The enemy of our enemy

[RNK]

There's a lot of two-sided arguementation dealing with the position of whether or not leftist revolutionaries should support the enemies of our enemies.

Granted, strategic short-term alliances are necessarily in politics and revolution; the working class must forge and break alliances with other groups and classes in order to attain specific goals; however, most can agree that such alliances must be thoroughly examined in order to determine that they are not, infact, detrimental to the working class.

Take for instance the position revolutionary leftists have for Islamic groups and governments. Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaida, Iran, etc -- all of these social and political bodies are hot topics for debate on whether we should support them or group them with the rest of the oppressors as our enemies.

Obviously, we share a common enemy with all of those organizations -- imperialism, particularly US imperialism. But should they be our friends? Al Q is a radically conservative movement that wishes, largely, to see world-wide enforcement of Sharia law. Hamas and Hezbollah have their roots in fundamental Islam, but at the same time have become very "liberal" and socially progressive in some aspects. And Iran is a rather totalitarian state run subtly by religious fanatics. All of them have good points and bad, but should any be rejected outright, or, on the other hand, accepted without criticism?

If you were attending a mass demonstration against imperialism and you saw some Iranians with an Iranian flag shouting anti-American slogans, would you refuse to take part? I'd hope most of us wouldn't [refuse], and would form a sort of unspoken strategic alliance on that issue. What about Al Q? Well, last time I checked, they don't do mass demonstrations (unless it's a mass execution in a sports stadium or something), but would we collaborate with any of their actions? For instance, Al Q and the Taliban are currently fighting US and western imperialism in Afghanistan. Should we be supporting them? Not that I'm saying that slogans such as "US out of Afghanistan!" are in any way directly supporting Al Q -- they aren't.

There are some "leftists" who argue for complete open-ended support for the enemies of our enemies -- for instance, the MIM claims that everyone must support Iran, and that so much as criticizing Iran's domestic anti-worker policies is in actuality strengthening US imperialism by creating an unecessary "rift" in what should otherwise be a "uniform alliance". I think this is a false line of thinking. Strategic, temporary alliances on specific individual issues is one thing and is largely acceptable; arguing, however, for a complete abandoning of our principles in order to fully support an enemy of the proletariat in their struggles against another enemy of the proletariat, without so much as criticizing or questioning the ideology of the former, is akin to no less than counter-revolutionary collaboration. It may result in the weakening of US imperialism -- but it will also result in the strengthening of Iran's own oppressor class.

That's just one example, but I'd like to open up more discussion on the topic of strategic alliances with those who would otherwise be our class enemies. Is there a clear-cut line between strategic alliance and treacherous collaboration? Is it necessary to analyse and criticize the nature of strategic alliances?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Out of the bunch you mentioned, only Hezbollah has gone "liberal." Iran per se isn't that conservative (relative to AQ and the Taliban, that is):

AQ/Taliban/Wahhabi > Iran (Shiite) & Hamas (Sunni) > Hezbollah

And that is mainly because of Hezbollah's own alliances with Amal and the Free Patriotic Movement.

[capstop]

It would be remarkable indeed if the leadership of the anti-imperialist movement in the Middle East was anything other than ‘Muslim’/Nationalist in one form or other at this time. The failure of the third international influenced movements could hardly inspire or lead the masses to victory in the long term, e.g. Arafatism, Bathism.

But this enormous upsurge now leaving the American (and allied imperialist) occupations shattered in Iraq and increasingly Afghanistan as well, is an historic defeat of major proportions and with an impact still to be fully grasped.

It is certain the movement created will impose new demands on the leaderships of these struggle to improve and clarify their understandings. The cultural forms of Islamism (in various shades) which the masses are using temporarily to carry their leadership needs, cannot be sufficient ultimately to tackle the needs for total overturn of the imperialist system – and may hamper the struggle at various stages.

It is not clear yet how far the various resistance movements – and much heroic self-sacrificing dogged struggle – can go before the pressures of crisis will inevitably force to the surface the debate for a much deeper revolutionary scientific grasp.

They have already developed as some bourgeois accounts are reporting and signs are that earlier sectarianisms which have given imperialism scope to play vicious divide and rule games are beginning to be overcome. Lebanon and Palestine.

But in the broadest terms the Marxist-Leninist struggle is first of all to be explaining to every struggle that it is scientific socialist leadership that is required and which alone will be able to fully solve the problems confronting mankind – and almost certainly to provide the inspiration and clarity needed for most of the struggles now erupting.

Of course the greater the defeats and difficulties imposed on imperialism – which is the ultimate source and cause of all the turmoil, brutality and conflict in the modern world - the greater the benefit to the entire world working class and the prospects for more rapidly developing revolutionary struggle everywhere.

But there is no point either in sowing illusions for the world working class.
The call for defeat for imperialism (and recognition of defeat when it is happening) is a vastly different question from supporting each and every leadership which has emerged.

Just the opposite. It is a crucial issue for the working class worldwide that the need for Marxism is continuously explained and the water not muddied by “unstinting” support, if unstinting means not mentioning Marxist differences.

[spartan]

on the whole alliances with these groups are bad for us. our principles are our principles and cannot be changed. but if their members would quit their ideology for ours thats another thing.

[redarmyfaction38]

any religious or "right wing" organisation cannot be the friend of the left, despite any "apparent opposition" to nternational capital and its servants i.e. the u.s. administration and new "labour", it is onservative in the extreme! the wishes, the desires, the feerdom of the working class and its self emancipation are not on their agenda any more than they are on the capitalist agenda. as a class, we stand alone, we have no allies amongst the religions or the bourgeousie.
it is a fact of life, we have to understand as revoltionaries and one genrally understood by the working class w ithout any "political education".

[spartan]

couldnt of put it better myself redarmyfaction38.

[Coggeh]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 10:28 pm
couldnt of put it better myself redarmyfaction38.
Matter is you applied some correct spelling you could have :)

True though what he says , when you fight imperialism doesn't necessarily make you anti-imperialist .

But in the case of chavez , is it ok for him to make alliances with Iran for the sake of protecting the revolution there ? I know some is not most have criticism of chavez as do i , but in theory would protecting the revolution by making alliances like that be ok ?

[spartan]

intresting question coggy and a very hard one to answer. one could say chavez shouldnt have to make these choices but in the world we live in. im going to say in these circumstances that iran are the lesser of two evils and that its probably in venezuala's (not socialisms) best intrests if chavez does this.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 12:57 pm
Hamas and Hezbollah have their roots in fundamental Islam, but at the same time have become very "liberal" and socially progressive in some aspects.
Really? What "socially progressive" actions have they taken?


If you were attending a mass demonstration against imperialism and you saw some Iranians with an Iranian flag shouting anti-American slogans, would you refuse to take part? I'd hope most of us wouldn't [refuse], and would form a sort of unspoken strategic alliance on that issue.

OK, a demonstration of people with different opinions is a sort of united front, yes. And thanks for raising a practical example,

Excluding yourself from that demonstration would be self-defeating; even trying to exclude the supporters of the Iranian regime would probably be pointless and woudn't strengthen the antiwar action.

Let me ask another practical question, is it useful in a demonstration to chant "We are all Hezbollah" and similar slogans? Which have actually been used in Britain and maybe other places. Or is it better to raise demands against the government of whatever country the demonstration's in: US/UK/whoever Out of the Middle East, End US/UK/whoever Aid to Israel....or something to that effect.

Seems to me the former is empty cheerleading which just sounds more militant; it doesn't actually do more to end imperialist intervention. Nor does it have any direct effect on, say, the military conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. It does spread political illusions in Hezbollah.....


For instance, Al Q and the Taliban are currently fighting US and western imperialism in Afghanistan. Should we be supporting them?

Practically, support them how? If you tried to fight alongside them they'd cut your head off. Some Afghan Maoists actually did try to fight alongside the Mujahedeen against the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan, unfortunately....and some of them were in fact murdered by the mujahedeen.

So no, I don't see how that would be useful - it wouldn't advance the class-consciousness and organization of the working class and its exploited allies. (Which is I think a good general criterion of whether to do something.) You don't see workers' organizations or left groups in Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Iraq doing that in practice, except maybe a couple tiny paper organizations in Iraq.


Strategic, temporary alliances on specific individual issues is one thing and is largely acceptable;

Depending, maybe - "tactical" may better communicate the usually temporary nature of alliances with bourgeois forces.


arguing, however, for a complete abandoning of our principles in order to fully support an enemy of the proletariat in their struggles against another enemy of the proletariat, without so much as criticizing or questioning the ideology of the former, is akin to no less than counter-revolutionary collaboration.

Right.


It may result in the weakening of US imperialism -- but it will also result in the strengthening of Iran's own oppressor class.

Actually, I don't see how it's going to do either, since it's mostly practiced by people in the U.S. What is mostly leads to is political disorientation. Even to the extent that some people on the left start being politically influenced by Middle Eastern rightists....who in turn are influenced by, and repeat the ideas of, Western rightists! Like the president of Iran and Holocaust denial.


Is there a clear-cut line between strategic alliance and treacherous collaboration?

I would suggest there are a number of things to look for. Among them are the classic forms of class treachery: Political confidence in bourgeois governments and parties, e.g. the Tudeh party's early support to the Khomeini regime.

Rather than looking to declare support for a party or regime, it's better to look for forms of practical cooperation that are useful for us. If you can't find them, there may be little point to an "alliance."

Retain freedom of criticism: one objective of united action is to win away workers who may be supporting bourgeois forces.

Jose Ramon Balaguer of the Cuban Communist Party once summed up the basis of united action between revolutionaries and other forces pretty well, I think, and consistent with the best traditions of revolutionary Marxism:

source (http://www.themilitant.com/1997/6141/6141_19.html)

In pursuing a policy of alliances in response to capitalist policies aimed at driving down the wages and living standards of working people and at curtailing democratic rights, Balaguer argued, "in our opinion, an agreement of revolutionary forces with other sectors around short-, medium-, or long-term objectives should be a process in which the parties put forward their own essential interests with total clarity. It does not seem acceptable to renounce socialism or revolutionary positions in order to be accepted. The one thing that is not negotiable is principles."

Balaguer also stressed the importance of nonexclusion - not reproducing "on other levels the old traditions of sectarianism that leave us so vulnerable in the face of imperialist domination." The great diversity of new social forces, along with the reshaping of others, he noted, creates new possibilities for a broad policy of alliances involving environmentalists, peasants, those without land or without a roof over their heads, forces organized against gender, religious, racial, or ethnic oppression, and others.

Alliances negotiated as deals between leaders without the support and understanding of the rank and file, moreover, are unacceptable from a revolutionary standpoint, Balaguer noted. "The essence of any alliance that claims to have a left perspective is that it be structured from, by, and for the ranks," he emphasized.

Chavez and Iran: State alliances are less bound by principle, IMO. Nobody thinks that state alliances are necessarily based on political commonality, so they have less of a harmful effect in terms of spreading illusions and political conclusions. People generally know it's just an alliance of convenience.

Moscow and Beijing made all kinds of state alliances - but the really harmful thing is when they instructed their affilated "Communist Parties" to change political course based on those state alliances.

And BTW, let's keep in mind Caracas and Tehran are both capitalist regimes.

[capstop]

QUOTE (RNK @ August 19, 2007 12:57 pm)
Hamas and Hezbollah have their roots in fundamental Islam, but at the same time have become very "liberal" and socially progressive in some aspects.


Really? What "socially progressive" actions have they taken?
Hamas mobilised successfully against pro-imperialist Abbas Arafatist Fata group whose leading members were planning an armed coup with Israeli and US collusion and military support to topple the democratically elected government of the Palestinians. Should they have allowed that to happen?

They are calling for talks and a unity government. Is this not more progressive than the Abbas’s capitulation to US and Zionist terror?

[Severian]

^^^You're answering some different question.

[hajduk]

we cant have any kind of "friend" who latter will be our enemy becouse on that way we give a chance to imperialists to destroy our revolution

[spartan]

exactly. if these people were our allies we would constantly be looking over our shoulders waiting for them to stab us in the back.

[capstop]

^^^You're answering some different question.

No, I’m not answering some different question.
It is in fact Hamas who are leading the fight for an anti-imperialist “alliance” of the political representatives of the all the Palestinian people and it is Hamas who have been at the forefront of garding their democratic aspirations, again of all the Palestinians, not just ’Islamists’. This “socially progressive” stand is wining wider support as indicated by the backing they are getting for their stand from the politically important cross-section of prisoners in the
Israeli prisons.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 01:10 pm

^^^You're answering some different question.

No, I’m not answering some different question.
It is in fact Hamas who are leading the fight for an anti-imperialist “alliance” of the political representatives of the all the Palestinian people and it is Hamas who have been at the forefront of garding their democratic aspirations, again of all the Palestinians, not just ’Islamists’. This “socially progressive” stand is wining wider support as indicated by the backing they are getting for their stand from the politically important cross-section of prisoners in the prisons.
yeah capstop but sooner or later Hamas will turn the politics in other way becouse they are theist so why will belived them?

[spartan]

i dont think we should ever be allies with hamas nor support them but the fact is they were democratically elected into governance by a clear majority of the palestinian people. so america and israel complaining that they are undemocratic just makes them look so stupid.

[capstop]

dont think we should ever be allies withhamas nor support them but the fact is they were democratically elected into governance by a clear majority of the palestinian people. so america and israel complaining that they are undemocratic just makes them look so stupid.

Forgive me but you seem to be missing the revolutionary point. First of all “america and israel” are not “complaining” and they don’t “look stupid.” In the eyes of the thousands of millions of viciously oppressed, frustrated and angry people the world over “america and israel” look exactly like what they are - backward reactionary terrorists who’s murderous policies won’t be reformed by ’democratic elections’. Which is why Hamas had to deal with their corrupt Fatah agents and the tribal gangsters who had been mugging the people. Islamist, liberal or not, they are inspiring others to take on imperialism.

[capstop]

yeah capstop but sooner or later Hamas will turn the politics in other way becouse they are theist so why will belived them?

The world is brimming over with theists of one kind or another on every continent.
If atheist communism can’t learn how to intervene in their legitimate and entirely justified struggles to explain to them that all religious creeds sanction wage labour exploitation, just like their ‘secular’ capitalist enemies do, and they will never be rid of oppression and war as long as we sanction this abuse of our fellow humans in this way, then we had better just stay at home and read a novel or something.

If our only knee-jerk response is to start poring sectarian abuse on them and their current leaders who’s historical misfortune was to have missed out on the protracted protestant reformation and bourgeois revolutions (Britain France America) against land owning war lords, why would we ever expect to get a hearing among them.

By the way, when the Vatican, Thatcher and Reagan were funding the anti-communist genuflecting, anti-abortion catholic lead Solidarnosc party in Poland, it did not stop almost the whole of the western left from giving every kind of support.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 03:32 pm

yeah capstop but sooner or later Hamas will turn the politics in other way becouse they are theist so why will belived them?

The world is brimming over with theists of one kind or another on every continent.
If atheist communism can’t learn how to intervene in their legitimate and entirely justified struggles to explain to them that all religious creeds sanction wage labour exploitation, just like their ‘secular’ capitalist enemies do, and they will never be rid of oppression and war as long as we sanction this abuse of our fellow humans in this way, then we had better just stay at home and read a novel or something.

If our only knee-jerk response is to start poring sectarian abuse on them and their current leaders who’s historical misfortune was to have missed out on the protracted protestant reformation and bourgeois revolutions (Britain France America) against land owning war lords, why would we ever expect to get a hearing among them.

By the way, when the Vatican, Thatcher and Reagan were funding the anti-communist genuflecting, anti-abortion catholic lead Solidarnosc party in Poland, it did not stop almost the whole of the western left from giving every kind of support.
but Hamas is not the answer capstop becouse they are some kind of terrorists and if you get involve with them that is the same if you get involve with AL Qeida or ETA or IRA
Hamas is against capitalist becouse hamas members think that is capitalism made by KIAFIR-s(nonbelievers) from the West and they think same for revleft revolutionaries
becouse lot of our members dont believe in god and Hamas blame communism that is devil political party becouse lot of muslims lost they lives during russian ocupation of Afganistan.... and there is lot of C.I.A. agents who are infiltrate in Hamas so...
it is better for us to stay around and wait better occasion
anyone who told you this you must ask yourself WHO IS SEND HIM to told you that we must colaborate with Hamas
and if you this figured out by yourself then....

[BuyOurEverything]

First of all, it's a huge mistake to lump together groups such as Al Qaeda, the Iranian government, Hizballah, and Hamas. While they all profess "Islamism" to some degree or another, they all have very different objectives and bases. Orginizations such as Hamas did not gain power because Palestinian people wanted a "more Muslim" government. They gained power on a platform of anti-corruption, self-determination and statehood, and through a system of social services they set up throughout the Gaza strip. This, and not ultra-conservatism or Islamic morality, is what won them their strong base. Hamas is not going around forcing woman to wear hijabs like they do in Iran(as I'm sure some of the leadership would like) because the Palestinian people who form their base of support would call bullshit on them and withdraw their support. The situation with Hizballah is similar. I'm not saying that they're all perfect and totally progressive by any means. They have alot of problems, and should be critisized for them. However, writing them off as all religious fanatics is closing your eyes to the actual situation and trying to apply a formulaic unrealistic model for a "perfect revolution" from an armchair half a world away. In religious societies (which is unfortunately most societies), progressive ideas that have nothing to do with religion will often start out expressed in religious terms.

Remember, the civil rights movement in the US started out to a large degree as a religious movement. Now there was alot of opposition, particularly as the movement progressed, and it became less so. However, to dismiss the vast majority of the movement would have been stupid and dangerously sectarian. What a large portion of secular/atheist communists and socialists did is to join up with these otherwise religious organizations and play a progressive role. Eventually people can see that the movement does not derive its power from religion or "god", which is something most people would never learn if all the atheists stayed home while black churches were firebombed and their members attacked with fire hoses.

Now the situation with Al-Qaeda and, I would say, the Muslim Brotherhood are completely different. They are largely intellectual movements which draw increasing support from the middle class, rather than the proletariat. They are not progressive and their base is reactionary. In fact, Al Qaeda has been criticizing Hamas for not being "Islamic enough". However, they have to strongly pull their punches because as much as they hate it, not supporting Hamas or Hizballah in their fight against Israel is akin to saying you don't support the troops in the US. We should never support Al Qaeda, even conditionally, as it is a completely reactionary movement that has an overlapping goal with us (opposing US imperialism) completely by accident, rather than as a legitimate movement acting in the interest of its people (albeit misguided) as is the case with Hamas.

The government of Iran is also a different situation. Regardless of the root of its government and how it came to power, it is now simply a state using religion as a means of control and to deflect criticism from its citizens just as many (most) other states do.

[capstop]

but Hamas is not the answer capstop becouse they are some kind of terrorists and if you get involve with them that is the same if you get involve with AL Qeida or ETA or IRA
Hamas is against capitalist becouse hamas members think that is capitalism made by KIAFIR-s(nonbelievers) from the West and they think same for revleft revolutionaries
becouse lot of our members dont believe in god and Hamas blame communism that is devil political party becouse lot of muslims lost they lives during russian ocupation of Afganistan.... and there is lot of C.I.A. agents who are infiltrate in Hamas so...
it is better for us to stay around and wait better occasion
anyone who told you this you must ask yourself WHO IS SEND HIM to told you that we must colaborate with Hamas
and if you this figured out by yourself then....


Thanks Hajduk, I’ll try to remember that next time I meet a Hamas agent in my local Halal meat shop.


