BIN LADEN from terrorist to a Marxist?

[blazeofglory]

Undoubtedly the most famous and the most wanted terrorist in the world is none other than multi-millionaire Saudi Arabian-born militant Islamist and the founder of the organization al-Qaeda OSAMA BIN LADEN.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/04/AQ00100.jpg/200px-AQ00100.jpg

In his recent 9/11 'anniversary' speech Laden assaulted CAPITALISM!!!

The same Laden who previously came in military outfits this time came in a white robe with black beards.

At one point Laden had issued a Fatwa against any person from the US be it military or civilians.... that is to say he had a hatred towards the Americans racially!!!

But this time, Laden changed amazingly!!!

HE SPOKE FOR THE AMERICAN POOR AND THE HAVES-NOTS!!!

He addresses the Americans and went against the ills of economic exploitation, multinational corporations and even globalisation.

In his exact words Laden tells the Americans to liberate themselves from "the deception, shackles and attrition of the capitalist system". He spoke for the Americans to go against their own socio-economic and political system!!!

He says "POOR AND EXPLOITED AMERICANS, UNITE AGAINST YOUR CAPITALIST LAWS THAT MAKES THE RICH RICHER AND THE POOR POORER".

Now, isn't that the language of Marxism???

And imagine this, he tells that both Americans and Muslims are victims of the capitalist system... which according to Laden "seeks to turn the entire world into a fiefdom of the major corporations under the label of globalisation in order to protect democracy"

He sounds more like Noam Chomsky!!!

In the past, Laden spoke more against the American culture and religion but now he goes for the "suffering". He blames capital and class for the tragedies in Iraq and Afghanistan and even poverty in Africa and went against insane taxes and real state mortgages.

The NEW Laden says that capital and class are responsible for the war and not religion and culture!!!

So Bin Laden is into a new ideology, INTENTIONALLY OR UNINTENTIONALLY!!!

From Jihadist Messianism to Marxist utopia.... he is somehow endangering himself as well...... His Salafi (militant group) supporters are somehow against Marxism, infact it is somehow incompatible with the entire Islamicism.

So, this sudden change depicts a new face in Laden, far from the Muslim-extremist shackles and far from hatred towards the Americans, he is entering into the realm of the oppressed!!!

P.S. inspired by a newspaper article as well


SO WAT DO U GUYS MAKE FROM THIS???? COULD LADEN BE A NEW MARXIST HERO OR IS THIS PART OF HIS MASTER-MIND?

Personally I feel he is unknowingly getting the right vision for he now actually knows that America is not only his head-ache and he has come to know that the war he has been fighting was wrong and there is a bigger and more important global war to be won....

but, he's still a terrorist! :ph34r:

[Red October]

You must be high or something. Bin Laden is not a marxist, he's an islamic fundamentalist bastard who was once on the take from the US Government. Sure, maybe he's using "class conscious" language in some random appeal to the poor, but he is certainly no ally of the left. Just because he uses this language doesn't mean he isn't an ultra-reactionary asshat. As far as I can tell, he hasn't renounced fundamentalist Islam, he hasn't set forth any sort of revolutionary program that would benefit the world, and he certainly hasn't renounced the practice of murdering tons of innocent people. It's ridiculous to think he's some sort of leftist hero.

[blazeofglory]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 15, 2007 03:38 am
Bin Laden is not a marxist, he's an islamic fundamentalist bastard who was once on the take from the US Government. Sure, maybe he's using "class conscious" language in some random appeal to the poor, but he is certainly no ally of the left. Just because he uses this language doesn't mean he isn't an ultra-reactionary asshat. As far as I can tell, he hasn't renounced fundamentalist Islam, he hasn't set forth any sort of revolutionary program that would benefit the world, and he certainly hasn't renounced the practice of murdering tons of innocent people. It's ridiculous to think he's some sort of leftist hero.
Bin Laden is no marxist i agree in the context that neither him or the leftist world is ready to accept him as a Marxist.

point to be noted, Islam doesn't accept Marxism and the language Laden uses in the video is Marxist because it includes class struggle and for the 1st time askes the Americans to fight back against the Imperialists (although he didnt use that word) becoz before Laden was always against the Americans, both civilians or the military or the government. He hated America racially and culturally. Now, his speech shows no signs of that.

And, I myself am not ready to take him as an ally to the left unless he walks the talk!

And, u are right, he hasn't renounced fundamentalist Islam but now, it isn't religion that he cites the cause for the war, he claims it is class struggle!!!

And his words could create problems of unity even within his militant groups!!!

And, I repeat, I am ready to accept him if and only if he renounces the religious war JIHAD and stops terrorizing!!

[blazeofglory]

http://www.lauramansfield.com/j/binladen.jpg

[Hiero]

I think it is called left-wing opportunism.

[capstop]

Only he is a Marxist who extends the recognition of the class struggle to the recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is touchstone on which the real understanding and recognition of Marxism is to be tested.V.I.Lenin

[RNK]

Anti-Capitalists =/= Marxists. Everyone and their dog can hate Capitalism; it doesn't make them revolutionary, or a Marxist, or anything but someone who atleast has the small amount of intelligence necessary to recognize that capitalism is a bad, bad thing.

Of course, fundamentalism is too, so I don't see what moral high ground bin Laden has on this.

[capstop]

RNK,

Anti-Capitalists =/= Marxists. Everyone and their dog can hate Capitalism; it doesn't make them revolutionary, or a Marxist, or anything but someone who atleast has the small amount of intelligence necessary to recognize that capitalism is a bad, bad thing.

Of course, fundamentalism is too, so I don't see what moral high ground bin Laden has on this.

If the Bin Laden stuff is authentic and accurately translated etc, then the speech is a major development even if it doesn’t measure up to a correct communist understanding about the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat. Dismissing this development simply misses the point. The fact that bourgeoisie and small bourgeoisie are compelled to make speeches like this is an indication of the economic, social and political REVOLUTIONARY pressures that are building up everywhere as a direct consequence of the economic crisis of the entire system.

