Hezbollah, and the Nazis.

[Forward Union]

Syrian National Socialist Party
http://images.nationmaster.com/images/fotw/l/lb%7Dssnp.gif

"Founded in Beirut in 1932, the party has played a significant role in Lebanese politics at various points, notably being involved in attempted coups in 1949 and 1961. It was active in resistance against the Israeli occupation of Lebanon from 1982 on. It is now part of the pro-Syrian bloc, along with Amal and Hezbollah, and has only limited popular support in Lebanon. In Syria, the SSNP became a major political force in the early 1950s, but was thoroughly repressed in 1955. It remained organised, and in 2005 was legalised and joined the Baath Party-led National Progressive Front. It is thought to be the largest legal party in Syria apart from the Baath, with perhaps 90,000 members"

It was on newsnight last night, they came across some members of this Nazi's militias, who had fought with Hezbollah against the last invasion. Im not equating all resistance with Nazism, but seeing as many here are willing to tolerate Hezbollahs anti-semitism/nationalism, I was just wondering if you lot support the nazis as well?, critically of course.

http ://www.ssnp.com/

Fighting Israel? zeich hail to that! :rolleyes:

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Destroy Israel !!



...and replace it with national-socialism :lol:

[Ian]

Don't see what the issue is, chances are nazis have positions which are superficially the same as yours as well.

This is some sketchy as dirt digging, scraping the bottom of the barrel there.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 11:10 AM
Don't see what the issue is, chances are nazis have positions which are superficially the same as yours as well.
But that's exactly the point. Why do some on here support Hezbollah? Because of their resistance to the Israeli agression, they say. So this raises the rather interesting question, would they/should we also support this neo-nazi group for doing the exact same Hezbollah does, namely resisting Israel?
Following some on here's logic, we should.

[Forward Union]

"the Syrian National Socialist party known as the "Awmis" is considered one of the Far right parties in Lebanon, it was founded by Antoun Saade and stands for the formation of "Greater Syria". The Syrian National Socialist party believes that Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq were once parts of one nation: "Syria" ... The party is occasionally described as being identical to the German National Socialist (Nazi) party, its call for secularism is similar to the German Nazi party and also its strong nationalist ideas"

http://higstud10.hig.no/kus_alta/political/1st_march_85.jpg

...nice :P

[вор в законе]

What a pathetic attempt to draw a parallel between Nazism and the Lebanese national ressistance. The type of argument that the Israeli Imperialists and their lackeys use to justify war crimes.

[Jamal]

Dear comrades, the syrien national party is the definition of anti-semitism. They belive that there should be a state called the large syria which consists of Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and (this will amuse you) Cyprus!!!

Why? because they say that the borders between these countries are fake (they cannot think that all borders are fake, their mind limits them to this) and that the people of these countries share common traits and so on.

They also believe that all the Jews are murderers and criminals and they don't deserve to live and so the Jews should all be either killed or banned to Mars or so.

They, and based on their anti-semitism and not their belief that what Israel is doing is wrong or not, joined Jammoul (The Lebanese National Resistance Front, it was initiated by the LCP) and where led by the communists a lot of times into battles, they lost 12 of theyre members in this war fighting.

And about what you are saying: "How are the people who support Hezbollah are gonna get out of this?" the answer is : "get out of what?"

The people who supported Hezbollah have not supported them based on their fundimentalism or secterianism or anti-semitism or all their other bad traites, but on the only good trait they have, which is the resistance and their anti-imperialism. So the piont that all of you desperately want to prove, has not been proved...

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 12:50 PM
Dear comrades, the syrien national party is the definition of anti-semitism. They belive that there should be a state called the large syria which consists of Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and (this will amuse you) Cyprus!!!

Why? because they say that the borders between these countries are fake (they cannot think that all borders are fake, their mind limits them to this) and that the people of these countries share common traits and so on.

They also believe that all the Jews are murderers and criminals and they don't deserve to live and so the Jews should all be either killed or banned to Mars or so.

They, and based on their anti-semitism and not their belief that what Israel is doing is wrong or not, joined Jammoul (The Lebanese National Resistance Front, it was initiated by the LCP) and where led by the communists a lot of times into battles, they lost 12 of theyre members in this war fighting.

And about what you are saying: "How are the people who support Hezbollah are gonna get out of this?" the answer is : "get out of what?"

The people who supported Hezbollah have not supported them based on their fundimentalism or secterianism or anti-semitism or all their other bad traites, but on the only good trait they have, which is the resistance and their anti-imperialism. So the piont that all of you desperately want to prove, has not been proved...
Errm.. You have replied completely past the subject, you have refuted nothing, and your arguments are inexisting. So what was the point of that post? :blink:

[YKTMX]

What's the point of this?

There are so many logical fallacies here it's hard to know where to begin.

1) The Association Fallacy - because the Nazis support the Lebanese resistance, we shouldn't. The Nazis also opposed the war on Iraq, so we should support it? I don't follow.

2) Ad Homniem - say nothing about the virtue of anti-imperialist movements, just bring loads of totally useless "facts" to debase the argument



Try again.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 03:40 PM
1) The Association Fallacy - because the Nazis support the Lebanese resistance, we shouldn't. The Nazis also opposed the war on Iraq, so we should support it? I don't follow.

That's not what Im saying. But this is the typical, slippery responce I expected.


2) Ad Homniem - say nothing about the virtue of anti-imperialist movements, just bring loads of totally useless "facts" to debase the argument

Stop dodging the question. You support Hezbollah, on the basis that they hold the virtue of being "anti-imperialist" you show absolutely no hesitation is shouting "We are Hezbollah" though you retain some dignity, by expressing distaste for elements of their theory. Their 'shortcomings'

...I ask you then, why don't you support the Nazis resistance to Israeli imperialism? they have an objectionable theory, just like Hezbollah, but the fact is, they are there, actually fighting Israel. Whichwas your justification for supporting them, was it not. Surely, not supporting the nazi resistance to Israel is just Puritanism?

Then again, im not surprised you haven't actually addressed the criticism, It's fatal; to your logic. Though I expected something of a more fiery response.

[Forward Union]

The people who supported Hezbollah have not supported them based on their fundimentalism or secterianism or anti-semitism or all their other bad traites, but on the only good trait they have, which is the resistance and their anti-imperialism.

Exactly, the thing you haven't recognised, is that; the Nazis have also been fighting Imperialism, and as long as they carry that hallmark, nothing else matters to you, at least, it didn't when we were talking about Hezbollah. As long as they actively fight imperialism, your willing to throw your support for them, right?

So why do you support one organisation, and not the others? scared of actually recognising the conclusion of your logic; support for the nazis? Isn't not supporting their resistance to imperialism because of some petty ideological differences; puritinism, and utopianism. Isn't that exactly what you accused ME of, when I rejected supporting Hezbollah, for the exact same reasons you are now presenting to avoid saying you support the fash?

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 03:40 PM
1) The Association Fallacy - because the Nazis support the Lebanese resistance, we shouldn't. The Nazis also opposed the war on Iraq, so we should support it? I don't follow.
No, it's not what the Nazis support or oppose, it's their similarities to Hizbullah regarding Jews, homosexuals, and women. The logic behind supporting Hizbullah simply because they resist Israel is failed, have some guts and admit that you're wrong!

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 04:36 PM
have some guts and admit that you're wrong!
that or admit he supports the Nazis, or simply continue on doging the point/stop posting.
:D

[Enragé]

:huh:

this is so incredibly weak

the nazis are against islam
we are against islam
therefore,
we are nazis?

what?

this is ridiculous.


