Gamal Abdel Nasser

[LebaneseCommunistParty]

The one and only arab socialist, who fought for the rights and dignity of all arabs against the israeli and zionist enemies.

He stood for everything arabs stood for, and fought american intervention till his death.

Your thoughts?

[metalero]

he was a nationalist who brought some burgueois democratic reforms that modernized Egypt and engaged an anti-imperialist struggle, but surely not a communist: (http://www.thebrooklynrail.org/express/june04/nasser.html)
"Nasser’s Arab nationalism had a major flaw. He could not move beyond his charismatic leadership to politically organize the "street" and the souk (market place) into a movement that would remove the kings, emirs and sheiks—in other words, all those who did the bidding of the West against the wishes of the Arab masses. As is the case with most charismatic leaders, Nasser was better at rousing the masses than actually building political institutions

[RedAnarchist]

I wouldn;t ever consider him a communist, although he did have good points, such as his anti-imperialism and modernisation.

[LebaneseCommunistParty]

I never said he was a communist. I said he was an arab socialist. This is the closest thing we have had here in the arab world. In his words it was the best thing between the "'ímperialist'' capitalist american ways, and the ''non-spiritual'' communist ways...and it makes sense.

No matter what you do in the arab world, people will die for their religion if you try to take it away from them...so his formula certainly was a good one.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 07:25 am
I never said he was a communist. I said he was an arab socialist.
I'd put more of the emphasis on Nasser's Arab Nationalism. In any case Arab Socialism bears only a passing resemblance to traditional strands of socialist thought, both in the Arab world and beyond.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+March 02, 2007 11:43 am--> (ComradeOm @ March 02, 2007 11:43 am)
[email protected] 02, 2007 07:25 am
I never said he was a communist. I said he was an arab socialist.
I'd put more of the emphasis on Nasser's Arab Nationalism. In any case Arab Socialism bears only a passing resemblance to traditional strands of socialist thought, both in the Arab world and beyond. [/b]
Actually, Arab socialism does emphasize social justice, but yeah you're right, its not really "socialist" the way we take the word.

Anyhow, the thing with Nasser is, I admire him because he was an anti-imperialist leader, and definitely a progressive force in Egypt.

[RedKnight]

I don't claim to know everything about him, and the United Arab Republic. But based on what I've read, I do not approve of his "arab socialism" anymore than I support Golda Meir's "socialist zionism". Socialists should not be fighting each other over land ownership. I don't know why Egypt and Israel couldn't just exist together in peace.

[Prairie Fire]

then you obviously don't know shit about Israel.

Israel is not "Socialist", it is an aggressive, annexationist empire in the middle east.

[EwokUtopia]

Last Arab? I think not.


Leila Khaled is still alive, as are many more progressive figures in the Arab world.

[grove street]

What about Khaddafi?

[LebaneseCommunistParty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 07:39 pm
Socialists should not be fighting each other over land ownership. I don't know why Egypt and Israel couldn't just exist together in peace.
Egypt and Israel couldn't exist together in peace because the country is not called israel, it is called PALESTINE, and he was fighting to defend arab pride because israel has been occupying PALESTINE since 1948. In my country the israelis are responsible for many ethnic cleansings of palestinians in areas like Sabra and Chatila.

[LebaneseCommunistParty]

Originally posted by grove [email protected] 03, 2007 12:35 am
What about Khaddafi?
Gaddafi was ok. But he was too islamist for the arab world. there are many christians and druze in the arab world so his islamist state socialism wouldn't exactly work in a united arab republic. Plus people suspect him in the kidnapping of moussa al sadr, a very well know shiite imam from lebanon who was for unitnig christians and muslims.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by grove [email protected] 03, 2007 12:35 am
What about Khaddafi?
A nut.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+March 03, 2007 06:27 pm--> (ComradeOm @ March 03, 2007 06:27 pm)
grove [email protected] 03, 2007 12:35 am
What about Khaddafi?
A nut. [/b]
So you had to say something, eh?

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Spirit of Spartacus+March 03, 2007 08:11 pm--> (Spirit of Spartacus @ March 03, 2007 08:11 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 06:27 pm

grove [email protected] 03, 2007 12:35 am
What about Khaddafi?
A nut.
So you had to say something, eh? [/b]
Can you think of a better term that encapsulates Gaddafi?

[Budapestkick]

Despot and dictator are also quite accurate.

[grove street]

Originally posted by LebaneseCommunistParty+March 03, 2007 09:11 am--> (LebaneseCommunistParty @ March 03, 2007 09:11 am)
grove [email protected] 03, 2007 12:35 am
What about Khaddafi?
Gaddafi was ok. But he was too islamist for the arab world. there are many christians and druze in the arab world so his islamist state socialism wouldn't exactly work in a united arab republic. Plus people suspect him in the kidnapping of moussa al sadr, a very well know shiite imam from lebanon who was for unitnig christians and muslims. [/b]
I see your point. Arab socialist movements and socialist movements in other Muslim countries have adopted certain elements/upheld Islam in order to gain support from Muslims and used it as a symbol of Arab pride.

