Hezbollah

[Xiao Banfa]

Leader of Hezbollah Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah: United front against Imperialism

Roza Çiğdem Erdoğan / Mutlu Şahin*
* * Beirut/EVRENSEL - Turkish Daily
From the first day of our arrival to Lebanon, we have looked for ways of interviewing Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah, the General Secretary of Hezbollah. We communicated continuously this demand to the representatives of Hezbollah. After a considerable length of time, Hezbollah militants suddenly came to meet us and took from us open identity information and our photos. And they left without saying anything. A few days after this event which has caused immense nervousness for us, two civilians arrived to visit us. They told us that Nasrallah is waiting to see us but that they absolutely did not want camcorders or cameras. After going around for a few hours with a civilian vehicle, at last Nasrallah was before us. We were still very nervous. But apparently, we have succeeded..!

Israel which has reoccupied firstly Palestine and then Lebanon with the pretext of the kidnapping its soldiers, has being facing a resistance it did not expect at all in Lebanon. Despite the backing of US and Europe, Israel continues to suffer heavy loses against Hezbollah which is an organisation rooted in Lebanon. Hezbollah which has been conducting an effective resistance against the Israel army propagated as being “unbeatable”, while defending the Lebanese lands, it also continues to be a hope for the resisting peoples of Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan. We have spoken to Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, who has become a kind of the “symbol” of the resistance against the imperialist assaults not only in Lebanon but in the entirety of the Arabic world following the resistance of Hezbollah, about the resistance in Lebanon, Zionist aggression with imperialist support, the attitude of governments of the region and of Turkey, the socialist movement and plenty of other topics.

Israel had claimed its aim was “to destroy Hezbollah” in the first days of the occupation of Lebanon. However, it came across a resistance it did not expect and now it has been falling short of this aim. Through violent clashes, the occupying army continues to suffer heavy loses. But this is not covered sufficiently by the media. Could you briefly talk about the current status of the resistance?

Hasan Nasrallah: The Zionists who are the contractors of imperialism are utilising the media very effectively. In the west, with primarily in the US the media is in the hands of Jewish capitalists. They are writing that they are bombing the Hezbollah positions and are deceiving the peoples. This certainly is a lie. As you have witnessed personally, this is a big lie! They are martyring the innocent civilians; they are callously martyring the women and children. But, we are routing the Zionists wherever we come across them. We are acting cautiously, and are not firing rockets on civilians. By claiming that we are firing rockets on urban settlements, they are seeking to deceive the peoples of the world. But we are firing rockets under control on to locations we identified before.
Concerning this issue, it is also necessary to make this point; they are deliberately driving the Israeli Arabs to the border. They are presenting them as a target to us, but we are not playing into provocation and mischief. Our target is not the civilians; it is the Zionist military forces. Our fighters are routing extensively the Zionist forces in the land operation. But they should also know that we have not still used our important weapons.
The Zionists, knowing that they cannot daunt us with death, are attempting destroy our infrastructure, our roads, bridges, our women and children. This is how they are trying to intimidate us. But, it’s all futile, we will not surrender! Apart from the freedom of our motherland, we will not accept any other solution. We will resist and we will fight.
Imperialism and its Zionist contractors in the region should know that we are waiting for the Zionists on every hill, every valley, every street and every inch of our country. Our resistance necessitates victory. We have no other way. This war will end with the victory of the oppressed of the world and of the Muslims.

Is it possible for Lebanon to face once again the threat of a civil war?

Hasan Nasrallah: Not only in Lebanon, but also in the region as a whole, the Zionist regime is seeking polarisation with the tension in between ethnic groups, sects and beliefs. Their strategy of attacking our country also confirms this. But, the Hezbollah has spoiled this game. The oppressed peoples of our country and of Middle East have come to the defence of Hezbollah and have provided their support. The socialists and Christians are included in this.
On the other hand, imperialism has established front-collaborator bogus Islamic organisations in the period of USSR. These forces, as well as planting seeds of discord amongst sects for the interests of the US, fought also against the revolutionaries. However, the conditions have now changed. The US had also used Saddam who they overthrew in Iraq years ago to fight against Iran, the Kurds and us. Or they used different contractor organisations for conflicts in between sects or against the revolutionaries. No-one should think for a moment that we are not aware of these tricks. We are aware of these and never in our history played into these tricks.

Despite the attacks in Palestine and Lebanon, the Arab governments remain silent. What is the reason for this silence?

Hasan Nasrallah: Most of these are collaborating countries. For instance, in countries such as Saudi Arabia, there are fatwas issued for our name. These are humorous fatwas. Not even their own people believe in these fatwas. These fatwas are absolutely political and have been prepared for the interest of the US. These fatwas are given from time to time. We did not take these very seriously. But, let me reiterate that we will not permit clash between sects and religions, and that these fatwas serve this aim. They resorted to these tricks in Iraq. They were successful in this, but the Iraqi people are now aware of these tricks.

On the issue of Iraq mentioned, fight in between sects in this country under occupation is provoked. Recently a number of US generals have been issuing warnings concerning the “escalation of a civil war” in Iraq. Can we have your views on this subject?

Hasan Nasrallah: The imperialists are seeking to win the war which they could not with arms and weapons from inside by the creation of a war between sects through a diverse range of collaborating so-called resistance groups. The same trick was played through Saddam before against the Shias and the Kurds. And now, they continue with these tricks. Today there is no Saddam, but there is tens of possible Saddams. I call on my and our peoples to not pay heed to this trick. Let’s be vigilant towards the murder of brothers and sisters.

How do you evaluate the reaction of the Turkish Government?

Hasan Nasrallah: Messages of reaction from the Turkish government were received by the Israeli government. But this reaction did not turn into action. The bombs used in the bombing of our country arrive from Turkey. Again, according to what we have learned from you, there are a number of MPs who are members of the Turkish-Israeli Friendship Group in the Turkish National Assembly. But, what we want is concrete reactions. The Turkish government still have the status of being the biggest ally of the contractor gang!

What is the current state of your relations with the Socialist movement?

Hasan Nasrallah: The socialist movement, which has been away from international struggle, now for a considerable time, at last began to become a moral support for us once again. The most concrete example of this has been Hugo Chavez, the President of Venezuela. What most of the Muslim states could not do has been done by Chavez by the withdrawal of their ambassador to Israel. He furthermore communicated to us his support for our resistance. This has been an immense source of moral for us. We can observe a similar reaction within the Turkish Revolutionary Movement. We had socialist brothers from Turkey who went to Palestine in 1960s to fight against Israel. And one of them still remains in my memory and my heart; Deniz Gezmis..!

What is the importance of Denizs for you?

Hasan Nasrallah: We now want new Denizs. Our ranks are always open to new Denizs against the oppressors. Deniz will always live in the hearts of the peoples of Palestine and Lebanon… No-one should doubt this. Unfortunately, there is no longer a common fight and fraternity against the common enemy left over by the Denizs. What we would have liked is for our socialist brothers in Lebanon to fight against imperialism and Zionism shoulder to shoulder. This fight is not only our fight. It is the common fight of all those oppressed across the world. Don’t forget that if the peoples of Palestine and Lebanon lose this war, this will mean the defeat of all the oppressed people of the world. In our fight against imperialism, the revolutionaries should also undertake a responsibility and should become in the hearts of our people of Palestine and Lebanon, Denizs once again.

It is possible to see the posters of Che, Chavez, Ahmedinecad ve Hezbollah side by side in the streets of Beirut. Are these the signs of a new polarisation?

Hasan Nasrallah: We salute the leaders and the peoples of Latin America. They have resisted heroically against the American bandits and have been a source of moral for us. They are guiding the way for the oppressed peoples. Go and wonder around our streets..! You will witness how our people have embraced Chavez and Ernesto Che Guevara. Nearly in every house, you will come across posters of Che or Chavez. What we are saying to our socialist friends who want fight together with us for fraternity and freedom, do not come at all if you are going to say “Religion is an opiate”. We do not agree with this analysis. Here is the biggest proof of this in our streets with the pictures of Chavez, Che, Sadr and Hamaney waving along together. These leaders are saluting our people in unison. So long as we respect your beliefs, and you respect ours, there is no imperialist power we cannot defeat!

Returning to threats in the region, western governments are intensifying their pressure on Damascus and Tehran for which they are proposing a “change of regime.” Some sources are of the view that the attack on Lebanon will be directed on Syria. According to your point of view, is a regional war possible?

Hasan Nasrallah: The centres of imperialist power want to make collaborators of our region as a whole. They expect us to kneel before them. Syria, Iran and we are opposing this. The provocation concerning the former Lebanese Prime Minister Refik Hariri and the efforts to secure the withdrawal of Syrian army from Lebanon and going even further, their wish to attack callously on to Tehran and Damascus are all due to this reason. Syria, with Iran and Hezbollah will certainly resist this. We are going to resist for our motherland and freedom. We are going to resist in order not kneel before them. The imperialists of the west are seeking to make a second Kosovo out of Lebanon and our region. They are seeking to create a clash in between sects. But we have spoiled this trick. In our streets, the whole of Lebanon, with its Christian, Sunnis and Shias, are flying the flags of Hezbollah. Again, “the unipolar world” has already been left back in history. There is us, there is Iran, there is Syria, there is Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. There are the resisting peoples of Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan! As long as there is imperialism and occupations, these people will continue resisting. They can forget about peace. If they want peace, they should now respect the freedom of peoples and should eliminate the collaborating gangs. God willing, the victory will be ours. They are not going to be able to turn our country and region into a Kosovo. Now our people are aware of everything and will not play into imperialist tricks.
We will absolutely not permit them to attack Iran or Syria. We are going to fight for our freedom to the last drop of our blood. Let no-one doubt this. They are claiming that Iran has nuclear weapons at its disposal. On the contrary, most of the nuclear weapons are in the hands of the collaborating gang of Israel and the US. Furthermore, nuclear weapons are nothing but excuses put forward in order to create collaborating regimes in the region.

There are claims that Hezbollah is being directed by Tehran. What are views on this issue?

Hasan Nasrallah: This is a great lie. We are an independent Lebanese organisation. We do not take orders from anyone. But this does not mean that we are not going to form alliances. Let me reiterate, we are on a side. We are on the side of Iran and Syria. They are our brothers. We are going to oppose any attack directed at Tehran and Damascus to the last drop of our blood just as we do in Lebanon. We uphold global resistance against global imperial terrorism.

Is there any other additional point you want to make?

Hasan Nasrallah: Peace cannot be unilateral. So long as there is imperialism in the world, a permanent peace is impossible. This war will not come to an end as long as there are occupations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine.

[JC1]

Originally posted by "Sheik Asshole"+--> ("Sheik Asshole")In the west, with primarily in the US the media is in the hands of Jewish capitalists... [/b]


"Sheikh Asshole"
Imperialism and its Zionist contractors

See everyone, if it were not for those pesky Jews, the middle east would be free of imperialist domination !

[/sarcasm]

Progressive and anti-sectarian my ass.

Suppourt for Hizb'Allah on a millitary basis only ! Down with the enemies of the lebonese people !

Lets see the tha LPG come back !

[Xiao Banfa]

He calls them "jewish capitalists", they happen to be jewish. There is no anti-semitism in that remark.

As for the remark about the "zionist contractors", I don't think it's correct analysis, but there is nothing anti-semitic about it.

I am not wild about every single aspect of Hizbollah policy, but they are a lot more progressive than they are made out to be.

-They're not sectarian.

-They're not religious bigots.

-They're not racist.

-They're not expansionist.

-They're willing to compromise with other elements in lebanese politics.

-They are not interested in an islamic state.

-They do not want to wipe out Israel.

-They have an anti-imperialist geopolitical worldview.

-They have a positive view of socialists.

Whats it going to take for us to stop characterising them as James Bond villains?

These brave fighters are our brothers in arms!

[Scott M]

If it were not intended to be anti-semitic, then surely there is no need to add in any reference to "Jewish" as it shouldnt matter what they are?

Contrary to their religious persuasion it is indeed the forces of Hizbollah and not Israel we should be defending here.

[DORRI]

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:


semitic: ...of, relating to, or characteristic of the Semites,
jewish.

semites:a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs

it seems that we should change our mind about anti-semitism. It's not only about jews, but also about arabs as well. so if we call such statements about jews as anti-semitism, we should consider everything bad about arabs as anti-semitism, too. actually I blame JC1 for anti-semitism for calling an arab "Sheikh Asshole".

[Reuben]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 10:05 AM
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:


semitic: ...of, relating to, or characteristic of the Semites,
jewish.

semites:a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs

it seems that we should change our mind about anti-semitism. It's not only about jews, but also about arabs as well. so if we call such statements about jews as anti-semitism, we should consider everything bad about arabs as anti-semitism, too. actually I blame JC1 for anti-semitism for calling an arab "Sheikh Asshole".
oh come on stop playing word games. Im sure a whole number of words could be deemed problematic if we started deconstructing them. While the word semitic refers to a whole range of middle eastrn peoples the phrase anti-semitism was coined in the 19h century to refer - rightly or wrongly - to refer to ant-jewish racism, THis has been its historical and political usage. Meanwhille the notion that the jews control the media has been a key part of such anti-jewish rhetoric. The fat that the person who coined the phrase ani-semitism may have done so clumsily is not an excuse to ignore anti Jewish feeling.

The fact that Tino feels that the interview is indicative of progressive politics is rathe worrying.

Reuben

[Forward Union]

He calls them "jewish capitalists", they happen to be jewish. There is no anti-semitism in that remark.

Oh please, when someone uses the phrase "Jewish Capitalists" The bloody well don't mean that they just happen to be jewish. If that were the case, there would be no need to mention their "ethnicity" at all. What they mean is they are in some way acting in the interests of their Jewish race, or a jewish class, acting against the intersts of racial, national and cultural preservation. I suppose the left has unnoficially coined this the "zog mentality" allow me to cut and paste right out of C18s very own "Skrewdriver.com"


The word "ZOG" is commonly used by Revolutionary Nationalist Socialists today but for the uninitiated, ZOG is an acronym for Zionist Occupation Government .... their willing collaborators in the police, media, civil service and local councils who enforce their anti-White laws on the British People. What we are seeing in our respective Aryan Nations today is a struggle for the control of White people's minds from the highest government levels down to the lowliest civil servant.
(emphasis added)


"If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew" -Hassan Nasrallah

"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)

Of course, they see ZOG as a threat not only to the white culture, but to black, asian, arabic and whatever else, and respective racialist groups from various cultures have adopted this idea also. I am pretty sure, that comment was anti-semitic.

[D_Bokk]

Anyone here willing to call the Native Americans racists when they refer to the colonists in America as "white man" or "European"? If not, stop being Zionist apologists.

[Phalanx]

When someones expresses an interest in the genocide of one people, that's considered racism. Looking at what Nasrallah said, don't you find that anti-semitic? Or is the annihilation of the Jewish people alright in your mind?

[D_Bokk]

Quit dodging my question, were the Native Americans racist? They wanted the white people to leave/die too.

[mauvaise foi]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 06:25 PM
Anyone here willing to call the Native Americans racists when they refer to the colonists in America as "white man" or "European"? If not, stop being Zionist apologists.
It is entirely permissible to speak of "white" and "European" occupiers of First Nations land, just as it is permissible to speak of "Jewish" occupation of Palestinian land. But Nasrallah was talking about something totally different. He was talking about "Jewish capitalists" who control the media.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by mauvaise foi
It is entirely permissible to speak of "white" and "European" occupiers of First Nations land, just as it is permissible to speak of "Jewish" occupation of Palestinian land. But Nasrallah was talking about something totally different. He was talking about "Jewish capitalists" who control the media.
Wait, so you can't call someone who follows Judaism a "Jew"? Ah, I get it...

And you cannot deny that the Jewish pressence in the media with regards to their population is very large compared to the pressence of say, Muslims.

[mauvaise foi]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 07:20 PM
Wait, so you can't call someone who follows Judaism a "Jew"? Ah, I get it...

And you cannot deny that the Jewish pressence in the media with regards to their population is very large compared to the pressence of say, Muslims.
I never said you couldn't call a follower of Judaism a Jew.

Also, I do not deny that Jews make up a disproportionate share of the media, especially compared to Muslims. But that's not the point. "Jewish control of the media" is a red herring. The media would be saying the same things if there were no Jews in the media. The reason the media promotes Zionism is because the capitalist media is a slave to U.S. imperialism, and Zionism promotes U.S. imperialism (and vice versa, by the way).

[mauvaise foi]

I'd also like to point out that just because Nasrallah is an anti-semite doesn't mean we shouldn't support him in his struggle against Zionism. FDR was an anti-Japanese racist who interned Japanese-American civilians, but that doesn't mean FDR wasn't a lesser evil than Japanese fascist imperialism.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by mauvaise foi
I never said you couldn't call a follower of Judaism a Jew.

