Maoists Debate Islamic Fundamentalism
Posted by Mike E on January 19, 2008
 |
|
|
An important debate has unfolded among communists over how to understand and evaluate the Islamist forces that are now in conflict with the U.S. It is an important component for understanding the so-called “War on Terror” and what the stakes are in the various attacks and measures the U.S. has unleashed around the world.
I think that it is extremely superficial to assume that Islamic fundamentalist forces are “objectively anti-imperialist” based on merely their opposition to the U.S., and based on some mechanical assumptions about a “united front against U.S. imperialism.” The experience of the Iranian revolution (1979) and the Afgani war against the Soviet Union (during the 1980s), and the experience in the current struggles in Algeria, Pakistan and many other places — underscore that significant Islamist forces are highly reactionary and utterly opposed to everything associated with communism and progressive thought.
At the same time, we write In Letter 5 (footnote 77):
“The RCP has also painted political Islam generally with single big brush. Avakian says (in a quote published by itself):
‘What we see in contention here with Jihad on the one hand and McWorld/McCrusade on the other hand, are historically outmoded strata among colonized and oppressed humanity up against historically outmoded ruling strata of the imperialist system. These two reactionary poles reinforce each other, even while opposing each other. If you side with either of these “outmodeds,” you end up strengthening both.’
“Is there really only one “Jihad” that we “see in contention” with the U.S.? Is it all really so monochromatic? Though Islamic forces haven’t created political programs that can liberate people from imperialism, are there really only “historically outmoded” strata involved (presumably meaning: the entrenched comprador, bureaucrat capitalist and feudal elements)? Aren’t there places where political Islam has gained influence among other strata, or where its politics may reflect other programs? What would a serious and dialectical class analysis of the different Iraqi movements show? Shouldn’t the inter-imperialist contradiction also be seen as a considerable part of the U.S. ‘war on terror’ and its consolidation of its hegemonic status, so that ‘what we see in contention here’ is something more complex and many sided than colliding ‘universalisms.’
“These issues are beyond the scope of these letters, but obviously demand further engagement.”
With that as an introduction, here is a commentary of the debate that has unfolded on the Maoist Revolution Yaahoo group. I don’t vouch for the accuracy of its characterizations, but I do believe it can help get us further into these issues.
Summary Of Debate On Resistance To Imperialism
Posted by: “wprm britain” wprm_britain@yahoo.co.uk wprm_britain
Fri Jan 18, 2008 11:07 am (PST)
Summary Of Debate On Resistance To Imperialism: August 07-mid-October 07.
Introduction
This document summarises the first stage of an ongoing debate concerning the correct Maoist line on resistance to imperialist invasion. The debate began following an article by Sunsara Taylor in ‘Revolution’ the paper of the Revolutionary Communist Party (USA) entitled ”U.S. Imperialism, Islamic Fundamentalism. ..and the Need for Another Way.” published on June 10th 2007. This itself was a reply to an article by two American Trotskyists in the American Socialist Workers Party entitled “Standing Up To Islamophobia.” Sunsara here opposed the tendency of some on the left to give support to the current Iranian regime as a response to threats by the US to attack Iran.
The email debate that followed is what is presented here. Many of those who emailed also linked the debate to the Political Report of the Central Committee (CC) of the Communist Party of Iran (Marxist-Leninist- Maoist)-CPI( MLM). Particular attention was attracted by the statement in this document that the regime should be seen as the main enemy of the Iranian people, even during an invasion by the US.
People also debated the question of whether or not Maoists should support the Iraqi Resistance.
Two lines developed. One, proposed by the RCP (USA) is termed the ‘McWorld vs. Jihad’ line which argues that the world faces a choice between US imperialism and Islamic Fundamentalism and that both should be opposed, even when Islamic Fundamentalists are involved in resistance to US imperialism. This line also includes the line of the Central Committee of the CPI-MLM. This line was endorsed by Borhan Azemi and Reza J, among others.
The other line is termed ‘The National Resistance’ line. This line stresses Mao’s line on wars of national resistance. In particular it highlights Mao’s statement that, based on the objective situation, Maoists should form a broad national united front, which could include reactionaries, to oppose an invasion of an oppressed nation by an imperialist country. This line was supported by Harry Powell and Maoist 1, among others.
The part of the debate summarised here includes email contributions from August 07 when the debate started up until mid-October.
US Imperialism and the Principal Contradiction- The McWorld vs. Jihad Line
First let us look at the Political Report of the Central Committee (CC) of the Communist Party of Iran (Marxist-Leninist- Maoist-CPI( MLM). This report is entitled Iran’s Maoists Make Plans in the Shadow of War. It clearly states that “with the intensification of the contradictions between the US and the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI), the possibility of a military attack on Iran has become the main question in Iran and the world political scene.”
However, they go on to stress that the main enemy of the Iranian people is still the IRI:
“it is clear that the people’s struggle should be focused against the main enemy, the IRI. As long as the IRI is in power, there cannot be any talk of aiming the struggle against the US and the regime equally. However the reality of the likely future — the plans of US imperialism — should be strongly presented and illusions or support for US policies should be opposed. This is the only way to prevent the disintegration of the mass movement in the interests of one or the other reactionary pole and line up support for the third pole.”
Based on this summation, their program means that “in certain times we may face with a situation where parts of the country are occupied by the imperialist armies and other parts are under the rule of the Islamic Republic-in such circumstances the question of the overthrow of the government in both areas must be the agenda of revolutionaries.”
Sunsara Taylor in her article ‘U.S. Imperialism, Islamic Fundamentalism. ..and the Need for Another Way.’ clearly states that “as the U.S.’s crimes against humanity in the Middle East mount, it is of tremendous importance for people in the U.S. to honestly confront and rise to the profound challenges and responsibilities before us in bringing this to a halt.”
However, she tries to distinguish between the just demands of the people in opposition to imperialist invasion and occupation and the reactionary interests of the outmoded strata: “in the face of an unjust war on Iraq and Afghanistan, there are both the just demands of the broad masses of people who oppose the U.S. occupation and ambitions to control the whole region, as well as the reactionary, theocratic opposition that reflects the interests of outmoded strata within those countries.”
This leads to the warning that “the need to support the just demands of the people should not be conflated with supporting the reactionary fundamentalist forces, nor should the ideology and program of these fundamentalists be equated with the interests of the broad masses in the region.”
US Imperialism And The Principal Contradiction- The National Resistance Line
Harry Powell states that we should judge the significance of Islamic and other reactionary forces resisting imperialism by their objective impact on the political situation, primarily, with their subjective intentions being the secondary consideration.
Harry states that the principal contradiction in Palestine, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan is the contradiction ‘between imperialism and the oppressed nations’ He sees the contradictions between men and women, different national and religious groups in these countries as secondary at the current time. He states that ‘The main enemy of the people of Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan is imperialism; not Islam or homophobia.’
The positive nature of the Iraqi resistance is illustrated by the fact that the US would probably have attacked Iran, if it had not become bogged down in Iraq.
Hisham Bustani warns against ‘turning our back on the resistances in the Arab region and pretending they are not our problem, or the resistances do not represent us simply because they are Islamic or Ba’athists.’
However, Bustani believes that progressives must develop their own strategy for resistance to imperialism, rather than just relying on existing forces. He suggests an expansion of Arab struggle and ‘horizontal unity’ among Arab people to this end. Bustani suggests that progressives must also try to build an ‘optimum’ role for secularism and socialism in the anti-imperialist movement.
Ben Hu writes that Islam is the ‘central ideological pillar’ of feudals and comprador-bureaucra ts in Muslim countries. However, he argues that when an oppressed nation is under the military occupation of imperialist troops, there is a need to unite with any force, including Islamic Fundamentalists who are willing and able to organise resistance.
Ajith of the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Naxalbari, a participant in the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM), criticises the lumping together of reactionary Islamic resistance with the occupiers of Afghanistan as enemies of the people. Ajith states this is ‘imperialist economism’.
However, Ajith argues that the relationship between fundamentalist forces and Maoists in a war of resistance is not ’simply antagonistic nor collaborative’ . Maoists cannot deny the objective role of Islamists in resisting occupation but this does not automatically mean they should endorse an Islamist group or unite with it.
Ajith argues against the idea that the world situation should be viewed as a series of inter-ruling class or reactionary conflicts where ‘revolution is only something that is added to this rather than accepted as the principal factor it really is’. In such a context Ajith argues that the defence of the right of oppressed people to resist ‘can only become conditional and weak’.
Maoist 1 takes the line that US imperialism is the principal enemy of the people of the world. Maoist 1 argues that US imperialism has devastated Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia, reducing these countries to rubble and chaos. Maoist 1 argues that the poverty and mayhem spread by US imperialism is the principal contradiction for the people of the world. If Maoists refuse to accept this, they will simply isolate themselves from the people.
Maoist 1 asks how Maoists can hope to build up an independent force to fight US imperialism, if we do not support resistance struggles in the first place and do not unite with the people waging these struggles.
McWorld Vs. Jihad-the McWorld vs. Jihad Line
Sunsara Taylor characterises Bob Avakian’s [the Chairman of RCP (USA)] concept of “McWorld vs Jihad,” writing that “increasingly, humanity is being confronted with two intolerable choices: Bush’s crusade for empire or a reactionary Islamic fundamentalist response€ ¦’¥The Bush regime has committed crimes on a far greater scale and is by far the greater danger to humanity€ ¦’¥but both are complete nightmares. Both reinforce and feed off each other, and as they grow, they suck up the air to breathe for secular and progressive forces in this country and around the world€ ¦’¥ People in their hundreds of millions–in this country and around the world–must be presented with a third option, an option that refuses to choose between crusading McWorld or reactionary Jihad.” In short, the imperialists both depend on and “prop up” these old oppressive relations while at the same time they undermine them with new “modern” forms of exploitation which transform and disrupt those old relations.
McWorld Vs. Jihad-The National Resistance Line
The Trotskyists Thier and Hess, in their article ‘Standing Up to Islamophobia’ criticise Susara Taylor and the concept of a global struggle between ‘McWorld’ and ‘Jihad’.
They state that ‘Support for organizations like Hamas or Hezbollah isn’t primarily the result of a commitment to religious tenets, but because they represent a political alternative that has stood up against imperialism- -chiefly, the U.S. and its main ally Israel.
To understand religiously based movements, the starting point for socialists is not the religious ideology, but the social and political forces such movements represent.’
Thier and Hess argue the RCP-USA attaches too much importance to the ideology of groups like Hezbollah and Hamas and not enough to the objective role they play in fighting imperialism.
However they also state that:
‘Of course, socialists have important criticisms to make of Islamist forces. As in all religions, elements of Islam are explicitly conservative- -for example, the attitude that women are the inferiors of men. Such positions are barriers to building the most effective resistance to imperialism. ‘
Thier and Hess adopt a stance towards Hezbollah and Hamas that is mainly supportive, though critical in some aspects.
Maoist 1 criticises the Revolutionary Communist Party-USA for its line that US imperialism and Fundamentalism reinforce each other. Maoist 1 asks how America could be reinforcing Hezbollah, when it was sending bombs to Israel to be dropped on Hezbollah positions during the invasion of Lebanon in 2006. Maoist 1 asks how the 4 year long Iraqi resistance to US occupation shows that the Resistance and the US are on the same side.
Similarly, Maoist 1 criticises the Iranian RIM party Central Committee for saying that a US invasion of Iran would be a war of the US against one of its ‘puppets’. Maoist 1 argues that an imperialist cannot have an antagonistic relationship with a nation it controls like a puppet-why would there be the need to invade a country that the US controlled anyway?
Ben Hu points out that Christian fundamentalism underpined the US imperialist conquest of America and the genocide of the indigenous peoples there and how religion is used to motivate US troops in their imperialist wars.
Ajith argues that it is not right to uncritically endorse Islamic resistance but on the other hand it is wrong to say that their conflict with imperialism is just the conflict between two reactionary forces and has nothing to do with resistance to imperialism.
Ajith carries out a subtle analysis of fundamentalism. Ajith appears to ascribe the popularity of fundamentalism to the oppression of poor nations by imperialism. He describes the ‘McWorld Vs. Jihad’ view as imperialist economism because it denies the importance of the national struggle against imperialism.
However, Ajith seems to acknowledge that fundamentalism, despite its desire to return muslim countries to an ideal past, actually just preserves the status quo. The problem is that the bureaucrat capitalist forces that are transforming the countries, in an imperialist way, are also buttressing feudal forces at the same time. This is because the bureaucrat-capitali st forces tend to rely on the feudal forces for the maintenance of their own power and influence. Thus the fundamentalists believe they are struggling against the influence of the West when they are actually giving support to the feudal forces the West relies on.
However, Ajith states that when a country is occupied, reactionary and feudal elements that resist are ‘objectively, a part of the national resistance’, although as has been said, Ajith is not clear when or how Maoists should unite with these forces in such situations. Ajith states: ‘… in the specific context of resistance against
imperialist occupation, the relation between fundamentalist forces and Maoists can neither be simply antagonistic nor collaborative. It may contain both of them.’
Mao’s Theory of National Resistance-The McWorld vs. Jihad Line
The CPI(MLM) stress the aims of a resistance movement: “In any case, the aims of a resistance are decisive in determining its character. The resistance of forces such as the Taliban and supporters of Saddam is a reactionary resistance. Chiang Kai-shek’s resistance against Japan was based on the aims of US imperialists and his class interests of feudal compradors and not on the basis of the national and class interests of the Chinese people.”
They write that the 1979 Iranian revolution “gave Iran political independence from America and now America wants to take it back. On the basis of such an analysis, they want to mobilise the people on the issue of national and political independence. Such a line is the expression of political compromise. Some of these forces also abuse the theories of the war of resistance against Japan of Mao Zedong.”
For them, the fundamental aspect of a national resistance movement is its direction, summed up by its leadership: “national resistance and wars are those resistance wars which are genuinely lead to national independence and this is impossible without proletarian leadership and social revolution.”
Borhan Azemi places importance on having an independent force before being able to talk about united front “when Mao formulated the united front, there has been well established, well organized, communist party of China under revolutionary line. There have been red areas that have been under the commands of revolutionary masses though leadership of communist party. Talking about Mao’s united Front without mentioning specifications and the timing that based upon that chairman Mao has formulated and practice that theory, is like that once Mao called that type of approach of those that have memorized Marxism-Leninism codes without knowing the historic facts and situation that are facing.”
