Islamists are mortal enemies of socialists and

[Cheung Mo]

This is what happens when you give an inch to these fascist assholes!

http://365gay.com/Newscon06/10/100306indonesia.htm

Now can we finally banish RESPECT apologists to the Opposing Ideologies form?

[Whitten]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 4 2006, 07:26 PM
This is what happens when you give an inch to these fascist assholes!

http://365gay.com/Newscon06/10/100306indonesia.htm

Now can we finally banish RESPECT apologists to the Opposing Ideologies form?
You want to bannish all people who are willing to support vote for a reform socialist party just because a large percentage of that parties supporters are Muslim? I think respect could do a good job of converting the Islamic communities to socialism.

[BreadBros]

Your talking about two different things. One is Muslim theology, which of course like all theology is in opposition to Marxism. The other is being against imperialist attacks against Muslim countries and racism against Muslims in the first world. RESPECT is a reformist party, nothing more, but are they "mortal enemies" of socialists? I personally dont think so.

[Enragé]

Ofcourse we are against Islam, we are however not against muslims.

It can be a fine line, but a line that has to be drawn.

This means defending muslims from racism, this means opening dialogue with muslims
while still showing that Islam, just like any other "religion" is a load of shit, but demonstrating this by respectful dialogue, by discussion (i.e not by saying "its a load of shit)

[Xiao Banfa]

Cheung Mo is a mortal enemy of all sane people and should be treated as such.

[Okocim]

don't be fucking stupid.

That incident you post is NOT representative of the whole muslim community. Perhaps you should do a little research into some of the views of the muslims in RESPECT? I know for a fact that they do staunchly defend gay rights because I have seen them do it - Muslim women wearing burkas addressing crowds defending the rights of gays and non-muslims. Of course, this is not in the newspapers because it doesn't fit the stereotype of "theocratic terrorist muslims" which is currently being distributed in this country by the media and government. I find it disturbing that you would contribute towards enforcing the current stereotypes and blame a whole group of people for actions of a few beyond their control.

[Emperor Ronald Reagan]

Originally posted by Tino [email protected] 4 2006, 10:37 PM
Cheung Mo is a mortal enemy of all sane people and should be treated as such.
Agree, that asshole is no comrade of mine.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Tino [email protected] 4 2006, 03:37 PM
Cheung Mo is a mortal enemy of all sane people and should be treated as such.
This of course coming from the cat that believes there's a fairy up in the sky who controls your destiny and will reward you with angelic-long-dead-virgins upon completion of any act that murders "infidels".

Should we even allow people like this to mention the word "sane"? Even in passing?

Fuck allah, fuck mohammad and fuck islam; they're not even worth capital letters. The last thing the proletariat needs is another few hundred years of brutal, primative, imperialist oppression in the name of some silly mythical "prophet".

You see, in the modern world we call these self proclaimed "prophets of god" schizophrenics and get them medication; not blow up children for their myth.

Perhaps Tino and some others here can one day be cured of their diseases.

I won't hold my breath however.

[Xiao Banfa]

This of course coming from the cat that believes there's a fairy up in the sky who controls your destiny and will reward you with angelic-long-dead-virgins upon completion of any act that murders "infidels

You have the same bigoted conception of Islam as fascoid neo-cons.

That's not the Islam I know.

This is coming from,however,from a so called "leftist" whose avatar is from the danish bourgeois magazine which has the audacity to show depictions of the Nabi that not even racist britsh newspapers from 1925 had the insensitivity to publish.

This is the 21st century, shelve the bollocks.

BTW I don't believe in a "cloudy heaven" or a "fiery hell" or a "man in the sky". That's what's known as a "literal interpretation"; if you're to pig-headed to know the difference- that's your loss.

[grove street]

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+Oct 4 2006, 11:51 PM--> (Vinny Rafarino @ Oct 4 2006, 11:51 PM)
Tino Rangatirat[email protected] 4 2006, 03:37 PM
Cheung Mo is a mortal enemy of all sane people and should be treated as such.
This of course coming from the cat that believes there's a fairy up in the sky who controls your destiny and will reward you with angelic-long-dead-virgins upon completion of any act that murders "infidels".

Should we even allow people like this to mention the word "sane"? Even in passing?

