Imperialism is the main enemy [Archive]

Sky

21st February 2008, 01:26

John Green's letter on the Afghan resistance is wrong in every way (“Taliban not a step forward,” August 11). He falsely counterposes Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Taliban in Afghanistan, claiming that the former is leading (despite its socially reactionary politics) a genuine national liberation struggle while the latter “fails this criteria.”

His proof of their failure is that “most Afghans don’t support the Taliban’s fundamentalism, drug-trafficking and intimidation tactics.” This sounds a lot like the Bush administration’s rhetoric about the Iraqi resistance, minus the drug trafficking, and Green provides no evidence about what most Afghans support.

Green’s analysis leaves us totally unable to explain the new resurgence in the Taliban’s strength. Occupation forces in Afghanistan have raided homes and villages with impunity, engaged in torture and committed other atrocities. This is precisely why the popularity of the Taliban has grown enormously since they were toppled from power almost five years ago.
Like it or not, the Taliban is leading the resistance to Western imperialism in Afghanistan. Socialists should never hide our political differences and criticisms of Islamists, but any criticism can come only in the context of support for the struggle they are leading.

In this case, the struggle is one for an Afghanistan free of imperialist control. Victory for the Taliban would not only be a blow to U.S. imperialism, but also a victory for the oppressed around the world, who are fighting the same enemy.

http://www.socialistworker.org/2006-2/600/600_04_ViewsInBrief.shtml

Joby

21st February 2008, 02:14

What the fuck?

One minute, the Left will bash conservatives for opposing Women's Lib, the next they're saying that the Taliban is a revolutionary force.

It's clear that Imperialism isn't considered main enemy, just another way to score some hollow political points amongst leftists.

And by the way, juding by the pictures of thousands of men shaving their beards, free from the threat of a beating for doing so the Taliban handed out, I'm tempted to agree with Green's analysis, if not his suggestions.

Zurdito

21st February 2008, 02:22

One minute, the Left will bash conservatives for opposing Women's Lib, the next they're saying that the Taliban is a revolutionary force.

The Taliban could not lead a social revolution in Afghanistan, in fact they came to power backed by the US as the main opposition to that threat. However they are part of the resistance to US imperialism today.

Afghanistan is opressed by US imperialism. A successful and complete social revolution can't take place whilst a country is still opressed from the outside. Therefore the Afghan resistance to US imperialism should be supported.

RNK

21st February 2008, 04:49

What the fuck?

Many leftists and revolutionaries today lack the ability to analyse situations such as these from a materialist perspective. They are drawn one way or another by wholly unscientific opinions and romanticizations, elaborately abandoning a communist outlook in favour of emotional garbage.

What we're seeing in Afghanistan (and Iraq) is a clash between two very reactionary tendencies which are both undeniably opposed to what we (should) stand for. On the one hand we have capitalist imperialism, with all of its exploitation and financial and political oppression; on the other, we have fundamentalism with its physical brutality and criminal violence.

Many leftists have a background which may have brought them in contention with one of these tendencies; some may have been influenced more by anti-religious sentiments, while others influenced by anti-racist or anti-American sentiments, and these backgrounds end up clouding their scientific judgement and allow them to skew their "class-based" perspectives in favour of personalized and emotion-driven sentiments.

In reality, neither of the forces involved deserve our support. We're all aware of the crimes of capitalism and the crimes of fundamentalism and it continues to surprise me to see so-called communists argue in favour of one against the other.

While it's true that we should support resistance against imperialism, that does not mean we should support all those who resist it. This backwards logic is more commonly known as "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and is a stupid way of going about things.

In short, the moment a person starts waving the flag of a tendency such as the Taliban (or in other cases, Iran) is the moment they turn their back on the masses. The taliban does not represent anything progressive whatsoever; they are an extremely reactionary and oppressive group who would like nothing more than to see a deeply regressive religious system of law that would be a huge leap backwards in terms of the liberation of humanity. But at the same time, while the installation of capitalism may be viewed as a progressive step, it is not something to clamour for either, for it promises to divide the people and emerse the majority of them in misery and exploitation.