Bin Laden seems to be reflecting very sharply the contradictions within the anti-imperialist struggle, and adopting left sectarian postures like the one above, are pointlessly misleading. Communists need to be ‘Intervening’ in these developments within Bin Laden’s Islamic constituency to look for alliances against imperialism, not snottily dismissing it and even condemning it.

In any case to find ‘criticisms’ of capitalism in Islam is nothing new, but Islam and all other ‘critical’ philosophies collapse when challenged on their ‘revolutionary’ perspectives that don’t recognise the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Then again, why would the masses of the planet have any confidence in the representatives of communism, when they spend so much time repeating the capitalist condemnations rather than intervening to strengthen the anti-imperialist movement with explanations of the absolute necessity of working class dictatorship?

[ComradeR]

Bin Laden is as much a Marxist as Adolf Hitler, remember Hitler used leftist rhetoric as well. What bin Laden is doing with this latest speech is to try and stir up leftists into one way or another supporting him, and apparently it&#39;s working <_<


Communists need to be ‘Intervening’ in these developments within Bin Laden’s Islamic constituency to look for alliances against imperialism, not snottily dismissing it and even condemning it.
Allying with these right-wing fundie nutters? you might as well suggest that leftists should ally with fascists if they are fighting against a common enemy, it&#39;s the same basic thing with the same outcome. Fundies may be useful temporary allies in the short term but don&#39;t forget that every time in the past that leftists have allied with fundamentalists the end result was the fundies taking over and stabbing the leftists in the back.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 03:06 am
In his recent 9/11 &#39;anniversary&#39; speech Laden assaulted CAPITALISM&#33;&#33;&#33;

So what, read this...

"the whole people will now be free. We are not fighting Jewish or Christian capitalism, we are fighting every capitalism: we are making the people completely free."

- Adolf Hitler

Source (http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/111hit1.html)


The same Laden who previously came in military outfits this time came in a white robe with black beards.

The strand of militant Islamist thought he follows is anti-capitalist. It&#39;s against class, and for what would essentially be a Caste system. Which is by all means, a worse state of affairs. Women&#39;s rights, and those of homosexuals or even atheists would be unheard of in Bin ladens distopian Islamic garden of Eden.

He sees corporate expansion and exploitation as something that damages Islam, that is where the entire philosophy comes from. Western culture (exported via capitalism) is, in his eyes degenerate, for its tolerance of homosexuality, promiscuity and women&#39;s rights. He wants american people to reject this way of life aswell. Much like Puritan Christians.

He doesn&#39;t seem to mention Workers self organisation and ownership of the means of production does he? That&#39;s because he&#39;s utterly opposed to it.


SO WAT DO U GUYS MAKE FROM THIS???? COULD LADEN BE A NEW MARXIST HERO OR IS THIS PART OF HIS MASTER-MIND?

I think you are a complete idiot sucked in by the populist ramblings of a Cultist nutfuck. The sort of anti-capitalist who would have been sucked in by Hitler&#39;s anti-capitalist rhetoric in the 1930s. Please, grow a spine.

[Faux Real]

The only worthwhile thing he said was something that we already know and the media will never let the average person hear:

So it is imperative that you free yourselves from all of that and search for an alternative, upright methodology in which it is not the business of any class of humanity to lay down its own laws to its own advantage at the expense of the other classes as is the case with you, since the essence of man-made positive laws is that they serve the interests of those with the capital and thus make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
Other than that he&#39;s not fighting for our cause but for his own personal interests, those of which are not of the working class.

[Devrim]

I agree with the basis of &#39;Urban Spirit&#39;s&#39; points.

The other thing to add is that this is nothing new. Islamicists have been talking like this for decades. Also leftists have been supporting them to the point of producing fake interviews*.

I can&#39;t be bothered to read through the original to check the translation, but it wouldn&#39;t surprise me if it were correct, or if leftists were distorting it.

Devrim

*The interview with Nasrallah last year.

[spartan]

I think it is called left-wing opportunism.
Agreed&#33;

[Angry Young Man]

Attacked capitalism, in the same way that Louis XVI did?

[blazeofglory]

I think you are a complete idiot

let me clear this&#33;&#33;&#33;

I AM NO BIN LADEN SUPPORTED AND THE TYPE OF VIEW CREATED IN THE ARTICLE WAS ONLY MADE TO MAKE A REALLY INTERESTING DISCUSSION.
I agree with somebody who said it was opportunism&#33;&#33;&#33;

and I invite all sorts of criticism but I felt something wasn&#39;t just right&#33;&#33;&#33;

I thought REVLEFT was a place for learners and a place where I can get exposed to the leftists in a better way to learn a lot coz I admit I am a rookie but I never knew that I could be insulted by people here bcoz I am a learner and bcoz I have less knowledge than they have, and that too from someone with a position of an ADMIN&#33;&#33;&#33; Urban Spirit

I was wrong. I mean, I have learnt a lot in revleft and intend to learn a lot. And, I read somewhere that I dont have to bother about my *less* knowledge to learn from here becoz people here would help me,...... but this Urban Spirit who is the Admin himself called me an idiot bcoz I didn&#39;t know enough&#33;&#33;&#33;

It simply hurts and I dont care if I am getting banned bcoz of this becoz I am a fearless person and well that wont prevent me from learning from here....

but Mr. Urban Spirit, a man of your status as an admin here wouldn&#39;t suit you to speak with such language to members. It is a matter of great concern&#33;&#33;&#33;

Maybe this is going to be my last post (or it may be deleted and if it will be..... then it will be more like the ruling class oppressing the voice of people like us and what more ironic than that in a LEFTIST forum)



Once again, I am no BIN LADEN supporter, I hate him&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
And, I am a leftist who is learning a lot thanx to REVLEFT.......

