U.S. Imperialism, Islamic Fundamentalism…

[redwinter]

This is a polemic written by Sunsara Taylor in response to a critical article in the Socialist Worker newspaper. What do people think about the issue?

http://revcom.us/a/091/iso-polemic-en.html

Revolution newspaper printed Taylor's polemic side by side with the Socialist Worker article, so you can read both and respond.

[Leo]

This belongs to politics, rather than theory I think. Please send me a pm if you have any objections.

[Joseph Ball]

I have reservations about both articles.

Trying to imply that Islamic Fundamentalism is anything other than reactionary is to ignore obvious reality.

But Mao in 'On Contradiction' that in a war of national resistance communists should unite with reactionaries against the invader.

OK, there are no strong maoist forces in the Middle East so this advice may seem a bit academic.

But I would be interested to know what supporters of the RCP-USA think of Mao's statement.

Imperialism in the Middle East will only be defeated by people's resistance. Anti-war protests in the West will achieve next to nothing.

The job of communists is to support people's resistance but build their own independent line which stresses issues such as women's rights. By doing so they can maybe get strong enough to join in the fight against imperialism in a united front with the reactionaries.

If people's resistance movements are led by reactionaries it is due to the failure of the communists to provide adequate leadership. We should not deny the people their right to resist because of our failings.

The US and Britain and the western nations in general are the number one enemies of humanity because of the chaos, poverty and misery they spread around the world through military action and the imposition of an imperialist economic world order designed to enrich them and impoverish others (Avakian is certainly correct when he alludes to this!).

Islamic Fundamentalism is the secondary enemy, 'the little satan'. You deal with the main enemy first, the one that is launching its frontal assault on the people. Then you deal with the other enemies.

I worry that Sunsara's article implies that both western imperialism and Islamic Fundamentalism are equal enemies of the people at this precise moment, which is incorrect.

[Redmau5]

If people's resistance movements are led by reactionaries it is due to the failure of the communists to provide adequate leadership.

What? So it would have nothing to do with the fact that the majority of the fighters in middle-Eastern resistance movements are strongly religious and therefore oppose communism?

It is not because communist leadership is weak. It is because the people do not want communist leaders.

[Spike]

The resistance to a foreign occupation deserves the unconditional support of the proletariat. It doesn't matter if the resistance is led by the bourgeois or by clerical surrogates. Marxists have always supported national liberation movements led by the bourgeois and intelligentsia. In the early years of the twentieth century, the great national liberation movements of the world had an overtly bourgeois program.

[Janus]

This topic was discussed recently here:

No to fundamentalism, no to imperialism (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65843&hl=imperialism)
Neither imperialism nor Islam (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=64973&hl=imperialism)

[Cheung Mo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 06:55 pm
The resistance to a foreign occupation deserves the unconditional support of the proletariat. It doesn't matter if the resistance is led by the bourgeois or by clerical surrogates. Marxists have always supported national liberation movements led by the bourgeois and intelligentsia. In the early years of the twentieth century, the great national liberation movements of the world had an overtly bourgeois program.
Unlike most religious reactionaries in the Middle East, the liberal bourgeoisie that overtook the aristocratic and clerical ruling class of Christendom does represent social, intellectual, and material progress or an increase in productivity relative to the aristocracy of feudalism. (Although that very same bourgeoisie uses religious reactionaries as proxies for protecting their own material interests from the exploited classes...The difference now is that the aristocracy -- whose survivors in the Middle East are now intertwined with the world's most powerful bourgeois factions -- is no longer anywhere near powerful enough to serve as an alternative to the bourgeoisie, making the people its exclusive target. (on a macroscoping level...On a microscopic level, the bourgeoisie is always in conflict with itself...))

Furthermore, in many cases religious reactionaries represent people whose adverse material conditions have allowed them to be manipulated by powerful kapos who generally serve the interests of one or more bourgeois factions. (i.e. Osama Bin Laden, the Saud Family, Opus Dei, Iran's clerics) Many of these kapos are entirely indistinguishable from the bourgeoisie.

Nonetheless, religious figures and their movements who represent a bourgeois faction that is substantially less reactionary than that which preceded it deserve our critical support. (I can't see anyone bringing forth a serious argument against favouring Correa to the treasonous reactionaries who preceded him, King and his band of liberal infiltrators to the Dixiecrats, Lesage and Lévèsque (Not for their nationalism but for their social democratic reforms) to Duplessis, or Aristide and Lavalas relative to the Duvaliers and their cronies, past and present).

Obviously, any organisation that tortures and executes Marxists and other leftists (i.e. Iran's clergy) must never be supported by anyone.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

But Mao in 'On Contradiction' that in a war of national resistance communists should unite with reactionaries against the invader.

Could you provide that quote in context? It's not that there shouldn't be a resistance, there SHOULD be a resistance, but what we're seeing in Iraq doesn't even qualify. It's largely just religious civil war.

I don't feel like Mao would support uniting with a thoroughly reactionary, and a reactionary led resistance anyhow which is why I would like to see the context.


OK, there are no strong maoist forces in the Middle East so this advice may seem a bit academic.

not sure about that. Afghanistan and Turkey I've heard are exceptions, Iraq I agree though. There is a marxist group of resistance that was just formed which is exciting.

I think people are misunderstanding the plank of the RCP and Sunsara Taylor here.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I don't feel like Mao would support uniting with a thoroughly reactionary, and a reactionary led resistance anyhow

Regardless of how you feel comrade, Mao did throw his support behind a number of reactionaries.

As a communist, you should be trying to apply communist theory, including contributions Mao made, to every situation. You should avoid basing yourself on what Mao would do (sounds like 'what would Jesus do'), as if he was some deity to be praised.

[Hiero]

The reality of the situation is that communist have to make the national front that will consist or Islamic forces and individual Muslims. In another part of the world I believe the Communist Party of the Philippines works with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front to weaken the neo-colony state and defeat US imperialism. I will search through their website to see waht they say on working with Muslim organisations.

[Joseph Ball]

Mao worked with the thoroughly reactionary Guomindang in the Anti-Japanese War. The GMD had killed thousands of marxists before this, just like the Islamic clerics.

Uniting with Islamic Fundamentalists is not like uniting with a national bourgeoisie who might modernise the country, fair enough. But what we see now is a force that destroys countries and reduces them to chaos. The western imperialists have done this in Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia (the US have provided military support-including bombing raids-to the Ethiopian puppet government that overthrew the Islamic Courts Union and then proceeded to blast Mogadishu, creating hundreds of thousands of refugees), they also tried to do this in Lebanon but were beaten back by the heroic people's resistance (the yanks flew bombs to Israel, stopping off in Scotland for refueling, for the Israelis to drop on Lebanon during their invasion of the country last year).

Yes, being ruled by groups like the Iranian clerics and the Taliban are bad (and the Baathists, although they are not Islamist obviously). But what is far worse is having your country reduced to rubble by western scum. Modernisation is not on the agenda either way. We are tallking about wars of national survival. If communists are not seen to be supporting national resistance, the people will see them (however unfairly) as traitors who want to side with the imperialists.

I throw down the challenge again. If the left don't want the survival struggles of the oppressed nations led by reactionaries, take up arms and lead them yourselves!

[Spirit of Spartacus]

I throw down the challenge again. If the left don't want the survival struggles of the oppressed nations led by reactionaries, take up arms and lead them yourselves!

Oh no, why take up a revolutionary challenge? <_<

Some comrades seem to think its much more fun to piss on a spontaneous resistance movement than to actually participate in it and try to influence its direction.

[redwinter]

There seems to be debate going on over whether or not to support whatever forces exist in the oppressed nations, whether they&#39;re reactionary or revolutionary...I think it&#39;s important to point out that these Islamic fundamentalists, however you cut it, are reactionaries and compradors in the final analysis (colluding and contending with various imperialist powers in various ways to promote their own interests - for example, the Taliban getting billions in US aid and making oil pipeline deals with US corporations in one year and a couple years later is at war with the US). In fact, what communists (and secular and non-theocratic revolutionaries of all stripes) need to be doing is raising our own flag for national liberation and moving towards new-democratic revolution and socialism in the oppressed nations. Mao himself put forward that new-democratic revolution was the only way for true national liberation in the oppressed countries. (And for whoever mentioned it, you can read up on what Mao and the CPC thought of Moscow&#39;s orders to join the Kuomintang...)

Also, I saw that CompanerodeLibertad posted a couple links to other posts, and I wanted to note that collaborating with the quisling US puppet Iraqi government is not what is being put forward here - we need to "bring forward another way" and collaborating with any kind of imperialist occupation is definitely not going to do that, it will only reinforce this dynamic of McWorld/McCrusade vs. Jihad.

I think the following excerpt from Bob Avakian&#39;s Bringing Forward Another Way (http://revcom.us/avakian/anotherway/)is extremely relevant to this discussion:


Some people, including some who claim not only to be anti-imperialist but even to be "Marxist," have criticized or denounced this "two historically outmodeds" formulation as being pro-imperialist because, they claim, this statement fails to distinguish between imperialism and the countries and peoples oppressed by imperialism. Well, if you are supposedly a "Marxist," you might be able to look at the wording of this formulation and notice that it says: "historically outmoded strata among oppressed and colonized humanity up against historically outmoded ruling strata of the imperialist system." If you were even close to being a Marxist in reality, you would know that some distinction was in fact being made there, an important distinction, even while what is said about their both being historically outmoded and how they reinforce each other, even while opposing each other, is also real, and "operative." But it is important to be clear about which has done and continues to do the greater damage, which has posed and does pose the greater threat to humanity. Clearly, and by far, it is the "ruling strata of the imperialist system."

It is interesting, I recently heard about a comment that someone made relating to this, which I do think is correct and getting at something important. In relation to these "two historically outmodeds," they made the point: "You could say that the Islamic fundamentalist forces in the world would be largely dormant if it weren&#39;t for what the U.S. and its allies have done and are doing in the world—but you cannot say the opposite." There is profound truth captured in that statement.