We are against israeli imperialism, we stand side by side those fighting against it, period.
We do not lend any support to anything else whoever we stand side by side with us do, in fact we might even fight against that.
Point is,
if you live in south lebanon, you are not going to sit idly by and let your friends and family get killed simply because if you rise up against israeli aggression the person fighting alongside of you might not be someone you particularly like.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by Love Underground+Aug 26 2006, 04:01 PM--> (Love Underground @ Aug 26 2006, 04:01 PM)
[email protected] 26 2006, 03:40 PM
1) The Association Fallacy - because the Nazis support the Lebanese resistance, we shouldn't. The Nazis also opposed the war on Iraq, so we should support it? I don't follow.

That's not what Im saying. But this is the typical, slippery responce I expected.


2) Ad Homniem - say nothing about the virtue of anti-imperialist movements, just bring loads of totally useless "facts" to debase the argument

Stop dodging the question. You support Hezbollah, on the basis that they hold the virtue of being "anti-imperialist" you show absolutely no hesitation is shouting "We are Hezbollah" though you retain some dignity, by expressing distaste for elements of their theory. Their 'shortcomings'

...I ask you then, why don't you support the Nazis resistance to Israeli imperialism? they have an objectionable theory, just like Hezbollah, but the fact is, they are there, actually fighting Israel. Whichwas your justification for supporting them, was it not. Surely, not supporting the nazi resistance to Israel is just Puritanism?

Then again, im not surprised you haven't actually addressed the criticism, It's fatal; to your logic. Though I expected something of a more fiery response. [/b]
Even I get tired of having to wade through your bullshit, darling.

I support the right of all Lebanese people to defend themselves - regardless of their political programme.

It's not ambiguous. Draw your own conclusions.

As I understand it, this group is Syrian.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 04:57 PM
I support the right of all Lebanese people to defend themselves - regardless of their political programme.


How romantic, but your rhetoric has nothing to do with supporting people, you are talking about supporting organisations with agendas (Namely, Hezbollah). If you support organisations that fight imperialism (defend Lebanese people, however you want to word it) regardless of the values of that organisation (which you have admitted is the case). Then you do in fact support the nazis, in this instance? - why are you trying to make me say it...


Draw your own conclusions.

...can't you admit it to yourself? All I conclude from this, is a real confusion about what exactly your values are. If you support organisations that defended the Lebanese people, regardless of their values, then why wont you simply admit that this encompasses the nazi militias.

[вор в законе]

A) These people are Syrian ultra nationalists, not NAZIS.

B) Where is the proof that these Syrian nationalists participated in the Lebanese national resistance?

[Hiero]

How are these guys Nazi's? Your deliberatly trying to confuse people here. A Nazi is Arayan Fascsit, not an Syrian expansionist.

We also don't even know if these guys support National Socialism. It could be a coincidence that the translation of their party name happens to be National Socialism.

Also where are you getting these quotes, your not sourcing them. I can only assume you are making them up.

It's also not pracitical for political groups defending Lebanon to divide. The threat is Israel, not the risk of a ultra nationalist party overtaking Israel. I think the national liberation forces in Lebanon should take the help they can get. In countries under siege they don't have the luxury (like you) to be sectarian, based on idealist politics. If you getting bombed, humiliated and occupied, you're not going to worry if they guy shooting at the oppressor might have anti-semitic views, or might hate homosexuals. The national revolution comes first, then the social revolution. It can only work this way.

You should be actually embrassed you even created this thread. First you can't even recognise a nation's right to resist occupation, then you make a fool of yourself by trying this sensationalist crap.

[Forward Union]

A) These people are Syrian ultra nationalists, not NAZIS.

The Syrian National Socialist Party the clue, really is in the name.


B) Where is the proof that these Syrian nationalists participated in the Lebanese national resistance?

Read my first post (reference to wikipedia) there's also mention of it here http://www.cedarland.org/teams.html#syrian and the parties own website,

[Morag]

The Nazi party LU linked to is a Lebanese party with roots in Syria, which makes some sense based on their aims of a united region. And LU isn't calling anyone a Nazi, just asking if you can have the same critical support for this party as you do for Hizb'allah. It's actually a good question, because if you can support Hizb'allah for anti-imperialism, shouldn't you be able to support another anti-imperialist organisation that isn't slinging the religion, regardless of the association of the name with Hitler? If your willing to disregard everything else in Hizb'allah's agenda and focus only on anti-imperialism and say that we're all Hizb'allah, why is this party any different? Critical support works for the Party of God but not for the National Socialists?

It's a strong question that should be answered to help everyone on these boards refine their criticisms. The broad anti-imperialist support may need to be redefined. LU is asking why one group deserves our critical support while another group, maybe not leading the resistence, but as Jamal pointed out, they are active and lost members in the resistence too, doesn't deserve it? Is it the rampant anti-semetism, because many people feel that Hizb'allah is just as bad. Is it the baggage of history?

[which doctor]

Originally posted by Red Brigade+Aug 26 2006, 12:24 PM--> (Red Brigade @ Aug 26 2006, 12:24 PM) B) Where is the proof that these Syrian nationalists participated in the Lebanese national resistance? [/b]

Love Underground
It was active in resistance against the Israeli occupation of Lebanon from 1982 on. It is now part of the pro-Syrian bloc, along with Amal and Hezbollah,

[Forward Union]

Also where are you getting these quotes, your not sourcing them. I can only assume you are making them up.

clutch at those straws any harder, and you'll cut off all circulation to your fingers!


It's also not pracitical for political groups defending Lebanon to divide.

I couldn't have begged for a more compromising comment. Should the Bolsheviks have sided with the Tsar in the face of German domination in WW1, of course the good of the nation comes first.


You should be actually embrassed you even created this thread.

This coming from the person who brought us wisdom such as "We also don't even know if these guys support National Socialism" ... everyone's just keeps making that silly mistake, national socialism in arabic means... something nicer, right?

[MolotovLuv]

Hezbollah should be supported and encouraged to work with people of all faiths and races. I am concerned about the fundamentalist aspects of Hezbollah, but it seems to me that the more support they receive the more open and progressive they may be willing to become. We are fighting a common enemy, and we should be critical of Hezbollah, but not dismissive. Hope this makes sense, i'm working so it's hard to concentrate :)

[LoneRed]

If the pro-Hiz'bollah people dont support this group they are hypocrites, and hold double standards dear to themselves. then again if they do support it, its a wonder how they still could be called socialists, or comrades

[Morag]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 06:02 PM
If the pro-Hiz'bollah people dont support this group they are hypocrites, and hold double standards dear to themselves. then again if they do support it, its a wonder how they still could be called socialists, or comrades
I think that we should view this from a current perception, not through the goggles of history that tells us Nazi = Hitler = evil no matter what. If they have a critical analysis that supports Hizb'allah, then they do. If that same critical support can also support the Nazi's, then they can accept that, or redefine their criteria.

[вор в законе]

The Syrian National Socialist Party the clue, really is in the name.

Strictly speaking, only the German National Socialist Party can be called NAZI. It is also ahistorical to regard the SNSP as NAZIS and it done only to create impressions.

But OK, let's not open an argument on semantics.



Read my first post (reference to wikipedia) there's also mention of it here http://www.cedarland.org/teams.html#syrian and the parties own website,


Apparently you are right.

I also found these though:

(Wikkipedia)



SSNP militias fought alongside the nationalist and leftist forces, against the Phalangists and their right-wing allies.



