Why can't we let imperialists destroy taliban societies?

[benhur]

This topic has been coming up often in this forum, so I decided to make a thread. Let's consider backward, taliban-dominated Afghanistan and imperialist west. Whom do we support? If we support islamists to oppose imperialists, it'll be a disaster for obvious reasons.

OTOH, if we support imperialists and they manage to destroy religious fundamentalism, wouldn't that pave the way for socialism to strike? What I am trying to say is, workers in a taliban or islamic dominated afghanistan (or any other country) wouldn't revolt. But if the same country is rid of Islam and is under imperialist domination, wouldn't take motivate workers to start a revolution?

I hope no one takes this as support for imperialism. I just feel launching a battle against imperialism would be easier than launching one against Islam, because we have sympathizers in western societies. Not so in Islamic societies. So why cant we let the west destroy Islamic/taliban societies, so that they become ripe for a socialist revolution?

[JimmyJazz]

I see what you're saying, but you're being very hypothetical, whereas lord knows we've got a long list of real historical examples to look at when it comes to imperialism. That's the major problem with your post, I think. It isn't empirical when it perfectly well could be. For example...


OTOH, if we support imperialists and they manage to destroy religious fundamentalism, wouldn't that pave the way for socialism to strike?

Would it? Where has this worked? Iraq now has one of the most free market economies in the world, which is pretty much in line with what happened in Chile, and Indonesia, and other places where U.S. imperialism conducted "regime changes".

If you are proposing something more specific about fundamentalist Islam, I don't really see the point. How many countries are there with a threat of a theocratic Islamist regime? Iran, Afghanistan, maybe Pakistan...not many more. Most of the ME countries have either stable dictatorships which are fairly secular (like Iraq did under Saddam, and Syria does now), or secular democracy (like Lebanon, Turkey), or monarchies that only use theocracy as far as it is convenient to preserve/legitimize their rule (Saudi Arabia).

A country like Afghanistan probably does not have much of a working class (I'm guessing), but if it did, I certainly think its working class would have an easier time rebelling against the Taliban than against an American occupation. And those are really your only two choices, because as we see now, the Taliban are returning in the exact proportion as U.S. troops are being drawn down. Any fantasy the U.S. gov't ever had (assuming they actually believed their own propaganda) about the possibility of knocking out a government and leaving the country, and letting democracy magically spring up to fill the vacuum, has been pretty thoroughly disproven by the actual events of the last two invasions.


I just feel launching a battle against imperialism would be easier than launching one against Islam

I assume you mean theocratic Islamic governments, as you don't seem like the type of person who would advocate wiping out a religion (by force).

[Led Zeppelin]

So why cant we let the west destroy Islamic/taliban societies, so that they become ripe for a socialist revolution?

I'm terribly sorry for asking this, but are you stupid?

[Junius]

This topic has been coming up often in this forum, so I decided to make a thread. Let's consider backward, taliban-dominated Afghanistan and imperialist west. Whom do we support?

Neither. I support the working class and do not see a conflict between factions of them to be beneficial to anyone but the ruling class.


OTOH, if we support imperialists and they manage to destroy religious fundamentalism, wouldn't that pave the way for socialism to strike?

Let's say that America won. Would there be a chance of socialism?

Let's say that the Taliban won. Would there be a chance of socialism?

In either scenario all I see is one ruling class gaining power, tens of thousands of workers dead, no increase in class consciousness but a strengthening of nationalism, religious fundamentalism and a stronger adherence of workers to the capitalist state.

In other words, it has a negative effect on class consciousness.

Trotsky thought otherwise:


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

70 years of history have shattered this view, in my opinion. (I agree with his point that it is not a choice between democracy and fascism, I disagree with his 'choosing a side' approach which he thinks will lead to a revolution).


What I am trying to say is, workers in a taliban or islamic dominated afghanistan (or any other country) wouldn't revolt.

A country's dominant religion does not determine whether a revolution would occur; otherwise Russia 1917 would never have happened.


So why cant we let the west destroy Islamic/taliban societies, so that they become ripe for a socialist revolution?

Dead workers don't revolt. We don't support either side, but that's not to say we argue for a passive stance.


I'm terribly sorry for asking this, but are you stupid?

Comrade, the individual is new.

[JimmyJazz]

Comrade, the individual is new.

So must you be if you're trying to talk Led Zeppelin into being nice.

[Black Sheep]

(I agree with his point that it is not a choice between democracy and fascism, I disagree with his 'choosing a side' approach which he thinks will lead to a revolution).

So,what would you propose a revolutionary party/organization should propose in such an occasion? (on the Brazil-England example)

[Junius]

So,what would you propose a revolutionary party/organization should propose in such an occasion? (on the Brazil-England example)

What else should we do but organize for class struggle? If we accept that wars bring about the most appalling conditions for the working class, to say the least, then why should we put aside class struggle and argue on behalf of this or that ruling class?

I will give some examples of what the Communist Left did in WW2:


I cannot speak for anarchists, since their position on internationalism changes with their mood. As for Left Communists, we fully opposed World War Two and the participation of the working class in it. We didn't fall for the cries of 'democracy' and 'freedom' which the hypocritical allies put forth in arguing for the mobilization of the masses. Just like today we have not fallen for the cries of a war against terrorism and the similar shouts for 'freedom' and 'democracy.'

They are only so much empty words for us.

This stance, of not taking sides, does not equate with simply having a passive stance towards war mongers. On the contrary, the 'tolerant' stance of the international bourgeois gave rise to fascism, gave rise to the horrors of world war two, the holocaust. Yet the war was not fought on this context. It was fought to both defend and expand both Allied and Axis economic interests; the ability to exploit more workers. Of course, we supported self-defense - and some Italian comrades had to flee countries after defending themselves against fascists. That is quite different, however, from arguing for the mobilization of the entire working class in a bloodbath.

The Marx-Lenin-Luxemburg Front in Holland stated:

"How to struggle?
With Germany? No!
With England? No!
Third front, socialist proletariat!
Against national socialism and
Against national bolshevism:
International class war!"

Our comrades were killed shouting 'long live the world revolution' not the popular front slogan of 'with dignity for the freedom of the country.' As I have stated, this does not mean we take a 'passive' position. On the contrary, members of the MLLF front striked against the anti-Jewish laws in February 1941, involving hundreds of thousands of workers. Should the workers have fought, alongside their former masters in Germany, in the USSR, in Britain? Should they have supported the fascists which, quite recently, had been allied with their 'natural enemy' the Stalinists? We saw what the Stalinists did in 'support' of 'internationalism' in 1941; they employed scab workers in place of striking mining and dock workers.

No.

Clearly we saw that the enemy was simply not a choice between democracy and fascism. They were simply different sides of the same coin, the coin being the capitalist class. As stated, there were comrades whom did still advocate class struggle, whilst, as Bordiga put it, the anti-fascists were still deciding on whether to sell their country to America or the USSR. The Italian police wrote, of the Communist Left: "The only independent paper. Ideologically the most interesting and prepared. Against any compromise, defends a pure communism ... Fights against the war in all aspects: democratic, fascist or Stalinist." I think that is something to be proud of. What do you think makes the working class more fearful - militiants unwilling to compromise with any elements of the bourgeoisie, or 'militiants' ready to accept the continued exploitation of workers? What is more dangerous, an international working class unified against all oppressors or a divided working class?

These are not difficult questions, but we hear leftists give the wrong answers.

You see, our conception of fascism is entirely different from most of the left. We don't see its death in simply the defeat of Nazism or Italian fascism. We did, however, see its birth in the defeat of proletarian revolutions - where the ruling class actually fears for its survival it throws democracy out the window. We cannot defeat fascism without defeating capitalism. Hence, the concept of anti-fascism is at best, superfluous, at worst; it lends support to one ruling faction over another. With Bordiga, I agree, that the worst thing to come from fascism is: anti-fascism.

How did we advocate class struggle? In Turin in Italy there were strikes, as in Milan too. Felix Morrow, a Trotskyist, mentions, however that the factories and working class neighborhoods of Milan were bombed by the RAF. Do I really need to point out which side so-called anti-fascism was? It was apologetic for imperialism.

Today, the dichotomy between fascism and democracy is still false. Democracy is a sham which presents an illusion that workers are actually in control. We have seen that the most loyal social democrats have become the most bloodthirsty. Luxemburg and Liebknecht were murdered by right-wingers under the command of the SPD. Under democracy we have seen the most ruthless and exploitative wars. We have seen under the command of social-democracy also the most ruthless racism against immigrants.

Like Liebknecht said in the first world war: the main enemy is at home!

[Charles Xavier]

This topic has been coming up often in this forum, so I decided to make a thread. Let's consider backward, taliban-dominated Afghanistan and imperialist west. Whom do we support? If we support islamists to oppose imperialists, it'll be a disaster for obvious reasons.

OTOH, if we support imperialists and they manage to destroy religious fundamentalism, wouldn't that pave the way for socialism to strike? What I am trying to say is, workers in a taliban or islamic dominated afghanistan (or any other country) wouldn't revolt. But if the same country is rid of Islam and is under imperialist domination, wouldn't take motivate workers to start a revolution?

I hope no one takes this as support for imperialism. I just feel launching a battle against imperialism would be easier than launching one against Islam, because we have sympathizers in western societies. Not so in Islamic societies. So why cant we let the west destroy Islamic/taliban societies, so that they become ripe for a socialist revolution?

Religion isn't the enemy. Its of course used by the Imperialist class as an institution of class rule. But its Imperialism and Capitalism that is.

