the enemies of our enemies

[reddevil]

there's alot of debate about in the international left about whether or not we should form alliances with other organisations who share some of our aims, mainly resistance to zionism and US imperialism. i've come across some comrades on here who proclaim dislike for a person or an organisation who they feel differs from their ideology in any way, no matter how small. an example would be the hounding of the swp for allying with islamists, martin luther king for his religion, the bolsheviks for not immediately dismantling the state to create an anarchist utopia and george galloway for conservative social attitudes.
socialists at present are very weak. we cannot afford to be too picky about who we ally with. that said, we should resist blind anti-western sentiment and be sure to tell the revolutionaries apart from the reactionaries.
here's my take on the following issues:
1)PRC- while it is useful as a counterweight to US hegemony, the powerhouse has a rotten ruling class of its own, helll bent on imperial domination, especially in africa. opposing the regime is a must for any serious socialist of whatever persuasion. the main domestic opposition comes from liberals and maoists or "new leftists" as they like to be called.
i have nothing but contempt for mao's rule, however i think the maoists are our best hope at present for the worker's struggles. liberals come from a variety of different political persuasions but, so long as they do not subscribe to imperialist ideals, we can consider them allies aswell. a free tibet should be on the agenda but with clear opposition to those like the dalai lama who may wish to restore the appalling feudal theocracy that existed prior to the chinese invasion
2) nepal- the new regime has my full support. the maoists are only one wing of the alliance, the rest come from a variety of different socialist schools. the maoists have proven themselves tolerant of dissent and have wide support. whateve ideological differences i might have with them, they are a positive way forward for nepal
3) russia- this bloodthirsty gangster regime already has a habit of murdering its citizens, invading its neighbours and looting the country's resources for the benefit of a small elite. as with the PRC, the fact that putin may stand in opposition to the neocons' plan for world domination does not accuse his heinous behaviour.
on south ossetia and abkhazia however, he is absolutely right. the people of the region wish for a union with russia and georgia had absolutely no right to invade sovereign territory

i'd like opinions on who we could consider our comrades in:
syria
lebanon
palestine
iraq
iran

[reddevil]

some thoughts:
-should the resistance be supported, despite it largely being comprised of ba'thist fascists and reactionary theocrats?
-was the iraqi communist party right in joining the government?
- should pan-arabists be considered allies?
- is the syrian regime progressive?
- should we support the lebanese in their struggle to be free of syrian occupation even though the government is deeply corrupt and compromising, much like the palestinian national authority. communists are present within both the pro and anti syrian factions.
- if hamas and hezbollah renounce violence against civilians and anti-semitism, could they be considered allies? they are not as reactionry as the western media like to portray them. their imposition of sharia is extremely tame and they are far more arab than they are muslim. the popular front for the liberation of palestine considers them allies, although they also defend the soviet union and saddam hussein.
- are the farc really serious about revolution? it seems to me at times that they're often more interested in making a profit than assisting the people. i would still back them over uribe and his thugs any day though

[Abluegreen7]

I feel the Resistance should be supourted. Im not going to mindlessly say who I suppourt.

The fact is that most of the Resistance members are not ba'thist. Most are just ordinary people forced to go to war with one of the strongest imperial armies on Earth.

There struggle will live inside Resistance for years.

[Abluegreen7]

This is one of the messages from one of the Resistance groups.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2GMmrI_aGY

[Elliot_R]

So you support terrorist organizations?

[Goose]

The US is the sole global world power. It fucks every country, belief and hope in the world over. For now, obviously. Empires rise and fall.

However, in a present basis, the left is weak. So we either join up with Islamic fundamentalists (who obviously share so many opinions with your average commie/anarchist, although actually birds are a pain in the arse, so maybe we should just stone them), who are the current most likely threat to US omnigarchy (cos believe it - we're fuck all right now) or we sit here and hope people notice over the course of capitalism screwing itself, and we rise back to the surface.

Has anyone on here actually noticed the current crisis in capitalism, or are we all too busy arguing and censoring?

[Abluegreen7]

I have noticed a crisis in Capitalism. Imagine if McCain wins it will only be worse.

I never said I suppourted Islamic Fundamentalists by the way. I do suppourt a struggle against American Imperialism though. I never said I suppourted the Taliban nor Al Queda. I said I suppourt the Resistance not meaning one group but the Iraqi Masses.

The Masses that have been abused by American Imperialism. The Masses who were looking for hope when America came and instead found there country exploited endlessly.

Thats who I suppourt.

[Elliot_R]

You dont join with a group of people who advocate killing all non-belivers. It just doesnt make sense! Because after, if you successully "overthrow capitalism", what happens? Do you create a muslim theocacy...or what?

[Elliot_R]

I hate muslim fundamentalism more than capitalism.

[Abluegreen7]

But your Okay with America free lancing through the Middle East?

I would kindly suppourt them before I ever suppourt an Unlawful American war.

[RedHal]

1)PRC- while it is useful as a counterweight to US hegemony, the powerhouse has a rotten ruling class of its own, helll bent on imperial domination, especially in africa. opposing the regime is a must for any serious socialist of whatever persuasion. the main domestic opposition comes from liberals and maoists or "new leftists" as they like to be called.
i have nothing but contempt for mao's rule, however i think the maoists are our best hope at present for the worker's struggles. liberals come from a variety of different political persuasions but, so long as they do not subscribe to imperialist ideals, we can consider them allies aswell. a free tibet should be on the agenda but with clear opposition to those like the dalai lama who may wish to restore the appalling feudal theocracy that existed prior to the chinese invasion


It's not the dalai lama and the return of feudal theocracy that we should fear, I think there's a zero chance of that happening with western liberals being the major supporters of the "free tibet" movement. The true fear is that the "free tibet" movement is linked to US imperialism. The "free tibet" movement is funded by the CIA and NED (national endowment for democracy), the same NED that is funding the Venezuelan opposition. So a free tibet, would be subjugated to the influence of Washington. Which means a further encirclement of China with India, Japan and South Korea already under heavy US influence. As you said, don't support the PRC, but China is useful to counteract the ravenous nature of US imperialsim (post USSR). A weak China (and Russia) means US imperialism will go unchallenged.

[Elliot_R]

The US should not (for the most part) have gotten involved with the middle east, but because you share main goals (destroying US imperalism) does not make their reasons anymore justified. They do not wnat equality, they want theocracy.

[Bilan]

But your Okay with America free lancing through the Middle East?

It's not support for "them" or "them", that's not the point, or why (we) object to supporting Islamic rebels fighting US imperialism.
What they're fighting isn't the only thing that needs to be considered in the equation, it's also what they're fighting for.
It's not as if groups in the Middle East, like the Taliban (or whatever) are siply just fighting the US occupation, they're also religious fundamentalists: homophobic, sexist, reactionary bigots. Their objection is not just to the occupation, but to Western culture, the West, infidels, and so on. They are fighting for that: the return to a theocratic system in the Middle East.

(An objection to Western Culture is not just one thing, either; Western Culture has many reactionary tendencies, and we don't support that either, such as it's racist tendencies, religious bigotry, homophobia, sexism, indeed, the characteristics which the American occupation of the Middle East claims to be objecting to are ones which it holds dear to anyway.)

The central point is that the war is part of imperialist expansion (particularly from the US), and the continual stranglehold of the West on the Middle East. It is fundamentally a capitalist war.

It needs to be understood in the same way as WWI was by socialists then, that it is two ruling classes of equally reactionary natures (albeit different) bashing heads and using the proletariat as its pawns. Supporting one side or the other completely undermines this fact, and portrays it as if one side is just and the other isn't. We don't support capitalists, or reactionaries anywhere, as both perpetuate the subordination of the proletariat (and the perpetuation of class systems, both social and economic), and the continuation of reactionary systems.

Whoever wins this war is irrelevant, because the continuation of subordination and capitalism will continue unhindered.

[Abluegreen7]

With the United States or without the United States Iraq will still be homophobic and sexist. The people dont want things to change and this is the problem.

Im not Islamic and do not condone religous fundamentalism either. But consider this for a minute. Your sitting down in Baghdad. You see an American tank roll in. A soldier walks into your house, kills your mother and your sister. You manage to survive. Are you telling me you would not join up with the Taliban or a resistance movement for that matter?

[Bilan]

With the United States or without the United States Iraq will still be homophobic and sexist. The people dont want things to change and this is the problem.

That's actually quite debatable in itself, but not the point anyway.



Im not Islamic and do not condone religous fundamentalism either. But consider this for a minute. Your sitting down in Baghdad. You see an American tank roll in. A soldier walks into your house, kills your mother and your sister. You manage to survive. Are you telling me you would not join up with the Taliban or a resistance movement for that matter?

I don't think anyone wouldn't join the resistance movement, or whatever, but most would be living in absolute fear. Either way, you're simply bashing your head against a wall unless you've realized that ousting the US occupation will not take the proletariat a step closer to emancipation, and even has the possibility of taking a step backwards.

[Elliot_R]

Abluegreen are you saying that joineing the taliban is justified because it is against the US, no matter how much it conflicts with leftist ideology?

[Abluegreen7]

Thats not what I said. I simply stated that. Would you if you lived in Iraq for most of your life join what is considered a Terrorist group or simply let American forces attack your home land.

Im not a fan of the Taliban myself.
I myself am a Proud Leftist.

[Elliot_R]

I'd rather the American forces invade

[Goose]

OK - my realistic beliefs. On I guess the three main currents of power right now. I spend too much time picking others' beliefs apart, so I'd may as well do my own:

Islamic terrorism - same as any religious bollocks, and yes I would institute the death penalty (don't mention Stalin, yeah?)

US - needs to be seriously destroyed. It's the only remaining imperial power (then you get into the Stalinst tip of using islamic fundamentalists, as the most likely candidates to do it, so it's a no win situation.)