Mao’s Theory Of National Resistance-The National Resistance Line
Maoist 1 criticises Sunsara Taylor’s article “US Imperialism, Fundamentalism. …And The Need For Another Way.” Maoist 1 argues that Sunsara does not take into account Mao’s theory of the War Of National Resistance. Mao argues that before the invasion of an oppressed country, the principal contradiction is between progressives and domestic reactionaries. When a country is invaded by the imperialists, Maoists try to join forces with domestic reactionaries in a united front against the invaders.
Ben Hu expands on this. He states that Mao in China exempted patriotic landlords from land redistribution, although they were expected to reduce rent. However, landlords that betrayed their country and sided with the Japanese were targeted for attack. Ben states the united front policies are about uniting all the people under the leadership of the revolutionary vanguard, against the invader.
Ben points out that Mao actually had as much reason as anyone to hate the Guomindang, as they had killed close members of his family, but he did not let this cloud his judgement.
Maoist 1 challenges the criticism by the Iranian party of Mao’s theory of national resistance. Maoist 1 points out that Mao never thought that Chiang Kai-shek was a nationalist. Mao did not advocate uniting with the Guomindang because of misjudgements about Chinag’s true nature. Rather he wanted to use this alliance to unite with patriotic elements of the Guomindang against Chiang’s line.
Fang Hong Tong quotes Mao as saying that ‘battles can only be fought one by one, meals can only be eaten mouthful by mouthful and that only a fool will try to swallow a whole banquet at one gulp’.
The Iraqi Resistance-The McWorld vs. Jihad Line
The CPI(MLM) see the resistance against imperialist occupation in Iraq as spontaneous but inevitable: “the experience of Iraq has shown that the people will not be silent in the face of an imperialist invasion. If the US attacks and occupies the country, the people will resist spontaneously. If the communists are not present on the scene to channel the struggle and hatred of the people towards proletarian revolution, the people might tail the reactionary classes and be lead along another reactionary path.”
However, they criticize the antiwar movement in the West: “among Western antiwar forces, we are facing a trend that pays little attention to the class character and the social programme of the reactionary forces resisting the imperialists. They should distinguish between the different forces resisting the imperialists, and take a position in a way that would help the forming of a revolutionary resistance (not a reactionary resistance) against the imperialists.”
For the CPI(MLM), because there are no progressive forces within the resistance the antiwar movement ends up tailing or supporting reactionary parts of the resistance: “the weakness of the antiwar movement in the case of Iraq is that an anti-imperialist and anti-reactionary third pole has not existed in that country.”
Borhan Azemi & Reza J conclude similarly: “the objective reality in Iraq is that, since the oppressed Iraqi people couldn’t organize their independent force and action-independent from both Imperialists and reactionaries, and couldn’t achieve their struggle for freedom and liberty around a clear revolutionary political vision, they are being destroyed in the press between imperialists and Islamic fundamentalists.”
Sunsara Taylor notes that it is important not to accept the resistance on the basis of its popular support or the fact that it is standing up against US imperialism: “just because something has a big following among sections of the oppressed does not mean that it is a good thing.”
The Iraqi Resistance-The National Resistance Line
An interview with Abduljabbar al Kubaysi, secretary-general of the Iraqi Patriotic Alliance was distributed. Abduljabbar is also the founder of the Patriotic Islamic National Front which includes the Baath Party, the Iraqi Communist Party (Central Command) and the Iraqi Patriotic Alliance. Al-Qaeda is not included in this organisation. Abduljabbar argued against the idea that the Iraqi Resistance was responsible, in the main, for sectarian violence. He argued that the US occupiers, the puppet government and the forces supporting it were all promoting sectarianism for their own ends. He pointed out that the large tribes in the the Arab world usually include both Shiites and Sunnis.
Abduljabbar argues that Al-Qaeda has attracted supporters in Iraq due to the personal morals of its members. They argued against those Iraqis who wanted a temporary accomodation with the US to prevent an Iranian takeover. Al-Qaeda took the name of the Mujahideen Shura Council and argued for a line of protracted armed struggle.
The argument here seems to be that Al-Qaeda has attracted support in Iraq mainly because it provides people with a space to resist the occupation. It also attracts support partly because Islamic ideology has eclipsed Marxist and nationalist ideology in the Arab world, with even the Baath party trying to adopt Islamic language.
Abduljabbar says that 95% of sectarian attacks are carried out by government forces and the West, with only about 5% carried out by Al-Qaeda. Abduljabbar does not defend the sectarian attacks they are responsible for but tries to minimise this aspect of Al-Qaeda’s campaign in Iraq.
Abduljabbar says that Muqtada al Sadr has backed down in his resistance to the US under heavy pressure from the US and Sistani, a Shiite leader who collaborates with the US occupation. Now Muqtada cooperates with the American backed political process and his supporters sit in the puppet Iraqi parliament. Muqtada’s army is heavily involved in sectarian killings although Muqtada has publically opposed sectarianism.
Harry Powell says that the Iraqi Resistance (along with the Afghan Resistance) has tied down a large number of US and UK forces. This limits the ability of the imperialists to launch attacks on other countries. This has showed people around the world that imperialism is not all-powerful and has inspired them. It has also undermined the confidence of the British and American people in their own governments.
Harry Powell also argues that while the resistance has had this positive effect, the religious and reactionary groups within the resistance cannot unify the people, despite their mainly positive objective impact.
According to Ajith, the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Naxalbari, Iraq is not comparable to Vietnam. In Vietnam a revolutionary force was leading a national liberation war. In Iraq the national war is largely led by Islamic forces. However, it is still a manifestation of the contradiction between imperialism and oppressed nations and peoples.
The Threatened Attack on Iran-The McWorld vs. Jihad Line
The CPI(MLM) CC report characterises the threat of war on Iran as motivated by the US view that Iran is “a steppingstone to consolidate its domination over the Middle East and the world,” but that to do so “it cannot rely on a regime whose claims to political independence and self-proclaimed € ¦’±nationalist’character are one of the pillars of its legitimacy.” In addition, “the regime’s dependence on the world capitalist system is mainly through the European imperialists, and it also has ties with the Russian imperialists. This makes it an obstacle to the US imperialists’plans.”
They go on, “only an anti-imperialist and anti-reactionary pole could mobilise the people and keep them active. Only by an active policy and putting forward the alternative of the third pole can we create hope and motivation for the masses to participate in deciding their own destiny.” What’s more, “the politics of the third pole is a class policy that first of all serves the interests of the working class and the majority of the people and opposes the political power of the reactionary classes and imperialists.”
In essence, this means “the politics of the third pole mean opposition to reaction and imperialism, which means opposition to the Islamic Republic and to any reactionary regime meant to replace it through intrigues, political manipulation, military crimes and possibly years of civil war of the kind going on in Iraq.”
They sum up their proposed position for the antiwar movement thus: “the present slogan of the global antiwar movement should be to prevent a US war against Iran. But this movement must at the same time support the struggle of the people of Iran against the IRI.” This is based on the conclusion that “the reality is that the majority of the people, in particular the people in the cities, would not defend the IRI and would remain indifferent in relation to a war between the IRI and the US.”
Borhan Azemi & Reza J “intend to show that IRI regime is dependent and part of the world imperialist- capitalist system. And its contradictions with U.S. imperialism will not change the nature of this regime. We cannot support one side in the contention between imperialism and the reactionary regime, and stand under the flag of one of those.”
They warn against support for reactionary regimes, including implicit support by not criticizing: “we think that the ISO, by making an absolute case of Islamophobia, has ended up standing with the reactionary Islamic extremist regime of IRI, and against the independent revolutionary front in Iran. This is what the Neocons have forced them to do. ‘You are either with us or against us’!”
The Threatened Attack on Iran-The National Resistance Line
Harry Powell says that Borhan Azemi believes the ‘essence’ of the Islamic regime in Iran is the oppression of women. Harry Powell believes communists should fight for the rights of women but he does not see the oppression of women as the main contradiction in Iran or the Middle East. Nor does he see the contradiction between religion and secularism as being the main contradiction, which is how Harry characterises the line of the Worker-Communist Party of Iraq.
Harry argues against Borhan’s line that the people of Iran should carry on trying to overthrow the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) government even when Iran is under imperialist attack. He says such a line would simply isolate the Maoists from the people who do not want their country attacked by the US. Harry says we should call for the popular defence of the country while making clear our opposition to the Islamic regime.
Maoist 1 agrees with Harry’s line on Iran. Maoist 1 criticises the Communist Party of Iran (Marxist-Leninist- Maoist), which is a RIM party in Iran. Maoist 1 quotes this party as saying ‘It is clear that the people’s struggle should be focused on the main enemy, the IRI. As long as the IRI is in power, there cannot be any talk of aiming the struggle against the US and the regime equally.’ This is despite the fact that the Iranian party believes that a US attack and even invasion of Iran is imminent.
Maoist 1 talks of the misery caused by the invasion of Iraq and wonders what would happen if this was repeated in Iran. Maoist 1 believes the Iranian Maoist party would lose the support of the people if it argued that such devasation was better than living under the IRI. Maoist 1 argues that the Iranian Maoists will lose the support of the people if they are seen not to support resistance to US attack. People might even be misled into believing that the Iranian Party is a front organisation for US imperialism.
Maoist 1 points out that the Iranian Party is able to call on the Iranian people to overthrow the Iranian regime, even though it does not have the strength in the country to lead this. Why then cannot the Iranian Party urge the people to resist US imperialist invasion as its main task in the event of US attack?
Maoist 1 criticises the Iranian Party’s idea that if the US occupied Iran that revolutionaries could fight the US in areas it occupied and the IRI in the areas still under its control. Maoist 1 expresses opposition to this idea regarding it as ‘impossible’ .
Hisham Bustani argues that Iran is not a puppet state of imperialism. It is a regional power in its own right, with influence in Afghanistan and Lebanon and close ties to big powers like Germany and Russia. Neither is the IRI an anti-imperialist force. He says ‘Iran’s is a pragmatic nationalist/ sectarian project with expansionist aspirations. ‘ He accuses Iran of fostering sectarianism in Iraq and also notes Iranian logistical support for the US invasion of Afghanistan. But Hisham says that Iran does back anti-Zionist and imperialist resistance in Lebanon (Hezbollah) and Palestine (Hamas).
The Maoist Task-The McWorld vs. Jihad Line
For the CPI(MLM), “the politics of the third pole are essentially to pose an alternative to both the present and future reactionary regimes. That is why being against the threatened war is not enough. The real challenge is the future of Iran.” “The communists should create a third pole by relying on their closest allied forces that will represent the interests of the majority of the people and work to build a pole that has influence and authority over a vast section of the people.”
They stress the need for leadership over the mass struggles, “moreover, in order that the third pole become more than just an opposition, it must involve itself in leading the mass struggles and become a leading centre for the various struggles of the masses. The experiences of these struggles has shown that when the mass struggles arise, the existence of such a centre can play a positive role in the development of the mass struggle and expansion of revolutionary initiatives, and helps develop the political and practical strength of the third pole. The task of our party in this sensitive period is to draw a clear horizon for the revolutionary struggle.”
However, they still stress this will come about through PW: “Ultimately the third pole, in our view and in fact, is a new political power, one opposed to the old system and its effort to renovate itself. In the final analysis this pole will be materialised through people’s war, a people’s army and the new power. But the politics that will lead there must be put forward now and start becoming a reality.”
Sunsara Taylor stresses that “these things (crimes committed by Islamic fundamentalists) –whether they are being imposed by Sunnis in Saudi Arabia, by the Taliban in Afghanistan, by the state in Iran, or by “oppositional” movements–must be unequivocally rejected, not ignored, prettified, or tailed with identity politics.”
She sums up that: “those opposing the Iraq war and Bush’s “War on Terror” have to firmly direct their main efforts at their own government and at stopping what is by far the greater reactionary force–that of U.S. imperialism. But that does NOT mean having to support the rise of reactionary clerics in Iraq or the theocrats presently ruling Iran. People can and must learn to differentiate between the just demands and struggle for national liberation and the reactionary and theocratic programs of outmoded forces posturing and pimping off the sentiments of broad sections of these societies for national liberation.”
The Maoist Task-The National Resistance Line
Harry Powell argues that Maoists in countries occupied by the imperialists should be engaging in armed resistance. He argues that Maoist armed groups would be better able to defend themselves against reactionaries. They could also unite women and religous minorities-groups the Islamists cannot unite. Once these armed groups were established, they could make a temporary alliance with reactionary resistance groups.
Harry suggests we should be not so quick to condemen non-socialist resistance and more willing to assess the failings of Maoists in not leading resistance.
Maoist 1 says Maoists should study the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) that concluded it could not fight the monarchy and the bourgeois parties all at once. Instead they decided to make an alliance with the bourgeois parties against the monarchy. The plan has been that the contradiction with the bourgeois parties will only become the main contradiction with the defeat of the King. Similarly, Maoists should not fight Islamists and occupiers at the same time, in the same country.
Mohammed Ayub said that revolutionaries should organise people in Iraq without threatening their religious beliefs, giving them an opportunity to demonstrate the material benefits that revolution can bring the people.
Conclusion
This summary only goes up to mid-October and more contributions to the debate have been received since then. Also, the situation in the Middle East has developed in significant ways. The essential question remains the same however. Should Maoists join and try to lead a pole of resistance to imperialism that may include reactionaries? Or should they strive to create a third pole that includes neither Islamic reactionaries nor the imperialists? Who is the main enemy of the ‘Third Pole’ in Iraq? Also, who would the main enemy of this third pole be in a situation like an aggression against Iran, the Islamic reactionary government or US attackers?
Please send your comments on this issue.
Politics » Maoists Debate Islamic Fundamentalism said
[...] Palash Speaks wrote an interesting post today on Maoists Debate Islamic FundamentalismHere’s a quick excerptUnion (during the 1980s), and the experience in the current struggles in … gained influence among other strata, or where its politics may reflect [...]
zerohour said
The article says: “Borhan Azemi places importance on having an independent force before being able to talk about united front “when Mao formulated the united front, there has been well established, well organized, communist party of China under revolutionary line. There have been red areas that have been under the commands of revolutionary masses though leadership of communist party.” I agree.
Without a significant independent mass base, it is laughable to “call for” a united front. No one would take such a call seriously. Without such a mass base, supporting with the Islamic resistance doesn’t mean tailing, it means being swallowed up. I think some sort of tactical cooperation is possible against the US in the event of an invasion, but I don’t see how the CPI [MLM] can maintain any kind of credibility among the masses if they don’t make the US their main target.
Any comparison between Mao’s CCP and the CPI [MLM] would be stretched at this point. I don’t think they have the leverage to define the course of resistance the way Mao did.