[Hiero]

The imperialist have been talking about negiotating with the moder elements of the Taliban. They can not beat the Taliban by military domination. I am not sure how the Afghani government is going to take it. While it is a puppert of the imperialist, it is anti-Taliban, it wants to see the Taliban smashed, so I imagine it will cause a rift.

I heard about it not so long ago when Australian defence force ministry mention it in a tv interview.

[Led Zeppelin]

So must you be if you're trying to talk Led Zeppelin into being nice.

This kid is right, you can't expect me to be nice to reactionaries who advocate the murder of millions of people.

I'm weird like that.

[BraneMatter]

As socialists, I don't see how we can condone either U.S. imperialism or religious extremism of any stripe.

The question about religion is: At what point does a religious belief become the enemy of the working class and socialist principles? What is the definition of "extremist"? Is all "religious fundamentalism" also extremism? Dangerous?

Could a theocracy also be truly socialist if they answer first to some "higher power" that communicates its will through priests and prophets?

If something is in conflict with science, is it really compatible with socialism? Can superstition, mytyh, or mysticism peacefully coexist for any extended period with socialism, which is founded on dialectical materialism and science?

On the other hand, socialists and communists have often fought alongside of, or otherwise aided, religious people in the struggle against social injustce, exploitation, racism, and imperialist war and aggression.

[Andropov]

This topic has been coming up often in this forum, so I decided to make a thread. Let's consider backward, taliban-dominated Afghanistan and imperialist west. Whom do we support? If we support islamists to oppose imperialists, it'll be a disaster for obvious reasons.

OTOH, if we support imperialists and they manage to destroy religious fundamentalism, wouldn't that pave the way for socialism to strike? What I am trying to say is, workers in a taliban or islamic dominated afghanistan (or any other country) wouldn't revolt. But if the same country is rid of Islam and is under imperialist domination, wouldn't take motivate workers to start a revolution?

I hope no one takes this as support for imperialism. I just feel launching a battle against imperialism would be easier than launching one against Islam, because we have sympathizers in western societies. Not so in Islamic societies. So why cant we let the west destroy Islamic/taliban societies, so that they become ripe for a socialist revolution?
If American Imperialism wins surely it will be the Mullahs and the fundamentalists who will spearhead the resistance like it has been for every insurgency throughout Afghanistans history.
There will be no fertile ground for left wing growth.

[ernie]

I hope no one takes this as support for imperialism. I just feel launching a battle against imperialism would be easier than launching one against Islam, because we have sympathizers in western societies. Not so in Islamic societies. So why cant we let the west destroy Islamic/taliban societies, so that they become ripe for a socialist revolution?
I think it's common to make this mistake. Hell, even Engels made it during the Mexican-American war. Of course, we know what happened in the 150 years after that, so I think by now we should know that imperialism is always reactionary. However fucked up a place might be, imperialists will only make it worse. I think Iraq is a perfect example of this, although there are dozens more.


70 years of history have shattered this view, in my opinion. (I agree with his point that it is not a choice between democracy and fascism, I disagree with his 'choosing a side' approach which he thinks will lead to a revolution).
I don't think he was saying it will lead to revolution, simply that it will help the revolutionary cause of the imperialist country by striking a blow against its ruling class.

It's not a matter of "choosing sides", per se, especially when both forces are reactionary. It's about realizing that American imperialism is more reactionary than, in this case, the Taliban. The defeat of imperialism will both help Afghans focus on their real enemy (Islamic fundamentalism) and the American working class gain consciousness.

[BobKKKindle$]

Socialists do not support an imperialist occupation under any circumstances, but actively campaign for the defeat of imperialism and lend unconditional military support to organisations such as the Taleban which are currently fighting against occupation, even when we do not agree with the politics of organisations.

As long as the United States and the other countries which are part of the invasion force maintain the occupation of Afghanistan, the primary object of struggle for the general population will be the occupation, and the internal struggle against the domestic bourgeoisie which has benefited from the occupation will be a secondary struggle, because the foremost concern of every worker is the danger of being bombed or otherwise harmed by the occupation and the removal of the occupation is the best immediate way of improving the quality of life. This is shown by the fact that the Taleban has been able to continue the struggle despite repeated attempts to destroy the network, as the Taleban is able to command a base of popular support and is even recruiting new fighters from some segments of the population. If the occupation is removed, workers will be more likely to identify the underlying cause of their everyday grievances - the domestic and international bourgeoisie - and consequently class struggle will take the place of anti-imperialism and become the primary form of struggle.

[black magick hustla]

f the occupation is removed, workers will be more likely to identify the underlying cause of their everyday grievances - the domestic and international bourgeoisie - and consequently class struggle will take the place of anti-imperialism and become the primary form of struggle.

This has never, ever, happened. Ever. It is just wishful thinking and the dogmatization of lenin's stance, which was merely tactical, not a principle.

[Wanted Man]

"Islam" or "Taliban" is not a system like "capitalism" or a part of the system like "imperialism". So it's pointless to brand a country according to its dominant religion or its ruling party. We speak of the capitalist or the imperialist USA, we're not fighting "Christian America" or "Republican America", and we don't make cynical calculations on how "revolutionary" it would be if some other reactionary force destroyed them.

Anyway, it's basically a pipe dream to think that imperialist oppression is a "fertile ground", as one poster put it, for a revolution. Also, nothing is static. Maybe tomorrow, the Taliban will reach an agreement with the imperialists, while the "Northern Alliance" may then be in opposition again.

In the end, misconceptions like this always seem to stem from the terribly reactionary idea that socialists should encourage or directly work to increase the misery of the working class, so that "they will be pushed to revolt". I guess it's easy to say for people in a privileged position, just like the Russian intellectuals who already thought of it in the 19th century. A very ignorant and dangerous position indeed.

[Raisa]

To the orignal poster:

People in Afghanistan do not like that shit either really. The taliban.
Most countries like that, their people do not like them. If you think the imperialists should destroy those governments for those people that is because you beleive that the people there are monkeys and cant do it thmselves. Which is in itself an imperialist outlook..... I appologise if I messed up your day. But the right answer is why cant the educated people help organized the dissatisfied and teach them how to use the guns?
Isnt that what america did to put people like the taliban in power in the first place?
Why cant you do that?
Go over there and give people military training orgnaized with in our structure.
The military organization of the people who want to fight their leaders should in itself be communistic and democratic.
Cause it would be rediculous to think that youre gonna talk to people about this wonderful idea we have and then push them around like animals cause thats still imperialist and its all about self determination.
And the other workers are yourself. So showing yourself how to fight is the better answer.
Not having your enemy take over their government.

Peace.

[Faux Real]

Let's consider backward, taliban-dominated Afghanistan and imperialist west.i'll let you consider that.

Whom do we support?false dichotomy, you don't need to support either side, and which leftists actually are in a position to support? and what is meant by support?

If we support islamists to oppose imperialists, it'll be a disaster for obvious reasons. yeah big disaster, people who joined the taliban will return to their homes and be free from the aggressive aerial attacks on their villages. most people in the country will live by more or less the same religious sharia that's already abided by. or maybe you're talking about how they will all come to the west and fly planes into towers...

OTOH, if we support imperialists and they manage to destroy religious fundamentalism, wouldn't that pave the way for socialism to strike?wrong, wrong wrong. and what does our giving support have to do with that?

What I am trying to say is, workers in a taliban or islamic dominated afghanistan (or any other country) wouldn't revolt.Not even people in forward-thinking[sic] atheist societies have had a revolution.

But if the same country is rid of Islam and is under imperialist domination, wouldn't take motivate workers to start a revolution?lol lets kill all muslims!! that will magically get them to convert to our doctrine, what a great plan.

I hope no one takes this as support for imperialism.:rolleyes:

I just feel launching a battle against imperialism would be easier than launching one against Islam, because we have sympathizers in western societies. Not so in Islamic societies.So you're motivated by the popular wave of islamophobia. *sigh* Don't worry, you're in no position to launch a battle against either side.

So why cant we let the west destroy Islamic/taliban societies, so that they become ripe for a socialist revolution?because none of that will happen, and you're not a factor in the imperial equation.

[RedHal]

This topic has been coming up often in this forum, so I decided to make a thread. Let's consider backward, taliban-dominated Afghanistan and imperialist west. Whom do we support? If we support islamists to oppose imperialists, it'll be a disaster for obvious reasons.

OTOH, if we support imperialists and they manage to destroy religious fundamentalism, wouldn't that pave the way for socialism to strike? What I am trying to say is, workers in a taliban or islamic dominated afghanistan (or any other country) wouldn't revolt. But if the same country is rid of Islam and is under imperialist domination, wouldn't take motivate workers to start a revolution?

I hope no one takes this as support for imperialism. I just feel launching a battle against imperialism would be easier than launching one against Islam, because we have sympathizers in western societies. Not so in Islamic societies. So why cant we let the west destroy Islamic/taliban societies, so that they become ripe for a socialist revolution?

I think you are brainwashed by the corporate media propaganda into believing that US imperialism is fighting to bring some sort of "democracy" to the middle east. The US will back up a puppet government, and if the left has strong support, you can be sure that the US puppet government will brutally crush any leftist movement.

When the left is weak, you can have your "democracy" and "freedom of speach". It's a nice illusion.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Religion isn't the enemy. .


Ilogical bullshit which stands in the way of progress. Yes its the motherfucking enemy.

[black magick hustla]

"Islam" or "Taliban" is not a system like "capitalism" or a part of the system like "imperialism". So it's pointless to brand a country according to its dominant religion or its ruling party. We speak of the capitalist or the imperialist USA, we're not fighting "Christian America" or "Republican America", and we don't make cynical calculations on how "revolutionary" it would be if some other reactionary force destroyed them.