As a matter of general principle, and specifically sitting in this imperialist country, we have a particular responsibility to oppose U.S. imperialism, our "own" ruling class, and what it is doing in the world. But, at the same time, that doesn&#39;t make these Islamic fundamentalist forces not historically outmoded and not reactionary. It doesn&#39;t change the character of their opposition to imperialism and what it leads to and the dynamic that it&#39;s part of—the fact that these two "historically outmodeds" do reinforce each other, even while opposing each other. And it is very important to understand, and to struggle for others to understand, that if you end up supporting either one of these two "historically outmodeds," you contribute to strengthening both. It is crucial to break out of that dynamic—to bring forward another way.

[Joseph Ball]

Yes, fair enough-&#39;bring forward another way&#39;. And Avakian is right when he says that imperialism is the main enemy and Islamic reactionaries are a secondary problem.

However, I am not quite sure about this business of Islamic Fundamentalists being part of the same pole as the imperialists. At the moment the Taliban, Hizbollah and the Islamic Army Of Iraq definately are not on the same side as the imperialists. Of course, there are circumstances where they might end up there (the Taliban in the mid-90s etc) but this is not the same thing as saying they are there now.

Yes, of course these groups favour capitalism and do not want socialism. But they are currently in an antagonistic relationship with the west.

I am genuinely interested in hearing someone explain the theory that these forces reinforce western imperialism.

[People&#39;s Councillor]

A general rule of thumb might be that if a group, because of its own class interests, may ally with imperialism, then that group cannot be trusted to lead a national liberation struggle. Participate, yes. But it should not be allowed to monopolize the discussion and its propaganda should not be dominant.

Though what I say matters little, as I am a proletarian liveing in the United STates and have absolutely no say over what goes on in the third world...

[Spike]

Obviously, any organisation that tortures and executes Marxists and other leftists (i.e. Iran&#39;s clergy) must never be supported by anyone.
Well, from the Iranian perspective the Marxists were subversive due to the Soviet armed intervention in Afghanistan. The Tudeh were tolerated until 1983. The persecution of Marxists in Iran can largely be to Soviet provocations in the region and the failure of Tudeh to sufficiently support Iran against Iraq. Nevertheless, Tudeh were correct to stand in solidarity with Khomeini and support the 1979 bourgeois revolution that resulted in the end of the decayed monarchy and American semi-colonialism. If Tudeh wants to have any relevance with the Iranian proletariat, it has to support the bourgeois revolution currently in Iran.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 07, 2007 04:00 am

I don&#39;t feel like Mao would support uniting with a thoroughly reactionary, and a reactionary led resistance anyhow

Regardless of how you feel comrade, Mao did throw his support behind a number of reactionaries.

As a communist, you should be trying to apply communist theory, including contributions Mao made, to every situation. You should avoid basing yourself on what Mao would do (sounds like &#39;what would Jesus do&#39;), as if he was some deity to be praised.
Well Bob Avakian made the point in the begining of the Bringing Forward Another Way piece that while he did make alot of mistakes in supporting certain forces and painting them as progressive-revolutionary, this was all based on the fact that over 300 border skirmishes were happening yearly with the USSR and that more Soviet troops were on the border between the USSR and the People&#39;s Republic than anywhere else, including Capitalist europe. There was a real threat of nuclear war as the Soviet Union increasingly attempted to put China under its boot&#33;

Mao&#39;s general principle though of supporting revolutionary movements was supporting movements which fought New Democratic Revolution or National Liberation. The fundamentalists in Iraq are NOT doing that I think and that&#39;s why there is a need for a force which does that. New Democratic Revolution would hold a future for Iraq that is progressive, where there is a separation between church and state, womyn are free and liberated to get an education and dress as they please, where the masses are free to speak out, where industry is controlled by the masses and their state -- not by some American corporation viciously ravaging Iraq for as much profit as possible. Imperialism holds a future where the people are exploited and forced to live under the worst conditions where everything valuable in Iraq will be stolen and looted, where war lords will thrive, where a police state will emerge. Fundamentalism holds a future where womyn will be forced to accept patriarchial dominance, where you risk being stoned for homosexuality, where things as little as kissing in public can be prosecuted. Thus as communists what kind of future do we want? We don&#39;t want either fundamentalism or imperialism because of the type of oppressive bourgeois societies they create

I didn&#39;t mean to make it seem like I&#39;m holding Mao as a jesus figure, I was just pointing out that I don&#39;t think that Mao would support a thoroughly reactionary force like the fundamentalists.

[Joseph Ball]

There seems to be some confusion here. The insurgents in Iraq do support national liberation, there program is to force out the invaders that have brought their country to ruin. There are also some Al-Qaeda groups there who, I acknowledge, do not have an ideology of national liberation. However, these groups are not dominant in the resistance, although they have some strength. I think the problem is that Americans have been indoctrinated to believe that Al-Qaeda is the only force that the US invaders are fighting in Iraq and this viewpoint even seems to effect the Left. In Europe reporting of Iraq is a bit less biased and the position the Left adopts tends to be more appropriate.

No way can Maoists or communists look at Iraq and say &#39;we&#39;re not supporting the resistance because all the groups concerned are against women&#39;s rights and gay rights&#39;. OK, the latter statement is true (even the Baathists dropped their support of women&#39;s rights in the last years of the regime). However, women have a right not to wear the hijab but also a right not to have their country reduced to rubble and chaos by US and British Fascist invaders. The problem of the foreign invasion must be addressed first and then the fight against the reactionaries must begin. Every true Maoist, every true Leninist supports the Iraqi people&#39;s right to resist.

[SonofRage]

In Bring the Ruckus, this is what some of us call the Three-Cornered or Three-way Right. Here&#39;s an article put out by our Coordinating Committee a few years ago:



Three-Cornered Fight



[Note: The following was originally written as part I of the coordinating committee’s annual report of Bring the Ruckus for 2003. It was written specifically for the purpose of initiating debate at our annual conference, held in January 2004 in Los Angeles. The ideas in this document were vigorously debated at the conference, but no consensus was settled on. As a result, this piece shouldn’t be considered BTR’s official line, but one interpretation, held by at least a portion of the BTR membership, of the present international and national context that we all find ourselves in.]


Bring the Ruckus has formed at a pivotal time in world history. The cold war is over and with it the traditional battle lines between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. Old-style European imperialism has been defeated by the anti-colonial movements of Africa and Asia. Legalized forms of racial subordination, such as segregation in the U.S. and apartheid in South Africa, have been overthrown, leaving Northern Ireland and Israel as the last nations in which racial oppression is official policy. Totalitarianism has been conquered, women are no longer legally excluded from public life in most nations, and queers in the West are rapidly reaching a point in which their rights and choices as queers—including the right to marry—will be recognized by nation-states. And yet human potential is no more realized, the planet is no healthier, and the world is no freer in the early years of the 21st century than they were one hundred years ago. Old oppressions persist, new contradictions have replaced old, and the monster of capital is stronger than ever.

For most of the 20th century, the main conflict was capitalism vs. communism. However oppressive and distorting it was of Marx and Bakunin’s ideal, the existence of Soviet communism connected the communist vision with concrete regimes. That connection has disappeared. With the collapse of the Soviet empire, the principal contradiction of the 21st century has become the conflict between liberal capitalism and religious fundamentalism (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindi). This is not a “clash of civilizations” but a conflict between two different kinds of capitalism, one in which markets rule all, another in which markets are subject to religious dictates. It is a conflict between two visions of empire, one (which currently has the upper hand) in which the master nations create a world of subordinate nations in their political and economic image, another in which a religious empire spreads across nations, conquering those that resist. It is a conflict between two models of human relations, one in which isolated and alienated individuals constantly compete with each other in order to consume, and another in which the individual is always subordinated to religious authority. It is a conflict in which one power uses armies, laws, foreign policy, and NGOs to dominate, while the other uses religious revivals, suicide bombers, social services, prophets and dictators, and a narrow interpretation of the “word of God.” It is a conflict that exists within nations as well as across them, from the United States to India to Israel to Pakistan.

Liberal democracy has no more patience for true freedom than does fundamentalism. Under it, freedom means simply freedom to buy and sell. It means equal political rights but unequal economic (and therefore real) power. Religious fundamentalism means equality under God but inequality under humanity. Under it, freedom means little more than the freedom to obey. These are but two different hells.

This new conflict has no space set out for a “left” or for anyone who seeks a world without oppression and the domination of capital. It has no room for those who want everyone to have a say in those affairs that affect their daily life.

We must carve that space out.

We are weak but not alone. Many others are also trying to turn the battle for the planet into a three-cornered fight. The Zapatistas began this new struggle for a new era exactly ten years ago. That they still survive is proof that this world is worth fighting for—and can be won. Meanwhile, indigenous peoples worldwide are leading the struggle to develop a third “corner.” In addition to securing Chiapas, they have toppled a regime in Bolivia, elected a left-leaning president in Brazil, and inspired resistance in Ecuador. These examples suggest that the Americas are poised for an indigenous revolution the likes of which we haven’t seen in 500 years.

Another potential force for freedom lies in the new proletariat of the 21st century: young, single women working in the factories and red light districts of Mexico, Uganda, Albania, Thailand, and India. They are murdered in Juarez, gang-raped in Sarajevo, and fired for organizing in Los Angeles, yet they still work. Further, the very qualities that make them attractive to bosses—their youth, their single status, their loosened ties from patriarchal family relations, their “disposability” as laborers—make them potential revolutionaries. What globalization may be exporting above all are its own gravediggers: young angry women with nothing to lose but their chains.

The global economy has also spawned a huge population of what the political theorist Hannah Arendt calls “superfluous peoples,” those with no role in the official economy and who are therefore expendable to the powers that be. These peoples are forced to either wiggle their way into the official economy or, more likely, to make a living at its margins through a combination of above--and underground activity. The majority of the Black population in the U.S., Palestinians, Romany in Europe, Kurds, and the extreme poor of all nations: these peoples are “disposable” in the global economy. Traditional Marxism calls them the “lumpenproletariat” and sees them as a threat to the class struggle because they are supposedly susceptible to being bought off by the bourgeoisie. But we should consider them as incipient revolutionaries, a part of the worldwide working class with no stake in the system and therefore no reason to wish to see it survive.