All religions teach that communism is “the devil’s party” one way or another. That has never prevented many of their members from participating in anti-imperialist, socialist and communist lead politics. Even Lenin had a ’Muslim’ bodyguard at one point. ’Muslims’ also fought WITH the Russians in Afghanistan and German Fascists in Yugoslavia. Catholics also fight on both sides in the class war as well as Jews and Hindus, etc, etc. Its a class struggle we are fighting, not a sectarian free-for-all.

I once made a communist speech against poverty and war in a catholic church hall and nuns were lining-up to get leaflets. I have spoken about communism to meetings of Muslims, Hindus and Sikh workers with no problem. They may all want to get to ‘heaven’ but they know that their religious leaders can’t deliver solution on earth.

You “stay around and wait for a better occasion” if you like, but I think you are being very conservative in you relations with the MAJORITY of the world’s population. Religious workers are often keen to debate, why miss such a “god sent opportunity” to talk revolutionary politics!

[hajduk]

BUYOUR AND CAPSTOP tell this to victims of Srebrenica
becouse those people trusted to UN which is stronger organisation then Hamas by infrastrukture
and what it happend when you trust someone you should not you can see on

http://srebrenica.ba/

after you see what happened tell me again

WHY I SHOULD TRUST ANYONE EXCEPT TO MY COMRADES FROM THIS FORUM?




P.S.

for whom do you guys work :D

[Djehuti]

Personally I would never support islamists such as the goverment of Iran, ffs they imprison and murder socialists, trade unionists and liberated women. The Workers Communist Party of Iran has bransches all over the world, and I have dicussed with them from time to time. They are exiles of a quite big communist movment (which largely has fled or gone underground) and are actually really good. Similar to council communists in many aspects, despite a few secterian tendencies. I like them. They often point out that there are a lot of underground subversive movements in Iran and that far from everyone over there are islamists or even muslims. They of cource oppose an US invasion of Iran and claims that such threats only strenghen the Iranian regime by creating an outher threat (the "war on terror" benefits both the US goverment and the islamist goverments over their respective people). Goverments are seldom stronger than what they appear and they can fall quick and easy from a domestic upring, we should never support or accept islamism or other forms of fundamentalist or political religions. Our job is to support the subversive tendencies in every way we can, they are larger than we may think and the people over their can use very bit of support.

Here in Sweden there is a quite large beef between the radical left (anarchists, syndicalists, antifascists, non-leninist communists etc) and the major syndicalist run news paper since the later (in especially one of the paper's journalists (who has written some great stuff on other subjects)) supports movements such as the Hizballah. A conflict strengthened by the fact that one of the more prominent figures of our movement is an ex-hizballah soldier with much hate for that movement and most of what it stands for.

I do however admit that BuyOurEverything has some valid points, but I don't think that it changes the answer to the major question: Should we support reactionary groups just because they fight another reactionary group? The answer is still no. You can however still support legitimate resistance.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 06:23 pm
Personally I would never support islamists such as the goverment of Iran, ffs they imprison and murder socialists, trade unionists and liberated women. The Workers Communist Party of Iran has bransches all over the world, and I have dicussed with them from time to time. They are exiles of a quite big communist movment (which largely has fled or gone underground) and are actually really good. Similar to council communists in many aspects, despite a few secterian tendencies. I like them. They often point out that there are a lot of underground subversive movements in Iran and that far from everyone over there are islamists or even muslims. They of cource oppose an US invasion of Iran and claims that such threats only strenghen the Iranian regime by creating an outher threat (the "war on terror" benefits both the US goverment and the islamist goverments over their respective people). Goverments are seldom stronger than what they appear and they can fall quick and easy from a domestic upring, we should never support or accept islamism or other forms of fundamentalist or political religions. Our job is to support the subversive tendencies in every way we can, they are larger than we may think and the people over their can use very bit of support.

Here in Sweden there is a quite large beef between the radical left (anarchists, syndicalists, antifascists, non-leninist communists etc) and the major syndicalist run news paper since the later (in especially one of the paper's journalists (who has written some great stuff on other subjects)) supports movements such as the Hizballah. A conflict strengthened by the fact that one of the more prominent figures of our movement is an ex-hizballah soldier with much hate for that movement and most of what it stands for.

I do however admit that BuyOurEverything has some valid points, but I don't think that it changes the answer to the major question: Should we support reactionary groups just because they fight another reactionary group? The answer is still no. You can however still support legitimate resistance.
Thank you

[hajduk]

Originally posted by Coggy+August 19, 2007 10:43 pm--> (Coggy @ August 19, 2007 10:43 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2007 10:28 pm
couldnt of put it better myself redarmyfaction38.
Matter is you applied some correct spelling you could have :)

True though what he says , when you fight imperialism doesn't necessarily make you anti-imperialist .

But in the case of chavez , is it ok for him to make alliances with Iran for the sake of protecting the revolution there ? I know some is not most have criticism of chavez as do i , but in theory would protecting the revolution by making alliances like that be ok ? [/b]
that what is Chavez do is busines mix up with politics
so sooner or latter Chavez must pay the prise for that
and what prise will be....

[BuyOurEverything]

BUYOUR AND CAPSTOP tell this to victims of Srebrenica
becouse those people trusted to UN which is stronger organisation then Hamas by infrastrukture
and what it happend when you trust someone you should not you can see on

http://srebrenica.ba/

after you see what happened tell me again

WHY I SHOULD TRUST ANYONE EXCEPT TO MY COMRADES FROM THIS FORUM?

What the hell are you talking about?

[Rhino Thunder Pants]

Its not about supporting the enemies of our enemies its about supporting the what the enemies of our enemies are fighting. We shouldn't support Hezbollah we should support anti-impearlism.

[spartan]

yeah but what if these anti imperialists are also anti socialist?

[Rhino Thunder Pants]

say if New Zealend were to stand upto america would you want to back New Zealand who happen to be a very right wing country

[Rhino Thunder Pants]

Nelson Mandela had to team up with some groups who were known to of carried out terroist attacks but he had to make that sacrifice for the greater good. That lead to people thinking he was a terroist (ignorant right wing nutters often religious) but some fights are bigger than others so he was willing.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 07:47 pm

BUYOUR AND CAPSTOP tell this to victims of Srebrenica
becouse those people trusted to UN which is stronger organisation then Hamas by infrastrukture
and what it happend when you trust someone you should not you can see on

http://srebrenica.ba/

after you see what happened tell me again

WHY I SHOULD TRUST ANYONE EXCEPT TO MY COMRADES FROM THIS FORUM?

What the hell are you talking about?
You dont know what i am talkin about?
Well BUYOUR i tell you that you cant trust anyone even if he on a first impression on our side...becouse we Bosnians trust to UN that he is on our side and if you are seeing this site i give you to see, you can figured out what happened when you trust someone who told you that is on your side...
UN is stronger and better organised, but when politics came everything change up side down....
UN live those people to Mladich chetnicks to slaughtered them without eye blink..
so i ask you again and this time dont ask me what i hell talkin about

WHY SHOULD I TRUST ANYONE EXCEPT TO MY COMRADES ON THIS FORUM?

[hajduk]

Originally posted by Rhino Thunder [email protected] 21, 2007 01:17 am
Nelson Mandela had to team up with some groups who were known to of carried out terroist attacks but he had to make that sacrifice for the greater good. That lead to people thinking he was a terroist (ignorant right wing nutters often religious) but some fights are bigger than others so he was willing.
Rhino for that kind of political deicision there is always a price...
Why we paid that price for something we can do by himself?

[redarmyfaction38]

chavez will pay the price that allende did in chile, despite all his "good intentions", capital will find a way to undermine his reforms, his "new socialism" and destroy the threat to its position and profit.
already chavez has listened to the beaurocrats and "democrats" and stifled the self organisation of the workers in order to protect "the rule of law and govt.".
already he makes allegiance with anti working class nations like iran.
imo, he cisolates and alienates himself and his govt. from the very people that brought him to power.
but that's just my opinion.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 09:25 pm
chavez will pay the price that allende did in chile, despite all his "good intentions", capital will find a way to undermine his reforms, his "new socialism" and destroy the threat to its position and profit.
already chavez has listened to the beaurocrats and "democrats" and stifled the self organisation of the workers in order to protect "the rule of law and govt.".
already he makes allegiance with anti working class nations like iran.
imo, he cisolates and alienates himself and his govt. from the very people that brought him to power.
but that's just my opinion.
your opinion is god
exactly that is what i am talkin about
there is always price when you get involve with others who dont support revlefters but they support own interests

[capstop]

QUOTE (redarmyfaction38 @ August 21, 2007 09:25 pm)
chavez will pay the price that allende did in chile, despite all his "good intentions", capital will find a way to undermine his reforms, his "new socialism" and destroy the threat to its position and profit.
already chavez has listened to the beaurocrats and "democrats" and stifled the self organisation of the workers in order to protect "the rule of law and govt.".
already he makes allegiance with anti working class nations like iran.
imo, he cisolates and alienates himself and his govt. from the very people that brought him to power.
but that's just my opinion.


your opinion is god
exactly that is what i am talkin about
there is always price when you get involve with others who dont support revlefters but they support own interests

You are both quite right but for the wrong reasons. Unless the working class of north America and Europe recognise that their best “interests” are served by opening another revolutionary front against capitalism soon, together with the people of the Middle East and South America, they will pay a heavy price indeed.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 06:23 pm

QUOTE (redarmyfaction38 @ August 21, 2007 09:25 pm)
chavez will pay the price that allende did in chile, despite all his "good intentions", capital will find a way to undermine his reforms, his "new socialism" and destroy the threat to its position and profit.
already chavez has listened to the beaurocrats and "democrats" and stifled the self organisation of the workers in order to protect "the rule of law and govt.".
already he makes allegiance with anti working class nations like iran.
imo, he cisolates and alienates himself and his govt. from the very people that brought him to power.
but that's just my opinion.


your opinion is god
exactly that is what i am talkin about
there is always price when you get involve with others who dont support revlefters but they support own interests

You are both quite right but for the wrong reasons. Unless the working class and of north America and Europe recognise that their best “interests” are served by opening another revolutionary front against capitalism soon, together with the people of the Middle East and South America, they will pay a heavy price indeed.
why do you think they will not recognise what is going on, before opening the front?

[capstop]

Sorry, but I don’t understand the question.

[redarmyfaction38]

bit confused myself!
the way i see it, "the revolutiuonary groups" in the "middle east" allied to religious "faiths" are not "revolutionary" at all. they are a bit like the bnp, pretending they are a radical "alternative" whilst being more of the same old shit.
unfortunately for the "radical/revolutionary" left, the likes of chavez in south america have been suckered, through electoral success, into believing bourgeouis "democracy" can deliver the kind of society that the working class need, that, somehow, the capitalist will play the democratic game!NOT A Flaming CHANCE. at the first sign of weakness they will send in the troops, backed by the usa and exterminate any opposition, they are more clinical in their process of elimination than the "daleks"!

[spartan]

i agree with hajduk and redarmyfaction38 we cant ally ourselves with so called progressive groups like hamas and hezbollah. we will just be waiting and inviting i might add a stab in our own backs by these dickheads.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I'll add one more thing regarding Hezbollah, and why, even in spite of what I said above, it still can't be trusted (even in the "democratic" sense):

In Lebanon right now, there is constitutional discrimination of sorts. The parliament is divided amongst the religious groups based on the old division set in the constitution. Since Shiites are now the majority in Lebanon, ideally they should be getting more seats than anybody else. However, because of said law, they only get so much.

Hezbollah and even Amal aren't bothering to fight for the "democratic" right to equal vote, not wanting to upset the Free Patriotic Movement so much.

[Severian]

Too bad nobody bothered to reply to the substance of my earlier posts, preferring, in most cases, to quibble about nonsense.


Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 11:17 am
First of all, it's a huge mistake to lump together groups such as Al Qaeda, the Iranian government, Hizballah, and Hamas. While they all profess "Islamism" to some degree or another, they all have very different objectives and bases.
I'd argue it's more of a difference of degree and situation. But I agree they shouldn't simply be "lumped together"; different tactics are required towards, say, the Republican Party and the Aryan Nations although both could be described as "rightist".


Orginizations such as Hamas did not gain power because Palestinian people wanted a "more Muslim" government. They gained power on a platform of anti-corruption, self-determination and statehood, and through a system of social services they set up throughout the Gaza strip. This, and not ultra-conservatism or Islamic morality, is what won them their strong base.

Which means they didn't have a strong base; people voted for them as a protest vote or lesser evil. Now opinion polls show Abbas would win a new election. Previously posted (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=67788&st=125)


Hamas is not going around forcing woman to wear hijabs like they do in Iran

Actually, they do. (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=67788&st=50) Women rarely go out without hijab in Gaza; the only acceptable excuse may be being Christian.


In religious societies (which is unfortunately most societies), progressive ideas that have nothing to do with religion will often start out expressed in religious terms.

Of course, you have not shown they have progressive ideas. An examination of their actual program and actions shows the opposite: they favor theocracy and oppose secularism and democracy. They idealize a mystified past of early Islam, and advocate a return to that - pretty much a textbook no-brainer definition of "reactionary".

Hamas Charter - read this and tell me these are "progressive ideas". (http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html)

Article Twenty-Two: The Powers which Support the Enemy
The enemies have been scheming for a long time, and they have consolidated their schemes, in order to achieve what they have achieved. They took advantage of key elements in unfolding events, and accumulated a huge and influential material wealth which they put to the service of implementing their dream. This wealth [permitted them to] take over control of the world media such as news agencies, the press, publication houses, broadcasting and the like. [They also used this] wealth to stir revolutions in various parts of the globe in order to fulfill their interests and pick the fruits. They stood behind the French and the Communist Revolutions and behind most of the revolutions we hear about here and there......

"The enemies", of course, are...Jews. Gee, who else says Jewish conspiracies control world finance and are behind both democratic and socialist revolutions? Hm....


Remember, the civil rights movement in the US started out to a large degree as a religious movement.

But not advocating theocracy.

Really, that was more a case of protective coloration than anything else. It was a little harder for the segregationists to ban or lynch them if they met in churches and were led by preachers.

You're continuing to avoid the political character of Islamism; because the civil rights movement, Latin American liberation theology, and Islamism all take a religious form does not mean they are politically similar.


Now the situation with Al-Qaeda and, I would say, the Muslim Brotherhood are completely different.

Ironic, since Hamas is simply the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Most Sunni Islamist groups trace back to the Muslim Brotherhood.

"The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of the Muslim Brothers in Palestine." Hamas Charter again (http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html)


We should never support Al Qaeda, even conditionally, as it is a completely reactionary movement that has an overlapping goal with us (opposing US imperialism) completely by accident, rather than as a legitimate movement acting in the interest of its people (albeit misguided) as is the case with Hamas.

Which class of "its people"? No, I'd suggest that any bourgeois nationalist movement is in conflict with imperialism "by accident". Heck, may I remind you that Hamas was once legalized while the PLO was still banned - because Israel considered it a tool against the PLO?

'Course supporting Hamas and Hezbollah, in the U.S. or Europe, is a lot easier than supporting a group which is actively trying to kill your neighbors.


The government of Iran is also a different situation. Regardless of the root of its government and how it came to power, it is now simply a state using religion as a means of control and to deflect criticism from its citizens just as many (most) other states do.

Which could also be said of the Hamas government in Gaza; religion serves to cover up the fact that it has no idea how to advance the fight for Palestinian self-determination from here; it's just as dead-end and pointlessly factional as Abbas.

It doesn't cover that very effectively, for most Palestinians, judging by its rapid loss of support.

Some leftists internationally, it would appear, are more thoroughly fooled.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 09:36 pm
. at the first sign of weakness
that is what i am saying CAPSTOP and with HEZBOLLAH and HAMAS that is very very riskie

[capstop]

This is simply another right wing anti-Islamic rant attacking Muslims who stands up against imperialist murder. The argument deliberately and consciously ignores the imperialist war context in which all the fights are taking place. It pretends that there is no fifty-nine year US backed Zionist genocide of the Palestinians.

It suggests that there can be “Palestinian self-determination” while the land of the Palestinians remains occupied and the people (mostly the poorest) are banged up in Bantustans dependent on their captors for the basics of life and then ridiculously compares the brave, determined resistance of Hamas with the quisling creatures of imperialism of the super corrupt Abbas gangsters. This is no surprise from the ‘Millitant’ cheer leaders of the catholic anti-communist Solidarnosc party in Poland.

[spartan]

jesus christ capstop next youll be telling us how the capitalists are actually a group of trotskyist jews who are known as zog and are trying to destroy the aryan race! the fact is we who dont want an alliance with these religious shitbags are in the right. do you honestly think groups like these are pro homosexuality? or pro womens equal rights? because i dont think they are. but hey there fighting imperialism to bring down capitalism right well wrong actually just because there fighting imperialists does not make them pro socialist or anti capitalist. if an ideology could be put on them then id say it is anti western culture and interference etc as well as their hatred of israel and jews. these groups are classic examples of reactionaries and anyone siding with them is a reactionary in my book. and oh yeah we are not right wing islamaphobes were true left wing anarchists/communists/socialists. and you will go a long way im sure saying things like brave resistance of hamas. a true communist wouldnt support either fucking side for the truth is capitalists, imperialists, islamic shitheads, etc there all the same for at the end of the day the only people to lose from all these groups gaining any sort of victory is the proletariat and that is the truth!

[Faux Real]

Ah and spartan shows his true colours. You live in fear too much dude.

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 03:56 pm
the fact is we who dont want an alliance with these religious shitbags

if an ideology could be put on them then id say it is anti western culture and interference etc as well as their hatred of israel and jews

capitalists, imperialists, islamic shitheads, etc there all the same for at the end of the day the only people to lose from all these groups gaining any sort of victory is the proletariat and that is the truth!
We as proletariat lose our brothers and sisters through that.
There is absolutely no reason to divide the proletariat along any ethnic, religious, or cultural lines. Learn to differentiate Islamism and fundamentalism from Islam, please. I'd say you're the reactionary.

[spartan]

come on revolt we should stop getting involved with all these different tribal groupings lets instead unite the left and give the capitalist/imperialist/religious shitheads something new to worry about billions of pissed off workers. UNITE COMRADES! ALL YOU WILL LOSE ARE YOUR CHAINS! oh and any so called proletariat who supports are enemies is no brother or sister of mine but a reactionary.

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 04:15 pm
come on revolt we should stop getting involved with all these different tribal groupings lets instead unite the left and give the capitalist/imperialist/religious shitheads something new to worry about billions of pissed off workers. UNITE COMRADES! ALL YOU WILL LOSE ARE YOUR CHAINS! oh and any so called proletariat who supports are enemies is no brother or sister of mine but a reactionary.
I'm sorry, but if you regard people of any faith, even more so a Muslim as an "enemy of the people" then you'll have no luck garnering global support. Demanding they become atheist is just as authoritarian as the capitalist system you claim we should support till every country is a first world imperial power(and we'll have to wait for only then we can have revolution :rolleyes: ), which is a load of bullocks in itself as well.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 06:34 pm
Demanding they become atheist is just as authoritarian as the capitalist system
You don't demand someone to become atheist until after the revolution, every authoritarian socialist worth anything knows that! :huh:

[capstop]

You don't demand someone to become atheist until after the revolution, every authoritarian socialist worth anything knows that!

Why and how should we demand that anyone becomes an atheist? It’s not a communist policy. Religion and class will stop being a issue when humanity creates the conditions that don’t require religion. As we know Religion is the spirit of un-spiritual conditions - the sigh of the oppressed creature - the opium of the masses Marx.


“… give the capitalist/imperialist/religious shitheads something new to worry about billions of pissed off workers…”

It is the billions of pissed off workers who are already giving the capitalists something to worry about and many of them happen to be Muslins. Why is it so difficult to understand that.