Anyway, it's basically a pipe dream to think that imperialist oppression is a "fertile ground", as one poster put it, for a revolution. Also, nothing is static. Maybe tomorrow, the Taliban will reach an agreement with the imperialists, while the "Northern Alliance" may then be in opposition again.

In the end, misconceptions like this always seem to stem from the terribly reactionary idea that socialists should encourage or directly work to increase the misery of the working class, so that "they will be pushed to revolt". I guess it's easy to say for people in a privileged position, just like the Russian intellectuals who already thought of it in the 19th century. A very ignorant and dangerous position indeed.

There was a "taliban" state though.

I generally agree with the whole gist of your post. I think there is a disturbing amount of "narodniks" in the left that wait with open arms "ragnarok". I think it is dangerous because they dont really get the "point" of all of this.

Imperialist opression is not a "fertile ground" for revolution, but national capitalism, as some trotskyists and stalinists imply, is neither.

[PRC-UTE]

the US/UK will likely reach an agreement of some kind with the Taleban. the Prime Minister of Afghanistan is popularly referred to as 'the mayor of Kabul'.

[Random Precision]

Islam, by which I'm assuming is meant political Islam is seen by liberals (and consequently a great deal of those who consider themselves to be leftists) to be for some reason "feudalist", "fascist" or more deeply reactionary than normal bourgeois ideologies, and worse than, as the idiot OP believes, Western imperialism.

In fact, political Islam spans a myriad of ideologies from Saudi-style puritanism to bourgeois nationalism to socialism, like the original Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

Richard Seymour has a good couple of posts about this:

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2004/03/political-islam-and-its-discontents.html
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2004/05/political-islam-and-its-discontents.html
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2005/07/political-islam-and-its-discontents.html

[ernie]

I don't understand why so many people are resorting to insulting the original poster. Is it because you think he/she (gasp!) insulted Islam? Why do so many leftists hold a special place in their hearts for Islam? Is it because it is the current demon of western reactionaries?

I realize that the OP was being terribly naive in his/her question, and that no self-respecting leftist would support imperialism (whether western or eastern or southern). However, I do understand where the question comes from. It is based on the observation that religion (Islam, in this case) is reactionary and that any country where policy is openly and solely based on it will be backward.

I think he's right: Afghanistan is a backward place. By modern standards, it is a feudal shit-hole! And in such a backward place, religion plays a super important role at the hands of the ruling class and is, therefore, the main enemy of the advancement of the country. Clearly, somebody who is unfamiliar with the nature of imperialism could very well think that westerners could bring some aspects of modern life to Afghanistan and help modernize it.

We know that this is not what happens, and that is, I think, what needed to be conveyed to the OP. Resorting to name-calling doesn't help anybody, especially someone becoming interested in radical politics.

[KC]

Ilogical bullshit which stands in the way of progress. Yes its the motherfucking enemy.

Religion is not an idea, or a set of ideas. It is an ideology that is adhered to as a result of alienation and oppression. It is in this way that is not a cause, but merely an effect; religion is a symptom of capitalism. You are therefore incorrect in stating that religion stands in the way of progress, for it is capitalism that stands in the way of progress. Religion is a problem, but not "the enemy."

Get religious people involved in class struggle and open their eyes to how the world actually works and religion will play less of a role in their life (or at least be irrelevant in terms of their economic/political work). Attacking workers for being religious will only isolate yourself.

[ernie]

Islam, by which I'm assuming is meant political Islam is seen by liberals (and consequently a great deal of those who consider themselves to be leftists) to be for some reason "feudalist", "fascist" or more deeply reactionary than normal bourgeois ideologies, and worse than, as the idiot OP believes, Western imperialism.
I may be misunderstanding you, but it seems that you are saying that Islam is a bourgeois ideology. It isn't, of course. Religion is a pre-capitalist superstition, and modern capitalist countries are pretty secular. So, yes, "normal bourgeois ideologies" are less reactionary than religion.

For instance, it is the bourgeois liberals that decided to stop the criminalization of abortion, at the same time that in backward, religious places like Afghanistan, women get stoned for not wearing a fucking cloth over their head.

[RadioRaheem84]

There are better people to support than the US Marines. Supposedly, there are secular freedom fighters in Afghanistan although most have joined the US or with local Warlords. Secondly, the Kurdish Peshmerga in Iraq is a socialist organization or at least claims to be; they could probably be nationalists with a socialist outer layer, IDK.

Point is, the US will carpet bomb reactionary elements, yes, but install puppet regimes that will not be democratic or at least have a democratic facade. It's better to hope for secular democratic fighting groups to battle the Taliban and Al-Queda. Lets hope the Kurdish Peshmerga and the Secularists in Afghanistan wise up to the US and drop them like a bad habit and fight the Islamists on their own.

[Random Precision]

I may be misunderstanding you, but it seems that you are saying that Islam is a bourgeois ideology..

That's not what I'm saying at all. Islam itself is of course a religion, which does not necessarily equate to any political ideology. Political expressions of that faith, on the other hand, have run the gamut from the Taliban and Wahab reactionaries to Nasser and other bourgeois nationalists to reformism such as the original Muslim brotherhood, and in a few cases even revolutionary socialism.

What I was objecting to was the OP's assertion that "socialism can't have a place in Islamic society", which is manifestly untrue and plays right along with bourgeois anti-Muslim prejudice and propaganda.


It isn't, of course. Religion is a pre-capitalist superstition, and modern capitalist countries are pretty secular

Interesting assertion. What about modern capitalist countries such as Israel and Iran that intertwine religious and secular law and/or give special status to citizens of a certain faith?

And as for it being a "pre-capitalist superstition", what about modern faiths such as Baha'i and the Rastafarian movement?


So, yes, "normal bourgeois ideologies" are less reactionary than religion.

Sigh. "Religion" does not, nor has it ever, represent one coherent force. It can play a reactionary role or a progressive role in society depending on the circumstances.

[JimmyJazz]

This kid is right, you can't expect me to be nice to reactionaries who advocate the murder of millions of people.

I'm weird like that.

C'mon. Ideas are reactionary, not individuals. Especially not one who is obviously new (and sincere). Were you born a Marxist?

[R_P_A_S]

This kid is right, you can't expect me to be nice to reactionaries who advocate the murder of millions of people.

I'm weird like that.

HAHAHA! can this be my signature???

[ernie]

Political expressions of that faith, on the other hand, have run the gamut from the Taliban and Wahab reactionaries to Nasser and other bourgeois nationalists to reformism such as the original Muslim brotherhood, and in a few cases even revolutionary socialism.
So you're saying that the fact that King Farouk's rule was a million times more reactionary than Nasser's government had nothing to do with it being more religious?

Also, I'm no expert on the Muslim brotherhood, but I would hardly call their actions "political expressions of faith."


What I was objecting to was the OP's assertion that "socialism can't have a place in Islamic society", which is manifestly untrue
It depends on what is meant by an "Islamic society". If it means that most people are deeply Muslim, then the OP is right, that society cannot be socialist. Much less communist or anarchist. The same goes for a "Christian society".


and plays right along with bourgeois anti-Muslim prejudice and propaganda.

We should oppose the bourgeois media's propaganda for being racist and anti-Arab. Islam is just their cover so as to not be called racists. If they were actually on an anti-Muslim campaign (or anti-Christian), I wouldn't lift a finger to stop them.


Interesting assertion. What about modern capitalist countries such as Israel and Iran that intertwine religious and secular law and/or give special status to citizens of a certain faith?
I wouldn't call Israel or Iran modern capitalist countries. I consider them developing countries. As such, they are more secular than places like Afghanistan and less so than places like France. Coincidence?


Sigh. "Religion" does not, nor has it ever, represent one coherent force. It can play a reactionary role or a progressive role in society depending on the circumstances.
Is it a coincidence, then, that it almost always (!) plays a very reactionary role in society? I wonder...

I understand your point that religion is not, in and of itself, a political ideology and that, in principle, it can be attached to reactionary or progressive political movements. It is a historical fact, however, that it almost, almost always plays a deeply reactionary role in society. In the end, this is what matters.

[JimmyJazz]

HAHAHA! can this be my signature???

Yeah, but just make sure you cite it as Led Zeppelin talking about this op, that way people will know it wasn't a left communist talking about Led Zeppelin and his support for WWII, or a democratic socialist talking about Led Zeppelin and his support for the Bolshevik revolution and civil war.

Hurling ridiculous accusations at sincere people is easy. But not productive.

[Led Zeppelin]

C'mon. Ideas are reactionary, not individuals. Especially not one who is obviously new (and sincere). Were you born a Marxist?

Don't be obtuse.

No I was not born a Marxist, I also wasn't born a Nazi. But if I was a Nazi, it would probably help me if a leftist told me that I was being an idiot.

Same if I happen to advocate the murder of millions of people by imperialism. Petting my back and telling me that "I'm new" won't help me change my mind. Confrontation has a better chance of that, at least in my opinion.

If you disagree, by all means feel free to pet Nazis and other scum on the back and "hate their ideas" without referring to them as idiots and avoiding confrontation with them as people altogether, but that's not me.


HAHAHA! can this be my signature???

Sure. :)


Hurling ridiculous accusations at sincere people is easy. But not productive.