After the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and subsequent rout of the leftist forces, a number of the leftist organisations regrouped to engage in resistance to the Israeli occupation. Along with the Lebanese Communist Party and the Baath Party, and some smaller leftist groups, the SSNP played a prominent role in this.

You are aware that real NAZIS would never ally themselves with Communists or leftists so many times for any kind of resistance. Apparently they do not quite fit in that NAZI profile that you wished to pass.

The Lebanese Communist Party militia lost 6 soldiers in this recent war. That alone should be enough to support the Lebanese national resistance.

[mauvaise foi]

It's called the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, not the Syrian National Socialist Party.

Check this link out: http://www.ssnp.com/new/ssnp/en/ssnp_001.htm

Their ideology may not be completely correct, but their not Nazis either.

[Forward Union]

If the pro-Hiz'bollah people dont support this group they are hypocrites, and hold double standards dear to themselves. then again if they do support it, its a wonder how they still could be called socialists, or comrades

No proper responses to this dilemma as of yet, unsurprisingly. Fun watching the creative responses though,


Apparently they do not quite fit in that NAZI profile that you wished to pass.

They only very marginally avoid that TAG, I read their essay on National socialism vs Social Nationalism. The only significant difference was their belief in more than one 'race' making up a nation. Unless I have not understood it correctly.

Then again, If I were a nazi, I'd do everything I could re-catagorise my beliefs, a bit like what the BNP did. It's white pride, not white power, remember? Either way it's semantic, they're fucking racists.


The Lebanese Communist Party militia lost 6 soldiers in this recent war. That alone should be enough to support the Lebanese national resistance.

I don't support groups based on their casualties.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Love [email protected] 26 2006, 01:09 PM

If the pro-Hiz'bollah people dont support this group they are hypocrites, and hold double standards dear to themselves. then again if they do support it, its a wonder how
[QUOTE]Apparently they do not quite fit in that NAZI profile that you wished to pass.

They only very marginally avoid that TAG, I read their essay on National socialism vs Social Nationalism. The only significant difference was their belief in more than one 'race' making up a nation. Unless I have not understood it correctly.
You seem to be trying for an ideological definition of Naziism. But the National Socialist movement was a material phenomenon. A radical mass movement of frustrated middle-class people, using anticapitalist rhetoric - but financed by the employing class as a way of smashing the working-class movement.

Fascism is so far a phenomenon of the advanced capitalist countries.

Some parties and movements in the Third World are certainly ideologically influenced by Naziism or other forms of European fascism. In Lebanon, that includes the Phalangist party. In Syria and Iraq, the Ba'athist party. I'd ask whether the SSNP in Lebanon is a wing of Ba'athism; I know it advocates a merger of Lebanon with Ba'athist Syria.

But that doesn't make it the same thing as Naziism or fascism. In both Syria and Iraq, the Ba'athist took power through narrow military coups rather than through a mass movement. So they were unable to crush the working class as completely, and relatively conventional military dictatorships resulted.

[Hiero]

clutch at those straws any harder, and you'll cut off all circulation to your fingers!

That doesn't answer the question. Where are you getting the quotes from?


I couldn't have begged for a more compromising comment. Should the Bolsheviks have sided with the Tsar in the face of German domination in WW1, of course the good of the nation comes first.

The Tsar were imperialist, the Bolsheviks also were able withdraw Russia from the imperialist war. Hezbollah and other parties like the SSNP are national liberators regardless of their reactionary politics. They have got one thing right, to fight against Zionism. That is the main issue at hand.


everyone's just keeps making that silly mistake, national socialism in arabic means... something nicer, right?

Translations can be misleading. Though this is not the case, you just lied about the name of the party.

[Ian]

I think its ironic that love underground accused someone of clutching straws, you've been digging dirt and citing a party from Syria with membership that could probably be counted on one hand as proof that we should withdraw any support for anti imperialist action.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 10:53 AM
That doesn't answer the question. Where are you getting the quotes from?

Which ones specifically? I have made references to Wikipedia, The parties site, here (http://www.geocities.com/lebanese_political_parties/syrian_national_socialist_party.htm) and here (http://www.cedarland.org/teams.html#syrian)/ various other sites and have had certain things confirmed by other useres on the board. Feel free also, to check things up yourself.


The Tsar were imperialist, the Bolsheviks also were able withdraw Russia from the imperialist war. Hezbollah and other parties like the SSNP are national liberators regardless of their reactionary politics. They have got one thing right, to fight against Zionism. That is the main issue at hand.

yes yes yes, we've been through your logic before, all I wanted to clarify from this comparison, was that you will in fact support anyone, as long as the nation is in trouble, yes?


Translations can be misleading. Though this is not the case, you just lied about the name of the party.

My mistake, on various sites it's referred to as the "Syrian Socialist Nationalist Party " "National socialist party" and "social nationalist party" having read this politics, I fail to see how their nationalism and anti-Semitism is really, any more preferable to that of other strands of bigotry.

Incidently, even if they were mien kampf carrying, nazis, would it matter to you? given their position?

[Ian]

I know what the issue is, Hezbollah don't plant enough vegetables on council land, if they did the working class would be liberated.

[Hiero]

Which ones specifically? I have made references to Wikipedia, The parties site, here and here/ various other sites and have had certain things confirmed by other useres on the board. Feel free also, to check things up yourself

The quotes from you first two posts were unreferenced.


yes yes yes, we've been through your logic before, all I wanted to clarify from this comparison, was that you will in fact support anyone, as long as the nation is in trouble, yes?


I already answered that question:


I think the national liberation forces in Lebanon should take the help they can get. In countries under siege they don't have the luxury (like you) to be sectarian, based on idealist politics. If you getting bombed, humiliated and occupied, you're not going to worry if they guy shooting at the oppressor might have anti-semitic views, or might hate homosexuals. The national revolution comes first, then the social revolution. It can only work this way.

It would be good if the National Liberation in all countries was lead by a Marxist-Leninist party. This is not always the case. As long as the party is not backed by other imperialist, then they should be given some support.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 11:57 AM
The quotes from you first two posts were unreferenced.

wikipedia.


I already answered that question:

So essentially, the answer is "yes" you would support, even the nazis, if it was in the interests of Lebanese nationalism.

That's pretty much all I wanted to clarify,

[Ian]

my beef with you is off the scale and you keep skirting the issue, whats wrong with you?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 12:18 PM
my beef with you is off the scale and you keep skirting the issue, whats wrong with you?
what issue? what are you on about?

[Hiero]

Originally posted by Love Underground+Aug 27 2006, 11:14 PM--> (Love Underground @ Aug 27 2006, 11:14 PM)
[email protected] 27 2006, 11:57 AM
The quotes from you first two posts were unreferenced.

wikipedia.


I already answered that question:

So essentially, the answer is "yes" you would support, even the nazis, if it was in the interests of Lebanese nationalism.

That's pretty much all I wanted to clarify, [/b]
There are no Nazi's in Lebanon. I can't answer yes or no. I can say i would support the SNSP. It is only your twisted logic that these guys are Nazis.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 02:03 PM
There are no Nazi's in Lebanon. I can't answer yes or no.
why not?

[Hiero]

Originally posted by Love Underground+Aug 28 2006, 01:04 AM--> (Love Underground @ Aug 28 2006, 01:04 AM)
[email protected] 27 2006, 02:03 PM
There are no Nazi's in Lebanon. I can't answer yes or no.
why not? [/b]
Because... there are no Nazis in Lebanon. How can i answer such a fictitious question?