Maoists being funny « Growing the open society said
[...] 20, 2008 · Filed under communism, ideology · Tagged communism, humour, islamism, maoism This is unintentionally humorous. Apparently, there is some sort of debate within some sort of minor [...]
Jimmy Higgins said
Thanks to you, Mike, and to wprm britain for this fascinating summary. I’m not sure I agree with Zerohour here. I fear that pursuit of the “three magic weapons” of Maoist lore–the Party, the People’s Army and the United Front–must sometimes be undertaken simultaneously. There was no Communist party in Albania at the start of WW2, just a few scattered groups in urban centers, but they were able to build a national resistance army and unite with broad sections of the Albanian populace to become the dominant force within the country inside of 6 years.
Maz said
The latest from Borhan Azemi:
____________________________
\”Hi comrades;
I totally disagree with your summation on this discussion. You are trying to force the issue in a way that your objectives from this discussion be reached. However I should say that the two lines developed on this very crucial subject has not been going in the way that wprm Britain has claimed it has gone!
So far, I have not seen anybody bring any statement from Mao himself to back up their version of what Mao has said and wrote rather, Mao’s view was presented as an understanding of Mr. Harry Powel and Maoist1.
So, please do not try to link Harry’s and Maoist1’s version of National front resistance to Mao. As I mentioned earlier I have not yet seen neither Harry nor Maoist1 to bring actual statement wrote by Mao. It is their version of what Mao puts forward. So, I comradely suggest that Please do not try to make this two lines struggle look like that there are 2 lines on this subject, one presented by RCP and others and, the second line presumably Mao’s view “presented” by Harry and Maoist1.
This is very opportunistic way to present the whole subject and two line struggles.
I think Harry and Maoist1 understanding of Mao\’s view on National front resistance is totally wrong. And I think it is actually in opposition to Mao\’s view. That is why I submitted Mao’s\’ writing on that subjects for everybody to read it and have better understanding of what actually Mao said. And not What Harry and Maoist1 have tried to put forward as Mao\’s view.
On the issue of class nature of Islamic Regime of Iran again I totally disagree with the second line which thinks that IRI regime is somehow Anti-Imperialist in nature and thus it progressive in nature.
I am in a process of making my view available on this very important subject.
Comradely
Borhan Azemi\”
_______________________________
Azemi is correct when he says the summation should not imply that the struggle has been between RCP and others, it\’s been much more rich than that. I\’m also not sure if it can be narrowly boiled down to two lines – it is likely more than that; but it is true that the struggle is revealing two basically different approaches present among revcom forces. More to come.
Antonio1949 said
Borhan Azemi is not in fact correct in his historical summation of the state of the CCP as “well established, well organized, communist party of China under revolutionary line” when it entered into the united front with the Guomindang.
The CCP was weak, not well established and led by a dubiously revolutionary line at the time it entered into the first united front with the Guomindang (however, it was significantly stronger than the CPI(MLM) currently is). It was only through the period of the united front that the CCP was able to build up the forces necessary to become a major force in national politics outside of intellectual circles.
However, the united front was a direct result of the Guomindang’s policy of allying with the Soviet Union, not a result of the strength or policies of the CCP itself in the main. Without a socialist state, the revolutionary communist forces in any given country are perhaps in much greater need of establishing their own independent pole.
Attention to these particularities of the Chinese experience, including a materialist study of the actual history of the Chinese Revolution (as opposed to the theological hagiography that predominates among Maoists today), I think lends credence to ME’s call for breaking with the ‘two models of revolution’ theory.
somecomments said
I agree with Mike in Letter 5 that the RCP’s McWorld vs. Jihad line is “monchromatic.” For example, it is wrong to lump together Hamas and Hezbollah, which are both confronting Israeli Zionism and US imperialism behind it, with the comprador and thoroughly reactionary Islamic Republic of Iran. (Yes, comprador bourgeoisies can have sharp contradictions with particular imperialist powers.) I have not seen anyone make a credible argument that Hamas and Hezbollah represent the comprador bourgeoisie; it is much more likely that they represent national bourgeois forces straining to rise to power.
Instead of reaching for facile “unifying theories,” more study is needed of the class nature and political/social programs of various Islamist forces, and their relationship to the imperialist system and to the various imperialist powers.
At the same time, the ISO–as well as other Trotskyist groups such as Workers World and the Party for Socialism and Liberation–abjectly tail after Hamas and Hezbollah. Their political and social programs have many reactionary elements; Islamic Republics in Palestine and Lebanon would not be an advance for the masses of people. Revolutionary communists in these countries would have to plant a sharply opposed political pole, while at particular times they might cooperate on a tactical level with the Islamists against Zionist aggression.
(In occupied Iraq, would it be wrong for communist forces–at the same time as they sought to build their own political presence and independent military forces– to establish tactical cooperation with Islamist, Baathist and nationalist forces who are waging armed resistance against the US and its Iraqi collaborators?)
The position of these US Trots is even worse when it comes to their support for the reactionary theocrats in Iran. They turn a blind eye to the IRI’s brutal oppression of women, workers, peasants and national minorities such as the Kurds and Azeris, and claim that a regime which is tightly integrated into the world imperialist system through its ties with the European and Russian imperialists is “objectively anti-imperialist” because of its sharp political conflicts with the U.S.
The CP of Iran (MLM) correctly analyses the reactionary nature of the IRI and the need for communists to work towards its overthrow is on point. However, it stumbles on the question of what attitude communists should take if the US invaded and occupied part or all of Iran.
In this event, the contradiction between the Iranian people and US imperialism would become extremely sharp–something the CPI (MLM) does not recognize. The CPI (MLM) argues, “As long as the IRI is in power, there cannot be any talk of aiming the struggle against the US and the regime equally.” It is hard to believe that “the reality is that the majority of the people, in particular the people in the cities, would not defend the IRI and would remain indifferent in relation to a war between the IRI and the US.”
It is much more likely that the communists would be isolated if, in the event of a US invasion and occupation, they continued to principally target the IRI. This would allow the IRI to call the communists a “U.S. fifth column” and move to crush them. Politically and militarily independent communist forces would undoubtedly face intense efforts by the IRI to eliminate them, but that could be best combatted by a “third pole” that mobilized the masses to confront the US and put forward a revolutionary social program. This would not be a diversion from the revolutionary struggle, but a dialectical and materialist approach to preparing the ground politically and accumulating the military forces to overthrow the IRI.
Though Mao’s writings on the struggle against Japanese imperialism in the 1930s and 40s are not the final word on this subject, the conditions presented by a US invasion of Iran (which, by the way, I don’t think is likely in the near future for a number of reasons) and the Japanese invasion of China are similar in important ways. The theory and practice of the Chinese Communist Party in seeking to build an anti-Japanese united front, with the communists maintaining their political and military independence, contains important lessons for the present. This strategy allowed the CCP to mobilize hundreds of millions of peasants and their allies to resist Japanese aggression, to build a powerful people’s army and liberated areas, to resist repeated GMD attacks during the anti-Japanese war, and to prepare for civil war against the GMD in a position of political and military strength.
At the same time, the position of those arguing for the line of “national resistance” to US imperialism is deeply flawed. Submerging the communists into a united front with the Islamic Republic in the name of resisting US aggression would be a great setback to the revolutionary struggle. It would politically disarm the growing sections of the Iranian masses who are coming into conflict with the regime. It would repeat the error made by Iranian communists during the Revolution from 1977 to 1981, when they tailed behind, and were subsequently brutally repressed by, the Khomeini forces. The Iranian communists may not have been in a position to emerge victorious in an early showdown with the Islamic Republic, but a concerted drive to build up their own political and military forces during those turbulent years would have placed them in a much better position to continue the revolutionary struggle against the IRI in the years ahead.
Without digressing into the current situation in Nepal, similar questions are being discussed and struggled over in relation to an Indian invasion of Nepal if the Indian reactionaries and the US behind them believed it necessary to deal with an imminent or actual seizure of power by the CPN(Maoist). This is all the more reason to develop a methodology and basic political orientation that can comprehend complex conditions and chart the path forward.
somecomments said
I would add to the second paragraph of my post above that much deeper study is needed of all of the political forces at work in the countries of the West Asian “arc of crisis”–not just the Islamist forces–in order to grasp the complexity that exists, and to sort out friends from opponents, in opposition to the simplistic McWorld vs. Jihad thesis.
Pavel said
I find somecomments’s comments generally pursuasive. The McWorld/McJihad formulation echoes the Bush regime’s “for us or against us” theme, which obviously conflates (in the “against us”—“evil”—“terror” category) lots of disparate phenomena. The “terror list” includes communists, nationalists, Islamists (in the sense of Muslims politically active inspired by specifically Muslim ideology of some sort). The principal target of the “war on terror” has been political Muslims, such that early on Lou Dobbs among other reactionary commentators called for the war to be redefined as a “war on radical Islamism.” (Dobbs even, stupidly, described the secular Baathist regime in Iraq as “radical Islamist.”) But even within this category there is a vast range of forces. To call Iran’s regime, the Palestinian Sunni-led resistance movement Hamas, Lebanon’s Shiite-led nationalist resistance Hizbollah (which has broad support outside the Shiite community), the Islamic Courts Union of Somalia, al-Qaeda etc. “McJihad” is just not analytically very useful. Indeed when it’s presented as one of two contending poles to be rejected equally, it might be a dangerous as well as simplistic concept.
Just to get a little more concrete: I agree, so far as it goes, with Sunsara’s contention that “the need to support the just demands of the people should not be conflated with supporting the reactionary fundamentalist forces, nor should the ideology and program of these fundamentalists be equated with the interests of the broad masses in the region.” (“Region” here meaning southwest Asia, but could be extended much more broadly since reactionary forms of politicized Islam extend from northwest Africa to the Philippines…to everywhere, really.) None of us want to support reactionary religious-fundamentalist forces in a broad sense. The question is, what sort of actions really do that?
When the French government decided to ban Islamic headscarves in the public school system, RIM took a stand against the ban. Was RIM thereby supporting reactionary fundamentalist forces? Would it have been wrong to march alongside Islamists of some stripe to protest the ban? If U.S. forces try to provoke a Tonkin Gulf-style incident in the Gulf of Hormuz, produce a doctored video to ratchet up the tension level, and the Iranian regime responds with tape of its own refuting U.S. allegations, do we support “McJihad” versus “McWorld” by noting that Iran’s account is more credible? Is it appropriate to work with Islamist forces in the US in organizing antiwar events or Palestine solidarity events? Or even to work to remove certain Muslim groups from the list of “terrorist organizations”?
There was an article in AWTW # 28 (2002) written by a CP Iran (MLM) entitled, “Islam: Ideology and Tool of the Exploiting Classes.” It targeted “political Islam” but also Islam in general, rather like the RCP attacks not only the most reactionary forms of Christian fundamentalism but at times Christianity in general (as in the fliers circulated around the movie, “The Passion of the Christ”).
Stipan cited Mao’s statement in the “Investigation Into the Peasant Movement in Hunan”:
“The idols were set up by the peasants and in time they will pull them down with their own hands; there is no need for anybody else prematurely to pull down the idols for them.”
I think that’s relevant to the discussion of how revolutionary-minded people should relate to Islam and even that broad, complex phenomenon, “political Islam.”
Maoist1 said
Why do people keep saying that supporters of the National Resistance Line think Islamic Fundamentalists are progressive? This may be the Trotskyist line, it is not ours.
What mainly provoked the National Resistance Line was the awful line of the Iranian RIM party that advocates the overthrow of the Islamic Iranian Regime because it is the main enemy of the Iranian people (so far so good) but then argues that it would still be the main enemy of the Iranian people, if there was a US invasion. This is a line that is stating that in the event of a US invasion the Iranian people should, in the main, assist with US war aims. People who want evidence of this should check http://revcom.us/a/061/iranmaoist-en.html. The relevant bit has been quoted often enough and people are still refusing to see what is in front of their eyes. Quoting from documents in this context seems to be just encouraging the rather superficial approach to this debate some people have.
We are also accused of advocating a united front between Maoists and the IRI in Iran. No we haven’t. Again, people have looked at things superficially and forgotten the dictum of ‘No Investigation, No Right to Speak’. As it happens, we support the line of Mao in ‘On Contradiction’ that in the event of an invasion of an oppressed country by an imperialist one that Maoists should temporarily unite with reactionaries, as the Chinese Communist Party did with the Guomindang (who killed at least as many communists as the IRI). This doesn’t mean that Mao thought the GMD were progressives or ‘nationalists’. People who are pretending they think this DO know better.
The point of our criticism of the Iranian party was that they feel able to urge the Iranian people to overthrow the Iranian reactionary regime but not to resist a US imperialist invasion. If you are going to criticise everyone urging resistance for believing there should be a united front, logically you should criticise the Iranian Party for supporting a united front of Maoists with the US. In reality, they are doing nothing of the kind. They are urging the Iranian people to overthrow the IRI in the event of an invasion, despite not being strong enough to lead this. On the other hand, the National Resistance Line is saying they should urge the Iranian people to resist a US invasion, despite the party not being strong enough to lead it. Iraq is a model here, there is resistance but it is not led by Maoists.
The Iranian Party’s line does not mean they are a ‘CIA Front’ as some simple souls allege. They are following Avakian’s line to its logical conclusion and thus demonstrating it’s one-sideness. Avakian says revolutionaries should make world proletarian revolution the principal aim, rather than uniting people against this or that imperialist bloc (he is especially criticising Stalin’s United Front tactic against the Nazis). The Iranian Party, follow suit by refusing to make US imperialism the main in any circumstances and insisting that the Iranian reactionary regime must always be the principal enemy.
It’s a revolutionary line, not a ‘CIA’ line but it leads to a very dangerous place (seeming to side with imperialism). This is due to the over-subjective nature of Avakian’s line which tends to put revolutionary principle above objective necessities like preventing the destruction of your country by a rapacious foreign power (and making damn sure the people of your country know you are on their side against the imperialists.)
NSPF said
“Stipan cited Mao’s statement in the “Investigation Into the Peasant Movement in Hunan”:
‘The idols were set up by the peasants and in time they will pull them down with their own hands; there is no need for anybody else prematurely to pull down the idols for them.’
I think that’s relevant to the discussion of how revolutionary-minded people should relate to Islam and even that broad, complex phenomenon, ‘political Islam.’”
Well, this quote from Mao is a bit tricky to handle. If it is quoted to convey that since people of Iran brought this Islamic regime to power, it is solely THEIR duty and right to overthrow it, not the US imperialists, then I would agree. But I suspect this is not the case.
