namepending
27th August 2006, 19:04
For instance the International Communist Current denounces the Hezbollah resistance and virtually blames it for initiating war in the middle east merely by defending it's home...
It seems a contradiction for the ICC to denounce self-defensive violence when it's own policy is one of no-compromise, obviously violent revolution (for without reformism one cannot influence the class it wishes to remove other than by forcing its hand with violence).
Secondly, corporate media / Israeli allegations seemingly supported by the ICC, such as the "overwhelming targeting of civilians" by Hezbollah and "Hiding Among Civilians" are rendered completely false by the numbers supplied the media itself (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060814/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_israel_1097), that is, 119 Israeli soldiers, 39 Israeli civilians (of whom 90% supported the holocaust according to polls). Meanwhile, though Lebanon has been, as one of it's officials promised, "turned back 20 years" and a growing number of Lebanese have been dug out of the scarred ground, already in excess of 1000, Hezbollah has reported barely a handful of deaths of its own and has functioned better than the Lebanese government itself or the UN, handing out relief and preventing through sheer power the UN or the government from disarming, evacuating or forcing promises from their organization, suggesting to anyone who can put two and two together that Hezbollah was not beneath the rubble of civilian homes as Israel promised.
Even knowing this, ICC may or may not have a point with its accusation of Hezbollah as being un-proletarian (which it is) and therefore being irrelevant or even somehow detrimental to any revolutionary progress (which to me seems dubious).
So in my eyes, the discussion from a revolutionary point of view, has to do with whether third world resistance to neo-colonialism (such as in Mexico and often in South America, also perhaps Africa) and Imperialism (What we see in Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan and soon North Korea, Iran and Syria) is something to be supported, even encouraged, even if obviously it is the reaction of a feudal or semi-feudal or vulgar capitalist population to high imperial capitalism. If it is, would revolution as Mao thought be considered something that may occur when imperial capitalist societies suffer terrible losses to underdeveloped societies they are trying to exploit? And if that is the case, what of the proletariat in developed countries?
This seems an important subject to consider, as the proletariat is apparently more class unconscious then ever historically (we are definitely deep in the fascist/reactionary part of the reactionary/reformism cycle), while third world resistence to imperialism seems to be in a golden age.
It seems a contradiction for the ICC to denounce self-defensive violence when it's own policy is one of no-compromise, obviously violent revolution (for without reformism one cannot influence the class it wishes to remove other than by forcing its hand with violence).
Secondly, corporate media / Israeli allegations seemingly supported by the ICC, such as the "overwhelming targeting of civilians" by Hezbollah and "Hiding Among Civilians" are rendered completely false by the numbers supplied the media itself (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060814/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_israel_1097), that is, 119 Israeli soldiers, 39 Israeli civilians (of whom 90% supported the holocaust according to polls). Meanwhile, though Lebanon has been, as one of it's officials promised, "turned back 20 years" and a growing number of Lebanese have been dug out of the scarred ground, already in excess of 1000, Hezbollah has reported barely a handful of deaths of its own and has functioned better than the Lebanese government itself or the UN, handing out relief and preventing through sheer power the UN or the government from disarming, evacuating or forcing promises from their organization, suggesting to anyone who can put two and two together that Hezbollah was not beneath the rubble of civilian homes as Israel promised.
Even knowing this, ICC may or may not have a point with its accusation of Hezbollah as being un-proletarian (which it is) and therefore being irrelevant or even somehow detrimental to any revolutionary progress (which to me seems dubious).
So in my eyes, the discussion from a revolutionary point of view, has to do with whether third world resistance to neo-colonialism (such as in Mexico and often in South America, also perhaps Africa) and Imperialism (What we see in Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan and soon North Korea, Iran and Syria) is something to be supported, even encouraged, even if obviously it is the reaction of a feudal or semi-feudal or vulgar capitalist population to high imperial capitalism. If it is, would revolution as Mao thought be considered something that may occur when imperial capitalist societies suffer terrible losses to underdeveloped societies they are trying to exploit? And if that is the case, what of the proletariat in developed countries?
This seems an important subject to consider, as the proletariat is apparently more class unconscious then ever historically (we are definitely deep in the fascist/reactionary part of the reactionary/reformism cycle), while third world resistence to imperialism seems to be in a golden age.