Islamic fundamentalism rose from the debris of the communist block against capitalism both internally and externally in all most all the states of the globe. Communist block whether it is communist block or social imperialist block whatever we call it was miserably failed to attract the third world states on a common platform against American imperialism, on the other hand the people did not come on organized way against its states to fight against the American capitalism and its ruling agents during the cold war days and even now too. Fundamentalism itself is not magnet to attract the people on its own like a piece of magnet, but it is a philosophy of extreme ambition of changing the general habits and character of the individuals on the basis books of religion where all types of people comes together to do something for some period. Having such thoughts in the mind of individuals would be alive in every society whether its is Iraq and Afghanisthan when the alternative and useful thought are absent in a state where the specific need is apparent and openly demanding the people to fight against evil forces back to their barracks. In these circumstances, the revolutionary forces and its party should offer the best choice of useful alternatives in the parallel way to the people of Iraq without hurting the religious faith and belief of their day-to-day life because the fundamentalism is only a thought but the revolutionary is not only a thought but material benefit also both in long and short periods.
Henri Cames
I disagree completely. The Line taken by Sunsara
Taylor of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA --
the USA member of the Revolutionary Internationalist
Movement is correct.
The forces in Iraq are thoroughly reactionary, they
preach a ideology which is almost as oppressive to the
masses of people as imperialism. Islamic
Fundamentalists do not believe in woman's rights,
Islamic fundamentalists see gay people as being nearly
subhuman in the vast majority of cases, most
importantly, Islamic fundamentalists have historically
slaughtered Communists and labor organizers upon their
seizure of power
This is not a progressive anti-imperialist resistance.
What it is, is a force which re-enforces imperialism.
Fundamentalism has grown tremendously as a result of
US imperialism in the region, and US plans of hegemony
have gone forward by scaring the american masses into
submission to avoid another 9/11.
What Iraq and Afghanistan need is New Democratic
Revolution. In both places, we are actually seeing the
foundational works for such a revolution being formed.
While the Stalin quote is fundamentally correct, this
is not nearly the same case as the emir didn't
reenforce british imperialism as islamic
fundamentalism does.
you claim that both of these countries have been
permanently scared from communist revolution, I
disagree. in Afghanistan right now the base work for
people's war is being layed and in Iraq recently a
marxist/left nationalist resistance group announced is
formation after killing three US troops in urban
warfare
--- wprm britain
> Written by Harry Powell
> Source: MAOIST_REVOLUTION@ yahoogroups. com
>
> The recent exchange of views between Hadas Thier
> and Aaron Hess of the American Socialist Worker and
> Sunsara Taylor of the Revolutionary Communist
> Party, (USA) highlight the need for a correct MLM
> evaluation of the character of the resistance to
> imperialist occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan and
> the correct position for people in the imperialist
> countries to adopt. The positions taken up by both
> sides in this exchange are confused.
>
> The Leninist approach to evaluating opposition to
> imperialism by people in dominated countries was
> outlined by Joseph Stalin in The Foundations of
> Leninism. Writing in 1924, he argued that the most
> important aspect of a movement opposed to
> imperialism is its objective impact on the situation
> and not its subjective intentions which are
> secondary. One example he gave was of the feudal
> Emir of Afghanistan who was actively opposing
> attempts by the British Labour Government to
> dominate his country. In ideology the Emir and his
> associates were reactionary while the Labour Party
> Government which was trying to oppress the Afghani
> people claimed to be "socialist". Stalin pointed
> out that that the actions of the Emir were in the
> interests of oppressed people around the world while
> the Labourites were actively striving to defend
> British imperialism. Incidentally it was this same
> Labour Government who ordered the Royal Air Force to
> drop poisonous gas on Iraq Kurds thus getting
> the edge on Saddam Hussein by many decades.