I'm sure he was very sincere when he called for the deaths of millions of people by imperialism, which is exactly why I "hurled" my insult (not an accusation, again, don't be obtuse) at him. Also, the fact that you compare advocating the deaths of millions to me supporting the anti-fascist forces during WW2 or to me supporting the Bolshevik revolution says more about your skewed and distorted way of thinking than it does about me.

As I said though, have fun petting Nazis and other assorted scum on the back and "being nice to them for being sincere".

Just don't whine at others who don't go for that.

[JimmyJazz]

Don't be obtuse.

No I was not born a Marxist, I also wasn't born a Nazi. But if I was a Nazi, it would probably help me if a leftist told me that I was being an idiot.

Same if I happen to advocate the murder of millions of people by imperialism. Petting my back and telling me that "I'm new" won't help me change my mind. Confrontation has a better chance of that, at least in my opinion.

If you disagree, by all means feel free to pet Nazis and other scum on the back and "hate their ideas" without referring to them as idiots and avoiding confrontation with them as people altogether, but that's not me.



Sure. :)



I'm sure he was very sincere when he called for the deaths of millions of people by imperialism, which is exactly why I "hurled" my insult (not an accusation, again, don't be obtuse) at him. Also, the fact that you compare advocating the deaths of millions to me supporting the anti-fascist forces during WW2 or to me supporting the Bolshevik revolution says more about your skewed and distorted way of thinking than it does about me.

As I said though, have fun petting Nazis and other assorted scum on the back and "being nice to them for being sincere".

Just don't whine at others who don't go for that.

Lol, yes, a nazi who is registered on RevLeft.com and saying "hey guys what do you think of this idea, please don't take it at support for imperialism". In fact that might be a direct excerpt from a Hitler speech now that I think about it!

[benhur]

Thanks everyone for the replies, especially Jimmy:) and Ernie:), who've understood my questions correctly. Others have simply reacted without even bothering to read the OP.

I never said we must let imperialists go around and slaughter millions of Muslims. Why twist my words to make me look like a bad guy? By the destruction of taliban societies, I meant just that-the destruction of taliban practices such as superstition, horrible treatment of women and homosexuals, barbaric practices like stoning etc.

Even though imperialists are NOT there out of the goodness of their hearts, still, if their presense could somehow destroy these taliban types and create a normal society, wouldn't that help us socialists in the long run? Imperialists would be, without their knowledge and willingness, sowing the seeds of socialism by defeating taliban.

That's what I meant, the help offered to us socialists inadvertently.

Point number two, try telling people that we'll support taliban against American imperialism, and see how they're going to be repulsed by socialism. They're going to assume that socialists are so full of hatred for Americans that they're even willing to side with barbarians, dignifying them with titles such as revolutionaries and freedom fighters.

OTOH, a neutral approach would help, if one is unwilling to commit to either side. But even the slightest hint that we're for taliban will make all socialists look like buffoons. Seriously, can you think of the damage it can do to our cause?

[Led Zeppelin]

Lol, yes, a nazi who is registered on RevLeft.com and saying "hey guys what do you think of this idea, please don't take it at support for imperialism". In fact that might be a direct excerpt from a Hitler speech now that I think about it!

You just really can't help being obtuse, can you?

A good analogy would be; "Hey, why don't we support the killing of jews for they are inferior to us because their culture sucks and because they are reactionary capitalists, at least most of them are? Oh, don't take this as a support for the holocaust though."

Cue the obtuse "pat on the back and be nice because he's new" guy.

[ernie]

Thanks everyone for the replies, especially Jimmy:) and Ernie:), who've understood my questions correctly. Others have simply reacted without even bothering to read the OP.

I never said we must let imperialists go around and slaughter millions of Muslims. Why twist my words to make me look like a bad guy? By the destruction of taliban societies, I meant just that-the destruction of taliban practices such as superstition, horrible treatment of women and homosexuals, barbaric practices like stoning etc.

Even though imperialists are NOT there out of the goodness of their hearts, still, if their presense could somehow destroy these taliban types and create a normal society, wouldn't that help us socialists in the long run? Imperialists would be, without their knowledge and willingness, sowing the seeds of socialism by defeating taliban.

That's what I meant, the help offered to us socialists inadvertently.
So long as you understand that this cannot happen. Imperialists don't bring modern life to their colonies. In fact, they usually setup an ultra-reactionary regime there. Imperialism has always managed to make a place worse than how they found it. I think it is a good rule of thumb to oppose imperialism as a matter of principle.

[Random Precision]

So you're saying that the fact that King Farouk's rule was a million times more reactionary than Nasser's government had nothing to do with it being more religious?

Depends on what you mean by "more religious". And this example does nothing to correlate religious beliefs and reactionary politics.


Also, I'm no expert on the Muslim brotherhood, but I would hardly call their actions "political expressions of faith."

To quote a great man, "Yeah, well, that's like, your opinion."


It depends on what is meant by an "Islamic society". If it means that most people are deeply Muslim, then the OP is right, that society cannot be socialist. Much less communist or anarchist. The same goes for a "Christian society".

You have quite an idealist view of the nature of religious belief. And in this case it has been proven 100% false. I suggest that you read this article (http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=181).


We should oppose the bourgeois media's propaganda for being racist and anti-Arab. Islam is just their cover so as to not be called racists. If they were actually on an anti-Muslim campaign (or anti-Christian), I wouldn't lift a finger to stop them.

They are indeed attacking the Islamic faith, along with its adherents. And it is racist.


I wouldn't call Israel or Iran modern capitalist countries. I consider them developing countries.

What makes a "modern capitalist country" different from a "developing country"? And why does Israel (for example) fit the latter category?


As such, they are more secular than places like Afghanistan and less so than places like France. Coincidence?

So I guess you would tell Afghani workers that they're not ready for a socialist movement until they shed their religious beliefs? That's quite productive.


s it a coincidence, then, that it almost always (!) plays a very reactionary role in society? I wonder...

I understand your point that religion is not, in and of itself, a political ideology and that, in principle, it can be attached to reactionary or progressive political movements. It is a historical fact, however, that it almost, almost always plays a deeply reactionary role in society. In the end, this is what matters.

No, it doesn't. Some of my post here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/marxist-perspectives-religion-t85163/index.html) goes into this.

[Random Precision]

Point number two, try telling people that we'll support taliban against American imperialism, and see how they're going to be repulsed by socialism. They're going to assume that socialists are so full of hatred for Americans that they're even willing to side with barbarians, dignifying them with titles such as revolutionaries and freedom fighters.

OTOH, a neutral approach would help, if one is unwilling to commit to either side. But even the slightest hint that we're for taliban will make all socialists look like buffoons. Seriously, can you think of the damage it can do to our cause?

It's not a question of "supporting the Taliban" and other reactionary forces in Afghanistan. It's a question of whether the Afghan people have the right to defend themselves against imperialist aggression. And if you say "yes" to that question, which most leftists will, that necessarily means military support to all factions, progressive and reactionary, that fight against the imperialists.

[Random Precision]

Also, Hal Draper put this rather well. I think the situation he talks about is analogous to the US invasion of Afghanistan:


Mussolini’s openly imperialist attack on the realm of Haile Selassie was a similar case. The society ruled by the Negus was an incredibly reactionary one (not capitalist reaction but pre-capitalist reaction) – real slavery being by no means its most objectionable feature. In comparison, even Fascist Italy was a more progressive society, it goes without saying. Yet socialists gave unquestioned support to the defense of Ethiopia against this “more progressive society,” and even the Communists were embarrassed by Russia’s treacherous sale of badly needed oil to Mussolini’s war machine.

Why the support? Ethiopian society was so reactionary that not everything we have said about the reasons for supporting national wars can possibly apply. Most particularly, a victorious defense by Ethiopia could hardly be expected to be very relevant to “facilitating social revolution” in that country; in fact, a case could be made that Italian conquest would probably create revolutionary elements in Ethiopia more quickly.

The essential justification must be sought in two statements:

The national freedom of Ethiopia was a democratic demand, as already explained; and a successful conquest of Ethiopia by Mussolini would have had a definitely retrogressive meaning for the social struggle in Italy, by helping to consolidate fascism internally, with a derivative similar effect elsewhere in Europe.

[black magick hustla]

It's not a question of "supporting the Taliban" and other reactionary forces in Afghanistan. It's a question of whether the Afghan people have the right to defend themselves against imperialist aggression. And if you say "yes" to that question, which most leftists will, that necessarily means military support to all factions, progressive and reactionary, that fight against the imperialists.

The "afghani people" have the "right" to do whatever they want. They can kill themselves, submit themselves to a faction of the ruling class, or die for fairy tales and fake ideas. (Although it is not really a right - doing otherwise would be opposed to the monopoly of violence of the ruling class) In 1840s, black people had the "right" to think they are genetically inferior to their masters, or that slavery is morally sound. The issue here is if we think this is "correct" and should be supported by communists.

[Elway]

This issue is an incredible minefield when it comes to, “how to play it for the benefit of socialism.”

First of all, why not accept that some things, including big, world-wide events, are not necessarily always going to have a socialist v. non-socialist outcome to them, in and of themselves?

Let’s take the Taliban at their word: They are fundamentalist Islamic people who believe:

1) no non-Muslim nation should be able to contract with the rulers of a Muslim nation.

2) in the “destruction” or non-existence, of the nation of Israel.

3) that personal and family life should reflect Islamic codes and traditions, (i.e., that
men should sport beards, women should cover their bodies extensively, girls
should receive an education in accord with traditional roles, etc.)

Before analyzing these 3, remember that, whether you like the United States fighting the Taliban, they are a people who march in lock-step with Al-Qaeda, which became popular during the anti-Soviet times during Afganastan’s fight against the Soviet invasion of their country. I don’t need to tell any of you this. You all know it, I’m sure.