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 10:45 pm
Why and how should we demand that anyone becomes an atheist?
Don't worry, Crum was being sarcastic.:) I agree with your post however.

[capstop]

Don't worry, Crum was being sarcastic. I agree with your post however.

Ok, I see that now. Sorry Crum. Anyway' the point stands.

Really is beggars belief that some communists in this day and age should have such a virulently bigoted outlook, not only in their relation towards workers who are religious, but specifically towards the ones who are rising up against centuries of the most foul racist, oppression.

As I’ve said before, it would be remarkable if Islam in its many forms was not being used as a vehicle in the attempt to get the ’justice’ that has been denied them for generations. Equally it would be astonishing if many of them were still taking inspiration from the Third International remnants in the area or any of the Fourth ‘Internationals’ for that matter, none of which has demonstrated any competence in leading the working class or rural workers anywhere.

However these very same people have the arrogance to attack Muslims with the very same propaganda that the capitalist news media churns out and at a time when it is most damaging, i.e. when imperialism is franticly trying to divert attention away from its disasters by stocking up another war against Iran among others.

US allies in the Middle East all claim to be religiously inspired as do the US and British governments.. Hamas and Hezbollah distinguish themselves by attacking imperialist interests, exposing the local quislings and inspiring resistance elsewhere.

As for the mischievous reports about opinion poles among the Palestinians, it would take an extraordinarily bitter and cynical mind set to even entertain the idea that any such “opinion pole” was worth reporting. What kind of credibility does any vox pop reporting have, when the ‘target group’ are imprisoned, threatened, starved, insulted, abused, kidnapped, and murdered for simply wanting their land back. While they watch their olive trees dancing in the moths of bulldozes the world watches and condemns them for the heinous crime of fighting with the only ideology that gives them confidence.

The international communist movement will need to be utterly ashamed about this before it can make any major breakthroughs in this area.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 05:24 pm

Don't worry, Crum was being sarcastic. I agree with your post however.

Ok, I see that now. Sorry Crum. Anyway' the point stands.

Really is beggars belief that some communists in this day and age should have such a virulently bigoted outlook, not only in their relation towards workers who are religious, but specifically towards the ones who are rising up against centuries of the most foul racist, oppression.

As I’ve said before, it would be remarkable if Islam in its many forms was not being used as a vehicle in the attempt to get the ’justice’ that has been denied them for generations. Equally it would be astonishing if many of them were still taking inspiration from the Third International remnants in the area or any of the Fourth ‘Internationals’ for that matter, none of which has demonstrated any competence in leading the working class or rural workers anywhere.

However these very same people have the arrogance to attack Muslims with the very same propaganda that the capitalist news media churns out and at a time when it is most damaging, i.e. when imperialism is franticly trying to divert attention away from its disasters by stocking up another war against Iran among others.

US allies in the Middle East all claim to be religiously inspired as do the US and British governments.. Hamas and Hezbollah distinguish themselves by attacking imperialist interests, exposing the local quislings and inspiring resistance elsewhere.

As for the mischievous reports about opinion poles among the Palestinians, it would take a of extraordinarily bitter and cynical mind set to even entertain the idea that any such “opinion pole” was worth reporting. What kind of credibility does any vox pop reporting have, when the ‘target group’ are imprisoned, threatened, starved, insulted, abused, kidnapped, and murdered for simply wanting their land back. While they watch their olive trees dancing in the moths of bulldozes the world watches and condemns them for the heinous crime of fighting with the only ideology that gives them confidence.

The international communist movement will need to be utterly ashamed about this before it can make any major breakthroughs in this area.
Capstop i am not against muslims i am against HEZBOLLAH and HAMAS.
CAN YOU GARRANTEE that those organisations are not stubs us in the back?
According what i read by EDWARD W. SAID it is not a solution to get involved with them.
I told you we Bosnians trust to UN which is legal europian organisation and that organisation leave us to chetnicks which they are make holocaust on Bosnians.
UN!!!
Capstop why do you think that HEZBOLLAH and HAMAS will not do the same?
Dont tell me they are fight against imperialism.
Give me the answer like comrade to comrade.
WHICH ARE GUARRANTEE TO GET INVOLVE WITH THEM WITHOUT THINKING THEY ARE NOT BETRAY US?

[capstop]

Comrade Hajduk,


Capstop i am not against muslims i am against HEZBOLLAH and HAMAS.
I believe (trust) that you are against US, British, Zionist and U.N. imperialism but
why do you miss out saying that you are against these. Why concentrate on HEZBOLLAH and HAMAS? They are simply not the problem for the working classes of the world. Their fight for justice would be better served if they had a better grasp of communism (Leninism) and understood that only the successful class struggle of workers everywhere can bring justice for them. One obvious reason that they are resistant to that idea is because the Soviet Union actually recognised the legitimacy of Israel. AND STABBED THE PALESTINIONS IN THE BACK!!!


CAN YOU GARRANTEE that those organisations are not stubs us in the back?

I can’t guarantee that some of them won’t stab us in the FRONT! because of what the Soviet Union helped do to them.


According what i read by EDWARD W. SAID it is not a solution to get involved with them.
I don’t know this work so I can’t comment but many organisations left and right are working hard to stop communists and Muslim political organisations talking to each other. Who benefits from this?


I told you we Bosnians trust to UN which is legal europian organisation and that organisation leave us to chetnicks which they are make holocaust on Bosnians.
UN!!!
As I understand things the UN is a tool of imperialism. It cooperated with Britain and the US in using old ethnic rivalry to help smash Yugoslavia. I also know that some of the Muslim population there collaborated with the German fascists in WWII.


Capstop why do you think that HEZBOLLAH and HAMAS will not do the same?
The only common feature between the two situations is the Islamic religion. (but you said above that you weren’t “against muslins“) Please be careful about this comrade!


Dont tell me they are fight against imperialism.
Why should I not tell you that? It is true isn’t it? And for relatively small organisations, they do it very well!


Give me the answer like comrade to comrade.


WHICH ARE GUARRANTEE TO GET INVOLVE WITH THEM WITHOUT THINKING THEY ARE NOT BETRAY US?

As “comrade to comrade” I will tell you that it is childish to believe that you will not be betrayed and it is more childish not to engage in the struggle on the widest front possible, EVEN AT THE RISK OF BETRAYL!

You will understand comrade that betrayal does not only come from one side in a political or military alliance. Just look at the first post in this thread. It says:


“Granted, strategic short-term alliances are necessarily in politics and revolution; the working class must forge and break alliances with other groups and classes in order to attain specific goals;…”
The way this is stated here would lead HEZBOLLAH and HAMAS to think that all people and organisation who call themselves communist will behave in this opportunist way. If it was true they would be justified in stabbing us in the back!

Its shameful!

[spartan]

you said that these groups are fighting for "their land" i fought you were a leftist! all land belongs to all the workers of the world not a bunch of capitalists or religious nuts! stop being so pro separatism and stop defending and at the same time supporting these groups who deep down are anti proletarian. remember they are anti western and regard all left wing political beliefs as part of "western culture!" your tribalism makes me sick! :angry:

[capstop]

...you said that these groups are fighting for "their land" i fought you were a leftist! all land belongs to all the workers of the world not a bunch of capitalists or religious nuts!

By “bunch of capitalist religious nuts! ”Do you mean the Zionist robbers who stole the land?

[Faux Real]

you said that these groups are fighting for "their land" i fought you were a leftist!
Their land means their homes. Do you have any idea at all of how many people have had their homes bulldozed or had a wall built through them, separating them from their old neighbors? Not to mention the mass deportations and immigration to the nearby Arab states.

all land belongs to all the workers of the world not a bunch of capitalists or religious nuts!
These people are workers and some just somehow happen to be Muslim, Christian and even some are anti-theists.

stop being so pro separatism
Oh, the irony! :lol:

and stop defending and at the same time supporting these groups who deep down are anti proletarian. remember they are anti western and regard all left wing political beliefs as part of "western culture!"
That's why they collaborate and fight alongside Marxist-Leninists and other leftists. How can they be anti-proletarian when they are maybe even a class below proletariat? They live in extreme poverty with little industry!

What exactly is so great about western culture that we should force down their throats anyway?

your tribalism makes me sick! :angry:
Your generalizations, assumptions, and refusal to look at clear arguments make me sick.

[Revolution Until Victory]

you said that these groups are fighting for "their land" i fought you were a leftist!

what the hell are you talking about?
capstop said that THEY were fighting for their lands, not him! in other words, he was simply saying what Hamas and Hezbollah are fighting for; how does this imply he agrees with their position? Besides, nothing wrong fighting to defeat imperialism.


remember they are anti western

no "they" are not. This is as ignorant as it gets. Hamas and Hezbollah are anti-imperialist, anti-zionist, and anti-Western imperialism in general.


Regard all left wing political beliefs as part of "western culture!"

"they" what?

that's hiliarious.

Any opposition an Islamic, or any relegious group for that matter, might have towards communism is its position on relegion.

[capstop]

Revolution Until Victory,


Any opposition an Islamic, or any relegious group for that matter, might have towards communism is its position on relegion.
This is true, but there is also the matter of the ‘sell out’ by the USSR. It was a terrible mistake which should be acknowledged publicly by all communists.

Edit: We must avoid making the same mistake again by not settling for peaceful relationships with capitalism at the expense of the international working class. We all know the ins and outs of it, and we have to cough up to the crap in our history. We can not move forward unless we do.

[redarmyfaction38]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 09:07 pm
Revolution Until Victory,


Any opposition an Islamic, or any relegious group for that matter, might have towards communism is its position on relegion.
This is true, but there is also the matter of the ‘sell out’ by the USSR. It was a terrible mistake which should be acknowledged publicly by all communists.

Edit: We must avoid making the same mistake again by not settling for peaceful relationships with capitalism at the expense of the international working class. We all know the ins and outs of it, and we have to cough up to the crap in our history. We can not move forward unless we do.
WHAT?

now call me a prat if you like.
but i've read the whole thread and i think some posters have wandered off into "wish it was so" land.
1) being an enemy of international capital or imperialism doesn't make you a "freiend of the working class".
2) marx did not deny the individual the right to religious belief, he just thought it was a load of bullshit. what he and any rational person would object to was the link between state and state supported religion. "the opiate of the people". truth is,in the western world, amongst the masses, you can replace religion with drink, drugs, footballl and BLING!
much more fun than religious belief but just as much an "opiate".
3)hamas aint stupid, recognising the failings of the plo and ity's compromise with israels govt., it very sensibly exploited the situation, it offered the health care, the employment etc. that the "revolutionary" plo offered back in the 70s 80s and 90s but failed to deliver!
but don't for one minute, think hamas will deliver. in the long term, all they want is power and to play the same game as the subserviant western powers.
enrich themselves at the expense of working class lives whilst telling us how much THEY have done to make our lives better. AND how our sacrifices, our lost lives were al worth it @cos now! they're in power.

[capstop]

…but don't for one minute, think hamas will deliver. in the long term, all they want is power and to play the same game as the subserviant western powers.
enrich themselves at the expense of working class lives whilst telling us how much THEY have done to make our lives better. AND how our sacrifices, our lost lives were al worth it @cos now! they're in power.
Evidence please.

Meanwhile…..


This site could sponsor a very important debate by making space and actively inviting Muslims to contribute. Hamas etc

Draft Proposal

1) We the contributors to Revleft.com recognise that there are both points of unity and points of difference between Islam and Communism in relation the fight against imperialism.

2) We believe that an open debate between Muslims and Communists could be very useful for development of understanding for all people on the planet.

3) We resolve to enter into a polemic with individual Muslims and their organisations for the purpose of clarifying our understanding.

As a start we propose a debate about how we combat imperialism:
“March separately, strike together.” or stay separate?

For?

Against?

Abstentions?

[hajduk]

AGAINST
During agression on Bosnia president of Croatia Franjo Tudjman let vehhabs soldiers to past our border so they can fight on Bosnian side
but we have only problems with them (of course on a front they are very brave soldiers) becouse they try to with opression make Bosnians to accept part of islam religion witch is radical,called Vehhabism and that doesnt belong to Bosnians
they have even own village in Bosnia where they live by vehhabism way
Vehhabism is made by british secret service which sent one agent to Turkey to make political religion movement which will destroy Otoman Impery
agent who done that was LORENS OF ARABIA
so those Vehhabs are came to my land to learn me how do i have believe in god, how should i suppose to be dressed, to my comrades they ripping of earrings from the ear,one of my comrades was be in a great danger becouse he kissing the girl on public place late night and they chasing them both with van but my comrade say to his girlfriend to separate so vehabs chasing him but he hide in some apartment
for me this is mean that actually i dont need chetnick to kill me during agression on my country
capstop you dont no with who you dealing for
i say again i am not against muslims i am against radicals by all colours,religion or nation
i was a soldier in the bosnian army to and i know what i am talkin about
read books by EDWARD W. SAID

[spartan]

:angry: capstop stop supporting these groups you reactionary scum. you are a perfect example of a stupid western person thinking its cool to support anyone who happens to be fighting our enemy. groups like hamas and hezbollah may have alliances with left wing groups but thats onlt temporary. do you actually think that when these groups get real power they will bring about true communism :lol: the fact is these groups only support their own states which if your a state capitalist is probably good in your mind. they are not progressive they will try and appear progressive to get support via health policies etc but the fact is their whole existence is founded in political islam, religious extremism, anti jewish/western (racism anyone?), etc etc etc. they are not our allies nor will they ever be our true allies and anyone who defends them or supports them is a reactionary. oh and i dont support israel or anything i hate them the same as i hate these dickheads like hamas and hezbollah etc. you have the attitude of its okay that they are racist, homophobic, sexist, belief in a hierarchy based on religion, etc as long as there anti imperialist. for fucks sake listen to yourself and what your saying.

[hajduk]

CAPSTOP you have better islam organisation who support us and they are not radical
example

http://www.asiandubfoundation.com/adf_home_fs.htm


this is a band who support leftist
they are truly muslims and they whant to be part of our revolution
they have also logistic center which pronounce struggle against predjuice about muslims
they dont have bad opinion about our atheism
they just whant to proove own stand about bad influence of capitalists,imperialists and fight against them,same like revlefters
many muslims from they own community support them
one of the albums called COMMUNITY MUSIC
one of the songs called FORTRESS EUROPE



LISTEN WHAT THEY SINGING

http://youtube.com/watch?v=DvAuqYFVrqI
http://youtube.com/watch?v=jywa9oK3ytU&mode=related&search=
http://youtube.com/watch?v=PBrcWkWNnFY&mode=related&search=
http://youtube.com/watch?v=GBKdwtwAqZI&mode=related&search=
http://youtube.com/watch?v=49LWy8rzW6E&mode=related&search=

ask them what they think about HAMMAS and HEZBOLLAH

[redarmyfaction38]

look! it's quite simple realy, regardless of religious faith, the leaders of hamas, just like the plo, realise, in order to gain power and influence, they have to offer something to the working class.
the same process is carried out all over the world by the capitalist class, just like hamas, the plo, the iranian govt etc. they offer concessions in order to gain support amongst our class.
FOR WHAT REASON? you might ask!
in order to gain power for their particular brand of dictatorship, i would answer! not that i'm a genius!!!!! no!!! far from it! karl pointed this out over 100 years ago, you just have to apply his analysis to the current political situations around the world! it aint hard ffs! if it was; i couldn't do it.

[RNK]

Marx also stipulated that revolutionary communists should and must unite with other progressive, if less revolutionary forces in order to defeat the capitalist class; and Lenin argued the same must be done in order to defend the oppressed peoples of the world against imperialism, which, if you hadn't noticed, is running rampant through a high percentage of Islamic nations. As a people, Arabs and Muslims are being oppressed -- not as a religion.

However, critical analysis needs to be applied to each and every situation where this conflict arises. Take, for instance, Palestine and Iran. Both are Muslim nations with predominantly Muslim populations. Both are self-proclaimed enemies of imperialism.

The people of Palestine are currently suffering enormously under the oppression of Israeli and US imperialism. Thousands have died; hundreds of thousands live in extreme poverty.

The people of Iran, on the other hand, are not suffering directly because of imperialism; while embargos obviously have an effect on the prosperity of Iran's population, it can be easily argued that the domestic policies of Iran's ruling class are just as oppressive and exploitative(sp) of the working class in that country.

Palestine is currently run by a secular state entity, comprised of national bourgeois and more progressive elements which have made defending their people against imperialist domination their top priority.

Iran is currently run by a secular-in-name-only state entity which is comprised mainly of bourgeois figureheads and religious leaders, who have made their own empowerment, at the detriment of Iran's people, their top priority.

In the above instance, I would support Hamas insofar as its struggle against imperialism as this, based on Marxist analysis, is most beneficial for the people of Palestine. I would not support Iran's government, however, as doing so would be more damaging than not to the people of Iran.

This has precedence in Marxist theory, which tells us that communists must act against the most oppressive class or ideological embodiement in order to pursue the overall goal of class emancipation. Where fuedalism and theocracy triumph, communists should ally with the bourgeois, in the short term, to defeat it. I hold the same opinion of imperialism; the damage being wrought on Palestine by imperialism outweighs, by a fair amount, the damage wrought by Palestine's own bourgeoisie. In Iran, the damage wrought by imperialism is secondary to the damage wrought by Iran's own bourgeoisie.

EDIT: As a disclaimer, do not take what I've said as any sort of endorsement of imperialist action against Iran (and I know there are some that would attempt to make that claim). On the contrary, if imperialism were to rear the full brunt of its ugly head on Iran, it would be necessary to support progressive forces against it.

[spartan]

redarmyfaction38 is right. but i dont think most of you pro islam faction will agree.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 08:51 pm
Marx also stipulated that revolutionary communists should and must unite with other progressive, if less revolutionary forces in order to defeat the capitalist class; and Lenin argued the same must be done in order to defend the oppressed peoples of the world against imperialism,
That tradition really does not support your position here at all. (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=55038)


In the above instance, I would support Hamas insofar as its struggle against imperialism as this, based on Marxist analysis, is most beneficial for the people of Palestine.

What does this "support" consist of practically? How does this "support" for Hamas actually benefit the national liberation struggle in Palestine? And other points made in my first post, which you haven't responded to.

Your overall comparison basically boils down to: they're not in power in Palestine, but are in Iran. At least that's the only real difference between the bourgeois nationalist forces in those two places. (Yes, Israel still holds the power in Bantustan Palestine.)

This is a silly criterion; political forces don't change their basic character depending on whether they're in power. Why help them into power if they're going to instantly become unworthy of support?

And since the "national bourgeoisie" and imperialism are partners in exploitation of the working class, any calculation of which is "more damaging" at the moment is unnecessary.

Also, real power in Palestine belongs to Israel, not the PA. And Fatah's "top priority" is simply enriching themselves. Hamas' "top priority"? Well, clearly they put their Islamist prejudices ahead of implementing an effective strategy for "defending their people." Since their election victory, the Palestinian struggle has only been set further back.


This has precedence in Marxist theory, which tells us that communists must act against the most oppressive class or ideological embodiement in order to pursue the overall goal of class emancipation. Where fuedalism and theocracy triumph, communists should ally with the bourgeois, in the short term, to defeat it.

Read Marx on 1848, will ya? "Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Germany", for example. He points out that the bourgeoisie is no longer interested in allying with the laboring classes to overthrow feudalism.

Oh, and the Iranian regime is bourgeois, not feudal, in fact it carried out a land reform.

[RNK]

What does this "support" consist of practically?

Mainly military and logistical support in the struggle against imperialism; military co-operation, logistical sharing concerning operations, etc.


How does this "support" for Hamas actually benefit the national liberation struggle in Palestine?