A similar happening occured in Afghanistan during the coup and the Soviet invasion; many progressive, revolutionary tendencies blurred the line between progressive struggle and fundamentalist struggle and ended up betraying the masses and adopting fully the "sheep's clothes" and turning into fundamentalists. Others were too complacent with the fundamentalists (the mujahadeen), focusing all of their attention on the Soviet invasion and ended up being eradicated utterly as the mujahadeen turned on them after the Soviet withdrawl.

Joby

21st February 2008, 08:33

Many leftists and revolutionaries today lack the ability to analyse situations such as these from a materialist perspective. They are drawn one way or another by wholly unscientific opinions and romanticizations, elaborately abandoning a communist outlook in favour of emotional garbage.

What we're seeing in Afghanistan (and Iraq) is a clash between two very reactionary tendencies which are both undeniably opposed to what we (should) stand for. On the one hand we have capitalist imperialism, with all of its exploitation and financial and political oppression; on the other, we have fundamentalism with its physical brutality and criminal violence.

Many leftists have a background which may have brought them in contention with one of these tendencies; some may have been influenced more by anti-religious sentiments, while others influenced by anti-racist or anti-American sentiments, and these backgrounds end up clouding their scientific judgement and allow them to skew their "class-based" perspectives in favour of personalized and emotion-driven sentiments.

In reality, neither of the forces involved deserve our support. We're all aware of the crimes of capitalism and the crimes of fundamentalism and it continues to surprise me to see so-called communists argue in favour of one against the other.

While it's true that we should support resistance against imperialism, that does not mean we should support all those who resist it. This backwards logic is more commonly known as "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and is a stupid way of going about things.

In short, the moment a person starts waving the flag of a tendency such as the Taliban (or in other cases, Iran) is the moment they turn their back on the masses. The taliban does not represent anything progressive whatsoever; they are an extremely reactionary and oppressive group who would like nothing more than to see a deeply regressive religious system of law that would be a huge leap backwards in terms of the liberation of humanity. But at the same time, while the installation of capitalism may be viewed as a progressive step, it is not something to clamour for either, for it promises to divide the people and emerse the majority of them in misery and exploitation.

A similar happening occured in Afghanistan during the coup and the Soviet invasion; many progressive, revolutionary tendencies blurred the line between progressive struggle and fundamentalist struggle and ended up betraying the masses and adopting fully the "sheep's clothes" and turning into fundamentalists. Others were too complacent with the fundamentalists (the mujahadeen), focusing all of their attention on the Soviet invasion and ended up being eradicated utterly as the mujahadeen turned on them after the Soviet withdrawl.

Great post, I agree whole-heartedly.

I've met Leftists online who've honestly congratulated Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda's "victory" against the US. They fail to realize that by doing so, they a.) Associate socialism with something it clearly is not and b.) make themselves look like a bunch of hateful idiots to many potential Leftists.

RNK

21st February 2008, 09:39

Zurdito

21st February 2008, 18:33

They probably mean well, but their sentiments are misguided. Given the chance, extremists like bin Laden and the Taliban would slaughter us communists faster than the capitalists would. Infact, they have.

That's a well known fact. However, a national liberation struggle is a national liberation struggle. Many Irish freedom fighters against the British were pro-fascist and sent troops to fight for the fascists in Spain. Does this mean we'd not support them when fighting for British troops to leave Ireland?

And actually the equating the Afghan resistance and Al Qaeda is false. The Afghan resistance is a popular struggle of the Afghan people against foreign occupation - the different views within it are secondary to that. Al Qaeda is not that at all.

Sky

21st February 2008, 19:59

The struggle of the resistance is democratic in that it aims to end the oppression that comes from foreign occupation and makes it easier for all oppressed people to fight for their rights. The Taliban's unification of the country under Sharia Law in 1996 was an immensely progressive development in that it established the conditions necessary for the building of a bourgeois economy. The Taliban sought to create a centralized state free of ethnic sectarianism and tried to wipe out the reactionary warlords.

on the other, we have fundamentalism with its physical brutality and criminal violence.

This is more a manifestation of racism towards those nations with a poorly developed economy rather than a criticism of any particular political faction. To slander the Taliban for its "physical brutality" in effect is racism against the Pashtun tribesmen.

This backwards logic is more commonly known as "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and is a stupid way of going about things.