Also, I do not deny that Jews make up a disproportionate share of the media, especially compared to Muslims. But that's not the point. "Jewish control of the media" is a red herring. The media would be saying the same things if there were no Jews in the media. The reason the media promotes Zionism is because the capitalist media is a slave to U.S. imperialism, and Zionism promotes U.S. imperialism (and vice versa, by the way).
Yes, actually you did. Calling someone say a "White Settler" doesn't bother you one bit, but a "Jewish Capitalist" is an awful slur against the Jewish people.

[mauvaise foi]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 07:43 PM

Yes, actually you did. Calling someone say a "White Settler" doesn't bother you one bit, but a "Jewish Capitalist" is an awful slur against the Jewish people.
I'd have no problem calling someone a "Jewish capitalist" if it was relevant to the question at hand. But its not. "Capitalist" is sufficient.

[D_Bokk]

So when someone refers to the right as "Christian Right" they're being anti-Christian because "Right" is sufficient enough?

[Dreckt]

-They're not religious bigots.

Last I heard, they wanted to make Lebanon into an Islamic Republic - which is ruled by Shariah Law.


-They are not interested in an islamic state.

So it is just a coincidence that the Hezbollah flag is modelled after the Iranian Republican Guard flag? Iran happens to be an Islamic state.


-They do not want to wipe out Israel.

Yes they do. Why else even bother about Israel at all?


Whats it going to take for us to stop characterising them as James Bond villains?

Just because people here are leftists does not mean that we must support Hezbollah. The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend.

[mauvaise foi]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 08:03 PM
So when someone refers to the right as "Christian Right" they're being anti-Christian because "Right" is sufficient enough?
No, because "Right" is not sufficient. The term "Right" encompasses a large number of view points, including libertarians who disagree with the social conservative views of the Christian Right.

[The Grinch]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 08:03 PM
So when someone refers to the right as "Christian Right" they're being anti-Christian because "Right" is sufficient enough?
Entirely different. The political ideology of the religious right is, at least in part, based on their religion.

The capitalism of Jewish capitalists is not based on their Jewishness, at all.

Unless you fancy arguing different, because I think you're veering dangerously close to Strasserism here, albiet uninentionally.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Hasan Nasrallah: We salute the leaders and the peoples of Latin America. They have resisted heroically against the American bandits and have been a source of moral for us. They are guiding the way for the oppressed peoples. Go and wonder around our streets..! You will witness how our people have embraced Chavez and Ernesto Che Guevara. Nearly in every house, you will come across posters of Che or Chavez. What we are saying to our socialist friends who want fight together with us for fraternity and freedom, do not come at all if you are going to say “Religion is an opiate”. We do not agree with this analysis. Here is the biggest proof of this in our streets with the pictures of Chavez, Che, Sadr and Hamaney waving along together. These leaders are saluting our people in unison. So long as we respect your beliefs, and you respect ours, there is no imperialist power we cannot defeat!

This sounds very good.

Is he not talking about mutual respect and joint resistance?

[Leo]

This sounds very good.

Is he not talking about mutual respect and joint resistance?

No NWOG, it doesn't sound very good.

He says that he will accept cult of personality and nationalist/socialistic rhetoric of the capitalist left in the west if they accept his religious fundmentalism, nationalist and racist practices.

He is finally grasping the hand western cheerleaders from the capitalist left had been holding up in the air for a long time to raise his organizations international support. Nothing extraordinary really, just bourgeoise politics.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by mauvaise foi+--> (mauvaise foi)No, because "Right" is not sufficient. The term "Right" encompasses a large number of view points, including libertarians who disagree with the social conservative views of the Christian Right.[/b]
Oh wow, talk about contradictions. "Capitalist" has many different view points as well. Whether they're laissez faire, welfare, fascist and everything in between - they all have different view points regarding capitalism.

Originally posted by The Grinch+--> (The Grinch)Entirely different. The political ideology of the religious right is, at least in part, based on their religion.

The capitalism of Jewish capitalists is not based on their Jewishness, at all.

Unless you fancy arguing different, because I think you're veering dangerously close to Strasserism here, albiet uninentionally.[/b]
The Jewish Capitalists in the media show avid support for Israel, so what's the problem with clarifying their bias? Nothing. Find me one capitalist in the mainstream media who opposes Israel and is a Jew.

[email protected]
This sounds very good.

Is he not talking about mutual respect and joint resistance?
From the looks of it, he's calling out for a more secular alliance between Islam and the left. So long as the left doesn't try to press their atheism on Hizb'allah, there will be very little conflict and vice-versa.

Hopefully a bridge between the left and Islam can be created. If the left is correct, they have nothing to worry about. Supposedly, once communism takes hold on earth there will be no need to worship God since there is very little, if any, suffering. If the left is wrong and humans are born to believe - no harm no foul. It's basically a win-win.

Leo Uilleann
No NWOG, it doesn't sound very good.

He says that he will accept cult of personality and nationalist/socialistic rhetoric of the capitalist left in the west if they accept his religious fundmentalism, nationalist and racist practices.

He is finally grasping the hand western cheerleaders from the capitalist left had been holding up in the air for a long time to raise his organizations international support. Nothing extraordinary really, just bourgeoise politics.
This is ludicrous.

Prove that Hizb'allah is a religious fundamentalist group.
Prove that Hizb'allah is racist.
Prove that this is "nationalism" and not a struggle against invaders.

You sound like a Republican.

[mauvaise foi]

D Bokk: I actually think I'm starting to agree with you. You've made some good points.

[The Grinch]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 10:07 PM
The Jewish Capitalists in the media show avid support for Israel, so what's the problem with clarifying their bias? Nothing. Find me one capitalist in the mainstream media who opposes Israel and is a Jew.

The capitalist media overwhelmingly supports Israel period.

But you don't consider it relevant when they're white capitalists, or male capitalists, or heterosexual capitalists.

You only single out Jews for this. Why is that? Do you see Zionism and Jews as interchangeable?

[Emperor Ronald Reagan]

Duh, D Bokk, didn't you know? It's 'anti-Semitic' to call a Jewish person a Jew here.

[Leo]

Originally posted by D Bok+--> (D Bok)This is ludicrous.

Prove that Hizb'allah is a religious fundamentalist group.
Prove that Hizb'allah is racist.
Prove that this is "nationalism" and not a struggle against invaders.

You sound like a Republican.[/b]

And what the fuck do you know about Hizbullah?

I live in middle east, I know what Hizbullah is.

Hizbullah was the Lebanese wing of Khomeni's Islamic Revolution. They are religious fundmentalists.

Oh, they are also racists:


Originally posted by [email protected]
If they [the Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them world wide.


Nasrallah
If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice, I do not say the Israeli.

They are also nationalists, they are driving the Lebanese into an inter-imperialist war, sending them to kill and die in a war that is completely against their interests.

So, I'm going to tell this once to you because I am sick of petty bourgeoise leftists from the west telling the Lebanese or other middle eastern workers to die for thier national flag.

Show you petty bourgeoise fantasies up into your asses, there is no fucking glorious ressistance going on here, this is an inter imperialist war and both sides are getting the workers killed. This is what you support, killing of the proletariat, the war, nothing else. Neither Hizbullah nor you are any better than the Zionists.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by The Grinch+--> (The Grinch)The capitalist media overwhelmingly supports Israel period.

But you don't consider it relevant when they're white capitalists, or male capitalists, or heterosexual capitalists.

You only single out Jews for this. Why is that? Do you see Zionism and Jews as interchangeable?[/b]
Why do you suppose the media supports Israel so much? A mixture of Holocaust guilt (which the Zionists exploit as much as possible even though they supported Hitler) and the large Zionist presence in the media.

I'm not singling out Jews, we're debating something said by Nasrallah incase you forgot. Seriously though, why would I start talking about white capitalists in this thread?

I see very little connection between Judaism and Zionism, as Zionism is largely a secular movement. In fact, I've seen videos on youtube which have Orthodox Jews getting attacked by Zionists for opposing Israel; I've seen Orthodox Jews (a Rabbi, actually) being called anti-Semites by some self-proclaimed Jew who was a Zionist.

The Zionists have made any criticism of Israel (and the supporters of Israel) to be anti-Semetic and it's a joke. Unfortunately for the left, we're so caught up in the taboo placed on criticism of anything remotely Jewish that we forget to support the true freedom fighters like Hizb'allah.

Leo Uilleann
And what the fuck do you know about Hizbullah?

I live in middle east, I know what Hizbullah is.

Hizbullah was the Lebanese wing of Khomeni's Islamic Revolution. They are religious fundmentalists.
Do you live in Israel, by any chance?

See. I'm not going to bother to take your word that they're fundamentalists because I've yet to see them be fundamentalists.

Oh and Jews aren't a race. Thought I would mention that before I moved on...


They are also nationalists, they are driving the Lebanese into an inter-imperialist war, sending them to kill and die in a war that is completely against their interests.

So, I'm going to tell this once to you because I am sick of petty bourgeoise leftists from the west telling the Lebanese or other middle eastern workers to die for thier national flag.

Show you petty bourgeoise fantasies up into your asses, there is no fucking glorious ressistance going on here, this is an inter imperialist war and both sides are getting the workers killed. This is what you support, killing of the proletariat, the war, nothing else. Neither Hizbullah nor you are any better than the Zionists.
Nationalists do not fight for the cause of other nations. It's illogical. Hizb'allah is fighting for what's right - a free middle east. Israel is committing a genocide in Palestine. Israel controls 90% of all of the drinkable water supplies, while the Palestinians only have 10%. If each Palestinian gets an equal amount of that water, they would have 50 litters of water less than what the World Health Organization deemed needed for humans. If people keep waiting, the Palestinian people will die of thirst... all that needs to happen is one bad summer. All this talk about the life of the proletariat and you still support Israel after knowing their genocidal tactics?

Honestly, why would anyone need to tell Arabs to die for their flag? Any people whose land is stolen and occupied by a foreign people will struggle until their will is broken, ie Native Americans. Since the beginning of time, no native people ever allowed colonists to just take away their land without retaliation.

A leftist who supports Zionists as much as he supports Hizb'allah... you might want to rethink your ideology.

[mauvaise foi]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 10:56 PM

Why do you suppose the media supports Israel so much? A mixture of Holocaust guilt (which the Zionists exploit as much as possible even though they supported Hitler) and the large Zionist presence in the media.


The media supports Israel for more reasons than just these. The media is a lackey of imperialism. Imperialism supports Zionism because Israel promotes imperialism's interests in the Middle East. Do you think that the reason the U.S. supports Israel with $3 billion a year is ownly because of "holocaust guilt" and the "zionist lobby?"

The rest of your post I pretty much agree with. It is nonsense to say that Hizb'allah is distracting the Lebanese proletariat from their true interests. Their true interests is fighting U.S. imperialism, of which the Zionist entity is a puppet. This is not an "inter-imperialist" war. How is Hizb'allah imperialist? How many "workers" has Hizb'allah killed? You should know that there are no Jewish "workers" in Israel. They have all been bought off by imperialism.

[Leo]

Do you live in Israel, by any chance?

No, I live in Turkey.

Where do you live by the way? Which rich western country allowing you to tell Lebanese people should die for their national flag with your ass in safety?


See. I'm not going to bother to take your word that they're fundamentalists because I've yet to see them be fundamentalists.

Oh, and I bet you think Khomeni in Iran is great, of course not a fundmentalist.

Well, you are a pathetic joke so I don't really care if you take my word or not.

But, we have lebanese comrades in our organization who would probably be much harder on you for your petty-bourgeoise leftist beliefs.


Nationalists do not fight for the cause of other nations. It's illogical. Hizb'allah is fighting for what's right - a free middle east.

No, Hizbullah is fighting for its territories and its authority over people. They don't give a shit about a free middle east or the lives of the lebanese etc.


All this talk about the life of the proletariat and you still support Israel after knowing their genocidal tactics?

And of course, I don't support Israel in any way.


Honestly, why would anyone need to tell Arabs to die for their flag? Any people whose land is stolen and occupied by a foreign people will struggle until their will is broken, ie Native Americans. Since the beginning of time, no native people ever allowed colonists to just take away their land without retaliation.

Another petty-boureoise leftist talking about the people.

First of all, Native Americans were murdered en-masse before the industrial revolution. When they were being slaughtered, there was no such thing called the nation state, and they were not fighting for a nation state, they were mostly fighting for their lives and for the land that would be enough for them to live on. They had a semi-hunter gatherer society, they really rarely fought for greed, controll over extra resources and authority over people, if ever. Obviously you don't know much about Native Americans.

Secondly, to reply your idiotic question on why would anyone need to tell Arabs to die for their flag is to push them away from taking class action, so you are, as a self proclamied leftist, betraying the arab working class by saying that, and serving the arab bourgeoise.


A leftist who supports Zionists as much as he supports Hizb'allah... you might want to rethink your ideology.

First of all, I am a communist, not a leftist. Secondly, I don't support either Zionists nor Hizbullah. I am completely against both of them, I am completely against this inter-imperialist war, I am completely against nationalism and I am completely against capitalism. Is that clear now? Did that enter your thick head? Was it that hard to understand?

You support an inter-imperialist war, a faction of capital, and Lebanese workers dying. Oh, and by the way, I noticed that you choose great leader Nasrallah's racist quotes(or anti-semitic, whatever you wanna call it, english is not my first language after all). Was the truth too harsh on you my little imperialist cheerleader or are your sharing your great leaders feelings?

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by mauvaise foi+--> (mauvaise foi)The media supports Israel for more reasons than just these. The media is a lackey of imperialism. Imperialism supports Zionism because Israel promotes imperialism's interests in the Middle East. Do you think that the reason the U.S. supports Israel with $3 billion a year is ownly because of "holocaust guilt" and the "zionist lobby?"

The rest of your post I pretty much agree with. It is nonsense to say that Hizb'allah is distracting the Lebanese proletariat from their true interests. Their true interests is fighting U.S. imperialism, of which the Zionist entity is a puppet. This is not an "inter-imperialist" war. How is Hizb'allah imperialist? How many "workers" has Hizb'allah killed? You should know that there are no Jewish "workers" in Israel. They have all been bought off by imperialism.
[/b]
Of course Imperialism is a big issue. Israel is a european outpost in the Middle East for the West, which gets Israel quite a bit of support from the capitalists.

Leo Uilleann
No, I live in Turkey.

Where do you live by the way? Which rich western country allowing you to tell Lebanese people should die for their national flag with your ass in safety?
The US. Where have I asked the Lebanese to fight? No where. Hizb'allah and the Lebanese people are fighting for themselves and their neighbors. Even the Christians in Lebanon support Hizb'allah, these so-called "fundamentalists."

My argument is that the Left should support Hizb'allah because they're helping the communist movement than anyone else on this forum. The armchair revolutionaries here debate actions and do very little. The least we can do is to support Hizb'allah in their struggle.

Oh, and I bet you think Khomeni in Iran is great, of course not a fundmentalist.

Well, you are a pathetic joke so I don't really care if you take my word or not.

But, we have lebanese comrades in our organization who would probably be much harder on you for your petty-bourgeoise leftist beliefs.
Last time I checked, Lebanon wasn't Iran - has anything changed since? Your "evidence" is pathetic. And these Lebanese leftists, what are they doing?

No, Hizbullah is fighting for its territories and its authority over people. They don't give a shit about a free middle east or the lives of the lebanese etc.
Hizb'allah is being elected into office. You make a lot of statements against Hizb'allah, but you lack any evidence at all.

And of course, I don't support Israel in any way.
But you would rather Israel be left alone?

Another petty-boureoise leftist talking about the people.

First of all, Native Americans were murdered en-masse before the industrial revolution. When they were being slaughtered, there was no such thing called the nation state, and they were not fighting for a nation state, they were mostly fighting for their lives and for the land that would be enough for them to live on. They had a semi-hunter gatherer society, they really rarely fought for greed, controll over extra resources and authority over people, if ever. Obviously you don't know much about Native Americans.

Secondly, to reply your idiotic question on why would anyone need to tell Arabs to die for their flag is to push them away from taking class action, so you are, as a self proclamied leftist, betraying the arab working class by saying that, and serving the arab bourgeoise.
First of all, I live in America so my opinion on Native Americans is much better. That's how it works right? :rolleyes: Native Americans fought for the land they've lived on for many years. That's what's going on in the Middle East right now.

I don't deny that Islamic movements are distracting people in the Middle East from the worker struggle, however there will be religious tensions within the Middle East until Imperialism, aka Israel, is destroyed. Instead of virtually taking the side of the ruling elite in the Middle East by denouncing all Islamic resistance groups, I decided to support groups which aim to destroy imperialism.

How far as communism gotten in the Middle East? NOWHERE!


First of all, I am a communist, not a leftist. Secondly, I don't support either Zionists nor Hizbullah. I am completely against both of them, I am completely against this inter-imperialist war, I am completely against nationalism and I am completely against capitalism. Is that clear now? Did that enter your thick head? Was it that hard to understand?

You support an inter-imperialist war, a faction of capital, and Lebanese workers dying. Oh, and by the way, I noticed that you choose great leader Nasrallah's racist quotes(or anti-semitic, whatever you wanna call it, english is not my first language after all). Was the truth too harsh on you my little imperialist cheerleader or are your sharing your great leaders feelings?
A real communist will support the end of imperialism. You're not a communist.