Russia - Qualified support, but it hasn't done itself too many favours lately. Georgia was a laugh though, and at least had the US shitting. But Russian imperialism is no better than yanqui imperialism.


Oh, and the EU, of course. Err, ineffectual, ROFL, LOL, etc. We're so hard.

[Abluegreen7]

The people will free themselves of America. Its going to happen eventually. America was very afraid of a Revolution in the cold war as well.

[Sendo]

Palestinians should be supported, their corrupt parties cautiously so.

As far as Iran goes, I treat it like any other country. Support what the majority want and left-wing policies as much as possible (in times when they conflict I might go with bourgeois nationalism in oppressed nations if it's what the people really want). Given the current situation with Iran all I can think of is "Leave Iran alone. They're not trying to exterminate Jews. Don't push them into a corner, no war, yadda yadda yadda"

Iraq? Muqtada al-Sadr all the way. Fuck the puppet government. The Sadrists form a people's army fighting the US war machine. Why not support them? The puppets in Bagdad and the US should get out, period. I don't care if the puppets are showing some tricklings of nationalism...they're far too unconcerned with their masses and incapable of getting any withdrawals or prosecutions.

Syria and Lebanon are out of my domain.

[reddevil]

I hate muslim fundamentalism more than capitalism.
judging from your activity on previous threads, you don't hjate capitalism at all

[reddevil]

dammit, this would never have happened if the united states and israel hadn't made it their mission for the last fifty years to destroy every progressive movement which has arisen in the arab world. tariq ali documents this well in the clash of fundamentalisms, which aims to show how the US is largely responsible for the resurgance of reactionary islam.

my take on the middle east: the iraqis have every right to resist the occupation of their country but it would be a mistake to embrace theocrats as comrades. the monarchial states must go, along with iran. .the policies of hamas and hezbollah are unacceptable, but if we can turn them leftwards they could become allies. a bi-national state is the best solution to the israeli-palestinian conflict but in the meantime a two state solution would be acceptable to me so long as the palestinians get a fair deal.
lebanon and syria i'm not sure about

[Yehuda Stern]

reddevil, what you say is pretty correct other than the part about a two state solution, which I'll have you know is the position of the Zionists themselves.

On who to support - I would not give political support to any of the groups leading the resistances right now. However, Marxists living in the countries where resistances exist should form a military bloc with them against imperialism, while trying to convince the rank and file fighters that the only way to truly defeat imperialism is through the socialist revolution. In this way the militants among the masses will see that the Marxists are on their side, but will also see that there is an alternative to the reactionary policies of their leaders.

[reddevil]

reddevil, what you say is pretty correct other than the part about a two state solution, which I'll have you know is the position of the Zionists themselves.


On who to support - I would not give political support to any of the groups leading the resistances right now. However, Marxists living in the countries where resistances exist should form a military bloc with them against imperialism, while trying to convince the rank and file fighters that the only way to truly defeat imperialism is through the socialist revolution. In this way the militants among the masses will see that the Marxists are on their side, but will also see that there is an alternative to the reactionary policies of their leaders.
yes i agree with that. but we need to be careful we don't end up like our comrades in iran after the revolution.
two states is not an end in itself. the current terms offered by israel are outrageous. no solution which dies not grant palestinians right of return along with east jerusalem can be accepted. however, it is looking unlikely at present that arabs possess the strength to bring an end to the zionist regime and two states would appear to be a necessary compromise. once arabs and jews are able to reconcile, then we can establish the bi-national state.

[Yehuda Stern]

yes i agree with that. but we need to be careful we don't end up like our comrades in iran after the revolution

How many times will I say it? The problem in Iran was that the left gave political support to the Mullahs. They fostered illusions that the mullahs are anti-imperialist and revolutionary.


two states is not an end in itself. but it's looking unlikely at present that the zionist regime can be destroyed.

That's a reformist position - if Arab workers have their revolutions elsewhere, things will look quite different. We need to advance from the premise of a revolution, not of a continuation of the status quo.

[reddevil]

revolution will not come immediately. it takes time. and the palestinian people do not have much time. the idea of two seperate states merging together after reconciliation is the position of noam chomsky and was that of the great edward said.

[DancingLarry]

Even in the most deplorable conflicts, such as that ongoing in Iraq, there are almost always social forces worthy of support that can be identified. For example, in Iraq, I would point to the oil workers union as a progressive, working class organization that is not compromised by either US imperialism or Islamic fundamentalism, that has significant political support within Iraq and an agenda that can continue to expand that support while remaining independent of the various forms of right-wing reaction that otherwise dominate the political landscape in Iraq.

Don't fall into hegemonic media's false dichotomies, always take time to search out the progressive proletarian forces, for they are almost always there.

[Yehuda Stern]

revolution will not come immediately. it takes time. and the palestinian people do not have much time. the idea of two seperate states merging together after reconciliation is the position of noam chomsky and was that of the great edward said.

Both of which are pro-imperialist reformists.

[reddevil]

Both of which are pro-imperialist reformists.
could you explain how a leading architect of postcolonial theory and a leading figure in the anti- vietnam war movement became "pro-imperialist reformists?"

[Yehuda Stern]

"A leading architect of postcolonial theory"? Is that supposed to impress me? I am Yehuda Stern, a leading architect of a post-millenial anti-Zio-capitalist theory. Yeah, I like that. Sounds fancy. I can use it in forums to dismiss peoples' legitimate criticisms.

You are also correct that leading figures of the anti-Vietnam movement cannot become pro-imperialist - like the prominent revolutionary anti-imperialist, John Kerry.

[reddevil]

i get the impression that you've never heard of edward said before, or read any of his works.
kennedy has nothing to do with chomsky, who i was referring to.

[Yehuda Stern]

I've heard of Said, and have read his works. He was indeed an impressive person, but the same cannot be said of what he wrote and said, radical as it was colored.

And who the hell talked about Kennedy? I was showing how stupid it is to assert that someone cannot be pro-imperialist because he opposed the Vietnam war, by giving Kerry as an example.

[reddevil]

you still haven't explained in what way these two great minds are/were "pro-imperialist".

[reddevil]

It's not the dalai lama and the return of feudal theocracy that we should fear, I think there's a zero chance of that happening with western liberals being the major supporters of the "free tibet" movement. The true fear is that the "free tibet" movement is linked to US imperialism. The "free tibet" movement is funded by the CIA and NED (national endowment for democracy), the same NED that is funding the Venezuelan opposition. So a free tibet, would be subjugated to the influence of Washington. Which means a further encirclement of China with India, Japan and South Korea already under heavy US influence. As you said, don't support the PRC, but China is useful to counteract the ravenous nature of US imperialsim (post USSR). A weak China (and Russia) means US imperialism will go unchallenged.
i don't understand your logic here. even a stopped clock is right twice a day. are you saying that just becausethe US government happen to be on the right side for once we should switch ranks just to spite them?

[Yehuda Stern]

I honestly don't know much about the positions Said took in later life, other than his life long hostility to Marxism. Chomsky supported John Kerry in the last American elections and is also known for his hostility to Marxism and especially to Lenin and Trotsky's Bolshevik party, including his support for the lie that Stalinism is the continuation of Leninism.

[reddevil]

the occupation must end. but does iraq's government really need to be overthrown? the iraqi communist party participates in elections. we have more chance of acheiving a worker's state under the "puppet government" than whatver islamic theocracy sadr and his boys want to replace it with.

[Yehuda Stern]

So basically you have nothing to answer to that, so you're jumping hysterically between subjects now?

[Charles Xavier]

There is nothing wrong with organising a popular front with different parties and peoples for a certain principles.

The Irish working class rallied alongside the bourgeioisie to establish an Irish Republic, the bourgeioisie though then split during the free state and partition of the country.

The French communist party united with everyone and their mothers to defeat the occupation of Nazi Germany. The resistance was a broad spectrum of anti-fascists.

In Spain the Communist Party rallied alongside the Republican government and with Anarchists, trade unionists, liberals and all progressives to defend their gains of the working class and peasantry.

In the Soviet Union, the Bolsheviks allied itself even with liberal bourgeioisie parties against the Tsar.

Internationally, the Soviet Union allied itself with capitalist countries across the world to defeat Fascism in Japan, Italy and Germany.

In China, the Communist Party of China allied itself with the Nationalists to defeat the Japanese Imperialists.

In Korea, the same applies.

In Iraq, the resistance is rallied of different spectrums to defeat the Occupation.

In Nicaragua, various left organizations united into the FSLN, in El Salvador was well.

Under various circumstances the Communist parties can unite with other parties, causes, and organizations in order to achieve a victory.

But just because The United States is the enemy of the third world. Doesn't mean we support Osama Bin laden, That we support the Russian Government, That we support the Iranian Government and so on and so forth.

[Yehuda Stern]

Must I point out that other than the example with the Bolsheviks, which doesn't belong here, as the Bolsheviks gave Kerensky military and not political support, all the events that you have mentioned ended up in terrible defeats for the working class?

[Bilan]

There is nothing wrong with organising a popular front with different parties and peoples for a certain principles.

Yes, there is. Especially when they're religious fundamentalist ones, which hold ultra-reactionary politics.




The Irish working class rallied alongside the bourgeioisie to establish an Irish Republic, the bourgeioisie though then split during the free state and partition of the country.

And the fundamental relationships between production...That is just substitting one ruler for another. You are playing on nationalist sypmathies.



The French communist party united with everyone and their mothers to defeat the occupation of Nazi Germany. The resistance was a broad spectrum of anti-fascists.

Which also betrayed the revolution; which also negated the materialist analysis appropriate to fully destroying fascism from below; which also put down strikes and crushed revolutionary opposition to fascism after the war. This is liberal shit.