Long live the revolution
Hasta La Victoria Siempre

[Red October]

Seriously, this whole ideai s ridiculous. You made a thread saying Osama Bin Laden was speaking for the exploited people in America, compared him to Noam Chomsky, and suggested that he could be a new marxist hero. What the hell do you expect people to call you? No one here is trying to stifle your freedom of speech or anything, we&#39;re just pointing out that your ideas here are fucking stupid. It&#39;s a bad sign when people on the left start thinking that a dick like Bin Laden is a possible ally to us, and I think it&#39;s happening too often. Snap out of it and put down the crack pipe.

[capstop]

Bin Laden has managed, without much difficulty, to expose the utter confusion among the lefts.
Reading most of this thread looking for insights into his speech we wouldn’t know whether he was a right-wing’ Hitlerite’ or a “left-wing opportunist.” Add to that the misrepresentation of others views on the thread,(ComradeR) misunderstanding of Bin Laden’s speech, (rev0lt) and the misrepresenting of Hitler’s madness as a rational position (Urban Spirit) and all we are left with is the same old anti-communism and subjective idealist nonsense that Bin Laden himself is accused of.

It is this slack brained parroting of thoroughly petit-bourgeois individualist, agnosticism towards the international class struggle that guarantees that capitalism will extend its useless existence for a little longer than it otherwise would and helps convince the Arab masses in particular, that communism isn’t for them.

ComradeR,
What kind of mentality can misrepresent this:

“Communists need to be ‘Intervening’ in these developments within Bin Laden’s Islamic constituency to look for alliances against imperialism, not snottily dismissing it and even condemning it.”

by turning it into this:

“Allying with these right-wing fundie nutters? you might as well suggest that leftists should ally with fascists...” And at the same time you consciously avoid responding to my Leninist agitation for “working class dictatorship” clearly stated in the same post. I’ll tell you what kind of mentality it is; it is one that no worker can trust, that’s what. And you call yourself a ‘Leninist’?

Urban Spirit,
Your Hitler jibe is also way of target and the Hitler quote misrepresents the whole thrust and content of his deranged 1921 anti-Jewish, anti-Bolshevik rant.
The paragraph you took your truncated quote from (even if it is an accurate translation) is just autistic babble even if it was not confusingly punctuated. What would make you want to use this trash to demonstrate anything other than that the man was deranged? Here it is as it appears in your original “Source”.

And if we ask who was responsible for our misfortune, then we must inquire who profited by our collapse. And the answer to that question is the "Banks and Stock Exchanges are more flourishing than ever before." We were told that capitalism would be destroyed, and when we ventured to remind one or other of these "famous statesmen" and said "Don&#39;t forget that Jews too have capital," then the answer will now be destroyed, the whole people will now be free. We are not fighting Jewish or Christian capitalism, we are fighting every capitalism: we are making the people completely free."

And just to demonstrate that this is just his mouth running away with him and nothing to do with artful political manipulation; he contradicts himself with this golem like tirade.

"2. And then we said to ourselves: there are no such things as classes: they cannot be. Class means caste and caste means race. If there are castes in India, well and good; there it is possible, for there were formerly Aryans and dark aborigines. So it was in Egypt and Rome. But with us in Germany where everyone who is a German at all has the same blood, has the same eyes, and speaks the same language, here there can be no class, here there can be only a single people and beyond that nothing else.

rev0lt,
Why do you think the bit you quoted from Bin Laden was “worthwhile thing”?
It says: So it is imperative that you free yourselves from all of that and search for an alternative, upright methodology in which it is not the business of any class of humanity to lay down its own laws to its own advantage at the expense of the other classes since the essence of man-made positive laws is that they serve the interests of those with the capital and thus make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

You seem to have concentrated on the last bit “...since the essence of man-made positive laws is that they serve the interests of those with the capital and thus make the rich richer and the poor poorer.”
But you missed the equally important significance of this crucial bit for effective communist propaganda to take advantage of, which says: “...it is not the business of any class of humanity to lay down its own laws to its own advantage at the expense of the other classes as is the case with you, ...” Here he means that the working class should not rule&#33; And this is the important POLITICAL contradiction in Islam&#33; On the one hand it opposes the rich being richer and the poor being poorer, but it does not oppose the existence of rich and poor as such, that’s “gods will” allegedly.
It only opposes the rich being richer and the poor being poorer. It’s a reformist delusion and if communists can’t recognise this contradiction at the hart of political Islam, and help Muslim workers to understand and overcome it by “intervening”with them, we will deserve the defeats that will certainly follow.

[Labor Shall Rule]

He&#39;s a Marxist? Since when is slaughtering people on the basis of whether they said a prayer to a different deity than your own a Marxist position? Osama never discriminated; he did not care where he planted the bombs, he didn&#39;t see working people getting killed, but Christians, Jews, and other &#39;non-believers&#39;.


The very success of this terrorist act hears out all the more strikingly the experience of the entire history of the Russian revolutionary movement, which warns us against such methods of struggle as terrorism. Russian terrorism has always been a specifically intellectualist method of struggle. And whatever may be said of the importance of terrorism, not in lieu of, but in conjunction with, the people’s movement, the facts irrefutably testify that in our country individual political assassinations have nothing in common with the forcible actions of the people’s revolution. In capitalist society a mass movement is possible only as a class movement of the workers. This movement is developing in Russia according to its own independent laws; it is proceeding in its own way, gaining in depth and in breadth, and passing from a temporary lull to a new upsurge. It is only the liberal wave that rises and falls strictly in accord with the moods of the different ministers, whose replacement is accelerated by bombs. Small wonder, then, that sympathy with terrorism is to be met with so often in our country among the radical (or radical-posing) representatives of the bourgeois Opposition. Small wonder that; among the revolutionary intelligentsia, the people most likely to be carried away (whether for long or for a moment) by terrorism are those who have no faith in the vitality and strength of the proletariat and the proletarian class struggle.

[p.m.a.]

Bin Laden, aside from being an obvious CIA patsy, is dead anyway. So don&#39;t worry about it.

[capstop]

p.m.a You say: "Bin Laden, aside from being an obvious CIA patsy, is dead anyway. So don&#39;t worry about it. "

Any evidence? And we aren’t not worried.