Fuck allah, fuck mohammad and fuck islam; they're not even worth capital letters. The last thing the proletariat needs is another few hundred years of brutal, primative, imperialist oppression in the name of some silly mythical "prophet".

You see, in the modern world we call these self proclaimed "prophets of god" schizophrenics and get them medication; not blow up children for their myth.

Perhaps Tino and some others here can one day be cured of their diseases.

I won't hold my breath however. [/b]
And this kind of attitude is the reason why socialism has failed in the Middle East.

You just can't inslut someone's religion which in the likes of Islam makes up a big part of their cultural and racial identity and expect them to jump on your bandwagon and accept your political and economical views.

Muslims in the past have been great supporter of Socialism. One good example is the Wäisi movement in Russia during the civil war. This was a movement of Russian Muslims who refused to be a part of the Tzar armies or abide by Tzar rules. Instead they ruled themselves through communes practising collective and common ownership.

They were big supporters of Lenin and the Bolshevicks. The Wäisi movement joined forces with the Red Army and fought for Lenin during the Civil War. After Lenin came in power their movement grew and they still continued to support Lenin and the Soviet Union until Stalin came in power and the movement was reppressed and faded away during the Great Purge.

Their legacy has spread to many muslim countries under the political theory of Islamic Socialism. A political theory to establish socialism within Islamic countries where most inhabitants are afraid of socialism because they see it as an extreme form of atheist government that will do anything to destroy Islam.

Modern Islamic Socialist movements are secular and want to create socialist government within Muslim countries seperating church from state, but still allowing the inhabitants to worship freely.

[Okocim]

Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 5 2006, 12:51 AM
Perhaps Tino and some others here can one day be cured of their diseases.

I won't hold my breath however.
I hope you're not referring to me there. I take the same line as Lenin in "Socialism and Religion":

Lenin:

why do we not declare in our Programme that we are atheists? Why do we not forbid Christians and other believers in God to join our Party?
....
It would be stupid to think that, in a society based on the endless oppression and coarsening of the worker masses, religious prejudices could be dispelled by purely propaganda methods. It would be bourgeois narrow-mindedness to forget that the yoke of religion that weighs upon mankind is merely a product and reflection of the economic yoke within society. No number of pamphlets and no amount of preaching can enlighten the proletariat, if it is not enlightened by its own struggle against the dark forces of capitalism. Unity in this really revolutionary struggle of the oppressed class for the creation of a paradise on earth is more important to us than unity of proletarian opinion on paradise in heaven.

That is the reason why we do not and should not set forth our atheism in our Programme; that is why we do not and should not prohibit proletarians who still retain vestiges of their old prejudices from associating themselves with our Party.

I'm not, of course, saying that RESPECT is anything like the Bolshevik party or that Galloway is even comparable to Lenin, however Lenin raises some fantastic points which you seem to be totally ignoring in pursuit of some factionistic agenda.

[Marukusu]

As the "Revolutionary Leftists" we are, we should oppose all religions and their preachers, and oppose all the believers who refuse to reject their beliefs and stop being puppets of the clergy.

However, we should not confuse all the arabs as fanatical muslims and such (for example). Though many arabs are muslims, only a few of them are actual fanatics and unwilling to think past their Sharia and Qur'an.

Oppose religion in all it's forms, but never degenerate to generalization and prejudice. If you do, you are not any better than a Nazi and should immediately consider suicide. But that's just what I think.

[YKTMX]

It would be stupid to think that, in a society based on the endless oppression and coarsening of the worker masses, religious prejudices could be dispelled by purely propaganda methods. It would be bourgeois narrow-mindedness to forget that the yoke of religion that weighs upon mankind is merely a product and reflection of the economic yoke within society. No number of pamphlets and no amount of preaching can enlighten the proletariat, if it is not enlightened by its own struggle against the dark forces of capitalism. Unity in this really revolutionary struggle of the oppressed class for the creation of a paradise on earth is more important to us than unity of proletarian opinion on paradise in heaven.

That is the reason why we do not and should not set forth our atheism in our Programme; that is why we do not and should not prohibit proletarians who still retain vestiges of their old prejudices from associating themselves with our Party.

Isn't it annoying that no matter what you're trying to say, Lenin's already put it better than you ever could a hundred years ago.