The big problem, for world-socialists, is that there is a great obsession with working at any effort that helps weaken the United States government. I’m more relaxed about this, because while I don’t see an end to the United States in the near future, any more than I see the end to “nationalism” as a whole, I do see a far more leftist United States within the next 10 years, or so. (This may sound crazy, but the left should work to become the champions of private property to advance Socialsim; not “our left”, but meaning that the next political movement that will capture the imagination of America will be the one which supports ALL Americans having a home; as the Republican Party and their ilk seem unable to achieve this. Try not to throw me off the Commie groups here, I am a genuine socialist, but believe in “revolution through stages”.)

For all I wrote, I can annalyze all of this “Why can't we let imperialists destroy taliban societies?” question without so much anti-U.S. baggage.

Here’s the deal:

Unlike the Iraq question, the world will never “link” Iraq and Afghanastan together as leftists have, and accept the U.S. has a legitimate “right” to “deal with Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, on their home turf. September 11, 2001, was the equivalent of December 7, 1945 (even moreso, as New York City IS part of the United States, v. 1945, when Hawaii was not part of a state of the United States.)

Iraq, is of course, a whole different matter, and most of the world agrees the U.S. fucked up royally there.

Now, for the items:

#1 has a weirdness to it, because if you’re a socialist, you agree people should be albe to discuss matters with people world-wide, and when someone comes along, like the Taliban or Al-Qaeda, and tell the Saudis they can’t speak with the U.S., ‘cause the land is “holy”, we socialists are supposed to tell the religious nuts to take a flying leap. THERE IS, ON THIS ONE, NO “CORRECT” MARXIST ANSWER. There is an answer that benefits the weakening of the United States, but not an answer that benefits the advancement of Marxism.

#2 will never be supported world-wide. Obviously, if John Lennon has his way, and there are no “countries” (Imagine, huh?), then Israel can go the way of the Dodo with the rest of ‘em. But to single it out, and argue the WHOLE nation of Israel is “a bad idea”, will never sell in Aspin, Colorado Springs, Denver, or Fort Collins.

[SIZE=3]#3 is something about the Taliban everyone hates, and the sooner these nut jobs stop doing what they’re doing, with the beating up guys who shave, and the stoning of women who sleep with some guy, the better.

[Faux Real]

there a
Unlike the Iraq question, the world will never “link” Iraq and Afghanastan together as leftists have, and accept the U.S. has a legitimate “right” to “deal with Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, on their home turf. September 11, 2001, was the equivalent of December 7, 1945 (even moreso, as New York City IS part of the United States, v. 1945, when Hawaii was not part of a state of the United States.)not quite.
1.) it is not the taliban who attacked NYC and the pentagon, and they were not even asked to give up members of al-qaeda pre-invasion they were letting reside in the country. therefore there is no "right" in attacking afghanistan.
2.) al-qaeda is not a single organization (and didn't even name themselves that)
3.) it is not the equivalent of pearl harbor, because this war can go on indefinitely (war and poverty breeds terrorism), there are no battles against a standing army, and consequently there's no identifiable enemy (oh right, forgot about that one guy named bin laden).

ps: elway is a huge GOP member!

[Random Precision]

The "afghani people" have the "right" to do whatever they want. They can kill themselves, submit themselves to a faction of the ruling class, or die for fairy tales and fake ideas. (Although it is not really a right - doing otherwise would be opposed to the monopoly of violence of the ruling class) In 1840s, black people had the "right" to think they are genetically inferior to their masters, or that slavery is morally sound. The issue here is if we think this is "correct" and should be supported by communists.

Obviously we're going to disagree on this question. My position is that national liberation should be supported by communists, as national self-rule is a democratic demand, even when (ironically) it's done by an undemocratic government. We support the fulfillment of democratic demands for the same reason as we support the fulfillment of socialist demands- it's necessary to create a world in which human potentialities can flower.

Also it's very rare that a struggle for a democratic demand will be unrelated to the struggle for socialism, so even if the struggle for independence does not carry through to a socialist revolution immediately, it will at some later stage.

You will say that my position constitutes a betrayal of the working class in favor of the national wing of capital. I on the other hand think that your position constitutes a fundamental disengagement from the struggle for socialism by refusing to fight for the fulfillment of its immediate tasks.

[black magick hustla]

Also it's very rare that a struggle for a democratic demand will be unrelated to the struggle for socialism, so even if the struggle for independence does not carry through to a socialist revolution immediately, it will at some later stage.

You will say that my position constitutes a betrayal of the working class in favor of the national wing of capital. I on the other hand think that your position constitutes a fundamental disengagement from the struggle for socialism by refusing to fight for the fulfillment of its immediate tasks.

the democratic demand was supported by lenin as a tactic, not a principle. It came from the idea that democratic revolutions would ripen the battlefield and make class consciousness sharper. I do not think this has ever happened, ever. On the contrary, the national "marxists" recuperated class struggle slogans and integrated them to the bourgeois states - this can be seen in places like Zimbawe, for example.

Furthermore, these "immediate tasks" you speak of may be "immediate" in the sense that the barbarism perpetuated by the ruling class is immediate, but beyond that, every single national liberation movement marxists have ever supported, have destroyed independent working class organs or repressed people trying to build them. From the kemalists to the ZANU. The only reason leftists support national liberation is out of principle, but it has nothing to do with communist principles.

[Elway]

1.) it is not the taliban who attacked NYC and the pentagon, and they were not even asked to give up members of al-qaeda pre-invasion they were letting reside in the country. therefore there is no "right" in attacking afghanistan.
2.) al-qaeda is not a single organization (and didn't even name themselves that)
3.) it is not the equivalent of pearl harbor, because this war can go on indefinitely (war and poverty breeds terrorism), there are no battles against a standing army, and consequently there's no identifiable enemy (oh right, forgot about that one guy named bin laden).

ps: elway is a huge GOP member!

As I wrote: This question is a HUGE landmine for discussion with socialists. What I suppose most do is try and fit it in to their own personal view of what they want as a outcome to all of it.

But Faux Real, please note that I based all of my discussion on what I referred to as a "world view"; that is, In fact, I didn't really give "my" opinion, but instead, how the world has reacted to all of it: Supporting America in Afghanistan; opposing America's invasion of Iraq. At least, that's my view of how the world's reacted to all of it. I do believe the world, as a whole, does accept the United States had a "right" to remove the taliban from power in Afghanistan. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am. I also do not believe the war will go on indefinately. I just don't have a crystal ball over all of it.

But there's no question that September 11, 2001 WAS the same as December 7, 1945. In both cases, the attacker wanted to change the conduct of the United States. The Japanese had invaded China, and the U.S. had done many things to protest their conduct, and Pearl Harbor was THE strategic center for U.S. Naval operations in the Pacific. The organizers of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentegon wanted to change U.S. policy in Saudi Arabia and Israel. At least this has always been their stated comments, outside of the "Great Satan" nonsense they spew. I can't see any other purpose behind what they did, and these have been their main beefs for a while. I also believe that if there were no 22nd Amendment, and, let's say. W.J. Clinton was president on a third term, he and Congress would have acted the same way.

I will agree with you about the lack of proper language in identifying the "enemy", but my reason for believing that happened is because I believe it was always the intent of the "neo-cons" to invade Iraq, and probably before G.W. Bush was sworn in as the 44th president. (I have no proof of this, but I believe it.)

I have, in fact, never voted for a member of the Grand Old Party; I don't know where you get THAT from, merely by my giving my views of what the world population supported, and what it opposed. I don't often vote, as I believe it's meaningless, and that our ruling class could care less about elections. I am, however, voting for B. Obama next Tuesday. You seemed interested.

[Random Precision]

the democratic demand was supported by lenin as a tactic, not a principle.

I don't see what Lenin has to do with this discussion, as I haven't rested my claims on his theory.


It came from the idea that democratic revolutions would ripen the battlefield and make class consciousness sharper. I do not think this has ever happened, ever.

You know what else has never happened? A working-class revolution in a country occupied by a foreign power. There's a reason why the working class of nations under imperialism or imperialist influence have always rallied against it: it's helpful when waging a revolution if a foreign country isn't occupying yours first.

Imperialism necessarily means a huge difference in the workers struggle. The US occupation of Iraq has caused huge setbacks for the struggle there, for instance. I believe LSR has some data about this, so I'll PM him to find out more.

EDIT: Order No. 30 by the Provisional Government in September 2003 lowered base wages in the public sector from 60 to 35 dinars, and cut wages across the board by roughly 55%, and also eliminated bonuses and stipends:

http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:56sSrTnY6GQJ:www.cpa-iraq.org/regulations/20030908_CPAORD_30_Reform_of_Salaries_and_Employme nt_Conditions_of_State_Employees_with_Annex_A.pdf% 20Order%208%20Iraq%20salary&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Then of course there's the infamous "oil law" which would take away 3/4 of oil fields from Iraqi control and potentially put thousands of oil workers out of work, as there's no provision that the companies taking over the oil fields would have to hire Iraqis:

http://uslaboragainstwar.org/downloads/Oil%20Law%20Facts.pdf

Plus of course workplaces in Iraq aren't exactly safe from bombing and such, the provisional government is entitled to seize the funds of trade unions (Decree 8750), etc. etc.

It's true that I don't know of a situation in which a national-democratic revolution has evolved into a socialist revolution directly. But the fact is that the two are inextricably linked in the age of imperialism, and with a strong, class-conscious proletariat at the head of the struggle, we can certainly expect there to be situations in the future like this.