[blazeofglory]

Red October,

wasn&#39;t Noam Chomsky against Globalisation? He Was n I compared only this aspect of Laden with Chomsky and I just said he sounded more like him&#33;&#33;&#33;

[Hiero]

You need to realise that Bin Laden is so insignificant. Even if he is anti-imperialist, he has not real attachement to any nation or class movement, even bourgeois for that matter. Over the last 20 years he has only managed to kill a few handfull of american civilians. His organisation just floats around and attaches itself to the destruction left behind by imperialism, most notably US imperialism.

It is the US government and it&#39;s people who have elevated Bin Laden to higher pedestal, the only reason being he pulled off a succesfull terrorist attack on US soil. He created so much fear in the US public that the US government could use this fear to quickly invade Afghanistan.

All communist should just ingore Bin Laden, he is just too small.

[Philosophical Materialist]

Reactionaries do use the language of the Left when it serves their purposes.

Bin Laden may be anti-capitalist, but it is reactionary anti-capitalism and not progressive anti-capitalism. Reactionaries such as Bin Laden wish to see the economic structure of society governed by a pastoral framework tied to a particular religion. It is a type of pre-feudal economics in which religion plays the central rôle in culture and daily life, and religious hierarchy dominate economic activity.

[capstop]

Blaze,
Your right, whichever way we look at it and for whatever reason, Bin Laden is sounding more ‘left’ and it’s worthwhile thinking about that, not because the person Bin Laden is that important, but more because of what he represents or reflects among his political constituency.
It is worth considering for example what the Muslim youth are saying about his speech on their web sights, how are the Arabic, Indonesian, and Indian language press and TV stations covering his speech. It doesn’t take a genius to work out that hundreds of millions of people are reading and talking about the meaning of sentences like this:

“So it is imperative that you free yourselves from all of that and search for an alternative, upright methodology in which it is not the business of any class of humanity to lay down its own laws to its own advantage at the expense of the other classes since the essence of man-made positive laws is that they serve the interests of those with the capital and thus make the rich richer and the poor poorer”.

The chattering middle classes of every state have to take a position on this and explain it to the workers or try to burry it. So whatever Bin Ladens’ intentions are, he is letting some cats out of the bag. So I disagree with Hiero (above) who says that he is insignificant.

Rather than pointlessly or even backwardly joining in with the pro-imperialist rabble to condemn him out of hand, would it not make more sense to put forward an alternative communist argument? Stop insulting the masses of Asia, credit them with the intelligence they actually have and develop a genuinely revolutionary criticism of Bin Laden and start supporting the socialist and communist minded Muslims who are keen to make some historic breakthroughs.
Philo Mat (above) has at lest had a go at it:

Reactionaries do use the language of the Left when it serves their purposes.

Bin Laden may be anti-capitalist, but it is reactionary anti-capitalism and not progressive anti-capitalism. Reactionaries such as Bin Laden wish to see the economic structure of society governed by a pastoral framework tied to a particular religion. It is a type of pre-feudal economics in which religion plays the central rôle in culture and daily life, and religious hierarchy dominate economic activity.

Firstly, it’s not only Bin Laden who talks the language of anti-capitalism, Islam itself has a strong anti-capitalist stance, mostly in theory rather than in practice, but most of its hundreds of millions of its adherents are very poor or otherwise oppressed by imperialism, and they know it. Are they all “reactionary anti-capitalists”? The “reactionary anti-capitalists” slogan doesn’t help the debate it closes it down and that is what it is meant to do. It puts a lid on the very real contradictions of class struggle within Islam that give rise to its numerous and rapidly developing political trends.

Secondly, To tell communists, who want to ‘Intervene’ and make alliances in this anti-imperialist struggle, with the perspective of workers dictatorship, that, ‘you might as well ally with fascists’ as ComadeR does, is an attempt to sabotage the proper exposure of Bin Laden’s’ idealist reformist politics among Muslim workers. It actually helps Bin Laden to coral his Muslim constituency&#33;

[spartan]

Reactionaries do use the language of the Left when it serves their purposes.

Bin Laden may be anti-capitalist, but it is reactionary anti-capitalism and not progressive anti-capitalism. Reactionaries such as Bin Laden wish to see the economic structure of society governed by a pastoral framework tied to a particular religion. It is a type of pre-feudal economics in which religion plays the central rôle in culture and daily life, and religious hierarchy dominate economic activity.
Great post Philosophical Materialist&#33; I could not have put it better myself.

[blazeofglory]

Originally posted by Philosophical [email protected] 16, 2007 06:23 am
Reactionaries do use the language of the Left when it serves their purposes.

Bin Laden may be anti-capitalist, but it is reactionary anti-capitalism and not progressive anti-capitalism. Reactionaries such as Bin Laden wish to see the economic structure of society governed by a pastoral framework tied to a particular religion. It is a type of pre-feudal economics in which religion plays the central rôle in culture and daily life, and religious hierarchy dominate economic activity.
Here&#39;s the first post that actually made me satisfied. Well this actually IS reactionary anti-capitalism, what Laden&#39;s using.

[blazeofglory]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 01:25 pm
Blaze,
Your right, whichever way we look at it and for whatever reason, Bin Laden is sounding more ‘left’ and it’s worthwhile thinking about that, not because the person Bin Laden is that important, but more because of what he represents or reflects among his political constituency.
Well, I feel really thankful to you comrade because that was what I meant to say&#33;&#33;&#33; I mean, look at all those insulting posts, and look at you. Man, u r a person with a vision&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; A beginner like me would learn a lot from u

[Colonello Buendia]

Most religious organisations are on the right of the political spectrum so apart from his being a bastard Osama is by definition a fascist. He is using anti-capitalist rhetoric because many Islamists do but all fundamental religious characters are fascist or close to it.

[violinist]

Actually, it&#39;s quite possible that Bin Laden is in poor health and making video&#39;s by proxy. There are theories going around the world that he is in fact having his speeches ghost written by a young college student... Who I think is, either naively, or perhaps worse yet, purposely playing into the hands of the American Propaganda Machine.