In Spain the Communist Party rallied alongside the Republican government and with Anarchists, trade unionists, liberals and all progressives to defend their gains of the working class and peasantry.

Okay, now I'm mad. This is utter fucking shit. The Communist Party was a key component in the betrayal of the Spanish revolution, and ultimately in the defeat of the workers against the fascists. You are completely negating any working class politics within this bourgeois approach to anti-fascism.

As Durruti eloquently said, "We will show the workers of Germany and Italy how to deal with fascism". This is a working class revolutionary approach to fighting fascism. The fight against fascism would've sorely intensified, had the bourgeois parties and pseudo-socialist groups and parties (including those of Russia) not totally underminded the working class revolution in Spain. That would've been the first full blown defeat to fascism in the 30's. Alas, the Communist Party had other intentions - namely, a useless bourgeois republic - and combined with anti-working class politicians, and ultimately put down the revolution (which was certainly an intention of theirs).

Ultimately, no gains were defended by the Communist Party, they were only stolen by their own pig headedness and arrogance. The gains were made by the working class, under the influence of both the CNT and the UGT (Far more from the former, than the latter).



In the Soviet Union, the Bolsheviks allied itself even with liberal bourgeioisie parties against the Tsar.

...and then with the bosses and reinstated class structures, substituing old bosses for new ones. You are just enjoying events, rather than fundamentally changing society.



Internationally, the Soviet Union allied itself with capitalist countries across the world to defeat Fascism in Japan, Italy and Germany.

As well as betraying working class movements attempting to over throw Fascism! Better to support the bourgeoisie, eh?

[Yehuda Stern]

The French communist party united with everyone and their mothers to defeat the occupation of Nazi Germany. The resistance was a broad spectrum of anti-fascists.
Which also betrayed the revolution; which also negated the materialist analysis appropriate to fully destroying fascism from below; which also put down strikes and crushed revolutionary opposition to fascism after the war. This is liberal shit.Not to mention that the French CP supported the suppression of uprisings in Syria and Lebanon, something which caused the disillusionment of many class conscious Arab workers and left-wing intellectuals with Marxism (Michel Aflaq is the most prominent example).

[Hiero]

There is nothing wrong with organising a popular front with different parties and peoples for a certain principles.

The Irish working class rallied alongside the bourgeioisie to establish an Irish Republic, the bourgeioisie though then split during the free state and partition of the country.

The French communist party united with everyone and their mothers to defeat the occupation of Nazi Germany. The resistance was a broad spectrum of anti-fascists.

In Spain the Communist Party rallied alongside the Republican government and with Anarchists, trade unionists, liberals and all progressives to defend their gains of the working class and peasantry.

In the Soviet Union, the Bolsheviks allied itself even with liberal bourgeioisie parties against the Tsar.

Internationally, the Soviet Union allied itself with capitalist countries across the world to defeat Fascism in Japan, Italy and Germany.

In China, the Communist Party of China allied itself with the Nationalists to defeat the Japanese Imperialists.

In Korea, the same applies.

In Iraq, the resistance is rallied of different spectrums to defeat the Occupation.

In Nicaragua, various left organizations united into the FSLN, in El Salvador was well.

Under various circumstances the Communist parties can unite with other parties, causes, and organizations in order to achieve a victory.

But just because The United States is the enemy of the third world. Doesn't mean we support Osama Bin laden, That we support the Russian Government, That we support the Iranian Government and so on and so forth.

What this shows is the effect that unequal development has throughout the world. Not to say SACT's criticism is eniterly incorrect, rather I say it is opposite to historical materialism.

Different countries and different situations mean different stages of stuggle. There can't be socialist revolution under US imperialism in Iraq. So the obstacle to socialism in Iraq is first US imperialism. This means the major conflict there is betwen Iraq and US imperialism.

This means that Communists who are real about building socialism have to form a united fron with the progressive groups of Iraq who are willing to fight US imperialism. This does not mean the alliance is set in concercete.

I think building united front is an objective fact. Given different development throughout the world, there is different objectives. In some countries national liberation (Palestine, Iraq), in other countries socialist revolution (Venezuela, South Africa, Bolivia).

If these goals are achieved it is based on subjective factors, and what happens afterwards is based on subjective factors. I think a better example would be the MPLA in Angola, where the Communists joined this united front for national liberation. Following the collapse of the USSR the revisionist turned out right capitalist and droped any attempt to build socialism, and with this any revolutionary socialist goals lost any political formation. The objective conditions are there for socialist revolution, but due to subjective errors of the Marxist-Leninists the socialist revolution has been set back.

If Communists want to ignore the historical reality for situations they only divorce themselves from that reality. So in Iraq for example, the objective conditions still create the political goal of national liberation. People are still going to fight the imperialist there with or without Communist support. To improve the standing of Communists it doesn't hurt to form temporary alliance, but at the same time they can conduct struggle within struggle.

In this case we can talk about antagonistic contradictions and non-antagonistic. The antagonistic contradiction is imperialism with the imperialist on one side and the progressive Iraqis (whoever they may be) the non-antagonistic is in the Iraqi nation, on one side bourgeosie and religious clerics the other side the working classes.

From this analysis the Communist have to develop a correct line to deal with this changing nature of conflict between different groups. This comes down to subjective factors, if the Communist are wrong and for instance in Iraq a religous state emerged in various nations of Iraq then this is due to objective factors (national liberation) plus the errors of subjective factors, such as the line of communists which have not acted correctly on the objective factors that create socialist revolution.

[Bilan]

What this shows is the effect that unequal development has throughout the world. Not to say SACT's criticism is eniterly incorrect, rather I say it is opposite to historical materialism.

Feel free to contradict the points as they were presented, rather than just label them "entirely incorrect". Of course, betraying a socialist revolution, that is not at all anti-socialist! :rolleyes:



Different countries and different situations mean different stages of stuggle. There can't be socialist revolution under US imperialism in Iraq. So the obstacle to socialism in Iraq is first US imperialism. This means the major conflict there is betwen Iraq and US imperialism.

This means that Communists who are real about building socialism have to form a united fron with the progressive groups of Iraq who are willing to fight US imperialism. This does not mean the alliance is set in concercete.


Alas, it's not anti-materialist, you're just pay lip service to and organizing with bourgeois parties, which will ultimately betray the working class. You're being ahistorical by ignoring the only futility of your own argument.



I think building united front is an objective fact. Given different development throughout the world, there is different objectives. In some countries national liberation (Palestine, Iraq), in other countries socialist revolution (Venezuela, South Africa, Bolivia).

First, "United Front" is ambigous. A United Front against what? Against Imperialism? If this is the common goal, the alliances you have are, but not limited too:
- Nationalists
- Monarchists
- Fascists
- Racists
- Religious Fundamentalists.

By your own accord, these people fit into your "united front against imperialism", not just in theory, but in practice.

Now, it may be easy for you to say that these alliances in theory will help oust one form of oppression pushed on a nation state somewhere, which has manifests as its form as imperialism, but is pushed by capitalism. But you, right down to the core, betray the working class and its emancipation by allying with those who want to keep it down. History demonstrates that ever so eloquently. As it did in Russia, and as it did in Spain.

Second of all, it does not negate material conditions to have a solid and realistic aim towards actually achieving the emancipation of the proletariat. This does not mean its form will not be different, but it does not mean that it justifies allying with the oppressors of the proletariat; Your support of national liberation struggles, which ally the bourgeoisie with the proletariat, undermines both the interests of the proletariat and socialists, but also perpetuates their own oppression: You substitute one set of rulers for another.



Following the collapse of the USSR the revisionist turned out right capitalist and droped any attempt to build socialism, and with this any revolutionary socialist goals lost any political formation. The objective conditions are there for socialist revolution, but due to subjective errors of the Marxist-Leninists the socialist revolution has been set back.

No, it was well before the collapse of the USSR that betrayal had begun. This is again ahistorical. It has no connection with reality what so ever. The betrayal of socialism began long before the 80's, it began in 1917!



If Communists want to ignore the historical reality for situations they only divorce themselves from that reality. So in Iraq for example, the objective conditions still create the political goal of national liberation. People are still going to fight the imperialist there with or without Communist support. To improve the standing of Communists it doesn't hurt to form temporary alliance, but at the same time they can conduct struggle within struggle.

It does hurt when they do an Iran. It does hurt when they do a KGP (30's allying with the Nazis). This is bullshit.

[Nakidana]

I think the Third Campism that SACT is pushing is bullshit. The people resisting the imperialist occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan are the ones we should've recruited, the ones who 40 years ago were on our side. Unfortunately we failed and the resistance has therefore taken an Islamist character. So be it, the important thing is to resist and drive out the imperialists.

By SACT's logic, the left shouldn't have supported the Vietnamese resistance during the Vietnam War because their politics weren't in line with his socialism and the FLN in Algeria shouldn't have been supported because they were nationalists. Now that's truly reactionary politics because only a rightist would say Vietnam would be just as well off under US occupation. In fact I'm having a hard time believing that these words are coming from a self proclaimed anarchist. I would expect such jargon from a social democrat or a liberal, but a socialist?

A country cannot achieve a socialist revolution, or any real development, when under the foot of an imperialist occupation. Therefore the resistance should be supported. Unless of course, SACT, you think that the imperialist occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan was a positive thing for the working class? If not, then please enlighten us on the form the socialist resistance should take, in order to drive out the imperialists and push through the socialist revolution. Do you want the great socialist movements in Iraq and Afghanistan, that we all know exist of course, to take up arms and start firing at the occupation, the 20 resistance groups and of course, every other reactionary in the vicinity? Or maybe if the socialists bring flowers to the American troops, (Who after all are working class! :tt1:) they will realise the error of their ways and decide to stop the occupation and join the revolution!