Nasrallah's comments are based off of anger towards Israel. You cannot blame an oppressed people for getting worked up because an oppressor shares a common skin color, religion, ect. It would be like denouncing some black people during slavery for hating white people.

[Leo]

The US. Where have I asked the Lebanese to fight? No where. Hizb'allah and the Lebanese people are fighting for themselves and their neighbors. Even the Christians in Lebanon support Hizb'allah, these so-called "fundamentalists."

My argument is that the Left should support Hizb'allah because they're helping the communist movement than anyone else on this forum. The armchair revolutionaries here debate actions and do very little. The least we can do is to support Hizb'allah in their struggle.

I am not an armchair revolutionary, you know nothing about what I do to organize. Hizbullah is not helping the communist movement, and you are a complete idiot who is not worth talking to if you actually believe that. Hizbullah is helping itself.

What you can do is to support Lebanese workers who are trying to survive that war.


Last time I checked, Lebanon wasn't Iran - has anything changed since? Your "evidence" is pathetic.

Religious fundmentalism is an ideology, not a geographic location.


And these Lebanese leftists, what are they doing?

They are communists, what they do is non of your concern but if you have a gram of intelligence you can make a guess. I can tell you that they are workers though.


Hizb'allah is being elected into office.

Oh how great! So we should support every reactionary organization that gets elected into office. So I take it that you love the Republican party and the Democratic party, because those two have been elected into the office for a long time.


But you would rather Israel be left alone?

No I would rather Israel be utterly destroyed, as I would rather all nation states and reactionary organizations be destroyed.


First of all, I live in America so my opinion on Native Americans is much better. That's how it works right?

No, it takes being actually interested in learning the truth intead of having leftist fantasies to have a better and educated opinion.

Besides I lived in America, so your point is not valid.


Native Americans fought for the land they've lived on for many years. That's what's going on in the Middle East right now.

No, the bourgeise is fighting and the working class is dying for them in the Middle East.


Instead of virtually taking the side of the ruling elite in the Middle East by denouncing all Islamic resistance groups, I decided to support groups which aim to destroy imperialism.

Except Hizbullah is also imperialist and would replace Israel in its position in a second if it had the chance. It is all for power, it has nothing to do with resistance or the people etc.


How far as communism gotten in the Middle East? NOWHERE!

This has to do with nationalism, preventing workers to act as a class. Ever heard of that term?


A real communist will support the end of imperialism.

I support the end of imperialism, I say that imperialism is in the nature of all nation states and oranizations that are ruled by an elite and controll resources and has authority over people, so it is not the bad nation exploiting the good nation. It is the bourgeoise exploiting and killing the proletariat. I support the end of everything capitalist with no compromises. I am a communist.

You are a petty bourgeoise leftist who has fantasies about a heroic ressistance and workers dying for their local bosses.


Nasrallah's comments are based off of anger towards Israel. You cannot blame an oppressed people for getting worked up because an oppressor shares a common skin color, religion, ect.

Nasrallah's comments are racist (or anti-semitic) as hell, and you know it and you have to admit it. I you think everyone in Lebannon shares or should share Nasrallah's views, than you are a racist with that steriotypical angry arab image in your head, the only difference being that you think this is ok and even good. To be informative, everyone in Lebannon is not racist (or anti-semitic), everyone in Lebannon don't want to die for Hizbullah's interests, quite the contrary they want to live.

I blame Nasrallah for his racist bullshit also for being a nationalist and being anti-working class, as I blame every fucking nationalist in middle east and and the world for being anti-working class. I always oppose ruling classes, naturally including my own ruling classes.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Leo Uilleann
I am not an armchair revolutionary, you know nothing about what I do to organize. Hizbullah is not helping the communist movement, and you are a complete idiot who is not worth talking to if you actually believe that. Hizbullah is helping itself.

What you can do is to support Lebanese workers who are trying to survive that war.
Belonging to a communist party doesn't mean you're an active revolutionary. Unless your party is actually engaging in revolutionary activity - you aren't doing very much at all. Until imperialism is destroyed, the communist movement will be hampered. If Hizb'allah is fighting imperialism right now then they should have the support of communists. Don't give me this "inter-imperialism" bullshit because Israel is a European satellite. Israel is one of the major imperialist forces within the Middle East, it's destruction will be positive. Who cares which group accomplishes this goal.

You're asking me to support people who support Hizb'allah. You realize that, right?

Religious fundmentalism is an ideology, not a geographic location.
Everything that Iran touches doesn't turn to fundamentalism, contrary to popular belief.

They are communists, what they do is non of your concern but if you have a gram of intelligence you can make a guess. I can tell you that they are workers though.
In other words, they don't do shit. All they do is sit at party meetings and ***** and moan while Hizb'allah fights.

Oh how great! So we should support every reactionary organization that gets elected into office. So I take it that you love the Republican party and the Democratic party, because those two have been elected into the office for a long time.
Lebanon isn't being taken over by Hizb'allah against their will is the point. Apparently the Lebanese don't mind Hizb'allah being an authority in Lebanese politics.

No I would rather Israel be utterly destroyed, as I would rather all nation states and reactionary organizations be destroyed.
Either destroy Israel with all of your "communist" buddies or stop *****ing about people who actually are doing something.

No, it takes being actually interested in learning the truth intead of having leftist fantasies to have a better and educated opinion.

Besides I lived in America, so your point is not valid.
Incase you were unaware, I was making fun of you.

No, the bourgeise is fighting and the working class is dying for them in the Middle East.
So the land controlled by Israel isn't the issue?

Except Hizbullah is also imperialist and would replace Israel in its position in a second if it had the chance. It is all for power, it has nothing to do with resistance or the people etc.
Do you do anything except make outrageous claims without anything to back them up?

This has to do with nationalism, preventing workers to act as a class. Ever heard of that term?
Which entity essentially created this nationalism? Israel. There was a reasonable amount of communist activity in the Middle East before Israel and during the early years of Israel. Destroy Israel, even if nationalism is used, and then you have nothing to rally your people over.

I support the end of imperialism, I say that imperialism is in the nature of all nation states and oranizations that are ruled by an elite and controll resources and has authority over people, so it is not the bad nation exploiting the good nation. It is the bourgeoise exploiting and killing the proletariat. I support the end of everything capitalist with no compromises. I am a communist.

You are a petty bourgeoise leftist who has fantasies about a heroic ressistance and workers dying for their local bosses.

Capitalism: exploitation of man, by man
Imperialism: exploitation of nations, by nations

You may want to look into the definitions of imperialism.

Nasrallah's comments are racist (or anti-semitic) as hell, and you know it and you have to admit it. I you think everyone in Lebannon shares or should share Nasrallah's views, than you are a racist with that steriotypical angry arab image in your head, the only difference being that you think this is ok and even good. To be informative, everyone in Lebannon is not racist (or anti-semitic), everyone in Lebannon don't want to die for Hizbullah's interests, quite the contrary they want to live.

I blame Nasrallah for his racist bullshit, and I blame every fucking nationalist in middle east and and the world for being anti-working class. I always oppose ruling classes, naturally including my own ruling classes.
Is personal attacks all you can use? You know damn well I wasn't saying all Arabs hate Jews. I was saying that it's not unnatural for people to hate their oppressor. I was giving a reason to explain Nasrallah's remarks.

[Leo]

Don't give me this "inter-imperialism" bullshit because Israel is a European satellite.

Hizbullah is an Iranian/Syrian satellite.


You're asking me to support people who support Hizb'allah. You realize that, right?

No, Hizbullah is is not doing anything to defend Lebanese workers. Quite the contrary, they are sending them to kill and die for their interests. I ask you to be against this war, completely, not support any side and support the very survival of the working class, which is something both Hizbullah and Israel pose a threat to.


Everything that Iran touches doesn't turn to fundamentalism, contrary to popular belief.

How did you manage to get this from what I said? I said Iran had an islamic fundmentalist ideology, and I said Hizbullah was their Lebanese wing. Do you undertand what I am saying now? It's not that hard is it?


In other words, they don't do shit. All they do is sit at party meetings and ***** and moan while Hizb'allah fights.

What a great way to show how anti-woking class you are, saying that our workers don't do shit while Hizbullah gets the workers in Lebannon killed. This is your perspective, fuck off.


Lebanon isn't being taken over by Hizb'allah against their will is the point. Apparently the Lebanese don't mind Hizb'allah being an authority in Lebanese politics.

So? Israelis don't mind Zionists being an authority in their politics, Americans don't mind Neo-Cons and Christian Fascists being an authority in their politics. Germans didn't mind Nazis being an authority in their politics in thirties. People had always supported reactionaries.


So the land controlled by Israel isn't the issue?

Are you trying to prevent yourself from undertanding what I say or are you really unable to understand it? Every land and resource controlled and every group of workers which has authority on it by a state or an organization is an issue for me.


Imperialism: exploitation of nations, by nations

You may want to look into the definitions of imperialism.

Your view of imperialism seems like a bad summary in one sentence of Lenin's concept of imperialism, which is pretty weak, petty and unconveniant.

Here's a real definition of imperialism:

"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 recogniseable only in all its relations, and from which no nation can hold aloof at will".

"Today, the nation is but a cloak that covers imperialist desires, a battle cry for imperialist rivalries, the last ideological measure with which the masses can be persuaded to play the role of cannon fodder in imperialist wars"

-Rosa Luxemburg, Junius Pamphlet


Is personal attacks all you can use?

I am really angry at you and the likes of you, who support Lebanese people dying for their national flags. I am trying to go soft on you as much as I can, stop complaining.


You know damn well I wasn't saying all Arabs hate Jews.

No, I don't actually know that, because you were implying it to prove Nasrallah was normal.


I was saying that it's not unnatural for people to hate their oppressor.

Again, 'people' and 'oppressor'. The oppressor is the ruling class, and the oppressed is the working class. Israeli workers have no interest in killing Hizbullah militas, and vica versa. This is called internationalism, taking a class based perspective instead of a nation based one.


I was giving a reason to explain Nasrallah's remarks.

You were trying to give a lousy and stupid excuse to his remarks. You were trying to defend an open racist. Look where your support for Hizbullah took you.

[mauvaise foi]

Leo Uilleann: What you are saying is just ultra-leftist nonsense. Imperialism has bought off the workers of the First World by offering them high wages and living standards with the loot taken from the Third World. Thus, the bourgeoisie and proletariat of the First World have become one class with the same interests relative to the Third World. Similarly, the bourgeoisie and proletariat of the Third World have the same interests relative to the imperialists. It makes no difference whether Hizb'allah is "bourgeois" or not. Even if they are, they are more progressive than the imperialist labor aristocracy of Israel. The national bourgeoisie is more revolutionary than the imperialist "proletariat."

Hizb'allah is NOT an imperialist satellite. The annual subsidy to Hizb'allah from Iran is $100,000,000. The annual subsidy to Israel from the U.S. is $3,000,000,000. $100,000,000 is nothing on the scale of geopolitics. Also, the majority of Iran and Syria's population is exploited, whereas the majority of the U.S.'s population is exploiter.

[Leo]

What you are saying is just ultra-leftist...

Well, I am ultra left, ultra-ultra left actually, so thanks for the compliment :wub: :D


Imperialism has bought off the workers of the First World by offering them high wages and living standards with the loot taken from the Third World.

To be able to say this, you should either be a racist, or someone who has never seen poverty in the west or in the 'south'.


Thus, the bourgeoisie and proletariat of the First World have become one class with the same interests relative to the Third World.

Blah, blah blah, nationalist apologism, it's bullshit.


It makes no difference whether Hizb'allah is "bourgeois" or not.

It makes the difference.


Even if they are, they are more progressive than the imperialist labor aristocracy of Israel.

No they are not, more nationalist bulshit.


Hizb'allah is NOT an imperialist satellite. The annual subsidy to Hizb'allah from Iran is $100,000,000. The annual subsidy to Israel from the U.S. is $3,000,000,000. $100,000,000 is nothing on the scale of geopolitics.

No, US and Israel are stronger imperialist powers, Hizbullah and Iran are weaker imperialist powers. Neither should be supported in any case, imperialism should be completely opposed.


Also, the majority of Iran and Syria's population is exploited, whereas the majority of the U.S.'s population is exploiter.

More bullshit. As I said, obviously you have no idea or interest on the real condition of the proletariat in the west, so why should I bother to explain?

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Leo Uilleann
No, Hizbullah is is not doing anything to defend Lebanese workers. Quite the contrary, they are sending them to kill and die for their interests. I ask you to be against this war, completely, not support any side and support the very survival of the working class, which is something both Hizbullah and Israel pose a threat to.
You're hopeless. Anyone can see that the sole reason behind the abandonment of the workers' movement in the mid 20th century in the Middle East was due to Israel. Yet you sit here in your armchair criticizing a group trying to destroy Israel.

Don't fucking preach about supporting the workers when the workers don't even support you. One step at a time.

How did you manage to get this from what I said? I said Iran had an islamic fundmentalist ideology, and I said Hizbullah was their Lebanese wing. Do you undertand what I am saying now? It's not that hard is it?
See, this is all according to you and your "logic." Still, you've proven nothing... but that's nothing new for you.


What a great way to show how anti-woking class you are, saying that our workers don't do shit while Hizbullah gets the workers in Lebannon killed. This is your perspective, fuck off.
Looks like I hit a nerve. Obviously your little Party isn't doing shit and is jealous of Hizb'allah.

So? Israelis don't mind Zionists being an authority in their politics, Americans don't mind Neo-Cons and Christian Fascists being an authority in their politics. Germans didn't mind Nazis being an authority in their politics in thirties. People had always supported reactionaries.
So you don't want a democratic Lebanon?

Are you trying to prevent yourself from undertanding what I say or are you really unable to understand it? Every land and resource controlled and every group of workers which has authority on it by a state or an organization is an issue for me.
Are you insane?

Your view of imperialism seems like a bad summary in one sentence of Lenin's concept of imperialism, which is pretty weak, petty and unconveniant.

Here's a real definition of imperialism:
Wow, you actually provided something... I'm proud of you.

"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 recogniseable only in all its relations, and from which no nation can hold aloof at will".

"Today, the nation is but a cloak that covers imperialist desires, a battle cry for imperialist rivalries, the last ideological measure with which the masses can be persuaded to play the role of cannon fodder in imperialist wars"

-Rosa Luxemburg, Junius Pamphlet
Yeah, this is basically what I said. A nation doesn't completely control another, but has a significant control over the nation's economy.

No, I don't actually know that, because you were implying it to prove Nasrallah was normal.
His reaction against a common oppressor is normal, especially in moments of high emotion.

[Cheung Mo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 06:29 PM
When someones expresses an interest in the genocide of one people, that's considered racism. Looking at what Nasrallah said, don't you find that anti-semitic? Or is the annihilation of the Jewish people alright in your mind?
The annihiliation of Abrahamic myths and their tragic legacy would be a beautiful thing, but the annihiliation of those hoodwinked into following the lies would be unjust.

[mauvaise foi]

Leo: How am I a racist? What did I say that was racist?

Where are all these Western and Israeli "workers" that you speak of? I live in the U.S. and I don't see any exploited workers, except of course for undocumented migrants from the Third World.

You can sit around and wait for some "proletarian revolution" in Western Europe and North America, or you can actively support REAL anti-imperialists like Hizb'allah who are actually doing something to attack the Zionist entity. But you'd rather sit around and criticize Hizb'allah for being "bourgeois." Fine.

Hizb'allah has just delivered an embarrassing defeat to the Zionists. When was the last time your obscure, ultra-left, "Communist" sect ever did that?

[Leo]

D-Bok


Anyone can see that the sole reason behind the abandonment of the workers' movement in the mid 20th century in the Middle East was due to Israel. Yet you sit here in your armchair criticizing a group trying to destroy Israel.

No, you sit in your armchair, I organize in a country where it is really hard to do so.


Don't fucking preach about supporting the workers when the workers don't even support you. One step at a time.

Another comment showing how anti-working class you are. So you would support the Nazis because they were fighting against Americans and when they had popular support in Germany?


See, this is all according to you and your "logic." Still, you've proven nothing... but that's nothing new for you.

You are an idiot. There is no logic, Iran and Hizbullah share the same ideology, as they also share the same islamic sect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hizbullah#Introduction


Looks like I hit a nerve. Obviously your little Party isn't doing shit and is jealous of Hizb'allah.

And obviously you aren't doing shit and you are jealous of Israel? You really are an idiot.


So you don't want a democratic Lebanon?

No, I want a communist world.


Yeah, this is basically what I said. A nation doesn't completely control another, but has a significant control over the nation's economy.

Is that really what you got from Luxemburgs definion?

*Shakes his head with utter disbelief"


His reaction against a common oppressor is normal, especially in moments of high emotion.