This support benefits the national liberation struggle in Palestine by creating stronger and more capable forces of defense against imperialist aggression. It's very simple, really. Having 20 people rallying to accomplish an objective has a better chance of succeeding than 10 people attempting it.


Your overall comparison basically boils down to: they're not in power in Palestine, but are in Iran.

Technically you are correct. The most pressing issue in Iran is not liberation from a foreign imperialist power; it is liberation from their own national ruling class and theocratic religious feelings. The opposite is true in Palestine. Should the day come where Palestine is free from the yoke of imperial domination, then it is the duty of revolutionary, class-conscious forces to open their front on the ruling class on the eve of that day.


Why help them into power if they're going to instantly become unworthy of support?

The same reason Marx argued that class-conscious revolutionaries should form a temporary alliance with the bourgeoisie in their fight against fuedal monarchy, as stipulated in the two points below which state that the advantages of doing so are:

(i) in various concessions which would facilitate the unification of the proletariat into a closely knit, battle-worthy, and organized class; and

(ii) in the certainly that, on the very day the absolute monarchies fall, the struggle between bourgeoisie and proletariat will start. From that day on, the policy of the communists will be the same as it now is in the countries where the bourgeoisie is already in power.


And since the "national bourgeoisie" and imperialism are partners in exploitation of the working class, any calculation of which is "more damaging" at the moment is unnecessary.

I seriously doubt that the PLO, Hezbollah and Hamas are in any way partners with Israel and the US -- atleast no more so than the bourgeoisie were partners with fuedal monarchy.


Also, real power in Palestine belongs to Israel, not the PA.

Exactly! That is why the focus of class struggle must be to destroy that power! Just as the focus of class struggle in fuedal societies must be the eradication of fuedalism!



He points out that the bourgeoisie is no longer interested in allying with the laboring classes to overthrow feudalism.

Yes, I'm fully aware. Do not think I somehow believe that Hamas, Hezbollah and Fatah, and the fundamentalist cliques, are in any way interested in the welfare and self-determination of the Palestinian working class. They are not. However, as I stated above, Marx wrote extensively on the fact that the working class can gain many benefits through a temporary alliance with the bourgeoisie.

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 10:06 pm
Your overall comparison basically boils down to: they're not in power in Palestine, but are in Iran.
Your comparison boils down to both Hamas and the Revolutionary Iranian regime are Islamic militants. There are clearly major distinct differences, one of the most basic being the majority of Muslims in Palestine being Sunni, the majority in Iran being Shi'a. Of course there are much more that would disprove the notion of Hamas simply being an Islamist movement looking to further exploit the civilian population like the theocracy in Iran.

This is a silly criterion; political forces don't change their basic character depending on whether they're in power. Why help them into power if they're going to instantly become unworthy of support?
Luckily for the Palestinians in Gaza, Hamas dedicates 90% of it's activities towards social welfare and activity. Why would they chose Israeli domination over people who actually care and provide for them?

And since the "national bourgeoisie" and imperialism are partners in exploitation of the working class, any calculation of which is "more damaging" at the moment is unnecessary.
It's hard to imagine any bourgeoisie-status citizens living among those in Palestine. How are you so sure?

Since their election victory, the Palestinian struggle has only been set further back.
That's because Fatah and the international imperial powers in support of Israel didn't accept its victory and began labeling them, discrediting, attacking, etc.

Oh, and the Iranian regime is bourgeois, not feudal, in fact it carried out a land reform.
They are bourgeois, but what does carrying out land reforms have to do with that?

[Severian]

Originally posted by rev0lt+August 28, 2007 12:07 am--> (rev0lt @ August 28, 2007 12:07 am)
[email protected] 27, 2007 10:06 pm
Your overall comparison basically boils down to: they're not in power in Palestine, but are in Iran.
Your comparison boils down to both Hamas and the Revolutionary Iranian regime are Islamic militants. There are clearly major distinct differences, one of the most basic being the majority of Muslims in Palestine being Sunni, the majority in Iran being Shi'a. Of course there are much more that would disprove the notion of Hamas simply being an Islamist movement looking to further exploit the civilian population like the theocracy in Iran. [/b]
The Shi'a-Sunni distinction doesn't make any force better or worse - it's simply a theological difference like Catholic vs Protestant. You don't give any other reason why Hamas is better. Oh, except for their charity work....why religious charity is believed to be progressive I don't know. Dependence on crumbs handed out by a religious hierarchy is the opposite of workers' struggle for self-liberation.

I explained previously why Hamas is reactionary, in response to BuyOurEverything. I'd suggest you read and respond to that post. Or if that's too much trouble...

Or just read the Hamas Charter (http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm), especially article 22, and explain to me how that's a progressive organization.


It's hard to imagine any bourgeoisie-status citizens living among those in Palestine.

What? Who do you imagine owns All these businesses (http://www.palestine-yellowpages.com/), then - communes? Do you imagine Palestinians have the only classless society on earth?

An example of the Palestinian capitalist class.... (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/05/10/news/gaza.php)


For 15 years Kamal Abed, a Palestinian businessman, prospered despite the vicissitudes of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, selling marble and granite floor tiles to Israelis in a pocket of cooperation on the northern edge of the Gaza Strip known as the Erez Industrial Park.
....
The industrial park is just across the border from Israel and houses about 200 factories, from textile makers to auto repair shops.....Israelis and Palestinians own factories in the park in roughly equal numbers, and in the past they have employed 5,000 workers from Gaza.
....
Abed, the factory owner, is skeptical that Erez can come back to life. His annual sales of about $1.5 million depended almost entirely on Israel, and his business came to a halt a year ago when the industrial zone faced frequent and extended closings.

Emphasis added.

There are always those who will prosper in the midst of poverty - in fact it gives them cheaper labor.

[hajduk]

according what Severian told this is mean that even if i agree with Revolt and Capstop then we must have wide open eyes if we going together with hammas and hezbollah and by that always somebody can involve from the side to destroy our revolution so it is to much risk for me
that is why i advising you to check site i give about ASIAN DUB FOUNDATION
WHATCH IT

[capstop]

In looking at the last few posts it occurred to me that the problem with the argument was that the conditions of 1920 did not exist at present (2007). I thought it would be useful to look again at some of the material quoted because I could not believe that the communist leaders of the time would want their work to be used in order to assist the present day imperialist attack on the Palestinian "national-revolutionary" movement.

I have long believed that vast majority of the contemporary communist movements were unfit for the job of preparing the world revolution until it can come to terms with its own history of compromise with capitalism in different places at different times.

I think comrades should look very carefully at this part of Lenin’s speech in 1920 and consider whether the conditions that existed in 1920 still exist now. And consider whether the arguments that have been advanced in this thread still apply.

I have bolded and underlined what I think is the most significant part so that comrades can go straight to it and see it in its context.

3
REPORT
OF THE COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL
AND THE COLONIAL QUESTIONS
JULY 26[83]
Comrades, I shall confine myself to a brief introduction, after which Comrade Maring, who has been secretary to our commission, will give you a detailed account of the changes we have made in the theses. He will be followed by Comrade Roy, who has formulated the supplementary theses. Our commission have unanimously adopted both the preliminary theses, as amended, and the supplementary theses. We have thus reached complete unanimity on all major issues. I shall now make a few brief remarks.

First, what is the cardinal idea underlying our theses? It is the distinction between oppressed and oppressor nations. Unlike the Second International and bourgeois democracy, we emphasise this distinction. In this age of imperialism, it is particularly important for the proletariat and the Communist International to establish the concrete economic facts and to proceed from concrete realities, not from abstract postulates, in all colonial and national problems.

The characteristic feature of imperialism consists in the whole world, as we now see, being divided into a large number of oppressed nations and an insignificant number of oppressor nations, the latter possessing colossal wealth and powerful armed forces. The vast majority of the world's population, over a thousand million, perhaps even 1,250 million people, if we take the total population of the world as 1,750 million, in other words, about 70 per cent of the world's population, belong to the oppressed nations, which are either in a state of direct colonial dependence or are
page 241
semi-colonies, as, for example, Persia, Turkey and China, or else, conquered by some big imperialist power, have become greatly dependent on that power by virtue of peace treaties. This idea of distinction, of dividing the nations into oppressor and oppressed, runs through the theses, not only the first theses published earlier over my signature, but also those submitted by Comrade Roy. The latter were framed chiefly from the standpoint of the situation in India and other big Asian countries oppressed by Britain. Herein lies their great importance to us.


The second basic idea in our theses is that, in the present world situation following the imperialist war, reciprocal relations between peoples and the world political system as a whole are determined by the struggle waged by a small group of imperialist nations against the Soviet movement and the Soviet states headed by Soviet Russia. Unless we bear that in mind, we shall not be able to pose a single national or colonial problem correctly, even if it concerns a most outlying part of the world. The Communist parties, in civilised and backward countries alike, can pose and solve political problems correctly only if they make this postulate their starting-point.

Third, I should like especially to emphasise the question of the bourgeois-democratic movement in backward countries. This is a question that has given rise to certain differences. We have discussed whether it would be right or wrong, in principle and in theory, to state that the Communist International and the Communist parties must support the bourgeois-democratic movement in backward countries. As a result of our discussion, we have arrived at the unanimous decision to speak of the national-revolutionary movement rather than of the "bourgeois-democratic" movement. It is beyond doubt that any national movement can only be a bourgeois-democratic movement, since the overwhelming mass of the population in the backward countries consist of peasants who represent bourgeois-capitalist relationships. It would be utopian to believe that proletarian parties in these backward countries, if indeed they can emerge in them, can pursue communist tactics and a communist policy, without establishing definite relations with the peasant movement and without
page 242
giving it effective support. However, the objections have been raised that, if we speak of the bourgeois-democratic movement, we shall be obliterating all distinctions between the reformist and the revolutionary movements. Yet that distinction has been very clearly revealed of late in the backward and colonial countries, since the imperialist bourgeoisie is doing everything in its power to implant a reformist movement among the oppressed nations too. There has been a certain rapprochement between the bourgeoisie of the exploiting countries and that of the colonies, so that very often -- perhaps even in most cases -- the bourgeoisie of the oppressed countries, while it does support the national movement, is in full accord with the imperialist bourgeoisie, i.e., joins forces with it against all revolutionary movements and revolutionary classes. This was irrefutably proved in the commission, and we decided that the only correct attitude was to take this distinction into account and, in nearly all cases, substitute the term "national-revolutionary" for the term "bourgeois-democratic". The significance of this change is that we, as Communists, should and will support bourgeois-liberation movements in the colonies only when they are genuinely revolutionary, and when their exponents do not hinder our work of educating and organising in a revolutionary spirit the peasantry and the masses of the exploited. If these conditions do not exist, the Communists in these countries must combat the reformist bourgeoisie, to whom the heroes of the Second International also belong. …………..“ (etc,etc,etc. Ed)

[capstop]

Deleted repeated post.

[capstop]

Deleted repeated post. Having technical problems.

[capstop]

REPORT
OF THE COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL
AND THE COLONIAL QUESTIONS
JULY 26 1920
The second basic idea in our theses is that, in the present world situation following the imperialist war, reciprocal relations between peoples and the world political system as a whole are determined by the struggle waged by a small group of imperialist nations against the Soviet movement and the Soviet states headed by Soviet Russia. Unless we bear that in mind, we shall not be able to pose a single national or colonial problem correctly, even if it concerns a most outlying part of the world. The Communist parties, in civilised and backward countries alike, can pose and solve political problems correctly only if they make this postulate their starting-point. Lenin 1920 (Emphasis Added)


Now in (2007) things are not determined by the struggle waged by a small group of imperialist nations against the Soviet movement and the Soviet states headed by Soviet Russia, or any similar authoritative “Soviet states”.

The present world situation is again (as in 1914 and 1939) determined by the economic crisis of capitalism as a whole, inter-imperialist rivalry and the war drive which that rivalry gives rise to.

Quite simply, there is no authoritative communist leadership that can shape events in the way it was beginning to do in 1920 and berating the “backward” developing "national-revolutionary" movements I think is not only futile, it self evidently works in the interests of imperialism.

[capstop]

A Day in the ‘life’ of Palestine

RAMALLAH-GAZA, August 29,2007, (WAFA)-Three children were killed on Wednesday noon when Israeli tanks shelled the Gaza Strip town of Beit Hanoon, local sources said. Three children Sara Abu Ghazal 10-year-old, Mahmoud Moussa Abu Ghazal 11, and Yehya Abu Ghazal 11. They were killed on the spot in Beith Hanoun toun, east the Strip.

QALQILIYA, August 29, 2007, (WAFA)-Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) wounded on Wednesday 34 citizens in the West Bank(WB) city of Qalqiliya, security sources said. Israeli soldiers, backed by military vehicles and bulldozers, stormed the city and began opening fire and gas grenades towards citizens, wounding 34 of them.
A young boy was hit in the head and his condition is reported to be critical.

TUBAS, August 29, 2007 (WAFA) - Palestinian Prisoners Club said Wednesday that Israeli military courts sentenced detainees to several terms of imprisonment and expanded the detention periods of others. The Club said in a press release that Salem military court sentenced seven prisoners to sentences ranging from a year to four years in prison as well as paying inflating fines, adding that it extended the detention of six others until they are tried in other tribunals.

[spartan]

and what about the innocent israelis killed by palestinians capstop? or are all jews just zionists to you? israelis suffer to under the current situation as well you know its not all the blessed palestinians. why you support movements which aim to create new nations is beyond me for in a anarchist/communist utopia there will be no nations or governments or hierarchies or money which is just what these groups stand for. perhaps you should consider joining some right wing nationalist groups capstop i here they are starting to support palestinians because of their anti jewish stance.

[hajduk]

CAPSTOP sorry but you didnt convince me.

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 05:16 am
and what about the innocent israelis killed by palestinians capstop? or are all jews just zionists to you? israelis suffer to under the current situation as well you know its not all the blessed palestinians. why you support movements which aim to create new nations is beyond me for in a anarchist/communist utopia there will be no nations or governments or hierarchies or money which is just what these groups stand for. perhaps you should consider joining some right wing nationalist groups capstop i here they are starting to support palestinians because of their anti jewish stance.
The Zionists will never stop even if the Palestinians were to never harm another innocent Israeli child; you can see who has done the most atrocities and the Palestinians have been victimized so much more, including a much higher child death rate. Oh yeah, Israel has the most repressive right-wing nationalist country on their side, the good-ol USA, so spare us from that crap. Palestine has the support of nearly every progressive or leftist organization because it is the ethical side to support.

Besides, it's practically impossible now for any Palestinian to get into Israel as their land space and sea are all subject to intense Israeli checkpoints. It's the largest virtual open-air prison in the world, you could say.

[RNK]

A) Israelis do not "suffer" to the degree that Palestinians "suffer"
B) It is the Israeli military that has occupied Palestine for decades, not the other way around
C) It was zionist jews that began terrorist attacks in Palestine, not arabs
D) A 70-ton battle tank vs. a teenage boy with a rock is not an equal comparison to make
E) It is not only the Israeli military, but also its civilians, that attack, kill, and main arabs; "settlers" have been attacking Palestinian arabs since Israel's creation, burning down their homes, expelling them from their livelihoods, burning them alive, beating them to death
F) Suicide bombings in Tel Aviv, in night club districts against children and young adults is one of the most despicable acts of terrorism known to man
G) Right next to gunning down an 8 year old child with a machinegun
H) You are attempting to compare the actions of a state which spends billions of dollars every year on its military operations against Palestinian arabs, with the actions of a few obscure groups of violent fanatics who can afford little more than AK-47's, RPG's and some homemade missiles
I) Your refusal to stand next to the Palestinian people because of a few religious zealots that happen to make up some of its population is unmarxist, and makes less sense than refusing to support the exploited in America due to their ruling class and their actions.

We're supposed to be fighting against oppression and exploitation; Palestinian arabs are some of the most oppressed and exploited people on earth, from Israel's bombs to the conservative quasi-fundamentalism of their own leadership, they deserve our help as much as anyone else. Hamas does not need our help, Hezbollah does not need our help, Al Fatah and Al Aqsa do not need our help, but the Palestinian people do.

[capstop]

Spartan,

and what about the innocent israelis killed by palestinians capstop? or are all jews just zionists to you? israelis suffer to under the current situation as well you know its not all the blessed palestinians.

Of all the many issues connected with this debate that are thrown up by the pro-Zionist lobby, the one thing that is never questioned or allowed to be talked about in the capitalist press, is the ‘right’ or legitimacy of the state of Israel to exist or ever have been brought into existence in the first place. Try dealing with that matter yourself before muddying the waters with phoney and diversionary arguments about ‘balance’ and equality of suffering.


why you support movements which aim to create new nations is beyond me for in a anarchist/communist utopia there will be no nations or governments or hierarchies or money which is just what these groups stand for.

I am not sorry to be the one to tell you this, but you really are not the best exponent of this mud-slinging method of argument. If you were at all genuinely concerned about communist perspectives for the world you would realise that it is the imperialist/Zionist lobby which is attempting to “create new nations”. Palestine itself is already a nation currently under attack from mainly European and North American settlers who’s speciality has been creating “new nations“. Palestine has been a nation for longer than the USA has been a nation.


perhaps you should consider joining some right wing nationalist groups capstop i here they are starting to support palestinians because of their anti jewish stance.

My apologies in advance if I am mistaken, but are you suggesting that I am “anti jewish” , anti-Semitic or racist in some way? If you are, could you please explain how you came to that conclusion. You should appreciate how serious a charge that is, if that is in fact what you are saying.


Hajduck,

CAPSTOP sorry but you didnt convince me.

Please don’t be sorry. It is quite simple really, but I may have over complicated the issue. Communists who allow their subjective feelings towards religion to get in the way of conducting effective communist propaganda among religious workers are not helping to overcome and correct the mistakes that the communist movement has made. Quite simply, we do not have “a cat in hell’s chance” of developing communist anti-imperialist leadership anywhere by repeating imperialist war propaganda.

By refusing to even talk to religious workers and their leaders, we would be holding the movement back from the theoretical fight communism needs to have in the places it needs to have it. We don’t stand at the side of the fight, its not possible. We either join the imperialists or we join the oppressed in against the main enemy of all people and explain why only Marxism-Leninism is able to win total victory. And we will not be able to do that unless and until we overcome our own inadequate theoretical development.

Rev0lt,

It's the largest virtual open-air prison in the world, you could say.

Agreed, ‘Stalag Garza’

Serverian,

?

[capstop]

RNK,

F) Suicide bombings in Tel Aviv, in night club districts against children and young adults is one of the most despicable acts of terrorism known to man
They most certainly are not! Mankind knows may more acts of “terrorism” which are far more “despicable” 1.………… 2.………. .………….. Etc,etc, and in any case they are all the consequence of imperialist economic, social and political chaos mismanagement of the planet its people and resources.

Otherwise I agree with your post.

[Red Militant]

WE MUST NEVER FORGET WHERE AL QAEDA COMES THEY WHAT THE MUJAHIDEEN BECAME.

The Mujahideen fought against The Democratic Republic of Afghanistan and the Armed Forces Of The USSR, the USSR did not invade, the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan asked them for they're help. The Mujahideen backed by the US and others led a successful Counter-Revolution in Afghanistan, this mujahideen later evolved into al qaeda, osama and most of the leaders of al qaeda came to prominence in the muhajideen and the jihad against "Socialism". These are the origins of al qeada!

I may not believe that The USSR and its Satellites where truly Socialist but I damn well recognize it to be 1000 times better than living in Free Market Capitalism!
And you are an enemy of these however degenerated Workers States than you are an enemy of me, unless you are fighting for a true form of socialism (the Libertarian side it of the movement).