Anyone quoting from Mao that was dealing with the concrete situation in China in the context of the world situation of fifty to eighty years ago, has to be able to show that the world situation (and the particular country) now is similar to that time.
I think, as far as religion and religious forces are concerned, the most cursary investigation of the situation in Iran will show that there is a world of difference between Iran now and China in those days.
On the world level, we are now dealing with islam as a political force in ascendance, contending with imperialist system for its share of the loot. Islam was dominating superstructure of a vast global empire and the clerics want to resurrect that. It is also perhaps of interest to note that within the first thirty years of its inception, islamists conquered Iran, then a superpower. Needless to remind that the first major victory in the revival of islam took place in Iran again. some may say that islamic forces are so disperate that it is not possible to talk of political islam per se. Well, we talk of imperialist system knowing full well that various imperialists have always been at each others throat. same goes for islam.
So far as the situation in iran is concerned, unlike China, islam has been the dominant part of the superstructure for the past thirty years. All of the state structure and huge resources of the country have been utilised on a daily basis to ingrain islam in the innermost depths of the psychy of the iranians with some success. If this is not countered boldly in all its dimentions by communists in iran, then they should not call themselves communists.
one more thing: although I tend to use “political islam” because erveryone else uses it, to me it sounds like saying “political politics” or “islamic islam”.
zerohour said
NPSF -
A case could be made that Confucianism was a dominant part of China’s superstructure for centuries, not decades. Can you make the case that it’s pervasiveness among Chinese peasantry was not as deep as that of Islam in Iran?
I understood Mao’s point to be that we as communists must win over the masses to a secular politics. This must be done through patient discussion and organizing, with an understanding of the religious impulse. It cannot be done by caricaturizing their beliefs, or attempting to impose secularism. Only in this way can the masses develop their own understanding and act on that basis.
Yo said
Maoist1 said: “This is a line that is stating that in the event of a US invasion the Iranian people should, in the main, assist with US war aims. People who want evidence of this should check http://revcom.us/a/061/iranmaoist-en.html.”
I just read this and saw nothing about “assisting with U.S. war aims.” In fact what they are mainly speaking to is the urgent need to organize a third pole, which in the event of a U.S. invasion, would not be sucked into the supporting either side.
NSPF said
“A case could be made that Confucianism was a dominant part of China’s superstructure for centuries, not decades. Can you make the case that it’s pervasiveness among Chinese peasantry was not as deep as that of Islam in Iran?”
My argument is exactly the opposite. In Mao’s china they were dealing with something that was ingrained thru several centuries and was a settled thing. they had to come from cold and patiently change things. Patiently did not mean intermitently,loosely, or negligently by the way. There is an aspect of this common to iran today, specially in rural areas. But in Iran we are dealing with something else. The regime is actively remolding people in the present time. They take pride of what they have achieved so far, and say there is a long way to go. so this is happening live. We have to contend now or else we are not worthy on the name. Of course it cannot fully reverse or prevented without state power, but that is not an excuse for doing nothing. in fact it should be part of the prep. and winning forces for the showdown.
Iran, by all accounts, is not mainly a peasant or rural society. And again by all accounts, it was a relatively secular society. Imagin for one moment that tomorrow you wake up and find out that cristian fasists or the catholic church is in power and wants to transform society to conform in every aspect of life to their cristian doctrine. What would you do? patiently wait for people themselves to pull the idols down? take care not to talk and act prematurely? Of course not. That is why we should fight against the pro life nonsense and against what they want to implement in schools and universities.
“I understood Mao’s point to be that we as communists must win over the masses to a secular politics. This must be done through patient discussion and organizing, with an understanding of the religious impulse. It cannot be done by caricaturizing their beliefs, or attempting to impose secularism. Only in this way can the masses develop their own understanding and act on that basis.”
I understand patient as not getting disillusioned and not giving up on the possibility of change. If patience means giving in to backward sentiments of the masses, let alone the plans of the reactionary forces, then it is called tailing. This was done once in iran and look what happened. Of course this does not mean that we should go to our grand mothers and argue with them non-stop until they shed their superstitious belifs. Fighting against reactionary belifs and superstition and mumbo jumbo requires a degree of sophistication. But never the less it should be done boldly and inteligently; tactically and strategically; politically and ideologically.
It’s bad enough; why would we want to caricaturize it?
We don’t hold political power; how could we impose anything?
Then again, talking of context, Mao was of course mindful of what was happening in soviet union and some of the things Stalin did regarding religion and religious forces.
zerohour said
NPSF -
I’m not sure I completely understand all your points. You say: “What would you do? patiently wait for people themselves to pull the idols down? take care not to talk and act prematurely? Of course not.” Who is arguing for passivity in the face of religious indoctrination? Not Mao and not anyone else here. Then you say “If patience means giving in to backward sentiments of the masses, let alone the plans of the reactionary forces, then it is called tailing.” Again who is saying this?
“It’s bad enough; why would we want to caricaturize it?” One way to caricaturize it is by lumping in disparate movements and deriving specific analyses from general characteristics. This runs the risk of glossing over complex histories in favor of an assumed homogeneity. Yes we do refer to imperialism when discussing the US or England at a certain level of abstraction but England has its own features do not apply to the US and vice versa. “Political Islam” can be appropriate when signifying a group of trends that merge Islam with state power. It loses its force when having to look at nations with unique historical developments.
“We don’t hold political power; how could we impose anything?” If you believe that political [state?] power is needed, you need to take a look at basic group dynamics. Anytime there is some degree of influence, imposition is a potential. certainly we [the US left] are in no position to impose anything but I was referring to a situation where we might acquire a mass following. For now, let’s say the danger is more like “potentially imposing”, i.e., bullying and provoking.
Maz said
Maoist1 wants to know why people accuse supporters of the national resistance line, as he calls it, of calling islamism progressive. This comes Ganapathy of the Communist Party of India (Maoist):
ulises said
I can’t read minds, but when I saw Ganapathy’s comments on this issue I thought back to the horrible history of anti-muslim pogroms in India. In light of the ascendancy of Hindu chauvinism in India, and this history, it is particularly interesting to read Ganapathy’s comments, and they are frankly quite welcome to the extent that they are an indirect reference to this anti-muslim oppression.
This is just one example of the particularities of the different national and geographic world divisions, which jihad vs. mcworld too neatly cuts through.
NSPF said
“Yes we do refer to imperialism when discussing the US or England at a certain level of abstraction but England has its own features do not apply to the US and vice versa.”
Yes I agree. There are particularities to each imperialist power that must not be overlooked or else we would not be able to adopt correct tactical moves. But these particularities could be looked at from two opposing views; These particularities never prevented us arrive at a principal contradiction as between imperialism and the oppresed masses on the world scale. And it never convinced us that the three world theory was “correct”.
“One way to caricaturize it is by lumping in disparate movements and deriving specific analyses from general characteristics. This runs the risk of glossing over complex histories in favor of an assumed homogeneity.”
Lets take a specific case of two disperate forces and lookt at them colser. I suggest Khomeini(sixties to eighties) in iran and Hamas (now) in Palestine. But I leave it to you if you want to discuss any other two. You start with the contrast and I will go the other way.
Just to make it clear, I think the so called “national resistance” line is much worse than mcworld/jihad line. just to be brief, the former is like tactics with no strategy, while the latter is sort of strategy with no tactics.
NSPF said
ulises Says:
“I can’t read minds, but when I saw Ganapathy’s comments on this issue I thought back to the horrible history of anti-muslim pogroms in India. In light of the ascendancy of Hindu chauvinism in India, and this history, it is particularly interesting to read Ganapathy’s comments, and they are frankly quite welcome to the extent that they are an indirect reference to this anti-muslim oppression.
This is just one example of the particularities of the different national and geographic world divisions, which jihad vs. mcworld too neatly cuts through.”
then, by extension, you should criticize Ganapaty as well. for he does exactly the same thing as you are criticizing.
Pogroms of muslims in india, or any other pogrom is vile and despicable and should be condemned and opposed without any ifs and buts.
When we deal with history of pogroms or any other history we should not look at it one sided, or just consider part of the history. The recent history of muslim pogrom by hindu fascists is at least partly incited by reference to the history of centuries of oppresion of hindus by islam and moslem world. Muslems and the islamic forces owe hindus some historical appology if they are to be belived that they would not do the same it they came to power, and if we are to wrest this historical ground from under the feet of the hindu fascists.
Talking of provocations, take the Babri mosque and the criminal massacres perpetrated by both sides when it was raised to the ground by the hindu fascists. islamic forces and islam in general has to explain why they deliberately and provocatively went around building mosques over the the so called sacred sites of other religions. do they regret it? do they appologize for it? They did this throughout the world; from Spain to Turkey to India. And they continue to do this to date; In afghanistan we all saw how they destroyed budhas statues, and in Iran few years ago they destroyed major Bahaii sites of pilgrimage. Nothing to say of the continuous killing of Bahaiis in Iran for the past 29 years just because they believe in another religion.
Again, we cannot talk of the recent history of pogroms in India which started mainly in the partition of the country and the creation of Pakistan just because of a single so called separation of “national identity”, that is, on the basis of religion. It was by any national liberation standard a case of high treason on the part of Jinah(a member of the congress party) and the moslen league. there were as many hindus killed by moslem as the other way round. both should be remembered and condemned. To me, although I de facto recognize the entity called pakistan, the people of india and pakistan are essentially the same people. they are not two nations.
Zionism excuses itself and justifies any crime because of the holocust. Why should islam be let to excuse its history, past and present, because of the crimes committed against moslems?
Ulises said
NSPF:
No one said anything of excusing crimes. My point is that in the current political atmosphere in India, recognizing Muslims as possible allies in a fight for revolution lays out the ground for making sure that such crimes do not occur again, whether Muslim or Hindu. To, on the other hand, focus on the tit-for-tat that has been embedded in the national discourses of South Asia since the Partition (as you do) has the effect of reinforcing the status quo in this regard.
Maz said
The question is not whether or not muslims can be allies. Obviously they can. Ganapathy is raising something else entirely: that the current leading fundamentalist forces are both anti-imperialist and progressive.
If people actually seriously want to suggest that we should gloss over the reactionary nature of islamism as a way of righting historical wrongs of muslim oppression, then can supporting zionism be far behind? The logic is exactly the same.
NSPF said
Ulises,
Perhaps I should have made it clearer that my referring to crimes being excused was not targetted at you or anybody else here; it is they (the zionists, pan islamists, bjp, etc) who excuse themselves and play the role of ethernal victims, even while committing crimes.
I remember when the film Color Purple came out there was all this condemnation that black men are already targets and this film by showing the prevalent male chauinism among black men is going to make it even worst for them. Something to that effect. We on the other hand defended the film and said the shit has to come out and dealt with; can’t keep it under the carpet for some supposedly higher good. I don’t think we were wrong. and the movi was certainly great.
Pan islamism has unfortunately become an attractive pole among people who come to hate what is being done by imperialism and their lackeies. If we don’t expose and oppose them then there is no chance of winning those people over. There is a contention for social base. how should we go about it?
I suspect that when we see an arab in a demo, we(broad we) don’t try to win them over to our position; we try to unite with them; with several apriori assumptions; giving in to identity politics. You know what I mean? I’ve seen it; I’ve encountered it; I’ve experienced it. How are we going to break out of this streight jacket and really contend? These are part of my concerns.
ulises said
I share your concerns. Perhaps you have some idea of how to unite with oppressed communities without either putting them into identity straightjackets or without uncritically acquiescing to their own demands of exception. Do we believe that there are no exceptions historically, ethically, morally, etc?
I guess my main point is that their is not going to be some rule of thumb in all of this; that different contexts and conditions require different political stands. One thing which is particularly frustrating about political language is the need, or so it seems, for hyperbole. That is, an effective political statement opposing anti-muslim chauvinism in South Asia is by its very nature not going to treat the thousand year history of tit-for-tat in an even handed manner. Perhaps this is a problem with politics itself or perhaps it is a problem with how politics has been done up to this point.
Jaroslav O, said
A couple quick thoughts:
- ‘Political Islam’ really is a bad term; even the most liberal forms of all religions have political implications & hence agendas, the point should be to delineate the ‘theocratic Islam’.
- Mao said not to knock down the idols, he didn’t say to not talk to people about the idols being worthless. I think it’s very good to put an open atheist pole out there. We should have more faith in the people, it’s not as if they will refuse to unite in a fight against the imperialists just because we said that their religion is reactionary at core.
- There are two separate but interlinked debates to be had here. One is the RCP’s glossing over of differences in Islamic movements (& Christian movements as Mike described in his Letters) into one big ‘Jihad’ lump. The other is CPI(MLM)’s proposed strategy to continue viewing IRI as main enemy of Iran’s people even in the event of US invasion. They are distinct because, for example one could say that there are all these different fundamentalist trends, but that the IRI is not one to be united with under any circumstances.
- As for Iran, CPI(MLM)’s predecessor (UIC-Sarbedaran) wrote in AWTW #4 a sum-up of late ’70s – early ’80s events called “Defeated armies learn well”. It’s been a while since I read it, so I won’t try to summarise it here, but I definitely recommend it if you want to think about how to relate to the theocratic Islam.
steve said
Bob Avakian has published a new piece that talks about this debate. It’s online here:
http://revcom.us/a/118/makingrevolution-p2-06-en.html
Here’s a quote that shows what it looks like:
It is one thing when, in the past, some people’s stance and role amounted, or became reduced to, simply playing the role of cheerleaders for forces struggling against U.S. imperialism, but those forces were at least engaged in what could legitimately be considered revolutionary struggle (as, for example, the Vietnamese people’s war of resistance against the U.S.). But it is quite another thing when you’re becoming cheerleaders for thoroughly reactionary forces, with all the horrors they’ve already brought about and would bring about on a much fuller scale, were they able to do so.When I read this part, I thought: why doesn’t comrade Avakian talk about ASCOMET (just to give one example among others)? These people are certainly “engaged in what could legitimately be considered revolutionary struggle”. (see http://ascomet.awardspace.com)
Jaroslav said
from article by CPIndia(ML)Naxalbari, 12/06 (CPI(ML)NB is a member party of RIM):
‘A part of this subjective weakness [of Maoist movement] is its analysis of Islamic fundamentalism, which still remains at a preliminary stage. While the propagation of militant materialism has its role, rationalist critiques of religion cannot replace a Maoist approach on Islamic fundamentalism. First of all we must distinguish between such movements and ideologies in the oppressed nations from those in imperialist countries. We must examine whether it is correct to club together fundamentalism and revivalism. There can be no Chinese wall separating them and the transformation that takes place once in power cannot be ignored. But they seem to exhibit an important difference in their response to imperialism. Unlike fundamentalist movements, revivalism quite usually is a willing partner of imperialism in all aspects. Further more, the role of fundamentalism as an expression of national-cultural aspirations in the oppressed nations must be properly identified. The weakening of the communist movement as well as the conscious efforts of imperialism and reactionaries to boost up fundamentalism and revivalism as a tool to block communism is evident. But we must also examine whether there has been any error or weakness in the communist movements of Third World countries to establish themselves, in all respects and all realms of society, as the only force capable of consistently defending national interests. This was an important contribution of Mao Tsetung. Islamic ideology (or for that matter any religious ideology) cannot put up a consistent fight against imperialism and cannot unleash the revolutionary potential of the masses, because of its class character and inability to rupture from reactionary relations. The Maoists must unite with all streams of opposition to U.S. imperialism and imperialism in general, in line with the policy of “Unite the many to defeat the few.” At the same time, they have to strive hard to win over broader sections of the masses to the banner of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and People’s War. They must develop a thorough critique of fundamentalism in keeping with this aim.’
