/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

that's nice anon

>>2296024
Tolstoy killed the movement

“Red fascism” doesn’t exist nor will it ever exist. Any claims of it existing are a Fed op

> ultras are still completely spot on with their critiques.
<so why not go be an armchair in the invariant line?
They don't cover the instrumentality of the state, I can only be your Karelin, I can only direct the declassed to be in aid of the worker's movement. Forgive them Marx for they do not know.

Yeah yeah religion people are usually hypocrites and reactionaries, especially muslim and generally christian too

>>2296043
Religion in general, uyghur, but muslim and christian are specially reactionaries and have more impact, especially muslim one because.

>>2296024
>Write "Death to islam
Well you must be ecstatic anon, America and Israel are working on that for you right now!

>>2296032
Maybe the anarchoid calling me a red fascist is an anti-communist, he's the same one who wrote
>Know this, I will not let anyone force me to feel respect for this pig (Marx) or his totalitarian disciples, nor for the toilet paper known as his texts…
I made a separate thread about it >>2289244

>>2296060
Zionazi spotted

>>2296060
muslims hold control of the most influential lobby inside the most powerful imperialist country in the world

>>2296065
Anyone using the term red fascist is an anticommunist anon

>>2296062
Do ethnic cleansings eradicate religion when religion is not bound to ethnicity?

>>2296073
Are america and israel killing muslims on a mass scale yes or no?

>>2296076
Yes. Will they eradicate Islam once and for all? How will this effect the saudis and brunei?

>>2296069
uyghur, I'm not saying jewish people don't have power, but muslim are far more reactionary than christian and jews

>>2296088
90% of muslims are muslim nationalists
90% of christians are christian nationalists

>>2296089
I would rather them be honest nationalists than dilute our movement posing as "anarchists", but its too late, they've already fucked us.

>>2296088
Don't reply to Sandanon. He gets off on getting into bullshit fights and has said as much in the past.

>>2296097
proofs?

>>2296086
They are currently contributing the most to the death of those who follow islam, thus contributing to your goal, the eradication of islam, more than anyone else. This must make you very happy

>but muslim are far more reactionary than christian and jews
You are spreading zionist propoganda

>>2296100
Heads I win, tails you lose ring a bell? I'm not autistic enough to personally archive everything you've ever said, but if an archive of this site does exist, then there's some pretty damning things you've said in the USApol thread.

>>2296101
>the most
Palestinians are nowhere near the most, look at Indonesia.
>thus contributing to your goal, the eradication of islam
I want the total eradication of all religion, will they kill themselves after they're done killing all muslims? Will religion even disappear if they just keep killing?

>>2296101
>>2296113
Will they even kill all the muslims? It doesn't look like the US has any intention of killing saudi princes soon.

>>2296112
rings the bell of me predicting the 2024 election correctly against the backdrop of libtard seething, yes

>>2296024
you can be militantly anti-religion after the genocide is stopped and you have helped to build a strong labour movement, which would include reactionary and religious elements.

>>2296138
"Anti-islamophobia" types like you can't take an Anti-Theism at face value, they always have to deflect any critique towards another religion or pretend the Anti-Theist is secretly a Zionist or a Christian, why don't you retards understand we want all of your feudal metaphysical bullshit beliefs gone? Why do you think the only solution to end a religion is to kill its believers when it creates more martyrs? You're representative of the cult of death and a nuclear war is not a different option.
>build a strong labour movement, which would include reactionary and religious elements.
There can be no compromises with reactionaries.
>after the genocide is stopped
Ruthless criticism of all that exists, nothing contradictory about criticizing Islam and desiring its eradication while opposing the genocide on Palestinians. The religion is not the same as the believers. You cannot simply do away with religion by killing all of the believers because it isn't feasible.

On the ideology of “anti-Islamophobia”

The intention of this text is to reply to those among the anarcho-communists who are engaged in the fight against “Islamophobia” and who, for that reason, bar all criticism of Islam and endorse a theory of race as a social class, in an atmosphere of increasing tension, accusations of racism, and even actual physical attacks.

The term “Islamophobia,” which probably dates back to the early twentieth century, only recently came into widespread use to designate racism against “Arabs.” This corresponded to a shift from racism against North Africans to terror or horror aroused by the Muslims’ religion. Immigrants and their descendants, formerly rejected for “ethnic” reasons, are discriminated against today for their supposed adherence to an original culture identified with one of its dimensions—the Muslim religion—which many do not even practice, although some observe certain traditional customs.

Through this artifice, religion is assimilated to “race” as a cultural matrix in what amounts to a “cultural mystification (…) by which an entire cross-section of individuals is assigned, on the basis of their origin or physical appearance, to the category of ‘Muslims,’ silencing any criticism of Islam, which is perceived, not as a critique of religion, but directly as a manifestation of racism.”[1] While Claude Guillon sees “contempt” in this “antiracism of idiots,” [2] we mainly recognize the specter haunting the left—third-worldism. According to this ideology, which entails uncritical support of the “oppressed” against their “oppressor,” those who saw the “colonized” as the exploited people par excellence during the Algerian war unconditionally supported the NLF. Or take the Vietnam committees during the Vietnam war, for whom denunciation of the Americans meant supporting the Viet Minh and the politics of Ho Chi Minh, chanting his name and waving his picture at every demonstration. This scenario was repeated with the Iranian revolution in 1979 and with the pro-Palestinians. Today, taking the Kurds’ defense usually implies supporting the PKK and waving Oçalan’s picture. Such was the process by which, little by little, the third-worldist perspective abandoned the proletariat as revolutionary subject and replaced it with the colonized, then the immigrant, the descendant of immigrants… and finally the believer. While at first, third-worldism promoted cultural relativism, its successors adopted culturalism, which posits cultural differences to explain social relationships. SOS Racisme’s great manipulation in the 1980s made this shift a doctrine that ultimately engendered all the excesses we’re witnessing today, in particular the Muslim identity assigned to “Arab” immigrants and their descendants as a whole.



Interestingly, the culturalist ideology assumed by part of the left became, after 1968, the angle of attack for one of the far-right currents—the New Right. The latter’s rejection of immigration no longer reflected biological racism but rather the concept of identity construction based on a view of societies frozen in ancient traditions and the need to maintain homogeneous cultures to ensure social peace. In the imaginings of neorightists—for whom there are ethno-cultural but not class conflicts—North Africans are affiliated with Muslim culture and as such must remain in their native country and live there together according to their traditions! The New Right’s leader Alain de Benoist goes so far as to defend third-worldist, anti-imperialist struggles and deny the racist character of his “defense of European identity.” A similar change has in recent years affected the racist discourse of another far-right party seeking respectability; the National Front (FN) borrowed certain aspects of the New Right’s rhetoric: the problem is no longer “immigrants” but “Muslims.”

This is how two sides, in theory radically opposed to each other, end up advocating identity politics according to which all immigrants or descendants of immigrants from any North African (or other “Arab”) country must consider themselves Muslims, absurdly labeled “French people of Muslim origin.” Hence disregarding the fact that they are discriminated against not because they practice or allegedly practice a given religion, but because they are migrant workers or children of migrants. The issue at stake is not identity but class. The so-called “Muslim origin” which makes North African atheists’ blood boil is merely a social stigma disguised as a cultural stigma. The State and the media know what they’re doing when they turn the “Muslim”–obviously Islamist (and anything from moderate to radicalized)–into the new characterization of a member of the dangerous class [3].

On these foundations, the identity-based anti-islamophobia ideology is linked, even by certain Marxists, with the concept of “social race,” an academic fantasy recently imported from the US which attempts to transplant on this side of the Atlantic the racial, communitarian model of the American society. This “racialist” [4] conception which claims to create “race” as a new class in fact only serves to conceal or even deny the real capitalist social relation: exploitation of proletarians, all proletarians, whatever their origin, skin color, religion or personal customs and beliefs. Its justification lies in the supposedly indispensable role racism played in capitalist development as the underlying reason for colonialism. In reality, the ruling class has always used the strategy of assigning an inferior status to all oppressed, whatever their supposed “race.” Successively, serfs, poor peasants, slaves and then workers were held in their lowly station and prevented from expressing themselves or getting an education on grounds that they were too stupid or ignorant and belonged to an inferior category. It is worth recalling that the British unrelentingly colonized and plundered the Irish, and the Russians, the Ukrainians, without in either case needing such justification. Indeed, plundering and colonization in general, like exploitation itself, do not require any excuses.

However, racism does undeniably exist, and one of its manifestations is the rejection of poor immigrant “Muslims.” The anti-Islam discourse of the FN, the Bloc Identitaire and Pegida is merely the tree hiding the forest: these groups are nothing but racists clamoring for immigrants to go home. They probably see the cultural argument as somehow more respectable than the old racist crap involving supposedly innate traits (Blacks are like this, Arabs are like that, etc.). These movements’ strategy also enables them to cast a wider net, especially by exploiting the genuine rise of radical Islam for their racist ends. They generally stick to such more honorable arguments as the defense of secularism or the fight against sexism, but they view immigration as the fundamental problem and consider all immigrants (poor, naturally) undesirable, whether they’re Muslim or not.

Racism, like xenophobia, is a tool rulers use against the ruled. In the words of Fredy Perlman: “The American settler-invaders had recourse to an instrument that was not, like the guillotine, a new invention, but that was just as lethal. This instrument would later be called Racism, and it would become embedded in nationalist practice. (…) People who had abandoned their villages and families, who were forgetting their languages and losing their cultures, who were all but depleted of their sociability, were manipulated into considering their skin color a substitute for all they had lost.” “Racism had initially been one among several methods of mobilizing colonial armies, and (…) it did not supplant the other methods but rather supplemented them.” [5] By creating categories, divisions could be used to prevent or crush rebellions and social struggles. That was what the French government did in Algeria when it granted French citizenship to “indigenous Jews” in 1870 (Crémieux decree), arbitrarily separating them from “indigenous Muslims.” Likewise in former Yugoslavia, “religious persuasion” was used to put down social struggles through the manufacturing of a nonexistent “Muslim nationality” to turn against each other people who had until then lived together.

As one would expect, racial divisions function most effectively during crises, when incomes plummet and jobs become scarce. The FN cultivated these issues to win over what used to be the Left’s working-class strongholds. Even in periods of full employment, the State and the media have always tended to fuel xenophobia and encourage stigmatization of each successive wave of immigrant workers (“Polaks,” “macaronis,” “spics,” “dagos,” etc.). Whatever the state of the economy, such divisions had less effect in workplaces, where proletarian solidarity prevailed over prejudice and everyone worked and fought side-by-side. Or at least that’s how it used to be.

The problem with the word “islamophobia” lies not so much in the concept itself but in the way it is used for manipulative purposes. Similarly, the notion of anti-Semitism becomes manipulative when the term is presented as equivalent to anti-Zionism and ultimately “Judeophobia,” based on the claim that criticism of Zionism necessarily indicates a racist attitude towards “Jews” rather than a critique of the colonial character of the confessional state of Israel.

The aim of political Islam, according to Claude Guillon, is to turn Islamophobia into “an ideological weapon of war against atheism” [6] and, more generally, a propaganda vehicle for the Muslim religion. The position of far-left anti-Islamophobes regarding political Islam is, to say the least, ambivalent. They want to bar any criticism of the Muslim religion, a practice they say is racist. This moralizing outlook reveals a lack of analysis of how political Islam has evolved in the world since the 1979 Iranian revolution and, for some, a denial of its very existence. Nor does Jihadism disconcert these anti-Islamophobes. After each attack perpetrated by Jihadists in Europe (adding to their long list of atrocities, especially on the African continent and in the Middle East), they worry mainly about its leading to fresh outbreaks of “Islamophobia” (and—with good reason—repressive measures) and ascribe sole responsibility to western imperialism. They claim, for instance, that the attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015 were strictly a consequence of the wars led by the French state in Iraq, Libya, Mali, etc. France has obvious stakes in the geopolitics playing out in the Middle East and Africa but these alone cannot explain the emergence and persistence of the Islamic State [7] or Boko Haram. Anti-Islamophobes rely on these kinds of discourse to avoid going into the real involvement of radical Islam in the attacks, here and abroad, and to deny their perpetrators any capacity for initiative, to the point of exonerating the Kouachi brothers or Coulibaly, so-called proletarians “of immigrant descent.” This victimizing ideology assigns individuals and groups to not only a specific identity (women, “racialized,” etc.) but a fixed status as oppressed victims whose choices and practices, however reactionary, must not be criticized. Such ideological positions obscure the counterrevolutionary nature of radical Islam, which in recent years has gained significant ground in western Europe (not to mention North Africa and the Middle East), although remaining a minority compared with the population of religious Muslims at large. Formerly uncommon or even nonexistent, radical Islam, and particularly Salafism, its most common form today, has become widespread.

For these worthy anti-Islamophobes, the issue is quite simple: the Muslim religion must be viewed with exceptional benevolence as the “religion of the oppressed.” They apparently forget that social control is the function of all religions and that political Islam in particular proclaims everywhere its determination to keep tight control over the society it intends to govern. In certain poor urban neighborhoods, Salafism is sufficiently entrenched to exert social control. In fact, during the 2005 riots, Salafists actually attempted to restore order in some suburbs. This trend has developed against a backdrop of economic crisis marked by rising mass unemployment, offensives against wages and shrinking State social policies. To replace the latter as a means to hold sway over the population, the Salafists succeeded in setting up networks of mutual economic assistance.

We must not to lose sight of this role played by religions. “A religion is actually a set of metaphysical beliefs possessing very specific, inherent rules of life based on tradition and morality, to which the individual must adhere. This is a social relationship, a form of obedience training imposed on each individual and on the masses as a whole. Its functions include justifying the ruling power, guaranteeing tradition and the established order and, more generally, ensuring a degree of social ‘pacification.’ This is achieved through an organicist interpretation of society, a glorification of hierarchy, and the rejection of individual autonomy. In addition, religion often serves to redirect conflictual social situations towards fictitious objectives or to curb them by holding out the possibility of paradise in the future… paradise, that sorry lie guaranteeing peace for the powerful here and now. By offering hope in transcendence, religion stifles most of the exploited class’s revolutionary upsurges here below and right now. Bakunin’s fine phrase, ‘If God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish Him,’ puts the finger on the real problem with religion: the notion of divinity is the conceptual basis of authority, and its complement, faith, that of submission to bondage.” [8]

While faith and metaphysical questioning are personal affairs, and struggling alongside someone who claims to be a believer may not pose the slightest problem, we want to be able to declare loud and clear that we are atheists. Our political positions are inseparable from our avowed atheism and criticism of all religions, and we intend to exercise freely not only blasphemy but denunciation, at the very least, of coercive, mutilating or humiliating religious and/or traditional practices, and of the inferior status assigned to women by all monotheistic religions (As for the others, maybe on another occasion!).

We have a final point to make: there are just two classes, capital and labor. Even though some members of the exploited class are more exploited than others due to their gender or origin, they do not constitute a class but are segments of it created by the ruling and exploiting class. Bourgeois thinking, whatever political guise it assumes, seeks to contain social struggles by dividing the proletariat and fostering competition among workers. Division only undermines the working class’ ability to struggle and segmentation is a good way of dividing it; the capitalist class can then pit workers against each other, especially in times of crisis. Racism cannot be fought by anti-racism but by class struggle. For those who’ve reached the point where “thinking in terms of race becomes an inescapable necessity” and “refusal of this vocabulary and what it implies will systematically be construed as blindness or even denial and should be blamed accordingly,”[9] people who, like us, don’t share that vision are racists. That’s a conclusion we have a little trouble swallowing!

[1] Cassandre, “Nos ‘révolutionnaires’ sont des gens pieux,” see the Ravage Editons blog (in French), https://ravageeditions.noblogs.org/

[2] Claude Guillon, “Et Dieu créa l’islamophobie,” see his blog Lignes de Force (in French), https://lignesdeforce.wordpress.com/

[3] Louis Chevallier, famous bourgeois, but nevertheless fascinating, historian, Classes Laborieuses, Classes Dangereuses, Perrin

[4] Term borrowed from the authors of “Tiens ça glisse,” see blog http://racialisateursgohome.noblogs.org, which calls “racialization any analysis contributing to the development or dissemination of a theory of race”

[5] Fredy Perlman, “The Continuing Appeal of Nationalism,” https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/fredy-perlman-the-continuing-appeal-of-nationalism

[6] Claude Guillon, op. cit.

[7] For a more in-depth analysis, see (in French) P.J. Luizard, Le Piège Daech, La Découverte

[8] Cassandre, op. cit.

[9] “Tiens ça glisse,” see footnote 4

>>2296149
>"x-types like you always blah blah"
i didn't say any of those things
>there can be no compromises with reactionaries
You don't have to compromise with them, use them
>nothing contradictory about criticizing Islam and desiring its eradication while opposing the genocide on Palestinians.
I agree. However, oppressed groups draw strength from their shared culture, and now is the time to strengthen that culture globally to stop the genocide.
Also, wouldn't Palestinians be capable of eradicating Islam from their own communities in the future?

>>2296024
>This is not just an issue with anarchoids, the same with MLs, ultras are still completely spot on with their critiques.
This is just something I was thinking about, but I think it's a "Western left" thing, because here the left organizes its politics against the chauvinist right, and the chauvinist right beats up on Muslims. Anarchists in Western countries in my experience are really about fighting their own right. The Western left doesn't want to lend ammunition to those attacks, and doesn't really understand Islamic countries anyways (this isn't their fault really, they're just not from there). There's also the role of Israel in this, and the alliance between Israel and the Republican Party and anti-Muslim parties in Europe.

The other thing is that one doesn't have to be progressive to be anti-imperialistic. This is more apparent outside of the West. The communists historically combined anti-imperialism with a progressive self-criticism of their own societies, their own past, feudalism, etc. which was debated in a constructive way through democratic centralism. That's like, the 1960s. But now you have Islamic fundamentalist groups with ultra-reactionary and very chauvinist beliefs about how Islam is pure and has no flaws and they want to drive the crusaders out by warfare.

The MLs do something different from the anarchists. The MLs don't tend to make the same mistake as the anarchists / "Western leftists" in blinding themselves about the reality of these Islamic fundamentalists groups, but they have a different flaw in being Axis of Resistoids who repeat what they're being told by Russia and Iran, like how ISIS are really CIA agents wearing balaclavas but the West is also simultaneously in decline and incapable of doing anything. That's a simplistic propaganda narrative that doesn't actually hold up during the course of the events (the U.S. actually bombed ISIS to provide cover for Ahmed al-Sharaa's eastern flank when HTS advanced on Damascus).

>>2296138
>NOOO YOU CAN'T DO CRITCISM WHILE A GENOCIDE IS HAPPENING
Falsifier, you can.

>>2296187
>However, oppressed groups draw strength from their shared culture, and now is the time to strengthen that culture
By proletarian internationalism, that's what they have in common, that's what all workers have in common.
>wouldn't Palestinians be capable of eradicating Islam from their own communities in the future?
Yes they would, we should encourage that.

>>2296069
You're right actually it's Hasids who do.

>>2296107
Cope
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

>>2296187
>oppressed groups draw strength from their shared culture,
Radlibs don’t understand why Marx and Engels said the proletariat was the revolutionary subject in the first place.it wasn’t because “they suffered more” but because 1. they were the class upon whose labor society depended, and 2. the nature of their work was collectivist, meaning they were already conditioned into working together for a purpose higher than themselves. The lumpen are seldom revolutionary because they don’t fit these criteria.

The critical flaw in radlib thinking is the belief that moral appeals are a substitute for class interests. Under material analysis workers rise up because they are compelled to do so by their interests and antagonists with the ruling class. Radlibs by contrast believe that moral superiority will move people to join their cause, which is why they believe that its possible for a minority (racial, sexual, religious etc.) to make a revolution.

>>2296194
the inter-imperialist war between ussr and germany

>>2296219
The inter-imperialist war between ussr and germany
https://www.international-communist-party.org/English/REPORTS/WARS/Comuni40_WW2.htm

>>2296122
That is an extremely dishonest way of describing that exchange.

>>2296024
Are you the anarchist from the other day mentioning the frustration with trying to get anarkkkiddies to read? You are witnessing the banality of sublimated political ideology, or in other words, it's entertainment/larping to deal with boredom. It's universally stupid and almost reactionary with how toothless it is. I think it's reactionary when they argue for intellectual private property or small business, depopulation via ecoterrorism (genocide on the underprivileged) and that only certain ethnicities can "do" revolution, which is of course guided by their white ass (but they're bisexual, so it's okay).

Ultras are only correct insofar that they insult everything with reddit memes. If you actually engage with Italian-left theory it's the dumbest shit you've ever read, which is why the fascist states left it alone. Rosa + Lenin, along with Stalin being too "nice," and that now we have to wait for a spontaneous, world-wide revolution (centralized with the Italian communist party which has about 3 members who post on video game subreddits all day) while also never once actually organizing.

As for your statement about religion, you're absolutely correct that these white-suburban liberals infantilize Islam purely because right-wingers attack it. That's another form of "racism" when they reject all material aspects of their culture, stemming from the laws given to them in Quran (and mostly Hadith but that's another topic) which codifies the eternal defense of private property. Not even just talking about slavery, but one of the early chapters gives details on how to do inheritance. One of the gravest sins in Islam is to be an "innovator" who tries to reinterpret Islam with a more liberal lens. This action takes you out of the fold of Islam, and leaves you as some individualist, spiritual idiot with Islamic aesthetics. Islamic socialism is the biggest contradiction there is and it only gets regurgitated by people who have never engaged with Islam. And god help me if they start pulling some bullshit about "charity" as if that's what socialism is.

Islamic anarchism is even funnier, considering how much of the Quran is dedicated to talking about what you must do for your leader.

They are right that the primary goal isn't to run around telling people in Syria that God isn't real, but I don't really see anyone suggesting that, ever. I saw liberals do that but they aren't trying to overthrow a mode of production since they already have their neoliberal capitalism. This means that leaving them alone about their beliefs can be critically supported, because there are aspects of their culture that are not defensible, like selling their daughters to old men (pedophiles) which happens in rural areas, like Afghanistan. Nobody ever truly means they support *everything* in Islam, even the bleeding hearts. However, what they actually end up doing is come up with retarded shit like "Islamic socialism" which they reinforce with youtube videos by smart or hot swarthy men cherry-picking some nice platitudes from some literature. They purposely avoid actually giving the full context to their audience to hide this and protect their own opportunism.

Marx himself wrote a little on this topic, mostly relating to the Jews. It's not the main point of his essay but he correctly points out that you don't need an explicitly religious State for religion to persevere. One survey showed that a higher percentage of Americans believe in God than Iran. These redditors, who pretend they care about the third-world, have no basis to call any resistance against an Islamic state, governed by "nice" Shariah law, an act of "genocide." Religion would still exist, but they would lose the ability to force it through the State, but then anarchists make an exception just for that. They further prove their racism by believing that Muslims can't engage in self-criticism, when in Palestine there has been women, artists, musicians, students and so on trying to raise awareness towards certain problems in their own community, like abhorrent women's rights. I posted a few and got deleted by one these racist libs for "Zionist propaganda" despite the fact these people also resist genocide. They just have the sense to resist falling into a reactionary state apparatus in order to do so. They're smarter than the majority of Western anarchists/communists.

>>2296353
This is incredibly well written, would you mind telling what you adhere to exactly anon? You didn't write of any proposals or "must do's", but just did a proper deconstruction and critique, I would like to know what you think is a plausible course of action and if you adhere to any movement.

>>2296391
>>2296353
>Are you the anarchist from the other day mentioning the frustration with trying to get anarkkkiddies to read?
And yes I am. I've written several other threads before about my disillusionment with the anarchist movement as well, but I don't think they were archived.

>>2296197
>By proletarian internationalism, that's what they have in common, that's what all workers have in common.
I agree, but right now Palestinians aren't even allowed to be proles, unless I'm missing something here (does this make them lumpenproletariat?). With so much of their struggle unfortunately rooted in the stupid identity politics of religious and racial identities, those identities need to be recognized and protected from persecution, at least temporarily, before they even have the chance to join the international prole movement. I fear an aggressive anti-religion stance right now would alienate the common Palestinian from a future proletariat movement by entrenching their idealist identities, not to mention weaken their position on the global stage.

>Yes they would, we should encourage [Palestinians eradicating Islam from their own communities].
lmao they don't need encouragement right now, they need the genocide to stop, which is done by stopping weapon shipments to israel, and then fucking destroying it. Then Palestinian living standards will improve, until friction between progressive and reactive forces need to be addressed etc. This would be the ideal time to call Islam out for what it is.

>>2296399
At the time of my previous posts there was also this syndicalist flag faggot who sucked the dicks of Proudhon and Bakunin and claimed I am a "traitor to anarchism", that "I should be shot" over pointing out all of the contradictions within the movement and the inconsistencies and being critical of its shortcomings. He was almost the same as the YPG kurdshit autist who spams leaflets to justify his crumbling project.

>>2296401
No stronger an image of the essence of nationalism can be seen than in the endless parade of coffins of Palestinians draped in flags. Nationalism is poison in the veins of the working class. Nowhere is this clearer than in Israel today. A working class stands divided and helpless, torn between two hostile bourgeois camps. Though the Israeli side has the entire weight of US imperialist muscle behind it this does not make the camps of Islamism and Palestinian nationalism less an enemy of the Arab workers. National chauvinism and religion have been skillfully employed by the bourgeoisie in destroying the most basic elements of class-consciousness and internationalism among the workers.

The project of national liberation, the so-called "right of nations to self-determination" is the project of the bourgeoisie that was completed as the imperialist phase of capitalism began. Today ability of a national bourgeoisie to realize its project of national liberation hinges entirely in its capacity to mobilize backing and capital from a major imperialist power. This was clear from the very struggles that created Israel itself, with both sides of this bourgeois conflict actively seeking support from any power that is willing to listen. Both the Mufti of Jerusalem, al-Hajj Amin al-Husayni, and the Haganah sought the aid of Fascist Italy and Germany, not to mention the actions of the Irgun against British imperialism on behalf of the imperialist powers of the Axis. What the British military governor of Jerusalem, Sir Ronald Storrs called "a little loyal Jewish Ulster" was always exactly that. Today Washington's loyal Jewish Ulster is in the grip of an intractable conflict far worse than anything seen in Northern Ireland.

The bourgeois project of national liberation succeeds only in so far as it is able to mobilize the proletariat. Marx and Engels supported national self-determination only in that it would sweep away pre-capitalist classes and create a modern proletariat capable of defeating the capitalist class. Lenin and the Bolsheviks supported it as a means of buying time for the young Soviet state until the outbreak of a world revolution that would break the Russian proletariat out of its isolation. This tactic failed as the revolutionary wave passed and was codified into a dogma by the counterrevolutionaries who took power under the banner of "socialism". Such dogmas, eternal principles are the codification of failures and defeats suffered by workers and their parties. National liberation today only serves as a means of expanding the influence of one imperialist power at the expense of another. No nation today can break free from the grip of imperialism as the sorry history of such movements clearly attests.

Some forces of capitalism's left-apparatus, those who pose as revolutionaries (Maoists, Stalinists, Trotskyists and official Anarchists), support the national liberation projects of the bourgeoisie as a way of appearing militant and opposing exploitation and oppression. They cannot support one national liberation movement without violating the other nation's "right to self-determination. This puts the left wing of capitalism into ideological contortions in order to justify their opportunistic and bourgeois solutions. The most transparent of the counterrevolutionaries claim that all national liberation movements are the absolute preconditions for world revolution. At their most deceptive they appear as being critical of the individual movements themselves while lending "critical support" or stating that a new type of national liberation movement independent of imperialism should be created to give "true" national self-determination. In Israel two competing nationalist entities are locked in a struggle to the death and neither fraction of the bourgeoisie has anything to offer workers except sacrifice and bloodshed.

Historically there no such thing as a "Palestinian" people, simply Arabs who lived in what was once a piece of the British mandate. As a nationalist ideology it grew more slowly and was economically weaker than the nationalism that formed the modern state of Israel. The Mufti of Jerusalem, as the representative of the Arab rulers in Palestine failed in courting Nazi patronage for an Arab state as German imperialism felt this would negatively impact its Vichy French allies' hold over the French mandate in what is now Lebanon and Syria. The Zionists succeeded in pulling together the support of any imperialist power willing to lend it any kind of assistance, no matter that this assistance came from the Axis powers, Stalin's USSR, Churchill's Britain or Roosevelt's US. Without sufficient capital and the backing of the most powerful imperialist entities, the Palestinian bourgeoisie formed as a ruling class without a country. Because the Israeli bourgeoisie had the capital and the support of the imperialist power of the US they were able to invent a country and lay claim to a former piece of the Ottoman Empire. World capitalism's "final solution" to the problem posed by Jews was first to propagate among them their own nationalism and finally give them their own nation. This nationalism was the perfect antidote for the capitalism killing disease of internationalism and independent class-consciousness. For British imperialism Israel represented a Jewish "Ulster" in the heart of the Arab world. For the US it represents an indispensable foothold in the crossroads of Asia, Europe and Africa.

As a state Israel was ever the creation and tool of the bourgeoisie as surely as the rise of the modern nation was tied to the rise of the capitalist class. If it can be said by Israel's national chauvinists that there are no Palestinians, only Arabs, it can equally be said that there are no Israelis, only a group of disparate people gathered together arbitrarily from the four corners of the earth and vaguely united on the basis of a divided religion. Even the official language of Modern Hebrew was a fabrication, a dredging up of a liturgical language that was subsequently filled in with borrowings from other languages like Arabic in order to modernize it. All of the bourgeois sharks, Jewish and Arab, moved in on the disputed territory of Palestine in order to create the facts on the ground that would make for a political order that would work in their favor. Workers have no country. Everywhere they will be subject. Everywhere the bourgeoisie will ruthlessly exploit them.

Conditions are so bad among the Palestinians that fifty-three percent of Palestinian women and children living in the West Bank and Gaza are currently suffering from malnutrition and anemia, according to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The poverty and oppression of Palestinians isn't going to change with the introduction of two states. This solution has always been the solution of the Stalinists. Israeli Stalinists have long supported this as it allows them to be good Israeli nationalists while supporting "self-determination" for the Palestinians at the same time, and most of the rest of capitalism's leftwing, peace activists, Trotskyists, Anarchists and other "libertarians" parrot this same line more or less openly. The PA was created to contain Palestinians and control them, a tool of one bourgeoisie putting another bourgeoisie in power in order to contain a desperate population. The "two state solution" would be little more than the extension of a political franchise to this set-up and would mean nothing more than the creation of reservations for Palestinians entirely dependent on Israel and the US for their existence. This will not improve the condition of those workers who are citizens of Israel in the least. The situation of all workers in Israel and the occupied territories is the result of a crisis that goes to the very heart of capitalism itself. They can only expect that the bourgeoisie will continue to ask them to sacrifice more and more.

The situation is so hopeless that Palestinian workers, once among those more inclined to Arab nationalism than Islamic religious reaction are now gravitating towards groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad. As the US supported and fostered Muslim fundamentalism in Middle East and Central Asia, so Israel also supported the religious reactionaries of Hamas to counter the Arab Nationalists under the PLO umbrella. The sick irony of this is that the Israeli state actually supported an organization like Hamas that is virulently anti-Semitic. The one thing to which all parties responsible for this conflict agree is that the misery and exploitation of workers must continue, that the war must continue on forever.

Peace drips from the tongues of the capitalists as the blood drips from their hands. The pacifist camp has no solution; it can only call for a peace that will not happen while supporting a state that makes endless war. Pacifism supports the militarism of the Israeli government while issuing slogans and statements to pacify a population sick of war. Pacifism acts to politically neuter any working class opposition to the imperialist war. The political forces that most consistently promote capitalist "peace" are the most faithful allies of the warlords of capital. As the war rages everyone is calling for peace especially the capitalists who can only offer more war. Imperialism only succeeds in its ambitions insofar as it is able to mobilize proletarians and keep them silent, isolated and afraid.

An end to this conflict rests in the hands of the workers alone. As impossible as it seems the only way of stopping this is through the revolutionary defeatism of workers themselves. They can consciously choose to organize themselves, to stop following orders and to actively work against the Israeli state and the Palestinian Authority. Workers are capable of being more than just dogs on the capitalist leash. They are capable of being more than the eternally helpless victims of history.
Revolutionary defeatism or bust.

graceposter was right about everything

>>2296043
bodied that snipped boi

>>2296113
>Palestinians are nowhere near the most, look at Indonesia.
I think you might actually be retarded anon

America and israel are the largest contributors to the murder of muslims in the world. Whatever happens in indonesia is irrelevant


>I want the total eradication of all religion, will they kill themselves after they're done killing all muslims? Will religion even disappear if they just keep killing?
Well with their mass slaughter campaign on muslims it's a good start for you no? You can't have everything anon, but currently they're giving you at least partially what you want. You must be overjoyed

>>2296119
>Will they even kill all the muslims? It doesn't look like the US has any intention of killing saudi princes soon
Saudi princes are not devout muslims lmao, they're basically all westernized lib secularists anyway

>>2296201
>Sharia Law
Not beating the zionazi allegations

>>2296043
why is the message to judaism missing though? what would it imply?

>>2296353
>One of the gravest sins in Islam is to be an "innovator" who tries to reinterpret Islam with a more liberal lens. This action takes you out of the fold of Islam, and leaves you as some individualist, spiritual idiot with Islamic aesthetics
What are you talking about dude? The islamic world has gone through several different periods of more conservative dogmatism as well as more open liberal periods of wider interpretation. What "sin" are you referring to and how has this expressed itself through islamic history?

>>2296441
>America and israel are the largest contributors to the murder of muslims in the world. Whatever happens in indonesia is irrelevant
They don't murder muslims for the sake of anti-theism nor have the goal of eradicating islam, it is entirely an economic motif driven by nationalism, the same one that allows them simultaneously collaborate with other bourgeoisie islamic nations while murdering muslims in a select contested spot. You'd have to do apologetics against the eradication of islam in the USSR to defend its preservation.
>Saudi princes are not devout muslims lmao, they're basically all westernized lib secularists anyway
<It wasn't true Islam, it just so happens that it picked up the conservative reactionary elements that concoct an islamic state
Turkey, Syrian "rebels", Libyan jihadists, ISIS, Afghani Mujahedeen "freedom fighters", Bosnian & Albanian islamists and many more all backed by the US, but of course the US is "fighting islam". Any other examples of an islamic state (a conservative shithole society) are "too liberal to be islam" apparently if they have skyscrapers.

>>2296024
I'm not really a Christian Anarchist but I just use the flag because Christianity is my private belief whereas politically I am libcom, if I use the flag it's less confusing when discussing IDpol topics

>>2296441
>Well with their mass slaughter campaign on muslims it's a good start for you no? You can't have everything anon, but currently they're giving you at least partially what you want. You must be overjoyed
They're incapable of eradicating religion through religious barbarity. The only way they could possibly end all religion once and for all is if they lead to a global nuclear war.
Until then the only revolutionary subject that can bring about change remains the proletariat.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm

>>2296481
Read this.

>They don't murder muslims for the sake of anti-theism nor have the goal of eradicating islam, it is entirely an economic motif driven by nationalism, the same one that allows them simultaneously collaborate with other bourgeoisie islamic nations while murdering muslims in a select contested spot
Who cares why they do it? It aligns with your goals, that's why you happily cheer "death to islam" right? Well, they're doing death to islam right now. You should rejoice!

>You'd have to do apologetics against the eradication of islam in the USSR to defend its preservation.
Ok? I think of all the hills to die on for the USSR, their anti-religious policies are not one of them lol. Didn't really get them anywhere did it?

>Turkey, Syrian "rebels", Libyan jihadists, ISIS, Afghani Mujahedeen "freedom fighters", Bosnian & Albanian islamists and many more all backed by the US, but of course the US is "fighting islam". Any other examples of an islamic state (a conservative shithole society) are "too liberal to be islam" apparently if they have skyscrapers.
Muslims killing mostly other muslims should make you happy no? I thought you were the death to islam guy? More dead muslims should be right up your alley. Well don't worry, the united states, Israel and their collaborator allies are working on it for you!

>>2296441
>Not beating the zionazi allegations
Outing yourself as a lib cultural fetishist or a dishonest Islamist. A majority of Muslims outside diaspora communities have very strict interpretations of sharia law and they want it to be the law of the land. That's not equivalent to saying the solution is imperialist war, support for Israel or remigration. It's stating a fact. That wholesome chungus Palestinian you saw on tiktok this morning almost certainly believes in property as a God given right, women being second class citizens, gay people being executed with rocks, and incestuous child marriage.

Orientalist screeching about how harems were secretly liberatory or larping about Islamic socialism that has no meaningful presence in the mideast doesn't help anyone. It tries to sweep under the rug a real issue that wrecks the revolutionary potential of workers in a huge area of the planet and makes their lives a lot worse. I think in your case you're probably Islamist since you're seething at the Saudis but in the case of the libs it's like seeing the Holocaust and a major part of your response being to start aggressively defending and whitewashing Orthodox Judaism.

>>2296493
Damn, ᴉuᴉlossnW was based once.

>>2296498
4 (You) >>2296478

>>2296414
Holy SHIT that was a fast response. This will take a while to absorb. I didn't (and well, still don't) understand how much of a hand that the usa and israel had in building fundamentalist islamist forces, or how damaging those forces have been for the people they are supposed to benefit. And also I haven't read Lenin yet.

Thanks for the dialogue guys, time to read

>>2296498
>Who cares why they do it? It aligns with your goals, that's why you happily cheer "death to islam" right?
If it aligned with my goals they would kill themselves for being christians, followers of judaism or proponents of liberal democracy before they would attack muslims. I treat them all equally, the world would be better if they are all dead, rather than targeting one in peculiar, you are being dishonest in pointing to only one head of the hydra when brought into question, all of it must go at the same time before it can grow back.
>Well, they're doing death to islam right now.
Clearly not, since the likes of you, bullshit "anarchists", MLs and millions more liberals have converted to islam to show how much "they support Palestinians". Why not self-flagellate to show how much you care about the suffering at that logic?
>Ok? I think of all the hills to die on for the USSR, their anti-religious policies are not one of them lol. Didn't really get them anywhere did it?
Whatever "marxist pedagogy" there was clearly failed, the end of the league of militant atheists was a disaster that would contribute to the later collapse of the USSR as christian vermin would rejoice.
>Muslims killing mostly other muslims should make you happy no? I thought you were the death to islam guy?
If you can't tell the difference between "death to islam" and "death by islam" then you must be as retarded as any religious vermin.
>I thought you were the death to islam guy? Well don't worry, the united states, Israel and their collaborator allies are working on it for you!
Israel and the US gladly work with islamic states as long as it serves their bourgeois national interests and profits them. I wrote Death to islam, as all other religions, you're missing that part out, death to christianity as all other religions, death to judaism as all other religions, happy? Apparently not, since you're in for islamic national liberation.

>>2296500
>Outing yourself as a lib cultural fetishist or a dishonest Islamist. A majority of Muslims outside diaspora communities have very strict interpretations of sharia law and they want it to be the law of the land. That's not equivalent to saying the solution is imperialist war, support for Israel or remigration. It's stating a fact. That wholesome chungus Palestinian you saw on tiktok this morning almost certainly believes in property as a God given right, women being second class citizens, gay people being executed with rocks, and incestuous child marriage
You are a retard who's clearly never spoken to anyone from the middle east lol. Of course there are regressive values to be found amongst muslims, as with any disenfranchised people. They are nowhere near unique in this

>Orientalist screeching about how harems were secretly liberatory or larping about Islamic socialism that has no meaningful presence in the mideast doesn't help anyone. It tries to sweep under the rug a real issue that wrecks the revolutionary potential of workers in a huge area of the planet and makes their lives a lot worse. I think in your case you're probably Islamist since you're seething at the Saudis but in the case of the libs it's like seeing the Holocaust and a major part of your response being to start aggressively defending and whitewashing Orthodox Judaism.
Listen pal, I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and say I don't think you're actually a zionist, but you've been duped. Muslims are no more innately reactionary than anyone else, that is not "whitewashing" anything. As we were not talking about extremists, we're talking about a population of people containing literal billions.