Finally, the global economy has caused an explosion of growth of migrant labor. Migrant workers move largely because they have to, not because they want to. In the above-ground economy they do the labor the working class in developed nations no longer want to do, particularly in agriculture, domestic service, and hospitality (hotels, restaurants, etc.). In the underground economy they peddle drugs, pirate goods, and smuggle other migrants. Typically their goals are hardly revolutionary: to support their families, to get a piece of the “American Dream,” to get filthy rich. But in seeking these mundane goals the migrant worker recognizes no border, flaunts the law, evades the police, and transforms the politics and economics of the countries they left and currently call home. Lacking political power or legal protection, they have an interest in seeking them through both individual means (gaining legal status) and collective struggles such as unionization and social movements for migrant workers’ rights. This puts them in the forefront of class struggles in the new century.

These four groups form the potential core of a worldwide struggle against the real “axis of evil”: liberal capitalism and fundamentalist capitalism. Only social movements with vision and leadership (most of which must come from within the groups themselves) can win them over. These groups were potentially revolutionary before the 21st century but revolutionaries ignored them. Will revolutionaries learn from the past or repeat the same mistakes? How will BTR fight alongside them?

Left-wing governments in Latin America and Europe claim to represent some of these oppressed groups, but they are ultimately too burdened by the pressure to appease local and international elites to represent a true third alternative (witness President de Silva’s recent compromises with capital in Brazil, or the Green Party’s capitulations in Germany). Only social movements have this potential. The anti-globalization movement, sparked by Seattle 1999, speaks naturally to some of these groups. The movement against the war in Iraq reflected one of the first attempts by masses of people to say “neither the empire of globalization nor fundamentalism,” but the movement petered out in the U.S. and has had difficulty gaining traction in the rest of the world.

One reason why these two movements have had difficulty succeeding in the U.S. is because they have not directly confronted the ghost of white supremacy, which has always haunted American social movements. Neither movement has challenged the cross-class alliance between capital and a sector of the working class that grants privileges to this sector (“the wages of whiteness”) in exchange for their role in policing the rest of the working class. The vaunted alliance between unions and sea turtle puppeteers in Seattle, for example, rested on the narrow reformist vision and chauvinism of the unions, who protested in order to preserve privileges won through the cross-class alliance as much as to seek global justice.

The Wal-martization of the American economy reflects the decline of racial privilege and the cross-class alliance. Capital is less and less willing to pay white people more than other workers for the same work and it sees less need for poor whites to police the rest of the poor. Yet even as the white working class sees its job security vanish, its wages decline, its benefits slashed, its work day lengthen, and its opportunities to move up the social ladder (through education or promotion) decline, it continues to cling to the worldview of empire: U.S. domination of the planet, a shriveled social safety net, low wages, low taxes, “customer service,” and the privileged status of markets. This group has objective reasons for uniting with the rest of the worldwide working class to struggle for a free world, yet as a group it still prefers racial privilege over class solidarity, even as whiteness provides diminishing returns.

As American revolutionaries, we have several tasks. One is to struggle with those populations already struggling (even if only incipiently) against both capitalism and fundamentalism. Another is to develop a politics, strategy, tactics, and vision that can win a significant chunk of the white working class over to this struggle. A third is to fight to make sure that this struggle, when it develops, struggles against all forms of oppression, including patriarchy and compulsive heterosexuality. In taking on these tasks, we must pay attention to American history as well as to the new challenges and contradictions of the 21st century. Our key questions include the following: How can we expand democracy in an era in which—with the exception of queer rights—all citizens enjoy equal legal and political rights but in which racial, sexual, and other forms of oppression persist? How can we expand democracy in an era in which political equality is presumed the norm, but so is economic exploitation? How can we ensure the free flow of humans across borders as well as goods? How can we create community out of a plurality of religious and moral beliefs without seeking to enforce arrogant secularism or authoritarian fundamentalism? How can we build a world that is technologically sophisticated yet free of exploitation, weapons of mass destruction, and ecological devastation? How can we build decentralized, directly democratic political spaces without the threat of majority tyranny?

We have so much to do.

[grove street]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 06:08 pm

If people&#39;s resistance movements are led by reactionaries it is due to the failure of the communists to provide adequate leadership.

What? So it would have nothing to do with the fact that the majority of the fighters in middle-Eastern resistance movements are strongly religious and therefore oppose communism?

It is not because communist leadership is weak. It is because the people do not want communist leaders.
Im sorry but you are mistaken.

The reason why there is no mass workers movement in the Middle East is because America and other Western Imperalist countries have destroyed every single democratic workers movement through-out the history of the modern Middle East, because of this the people in the Middle East can&#39;t turn to a class struggle analogy of their economic/politcal circumstances. So they turn to a religious apocolpetic analogy of the world.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by grove street+June 09, 2007 06:57 am--> (grove street @ June 09, 2007 06:57 am)
[email protected] 06, 2007 06:08 pm

If people&#39;s resistance movements are led by reactionaries it is due to the failure of the communists to provide adequate leadership.

What? So it would have nothing to do with the fact that the majority of the fighters in middle-Eastern resistance movements are strongly religious and therefore oppose communism?

It is not because communist leadership is weak. It is because the people do not want communist leaders.
Im sorry but you are mistaken.

The reason why there is no mass workers movement in the Middle East is because America and other Western Imperalist countries have destroyed every single democratic workers movement through-out the history of the modern Middle East, because of this the people in the Middle East can&#39;t turn to a class struggle analogy of their economic/politcal circumstances. So they turn to a religious apocolpetic analogy of the world. [/b]
I see. Can I please have some sources which demonstrate how Western imperialism destroyed working-class movements in the Middle-East?

[Joseph Ball]

What was effectively destroyed was anti-imperialism. The proletarian struggle in the current era is against capitalism, certainly, but against a specific form of capitalism-imperialism, which is capitalism&#39;s last stage.

Very schematically anti-imperialist movements were destroyed as follows.

In the Middle East disillusion with pan-Arabism set in after the 6 day war. Over time radical minded people gravitated towards Islamic Fundamentalism instead which is an inferior form of anti-imperialist struggle. Being purely reactionary, it cannot unite the people (it excludes women, the less conservative minded urban masses etc).

In SE Asia anti-imperialist movements were destroyed by the murderous British war against the Malayn insurgents in the 50s, the CIA plotted massacre of the communists in Indonesia in the 60s and finally the genocidal war against the people of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. The anti-imperialists won in the latter but at a terrible cost which really weakened them and denied them the possibility of spreading revolution.

In Latin America progressive forces were wiped out in the 70s and 80s, begining with Pinochet&#39;s coup and carrying on up until the 80s with genocides in Guatamala and El Salvador. The Grenadan revolution was crushed and the Nicaraguan revolution defeated after 11 years of heroic struggle. Imperialist mass murder continues today in Colombia, financed and led by the US.

In Africa most of the nationalist, progressive regimes (e.g. Angola, Mozambique, Zambia) were undermined in the 80s by IMF &#39;conditionality&#39; and then by the collapse of the USSR due to the self-interested treachery of the leaders of that nation. Only Zimbabwe still heroically resists imperialism. Eritrea is also of interest (though history here is complex as independent Eritrea was actually born out of conflict with a left-nationalist regime, though rather a contraversial one.)

Why was anti-imperialism smashed by the US? That is a story for a different thread. Basically you cannot stop at anti-imperialist nationalism (as the regimes we are speaking of did, however heroic they were). Once you have won independence you have to keep on pushing until the international fight against imperialism is won and the imperialists are finally crushed. The oppressed peoples of the world must surround and crush the oppressor nations. They cannot rest content with just enacting reforms in their own back yard. The US was a wounded animal after Vietnam, it was allowed to recover and pounce back. Let&#39;s not make the same mistake again.

[Spike]

though history here is complex as independent Eritrea was actually born out of conflict with a left-nationalist regime, though rather a contraversial one
The revolt in Eritrea did not originate during the Ethiopian military government but had its roots in the late 1950s against the tyrannical monarchy.Before the 1974 Ethiopian revolution, the Russians and Cubans supported the secessionist movements in Eritrea and Ogaden but then turned around to support the Addis Ababa government after 1974. I take the view that it was a mistake to support the Addis Ababa government as Mengistu was a basic nationalistic military leader who pretended to be a communist in order to draw assistance from Russia and Cuba. By contrast, the Marxist Ethiopian People&#39;s Revolutionary Party explicitly rejected rule by the Provisional Military Administration Council. The Eritrean People&#39;s Liberation Front was Marxist.

[Nakidana]

Originally posted by Joseph [email protected] 08, 2007 07:10 am
There seems to be some confusion here. The insurgents in Iraq do support national liberation, there program is to force out the invaders that have brought their country to ruin. There are also some Al-Qaeda groups there who, I acknowledge, do not have an ideology of national liberation. However, these groups are not dominant in the resistance, although they have some strength. I think the problem is that Americans have been indoctrinated to believe that Al-Qaeda is the only force that the US invaders are fighting in Iraq and this viewpoint even seems to effect the Left. In Europe reporting of Iraq is a bit less biased and the position the Left adopts tends to be more appropriate.

No way can Maoists or communists look at Iraq and say &#39;we&#39;re not supporting the resistance because all the groups concerned are against women&#39;s rights and gay rights&#39;. OK, the latter statement is true (even the Baathists dropped their support of women&#39;s rights in the last years of the regime). However, women have a right not to wear the hijab but also a right not to have their country reduced to rubble and chaos by US and British Fascist invaders. The problem of the foreign invasion must be addressed first and then the fight against the reactionaries must begin. Every true Maoist, every true Leninist supports the Iraqi people&#39;s right to resist.
Exactly. We need to realise that the "revolutionaries" in Iraq are the so-called insurgents. (Why are we even using the degrading "insurgent" term applied by the US military to everyone they bomb? They should be called freedom fighters). They&#39;re the ones fighting the occupation, they&#39;re the ones using guerrilla tactics, they&#39;re the ones supported by the people of Iraq because they ARE the people of Iraq.