Wouldn&#39;t it be convenient if the self-proclaimed &#39;enemy of America&#39; suddenly was a socialist as well..?

[luxemburg89]

There are theories going around the world that he is in fact having his speeches ghost written by a young college student... Who I think is, either naively, or perhaps worse yet, purposely playing into the hands of the American Propaganda Machine.


Total rubbish&#33; He, like Saddam, probably has a number of look-a-likes and body doubles; and he is not getting a college student to write for him, I don&#39;t think I&#39;ve heard a more rediculous theory in my life. Bin Laden and Bush are as bad as each other and are perfectly welcome to destroy each other. Anyone who supports this religious freak is as much a leftist as the idiots who wave American flags at Bush&#39;s speeches.

[capstop]

Anyone who supports this religious freak is as much a leftist as the idiots who wave American flags at Bush&#39;s speeches.
Do you mean like the ex- Trotskyist neoconservative in the bush gang who did support him in Afganistan??

[Severian]

Originally posted by Philosophical [email protected] 16, 2007 12:23 am
Bin Laden may be anti-capitalist, but it is reactionary anti-capitalism and not progressive anti-capitalism. Reactionaries such as Bin Laden wish to see the economic structure of society governed by a pastoral framework tied to a particular religion. It is a type of pre-feudal economics in which religion plays the central rôle in culture and daily life, and religious hierarchy dominate economic activity.
I gotta disagree. Bin Laden himself is a wealthy capitalist from one of Saudi Arabia&#39;s wealthiest capitalist families, who made their money in the construction business. And in those cases where Islamists have taken power, they have continued to preside over capitalist economies. The Iranian regime is so far from representing some pre-capitalist "pastoral" economy that it enacted a land reform that eliminated the feudal classes some people think it represents&#33; And the Taliban were largely supported by the transport mafias that smuggle goods through Afghanistan to Pakistan, because they kept the roads open unlike earlier feuding mujahedeen groups.

Bin Laden&#39;s anticapitalism is reactionary, yes, but above all it&#39;s rhetorical. In some ways it resembles the anticapitalist rhetoric of fascist groups that were in reality financed by Krupp and other capitalist families, in order to crush the working class. Islamism also has smashed the working class and other progressive forces every chance it&#39;s gotten.

Before 15 people hop up, I am aware there are differences with fascism as well.

Here&#39;s a transcript of bin Laden&#39;s latest talk (http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000622.htm)

So, what&#39;s up with that bit of "anti-corporate" demagogy? Partly it&#39;s just an attempt to opportunistically tailor his message to what might get people in the imperialist countries listen to him, as with the reference to Chomsky and "no blood for oil."

But also: it&#39;s part of an attack on "democracy" and "man-made laws", i.e. everyone must accept laws supposedly laid down by God....it&#39;s very convenient for some people how God always happens to agree with them.

In the modern world, this can be nothing other than a form of capitalist rule - the older propertied classes are gone or greatly weakened and made part of the capitalist system. It&#39;s a form of capitalist rule much harsher than the bourgeois democracy which bin Laden denounces....

Note that progressives do not attack democracy; we attack bourgeois democracy because its claim to be democratic is ultimately fraudulent; we are fighting for a workers&#39; democracy which will extend democracy and power to the majority of the population which has always been excluded from it.....

But bin Laden points in the opposite direction, against democracy, against "man-made laws" which means, obviously, against letting most people have any say in making or enforcing the laws. Only the self-appointed representatives of God are to be allowed to do that.....

[Zurdito]

I don&#39;t see the confusion here. Bin Laden is fighting to get American imperialism out of the Middle East, and we should support him in that, just as we&#39;d support the Junta in Argentina getting the British out of the Malvinas, or Hamas getting the Israelis out of their territory. This doesn&#39;t mean we then unite with Bin Laden in a political programme. We simply support the sentiment of opressed people&#39;s in their battle to liberate themselves from imperialism - whoever is leading those battles.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I smell way too much opportunism here. If he really were a Marxist, he would&#39;ve at least read Lenin&#39;s The Autocracy and the Proletariat and renounced his terrorist ways.

[spartan]

Zurdito:

just as we&#39;d support the Junta in Argentina getting the British out of the Malvinas
I had to laugh at this statement. Dont you know that the inhabitants prefered the British to the Argentines? Also saying that Leftists would have supported a Fascist junta that suppressed Left wing political thought in it&#39;s own country against a Democratic state defending a territory which wished to remain a part of Britain is laughable to say the least&#33; You are not some sort of Fascist Argentine Nationalist are you? who believes that the Falklands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich islands and British Antartic territory is an "integral" part of Argentina? Because if you do then that is hardly a Leftist position to take&#33;

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 02:07 pm
Zurdito:

just as we&#39;d support the Junta in Argentina getting the British out of the Malvinas
I had to laugh at this statement. Dont you know that the inhabitants prefered the British to the Argentines? Also saying that Leftists would have supported a Fascist junta that suppressed Left wing political thought in it&#39;s own country against a Democratic state defending a territory which wished to remain a part of Britain is laughable to say the least&#33; Are you some sort of Fascist Argentine Nationalist who believes that the Falklands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich islands and British Antartic territory is an "integral" part of Argentina? Because if you do then that is hardly Leftist.
you&#39;re now telling me that we have to support imperialist "democracies" against third world "fascists"? Did you support the "liberation" of Kuwait, too? After all, they wanted to remain "independent" too. :huh:

Let me be straight - the Kelpers are colonists and as such have no "right" to the kind of "self-determination" which involves inviting an imperialist state - with a history of aggression, attempted invasion, and economic imperialism towards Argentina - into Argentina&#39;s legally recognised maritime territory. All imperialist states - whether Dutch, French, British, American, whatever, must have all their assets and territories in Latin America expropriated forcibly by Latin Americans, as part of any movement by Latin Americans to liberate themselves.