Yes the possibilities are endless and let's not mind the fact that while the communists are handing out leaflets like idiots the Islamists and nationalists are taking up arms against the occupation and earning the respect of the whole country and influence post-occupation.

The only result of the third campism SACT is advocating is handing over the leadership of the resistance to bourgeois elements and thereby ensuring an elimination of socialist influence in post-occupation Iraq or Afghanistan. It sounds good in theory but is absurd in reality.

[Hiero]

SACT back to my original point, not every country is ready for socialist revolution. Communist forming alliances with other groups and classes is not betraying the working class, as there is nothing to be betrayed.

This is the difference between utopian socialism and scientific socialism. The first views socialism as an idea that can be acted upon by convincing working class people to fight for it. The second views socialism as historical movement of the proleteriat given the right conditions will be fight for it if convince. The subjective actions comes after the objective conditions in the materialist socialism.


By your own accord, these people fit into your "united front against imperialism", not just in theory, but in practice.

No they don't.

If I claim that socialist revolution is only possible within specific conditions, then surely you can assume that I think national liberation is only possible under certian conditions, that includes specific people who fight for it.

For instance talking to a Pakistani comrade the other day, we both agreed it is impossible to form a alliance with the Taliban in a united front if the US invaded. This is due to historical formation of that group, and they fact they are not localised within any border or specifically to any people. Unlike say Hezbollah, who represent a significant portion of the population in southern Lebanon, and act as a political representive against Zionism.

The idea of united front is very specific, no where has any Communist really advocated united front with whoever can hold a gun. Thoose that have are making a mistake, but we assume that people will make mistakes, Communist are not special people because they don't make mistakes, they are special people in various situations and conditions and are bound to make mistakes.


No, it was well before the collapse of the USSR that betrayal had begun. This is again ahistorical. It has no connection with reality what so ever. The betrayal of socialism began long before the 80's, it began in 1917!

Well this is something else entirely, I would say you don't know what proleteriat achievements are if you think the working class was betrayed in 1917.

I think this is what it comes down to, ideological purity over objective conditions.

We are well in the epoch of national liberation where united fronts do exist. This has been happening since the national liberation of Ireland from British imperialism. What you are basically saying is that the past is a mistake. No one is really doing what your calling for, to divorce themselves from a united struggle against a common enemy. If they are, they are never significant to be noticed in world politics.


The only result of the third campism SACT is advocating is handing over the leadership of the resistance to bourgeois elements and thereby ensuring an elimination of socialist influence in post-occupation Iraq or Afghanistan. It sounds good in theory but is absurd in reality.

That is what happens. By Communist divorcing themselves from the popular struggle, how can influence people when it comes to the right time for socialist struggle?

[Hiero]

On another note about the united front, I am actually more pessimistic about joing united fronts then I make myself seem in this thread.

For instance I support the PCV (Communist Party of Venzuela) not joing Chavez's PSUV. The same in Australia, I support the CPA's decission not to join any "alliances". Generally because 1) the little parties get swallowed up and dissappear, look at Angola. Also this parties are obsessed with inter-party conflicts, purging people, spliting etc, and every time there is shift in party structure, one side claim always claim a victory for the working class, as if the working class was actually paying attention and cares.

2) It is really reformist, it assumes having large numbers in a party will result in a socialist revolution. To me this results in the obsession of getting into parliament. I see it as opposite to Bolshevik method of creating a small party with the aim of training Communists that are prepared for the time when socialist revolution is neccassary. And secondly it tones down party education and theory for the sake of populist slogans (even if the slogans aren't very popular with the larger public).

Really I guess what I am getting to is, the enemy of my enemy is not neccassarily my friend.

[Bilan]

I think the Third Campism that SACT is pushing is bullshit. The people resisting the imperialist occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan are the ones we should've recruited, the ones who 40 years ago were on our side. Unfortunately we failed and the resistance has therefore taken an Islamist character. So be it, the important thing isto resist and drive out the imperialists.

Ah, so its my fault that bureaucratic state capitalists sowered the name of socialism by invading these nations, and perpetuating such oppressing structures? And its all my fault that they're religious fundamentalists, and ultra-reactionary?
Please.



By SACT's logic, the left shouldn't have supported the Vietnamese resistance during the Vietnam War because their politics weren't in line with his socialism and the FLN in Algeria shouldn't have been supported because they were nationalists.

By my logic, or your bullshit interpretation of it?



Now that's truly reactionary politics because only a rightist would say Vietnam would be just as well off under US occupation.

I love this! How much more can you misconstrue someones argument than this? Not only by my logic shouldn't you support them, but by my logic you should support the oppressor! :lol:
You're either intentionally misreading my posts, or just an idiot.


In fact I'm having a hard time believing that these words are coming from a self proclaimed anarchist. I would expect such jargon from a social democrat or a liberal, but a socialist?

Yeah, god forbid a socialist would reject nationalism and petty-bourgeois socialism ! :rolleyes:



A country cannot achieve a socialist revolution, or any real development, when under the foot of an imperialist occupation. Therefore the resistance should be supported.

The "resistance" needs to be critically understood, not just supported. You're just being opportunist, rather than actually thinking. "Look, they're fighting AmeriKKKa! Long live Peoples War!!11!1" Ridiculous. They're not just fighting America, they're fight for a theorocratic state. I support revolutionaries fighting the occupation, and people who are just fighting to get the Occupation out, not those who want a theocratic state.



Unless of course, SACT, you think that the imperialist occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan was a positive thing for the working class?

Any other bullshit you want to attach to my position, or are you going to actually read it?



If not, then please enlighten us on the form the socialist resistance should take, in order to drive out the imperialists and push through the socialist revolution. Do you want the great socialist movements in Iraq and Afghanistan, that we all know exist of course, to take up arms and start firing at the occupation, the 20 resistance groups and of course, every other reactionary in the vicinity? Or maybe if the socialists bring flowers to the American troops, (Who after all are working class! :tt1:) they will realise the error of their ways and decide to stop the occupation and join the revolution!

Grow up.



Yes the possibilities are endless and let's not mind the fact that while the communists are handing out leaflets like idiots the Islamists and nationalists are taking up arms against the occupation and earning the respect of the whole country and influence post-occupation.

Hooray! Someones picking up a gun and shooting at a soldier! datz peuplz warz and datz awesum!!!


The only result of the third campism SACT is advocating is handing over the leadership of the resistance to bourgeois elements and thereby ensuring an elimination of socialist influence in post-occupation Iraq or Afghanistan. It sounds good in theory but is absurd in reality.

Are you fucking serious? Are you actually fucking serious? The main point of my criticism was organizing with bourgeois parties, and reactionaries. You are pathetically trying to distort my position, and doing a mighty shit job at it. Grow up.


SACT back to my original point, not every country is ready for socialist revolution. Communist forming alliances with other groups and classes is not betraying the working class, as there is nothing to be betrayed.


There are certain incredibly underdeveloped countries which aren't. This does not apply for most, nor does it justify the bourgeois structures implemented by faux-socialists.


This is the difference between utopian socialism and scientific socialism. The first views socialism as an idea that can be acted upon by convincing working class people to fight for it. The second views socialism as historical movement of the proleteriat given the right conditions will be fight for it if convince. The subjective actions comes after the objective conditions in the materialist socialism.


Oh, piss off. This is not even an argument, its just egotistical bullshit. No where have I argued that the material conditions in every single region are totally ready for socialist revolution. You, on the contrary, are taking the position that no where the proletariat rises up, they are ready, and are subsequently justifying the bourgeois structures used to oppress the proletariat, and supress the uprising.


Well this is something else entirely, I would say you don't know what proleteriat achievements are if you think the working class was betrayed in 1917.

I think if you actually really thought about what I meant, you'd realize I did. Clearly I was not talking about the revolution, but the agenda being pushed by moderate socialists - e.g. the Mensheviks - and the encroaching power of the bolsheviks, and the subsequent demise of workers power. That is the betrayal I am referring too.


I think this is what it comes down to, ideological purity over objective conditions.


No, it's realizing the relationships between structures and direction; between the relationship to production, and the subsequent direction taken due to these structures. It's not "purity", its just the nature of the structures to society. Your position is fundamentally anti-marxist if you do not realize that.
You are choosing to ignore that, and instead favouring petty arguments which don't hold any real significance, infavour of protecting the history of betrayal under a guise of progress.
No doubt, to say, that progress was made under the Bolsheviks, but the Bolsheviks intentionally hindered the power of the working class as early as 1918.


We are well in the epoch of national liberation where united fronts do exist. This has been happening since the national liberation of Ireland from British imperialism. What you are basically saying is that the past is a mistake. No one is really doing what your calling for, to divorce themselves from a united struggle against a common enemy. If they are, they are never significant to be noticed in world politics.


I've not actually called for anything. You're playing the same stupid game the guy above you was.

Now, Hiero, as I asked, please feel free to actually respond, rather than making general statements, about the particular events highlighted above.

[turquino]

Malangyar has made a serious criticism of SATC's position, and SATC has responded with ad hominems and abuse.

It doesn't matter if the resistance is made up of reactionaries. Imperialism is destroying the lives of the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. The fact is most reactionaries are already supporting the imperialists, and if they win they will get their theocracy. Since there doesn't appear to be a strong communist pole at the moment (though SATC could probably find a reason to damn them too), the few reactionaries Islamic and nationalist forces who are stepping up to resist imperialism deserve our support.

[Hiero]

There are certain incredibly underdeveloped countries which aren't. This does not apply for most, nor does it justify the bourgeois structures implemented by faux-socialists.

I am about to get into some uni work, so I will respond to this now.

It is not necessarily underdevelopment that is the problem. I would say that materially, most countries are ready for some form of socialism, and some form of collectivisation (in the soviet and Chinese sense).