[D_Bokk]

I thought all the Nazis moved to Israel.

Love Underground, you present by far the worst argument ever. You failed to link even the Syrian National Socialist Party with the Nazi party whatsoever, you even failed further to label all supporters of Hizb'allah's fight to destroy Israel as 'nazis.' Thank you for wasting everyone's time.

Also, the only anti-Semitism coming out of Hizb'allah is coming from Nasrallah alone.

[rouchambeau]

down wit israel!!!1

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 02:07 PM
Because... there are no Nazis in Lebanon. How can i answer such a fictitious question?
There are goups with equally unsetteling ideals, wich you support. But I added on top of this a hypothetical question, why not present a hypothetical answer? are you scared of admitting you would in certain instances support the nazis?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 02:45 PM
I thought all the Nazis moved to Israel.

Israel has a commendable record of aiding the hunt for Nazi war criminals, but im beign pedantic, I know what you mean.


You failed to link even the Syrian National Socialist Party with the Nazi party whatsoever, you even failed further to label all supporters of Hizb'allah's fight to destroy Israel as 'nazis.' Thank you for wasting everyone's time.

And you have failed to explain why the SSNP's racist nationalism is different in any meaningful way, or even, more desirable than nazism. But regardless, of whether I am forced to push it into the realms of hypothetics, I was simply trying to highlight the fact, that supporting anyone, regardless of who, so long as they hold one single commendable hallmark, is nothing but idiocy, that in certain situations would result in supporting even the nazis. Now that that's been clarified, im contented :D

[Hiero]

Nazi's would never hold such a progressive position. A Nazi party could not grow out of National liberation movement. If they ever tried to claim to hold such ideas, they would be opposed for opportunism.

If your contented with something not based on reality then you might have a mental disorder.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 07:24 AM
Nazi's would never hold such a progressive position. A Nazi party could not grow out of National liberation movement. If they ever tried to claim to hold such ideas, they would be opposed for opportunism.

I fail to see why nazis could never fight against foreign invasion? and although it is semantic, most nazis I have conversed with do consider themselves national liberators, and would willing pick up arms against military intervention. The SSNP carry almost all the reactionary hallmarks of the National Socialists, anti-semitism 'greater nationalism' etc etc, and you support them. This is all I needed to clarify, I don't want to say 'reductio ad absurdum' in fear of prolonging the debate, but knowing that your rationale will take you to support anything, leaves me with a greater sense of understanding.


If your contented with something not based on reality then you might have a mental disorder.

Since when was being contented at logical understanding attained by a hypothetical question an indication of a mental disorder? or was this a bad attempt at an insult?

[Morag]

Hiero, it makes no sense to claim your not interested in hypotheticals on a board for people discussing hypothetical revolutions. That's basically what we do, isn't it? If a and b happen, then does c happen, or does d. How can e be avoided? Is f or g or h the proper position, should a happen but not b? So, those are hypothetical questions. So is, group a is like group b, which we disapprove of, but they support group c, which some of us agree with- do we support group c and group a, or only group c, and why is this the correct position?

Also, the Nazi's were all about the national liberation. Bringing greater Germany together was a huge part of Hitler's program, and it seems to carry through to the SSNP group as well.

[Hiero]

Hiero, it makes no sense to claim your not interested in hypotheticals on a board for people discussing hypothetical revolutions. That's basically what we do, isn't it? If a and b happen, then does c happen, or does d. How can e be avoided? Is f or g or h the proper position, should a happen but not b? So, those are hypothetical questions. So is, group a is like group b, which we disapprove of, but they support group c, which some of us agree with- do we support group c and group a, or only group c, and why is this the correct position?

Some people do, mostly Anarchists and sometimes Trots. I however only talk about real revolutions. Either thoose that have been succesful and thoose which are being played out now.

I never ask stupid question like "Is the USA in revolution?' Your hypothetical revolutions lack class analysis and ultimately deny reality.

There is no point in talking about an unrealistic situation about Nazi's in Lebanon.


Also, the Nazi's were all about the national liberation. Bringing greater Germany together was a huge part of Hitler's program, and it seems to carry through to the SSNP group as well.

They were about national oppression and national chauvinism. They were not liberating the "Aryan" race from the Jews and Communist like they said.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Love Underground

And you have failed to explain why the SSNP's racist nationalism is different in any meaningful way, or even, more desirable than nazism. But regardless, of whether I am forced to push it into the realms of hypothetics, I was simply trying to highlight the fact, that supporting anyone, regardless of who, so long as they hold one single commendable hallmark, is nothing but idiocy, that in certain situations would result in supporting even the nazis. Now that that's been clarified, im contented
Would you mind explaing why I am required to explain why SSNP is not racist when you haven't even proved that they are? Quit trying to make other people do the work for you.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Jamal
Dear comrades, the syrien national party is the definition of anti-semitism. They belive that there should be a state called the large syria which consists of Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and (this will amuse you) Cyprus!!!


"While Sa'adah called for the unification of Syria into one nation, he was adamant about the exclusion of Jews. In fact, the party's ideology is virulently anti-semitic"


While glorifying the folk, i.e., the Syrian nation, considering it as an organic whole endowed with life, Sa'adah, borrowing from Italian Fascism, elevated the state to the same position and recognized it as an integral realization of the Syrian nation. Like Hitler and Mussolini, Sa'adah had no regard for the masses and argued that in essence a selfconstituted, self-proclaimed elite should lead the nation to glory behind the leader. Giving himself the title of al-Za'im (Der Fuhrer), Sa'adah imitated Hitler and the Nazis in almost every possible manner. Thus, the Syrian national anthem . . . sang "Syria, Syria, uber alles." . . . The hand gestures in saluting and the "long live the leader" bore striking resemblances to the Nazi practice. The original swastika was replaced with a [swastika derivative] hurricane as a [party] symbol. The party's ideology is also based on the belief that there are "in humanity excellent, advanced races and inferior races."


Sa'adah believed in the superiority of the Syrian nation and was very critical of the Arab nation because--unlike the Syrian nation--the Arabs--in Sa'adah's mind--intermarried with the "black race"

http://www.cedarland.org/teams.html#syrian

[ComradeOm]

Have we established that the Syrian National Socialist Party is indeed fascist? To my mind there seems to be a great effort to muddy the waters by bickering over semantics. If Hiero doesn't object, the easiest way to avoid this is by moving into the realm of hypothetical scenarios.

Let's assume that a fascist group is active in the resistance to Israel in Lebanon. Would our local Hezbollah fans support such an organisation and proudly display its flag as their avatars?

After all the fundamental point here is that Hezbollah is progressive because it opposes Israeli imperialism… regards of its domestic policies. Would you extend such a logic to an openly fascist group?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 12:28 PM
After all the fundamental point here is that Hezbollah is progressive because it opposes Israeli imperialism… regards of its domestic policies. Would you extend such a logic to an openly fascist group?
They have already said yes, they'd support absolutely anything, even the nazis.

[Emperor Ronald Reagan]

You sound like a pathetic Zionist desperately grasping for straws. This thread belongs in the lexicon of Zionist demonization of legitimate resistance to oppression and occupation. As someone else already said, you really are scraping the bottom of the barrel here. Too absurd to merit a response. What a pathetic attempt, from a pathetic author. Remind me to dismiss your posts instantly from now on.

[Phalanx]

It's not a 'Zionist' thing to question why so many 'leftists' would support fascist resistance. Fascism is Fascism, it doesn't matter if they're 'anti-imperialist'.