There are two major sides in Iraq. Those for the occupation, and those against the occupation. Unfortunately, we all know what side the so-called Iraqi Communist Party chose after the invasion. (They decided to work with the puppet government set up by the US)

All in all, we must sadly admit that the left in Iraq has not taken up arms against the occupational forces. They have largely either held a passive anti occupation stance or joined with the US.

In this case we must face the facts:

1. We must support the struggle for liberation.

2. The struggle is led by Muslims.

It would be sheer insanity for the left not to support the liberation fighters. We must create a united front against imperialism.

A bit off topic: The freedom fighters in Iraq are doing better than I ever thought they would. They&#39;re so incredibly well organised, it&#39;s almost scary. To be honest I seriously had doubts a resistance would be able to form in the terrain of Iraq, as there are no jungles, no places you can hide. This has proven completely wrong. The guerrillas have proven extremely effective in the urban areas, carrying out regular sniper attacks and ambushes. Even outside the cities they&#39;ve perfected a strategy of remotely triggering IEDs at roadsides and setting up ambushes. It has come to the point where they&#39;re now capturing enemy soldiers&#33;

And they&#39;ve got the propaganda to prove it. There are hundreds of videos floating around the internet, of them carrying out attacks against the occupation and collaborators.

To say that they&#39;re "a band of disorganized gangsters" is simply ludicrous.

[Avtomat_Icaro]

Meh if we left things to communist parties...well...nothing would really happen, just look at the Cuban Revolution or their betrayal of Che Guevara in Bolivia.

As for the current struggle in Iraq, for some reason I very much doubt that a communist/socialist movement could become very powerful there at this moment. Anti-imperialist forces yes, socialists no.

[Nakidana]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 12:51 pm
Meh if we left things to communist parties...well...nothing would really happen, just look at the Cuban Revolution or their betrayal of Che Guevara in Bolivia.

As for the current struggle in Iraq, for some reason I very much doubt that a communist/socialist movement could become very powerful there at this moment. Anti-imperialist forces yes, socialists no.
Well, you have to distinguish between real communist parties and fake communist parties. Some parties are only communist by name.

Remember that communists ARE anti-imperialist. One thing is for sure, the communists/socialists will not become powerful by sitting around doing nothing or holding hands with the imperialists. <_<

At this time I think the best solution for the left in Iraq is to support the Islamic anti imperialist fighters in whatever way they can. From sheltering them to fighting side by side with them against the occupation forces. To be honest I&#39;m not sure about the fighting capabilities of the left in Iraq atm, but at the same time I don&#39;t think it&#39;s that hard getting hold of a couple of AKs and RPGs. :ph34r: This will definitely secure some degree of influence for the left in post-occupation Iraq.

[Avtomat_Icaro]

Well, you have to distinguish between real communist parties and fake communist parties. Some parties are only communist by name.

True, but who is a real communist and who isnt?


Remember that communists ARE anti-imperialist. One thing is for sure, the communists/socialists will not become powerful by sitting around doing nothing or holding hands with the imperialists.
All communists are anti-imperialist, however not all anti-imperialists are communist. However the communists will not become powerful by starting an impopular war. The communists have to adapt and then take over, similar to what happened for the war of independence in Vietnam and the Cuban Revolution.

[Nakidana]

True, but who is a real communist and who isnt?

In this case I wouldn&#39;t call the Iraq Communist Party communist, as they&#39;ve supported imperialism. Just like I wouldn&#39;t call the Communist Party Of China communist.


All communists are anti-imperialist, however not all anti-imperialists are communist. However the communists will not become powerful by starting an impopular war. The communists have to adapt and then take over, similar to what happened for the war of independence in Vietnam and the Cuban Revolution.

Exactly, they will have to adapt. That adaptation could be achieved by joining forces with the people already fighting the US led occupation. I&#39;m not saying they should start a war, I&#39;m saying they should join in the one already being waged, on the side of anti-occupation.

[redwinter]

Originally posted by Joseph [email protected] 08, 2007 07:10 am
No way can Maoists or communists look at Iraq and say &#39;we&#39;re not supporting the resistance because all the groups concerned are against women&#39;s rights and gay rights&#39;. OK, the latter statement is true (even the Baathists dropped their support of women&#39;s rights in the last years of the regime). However, women have a right not to wear the hijab but also a right not to have their country reduced to rubble and chaos by US and British Fascist invaders. The problem of the foreign invasion must be addressed first and then the fight against the reactionaries must begin. Every true Maoist, every true Leninist supports the Iraqi people&#39;s right to resist.
If you want to write about "Leninism," why not take a look at what Lenin wrote about the subject?



With regard to the more backward states and nations, in which feudal or patriarchal and patriarchal-peasant relations predominate, it is particularly important to bear in mind:

first, that all Communist parties must assist the bourgeois-democratic liberation movement in these countries, and that the duty of rendering the most active assistance rests primarily with the workers of the country the backward nation is colonially or financially dependent on;

second, the need for a struggle against the clergy and other influential reactionary and medieval elements in backward countries;

third, the need to combat Pan-Islamism and similar trends, which strive to combine the liberation movement against European and American imperialism with an attempt to strengthen the positions of the khans, landowners, mullahs, etc.;
(from [i]Draft Theses on National and Colonial Questions For The Second Congress Of The Communist International (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/jun/05.htm) by V.I. Lenin, 5 June 1920)


Any questions?

I also appreciate SonofRage&#39;s post on Bring the Ruckus&#39;s analysis of the current situation -- it was an interesting read.

[Nakidana]

But they&#39;re NOT the reactionary clergy redwinter&#33; They&#39;re Muslims struggling for national liberation. They&#39;re the progressive ones in Iraq at the moment, not the capitalist US. They&#39;re not medieval, they&#39;re using AKs, RPGs, making their own bombs and using the bloody internet&#33;

I am NOT saying the reactionary mullahs should be supported. I am saying the current Islamic fighters should be supported in their struggle for freedom. If the left supports the struggle, they will become more powerful than ever before in Iraq.

And for everyone’s information, ANY Muslim can be a mullah. He just needs to know how to pray, which just about every Muslim does. All you need to do to be a mullah is to stand in front of everyone else at the Friday prayer. (Of course, the one who is the most experienced and educated in the ways of the prayer will usually be the mullah)

Communists were fighting alongside Hezbollah during the Israeli forward push into Lebanon. What did you want the communists to do then comrade, start shooting at both Israeli troops and the Hezbollah?

I swear some people on the left are so hell bent on fighting every sign of religion that they completely miss out on the actual situation. I think at the end of the day it comes down to this; can you be a Muslim and at the same time be revolutionary? I think you can. Some people apparently hear the word Muslim and immediately throw the 1.6 billion people into the reactionary thrash can.

It sounds more like some people on the left have been caught up in the Islam phobic campaign the Western liberal media has been waging against the Muslims for decades.

EDIT: Finally found this quote from the little red (I knew it was in there :P ):


To achieve a lasting world peace, we must further develop our friendship and co-operation with the fraternal countries in the camp of socialism and strengthen our solidarity with all peace-loving countries. We must endeavour to establish normal diplomatic relations on the basis of mutual respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty and of equality and mutual benefit with all countries willing to live together with us in peace. We must give active support to the national independence and liberation movement in countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America as well as to the peace movement and to just struggles in all countries throughout the world. (“Opening Address to the Eighth National Congress of the Communist Party of China.”) :wub:

[redwinter]

Malangyar,

I don&#39;t think anyone can deny the fact that OBL and the leadership of the Qaeda related groups or the Ayatollahs are part of the outmoded ruling strata of the Middle East, and not some kind of national liberation movement. They are openly fighting for the Ummah.

And the revolutionary argument is not saying that all Muslims are reactionaries, or that they must be thrown in the trash can or something like that, but that these reactionary theocrats of whatever religion do not represent any kind of liberatory force in the world and that revolutionaries need to raise our own flag and seek to unite as many as can be united for new democratic rev and national liberation, rather than reinforce the dynamic of Islamic theocracy vs US imperialism. We shouldn&#39;t tail whatever spontaneous "resistance" that sprouts up under the leadership of Islamic theocrats, landowners, and local authorities just because it comes into conflict with imperialism in certain places at certain times. I suggest that people go back and read the entirety of the Lenin article quoted above for more on how the Bolsheviks dealt with the question, and go back and read the Bob Avakian article and see what the current revolutionary leadership is writing.

[Nakidana]

Comrade, I&#39;m afraid I disagree. I DO understand where you&#39;re coming from but the mere idea of "raising our own flag" in Iraq, in effective isolation from the rest of the national uprising, is not only absurd, it&#39;s dangerous as well. I strongly believe that the only viable way of removing the occupation forces from Iraq is to UNIFY the resistance. It would be stupid not to work with the other resistance organisations.

It is a known fact that the vast majority of people fighting against the US occupation in Iraq, are Iraqis. The statement that Al Qaida is leading the resistance in Iraq is a myth. The Iraqi people have themselves taken up arms against the occupation, in this case under the banner of Islam.

They are not trying to follow the ideas of OBL, this is only a myth put forward by the US military in their attempt to degrade the resistance. Where is OBL anyway? He is a tool used by the US to spread fear into the minds of the people.

My point is, please try to distinguish between:

1. The reactionary mullahs or ayatollahs who on the one hand gain popularity with the people by preaching anti-imperialism in the open, and in private kiss the filthy bottom of the US.

2. The progressive Muslims (And mullahs. They do exist) fighting against imperialism in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Divide and conquer" has always been the strategy of imperialism. Please, let us not play into their hands.

The left is losing so much by not participating in the struggles for liberation in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why do we need to isolate ourselves further?

[People&#39;s Councillor]

Comrade, I&#39;m afraid I disagree. I DO understand where you&#39;re coming from but the mere idea of "raising our own flag" in Iraq, in effective isolation from the rest of the national uprising, is not only absurd, it&#39;s dangerous as well. I strongly believe that the only viable way of removing the occupation forces from Iraq is to UNIFY the resistance. It would be stupid not to work with the other resistance organisations.
"Raising our own flag" does not mean that it must be raised in opposition to every other national liberation group, but it does mean that it must be raised&#33; At the moment, the Iraqi Left has no control over the national liberation struggle; it is a marginalized group compared to just about everyone else. This has resulted in the Left voice being lost, and the struggle to be defined in terms of Islam v. Imperialism. The Iraqi Left is not seperating itself from the other groups, nor unifying them; it is subordinating itself to them, which I think we can all agree is a stupid and self-defeating strategy. It lends legitimacy to the other groups, and minimizes the appeal that the Left can generate later.