Oh no, you don't give a speach or have an interview if you are a political leader when you are in moments of high emotion. Those were conscious comments pointing out Hizbullah's ideology.

mauvaise foi,


Leo: How am I a racist? What did I say that was racist?

I actually said you are either racist or didn't know about the situation of the workers in the west, but I actually didn't think you were racist so I apologize if I offended you, but the thought that there are no workers in US is a racist or at least ultra nationalist idea in the rest of the world.


Where are all these Western and Israeli "workers" that you speak of?

I remember MIM (Maoist Internationalist Movement, a group based in California) saying that there isn't a proletariat in the US. I don't know if you are affiliated to them, but they are mostly crazy middle class kids who were too influenced by the Matrix. Anyways;


I live in the U.S. and I don't see any exploited workers, except of course for undocumented migrants from the Third World.

I also lived in the US, and I did see many exploited workers. Of course migrants are the majority. Maybe you are living in one of those balloon environments where everyone is considered middle class.


You can sit around and wait for some "proletarian revolution" in Western Europe and North America, or you can actively support REAL anti-imperialists like Hizb'allah who are actually doing something to attack the Zionist entity. But you'd rather sit around and criticize Hizb'allah for being "bourgeois." Fine.


I'll actually work for a real proletarian revolution, and I will always tell the truth as I see it.


Hizb'allah has just delivered an embarrassing defeat to the Zionists.

Honestly I don't care who was embarrased. What I care is workers dying and I want them to live.

[mauvaise foi]

Leo: How is the idea that there are no workers in the U.S. a "racist," or "ultra-nationalist" idea? I'm not affiliated with MIM, although I think they sometime make some good insights. I am not a Maoist or even a Leninist, but Lenin's theory of imperialism makes a lot of sense, even if its not completely accurate.

How do you explain the fact that Westen "workers" have a higher standard of living than the rest of the world? How do you explain the fact that the gap between rich and poor has narrowed in the West, contrary to Marx's predictions?

Hizb'allah has just defeated Zionism, and I respect them for that. If a more "progressive" organization was willing to fight Zionism as bravely and effectively as Hizb'allah is, than I would support them, but I have not seen that. We cannot afford to make too many enemies.

[Leo]

How is the idea that there are no workers in the U.S. a "racist," or "ultra-nationalist" idea? I'm not affiliated with MIM, although I think they sometime make some good insights. I am not a Maoist or even a Leninist, but Lenin's theory of imperialism makes a lot of sense, even if its not completely accurate.

It puts the entire population of the US in the 'evil power' category.

And I think Lenin's works on imperialism are really petty. I rely most of my analysis of imperialism on Luxemburg. If you are interested:

The Accumulation of Capital:

http://marx.org/archive/luxemburg/1913/acc...pital/index.htm (http://marx.org/archive/luxemburg/1913/accumulation-capital/index.htm)

The Junius Pamphlet:

http://marx.org/archive/luxemburg/1915/junius/index.htm


How do you explain the fact that Westen "workers" have a higher standard of living than the rest of the world?

Workers are oppressed and exploited everywhere, and capitalists are living in comfort everywhere.

In some countries the situation might be the worse, but from an internationalist perspective, which country it is is not relevant. The nationality of the exploited or the exploiter is not relevant either. It is the exploitation that is the problem. This is taking a class based position.


How do you explain the fact that the gap between rich and poor has narrowed in the West

Has it narrowed?


Hizb'allah has just defeated Zionism

No, Zionists are still as strong as they were before the war, probably even stronger, they divided the middle eastern working class even more with nationalism. Hizbullah also got stronger, they raised the authority they had over the workers, they raised their support. In this conflict, both Hizbullah and Israel won, the workers lost, they lost their unity, they lost their lives.


We cannot afford to make too many enemies.

Being a communist and a revolutionary means having too many enemies because being a communist and a revolutionary means always telling the truth about what's going on in the world. Every capitalist and reactionary in the world is your enemy if your are communist.

[mauvaise foi]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 24 2006, 08:00 PM


How do you explain the fact that Westen "workers" have a higher standard of living than the rest of the world?

Workers are oppressed and exploited everywhere, and capitalists are living in comfort everywhere.

In some countries the situation might be the worse, but from an internationalist perspective, which country it is is not relevant. The nationality of the exploited or the exploiter is not relevant either. It is the exploitation that is the problem. This is taking a class based position.


How do you explain the fact that the gap between rich and poor has narrowed in the West

Has it narrowed?
.
Yes, in the long run, the gap between rich and poor in the west has narrowed since Marx's time. This goes against all of Marx's predictions with regards to the West, but it is still explainable by taking an internationalist perspective. Internationally, the gap between rich and poor countries has widened. This can be explained by rich countries exploiting poor ones. You even admit that the some countries are worse off than others. How do you explain this?

[Leo]

Originally posted by mauvaise foi+--> (mauvaise foi) Yes, in the long run, the gap between rich and poor in the west has narrowed since Marx's time. This goes against all of Marx's predictions with regards to the West, but it is still explainable by taking an internationalist perspective. Internationally, the gap between rich and poor countries has widened. This can be explained by rich countries exploiting poor ones. You even admit that the some countries are worse off than others. How do you explain this?[/b]

Well, there is that technology and industrial developent thing of course. There are also more capitalists in the west. After all their ruling classes are more succesful on imperialism. But the point is, as I said in my last post:


Leo
In some countries the situation might be the worse, but from an internationalist perspective, which country it is is not relevant. The nationality of the exploited or the exploiter is not relevant either. It is the exploitation that is the problem. This is taking a class based position.

So when you support the small imperialist power against the big one, this is the same thing with supporting a small capitalist against a big capitalist; a petty-bourgeoise idea.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Leo Uilleann
No, you sit in your armchair
Na-uh you do!!!111one!!1 :rolleyes:

I organize in a country where it is really hard to do so.
Maybe because your ideas are stupid?

Another comment showing how anti-working class you are. So you would support the Nazis because they were fighting against Americans and when they had popular support in Germany?
The more you post, the more desperate the posts become. Hizb'allah is better than Israel, therefore I support Hizb'allah. By your logic, a feudal society (I'm not saying Lebanon is feudal) must transfer straight to communism because capitalism is evil. I assume you aren't a Marxist.


You are an idiot. There is no logic, Iran and Hizbullah share the same ideology, as they also share the same islamic sect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hizbullah#Introduction
The Hezbollah[1](Arabic: حزب الله‎ ḥizbu-llāh,[2] meaning “party of God”) is a Shia Islamist political party in Lebanon, comprising a militia and extensive front programs for social development.[3] It was formed to combat the Israeli occupation following the 1982 invasion of Lebanon[3] It was officially founded on February 16, 1985 when Sheik Ibrahim al-Amin declared the group's manifesto. [4] It originally sought to bring the Islamic Revolution to Lebanon,[5] and wanted to transform Lebanon's multi-confessional state into an Iranian-style Islamic state. According to a BBC analysis, "This idea was eventually abandoned and the party today is a well-structured political organisation with members of parliament".[6] It continues to call for the elimination of “the Zionist entity” (i.e. The State of Israel), a founding objective of the organization.[7] The current Secretary-General of Hezbollah is Sheikh Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, who has held the office since 1992.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hizbullah

I know you saw this, but just ignored it. Don't worry, everyone who is wrong does stuff like that.
And obviously you aren't doing shit and you are jealous of Israel? You really are an idiot.
Hah. No need to get pissed off because I'm telling you what you know, but refuse to accept. The difference between you and I is that I don't jump on my high horse and denounce groups which are actively trying to make the world a better place while I frequent forums and accomplish very little.

No, I want a communist world.
Which you'll never get if people follow your line of logic.


Is that really what you got from Luxemburgs definion?

*Shakes his head with utter disbelief"
And what's your "definition" because I'm having a hard fucking time following your unique definition of imperialism which I've never come across in all the reading I've done.

[Severian]

Originally posted by mauvaise [email protected] 24 2006, 02:08 PM
es, in the long run, the gap between rich and poor in the west has narrowed since Marx's time.
I don't think this is true, statistically.

Absolute poverty has lessened, the incomes of the poor have risen. But the incomes of the rich have increased much more quickly - so in fact the gap has increased.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Severian

I don't think this is true, statistically.

Absolute poverty has lessened, the incomes of the poor have risen. But the incomes of the rich have increased much more quickly - so in fact the gap has increased.
As far as numbers goes, this may be true. However the living standards between the two groups aren't nearly as dramatic as they were many years ago. Of course, this is only true in Western countries.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 04:56 PM
Why do you suppose the media supports Israel so much? A mixture of Holocaust guilt (which the Zionists exploit as much as possible even though they supported Hitler) and the large Zionist presence in the media.
Whoa! Zionist here is clearly a codeword for "Jew." D Bokk is repeating the standard Jew-hating rightist claim that the Jews control the media.

Nixon had the same explanation for why the media were out to get him, and kept showing all those unpleasant pictures of the Vietnam War.

In reality, the media is pro-Israel whether its owners are Jewish or not - because its owners and advertisers are capitalists.

[mauvaise foi]

The fact remains that Marx predicted a revolution in the United States and Western Europe. Marx was wrong. We need to get over this. There has never been a proletarian revolution in the United States or Western Europe and there probably won't be one until the imperialism has been defeated.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Severian
Whoa! Zionist here is clearly a codeword for "Jew." D Bokk is repeating the standard Jew-hating rightist claim that the Jews control the media.

Nixon had the same explanation for why the media were out to get him, and kept showing all those unpleasant pictures of the Vietnam War.

In reality, the media is pro-Israel whether its owners are Jewish or not - because its owners and advertisers are capitalists.
Zionists (which aren't always Jews, because there are plenty of Christians who want the Apocalypse to come and Jews in Israel play a pivotal role) have turned anything which remotely criticizes Jews, Zionists and Israel as anti-Semetic. Apparently it even plagues some self-proclaimed leftists here. A "codeword" isn't necessary in this case since not all Zionists are Jews and not all Jews and Zionists. You're acting like a cry-baby liberal right now with your pathetic sympathy for Israel.

[Leo]

Na-uh you do!!!111one!!1

Well don't you?


Maybe because your ideas are stupid?

You have no fucking clue what you are talking about. We organize in a country where the state hanged 17 year olds for being leftists. From your big, comfy villa in US, those things must be hard for you to imagine. Fuck off.


The more you post, the more desperate the posts become. Hizb'allah is better than Israel, therefore I support Hizb'allah.

So you support small capitalists against the big ones? I have never seen such an idioticly proud petty bourgeoise in my life.


By your logic, a feudal society (I'm not saying Lebanon is feudal) must transfer straight to communism because capitalism is evil. I assume you aren't a Marxist.

You are attacking a straw man, I won't even bother to answer.

Oh and why didn't you reply the question I asked about the nazi Germany?


It originally sought to bring the Islamic Revolution to Lebanon, and wanted to transform Lebanon's multi-confessional state into an Iranian-style Islamic state. According to a BBC analysis, "This idea was eventually abandoned and the party today is a well-structured political organisation with members of parliament".

So they got into bourgeoise democracy, what's so good about that? And what makes you think that they gave up the other parts of the ideology when they got reformist instead of islamorevolutionary? It was a tactical move, they had a better chance in the parliment because Lebannon did not have a Shah. It is obvious that you are ignorant enough to even realize that.


No need to get pissed off

Oh no, I'm not pissed of, I'm just starting to have fun.


The difference between you and I is that I don't jump on my high horse and denounce groups which are actively trying to make the world a better place

No, you jump on every reactionary group that seems anti american. You are another product of teenage angst.

Hizbullah wants to kill every single jew in the world, according to their leader. Do you think this will make the world a better place?


And what's your "definition" because I'm having a hard fucking time following your unique definition of imperialism which I've never come across in all the reading I've done.

It is based on Luxemburg's definition, read her works which I posted the links for if you are interested.

Anyways, I define imperialism as the natural policy of any nation state or even organization that holds control of resources and has authority over workers. So this means that US, most European countries and Japan are better at Imperialism, and Turkey, Iran etc. are weaker, but they are imperialists nevertheless because their very nature makes them compete in order to have more resources and more authority. So in that way, supporting a smaller imperialist power against a bigger one is like supporting a smaller capitalist against a bigger one, which would literally be a petty bourgeoise perspective. I say that communists should oppose imperialism and capitalism always, with no compromises.

[Leo]

The fact remains that Marx predicted a revolution in the United States and Western Europe. Marx was wrong. We need to get over this. There has never been a proletarian revolution in the United States or Western Europe and there probably won't be one until the imperialism has been defeated.

I don't think so, it's just taking more time than he hoped. He clearly show one solid symptom of the proletarian movement with the Paris Commune.

The most dominant Marxist analysis on this subject is that the industrialized west will have its revolution while the undeveloped third world develops capitalism.

I think that a communal mostly peasant based movement in the third world can have a shot to recieve communism if it works closely with the western proletariat, but I have to admit that it might be more of an hope for me. See this thread if you are interested:

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49996

[The Grinch]

Originally posted by Severian+Aug 24 2006, 08:25 PM--> (Severian @ Aug 24 2006, 08:25 PM) Whoa! Zionist here is clearly a codeword for "Jew." D Bokk is repeating the standard Jew-hating rightist claim that the Jews control the media. [/b]
No codewords necessary for D Bokk.


"D Bokk"
The Jewish Capitalists in the media show avid support for Israel, so what's the problem with clarifying their bias? Nothing. Find me one capitalist in the mainstream media who opposes Israel and is a Jew.

Not for nothing did Bebel call antisemitism the "socialism of fools", under very similar circumstances.

And this:


Why do you suppose the media supports Israel so much? A mixture of Holocaust guilt (which the Zionists exploit as much as possible even though they supported Hitler) and the large Zionist presence in the media.

is about as near to the far right banging on about ZOG as you get on the left. The medias not run in capitalist interests. It's controlled by the Jews!!!11!!11222

And apparently comments from Hezbollah leaders like this

If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew -Hassan Nasrallah

are apparently understandable.

What's noticable as well, is the fact that this supposed "anti-imperalist" stance is only taken when it's people outside the west dying for it.

A logical conclusion of it would be to support 7/7 and 9/11, both of which were attacks on imperalist states.

But that doesn't happen.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Leo Uilleann
Well don't you?
Yeah, and so do you. If you were actually running a revolution, you wouldn't have time to debate with me, the "idiot" according to you.

You have no fucking clue what you are talking about. We organize in a country where the state hanged 17 year olds for being leftists. From your big, comfy villa in US, those things must be hard for you to imagine. Fuck off.
The US targets communists as well.

So you support small capitalists against the big ones? I have never seen such an idioticly proud petty bourgeoise in my life.
Which is easier to defeat?

You are attacking a straw man, I won't even bother to answer.

Oh and why didn't you reply the question I asked about the nazi Germany?
Nazi Germany was the greater evil, so I would have supported the bourgeois Allied nations over Hitler. You would have not taken sides because they're both bourgeois; you would have been sitting in your armchair *****ing about how both sides are equally bad while innocent people are slaughtered; you would rather wait until communists come to the rescue, but by that time Hitler would have accomplished his goal.

So they got into bourgeoise democracy, what's so good about that? And what makes you think that they gave up the other parts of the ideology when they got reformist instead of islamorevolutionary? It was a tactical move, they had a better chance in the parliment because Lebannon did not have a Shah. It is obvious that you are ignorant enough to even realize that.
Nothing but speculation.


No, you jump on every reactionary group that seems anti american. You are another product of teenage angst.

Hizbullah wants to kill every single jew in the world, according to their leader. Do you think this will make the world a better place?
He doesn't have the capablities. Also, there are still Jews in Lebanon... what's your explaination for that?


It is based on Luxemburg's definition, read her works which I posted the links for if you are interested.

Anyways, I define imperialism as the natural policy of any nation state or even organization that holds control of resources and has authority over workers. So this means that US, most European countries and Japan are better at Imperialism, and Turkey, Iran etc. are weaker, but they are imperialists nevertheless because their very nature makes them compete in order to have more resources and more authority. So in that way, supporting a smaller imperialist power against a bigger one is like supporting a smaller capitalist against a bigger one, which would literally be a petty bourgeoise perspective. I say that communists should oppose imperialism and capitalism always, with no compromises.
What makes you think that Lebanon will not allow Palestine to have control of their own resources?

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by The Grinch+Aug 24 2006, 08:51 PM--> (The Grinch @ Aug 24 2006, 08:51 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 08:25 PM
Whoa! Zionist here is clearly a codeword for "Jew." D Bokk is repeating the standard Jew-hating rightist claim that the Jews control the media.
No codewords necessary for D Bokk.


"D Bokk"
The Jewish Capitalists in the media show avid support for Israel, so what's the problem with clarifying their bias? Nothing. Find me one capitalist in the mainstream media who opposes Israel and is a Jew.

Not for nothing did Bebel call antisemitism the "socialism of fools", under very similar circumstances.