If we make an alliance with al qaeda we spit in the faces of everyone who fought and died for revolution in Afghanistan, from the active Workers and Farmers to the party members to the Afghani revolutionaries who fought against the mujahadeen to the Soviet Armed Forces, not to mention all the innocent people that al qeada has killed in its infamous history of terror and reaction, 911 is just the tip of the iceberg!

al qaeda is amongst the most conservative reactionary forces on the face of the planet, ten times more conservative than the Republican Party, many of them support building an Islamic Theocracy, and things like women being forced to wear veils and THE WORST THING I HAVE EVER HEARD OF,
FORCED FEMALE CIRCUMSITION, SOMETIMES THIS IS DONE WITH A SHARD OF GLASS OR POTTERRY WITH NO ANESTHETICS PAIN KILLER OR ANTI-INFECTANT, BEYOND THE HORROR AND PAIN OF THE PROCEDURE ITSELF IS THE LIFE LONG FACT THAT THESE WOMEN ARE FOREVER ROBBED OF EXPERIANCING SEXUAL PLEASURE DURING INTERCOURSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THIS IS PATRIARCHY ANTI-SEXUALISM SAVAGRY AND CONSERVATISM IN ITS MOST DISPICABLE AND OPPRESSIVE FORM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I WILL NEVER SUPPORT THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyone who says we make an alliance with such reactionary forces as al qaeda throws dialectics out the window at that very moment, through a dialectical viewpoint we see that these forces are Reactionary and not only Counter-Revolutionary but Counter-Progressive because they fight not only against imperialism but against progress and modernization in the Middle East and even seek to roll back the wheel of time to the "Islamic Golden Age", they do this behind the smoke screen of fighting western values, and western domination.

True they fight against western domination but Middle Eastern Class Struggle will fight not only the Class Struggle but imperialism and it will be progressive not counter-progressive.

I will never make any alliance with Counter-Revolutionaries not in the name of fighting imperialism (whether our interests coincide or not) or for Any other reason, I certainly don’t support the horrible wars of imperialism in the Middle-East but the answer is not nationalism but Class-Warfare, and when the Workers rise and create socialism in they're Middle Eastern Countries they should try and publicly execute every last one of these Counter-Revolutionaries and every one who contributed to fighting agianst Revolution, Communism, and Anarchism, and I mean every one!

[capstop]

Is anyone else having technical problems posting? I keep getting shunted all over the site, losing posts and having them duplicated. Any subjections? It's beginning to get tiresome.

[spartan]

first of all i dont support israel nor palestine for me both sides are not doing things for the proletariat even if they enact progressive policies or go into alliance with left wingers its all to get supporty for there own greedy ends. secondly RNK the reason why my stance is unmarxist is because i personnaly dont like marx anymore i prefer mikhail bakunin. thirdly is it not in our intrest to support israeli and palestinian proletariats not fucked up reactionary groups like hamas. i am starting to suspect that you pro hamas lot are anti worldwide proletariat revolution and pro nations, one party state, race, religion, culture, state socialism and socialism in one country. hasnt the ussr and all other so called communist regimes taught you anything state socialism and socialism in one country does not work! of course this was the reason marx expelled bakunin and his followers from the first international. bakunin did not care for nations and governments/hierarchies and wanted worldwide revolution whilst marx still clung to things like nations and parties and governments/hierarchies. lenin is a perfect example of marxist faliure for once he was ruler power blinded him. why did he not throw everything the liberated workers had at europe? weimar germany with its strong left wing political element and revolutions would have fell piss easily whilst the rest of the nations of europe exhausted from ww1 would have put up a token resistance at best especially when you consider the strong socialist/communist movements in those states. marxism is so far a historical faliure thats why i am putting my hopes into anarchism.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 07:44 pm
Is anyone else having technical problems posting? I keep getting shunted all over the site, losing posts and having them duplicated. Any subjections? It's beginning to get tiresome.
who gives you guarrantee that members of HAMAS and HEZBOLLAH dont do terrorist religion suicide attacks?

[RNK]

secondly RNK the reason why my stance is unmarxist is because i personnaly dont like marx anymore i prefer mikhail bakunin.

Sorry to say, I stopped reading at this point :lol:

[capstop]

Spartan,

“RNK the reason why my stance is unmarxist is because i personally dont like marx anymore i prefer mikhail bakunin.”


“…marxism is so far a historical faliure thats why i am putting my hopes into anarchism.”

Ok you have declared for anarchism, but do you not realise how close that puts you to the very people you have spent your time denouncing on this site. It is the same frustrated individualistic and desperate “hope” (wish, trust, and FAITH!) that you talk of, which puts the suicide bombers into the battle.

“i” “i” “i” me, me, me. Is this not the essence of anarchism? In just two shot sentences alone you have managed to insert four references to yourself “my stance”, “i personally”, “i prefer” and “i am”. You should not be condemned for this, we are all a product of our circumstances including your philosophical relatives in Al Khieda, etc.

Hajduk,


who gives you guarrantee that members of HAMAS and HEZBOLLAH dont do terrorist religion suicide attacks?

This has been answered before. If you want guarantees about something you might want to consult a ‘spiritual’ adviser, Marxism is about real material developments especially the relationships between classes and political formations and all Leninists should advise you to study the world as it is . And as it is there is no authoritative Leninist state or international movement that can formulate and coordinate interventions in revolutionary struggles. That is why Hamas and Hezbollah are taking the lead in some areas. That will not change until materialist philosophy and politics steps-up the struggle, insisting on a fight with all forms of reactionary idealism which looks for “guarantees” and lives in “hope”.

[capstop]

Can anyone tell me why my posts are being duplicated. And tell me how to prevent it from happening.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 05:11 pm
Spartan,

“RNK the reason why my stance is unmarxist is because i personally dont like marx anymore i prefer mikhail bakunin.”


“…marxism is so far a historical faliure thats why i am putting my hopes into anarchism.”

Ok you have declared for anarchism, but do you not realise how close that puts you to the very people you have spent your time denouncing on this site. It is the same frustrated individualistic and desperate “hope” (wish, trust, and FAITH!) that you talk of, which puts the suicide bombers into the battle.

“i” “i” “i” me, me, me. Is this not the essence of anarchism? In just two shot sentences alone you have managed to insert four references to yourself “my stance”, “i personally”, “i prefer” and “i am”. You should not be condemned for this, we are all a product of our circumstances including your philosophical relatives in Al Khieda, etc.

Hajduk,


who gives you guarrantee that members of HAMAS and HEZBOLLAH dont do terrorist religion suicide attacks?

This has been answered before. If you want guarantees about something you might want to consult a ‘spiritual’ adviser, Marxism is about real material developments especially the relationships between classes and political formations and all Leninists should advise you to study the world as it is . And as it is there is no authoritative Leninist state or international movement that can formulate and coordinate interventions in revolutionary struggles. That is why Hamas and Hezbollah are taking the lead in some areas. That will not change until materialist philosophy and politics steps-up the struggle, insisting on a fight with all forms of reactionary idealism which looks for “guarantees” and lives in “hope”.
so you believe in god?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 05:23 pm
Can anyone tell me why my posts are being duplicated. And tell me how to prevent it from happening.
I can't think of any reason, presumably you're doing something weird at your wend to get double posts.


Ok you have declared for anarchism, but do you not realise how close that puts you to the very people you have spent your time denouncing on this site. It is the same frustrated individualistic and desperate “hope” (wish, trust, and FAITH!) that you talk of, which puts the suicide bombers into the battle.

:rolleyes: Most anarchists use a materialist analysis of the world and certainly are not "frustrated individualistic and desperate" - most anarchism (anarcho-syndicalism/-communism/-etc) is rooted in working class politics and not the politics of a few frustrated individuals.


“i” “i” “i” me, me, me. Is this not the essence of anarchism?

Not in the way I suspect you mean it, no. Of course anarchists are acting in their material interests, and these are the interests of their class (the working class).

[capstop]

so you believe in god?

I really don’t know what you are talking about hajduk.

I have answered all your question and responded to all reasonable criticisms together with some very silly ones.

Those of you who chose to put yourselves in the camp of the imperialist war parties by denouncing “terrorism” ( are actively joining in the “war on terror” against so called “rouge states” and the “axis of evil” nonsense that is poring out of every reactionary centre on earth) are assisting in the fascist slaughter.

This “plague on both your houses” ‘position’ that you take is not new, most of the European and US left took the same position when attacking the “evil empire”, and by doing so, helped to undermine the soviet union and other soviet states. Even though the main damage was done by the revisionist leadership in those states, including Stalin himself.

Just because existing nationalist revolutionary, reformist, Maoist and anarchistic suicidal religious movements need a better Marxist-Leninist understanding in their struggles, is no reason to join the capitalist propaganda against them. UNLESS of course, you are opportunistically appealing to the patriotic, chauvinistic and phoney pacifist, sentiments which have long been nurtured among the middle and working classes of Europe and America.

When the reactionary journalists, professors, and assorted government agents scan the left press and left web sites, they are content that there is no revolutionary opposition to them because the vast majority of the lefts repeat the “anti-terror” propaganda word for word, but do it behind a smokescreen of left sounding ‘positions’.

The very reason that political Islam is able to take such a leading position is because all traditions of the communist movement are incapable of developing theoretical and therefore the tactical leadership necessary to fight imperialism. It is pointless to blame Islam or any other tendency for this situation.

If communists will not face-up to the mistakes that began after 1924 (despite the many obvious advances) we are not going to be able to rebuild a leadership capable of confronting and finally destroying imperialism, and all reactionary ‘philosophies’ will continue to delay the world in its march to a communist future.




LENIN - “… It is not enough to take sides on the question of political slogans; it is also necessary to take sides on the question of an armed uprising. Those who are opposed to it, those who do not prepare for it, must be ruthlessly dismissed from the ranks of the supporters of the revolution, sent packing to its enemies, to the traitors or cowards; for the day is approaching when the force of events and the conditions of the struggle will compel us to distinguish between enemies and friends. It is not passivity that we should preach, not mere "waiting" until the troops "come over". No! We must proclaim from the house-tops the need for a bold offensive and armed attack, the necessity at such times of exterminating the persons in command of the enemy, and of a most energetic fight for the wavering troops.”

“… And the guerrilla warfare and mass terror that have been taking place throughout Russia practically without a break since December, will undoubtedly help the masses to learn the correct tactics of an uprising. Social Democracy must recognise this mass terror and incorporate it into its tactics, organising and controlling it of course, subordinating it to the interests and conditions of the working-class movement and the general revolutionary struggle.”

“… Without mercy, without sparing, we will kill our enemies in scores of hundreds. Let them be thousands; let them drown themselves in their own blood. For the blood of Lenin and Uritsky, Zinovief and Volodarski, let there be floods of the blood of the bourgeois - more blood, as much as possible.”
It is time to expose the cowardly and traitorous fake left leaders.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

C) It was zionist jews that began terrorist attacks in Palestine, not arabs

Interesting.

Could you provide documentation?

[hajduk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 02:38 pm

so you believe in god?

I really don’t know what you are talking about hajduk.

I have answered all your question and responded to all reasonable criticisms together with some very silly ones.

Those of you who chose to put yourselves in the camp of the imperialist war parties by denouncing “terrorism” ( are actively joining in the “war on terror” against so called “rouge states” and the “axis of evil” nonsense that is poring out of every reactionary centre on earth) are assisting in the fascist slaughter.

This “plague on both your houses” ‘position’ that you take is not new, most of the European and US left took the same position when attacking the “evil empire”, and by doing so, helped to undermine the soviet union and other soviet states. Even though the main damage was done by the revisionist leadership in those states, including Stalin himself.

Just because existing nationalist revolutionary, reformist, Maoist and anarchistic suicidal religious movements need a better Marxist-Leninist understanding in their struggles, is no reason to join the capitalist propaganda against them. UNLESS of course, you are opportunistically appealing to the patriotic, chauvinistic and phoney pacifist, sentiments which have long been nurtured among the middle and working classes of Europe and America.

When the reactionary journalists, professors, and assorted government agents scan the left press and left web sites, they are content that there is no revolutionary opposition to them because the vast majority of the lefts repeat the “anti-terror” propaganda word for word, but do it behind a smokescreen of left sounding ‘positions’.

The very reason that political Islam is able to take such a leading position is because all traditions of the communist movement are incapable of developing theoretical and therefore the tactical leadership necessary to fight imperialism. It is pointless to blame Islam or any other tendency for this situation.

If communists will not face-up to the mistakes that began after 1924 (despite the many obvious advances) we are not going to be able to rebuild a leadership capable of confronting and finally destroying imperialism, and all reactionary ‘philosophies’ will continue to delay the world in its march to a communist future.




LENIN - “… It is not enough to take sides on the question of political slogans; it is also necessary to take sides on the question of an armed uprising. Those who are opposed to it, those who do not prepare for it, must be ruthlessly dismissed from the ranks of the supporters of the revolution, sent packing to its enemies, to the traitors or cowards; for the day is approaching when the force of events and the conditions of the struggle will compel us to distinguish between enemies and friends. It is not passivity that we should preach, not mere "waiting" until the troops "come over". No! We must proclaim from the house-tops the need for a bold offensive and armed attack, the necessity at such times of exterminating the persons in command of the enemy, and of a most energetic fight for the wavering troops.”

“… And the guerrilla warfare and mass terror that have been taking place throughout Russia practically without a break since December, will undoubtedly help the masses to learn the correct tactics of an uprising. Social Democracy must recognise this mass terror and incorporate it into its tactics, organising and controlling it of course, subordinating it to the interests and conditions of the working-class movement and the general revolutionary struggle.”

“… Without mercy, without sparing, we will kill our enemies in scores of hundreds. Let them be thousands; let them drown themselves in their own blood. For the blood of Lenin and Uritsky, Zinovief and Volodarski, let there be floods of the blood of the bourgeois - more blood, as much as possible.”
It is time to expose the cowardly and traitorous fake left leaders.
are you take responsibility if something goes wrong CAPSTOP?
becouse if you do then i will agree with you.

[capstop]

hajduk,

All communists should take responsibility in their relations with Muslims and other religions, just as the Bolsheviks did.



World Muslim Population
General & Islamic Source
Continent Population in 2006 Muslim Population in 2006 Muslim Percentage
Africa 923.2 490.92 53.18
Asia 3970.5 1237.36 31.16
Europe 731.7 50.70 6.93
North America 331.7 7.12 2.15
South America 566.05 3.07 0.54
Oceania 33.54 0.60 1.79
Total 6313.78 1789.77 28.35


Muslim Population is increasing at the rate of 2.9%**
We are taking the rate of natural increase as 2% around the world. The Muslim population in 2007 is 1841.67 million.

**US Center For World Mission 1997 Report


Even taking accont of any inacuasy in this chart, does anyone think we can win against imperialism without fighting to win these workers to communism?


Below is an article from the ‘Socialist Review’ magazine. I have emphasised some passages I think relate to this discussion and while I have no affiliation with this group because of its reformist history, the article makes some good points and is well worth reading.


Bolsheviks and Islam: Religious Rights
Feature Article by Dave Crouch, December 2003
Socialists can learn from how the Bolsheviks approached the Muslims of the Russian empire.
The Russian Revolution of 1917 took place in an empire that was home to 16 million Muslims - some 10 percent of the population. The collapse of Tsarism radicalised Muslims, who demanded religious freedom and national rights denied them by the tsars.
On 1 May 1917 the First All-Russian Congress of Muslims took place in Moscow. After heated debates the congress voted for women's rights, making Russia's Muslims the first in the world to free women from the restrictions typical of Islamic societies of that period. At the same time, conservative Muslim leaders were hostile to revolutionary change. So how did the Russian Marxists, the Bolsheviks, respond?
Atheism
Marxism is a materialist worldview and so is thoroughly atheist. But because it understands religion to have roots in oppression and alienation, Marxist political parties don't demand that their members or supporters are atheists too. So atheism was never included in the Bolsheviks' programme. Indeed, they welcomed left wing Muslims into the communist parties (CPs). The Bolshevik leader Leon Trotsky noted in 1923 that in some former colonies as many as 15 percent of CP members were believers in Islam. He called them the 'raw revolutionary recruits who come knocking on our door'. In parts of Central Asia, Muslim membership was as high as 70 percent.

The Bolsheviks took a very different approach to Orthodox Christianity, the religion of the brutal Russian colonists and missionaries. Party policy in Central Asia, endorsed by Moscow, stated that 'freedom from religious prejudice' was a requirement for Russians only. So in 1922 over 1,500 Russians were kicked out of the Turkestan CP because of their religious convictions, but not a single Turkestani.

This was part of Bolshevik policy to try to make amends for the crimes of Tsarism in the former colonies. Bolshevik leaders such as Lenin and Trotsky understood that this was not only basic justice, but it was also necessary to clear the ground and enable class divisions in Muslim society to come to the fore.
After the revolution in 1917 of Russian colonists in Central Asia had gone over to the Bolsheviks, but had usurped the slogan of 'workers' power' and turned it against the mainly peasant local population. For two years the region was cut off from Moscow by the civil war, so these self styled 'Bolsheviks' had a free hand to carry on persecuting the indigenous peoples. As a result, the Basmachi movement - an armed Islamic revolt - broke out.

Lenin talked about the 'gigantic, all-historical' importance of setting things right. In 1920 he ordered 'sending to concentration camps in Russia all former members of the police, military, security forces, administration etc, who were products of the Tsarist era and who swarmed around Soviet power [in Central Asia] because they saw in it the perpetuation of Russian domination'.

Sacred Islamic monuments, books and objects looted by the tsars were returned to the mosques. Friday - the day of Muslim celebration - was declared to be the legal day of rest throughout Central Asia. A parallel court system was created in 1921, with Islamic courts administering justice in accordance with sharia laws. The aim was for people to have a choice between religious and revolutionary justice. A special Sharia Commission was established in the Soviet Commissariat of Justice.
Some sharia sentences that contravened Soviet law, such as stoning or the cutting off of hands, were forbidden. Decisions of the sharia courts that concerned these matters had to be confirmed by higher organs of justice.
Some sharia courts flouted the Soviet law, refusing to award divorces on the petition of a wife, or equating the testimony of two women to that of a man. So in December 1922 a decree introduced retrials in Soviet courts if one of the parties requested it. All the same, some 30 to 50 percent of all court cases were resolved by sharia courts, and in Chechnya the figure was 80 percent.

A parallel education system was also established. In 1922 rights to certain waqf (Islamic) properties were restored to Muslim administration, with the proviso that they were used for education. As a result, the system of madrassahs - religious schools - was extensive. In 1925 there were 1,500 madrassahs with 45,000 students in the Caucasus state of Dagestan, as opposed to just 183 state schools. In contrast, by November 1921 over 1,000 soviet schools had some 85,000 pupils in Central Asia - a modest number relative to the potential enrolment.

The Muslim Commissariat in Moscow oversaw Russia's policy towards Islam. Muslims with few communist credentials were granted leading positions in the commissariat. The effect was to split the Islamic movement. Historians agree that a majority of Muslim leaders supported the soviets, convinced that Soviet power meant religious liberty. There was serious discussion among Muslims of the similarity of Islamic values to socialist principles. Popular slogans of the time included: 'Long live Soviet power, long live the sharia!'; 'Religion, freedom and national independence!' Supporters of 'Islamic socialism' appealed to Muslims to set up soviets.
Alliances

The Bolsheviks made alliances with the Kazakh pan-Islamic group the Ush-Zhuz (which joined the CP in 1920), the Persian pan-Islamist guerrillas in the Jengelis, and the Vaisites, a Sufi brotherhood. In Dagestan, Soviet power was established largely thanks to the partisans of the Muslim leader Ali-Hadji Akushinskii.
In Chechnya the Bolsheviks won over Ali Mataev, the head of a powerful Sufi order, who led the Chechen Revolutionary Committee. In the Red Army the 'sharia squadrons' of the mullah Katkakhanov numbered tens of thousands.