"A day will come when the nationalists will find themselves the only defenders of Islam. They will have to give a special meaning to it if they want the Arab nation to have a good reason for survival." (In memory of the Arab Prophet, 1 April, 1943) Michel Aflaq

[LebaneseCommunistParty]

Originally posted by grove street+March 04, 2007 08:10 am--> (grove street @ March 04, 2007 08:10 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 09:11 am

grove [email protected] 03, 2007 12:35 am
What about Khaddafi?
Gaddafi was ok. But he was too islamist for the arab world. there are many christians and druze in the arab world so his islamist state socialism wouldn't exactly work in a united arab republic. Plus people suspect him in the kidnapping of moussa al sadr, a very well know shiite imam from lebanon who was for unitnig christians and muslims.
I see your point. Arab socialist movements and socialist movements in other Muslim countries have adopted certain elements/upheld Islam in order to gain support from Muslims and used it as a symbol of Arab pride.

"A day will come when the nationalists will find themselves the only defenders of Islam. They will have to give a special meaning to it if they want the Arab nation to have a good reason for survival." (In memory of the Arab Prophet, 1 April, 1943) Michel Aflaq [/b]
Michel aflaq though was the foudning father of arab socialism. he started the baath party, which is completely ruined now. He was also my grandfathers physics teacher in syria :-)

Islam is mentioned during the arab socialist and pan arab movements, but not glorified. But you have to satisfy all the religious movements in the area. Countries that are 70% muslim are not going to suport your movements if you do not respect their religion. The way to do it is establish a state respecting the religion, but not including any religion in the gov't. thats what the lebanese communist party are trying to do in lebanon but the gov't is set up in a sectraian way. The president must be maronite, the prime minister sunni, and the head of parliament shiite. Its causing many problems. Jobs are chosen based on religion, not who is best suited for the job.

[L.C.P]

l

[L.C.P]

We cannot forget that countries fund different sects in lebanon to benefit themselves; Iran funds Hizbolllah because they're shiite, Saudi Arabia funds the Future Movement (which represents the majority of the sunni sect in Lebanon, and even Russia used to fund and support the christian Orthodox community in Lebanon
Which creates more and more secratarian tension between the people of Lebanon

[Vargha Poralli]

The Only Araab leader who is worthy respect IMO is Yasser Arafat. Sure Nasser modernised Egypt and broke Islamic Fundamentalists but his motivation was not helping people but because they Threatened his power. Ghaddafi and Saddam are oppressors themselves.

[RedKnight]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 08:28 pm
then you obviously don't know shit about Israel.

Israel is not "Socialist", it is an aggressive, annexationist empire in the middle east.
I was refering to Golda Meir, who was the Prime Minister of Israel at the time, personaly, not Israel nationaly. True Israel wasn't a socialist Republic like the U.S.S.R. was. Yet it did have some socialist charectoristics, like the kibbutzim. And Israel was only Palestine after the Roman Empire conqured it, and made it a province.

[EwokUtopia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 05:51 pm
I was refering to Golda Meir, who was the Prime Minister of Israel at the time, personaly, not Israel nationaly. True Israel wasn't a socialist Republic like the U.S.S.R. was. Yet it did have some socialist charectoristics, like the kibbutzim. And Israel was only Palestine after the Roman Empire conqured it, and made it a province.
Golda Mier was still a nationalist who persuid the free market economics which hallmark capitalism, at the same time as exploiting the Arabs horrible and denying them the rights to their land.

Do you consider the USSR to be a good example of Socialism? I dont, because considering the USSR as being good socialism is also saying that Socialism is an unstable doctrine that cant even last a century. The USSR was not a good example of socialism, as it was ridden with Imperialist practises as well, just ask any East European or any Chechen or Dagestani. The USSR was flawed from the time Lenin was put in the mausoleum, and was doomed when the icepick shattered Trotsky's skull.

The fact that Israel has Kibbutzism means little, as many of these Kibbutz's are Jew's only aparthied settlements. True, there are good Kibbutzes, but calling Kibbutzism this one great socialist "charectoristic" is absolutely absurd. Its like saying America isnt all that bad because it has Hippyism.

The word "Palestine" comes from the same word as "Philistine", it was a word used to designate the land of the philistines, who, if youll remember, were demonized and wiped out by the Ancient Hebrews, and their name remains tainted to this day because of the propaganda in the Bible used against them. We see the Israeli's demonizing the Palestinians in the same way today, calling them baby-killers, infidels, unclean, ignorant, uncivilized, et cetera. History does repeat itself.

[RedKnight]

Originally posted by EwokUtopia+March 04, 2007 08:44 pm--> (EwokUtopia @ March 04, 2007 08:44 pm)
[email protected] 04, 2007 05:51 pm
I was refering to Golda Meir, who was the Prime Minister of Israel at the time, personaly, not Israel nationaly. True Israel wasn't a socialist Republic like the U.S.S.R. was. Yet it did have some socialist charectoristics, like the kibbutzim. And Israel was only Palestine after the Roman Empire conqured it, and made it a province.
Golda Mier was still a nationalist who persuid the free market economics which hallmark capitalism, at the same time as exploiting the Arabs horrible and denying them the rights to their land.