Let me quote Trotsky:


In Brazil there now reigns a semifascist regime that every revolutionary can only view with hatred. Let us assume, however, that on the morrow England enters into a military conflict with Brazil. I ask you on whose side of the conflict will the working class be? I will answer for myself personally—in this case I will be on the side of “fascist” Brazil against “democratic” Great Britain. Why? Because in the conflict between them it will not be a question of democracy or fascism. If England should be victorious, she will put another fascist in Rio de Janeiro and will place double chains on Brazil. If Brazil on the contrary should be victorious, it will give a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness of the country and will lead to the overthrow of the Vargas dictatorship. The defeat of England will at the same time deliver a blow to British imperialism and will give an impulse to the revolutionary movement of the British proletariat. Truly, one must have an empty head to reduce world antagonisms and military conflicts to the struggle between fascism and democracy. Under all masks one must know how to distinguish exploiters, slave-owners, and robbers&#33;

[spartan]

All imperialist states - whether Dutch, French, British, American, whatever, must have all their assets and territories in Latin America expropriated forcibly by Latin Americans, as part of any movement by Latin Americans to liberate themselves.
Even if the overwhelming vast majority of these people, who live in these Latin American territories which are apart of non-Latin American nations, wish to remain apart of these non-Latin American imperialist nations? Perhaps you never saw it but on TV over here in Britain when the Argentines surrendered in Port Stanley ending the war the native Falklanders themselves were in the streets of Port Stanley cheering on the British troops as they entered Stanley and pulled down the Argentine flag and hoisted up the Union Jack. Unless you have been living on another Planet for the past few decades you should have noticed that the overwhelming vast majority of the Falklanders did not like the Argentines and actually like being apart of Britain and being British citizens. This is fact&#33; I dont know what country you are from or if you are an Argentinian? But if you are an Argentinian then i suggest that you dont listen to your media who like to paint the British as the bad guys (Even though the Argentines were the ones who started the aggression against a territory which by its own admission regards itself as an integral part of Britain). I have seen the posters and signs in Argentina where the Nationalist scum proclaim that the Falklands (Or as they like to call it the "malvinas") are an "integral" part of Argentina and it is very sad because the fact is in 1982 the Argentine army had it&#39;s arse handed to them by outnumbered British tommies which led to the Fascist junta in charge of Argentina collapsing because the overwhelming vast majority of Argentinians had had enough&#33; So surely you should be thanking Britain for inadvertantly helping end the Fascist tyranny in Argentina&#33; (Which in case you did not know liked to persecute Socialists, Communists, etc). Unless of course you support Fascism?

[Zurdito]

I&#39;m half Argentinian, half-British, as it goes, and I can assure you the Argentinian media paints a more truthful picture of events than the British. Most Argentinians know the basic facts and history of the struggle, most Brits, including you, don&#39;t.

Your logic is completely unmarxist if you think third world populations have to "thank" imperialist states for defeating third world dictatorships. Where do you think the basis for these ditatorsdhips comes from anyway? And what do you think happened to Argentina in its so called "democracy" after good old Maggie liberated the poor irrational nationalistic savages? I mean, did you even read the Trotsky quote?

Did you even read my post for that matter? I told you, I couldn&#39;t give a fuck what the petty-brougeoise Kelpers want; they are "little England" colonists who make apologies for an Empire just like supporters of Israel in the Middle East. By the way I&#39;m interested - what&#39;s your attitude to Zionism or to the seperatists in Santa Cruz in Bolivia or white Zimbabwean farmers - do they deserve "self-determination" too?

[spartan]

Zurdito:
I&#39;m half Argentinian, half-British, as it goes, and I can assure you the Argentinian media paints a more truthful picture of events than the British. Most Argentinians know the basic facts and history of the struggle, most Brits, including you, don&#39;t.
Please enlighten me to the basic facts of this struggle because it is quite simple to me. Argentines invade the Falklands which is part of the British overseas territory and actually likes being apart of the BOT not apart of an unstable country that frequently relapses into periods of Fascism like Argentina always seems to be doing. Britain thus in defence of it&#39;s territory and the people of this territory (The overwhelming majority of which regard themselves as British) sends a force over to recapture the Falklands which it does after completly embarrasing the Argentine army (which outnumbered the British forces 3 to 1&#33;). The result? The Argentine people get rid of the unpopular junta ruling Argentina which has lost all support amongst normal (in other words non Fascist) people. Of course i can understand the Argentines being bitter about the conflict because they were embarrassed by an outnumbered army operating much futher away from it&#39;s homeland than the Argentine forces and the Falklands remained British (much to the satisfaction of the inhabitants of the Falklands themselves or does there opinion in who they want governing them not count to you?).

Your logic is completely unmarxist if you think third world populations have to "thank" imperialist states for defeating third world dictatorships. Where do you think the basis for these ditatorsdhips comes from anyway? And what do you think happened to Argentina in its so called "democracy" after good old Maggie liberated the poor irrational nationalistic savages? I mean, did you even read the Trotsky quote?
Actually your logic (and Trotsky&#39;s i might add) is not befitting of a leftist for you propose that we leftists should have united with Fascists (Extreme side of Capitalism which crushes all opposition especially left wing so we would be signing our own death warrants supporting the Fascists&#33;) against a Democracy (Progressive side of Capitalism which though it does not like it usually allows groups that do not agree with itself to operate as long as they are peaceful).

Did you even read my post for that matter? I told you, I couldn&#39;t give a fuck what the petty-brougeoise Kelpers want; they are "little England" colonists who make apologies for an Empire just like supporters of Israel in the Middle East. By the way I&#39;m interested - what&#39;s your attitude to Zionism or to the seperatists in Santa Cruz in Bolivia or white Zimbabwean farmers - do they deserve "self-determination" too?
I absolutely hate Israel just like any sane person would&#33; And where exactly in my posts did i propose self determination?