And this:


Why do you suppose the media supports Israel so much? A mixture of Holocaust guilt (which the Zionists exploit as much as possible even though they supported Hitler) and the large Zionist presence in the media.

is about as near to the far right banging on about ZOG as you get on the left. The medias not run in capitalist interests. It's controlled by the Jews!!!11!!11222

And apparently comments from Hezbollah leaders like this

If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew -Hassan Nasrallah

are apparently understandable.

What's noticable as well, is the fact that this supposed "anti-imperalist" stance is only taken when it's people outside the west dying for it.

A logical conclusion of it would be to support 7/7 and 9/11, both of which were attacks on imperalist states.

But that doesn't happen.[/b]
And you think Israel hasn't made racist comments towards Arabs and Muslims? Of course this must be acceptable to you.


It is impossible for a man to become assimilated with people whose blood is different than [sic] his own. In order to become assimilated, he must change his body, he must become one of them, in blood. There can be no assimilation. We shall never allow such things as mixed marriage because the preservation of national integrity is impossible except by means of racial purity and for that purpose we shall have this territory where our people will constitute the racially pure inhabitants.
-Zeev Jabotinsky, founding father of Zioinism

I have no problem with 9/11 since the targets were: military, economy and government. But the one going for the government didn't make it. I, however, don't support Al-Queda because they have close ties with the Taliban, which has a very sexist ideology. 7/7, was a little different since it targetted civilians and only civilians.

And I don't support Hamas either. They're avid anti-communists.

[The Grinch]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 09:11 PM
[

And you think Israel hasn't made racist comments towards Arabs and Muslims? Of course this must be acceptable to you.


It is impossible for a man to become assimilated with people whose blood is different than [sic] his own. In order to become assimilated, he must change his body, he must become one of them, in blood. There can be no assimilation. We shall never allow such things as mixed marriage because the preservation of national integrity is impossible except by means of racial purity and for that purpose we shall have this territory where our people will constitute the racially pure inhabitants.
-Zeev Jabotinsky, founding father of Zioinism

No, but I don't support Israel. You do support Hezbollah. And considering talking about the killing of all Jews as 'understandable'. That's the difference. And you do talk about "Jewish capitalists" in precisely the same way as the 'socialists' that Bebel is criticising in that quote did.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by The Grinch
No, but I don't support Israel. You do support Hezbollah. And considering talking about the killing of all Jews as 'understandable'. That's the difference. And you do talk about "Jewish capitalists" in precisely the same way as the 'socialists' that Bebel is criticising in that quote did.
Since the Jews have always been the innocent poor victims throughout history, lets look at a simular situation devoid of Jews.

During slavery in America:

Do you support the slaves, or the slave drivers?

Were the slaves who wanted to kill the white men racist?

Answer this, or don't bother replying.

And my point about Jewish capitalist still stands, it's no different than saying Christian Right.

[D_Bokk]

Because people on this forum are willing to discredit everything based off of two sentances, I've decided to find counter-quotes.


Originally posted by Hassan Ezzedin+ Hizb'allah's Spokesman--> (Hassan Ezzedin @ Hizb'allah's Spokesman)If they go from Sheba'a, we will not stop fighting them. Our goal is to liberate the 1948 borders of Palestine...[Jews] can go back to Germany or wherever they came from;[/b]
Cleary shows that there is no plan to kill all Jews.

Hassan Ezzedin
"[Jews who lived in Palestine before 1948] will be allowed to live as a minority and they will be cared for by the Muslim majority"
Again. Hizb'allah doesn't want all Jews dead, or even gone. Their problem is with the European Jews who came to Palestine and took land.

Also the official Hizb'allah website states that there's a distinction between Zionism and Judaism. Something that the left also agrees on.

Notice that the only person making the "kill the Jews" remarks is Nasrallah.

[Devrim]

I think that this quote shows all of the fallacies of 'leftism'
My argument is that the Left should support Hizb'allah because they're helping the communist movement than anyone else on this forum. The armchair revolutionaries here debate actions and do very little. The least we can do is to support Hizb'allah in their struggle.

I think that there are two important points here, and I will address them in turn. The first concerns why the left should support Hizbullah.

Now, what I fail to see is how Hizbbullah is helping the communist movement. What they are fighting for is Lebanon, to get rid of the Israeli occupation, and to have the Lebanese prisoners in Israel released. I personally don't see how this is helping the communist movement.

The argument of those who say it does is based on Lenin's work on imperialism, and a fallacy that it is possible for countries to opt out of the imperialist system. The fact, however, remains that countries, which achieve 'national liberation', do not break free from the imperialist system, but remain totally dominated by it.

Let's consider what a victory for Hizbullah, and a diminishment of Israel’s power would do across the Middle East. I certainly don't think it would lead to a nice happy Middle East, but to increasing tension as other states tried to fill the power vacuum created by this. If a major imperialism is seriously weakened, there will be competition between rival smaller imperialisms to step into its place. The decline of British imperialism did not lead to socialism, but lead to its role being overtaken by the USA. The only thing that does offer an alternative to that cycle is class struggle. I also think it would lead to an increase in the power of Islamicist, and nationalist ideology, both of which are anti-working class forces.

It is not only Lebanon. The entire region is being dragged deeper, and deeper into a cycle of war, and barbarism. Everyone can see that the situations in both Palestine, and Iraq are absolutely terrible, but how many people know that both Iran, and Turkey are currently shelling the mountains of Northern Iraq, at the moment, and that Turkey is preparing for a big offensive against the PKK next week on 'Zafer Bayram' (Victory Day).

One of the most shocking things about this is that the majority of the Turkish working class are in full support of these actions. The ethnic tensions between Turks, and Kurds in Turkey are at their highest levels ever. And when the war hots up again, remember that this is an ongoing war that has killed 36,000 people since 1984 when it started, what will the left in Turkey do? Well, some of them will support the PKK, and some of them will support the Turkish State, but both of them will do it in the name of anti-imperialism.

Now, let's be very clear before I am misunderstood. The Turkish state continues the same terroristic policy towards villagers in the South-East as it has done since soon after its birth, and it is intensifying. This does not make the PKK anything more than a bunch of anti-working class gangsters though. This is an organisation that a one point had a policy of shooting school teachers in the South-East, most of whom would have been young girls in their twenties from working class or peasant backgrounds who were sent (newly qualified teachers have no choice on where to go on their first posting) to the South-East.

Oh, I am sure that people understand why the left support the PKK, but if anyone is wondering about how they justify there support for the Turkish state the line runs something like this: The PKK is merely a tool of the imperialist countries designed to destroy our national independence, and to allow the Western powers to divide, and dominate Turkey. Now this may sound like a load of old horseshit to you, but I have heard people quoting Lenin whilst arguing it.

The point is how the Turkish working class should respond to this. Well, to be honest the vast majority of Turkish workers will support the army, and the vast majority of Kurdish workers will support the PKK. That doesn't mean that a small group like ours, yes an 'ultra-leftist sect' if that is how you would like to describe it, won't be at workers demonstrations over the next few weeks arguing for an internationalist communist position, and that workers need to struggle for their own interests, and not get drawn into the nationalist hysteria coming from both sides.

Now to pull back from the focus on Turkey, and return to the rest of the region for a while. The situation for the working class in the Middle East is terrible. Let's not lie to ourselves, and one of the things to be blamed for this is the entire left across the region trying its hardest to tie the working class to national struggles. Behind all of the leftist rubbish about the Palestinians being undefeated lies the fact that they are the Palestinian working class are the most defeated in the region. It is completely tied to nationalism, and unable to defend its own interests. And let us not pretend that the nationalists in Palestine, or Lebanon will not attack workers who do struggle for putting their own sectional interests before the national struggle. It has happened before, and it will happen again. Of course it happens in the West too. During the Falklands war the English media savaged striking nurses with accusations that they should have been preparing to treat 'our wounded heroes', and shouldn't strike at a time like this. It is easy for the left to see through these slanders. It is only when it happens in a country far away which is fighting against bigger imperialist powers that they start to get confused.

However, the situation is not hopeless. The recent victory of striking oil workers in Basra and Nassiriya is proof of this. Even in the terrible conditions in Iraq, workers are still capable of fighting in their own interests. A real direction for the working class is pointed to by actions like these, and the mass strikes which happened in Iran a few months ago. Class struggle is what advances the communist movement, not tying ourselves to our bosses in a 'grand national alliance' against 'imperialism'.

The second point refers to the phrase 'The least we can do is to support Hizb'allah in their struggle'. What exactly does this mean? How do you support Hizbullah? In fact when we come down to it, the interventions of revolutionaries are limited to where they live, and where they are active, and can have some influence. We condemn Hizbullah in our publications, and when we argue with Turkish workers, as we see them as having a reactionary nationalistic influence across the region. Part of our argument in this is about breaking workers from both Turkish, and Kurdish nationalism. An example of our perspectives can be found here: http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...topic=54793&hl= (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=54793&hl=)
Others in Turkish can be found here: http://libcom.org/node/8906

But what does your support for Hizbullah mean. I think that it is merly vacuous pontificating. I understand what Leo means when he says:
I'm going to tell this once to you because I am sick of petty bourgeoise leftists from the west telling the Lebanese or other middle eastern workers to die for thier national flag. It doesn't mean that your positions are wrong because you aren't in the region. Your positions are wrong because they are anti-working class. It means he is frustrated at this tired ole leftist argument of support for national liberation, which in effect means calling for workers to die under their national flags coming from the people thousands of miles away. When I meet Kurds who have been brutalised by the state, and support the nationalists, I argue with them, and think that they are wrong. But I do empathise with them as human beings, and I can understand how a lack of class struggle leads people who call themselves socialists down that road. When I hear people in the west theoretically justifying their merely verbal support for Hizbullah, it merely sickens me.

Devrim Valerian

[The Grinch]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 09:32 PM
Since the Jews have always been the innocent poor victims throughout history, lets look at a simular situation devoid of Jews.

During slavery in America:

Do you support the slaves, or the slave drivers?

Were the slaves who wanted to kill the white men racist?

Answer this, or don't bother replying.

And my point about Jewish capitalist still stands, it's no different than saying Christian Right.
Were there any slaves who talked about killing all whites everywhere? Because if so, I don't support that. But I suspect you're lying.

And your suggestion that <s>ZOG</s> Jews have such a massive influence on the media that they can dictate editorial policy to the likes of Rupert Murdoch?

[LoneRed]

Originally posted by mauvaise [email protected] 24 2006, 02:46 PM

Thus, the bourgeoisie and proletariat of the First World have become one class with the same interests relative to the Third World.
you sir are quite frankly an idiot.

But then again youd fit right in with MIM

go give their site a gander

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by devrimankara+--> (devrimankara)Now, what I fail to see is how Hizbbullah is helping the communist movement. What they are fighting for is Lebanon, to get rid of the Israeli occupation, and to have the Lebanese prisoners in Israel released. I personally don&#39;t see how this is helping the communist movement.[/b]
Wrong. Their goal is to destroy Israel. Israel is what caused workers to move away from the communist movements and toward Islamic movements. Once Israel is destroyed, there wouldn&#39;t be a nationalistic battle cry and the process towards communism can actually begin. You guys sit there saying Israel should be destroyed, but not by Hizb&#39;allah. Then - by who? No one else is stepping up, so naturally those who are willing to go against Israel should have the support of communists.

The argument of those who say it does is based on Lenin&#39;s work on imperialism, and a fallacy that it is possible for countries to opt out of the imperialist system. The fact, however, remains that countries, which achieve &#39;national liberation&#39;, do not break free from the imperialist system, but remain totally dominated by it.
They remain dominated so long as the West is intact. Taking out part of the west, ie Israel, will benefit the movement against Imperialism. How will it not? All you two can possibly say is "It wont" and you leave it at that.

It doesn&#39;t mean that your positions are wrong because you aren&#39;t in the region. Your positions are wrong because they are anti-working class. It means he is frustrated at this tired ole leftist argument of support for national liberation, which in effect means calling for workers to die under their national flags coming from the people thousands of miles away. When I meet Kurds who have been brutalised by the state, and support the nationalists, I argue with them, and think that they are wrong. But I do empathise with them as human beings, and I can understand how a lack of class struggle leads people who call themselves socialists down that road. When I hear people in the west theoretically justifying their merely verbal support for Hizbullah, it merely sickens me.
How would the destruction of Israel at the hands of Hizb&#39;allah be anti-worker?

Originally posted by The [email protected]
Were there any slaves who talked about killing all whites everywhere? Because if so, I don&#39;t support that. But I suspect you&#39;re lying.

And your suggestion that ZOG Jews have such a massive influence on the media that they can dictate editorial policy to the likes of Rupert Murdoch?
Dodging the question. Hizb&#39;allah doesn&#39;t want all Jews dead. So answer the question or crawl back into your hole.

Rupert Murdoch is a Zionist. Like I said, there are Christian Zionists who want the Apocalypse. There are also just plain heartless capitalist Zionists who profit from all of this.

LoneRed

you sir are quite frankly an idiot.

But then again youd fit right in with MIM

go give their site a gander
The American Proletariat betrayed the rest of the international proletariat... they&#39;re no better than the bourgeois at this point.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by D_Bokk+--> (D_Bokk)
Originally posted by devrimankara+--> (devrimankara)Now, what I fail to see is how Hizbbullah is helping the communist movement. What they are fighting for is Lebanon, to get rid of the Israeli occupation, and to have the Lebanese prisoners in Israel released. I personally don&#39;t see how this is helping the communist movement.[/b]Wrong. Their goal is to destroy Israel. Israel is what caused workers to move away from the communist movements and toward Islamic movements. Once Israel is destroyed, there wouldn&#39;t be a nationalistic battle cry and the process towards communism can actually begin. You guys sit there saying Israel should be destroyed, but not by Hizb&#39;allah. Then - by who? No one else is stepping up, so naturally those who are willing to go against Israel should have the support of communists.[/b]

In the point that you quoted I was talking about the immediate goals of Hizbullah. On this I am sure you would agree that I am right. Now when yo say that Hizbullah&#39;s goal is to destroy Israel. I accept that that may be true, but it is also something that they continusously deny.

That isn&#39;t the important point. The shocking thing about your suggestionis the impilication that all workers&#39; strugle be susppended until Israel is destroyed. If that is not what you are suggesting, please explain what you are saying, but I have read of leftist in the west (e.g. the UK SWP advocating that Iranian workers shouldn&#39;t strike when Iran was locked in conflict with the US. When we say that Israel should be destroyed, we also say that all national states should be destroyed, and the people to destroy them are the working class in those states. If Israel were destroyed do you really think that it would destroy nationalism in the Middle east?.



[email protected]
The argument of those who say it does is based on Lenin&#39;s work on imperialism, and a fallacy that it is possible for countries to opt out of the imperialist system. The fact, however, remains that countries, which achieve &#39;national liberation&#39;, do not break free from the imperialist system, but remain totally dominated by it.They remain dominated so long as the West is intact. Taking out part of the west, ie Israel, will benefit the movement against Imperialism. How will it not? All you two can possibly say is "It wont" and you leave it at that.

It may well benefit the &#39;movement against imperialism&#39;, but we are talking about the working class. Please name one country which has broken out of the capitalist system due to its national liberation movement. If the west is to be destroyed it will be by its own working class. Conflicts between Imperialisms can weaken states, but they lead to new imperialisms emerginging. The system is now global, and no country can break free from it.



devrimankara
It doesn&#39;t mean that your positions are wrong because you aren&#39;t in the region. Your positions are wrong because they are anti-working class. It means he is frustrated at this tired ole leftist argument of support for national liberation, which in effect means calling for workers to die under their national flags coming from the people thousands of miles away. When I meet Kurds who have been brutalised by the state, and support the nationalists, I argue with them, and think that they are wrong. But I do empathise with them as human beings, and I can understand how a lack of class struggle leads people who call themselves socialists down that road. When I hear people in the west theoretically justifying their merely verbal support for Hizbullah, it merely sickens me.How would the destruction of Israel at the hands of Hizb&#39;allah be anti-worker?
I don&#39;t understand how this question relates to the paragraph from me that you quoted, but let&#39;s get real. Hizbullah are not going to destroy Israel, not matter how much the Western left cheerleads them on.

I don&#39;t think that you really addressed any of my points there.

Also this line
The American Proletariat betrayed the rest of the international proletariat... they&#39;re no better than the bourgeois at this point.shows a profound prejudice against the working class.

Devrim

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by devrimankara
In the point that you quoted I was talking about the immediate goals of Hizbullah. On this I am sure you would agree that I am right. Now when yo say that Hizbullah&#39;s goal is to destroy Israel. I accept that that may be true, but it is also something that they continusously deny.

That isn&#39;t the important point. The shocking thing about your suggestionis the impilication that all workers&#39; strugle be susppended until Israel is destroyed. If that is not what you are suggesting, please explain what you are saying, but I have read of leftist in the west (e.g. the UK SWP advocating that Iranian workers shouldn&#39;t strike when Iran was locked in conflict with the US. When we say that Israel should be destroyed, we also say that all national states should be destroyed, and the people to destroy them are the working class in those states. If Israel were destroyed do you really think that it would destroy nationalism in the Middle east?.
The immediate goals, yes - but that&#39;s irrelevant in why I should or shouldn&#39;t support Hizb&#39;allah final goal. From what I&#39;ve read, they&#39;ve openly wanted Israel to be destroyed.