The historical precedent of the Communist movement shows that it is necessary to form a broad popular front in the struggle against the yoke of monopoly capitalism. It was Lenin who wrote:

To carry on a war for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie, a war which is a hundred times more difficult, protracted and complex than the most stubborn of ordinary wars between states, and to renounce in advance any change of tack, or any utilization of a conflict of interests (even if temporary) among one’s enemies, or any conciliation or compromise with possible allies (even if they are temporary, unstable, vacillating, or conditional allies)—is that not ridiculous in the extreme?

The taliban does not represent anything progressive whatsoever

That is false. The Taliban during its rule aimed to centralize government to wipe out the regional warlords. These tasks are immensely progressive and are necessary for the development of a bourgeois economy.

they are an extremely reactionary and oppressive group who would like nothing more than to see a deeply regressive religious system of law that would be a huge leap backwards in terms of the liberation of humanity.

History has proven that the rise of Islam has in fact been an immensely progressive force in that it helps to create a unified, centralized state.

Sky

21st February 2008, 20:01

The struggle of the resistance is democratic in that it aims to end the oppression that comes from foreign occupation and makes it easier for all oppressed people to fight for their rights. The Taliban's unification of the country under Sharia Law in 1996 was an immensely progressive development in that it established the conditions necessary for the building of a bourgeois economy. The Taliban sought to create a centralized state free of ethnic sectarianism and tried to wipe out the reactionary warlords. The Taliban did not represent only the Afghan tribesmen but in fact claimed to represent all Muslims including Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Turkmens. The treasonous "Northern Alliance" by contrast is nothing but a umbrella grouping of a handful of corrupt, brutal warlords whose only commanlity is that they hate the Taliban.

on the other, we have fundamentalism with its physical brutality and criminal violence.

This is more a manifestation of racism towards those nations with a poorly developed economy rather than a criticism of any particular political faction. To depict a grassroots movement like the Taliban in a barbaric manner with such phrases like "physical brutality" in effect is racism against the Afghan people.

This backwards logic is more commonly known as "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and is a stupid way of going about things.

The historical precedent of the Communist movement shows that it is necessary to form a broad popular front in the struggle against the yoke of monopoly capitalism. It was Lenin who wrote:
To carry on a war for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie, a war which is a hundred times more difficult, protracted and complex than the most stubborn of ordinary wars between states, and to renounce in advance any change of tack, or any utilization of a conflict of interests (even if temporary) among one’s enemies, or any conciliation or compromise with possible allies (even if they are temporary, unstable, vacillating, or conditional allies)—is that not ridiculous in the extreme?

The taliban does not represent anything progressive whatsoever

That is false. The Taliban during its rule aimed to centralize government to wipe out the regional warlords. These goals are progressive and are necessary for the development of a bourgeois economy.

they are an extremely reactionary and oppressive group who would like nothing more than to see a deeply regressive religious system of law that would be a huge leap backwards in terms of the liberation of humanity.

History has proven that the rise of Islam has in fact been an immensely progressive force in that it helps to create a unified, centralized state wherever it took power.

Arabia was not a unified nation when Muhammad began to spread Islam, and personal allegiances were to one's tribe, more than to a city ruler or king. Islam was the catalyst to unify the nation and reduce the importance of tribal loyalties.

careyprice31

22nd February 2008, 00:18

what the fuck?

The Taliban is progressive? Sharia law is progressive?

a system where women are thrown in jail because they've been raped and according to that law they've had sex outside marriage and therefore must be punished?

The same system where in order to prove rape occurred you must produce four male witnesses who saw the actual act of penetration?

and you call that progressive?

MT5678

22nd February 2008, 00:44

Didn't Socialist worker say some time ago that it backed "progressive, secular, institutions" in the Middle East (that were hopefully worker-run if not at least like France). I lost the article, but they at least said something like this.