There's absolutely no reason leftists must support Hizbullah, or the National Socialist party either. Instead, we can wait for the reactionary forces to wear themselves out, meanwhile building up our strength, not the strength of fascist forces.

[Emperor Ronald Reagan]

Aren't your hands tired from grasping at all the straws? Hezbollah's "fascism" remains an unproven and idiotic hypothesis. I also fail to see how Hezbollah is relevant here, in a topic about the SSNP. If you want to discuss Hezbollah, I suggest you make another topic, treating both Hezbollah and the SSNP seperately. Instead of lumping them together as some kind of homogenous entity in order to demonize Hezbollah via guilt by association or some other logical fallacy.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Emperor Ronald [email protected] 29 2006, 06:59 PM
You sound like a pathetic Zionist desperately grasping for straws. This thread belongs in the lexicon of Zionist demonization of legitimate resistance to oppression and occupation. As someone else already said, you really are scraping the bottom of the barrel here. Too absurd to merit a response. What a pathetic attempt, from a pathetic author. Remind me to dismiss your posts instantly from now on.
Answer the fucking question. Would you support fascists that oppose Israeli imperialism?

[BuyOurEverything]

Aren't your hands tired from grasping at all the straws? Hezbollah's "fascism" remains an unproven and idiotic hypothesis.

Nobody has claimed that Hizballah is fascist.


I also fail to see how Hezbollah is relevant here, in a topic about the SSNP. If you want to discuss Hezbollah, I suggest you make another topic

Hizballah is relevant here because, if you read the first post, the entire point of this thread was to determine if the users who support Hizballah due to their anti-imperialism would also support a fascist party who was also engaged in anti-imperialism. A question that has yet to be answered.


Instead of lumping them together as some kind of homogenous entity

Nobody has done that.

[Vinny Rafarino]

QUOTE (Emperor Ronald Reagan @ Aug 26 2006, 12:43 PM)
Still desperately grasping for straws to condemn Hezbollah, eh "Love Underground?" What a pathetic attempt, and a pathetic person you are.

Thanks for your input Reichsfuhrer ERR; you can now carry on with your plans to march around the desert scouring for infidels to toss in the oven.




And the winner of tonight's "Ostrich Award" goes to:

Red Brigade!

Now tell him what he's won skip!

Red Brigade, you have won a this wonderful bronze statue of Muhammad beheading the last of the Jewish infidels in the Middle East and a brand car!

This 1978 Ford Econoline comes completely gutted for easy the storage of multiple infidel's bodies and can be easy converted into a rolling bomb in mere minutes by you and the kids using only simple houshold tools.

That's right, nothing says "I love Allah" like driving into a Starbucks and blowing yourself to pieces along with 50 Jews who dare spit in the face of Allah by drinking coffee and reading western magazines.



Jamal, YKTMR, and New kind of Butchery, for almost reaching the inane level of Red Brigade will all receive a copy of the Koran along with our home board game.

[YKTMX]

Answer the fucking question. Would you support fascists that oppose Israeli imperialism?

Stop trying to get people to answer your stupid hypothetical, moral quandry, alternate history bullshit questions.

If I said, make a choice, would you rather kill your sister or your mother, that would be idiotic. This is similar.

If anyone can find a "fascist" Lebanese political party that actively opposed Zionist imperialism, then there is a case to answer. But this Syrian group are a total non-issue. LU raised one sentence that claimed they fought in the war against Israel in 1982. But since no one has ever heard of them, nor have they even been mentioned in the latest struggle, it's a non-issue.

On the back of this, the openly Zionists (DovBer) and the fellow travellers (you, LU, Severian etc) are engaging in an absolutely baseless attack. Presumably this is because LU, despite his best efforts and photos, has miserably failed to prove that Hezb itself is "fascist".

I, and the other anti-imerialists on here, support the right of the Lebanese nation to defend itself from hostile imperialist aggression.

The Hezbollah are the main force in this defense. Supporting this right doesn't mean we support everything Hezbollah has ever done or everything Sheikh Nasrallah has ever said. It does mean that we defend their legitimate rights to defend themselves.

[вор в законе]

Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 29 2006, 09:07 PM
QUOTE (Emperor Ronald Reagan @ Aug 26 2006, 12:43 PM)
Still desperately grasping for straws to condemn Hezbollah, eh "Love Underground?" What a pathetic attempt, and a pathetic person you are.

Thanks for your input Reichsfuhrer ERR; you can now carry on with your plans to march around the desert scouring for infidels to toss in the oven.




And the winner of tonight's "Ostrich Award" goes to:

Red Brigade!

Now tell him what he's won skip!

Red Brigade, you have won a this wonderful bronze statue of Muhammad beheading the last of the Jewish infidels in the Middle East and a brand car!

This 1978 Ford Econoline comes completely gutted for easy the storage of multiple infidel's bodies and can be easy converted into a rolling bomb in mere minutes by you and the kids using only simple houshold tools.

That's right, nothing says "I love Allah" like driving into a Starbucks and blowing yourself to pieces along with 50 Jews who dare spit in the face of Allah by drinking coffee and reading western magazines.



Jamal, YKTMR, and New kind of Butchery, for almost reaching the inane level of Red Brigade will all receive a copy of the Koran along with our home board game.
Other than your banal demeanor, what is the purpose of you on these boards?

[nerifr]

to ALL of hizbolla supporters

CHECK THIS SITE, IDIOTS (http://www.lebanonsvoices.com)

[Devrim]

I think that in some ways the question that has been posed by ‘love Underground’ is an extremely valid one. Let’s forget about Hizbullah for a moment, and concentrate on his question ‘which is would you support a fascist movement which was anti-imperialist?’.

There seems to be a whole load of people on these boards who are arguing that Hizbullah is a working class organisation, Hizbullah is not an anti-Semitic organisation, Hizbullah are not a fundamentalist organisation …etc…

I don’t think that any of these points are really relevant to the heart of the discussion though, which is ‘do you support national liberation movements?’.

If you do, it doesn’t mater how reactionary Hizbullah are, and in my personal opinion they are very reactionary, you would still support them.

If you don’t, it doesn’t matter how much leftist talk they come out with. They are still reactionary because they are a nationalist group, and you would still be against them.

This is the real difference in this discussion.

There are people posting who support Hizbullah, people posting who support the state of Israel (both of which in my view are equally reactionary), and people posting who take a working class position of ‘ a plague on both your houses’.

I think that Hizbullah is a reactionary Islamicist organisation, but that is not the point. Somebody suggested in an earlier post that all national liberation movements aren’t led by ‘Marxist-Leninists’. If a national liberation movement was led by so-called ‘Marxist-Leninists’, we still would not support it as we say that in the present period, all nationalist movements are anti-working class.

The entire Middle East is falling deeper, and deeper into a cycle of nationalist, and sectarian violence. The job of revolutionaries in these countries is not to fall behind one bourgeoisie, be it there ’own’, or ‘somebody else’s‘. The task of revolutionaries is to involve themselves in the struggles of their class. And, however much the working class in the Middle East may be pulled behind nationalism, there are still signs of hope. Look to the recent strike wave in Iran, the oil workers’ strike in southern Iraq, or the current movement against the pathetic pay rise being offered to civil servants in Turkey for inspiration. These are situations where the working class is struggling for its own interests., and not for the interests of ‘their own’ bourgeoisie, and this is where communists should be active.