It is a known fact that the vast majority of people fighting against the US occupation in Iraq, are Iraqis. The statement that Al Qaida is leading the resistance in Iraq is a myth. The Iraqi people have themselves taken up arms against the occupation, in this case under the banner of Islam.
It&#39;s not just a known fact, it&#39;s a well-known fact. Even some liberals in the USA know it. The problem that we have is that the Iraqi people have taken up resistance under the banner of Islam, as you put it. Now, this has resulted from the fact that the Iraqi Left has acted throughout as a booster for the Islamic-based resistance, rather than raising its own voice with an alternative program other than an Islamic Republic.


They are not trying to follow the ideas of OBL, this is only a myth put forward by the US military in their attempt to degrade the resistance. Where is OBL anyway? He is a tool used by the US to spread fear into the minds of the people.
Here, we agree.


"Divide and conquer" has always been the strategy of imperialism. Please, let us not play into their hands.

The left is losing so much by not participating in the struggles for liberation in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why do we need to isolate ourselves further?
Yes, but resisting "divide and conquer" does not mean the the Left has to sit back and let reactionaries take control of the resistance movement. Anti-imperialist struggles are not necessarily progressive; look at Iran. Or, for that matter, the USA itself. You&#39;re exactly right; the Left isn&#39;t participating in these national liberation struggles, because we are complacent enough to believe that we can let reactionaries do our job for us. The Left cannot be content to let others fight its battles; it must always allow itself to be heard, to bring people to its views.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"The progressive mullahs" .. unbelievable. <_<

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I didn&#39;t mean to make it seem like I&#39;m holding Mao as a jesus figure, I was just pointing out that I don&#39;t think that Mao would support a thoroughly reactionary force like the fundamentalists.

Why not? He backed U.S.-funded counterrevolutionaries.

Look, Mao made some positive contributions, but let&#39;s not pretend he was above allying with imperialism and reactionaries.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 12, 2007 01:09 am

I didn&#39;t mean to make it seem like I&#39;m holding Mao as a jesus figure, I was just pointing out that I don&#39;t think that Mao would support a thoroughly reactionary force like the fundamentalists.

Why not? He backed U.S.-funded counterrevolutionaries.

Look, Mao made some positive contributions, but let&#39;s not pretend he was above allying with imperialism and reactionaries.
UNITA was Maoist when Mao backed it, not US-imperialist, that happened later. the PRC supported movements which were opposed to both US imperialism and Soviet Imperialism and for National Liberation and New Democratic Revolution on principle, while there may be cases where Mao supported groups that were more anti-soviet imperialism then anti-US, it was the Soviets who had the highest concentration of troops on the Chinese border in the region, higher than they did on any capitalist state. This was about defence of socialism.

[People&#39;s Councillor]

UNITA was never US imperialist. It was more South African imperialist.

Yes, that is an extremely important distinction [/sarcasm]

[Nakidana]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 12, 2007 12:43 am
"The progressive mullahs" .. unbelievable.* <_<
I believe you&#39;re referring to my post. Listen mate, I&#39;m not making stuff up here. I&#39;ve heard of mullahs encouraging Muslims during the Friday prayer to vote for the most socialist party in our country. (Basically it&#39;s a coalition of many small leftist parties, including radical communist groups and such) Why? Because that party is the only party fully denouncing the Iraq war, and because that party is the only party showing tolerance and approving of Muslims. The party itself has Muslims in the front line-up agreeing with the socialist agenda, but still standing by their right to BE MUSLIMS.

Who cares if people want to wear the hijab, it&#39;s their choice to make not yours. Is it a symbol of oppression? Hell no I&#39;ve seen Muslims with hijab campaigning for socialist parties, being activists, appearing in public and holding speeches. To say they&#39;re oppressed would be an insult to them. Maybe they just don&#39;t feel like wearing a thong, miniskirt and having their tits hanging out. Talk about oppression of women...

Is it true that some mullahs are reactionary? Yes, sadly it is. But the full truth is that not all mullahs are reactionary, just like a lot of Muslims aren&#39;t reactionary.

I know this because I&#39;m a Muslim myself.

[Avtomat_Icaro]

Maybe they just don&#39;t feel like wearing a thong, miniskirt and having their tits hanging out. Talk about oppression of women...
Reminds me of this article I wrote about muslim feminists, still wearing the headscarfs and burqas...refusing to take them off since it would be Western oppression of the woman in which they would have to fit in that image of the thong, miniskirt and hanging tits. But yeah try to tell that to the masses here :ph34r:

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

UNITA was never US imperialist. It was more South African imperialist.

I don&#39;t know what makes you say that. They got the most aid from the U.S., followed by China and South Africa.


Who cares if people want to wear the hijab, it&#39;s their choice to make not yours.

What does that have to do with this discussion again?

* * *

[We] "need to combat Pan-Islamism and similar trends, which strive to combine the liberation movement against European and American imperialism with an attempt to strengthen the positions of the khans, landowners, mullahs, etc." - V.I. Lenin, Draft Theses on
National and Colonial Questions

[Nakidana]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 12, 2007 02:48 pm

UNITA was never US imperialist. It was more South African imperialist.

I don&#39;t know what makes you say that. They got the most aid from the U.S., followed by China and South Africa.


Who cares if people want to wear the hijab, it&#39;s their choice to make not yours.

What does that have to do with this discussion again?

* * *

[We] "need to combat Pan-Islamism and similar trends, which strive to combine the liberation movement against European and American imperialism with an attempt to strengthen the positions of the khans, landowners, mullahs, etc." - V.I. Lenin, Draft Theses on
National and Colonial Questions
Sorry comrade, might&#39;ve gotten a bit off topic. I was trying to point out, to all those who aggressively oppose Muslims, or Christians, Jews or whatever, that instead of bickering over whether God does or does not exist, what clothes they wear and what clothes you wear, issues people can perfectly well engage in without hurting anyone else, we should instead focus on the more important things such as the fight against imperialism. I was not targeting anyone in specific.

I don&#39;t see how the quote from Lenin opposes what I say. I believe the struggle should be lead by the left. But I also believe you can be a Muslim and at the same time be a revolutionary.

What I was in effect suggesting, was for the left in Iraq to join up with the Islamic fighters in their liberation struggle, and from that standpoint work towards increasing their influence. Not by attacking the Islamic fighters in some suicide attempt at creating a pure liberation army, but by fighting alongside them, while at the same time recruiting from the local population and spreading their own slogans.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, and may oppose the Iraqi resistance if you want to. I just fail to see why uniting is such a bad thing.

[People&#39;s Councillor]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 12, 2007 02:48 pm

UNITA was never US imperialist. It was more South African imperialist.

I don&#39;t know what makes you say that. They got the most aid from the U.S., followed by China and South Africa.
So it&#39;s true what they say about Lefties being unable to make or recognize jokes <_<

[RedKnight]

In our opposition to western imperialism, we mustn&#39;t overlook the imperial ambition of pan-islamists, like the Muslim Brotherhood. They seek to establish a caliphate throughout the world. Throughout human history the colony can later become an empire. Case in point the U.S.A. was once a part of the British empire, but now it is a world power in it&#39;s own right. During World War I, there was a conflict between two opposing alliances. Neither of which was anti-imperialist. Rather it was a conflict between different rival empires. Now if we were to apply the rational of supporting a subject people against a dominant power to the first world war, we&#39;d be supporting the serbian nationalists against the Ottoman caliphate. The very same caliphate which the islamists wish to restore. It would be worthless to defeat one empire just to enthrone another. Iran is allowed to could become a shia muslim rebirth of the Persian empire. So we as revolutionary socialists are to assist as well as lead the people themselves. Not just fall behind any group that stands against the West. As for whether or not one may be both muslim and marxist. There is such a thing as liberation theology, which seeks to synthesise religion with revolution. However from what I&#39;ve observed in my experience. the fundamentalist muslim views democracy as being akin to greco-pagan homosexuality, the same as shaving the face. So traditionaly many believers in Islam reject ideas like socialism as being khafir/foreign. Of course we are to respect freedom of religion, while reserving the right to anti-religious propoganda. If mature indivisuals wish to be practising muslims, and I don&#39;t know why they would, that&#39;s fine. But no one should be allowed to impose there religion upon those who do not have a choice. No girl under the age of 15 should have to wear hijab period. And people of all ages deserve the right to leave Islam, as I have done, without have there personal safety threatened. We Communists must fight for the civil rights of indivisuals as well as ethnic groups.

[Joseph Ball]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 04:15 pm




With regard to the more backward states and nations, in which feudal or patriarchal and patriarchal-peasant relations predominate, it is particularly important to bear in mind:

first, that all Communist parties must assist the bourgeois-democratic liberation movement in these countries, and that the duty of rendering the most active assistance rests primarily with the workers of the country the backward nation is colonially or financially dependent on;

second, the need for a struggle against the clergy and other influential reactionary and medieval elements in backward countries;

third, the need to combat Pan-Islamism and similar trends, which strive to combine the liberation movement against European and American imperialism with an attempt to strengthen the positions of the khans, landowners, mullahs, etc.;
(from [i]Draft Theses on National and Colonial Questions For The Second Congress Of The Communist International (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/jun/05.htm) by V.I. Lenin, 5 June 1920)



I am in perfect agreement with Lenin. However, nowhere does Lenin say we should struggle against these forces all at once, in a situation like Iraq&#33; You fight the main enemy first and the others after. And of course while fighting the main enemy, you assert your own independent line, opposing fundamentalism-politically-and asserting progressive ideas.

The idea that Pan-Islamism is aspirationally imperialist therefore the wars in Iraq etc. are inter-imperialist is pushing things rather a lot&#33; Bourgeois nationalists are aspirational imperialists too surely (in the sense that all capitalists would do this if they had the chance).