Sky

22nd February 2008, 00:48

The Taliban are progressive insofar as they strive to bring all Muslims of Afghanistan whether Afghan, Tajik, or Uzbek under the guidance of a centralized, unified State. The majority of the Taliban's cabinet members came from ethnic minorities. The Taliban want national unity based on the rule of law and civil society. They are not a fundamentalist group and do not represent a threat to their nehigbors. The Taliban want an enduring peace, national security, and respect for Afghan traditions. The Taliban strives to wipe out the reactionary warlords. The struggle against this foreign occupation is a prerequisite for the development of a bourgeois economy in Afghanistan. All who fail to support this just national liberation struggle should be regarded as accomplices of imperialism.

a system where women are thrown in jail because they've been raped and according to that law they've had sex outside marriage and therefore must be punished?

According to Laili Helms, who had been in Afghanistan numerous times before and after the Islamic Emirate, women in Afghanistan were not suffering.

Dean

22nd February 2008, 01:04

Those who oppose the primary liberation movements against imperialists are almost always dogmatic purists who subscribe to a fetishistic marxist "science." These people love to throw around terms like "materialist" and "scientific analysis" when referring to social movements, because they don't want to live in the real world and consider real liberation movements, but rather fixate on a fantastic future anarchy, and a great mass of proles who will bring us there - everybody else be damned.

In reality, there are no perfect movements, no certain rights and wrongs. The indication that Hizb Allah, Hamas and the majority resistance in Iraq are reactionary and oppositional are particularly disturbing, because these are some of the most progressive movements in the region. Most completely ignore the profound differences between Shia and Sunni political action and ideology, and furthermore how women's rights are treated by such movements. The Taliban is a truly different movement from these; primarily rooted in Pakistan and Afghanistan, they are an army of militant religious nationalists who attempt to push their right-wing views of Islam by taking over territories and enacting their twisted Shari'ah law. They are a distinctly imperialist group, whose relationship with the people is more akin to Fatah than to Hizb Allah.

MT5678

22nd February 2008, 01:05

Hizballah and Hamas and more are anti-colonial reaction movements, like the Mahdi army before them. Let's just leave it at that, why not?

careyprice31

22nd February 2008, 01:28

According to Laili Helms, who had been in Afghanistan numerous times before and after the Islamic Emirate, women in Afghanistan were not suffering.

Excuse me, but not being allowed to work, having to wear burka's, not being allowed out of your house without a male escort, the rape I mentioned earlier, plus some men questioning why women are not allowed to have more than one mate but men are allowed to take more than one wife and then being sentenced to death for it, and you say that women do not suffer?

If that isnt suffering to u boy would I hate to see what is suffering to you. I'd hate to see what it would take for you to feel guilty for supporting the taliban.

what the fuck?

Sky

22nd February 2008, 02:32

what the fuck? Just because certain allegations are made doesn't automatically make them true. The hateful propaganda campaign against the Afghan resistance must be seen in the context of certain imperialist powers trying to colonize Afghanistan. Laili Helms said on Dateline NBC in 1999:

I spent about two weeks going around four provinces and in Kabul meeting with women doctors, nurses, teachers, administrators, who were working. So it is false that women are not allowed to work. I have hours of videotapes of women walking around Kabul without male companions, with and without the burka (face cover). So it is false that women are not allowed out without male companions. I spent lots of time speaking to women who teach home schools and also spoke with the women who are participating in the medical school. Right now there are 35 women attending the medical school in Kabul. So it is not true that the right of education has been taken away from women.

RNK

22nd February 2008, 04:31

One person, one unsubstantiated claim; you do not honestly think this trumps the truckloads of evidence to the contrary, do you?

Those who oppose the primary liberation movements against imperialists are almost always dogmatic purists who subscribe to a fetishistic marxist "science." These people love to throw around terms like "materialist" and "scientific analysis" when referring to social movements, because they don't want to live in the real world and consider real liberation movements, but rather fixate on a fantastic future anarchy, and a great mass of proles who will bring us there - everybody else be damned.

I agree. In actuality, there are two opposing spectrums of idiocy concerning this issue; those who reject anything on the simple basis of its conformity to purist Marxist science, and those who accept anything on the simple basis of its nonconformity with capitalism.