Do you consider the USSR to be a good example of Socialism? I dont, because considering the USSR as being good socialism is also saying that Socialism is an unstable doctrine that cant even last a century. The USSR was not a good example of socialism, as it was ridden with Imperialist practises as well, just ask any East European or any Chechen or Dagestani. The USSR was flawed from the time Lenin was put in the mausoleum, and was doomed when the icepick shattered Trotsky's skull.

The fact that Israel has Kibbutzism means little, as many of these Kibbutz's are Jew's only aparthied settlements. True, there are good Kibbutzes, but calling Kibbutzism this one great socialist "charectoristic" is absolutely absurd. Its like saying America isnt all that bad because it has Hippyism.

The word "Palestine" comes from the same word as "Philistine", it was a word used to designate the land of the philistines, who, if youll remember, were demonized and wiped out by the Ancient Hebrews, and their name remains tainted to this day because of the propaganda in the Bible used against them. We see the Israeli's demonizing the Palestinians in the same way today, calling them baby-killers, infidels, unclean, ignorant, uncivilized, et cetera. History does repeat itself. [/b]
Which was why I compared her supposed socialism to that of Gamel Nasser. Both combined there respective ideologys with nationalism. No I do not consider The U.S.S.R. to be a perfect or ideal example of the worker state. It was however the first ever socialist republic, as flawed as it may have been. Mapam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapam) claimed to be a marxist party, and they were a part of the Knesset. So not all Israelis were Right-wing racists. Just as not all americans (I'm an american citizen, and I don't think i'm a bad person) are all bad, not all Israeli Jews are either.

[EwokUtopia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 11:13 pm
Mapam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapam) claimed to be a marxist party, and they were a part of the Knesset. So not all Israelis were Right-wing racists. Just as not all americans (I'm an american citizen, and I don't think i'm a bad person) are all bad, not all Israeli Jews are either.
Did I ever say all Israelis or Americans were bad? They are merely people, and I do not judge people by the crimes or accomplishments of their nation, this would be making identity and nationality synonymous. An Israeli and a Palestinian and a Mongolian and a Canadian have more in common with eachother than they do with their countries: The former are living breathing human beings, the latter are abstract ideas associated with land and culture.

This being said, I only support nationalism if it is revolutionary nationalism, which is a unifying force which comes from a group of people oppressed due to nationality, however, we have seen oppressed become oppressor very fast, so revolutionary nationalism can be a tricky thing (I dont doubt that there were revolutionary zionists once upon a time, but hey, Mussolini was once a Socialist too, the left is unfortunately plagued with trechery), so I support the (sometimes) revolutionary nationalism of Palestine, but with a grain of salt, once freedom comes, all nations must adhere to internationalism in order for a new world to be possible.

However, I did say that America and Israel were bad. This is completely different than saying Americans and Israeli's are bad. I was attacking the vague national concept of nationality as manifested in the USA and Israel, they are bad nations (with many good citizens, as well as bad ones, as well as a stiflingly large amount of apathetic ones), but these arent the only two bad nations in the world. the shorter list for me would be to name off the OK nations, as the concept of nationality is not positive. It is divisive and makes way for extreme discrimination, and has been the focal point of every war in human history ever. Even Civil Wars are caused by national disputes.

Nation-States have got to go.

[RedKnight]

Originally posted by EwokUtopia+March 05, 2007 04:38 am--> (EwokUtopia @ March 05, 2007 04:38 am)
[email protected] 04, 2007 11:13 pm
Mapam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapam) claimed to be a marxist party, and they were a part of the Knesset. So not all Israelis were Right-wing racists. Just as not all americans (I'm an american citizen, and I don't think i'm a bad person) are all bad, not all Israeli Jews are either.
Did I ever say all Israelis or Americans were bad? They are merely people, and I do not judge people by the crimes or accomplishments of their nation, this would be making identity and nationality synonymous. An Israeli and a Palestinian and a Mongolian and a Canadian have more in common with eachother than they do with their countries: The former are living breathing human beings, the latter are abstract ideas associated with land and culture.

This being said, I only support nationalism if it is revolutionary nationalism, which is a unifying force which comes from a group of people oppressed due to nationality, however, we have seen oppressed become oppressor very fast, so revolutionary nationalism can be a tricky thing (I dont doubt that there were revolutionary zionists once upon a time, but hey, Mussolini was once a Socialist too, the left is unfortunately plagued with trechery), so I support the (sometimes) revolutionary nationalism of Palestine, but with a grain of salt, once freedom comes, all nations must adhere to internationalism in order for a new world to be possible.

However, I did say that America and Israel were bad. This is completely different than saying Americans and Israeli's are bad. I was attacking the vague national concept of nationality as manifested in the USA and Israel, they are bad nations (with many good citizens, as well as bad ones, as well as a stiflingly large amount of apathetic ones), but these arent the only two bad nations in the world. the shorter list for me would be to name off the OK nations, as the concept of nationality is not positive. It is divisive and makes way for extreme discrimination, and has been the focal point of every war in human history ever. Even Civil Wars are caused by national disputes.

Nation-States have got to go. [/b]
I agree.