On the contrary, the national "marxists" recuperated class struggle slogans and integrated them to the bourgeois states - this can be seen in places like Zimbawe, for example.

But suppose genuine Marxists were at the forefront. Induction of the type you're doing doesn't invalidate national liberation struggles. You might just as well be claiming that the history of regimes claiming to be Marxist invalidates Marxism.


Furthermore, these "immediate tasks" you speak of may be "immediate" in the sense that the barbarism perpetuated by the ruling class is immediate, but beyond that, every single national liberation movement marxists have ever supported, have destroyed independent working class organs or repressed people trying to build them. From the kemalists to the ZANU. The only reason leftists support national liberation is out of principle, but it has nothing to do with communist principles.

Throw a strong, class-conscious proletariat into the mix and it will change everything.

Left-communists are afraid of workers involving themselves national liberation movements because they fear that the proletariat will compromise itself somehow. This is essentially the story of the man who wouldn't get out of bed for the fear that he'd fall down.

[Coggeh]

So why cant we let the west destroy Islamic/taliban societies, so that they become ripe for a socialist revolution?
Well , its not really up to us is it ?

And also imperialism can't win in afghanistan or iraq . The more brutal they get the more opposition grows and visa versa .

[chegitz guevara]

Socialists do not support an imperialist occupation under any circumstances,

That's not exactly true. Marx supported the military defeat of the Ottoman Empire by the Austrians and the Austrian imperialists occupation of the Balkans in the belief that it would lead to the extension of capitalism to the Balkans, leading to the creation of a proletariat, leading to the creation of socialism.

This raises many questions. Was Marx correct in his understanding of the role of imperialism. If so, was it only valid before the epoch of capitalist imperialism as described by Lenin? If not, would an American victory be more likely to led to the strengthening of capitalism in Afghanistan, and thus the creation of a worker class? Does the victory of American imperialism in Afghanistan mean that the American Empire will be more powerful, and thus more able to crush workers movements elsewhere in the globe? Would the defeat of American imperialism make socialist revolution elsewhere more likely?

Clearly we cannot knee-jerkingly oppose the Empire's invasion of Afghanistan, but must analyze and answer those questions before we can take a position. Ultimately, I think the defeat of the Empire is more important that the growth of a proletariat in Afghanistan. We make a choice, and we throw the Afghani workers (and women) to the wolves hoping that the defeat of American imperialism will enable socialists elswhere to overthrow imperialism and capitalism.

[chegitz guevara]

Well , its not really up to us is it ?

And also imperialism can't win in afghanistan or iraq . The more brutal they get the more opposition grows and visa versa .

Do not misunderestimate the power of American imperialism.

[chegitz guevara]

Islam, by which I'm assuming is meant political Islam is seen by liberals (and consequently a great deal of those who consider themselves to be leftists) to be for some reason "feudalist", "fascist" or more deeply reactionary than normal bourgeois ideologies, and worse than, as the idiot OP believes, Western imperialism.

That's being pedantic, since the specific type of political Islam to which these folks refer is Salafiism, which has a resemblance to fascism. It is a reactionary middle class movement of enraged petty-bourgeoisie ruined by imperialism on the one hand and threatened by socialism on the other. Ideologically it looks back to a mythic golden age that never existed and hopes to create a new type of society based on those myths. The main difference between fascism and Salafiism is that the former is the product of industrialized imperialist nations, while the later is the product of rural, colonial nations (regardless of the fact that Salafi came up with his ideas as a result of his experience in America).

[Random Precision]

That's being pedantic, since the specific type of political Islam to which these folks refer is Salafiism, which has a resemblance to fascism. It is a reactionary middle class movement of enraged petty-bourgeoisie ruined by imperialism on the one hand and threatened by socialism on the other. Ideologically it looks back to a mythic golden age that never existed and hopes to create a new type of society based on those myths. The main difference between fascism and Salafiism is that the former is the product of industrialized imperialist nations, while the later is the product of rural, colonial nations (regardless of the fact that Salafi came up with his ideas as a result of his experience in America).

First of all, "Salafi" is not a person. It's an Arabic word referring to the first community of Muslims, IIRC.

I think another key difference between fascism and Salafism is that fascism appeals to the idea of a national community, where Salafism as a Muslim movement stresses loyalty to the umma, the global community of believers, instead of loyalty to the nation.

In any case, the OP said, "there's no place for socialism in an Islamic society". I took that to mean any kind of Islamic society, not just the kind the Salafites want to create. Maybe I've been too harsh on him, but I've just had it with liberal-inspired racism against Muslims from self-described "leftists.

[Junius]

Obviously we're going to disagree on this question. My position is that national liberation should be supported by communists, as national self-rule is a democratic demand, even when (ironically) it's done by an undemocratic government.

What is this talk about 'democracy?'

Afghanistan has elected officials. It is every bit as democratic as the U.S.

The difference between yourself and I, is that I don't see 'democracy' worth dying for, because I recognize it for the smoke-screen that it is; that it says nothing about class relations, but says everything to hide them.


We support the fulfillment of democratic demands for the same reason as we support the fulfillment of socialist demands- it's necessary to create a world in which human potentialities can flower.

Oh is this what we call the ability of capitalists to exploit workers without the interference of foreign powers - a world in which human potentialities can flower?! : )


Also it's very rare that a struggle for a democratic demand will be unrelated to the struggle for socialism,

Wrong.

On the contrary - most 'democratic' demands have nothing to do with proletarian struggle - unless you think that the wars against Saddam in Iraq, the struggles against the 'tyrannies' and 'dictatorships', for example, against Syria, Iran and North Korea are socialist struggles?

Or if you think the '91 'revolution' against the 'authoritarian' USSR was a struggle for socialism?

Or if you think that the recent Orange, Tulip and Rose 'democratic revolutions' were struggles for socialism?

Or if you think the struggle against the Burmese military dictatorship is a struggle for socialism?

Or the struggle for democracy in Tibet as a struggle for socialism?

It seems that all your democratic struggle amount to nothing more than struggles which wish to replace the faces of the ruling class, but not to replace the ruling class.

On the contrary, we see whom most often employs the rhetoric of 'democracy': the democratic capitalist class against the undemocratic capitalist class to gain the 'moral upper hand.' This is not our fault if you fall for the rhetoric put forth by US leaders.


so even if the struggle for independence does not carry through to a socialist revolution immediately, it will at some later stage.

But in the mean time we will die for one particular ruling class. Would you accept this in your own country? Then why accept it elsewhere?


You will say that my position constitutes a betrayal of the working class in favor of the national wing of capital.

Well said.


I on the other hand think that your position constitutes a fundamental disengagement from the struggle for socialism by refusing to fight for the fulfillment of its immediate tasks.

The immediate task we see is class struggle against capitalism.

Your immediate task is for the establishment of a democratic capitalist government - one that has formerly been in power, one that has been amongst the most brutal oppressors against the working class.

One is on the side of Menshevism, one actually represents the real interests of the working class.


Throw a strong, class-conscious proletariat into the mix and it will change everything.

You have yet to prove that workers rallying behind one side of the ruling class, against another, instills class consciousness. On the contrary, everything we have seen in history invalidates this - but we've known this since 1914.


Left-communists are afraid of workers involving themselves national liberation movements because they fear that the proletariat will compromise itself somehow.

This is essentially the story of the man who wouldn't get out of bed for the fear that he'd fall down.

We are not going to argue for someone to get out of bed to fall into a 10 foot hole.

[chegitz guevara]

First of all, "Salafi" is not a person. It's an Arabic word referring to the first community of Muslims, IIRC.

I meant Sayyid Qutb. It was a brain fart.

[Random Precision]

Sadly you seem to have ignored many of the points in the last post I made. Nevertheless I'll jump into this here.


What is this talk about 'democracy?'

Afghanistan has elected officials. It is every bit as democratic as the U.S.

The difference between yourself and I, is that I don't see 'democracy' worth dying for, because I recognize it for the smoke-screen that it is; that it says nothing about class relations, but says everything to hide them.

As I've already pointed out, it's not just about a struggle for democracy. Democracy as a political demand is, of course, connected to the economic demands of the workers. And they fight for both. It's why in Iraq right now the strikes against the oil law and other working class actions take the form of opposition to the Americans and their puppet regime. The Iraqi workers are fighting for better conditions than they can have under imperialism. I put forth that it is much the same for all of today's neo-colonies and yesterday's full colonies. When workers in those nations fight imperialism, they are fighting the conditions of their own exploitation and oppression.

And if you don't see these economic struggles as worthy of support unless they end in an Iraqi workers' state immediately... well, there's not much I can do to help you.


Wrong.

On the contrary - most 'democratic' demands have nothing to do with proletarian struggle - unless you think that the wars against Saddam in Iraq, the struggles against the 'tyrannies' and 'dictatorships', for example, against Syria, Iran and North Korea are socialist struggles?

Right now they are not. But their victory can qualitatively change the situation in each of those countries and open the way up for revolution. The problem with you ultra-lefts is that you think of revolution as a single event, rather than the process that transforms the working class' consciousness until the point where it can seize the power for itself. And independence or democratic struggles are a part of that process.


Or if you think the '91 'revolution' against the 'authoritarian' USSR was a struggle for socialism?

Actually in the process that led to the destruction of the USSR and the glacis states, there were serious attempts to rediscover a class-based form of struggle against the bureaucratic class. Poland is the best example of this trend. Read Chris Harman's The Class Struggles in Eastern Europe if you'd like to know more.