Joby

22nd February 2008, 05:43

The struggle of the resistance is democratic in that it aims to end the oppression that comes from foreign occupation and makes it easier for all oppressed people to fight for their rights. The Taliban's unification of the country under Sharia Law in 1996 was an immensely progressive development in that it established the conditions necessary for the building of a bourgeois economy. The Taliban sought to create a centralized state free of ethnic sectarianism and tried to wipe out the reactionary warlords. The Taliban did not represent only the Afghan tribesmen but in fact claimed to represent all Muslims including Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Turkmens. The treasonous "Northern Alliance" by contrast is nothing but a umbrella grouping of a handful of corrupt, brutal warlords whose only commanlity is that they hate the Taliban.

So to wipe out reactionary warlords, they launched one of the more reactionary regimes in recent history.

Was Catholic control of Europe, following the fall of the Roman Empire, progressive in that it united Europe?

This is more a manifestation of racism towards those nations with a poorly developed economy rather than a criticism of any particular political faction. To depict a grassroots movement like the Taliban in a barbaric manner with such phrases like "physical brutality" in effect is racism against the Afghan people.

What? We're not bashing the Afghan people, we're bashing the theocracy.

But while we're on the subject, the Middle East has always had a history of tribalism, in which authoritarianism takes over and attempts to keep control. But the Taliban makes Bashir al-Assad look like Martin Luther King when it comes to social freedoms.

The historical precedent of the Communist movement shows that it is necessary to form a broad popular front in the struggle against the yoke of monopoly capitalism. It was Lenin who wrote:
To carry on a war for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie, a war which is a hundred times more difficult, protracted and complex than the most stubborn of ordinary wars between states, and to renounce in advance any change of tack, or any utilization of a conflict of interests (even if temporary) among one’s enemies, or any conciliation or compromise with possible allies (even if they are temporary, unstable, vacillating, or conditional allies)—is that not ridiculous in the extreme?

I don't think he would have supported Theocracy. Not that it really matters what he thought, anyway.

History has proven that the rise of Islam has in fact been an immensely progressive force in that it helps to create a unified, centralized state wherever it took power.

Arabia was not a unified nation when Muhammad began to spread Islam, and personal allegiances were to one's tribe, more than to a city ruler or king. Islam was the catalyst to unify the nation and reduce the importance of tribal loyalties

History shows that politics in these places almost always means authoritarianism.

That said, a secular authoritarianism is much better and more progressive than a theocracy.

Dean

22nd February 2008, 11:28

One person, one unsubstantiated claim; you do not honestly think this trumps the truckloads of evidence to the contrary, do you?
Even if the claim itself was true, the various articles I've seen in AlJazeera, and the personal accounts (plus Amnesty International's report) show that women's rights are violated consistantly in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia to the extreme. In Afghanistan, people have been killed for teaching little girls; Opium farmers who refuse to make Poppy are often killed. Sectarian suicide bombings are routinely carried out by the Taliban specifically, and their primary aim is to create a theocracy.

I agree. In actuality, there are two opposing spectrums of idiocy concerning this issue; those who reject anything on the simple basis of its conformity to purist Marxist science, and those who accept anything on the simple basis of its nonconformity with capitalism.

Indeed. The former tend to completely ignore the movements, whereas the latter tends to get a sliver of information and leave it at that. The fact that the Taliban is markedly different from other groups in tactics, ideology and theological influence escapes them, and this is particularly dangerous. I've often said that the only good things the Taliban has ever done has been to drive out the Soviets and fight the U.S., and at this point I think an occupied Afghanistan is probably much better for human rights than an Imperialist Taliban presence.

careyprice31

22nd February 2008, 18:29

Even if the claim itself was true, the various articles I've seen in AlJazeera, and the personal accounts (plus Amnesty International's report) show that women's rights are violated consistantly in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia to the extreme. In Afghanistan, people have been killed for teaching little girls; Opium farmers who refuse to make Poppy are often killed. Sectarian suicide bombings are routinely carried out by the Taliban specifically, and their primary aim is to create a theocracy.

Indeed. The former tend to completely ignore the movements, whereas the latter tends to get a sliver of information and leave it at that. The fact that the Taliban is markedly different from other groups in tactics, ideology and theological influence escapes them, and this is particularly dangerous. I've often said that the only good things the Taliban has ever done has been to drive out the Soviets and fight the U.S., and at this point I think an occupied Afghanistan is probably much better for human rights than an Imperialist Taliban presence.

This guy who Sky mentioned could have been shown in Afghanistan 'Potemkin villages' and thus tricked into believing there was nothing wrong with how the Taliban treated women.