In two days time, on the 31st of August, Zafer Bayram (Victory(over the Greeks in 1923) Festival), the Turkish state will launch a new offensive against the PKK in both the South East of Turkey, and Northern Iraq. Over the past couple of days the PKK (allegedly, though I also have suspicions that it might be the ’deep state’) has bombed Istanbul, Marmaris, and Antalya. Both sides in this struggle are anti-working class. At present workers struggle in Turkey is centred around the pay rounds, and particularly around those of the civil servants. The struggle between the separatists, and the state only serves to divide workers along ethnic lines, whereas the struggle to defend workers’ living standards is one that has the potential to unite all workers, whatever their ethnic origin, behind class demands, i.e. the defence of workers living conditions. It also raises, however slightly, the spectre of the mass strike, and behind the mass strike lies the spectre of the revolution, and of proletarian dictatorship.

The communist left considers that the struggle for communism is intrinsically bound up with the struggle of the working class to defend its own living conditions. Some people on these boards have called us things like ‘sectarian little groups’. If supporting the working class against the capitalist attacks on its living standards, and rejecting any idea of ‘national defence’ means that we are a ‘sectarian little group’, I am proud to be a member of one. We will continue to argue against nationalism, and in defence of workers’ interests, and to condemn all political organisations in this country including the entire left as anti-working class nationalists. If that makes us ‘sectarians’, so be it.

Others have said that we defend the position of our ‘own’ bourgeoisie, even as they side with different bourgeois factions. They have added that groups that take this position end up ‘sliding off the fence’, and end up supporting one bourgeois faction, or another. This is obviously a danger for many groups. However, we would reply that we don’t sit on the fence. We take the side of the working class every time. There are lots of people who have sided with different bourgeois factions in this war. There are some (i.e. the left communists, some of the anarchists, and some members of the Communist League) who have taken the side of the working class in opposition to all nationalisms.

Devrim

[JimFar]

ComradeOm writes:


Let's assume that a fascist group is active in the resistance to Israel in Lebanon. Would our local Hezbollah fans support such an organisation and proudly display its flag as their avatars?

After all the fundamental point here is that Hezbollah is progressive because it opposes Israeli imperialism… regards of its domestic policies. Would you extend such a logic to an openly fascist group?


And DovBerBorochov writes:


It's not a 'Zionist' thing to question why so many 'leftists' would support fascist resistance. Fascism is Fascism, it doesn't matter if they're 'anti-imperialist'.

There's absolutely no reason leftists must support Hizbullah, or the National Socialist party either. Instead, we can wait for the reactionary forces to wear themselves out, meanwhile building up our strength, not the strength of fascist forces.


While this debate cannot be decisively settled by throwing around quotes from great Marxists of the past, nevertheless, I think it's worthwhile to attend to what one such Marxist, Trotsky, had to say on a not dissimilar issue.

Trotsky once wrote:

I will take the most simple and obvious example. In Brazil there now reigns a semifascist regime that every revolutionary can only view with hatred. Let us assume, however, that on the morrow England enters into a military conflict with Brazil. I ask you on whose side of the conflict will the working class be? I will answer for myself personally -- in this case I will be on the side of 'fascist' Brazil against 'democratic' Great Britain. Why? Because in the conflict between them it will not be a question of democracy or fascism. If England should be victorious, she will put another fascist in Rio de Janeiro and will place double chains on Brazil. If Brazil on the contrary should be victorious, it will give a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness of the country and will lead to the overthrow of the Vargas dictatorship. The defeat of England will at the same time deliver a blow to British imperialism and will give an impulse to the revolutionary movement of the British proletariat. Truly, one must have an empty head to reduce world antagonisms and military conflicts to the struggle between fascism and democracy. Under all masks one must know how to distinguish exploiters, slave-owners and robbers! (Writings, 1938-39, page 34).

I would submit that similar principles are applicable to the case of Hezbollah. As long as it is acting in a forthrightly anti-imperialist manner, then it ought to be supported against Israel and the US. Remember, Trotsky was arguing that the workers movement, in the struggle against British imperialism, ought to support even a fascist or semi-fascist regime like the Vargas regime in Brazil, because the defeat of Britain by the Brazillians would promote a radicalization of national and democratic consciosness within Brazil while possibly also strengthening the revolutionary movement of the British proletariat. Similarly, it can be argued that a victory by Hezbollah against Israel and the US, will at a minimum help to spur the development of national and democratic consciousness among the Lebanese Sh'ia (and not just the Sh'ia in Lebanon), while inflicting a blow against US and Israeli imperialism.

[Hiero]

I don’t think that any of these points are really relevant to the heart of the discussion though, which is ‘do you support national liberation movements?’.


Somebody suggested in an earlier post that all national liberation movements aren’t led by ‘Marxist-Leninists’. If a national liberation movement was led by so-called ‘Marxist-Leninists’, we still would not support it as we say that in the present period, all nationalist movements are anti-working class.

You're an Anarchist or you haven't read much Marxist-Leninist literature and history.

The oppressed nation always has the right to national liberation. All imperialism is anti-working class. Do you oppose the anti-colonialist movements of the 20th centaury. Do you think that Black South Africans should not have fought for national-liberation? What about Algeria, Vietnam, Angola, Cuba? These were progresive movements, and in most cases were lead by Marixist-Leninist parties. When the oppressed nation fights for liberation, we should give all support to them. If you do not suport them, then your naive politics only helps the imperialist. Communist Parties if possible should always support and donate to the national liberation.

How else can there be socialism if one nation oppresses and occupies another nation? Are you going to try and build socialism with the oppressors? You think the Arab nations occupied by Israel can create socialism under such conditions?

The theory of conflict between oppressor and oppressed answers the question. First the occupied nations has to be liberated. Communist politics is about the fight of the oppressed against the oppressor. If you can't distinguish between the two and do no support the oppressed, then you take a liberal stance. Which is an anti-worker stance.


There are people posting who support Hizbullah, people posting who support the state of Israel (both of which in my view are equally reactionary), and people posting who take a working class position of ‘ a plague on both your houses’.


Here is the problem, to assume that Israel and Hezbollah are equally the same. Israel is an illegal state which occupies Arab land. It constantly re-occupies and is always attacking Southern Lebanon. It occupies Lebanese land. It occupies Arab nations in Palastine (which includes West Bank, Gaza and modern Israel). It is heavily sponsored by the USA and serves USA interest. It's creation greatly helped the US, who need a subordinate state in the middle east.

Now let's compare with Hezbollah. They occupy no nations, though they are Islamic. They fight against the Zionist state, and run a welfare program.

Israel is an oppressive state, the fight against Israel by the Arab nations is the fight of the oppressed. It is fairly easy to fall into liberal politics when we are not living the lives of these oppressed people. We need to make sure we are always take into context the class situation. Israel serves US bourgioes class interests, and the Jewish bourgeois in Israel. Hezbollah serves the interest of thoose who want political and national freedom and aids the Palastinians rights to return home. The only way to achieve socialism is through national independce, so they serve the interest of the working class.

To claim Isreal and Hezbollah are equally reactionary is a liberal theory. People like Love Underground due to their privaleged position, can not see the long term picture. They arrogantly want oppressed people to try and create communism in one ste. They don't take into the context 1) These people have a lot to lose if they make themselves so vulnerable by intiating class war in their nation, this leads to 2) they don't consider the material conditions, so 3) they can not see the long term picture.