My suggestion was mainly specific to the Middle East. I based this conjecture off of the communist movements prior to Israel all dieing down soon after Israel was created and the emergence of many Islamist groups who hated Israel.

Once Israel is destroyed, nationalism will take a fairly large blow because there would be no one thing to unite the bourgeois and the proletariat. It would open conflict between classes, as opposed to a conflict with Israel. The only problem, with Israel gone, would be conflict between sects. But by the looks of it, there isn&#39;t much conflict between sects in Lebanon.

It may well benefit the &#39;movement against imperialism&#39;, but we are talking about the working class. Please name one country which has broken out of the capitalist system due to its national liberation movement. If the west is to be destroyed it will be by its own working class. Conflicts between Imperialisms can weaken states, but they lead to new imperialisms emerginging. The system is now global, and no country can break free from it.
Well, from my point of view - Americans are too selfish to overthrow their own government with their present living standards. The only way Americans will ever embrace a communist movement is when the proletariat actually feels the wrath of capitalism. This will never occur until the US has no country they can steal from... this requires all countries have a lot more self-determination than they do now.

I don&#39;t understand how this question relates to the paragraph from me that you quoted, but let&#39;s get real. Hizbullah are not going to destroy Israel, not matter how much the Western left cheerleads them on.

I don&#39;t think that you really addressed any of my points there.
You said my position is wrong because it is anti-working class... so I asked why my support of the destruction of Israel via the hands of Hizb&#39;allah is bad for the working class. And you didn&#39;t answer my question... figures.

I didn&#39;t address your points because I don&#39;t see why a history lesson on Turkey has anything to do with this thread.

shows a profound prejudice against the working class.
The proletariat in America benefits from the exploitation of the third world proletariat by American companies. The American proletariat doesn&#39;t care and keeps voting in politicians who establish more "free" trade agreements... I have a right to dislike the so-called proletariat in the USA. They are bourgeois.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by D_Bokk
My suggestion was mainly specific to the Middle East. I based this conjecture off of the communist movements prior to Israel all dieing down soon after Israel was created and the emergence of many Islamist groups who hated Israel.
Firstly, I don&#39;t think that the strengths of so called &#39;communist movements&#39; has anything to do with the strength of the working class, but if you want to judge it that way I think that your argument has no relation to the historical facts. The communist parties in Iran, Turkey, and Iraq were all strong at least into the late seventies. The Iranian party being nearly destroyed by the Islamic revolution in 1979, the Turkish party being badly damaged by the coup of 1980, and the Iraqi Party being nearly destroyed by Saadam. Now even if these parties, in my opinion, neither fight for nor represent the working class, I am sure that we can agree that there is a connection between the strength of these parties, and the level of working class struggle. When workers are in struggle the Stalinists pick up members. My point is that all of this happened a long time after the formation of the state of Israel in 1948. I mentioned those three parties as they are the one that I know about, but I think that it is generally true across the region. The CP&#39;s, and leftist parties power started to decrease at about the end of the 80&#39;s. Actually at the same time when America was supporting Islam against the &#39;Soviets&#39; in the cold war, and Israel was beginning to fund HAMAS as an alternative to the PLO. Your analysis just seems factually wrong here.


Once Israel is destroyed, nationalism will take a fairly large blow because there would be no one thing to unite the bourgeois and the proletariat. It would open conflict between classes, as opposed to a conflict with Israel. The only problem, with Israel gone, would be conflict between sects. But by the looks of it, there isn&#39;t much conflict between sects in Lebanon.

Actually, I would say that Arab nationalism would be strengthened. There is conflict between classes in the Middle East today. The problem is that lots of leftists don&#39;t even look at the working class, and start their analysis from the point of nationalist conflict. As for the comment that &#39;there isn&#39;t much conflict between sects in Lebanon&#39;, I presume that you missed the entire civil war that went from 1975-1990. You can pretend that the Middle east isn&#39;t riddled with nationalism, and sectarianism all that you want, but it does not alter the reality on the ground.

You say:
And you didn&#39;t answer my question...
You didn&#39;t answer this question:
The shocking thing about your suggestion is the implication that all workers&#39; struggle be suspended until Israel is destroyed. If that is not what you are suggesting, please explain what you are saying, but I have read of leftist in the west (e.g. the UK SWP advocating that Iranian workers shouldn&#39;t strike when Iran was locked in conflict with the US.
I will try to answer yours:
so I asked why my support of the destruction of Israel via the hands of Hizb&#39;allah is bad for the working class. And you didn&#39;t answer my question... figures.
I don&#39;t think that this needs any figures. It is anti-working class because all arguments trying to tie the working class to capital of no matter what national flag are counter revolutionary. You encourage workers to unite with their class enemies. I don&#39;t think that the destruction of Israel is on the cards. It is your support for tying the working class to nationalism that is counter revolutionary.


I didn&#39;t address your points because I don&#39;t see why a history lesson on Turkey has anything to do with this thread.

Maybe it is beyond you when I draw a comparison between one country in the Middle East , and the general problems of the region. maybe you agree with Henry Ford when he said that &#39;history is bunk&#39;.


The proletariat in America benefits from the exploitation of the third world proletariat by American companies. The American proletariat doesn&#39;t care and keeps voting in politicians who establish more "free" trade agreements... I have a right to dislike the so-called proletariat in the USA. They [b]are[/] bourgeois.

This is a bit pathetic. If the proletariat in America is indeed bourgeois why on earth do I need to be lectured by one of them. That is presuming that you are not some middle class collage kid playing at socialism, and if the entire proletariat is bourgeois what makes you different. I don&#39;t believe that the American working class is bourgeois, and the fact that your parents maybe doesn&#39;t make a political argument.

Devrim Valerian

[The Grinch]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 11:56 PM
The proletariat in America benefits from the exploitation of the third world proletariat by American companies. The American proletariat doesn&#39;t care and keeps voting in politicians who establish more "free" trade agreements... I have a right to dislike the so-called proletariat in the USA. They are bourgeois.


In that case, to paraphrase Shlyapnikov, allow me to be the first to congratulate you on being the vanguard of a non existent class.

(Oh, and Devrimankara, of course D Bokk isn&#39;t working class. It&#39;s blatant from the politics).

[Severian]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 24 2006, 08:18 PM
(Oh, and Devrimankara, of course D Bokk isn&#39;t working class. It&#39;s blatant from the politics).
Before anyone gets too far into trying to figure out D Bokk, I gotta suggest he might be simply a troll. Consider how ridiculous his arguments have become: how many people could seriously believe the MiM stuff about "there is no U.S. working class", let alone everything else.

So you gotta consider the possibility he doesn&#39;t, and is just yanking your chain. At this point, I&#39;m not gonna let mine be yanked any further.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Okay, thanks for the correction, Leo Uilleann.

[Alf]

There&#39;s no doubt that D Bokk&#39;s arguments are fairly stunning.

Apart from the ultra-Maoist stuff about the non-existence of the US working class, take this one:

"I have no problem with 9/11 since the targets were: military, economy and government. But the one going for the government didn&#39;t make it. I, however, don&#39;t support Al-Queda because they have close ties with the Taliban, which has a very sexist ideology. 7/7, was a little different since it targetted civilians and only civilians".

So the thousands of workers massacred on 9/11 for the crime of going to work in the Twin Towers were a fair target.

No doubt the Israeli workers are also a fair target, but rest assured, Hizbullah (or at least everyone in Hizbollah except the great leader) doesn&#39;t want to kill all the Jews:

"Because people on this forum are willing to discredit everything based off of two sentances, I&#39;ve decided to find counter-quotes.


QUOTE (Hassan Ezzedin @ Hizb&#39;allah&#39;s Spokesman)
"If they go from Sheba&#39;a, we will not stop fighting them. Our goal is to liberate the 1948 borders of Palestine...[Jews] can go back to Germany or wherever they came from";

Cleary shows that there is no plan to kill all Jews.

QUOTE (Hassan Ezzedin)
"[Jews who lived in Palestine before 1948] will be allowed to live as a minority and they will be cared for by the Muslim majority"

Again. Hizb&#39;allah doesn&#39;t want all Jews dead, or even gone. Their problem is with the European Jews who came to Palestine and took land.

Also the official Hizb&#39;allah website states that there&#39;s a distinction between Zionism and Judaism. Something that the left also agrees on.

Notice that the only person making the "kill the Jews" remarks is Nasrallah".

This will be of great comfort to Israeli workers: Hizbollah won&#39;t kill you, but it will forcibly deport all of you, except a few old guys left over from the pre-1948 days.

In any case, the only way Hizbollah, Hamas and the rest could destroy the state of Israel would be through a horrendous inter-imperialist war, involving at least regional powers like Iran and Syria and probably some bigger imperialists as well. So there wouldn&#39;t be many people left in the region anyway.

Devrimankara and Leo have set down all the reasons why this attitude is so anti-working class. I fully support their posts. I thought the Grinch made some good points as well.

It may well be that D Bokk is a "troll", or a crypto-fascist orc. But how radically different is his position from the all the other leftists who back Hizbollah with more sophisticated arguments? The logic is the same: enrolling the working class into a deadly spiral of imperialist wars, which ultimately threatens the existence of humanity. The only alternative is working class internationalism and the struggle against all capitalist states - which means every state on the planet.

[Xiao Banfa]

First of all, I am a communist, not a leftist

Allright...That is the most ridiculous thing I&#39;ve heard in a long time.

There have been so many confused rumours from the bourgeois press upon which some "leftists" claims on this thread are based.

First of all, Hezbollah have been accused of targetting civilians, this is not true.
They aim their Katyushas at millitary targets inside Israel.
They are the only resistance group in the middle east to have hit sensitive millitary centers in Israel.

This is in contrast to the murderous Hamas who are openly anti semitic.

Hezbollah are characterised by their responsible attitude as a patriotic resistance group.

-They&#39;re in the cabinet of the lebanese goverment (and will probably have more seats when peace returns-80% of the lebanese population supports them).

-They have given up their goal of an islamic state. .

These guys have reached out to us, we are solidaire with these comrades.

Victory to Hezbollah and peace and jusctice to all oppressed nations in the middle east&#33; La illa ha ha i-laha Victory to Hezbollah&#33;

[Xiao Banfa]

Or is the annihilation of the Jewish people alright in your mind?

Brother, lets be sensible, anyone who would answer yes to that would likely be banned.

There should be some kind of rule against rhetorical diahorrea like there is with flaming.

[Leo]

Allright...That is the most ridiculous thing I&#39;ve heard in a long time.

There have been so many confused rumours from the bourgeois press upon which some "leftists" claims on this thread are based.

What I said means that I see myself in the communist left traditon (left communism) instead of the capitalist left (left capitalism, left of capital or simply leftism)


First of all, Hezbollah have been accused of targetting civilians, this is not true.

It is, they even told arabs to move from their targets in the places they attack so that they could only kill jews, also once one of their attacks killed arabs and they apologized for it.


This is in contrast to the murderous Hamas who are openly anti semitic.

Hizbullah is also openly anti-semitic and murderous, look at their great leaders quotes.


Hezbollah are characterised by their responsible attitude as a patriotic resistance group.

They are characterised by their ultra nationalism that prevents Lebanese workers from acting as a class and lines them up completely behind the national flag.


They have given up their goal of an islamic state.

They just realized it wasn&#39;t possible at that time, similar to what Khruscevite official communist parties did. They become islamic reformists.

[The Grinch]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 08:26 AM
Before anyone gets too far into trying to figure out D Bokk, I gotta suggest he might be simply a troll. Consider how ridiculous his arguments have become: how many people could seriously believe the MiM stuff about "there is no U.S. working class", let alone everything else.

So you gotta consider the possibility he doesn&#39;t, and is just yanking your chain. At this point, I&#39;m not gonna let mine be yanked any further.
Actually, I suspect he means it (maaaan).

It&#39;s not that far of a jump from the romanticisation of the developing world you get from a lot of middle class Maoists. That, on top of the impotent fantasies about violence, would seem to me to fit the profile of a certain type of a pseudo-revolutionary extremely well.

[mauvaise foi]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 08:56 PM
Nazi Germany was the greater evil, so I would have supported the bourgeois Allied nations over Hitler. You would have not taken sides because they&#39;re both bourgeois; you would have been sitting in your armchair *****ing about how both sides are equally bad while innocent people are slaughtered; you would rather wait until communists come to the rescue, but by that time Hitler would have accomplished his goal.

D Bokk brings up an interesting point. I don&#39;t think to many of you would have a problem supporting American and British imperialism over German and Japanese imperialism. Would you just dismiss WWII as an "inter-imperialist conflict," the way the Communist Party USA did after the Nazi-Soviet Pact? If its true that British and American imperialism deserve to be supported as lesser evils than their fascist counterparts, then, in some cases, the "little" imperialism should be supported over the "big" imperialism.

Now, let&#39;s assume for the sake of argument that Iran, Syria, and Hizb&#39;allah are "imperialist." Even if this were true, it doesn&#39;t necessarily mean they shouldn&#39;t be supported as lesser evils than American and Zionist imperialism.

[The Grinch]

Originally posted by mauvaise [email protected] 25 2006, 07:02 PM
D Bokk brings up an interesting point. I don&#39;t think to many of you would have a problem supporting American and British imperialism over German and Japanese imperialism. Would you just dismiss WWII as an "inter-imperialist conflict," the way the Communist Party USA did after the Nazi-Soviet Pact? If its true that British and American imperialism deserve to be supported as lesser evils than their fascist counterparts, then, in some cases, the "little" imperialism should be supported over the "big" imperialism.

Now, let&#39;s assume for the sake of argument that Iran, Syria, and Hizb&#39;allah are "imperialist." Even if this were true, it doesn&#39;t necessarily mean they shouldn&#39;t be supported as lesser evils than American and Zionist imperialism.
Yes, however that support would be confined to the military defeat of the Nazis, while attacking the politics of the British and American capitalists.

I certainly wouldn&#39;t praise the British and American leaders, or campaign under a "We are all Western Imperalists" slogan.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by devrimankara+--> (devrimankara)Firstly, I don&#39;t think that the strengths of so called &#39;communist movements&#39; has anything to do with the strength of the working class, but if you want to judge it that way I think that your argument has no relation to the historical facts. The communist parties in Iran, Turkey, and Iraq were all strong at least into the late seventies. The Iranian party being nearly destroyed by the Islamic revolution in 1979, the Turkish party being badly damaged by the coup of 1980, and the Iraqi Party being nearly destroyed by Saadam. Now even if these parties, in my opinion, neither fight for nor represent the working class, I am sure that we can agree that there is a connection between the strength of these parties, and the level of working class struggle. When workers are in struggle the Stalinists pick up members. My point is that all of this happened a long time after the formation of the state of Israel in 1948. I mentioned those three parties as they are the one that I know about, but I think that it is generally true across the region. The CP&#39;s, and leftist parties power started to decrease at about the end of the 80&#39;s. Actually at the same time when America was supporting Islam against the &#39;Soviets&#39; in the cold war, and Israel was beginning to fund HAMAS as an alternative to the PLO. Your analysis just seems factually wrong here.[/b]
The working class always has the same strength, which is greater than the bourgeois could ever gain. However they don&#39;t always utilize it, which is what we&#39;re analyzing right now. It&#39;s undeniable that communists lost power gradually after Israel was established. It seems as through Israel&#39;s sole goal in the Middle East is to make the people there hate them and not the bourgeois oil giants. To be clear, I don&#39;t like the Hamas because they&#39;re avid anti-communist... however Israel&#39;s funding of Hamas is a pretty clear indicator of how they&#39;re holding back the communist movement. Al-Queda is also another one of those groups which hinders the communist movement... and another one of those funded by imperialist forces. Is it fair to denounce all Islamic resistance groups because the US and Israel helped make a few of their own? Hizb&#39;allah is quite different from the others.

Is Turkey really in the Middle East? They&#39;re trying to join the EU...

Actually, I would say that Arab nationalism would be strengthened. There is conflict between classes in the Middle East today. The problem is that lots of leftists don&#39;t even look at the working class, and start their analysis from the point of nationalist conflict. As for the comment that &#39;there isn&#39;t much conflict between sects in Lebanon&#39;, I presume that you missed the entire civil war that went from 1975-1990. You can pretend that the Middle east isn&#39;t riddled with nationalism, and sectarianism all that you want, but it does not alter the reality on the ground.
What conflict? I would really like to read about class conflict in the Middle East - but there never seems to be any. Unless it is being hidden, is it?

My statement about sects in Lebanon is based on the overwhelming support for Hizb&#39;allah from all sects, as well as the Christians.

You didn&#39;t answer this question:
I thought I did when I clarified that Israel&#39;s creation led to the downfall of communist movements.