Mike E said
Mao Zedong said: “Unite all who can be united against the real enemy.”
Part of the issue here is who can be seen as “against the real enemy.” Who and what is “the real enemy” — and where does that leave our strategy and tactics?
Stephani Birch said
Islamic Fundamentalism and Grappling with the Situation in Iraq
Debates within the fold of revolutionaries such as this are not only very useful but are also invigorating because they could lead to a higher level of unity which would facilitate a deeper understanding of some of the important questions to change the world. I have read the comrades’ contributions carefully, learnt from them and discussed their points with friends. It is widely acknowledged that the class struggle in occupied Iraq has its own particularities and hence is very important for us to understand the complex character of the class forces and struggles thrown up by US imperialist occupation of the country.
It is therefore vital for communists to grasp the essence of the situation in Iraq and the class-struggle amidst the resistance war against foreign occupation. In attempting to comprehend the essence of the problems in Iraq, like others, I believe that the approach should be that of ‘seeking truth from facts’ and making ‘concrete analysis of concrete conditions’ as this alone is the scientific method which can be relied on to examine social realities in order to change them. I hope we encourage many others to contribute to this important and constructive debate and achieve a higher level of unity which would help all of us in our struggles against the imperialist system.
Occupation and Resistance
The main characteristic of the present situation in Iraq is that the US has turned the country into its colony. Because of the Iraqi people’s struggle against British imperialism, Iraq gained its formal independence in 1932. The collapse of the Soviet empire has opened up an historic opportunity for US imperialism to rapidly expand its global domination to remain the sole superpower. Since 1992 a political faction of the US ruling class within the Republican Party, “neocons” had been planning for US unrivalled world hegemony. This new strategy is entitled “Plan for a New American Century.”
The implementation of this strategy entailed taking into account the two opposing forces: peoples of the world on one hand and a few contending imperialist powers. However, the initial stage of implementation of this strategy has shown that even other imperialist powers opposed to US’s strategy, at some point, collude with it. The majority of the reactionary states have capitulated, leaving only the people to truly oppose and resist US’s march to unrivalled world domination.
Today, the people of the world are the principal forces struggling against US imperialism’s ambition to dominate the planet with the noisy clamor of “war on terror” and the Iraqi people are really in the thick, indeed in the forefront of this same struggle. Today, the reality of the heroic resistance of the Iraqi masses in cities and villages that is standing in way of total US domination of the Middle East. This is the main force that has pulled the US military machine, the most powerful military machine in human history, into a quagmire. This is an irrefutable truth, requiring no further proof today.
Occupation and colonization of Iraq is a crucial stepping stone in this strategic goal of global domination. Since March 2003 US imperialism has converted this hitherto semi-colony, previously shared by other imperialist powers, namely Russia and France , into a colony monopolized by the US . It is clear that with the present situation, revolution in Iraq can advance only through an unrelenting long process of driving out the imperialist occupiers. This is so given the relative strength of the Iraqi people against the economic and military might of US imperialism. This is the most important demand of the people and they have demonstrated it by actively fighting against the occupation forces.
Two major wars, 13 years of killer-sanctions, carving up the country into different zones and continuous aerial and missile onslaughts against the Iraqi people were, and still are, attempts at forcing them to yield. The amount of explosives which has been used against the people of Iraq is equivalent to 12 atomic bombs, the seize US dropped on the people of Hiroshima .
In fact, US imperialism has deliberately massacred two million people, tortured thousands, destroyed the whole economy and people’s livelihood, forced 5 million people to become refugees, ravaged and plundered thousands of years of cultural heritage and savagely attacked and humiliated their belief in the last 17 years to enslave the Iraqi people and colonize their land. In fact, since 1991 the war on the Iraqi people has never stopped. It is a genocidal war waged mainly by the US and supported by British imperialism and other client states.
The laws of motion, change and transformation, that is, in-depth understanding of the laws of contradiction are all vital in understanding the dynamics of change in Iraq as they are universal. The science of revolution developed by Chairman Mao shows that out of the numerous contradictions one of them must emerge as the principal contradiction. And this in turn (as in all contradictions) has two aspects: principal and non-principal aspect. This is the kernel of Marxist philosophy, Dialectical Materialism.
By drawing lessons from the revolution in China , Chairman Mao also showed that when the principal contradiction is solved other (non-principal) contradictions are more readily solved. And that another, former non-principal contradiction would emerge as the principal one. Hence it is essential that one grasps the centrality of the cognition of these contradictions and their opposing aspects in Iraq .
Through many years of untold hardship and deprivation, having undergone countless sacrifices, through nearly two decades of resisting US aggression, the Iraqi people have learnt that US imperialism has become their principal enemy. This cognizance corresponds to objective reality: the principal contradiction in Iraq today, which is the Iraqi people of all nationalities against US-led imperialism. Both these aspects of the contradiction, seeking to determine the future of the country, are locked in a titanic, but long-drawn battle of mutual destruction. And one will prevail over the other. The principal aspect of this contradiction, at this juncture, is the latter (US-led imperialism).
The Iraqi people have rightly learnt, lessons paid for in blood and death, that at this juncture, whoever and whatever their ideology and politics, fights against their main enemy should be supported and not opposed. They have learnt that Iraq cannot come out of this desperate situation and go forward without defeating its principal enemy. Only when the tide against the US in Iraq is turned will the principal aspect (the US occupiers) become the non-principal aspect of the contradiction and the Iraqi people, the principal aspect.
The ability of the resistance movements in the two devastated countries of Afghanistan and Iraq to pin down the imperialist forces in spite of their colossal global power is principally based on the power of the masses. This again attests to what Chairman Mao synthesized: “The people, and the people alone are the motive force in the making of world history.” This is the main reason why such an unprecedented power, in total control of air, sea, and much of the land, is pinned down on the ground. This is also the main reason why US imperialism is unable to militarily intervene and commit aggression, till now, in other countries, such as Iran .
Even the Islamic Fundamentalist forces, that are fighting and so far not capitulating to US imperialism have recognized this fact, and in spite of having the opposite class interests to that of the masses, are using it fully for their own class interests. Dealing with these Fundamentalists world outlook or plans, and ignoring their temporary orientation at this juncture, would actually weaken the broad alliance against the US and serve the US occupiers, the principal enemy of the Iraqi people.
It is about time we, the communists, start believing in the masses rather than trailing behind them, gesticulating and criticizing them or throwing up our arms in despair. It is high time that we recognize the objective reality of the class struggle and intervene in the interest of the Iraqi people which also correspond to that of the world proletariat.
Class-struggle in Iraq today entails resisting and driving out US-led occupying powers of that oppressed nation. This is not to claim that liberation from various forms of oppression and exploitation would spontaneously and automatically end. It also does not mean that monopoly capitalism or imperialism would inevitably be defeated and overthrown once and forever following US imperialist defeat.
But only by immersing ourselves in this resistance today would the masses be in contention for future power struggles. Active participation in the war of national resistance today, as this alone addresses the fundamental interest and aspiration of the Iraqi people, would open up opportunities to enable proletarian revolutionaries to build up political-military strength and eventually lead the future struggle for national liberation and new democracy.
Khaled Fahad said
The Iraqi People’s Resistance Movement
Comments on Sunsara Taylor’s article (Part1)
Introduction
In her article [1] comrade Taylor correctly emphasizes that there is an urgent need for another way to serve the fundamental interests of the majority of people in the world. And this cannot be achieved if communists tail other class forces and fail to build an independent revolutionary social force under the leadership of the proletariat. She calls upon the people in the US to confront and rise against its ever growing crimes in the Middle East and bring it to a halt. There is no doubt that comrade Taylor wants to bring forward truly liberating possibilities in the US and around the world. However, as has been discussed in this debate, there are major issues with the orientation of the article. Here, some of these issues are dealt with by focusing on the objective situation in Iraq .
The War of National Resistance
Comrade Taylor states: “In the face of an unjust war on Iraq and Afghanistan , there are both the just demands of the broad masses of people who oppose the US occupation and ambition to control the whole region, as well as the reactionary, theocratic opposition that reflects the interest of outmoded strata within those countries. The need to support the just demands of the people should not be conflated with supporting the reactionary fundamentalist forces, nor should the ideology and program of these fundamentalists be equated with the interests of the broad masses in the region.” [1]
She says “an unjust war on Iraq ”. What is an unjust war? In the context of Iraq it means the US has militarily attacked and occupied the country to subjugate the Iraqi people. It is true that this war has been waged against the people by US imperialism, it is a war of aggression and unjust. But that is not all. Since the occupation and because of the occupation, the masses have been waging a war against the occupiers, a war of national resistance.“The resistance is still gaining strength. Only judging by numbers they rose from some thousand now exceeding by far 100,000 fighters. Their combat capabilities has increased as well. They could also develop intelligence structures penetrating the Iraqi army, police and sometimes in the vicinities of the US army. All together the system of resistance includes some 400,000 people.” [2]
In spite of facing incredible difficulties and hardship, unprecedented suffering accompanied by a series of betrayals and splits, Iraqi people have courageously managed to build a powerful resistance movement to fight back. “The resistance is now a real popular movement; it is a culture among the people. Everybody contributes its share. And the fact that no government help us, also has its good side. If they would pay, then you always have corruption.”[2]
Comrade Taylor correctly writes about “the just demands of the broad masses of the people who oppose the US occupation”. But we need to grasp that Iraq is an oppressed country and Iraqis are an oppressed nation. Because of the occupation of the country by imperialism, the just demands of the people has changed to the just demands of the Iraqi nation. The occupation is serving the interests of the US ruling class, undermining the interests of the Iraqi nation. And since 20 March 2003, struggle for the just demands of the nation has grown into a powerful force, a broad united front of all classes supporting and waging a war of national resistance against the occupiers.
“Actually the resistance sprang up on a very grass root level to defend its identity against the enormous provocations of the US neo-colonialism. They were former soldiers, tribesmen, nationally and religiously inspired people who initiated actions in their local areas. It was neither foreigners nor Baathists who were the driving force of the inception, although Baathists were participating as well.” [2] Now different classes with different interests, some with completely opposite strategic interests are temporarily united to drive the US imperialism out of their country. Indeed, the nation is waging a just war against the colonisation and for the independence of Iraq.
The history of class struggle has shown that an unjust war creates its own opposite – a just war. Comrade Taylor correctly condemns the unjust war on Iraq, but does not recognise the Iraqi people’s just war against the US and British imperialists who have occupied their country.
Major qualitative leaps in the class struggle
The occupation was planned and its implementation started long before the US waged its second major war on Iraq. Military aggression and occupation which was initiated in March 2003 was the final stage of years of preparation to subjugate the Iraqi people to serve US strategic interests in the world. The 1991 Gulf War and partitioning of Iraq prepared the ground for the process of colonisation of the country which was officially announced in 1998 when in October that year the US Congress passed a policy to remove the regime, and in November, the Clinton administration adopted regime change in Iraq as the US ruling class policy. Then it was left to the George W Bush administration to carry out the final stage of this policy. [3]
Adopting the policy of changing the regime by the US rulers made a qualitative change in the class struggle in Iraq. It showed that US imperialism had completely broken its alliance with the ruling classes in Iraq for the joint exploitation and oppression of the people. Consequently, the US intensified its efforts to become the main force directly blocking the masses to determine their own regime and their own future. The most important right of the people is to determine their own political power. But in 1998 the US ruling class openly dictated to the Iraqi people that the US would determine who is going to rule over them. Thus a qualitative change took place in the class struggle where the US strove to take the dominant position within the reactionary pole in Iraq, sidelining the French and Russian imperialists to overthrow the semi-colonial regime of Saddam Hussein.
The occupation not only completed the process of colonisation, it also created another major leap in the class struggle in the country. Insurgent masses that had already learnt how to resist and were forged during many years of killer sanctions, division of the country and military attacks, found the opportunity to deal directly with the root cause of all their miseries- the world public enemy number one. Contrary to the US wishes and plans, dismantling the army and the security forces, the backbone of the state, created a favourable situation for the masses to organise themselves against the occupation forces much faster and broader.
Colossal organizational work was carried out at local levels by millions of people to resist the occupation. “Tribal” and family connections helped to link the resistance activities to other provinces. Preparation for the second battle of Fallujah and the battle itself showed the level of unity among the people and the quality of these networks.
Unity is the Key
Just as previous oppressor classes in history, divide and rule has been one of the major US policies in Iraq. “Actually, the US occupiers as well as the government imposed by them are pushing for this sectarian civil war… The US uses this as an argument to stay in Iraq as they claim they would be needed to settle this strife. There is, however, so much evidence that the intelligent services of the US and Iraq as well as the government of Iran are the real source of the violence.”[2]
However, due to the correct recognition of the principal enemy, there is a high level of unity among the masses and in spite of all their efforts, the US and British rulers have not been able to create 1980s Lebanon in Iraq. This shows that the principal contradiction has been correctly identified, and as much as the current subjective conditions allows, all the social forces that could be united have been united in addressing the principal contradiction – US imperialism.“Here and there, there might be some minor conflicts but in substance the broad masses on both sides [Sunnis and Shiites] insist that regardless of their confession they are Iraqis.”[2]
The occupation is serving the interests of the US ruling class and undermining even the interests of the majority of the comprador and big landlord classes many of whom are fighting back. Today, all the just demands of the Iraqi nation; political, economic, social, cultural, etc. directly depend on ending the occupation. The situation also entails unity with secondary contradictions – Baathists and Islamic Fundamentalist forces – that temporarily have the same objective orientation in addressing the principal contradiction.