[Zurdito]

firstly, I don&#39;t know why you keep going on about the fact that the Brits were outnumbered, as it&#39;s completely irrelevant to the discussion and can only serve to troll me into getting into some "my army&#39;s braver than yours" type argument. FWIW, the British army is one of te best funded in the world, while the Argentnians were terribly equipped 21 year old conscripts, so you might want to give the Churchillian propaganda a rest.

As for looking up the history of the argument for you - I&#39;ve had this arguemnt too many times with any number of bourgeoise types and I honestly never imagined I&#39;d have to see it here too. There are plenty of timelines out there if you want to look them up. The fact is that by the logic of decolonisation at the time, the Islands should have passed under the rule of the sovereign, independent state of Argentina - a dependent nation and later a semi-colony of Britain - and that before its independence Britain actually tried to invade Argentina.

Then, after it had been absent from the Malvinas for about 60 years, and after Argentina had ruled the Malvinas legitimately as part of its national territory for about 20 years - the British Empire unilaterally seized this land, in Argentina&#39;s legal maritime territorry and formerly a part of the territory of the Viceroyalty of Rio de la Plata over which Argentina assumed control under the logic of decolonisation accepted as a general principle by powers like Britain at the time.

So as far as I see it, we have an imperialist country grabbing land from a newly independent third world country which it has previously tried to invade, in a region in which it has intervened heavily and constantly to serve its own bourgeoisie&#39;s interests via treacherous "cipayo" leaders. So any battle to get the British military bases out of Latin America is a progressive battle, and a respond to orgaqnic popular demands by fearful military leaders who&#39;d rather keep cosy relations with the imperialists, rather than a ploy by nationalistic fascists to expand fascism and do away with bourgeoise "democracy". To view it as a battle between "fascism" and "democracy" is to deny that imperialism exists or matters.

[RedKnight]

Back on topic, there are those who oppose capitalism on religious grounds, distributists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism) for example. This does not make them our friends. The distributists wish to revive christiandom. And the islamists wish to revive the Caliphate.

[spartan]

The Falklands were first properly discovered and explored in 1592 by Englishman John Davis commander of the desire which was a one of the ship&#39;s belonging to Thomas Cavendish&#39;s second expedition to the new world which in a storm got seperated from the rest of the fleet and made the discovery. For a time the islands were known as Davis land. Then in 1594 Richard Hawkins (Another Englishman) visted the islands and by combining his name with Queen Elizabeth&#39;s name he gave the islands the new name of Hawkin&#39;s Maidenland. In 1600 a Dutchman by the name of Sebald De Weert visited the islands and called them Sebald islands.

In 1690 English (Yet again) captain John Strong sailed between the two principal islands and called the passage "Falkland channel" after Anthony Cary, 5th viscount Falkland who as commissioner of the admiralty of the royal navy of England had financed the expedition which found the passage. The falklands were only colonized and had it&#39;s first settlement in 1764 by the French in the east. In 1765 captain John Byron of the royal navy of Britain landed in the west of the islands and unaware of the French settlement claimed them for Britain on the grounds of prior discovery. In 1766 the French left and there possessions in the Falklands were taken over by the Spanish in 1767 whilst the British were still in the west of the Falklands until the loss of the American war of independence forced Britain in 1776 to abandon less important possessions the Falklands being one of them. Before leaving the British Lieutenant Clayton left a plaque saying that the Falklands were still a sovereign possession of the crown of England. But Spain took over the British territory in the Falklands anyway and governed them until 1811 when Spain was forced to leave because of the various revolutions kicking off in south America and the fact that Spain itself was occupied by Napoleon Bonaparte of France. Spain like Britain before her left a plaque saying that the islands were a sovereign possession of the Spanish crown.

In 1820 an American privateer under the pay of the united provinces of the river plate named Colonal David Jewett claimed the islands as a part of the UPOTRP and warned the American and British sealing ships present in the islands since Spain left that they were in UPOTRP territory and did not have permission to do what they were doing. After Jewett left the Sealers simply ignored his warning. In 1833 the British invaded because the Argentines had illegally taken possession of the islands because they thought of themselves as the successors to the Spanish even though they were working out a deal with Britain over the islands. So as you can see the Falklands have had a long history where various powers have asserted there authority over the islands but the fact remains the Falklands were discovered first by the English and was settled first by the French not the Spanish or Argentines and there is also no concrete evidence to suggest that a native American population lived on the islands before Davis&#39; discovery. Therefore if you want to think of this from a finder&#39;s keeper&#39;s loser&#39;s weeper&#39;s point of view then the British found it first so take what you want from that&#33;

[Zurdito]

it&#39;s not about "finders keepers". Argentina gained independence and control over the territories in that region which had previously been opressed by the Spanish Empire under the viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata. The Malvinas fell under this. When the British took them back in the name of Empire from a sovereign third world non-imperialist state, this was regressive, regardless of who "discovered" them. It would be like Spain re-invading Patagonia because they "discovered" it before Argentina even existed. Would you support that too?

[spartan]

Argentina did not even exist when the islands were illegaly taken in 1820&#33; The only nations that existed at the time near the Falklands was the united provinces of the river plate. No Argentina back then i am afraid which makes there claim to the Falklands appear all the more silly.

[Zurdito]

:rolleyes: Argentina gained independence in 1816, and the Malvinas were not stolen until 1833. You&#39;ve shown you haven&#39;t got the slightest clue what you&#39;re talking about, so enough now, go read a history book and get back to me.

[spartan]

Zurdito:
Argentina gained independence in 1816
No the united provinces of the river plate gained independence in 1816 not "Argentina"&#33; The UPOTRP lasted until 1853 when Argentina finally came into being.

and the Malvinas were not stolen until 1833
Where did i say in my post that the FALKLANDS were RECLAIMED before 1833?

You&#39;ve shown you haven&#39;t got the slightest clue what you&#39;re talking about, so enough now, go read a history book and get back to me.
I am affraid that i have read to many non-biased works about this subject to think of myself as wrong where as you are just repeating bitter Argentinian Nationalist propaganda which is odd for someone who claims to be only half Argentinian?