[TheDifferenceEngine]

the enemy of our enemy is our friend.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by Tino [email protected] 4 2006, 10:37 PM
Cheung Mo is a mortal enemy of all sane people and should be treated as such.
:lol:

Interesting to see someone with the Mohammad cartoons in their avatar. Looks like some people pick American imperialists and politicians like Geert Wilders over the oppressed peoples of the Middle East. Wake up! It is because of their imperialism that Mohammad is wearing a bomb on his head in the first place!

[Lenin's Law]

The correct response is to be against ALL religions; for they (at least the major world religions) all have blood on their hands and a legacy of reaction and backwardness against progress and science. They have held people back and have often preyed on the poor and working class with the illusion that although their lives may be difficult now, they must be "good, obedient, and faithful" to some sky-god or gods so that they can have their rewards in the afterlife. Don't just focus on one particular religion, as that will do no good and only encourage the accusations of (or actual) biases on your part. Setting up one group of workers against another is an old game of the capitlists - we should not fall for it.

That being said, serious revolutionaries and leftists cannot and it would be an incredible crime to, simply write off the vast majority of the world's population who believe in some sort of religious superstition. We should not stop fighting against it and speaking out against it, particularly when it starts to become involved in the political arena, but to just dismiss the ordinary, average "Joe" (or Ahmed) simply for believing in it is very foolish and would be a huge mistake on our part.

Remember, that aside from the fanatics and fundamentalists (who, despite what our bourgeois media show us, are only a small minority of any religion, fortunately) the vast majority of "believers" are really working class, poor people that have as Marx said called upon their "opium" to take away from life's pain and heartache, it is the sigh of the masses, who know that their situation is rotten but don't know where to turn to. So why not look to the thing that they have been instilled with every since they were born (the belief in the sky-god or deity) and very likely the thing their parents and/or schools have taught if not brainwashed in them since they were very little?

If you really want to attack religion - don't act like elitist liberals and just scoff at the believers and how "stupid" they are, but focus on the economic/materialist conditions that create and encourage such belief in the first place. In other words, if you want to really attack religion, attack capitalism.

[Lenin's Law]

Originally posted by grove [email protected] 5 2006, 10:53 AM
Muslims in the past have been great supporter of Socialism. One good example is the Wäisi movement in Russia during the civil war. This was a movement of Russian Muslims who refused to be a part of the Tzar armies or abide by Tzar rules. Instead they ruled themselves through communes practising collective and common ownership.

They were big supporters of Lenin and the Bolshevicks. The Wäisi movement joined forces with the Red Army and fought for Lenin during the Civil War. After Lenin came in power their movement grew and they still continued to support Lenin and the Soviet Union until Stalin came in power and the movement was reppressed and faded away during the Great Purge.

Their legacy has spread to many muslim countries under the political theory of Islamic Socialism. A political theory to establish socialism within Islamic countries where most inhabitants are afraid of socialism because they see it as an extreme form of atheist government that will do anything to destroy Islam.

Modern Islamic Socialist movements are secular and want to create socialist government within Muslim countries seperating church from state, but still allowing the inhabitants to worship freely.
And this must be supported by all sincere Marxists and left revolutionaries. Even if it is not our own socialist "cup of tea" we cannot be so sectarian that we fail to recognize that even a small advancement towards socialism is better than none at all. Our first mission should be to put our proverbial "foot in the door" in the Middle East and then we can start to freely talk to the masses about furthering the cause of socialism and deepening the revolution. Showing them that socialism is not some mythical boogeyman but a system that can and will drastically improve their lives for the better.

[Xiao Banfa]

This is ridiculous,
Ask Muslims what they believe in terms of rallying points, if they fall short-then fuck em'.

Are you a male chauvinist? Are you a homophobe? Are you an authoritarian? Are you a reactionary nationalist?

Don't ask them about metaphysical or philosophical questions- you will be creating unnecessary divisions.

[Enragé]

QUOTE
why do we not declare in our Programme that we are atheists? Why do we not forbid Christians and other believers in God to join our Party?
....
It would be stupid to think that, in a society based on the endless oppression and coarsening of the worker masses, religious prejudices could be dispelled by purely propaganda methods. It would be bourgeois narrow-mindedness to forget that the yoke of religion that weighs upon mankind is merely a product and reflection of the economic yoke within society. No number of pamphlets and no amount of preaching can enlighten the proletariat, if it is not enlightened by its own struggle against the dark forces of capitalism. Unity in this really revolutionary struggle of the oppressed class for the creation of a paradise on earth is more important to us than unity of proletarian opinion on paradise in heaven.