The objective situation – occupation by imperialist forces – has compelled all the oppressed strata, many political organisations and social groups to awaken and unite. In spite of not having a single central command, access to vast material and financial resources and international support, and in fact, under numerous attacks and immense pressures, the Iraqi nation has organised a broad and powerful united front to sustain and develop its war of national resistance. By focusing on their principal enemy this united front has been able to win the hearts and minds of the people and block the US juggernaut. The war of national resistance has had a significant positive effect on class struggles around the world.
As comrade Harry Powell has pointed out; the resistance movement has exposed and discredited Bush, Blair and their imperialist regimes, severely limited the ability of Western imperialists to embark upon fresh military aggressions, demoralised their military personnel, undermined the confidence of the American and British people in ‘their’ governments, and most importantly, inspired the oppressed people around the world.
What is the problem?
Why doesn’t Comrade Taylor recognise the Iraqi people’s resistance movement as a just response to the imperialist occupation? Why doesn’t she recognise the numerous and substantial damages that this resistance movement has inflicted on imperialism, especially on the US and its strategic offensive against the people of the world?
There are two important reasons, firstly, her line is based on a pre-conceived supposition, namely “Crusading McWorld vs. Reactionary Jihad” and not on the objective situation. At the national level, it does not conform with the just demands of the Iraqi masses who are waging a war of national resistance to drive the imperialist occupiers out of their country. At the international level, it does not conform with the just demands of the masses who are struggling in different forms against their common enemy, imperialism. Consequently, this line alienates communists from the masses.
“Twenty four years of experience tell us that the right task, policy and style of work invariably conform with the demands of the masses at a given time and place and invariably strengthen our ties with the masses, and the wrong task, policy and style of work invariably disagree with the demands of the masses at the given time and place and invariably alienate us from the masses.”[4]
And secondly, her analysis is not based on identification of the principal contradiction and principal aspect of contradictions of class struggles she is referring to in her article. For example, “The Bush regime has committed crimes on a far greater scale and is by far the greater danger to humanity … but both [the US imperialism and Islamic Fundamentalism] are complete nightmares.” [1] (emphasis mine)
Defending the Iraqi nation against the imperialist aggression means recognising the legitimacy and justice of their war of national resistance. Legitimacy and justice from the point of view of the oppressed masses in Iraq and the whole world and their struggles for their liberation from the yoke of imperialism. We, communists, do not recognise any other point of view.
The war that is waged by the US imperialist class with the object of strengthening its global domination is a criminal war and should be utterly opposed. But the war that is waged by the oppressed Iraqi people after their country has been occupied by the imperialist forces, and is waged with the object of driving the occupiers out of their country, such a war is legitimate, just, and should be supported.
Identification of the principal contradiction
Whatever the composition of the resistance movement, for whatever class interest different groups within the organized section of the movement struggle, the resistance movement as a whole is fiercely fighting the US – the principal enemy of the Iraqi people. “Every section is responsible for itself, to organise its people, to train them, to plan the attacks, to raise money, etc. Also there have been taken some steps ahead. At the beginning there were hundreds of groups, but people understand the necessity of unity. Now we can say that there are eight main groups. What so far has not been achieved is a unified political command which remains one of the main tasks ahead.”[2]
This does not mean all the forces in the movement have the same long term interests, of course not. But these different class forces some even with completely opposite strategic interests are tactically united against the US and the occupation of Iraq. This is the objective situation today, where the principal contradiction is between US imperialism and the Iraqi nation.
In fact, like everything else, the real world divides into two. In our era, the era of Imperialism and Proletarian Revolution all polarizations in the world (except the temporarily periods leading to and including the World Wars) have ended up into the same two poles: the imperialist pole and the people’s pole. In general, reactionary classes in the oppressed countries belong to the imperialist pole. However, sections of reactionaries in a particular situation can temporarily oppose imperialists to pursue their own class interests.
Occupation of an oppressed country by the imperialist forces creates one of these particular situations, e.g. Iraq or Afghanistan. Also the power of revolutionary forces can create similar situation and split the reactionaries, e.g. Nepal [5].There, reactionary parties joined the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) to isolate the monarchy, which is supported by the US. In the context of Iraq today, the imperialist occupation is the main factor polarizing the society which has also split the Islamic Fundamentalists into two; one supporting and the other opposing the US.
Is the Iraqi people’s resistance movement a bad thing?
Comrade Taylor without evidence implies that the Islamic Fundamentalists are leading the resistance, therefore, this movement is a bad thing and cannot be supported. But in spite of continuous military, political and ideological attacks by the global imperialist system, including its client states and their international Media to divide and crush it, the resistance movement in Iraq has grown quantitatively and qualitatively to the level of sucking the US military machine into a quagmire and discrediting the US ruling class all over the world. This is a very good thing.
Today one cannot deny that the scale of the damages the resistance movement has inflicted on the US and British imperialists, nationally and internationally. Political credibility of leading factions of the ruling classes in these countries has hit the rock bottom. In spite of their desperate efforts big cracks have appeared in both ruling classes contributed hugely bringing down Blair, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rove, Libby, Gonzales, etc. This is a very good thing. According to their military commanders, the US and British military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are not only fatigued and overstretched but overall have serious problems recruiting personnel, especially combat soldiers. This is a very good thing.
The resistance movement has in fact temporarily stalled the US war machine on its path to massacre millions of more people and destroy many more countries. This is a very good thing. This movement has shown to the oppressed people of the world that the US imperialism cannot rape their countries and walk all over them without serious consequences. The people will stand up, unite, fight back and fight hard, because their most important demand is to determine their own state, hence their own destiny. This is a very good thing.
Even while engaging in armed conflict against the principal enemy, the Iraqi communists, revolutionaries and nationalists have correctly grasped and responded to the most important just demand of the broad masses. That is at this stage, it is vital to align with other class forces including Fundamentalists who temporarily have anti-US imperialist orientation. This is also a very good thing.
We, the communists, need to grasp the importance of defending the resistance movement, not only for its present role and for making revolution in Iraq , but also for building radical anti imperialist-war movements in the imperialist countries. We need to actively and openly support the Iraqi resistance movement all over the world. The orientation of the resistance movement in Iraq as a whole is objectively anti- imperialist and correct. It represents the national interest of the Iraqi people and the interest of people of the world struggling against the US imperialism. We need to grasp this powerful objective reality and on this basis learn from and support the Iraqi people’s resistance movement to advance the war of national resistance to their war of national liberation.
References
[1] “US imperialism, Islamic Fundamentalism … and the need for another way”, Revolution, Organ of the Revolutionary Communist party USA, No 92, June 2007.
[2] An Interview with Abduljabbar AlKubaysi, the General Secretary of the Iraqi Patriotic Front, MAOIST_REVOLUTION@yahoogroups.com, July 2007.
[3] Oil, Power & Empire, Iraq and the US Global Agenda, Larry Everest, Common Courage Press, 2004.
[4] Chairman Mao, On Coalition Government, Selected Works, Vol. 3, p265.
[5] The Worker, organ of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), No 11, July 2007.
Khaled Fahad said
The US Strategic Offensive and People’s Resistance
Comments on Sunsara Taylor’s Article (Part2)
The US Strategic Offensive
Riding on the back of globalization, intensifying exploitation of workers and peasants to make astronomical super profits and expanding political and military influence globally, the US , in collusion with other imperialist powers, mainly Britain , and with the support of their client states, is carrying out its strategic offensive against the people of the world to establish its empire. At this juncture, the main battleground is in the oppressed countries, targeting the masses in the Middle East , forcing a major political restructuring in the region.
Aggression against Afghanistan and Iraq has shown that the most important characteristics of the US strategic offensive is the war on the people which is being carried out under the pretext of “The War on Terror”. This war is a total war, a war on all fronts; military, political, intelligence, economic, ideological, cultural, psychological, environmental, informatics, etc., but principally military. This is also a long war, which will continue for decades to accomplish its strategic goal – to subdue the peoples of the world to the US ruling class.
Subjugating the oppressed people of the Middle East is inseparable from tarnishing their identity. Since Islam emerged 14 centuries ago, the Islamic beliefs and cultures have developed and merged with native beliefs and cultures, becoming an important part of the peoples’ identity. The imperialist global campaign of ideological, political and psychological attacks on hundreds of millions of people with Islamic beliefs has included depicting their prophet as a terrorist and Pope Benedict declaring Islam a violent religion.
These attacks are designed to complement the other aspects of the total war on the people, seeking to justify the imperialist aggression in the Middle East, aiming at undermining the integrity of the oppressed masses and the essence of their struggles against imperialism in the Islamic countries, creating an atmosphere of fear and mistrust to divide the people in the imperialist citadels, and also waging a religious and cultural war against Moslems to advance the military offensive.
However, the US strategic offensive has created its opposite – a global people’s resistance. Unprecedented demonstrations, especially in the imperialist countries, even before the occupation of Iraq , only showed the tip of the iceberg of the people’s resistance around the world. Also, the Iraqi people’s resistance movement has shown that responding correctly to the anti-imperialist demands of the masses is the key to developing an effective anti-imperialist resistance movement.
In her article [1], comrade Taylor correctly calls for a “resistance powerful enough to stop it” [the US aggression]. But she does not call for the people in the US and around the world to support the Iraqi people’s resistance movement, which has temporarily stopped the US war machine on its path to massacre millions of people. Why doesn’t she support the Iraqi people’s resistance movement?
Because instead of carrying out “concrete analysis of the concrete conditions”, she bases her analysis on the supposition of “Crusading McWorld vs. Reactionary Jihad”. As a result, people’s resistance movements in different countries in the Middle East such as Palestine, Lebanon, Afghanistan and especially in Iraq, are reduced to an “oppositional movement” with “a fundamentalist vision for the country” and consequently are rejected outright.
However, due to the quality and the quantity of the people’s resistance movement, Iraq, a small oppressed country, divided and under occupation, with it’s economy, infrastructure, military and social fabric very much destroyed and having no support from other countries, has obstructed the only superpower with not only the most powerful military and economy in human history but also the backing of other imperialist powers and nearly all reactionary states around the world.
A Frog in a Well
Comrade Taylor’s analysis ignores the fact that the US’s non-stop aggression against the Iraqi people since 1991 and then the occupation of the country in 2003 has created its opposite force – a united front of all classes in a form of national resistance. Analysis of the situation in Iraq can be scientific and useful, if and only if, one observes and analyses contradictions of the class struggle as they exist in the country today to resolve them.
“The dialectical world outlook teaches us primarily how to observe and analyse the movement of opposites in different things and, on the basis of such analysis, to indicate the methods for resolving contradictions. It is therefore most important for us to understand the law of contradiction in things in a concrete way.”[2]
However, Comrade Taylor’s analysis does not deal with the essence of the class struggle in Iraq to recognise the existence of the people’s resistance movement, and therefore, cannot synthesise that it is legitimate and just and should be supported. Wherever there is oppression, there is also resistance. The occupation of this battered, oppressed country by US imperialism has intensified the oppression of the people to an unprecedented level, creating a powerful people’s resistance. A massive people’s movement, which in spite of its organisational disunity is very much united against the principal enemy of the people and the sovereignty of the country.
Comrade Taylor does not analyse the objective situation dialectically, therefore she is unable to recognise the fact that many years of naked imperialist aggression and then occupation has created a resistance movement consisting of millions of the oppressed Iraqi masses who are actively involved with the war of national resistance against the US and British imperialists. This movement includes forces from all classes, where the reactionary classes are a very small minority and the fundamentalists are only a part.
Instead of understanding the laws of contradiction of the class struggle in Iraq concretely, the supposition of “Crusading McWorld vs. Reactionary Jihad” is applied to explain the situation. As a result, all fundamentalist forces, whether they are collaborating with the imperialist occupiers or fighting against them are arbitrarily put together and treated as one. This is two into one, and not one divides into two. Then the whole resistance movement is spontaneously reduced to a fundamentalist oppositional movement, which only reflects a part of reality, because the fundamentalists are only a part.
“In approaching a problem a Marxist should see the whole as well as the parts. A frog in a well says, “the sky is no bigger than the mouth of the well.” That is untrue, for the sky is not just the size of the mouth of the well. If is said, “A part of the sky is the size of the mouth of a well” that would be true, for it tallies with the facts.” [3]
Comrade Taylor without “concrete analysis of the concrete conditions” implies that the people’s resistance movement is led by the Islamic fundamentalists. It is true that Islam is playing an important role both in the resistance and the society, but Islam is not the determining factor in the class struggle in Iraq today and the occupation definitely is.
Indeed, there is a need for a thorough investigation of the class character of different forces, including the Islamic forces in the country, however, not all the Islamic forces are fundamentalists. There are also influential communist, revolutionary, nationalist and secular forces within the resistance movement. The polarisation of the society is based on the occupation of the country by the imperialist forces and not on any ideology or political program, as Comrade Taylor implies.
It is important to grasp that the main cause of the resistance’s rapid growth, persistence, unity and effectiveness, in spite of pounding blows and continuous immense pressure, is the right to self determination of the Iraqi nation, and not religion. Some Islamic fundamentalist forces who are opposing the imperialist occupation of Iraq today play a significant role among some sections of the society and the organised resistance and only a thorough and objective class analysis can show that the resistance movement in Iraq is dominated and led by these forces.
However, without an objective class analysis and on the basis of “Crusading McWorld vs. Reactionary Jihad”, Comrade Taylor treats the whole situation in Iraq as a contradiction between the US imperialism and Islamic fundamentalism. Therefore, she cannot identify the contradiction between the US imperialism and the Iraqi nation as the principal contradiction shaping the class struggle in Iraq today, and she cannot grasp that the injustice of the denial of the Iraqi people’s right to national self determination has been the burning motive behind their resistance movement.
Who is really threatening humanity?
Comrade Taylor states: “Increasingly, humanity is being confronted with two intolerable choices; Bush’s crusade for empire or reactionary Islamic fundamentalism response …”. [1]
It is true that today humanity is being confronted with a historically unprecedented concentration of military, political and economic power in the hands of a very few – the US imperialist ruling class. It is true that the US rulers are capable of wiping out humanity from the face of the Earth many times over. It is also true that the US juggernaut is in the process of carrying out its strategic offensive to dominate the world, and on its path has massacred millions of people and destroyed country after country.