Where I am coming from is more of a Maoist point of view and using a bit of Althusser's advance on Maoist dialectics. This looks at the specifics of conflict and contradiction. Take Australia for example, it could implement socialism. However the contradiciton between worker and capitalist is non antagonistic, we see this in the recent "your rights at work" campaign. There is still conflict over employment and the conditions of are employment.

In various countries, the contradiction between worker and capitalist too is non-antagonistic. Not for the same reasons as first world nations. In Iraq politicall and miliatary action is primarily against the imperialist forces. There is no revolutionary proleteriat movement at the moment, so there is nothing to be betrayed. It is either for the Communist to stand back, or engage in the united front. By engaging, the Communists developing to a point that can match the next stage of conflict, which will be the revolutionary proleteriat against the reactionary classes.


Now, Hiero, as I asked, please feel free to actually respond, rather than making general statements, about the particular events highlighted above.

Well actually I have. I am being critical against highlighting every militant movement as revolutionary proleteriat movement. Like for instance France? Come on, nothing happened in France beyond a little scuffle.

The PCF has made many errors, but it did not betray anything.

I am trying to say that socialist revolution occurs in a given time when the circumstances are right. Considering what we are talking about, the destruction of bourgieosie demoracy, concentration of power in the hands of the proleteriat, nationalisation of property, it is a structural shift and not something that happens lightly. It can not be simply betrayed by a error in a party programe.

[Bilan]

Malangyar has made a serious criticism of SATC's position, and SATC has responded with ad hominems and abuse.

Another one fails to actually read what I initially posts, and instead just buys into bullshit criticism of assumed positions. Worthless.



It doesn't matter if the resistance is made up of reactionaries.

I think this speaks for itself.



Imperialism is destroying the lives of the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. The fact is most reactionaries are already supporting the imperialists, and if they win they will get their theocracy.

Yeah, like the Taliban, right? :lol:



Since there doesn't appear to be a strong communist pole at the moment (though SATC could probably find a reason to damn them too), the few reactionaries Islamic and nationalist forces who are stepping up to resist imperialism deserve our support.

Again, speaks for itself.

[Bilan]

It is not necessarily underdevelopment that is the problem. I would say that materially, most countries are ready for some form of socialism, and some form of collectivisation (in the soviet and Chinese sense).

Oh for heavens sake.



Where I am coming from is more of a Maoist point of view and using a bit of Althusser's advance on Maoist dialectics. This looks at the specifics of conflict and contradiction. Take Australia for example, it could implement socialism. However the contradiciton between worker and capitalist is non antagonistic, we see this in the recent "your rights at work" campaign. There is still conflict over employment and the conditions of are employment.

Non-antagonistic? What planet are you on? We've had waves of strikes over the last couple of months? The only think it lacks is a full out attack, and realization of who the actual enemy is; at the moment its only being blamed on the State Labour government, and particularly Morris Iemma, rather than the capitalist class. That is the only part it lacks. Fundamental, perhaps, but the antagonism still exists.






Well actually I have. I am being critical against highlighting every militant movement as revolutionary proleteriat movement. Like for instance France? Come on, nothing happened in France beyond a little scuffle.


Most of those weren't "militant movements", they were either uprisings or revolutions.



I am trying to say that socialist revolution occurs in a given time when the circumstances are right. Considering what we are talking about, the destruction of bourgieosie demoracy, concentration of power in the hands of the proleteriat, nationalisation of property, it is a structural shift and not something that happens lightly. It can not be simply betrayed by a error in a party programe.

I didn't say it could. You're not even responding to me.

[Hiero]

Non-antagonistic? What planet are you on? We've had waves of strikes over the last couple of months? The only think it lacks is a full out attack, and realization of who the actual enemy is; at the moment its only being blamed on the State Labour government, and particularly Morris Iemma, rather than the capitalist class. That is the only part it lacks. Fundamental, perhaps, but the antagonism still exists.

I know what is going on. And I don't think that people will come to a realisation of who the real enemy is. At this momement the Australian working class only wants to maintain what they have. Look at all the movements, it is about retaining rights and conditions.

And I don't think it is because of a lack of class consciousnes, but other factors.


Most of those weren't "militant movements", they were either uprisings or revolutions.

Well I will agree with uprising. But revolution is something specific, and I would say some were, some weren't. Ireland, France (I assume we mean 1968?) Iraq are not revolutions. Two were/are national liberation movements, Fracen was a riot.


I didn't say it could. You're not even responding to me.

What am I meant to be responding to?

I said about the events that the were objectively national liberation movements lead by various social classes of society. If socialism didn't follow it is because of subjective errors of socialists. Though as I have noted in France, there was no revolution so nothing was sold out.

[La Pasionaria]

important question. and it is very significant in Pakistan too, at the moment.
A lot of people are supporting Taliban, in the hope that they alone can provide a resistance against US. Some are on the other side of the divide, supporting US intervention against Islamic fundamentalism.

The way I see it....the so called "islamic fundamentalism" is a product of US imperialism. So the foremost problem is USA. But we can't support a reactionary element like Taliban....they are by no means anti-imperialists. They are only anti america, and that too for the time being. If it suits them tommorrow, they'll join with the yanks again, and turn on the progressive elements. It's more about power and money than any religious ideology, especially at the top echleons of these "terrorist" organizations.

Its a delicate situation here in Pakistan....and we have to tread very carefully. :(

[Bilan]

I know what is going on. And I don't think that people will come to a realisation of who the real enemy is. At this momement the Australian working class only wants to maintain what they have. Look at all the movements, it is about retaining rights and conditions.

And I don't think it is because of a lack of class consciousnes, but other factors.

You're damn right itts other factors. It's a fundamental lacking of communist influence in the movement - unsuprisingly, even the group in your signature is dead (though wouldn't admit it). There is disillusionment with the unions because of their bureaucratic nature, and disillusionment with the major parties because of their betrayal. More to the point, there is a total absence of revolutionary leadership, giving any influence to the struggle what so ever. There is a major lacking of activities within the communist (and I am using this to encompass various tendencies from anarcho syndicalism to left communism to marxism generally) groups toward bringing the struggle forward. That is perhaps due to the problems with people like you (not a personal attack, btw) who are focussing totally on struggles abroad, rather than the ones on their own front. Essentially, there is no activity at home, only hearts sent abroad. It's a fundamental error in your approach, and the entire communist movement - for example, how much anarchist talk was dominated by the actions of the Zapatistas, while we have strike waves here? How much talk is about the Nepalese Maoists while this occurs? How much talk here is about shit over seas, while we have events we need to be involved in here, to bring the struggle forward here?

This is not on an anti-internationalist approach, in any sense, it's an approach which understands that struggles here need to be brought forward as well, not just ignored, or mentioned, but actively engaged in.




Well I will agree with uprising. But revolution is something specific, and I would say some were, some weren't. Ireland, France (I assume we mean 1968?) Iraq are not revolutions. Two were/are national liberation movements, Fracen was a riot.

France was not a riot. What a gross distortion of history. I an't believe you even said that.




What am I meant to be responding to?

I said about the events that the were objectively national liberation movements lead by various social classes of society. If socialism didn't follow it is because of subjective errors of socialists. Though as I have noted in France, there was no revolution so nothing was sold out.

This is pointless. I am not going to bother responding to that.

[Bilan]

On another note about the united front, I am actually more pessimistic about joing united fronts then I make myself seem in this thread.

I see.



For instance I support the PCV (Communist Party of Venzuela) not joing Chavez's PSUV. The same in Australia, I support the CPA's decission not to join any "alliances". Generally because 1) the little parties get swallowed up and dissappear, look at Angola. Also this parties are obsessed with inter-party conflicts, purging people, spliting etc, and every time there is shift in party structure, one side claim always claim a victory for the working class, as if the working class was actually paying attention and cares.

What? the CPA hardly exists. Joining an alliance would only benefit it; if only slightly more than the party dissolving.



2) It is really reformist, it assumes having large numbers in a party will result in a socialist revolution. To me this results in the obsession of getting into parliament. I see it as opposite to Bolshevik method of creating a small party with the aim of training Communists that are prepared for the time when socialist revolution is neccassary. And secondly it tones down party education and theory for the sake of populist slogans (even if the slogans aren't very popular with the larger public).

Really I guess what I am getting to is, the enemy of my enemy is not neccassarily my friend.

So you're spouting reformist politics in all the rest of your posts, you admit?

[Hiero]

What? the CPA hardly exists. Joining an alliance would only benefit it; if only slightly more than the party dissolving.

No it wouldn't.

As I said the Socialist Alliance are more interest in inter party politics. And every time they have a split, the small group that breaks off brings out a flashy new newspaper, who knows where they get the money.

And sure the CPA is small, but we are consistent. If you were active in the trade union movement, at that level of the workers movement you would actually meet CPA members and sympathises.

Generally though it is not a surpirse for a real Communist Party to be small. The radical left in Australia is small. Even the Trotksyist are small and insignificant, if you read their papers it is about absolutely nothing. They fill half of thier rag about Venezuela, the other half about Bolivia, and then some journalistic reporting followed by the victorious split of the month.

Now you say that the CPA hardly exists. I have never seen a anarchist at any event that isn't popularised. Sure I see a few around at events like anti-war and stuff about the environment. I have never seen any anarchists around when it comes to the more worker orientated stuff.


So you're spouting reformist politics in all the rest of your posts, you admit?

No, I am saying the Communist Parties must always be a distinct presence outside of the reformist current.

What I am proposing is completly pragmatic.

[Bilan]

As I said the Socialist Alliance are more interest in inter party politics. And every time they have a split, the small group that breaks off brings out a flashy new newspaper, who knows where they get the money.

:lol: That's actually a funny point, I never though about that. Where do they get the money for that? I've always just noticed there's this constant presence of flashy alliance or alternative papers.



And sure the CPA is small, but we are consistent. If you were active in the trade union movement, at that level of the workers movement you would actually meet CPA members and sympathises.