[Zurdito]

No the united provinces of the river plate gained independence in 1816 not "Argentina"&#33; The UPOTRP lasted until 1853 when Argentina finally came into being.

Jesus Christ that&#39;s pathetic even for you&#33;

Firstly I don&#39;t think what you said is even true, I&#39;ll have to check, but either way it&#39;s irrelevant. Just because a state changes it&#39;s name doesn&#39;t make it a different state. Many states have changed their names various times. Argentina&#39;s national independence day is July 9 1816. That&#39;s the day when a liberated state rose from the ex Viceryalty of Rio de la Plata and took control of its ex-territories. no pedantry can disguise the fact that Britain illegitamately stole the Malvinas from Argentina, whatever it may have been called at the time.

[spartan]

The UPOTRP did "steal" it from Spain (who stole it from Britain). Remember the UPOTRP had an absurd notion that everything that was formely Spanish in southern south America automatically belonged to the newly formed UPOTRP&#33; Also remember that when the UPOTRP claimed the islands in 1820 they were laying claim to a territory that already had two claims on it by Britain and Spain (And France but they relinquished all their claims to the islands in 1766 and in 1767 all french possessions on the islands passed to Spain).

[Zurdito]

The UPOTRP did "steal" it from Spain (who stole it from Britain). Remember the UPOTRP had an absurd notion that everything that was formely Spanish in southern south America automatically belonged to the newly formed UPOTRP&#33;

No they didn&#39;t, they simply united with other liberation movements in the continent to defeat the Spanish. There were talks of a united continent, which ideally would have been a great hing, but if you&#39;re going to start getting cuaght up on that question we&#39;ll go so far off-topic it will be a joke. So can we please stick to the issue at hand? The ex Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata gained independence in 1816, and the Malvinas were part of that. Any other misunderstood bit of trivia you chuck at me is just irrelevant sophistry, so please, give it a rest and deal with the issue at hand.


Also remember that when the UPOTRP claimed the islands in 1820 they were laying claim to a territory that already had two claims on it by Britain and Spain (And France but they relinquished all their claims to the islands in 1766 and in 1767 all french possessions on the islands passed to Spain).

So you think that an imperialist state has an equal claim to a set of Islands in the South Atlantic as the recently liberated post-colonial state which has them within its legal borders and has administrated them for 60 years (17 years as an independent state). Some revolutionary you are, you actively support imperialist states re-conquering old imperial territories from third world nations&#33; Beyond parody.:lol:

[spartan]

The third world you speak about did not exist in the early nineteenth century. Also it was not "Argentina" who administered the islands in the late eighteenth century to early nineteenth century it was the Spanish empire who administered the islands. The UOTRP only claimed the islands for the first time in 1820 (They were not apart of the newly created UOTRP in 1816&#33;) when they payed the American privateer David Jewett to go there and claim the islands for the UOTRP (The islands still officially belonged to the two nations who still claimed them which were Britain and Spain) and to get rid of the inhabitants already on the islands (The majority of which were American and British sealers). Of course this occupation of the islands which did not belong to the UOTRP (And never had belonged to them) angered Britain who reclaimed the islands by force in 1833. The islands have ever since then been apart of Britain (except for a brief and very unpopular occupation by the Argentine armed forces in 1982 which was defeated by an outnumbered British task force) with the majority of the population of the islands mainly being of British origin (As well as the majority of the islanders themselves regarding themselves as British and as apart of Britain not as Argentinians or Argentina respectively).

[Zurdito]

why do you keep repeating irrelevancies and dwelling on pedantic definitions rather than developing an argument (for example your ridiculous use of what would correctly be called "UPRLP", when any historian I&#39;ve ever read from any country refers to it as Argentina from 1816 onwards?)

It&#39;s clear that Argentina was an economically dependent semi-colony at the time, whilst Britain was an Empire, and that Britain was an imperialist state; to split hairs about use of the word "third world" is absurd.

It&#39;s also clear that through the process of decolonisation, Argentina gained control of the Malvinas, and Britain had no right to take back that land FOR an empire FROM a recently liberated post-colonial state. To support an imperialist state in that situation against a semi-colony over land legally within the semi-colonies maritime territory makes you as reactionary as they come. To then disguise your support of this action by the completely retrospective "justification" of the colonists desire to host a British military base in a resource rich, strategically important part of the third world, is also intellectual dishonesty, because you go from disputing historical fact to then claiming that historical fact doesn&#39;t matter - ie basically wasting my time by leading me into giving you an argument which you&#39;re not interested in anyway.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Back on topic, Osama bin Laden&#39;s hypocritical remarks remind me of equally hypocritical remarks made by the late Pope JP2. I was a teenager when I read a church newspaper article on him lashing out at capitalism.

[ComradeR]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 04:34 am
Back on topic, Osama bin Laden&#39;s hypocritical remarks remind me of equally hypocritical remarks made by the late Pope JP2. I was a teenager when I read a church newspaper article on him lashing out at capitalism.
Didn&#39;t the new pope attack capitalism as well during his trip to Latin America last year?

[Devrim]

Originally posted by ComradeR+September 21, 2007 07:32 am--> (ComradeR @ September 21, 2007 07:32 am)
[email protected] 21, 2007 04:34 am
Back on topic, Osama bin Laden&#39;s hypocritical remarks remind me of equally hypocritical remarks made by the late Pope JP2. I was a teenager when I read a church newspaper article on him lashing out at capitalism.
Didn&#39;t the new pope attack capitalism as well during his trip to Latin America last year? [/b]
Don&#39;t worry, I am sure somebody on here will be saying we should support the pope soon too.

Devrim

[Robespierre2.0]

I think what the issue really is here, is how much further leftism will be set back in America. You guys know, of course, the right wing is going to eat this shit up. In fact, I have a hunch this is just a trick the bush regime&#39;s using to try and indoctrinate anti-communism into another generation of Americans.

From now on, whenever we get into arguments with cappies, they&#39;ll be able to pull the "You know who else dislikes capitalism? BIN LADEN&#33;" card.