Or the struggle for democracy in Tibet as a struggle for socialism?

It can be seen as a violent protest by the Tibetan working class against the conditions of their increasing exploitation and oppression, which for obvious reasons they identify with the Chinese.


It seems that all your democratic struggle amount to nothing more than struggles which wish to replace the faces of the ruling class, but not to replace the ruling class.

That's just a bit of hyperbole, but nevertheless, yes, I see independence and national-democratic struggles as a good first step on the way to workers' revolution.


On the contrary, we see whom most often employs the rhetoric of 'democracy': the democratic capitalist class against the undemocratic capitalist class to gain the 'moral upper hand.' This is not our fault if you fall for the rhetoric put forth by US leaders.

US leaders are the ones who are the most forceful opponents, because they know that they represent an immediate threat to their own power, both at home and abroad.


But in the mean time we will die for one particular ruling class. Would you accept this in your own country? Then why accept it elsewhere?

And it might appear that way if you don't understand how the revolutionary process works, how events flow into and affect one another. It may appear that in national-liberation struggles, the working class lays itself down for its own bourgeoisie- but only if you don't expect the working class to deal with its own ruling class in the future. You guys focus on the appearance of the present way too much, and don't allow the history of the workers' struggle nor its future to inform your thinking. Fundamentally you're abandoning Marxism's revolutionary dialectics.


The immediate task we see is class struggle against capitalism.

Your immediate task is for the establishment of a democratic capitalist government - one that has formerly been in power, one that has been amongst the most brutal oppressors against the working class.

One is on the side of Menshevism, one actually represents the real interests of the working class.

The revolution is a process that involves many twists and turns, advances and retreats along the way. Of course the working class' interest is always to overthrow capitalism, but it has to prepare itself to do so through many struggles that will end in defeat or only partial victory; improvements in the conditions under which they are exploited without the immediate removal of those conditions. The struggle for independence in today's neo-colonies is one of those struggles through which Marx said that the proletariat "prepares itself to rule".


We are not going to argue for someone to get out of bed to fall into a 10 foot hole.

This is typical of the ultra-left attitude. The proletariat is seen as some holy object that must not allow itself to be corrupted, and kept sealed in an airtight container to prevent any bad influences until the day when it magically decides to seize power.

[ashaman1324]

this thread is getting ridiculous.
i see it as imperialists vs. fascists
where do marxists have the right to intervene?
until the afghani people attempt socialism its none of our business.

[Junius]

Sadly you seem to have ignored many of the points in the last post I made. Nevertheless I'll jump into this here.

Well, since they dealt with matters concerning religion, which I mainly agree with you, it was pointless to comment on them. Nevertheless, a comment made by yourself (which I agree with):


So I guess you would tell Afghani workers that they're not ready for a socialist movement until they shed their religious beliefs? That's quite productive.

The funny thing is – that this is your exact argument. That the Afghani working class must post-pone their own emancipation, support their former masters, and only then can class struggle begin. How productive, indeed!

I agree with you – that the role of religion is by no means static. However, it typically is employed to justify this or that ruling class. In this aspect it should be opposed. Since we are in agreement, I won’t say more about that.

Another comment by yourself:


It's not a question of "supporting the Taliban" and other reactionary forces in Afghanistan. It's a question of whether the Afghan people have the right to defend themselves against imperialist aggression. And if you say "yes" to that question, which most leftists will, that necessarily means military support to all factions, progressive and reactionary, that fight against the imperialists.

This is the sort of liberalism that ultra-rightists such as yourself turn to.

The so-called ‘right to defend yourself’ has been nothing but a siren sounding the death of workers for their ruling classes. You know whom used the same argument of the ‘right to defend yourself?’ The SPD in Germany during WW1 – that Germany had the ‘right to defend itself’ against reactionary Russian Tsarism. You are postulating that the Afghani ‘people’ (and I note the continued use of the word ‘people’ – it is telling of your class outlook, or the lack of it) have the right to defend itself against America. You seem to think that these ‘rights’ spring up from thin air. They don’t – they serve a purpose. They are unjustifiable – and hence are excellent tools for respective ruling classes to prop up without giving proof.

Another comment:


What makes a "modern capitalist country" different from a "developing country"?

According to Maoists, Trotskyists, Stalinists and various anarchists, the bourgeoisie of ‘developing countries’ are progressive. Even if you don’t consider it such, your arguments support such a view.


As I've already pointed out, it's not just about a struggle for democracy. Democracy as a political demand is, of course, connected to the economic demands of the workers.

Which you have yet to prove! Class struggle is not limited to ‘democracies.’ Class struggle has historically happened in times of occupation, war and autocracy – in WW1 the class struggle in Russia and Germany, in WW2 the class struggle in Italy and Germany. These were not struggles for ‘democracy’ they were struggles against capitalism.

Meanwhile, Trotskyists like yourself were urging workers to support this or that alliance with the bourgeoisie to ‘fight fascism.’ The anti-fascists, in the meantime, were bombing working class neighborhoods and striking factories, and deciding in Italy whether to support Stalin’s Russia or America.


It's why in Iraq right now the strikes against the oil law and other working class actions take the form of opposition to the Americans and their puppet regime. The Iraqi workers are fighting for better conditions than they can have under imperialism.

I think its interesting that every time we come to a discussion about Afghanistan, ultra-rightists such as yourself turn to Iraq as if you seem to have some higher 'moral justification' there. Just an observation.

Nonetheless, you call it a ‘puppet regime.’ It was elected by the Iraqi population. By definition, that makes it democratic. You should respect the right of Iraqis to choose their leaders! :rolleyes: What a joke. All that you want is a puppet regime to replaced by...a legitimate regime (which presumably is more loyal to the Iraqi bourgeoisie versus the American one.) Again, how productive.


I put forth that it is much the same for all of today's neo-colonies and yesterday's full colonies.

No idea what you are going on about here, but no. I’ve lived in a so-called ‘occupied country’ and the insurgents and nationalist ‘communists’ put forth the same argument that you have – that it was a ‘struggle for democracy.’ This lead them to support their respective social democratic parties (and their billionaire leader), and the continuing ethnic warfare. The insurgents struggle against ‘imperialism’ revolved around blowing up night-clubs and killing teenagers, burning down schools, Buddhist temples along with female school teachers and, killing state workers. The PKK conducts similar actions in Turkey. These so-called imperialist fighters, are supported both directly and indirectly by foreign imperialist powers. They are a pawn for one imperialist state against another – and the likes of yourself support them. Anti-imperialism my ass!

The frustrating aspect of it is, that the real causes of this foreign hatred - unemployment and generally poor economic conditions – turn people to religion and deep nationalism. Then people, such as yourself, come along, look at the situation and say ‘Ah! They are oppressed – they should fight their oppressors! Only until they defeat them can their conditions be improved!’ Meanwhile, this does absolutely nothing to the real problem – capitalism. It does do everything to sideline the real problem, however.

Your view postpones and ignores real changes in every day life. Indeed, it makes the situation worse. That is why your position is on the side of chauvinism – albeit one that your perceive to be weaker. You might think your position is anti-war – but that is a mistake. It is fiercely pro-war. Ultimately, the ruling classes care little about how many people die in their wars – it makes no difference to them – what they do desire is a never-ending war. War brings about strong nationalism, acceptance of the status quo. Your view is apologetic of imperialism – the only real anti-imperialism is anti-capitalism.


When workers in those nations fight imperialism, they are fighting the conditions of their own exploitation and oppression.

Have you even read Capital? :confused: ‘Exploitation’ refers to the extraction of surplus value from the working class. That is not something that is going to change if a Taliban government returns. In other words, it is not at all a struggle against exploitation. It is a struggle about whom will be doing the exploitation.


And if you don't see these economic struggles as worthy of support unless they end in an Iraqi workers' state immediately...

The question is not whether ‘economic struggles’ are worthy of support. Left Communists always support strike action (I cannot say the same for Trotskyists, Stalinists and Maoists,however). The question is: whom do they end up serving. Your friend LaborShallRule attempted to argue something similar to yourself:


A Taliban 'victory' (while probably being a setback for popular Afghani movements and the Hazara people) would likely halt the neoliberal tutelage that Kabul is under - a capital gains tax would likely be placed on any oil pipe-lines constructed in the area, which would open up funding for further state-provided investment on manufactering operations and infastructure projects.

This was humorous, considering that Afghanistan’s oil production is small, at least according to the CIA website:


Oil - production:
0 bbl/day (2005)
Oil - consumption:
5,000 bbl/day (2005 est.)
Oil - exports:
0 bbl/day (2004)
Oil - imports:
4,120 bbl/day (2004)
Oil - proved reserves:
0 bbl (1 January 2006 est.)

Agriculture - products:
opium, wheat, fruits, nuts; wool, mutton, sheepskins, lambskins
Industries:
small-scale production of textiles, soap, furniture, shoes, fertilizer, cement; handwoven carpets; natural gas, coal, copper

GDP - real growth rate:
11.5% (2007 est.)

As I pointed out, the production of opium takes up most of the country's GDP - which the Taliban tax!

What I am trying to say, that it is terrible naive of you to assume that a returned Taliban is going to wisely spend its money on infrastructure, wisely distribute wealth and pay higher wages (doesn’t sound like something former/current anti-communists would do). It is more likely that foreign investment would halt – but this is a matter of how hostile the Afghani ruling class would be to foreign companies. More likely, the Taliban will come to some sort of compromise with the current ruling government. This is not surprising, the current prime minister of Afghanistan once supported the Taliban. Some 'revolution' you postulate here.


