientated or not.
The biggest thug on the planet is imperialism. Now, can you guess which is the main enemy of the human race?

[Lenin II]

That article was absolute shit. It gave us NO insight into the class nature of Hezbollah. Anyway, most of us here are intensely aware of Hezbollah and Hamas as the voice of oppressed classes of Lebanon and Palestine at the moment. They are both fairly pro-modernizing and have workers supporting them. Not to mention the anti-imperialist factor. I hate to side with religious zealots, but if the alternative is Israel, sign me up.

[kromando33]

Exactly Lenin, we must be practical.

[black magick hustla]

That article was absolute shit. It gave us NO insight into the class nature of Hezbollah. Anyway, most of us here are intensely aware of Hezbollah and Hamas as the voice of oppressed classes of Lebanon and Palestine at the moment. They are both fairly pro-modernizing and have workers supporting them. Not to mention the anti-imperialist factor. I hate to side with religious zealots, but if the alternative is Israel, sign me up.


class nature of a movement is not defined by its rank and file membership, which would make almost every mass movement in the world proletarian. class nature is defined by the positions of a movement and the goals of it. hezbhollah is fundamentally reactionary because it demands sacrifice of the workers in the name of the nation, religion, or anti-imperialism.

the bourgeois revolutions of the 19th century were lead by petty bourgeois cadre, and the rank and file were probably either petty bourgeois. peasant, or proletarian. this doesnt means that those revolutions were fundamentally petty bourgeois though.