How many members does the CPA actually have?



Generally though it is not a surpirse for a real Communist Party to be small. The radical left in Australia is small. Even the Trotksyist are small and insignificant, if you read their papers it is about absolutely nothing. They fill half of thier rag about Venezuela, the other half about Bolivia, and then some journalistic reporting followed by the victorious split of the month.

That is true, and I addressed that earlier.



Now you say that the CPA hardly exists. I have never seen a anarchist at any event that isn't popularised. Sure I see a few around at events like anti-war and stuff about the environment. I have never seen any anarchists around when it comes to the more worker orientated stuff.

What about the ASN (http://www.rebelworker.org/)?
And I agree that anarchists in Australia put way to much emphasis on the environment and anti-war struggles, and realistically, achieve very little.

[Hiero]

That's actually a funny point, I never though about that. Where do they get the money for that? I've always just noticed there's this constant presence of flashy alliance or alternative papers.

It is really interesting. I have been told alot of stories about money and various groups. Generally over the years parties do rack up a bit of money. With splits I am told money just dissapears and so does property. In the CPA split, the Aarons family took property. When the CPA collapsed that property then came under private property of the Aarons.

Though alot of Trotskyist do seem to have a consistant flow of money. Given there are no regimes around that support them, it is interesting where it comes from. I assume that some (not alll) get funding from private companies, especially from American Trotskyists. We also have to keep in the back of our mind that the CIA has in the past created and funding various left looking groups to disrupt real radical leftist.

Anyway this is all speculation, but it is a worry.


How many members does the CPA actually have?

No idea, and I am probally not allowed to say. But I have no problem saying it is small. Obviously not as big back in the day.

But there a few Spanish branches, Greek, Maronite, Syrian, Iraqi branches around.


What about the ASN?
And I agree that anarchists in Australia put way to much emphasis on the environment and anti-war struggles, and realistically, achieve very little.

I have no problem with working with anarchists. My idea of a united front in Australia will include people from left Labour, Trots, anarchist and progressive church groups. But this united front has to be flexiable, with it's ultimate goal being about coordination. So we have a basic idea we are all fighting for, we form a "united front" to organise larger and better events. Each group is interpendent.

I get really annoyed when various groups take the united front way to far, and next thing they want to form broad parties, and kick various people out for being to right wing and or left wing. This is all under some illusional belief that forming a larger party is the key to a revolution. All it result in is people tyring to gain power, and really it is power of nothing.

[Nakidana]

My point still stands; you refuse to work with those fighting the occupation because of their reactionary tendencies, and thus wouldn't have supported say the FLN in Algeria. Anyway, it doesn't matter. The resistance will win in Iraq and Afghanistan whether you spout out your Third Campist idealism or not.


The "resistance" needs to be critically understood, not just supported. You're just being opportunist, rather than actually thinking. "Look, they're fighting AmeriKKKa! Long live Peoples War!!11!1" Ridiculous. They're not just fighting America, they're fight for a theorocratic state. I support revolutionaries fighting the occupation, and people who are just fighting to get the Occupation [i]out, not those who want a theocratic state.

Opportunist? I was supporting the resistance from the start, when the US seemingly strolled into Iraq as if it was a walk in the park. If I were an opportunist I'd have taken the path of the Iraqi Communist Party and joined up with the imperialists! :lol:

No. I am an anti imperialist by principle, and recognise that every blow to the American imperialist war machine is progressive. Every IED means one less racist, raping, murderous imperialist on the loose. Every attack means one more step towards ending the occupation and getting Iraq and Afghanistan back on their historical track.

You don't seem to mind the American presence in Iraq or Afghanistan though. According to you the people of those countries must somehow acquire the most advanced socialist principles or else be condemned to a lifetime of service under the merciful boot of US imperialism. Oh joy!

Anyway, it doesn't matter either way right? Under occupation or not, who cares? They're not your kind of socialist! :laugh:

Again, a socialist revolution will never be achieved as long as those countries are occupied. If a theocratic state emerges post-occupation, then so be it. The people will still be better off than under occupation. And they will grow tired of it eventually. The important thing is to get rid of the occupation because under occupation the countries won't see any progress at all.

Unless of course you're of the opinion that Iraq is better off now than under Saddam? Before you say yes please consult with the 1 million dead Iraqis lying in the ground as a result of the occupation.

Yes, I support the brave peasants and workers fighting the imperialist occupation. These poor but brave people, running around in sandals, track pants and t shirts, armed with nothing but AKs and RPGs, are fighting the most advanced military the world has ever seen, in order to rid their country of foreign domination. They don’t have body armor. They don’t wear helmets or drive around in humvees. They don’t have F-16 they can use to bomb entire villages back to the bone age. But they're winning.

Sure, they might be Muslims, they might not have learned of Socialism yet or read Das Kapital, but every action they take against the occupation means a weakened empire and a step forward for every anti imperialist on this earth.

BTW, a related article for all interested: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/09/20/ST2008092000530.html?sid=ST2008092000530&s_pos=top

[Hiero]

SACT I missed the earlier post.




You're damn right itts other factors. It's a fundamental lacking of communist influence in the movement - unsuprisingly, even the group in your signature is dead (though wouldn't admit it). There is disillusionment with the unions because of their bureaucratic nature, and disillusionment with the major parties because of their betrayal. More to the point, there is a total absence of revolutionary leadership, giving any influence to the struggle what so ever. There is a major lacking of activities within the communist (and I am using this to encompass various tendencies from anarcho syndicalism to left communism to marxism generally) groups toward bringing the struggle forward. That is perhaps due to the problems with people like you (not a personal attack, btw) who are focussing totally on struggles abroad, rather than the ones on their own front. Essentially, there is no activity at home, only hearts sent abroad. It's a fundamental error in your approach, and the entire communist movement - for example, how much anarchist talk was dominated by the actions of the Zapatistas, while we have strike waves here? How much talk is about the Nepalese Maoists while this occurs? How much talk here is about shit over seas, while we have events we need to be involved in here, to bring the struggle forward here?

I have addressed the idea that the CPA is dead. It is all relative, face it for workers in Australia the far left means the Greens, the trots come next, and they least trust the trots after the Greens. How many workers really know about Anarchist organisations? I never did, only through revleft do I know about anarchist movements, and when I went to APEC. The consistant goal of CPA in its long history has been becoming important members in the Unions to put forward militant stances. Nearly every major workers event there has been a Communist behind it, from water front disputes, to the mine strikes in NSW during the 1949. This continues till today. But really I don't expect you to know this, the Australian history they teach in schools is shit. I have learnt more about Australian history from a working class perspective from older CPA members and union activists. And really do you expect the mass organisations such as trade unions to really mention Communist influences? That is called Communist infiltration. In Australia there is two histories, one the Communist and the militant unionist will tell you, the other the bourgeosie sources will tell you.

If you are talking about the CPA ML, well that is another story but I am not from melbourne so I am not sure.

The problem is the far left always retreat backwards into safe communities, so the anarchist on side, the other Greens and left Labour, the other side the CPA, SA, left Unionists.

Yes there is a problem of pushing forward the leftist agenda. This is not because the lack of organisation or other subjective factors. The people out in the front don't really want change, they want to maintain.

Look at the issues in Australia, stop the sell off, Your rights at work, interest rates and banks. The working class movement is about mainting the current conditions. The only movement for change would probally come from Indigenous people, refugees, unskilled workers and the unemployed.

Other points:

I am about the only Communist in Australian who really supports the Maoist in Nepal, no one else mentions them. That is a problem.

And I am trying to currently work with the trades hall to have a rally in part of my town around the economic crisis, the banks and interest rates, the effect it will have on working class people and political solutions. The goal is to continue to have these rallies as a sort of community announcement thingo, and these rallies are going to be out in the open in a public space, not tucked away in the converted leftist communities.

Alot of your accussations are baseless assumptions. This is true for alot of the leftist community in Australia. It is really sick actually, they are so tucked away and delussional that the littlest power grabbing and snide remakrs are thought of as great poitical achievements for the working class. And really I think it is good people my age and younger, especially thoose who do not come from an active leftist family can really stand back and say what the fuck is wrong with you people.

[Charles Xavier]

Must I point out that other than the example with the Bolsheviks, which doesn't belong here, as the Bolsheviks gave Kerensky military and not political support, all the events that you have mentioned ended up in terrible defeats for the working class?

If the goal was Socialist revolution then yes, but in all the examples I listed the left wasn't trying to go beyond their means and ask for the abolishment of private propert when that wasn't the cause. We do not use these causes for sectarian interests or just for the establishment of socialism but to better the lives of working people.

[Bilan]

I have addressed the idea that the CPA is dead. It is all relative, face it for workers in Australia the far left means the Greens, the trots come next, and they least trust the trots after the Greens.

Agreed.



How many workers really know about Anarchist organisations?

Pretty much only those who work in the transport industry who have come into contact with the ASN. The rest...hardly. I blame the lack of class analysis and class struggle politics within the active groups in Australia, and the inactivity of class struggle anarchists in Australia.



The consistant goal of CPA in its long history has been becoming important members in the Unions to put forward militant stances. Nearly every major workers event there has been a Communist behind it, from water front disputes, to the mine strikes in NSW during the 1949. This continues till today. But really I don't expect you to know this, the Australian history they teach in schools is shit. I have learnt more about Australian history from a working class perspective from older CPA members and union activists. And really do you expect the mass organisations such as trade unions to really mention Communist influences? That is called Communist infiltration. In Australia there is two histories, one the Communist and the militant unionist will tell you, the other the bourgeosie sources will tell you.

I understand all that, and I have family who were active communists as far back as the 50's and early (I'm at least 7th generation Australian, and have a long history of left-wing politics in my family), and I am also aware of the massive influence the CP used to have. What I am getting at is that its no longer there.