That is the reason why we do not and should not set forth our atheism in our Programme; that is why we do not and should not prohibit proletarians who still retain vestiges of their old prejudices from associating themselves with our Party.


EXACTLY!

[Comrade Marcel]

Chueng shows his true colours by picking Islam specifically to pick on. This is no surprise as Mo has no consiousness when it comes to anti-imperialism and has shown this many times before. Cheung thinks it's better to be ruled by imperialists and colonialists, have your culture shitted on and a new way of life crammed fown your throat then to build your own destiny, society and freedom.

That's not socialism, it's simply another "white man's burden" appraoch, and it's anti-historical and dialectical materialist, and anti-Marxist.

[TupacAndChe4Eva]

Originally posted by Lenin's Law+Oct 5 2006, 04:46 PM--> (Lenin's Law @ Oct 5 2006, 04:46 PM)
grove [email protected] 5 2006, 10:53 AM
Muslims in the past have been great supporter of Socialism. One good example is the Wäisi movement in Russia during the civil war. This was a movement of Russian Muslims who refused to be a part of the Tzar armies or abide by Tzar rules. Instead they ruled themselves through communes practising collective and common ownership.

They were big supporters of Lenin and the Bolshevicks. The Wäisi movement joined forces with the Red Army and fought for Lenin during the Civil War. After Lenin came in power their movement grew and they still continued to support Lenin and the Soviet Union until Stalin came in power and the movement was reppressed and faded away during the Great Purge.

Their legacy has spread to many muslim countries under the political theory of Islamic Socialism. A political theory to establish socialism within Islamic countries where most inhabitants are afraid of socialism because they see it as an extreme form of atheist government that will do anything to destroy Islam.

Modern Islamic Socialist movements are secular and want to create socialist government within Muslim countries seperating church from state, but still allowing the inhabitants to worship freely.
And this must be supported by all sincere Marxists and left revolutionaries. Even if it is not our own socialist "cup of tea" we cannot be so sectarian that we fail to recognize that even a small advancement towards socialism is better than none at all. Our first mission should be to put our proverbial "foot in the door" in the Middle East and then we can start to freely talk to the masses about furthering the cause of socialism and deepening the revolution. Showing them that socialism is not some mythical boogeyman but a system that can and will drastically improve their lives for the better. [/b]
Exactly.

Too many people want wo win every fight, and the complete fight, all at once, right now. It won't work like that, it'll be bit-by-bit. Peoples ideas and beliefs will not change overnight.

[BreadBros]

The problem here is twofold. First of all, I think most of us can agree that we are against religious beliefs, they are false and they are reactionary and anti-revolutionary by nature.

The first problem issue is the nature of Islam in current public discourse. Im sure nearly all of us here disagree with Islam as a religion, and I would guess even those of us such as Tino who profess religion can disagree with the established leaders of the religion and their reactionary views. However, Islam in particular seems to be a touchy subject when brought up in an anti-religion context. With good reason too, it is being used by reactionaries to justify imperialist military action abroad and racism here at home. While none of us may agree with Islam, Im sure not too many of us agree with supporting the actions of the bourgeois powers. So I don't think its too much of a stretch to say that we can oppose Islam while still opposing the reactionary pretexts it is being used for and make a distinction between the two. As for the whole Danish cartoon thing, what exactly is the purpose of using that as an avatar? Obviously expressing your disagreement with Islam is one thing, but doing so by using an image created by a right-wing newspaper precisely to provoke prejudice and conflict between two population groups, reinforce the division of religion, and minimize the characteristics we all share as workers? Seems pointless to me, but its up to you.

The other main issue is the role of religion in revolution. I think Marx was right when he said the processes of the historical creation of the proletariat as a revolutionary class would do away with religion and religious differences. So should we let religious individuals participate? Sure. But we must always remember that in order to destroy classless society religion may have to be destroyed as well and the revolution should not be held back by religion. By the time we reach a revolutionary situation though, religion will likely not be a big factor for most of the working class. In the interim we should support Muslims who are fighting against imperialism, but when the revolution comes to the Middle East, Im sure the vast majority of revolutionary Arabs will be very, very against Islam.