But, is it true that humanity is increasingly being confronted with Islamic fundamentalism? Is it true that the Islamic fundamentalist forces have been able to amass military, political and economic power globally? Is it true that the Islamic fundamentalist ‘juggernaut’ is capable of wiping out humanity from the face of the Earth? Are the Islamic fundamentalist forces even united and acting as a unified force? Are they in the process of carrying out their strategic offensive to dominate the world? Are they, on their path, massacring millions of people and destroying many countries? The answer to all these questions is undoubtedly negative.
In addition to the US , Britain , Japan , France and Germany there are two new emerging powers on the world scene. Recent global events show that Russian imperialists have emerged from their political and economic crisis and are gaining strength, and China is also becoming a global power. But is there any Islamic fundamentalist state which is even remotely close to becoming a global power?
Again, the answer is undoubtedly negative, because even the most powerful Islamic fundamentalist states such as Iran or Saudi Arabia are semi-colonial “ Third World ” states serving the imperialists with no prospect of becoming a global power. Here, one can see that the supposition of “Crusading McWorld vs. Reactionary Jihad” has led to the extreme exaggeration of the power of the Islamic fundamentalist forces.
Contrary to the objective reality of the oppressed countries in the Middle East , Comrade Taylor treats different Islamic class forces, including revolutionary or nationalist Islamic forces as fundamentalists. Furthermore, by ignoring their opposite responses to the US strategic offensive, she does not distinguish between temporary orientations of different Islamic fundamentalist forces. She lumps all different Islamic class forces together, and treats them as fundamentalist. Then without any analysis, categorises this fragmented force not only as an imperialist power, but even as a superpower on a par with the US . The logical conclusion of her article is that humanity is increasingly confronted with two intolerable choices: the US Empire or the Islamic Empire.
Today, the Islamic fundamentalist forces do not play any significant role in China , India , Japan and the majority of the countries in Asia, in the countries of sub-Saharan Africa, in the continents of America , Europe and Australasia . And the peoples of these continents are not even being confronted with the choice of Islam, let alone Islamic fundamentalism. Indeed, Islamic fundamentalism does not play any significant role at all in the class struggles of the majority of the countries in the world. However, the US ’s strategic offensive is shaping the global politics and the US “War on Terror” – war on the people – is threatening humanity.
Comrade Taylor claims unequivocally that people in their hundreds of millions all over the world are gravitating to Islamic fundamentalism. She states: “Islamic fundamentalism, in effect, stepped into a kind of secular nationalist, revolutionary, and communist “leadership vacuum” on a world level.”[1]
She clearly states on a world level, not in the Middle East and a few other countries. However, in recent years for example in Latin and central American countries such as Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Chile, Peru, etc., secular Liberals, Social Democrats and even some nationalist forces with leftist social reform programs have come to power one after another and there is no sign of Islamic fundamentalists at all. Here, one can see that the situation in some Islamic countries is blown out of proportion and exaggerated to the world level to conform to the pre-conceived formulation of “Crusading McWorld vs. Reactionary Jihad”.
A brief look at the Middle East shows that a few Islamic fundamentalist states such as the regimes of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Iraq (fundamentalist factions who have capitulated) etc. , are in power, but because of openly serving the interests of US imperialism, these are highly unpopular. Some such as Hamas in Palestine and Hizbullah in Lebanon are sharing power, but are popular mainly because of fighting against Israel and the US .
The regime of Iran is unpopular in the country, but because of its anti US stance is popular among the masses, especially in the Middle East . The Taliban became unpopular shortly after coming to power, however, in the last few years mainly because of fighting against the occupation forces, it has become so popular in Afghanistan again that now the question is not if the Taliban will capture Kabul, but when, and in what form?
Like any other class forces, the Islamic fundamentalists have their own particularities, for example, apart from a few states the rest of them are organised in innumerable sects acting as parts of the opposition even in the Islamic countries. At this juncture, whether in state, sharing power or in the opposition, all Islamic fundamentalists are divided into two groups, one supporting and the other opposing the US strategic offensive.
Since the end of the 19th century, lopsided capitalist development and sustaining feudalism; sheer exploitation and naked oppression; despotism and open dictatorship; brutal suppression and rampant corruption, bribery and nepotism; fraudulence and misinformation, arrogance and contempt of the rulers; and many other lethal aspects of the imperialist system have been forced upon the masses in the Middle East by imperialism and its client states. But the masses have always resisted and struggled to change their situation.
All countries in the Middle East are riddled with deep rooted socio-economic problems where regeneration of poverty, disease, unemployment, alienation and regression by the imperialism and its client states have become inseparable aspects of these societies. Globalisation has ballooned the service sector and created a huge “black economy” including the arms, drugs and sex trades, transforming a large part of the working population into dealers, as well as deepening chronic youth unemployment, intensifying the class contradictions of already turbulent societies in the region.
Rapid deterioration of the quality of life under the rule of the imperialist system creating destitution and desperation for the masses has led to the cry of the masses for real solutions for a long time, but all in vain. Today, more than ever, whoever claims to have even some solutions and who temporarily fights against the US imperialism and its strategic offensive in the Middle East wins the support of the masses, and the Islamic fundamentalists are no exception.
The objective conditions of the economic crisis and instability created by the imperialist system and exacerbated by globalisation is at the root of both the surge of the inequalities and the people’s struggle. The subjective conditions of failure of the communists to come up with real solutions for the masses by establishing a revolutionary alternative through People’s War is at the root of the surge of the popularity of the other class forces including the Islamic fundamentalists.
Comrade Taylor even believes that there is a growing danger people in the US choose between crusading McWorld or Reactionary Jihad. She says: “… People in their hundreds of millions – in this country and around the world – must be presented with a third option, an option that refuses to choose between crusading McWorld or reactionary Jihad.” [1]
So it seems that in the US the influence of the Christian (or Islamic) fundamentalists is growing so rapidly that millions of people are converting to the Christian (or Islamic) fundamentalist’s political programs every month. Or perhaps she believes that the leaders of the Democratic Party are secretly converting to Christian (or Islamic) fundamentalism to challenge the Christian fundamentalist Republicans. In fact, it is none of the above. But these are possible outcomes of basing one’s analysis on the abstract supposition of “Crusading McWorld vs. Reactionary Jihad”.
Rejecting the people’s resistance
There are many factors which have contributed to the rise of Islamic fundamentalist forces in the Middle East . Indeed, there is an urgent need to investigate this phenomenon and its effects on different class struggles deeply. However, every form of Islamic fundamentalism is a constituent part of a class struggle in a particular country and within itself contains its own particular contradictions.
For example, the regimes of Saudi Arabia and Iran in spite of both being fundamentalist have their own histories and particularities – their major difference today is that one fully supports and the other temporarily and partially opposes the US . The particularities of different forms of Islamic fundamentalist forces in different countries need to be analysed, principally their stance and activities in relation to the US strategic offensive, only then can one proceed to grasp the role of Islamic Fundamentalism in the Middle East .
By generalising the role of different class forces without analysing their particularities, and instead relying on an abstract formula such as “Crusading McWorld vs. Reactionary Jihad”, it is not possible to identify the qualitatively different positions of different class forces, including the Islamic fundamentalists, concretely, let alone finding qualitatively different methods to deal with them. That is why Comrade Taylor ends up “unequivocally” rejecting both, the autocratic monarchy of Saudi Arabia , which is thoroughly devoted to and serving the US strategic offensive, and the Iraqi people’s resistance movement, which in fact has pulled the US war machine into a quagmire.
References
[1] US imperialism, Islamic fundamentalism … and the need for another way, Revolution No 91, organ of the Revolutionary communist party ( USA ), June 2007.
[2] Chairman Mao, On Contradiction, Selected Works, Vol. 1, p315.
[3] Chairman Mao, On Tactics Against Japanese Imperialism, Selected Works, Vol. 1, p159.
[4] Chairman Mao, On the People’s Democratic Dictatorship, Selected Works, Vol. 4, p.422.
Jaroslav said
Comrades Khaled & Stephani, thank you for your excellent articles, they cut right into the key issues. Especially Khaled (no offense to SB), in-depth without getting lost in details.
I agree that we need to support the resistance movement, considered in its entirety & what it is objectively doing. This does not mean upholding every slogan or every action of every faction, but it does mean actively putting out the view that this armed resistance is a good thing, that the truth is that it both has the overall support of the people & is in their basic immediate interests, that we as internationalists & anti-imperialists should celebrate their victories which are also defeats for the US.
On that note, I think this line of RCPUSA is part of its declining internationalism which others have noted mainly in relation to Nepal. Basically if it’s not the same exact line as RCPUSA, they seem to no longer want anything to do with it. This is why (in my estimation) they’ve erased the links page from their website. This is why they no longer report on the Philippines & its revolution — despite even that the PW & the party there is now making more advances & seriously struggling over / rethinking what I (& RCPUSA) considered to be errors when the RCPUSA was still publicly supporting & reporting on them. That is why they are silent on Nepal & India. That is why they are content to merely condemn US actions in Iraq, with nothing but this thing from Sunsara to even masquerade as a comment on or mention of the resistance against these condemnable US actions. They wouldn’t even have done that if not for ISO (whose position is also wrong in a different way). That is why they are silent on Afghanistan, not even talking about US actions there let alone any forms of people trying to stop it.
However I think we should be careful to universalise this correct line on Iraq in Khaled’s article. Is there a qualitative difference between situations in Iraq, Afghanistan, & Iran, in relation to anti-US resistance (future predictions thereof in case of Iran)? In Iraq we merely have fundamentalists as one participant in resistance (& as one participant in collaboration), & the fundamentalists have no history of state power. In Afghanistan we have fundamentalists as overwhelming majority of active armed resistance (correct me if I’m wrong), as well as overwhelming majority of collaboration, & various factions of fundamentalists have held state power since 1992. In Iran the fundamentalists — which appear to be a quite cohesive single force, unlike in Iraq & Afghanistan — have held state power since 1979 & have at times collaborated with the US, at times defied it to small degrees.
This orientation of supporting people’s just resistance in Iraq can easily be wrongly distorted into the simplistic notion of ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’. Especially as for Iran, where the US invasion has not even occurred yet, it’s quite reasonable to identify IRI as the current main enemy, & to look at an invasion as mainly an opportunity to make revolution, not mainly as an opportunity to make a partnership with IRI & restore the status quo in some silly repeat of 1979.
I think this article by Khaled is a good example of what we should want in a real revolutionary newspaper in the US, not merely some condemnation of US attacks & a vague call to stop them. This is not just my opinion of what I want, but also the feedback I’ve gotten over the years from broad masses of people towards this stuff in the RCPUSA newspaper. People look to communists for class analysis & for news of real fighters of the people, not for any shit you can read in New York Times set to different phrasing.
NSPF said
Regardless of what one thinks of Sunsara Taylor’s article and RCP’s position, the arguments put forward by Khaled Fahad have some important flaws on theoretical level.
His concrete analysis of the concrete situation also seems to be a case of omiton, oversimplification and laking historical vigour. As such, it is a recepe for long term disaster for Iraqi people long after the occupiers are kiked out.
Right now I’m a bit preoccupied, so I will come back later to substantiate my opinion.
wprm (britain) said
Summary Of Debate On Resistance To Imperialism (Part 2)
This summary is of the second part of an ongoing debate concerning the correct Maoist line on resistance to imperialist aggression against oppressed countries.
The second summary covers the period October-November 07. It takes in some important contributions. It summarises debates 16-23, although it also includes Debate 14, which wasn’t included in the previous summary of the debate.
The debate began following an article by Comrade Sunsara Taylor in Revolution the organ of the Revolutionary Communist Party (USA) published on June 10th 2007, which was a reply to an article by American Trotskyists entitled “Standing Up To Islamophobia’”. This debate was described in Part I of the summary. People debated the question of whether or not Maoists should support the Iraqi Resistance. They also discussed the line of the Communist Party of Iran (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist) that the Iranian regime would remain the principal enemy of the Iranian people, even in the event of US military attack or invasion.
It was stated in the first part of the summary: ‘Two lines developed. One, proposed by the RCP (USA) is termed the ‘McWorld vs.Jihad’ line which argues that the world increasingly faces a choice between US imperialism and Islamic Fundamentalism and that both should be opposed, even when Islamic Fundamentalists are involved in resistance to US imperialism.’
The other line is termed ‘The National Resistance’ line. This line stresses the importance of wars of national resistance. In particular it promotes the line that, based on the objective situation, Maoists should form a broad national united front, which could include reactionaries, to oppose an invasion of an oppressed nation by an imperialist country.’
In this part, the debate deepens and takes in issues such as Lenin’s line on anti-imperialist struggles and whether the contradiction between Crusading McWorld and Reactionary Jihad represents a contradiction of a new type between different reactionary forces.
Imperialism And The Principal Contradiction
The Crusading McWorld Vs. Reactionary Jihad Line
An article from Revolution newspaper attempts to relate the ‘War On Terror’ to the USA’s history of imperialism (’If You Want To Understand The Rise of Islamic Fundamentalism and the “War On Terror,” You Need To Know:’ September 26 2007-Debate 14).
It states that the US is grounded in a history of slavery, genocide against Native Americans and the seizure of territory from Mexico. It states that after World War 2, the US presided over a system of ‘neo-colonialism’ whereby nominally independent countries were dominated and exploited by the US. The article states that ‘It is impossible to understand the real reasons for the growth of Islamic Fundamentalism, and the deep hatred for the U.S., in the Middle East and other parts of the world, without being aware of and fully taking into account this whole bloody history of plunders and repression which the U.S. has carried out, and continues to carry out.’
A group of Canadian revolutionaries sent a post in which they gave their comments on the debate (see Debate 18). They argued against Comrade Harry Powell’s support for Stalin’s line on national resistance (see Debate 13). Harry had characterised Stalin’s line on anti-imperialist struggles as focusing on their objective impact on the political situation and only looking secondarily at their subjective intentions.
The Canadian revolutionaries argued that Stalin’s approach to the national question ‘leaves out much of Lenin’s nuance and complexity’.
They point out that Lenin spoke of the need for a struggle ‘against the clergy and other influential reactionary and medieval elements’ in oppressed nations. He also spoke of ‘the need to combat Pan-Islamism and similar trends’ which combined a liberation movement against western imperialists with attempts to strengthen the position of feudal and religious forces. They also quote Lenin as saying ‘we, as Communists, should and will support bourgeois-liberation movements in the colonies only when they are genuinely revolutionary, and when their exponents do not hinder our work of educating and organising in a revolutionary spirit the peasantry and the masses of the exploited’.