Here is a good outline why Marxist-Leninist support Nationalism in oppressed countries. http://www.oneparty.co.uk/index.html?http%...ml/courses.html (http://www.oneparty.co.uk/index.html?http%3A//www.oneparty.co.uk/html/courses.html)

However you may ask "but why do you support Nazis". Love Underground takes the liberal position, also an anti-materialist position. Nazis and the non Aryan Fascsism, can only occur in a certain period of Bourgeois development in the imperialist countries. It occurs when this bourgeois development faces opposition by the working class.

These conditions do not exist in Syria or Lebanon. The SSNP may be fairly reactionary, but they are no where close to the Nazis.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Hiero+--> (Hiero)You're an Anarchist or you haven't read much Marxist-Leninist literature and history.[/b]
I am not an anarchist, and I have read a fair amount of Marx, Lenin, and History. The position that I am defending comes from the left of the Communist International. Those which Lenin condemned as the ultra-left. I am well aware of the Leninist position. I just happen to think that first it was wrong, and second it is distorted by the Leninists today.

First let us look at Lenin's position:

[i]Originally posted by Lenin in The Right of Nations to Self-Determination+--> (Lenin in The Right of Nations to Self-Determination)
It is precisely and solely because Russia and the neighbouring countries are passing through this period that we must have a clause in our programme on the right of nations to self-determination.[/b]

The period that Lenin refers to is the one in which the bourgeois tasks of overthrowing feudalism and of achieving national independence had not yet been completed. Now in my opinion his position was deeply mistaken at the time, but note that Lenin does not say that support for national liberation struggles is a principle just that it was a tactic during a particular period.

The results of the policy were catastrophic in all of the countries neighbouring Russia. The next quote is rather long, but I think that it is worthwhile to point out the absolutely disastrous nature of this policy for the Russian revolution:
Originally posted by International Review
From October 1917, the Bolsheviks pushed for the independence of the countries which the Czarist empire had kept subjugated: the Baltic countries, Finland, Poland, the Ukraine, Armenia etc... They believed that such an attitude would guarantee the revolutionary proletariat indispensable support for its efforts to retain power while waiting for the maturation and explosion of the proletarian revolution in the great European countries, especially Germany. These hope were never to be fulfilled:

· Finland: the Soviet government recognised its independence on the 18th of December 1917. The working class movement in this country was very strong: it was on the revolutionary ascent, it had strong links with the Russian workers and had actively participated in the 1905 and 1917 revolutions. It was not a question of a country dominated by feudalism, but a very developed capitalist territory. And the Finnish bourgeoisie used the Soviet power's gift in order to crush the workers' insurrection that broke out in January 1918. This struggle lasted nearly 3 months but, despite the resolute support the Soviets gave to the Finnish workers, the new state was able to destroy the revolutionary movement, thanks to German troops whom they called on to help them;

· The Ukraine: the local nationalist movement did not represent a real bourgeois movement, but rather obliquely expressed the vague resentments of the peasants against the Russian landlords and above all the Poles. The proletariat in this region came from all over Russia and was very developed. In these conditions the band of nationalist adventurers that set up the 'Ukraine Rada' (Vinnickenko, Petlyura etc.) rapidly sought the patronage of German and Austrian imperialism. At the same time it dedicated all its forces to attacking the workers' soviets, which had been formed in Kharkov and other cities. The French general Tabouis who, because of the collapse of the central powers, replaced the German influence, employed Ukrainian reactionary bands in the war of the White Guards against the Soviets.

"Ukrainian nationalism... was a mere whim, a folly of a few dozen petty bourgeois intellectuals without the slightest roots in the economic, political or psychological relationships of the country; it was without any historical tradition, since the Ukraine never formed a nation or government, was without any national culture... To what was at first a mere farce they lent such importance that the farce became a matter of the most deadly seriousness - not as a serious national movement for which, afterwards as before, there are no roots at all, but as a shingle and rallying flag of counter-revolution. At Brest, out of this addled egg crept the German bayonets" (Rosa Luxemburg, idem, pages 382-2);

· The Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania): the workers' soviets took power in this zone at the same moment as the October revolution. 'National liberation' was carried out by British marines: "With the termination of hostilities against Germany, British naval units appeared in the Baltic. The Estonian Soviet Republic collapsed in January 1919. The Latvian Soviet Republic held out in Riga for five months and then succumbed to the threat of British naval guns" (E.H.Carr, The Bolshevik Revolution, vol. 1, page 317)

· In Asiatic Russia, Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan: "A Bashkir government under one Validov, which had proclaimed an autonomous Bashkir state after the October revolution, went over to the Orenburg Cossacks who were in open warfare against the Soviet Government; and this was typical of the prevailing attitude of the nationalists" (idem, page 324). For its part the 'national-revolutionary' government of Kokanda (in central Asia), with a programme that included the imposition of Islamic law, the defence of private property, and the forced seclusion of women, unleashed a fierce war against the workers' Soviet of Tashkent (the principal industrial city of Russian Turkestan).

· In Caucasia a Transcaucasian republic was formed, and its tutelage was fought over between Turkey, Germany and Great Britain. This caused it to break up into 3 'independent' republics (Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan), which fiercely confronted each other, urged on in turn by each of the contesting powers. The three republics supported with all their forces the British troops in their battle against the Baku workers' Soviet, which from 1917-20 suffered bombardment and massacres by the British;

· Turkey: from the beginning the Soviet government supported the 'revolutionary nationalist' Kemal Attaturk. Radek, a member of the CI, exhorted the recently formed Turkish Communist Party thus: "Your first task, as soon as you have formed as an independent party, will be to support the movement for the national freedom of Turkey" (Acts of the first four Congresses of the CI). The result was a catastrophe: Kemal crushed without leniency the strikes and demonstrations of the young Turkish proletariat and, if for a time he allied with the Soviet government, it was only done to put pressure on the British troops who were occupying Constantinople, and on the Greeks who had occupied large parts of Western Turkey. However, once the Greeks had been defeated and having offered British imperialism his fidelity if they left Constantinople, Kemal broke off the alliance with the Soviets and offered the British the head of the Turkish Communist Party, which was viciously persecuted.

· The case of Poland should also be mentioned. The national emancipation of Poland was almost a dogma in the Second International. When Rosa Luxemburg, at the end of the 19th century, demonstrated that this slogan was now erroneous and dangerous since capitalist development had tightly bound the Polish bourgeoisie to the Russian Czarist imperial caste, she provoked a stormy polemic inside the International. But the truth was that the workers of Warsaw, Lodz and elsewhere were at the vanguard of the 1905 revolution and had produced revolutionaries as outstanding as Rosa. Lenin had recognised that "The experience of the 1905 revolution demonstrated that even in these two nations (he is referring to Poland and Finland) the leading classes, the landlords and the bourgeoisie, renounced the revolutionary struggle for liberty and had looked for a rapprochement with the leading classes in Russia and with the Czarist monarchy out of fear of the revolutionary proletariat of Finland and Poland" (minutes of the Prague party conference, 1912).

Unfortunately the Bolsheviks held onto the dogma of 'the right of nations to self-determination', and from October 1917 on they promoted the independence of Poland. On 29 August 1918 the Council of Peoples Commissars declared "All treaties and acts concluded by the government of the former Russian Empire with the government of Prussia or of the Austro-Hungarian Empire concerning Poland, in view of their incompatibility with the principle of the self-determination of nations and with the revolutionary sense of right of the Russian people, which recognises the indefeasible right of the Polish people to independence and unity, are hereby irrevocably rescinded" (quoted in E.H. Carr, The Bolshevik Revolution, vol 1, p 293).