At the Baku Congress of the Peoples of the East in September 1920, Russian Bolshevik leaders issued a call for a 'holy war' against Western imperialism. Two years later the Fourth Congress of the Communist International endorsed alliances with pan-Islamism against imperialism.
Moscow deliberately employed non-Russian troops to fight in Central Asia - Tatar, Bashkir, Kazakh, Uzbek and Turkmen detachments were pitted against the anti-Bolshevik invaders. Tatar soldiers in the Red Army exceeded 50 percent of the troops on the Eastern and Turkestan fronts of the civil war.

The Red Army was only one aspect of thoroughgoing efforts to ensure indigenous peoples themselves controlled the new autonomous republics in the former colonies.
Firstly this meant kicking out the Russian and Cossack colonists - in the Caucasus and Central Asia colonists were encouraged to return to Russia, and in some places forcibly evicted. The Russian language ceased to dominate, and native languages returned to schools, government and publishing.

A massive programme of what would now be called 'affirmative action' was introduced. Indigenous people were promoted to leading positions in the state and communist parties, and given preference for employment over Russians. Universities were established to train a new generation of non-Russian national leaders.

However, efforts to guarantee religious freedom and national rights were constantly undermined by the weak economy. The isolation of the Russian Revolution meant that desperate poverty dragged the regime down. Already in 1922 Moscow's subsidy to Central Asia had to be cut and many state schools had to close. Teachers abandoned their jobs because of failure to pay salaries. This meant Muslim schools were the only alternative. 'When you can't provide bread, you don't dare take away the substitute,' said commissar for education Lunacharsky.
Sharia courts had all their funding removed in late 1923 to early 1924. But economic factors already obstructed Muslims from bringing their grievances to court. If a young woman refused to enter an arranged or polygamous marriage, for example, she had a slim chance of being able to feed herself because there were no jobs and nowhere else to live.

On top of this, the Stalinist bureaucracy was gaining a stranglehold on the revolution. Increasingly it attacked so called 'nationalist deviations' in the non-Russian republics and encouraged a rebirth of Russian chauvinism. From the mid-1920s the Stalinists began planning an all-out attack on Islam under the banner of women's rights. The slogan of the campaign was khudzhum - which means storming or assault.

The khudzhum entered its mass action phase on 8 March 1927 - international women's day. At mass meetings women were called upon to unveil. Small groups of native women came to the podium and threw their veils on bonfires. This grotesque plan turned Marxism on its head. It was far from the days when Bolshevik women activists veiled themselves to conduct political work in the mosques. It was a million miles from Lenin's instruction that 'we are absolutely opposed to giving offence to religious conviction'.

Inevitably there was a backlash against the khudzhum. Thousands of Muslim children, especially girls, were withdrawn from Soviet schools and resigned from the Young Communist League. Unveiled women were attacked in the street, including ferocious rapes and thousands of killings.

The assault on Islam marked the beginning of a sharp break with the socialist policies of October 1917. As the Soviet Union launched a programme of forced industrialisation, Muslim national and religious leaders were physically eliminated and Islam was driven underground. The dream of religious freedom was buried in the Great Terror of the 1930s.

Socialist Review stands in a tradition that totally rejects the Stalinist approach to Islam. But in the early years of the revolution the Bolsheviks were successful at winning Muslims to fight for socialism. We can learn from and be inspired by their achievements.

Long Live 'Islamic socialism'

[spartan]

:lol: islamic socialism! socialism isnt socialism if it has the name of a reactionary institution such as religion before its name!

[hajduk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 06:33 pm
hajduk,

All communists should take responsibility in their relations with Muslims and other religions, just as the Bolsheviks did.



i didnt ask comrades i ask you becouse you whant to get involve with HAMMAS and HEZBOLLAH
do you take responsibility if anything goes wrong?

[capstop]

islamic socialism! socialism isnt socialism if it has the name of a reactionary institution such as religion before its name!

Tell us some more about your pure “anarchist-socialism“, unsullied by any contact with reality, who’s record of victories over any capitalist state are zero. You have lost even this argument in the way your “anarchist-socialism” loses everything, except that is, your achievements in making workers laugh at your sorry exploits. You head is full of good intentions comrade, but your silly argumentativeness is nothing but childish posturing. Unless you can put together an argument that seriously challenges my main point (that communists should be making propaganda among Muslim workers and not joining in the imperialist attack on them and their fight for justice) then it is a waste of everyone’s time discussing with you. Do you really have nothing better to do?

[spartan]

religion isnt reality capstop nor should we leftists ever sucumb to believing that. for fucks sake these people believe in angels and fairys! and i do agree that we should be making communist propoganda amongst them and educate them but does that automatically mean that they will be fighting for communism instead of allah? and i by not supporting these groups who happen to be homophobic, sexist, racist, etc am hardly helping imperialism. i am truely sorry if you thought that i thought we should abandon them completly against there fight against israel i just meant groups like hamas and hezbollah. if there is a sizeable left wing resistance in the holy land fighting israeli and capitalist imperialism then i would happily support it capstop.

[redarmyfaction38]

RELIGION AND MARXISM!

let's slip into a whole new discussion here!

imo, you can be a marxist and hold religious views, however, if you put your religious prejudices above the international interests of the working class you cannot be a marxist nor can you even begin to pretend that you have the interests of humanity at heart.
lets not get confused between class interest and religious fundamentalism.
hamas and the plo (when they were in their "revolutionary" phase) played the same game; they used the aspirations, the discontent and willingness of an international working class to support their fight for "freedom".
in reality, once the plo gained recognition as representatives of the "palestinion nation", they were sucked into the bourgeouis political game.
hamas has used "socialist" ideology, i.e. free health are and education to draw workers to its side.
at the same time it has demanded from those workers, the ultimate sacrifice, not in the name of world wide workers democracy, but in the name of islamic supremacy and a chance of "a place in heaven".it has also demanded the destruction of the state of israel! whilst some might have missed it, there are many thousands of workers in israel, a large minority of tyem wish to see an end to the war on palestine.
do we just dismiss those workers as "casualities of war"? or do we welcome their contribution to the struggle against multi national capital?

[RNK]

There is no universal contradiction between religion and socialism. Most of the reactonary values of religion -- homophobia, sexism, etc -- are the domain of all fundamentalist religious spheres, be it Christian, Jew or Islamic.

Fundamentalist, ie, reactionary religion is, of course, our enemy. However, for those that can keep their religious beliefs and practices to themselves, and so long as those practices do not infringe on the individual and mass freedom of workers, then there really is no contradiction. I can fight for worker's freedom, kill the enemies of the proletariat, and help the revolutionary movement, and then go home and pray. They do not have to affect one another. It's when it does that it becomes our enemy.

And as a disclaimer, I am in no way religious. I am atheist, and my personal view of religion is that it is a stupidity. But not inherently counter-revolutionary.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 03:53 am
There is no universal contradiction between religion and socialism. Most of the reactonary values of religion -- homophobia, sexism, etc -- are the domain of all fundamentalist religious spheres, be it Christian, Jew or Islamic.

Fundamentalist, ie, reactionary religion is, of course, our enemy. However, for those that can keep their religious beliefs and practices to themselves, and so long as those practices do not infringe on the individual and mass freedom of workers, then there really is no contradiction. I can fight for worker's freedom, kill the enemies of the proletariat, and help the revolutionary movement, and then go home and pray. They do not have to affect one another. It's when it does that it becomes our enemy.

And as a disclaimer, I am in no way religious. I am atheist, and my personal view of religion is that it is a stupidity. But not inherently counter-revolutionary.
yes that is what i try to explain to CAPSTOP but he dont wanna to listen and that is why i put this links

http://www.asiandubfoundation.com/adf_home_fs.htm

http://youtube.com/watch?v=DvAuqYFVrqI
http://youtube.com/watch?v=jywa9oK3ytU&mode=related&search=
http://youtube.com/watch?v=PBrcWkWNnFY&mode=related&search=
http://youtube.com/watch?v=GBKdwtwAqZI&mode=related&search=
http://youtube.com/watch?v=49LWy8rzW6E&mode=related&search=

those gyus are believers but i have no problem to fight with them on same side.... they have logistic center where we can connect working class from any side of the world including all muslim organisations which share same ideas about revolution like we do

[capstop]

religion isnt reality capstop nor should we leftists ever sucumb to believing that. for fucks sake these people believe in angels and fairys!
Many of us may “believe” that the beliefs of religion are not a reality, but religion itself is most defiantly a social and political reality and one which you have been attacking with great energy on this thread. Do you normally give such regard to things you don’t believe exist?


and i do agree that we should be making communist propoganda amongst them and educate them

Before you begin “making communist propaganda amongst them and educate them” as you put it, you might want to know that if you were to drop the arrogant antagonistic approach you might even learn something useful yourself! Such as, a religious people may “believe” that there is a god but can’t prove there is, to you, and you may “believe” that there isn’t a god but you can’t prove there isn’t, to them. So what are you going to do about that while you are “educating them”?


but does that automatically mean that they will be fighting for communism instead of allah?

Why should we expect such important things to happen automatically without a protracted struggle. This is similar to the argument that That depends on lots of things, including whether we are honest, principled and persuasive propagandist or not, because the truth is that belief in god or not, can only be based “on the balance of probabilities”. On the evidence available we can all only truthfully say, ‘either there probably isn’t a god or there probably is a god‘. We atheists say there probably isn’t, but we can’t prove that there isn’t, yet.


and i by not supporting these groups who happen to be homophobic, sexist, racist, etc am hardly helping imperialism.

It is by ATTACKING other people in struggles that you give comfort to the imperialists. For example, If a group of workers in the US or Europe go on strike, do you start by ATTACKING the workers for their “homophobic, sexist, racist, etc” (and other sectional attitudes)? (of which there are plenty) and give ammunition to the capitalist press. Or do you explain that capitalist exploitation is the root of all conflict and oppression and begin by attacking the exploiting bosses, the traitorous scabs, the brutality of the police and the corrupt connivance of the unions and government? By all means criticise the backwardness of the leadership, but that is best done with a partisan approach, not by a sectarian broadside form afar.


i am truely sorry if you thought that i thought we should abandon them completly against there fight against israel i just meant groups like hamas and hezbollah. if there is a sizeable left wing resistance in the holy land fighting israeli and capitalist imperialism then i would happily support it capstop.

It would be wrong to assume that “left wing resistance” anywhere “sizeable” or otherwise is more revolutionary than Hamas and Hezbollah, although they might well be eventually. With all groups, parties, unions and sections of the working class, the key point of is, to what extent do they understand and explain the necessity for the dictatorship of the proletariat? Because without that understanding, none of them are going to be successful ultimately which is why we need to make our interventions with them and their leaders.
.

hajduk,

Does ADF understand and explain the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat?
And are you going to explain it to them?

[hajduk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 08:56 pm

hajduk,

Does ADF understand and explain the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat?
And are you going to explain it to them?
well if you listen what they singing i think they understand need for freedom not for any kind of dictatorship becouse dictatorship is contraproductive and that will be easy to explain to them

[ComradeR]

Originally posted by hajduk+September 04, 2007 10:58 am--> (hajduk @ September 04, 2007 10:58 am)
[email protected] 03, 2007 08:56 pm

hajduk,

Does ADF understand and explain the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat?
And are you going to explain it to them?
well if you listen what they singing i think they understand need for freedom not for any kind of dictatorship becouse dictatorship is contraproductive and that will be easy to explain to them [/b]
You do relies that by dictatorship of the proletariat we mean the dictatorship of a class and not of a single individual don't you? A reverse of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie that we live under now, to quote Lenin,

The dictatorship of the proletariat alone can emancipate humanity from the oppression of capital, from the lies, falsehood and hypocrisy of bourgeois democracy — democracy for the rich — and establish democracy for the poor, that is, make the blessings of democracy really accessible to the workers and poor peasants, whereas now (even in the most democratic — bourgeois — republic) the blessings of democracy are, in fact, inaccessible to the vast majority of working people.

[capstop]

This bit from Lenin is also applicable to the debate we are having here about where and how to carry-on our work.

SHOULD REVOLUTIONARIES WORK
IN REACTIONARY TRADE UNIONS ?
"…
And we cannot but regard as equally ridiculous and childish nonsense the pompous, very learned, and frightfully revolutionary disquisitions of the German Lefts to the effect that Communists cannot and should not work in reactionary trade unions, that it is permissible to turn down such work, that it is necessary to leave the trade unions and to create an absolutely brand-new, immaculate "Workers' Union' invented by very nice (and, probably, for the most part very youthful) Communists, etc., etc.
Capitalism inevitably leaves Socialism the legacy, on the one hand, of old trade and craft distinctions among the workers, distinctions evolved in the course of centuries; and, on the other hand, trade unions which only very slowly, in the course of years and years, can and will develop into broader, industrial unions with less of the craft union about them (embracing whole industries, and not only crafts, trades and occupations), and later proceed, through these industrial unions, to eliminate the division of labour among people, to educate, school and train people with an all-round development and an all-round training, people who know how to do everything. Communism is advancing and must advance towards this goal, and will reach it, but only after very many years. To attempt in practice today to anticipate this future result of a fully developed, fully stabilized and formed, fully expanded and mature Communism would be like trying to teach higher mathematics to a four-year-old child.
We can (and must) begin to build Socialism, not with imaginary human material, nor with human material specially prepared by us, but with the human material bequeathed to us by capitalism. True, that is very "difficult," but no other approach to this task is serious enough to warrant discussion. … "(Emphasis added)

This will be true of all kinds of anti-imperialist movements on an international scale. “Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater”!

[hajduk]

by know you must find out that any kind of dictatorship is contraproductive no matter for what you struggle for, becouse you see what Staljin do with GULAG and that will imperialist use against us if we accepted that
so for me it is not logic to make dictatorship becouse then we became same as imperialist
POWER CHANGE THE MAN
ABSOLUTE POWER ABSOLUTLY CHANGE THE MAN

DEATH TO FASCISM FREEDOM FOR THE PEOPLE

[capstop]

“Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely”
An observation that a person’s sense of morality lessens as his or her power increases. The statement was made by Lord Acton, a British historian of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

As a Lord of the realm and with involvement in the first Vatican council, he should know all about power. Acton spoke of his work as a “theodicy,” a defence of God's goodness and providential care of the world. And you quote this Lordas an authority and an example to “THE PEOPLE”.

“DEATH TO FASCISM FREEDOM FOR THE PEOPLE” you say. Tell us how to bring “death” to fascism without the dictatorship of the WORKING CLASS "people."

[ComradeR]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 04:42 pm
by know you must find out that any kind of dictatorship is contraproductive no matter for what you struggle for, becouse you see what Staljin do with GULAG and that will imperialist use against us if we accepted that
so for me it is not logic to make dictatorship becouse then we became same as imperialist
POWER CHANGE THE MAN
ABSOLUTE POWER ABSOLUTLY CHANGE THE MAN
Somehow i think you are missing the point, when we talk about the DoP we are not talking about a dictatorship as in absolute power held by a single individual. But class dictatorship where the interests of the ruling class are carried out, what we live under now is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie which often takes the form of a democratic republic, but is in reality a farce as it is in fact a plutocracy. Under the DoP a true democracy is realized, it serves the class interests of the proletariat (the majority) rather then the bourgeoisie (the minority). I think you are just scared of the word dictatorship even though class dictatorship is far from what you are imagining. Under Stalin the DoP was smashed and replaced by a dictatorship of the party controlled by Stalin.

DEATH TO FASCISM FREEDOM FOR THE PEOPLE
Things like this are impossible without the DoP.

[hajduk]

COMRADER AND CAPSTOP you are right about when you say that we have to make some kind strong fight and yes i scared of the word dictatorship and with HAMMAS and HEZBOLLAH that dictatorship will become dictatorship becouse imperialists have big influence on those organisations no matter how big god will we have to with them make dictatorship of working class
my point is that we cant make dictatorship connecting with organisations which are under control of imperialists
maybe you dont understand but HEZBOLLAH made succes only becouse imperialists let them to win on elections so by that capitalists have full control over them
IN POLITIC NOTHING HAPPENED BY ACCIDENT
EVEN SOMETHING HAPPENED BY ACCIDENT IT IS PLANED TO HAPPENED LIKE THAT

death of fascism we can make only if we trust ownselfs and comrades on this forum

[capstop]

hajduk,

What evidence do you have that Hezbollah or Hamas are currently being influenced or manipulated by the US or Israel? If you have such evidence, could you direct us to it or post it here. This would be a very important revelation that would have considerable implications for our understanding of ALL post WWII political redevelopments.

[spartan]

COMRADER AND CAPSTOP you are right about when you say that we have to make some kind strong fight and yes i scared of the word dictatorship and with HAMMAS and HEZBOLLAH that dictatorship will become dictatorship becouse imperialists have big influence on those organisations no matter how big god will we have to with them make dictatorship of working class
my point is that we cant make dictatorship connecting with organisations which are under control of imperialists
maybe you dont understand but HEZBOLLAH made succes only becouse imperialists let them to win on elections so by that capitalists have full control over them
IN POLITIC NOTHING HAPPENED BY ACCIDENT
EVEN SOMETHING HAPPENED BY ACCIDENT IT IS PLANED TO HAPPENED LIKE THAT
well needless to say hajduk but i think you are wrong. though the issue you bring up about certain nations supporting rouge elements which are anti everything they stand for is not new and in some instances happens but i dont think this is the situation here comrade.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 05:34 pm
hajduk,

What evidence do you have that Hezbollah or Hamas are currently being influenced or manipulated by the US or Israel? If you have such evidence, could you direct us to it or post it here. This would be a very important revelation that would have considerable implications for our understanding of ALL post WWII political redevelopments.
becouse if it not under control the situation in the state are been normal which is not

[capstop]

I don’t really think that was an answer to my question. Can you point us to the evidence or not? I wasn’t asking for your opinion I was asking for the evidence that helped you to shape your opinion. So, what evidence do you have that Hezbollah or Hamas are currently being influenced or manipulated by the US or Israel?

[capstop]

I don’t really think that was an answer to my question. Can you point us to the evidence or not? I wasn’t asking for your opinion I was asking for the evidence that helped you to shape your opinion. So, what evidence do you have that Hezbollah or Hamas are currently being influenced or manipulated by the US or Israel?

[hajduk]

look if we say that there is no influences from capitalist then stabilisation of all area are been easy to make but becouse there you got lot organisations,private firms etc. who hide under politics and projects other words "busines people" who dont give fuck about people and take care only about "busines" and nothing else you know that and i know that
CNN broadcast interwiew with CUBAN5 i think they deserve more our support
look CAPSTOP you didnt answer on my question ARE YOU TAKE RESPONSINBLE IF SOMETHING GOES WRONG?
but nevermind i say this if you take repsonsible if something goes wrong and i mean YOU and nobody else i am with you
you say that we must all of us take responsible and that is okay but you will take reponsible becouse you whant to convince us in that kind of struggle for revolution and this is the only way for all of us to be shore that you will always whatch that something not goes wrong.....

THINGS NOT JUST HAPPENED
THINGS ARE MADE TO HAPPENED

KENNEDY

[hajduk]

so capstop?