Right now they are not. But their victory can qualitatively change the situation in each of those countries and open the way up for revolution.

Yet another assertion.

Indeed, by your own words:


It's true that I don't know of a situation in which a national-democratic revolution has evolved into a socialist revolution directly. But the fact is that the two are inextricably linked in the age of imperialism, and with a strong, class-conscious proletariat at the head of the struggle, we can certainly expect there to be situations in the future like this.

So; we come to a stage where you yourself admit that you can think of no ‘democratic revoltion’ that has lead to socialism. By the way, a revolution is a change in economic relations, not political figureheads. Unless you, like your friend Labor ShallRule, are arguing that Afghanistan is going to have a bourgeoisie revolution – LSR compared Afghanistan to revolutionary France (200 years later, I might add).

I, however, can point to at least a dozen, off the top of my head, nationalist socialist movements which have deformed into support for the ruling class or support for capitalism.

For example, the PPS in Poland during WW1, the SPD in Germany during WW1, the UUD and PPP in Thailand, the JCP in Japan, the PKK in Turkey, the Vietcong in Vietnam, the JVP in Ceylon, the MPLA in Angola, the FLN in Algeria, the Maoists in China and now in Nepal...I’ll stop there.

This excludes non-socialist movements – the kind most often supported by ‘communists.’ The record is just as bad there.


The problem with you ultra-lefts is that you think of revolution as a single event, rather than the process that transforms the working class' consciousness until the point where it can seize the power for itself. And independence or democratic struggles are a part of that process.

And this too is an assertion. ‘Independence movements’ have historically strengthened nationalist movements, capitalist movements, – that is nothing complex, since they are nationalist movements. Great logic, I know.


Actually in the process that led to the destruction of the USSR and the glacis states, there were serious attempts to rediscover a class-based form of struggle against the bureaucratic class. Poland is the best example of this trend. Read Chris Harman's The Class Struggles in Eastern Europe if you'd like to know more.

I’ll check it out if I can find it.


It can be seen as a violent protest by the Tibetan working class against the conditions of their increasing exploitation and oppression, which for obvious reasons they identify with the Chinese.

Ah! And here is the important part: ‘they identify with the Chinese.’

But the problem isn’t the ‘Chinese!'

A similar argument was repeated in Russia in World War One; 'our problems are not our fault! The Germans are to blame!' No, capitalism and capitalists are the exploiters not a nationality.


That's just a bit of hyperbole, but nevertheless, yes, I see independence and national-democratic struggles as a good first step on the way to workers' revolution.

Assertion (you have plenty of these).


US leaders are the ones who are the most forceful opponents, because they know that they represent an immediate threat to their own power, both at home and abroad.

I don’t understand what you are saying here.


And it might appear that way if you don't understand how the revolutionary process works, how events flow into and affect one another. It may appear that in national-liberation struggles, the working class lays itself down for its own bourgeoisie- but only if you don't expect the working class to deal with its own ruling class in the future.

But they don’t – and you have yet to point out a situation where they have. As I have continuously stated, how do you expect workers to revolt against a class which you have previously been whole heartedly supporting - especially when the difference between the two ruling classes is negligent at best?


You guys focus on the appearance of the present way too much, and don't allow the history of the workers' struggle nor its future to inform your thinking.

:lol:

The arguments of the CommunistLeft are nothing but the lessons drawn on from history. If you are interested, which I doubt you are, then check out:

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/068_natlib_02.html

http://en.internationalism.org/pamphlets/nationorclass

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/034_natqn_01.html

If anything, I think the Italian Left proved that it was possible to struggle against capitalism even in a period when liberals like you were calling for ‘national liberation’ and ‘democracy.’


Fundamentally you're abandoning Marxism's revolutionary dialectics.

:lol:

How telling – someone with a lack of historical arguments turns to abstract philosophy - you're not an arts student by any chance?!

The rest of your ‘arguments’ added nothing new.


This is typical of the ultra-left attitude. The proletariat is seen as some holy object that must not allow itself to be corrupted, and kept sealed in an airtight container to prevent any bad influences until the day when it magically decides to seize power.

This is typical of the ultra-right attitude – when the bourgeoisie yell ‘self-determination’, you social democrats yell ‘now!’

I might address your last comments latter on. They don’t offer anything new, however.

[Random Precision]

I think I've already made my position and rationale more than clear here, so, expect no further response from me.

[Junius]

I think I've already made my position and rationale more than clear here, so, expect no further response from me.

We've both made our points, and I doubt we are going to convince one and other, especially owing to the hostile responses, which I am to blame. We would both agree that this is a 'sensitive' topic; that I consider your approach a betrayal of the working class, and you consider my approach a betrayal of the working class. There cannot be any compromise between our positions. The point I am most interested in is the historical approach. And history, since 1914 (hell, since 1905), has continuously shown that supporting the national bourgeoisie in wars has done nothing to improve class consciousness, but has severely damaged the working class and deformed former 'communist' parties. I hope we can arrange for a more friendly and productive debate on the question in the future, of which I am happy to participate.

[redguard2009]

Modern militant islam and fundamentalism worldwide is in a way similar to the epoch of fuedalism. Authority is largely determined by birthright and violence is carried out in the name of phantom gods or for the benefit of some megalomaniac asshole.

It's a contention that really needs to be dealt with more. I'm not very happy with the way some of the left automatically denounces imperialist war on fundamentalist Islam, but I'm also well-aware of the barely-veiled racism, oppression and violence against innocents which have been carried out in its name.

The main reason why we can't "let imperialists destroy taliban societies", even though that statement makes no sense, is because that is not what the imperialist states are doing. They had plenty of oppurtunity to combat fundamentalism (within their own borders, too) but failed to do so; they only do so now, or claim to, because it is in their best interests. "Liberating" Iraq in the name of the war on terror is a prime example; they were not fighting "taliban societies" there -- they wanted oil and market expansions and capital investment and, in short, profit. In Afghanistan (which IMO was a half-assed effort) they simply wanted to destroy someone who attacked them and install a friendly, productive government (the US has very little to gain economically from an invasion of Afghanistan, which is why they have 15,000 troops there and 150,000 in Iraq, closer to the oil).

But anyway, fundamentalism needs to be destroyed, but the imperialists are the last people that should do it; what you're proposing is as silly as wanting to support Nazi Germany because they wanted to destroy western bourgeois capitalism (which they didn't, but that's what people say).

A more poignant issue would be whether the USSR was justified or should be supported for their invasion of Afghanistan; the merits of that action are much less well defined. In the case of the US and western imperialism, their only purpose in combatting fundamentalist islam is for their own benefit, and often times they have made life worse for those they "save".

[Ratatosk]

If the occupation is removed, workers will be more likely to identify the underlying cause of their everyday grievances - the domestic and international bourgeoisie - and consequently class struggle will take the place of anti-imperialism and become the primary form of struggle.Lol, you mean like the workers of Saudi Arabia?

[Labor Shall Rule]

Afghanistan has a special productive activity based on it's nature-given materials to meet particular human wants, therefore, they are limited to (mostly) pastoral or agricultural occupations due to their lack of capital to build up even light industry. The descendants of heli (feudal heads of tribal groups) continue to govern.

I'd agree that such 'peasants' receive a wage for continued reproduction in exchange for materializing the creation of surplus value (i.e. capitalism) but the size of renter profit and capital is at a higher rate than the size of the native capitalist's profit, and since the merchant's investments ('risk') is not meant to pick up domestic accumulation, the expenditure necessary to expand the productive power of labor did not exist.

If you can't verify that indeed, bourgeois-democratic revolution is not yet "redundant" in the face of overwhelming social proof, then there's no need to continue this conversation. The concrete conditions on the ground prove otherwise.

[spice756]

The question about religion is: At what point does a religious belief become the enemy of the working class and socialist principles? What is the definition of "extremist"? Is all "religious fundamentalism" also extremism? Dangerous?


If they are anti-socialism.You know socialism has its own belief.



Could a theocracy also be truly socialist if they answer first to some "higher power" that communicates its will through priests and prophets?
If something is in conflict with science, is it really compatible with socialism?


socialism is democracy and theocracy is not.



Can superstition, mytyh, or mysticism peacefully coexist for any extended period with socialism, which is founded on dialectical materialism and science?


Why not , unless they suppress or rule what wrong ,



On the other hand, socialists and communists have often fought alongside of, or otherwise aided, religious people in the struggle against social injustce, exploitation, racism, and imperialist war and aggression.


religious is a belief not a philosophy that society must govern by rule



I think you are brainwashed by the corporate media propaganda into believing that US imperialism is fighting to bring some sort of "democracy" to the middle east. The US will back up a puppet government, and if the left has strong support, you can be sure that the US puppet government will brutally crush any leftist movement.
When the left is weak, you can have your "democracy" and "freedom of speach". It's a nice illusion.


True he is.The US don't care about democracy or freedom it is making money.



As socialists, I don't see how we can condone either U.S. imperialism or religious extremism of any stripe.



The thing is imperialism makes people anti-US and anti-imperialism not anti-capitalism.



Religion isn't the enemy. Its of course used by the Imperialist class as an institution of class rule. But its Imperialism and Capitalism that is.


A religious belief is not a enemy a philosophy is .A philosophy or Religious dogma is.Part of the left main goal is democracy .If a philosophy or Religious dogma is not democracy and freedom it is a enemy.

Socialism even liberal thought is separation of church and state.

Socialism even liberals fight for democracy and freedom and separation of church and state and keep religious belief to your self and church not in law or government.Not fighting religious belief but keep it to your self and church.