While it was correct that the proletarian bastion should denounce and annul the secret treaties of the bourgeois government, it was a serious error to do so in the name of 'principles' which were not on a proletarian terrain, but a bourgeois one, viz the 'right of nations'. This was rapidly demonstrated in practice. Poland fell under the iron dictatorship of Pilsudski, the veteran social patriot, who smashed the workers' strikes, allied Poland with France and Britain, and actively supported the counter-revolution of the White Armies by invading the Ukraine in 1920.

When in response to this aggression the troops of the Red Army entered Polish territory and advanced on Warsaw in the hope that the workers would rise up against the bourgeoisie, a new catastrophe befell the cause of the world revolution: the workers of Warsaw, the same workers who had made the 1905 revolution, fell in behind the 'Polish Nation' and participated in the defence of the city against the soviet troops. This was the tragic consequence of years of propaganda about the 'national liberation' of Poland by the Second International and then by the proletarian bastion in Russia.

I think that consideration of the policy should cause some of today's so-called Leninists to question the policy itself. After all we are not talking about the results in one country here, but in all of the countries neighbouring Russia. Even if one concludes that the policy was correct that, which I would like to see a justification for, we also have to consider whether the 'period ' that Lenin refers to is over. I believe that it is, and not only that but also that it was actually over by the time of the Russian revolution.

JimFar quoted Trotsky:
I will take the most simple and obvious example. In Brazil there now reigns a semifascist regime that every revolutionary can only view with hatred. Let us assume, however, that on the morrow England enters into a military conflict with Brazil. I ask you on whose side of the conflict will the working class be? I will answer for myself personally -- in this case I will be on the side of 'fascist' Brazil against 'democratic' Great Britain. Why? Because in the conflict between them it will not be a question of democracy or fascism. If England should be victorious, she will put another fascist in Rio de Janeiro and will place double chains on Brazil. If Brazil on the contrary should be victorious, it will give a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness of the country and will lead to the overthrow of the Vargas dictatorship. The defeat of England will at the same time deliver a blow to British imperialism and will give an impulse to the revolutionary movement of the British proletariat. Truly, one must have an empty head to reduce world antagonisms and military conflicts to the struggle between fascism and democracy. Under all masks one must know how to distinguish exploiters, slave-owners and robbers!

I think that there is a fatal flaw in this argument. Trotsky asserts that:
If Brazil on the contrary should be victorious, it will give a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness of the country and will lead to the overthrow of the Vargas dictatorship.

When do victorious wars lead to an increase in class conflict? I think in reality a victorious war is more likely to tie the working class to the state. Trotsky talks about 'giv a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness. I think that this is precisely the opposite of what the communists want. Surely, revolutionaries what to 'give a mighty impulse to' class and revolutionary consciousness, which to me seems to be exactly the opposite. I don't think that this is merely playing with words. I think that the those who argue for tying the working class to 'their own' ruling class are acting effectively in the interests of their 'own' bourgeoisie. What they are saying is that workers should give up the class struggle, and unite with the bourgeoisie. A good example of this is the SWP in the UK who wrote on the situation in Iran:
Originally posted by Socialist Worker 28.11.87
We have no choice but to support the Khomeini regime... it would be wrong to strike... socialists should not call for the disruption of military supplies... not support action which would lead to the collapse of the military effort What a shocking position for so-called socialists to come up with.

Hiero writes:
Originally posted by Hiero
The oppressed nation always has the right to national liberation. This argument is completely based within bourgeois concepts. In fact they are concepts that spring from the bourgeois revolutions. Today this period has definitely closed, and it closed about 100 years ago.

He asks:
Originally posted by Hiero
Do you think that Black South Africans should not have fought for national-liberation? What about Algeria, Vietnam, Angola, Cuba?

What I notice here is that there is absolutely no mention of class. There is a lot of talk about national liberation, but none of the working class. Have the so-called Marxists forgotten what Marx himself wrote:
Originally posted by K.Marx
The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. The question for communists is not one of supporting the national struggle, but of supporting the working class. These are not the same things. nationalist parties have a nasty habit of turning around and massacring workers both before, and after they have achieved national liberation. I think that the massacre of workers by the Vietnamese Stalinists in 1945 would be a could example here, or maybe the massacre of workers in Shanghai in 1927 by the Kuomintang. It would be very easy to go on.


Originally posted by Hiero
The theory of conflict between oppressor and oppressed answers the question. First the occupied nations has to be liberated. Communist politics is about the fight of the oppressed against the oppressor. If you can't distinguish between the two and do no support the oppressed, then you take a liberal stance. Which is an anti-worker stance.

So what you seem to be saying here is that a stance which concentrates on the struggles of the working class, and argues that the working class shouldn't get itself dragged into supporting nationalist wars on behalf of its own bourgeoisie, however 'oppressed' it may be, is actually an anti-worker stance. I find your logic spellbinding.


[email protected]
The only way to achieve socialism is through national independce, so they serve the interest of the working class.

This to me sounds like typical Stalinist stagiest nonsense. A policy that was fostered on the communist parties by a state which had long ceased to have any interest in working class revolution, and was solely concerned with defending its own imperialist interests.


Hiero
However you may ask "but why do you support Nazis".

I don't ask this. I understand the logic of your position entirely. If a movement is against 'imperialism you support it. I just think that it is a completely anti-working class position. I think that 'Love underground was just seeking to define exactly which type of anti-working class nationalists the leftists would support in the name of anti-imperialism. I know that they will support all of them.

And just as the hands of the nationalist 'revolutionaries' in Turkey in 1923 were covered with the blood of communists and workers, so are the hands of all the leftists who urge the working class today to abandon its own class line, and subordinate their interests to the 'national' interests.

Devrim

[Cheung Mo]

Being smart enough to realise that Hebrew mythology is no better than Antiquity's other mythologies and that there is no logical difference between the terms "God's Chosen People", "White Power", and "Master Race" means being too smart to exonerate fascists and Nazis for their crimes.

[RNK]

Speaking of Nazis, I doubt anybody knows this but...

During the early 1940s as Jews worldwide began seeking a homeland of their own, there was a small group of underground fighters/terrorists (whichever, based on your own personal opinion) called "Lehi". Besides bombing innocents, assassinating Muslim and British leaders, bank robberies and killings in the British Mandate of Palestine, Lehi also attempted to form an alliance with Nazi Germany, going so far as meeting with several German officials, I believe in Madrid. Although Lehi was not aware of the Nazi's genodical feelings towards the Jews, the fact remains that as Germany was in control of Europe and threatening to spread facism worldwide, Lehi attempted to ally with them to fight the British.

After Israel was officially declared a state, all members of Lehi as well as dozens of other similar groups were pardoned of all crimes and assimilated into the fledgeling IDF. In the late 1980s a former leader of Lehi became Prime Minister of Israel.

So do not confuse Hezbollah with Nazis, when you should be questioning Israel's past involvement and continued emulation of the Nazi idealogy. Last I checked, 46 Israeli civilians died while 1,600 Lebanese civilians died.

[Morag]

Does anybody bother to read the topic anymore before deciding to "contribute"?

[Leo]

And just as the hands of the nationalist 'revolutionaries' in Turkey in 1923 were covered with the blood of communists and workers, so are the hands of all the leftists who urge the working class today to abandon its own class line, and subordinate their interests to the 'national' interests.

So I take it that our leftist Hizbullah (and nationalism) cheerleaders didn't care enough to reply an answer for that. Now that suprised me :rolleyes: