The fact of the matter is that in most, if not all, Arab and Muslim countries, women are discriminated against as a matter of course, from citizenship laws to inheritance to paternalistic familial structures and domestic abuse. This is clearly not a purely Muslim or Arab affair, since, with perhaps the exception of Scandinavia, it exists in various degrees throughout the world. But the fact of the matter is that even if it’s often used as a pro-Israel or neocon club to bludgeon Arabs on other, unrelated issues like the Israel/Palestine conflict, that doesn’t make the charge less true.
I look at it as being similar to Soviet charges against US treatment of black citizens. Did pointing out the Jim Crow laws make Siberian gulags or Eastern European oppression any more acceptable? Of course not, although it may have scored Moscow some points in the world arena by pointing out American hypocrisy. At the end of the day, though, the answer to Stalinist accusations of racism should have been the civil rights movement, not a denial of segregation. Likewise, to my mind, the oppression of women and minorities and homosexuals in the Mideast is not directly related to the Arab/Israeli conflict, but it is very important to me, and I don’t see that there’s any contradiction in my struggle to fight for my wife’s right to marry who she pleases, legally own land and work at any job she wants to in Lebanon and her right to return to and live in Haifa.
I don’t think that the knee-jerk reaction that many people, especially those who don’t live in the region, have to dismiss any and all criticism of Arab or Muslim states and/or societies as hasbara for Israel is helpful at all. In fact, it plays into the rhetoric of pro west puppet Arab states that justifies theocratic apartheid tier laws in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE and censorship laws where literally slavery is legal. For my part, an equitable solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict should be about self determination for Palestinians, not about supporting an overarching religion at all cost.
The point is not to attack Islam it is to not pretend it is some noble cause above all. Its okay to critique, it's not perfect, especially as a Marxist it is okay to do so.
>>2222201>Siberian gulags or Eastern European oppression any more acceptablebut they were more than acceptable, they were straight up needed and good.
>make the charge less true.hamas has a lot of women as cadres, iran despite its stupid morality police and clothing laws have lot of well educated women with good social standing and financial independence. Yet in our medias all the enemies of the west are depicted as bad as saudi arabia, which we avoid attacking and even take their money so they can spread their poisonous ultra conservative version of islam.
>huh religion badno shit, doesnt matter, all discourse against it in the west mainstream is explicitly imperialist propaganda, and as such should be ignored. We of course support secularization, but its not the job of people in the west to push for this. Its our job to prevent our government to attack them and point out the hypocrisy of the discourse when the worst theocratic fucks are the allies of the western empire.
>>2222318Also this isn't what I talked about at all. Israel is 10000000x worse than Gaza. You are not addressing my points in the post and deflecting. Nowhere have I said to invade any countries at all. Nowhere have I said to regime change. Nowhere have I said to shit on the people.
You are creating a caricature of me for simply giving the slightest critique of literally slave states like Qatar Saudi Arabia and uae which I mentioned in my post. You parlayed this into meaning somehow I am complaining about gay people in Gaza. So lazy
>>2222201Attacking Islam as "Islam" is dangerous now since you really risk to be pwned by European fascists.
Attacking Islam as "religion" is meaningless due to overly-abstract nature of "religion" in general (and you still risk to be pwned by radlibs while doing so)
Attack Islam as "relic of feudalism", having in mind as your goal building West-independent capitlaism in the Middle East at worst, socilaism in there at best. That would be my advice to you.
>>2222342Did you know that most here are atheists?
I wonder why there is a serious lack of Western media that attacks Nazis in Ukraine and fundamental Christians in the US government 🤔
But let's talk about the Muslims, for they get genocided in Gaza and Yemen, just asking questions btw
>>2222351My post literally directly goes after Qatar, uae and Saudi Arabia. What Saudi Arabia is doing to Yemen is genocide. I want 0 weapons sent to them.
Again you are creating a caricature of me of views i do not hold. The countries you said are the exact things I critiqued on my original post.
>>2222351Also I consider the Ukraine government a Nazi tier regime that should have zero support and Christian nationalism is disgusting and fascist as well
I literally agree with all these things
>>2222201This
>>2222311If you don't understand how these types of criticism are central in justifying decimation of people, then you need to learn history.
REMINDER the issue isn't Islam. It's poverty, corruption, etc which is DIRECTLY tied to the world imperialist system. No G7 means these problems would quickly go away. But we live in a colonial world.
>>2222324>>2222339>>2222311It really is impossible for /leftypol/ mfs to comprehend what they're reading isn't it? OP isn't saying anything that MENA communists and even secular bourgeois nationalists haven't been saying for decades.
>>2222472>It's poverty, corruption, etcThe Gulf Monarchies are some of the richest countries in the world and still treat their women like shit.
>>2222587Did you just copypaste the entire url instead of just linking the post/thread number like some fucking boomer? Can you make it any more obvious that you are a fucking shill and outside agitator trying to spread your racism here? We literally living a second 9/11 situation, like we have actual Muslims in Western countries being snatched by unmarked vans, having their legal visas revoked and being deported over night for writing articles in student newspapers.
How can you be so fucking tone deaf in this current situation with your stupid preoccupation? Jesus Christ.
>>2222531>when you learned history in an american public education system Did you also learn that Muslims inherently crave yellow cake uranium?
>>2222533Read basic theory, then we talk.
>>2222587Then scroll down to where you're BTFOd.
You don't seem to understand why people are rejecting your favorite hate boner subject.
Read the article carefully. Theory is important.
>>2222477 >>2222505>The Gulf Monarchies are some of the richest countries in the world and still treat their women like shit.I mean, there's still extreme wealth disparity and corruption with seemingly little political freedom for the vast majority, so I'd say the Gulf Monarchies are some of the richest
families in the world rather than richest countries.
>>2222594I am not spreading racism retard. I have attended various protest myself to protest against the genocide going on, and donate money when I can to organizations, I read a Quran myself to understand Muslims, I never discriminate against them at all. I do what I can do within my power as a simple American who is not wealthy. I can't do much
However as I said islamist do great harm in Muslim countries to the people with the restrictions they set, how they fuck over others in their country with theocratic laws and don't allow others to openly practice their faith as well as enforce extremely patriarchal structure
None of this makes me want to invade these countries. None of this makes me support right wingers. None of this makes we want regime change. None of this makes me against Muslims. You somehow can't accept all these ideas together
I absolutely despise Christian nationalist and zionist.
>>2222596>Did you also learn that Muslims inherently crave yellow cake uranium?I don't think Muslims inherently crave anything, but I do think that Islam in its most common iterations actively promotes reactionary patriarchal structures that the anti-colonial forces of yesteryear fought against. You can say that these are the product of feudal remnants and modern capitalist-imperialist relations, but all you're saying then is that the fight patriarchy must proceed in lockstep with the fight against imperialism and class oppression, in which case you agree with OP. The fact that Islamists have replaced communists and secular nationalists as the leading anti-imperialist force in the Middle East is a step backwards, and we shouldn't pretend otherwise even if we critically support them.
>>2222582>What exactly are you critiquing here? He spelled it out for you. Just because imperialists use reactionary elements of Arab or Muslim culture to justify intervention doesn't mean we should pretend such elements don't exist, or worse yet justify them.
>And why are you completely oblivious as to how this comes across in the post-9/11 world?He's clearly not oblivious because he addressed it directly.
>>2222611>doesn't mean we should pretend such elements don't exist, or worse yet justify them.Well no one is saying that's what should happen, but asserting it's just simply Islam that is the problem while discounting the economic factors because the Prince of Saudi Arabia is *personally* very wealthy, means that while you're not
actively supporting reactionary intervention, you are at least displaying neutrality or even acceptance of the narratives those interventions are based on, which in turn, leads to the problem you've raised where Islamists have replaced other kinds of movements.
Because other movements with more lofty goals will require solidarity with other movements, something harder to achieve when you're like
>Yeah I don't agree with the US bombing you, but their rightoids have a point that you're not very nice people >>2222618Dude, to this day. German media, mainstream so-called center left politicians, and progressive liberals are 100% on board with islamophobia. OP is a dumbass and can't understand where his islamophobic ideas come from. They think it's a product of intense historical research and critical analysis of said research, but it's nothing much besides the propaganda you're talking about.
>>2222634>literal feudal lords>slaves>concrete political economic reasons to maintain reactionary religious beliefs <but they're rich! Karl Marxism said that they can't be reactionary if they're rich!>>2222650>>2222643You're a right wing Nazi.
Mask off moment.
>>2222349The first intelligent contribution in the thread if from a fucking Trot. What the fuck.
>>2222383>>2222472>>2222527You mean on the richest countries in the ME, where citzens get a flat check from the state made by selling oil???
>>2222505Classic sabo W
>>2222523The conditions on the UAE, Quatar and Saudi Arabia are extremely good though, especially for their citzens. Europeans emigrate to the gulf in search of highly paid jobs, not the other way around that applies to the rest of the ME.
The only argument you could make is that the local feudal systems have integrated capitalism in their functioning and as such they're still stuck in a sort of technologically advanced middle ages, but don't seem to be saying that, maybe
>>2222599 is
>>2222547Including in islam
>>2222605Muh alliance (it literally never worked)
>>2222661You speak reason and hence will be ignored.
>>2222668Fuck off neocon. We don't want to bomb brown people. Deal with it.
>>2222624>but asserting it's just simply Islam that is the problem while discounting the economic factors because the Prince of Saudi Arabia is *personally* very wealthy, means that while you're not actively supporting reactionary intervention, you are at least displaying neutralityThat doesn't follow at all, especially when you're actively engaged in anti-imperialist agitation. Again, citing the economic factors which lead to these patriarchal structures is just admitting that social revolution and women's liberation go hand in hand.
>Yeah I don't agree with the US bombing you, but their rightoids have a point that you're not very nice people It's not rightoids. Again, progressive forces in MENA have been saying this exact thing for a very long time. What's next you're going to call the PFLP Zionists for supporting women's liberation and criticizing Hamas on this basis?
>>2222629>who thinks the most pressing issue right now is talking about the reactionary tendencies of Judaism is telling about themselves by doing so?It's one thread man, so no, I hardly think that making the exact same criticisms of Islam that MENA communists have been making since forever is not telling on yourself.
>>2222661Religious fundamentalism is just low hanging fruit for movements aimed at coping with shit rather than overcoming it. If your problem is low level of development and any development you have gets bombed by the globally wealthy, then yeah a movement that is, extremely militaristic, exploitative of men as slaves and soldiers and exploitative of women as brood mares and further subordinated slaves to their enslaved husbands, is pretty standard.
It's not a thing unique to Islam, because similar attitudes prevail in the poorer areas of the United States where it's inexplicably expected that men who have not been blessed with birth in a region of high economic development are nevertheless expected to die for their country in a way that college graduates aren't, with the expectation that their wives should be chaste, loyal and raise the kids and tend to the home alone to facilitate the "heroism" of their husbands performing their "tour of duty" and if that soldier comes home, drinks and beats his wife while quoting every passage in the bible that entitles him to such behaviour, well that is his right as a born again Christian "affected" by the terrors of calling in air strikes on civilian areas from a position of relative safety. So not only would it be insensitive to criticise him for being such a despot at home, you're expected to thank that person for their service.
>>2222201Congrats, retard, for literally having a micro-Goebbels in your mind.
>Did pointing out the Jim Crow laws make Siberian gulags or Eastern European oppression any more acceptable? The gulags were abolished after Stalin’s era. Segregation and the Civil Rights Movement in the U.S. did not temporally overlap with active gulags. More critically, you assume (from an unstated liberal ethical framework) that Soviet penal colonies were somehow “worse” than Jim Crow. Worse for whom? By what metric? You freeze these systems in a single moment, stripping them of historical context. This is positivist thinking—you deny dialectical development and reduce oppression to a competition of atrocities.
>Likewise, to my mind, the oppression of women and minorities and homosexuals in the Mideast is not directly related to the Arab/Israeli conflict, but it is very important to me, and I don’t see that there’s any contradiction in my struggle to fight for my wife’s [liberal] right[s]Of course you don’t. Your ideology inherently equates a specific western cultural moment with universal progress, while ignoring the material reality of nations under siege by global imperialism. How can meaningful liberation for FLINTA, LGBTQ+ individuals, or minorities occur when their societies are suffocated by sanctions, embargoes, and perpetual warfare? Demanding that besieged nations adopt Western cultural norms—under threat of bombardment or economic strangulation—is not solidarity. It is moral imperialism.
You fail to grasp that abstract “universal” rights, as defined by capitalist powers, often serve as pretexts for intervention. First, we “liberalize” these nations into client states, make them all a big Israel from the Euphrates to the Nile; then, perhaps, we’ll permit them to dream of socialism. This is the Martovite delusion: prioritizing bourgeois reforms over revolution.
This is not to say criticism of regressive cultural practices is invalid. But timing and agency matter. The Soviets modernized Central Asia after securing state power. The Kurds advanced women’s rights after establishing autonomous governance. Liberation cannot be imposed at gunpoint by NGOs or drones. It must emerge from organized struggle against imperialism—not as a precondition for sovereignty, but as its outcome.
>>2222671>>2222698Y'all islamophobes need to FUCKING READ
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/>>2222710>The conditions on the UAE, Quatar and Saudi Arabia are extremely good though, especially for their citzensWhat in the name of Jesus Christ did you just fucking type.
>>2222713You post this garbage like Lenin didn't make it part of the programme to get religion to fuck off.
>>2222714>Marx: X religion can't talk shit about Y religion because all religions suck<leftards: this means religions must be upholded!!Do you even read the things you post yourself?
>>2222713>Of course you don’t. Your ideology inherently equates a specific western cultural moment with universal progress, while ignoring the material reality of nations under siege by global imperialism. How can meaningful liberation for FLINTA, LGBTQ+ individuals, or minorities occur when their societies are suffocated by sanctions, embargoes, and perpetual warfare?The USSR, PRC, Cuba, etc all managed to make enormous progress against similar reactionary relics in these areas despite similar or worse conditions. It's absurd to act like the sanctions on Iran are the reason why it has such patriarchal tendencies. Cuba is poor, Cuba has sanctions, Cuba is threatened with regime change, and yet it has one of the most progressive family codes in the world.
>You fail to grasp that abstract “universal” rights, as defined by capitalist powers, often serve as pretexts for intervention. He doesn't fail to grasp this, he directly addressed it and simply said that this fact alone does not mean that struggles can't and shouldn't be waged for women's liberation in these countries.
>>2222713>actual good an-fem posta literal miracle
posting in a blessed thread
>>2222713>>2222726Have these morons ever read any Marx or Lenin? Lenin: religion to the party is not a private affair, the party has to carry out atheistic propaganda, religion is an ideological reflection of bourgeois society, religion is propped up by the bourgeoisie.
Lenin even sets limits on what can be discussed, lol. If you're a Marxist who is religious then you're not a very good Marxist. 😂
>>2222713Fucking based. mfw picrel
>>2222732Name calling is the only thing you do read.
>>2222721Read it again until you understand it.
>>2222737Either you deny history or you don't know it. Which is it?
>>2222745Reading comprehension: 0
>>2222698>especially when you're actively engaged in anti-imperialist agitation. This is just you saying that though, there's no way to understand the veracity of this agitation when you're hand-waving away the thread by asserting that the Gulf Monarchies are rich and thus economics aren't a factor here.
>Again, citing the economic factors which lead to these patriarchal structures is just admitting that social revolution and women's liberation go hand in hand. No problem with that, but smashing Islam in MENA isn't women's liberation necessarily, if we passively tut towards the destruction of, say Iran, on the basis that it's an islamist hell hole for women and thus not worth preventing but there isn't a social revolution primed to replace the current Iranian government, then the situation just becomes a different kind of exploitation of women due to the instability and ruination of society (yes even one that is still at medieval levels of social development).
>Again, progressive forces in MENA have been saying this exact thing for a very long time.No doubt, but often the sum total of that is just throwing fuel on to the fire of western imperialism and reaction, of course that's not
their problem but it is very much up to us to tread carefully with how that progressiveness within MENA stands to affect the region compared to how the exact same language used by western neocons/imperialists/libs stand to affect the region.
>>2222707>Religious fundamentalism is just low hanging fruit for movements aimed at coping with shit rather than overcoming it … It's not a thing unique to IslamWell there's a whole trend of RETVRN stuff in the "West" which is trying to cope with feelings of anomie and that the modern world isn't all that it's cracked up to be, and I think there's something similar at work in MENA countries.
There are some other factors. One is that religious fundamentalism has been used by governments to counter left-wing radicalism. This was also done in the Middle East, and Saudi Arabia played a special role in this regard (in alliance with the United States). Then there was the establishment of a second fundamentalist regime in Iran, which strongly opposed the others. There is also the history of secular governments (the USSR and the U.S.) launching wars in the neighborhood (the USSR did invade Afghanistan). And there's also the role of Israel which claims to be a "Jewish state."
There are some who say that the social base of religious fundamentalism is among the middle classes. There are manufacturers, shopkeepers, artisans and farmers. But fundamentalism also mobilizes a part of the proletariat and semi-proletariat. In Iran, bourgeois nationalists and communists failed due to a variety of factors that allowed religious fundamentalists to mobilize a distressed middle class (with a base in petit-bourgeois bazaar merchants) to overthrow the Shah and break off relations with the U.S., which could be seen as a historically "necessary" task, but the fundamentalist petty-bourgeois leadership blocked progressive reforms and led Iran toward reaction. The ideology and political program of the Islamic fundamentalists was basically reactionary.
>Our position on the subject of womens liberation is based on a number of understandings: First: There should be nothing less than complete equality for women as human beings. In the PFLP, we begin with the scientific belief that the question of equality between men and women has nothing to do with biological differences or with women's abilities in general. In the broad historical context this inequality is a passing sickness. We should not surrender to this matter of inequality. >We struggle for our liberation knowing that imperialism will and must pass because it is based on the exploitation of man by his fellow man. In the same way, with the same enthusiasm, we must struggle against inequality between men and women, until the complete liberation of women>At present, the Palestinian revolution provides the most suitable objective conditions for the process of women's liberation… The Palestinian revolution provides the suitable conditions for the beginning of the process … of women's liberation and the crystallization of the dialectical relationship between the liberation of women and the liberation of Palestine.t. George Habash
http://pflp-documents.org/documents/WomensDay-March1982.pdfI am once again asking /leftypol/ to actually study the positions of communists in the countries they want to defend from imperialism.
>>2222759Wasn't Hitchens a trot that supported the war on Iraq on humanitarian "progressive" grounds because Muslims are
subhuman culturally undeveloped?
>>2222753It is what I mean. Read the fucking text. If all you could gather from it was that "x religion can't criticize y religion because they're all bad and suck", I can assure you, you did not understand even the basic premises.
>>2222740How is this even relevant? Nobody is defending religion. The absolute reading comprehension ….
Egyptian that grew up muslim here,
>>2222201>>2222321>>2222505>>2222531>>2222533>>2222611Objectively and indisputably correct. The biggest reason misogynist attitudes are pervasive in Muslim countries is Islam itself. It's simply permanently baked in to the system of beliefs.
This does not justify Western imperialism, obviously. However, anyone who defends this is completely out of touch with actual MENA leftists. Anyone who's lived here will tell you that most reactionary tendencies have Islam as a major throughline
>>2222772Again, no one is defending religion. What is being criticized here is the dumbass islamophobia by OP and others here.
>>2222776Another fucking moron. Explain how misogyny is less prevalent in certain christian and even Muslim countries vs others. Christianity is also inherently extremely misogyntic but somehow lost it's edge as time went by. Explain it.
>>2222734https://redsails.org/an-ruge/>Nothing prevents us, therefore, from linking our criticism to a criticism of politics, from taking sides in politics, i.e., from entering into real struggles and identifying ourselves in them. This does not mean that we will confront the world with new doctrinaire principles and proclaim: “Here is the truth, kneel down before it!” We will develop new principles for the world out of the world’s existing principles. We shall not say: “Abandon your struggles, they are mere folly; let us provide you with true battle slogans.” Instead, we shall simply show the world why it is struggling, and that this consciousness is something it must acquire, whether it wishes to or not.>>2222771<We struggle for our liberation knowing that imperialism will and must passOf course. But it would be out of time and out of place for, say, a western communist to take up a Palestinian revolutionary programme. It seems a bit larpy. Think of it like saying "White lives matter, too" when someone says "Black lives matter." We say "Women's liberation!" and someone replies "Palestinian women need liberation, too." It really seems like a intersection of an anarchistic "critique of all systems" and the general lib-left "free free palestine" crowd. I could be misinterpertating your post, though.
>>2222776>anyone who defends this is completely out of touch with actual MENA leftistsNo one is defending this, it's just for western imperialists when they say they want to smash the islamist government, we shouldn't also forget that's still western imperialists saying they want to smash the government of another nation, that should always be opposed. It's very much not the case that MENA leftists and western "progressives" want the same thing, despite saying the same things, there is a huge difference between a successful movement lead by MENA leftists against an Islamist government and western progressives shrugging that perhaps the US bombing said Islamist government isn't the
worst thing to come out of imperialism if women will
probably get more rights in the absence of the existing Islamist government.
>>2222786That's part of it. Good job for getting the absolute most basic premise of the article.
I can't be bothered to text too much so I'll copy from wikipedia
>The essay criticizes two retarded anon's by Marx's fellow leftypolers, on the attempt by muslims to achieve political emancipation in the west and in middle eastern countries. OP argued that Muslim countries could achieve political emancipation only by relinquishing their particular religious consciousness since political emancipation requires a secular state; OP assumes that there is not any "space" remaining for social identities such as religion. According to OP, such religious demands are incompatible with the idea of the "Rights of Man" (and also the rights of LGBT etc and just abstract rights that are undefined in the OP and elsewhere). True political emancipation, for OP, requires the abolition of religion.
>Marx uses OP's dumbass post as an opportunity for presenting his own analysis of liberal rights, arguing that OP is mistaken in his assumption that in a "secular state", religion will no longer play a prominent role in social life. Marx gives the pervasiveness of religion in the United States (and all other imperialist countries as others have done ITT) as an example, which, unlike Iran, had no state religion. In Marx's analysis, the "secular state" is not opposed to religion, but rather actually presupposes it. The removal of religious or property qualifications for citizens does not mean the abolition of religion or property, but only introduces a way of regarding individuals in abstraction from them.[3]Not stated in the wiki summary is the observation of how religion is subordinate to political economic needs. Islam mutates as much as any other religion, based on it's society's ideological needs.
>>2222792That's not what I said, dumbass. Why are christian societies not misogynistic if their religion is just as shit as the Muslim one?
>>2222806Your pictures agree more with me than with you. The third picture is directly criticising you. It literally mocks your position "down with religion". Did you read what you posted?
>>2222819Again, no one is saying religion is good, dumbass. It just fucking is.
>>2222806Yeah but mine is actually relevant to the point that you cannot impose a programme from outside while you just keep on ranting about religion being a private party thing (okay? no one is talking about this btw) making two mistakes 1) thinking your leftist microsects is actually a party that has state power and 2) thinking that you're somehow enlightened to be an atheist in the west (lol) not even considering what it meant to be
godless (literally the russian word for atheist) in a tsarist monarchist, built upon orthodoxy. like, think for a second.
>>2222830Why are they less religious? I'm asking a systemic question. Not a "because they stopped believing lmao".
>>2222834Bad faith posting. Reported.
>>2222787>Explain how misogyny is less prevalent in certain christian and even Muslim countries vs others. Islam being inherently misogynist != all misogyny deriving from Islam
>Christianity is also inherently extremely misogyntic but somehow lost it's edge as time went by. Explain it.<lost its edge as """time went by"""What, you think Christianity lost relevance simply because the year on the calendar changed? Material conditions habibi. The shittier strains of Christianity are still prevalent in more impoverished parts of the world, and Islam's "edge" wasn't as "sharp" (whatever that means) when the Muslim empire was wealthier.
It's not that there's an inherent link between misogyny and poverty, but there _is_ an inherent link between poverty and the ability to shed 1,400 year old ideas concocted by a sex-crazed schizophrenic. It's easier to live with a boot on your face if you embrace the story about everything being made fair in the afterlife. This attitude acts as 'cultural cement' that frustrates any collective introspection about norms and traditions.
>>2222847>All we are telling you is that 99% of Western leftists that have grown up after 9/11 will think you are a chud, a wrecker or a fed.Why would I give a fuck about leftoids when I am a communist?
>>2222842As opposed to associating any critique of religion with racism or zionism.
I think it's funny that those accused of being stalinists, dengists, multipolaristas, ziggers, etc etc are the same ones that are BTFOing the "peace loving" "anti-campist" islamophobic imperial-core chauvinists.
At least everyone's being consistent :)
>>2222848Thank you IMF and Heritage foundation for your contributions to this thread.
>>2222866The former too, retard. The vast majority of the peripheral left agrees with the former. It's only the western chauvinistic left and the petit booj academic left that agrees with the latter.
STFU with your Brownie points.
>>2222874>Why would I care about this?Because you are involved in a social movement that requires getting on with broad groups of people with only class position being the glue.
In theory of course, it's very clear you are an internet aesthetic leftist.
>with perhaps the exception of ScandinaviaGlad to see the whole PR/propaganda/branding thing is working out, muh taxpayer's monies payed for it
https://www.theperspective.se/2022/04/26/article/the-nordic-paradox-violence-against-women-in-gender-equal-societies/<The Nordic countries are considered to be the most gender equal in Europe, with Sweden, Finland and Denmark consistently ranking among the top 5 on the European Gender Equality Index. Yet, 32 percent of Danish women, 30 percent of Finish women and 28 percent of Swedish women aged 15 or older have experienced physical or sexual intimate partner violence (IPV)—a stark contrast to an EU-average of 22 percent. Similarly, the occurrence of psychological partner violence as well as violence by non-partners against women in these countries is higher than elsewhere in the EU.Don't drink the kool-aid, comrades
>>2222881>>2222880You're right! Let's just pretend we're Nazis instead. It's not like anything matters, right?
Fucking idiots.
>>2222882Thank you. I knew the list was short.
>>2222883Exactly.
>>2222887Your idealist ideology is not even communist. Marx literally BTFOd it nearly two centuries ago. Why are you angry you get pushback on a COMMUNIST imageboard.
>>2222908Fuck anon. You're absolutely right. We must copy what previous revolutionaries have advocated for without any consideration on context. In fact, we should be proactive and not only kick them out of the party, but kill them.
I am now an anti-campist. We must bomb Iran for the good of its people.
>>2222920>I am now an anti-campist. We must bomb Iran for the good of its people.what is it with channers and why can they only argue with made up shit noone said
>>2222917lol right the communist line on religion depends on state power. pro-religion without state power, anti-religion after. very smart
>>2222920it's like, hello? is there a brain up there? once a mass movement, a truly mass movement develops you
will have to learn to work with millions of people that literally have no idea what any of this marxist bullshit means. but worse, anticampists pretend that they're arguing on
organizational principles of some future proleterian/communist party about religion when the OP was about a
cultural war justifying menshevik stagism. this is just blantant nonsense and in bad faith what is going on.
>>2222920>>2222929Sorry for the bad faith post, but honestly these people are so tiring. Posting as an argument something Lenin said regarding his concrete conditions more than 100 years ago, about a communist party, which is not even what is being discussed here, as an appeal to authority to justify the absolutely idealist position that apparently Lenin mocked, and an illiterate anon didn't even realize when they posted it as a rebuttal:
>>2222806>>2222923Is it even that? Seems the unifying principle is aligning with G7/NATO interests.
>>2222947They have no interest in engaging with theory, history, or actual praxis. At least one of the three would be nice.
>>2222955My problem with western leftists, and dear Moffin here is a prime example, is that they are staunch social Democrats which align with western imperialism. All they care about is "improving the conditions of the proletariat". They have no real conception of what building socialism is, nor what it entails, and much less any interest in such.
I believe that's why they hear "women are oppressed in Iraq by Saddam" shit and they immediately fall into line. How dare saddam-lovers be against the female Iraqi proletariat. Repeat ad infinitum for literally all of the West's enemies.
Prime example! >>2222961Reposted to correct spelling and I can't edit posts without deleting them.
>>2222811>(Rule 14)So Rule 14 is enforced, just not for Moffin' and his Discord buddies littering threads with snarky Reddit-tier one-liners.
>>2222936>If this thread as made pre 10/7 I would have taken it serrieously, but the timing is clearly hasbara.I know. It's pretty interesting seeing "Communists" talking like 2000s Neocons isn't it?
>Yes the muslim would is reactionary, its because anytime these people try to develop beyond Fuedlaism Amerikkka and Pissrael bomb them back to the stone age.Thing is, Texas is actually more authoritarian and reactionary than Malaysia, Indonesia or the UAE but its a part of the Enlightened West, so you won't have the "Anti-Campists" calling them savages.
>>2222969>so you won't have the "Anti-Campists" calling them savagesYeah bro I'm sure OP is a huge fan of Christian conservatives sin Texas.
>>2222971>Repeat ad infinitum for literally all of the West's enemies. Prime example!They're just showing you a mirror image of the nonsense you spout. No, criticizing the patriarchal tendencies that are expressed explicitly in Islam and actively promoted by Islamists doesn't mean you support imperialist attacks on those countries. Just like opposing imperialist attacks on those countries doesn't mean you support every aspect of their policies. It's all just retarded strawmanning and hysteria, none of you are making any effort to engage with what people are actually saying.
>>2222971Aktualy Saddam, Islamists, Kurdish nationalists, and the US all killed female proles
>>2222605I'm just waiting to see who of the former I should critically support
>>2222988>Deferring to them is the next best thing.But what does that actually mean? To what end? Because if it's just making the connection between
>MENA Leftists: Islam is irreconcilably anti-women>Random Rightoid Cultural Warrior: Islam is irreconcilably anti-women>Agent Kochinski enjoyer: Islam is irreconcilably anti-women and thinking they're all basically just saying the same thing, can Random Rightoid Cultural Warrior and Agent Kochinski Enjoyer also just claim they're merely deferring to MENA Leftist when they then say the only solution is to bomb them and bomb them again until the islamism just kinda dissipates
>>2223002>can Random Rightoid Cultural Warrior and Agent Kochinski Enjoyer also just claim they're merely deferring to MENA Leftist when they then say the only solution is to bomb them and bomb them again until the islamism just kinda dissipatesNo because MENA leftists don't support Western intervention as a solution to the reactionary tendencies of Islam. That's not adopting their position, it's just a superficial similarity driven by entirely different motivations, arrived at through different reasoning, and deployed for entirely different ends.
>>2223005>End that and then we can discuss womens rights in baghdad.This sort of stageism is ahistorical. Mao didn't say "Well let's defeat US imperialism in East Asia before we carry out women's liberation in China."
>>2223012>rights in baghdad.This sort of stageism is ahistorical. Mao didn't say "Well let's defeat US imperialism in East Asia before we carry out women's liberation in China."
Prolly because he was more worried about Japanese imperialism. Which he defeated and allowed women their half of the sky.
>>2223002> when they then say the only solution is to bomb them and bomb them again until the islamism just kinda dissipatesDid anyone here advocate for that? Where? When?
>>2223004Thank god someone is making an actual point
>>2223012>entirely different motivations, arrived at through different reasoning, and deployed for entirely different ends. Right, but it's also quite likely that the motivations of both RRCW and AKE in this example broadly make up the entire western understanding of Islam in MENA and thus surely we should be opposing the conclusion (i.e interventionism, aka imperialism) so that the motivations of MENA Leftists have the time and space to prevail?
If so, then I don't see what OP or yourself is saying that does anything towards that goal.
>>2223014An anon called islamists subhuman.
And that's the issue with criticising black people culture in the US too. You'll quickly find yourself in good company. Same with any marginalized group. Imagine thinking discourse exists in a context, wild concept.
By the way, those calling Islam reactionary meanwhile Iran is a progressive force in the area, despite being a theocracy. Can the westoids here deal with such a contradiction? How can Islam be progressive sometimes and reactionary sometimes? How has liberationary movements in latam be reactionary yet communist at the same time?
But yeah, let's criticize the minority marginalized religion and ethnicities instead. Any Americans want to criticize Indians? How about any poorly socialized westerners using an image board, want to criticize women? Super nuanced, I swear!
Not surprising that the incel general is filled with schizo misogynistic liberal drivel. Did you know Indian men rape women en mass? Totally objective facts :^) wait till you hear about black american crime statistcs! I'm just asking questions! Black american culture is inherently reactionary! :^)
>>2223024>and thus surely we should be opposing the conclusion (i.e interventionism, aka imperialism) so that the motivations of MENA Leftists have the time and space to prevail?Yes, and OP specifically opposed western intervention in MENA, just saying that this shouldn't come with a refusal to engage with legitimate criticisms of Islamic patriarchy, e.g. those coming from MENA leftists.
>>2223019>Prolly because he was more worried about Japanese imperialism.That analogy would only be applicable to countries actually occupied by an imperialist force, so maybe Palestine but not Iran. Even still, the PFLP holds that women's liberation can and should be fought for even under conditions of occupation.
>>2223035Uh… retard kun you know that the pedo, misogyny and prostitution laws are being pushed by the unpopular bourgeois regime your country installed right? So why the fuck would you defend them? If you're so worried about dehumanisation don't act like proles here are content with it because it's le part of our culture and we don't know any better. Instead of pointing the class conflict at play (which your country is taking sides in) you lumb us with our ruling class like the average third worldist, no different than the liberal narratives you detest so much of the orient being one homogenous enitity.
Can't believe people still believe in clash of civilizations nonsense in 2025
>>2223031> An anon called islamists subhuman. You mean the post with a big fat "USER IS BANNED"?
> And that's the issue with criticising black people culture in the US too. You'll quickly find yourself in good company. Same with any marginalized group. Imagine thinking discourse exists in a context, wild concept.Anon, we aren't spreading propaganda to the large western masses right now, we're on leftypol dot fucking org
>>2223038>with legitimate criticisms of Islamic patriarchy, e.g. those coming from MENA leftists. Well then that's a false pretence because broadly speaking, I see the point being made that Islamism is not reason enough to support or express neutrality towards Western Imperialsm, which then gets disparaged thus as some kind of zealous adoration of religion and an a refusal to engage with criticisms of it. Especially when you're posting stuff like
>so maybe Palestine but not Iran.As though Iran isn't on the knife edge to fall to the same fate as Palestine, Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, etc because the PFLP says it's possible, when you know, they could be wrong because that's no longer a discussion of region, affluence or religion, but just historical development.
>>22230501. Never said it was part of your culture.
2. I agree with you so idk what you're trying to say.
Like, I don't live there. I believe if my government stopped sticking their dicks in the M.E and funding warlords you're nation would secularize and develop naturally. Politically the best thing for a burger to do is advocate ending the wars and coups. Then its on you and your people to overthrow your bourgeois, just like its up to burgers to overthrow theirs.
>>2223056>I see the point being made that Islamism is not reason enough to support or express neutrality towards Western ImperialsmThat's a strawman though, since even OP expressed opposition to it.
>As though Iran isn't on the knife edge to fall to the same fate as Palestine, Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, etcAgain, many other countries were under similar conditions and yet still carried out decisive action towards women's liberation. The USSR in the early 1920s was on extremely shaky ground, they still forged ahead with emancipating women. Cuba today is arguably in an even more precarious situation than Iran, but it still makes a concerted effort to adopt progressive social policies. In Vietnam, the CPV worked towards promoting gender equality even as the Americans were bombing them and occupying half the country. Once again, the assertion that social conservatism is a necessary outcome of imperialist siege is completely ahistorical.
>>2223060>That's a strawman though, since even OP expressed opposition to it.It's not really, because saying something like
>Look I'm opposed to western interventionism BUT……. Islam is pretty bad! You can't ignore thatIsn't saying anything, what's his point? The OP is a strawman arguing against some mythical leftist who seems to want prevent western imperialism but has somehow lost his way and thinks imperialism must be opposed because Islam is a noble cause. Does that realistically exist? Honestly?
>Again, many other countries were under similar conditions and yet still carried out decisive action towards women's liberation. The more disturbing part is that this all leads you to make a counter assertion that there can't be any excuses for Iran or indeed any nation and that Women's liberation can occur
even under occupation which Iran currently aren't. So what you're really suggesting is that Iran suffering a collapse in the face of Western Imperialism needn't be a bad thing since Women's Liberation isn't happening now, but it might under foreign occupation.
>>2223075>The OP is a strawman arguing against some mythical leftist who seems to want prevent western imperialism but has somehow lost his way and thinks imperialism must be opposed because Islam is a noble cause. Does that realistically exist? Honestly?No, but you have people who will constantly downplay or deny the existence of blatantly reactionary policies because a government is under siege from imperialism, or else make lame excuses for it.
>So what you're really suggesting is that Iran suffering a collapse in the face of Western Imperialism needn't be a bad thing since Women's Liberation isn't happening now, but it might under foreign occupation.That's a wild leap in logic. I'm just saying that the mere fact of Iran's being under siege by imperialism doesn't justify their reactionary policies towards women or make it some kind of necessity, since many other countries also under siege have moved in the opposite direction. If anything these policies are actually undermining their resistance to imperialism by creating an obvious source of opposition for imperialists to exploit. E.g. Cuban women and queer people are far less likely to be drawn to imperialist promises of social liberalization if they already feel that their current government is working for them and protecting their rights. By comparison queer people and women in Iran are far more likely to see an appeal of regime change because their government treats them relatively poorly.
>>2223083Why? We've got the assertion that because vanguard ML parties rightly made women's liberation a defining component of the nations they were founding after a victorious revolution, that some how relates to Iran which is not currently led by a leftist vanguard party and not likely to be
simply by virtue of removing an Islamist government, if a different kind of reactionary or comprador government comes to power.
Followed up by insisting that although Iran is not currently under occupation (and thus presumably in a better position than ML parties that just defeated occupation?), Women's Liberation can and should be sought even under foreign occupation.
Why would that be the point? It really can only be read that Sabo believes that Iran is better off under foreign occupation
>>2223114The only religion simps here are the anti-islam morons that have a reddit tier understanding of religion and ascribe to it some mystical hitlerian power.
Anti-campists really be like
>Islam is inherently reactionaryBreeeh what the fuck is this lib shit lmao.
>Lenin said religion is bad!>>2223123Wdym, I love western intervention! Free Iran!
>>2223153This was in 2020 retarded zigger
>>2223136 and it's going on every year
The ONLY real grassroots opposition to the regime is that of Iranian workers.
>>2223202>>2223204You're illiterate. Sorry anon. You don't understand basic theory and your knowledge of history is as shallow as can be. I doubt you have ever done praxis of any sort either. Theory-less praxis (if you can even call it praxis) is better than no praxis at all.
So you don't know the theory, nor history, nor do any communist activities. How are you a communist?
>>2223189Yeah we know very well your brand of socialism, although last time at least you were clear that you had nothing to do with Mark
>>2223204Why consider that a W tho?
>>2223228> You're illiterate< Socialists don't want to give lip service nor "support" workers. >>2223153For what its worth sabo I don't think youre advocating for regime change or that you're critiquing in bad faith. I think you're pulling the cart before the horse.
>National bourgeois government destroys local communist movement>There's no longer any local communist movement anywhere close to taking state power>So we must now support this national bourgeois government because there is no realistic alternative>Even though that same government is what's preventing such an alternative from existingUnfortunately thats the situation. I don't think you're wrong Iran would be far better off socially liberlising. Especially in the face of imperialism. Will they? Prolly not and I don't see how any revolution can take place without swinging open the door for every Tom, dick and Omer to take advantage of the situation. Its not that social conservatism is a force thats naturally better at resisting occupation. In fact I think its proven time and time again to be the worst way to resist it as you pointed out all the people you alienate. It also just makes society less dynamic, adaptable and easier to infiltrate. Sadly It's just the one that took control at the time and revolution under siege and or occupation makes the proposition for revolution untenable.
>>2222201>fight for my wife’s right to marry who she pleases, legally own landThis is the problem. There is still a "wife" who is "married" and "owns land". So there will be families with individual households and plots of land. As long as that is the case you will always have individual men investing their individual resources in individual women (it rarely flows the other way since men cannot share the burdens of pregnancy, breastfeeding, menstruation, etc).
When you make an investment within a Capitalist society you MUST get a return on that investment, since the community will not cover your losses. Combine that with nuclear families and inherited property and men MUST verify the paternity of their children and, if possible, get domestic/support labour out of their wives as well. Not doing so is defeat - the winners are the men who are best at controlling women. Trying to keep this structure while also liberating women thus presents an inescapable contradiction - you want individual investment from men while also forbidding the activities required for them to recover their investment.
Liberal Democracies are currently suffering the consequences of this contradiction in the form of very low marriage rates and high divorce rates. A vast number of children are then raised by a single mother with very little support from the community, entrenching existing inequality. The overall birthrate has also dropped below replacement, causing the average age of the population to rise, which stores up a pensions crisis for the future.
Unsurprisingly, reactionary voices then gain traction and persuade a lot of people that we should go back to the "good old days". As the contradictions in the system unfold we can expect this number to increase, eventually reaching critical mass and bringing a reversal of popular sentiment back to an even more extreme Patriarchy than we had before. It is my understanding that the Islamic world underwent a similar shift after the Mongolian conquests, but you probably know more about that than me.
So ultimately the Liberalisation of attitudes to women will bring it's opposite due to internal contradictions, unless those contradictions are resolved by abolition of their causes - marriage, nuclear family and inheritance of fixed assets. Doing anything to advance women's rights before family and inheritance is restructured is not only futile, but actually hastens the reactionary reversal and thus achieves the exact opposite of equality.
This is why you must NEVER listen to Liberals. They can only produce more of the problems they claim to be solving, because they do not have a mature understanding of the material conditions that produce the problem in the first place.
>>2223118>No, but you have people who will constantly downplay or deny the existence of blatantly reactionary policies because a government is under siege from imperialism, or else make lame excuses for it. Who is denying it? People say that resisting imperialism as Iran currently exists should be the priority and we can have a debate about that, but claiming that
anyone is denying the existence of reactionary Islamism in Iran is just unhinged.
>since many other countries also under siege have moved in the opposite directionYeah but those nations were defining themselves under the leadership of a communist vanguard coming out of liberation from occupation, it's not an applicable situation to Iran.
>If anything these policies are actually undermining their resistance to imperialism by creating an obvious source of opposition for imperialists to exploit. E.g. Cuban women and queer people are far less likely to be drawn to imperialist promises of social liberalization if they already feel that their current government is working for them and protecting their rights. By comparison queer people and women in Iran are far more likely to see an appeal of regime change because their government treats them relatively poorly.It's an unfortunate reality that sexual minorities are small minorities, expecting them to be able to achieve anything in such a reactionary society is essentially a suicide mission and again, simply trying to remove the current Islamist promises absolutely nothing about the outcome in terms of social liberalism even if you align yourself with the imperialists.
>>2223127>I'm simply saying that women's liberation is achievable or can at least be worked towards under conditions of both siege and occupation. It doesn't have to wait until all imperialist threats are defeated.Right but you're also correctly saying it's not going to happen under an Islamist government, so it can happen under foreign occupation, but it's not going to happen under an Islamist government, so therefore what is preferable?
>>2223277Live in larger groups instead of just an atomised family. Raise children communally as co-guardians. Hold all fixed assets in common.
If this sounds a lot like a tribe, that's because it is. This was the living structure for primitive Socialism, so we will need a more advanced form of it to achieve post-industrial Socialism.
At the end of the day, when it comes to conflict, unity is held in high regard and for very good reason. Historically, that unity is achieved by creating an image of what a person of a given nation ought to be and essentially forcing (or at least strongly encouraging) everyone to adopt that image, thus creating a valid but by no means ideal sense of unity based on everyone being basically identical (i,e we all have this or that in common by virtue of being German or Muslims or whatever, as how those identities are unilaterally and authoritatively defined).
Such an idea of unity is not desirable generally of course, we would much rather unity be class based, since that facilitates an even stronger sense of unity as it's based on material facts rather than idealistic images of being one nation and one people that are easily shattered by social liberalism, hence why social liberalism is so heavily repressed in places like Iran.
At the same time, I accept that going from the authoritarian image of unity to actual class conscious, proletarian unity is a messy and fractious process, since the image of national or religious based unity must be shattered into the disunity of individualism before class awareness can reform unity into one that has people identify with each other, not just themselves and not some idealism about nationhood.
It's a process the socially liberal nations are still working through, it is expressed as a culture war which is creating a lot of animosity amongst all people and obscuring the class conflict which is very detrimental to pretty much all movements, not just left-wing ones, even the people who wish to retvrn to "traditional values" struggle to get everyone to agree what exactly those values were, let alone enforce such values.
Thus, while I'd love to see such authoritarian forms of unity disappear not just from Iran, but even actually based nations like the DPRK and see punk rock concerts in Pyongyang, I have to accept that if I don't have the answer for how that hyper-individualistic disunity can be overcome to create an even stronger proletarian unity at the best of times (and for westerners it essentially is the best of times at the "end of history"), then to pressure the "authoritarian" nations to shatter their current religious or nationalist ideals of unity is to have them essentially commit suicide, since they will not survive the aggressive disunity with western imperialists looking to create and or exploit such chaotic conditions.
>>>/edu/22527Islam = BAD
Christianity = GOOD
No we don't have any biases :) absolutely no biases. Especially the ones living in the most brainwashed country on Earth, or the racist anti-arab anti-muslim European countries.
>>2223330I suppose I've already written an answer to where I stand on it here
>>2223351I'm in agreement with yourself an Pancake anon that of course women's liberation and social liberalism more generally is absolutely the end goal, there's no communism without it, but without class consciousness or at least a vanguard party in both liberal and "authoritarian" societies, all that can be achieved for very reactionary societies is just chaos with perhaps superficial displays of acceptance and tolerance, but ultimately just lots of fracturing of society which has been death for solidarity in political movements in socially liberal states and likewise would be death for entire nations under the extraordinary pressure non-US aligned nations find themselves under.
>>2223383That's why I never fail to debunk my opponent. Take notes.
>>2223387Thanks for your input. Very valuable.
>The fact of the matter is that in most, if not all, Arab and Muslim countries, women are discriminated against as a matter of course, from citizenship laws to inheritance to paternalistic familial structures and domestic abuse. This is clearly not a purely Muslim or Arab affair, since, with perhaps the exception of Scandinavia, it exists in various degrees throughout the world. But the fact of the matter is that even if it’s often used as a pro-Israel or neocon club to bludgeon Arabs on other, unrelated issues like the Israel/Palestine conflict, that doesn’t make the charge less true.
It's a hypocritical charge given that Judaism-Christianity-Islam is basically one thing for those who stand outside of it. In Judaism, women do not have the same inheritance rights as men. If you want to square the circle, strictly following the doctrine while treating men and women as equal as possible, at most you can strongly urge the males among your offspring to share some of their bigger inheritance share to make things equal, but you can't really force this result AFAIK. In the USA, inheritance laws were equalized between the sexes in the 1970s. In West Germany, married women could not get a job without a written permission by their husbands until a reform in the 1960s.
So most of the differences between how the West and conservative Islamic countries treat women is due to fairly recent changes historically speaking and if you think the West is better in this at least, then I'm OK with that, but you should never pretend this to be a (Judeo-)Christian VS Islam thing, it's secular humanist achievements now wielded as a rhetorical device, often by people who used to seethe about these changes (and some of them still do).
>I look at it as being similar to Soviet charges against US treatment of black citizens. Did pointing out the Jim Crow laws make Siberian gulags or Eastern European oppression any more acceptable?
Made them look less bad in comparison IMHO.