If you are talking about the CPA ML, well that is another story but I am not from melbourne so I am not sure.

Funny about them, when I went to the SP's HQ (right next door to the CPA) they said, "no one ever goes in or out". It was a bit spooky! :lol:

[Hiero]

Funny about them, when I went to the SP's HQ (right next door to the CPA) they said, "no one ever goes in or out". It was a bit spooky!
They have a secret membership. Apparently they thought that the US were going to invade or fund a coup against Whitlam and Communist were going to go it. So China told them if they think it is going to happen, go undergound.

[RevUnityMovement]

while i won't go it other parts of the wuestion about who are our allies, i will say we need to support the rights of the Palestinian people. I do not support Fattah,or Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other Radical Islamic groups. I do support the DFLP, and other Communist that not only want the resistence to be against Israel but also Capitalism. these groups don't want a two state solution like Fattah, or an Islamic theocracy, they want a single state comprised of all of Palestine in which it will not matter the Religion of a person, where all sides while be able to vote equally rather then haveing the "israeli" vote while the majority of Palestinians are band becuase they live in the West Bank or Gaza.

Palestine Not Muslim Not Christian Not Jewish, Socialist Palestine where religion doesn't come into play.

[Bilan]

They have a secret membership. Apparently they thought that the US were going to invade or fund a coup against Whitlam and Communist were going to go it. So China told them if they think it is going to happen, go undergound.

I can't tell if this is a joke or not. :lol:

[Niccolò Rossi]

Even though this is directed at SACT, I would like to reply as this really pissed me off.


Opportunist? I was supporting the resistance from the start, when the US seemingly strolled into Iraq as if it was a walk in the park. If I were an opportunist I'd have taken the path of the Iraqi Communist Party and joined up with the imperialists! :lol:

What makes you an opportunist is your support for one bourgeois faction over another. Instead of seeing the conflict in Iraq as one of bourgeois forces in which the working class has no interest you align yourself with reactionary, anti-working class groups for the defeat of the American lead coalition.


I am an anti imperialist by principle, and recognise that every blow to the American imperialist war machine is progressive.

What makes a "blow" to American imperialism progressive when it is the interest not in the interest of the workers but the bourgeoisie?


Every attack means one more step towards ending the occupation and getting Iraq and Afghanistan back on their historical track.

How you can call yourself a socialist and support this kind of bourgeois rubbish I will never know. The working class of Iraq and Afghanistan have no interest in having the national bourgeoisie "back on track".


You don't seem to mind the American presence in Iraq or Afghanistan though.

Nor you supporting reactionary, anti-working class and fundamentally bourgeois elements over and against the working peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan.


According to you the people of those countries must somehow acquire the most advanced socialist principles or else be condemned to a lifetime of service under the merciful boot of US imperialism.

Whilst on the other hand you condemn them to a lifetime of service under the merciless boot of the national bourgeoisie and Islamic clergy.


Again, a socialist revolution will never be achieved as long as those countries are occupied.

And of course the reason for this is...?


If a theocratic state emerges post-occupation, then so be it.

After all a theocratic state is a much better environment for the formation of a socialist revolutionary movement.


Yes, I support the brave peasants and workers fighting the imperialist occupation. These poor but brave people, running around in sandals, track pants and t shirts, armed with nothing but AKs and RPGs, are fighting the most advanced military the world has ever seen, in order to rid their country of foreign domination. They don’t have body armor. They don’t wear helmets or drive around in humvees. They don’t have F-16 they can use to bomb entire villages back to the bone age. But they're winning.

Wait did I miss something? Not only are you romanticising the deaths of working men in the support of one or another faction of the bourgeoisie, you are openly proclaiming support for reactionary and anti-working class insurgents.

[Saorsa]

I can't tell if this is a joke or not. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/laugh.gif

It's plausible. The Communist Party of Aotearoa did a similar thing.

[Yehuda Stern]

It's probably not that far-fetched. Whitlam panicked a lot of capitalist politicians, despite being a reformist and a racist.

[Bilan]

I didn't know he was racist?
But I know, he was quite a 'radical reformist' in one sense, but also turned a blind eye to the Indonesian Occupation of East Timor...
But yeah, a US invasion? It's not exactly plausible...

[Yehuda Stern]

No, I guess you're right - an extra look makes me think that perhaps I was thinking about something else. He did, as you say, allowed Indonesia to attack East Timor, though.

[Hiero]

It was a different time back then. As you know growing up with Communists in the family, they literally thought the revolution was immenient.

They viewed the world as being very vulnerable, and given the killing of Communist around the world, the large scale massacre of Indonesian communist was still fresh in the memories to them it probally did seem plausible.

In reality it wasn't going to happen. Whitlam was always going to go quietly, our political society isn't really set up for coup - counter coup action.

[Yehuda Stern]

I wouldn't say that a coup or an invasion would've been entirely impossible - this is the Cold War we're talking about, after all. If Whitlam was more persistent, I have no doubt that more force would be used against him.

[Nakidana]

What makes you an opportunist is your support for one bourgeois faction over another. Instead of seeing the conflict in Iraq as one of bourgeois forces in which the working class has no interest you align yourself with reactionary, anti-working class groups for the defeat of the American lead coalition.

So you're saying that the working class has no interest in the removal of foreign domination from their country? Oh joy, let the shower of bombs continue!


What makes a "blow" to American imperialism progressive when it is the interest not in the interest of the workers but the bourgeoisie?

Every blow weakens US imperialism and that is in the interest of the workers, both at home in the US and abroad.



How you can call yourself a socialist and support this kind of bourgeois rubbish I will never know. The working class of Iraq and Afghanistan have no interest in having the national bourgeoisie "back on track".

Yes because once the imperialists have been driven out it leaves space for the working class to organise against the bourgeoisie. As long as the occupation is in place no progress can be made.



Nor you supporting reactionary, anti-working class and fundamentally bourgeois elements over and against the working peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The interest of the working peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan lies in the removal of all imperialist troops from their countries. It's also in the interest of the working class of the West because once the occupation has failed they will hate capitalism and the horrific wars and deaths it brings even more.


Whilst on the other hand you condemn them to a lifetime of service under the merciless boot of the national bourgeoisie and Islamic clergy.

No, if such a regime is set up (It won't be in Iraq, maybe in Afghanistan) the people will organise against it in time. I have faith in the people. Leave them alone and let them decide which system they want to be governed by.


And of course the reason for this is...?

How the hell are you going to carry through a socialist revolution when your country is occupied by foreign imperialists?


After all a theocratic state is a much better environment for the formation of a socialist revolutionary movement.

Yep, no more bombed villages and racist imperialists shooting up innocent women and children.


Wait did I miss something? Not only are you romanticising the deaths of working men in the support of one or another faction of the bourgeoisie, you are openly proclaiming support for reactionary and anti-working class insurgents.

I didn't romanticise any deaths, I just stated the truth. They are fucking brave. Would you be able to stand up against an Apache gunship with nothing but a Kalashnikov? Would you be able to throw a grenade at a passing Humvee? Would you have the courage to take cover knowing the capabilites of the US Air Force?

I support the resistance in its struggle against US imperialism because it's in the interest of the working class of those countries and the working class at home. I am sad for every Iraqi and Afghan death, but realise the conflict will only end once the occupation has been driven out.

[Adam KH]

We're facing two enemies. The strategic approach would be to make a temporary alliance with the lesser enemy (dangerous fundamentalism) and take down the greater enemy (extremely dangerous imperialism). Then we'll be left with only one enemy, as opposed to the two we had before. This way, we only have to fight one enemy at a time.

Tragically, many people are so stubborn and rigid about their ideologies that they will never actually achieve them. These people are in favor of doing either nothing at all, ("we might as a well not even bother with Iraq because it's going to suck no matter what happens") or taking on all our enemies at once with a club.

Socialists are not ready to work with Islamists. We can't even work with each other. Have you ever stopped to think about why Trotskyists and Maoists hate each other so much? Ideologically, they're almost the same. But they refuse to collaborate because 60 years ago, long before any of them were born, Trotsky was killed by a man who worked for a man who was an ally (sort of) of Mao. There are historians who think that the split between Leninism and Stalinism happened because Stalin was rude to Lenin's wife on the phone. We are divided over the personal conflicts of people who are long dead. We're still going through the motions of 1940. When we learn to put aside our petty differences and work for a common goal, then we can start thinking about wether or not to work with Islamists.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Sorry for the delayed reply, I didn't notice you posted.


So you're saying that the working class has no interest in the removal of foreign domination from their country? Oh joy, let the shower of bombs continue!

Of course the working class has interest in the removal of foreign domination! Where you and I diverge is that you believe the working class has interest in aligning itself with the national bourgeoisie, that is to say (albeit "temporary") domestic domination.


Every blow weakens US imperialism and that is in the interest of the workers, both at home in the US and abroad.

Sorry, but I'm afraid not. Assuming that "every blow weakens US imperialism", it does not logically follow that this is in the "interest of workers, both at home and abroad". A blow against US imperialism can just as equally be a blow against the working class as we see in all reactionary (and otherwise) national liberation movements.


Yes because once the imperialists have been driven out it leaves space for the working class to organise against the bourgeoisie. As long as the occupation is in place no progress can be made.

Why this is the case, of course, is not made known to us.


The interest of the working peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan lies in the removal of all imperialist troops from their countries.

Correct. However, you miss the forest for the trees. "The interest of the working peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan" equally lies in the removal of their national oppressors.


It's also in the interest of the working class of the West because once the occupation has failed they will hate capitalism and the horrific wars and deaths it brings even more.

Sorry but there is no reasoning or evidence behind this arguement.


No, if such a regime is set up (It won't be in Iraq, maybe in Afghanistan) the people will organise against it in time.