I don&#39;t think that this needs any figures. It is anti-working class because all arguments trying to tie the working class to capital of no matter what national flag are counter revolutionary. You encourage workers to unite with their class enemies. I don&#39;t think that the destruction of Israel is on the cards. It is your support for tying the working class to nationalism that is counter revolutionary.
Nothing wrong with uniting with your enemy to destroy a even greater enemy. Would you blame the Anarchists and Communists who allied with bourgeois during the Spanish Civil War as counter-revolutionaries?

Maybe it is beyond you when I draw a comparison between one country in the Middle East , and the general problems of the region. maybe you agree with Henry Ford when he said that &#39;history is bunk&#39;.
By the looks of it, Turkey is trying to become a European country... not a Middle Eastern one.

This is a bit pathetic. If the proletariat in America is indeed bourgeois why on earth do I need to be lectured by one of them. That is presuming that you are not some middle class collage kid playing at socialism, and if the entire proletariat is bourgeois what makes you different. I don&#39;t believe that the American working class is bourgeois, and the fact that your parents maybe doesn&#39;t make a political argument.
A lot of people on this forum come from middle class Western families... so the question is why do you even bother coming on these forums?

Nothing makes me different, I&#39;m clearly stating that all Americans live off of the hard labor of others. That makes them bourgeois, does it not? They&#39;re not revolutionary, only their products on their commercials are. :rolleyes: Americans will not have a revolution to stop their government from exploiting others... the only way to fix America is for the rest of the world to stop taking orders. After that, the American proletariat will eventually rise up.

Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)Before anyone gets too far into trying to figure out D Bokk, I gotta suggest he might be simply a troll. Consider how ridiculous his arguments have become: how many people could seriously believe the MiM stuff about "there is no U.S. working class", let alone everything else.

So you gotta consider the possibility he doesn&#39;t, and is just yanking your chain. At this point, I&#39;m not gonna let mine be yanked any further.[/b]
I&#39;m serious about there being no American proletariat in the sense of an exploited mass. The bourgeois is an exploiter, yes? The proletariat is the exploited, yes? What happens when the proletariat takes part in the exploitation? They become the bourgeois. Pretty simple concept.

And I&#39;m an Anarchist... not a Maoist.

[email protected]
There&#39;s no doubt that D Bokk&#39;s arguments are fairly stunning.

Apart from the ultra-Maoist stuff about the non-existence of the US working class, take this one:

"I have no problem with 9/11 since the targets were: military, economy and government. But the one going for the government didn&#39;t make it. I, however, don&#39;t support Al-Queda because they have close ties with the Taliban, which has a very sexist ideology. 7/7, was a little different since it targetted civilians and only civilians".

So the thousands of workers massacred on 9/11 for the crime of going to work in the Twin Towers were a fair target.
What did the people inside the towers produce?

Like I explained earlier, there are no innocents when you live in an imperialist country. They allow their government and companies to exploit others for their own benefit. Therefore they&#39;re not innocent.

No doubt the Israeli workers are also a fair target, but rest assured, Hizbullah (or at least everyone in Hizbollah except the great leader) doesn&#39;t want to kill all the Jews:

"Because people on this forum are willing to discredit everything based off of two sentances, I&#39;ve decided to find counter-quotes.


QUOTE (Hassan Ezzedin @ Hizb&#39;allah&#39;s Spokesman)
"If they go from Sheba&#39;a, we will not stop fighting them. Our goal is to liberate the 1948 borders of Palestine...[Jews] can go back to Germany or wherever they came from";

Cleary shows that there is no plan to kill all Jews.

QUOTE (Hassan Ezzedin)
"[Jews who lived in Palestine before 1948] will be allowed to live as a minority and they will be cared for by the Muslim majority"

Again. Hizb&#39;allah doesn&#39;t want all Jews dead, or even gone. Their problem is with the European Jews who came to Palestine and took land.

Also the official Hizb&#39;allah website states that there&#39;s a distinction between Zionism and Judaism. Something that the left also agrees on.

Notice that the only person making the "kill the Jews" remarks is Nasrallah".

This will be of great comfort to Israeli workers: Hizbollah won&#39;t kill you, but it will forcibly deport all of you, except a few old guys left over from the pre-1948 days.
What&#39;s wrong with deportation? It&#39;s not like the Israelis have a right to be there. Here I thought communists wanted to fight the injustices of the world, but naturally the working class cannot do anything wrong in your eyes. The workers inside Israel condone and support their government administrated genocide. They deserve no different treatment than the leaders of Israel.


It may well be that D Bokk is a "troll", or a crypto-fascist orc. But how radically different is his position from the all the other leftists who back Hizbollah with more sophisticated arguments? The logic is the same: enrolling the working class into a deadly spiral of imperialist wars, which ultimately threatens the existence of humanity. The only alternative is working class internationalism and the struggle against all capitalist states - which means every state on the planet.
By "more sophisticated" you mean tip-toeing around the subject so you still fit in with the rest of your country? I guess that&#39;s better than supporting Israel... like you.

The Grinch

Yes, however that support would be confined to the military defeat of the Nazis, while attacking the politics of the British and American capitalists.

I certainly wouldn&#39;t praise the British and American leaders, or campaign under a "We are all Western Imperalists" slogan.
And my support, and the support of all leftists, should be with Hizb&#39;allah until the military defeat of the Zionazis. What&#39;s the difference between these two situations?

[Alf]

Double post

[Alf]

Disappointing, Grinch.

Opposition to both imperialist camps during the second world war was a fundamental test of internationalism. Virtually all the Trotskyists and many of the anarchists failed the test (the Stalinists were by then already on the side of capital).

I also think it&#39;s the precondition for being able to resist the current rush to take sides in today&#39;s growing imperialist conflicts.

D Bokk: at least you openly admit that you are against the working class.

[mauvaise foi]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 08:37 PM
Disappointed Grinch: opposition to both imperialist camps in the second world war is perhaps the ultimate test of internationalism.
Are you kidding?&#33; If "opposition to both imperialist camps in the second world war is perhaps the ultimate test of internationalism," then I guess I fail that test. I certainly don&#39;t entertain any illusions about the motives of Churchill, Roosevelt, Truman, or Stalin, but to lump them in with the fascists in to some kind of "imperialist camp" that needs to be opposed at all costs is absurd. You&#39;d be sitting around waiting for the German, Italian and Japanese proletariats to overthrow their oppressors; meanwhile, fascism would continue to wreak havoc on the world.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Alf+--> (Alf)Disappointing, Grinch.

Opposition to both imperialist camps during the second world war was a fundamental test of internationalism. Virtually all the Trotskyists and many of the anarchists failed the test (the Stalinists were by then already on the side of capital).

I also think it&#39;s the precondition for being able to resist the current rush to take sides in today&#39;s growing imperialist conflicts.[/b]
Wow.

Alf
D Bokk: at least you openly admit that you are against the working class.
There&#39;s a difference between the proletariat and the bourgeoisfied "proletariat." By supporting the American proletariat you&#39;re also supporting imperialism and capitalism.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Now D Bokk, there is certainly a labor aristocracy element that has grown in strength ever since the implementation of social welfare throughout this century in America, as well as Europe. Global capitalism has furthered this trait in the industrialized working class. But it is imperative that you do not deny the millions of workers within the United States today that are still struggling to achieve a better life. It is important that you recognize the vast section of the American working class that is currently not conscious, but has amazing revolutionary potential.

Every labourer across the world is "bourgeoisfied", due to the fact that we all live off of the exploited labor of another.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by RedDali
Now D Bokk, there is certainly a labor aristocracy element that has grown in strength ever since the implementation of social welfare throughout this century in America, as well as Europe. Global capitalism has furthered this trait in the industrialized working class. But it is imperative that you do not deny the millions of workers within the United States today that are still struggling to achieve a better life. It is important that you recognize the vast section of the American working class that is currently not conscious, but has amazing revolutionary potential.
Ignorance shouldn&#39;t be used as an excuse. I don&#39;t deny the American proletariat the right to achieve communism for a better life - I deny they can do it so long as the US has countries they exploit. Once America has no one to exploit, the true face of capitalism will appear... that&#39;s when the proletariat will realize that maybe capitalism isn&#39;t that good of an idea. Americans are too infantile to realize this on their own. Ironically they rely on the people they exploit to save them.

Every labourer across the world is "bourgeoisfied", due to the fact that we all live off of the exploited labor of another.
Only the ones in the West. The real proletariat working in sweatshops are by no means bourgeois.

[mauvaise foi]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 09:02 PM
Now D Bokk, there is certainly a labor aristocracy element that has grown in strength ever since the implementation of social welfare throughout this century in America, as well as Europe. Global capitalism has furthered this trait in the industrialized working class. But it is imperative that you do not deny the millions of workers within the United States today that are still struggling to achieve a better life. It is important that you recognize the vast section of the American working class that is currently not conscious, but has amazing revolutionary potential.

Every labourer across the world is "bourgeoisfied", due to the fact that we all live off of the exploited labor of another.
The labor aristocracy in the North America and Western Europe was formed long before the existence of welfare states. For example, frontier settlers in the U.S. benefited from and actually carried out the theft of indigenous land. The Western European "proletariat" has was bought off by colonial exploitation long ago. How else do you explain the fact that bourgeois "socialist" parties in Western Europe supported the First World War, which truly was an "inter-imperialist conflict?"

How do workers in Africa, Latin America, and Asia exploit the labor of others?

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by mauvaise foi+Aug 25 2006, 09:16 PM--> (mauvaise foi @ Aug 25 2006, 09:16 PM)
[email protected] 25 2006, 09:02 PM
Now D Bokk, there is certainly a labor aristocracy element that has grown in strength ever since the implementation of social welfare throughout this century in America, as well as Europe. Global capitalism has furthered this trait in the industrialized working class. But it is imperative that you do not deny the millions of workers within the United States today that are still struggling to achieve a better life. It is important that you recognize the vast section of the American working class that is currently not conscious, but has amazing revolutionary potential.

Every labourer across the world is "bourgeoisfied", due to the fact that we all live off of the exploited labor of another.
The labor aristocracy in the North America and Western Europe was formed long before the existence of welfare states. For example, frontier settlers in the U.S. benefited from and actually carried out the theft of indigenous land. The Western European "proletariat" has was bought off by colonial exploitation long ago. How else do you explain the fact that bourgeois "socialist" parties in Western Europe supported the First World War, which truly was an "inter-imperialist conflict?"

How do workers in Africa, Latin America, and Asia exploit the labor of others? [/b]
Sure, Marx made a few comments on that in private letters between him and Engels about how modern day European labourers had "the same attitude towards colonialism to that of the ruling class". What I have been trying to say is that there is still a large section of the working class that is exploited, and that hardly sees the full benefits of third world exploitation. We shouldn&#39;t give up on that group.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by JC1+Aug 23 2006, 06:14 AM--> (JC1 &#064; Aug 23 2006, 06:14 AM)
Originally posted by "Sheik Asshole"@
In the west, with primarily in the US the media is in the hands of Jewish capitalists...


"Sheikh Asshole"
Imperialism and its Zionist contractors

See everyone, if it were not for those pesky Jews, the middle east would be free of imperialist domination &#33;

[/sarcasm]

Progressive and anti-sectarian my ass.

Suppourt for Hizb&#39;Allah on a millitary basis only &#33; Down with the enemies of the lebonese people &#33;

Lets see the tha LPG come back &#33; [/b]
COughcough...Pesky Zionists. Not jews.
There is a difference.
IF you want to defend the innocent jews by confusing the two have fun.
You may as well be the anti semite then. Not Hizb&#39;Allah.

[The Grinch]

Originally posted by D_Bokk+Aug 24 2006, 10:58 PM--> (D_Bokk @ Aug 24 2006, 10:58 PM) [Dodging the question. Hizb&#39;allah doesn&#39;t want all Jews dead. So answer the question or crawl back into your hole.

Rupert Murdoch is a Zionist. Like I said, there are Christian Zionists who want the Apocalypse. There are also just plain heartless capitalist Zionists who profit from all of this.
[/b]
So this

It is an open war until the elimination of Israel and until the death of the last Jew on earth" -Statement from Hezbollah (1992)

was postmodern irony? You&#39;re a liar, and what&#39;s worse, you&#39;re too stupid to lie effectively.


The American Proletariat betrayed the rest of the international proletariat... they&#39;re no better than the bourgeois at this point.Unlike clever little middle class you, who has the correct analysis, because of the fancy education your mummy and daddy paid for?


A lot of people on this forum come from middle class Western families... so the question is why do you even bother coming on these forums?
So now you&#39;re suggesting that working class activists shouldn&#39;t come on here to leave it a playground for you and your middle class mates. Very telling. And the answer is that, at least some of them recognise that privilege and try to transcend it. Whereas your entire politics come from your position of privilege. Well, that and the desire to rebel against your parents. Was it between this and becoming an emo? Which is why you&#39;re reduced to cheerleading for reactionary movements. You&#39;re just a middle class idiot with no practical knowledge or experience of the class struggle. And only supporting movements in other countrys allows you to keep the relatively high position your birth has handed to you.


Like I explained earlier, there are no innocents when you live in an imperialist country.Then why don&#39;t you kill yourself as a blow against imperalism? Or is it only working class people who you support the death of to fufil your masturbatory adolescent fantasies?


Here I thought communists wanted to fight the injustices of the world, but naturally the working class cannot do anything wrong in your eyes.
Communism is a doctrine of the self emancipation of the working class. End of. Hence you&#39;re not a communist, anarchist or otherwise.


And my support, and the support of all leftists, should be with Hizb&#39;allah until the military defeat of the Zionazis. What&#39;s the difference between these two situations?The random use of the word Nazi without any understanding of what the word actually means? Wow. All I need now is for you to tell us that you know about the class struggle because you worked in a factory on your summer holidays and I&#39;ve filled in my middle class pseudo revolutionary bingo card.

And, as I said, the difference is that I wouldn&#39;t have supported the imperalist leaders, or cheerleaded for them, or attempted to cover up Churchill&#39;s racism. And I certainly wouldn&#39;t claim the capitalist powers as somehow "progressive".


"Alf"
Disappointing, Grinch.
Alf, you can disagree with me, be angry with me, even call me a wanker.

But I&#39;m afraid being "disappointed" in me is a privilege reserved for my parents.

[Alf]

Grinch: Sorry if I came across in a patronising way.

I don&#39;t think you&#39;re a wanker though. Perhaps you would like to say more about the second world war question.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 02:41 PM
Opposition to both imperialist camps during the second world war was a fundamental test of internationalism. Virtually all the Trotskyists and many of the anarchists failed the test
A strange assertion. (About the Trotskyists, I don&#39;t know about the anarchists.) The position of the Fourth International was certainly to oppose both imperialist camps (US-UK-French-etc and the Axis.) Of course if you define the USSR and China as "imperialist" then you can denounce "Trotskyists" for siding with them against German and Japanese imperialism...but that would just reflect your own disconnect from reality.

For example, if you say Chinese resistance to the Japanese invasion was just subordinate to Allied imperialism (like Serbia in WWI)...you have the little problem that out of that resistance developed a revolution which definitely interfered with U.S. imperialism&#39;s plans for China, too.

A revolutionary activist is not the same thing as a broken record. You can&#39;t just take an analysis of and response to one war (WWI) and automatically apply it to everything else, without seeing if it fits the particulars.

****

BTW, Grinch:during the Stalin-Hitler pact, the Comintern definitely was not neutral. It had a lean towards the Axis - in a way, that was the worst part of the Stalin-Hitler pact, that it applied to the CPs internationally. Then there was a complete reversal when Hitler turned on the USSR.

In both phases of the war, the CP&#39;s positions and actions had nothing to do with democracy vs fascism; they were all about the USSR&#39;s military alliances.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 03:18 AM
It may well be that D Bokk is a "troll", or a crypto-fascist orc. But how radically different is his position from the all the other leftists who back Hizbollah with more sophisticated arguments? The logic is the same: enrolling the working class into a deadly spiral of imperialist wars, which ultimately threatens the existence of humanity.
It&#39;s somewhat different, but with definite similarities, yes. You have a point that it&#39;s a logical product of the more common type of Hezbollah product. But not because of any "spiral of imperialist wars" (unless it&#39;s "imperialist" for Syria to try to regain the occupied Golan Heights - its main motive in sponsoring Hezbollah.)

The real problem is: when someone glorifies rightist parties like Hezbollah, hails them as the leaders of the fight against imperialism....there&#39;s a good chance anyone who buys this will begin listening to Hezbollah&#39;s leaders.

And when they do, naturally they&#39;ll find a lot of rightist crap. Including stuff that was originally developed by fascists and other far-rightists in Europe and North America, picked up by rightists in the Middle East...and then recirculated back to some leftists in the "West." Including some leftists who wouldn&#39;t be caught dead listening directly to their own domestic fascists.