>
> It is true that the armed resistance in Afghanistan
> and Iraq to imperialist occupation is being waged
> by reactionary groups such as various Islamists and
> in the case of the Baathists, by fascists. It is
> also true that these elements - disunited and
> engaged in murderous strife with each other - have
> bogged down the invading American and British
> forces and completely disrupted their plans to
> exploit the people and their resources. In doing so
> they have performed a service to the people of the
> world by making it much more difficult to carry
> further their expansionist plans as with their
> designs on Iran. The Iraqi and Afghani people have
> paid a terrible price for their defiance of
> imperialism but at least they are dying on their
> feet rather than living on their knees. While they
> can frustrate the imperialists' plans these
> religious and reactionary groups are incapable of
> uniting the great mass of the people in their
> countries to decisively defeat imperialism and
> begin to build a decent life. Nonetheless the
> objective impact of their actions is largely
> positive from a revolutionary point of view.
>
> Socialists and communists should ask themselves why
> there are not any Marxist groups waging significnt
> armed struggle in these countries. The answer in
> the case of Iraq is that in the nineteen fifties
> when the Iraq Communist Party which had a mass
> following was poised to take power it backed off
> under orders from the revisionist Nikita Khrushchev
> in Moscow. Within a few years the Bhaathists backed
> by the CIA had seized power and the ICP was
> discredited in the eyes of the people. In
> Afghanistan the murderous invasion of the Soviet
> Union in 1979 discredited socialism for Afghanis and
> gave rise to Islamic fundamentalism encouraged by
> Western imperialism. Comrades, perhaps we should be
> less quick to condemn non-socialist resistance to
> imperialism and be more ready to engage in
> self-criticism about the failings of our own
> movement to lead the people in these countries.
>
> Thier and Hess play down the reactionary side of
> Islam as do their comrades in the Socialist Worker
> Party in Britain. While it is true that just like
> Christianity there are many different variants of
> Islam, some more reactionary than others, they are
> all oppressive and exploitative in their impact on
> people's lives. It is opportunism that leads these
> neo-Trotskyites to gloss over objectionable
> positions such as anti-Semitism. In Britain the SWP
> has turned a blind eye to the oppression of women in
> Muslim communities in order to try to drum up some
> support for their Respect electoral front. In has
> not worked because the Muslims they seek to con are
> not half so daft. Socialists and communists should
> endeavour to work with Muslims and other religious
> people but in a principled way. We should make
> explicitly clear what are our political differences
> are and not gloss them over.
>
> Sunsara Taylor focuses exclusively on the
> reactionary ideology of Islam and ignores the
> objective impact of Muslim resistance groups on
> weakening the imperialist invaders. They are
> undermining the morale of the American and British
> armed forces and have exposed to the British and
> American people the lies that Blair and Bush told
> us about the Iraqis and Afghanis wanting and
> welcoming imperialist occupation. The resistance to
> the "war on terror" has considerably undermined the
> ideological hegemony of the American and British
> ruling classes.
>
> Only the development of authentic Marxist
> revolutionary parties in these countries can give
> their people a real chance of defeating both
> external and internal reaction. Given past failures
> by revolutionaries this is likely to take a long
> time. In the meantime our position towards the
> armed resistance in Afghanistan and Iraq should be;
> first we support them, only secondarily do we
> criticise them
>
> PEOPLE OF THE WORLD, UNITE AND DEFEAT THE U.S.
> AGGRESSORS AND ALL THEIR LACKEYS!
>
>
>
> ------------ --------- --------- ---
> Juggling multiple email accounts? Why bother?
> Consolidate them all in Yahoo! Mail with our quick,
> easy tool.
____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.
http://smallbusines s.yahoo.com/ webhosting
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get the freedom to save as many mails as you wish. Click here to know how.
__._,_.___
Messages in this topic (0) Reply (via web post)
Start a new topic
Messages
POST ARTICLES TO: MAOIST_REVOLUTION@
No comments:
Post a Comment