I dont even know of this guy. On what basis should we believe what he said?

Sky u sound like something from Nechayev himself. "make use of the devil himself and anyone useful to the cause especially the savage criminal if necessary."

I have read the Catechism of a Revolutionary and you sound just like it.

So you believe in helping the taliban to drive out the usa forces even if it will result in something worse

"because the worse things are, the better for the Revolution" is what Nechayev, Tkachev, Pisarev, and even Lenin and Stalin subscribed to this idea.

Sky

22nd February 2008, 21:18

One person, one unsubstantiated claim; you do not honestly think this trumps the truckloads of evidence to the contrary, do you?

Laili Helms, an Afghan-American, had regularly visited the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan from 1996-2000 and is therefore better qualified than anyone else to make an evaluation of how women have been treated during the Islamic Emirate. Based on what she witnessed, she specifically reported that women were working, going to school, and walking around in the streets of Kabul without male companions and without the burka. The perspective of such an individual is undeniably more objective than that of a "human rights" organization serving the cause of their imperialist sockpuppeteers.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

22nd February 2008, 22:08

Dean

22nd February 2008, 22:15

Laili Helms, an Afghan-American, had regularly visited the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan from 1996-2000 and is therefore better qualified than anyone else to make an evaluation of how women have been treated during the Islamic Emirate. Based on what she witnessed, she specifically reported that women were working, going to school, and walking around in the streets of Kabul without male companions and without the burka.
How about the personal accounts of Media correspondents for AlJazeera? How about an Afghan I knew last year who confirmed the rights abuses against women?

The perspective of such an individual is undeniably more objective than that of a "human rights" organization serving the cause of their imperialist sockpuppeteers.

Fuck you. I was thinking about this today, and it's really godamn sick that you refuse to look at any credible source and try to defend the murder of civilians and the violence against women by saying it couldn't have happened just because the perpetrators happen to hate the U.S., too. People like you disgust me.

RGacky3

23rd February 2008, 02:26

Dean

23rd February 2008, 02:58

Calling the Taliban 'Imperialist' is wrong, they arn't trying to invade other countries they just want to dominate their own country. Supporting the Taliban because they are fighting against the United States is akin to supporting hitler because he was fighting the United States, Or Supporting Stalin because he was fighting Hitler.
The Taliban IS imperialist. It enters foreign areas and attempts to take them over and increase their sphere of influence by violence against civilian populations.

To Those that Support The Islamic Resistance groups, would your view be the same if they were Christian?
Yes, and it's worth noting that the resistance in Lebanon, who support Hizb Allah, is comprised of the major Christian political group. The fact that religion is so big in the region that Christians, too, have a political party is a testament to the role that religious rhetoric plays in politics, whether the actual ideology is theological or not (often it isn't).

[quoute]Of coarse one can always support a groups right to resist, but not support the way they do it, or what they are fighting neccesarily for.[/QUOTE]
First off, I want to point out that most resistance fighters in Iraq consciously target the U.S. military, actively attempting to miss civilian targets, even U.S. consultants and workers. Of course, our media wants us to think that isn't the fact. Secondly, most resistance groups use religious rhetoric, however their politics are primarily founded on liberty, nationalism and resistance (much like the Iranian revolution).

A group I support, though I disagree with their tactics, is Hamas. I do not agree with the rockets being fired into Israeli settlements, because civilians are there (which is how Israel hides behind civilians in its attacks). I don't agree with their claiming acts of terror like the recent suicide bombing in a mall, despite the clear indication that Al-Aqsa of Fatah was likely to blame. A group like the Taliban, however, is directly in line with what the media would have us believe all Islamic groups in the region are: theocratic, oppressive, violent and ultimately out to serve their interpretation of the Quran, not the people, resistance or freedom.

RNK

23rd February 2008, 13:21

Calling the Taliban 'Imperialist' is wrong, they arn't trying to invade other countries they just want to dominate their own country.

The Taliban as a specific entity, maybe; but on the other hand, Al Qaida and the Mujahadeen are definately imperialist as they have invaded other countries.