[capstop]

look CAPSTOP you didnt answer on my question ARE YOU TAKE RESPONSINBLE IF SOMETHING GOES WRONG?
but nevermind i say this if you take repsonsible if something goes wrong and i mean YOU and nobody else i am with you

I am not asking you or anyone else to support me, I am asking everyone to examine world developments from the standpoint of revolutionary communist workers who are working for a perspective of taking power, not some reformist middle-class academics who want to pour pessimistic piss on everything. I am suggesting that everyone should discuss with everyone on this site, or in their kitchen, bar room, bed room, church, mosque, school, street, etc,etc and build the revolutionary understanding that is going to make sure our class smashes capitalism.


you say that we must all of us take responsible and that is okay but you will take reponsible becouse you whant to convince us in that kind of struggle for revolution and this is the only way for all of us to be shore that you will always whatch that something not goes wrong.....
“always watch that something won’t go wrong..…”
I don’t want to get personal but, “always watch that something won’t go wrong..…”?
With attitude like that on the team we will never get anything done.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 10:22 pm

look CAPSTOP you didnt answer on my question ARE YOU TAKE RESPONSINBLE IF SOMETHING GOES WRONG?
but nevermind i say this if you take repsonsible if something goes wrong and i mean YOU and nobody else i am with you

I am not asking you or anyone else to support me, I am asking everyone to examine world developments from the standpoint of revolutionary communist workers who are working for a perspective of taking power, not some reformist middle-class academics who want to pour pessimistic piss on everything. I am suggesting that everyone should discuss with everyone on this site, or in their kitchen, bar room, bed room, church, mosque, school, street, etc,etc and build the revolutionary understanding that is going to make sure our class smashes capitalism.


you say that we must all of us take responsible and that is okay but you will take reponsible becouse you whant to convince us in that kind of struggle for revolution and this is the only way for all of us to be shore that you will always whatch that something not goes wrong.....
“always watch that something won’t go wrong..…”
I don’t want to get personal but, “always watch that something won’t go wrong..…”?
With attitude like that on the team we will never get anything done.
yes that is what i am talkin about
to discus with other comraders about connecting with HAMMAS or HEZBOLLAH

look my point about your responsibility is that you know lot of things about HEZBOLLAH and HAMMAS and how we can make struggle more efective
so in that manner logicly is that you bee some kind a leader in this

[capstop]

Oh, ok, now I understand. You will be the first to know when I get something new, but there is nothing to stop anyone else making their own interventions. The more the better!

[hajduk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 11:48 am
Oh, ok, now I understand. You will be the first to know when I get something new, but there is nothing to stop anyone else making their own interventions. The more the better!
DEATH TO FASCISM FREEDOM FOR THE PEOPLE comrader capstop
my point is that we must be very very careful becouse we dont know much (except you) what goes on beetwen them becouse that is like walking on the eggs

[capstop]

Hizbullah declares solidarity with the SSNP warning against political manipulation

Hizbullah declares solidarity with the SSNP warning against political manipulation

Pre-accusations confirm the ruling group`s dangerous intentions to exploit the incident politically

Source: Moqawama.org, 22-12-2006

Hizbullah issued a statement regarding the arrest of a number of members of the Syrian Socialist Nationalist Party (SSNP), which said: "We have accurately followed the happenings of this incident in connection with the arrest of individuals, the confiscation of weapons, as well as the accusations spread by the ruling authority before the investigation has even started. Yet, this falls in line with their habit of issuing ready made judgments."

The statement added: "We must point out the following in this regard:

First: Our brothers in the SSNP have confirmed that the weapons in store are old and belong to the previous phase. This state does not belong to the SSNP alone, but also to parties in the ruling team who kept caches of various weapons since the civil war until after the signing of the Taif Accord.

Second: The rapid passing of judgments and spreading pre-accusations, affirms that the ruling team possesses a dangerous intention to exploit the incident politically, against the SSNP, and therefore the opposition forces behind it. This is also confirmed by the timing the stored weapons were raided, when their location has been known to the security forces for several months.

Third: That Hizbullah reaffirms its support and solidarity with our brothers and comrades in the SSNP, calls for a just and sound investigation with the individuals arrested, and warns of any political manipulation in this sensitive issue that aims to undermine the party, its great nationalistic and patriotic position as well as its known history in the struggle."


Wikipedia

Syrian Socialist Nationalist Party

The party was seen in these years as a right-wing, anti-Communist and pro-Western organisation.[8] During the Lebanese civil war of 1958 party members participated on the Government side, fighting against the Arab nationalist rebels in northern Lebanon and in Mount Lebanon.[9] The party was subsequently legalised.
In 1961 the party launched an abortive coup attempt in Lebanon, resulting in renewed proscription and the imprisonment of many of its leaders.[citation needed] In prison the SSNP militants read and discussed politics and reconsidered their ideology, coming under the influence of Marxism and other left-wing ideas.[citation needed] By the beginning of the 1970s, the party had undergone a considerable ideological transformation, and was seen as decidedly left-wing and no longer deeply inimical to Arab nationalism. These ideological turns, however, resulted in splits, and there are now two rival groups laying claim to Saadeh's mantle.[citation needed]

[hajduk]

CAPSTOP can you see is there any possibility that our disscusion about this thread is somehow connected with new video of Osama Bin Laden?
tell me that i am paranoid but check it out please

[capstop]

hajduk,

CAPSTOP can you see is there any possibility that our disscusion about this thread is somehow connected with new video of Osama Bin Laden?
tell me that i am paranoid but check it out please
Are you are referring to the Bin Laden’s comments about capitalism? Can you be a bit more specific?

[hajduk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 06:51 pm
hajduk,

CAPSTOP can you see is there any possibility that our disscusion about this thread is somehow connected with new video of Osama Bin Laden?
tell me that i am paranoid but check it out please
Are you are referring to the Bin Laden’s comments about capitalism? Can you be a bit more specific?
its interesting coincidence that few weeks after we speak about connecting with HAMMAS suddenly Bin Laden shows up on TV
what do you think?

[capstop]

its interesting coincidence that few weeks after we speak about connecting with HAMMAS suddenly Bin Laden shows up on TV
what do you think?

Well is its not really a few weeks is it? A week at most I'de say, without counting.

Perhaps he is reading and taking notice of our discussion. :D

Seriously though, I am personally not one bit surprised at the content of his speech (and I’m not trying to be a smarty pants) What is forcing a convergence (generally and not necessarily specifically) of understanding is the capitalist economic crisis and the imperialist war response to that crisis. It is more and more going to force every one on a fast journey of discovery about the world and the other people on it. And there is bound to be agreement between social forces which previously appeared to have nothing in common.

Now, agreement about what is happening does not mean agreement about the ‘solutions’, that will be governed in the end by the ‘class positions’ taken the individuals, parties, movements and classes.

I haven’t the slightest idea whether Bin Laden, Hamas, Hisbollah and the communist party of Turkey for example, or south American ‘socialists’ have any contact or understanding with each other. I would be more inclined to think that they exhibit contradictions between or within the Islamic or religious tradition generally, which are also brought on by their responses to the economic crisis and war.

But it would be astonishing if the mass of people on earth were not now beginning to start making some general concussions about all this, which are reflected in all their various ‘leaderships.’ This is also true of the European and US and South American left etc.

Of course everyone starts the revolution with historical, cultural, and sectarian traditions which seem incompatible with each other. We can often see sectarian small mindedness on this sight as well as among religious, and nationalist formations, the crisis will exacerbate the class contradictions within existing groups etc, compelling individuals, groups, parties and classes into sharp antagonistic blocks facing one and other in decisive battles that will determine the future of the world.

I have no reason to think that Bin Laden is excluded from this all this, and with the exception of discussing it in terms of "gods will", I would assume that he and his mates discuss things in much the same way as we do. There are no Chinese Walls between people.

And that is bad news for imperialism.

[hajduk]

cool capstop
continue to inform us anything you find out about HAMMAS
and probably Bin Laden read this :D

joke
George W. Bush called Bin Laden in America to show him how America is military powerful state.And he called him to came in Pentagon.Bush show him logistic center of Pentagon and when they sitting inside Bush say to Bin Laden:
"Bin Laden choose any button from control panel and press"
Bin Laden press the button and over control panel big screen turn on and on monitor Bin Laden see the biggest building complex fall down in huge explosion.
After few months Bin Laden call Bush to show him how is Afganistan powerful military state.
Bush say to him:"But Laden what if someone try to kill me?"
Bin Laden say to him:"Dont worry we will masking you in beduin and no one will recognise you".
Bush came to Afganistan and Bin Laden bring him in some cave somewhere in Afganistan mountins.Inside the cave on the rock wall was old russian monitors which stay after the Afganistan struggle with Russia.
Bin Laden say to Bush:"Choose any button from control panel and press"
Bush pressed one button but nothing happened except that those old monitors turn off.He pressed another and another and another,but nothing happened.
Bush say nervous to Bin Laden:"This is nothing,i just waste my time here, i go home".
Bin Laden say to him:"Which home?" :D

[hajduk]

cool capstop
continue to inform us anything you find out about HAMMAS
and probably Bin Laden read this :D

joke
George W. Bush called Bin Laden in America to show him how America is military powerful state.And he called him to came in Pentagon.Bush show him logistic center of Pentagon and when they sitting inside Bush say to Bin Laden:
"Bin Laden choose any button from control panel and press"
Bin Laden press the button and over control panel big screen turn on and on monitor Bin Laden see the biggest building complex fall down in huge explosion.
After few months Bin Laden call Bush to show him how is Afganistan powerful military state.
Bush say to him:"But Laden what if someone try to kill me?"
Bin Laden say to him:"Dont worry we will masking you in beduin and no one will recognise you".
Bush came to Afganistan and Bin Laden bring him in some cave somewhere in Afganistan mountins.Inside the cave on the rock wall was old russian monitors which stay after the Afganistan struggle with Russia.
Bin Laden say to Bush:"Choose any button from control panel and press"
Bush pressed one button but nothing happened except that those old monitors turn off.He pressed another and another and another,but nothing happened.
Bush say nervous to Bin Laden:"This is nothing,i just waste my time here, i go home".
Bin Laden say to him:"Which home?" :D

[capstop]

:lol: :lol: :lol: If only! ;)

This one is even worse than that! :D

Polish priest is digging in his garden and finds a small blue glass bottle.
He rubs the dirt off the bottle and a BIG GENIE pops out! (spirit)?

BIG GENIE: “Oh master what is your first wish?”

Polish Priest: “ I want the Chinese red army to invade Poland and steal all our wealth.”

BIG GENIE: “OK, what is your second wish?

Polish Priest: “ I want the Chinese red army to invade Poland and burn all the crops and poison the water.”

BIG GENIE: “OK, what is your third wish?

Polish Priest: “ I want the Chinese red army to invade Poland and castrate all the young men, rape all women and kidnap all children back to China.”

BIG GENIE: OK. “It is not my job to ask you any other questions, but these are strange wishes. Why are you asking for this?”

Polish Priest: “Because they will have to cross Russia six times!”

[hajduk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 06:09 pm
:lol: :lol: :lol: If only! ;)

This one is even worse than that! :D

Polish priest is digging in his garden and finds a small blue glass bottle.
He rubs the dirt off the bottle and a BIG GENIE pops out! (spirit)?

BIG GENIE: “Oh master what is your first wish?”

Polish Priest: “ I want the Chinese red army to invade Poland and steal all our wealth.”

BIG GENIE: “OK, what is your second wish?

Polish Priest: “ I want the Chinese red army to invade Poland and burn all the crops and poison the water.”

BIG GENIE: “OK, what is your third wish?

Polish Priest: “ I want the Chinese red army to invade Poland and castrate all the young men, rape all women and kidnap all children back to China.”

BIG GENIE: OK. “It is not my job to ask you any other questions, but these are strange wishes. Why are you asking for this?”

Polish Priest: “Because they will have to cross Russia six times!”
:D i know this joke
in Bosnia we have version about chetnicks and slovenians
Chetnik say to Slovenian
"Slovenian what do you think if we attack you and you make brave defend and after few month we attack you again and again but you all the time bravely defend your self"?
Slovenian told to chetnick:
"Why you will attack if we defend self every time?"
"Do you know how many times we have to cross over Croatia"? :D

[capstop]

I found this from ‘International Viewpoint the Trotskyist Forth International’

It tends to confirm what I have been arguing will be the situation in many places on the planet. We have to break out of and oppose the sectarian mindset that dominates not only the communist movement, but the entire anti-imperialist movement one way or another.

That does not mean making stupid opportunist compromises, but it does mean studding world developments themselves, as they are, and not through the grotesquely compromised factional mirrors that pass themselves off as ‘programs’.



IV Online magazine : IV383 - November 2006
Lebanon
Hezbollah and ResistanceThe viewpoint of the Lebanese Communist Party
Marie Nassif-Debs

Question: The Lebanese Communist Party is a secular party, engaged in the national resistance. What have been its relations with the Hezbollah?
Marie Nassif-Debs: There have been big changes in this relation over the last 20 years. Twenty years ago the Hezbollah began by waging a merciless war against communists. I think that the Islamic fundamentalist tendency, which was especially represented by the Da’wa - an Islamic fundamentalist party which had backing from Iraq and in Iran, made up not only of Shi’ites, but with a majority of Shi’ites - saw in the PCL a party that was opposed to it on everything. It wanted to suppress any idea of secularism, openness, different philosophy, and so on.

Relations began to be very tense and the Hezbollah went so far as to kill several of our comrades, especially intellectuals, cadres from the universities. For example, they killed Mahdi Amil, who had worked on the problems on colonialism and of religion and who was a very great intellectual, a very great philosopher.
And there was also Hassan Mroue, a great philosopher who wrote a very important book, which has been translated into French, and whose title is “The Materialist Tendencies of Islam”. He had begun by being a sheikh, he wanted to study in Najaf in Iraq. There he discovered that it wasn’t what he was looking for and he became a communist. He wrote many books.
There were small scale combats, in Beirut, in the western Bekaa, in several regions, in places where there was a relationship of forces such that one side could suppress the other. That also helped the Syrian tendency to eliminate communists from the national resistance.

There was a certain understanding between the Syrian forces and the Hezbollah, and also other forces. We were hunted, there were comrades who went to carry out resistance operations and they were killed - they had been shot in the back.
After that relations evolved in a positive way. In the Israeli prisons and camps, the communists and Hezbollah were side by side. A majority of communists and fewer Hezbollah. They got to know each other there and that created relations between the cadres of the two organizations. And after they were released the relations more or less evolved.

Furthermore, on the level of its thinking, the Hezbollah has evolved, especially after the election of Hassan Nasrallah to the position of general secretary. Because - this is a point of view that many comrades share with me - he is much more Arab than Muslim, in other words, he looks at things through the eyes of an Arab: he doesn’t want to liberate Jerusalem because it iss one of Islam’s holy places, but because the Palestinians have to go back to the land of their ancestors, have to have their own state... He has a vision that is different from that of his predecessors. Then we had relations that were more or less mitigated, sometimes good, sometimes bad.
And now?
Our relations have especially evolved since the last Israeli aggression, where we ourselves called for the formation of a national resistance front and formed militias which opposed the entry of Israel into several villages, including certain attempts by Israeli commandos to enter them - in the Bekaa, near Baalbeck, where we stopped the commando which wanted to move into Jameliyyah, a village with a communist majority. We had three comrades killed there.
We are still a little bit skeptical in our relations with the Hezbollah, because up to now there are points of dispute between us. For example as concerns the elimination of the confessional regime [1], they don’t have a very clear position, although they have evolved.
We had a difference with them in the summer of 2005, after the withdrawal of Syrian forces. During the legislative elections the Hezbollah felt it necessary, to protect itself from Resolution 1559 [2], to make an alliance with those who awere pro-Syrian and who subsequently became transformed into pro-Americans, i.e. the Lebanese Forces, Hariri (Mustaqbal) and Joumblatt’s PSP. It is thanks to this alliance that the March 14 forces [3] - Hassan Nasrallah admits it - won a majority and were able to form a government. Because if the Hezbollah had made an alliance with the communists and with certain Aounists [4], that majority wouldn’t have existed.

So we consider the Hezbollah as a party of resistance, which is part of a movement of national liberation on the national and Arab level, but we have differences with it on how to resolve the political and economic situation in Lebanon. But on these questions also it has evolved, especially over the last four months: it took part in a very real way in the demonstration on May 10. However, up to now they have not taken a position on many problems. They have two ministers including the Minister of Energy. At the moment they are talking about privatizing electricity in Lebanon, and he is a bit lukewarm, he is not combative.
The second problem is that the Hezbollah has not taken a position on the question of the regime, of political reforms that go into the direction of secularism and modernization. These are two essential points of dispute. And we have a third one: we were against the re-election of the President of the Republic, Emile Lahoud, in 2004 and the Hezbollah supported Lahoud.

Do you see possibilities for a further evolution of the Hezbollah?
They are more or less grouped into two big tendencies. The tendency of the Da’wa, i.e. the one that just wants Islam. And the other tendency, the one which has evolved, which talks about sharing power, which talks about an alternative, and so on. I don’t think that they have any choice but to continue evolving; we are going to continue the discussion with them and we think that if they don’t evolve they will lose the fruits of victory, for the second time ... because what happened in July and August, I call that a victory. We stood up to Israel, the strongest power in the region...

We think that if the Hezbollah wants to take advantage of the victory, if it wants the Lebanese to take advantage of the victory, it has to evolve, otherwise we will go back to the same point as in 2000. In 2000 it was thanks to the Islamic resistance that our country was liberated, for the first time in Arab history. But the victory was devoured by confessionalism. I think that some of Hezbollah cadres understood that. And we hope - because there is a continual battle inside their party - that they will not lose again, by once again adopting confessional positions.
Is the national resistance front which was established during the war going to continue?

We are continuing to discuss an alliance on the political front with the Hezbollah and with the Aounists. Many of their cadres see in Aoun someone who has opposed the Christian fascists. There is a strong d Aounist groundswell among young people, especially in the universities. To start with it was a movement for freedom from Syrian control, but it is being carried along by a wave of Arab sentiment. It is which is really posing the problems that are essential for Lebanon, and also the question of reform.
It goes further than the struggle against corruption, there is also a demand for real secular changes. That creates a possibility for a real coming together. The former Prime Minister, Sclim Hoss, is also very open, with a very Arab outlook, and she sees the essential points in this way: we are working towards a regroupment so as to establish a government of national alliance and to force fresh legislative elections, on the basis of an electoral law that would be proportional and secular, in order to subsequently elect the President of the Republic, amending the Constitution so as to suppress political and administrative confessionalism.

And you are discussing all that with the Hezbollah?
Yes! Of course we are discussing that. Because we said to them - and I think they have really understood this - that a great personality like Nasrallah, such a charismatic personality, can be an emblem for the whole Middle East (and not only for the Arab Middle East), but he can’t become President of the Republic in Lebanon. If we want people to be able to occupy the essential posts in the state, then we have to suppress confessionalism. Because now, if he stood in the elections, although he would be supported by almost all the Shi’ites and although there are many Christians who like him, so even if he can have the majority with him, he cannot become President!

You can be very big on the international level but very small and very restricted on the national level with this confessional regime. Of the 128 members of the Parliament, half are Muslims and within this half there a third of Shi’ites. So the Muslims cannot increase the number of their members of Parliament, they cannot increase the number of their representatives in the government, because there are quotas.

So either we suppress the quotas and then everyone can compete in the elections on the basis of programmes that are well defined on the social, economic, and political level, and so on, making real alliances, or else it’s the quota system. There are many people who are starting to think about this impasse ...Apart from the Communist Party and some left groups, all the political parties are confessional: the Hezbollah and Amal are Shi’ites, the Lebanese Forces are Maronite (there are also a few Greek Orthodox among them), the PSP is Druze, Hariri’s Party of the Future is Sunni’, and so on. We have a system which reproduces itself because we always have members of tparliament who are elected on a confessional basis and who make laws in such a way as to preserve their interests.