They summarise that Lenin ’sees the struggle for national liberation as being linked to the proletarian revolution, where each pole must reinforce the other.’
The Canadian revolutionaries question the approach that states that the principal contradiction in the world today is the contradiction between imperialism and the oppressed nations. They say that the Iraq war represents a contradiction between an imperialist country and an oppressed country but also reflects a contradiction between imperialists. Also, it represents a new type of contradiction which does not fit into the four contradictions that Mao identified in the world. This is the contradiction between ‘certain imperialist states and Islamic fundamentalism’.
They argue further that Islamic resistance forces may strike a blow against some imperialists but this does not necessarily weaken imperialism as a whole or in the long-run because Islamists in power are capable of serving imperialism.
They argue later that ‘The common element of Islamism is its reactionary and stupid world-view.’
The National Resistance Line
Anti-Imperialist Action have written a leaflet about resistance to imperialism which was distributed in Britain (see Debate 16).
It stated that ‘It is obvious that the main enemy at present of the Iraqi people is not Islam-as claimed by the WCPI [Worker Communist Party Of Iraq]. and their Western supporters-but American and British imperialism.’
In Comrade Maoist 1’s response to the statement by the Canadian revolutionaries, Maoist 1 stated that Stalin in the ‘Foundations of Leninism’ does not have a different line from Lenin. Both Lenin and Stalin agree that the key question about any national liberation movement is ‘whether it is progressive from a global point of view’. Maoist 1 points out that Lenin was arguing that the Communist International should use its power to try and ensure communists led anti-imperialist struggles. Maoist 1 point out that communists in the 21st century are not in a position to make such a demand. Also, Maoist 1 stated that Lenin was stressing this point because western powers were giving ‘independence’ to some oppressed countries while ensuring that they remained under neo-colonial control by western powers and with an anti-Soviet foreign policy. The point Lenin was making, according to Maoist 1, was that those leading national liberation struggles who followed such a pro-imperialist line should only receive Soviet assistance when they were prepared to change their line.
In ‘Methodological Issues’ (see Debate 21) Comrade Harry Powell also responds to the statement by the Canadian Revolutionaries. Harry says that Lenin in ‘A Caricature of Marxism and “Imperialist Economism” ‘ argues that communists should not support an uprising by ‘reactionary classes’ against imperialism but then goes onto qualify this by saying : “[we cannot] withhold support from any serious popular struggle against national oppression.”
Comrade Powell refers to the uncertainty of the Canadian revolutionaries about whether the contradiction between imperialism and the oppressed nations is the correct one in the current time. Powell argues that in Afghanistan and Iraq this contradiction indeed determines the nature of the conflicts that are occurring. In Iran, Powell argues that a contradiction between the Islamic regime and the people exists also. If this is the Principal contradiction then Maoists must argue that the people should struggle to overthrow the regime as their main task. However, at a certain point mounting imperialist aggression against Iran will become principal and then the emphasis of Maoists should be opposing this aggression ‘without abandoning their aim of overthrowing the IRI.’ He states that if imperialists attack then ‘it would be correct to call for national unity against the common foe. Imperialist occupation is likely to be more difficult to get rid of than the IRI.’
Comrade Powell goes onto state that a materialist analysis of Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan would establish what class forces and political forces are active in the struggles in these countries. On the basis of such analysis it will develop tactics to advance communism. Powell argues that such a materialist analysis would lead Maoists to ‘call for qualified support for the existing reactionary movements leading the armed struggle against imperialism in these countries. At the same time we call for communists in those countries to get organised and engage in armed struggle against imperialism and in the case of Iran against the Islamic Republic.’ Powell says this is not about tailing reactionaries but simply recognising the blows that the armed resistances in Iraq and Afghanistan are making against the imperialist powers, blows that are to the advantage of oppressed peoples across the world, he believes. However, Powell does not advocate ‘qualified support’ for the Iranian regime, instead calling for armed struggle against it.
Powell contrasts his ‘materialist’ analysis of the situation in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran with what he describes as an ‘idealist’ analysis. This analysis begins not from the actual situation but from what some Maoists would like to see-anti-imperialist fronts under communist leadership. He states that invasion makes the situation in oppressed countries much worse and that a line that states that imperialism and reactionary resistance are equivalents does not take this material fact into account.
Crusading McWorld vs. Reactionary Jihad
The Crusading McWorld vs. Reactionary Jihad Line
In ‘If You Want To Understand The Rise Of Islamic Fundamentalism and the “War On Terror,” You Need to Know:” (Debate 14) in Revolution newspaper, the writer states: ‘It is impossible to understand the real reasons for the growth of Islamic Fundamentalism, and the deep; hatred for the U.S., in the Middle East and other parts of the world, without being aware of and fully taking into account this whole bloody history of plunder and repression which the U.S. has carried out, and continues to carry out. And it is impossible to break out of the current very bad and potentially even more disastrous dynamic-where U.S. imperialism and reactionary Jihadism continue to reinforce each other even while opposing each other-without a mass movement that challenges this whole dynamic.’
The Communist Party of Iran (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist)-CPI (MLM) sent a congratulatory message to the Revolutionary Communist Party of Canada (M-L-M) on its founding (see Debate 19). In this message the CPI-MLM stated that ‘In the process of colonising and consolidating its hegemony, the United States enters into conflicts with other imperialist powers and reactionaries such as the Iraqi, Iranian and Afghanistan regimes. However, these conflicts are nothing but contradictions between imperialists and reactionaries. They have nothing to do with the contradiction between capitalism and the working class or the contradiction between imperialism and oppressed peoples.’ They also state ‘Communists and revolutionary forces should not, under any condition, take sides in the conflict between imperialism and reaction.’
Bob Avakian in ‘Why Religious Fundamentalism Is Growing In Today’s World And What Is The Alternative’ (Debate 28) states:
“What we see in contention here with Jihad on the one hand and McWorld/McCrusade on the other hand, are historically outmoded strata among colonized and oppressed humanity up against historically outmoded ruling strata of the imperialist system. These two reactionary poles reinforce each other, even while opposing each other. If you side with either of these ‘outmodeds,’ you ended up strengthening both.”
The National Resistance Line
Comrade Bahadur in his comment on the congratulatory message sent by the CPI (MLM) to the Canadian Party (Debate 19) challenges the CPI (MLM)’s statement that the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and the possible invasion of Iran have no bearing on the contradictions between capitalism and the working class or imperialism and the oppressed peoples.
Comrade Bahadur states that ‘Once the U.S. imperialists and their allies directly invade and occupy these countries, they come into direct conflict with the people of these countries.’
He goes onto develop this point by talking of the death and destruction that the Iraqi and Afghan people have suffered due to invasion and occupation.
Mao’s Theory Of National Resistance
The Crusading McWorld vs. Reactionary Jihad Line
Comrade Paul Newton (Debate 17) talks about Mao’s doctrine of building a united front to fight a war of national resistance. He asks how the CPI (MLM) could make a united front with the Iranian regime given they do not have enough of a power base in the country and given the history of brutal repression of communists by the Iranian regime.
The National Resistance Line
Comrade Maoist 1 (Debate 17) agrees that the Iranian Maoists could not form a military alliance with the Iranian regime in their current situation. However, Comrade Maoist 1 queries why this leads the CPI (MLM) to declare that the Iranian regime should remain the main enemy of the Iranian people in the event of an attack by the US.
Comrade Bahadur talks about Mao’s theory of contradiction. He quotes Mao who states that in the development of a thing there are many contradictions, ‘one of them is necessarily the principal contradiction whose existence and development determine or influence the existence and development of the other contradictions.’ Comrade Bahadur further quotes Mao to show how it is the job of revolutionaries to discover the principal contradiction. As an example he states that when Saddam was a puppet of the West then the principal contradiction in Iraq was between the people and their repressive ruler. However when the US and Britain invaded Iraq the death and destruction this created meant that the contradiction between the invaders and the people became principal and the contradiction between the people and Saddam’s regime became secondary.
The Iraqi Resistance
The Crusading McWorld vs. Reactionary Jihad Line
The Canadian revolutionaries argue that in Iraq ‘there are many different trends, some of who focus on opposing the occupation while others attack other Iraqi forces to manoeuvre for a greater share of power in the new puppet regime.’ They argue that the defeat of the US in Iraq would not automatically lead to advances for peoples struggles. They argue that, depending on the circumstances, it could just strengthen other imperialists or strengthen reactionaries across the world.
They state that the only thing which can guarantee a positive outcome in Iraq is ‘an organized ‘third pole’ aside from the Islamists and the imperialists.’
The National Resistance Line
Anti-Imperialist Action in their leaflet ‘Resistance Or Collaboration?’ states that the Baathists are aiming for ‘a strong Pan-Arab state while Islamists dream of a Muslim world.’ They state that these conscious aims are reactionary but their resistance objectively weakens imperialism. Anti-Imperialist Action condemns the Iraqi Communist Party for working with the occupiers. It criticises the Worker Communist Party of Iraq for denouncing the armed resistance in Iraq and states that both these parties have been calling on the imperialist forces to crush the resistance.
In ‘Methodological Issues’, Comrade Harry Powell talks about Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran, noting that proletarian parties are weak in such countries. He states that these parties could only be brought forth with ‘a protracted process of political and military struggle’. He goes on to state that ‘At present the proletariat in these countries is a “class in itself”-divided by religion and ethnicity-and not yet a “class for itself”. The task of communists is to bring about such a transformation and not to speak as if this is already the case.’
Comrade Harry Powell then argues that if communists in these countries condemn the resistance in these countries then they will be seen ‘as stooges of imperialism and thus legitimate targets for the resistance.’
In ‘The Hidden Facts: Statement By The 1920 Revolution Brigades, Iraq’ (Debate 22) : the 1920 Brigades state that important ministries in the puppet occupation government, such as the Interior and Defence were handed over to Iranian backed militias. The 1920 Brigades see this as part of a ’secret agreement’ between the US and Iran to foment sectarian violence to weaken the resistance.
They state that despite the ‘reservations’ people may have about the Iraqi Resistance they have taught the world that oppressed nations and societies can sustain a self-sufficient resistance movement.
They predict that capitalist economies orientated towards high consumption will fail after a period in which they try to sustain themselves through global exploitation and slavery. They see the Iraqi Resistance as part of a process by which the fall of capitalism will be achieved. They express support for the anti-globalisation and peace movements.
They say that after Bush leaves office there will be an opportunity for the US to negotiate with the Iraqi Resistance for a withdrawal of troops.
The Threatened Attack on Iran
The Crusading McWorld vs. Reactionary Jihad Line
The Communist Party of Iran (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist) in their greeting to the Revolutionary Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist) in Debate 19 discusses how the Islamic regime came to power with the suport of the imperialist powers as a means of crushing the ‘democratic revolution of 1978-79.’, including repression against workers, peasants and national minorities. The CPI (MLM) states that the Islamic regime in Iran maintains military and economic relations with the United states.
The National Resistance Line
Bahadur in Debate 19 agrees that the Iranian regime like other reactionaries in history have killed large numbers of revolutionaries and ordinary people but he implies that their brutality will not safeguard their position. Bahadur predicts that when the imperialists attack Iran part of the reactionary ruling class will try to hang onto their position by siding with the US. Others will take a more patriotic line.
Bahadur argues that a ‘Maoist dynamic armed United Front’ should be formed which will unite against the invaders and unite with everyone that can be united with. The Maoists should insist on leadership in the United Front and the War of Resistance against the invaders. Comrade Bahadur deals with the objection that the Maoists have no army by stating: ‘The correct line will bring forth the people’s resistance and people’s soldiers and much more, everything!’
The Maoist Task
The Crusading McWorld vs. Reactionary Jihad Line
The Canadian revoutionaries argue that to really resist imperialism, oppressed countries need to free themselves from feudal oppression and the oppression of women. Otherwise the economy will not be able to develop independently and will remain dependent on imperialist capital. Also, the people will not support the regime and will not be prepared to defend it against imperialist domination. They argue that Islamists, fail to follow such an approach and therefore act as an obstacle to self-determination, even if self-determination is what they advocate. They argue that Maoists should unite with the disgust of the masses towards such practices as stoning women, in countries where Islam is influential .
The Communist Party Of Iran (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist) in its congratulatory message to the Canadian revolutionaries states that
‘Under the conditions of a serious crisis in the world when imperialist powers and reactionaries are in disarray, we witness the rise of innumerable spontaneous struggles throughout the world. These resistances are fragmented. The historical mission of the communist movement is to unite and lead these struggles in order to carry out proletarian revolutions.’
The National Resistance Line
Comrade Harry Powell in ‘Methodological Issues’ (Debate 21) argues that the central task is ‘in uniting and mobilising the people to oppose imperialism and local reaction. Furthermore we know from past experience that only a disciplined revolutionary party is capable of carrying out this task….It is all very well to talk, as some of the American comrades do, about “bringing forward the role of the proletariat” but this cannot be done except through a process of political and military struggle.’
Comrade Bahdur writes in Debate 19 that as the era of imperialism emerged, the contradiction between colonial and non-colonial powers intensified, along with the contradiction between capitalists and workers and the contradcition between capitalist countries owing to their uneven development. Comrade Bahadur states that:
‘Thus, resistance against the invaders is a matter of concern to all Iraqis and first and foremost the revolutionary Maoist Iraqis. Resistance must be their element!’
Conclusion
The supporters of the Crusading McWorld vs. Reactionary Jihad line continue to ask how reactionary resistance to imperialism can lead to an objectively progressive result. They argue that it will strengthen reactionaries internationally or strengthen other imperialists instead.
Comrade Harry Powell believes that resistance led by reactionaries can lead to the weakening of imperialism but points out that the people need a proletarian party that can unite the whole people. Comrade Bahadur argues that the Maoist party should demand leadership of any United Front against foreign attack that is made with reactionaries.
A difference has emerged between those who argue that an attack by imperialists on a reactionary regime has no bearing on the people and they should not take sides in it and those who argue that when an imperialist country attacks an oppressed nation, this constitutes a direct attack on the people, irrespective of the reactionary nature of the regime.
Maz said
The characterization of the debate as being between ‘national resistance’ and ‘McWorld-Jihad’ is dishonest. Much of the arguments and groups arguing against the ‘national resistance’ line also explicitly oppose the ‘McWorld-Jihad’ thesis.
Mike E said
Maz: calling the characterization “dishonest” is pretty harsh.
Do you want to elaborate a bit more on how you see the this third argument that is left out?