Sky

23rd February 2008, 20:06

What we're seeing in Afghanistan (and Iraq) is a clash between two very reactionary tendencies which are both undeniably opposed to what we (should) stand for.That is incorrect. The national liberation movement in Iraq and Afghanistan are anti-imperialist movements—component parts of the world revolutionary process and an active force contributing to the destruction of imperialism. The national liberation forces are the objective allies of the socialist movement. The main drive in the national liberation movement are the working class and the peasantry. The urban petite bourgeoisie, patriotic intelligentsia, and the army also play an active and important role in the national liberation struggle. These groups are characterized by strong anti-imperialist and anticapitalist attitudes. The national bourgeoisie participates in the national liberation movement, often providing it with leadership. Profound economic and political contradictions between it and the foreign monopolists impel the national bourgeoisie to fight against thse groups. The struggle for national liberation always develops into a struggle against exploitative relations, both feudal and capitalist.

The imperialist monopolies retard the development of national capital in the colonies and semi-colonies in every way possible, hindering the creation of large-scale modern history. The one-sided agrarian-raw materials specialization of the dependent countries becomes more and more consolidated under imperialist enslavement. Imperialism consolidates the backwardness and monocultural specialization of the dependent countries. The exports of the dependent countries are dominated by two or three goods essential to the imperialist countries, whereas their imports are dominated by a broad range of industrial goods and even foodstuffs. This retards the development of local production in the dependent countries. Independent countries seek the abolition of the most one-sided conditions of imperialist trade. They create national firms for foreign trade and institute state monopolies on the import of certain goods in order to protect the national economy against foreign penetration. Important agrarian reforms are carried. With the achievement of national liberation, important reforms meeting the interests of the popular masses and leading the strengthening and national independence are carried out.

BurnTheOliveTree

23rd February 2008, 20:25

From RNK:

In reality, neither of the forces involved deserve our support. We're all aware of the crimes of capitalism and the crimes of fundamentalism and it continues to surprise me to see so-called communists argue in favour of one against the other.

While it's true that we should support resistance against imperialism, that does not mean we should support all those who resist it. This backwards logic is more commonly known as "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and is a stupid way of going about things.

In short, the moment a person starts waving the flag of a tendency such as the Taliban (or in other cases, Iran) is the moment they turn their back on the masses. The taliban does not represent anything progressive whatsoever; they are an extremely reactionary and oppressive group who would like nothing more than to see a deeply regressive religious system of law that would be a huge leap backwards in terms of the liberation of humanity. But at the same time, while the installation of capitalism may be viewed as a progressive step, it is not something to clamour for either, for it promises to divide the people and emerse the majority of them in misery and exploitation.

I absolutely agree with this. Why the urge to support every anti-imperialist out there?

Mussolini and fascists of many stripes oppose capitalism in favour of 'corporatism'. By the logic of the SWP and others who are determined to turn a blind eye to the disgusting practices of groups like Hezbollah or the Taliban because they oppose US imperialism, we ought also to express our solidarity with the fascists! Perhaps our slogan should be "We are ALL fascisti di combatimento"?

-Alex

Dean

23rd February 2008, 20:29

From RNK:

I absolutely agree with this. Why the urge to support every anti-imperialist out there?

Mussolini and fascists of many stripes oppose capitalism in favour of 'corporatism'. By the logic of the SWP and others who are determined to turn a blind eye to the disgusting practices of groups like Hezbollah or the Taliban because they oppose US imperialism, we ought also to express our solidarity with the fascists! Perhaps our slogan should be "We are ALL fascisti di combatimento"?

-Alex

What's wrong with Hizb Allah?

RNK

23rd February 2008, 22:37

For one, it is still a deeply dogmatic entity in which aspects of fundamentalism run deep to its core. I do not agree that Hezbollah can be lumped together with the Taliban, but there is reason for criticism of it.

Dean

25th February 2008, 02:11

For one, it is still a deeply dogmatic entity in which aspects of fundamentalism run deep to its core.
This has some truth to it.

I do not agree that Hezbollah can be lumped together with the Taliban, but there is reason for criticism of it.
Agreed.

Sky

25th February 2008, 18:43

I would like to clarify that I do not render unconditional support to Islamic militants. While I support the struggle of the Taliban and other resistance forces against the current occupation, I supported the progressive government of Tajikistan against the reactionary mujahideen.