There have been civil wars and they were based on religion. Although there were fundamental problems on the social, economic, and political level, these problems were swept aside.

This interview was conducted on 21st September 2006 in Paris by Mireille Court and Nicolas Qualander.
Marie Nassif-Debs is active in the National Conference for the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. She is an active member of the Lebanese teachers’ union, a writer and journalist, and a member of the Political Bureau of the Lebanese Communist Party (PCL).

NOTES
[1] This refers to the system whereby posts in the government and administration are attributed according to quotas for each religious group, i.e. the President of the Republic must be a Maronite Christian, the Prime minister a Sunni Muslim, and so on.
[2] A 2004 Security Council resolution which demanded among other things, that all Lebanese militias should be disarmed and disbanded.
[3] Name given to the coalition of anti-Syrian forces.
[4] Followers of the retired Christian general Michel Aoun.

NOTE: I am not a Trotskyist, have no affiliation to the LCP or Hezbollah.

[hajduk]

this is cool capstop
if HEZBOLLAH really think like this then is really cool to get involve with them
continue with informations capstop

[capstop]

Now this is a very interesting report from the capitalist press about Hezbollah which will no doubt surprise some of the more sectarian contributors on this and other threads.

The New York Times
August 3, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor
Ground to a Halt
By ROBERT PAPE

Chicago
ISRAEL has finally conceded that air power alone will not defeat Hezbollah. Over the coming weeks, it will learn that ground power won’t work either. The problem is not that the Israelis have insufficient military might, but that they misunderstand the nature of the enemy.
Contrary to the conventional wisdom, Hezbollah is principally neither a political party nor an Islamist militia. It is a broad movement that evolved in reaction to Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in June 1982. At first it consisted of a small number of Shiites supported by Iran. But as more and more Lebanese came to resent Israel’s occupation, Hezbollah — never tight-knit — expanded into an umbrella organization that tacitly coordinated the resistance operations of a loose collection of groups with a variety of religious and secular aims.

In terms of structure and hierarchy, it is less comparable to, say, a religious cult like the Taliban than to the multidimensional American civil-rights movement of the 1960’s. What made its rise so rapid, and will make it impossible to defeat militarily, was not its international support but the fact that it evolved from a reorientation of pre-existing Lebanese social groups.

Evidence of the broad nature of Hezbollah’s resistance to Israeli occupation can be seen in the identity of its suicide attackers. Hezbollah conducted a broad campaign of suicide bombings against American, French and Israeli targets from 1982 to 1986. Altogether, these attacks — which included the infamous bombing of the Marine barracks in 1983 — involved 41 suicide terrorists.

In writing my book on suicide attackers, I had researchers scour Lebanese sources to collect martyr videos, pictures and testimonials and the biographies of the Hezbollah bombers. Of the 41, we identified the names, birth places and other personal data for 38. Shockingly, only eight were Islamic fundamentalists. Twenty-seven were from leftist political groups like the Lebanese Communist Party and the Arab Socialist Union. Three were Christians, including a female high-school teacher with a college degree. All were born in Lebanon.

What these suicide attackers — and their heirs today — shared was not a religious or political ideology but simply a commitment to resisting a foreign occupation. Nearly two decades of Israeli military presence did not root out Hezbollah. The only thing that has proven to end suicide attacks, in Lebanon and elsewhere, is withdrawal by the occupying force.

Thus the new Israeli land offensive may take ground and destroy weapons, but it has little chance of destroying the Hezbollah movement. In fact, in the wake of the bombings of civilians, the incursion will probably aid Hezbollah’s recruiting.
Equally important, Israel’s incursion is also squandering the good will it had initially earned from so-called moderate Arab states like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The countries are the court of opinion that matters because, while Israel cannot crush Hezbollah, it could achieve a more limited goal: ending Hezbollah’s acquisition of more missiles through Syria.

Given Syria’s total control of its border with Lebanon, stemming the flow of weapons is a job for diplomacy, not force. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, Sunni-led nations that want stability in the region, are motivated to stop the rise of Hezbollah. Under the right conditions, the United States might be able to help assemble an ad hoc coalition of Syria’s neighbors to entice and bully it to prevent Iranian, Chinese or other foreign missiles from entering Lebanon. It could also offer to begin talks over the future of the Golan Heights.

But Israel must take the initiative. Unless it calls off the offensive and accepts a genuine cease-fire, there are likely to be many, many dead Israelis in the coming weeks — and a much stronger Hezbollah.
Robert A. Pape, a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, is the author of “Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism.”

My Emphasis added.

How far all this is from the disgraceful whinging back-stabbing of so many fake lefts who give comfort to imperialism by loudly condemning Hezbollah at every opportunity.

[capstop]

Sorry double post again

[guerrillagrenade]

Its just like you to mark religious revolutionaries as terrorist, i believe there is no such thing as a peaceful revolution and someone has to DIE! and if its (US) military they signed up to die for their country, so what did they expect. kinda of subject but my response was actually for the guy who was saying something about hamas being a terrorist orginization.

[capstop]

Sorry gurrilla, but I don’t know what you mean.

[capstop]

Sorry gurrilla, but I don’t know what you mean.

[Great Helmsman]

What about anti-imperialists like Robert Mugabe? I'm sure we all have opinions about what he's done to Zimbabwe, but let's remember that he still commands a lot of respect in other African countries for his struggle against Ian Smith's white colonialist rule, and at one time he overshadowed Mandela as a leader in the fight for freedom.

Land reforms were necessary in Zimbabwe, and I think the government expected the Brits to pay for the appropriation of farm land from the white land owners. After 20 years of waiting it's to be expected that the black majority demand the land back. Of course the West jumped all over this, but everything was quiet a decade ago when IMF (de)structuring policies were destroying the nation's future.

There's an intense amount of scrutiny of the Zimbabwean government, and being isolated economically by the international community hasn't helped the people at all. Meanwhile Britain bankrolls the 'social-democrat' opposition party and you have people crying out for Britain to recolonize Zimbabwe. For all the terrible things that Mugabe has done, or that has happened to Zimbabwe since independence, would it not be prudent to defend it now against the agents of imperialism?

[hajduk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 07:33 pm
Its just like you to mark religious revolutionaries as terrorist, i believe there is no such thing as a peaceful revolution and someone has to DIE! and if its (US) military they signed up to die for their country, so what did they expect. kinda of subject but my response was actually for the guy who was saying something about hamas being a terrorist orginization.
okay capstop next step is that you send e-mail to ADF and explain them situation about what we speak and then told them that it will be god to make some kind concert tour about supporting muslims and revlefters in struggle against American military humanism with Asian Dub Foundation,Fun-Da-Mental and Transglobal Underground

links

ADF
http://www.asiandubfoundation.com/adf_home_fs.htm

Fun-Da-Mental
http://www.fun-da-mental.co.uk/

Transglobal Underground
http://www.transglobalunderground.com/john...YASAOMNXvoAM4DQ (http://www.transglobalunderground.com/john-digweed.htm?tkn=Hxgl25_aXjcKEwj30PCp-JKNAhUDf4YKHesunD0YASAOMNXvoAM4DQ)

[capstop]

Returning to the original post on this thread for a moment, “The enemy of our enemy is not necessarily our friend,” and the idea of ‘strategic alliances’.
Have we made any theoretical developments in the course of the debate?
RNK makes the correct observation “that such alliances must be thoroughly examined in order to determine that they are not, infact, detrimental to the working class.”

Now, without getting into to much nitpicking over words, I think the original proposition, “The enemy of our enemy is not necessarily our friend,” is not a very useful phrase. It doesn’t give any direction to the debate unless to cast aspersions on the “enemy of our enemy.” In attempting to formulate something more positive which explains the position briefly, my first thought was ‘Ally with the victim of our enemy,’ but this is not always what we should be doing because ‘Ally’ = friend, helper, supporter, assistant, collaborator, colleague or partner etc.

‘Intervene with the victim of our enemy to build alliances.’ seems better because ‘Intervene’ = arbitrate, intercede, interfere, get involved or intrude, ‘put your oar in’ the water etc.[/I]
So, taking the original analogy of the “Iranians” on a demonstration, the thing to do, I think, is to ‘Intervene’ and look for alliances against imperialism that are not “detrimental to the working class.”
This can only be done effectively if we are already fighting imperialism ourselves and refusing to join in or assist in any way, the imperialist attack on its victims.


Electronic Light,

What about anti-imperialists like Robert Mugabe? I'm sure we all have opinions about what he's done to Zimbabwe, but let's remember that he still commands a lot of respect in other African countries for his struggle against Ian Smith's white colonialist rule, and at one time he overshadowed Mandela as a leader in the fight for freedom.

Land reforms were necessary in Zimbabwe, and I think the government expected the Brits to pay for the appropriation of farm land from the white land owners. After 20 years of waiting it's to be expected that the black majority demand the land back. Of course the West jumped all over this, but everything was quiet a decade ago when IMF (de)structuring policies were destroying the nation's future.

There's an intense amount of scrutiny of the Zimbabwean government, and being isolated economically by the international community hasn't helped the people at all. Meanwhile Britain bankrolls the 'social-democrat' opposition party and you have people crying out for Britain to recolonize Zimbabwe. For all the terrible things that Mugabe has done, or that has happened to Zimbabwe since independence, would it not be prudent to defend it now against the agents of imperialism?

In 1996 ZANU-PF formally abandoned its adherence to Marxism-Leninism and should be criticised for that, and any other anti-working class policies that have resulted, ‘Intervene’ interfere, get involved or intrude, ‘put your oar in’ the water where or how you can by all means, but this has nothing to do with the foul attacks and provocations coming from the imperialists and their ‘left’ camp followers.


hajduk,
okay capstop next step is that you send e-mail to ADF and explain them situation about what we speak and then told them that it will be god to make some kind concert tour about supporting muslims and revlefters in struggle against American military humanism with Asian Dub Foundation,Fun-Da-Mental and Transglobal Underground

links

I’m not your secretary&#33; <_<
Everyone should ‘Intervene&#39; with the victim of our enemy to build alliances’ wherever and however they can. Just tell the truth and if you think you can get a hearing for your ‘Intervention’, Just do it&#33;” ;)

[hajduk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 09:44 pm


links

I’m not your secretary&#33; <_<
Everyone should ‘Intervene&#39; with the victim of our enemy to build alliances’ wherever and however they can. Just tell the truth and if you think you can get a hearing for your ‘Intervention’, Just do it&#33;” ;) [/quote]
i know but i told you to do that becouse you got more informations then me, about this and your english is better then mine ;)
sorry if i insult you with this proposition :lol:

[capstop]

hajduk my old mate,
You will make a great revolutionary; you have the determination, persistence and that necessary humour that will help in the hard times, cheeky bastard&#33;

I’ll go half way with you. I’ll draft a letter if you if you post it to your mates, OK&#33;
If you don’t like it post it back with short note like “to long”, “to formal”, “not enough information” ect and I’ll change it.

First Draft

Friends,
You probably already know about the terrible situation of the people of Palestine and Lebanon.
I have recently been talking about this with people on the RevLeft web sight and because I am into your music and your stand on other issues, I thought you might want to know about it.

The thing is, there has been a lot of bad publicity about the movements in that area and because of this, the people there are often isolated, they do not have much opportunity to talk and swap experiences and ideas with the rest of us, this must be especially true of the youth there, who often have to take on massive responsibilities for their families and communities in really difficult conditions.

I for one would like to know what they think about life and the world and would like to exchange info with them about their music and culture which we don’t hear much about in Britain and the US.

I don’t know if this is something you are interested in already or want to check-out and get into, but I think you might be able to help bridge the gap if you did look at this.

If you need any information about our discussions or anything else, get back to me anytime.

Cheers
hajduk

[Comrade Rage]

I ABSOLUTELY advocate unconventional alliances such as these. Imperialism/Capitalism will only be abolished by people working together.

[capstop]

Comrade Crum

I ABSOLUTELY advocate unconventional alliances such as these. Imperialism/Capitalism will only be abolished by people working together.

Good to know Crum. Can I add that we while we are “work together” we have to argue about everything “together” in order to get some clarity, but do it without retreating into sectarian trenches. A tall order I know, but that skill will be priceless in the coming struggles.
I’m not writing letters for anyone else though&#33; :angry:

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 15, 2007 08:00 pm
I ABSOLUTELY advocate unconventional alliances such as these. Imperialism/Capitalism will only be abolished by people working together.
:huh: So you&#39;d work with any group of nutters, even if they&#39;re worse?

[RNK]

I ABSOLUTELY advocate unconventional alliances such as these.

Such a radical and definitive position as this is very dangerous, and wholly un-revolutionary. Would you ally with bin Laden? With Hitler? Amadinihhfsdihfiufg-whatever? All of them are anti-American as well.

The point of this thread was to discuss what sort of process must be undertaken to determine whether an opponeont of our enemy is worthy of being an "ally". Some are, some aren&#39;t. It must be analysed from a scientific point of view. Say an alliance with bin Laden lead to victory over US imperialism; would that victory be an improvement or a setback for the world&#39;s working masses? Would fundamental Islam of the type Bin Laden urges be preferable to imperialism? I doubt of. Of course, this is not endorsing an alliance with imperialism. We can&#39;t be cornered by the belief that we must take sides in every conflict. Sometimes we just have to not take sides and denounce the two conflicting parties as common enemies. In the case of national liberation movements, as in Palestine and Iraq, it must also be analysed on a case-by-case basis.

Anyway, point is, please don&#39;t run headlong into supporting the enemies of our enemies without giving the situation a thorough analysis from the position of class struggle. Making baseless statements like "I ABSOLUTELY support someone against US imperialism" or "I ABSOLUTELY do not support any islamic" are not analytical statements.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 09:41 pm

I ABSOLUTELY advocate unconventional alliances such as these.

Such a radical and definitive position as this is very dangerous, and wholly un-revolutionary. Would you ally with bin Laden? With Hitler? Amadinihhfsdihfiufg-whatever? All of them are anti-American as well.

The point of this thread was to discuss what sort of process must be undertaken to determine whether an opponeont of our enemy is worthy of being an "ally". Some are, some aren&#39;t. It must be analysed from a scientific point of view. Say an alliance with bin Laden lead to victory over US imperialism; would that victory be an improvement or a setback for the world&#39;s working masses? Would fundamental Islam of the type Bin Laden urges be preferable to imperialism? I doubt of. Of course, this is not endorsing an alliance with imperialism. We can&#39;t be cornered by the belief that we must take sides in every conflict. Sometimes we just have to not take sides and denounce the two conflicting parties as common enemies. In the case of national liberation movements, as in Palestine and Iraq, it must also be analysed on a case-by-case basis.

Anyway, point is, please don&#39;t run headlong into supporting the enemies of our enemies without giving the situation a thorough analysis from the position of class struggle. Making baseless statements like "I ABSOLUTELY support someone against US imperialism" or "I ABSOLUTELY do not support any islamic" are not analytical statements.
yes but in this case capstop take responsibility so if something goes wrong he will be first to know

[capstop]

Why are so many people on this thread ignoring the growing body of evidence that within the political Islamic movements there is some serious struggling and head scratching going on about how to pursue the justified anti-imperialist war? By abstaining from communist discussion with these movements or even condemning them you are in fact assisting the Bin Laden’s of the world to claim exclusive influence over hundreds of millions of workers.

RNK,
There is no point in presenting a formal academic position like, “It must be“ or “it must also be analysed on a case-by-case basis.” It doesn’t get us any further along in understanding the people and their struggles.

What have you actually come up with?

1) Against total rejection
2) Against total alliance
3) Sometimes we just have to not take sides
4) Analysed on a case-by-case basis.
5) Analysed from a scientific point of view.

All very intresting, so now what? 1 to 5 are positions for people who stand aside from the difficult job of engaging with the working class, who’s consciousness is inevitably always absolutely rammed full of reactionary ideology put there by class society and is exploited by the Bin Ladens’ and all the other reformist idealist ‘philosophies’.

However, if the left are in fact incapable of making useful revolutionary communist criticism of all opportunist reformist leaderships, perhaps the best thing for them to do is stand aside, but it would be better for us to have a go at the Bin Laden speech and trash it with revolutionary communist analysis and take that into discussions with Islamic movements.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 11:53 pm

What does this "support" consist of practically?

Mainly military and logistical support in the struggle against imperialism; military co-operation, logistical sharing concerning operations, etc.
What are you talking about? Nobody in the advanced capitalist countries, none of the people discussing it on this board, is actually giving any support of this nature to Hamas.

No, "support" to Hamas is in reality purely verbal, and consists of prettying it up, and pretending it&#39;s more progressive than it really is.

If somebody is really going to give practical, physical aid to a Palestinian group, it&#39;d be better to send it to a workers&#39; organization.

Palestinian workers&#39; groups might find some kinds of practical cooperation useful....but the first condition of principled cooperation with bourgeois forces is to not pretty them up or create illusions in them as the verbal support of Western leftists typically does.


However, as I stated above, Marx wrote extensively on the fact that the working class can gain many benefits through a temporary alliance with the bourgeoisie.

One, you shouldn&#39;t hide behind Marx by quoting him like the Bible. It&#39;s necessary to examine real history and the real situation as well, and even more. And when you do quote Marx, or other historic communists, it shouldn&#39;t just be they said this or that, but what was the historic context? What happened in the real movement, what actions led to victories or defeats.

Two, this is a distortion. Based on the experience of the 1848 revolutions, Marx in fact concluded that the alliance with the bourgeoisie is impossible. He concluded that the Communist League had made an error by dissolving organizationally, which led to the working class following politically behind the petty-bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie. We know the result: the bourgeoisie betrayed the workers and peasants, and the revolution was crushed. The monarchy consolidated its power again; there were no "many benefits" gained through the establishment of bourgeois democracy.

See, that&#39;s the historic context you have to consider if you&#39;re going to read Marx as living revolutionary thought and not as a Bible.

The bourgeoisie is no longer a revolutionary class even against feudalism, imperialism, etc. You avoided this point earlier. As I used to say to Redstar: can you name any example of the bourgeoisie acting in this way since the start of the 20th century? No. Probably not even in the later part of the 19th....

In this "address" Marx and Engels sum up their political conclusions from the 1848 revolution, and describe the actions of the capitalists in that revolution..... (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm)

I should only add that Hamas are far worse and more reactionary than the bourgeois liberals and petty-bourgeois democrats described there. Those democrats, especially, took all kinds of positions that were a step forward, socially, and as Marx says the working class could respond to that by demanding even more.

Hamas, in contrast, has a reactionary social program....the only thing about it that could make anyone even think mistakenly it is progressive, is that it is in conflict with imperialism. But look at its position on every question of how Palestinian society is to be organized, and its a reactionary position.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 08:57 am
Why are so many people on this thread ignoring the growing body of evidence that within the political Islamic movements there is some serious struggling and head scratching going on about how to pursue the justified anti-imperialist war? By abstaining from communist discussion with these movements or even condemning them you are in fact assisting the Bin Laden’s of the world to claim exclusive influence over hundreds of millions of workers.
OK...why don&#39;t you go have that discussion with them, instead of trolling here?

I&#39;d suggest that the first requirement for winning anyone away from "Islamic fundamentalism"......is not to be won towards "Islamic fundamentalism" yourself.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 10:05 pm
The bourgeoisie is no longer a revolutionary class even against feudalism, imperialism, etc. You avoided this point earlier. As I used to say to Redstar: can you name any example of the bourgeoisie acting in this way since the start of the 20th century? No. Probably not even in the later part of the 19th....
What about Robespierre (wait, never mind - late 18th), or Sun Yat-sen?