But until then they need to shut up and deal with their exploitation. After all "black" bosses are better than "white" ones. :rolleyes:


I have faith in the people. Leave them alone and let them decide which system they want to be governed by.

What a lovely "workerist" fetish for the "democratic principle" you display here.

The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas. - Marx, German Ideology (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01b.htm#b3)


How the hell are you going to carry through a socialist revolution when your country is occupied by foreign imperialists?

Oh I don't know, much the same way you would do when "your country is occupied" by national oppressors...


Yep, no more bombed villages and racist imperialists shooting up innocent women and children.

After all, who needs freedom of religious belief or the basic rights of women. :rolleyes:


They are fucking brave.

And so are the American soldiers fighting to bring freedom and democracy...


Would you be able to stand up against an Apache gunship with nothing but a Kalashnikov? Would you be able to throw a grenade at a passing Humvee? Would you have the courage to take cover knowing the capabilites of the US Air Force?

"I didn't romanticise any deaths" - Malangyar


I am sad for every Iraqi and Afghan death, but realise the conflict will only end once the occupation has been driven out.

Meanwhile, socialists mourn the death of scores of working men and women in the name of one or another bourgeois faction, we recognise the only solution is the international victory of the exploited against the all bourgeois factions.

[Nakidana]

course the working class has interest in the removal of foreign domination! Where you and I diverge is that you believe the working class has interest in aligning itself with the national bourgeoisie, that is to say (albeit "temporary") domestic domination.
Yes, I support the national liberation struggle, you don't.

Sorry, but I'm afraid not. Assuming that "every blow weakens US imperialism", it does not logically follow that this is in the "interest of workers, both at home and abroad". A blow against US imperialism can just as equally be a blow against the working class as we see in all reactionary (and otherwise) national liberation movements.
No, because US imperialism gets workers killed and hinders progress making conditions worse for the working class. Also, if US imperialism was successful, it would encourage the US to start new imperialist adventures thus getting even more people killed. Every blow against US imperialism makes it that much harder for the US government to engage in occupations abroad.

Why this is the case, of course, is not made known to us.
Why don't you give us some historic evidence of countries under imperialist occupation making great strides in development of the country? And mobile phones in Iraq don't count.

Correct. However, you miss the forest for the trees. "The interest of the working peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan" equally lies in the removal of their national oppressors.
...which will come after the removal of the occupation.

Sorry but there is no reasoning or evidence behind this arguement.

Occupation succeeds -> people don't give a shit/applaud the government
Occupation gets slaughtered -> people at home get dissatisfied, some get really fucking pissed -> blame the government for its wars of conquest-> government pulls out troops -> less working class people get killed etc. etc.


But until then they need to shut up and deal with their exploitation. After all "black" bosses are better than "white" ones.

You hypocrite, you're the pacifist denying them the right to fight against the occupation of their country.

I never said they should "shut up and deal" with exploitation. After the imperialists have been driven out, the Iraqi and Afghan people will have to struggle for their future against exploitation. Will it take time? Yes, but only a fool thinks revolution is something achieved in a few weeks. We haven't even achieved it here in the West, yet you expect the dirt poor Afghans, who don't know shit about socialism, to somehow hold the red flag high, push through the great revolution and drive the imperialists out all in one go.

Me, I'm quite satisfied they're taking it one step at a time.


What a lovely "workerist" fetish for the "democratic principle" you display here.

The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas. - Marx, German (http://http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01b.htm#b3) Ideology
I don't see how that has anything to do with the point I made. I have faith in the Iraqi people and their capacity to overthrow the ruling class when the time comes.


After all, who needs freedom of religious belief or the basic rights of women.

The US occupation is far worse.

And so are the American soldiers fighting to bring freedom and democracy...
I'm sure it takes a lot of courage to order airstrikes on villages.

Meanwhile, socialists mourn the death of scores of working men and women as a result of US imperialism, we recognise the only solution is the resistance against US imperialism both at home and abroad.
fixd

[FreeFocus]

I don't see why people can't distinguish between supporting people you don't agree with and simply taking advantage of holes they punch in a common adversary. Good grief guys.

[Niccolò Rossi]

No, because US imperialism gets workers killed and hinders progress making conditions worse for the working class.

Something even the most reactionary "anti-imperialist" movements can solve. :rolleyes:


Also, if US imperialism was successful, it would encourage the US to start new imperialist adventures thus getting even more people killed.

Not only do you not provide any evidence or reasoning to back this claim up, you rely on wishy-washy moralism to make your case.


Every blow against US imperialism makes it that much harder for the US government to engage in occupations abroad.

1. Again no evidence in support of your assertion
2. No explanation as to why it is favourable to prevent/slow US imperialist domination (when the alternative provided is national bourgeois domination


Why don't you give us some historic evidence of countries under imperialist occupation making great strides in development of the country? And mobile phones in Iraq don't count.

You are shifting the burden of proof.

You are the one making the assertion that "As long as the occupation is in place no progress can be made" and that "once the imperialists have been driven out it leaves space for the working class to organise against the bourgeoisie".

I asked you to provide evidence to back this up since you did not explain why this is. You, however have failed to do so.

Now, let me ask once again: Why is it that "As long as the occupation is in place no progress can be made" and that "once the imperialists have been driven out it leaves space for the working class to organise against the bourgeoisie".


...which will come after the removal of the occupation.

So in the meantime you condemn the working class to oppression from native bosses.


Occupation succeeds -> people don't give a shit/applaud the government
Occupation gets slaughtered -> people at home get dissatisfied, some get really fucking pissed -> blame the government for its wars of conquest-> government pulls out troops -> less working class people get killed etc. etc.

Sorry to break it to you but this series of events really doesn't make much sense any more than any other alternative scenario.


You hypocrite, you're the pacifist denying them the right to fight against the occupation of their country.

1. You do realise I was being sarcastic in the above quote. (I probably should have added a smilie or something though)

2. I'm not "denying them the right to fight against the occupation of their country", I'm arguing that they have no interest in fighting foreign occupation (qua foreign occupation).


After the imperialists have been driven out, the Iraqi and Afghan people will have to struggle for their future against exploitation.

So the working class can only fight its exploitation once it has endured a blood bath in support of it's new oppressors...?


I don't see how that has anything to do with the point I made.

In your previous post you showed an attitude of "support for the people" even when they are deluded by reactionary ideas. My reply was just to point-out this stupidity.


I have faith in the Iraqi people and their capacity to overthrow the ruling class when the time comes.

But you have no faith in their ability to fight independently and against "their" national bourgeoisie.


The US occupation is far worse.

I'm not interested in which is more or less "worse" and all your other petty moralistic liberal arguments. I'm interested in the class nature of both the US occupation and the various resistance movements.

[FreeFocus]

I'm not interested in which is more or less "worse" and all your other petty moralistic liberal arguments. I'm interested in the class nature of both the US occupation and the various resistance movements.

So from what does your communist outlook originate? There's two options pretty much, moral concerns, or efficiency. If it's efficiency, you view people merely as tools; if it's moral concerns, you view people as people.

If not morality, what makes it wrong for people to be exploited, as workers are? Comrades piss me off when they say things like "petty moralistic liberal arguments." What do we fight for? If it's a better world, morality is at the center of it.

[Niccolò Rossi]

So from what does your communist outlook originate?

From my realisation of my objective class interests.


If not morality, what makes it wrong for people to be exploited, as workers are?

Nothing makes it "wrong". What makes me oppose it and fight it is my own position within capitalist relations of production. As a worker I am exploited and alienated and compelled as a result to abolish their roots.


Comrades piss me off when they say things like "petty moralistic liberal arguments." What do we fight for? If it's a better world, morality is at the center of it.

"Comrades" piss me off when they say things like "don't we all want a better more moral world". If we are fighting for a "better world", class is at the centre of it, not idealistic moral principals of right and wrong.

[FreeFocus]

Nothing makes it "wrong". What makes me oppose it and fight it is my own position within capitalist relations of production. As a worker I am exploited and alienated and compelled as a result to abolish their roots.

If that's the case, and you're in it for retribution, why not just make it easier on yourself and join the capitalist class? You can get yourself from under their boot by putting your boot on someone else's neck. You can improve your own position, if that's all you care about. You can make yourself not the exploited, but the exploiter. If there's nothing wrong about it, why not do it?

[Niccolò Rossi]

If that's the case, and you're in it for retribution, why not just make it easier on yourself and join the capitalist class?

1. I'm not in it for "retribution", this stinks of idealistic notions of "justice"
2. Damn, why didn't I think of that. I'll just get rich. Silly me, spending all this time in poverty.


You can improve your own position, if that's all you care about.

I certainly do want to improve my own position, I'm not going to inflict suffering on myself because of some "greater good". This sounds more like religious nonsense. Moreover, I'm certainly not going to criticise anyone for taking an opportunity to move to a better house or get a better paid job. Good for them! But the fact of the matter is that capitalism doesn't let people "just get rich", it screws them over, some people might come out a bit better off, but at the end of the day most of us will end up making just enough money to pay the bills, get by day-to-day and maybe even afford a few minor luxuries.

So, while I can improve my own position (I can for example join a union and get higher wages and shorter hours), I'm still fighting just for scraps, at the end of the day however I'm not interested in scrap, I'm interested in permanently changing society.


You can make yourself not the exploited, but the exploiter. If there's nothing wrong about it, why not do it?

This is the key problem with what you're saying. How am I supposed to just become the exploiter? If that's an option for me where do I sign up? Further more, why isn't everyone doing it?

The only conclusion I can come to is because they can't. At the end of the day someone needs to provide and make all this food, all these houses, all our consumer goods, all the power for our cities. We call these people workers, of which I am one.

[Vendetta]

The enemy of our enemy will not always be our friend, I believe.