Also, there seems to be a conflation of national resistance forces composed of muslims with Islamic Fundamentalism of the Al-Qaeda variety. Supporting Sharia law is part of the beliefs of all muslims, officially, but there are shades of grey in this. Again, I believe this debate is influenced by the tendency of US propaganda to identify all opposition to their vicious policies in the Middle East with Al-Qaeda.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

In our opposition to western imperialism, we mustn&#39;t overlook the imperial ambition of pan-islamists, like the Muslim Brotherhood. They seek to establish a caliphate throughout the world.

You are so utterly taken in by right-wing propaganda that your analytical abilities are completely clouded.

Your whole analysis here is based on phillistine-liberalism, mixed with a complete divorce from reality.

The pan-Islamists seek to establish a global caliphate, but can they do it?
Do you seriously believe that Islamists from Iraq will set off on a global jihad to establish a caliphate the moment America is defeated and removed from the scene?
If you think so, you might as well believe in unicorns.

I&#39;m going to say this for the last bloody time:

The definition of an "imperialist" is NOT that they seek or hope to establish a territorial empire. That is the un-scientific, Liberal definition, and if we apply it, every little kid who admires Napoleon Bonaparte would become an imperialist.

The definition of an imperialist power is very SPECIFIC, and is based on its position in the world system of capitalism.

There are states in the Core of the world-system, who use finance capital to exploit the less developed countries.
These states in the Core are known as imperialists, and the less-developed nations which they exploit are known as "oppressed nations". The working masses of less-developed nations rebel against imperialist exploitation, and may be inspired by any of a number of ideologies in their struggle.

HOWEVER, the fact remains that unless these under-developed countries are able to build an advanced stage of capitalism, they can NEVER become imperialist states.

In other words, unless the pan-Islamists belong to advanced industrial nations, they CANNOT become imperialists no matter how much they dream of it. Their dreams of pan-Islamism are merely a response to imperialist exploitation, and they use this Islamist ideology merely to justify their resistance to imperialist exploitation.

The pan-Islamist groups you&#39;re referring to are ALL products of under-developed, exploited countries, and to expect them to set up some sort of empire is to COMPLETELY ABANDON all the principles of political-economy.



Throughout human history the colony can later become an empire. Case in point the U.S.A. was once a part of the British empire, but now it is a world power in it&#39;s own right.

Oh for fuck&#39;s sake, the US was a colonial settlement which declared its independence from the mother country.

How can you compare that to Islamist groups which arose as a response to imperialism itself?



During World War I, there was a conflict between two opposing alliances. Neither of which was anti-imperialist. Rather it was a conflict between different rival empires. Now if we were to apply the rational of supporting a subject people against a dominant power to the first world war, we&#39;d be supporting the serbian nationalists against the Ottoman caliphate.

What absolute hogswash. World War 1 was fought between rival alliances of imperialist powers, who were ALREADY exploiting the rest of the world through finance capital.

How many Islamists belong to advanced industrial societies? Go ahead and tell me how many.


The very same caliphate which the islamists wish to restore. It would be worthless to defeat one empire just to enthrone another. Iran is allowed to could become a shia muslim rebirth of the Persian empire. So we as revolutionary socialists are to assist as well as lead the people themselves. Not just fall behind any group that stands against the West.

Our opposition is not to a geographical entity called "the West", but to a group of developed, advanced-capitalist states who use finance capital to exploit the Third World.
The only way to defeat capitalism is to defeat imperialist exploitation, because without exploiting the Third World, the world-system of capitalism simply cannot exist.
In pursuit of our goal, we must be prepared to ally with ANY third-world group which seeks to GENUINELY fight and resist the imperialist exploitation of their country.

Simple.


As for whether or not one may be both muslim and marxist. There is such a thing as liberation theology, which seeks to synthesise religion with revolution. However from what I&#39;ve observed in my experience. the fundamentalist muslim views democracy as being akin to greco-pagan homosexuality, the same as shaving the face. So traditionaly many believers in Islam reject ideas like socialism as being khafir/foreign. Of course we are to respect freedom of religion, while reserving the right to anti-religious propoganda. If mature indivisuals wish to be practising muslims, and I don&#39;t know why they would, that&#39;s fine. But no one should be allowed to impose there religion upon those who do not have a choice. No girl under the age of 15 should have to wear hijab period. And people of all ages deserve the right to leave Islam, as I have done, without have there personal safety threatened. We Communists must fight for the civil rights of indivisuals as well as ethnic groups.

Of course we should....if we could. :P

But in regions where the communists don&#39;t have a presence, should we simply discard the anti-imperialist movement as a whole?

You might well say "We communists should fight for this, we communists should fight for that, and that too, and this too, and that too".

I&#39;d agree with you.

The problem is this:

Unless you&#39;re a member of a Marxist guerilla group in Afghanistan or Iraq, with 10000 guerillas fighting the imperialist exploitation, and millions of working-class people supporting you...

Unless that is the case, you have absolutely NO right to piss on an indigenous resistance movement.

And everyone who supports this reactionary Third-Camp nonsense ought to PLEASE take another look at what I posted in bold.

[Nakidana]

I agree completely with comrade Spartacus. Do not be taken in by the right-wing propaganda, WE MUST SUPPORT THE IRAQI RESISTANCE&#33; :ph34r:

[SonofRage]

I&#39;m really surprised to see so many folks on here with black and white thinking. This mechanical "anti-imperialist" mindset leads us to supporting all kinds of reactionary groupings.

Regardless, unless you&#39;re actually doing something to support them, all this amounts to nothing more than cheerleading and it&#39;s worthless spending the time to argue about the correct "line" on the issue.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

I&#39;m really surprised to see so many folks on here with black and white thinking. This mechanical "anti-imperialist" mindset leads us to supporting all kinds of reactionary groupings.

You need to decide which is more reactionary.
The choices we make are not completely free ones. We cannot make choices in isolation from historical, social and political realities on the ground.


Regardless, unless you&#39;re actually doing something to support them, all this amounts to nothing more than cheerleading and it&#39;s worthless spending the time to argue about the correct "line" on the issue.

Then what are we doing on this forum anyway? :D

[redwinter]

Originally posted by Spirit of [email protected] 13, 2007 02:41 pm
You need to decide which is more reactionary.
The choices we make are not completely free ones. We cannot make choices in isolation from historical, social and political realities on the ground.


Regardless, unless you&#39;re actually doing something to support them, all this amounts to nothing more than cheerleading and it&#39;s worthless spending the time to argue about the correct "line" on the issue.

Then what are we doing on this forum anyway? :D
Well, I disagree with what both of y&#39;all are saying.

For one thing, SonofRage, I think it is worth it to struggle out line questions abstractly, and in fact is necessary to arrive at the truth (along with a scientific outlook and ideology).

The arguments that there are only two sides and one must choose one or the other based on the "lesser of two evils" or "which is more reactionary" are reminiscent of people talking about US elections between Democrats and Republicans. The whole point of the article linked to in the original post was that the current situation is a dynamic we need to break out of and we must not get stuck in supporting either historically outmoded, reactionary alternative, whether imperialist McWorld/McCrusade from the ruling class or fundamentalist Jihad from more oppressed strata. The Lenin quote I posted above also provides good grounding for this - the clergy is an important force to struggle against in the colonial and oppressed countries.

It&#39;s pretty exposing to see people commending the forced enslavement to patriarchy under Islam in the form of a burqa as a better alternative to the patriarchal oppression of women under capitalism (which in reading some of your post I sense some anti-woman sentiments). Not just women "under 15 years old" or whatever, but all women should be free from having to wear a burqa. This is not the same as banning the covering or the religion at all.

I thought this excerpt from the RCP,USA draft programme was worth quoting at length to clear up what exactly needs to be done in terms of dealing with religion after the rev:

An important question that the proletarian state will have to deal with is religion and religious activity. The socialist state will uphold people s right to worship and to hold religious services and will provide them with the necessary facilities and materials for doing so. Religious people will not, however, be allowed special privileges, nor will they be permitted to use religious activity as a means to promote reactionary political movements. The proletarian state will monitor and regulate their finances to prevent them from becoming a source of capital or otherwise employed in violation of the principles and laws of the socialist state.

When forces do arise within the new society who attempt to carry out counter-revolutionary political activities and/or the exploitation of the masses under the cloak of religion, they will be prevented from doing so and politically suppressed, together with counter-revolutionaries of all other kinds. But as long as religious people do not actively organize against the continuing revolution, they will be allowed to hold services and other similar activities.

At the same time, communists are atheists: they do not believe in super natural forces or beings of any kind and instead understand that it is the masses themselves who, through taking up and applying the principles of Marxism, must and will achieve their own emancipation and continually advance humanity s understanding of and transformation of nature. And further, they recognize that the role of religion is to instill in the masses the sense that they are powerless before the forces of nature, and those that rule over them in society, and to console them in their misery rather than arousing them to rise up and abolish the source of it through revolutionary struggle.

The Party, as the leading force of the working class and in the proletarian state, cannot and must not attempt to force people to give up religious beliefs. Rather, it must wage an ideological struggle over this question and rely on those among the masses who hold such beliefs to cast them off on their own. And this they will do, as they come to see through the advance of the revolution, the masses increasing mastery over society, and their continually developing ability to know and change the world in general that these religious beliefs are incorrect and, more, that they are a burden carried over from capitalism and the dead weight of backward tradition.

Therefore, the proletarian state will, on the one hand, uphold the right of people to believe in religion and, on the other hand, will propagate atheism and educate the masses in the scientific world view of Marxism in opposition to all religious beliefs.

[SonofRage]

my comment on talk vs action was born out of frustration (mostly from the past) with people who spend a lot of time debating about who to support and never bringing out of the abstract into the real world. Theory is useless if you never apply it.

[Joseph Ball]

What we are debating here is the line of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement regarding struggles against imperialism in muslim countries. The Revolutionary Communist Party (USA) is a participating party of this organisation. Its leader is Bob Avakian and we have been mainly debating his line. The following is an extract from a statement of the Communist Party of Iran (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist). This is also a RIM party. In it the party asserts that an imperialist attack on Iran is a strong possibility (&#39;the main question&#39;). It then says that the main struggle should be against the government of Iran, not US imperialism, despite the threat of attack. Is the regime of Iran the main enemy of the Iranian people at the moment or is it the US? Don&#39;t forget US imperialism has led to devastation in country after country-Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia and Lebanon (where US bombs were transported via the UK to Israel to be dropped on the Lebanese during the recent war).