For god's sake man, you're talking like sam harris or Bill Maher:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vln9D81eO60

/thread

>>2296532
You see anon, nobody is killing jews or christians in the scale that muslims are being slaughtered. So you saying "also death to those other guys btw" is not and will not be enacted in the world. Luckily for you, at least part of what you want enacted on the world is being enacted and you get to help them out by doing propaganda for them by spouting shit like "death to islam" online! How exciting for you!!

>>2296558
incredible that this image is over a decade old

>>2296558
>What if hamas bad
WOW, amazing insight! In these times of crisis, as the palestinian people are being butchered and annihilated for being the wrong race and glad you have the courage to make such a brave and helpful observation

>>2296566
palestinians arent big fans of hamas either

>>2296568
Lmao many of them are dude, especially now. While many palestinians might not agree with the political platform of hamas, they respect and admire them as (one of the last) legitimate resistance orgs

>>2296562
>So you saying "also death to those other guys btw" is not and will not be enacted in the world
Not the guys, the religions, religion itself. If someone has time they can list off every active abstraction, I'm sticking to calling for the death of the big three.
>Luckily for you, at least part of what you want enacted on the world
It isn't, for every muslim dying in the world a redditor converts to islam in solidarity, you're a living example.
>you get to help them out by doing propaganda for them by spouting shit like "death to islam" online!
Obviously you have to give critical support to islam or you would be doing them a favor.

>>2296548
>You are a retard who's clearly never spoken to anyone from the middle east
I have and they're nothing like westernized middle eastern people. How many people from the middle east who haven't been living in the west for longer than a year have you spoken with? Or who are first generation even?
>Muslims are no more innately reactionary than anyone else
I didn't say it was "innate" whatever that means. Islam changes along with the material base like any other religion and there is no extremism gene that makes middle eastern ethnicities more prone to it.
>As we were not talking about extremists, we're talking about a population of people containing literal billions
I posted legit polling data that shows that a global majority of Muslims are extremists if your definition is a hardline interpretation of sharia and wanting it to replace secular law. >>2296201
Extremists aren't conjured into existence out of nothing by the CIA. They don't live cradle to grave in some mountain cave except when they descend to terrorize communities of normal people who despise them. You can't have a successful insurgency or political movement without mass support and Islamists in the mideast have both all the time. Historically you can talk about how the CIA and other pressures like Saudi missionary projects or anger at corruption and imperialism did push Islamism to its current popularity. But that doesn't make the popularity less real. If you walk down any street in Cairo or Baghdad you are passing hundreds of people who believe very extreme things even if they may not be seriously engaged with any Islamist movement.

>>2296573
>Not the guys, the religions, religion itself. If someone has time they can list off every active abstraction, I'm sticking to calling for the death of the big three.
Religion exists only through people, effectively you are wishing death on the followers of that religion, which is being enacted already
>It isn't, for every muslim dying in the world a redditor converts to islam in solidarity, you're a living example.
Nonsense, they're killing far more people than actually convert over. Aren't you lucky?
>Obviously you have to give critical support to islam or you would be doing them a favor.
Exactly, so no more needlessly badmouthing islam!

>>2296569
>While many italians might not agree with the political platform of PNF, they respect and admire them as (one of the last) legitimate resistance orgs
<OMG COMPARING MY FAVORITE ISLAMIC NATLIB MOVEMENT TO FASCISM? LITERAL ZIONIST CIA POST
Daring right? You are not a communist, you are a liberal rallying behind bourgeois nationalism. Palestinian workers must embrace revolutionary defeatism against Hamas and Israeli workers must fight against Israel if there is to be any chance of both living in peace.
However, Israelis are currently too nationalist and rallied behind the killing of Palestinians and busy dehumanizing them. So there are seemingly realistically only three ways this could go - either another bourgeois nation intervenes and helps the islamic jihadists do an uno reverse ethnic cleansing, the genocide comes to a conclusion (millions dead) or somehow the US and Israel decide to stop.
The best choice for a communist is to continue agitating and remain principled. Many more will die in history, perhaps in genocides worse than those of the past and abandoning any principles to give support to lesser-evils can only aid liberal bastards.

>>2296608
>Religion exists only through people, effectively you are wishing death on the followers of that religion, which is being enacted already
And it can only cease to exist once all followers are dead, so effectively nothing is happening.
>Nonsense, they're killing far more people than actually convert over. Aren't you lucky?
There's only a few millions left, while millions more are converting out of revanchist spite, the cult of Abrahamic mental illness stands at the creation of martyrs, so you're only making islam more popular by killing a few million muslims while rallying for them to stand up and show how hardcore muslims can fight.
>Exactly, so no more needlessly badmouthing islam!
Exactly so just cease to be a communist.

>>2296598
>I have and they're nothing like westernized middle eastern people. How many people from the middle east who haven't been living in the west for longer than a year have you spoken with? Or who are first generation even?
Many of course, which is how I know they're by n large normal people, much like anyone from the third world really

>I didn't say it was "innate" whatever that means.
Fundamental to, essential to, an innate characteristic
> Islam changes along with the material base like any other religion and there is no extremism gene that makes middle eastern ethnicities more prone to it.
Exactly, so why are you spouting all this nonsense like islam is somehow worse than any other religion?

>I posted legit polling data that shows that a global majority of Muslims are extremists
Lmao, your brain is rotted by zionist propaganda. Just because a lot of muslims might have favorable opinion islamic law, doesn't mean they're radical extremists.

>Extremists aren't conjured into existence out of nothing by the CIA. They don't live cradle to grave in some mountain cave except when they descend to terrorize communities of normal people who despise them. You can't have a successful insurgency or political movement without mass support and Islamists in the mideast have both all the time. Historically you can talk about how the CIA and other pressures like Saudi missionary projects or anger at corruption and imperialism did push Islamism to its current popularity. But that doesn't make the popularity less real. If you walk down any street in Cairo or Baghdad you are passing hundreds of people who believe very extreme things even if they may not be seriously engaged with any Islamist movement.
Yeah but none of that is indicative of islam itself or the people who follow it. They were not more susceptible to religious fundamentalism because they were muslim. They were susceptible to it because they are the subjects of imperialism

>muh islamofascism
>Daring right?

Not really, I can just tune into CNN and get the same story in practice. But keep on principling, Im sure those nasty fascists resisting their own genocide will be dealt with swiftly. Won't you and the Knesset be happy

>>2296623
>And it can only cease to exist once all followers are dead, so effectively nothing is happening.
You can't have it all anon, at least you're going in the right direction right?

>There's only a few millions left, while millions more are converting out of revanchist spite
Ok bro, you are actually delusional lmao

>the cult of Abrahamic mental illness stands at the creation of martyrs, so you're only making islam more popular by killing a few million muslims while rallying for them to stand up and show how hardcore muslims can fight
No that is just your weird fantasy lol, nobody's converting to islam in great numbers because of palestine. Tho I imagine there's a few lol
>Exactly so just cease to be a communist.
Why would I do that?

>>2296649
meant for >>2296609

>>2296649
>Not really
No its pretty daring of me to write it in the echochamber of shitlib leftists larping as communists!
>Im sure those nasty fascists resisting their own genocide
Hamas is resisting Palestinian genocide as much as ISIS is protecting kurds from US interventionism.
>Won't you and the Knesset be happy
They won't be happy when Palestinian and Israeli proletariat have united to gut them.

>>2296662
>They won't be happy when Palestinian and Israeli proletariat have united to gut them.
What's the timeline on that?

>No its pretty daring of me to write it in the echochamber of shitlib leftists larping as communists!
No, it's really not. Believe it or not we've all heard your dumb equivocations plenty of times before

>Hamas is like ISIS!!! OMG Scary muslim barbarians

Hey waitaminute, where have I heard that before? Shmuley? Is that you? How's the Tel Aviv real estate business going?