RGacky3

25th February 2008, 18:52

As far as terrorism is concerned I like What Satre said about it "Terrorism is a horrible weapon, but its the only one the poor and oppressed people have." Thats not saying I support it in any way, what it is showing is empathy, or understanding.

BurnTheOliveTree

27th February 2008, 13:10

What's wrong with Hizb Allah?

Bloody hell, first Adam Smith's being defended, next Hezbollah. Perhaps I've gone nuts.

Hezbollah are radical islamic theocrats, for fuck's sake. They were set up for the purpose, ultimately, of creating an islamic theocracy in Lebanon based on the qu'ran, haddith, et cetera. Added to which, they are flagrantly anti-semitic terrorists. They claim, for instance, that Israel deliberately spreads AIDS! They are nationalists, too. Here's a couple of choice quotes from their current secretary general, Hassan Nasrallah:

If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew.

The Jews invented the legend of the Nazi atrocities. Anyone who reads the Koran and the holy writings of the monotheistic religions sees what they did to the prophets, and what acts of madness and slaughter the Jews carried out throughout history. Anyone who reads these texts cannot think of co-existence with them, of peace with them, or about accepting their presence, not only in Palestine of 1948 but even in a small village in Palestine, because they are a cancer which is liable to spread again at any moment.

When the left supports radical islamic theocratic anti-semitic terrorists because, well, they kill israelis, something has gone seriously wrong.

-Alex

RNK

27th February 2008, 19:04

Emphasis on choice quotes.

So if they are so radically islamic, why do they fight for equality of women? Why do they employ women? Why do they allow female journalalists to appear on national television as spokespersons for them while not wearing hijabs? Why do they pursue so many social aid programs aimed at helping underpriviledged people of all faiths?

If they are terrorists, why has Nasrallah personally condemned 9/11 (the day after it happened) and condemned bin Laden?

There's no debate that Hezbollah has very questionable aspects, but they are by far, as I've said, the most progressive resistence movement fighting Israeli imperialism except for maybe the PFLP. The long and the short of it, Hezbollah is ultimately the lesser of two evils, to such a degree that I feel confident they pose more of a progressive step for workers in Lebanon than Israeli imperialism.

RGacky3

28th February 2008, 08:46

The long and the short of it, Hezbollah is ultimately the lesser of two evils

You Vote Democrat?

Dean

28th February 2008, 10:45

Bloody hell, first Adam Smith's being defended, next Hezbollah. Perhaps I've gone nuts.

Hezbollah are radical islamic theocrats, for fuck's sake. They were set up for the purpose, ultimately, of creating an islamic theocracy in Lebanon based on the qu'ran, haddith, et cetera. Added to which, they are flagrantly anti-semitic terrorists. They claim, for instance, that Israel deliberately spreads AIDS! They are nationalists, too. Here's a couple of choice quotes from their current secretary general, Hassan Nasrallah:

When the left supports radical islamic theocratic anti-semitic terrorists because, well, they kill israelis, something has gone seriously wrong.

-Alex
So anti-semitic that they allows Chomsky to visit them. Antisemitism is an unfortunate consequence of anti-arab violence by a primarily Jewish entity, Israel. It is not dissimilar to anti-white racism prominent among blacks, but it think it's important to note that these organizations routinely say that they are not anti-semitic, and most of their party line is consistant with this message. Those are the only two quotes from Nasrallah I've seen supportign anti-semitism, so weigh them against all the statements various members have said against antisemitism.

John Rap Brown

28th February 2008, 20:57

I don't support the American invaders or the Taliban.

How hard a concept is it really to support neither side? Anybody suggesting that you either support the US or the Taliban is proposing a false dichotomy.

The problem is, its a concept. In practice, while you don't have to be gung-ho for imperialist invasion or fundamentalist reaction, you will lean towards one pole or the other- or you will be irrelevant.

Part of the reason that Islamic fundamentalism even caught as a resistance ideology is because the 'left' faltered so much. Even so, the correct strategy is the same: based oneself is the oppressed majority to align with various classes in a united front against compradors and imperialism while maintaining autonomy, taking initiative, and creating 'liberated' base territories.