Here&#39;s the quote

&#39;With the intensification of the contradictions between the US and the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI), the possibility of a military attack on Iran has become the main question in Iran and the world political scene. The American aim is to achieve unchallenged and direct domination of Iran. The US wants to use Iran as a steppingstone to consolidate its domination over the Middle East and the world. To do so it cannot rely on a regime whose claims to political independence and self-proclaimed “nationalist?? character are one of the pillars of its legitimacy...It is clear that the people&#39;s struggle should be focused against the main enemy, the IRI. As long as the IRI is in power, there cannot be any talk of aiming the struggle against the US and the regime equally. However the reality of the likely future - the plans of US imperialism - should be strongly presented and illusions or support for US policies should be opposed. This is the only way to prevent the disintegration of the mass movement in the interests of one or the other reactionary pole and line up support for the third pole.&#39;

Go to http://quebec.indymedia.org/en/node/25311?...74798ec830a8a63 (http://quebec.indymedia.org/en/node/25311?PHPSESSID=fef283b4c1d65ef1274798ec830a8a63) for the full extract from the program.

To be honest I don&#39;t think trying to overthrow the Iranian regime at the same time as US imperialism is doing the same is terribly progressive. Asserting you don&#39;t really want a US attack while doing this seems rather tokenistic. After all we must base our politics on the real forces rather than how we would like things to be. I personally would say that subjectivist errors are being made in this line.

[Nakidana]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 05:47 pm
my comment on talk vs action was born out of frustration (mostly from the past) with people who spend a lot of time debating about who to support and never bringing out of the abstract into the real world. Theory is useless if you never apply it.
Hahaha, well if the left in Iraq was to apply your theory in reality they would be annihilated before you could say revolution.

Some of you need to seriously take a look at the reality in Iraq today. There is no mass base for socialism in Iraq today, and to start a third front would be suicide for the left.

The solution for the left in Iraq is to fight side by side with the Islamic guerrillas thereby improving their reputation with the people and providing the necessary groundwork for recruiting and spreading of socialist propaganda. Nobody is saying they should agree on everything but to fight the imperialists they must unite.

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by Malangyar+June 13, 2007 06:25 pm--> (Malangyar @ June 13, 2007 06:25 pm)
[email protected] 13, 2007 05:47 pm
my comment on talk vs action was born out of frustration (mostly from the past) with people who spend a lot of time debating about who to support and never bringing out of the abstract into the real world. Theory is useless if you never apply it.
Hahaha, well if the left in Iraq was to apply your theory in reality they would be annihilated before you could say revolution.

Some of you need to seriously take a look at the reality in Iraq today. There is no mass base for socialism in Iraq today, and to start a third front would be suicide for the left.

The solution for the left in Iraq is to fight side by side with the Islamic guerrillas thereby improving their reputation with the people and providing the necessary groundwork for recruiting and spreading of socialist propaganda. Nobody is saying they should agree on everything but to fight the imperialists they must unite. [/b]

If you are fighting for the improvement of the reputation of Islamic forces then all you are laying the groundwork for is an Islamic led movement. Why listen to socialist propaganda when Islamic forces drove the imperialists out?

The whole "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" concept has led to the working class continuously being betrayed by the so-called progressive forces they align themselves with. African-Americans in the U.S. suffered the same betrayal when falling for the "Black and White Unite and Fight&#33;" line and putting the fight against white supremacy on the back burner.

We must recognize the three-way fight between the forces of neo-liberal capitalism, religious fascism, and the forces really fighting for a liberatory society.

[Joseph Ball]

The &#39;3 way fight&#39; thing is kind of an anarchist concept which we can respect in principle but argue is impossible to implement in practice.

However the RIM line seems to be rather different. In the quote from the RIM party above they seem to be saying that you can&#39;t fight both sides equally in Iran and that, like US imperialism, you need to treat the Iranian regime as the main enemy. They seem to be saying get rid of Islamic Fundamentalism first (at the same time as the US is trying to do the same) and then build the &#39;third pole&#39; in Iran, ie. the force that is neither fundamentalism nor imperialism. Given Avakian&#39;s ideas have been widely discussed here I just wonder what people think about this quote.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

The &#39;3 way fight&#39; thing is kind of an anarchist concept which we can respect in principle but argue is impossible to implement in practice.

The 3-way thing is left-opportunism at best.

It fails to take into account the history of imperialism, the development of the capitalist world-system, and the roots of Islamic anti-imperialist movements.

Incidentally, much of the Iraqi resistance is comprised of nationalists...secular to moderately Muslim nationalists, and the Al-Qaeda Islamists are a tiny minority, comprising no more than a few hundred fighters.

The imperialist media has successfully painted secular Iraqi nationalist fighters as Islamists, and some sections of the Left are too eager to buy into that nonsense.



However the RIM line seems to be rather different. In the quote from the RIM party above they seem to be saying that you can&#39;t fight both sides equally in Iran and that, like US imperialism, you need to treat the Iranian regime as the main enemy. They seem to be saying get rid of Islamic Fundamentalism first (at the same time as the US is trying to do the same) and then build the &#39;third pole&#39; in Iran, ie. the force that is neither fundamentalism nor imperialism. Given Avakian&#39;s ideas have been widely discussed here I just wonder what people think about this quote.

I hold many RIM comrades in high regard, for various reasons, but here I have to say it:

The RIM line on Islamic movements is dogmatic, un-scientific, even reactionary.

Any movement, including an Islamist movement, should be judged based on its class character, its history, and the target of its struggle. To dismiss every Islamist movement as "reactionary", or even worse, to equate Islamist resistance movements to US imperialism...that is completely un-scientific, and it ignores history, political economy and Marxian class analysis.

RIM has significant contact with progressive movements in the oppressed nations of the Third World, and they have a responsibility to share and spread the scientific method of analysing socio-political movements.
I sincerely hope they re-consider their dogmatic, left-opportunist stance on what they call "Islamic Fundamentalism", and reach theoretical conclusions which can actually help the cause of the global anti-imperialist efforts.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

The solution for the left in Iraq is to fight side by side with the Islamic guerrillas thereby improving their reputation with the people and providing the necessary groundwork for recruiting and spreading of socialist propaganda. Nobody is saying they should agree on everything but to fight the imperialists they must unite.


Look, its very important to understand the nature and composition of the Iraqi resistance.

Most of the rebels are nationalists...some of them secular nationalists, others moderate believing Muslims who are nevertheless nationalists.

[Nakidana]

Originally posted by Spirit of [email protected] 14, 2007 10:00 am

The solution for the left in Iraq is to fight side by side with the Islamic guerrillas thereby improving their reputation with the people and providing the necessary groundwork for recruiting and spreading of socialist propaganda. Nobody is saying they should agree on everything but to fight the imperialists they must unite.


Look, its very important to understand the nature and composition of the Iraqi resistance.

Most of the rebels are nationalists...some of them secular nationalists, others moderate believing Muslims who are nevertheless nationalists.
Oh I understand that, but what I meant with "Islamic guerrillas" was that the resistance is mainly composed of Muslims. I personally don&#39;t see the problem with that seeing as how 97% of the people in Iraq are Muslims. :P Of course they are all nationalists as well.

[SonofRage]

You&#39;re ignoring the fact that there already is an existing third corner in the three way fight in Iraq. For example, when Muqtada al-Sadr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muqtada_al-Sadr) ordered workers in aluminum and sanitary supply plants in Nasariyeh to turn over control of their factories to use as a fortification to fight the US Military, workers responded by saying "We completely reject the turning of workers and civilians’ work and living places into reactionary war-fronts between the two poles of terrorism in Iraq: the U.S. and their allies from one side, and the terrorists in the armed militias, known for their enmity to Iraqi people’s interests, on the other."

So, there certainly are progressive working class forces like the The Federation of Workers Councils and Unions in Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_of_Workers_Councils_and_Unions_in_Iraq)

[Joseph Ball]

The Federation of Workers Councils and Unions in Iraq was set up by the Worker-Communist Party of Iraq, as the link &#39;Son of Rage&#39; gives to the group indicates. This is a pro-imperialist party which follows the line of Mansoor Hekmat. The following is from one of Hekmat&#39;s statements, made after 9/11.

&#39;Is ‘Hands off Afghanistan&#33;’ a progressive and principled position? The people of Afghanistan and its opposition will tell you otherwise. The prospect of Taliban’s downfall, a gang of murderers and drug dealers, has spurred political forces in Afghanistan. The demand for the overthrow of the Taliban is a humane and progressive demand. We must not allow the legitimate and just opposition to American militarism to be interpreted as leaving Afghanistan in the hands of Taliban....Any attack by the US forces and its allies against civilians in Afghanistan and the destruction of cities, villages, infrastructures and people’s livelihood must be condemned. Any attempt to impose another gang on the people of Afghanistan through wheeling and dealings between USA, Pakistan, Iran and any other state is condemned. But the overthrow of Taliban by foreign armies is not in itself condemnable. Taliban is not a legitimate government in Afghanistan. It must be overthrown.&#39;

see http://www.marxists.org/archive/hekmat-man...september11.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/hekmat-mansoor/2001/11/september11.htm) for the full article.

So the line is its OK to invade our country, just don&#39;t kill civilians. Only an idiot or a liar could say that a sovereign state could be invaded by imperialists without the civilian population suffering.

[redwinter]

I don&#39;t think that what Bob Avakian is putting forward is so much a "three way fight" but a two sided fight - revolution against reaction, oppressed against oppressors. We cannot fall into "lesser of two evils" politics between oppressors, whether Democrat vs Republican in the US elections (a dead end game) or US imperialism vs Islamic fundamentalism (another dead end game).

Whatever the political composition of the forces active in Iraq (which none of you, besides for the IFWCU, have cited any sources for your claims about all these nationalist, non-fundamentalist fighters), the "resistance" itself is characterized by and held together by Islamic fundamentalists. They make up the main thrust, ideologically and militarily, of what is going on there.