>They won't be happy when Palestinian and Israeli proletariat have united to gut them.
>Palestinian and Israeli proletariat have united
Lmaoooooooo, you fucking larper

>>2296674
idk why I keep not tagging you lol >>2296662

>>2296674
>Hamas is like ISIS!!!
Actual truthnuke many liberal natlibs refuse to face.
>Lmaoooooooo, you fucking larper
Its better to be a communist larper than a jihadist larper. You can't have both at once.

>>2296637
>Fundamental to, essential to, an innate characteristic
Which is not what I said.
>Exactly, so why are you spouting all this nonsense like islam is somehow worse than any other religion?
I didn't compare it to any other religion but why would it even follow from a materialist position on Islam that it couldn't be worse? Ideological superstructure like religion changes over time as material base changes. That doesn't mean all religions are equal though because the material inputs determining the development of religion differ from one place to another.
>They were susceptible to it because they are the subjects of imperialism
Okay? It doesn't matter why they were susceptible to it when we're talking about to what extent they've fallen for it and if that's a problem for the region or not. A very big portion of the Islamic masses believe wholeheartedly in Islamic fundamentalism, that is reality.
>Just because a lot of muslims might have favorable opinion islamic law, doesn't mean they're radical extremists
Since you're too lazy to look at the article, I'll copy the data about the PA from it
>75% believe sharia is the revealed word of God rather than developed by men and based on the revealed word of God
>51% believe sharia has one correct interpretation
>89% favor making sharia the law of the land
>44% of that 89% believe it should apply to all citizens, not only Muslims
>80% of that 89% believe it should decide domestic and property disputes
>76% of that 89% say it should include the corporal punishments like amputation and whipping
>84% of that 89% say it should include death by stoning for adultery
>66% of that 89% say it should include the death penalty for apostasy
This is from 2013 and that's the PA where the occupation is less intrusive. Almost certainly those numbers are way higher now for the PA and would be higher still for Gaza.

>>2296678
>Actual truthnuke many liberal natlibs refuse to face.
The 200 shekels have been deposited into your account mr Shmuley! How's the son? I heard he's studying at Hebrew U now
>Its better to be a communist larper than a jihadist larper. You can't have both at once.
Good thing that you can admit you're just a larper, glad we're on the same page

>>2296558
Truth nuke

Get off twitter NOW
Touch Digital Grass NOW
Go explore and discover a website you haven't seen before IMMEDIATELY

>>2296687
>Which is not what I said.
It is when we're talking about islam being a more reactionary religion
>I didn't compare it to any other religion
Why are you lying? >>2296088
>but muslim are far more reactionary than christian and jew

Even if you are not that anon, but it was quoted in the initial post you reacted to, so it was clearly about that

>why would it even follow from a materialist position on Islam that it couldn't be worse?
Because you have no material evidence for that, just a poll asking people about Sharia Law, which, while regressive like all religious doctrines, is complex and multifaceted, people might have different ideas of what a society run on SL might look like for instance. That is if you're not a racist who sees it as nothing but barbarism. More to the point, there's not really any indication that islam is somehow more or less regressive or reactionary than any other religion or that that would be in any way a deciding factor anyhow

>Ideological superstructure like religion changes over time as material base changes. That doesn't mean all religions are equal though because the material inputs determining the development of religion differ from one place to another
But don't you think it's the material conditions that are the primary movers in this instance? Like oh say, having your country bombed to shit and imperialized for decades might make you more susceptible to religious extremism/fundamentalism regardless of whether you're christian or muslim or whatever
>Okay? It doesn't matter why they were susceptible to it when we're talking about to what extent they've fallen for it and if that's a problem for the region or not. A very big portion of the Islamic masses believe wholeheartedly in Islamic fundamentalism, that is reality.
No, that is you not understanding the complexities of the islamic world or materialism and honestly also your racism clouding your judgement

>Since you're too lazy to look at the article, I'll copy the data about the PA from it
>75% believe sharia is the revealed word of God rather than developed by men and based on the revealed word of God
>51% believe sharia has one correct interpretation
>89% favor making sharia the law of the land
>44% of that 89% believe it should apply to all citizens, not only Muslims
>80% of that 89% believe it should decide domestic and property disputes
>76% of that 89% say it should include the corporal punishments like amputation and whipping
>84% of that 89% say it should include death by stoning for adultery
>66% of that 89% say it should include the death penalty for apostasy
>This is from 2013 and that's the PA where the occupation is less intrusive. Almost certainly those numbers are way higher now for the PA and would be higher still for Gaza.

WOW you're telling me that people in some of the most destitute and impoverished circumstances on earth might have some regressive values??? Holy shit man that's crazy wow, I'd never imagined such a thing!

It's always funny to see any criticism of Islam get deflected with "you're Jewish/Christian/Hindu/imperialist/Westoid"

Nope buddy, it's just that your religion fucking sucks. The oppression of women, the incessant push to convert or punish infidels, the oppression of religious minorities, even minorities who are Islamic themselves but from the wrong sect, all the atrocities and genocides committed in the name of Islam etc.

And you don't have to be pro-Islam to be against the slaughter of Palestinians.

>>2296728
You don't have to be anti islam either dumbass
>The oppression of women, the incessant push to convert or punish infidels, the oppression of religious minorities, even minorities who are Islamic themselves but from the wrong sec
Damn, yeah those sure are things only islam is known for, can't think of any other religion that would do something like that, no siree

Don't you have to report back at Tel Aviv HQ Shmuley?

>>2296728
>It's always funny to see any criticism of Islam get deflected with "you're Jewish/Christian/Hindu/imperialist/Westoid"
WRONG, it's always "you're CIA/Mossad". At this point the only way to refute this is to get a job at the Belarussian KGB and present your documents so the MLs can shit themselves.

>>2296734
NTA
>You don't have to be anti islam either dumbass
Yeah just ignore reactionaries altogether or pretend its "progressive". Marx famously didn't criticize religion because it was a way of struggling people to delude themselves into coping with the way things are.
>Damn, yeah those sure are things only islam is known for,
Exactly, nothing good out of feudal archaic beliefs, victory to communism.
>can't think of any other religion that would do something like that
All of them do actually, victory to communism.

what even is this thread

>>2296728
>Islam is bad because muh wiminz and minorities
Islam is bad because it's anti atheist, and a regressive anti-scientific retarded doctrine. Just like all abrahamic AKA sand uyghur religions.

>>2296761
>Just like all abrahamic AKA sand uyghur religions.
And Hinduism.

>>2296769
In an abstract sense I know that all religion ultimately ends up being pure copium so proles don't question social disparities, but being a westoid I'm only ever exposed to the religions of the sand cult variety.

>>2296775
Hinduism is copium on steroids

If organised, mainstream (that is to say, state churches) Christianity practised the teachings of Jesus Christ they would be socialists.
The Catholic, Orthodox and state-protestant churches have all been instruments of the state and have been shaped by the state to fit the needs of the state. Whether it be the Romans, the Byzantine Empire, the Normans, the HRE, the English, etc. etc. Christianity as an institution is political. Barely anyone who describes themselves as Christian is truly religious. This is a fact.

>>2296780
Comrade Jesus Christ will lead the people in the realization of the current Five Year Plan

>>2296780
>If organised, mainstream (that is to say, state churches) Christianity practised the teachings of Jesus Christ they would be socialists.
I'm so fucking tired of you pseuds redwashing pre-feudal religions as "socialist" Marx fucking criticized you, Marx proved "christian socialism" is utopian reactionary bullshit and argued with the "christian socialist" retards of his time, retarded faggots. The term "utopian socialism" was literally created to describe reactionary christians posing as "socialist".

>>2296785
You seem to have misread me. I am referring to the teachings of Jesus and the morals taught within, even outside of a religious perspective. Jesus was not the leader of a state. He was critical of the lending and private ownership of land even during the days of Emperor Tiberius.
Lenin criticised Christian Socialism because, rightfully, you cannot have both socialism and a state-religion. He never said you couldn't be a Christian and a socialist.