>>2222201Hard truths
- I'm not going back into the closet because it "might" help the global South.
- Transgender people are not a CIA plot.
Now the basic question here is how do we fight "rainbow imperialism" and how do we build "rainbow anti-imperialism?" How do we fight "anti-imperialist queerphobia" and how do we build "anti-imperialist queer liberation?"
None of you are discussing what is to be done, only moralising about what ought to be.
IMO
- Extreme patriarchy is a tendency of semi-feudalism.
- Fighting patriarchy is a part of fighting imperialism and a part of fighting imperialist white Supremacy.
Communists have never had an effective strategy for incorporating the lumpen elements of society into the movement. IMO the best work on radicalising the lumpen is currently work from Black scholars.
I think MENA communists might be able to learn from Black communist work and teach the lumpenized population about anti-imperialism and capitalism and recruit them to their cause.
For the West, the situation is different. FWIW the latest Trump bullshit is an opportunity to link the trans struggle and anti-Imperialism. Transphobia, eugenics and the deportation of migrants is of one white Supremacist and imperialist thread. RFK's hatred of the autists is a white Supremacist eugenicist and imperialist motive.
>>2223243>socially liberlisingthere is not "social" without economics. you cant socially liberalize without economically liberalizing, and economic liberalization without development creates dependency, the solution: sovereign economic development, then economic liberalization. or preferably socialism, then socialism, but preliminary stage socialism is just state directed development anyway. economic progress makes people socially liberal on its own.
for people in imperialist countries that means no sanctions, no war, overthrow your own government to get them off the backs of the global south and stop whining on the internet about other countries, which only serves imperialist intrigue and bolsters the war propaganda of your own bourgeoisie.
>>2222201People will defend 'isms they claim to hate if it's a group that has been oppressed doing it.
I think liberal ideals are worth striving for globally and it is happening on the century scale it's just been a bad couple of decades with religious extremists taking power in a lot of the ME.
The sad truth is those that say they fight for rights will rarely pick up a gun and those that fight for religion often will.
>>2224314I hate this mentality "oh no, look is this poor oppressed culture and religon, they kill gay, opress women and kill people that want to leave the religion or people that don't agree with them, you don't understand, you're racist bigot to point that out sweety, learn to respect bigots and reactionaries because they are the minority here"
Beyond stupid, it's like creating a snake and expecting to not get bitting by the snake down the line.
>>2224303Why so West-centric? Didn't OP meant discussing Islam in the global scheme of things?
>>2224303White people in Zimbabwe and South Africa are a minority, and arguably suffer an ongoing genocide in both of these countries. Does this mean leftists should be prohibited from criticisng white people?
Honestly I don't think Islam is innately reactionary. All religions are floating signifiers, they have enough internal inconsistencies and room for interpretation that they are empty vessels waiting to be animated by class content, and thus are capable of being vehicles for both progressive and reactionary forces. I wouldn't even discount the possibility of a socially progressive Islam that is okay with gender equality, queer people, etc. Shit, I even knew a hardline Shia Islamist whose take on being queer was that it was a person's private business and should be neither celebrated nor demonized. That being said, actually existing Islamist movements are virtually all bourgeois, with some being national bourgeois (Hamas, Houthis, Hezbollah, Iran) and some being compradors (HTS, Wahabis, etc). The former are still the vest vehicle for positive change in MENA right now, but again we should acknowledge that this is a huge step back from the days when that title was held by communists and secular nationalists. At best, these groups are suitable as tactical allies. Communists ought to work with them where necessary, but even in coalitions with them act as a non-antagonistic opposition to push against their blatantly reactionary elements on issues like women's liberation, religious tolerance, secular education, etc.
>>2224765>analyse the world through clash of civilization mythologyAnd then this is peddled as "super serious and necessary Marxist criticism". Meanwhile they ask what's the relevance of Marx's criticism of Bauer as Bauer was arguing basically the same, that the religious must renounce their religion to achieve emancipation, for it was an religion inherently incompatible with modernity.
How can you comrades not see the errors in your ways?
>>2222201Daily reminder the absolute majority of anti-muslim speech on the internet is zionist astroturfing
They hire indians and other shills to post these garbages everywhere
>>2222201>the Israel/Palestine conflictIts not a "conflict" you bloodless mossad shill, its a genocide of Palestine by the west, plain and simple.
>For my part, an equitable solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict should be about self determination for PalestiniansYou misspelled "right of return".
>>2227378The hard truth that /leftypol/ refuses to accept is that it was a coordinated strategy by the West to destroy as many secular regimes in the region as possible (Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan in the Cold War) in order to ensure that Islam would dominate, whereupon they could fuel endless sectarian infighting between sunni/shia/etc while robbing everyone blind.
It reminds me of medieval Europe when everyone was supposedly killing each other over being protestant or catholic when in reality it was the feudal aristocracies and monarchies grabbing power while hiding behind religious rhetoric to disguise their real goals.
The Soviet Union was the only force that could have stopped this outcome but the Russians decided to commit suicide rather than continue the Cold War.
Anyways the entire region is lost and will basically be a European/American/Israeli controlled colony for at least the next 100 years.
>>2228921>Yeah. I think the fact of the matter is that religion is in decline if you look at it from a long-term perspectiveIt fluctuates all the time. There is no real "decline" of religion. Even in medieval times there are moments of less religiousity and more religiousity. There were more non-religious people in 1970 than there was 2020 half a century later.
>and made reforms that seem to be popular with younger people who are basically no different from other young people in the world, who grew up with the internet, and want to live in a normal country.And it is working. But this alliance that MBS is trying to produce is being hindered by Israel because the youth in Saudi still despise zionists despite the best attempts of MBS to calm it down. One misstep with Israel and MBS' plans of modernization will go into flames.
>realistically many people are not as religious as you might think, or are not as devout compared to their parents and grandparents.Its the same thing with having a state atheist state. The country may be more religious than one may think and typically starts in the youth because they are the ones that "rebel" against the order. In short, most people go along with the state ideology and keep their day moving even if they do not believe in it
>>2222201Orientalist post and miopic point of view, how many fundamentalists and reactionaries has the west created throughout the Arab world for the past centuries?
The only people who criticize Islam nowadays in the west are racists and and right wingers, and only in the most sensationalist and inflammatory ways.
Wonder then why no one is looking at the social rules and cultures of these nations when they are being funded by the wealthiest one on earth, compared to the US morals the middle east is an utopia, European churches and hospitals are not being bombed by Iran, the US government was not toppled by Iraq or Afghanistan in revenge for Palestine.
The only savage here is the Western hemisphere and the Christian Zionist zeitgeist.
That's the face of Neo liberalism and Moralism from the west.
>>2233077>The only people who criticize Islam nowadays in the west are racists and and right wingers>The only savage here is the Western hemisphere and the Christian Zionist zeitgeistjust say you want the caliphate bro
>That's the face of Neo liberalism and Moralism from the west.you are literally a seething moralist though
Unique IPs: 99