Right now, what revolutionaries need to be doing is actually rallying people to support what is actually going to emancipate humanity, and nothing less than that will live up to our world-historic obligations.

“What we see in contention here with Jihad on the one hand and McWorld/McCrusade on the other hand, are historically outmoded strata among colonized and oppressed humanity up against historically outmoded ruling strata of the imperialist system. These two reactionary poles reinforce each other, even while opposing each other. If you side with either of these &#39;outmodeds,&#39; you end up strengthening both.”
Bob Avakian
Chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by Joseph [email protected] 14, 2007 07:25 pm
The Federation of Workers Councils and Unions in Iraq was set up by the Worker-Communist Party of Iraq, as the link &#39;Son of Rage&#39; gives to the group indicates. This is a pro-imperialist party which follows the line of Mansoor Hekmat. The following is from one of Hekmat&#39;s statements, made after 9/11.

&#39;Is ‘Hands off Afghanistan&#33;’ a progressive and principled position? The people of Afghanistan and its opposition will tell you otherwise. The prospect of Taliban’s downfall, a gang of murderers and drug dealers, has spurred political forces in Afghanistan. The demand for the overthrow of the Taliban is a humane and progressive demand. We must not allow the legitimate and just opposition to American militarism to be interpreted as leaving Afghanistan in the hands of Taliban....Any attack by the US forces and its allies against civilians in Afghanistan and the destruction of cities, villages, infrastructures and people’s livelihood must be condemned. Any attempt to impose another gang on the people of Afghanistan through wheeling and dealings between USA, Pakistan, Iran and any other state is condemned. But the overthrow of Taliban by foreign armies is not in itself condemnable. Taliban is not a legitimate government in Afghanistan. It must be overthrown.&#39;

see http://www.marxists.org/archive/hekmat-man...september11.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/hekmat-mansoor/2001/11/september11.htm) for the full article.

So the line is its OK to invade our country, just don&#39;t kill civilians. Only an idiot or a liar could say that a sovereign state could be invaded by imperialists without the civilian population suffering.

You took the quote out of context. If you look at the rest it tells a different story:

This is one living example of the incorrectness and insufficiency of the call for calm and the defence of the status quo. The people of Afghanistan have been waiting for a lifetime for Taliban’s downfall. No doubt, the US will not enter Afghanistan for the liberation of that country. They brought the Taliban to power. This time they may weaken it but de facto accept its existence. They have promised (the Pakistan ruler) Gen. Musharraf that the next government of Afghanistan will be to Pakistan’s liking. They are to remove these beasts and replace them with others from the same breed. The principled position is the participate in overthrowing the Taliban shoulder to shoulder with the people of Afghanistan and the progressive opposition, and fighting for the establishment of a government elected by the people of that country. This must be imposed on the West, USA and the United Nations. Any attack by the US forces and its allies against civilians in Afghanistan and the destruction of cities, villages, infrastructures and people’s livelihood must be condemned. Any attempt to impose another gang on the people of Afghanistan through wheeling and dealings between USA, Pakistan, Iran and any other state is condemned. But the overthrow of Taliban by foreign armies is not in itself condemnable. Taliban is not a legitimate government in Afghanistan. It must be overthrown. The question is the government that is to replace it and the guarantee that the people of Afghanistan must have regarding their right and opportunity to decide the political system in their country.

[sexyguy]

“Those opposing the Iraq war and Bush’s "War on Terror" have to firmly direct their main efforts at their own government and at stopping what is by far the greater reactionary force--that of U.S. imperialism.”

Does anyone think that this three line paragraph represents an attack on imperialism as the “greater reactionary force” when this paragraph is slipped into what is in practice a long attack on the anti-imperialist resistance as “the greater reactionary force”.


We’ve seen all this in ‘left’ public meetings. Say you are an anti-imperialist then spend most time in your speech attacking the anti-imperialist.

It’s a reactionary fraud that is being attempted by this “stop the war” pacifism which refuses to agitate in any meaningful way for the DEFEAT of imperialism here and now&#33;

[Spirit of Spartacus]

We’ve seen all this in ‘left’ public meetings. Say you are an anti-imperialist then spend most time in your speech attacking the anti-imperialist.

It’s a reactionary fraud that is being attempted by this “stop the war” pacifism which refuses to agitate in any meaningful way for the DEFEAT of imperialism here and now&#33;

I&#39;ve noticed a lot of this too.

And this erroneous equation of the oppressor (i.e. US imperialism) to the victim (resistance movements, whether Islamist or secular) arises because too many comrades fall for the propaganda lies of the Western media.

It is a worthless, liberal, intellectually-bankrupt and reactionary line to say that Islamic resistance movements are as reactionary as US imperialism, and that we on the Left have to fight both at once.

This, as I&#39;ve already said on many occasions, completely ignores the fact that those Islamic resistance movements arise in much the same social conditions as our own communist resistance movements.
The Islamic resistance movements are as much a response to US imperialism as the Vietcong was in Vietnam, or the People&#39;s Liberation Army in China.
To equate Islamic resistance movements with US imperialism is as ridiculous as saying that both the Vietcong and the US invaders of Vietnam are &#39;reactionary&#39;, and that the Vietnamese working-class ought to fight them both at once.

If the Mau Mau rebellion against European colonialism was driven by tribal religious beliefs in Africa, should we oppose the Mau Mau rebellion simply for that reason?

Of course the communists involved in anti-imperialist resistance ought to maintain an independent line even when they cooperate with Islamic movements. For instance, in Lebanon, the Lebanese Communist Party has maintained its independent revolutionary line, while simultaneously cooperating with the Islamic resistance movement Hezbollah.

I believe the relationship between the LCP and Hezbollah is a model for the Left worldwide. It shows how a United Front policy works.

A united front is based on both unity and struggle.

Unity with the Islamic resistance movements means that we show unity with their anti-imperialist strugge.

Struggle against the Islamic resistance movements means that we maintain our scientific-socialist line, and work simultaneously to organize the working-class and peasantry along revolutionary socialist lines, instead of becoming Islamists ourselves.

But unfortunately, some comrades on this forum cannot understand the concept of a United Front, and fail to recognize that unity with genuinely anti-imperialist Islamic movements is vital if we are to defeat US imperialism and its allies in NATO.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Lets take a look at Mansoor Hekmat&#39;s idiotic line.



The principled position is the participate in overthrowing the Taliban shoulder to shoulder with the people of Afghanistan and the progressive opposition, and fighting for the establishment of a government elected by the people of that country.

Principled indeed.


This must be imposed on the West, USA and the United Nations. Any attack by the US forces and its allies against civilians in Afghanistan and the destruction of cities, villages, infrastructures and people’s livelihood must be condemned.

Hang on. We&#39;re supposed to participate in overthrowing the Taliban, but all we do against US aggression is to condemn it? <_<


Any attempt to impose another gang on the people of Afghanistan through wheeling and dealings between USA, Pakistan, Iran and any other state is condemned. But the overthrow of Taliban by foreign armies is not in itself condemnable. Taliban is not a legitimate government in Afghanistan. It must be overthrown.

So basically, here is what Mansoor Hekmat wants to do:

- Oppose the Taliban by any means, and try to overthrow them.

- When the US invades, don&#39;t oppose the invasion, because all they&#39;re doing is overthrow the Taliban (and killing a few tens of thousands of civilians in the process :rolleyes: )

- In general, condemn US aggression, but don&#39;t condemn it when its destroying the Taliban.


In other words, Mansoor Hekmat is asking us to assit the Imperialist war efforts in all but name.

[Joseph Ball]

Redwinter argues that all the armed resistance movements in Iraq are Fundamentalist. Firstly, this is not quite true as Baathists are involved in the resistance and they are not Fundamentalist. OK, they tend to have reactionary politics. But does this mean we don&#39;t support the struggle they are a part of? In the chaos of post-invasion Afghanistan and Iraq it would have been possible for leftists to infiltrate themselves back into their countries and join the resistance. After all Hekmat seemed to be saying that the invasion of Afghanistan by the US would create some sort of opportunity for progressives in Afghanistan.

But no such opportunity has been taken. Some went back but they have not been fighting imperialism, to the best of my knowledge. If they can&#39;t do this for objective reasons (lack of support or lack of military capability) fair enough. But we don&#39;t then use this as an excuse for denying that the peoples of these countries have a right to resist foreign invasion. Look at the double-bind we are trying to put them in. We will only support your right to resist if resistance is led by people like us-leftists (or at the very least secular nationalists). We are not strong enough to do it. Therefore you have no right to resist.

Would it be true to say that a US attack on Iran will provide Iranian leftists with an &#39;opportunity&#39; in Iran? Will it didn&#39;t in Afghanistan or Iraq so I hope we will hear no more of such a deeply incorrect line.

I hardly think I quoted Hekmat out of context. He is saying clearly that we should criticise the yankees if they kill civilians in Afghanistan but not condemn them for overthrowing the government of a sovereign nation. This is a pro-imperialist line with a bit of humanitarian whitewash added.

We should support the right of the oppressed peoples to resist. Sometimes we will encounter political parties of people from oppressed countries who want to take away this right because they want to cut some deal with imperialism for their own selfish ends. We are under no obligation to support these lines just because the people expressing them have an oppressed nation nationality. They do not represent their people. The overwhelming majority of oppressed people do not want to be bombed by yankees, do not think it will create a great opportunity and do not want their right to resist foreign invasion taken away from them. What&#39;s my evidence for this? Its just bloody common sense.

[sexyguy]

"We should support the right of the oppressed peoples to resist. Sometimes we will encounter political parties of people from oppressed countries who want to take away this right because they want to cut some deal with imperialism for their own selfish ends. We are under no obligation to support these lines just because the people expressing them have an oppressed nation nationality. They do not represent their people. The overwhelming majority of oppressed people do not want to be bombed by yankees, do not think it will create a great opportunity and do not want their right to resist foreign invasion taken away from them. What&#39;s my evidence for this? Its just bloody common sense. "
Yes, revolutionary common sense.