Whether Bokk&#39;s sincere or trolling, it&#39;s certainly true that he&#39;s taking the widespread Islamist-idolizing to a logical extreme.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by The Grinch

So this

It is an open war until the elimination of Israel and until the death of the last Jew on earth" -Statement from Hezbollah (1992)

was postmodern irony? You&#39;re a liar, and what&#39;s worse, you&#39;re too stupid to lie effectively.
I already showed you a statement by the spokesman of Hizb&#39;allah and the official policy regarding Jews in Israel. Yet, you insist on requoting Nasrallah... pathetic. Honestly though, do you think the Arabs are so barbaric to commit a genocide on a people who&#39;ve they&#39;ve lived alongside for thousands of years? I think you might be a racist.

Unlike clever little middle class you, who has the correct analysis, because of the fancy education your mummy and daddy paid for?
I&#39;m paying for all of my education, and I&#39;ve done all of my research on communism, anarchism and other political issues on my own. You&#39;re probably exactly what you&#39;re calling me... easy to be a fake on the Internet. At least I&#39;m honest about where I came from.

So now you&#39;re suggesting that working class activists shouldn&#39;t come on here to leave it a playground for you and your middle class mates. Very telling. And the answer is that, at least some of them recognise that privilege and try to transcend it. Whereas your entire politics come from your position of privilege. Well, that and the desire to rebel against your parents. Was it between this and becoming an emo? Which is why you&#39;re reduced to cheerleading for reactionary movements. You&#39;re just a middle class idiot with no practical knowledge or experience of the class struggle. And only supporting movements in other countrys allows you to keep the relatively high position your birth has handed to you.
Oh please. If you were so dedicated to the communist movement you wouldn&#39;t have time to come and post on these forums. You would be out there making the revolution come quicker. You aren&#39;t... you&#39;re a no good fake acting like you&#39;re doing something.

My parents are in complete debt right, debt that will never get out of. I by no means have whatever I ask for. I also love my parents and appreciate the sacrifices they&#39;ve suffered at their awful jobs in order to provide for me and my sisters. I&#39;m not rebelling against my parents, even though they don&#39;t like that I&#39;m a commie.

Then why don&#39;t you kill yourself as a blow against imperalism? Or is it only working class people who you support the death of to fufil your masturbatory adolescent fantasies?
It would be a complete waste to kill myself. Workers who are fighting arn&#39;t fighting because the all-mighty D_Bokk commanded it of them - they&#39;re fighting against an injustice that you whole-heartedly support.

Do all communists kill themself to help the movement? Hope not, but that would explain it&#39;s utter failure.

Communism is a doctrine of the self emancipation of the working class. End of. Hence you&#39;re not a communist, anarchist or otherwise.
Ah, I bet you have a soft spot for the working class Nazis in Germany, too?

The random use of the word Nazi without any understanding of what the word actually means? Wow. All I need now is for you to tell us that you know about the class struggle because you worked in a factory on your summer holidays and I&#39;ve filled in my middle class pseudo revolutionary bingo card.

And, as I said, the difference is that I wouldn&#39;t have supported the imperalist leaders, or cheerleaded for them, or attempted to cover up Churchill&#39;s racism. And I certainly wouldn&#39;t claim the capitalist powers as somehow "progressive".
You obviously know nothing about the Zionist movement.


After the 1st Zionist Congress in Basle, Switzerland in 1897, Herzl penned his manifesto, Der Judenstaadt (The Jewish State), in which he used overtly racial-colonial language to describe the process of seizing Palestine from its inhabitants, saying that this new state would be…

"…a rampart of Europe against Asia, of civilization against barbarism… We shall endeavor to encourage the poverty-stricken population [Herzl knew next to nothing about Palestinians] to cross the border by securing work for it in the countries it passes through, while denying it work in our own country. The process of expropriation and displacement must be carried out prudently and discreetly. Let the landowners sell us their land at exorbitant prices. We shall sell nothing back to them."

The British supported this position unequivocally after World War I with the Balfour Declaration of 1917. Balfour himself would say in 1919, "In Palestine, we do not even propose to consult the inhabitants of the country and (Zionism&#39;s) immediate needs and hopes for the future are much more important than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who presently inhabit Palestine."

Jabotinsky was an admirer of Mussolini and stated his racism openly and proudly:

"It is impossible for a man to become assimilated with people whose blood is different than [sic] his own. In order to become assimilated, he must change his body, he must become one of them, in blood. There can be no assimilation. We shall never allow such things as mixed marriage because the preservation of national integrity is impossible except by means of racial purity and for that purpose we shall have this territory where our people will constitute the racially pure inhabitants."


This founding father of Zionism could have been quoting Adolph Hitler. Now his political offspring want to capitalize on Hitler&#39;s monumental crime to legitimate their own crimes.

The irony was that with the blood-and-soil, anti-Semitic fascism that swept up Europe and began the horrifyingly systematic, industrially-rationalized slaughter of European Jewry, and with the closure of western borders (including those of the US) to those desperately escaping genocide, Zionist settlements in Palestine filled up. Zionists themselves actively lobbied western nations to refuse those trying to escape from Hitler&#39;s crematoria.

In 1938, Ben Gurion had already stated, "If I knew that it would be possible to save all the children in Germany by bringing them over to England and only half of them by transporting them to Eretz Israel, then I opt for the second alternative."

As late as 1943, while the Jews of Europe were being exterminated in their millions, the U.S. Congress proposed to set up a commission to "study" the problem. Rabbi Stephen Wise, who was the principal American spokesperson for Zionism, came to Washington to testify against the rescue bill because it would divert attention from the colonization of Palestine. (Sheonman, Ralph, The Hidden History of Zionism)

Zionists actively collaborated with Nazis. This is a verifiable historical fact. Not only did the Zionist Federation of Germany send a resolution of support to the Nazi Party in 1933, "the World Zionist Organization Congress in 1933 defeated a resolution calling for action against Hitler by a vote of 240 to 43." (ibid.)
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/...sic_park4.shtml (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/071404_jurassic_park4.shtml)

Do I seriously need to go on? I can rightfully call those Zionist scum Nazis, they fucking supported a Holocaust against their own people. Actually, I&#39;m going to go ahead and say a Zionist isn&#39;t a Jew... how the hell could they be? It would be an insult to the Jewish people to label Zionists as Jews.

EDIT:

Why was everyone calling me an anti-semite for wanting Israel destroyed completely, but when Alf says we should have just left Hitler complete his Holocaust he only has a "A strange assertion"?

I&#39;ll make a guess: you only use that anti-semite excuse with people who disagree with you because you have no other argument against why we shouldn&#39;t support Hizb&#39;allah in their fight to put an end to Israel.

[The Grinch]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 04:25 AM
I already showed you a statement by the spokesman of Hizb&#39;allah and the official policy regarding Jews in Israel. Yet, you insist on requoting Nasrallah... pathetic. Honestly though, do you think the Arabs are so barbaric to commit a genocide on a people who&#39;ve they&#39;ve lived alongside for thousands of years? I think you might be a racist.
So why did he say it then? Or are you claiming he was misquoted? And it&#39;s noticable that you haven&#39;t been able to bring yourself to condemn it, not even halfheartedly.


I&#39;m paying for all of my education, and I&#39;ve done all of my research on communism, anarchism and other political issues on my own. How do you get the money to pay for your education? And it doesn&#39;t alter the fact that your political position is inextricably tied up with your class background.
You&#39;re probably exactly what you&#39;re calling me... easy to be a fake on the Internet. At least I&#39;m honest about where I came from. "I know you are, but what am I".

Ooo, good retort. Did you think it up all by yourself?


Oh please. If you were so dedicated to the communist movement you wouldn&#39;t have time to come and post on these forums. You would be out there making the revolution come quicker. You aren&#39;t... you&#39;re a no good fake acting like you&#39;re doing something. Yes, because political activists do nothing else. Not even sleep or eat. We&#39;re like cyborgs&#33; :o


My parents are in complete debt right, debt that will never get out of. I by no means have whatever I ask for. I also love my parents and appreciate the sacrifices they&#39;ve suffered at their awful jobs in order to provide for me and my sisters.
I am cryning.

The middle classes constantly live in debt in many cases. It doesn&#39;t mean that they&#39;re oppressed in class society.


I&#39;m not rebelling against my parents, even though they don&#39;t like that I&#39;m a commie.
Ah well, I reckon they&#39;ve only got five years to wait before you&#39;re not anymore.


It would be a complete waste to kill myself. Workers who are fighting arn&#39;t fighting because the all-mighty D_Bokk commanded it of them - they&#39;re fighting against an injustice that you whole-heartedly support.

Do all communists kill themself to help the movement? Hope not, but that would explain it&#39;s utter failure. But you&#39;re arguing that a) there are no innocents in the US and b) that 9/11 was justified. So the answer is yes, you only support the deaths of other, mainly working class people in order to fufil your fantasies.


Ah, I bet you have a soft spot for the working class Nazis in Germany, too? All the homegrown resistance to the Nazis came from the working class. And the International Brigades in Spain? Overwhemingly working class. And Nazism was heavily supported by the German ruling class. Next.


You obviously know nothing about the Zionist movement.

Do I seriously need to go on? I can rightfully call those Zionist scum Nazis, they fucking supported a Holocaust against their own people. Nobody with any sense denies that some Zionists collaborated with the Nazis. But Nazism is a distinct political movement. Not that you have much to fear in your gated community. And are you really too stupid to see the irony of you getting all selfrighteous about support for the genocide of Jews when you consider Nasrallah&#39;s comments in favour of precisely that to be, at best, irrelevant.

Actually, I&#39;m going to go ahead and say a Zionist isn&#39;t a Jew... how the hell could they be? It would be an insult to the Jewish people to label Zionists as Jews.And you did precisely that with your earlier support for comments about "Jewish capitalists". So, by your own argument, you&#39;re an antisemite.



Why was everyone calling me an anti-semite for wanting Israel destroyed completely, but when Alf says we should have just left Hitler complete his Holocaust he only has a "A strange assertion"?

I&#39;ll make a guess: you only use that anti-semite excuse with people who disagree with you because you have no other argument against why we shouldn&#39;t support Hizb&#39;allah in their fight to put an end to Israel.
Alf&#39;s is a standard "no to imperalist wars" ultraleft position.

And people weren&#39;t calling you an antisemite for wanting Israel destroyed. They were calling you an antisemite because you think that calls for the genocide of the Jews are fine and dandy. And because you use the standard antisemite pseudoleft terminology of "Jewish capitalists" and single particular capitalists out because they&#39;re Jewish.

[Alf]

Severian:

“A revolutionary activist is not the same thing as a broken record. You can&#39;t just take an analysis of and response to one war (WWI) and automatically apply it to everything else, without seeing if it fits the particulars”.

If your internationalism cannot be applied in a world imperialist war, the ultimate expression of the barbarism of capital, it is worth nothing at all.

D Bokke:

“Why was everyone calling me an anti-semite for wanting Israel destroyed completely, but when Alf says we should have just left Hitler complete his Holocaust he only has a "A strange assertion"?

Stopping the holocaust by supporting the allied imperialisms was not a great success, considering that the allied powers were complicit in it: for example when, at the Bermuda conference of April 1943 (almost exactly the same moment as the Warsaw ghetto uprising), the USA and Britain decided not only to lock the door to the persecuted Jews of Europe, but even reduced their already meager quotas. See Arthur Morse, While Six Million Died.

The Grinch:

“Alf&#39;s is a standard "no to imperialist wars" ultraleft position”.

The communist movement has never justified supporting any war that it considered imperialist. In the ascendant epoch of capitalism, it supported some wars because it saw them as “national”, ie, bourgeois, but still progressive. Marxists like Luxemburg considered that, in the period opened up by the 1914 world war, all bourgeois states were necessarily imperialist, and thus that all wars between bourgeois states would henceforward be imperialist. Other Marxists, like Lenin, considered that national wars were still possible in some parts of the world. They may have disagreed about the definition of imperialist war in some cases, but “no to imperialist wars” was a principle that all of them shared.

History has, in my opinion, amply confirmed Luxemburg’s position. I would like to hear Grinch’s opinion about that.

[The Grinch]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 11:20 PM
“Alf&#39;s is a standard "no to imperialist wars" ultraleft position”.

The communist movement has never justified supporting any war that it considered imperialist. In the ascendant epoch of capitalism, it supported some wars because it saw them as “national”, ie, bourgeois, but still progressive. Marxists like Luxemburg considered that, in the period opened up by the 1914 world war, all bourgeois states were necessarily imperialist, and thus that all wars between bourgeois states would henceforward be imperialist. Other Marxists, like Lenin, considered that national wars were still possible in some parts of the world. They may have disagreed about the definition of imperialist war in some cases, but “no to imperialist wars” was a principle that all of them shared.

History has, in my opinion, amply confirmed Luxemburg’s position. I would like to hear Grinch’s opinion about that.
Just so you know, not being a Leninist, I don&#39;t consider the term "ultraleft" to be an insult. ;)

On the second world specifically, a couple of basic points.

1. I think it&#39;s possible to see defeats for fascism as tactically useful, without that being an expression of support for the imperalist leaders.

2. I think it has to be recognised that a large number of workers in the army wanted a defeat for Hitler, due to their abhorrance of fascism. Without that actually being an expression of support for Churchill et al or merely simple nationalistic jingoism.

3. I think an earlier defeat for Hitler would have had a knockon effect in Spain, which was the best chance for a real worker&#39;s state at the time.

4. At the time, I think the place for revolutionaries to be was in the army, as that&#39;s where the majority of the class concious workers were, and hence the best place for agitation to take place.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by The Grinch+--> (The Grinch)So why did he say it then? Or are you claiming he was misquoted? And it&#39;s noticable that you haven&#39;t been able to bring yourself to condemn it, not even halfheartedly.[/b]
I already gave possible explainations for his blurting those out. What he said is wrong, but if he said "Israeli" or "Zionist" you would really have anything against him because niether of those are a Jew-only thing.

You&#39;ve never said anything you think probably shouldn&#39;t have been said? It&#39;s not like Nasrallah is using it as a Hizb&#39;allah battle cry. He has said it only a few times.

How do you get the money to pay for your education? And it doesn&#39;t alter the fact that your political position is inextricably tied up with your class background.
I&#39;ve been working until recently because I needed to move to Washington, but the rest of the money is coming from a loan I took out in my own name.

"I know you are, but what am I".

Ooo, good retort. Did you think it up all by yourself?
In other words, I am right.

Yes, because political activists do nothing else. Not even sleep or eat. We&#39;re like cyborgs&#33;
Ah, so I was right. You really aren&#39;t doing anything but complaining to a government who isn&#39;t listening. Congrats, I guess.

The middle classes constantly live in debt in many cases. It doesn&#39;t mean that they&#39;re oppressed in class society.
My dad has worked at a die-casting plant for motorcycle parts for over thirty years and my mom has works at the post office. Neither of them have college educations and my dad was a high school drop out until his 20s, then he went back to finish up. Both lived in poverty as children.

But you&#39;re arguing that a) there are no innocents in the US and b) that 9/11 was justified. So the answer is yes, you only support the deaths of other, mainly working class people in order to fufil your fantasies.
I&#39;ll say that if I happened to get killed by a terrorist, I wouldn&#39;t mind too much. So long as the target had something to do with destroying imperialism.

All the homegrown resistance to the Nazis came from the working class. And the International Brigades in Spain? Overwhemingly working class. And Nazism was heavily supported by the German ruling class. Next.
You know damn well what I meant, the working class which supported Hitler.

And you did precisely that with your earlier support for comments about "Jewish capitalists". So, by your own argument, you&#39;re an antisemite.
Incorrect, your awful logic would only work if capitalism and Jews were blended into virtually one.


Alf&#39;s is a standard "no to imperalist wars" ultraleft position.

And people weren&#39;t calling you an antisemite for wanting Israel destroyed. They were calling you an antisemite because you think that calls for the genocide of the Jews are fine and dandy. And because you use the standard antisemite pseudoleft terminology of "Jewish capitalists" and single particular capitalists out because they&#39;re Jewish.
I think his remark was understandable when his oppressors were predominatly Jewish.

Alf
Stopping the holocaust by supporting the allied imperialisms was not a great success, considering that the allied powers were complicit in it: for example when, at the Bermuda conference of April 1943 (almost exactly the same moment as the Warsaw ghetto uprising), the USA and Britain decided not only to lock the door to the persecuted Jews of Europe, but even reduced their already meager quotas. See Arthur Morse, While Six Million Died.

I don&#39;t doubt that the bourgeois let Jews dies when they could have saved more of them. But if the bourgeois West and the USSR left Hitler alone - even more Jews would have died... quite possibly removing all Jews from Europe.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 05:20 PM
Severian:

“A revolutionary activist is not the same thing as a broken record. You can&#39;t just take an analysis of and response to one war (WWI) and automatically apply it to everything else, without seeing if it fits the particulars”.

If your internationalism cannot be applied in a world imperialist war, the ultimate expression of the barbarism of capital, it is worth nothing at all.
Of course it can be applied. Internationalism can be applied in every situation - what course of action serves the interests of the world working class?

That doesn&#39;t mean it can be applied in the same way to every situation.