>>2296784
>>2296780
Wilhelm Weitling (christian socialist reactionary) was refuted by Marx, he claimed that "the teachings of Jesus and the essence of christianity were socialist"
https://redsails.org/marx-meets-weitling/
You have nothing to justify your existence, petty vermin preying on illiterate liberals trying to learn about socialism, as predatory as priests. Marx destroyed your entire framework of arguments.

>>2296789
>He never said you couldn't be a Christian and a socialist.
Lying again.
Religion must be of no concern to the state, and religious societies must have no connection with governmental authority. Everyone must be absolutely free to profess any religion he pleases, or no religion whatever, i.e., to be an atheist, which every socialist is, as a rule.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/dec/03.htm

>>2296790
oopsies poopsies my redditor friend I should have signified my sarcasm with /s

>>2296793
The only place where "christian socialism" can live in is reddit

>>2296795
It seems to work in Cuba and Nicaragua.

>>2296790
>>2296792
Unfortunately for you, Marx and Lenin are both unimmune to constructive criticism. Marx's critique on Weitling is more directed to his preaching and holier than thou philosophy than the opinion that the New Testament is compatible with socialism, which Marx never mentions.
And by Lenin clearly mentioning that all men should be free to profess any faith he pleases, he instantly instigates that Christians can play an active role within a Socialist society regardless.

>>2296088
The Muslim world is reactionary because of how much it is held back by imperialism. Socialists give bourgeoisie national liberation movements a pass in the muslim world because it is a necessary part of the dialectical material development of history.

>>2296793
”Communism begins from the outset with atheism; but atheism is, at first, far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction”

—Karl Marx in Private Property and Communism (1845)

>>2296797
Fictive socialism.

>>2296804
You want to argue about the basis of socialism, and you're arguing that Cuba is a national socialist state?

Another thing to mention is the names of early Christian Socialists were erected in 1918 during the Bolshevik Revolution.

>>2296808
Those dancing in the streets in Miami and those mourning around the world agree on at least one thing on the death of Fidel Castro Ruz. Their common ground is the great lie that Cuba was “socialist”. For the supporters of capitalism, socialism is Stalinism with its lack of freedom and its gulags. For the blindly pro-Castro camp improving education and health care wipes out the memory of all those judicially murdered, and the even greater number locked up, for resisting a regime which was based on mass surveillance and the ubiquitous secret police, the G2. To combat the great lie of Cuba’s supposed socialism, we are publishing here three articles which we produced in 1984 and 1999 commemorating the various anniversaries of Castro’s January 1959 victory. In some respects some of the facts are dated (Castro has, for example, since apologised to all the gays the regime locked up – we don’t know whether this was any kind of consolation for the victims especially since the macho, anti-gay culture still exists in today’s Communist Party of Cuba) but the essential argument about the nature of the Cuban economy and state has not.

The British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, in uncharacteristically diplomatic mode, described Castro as an "historic if controversial figure" whose death "marks the end of an era for Cuba and the start of a new one for Cuba's people".

In fact that era started some time back with the collapse of the USSR and the withdrawal of its subsidies. Castro handed over power to his brother Raul a decade ago. In capitalist terms the outstanding achievement of the Castro regime is that it has warded off the hostility of the most powerful state in history only 90 miles from its shores for almost 6 decades. But this does not make it different from any other capitalist entity. Indeed the US embargo on Cuba and its attempt to foist this embargo on the world has only polished the “anti-imperialist” credentials of the regime in the eyes of the left-wing of capitalism. This was what Obama came to realise but which a Republican regime financed by Cuban exiles is unlikely to pursue with much energy.

As it is the regime in Havana has only been able to survive the last quarter of a century through its trade deals with China and Venezuela. Private enterprise has been encouraged (but like everywhere else since 2008 new start-ups are rare), and without Chinese patronage (which was initially attracted by Cuba’s small nickel output and is today its overwhelmingly its new “godfather”) the regime would have collapsed, in one way or another, long ago. The sad thing today is not the death of one 90 year old individual but the continuing lie which continues to equate his Stalinist model of state capitalism with socialism. We offer these articles which have been long out of print as an antidote.

CWO

27 November 2016

1. Castro’s Cuba: Forty Years of State Capitalism
From Revolutionary Perspectives 13 (Series 3 Winter 1999)

On January 1, 1959 the guerrillas of Fidel Castro’s 26 July Movement entered Havana, capital of Cuba. The day before the US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista had fled into exile. Until then Havana had been, under Batista, an American playground where the Mafia controlled much of economic life as well as all the main trade unions. The Union of Gastronomic Workers, for example, actually built and owned the Havana Hilton (today called the Hotel Havana Libre). Gambling and prostitution were the main money earners for those with access to US tourists. One of today's ironies is that the prostitutes have returned (it is calculated that there are now l0,000 prostitutes in Cuba) with the mass tourism Castro has had to fall back on since the USSR collapsed. With the loss of its multi-million dollar a day subsidy and in the face of a continuing US blockade foreign tourism is about all that keeps Cuba going. "Going'' might be an exaggeration as nearly every economic and social indicator is in reverse. Even the much-vaunted health system is (like healthcare in the rest of the world) in deep crisis. Castro has manoeuvred astutely to court European governments (especially Spain) and has even managed to become a source of friction between Europe and a USA which passed the Helms-Burton Act designed to penalise any European firm which broke the US blockade. Castro has been so desperate to find new allies that he even had the Pope in Cuba in 1998 (despite the secret and public role the Catholic Church carried out for the CIA in destroying Castro’s old Stalinist allies in Eastern Europe).

Castro has also benefited from sentimental support from those who see Cuba as either a “socialist experiment” or mounting a plucky resistance to the tyranny of the United States. On the twenty-fifth anniversary of the revolution we devoted two small articles in our paper, Workers Voice, to show that not only was Cuba not socialist it was also not even "anti-imperialist''. Over the years several comrades have asked for reprints of them and so we have printed them again without alteration.

Indeed there is nothing to alter. Today, of course the situation is different since Cuba is no longer a client of either the USA or the USSR but it is still very much a pawn of imperialism. At the moment it has no godfather (which means Cuban youth are no longer dying in Grenada, Angola or Guinea-Bissau as they did in the seventies) but that does not mean Castro is still not trying to find one. What we can say is that the whole history of Cuba demonstrates the impossibility of any state achieving real independence in the epoch of imperialism. No state has tried harder than Cuba to achieve this and whilst it could be argued that Cuba is currently not dominated by any great power this is obviously not a permanent condition.

At the same time Cuba is not “socialist'” in any sense of the word. Holding hard currency has been legal in Cuba since 1993 which means that those Cubans who get it are in a different class from everyone else. Cubans who do get hold of hard currency have generally done so via some form of illegal activity.

>>2296815
>>2296808
Meanwhile rations have been cut further for ordinary Cubans though that does not affect the not-so-new class of “comandantes” (which include Castro and his brother Raul) who don't have to live off the ration card (tarjeta) but instead have a comparatively luxurious life. All the laws against not working hard (or face gaol) are still in force and new ones against “labour indiscipline” have been added (to attract British, French and Spanish firms to invest in Cuba). Its wage labour is even doubly exploited since foreign firms purchase Cuban labour from the state (including doctors) and the state then only passes a proportion of the wages on to the workers who are taken on. Socialism will abolish wage labour, will be run by workers councils which have sovereign authority (Castro's so-called Committees for the Defence of the Revolution are simply means for the state to control every street and every block) and, of course, such a socialism can only be built on an international scale.

Socially too the regime is noted for its homophobia and as elsewhere blacks are noticeable by their absence from the higher ranks of the state. Cuba, like every other state in the world is capitalist. Today it is still nationalism which is the real ideology on which the current Cuban ruling class rely. They will have to be overthrown just like the ruling class in any other state.

2. Cuba is Capitalist
From Workers Voice, paper of the Communist Workers’ Organisation (January 1984)

For Marx communism or socialism (he used the words interchangeably) could only come about in a society of abundance, of material wealth. In it goods would be distributed on the principle of “from each according to their ability; to each according to their need”. On the other hand the chief way in which capitalism can be recognised is in the use of wage labour. For Marx "wage labour pre-supposes capitalism''. All the so-called socialist societies of today, from the USSR and Eastern Europe through to China, Albania and Vietnam keep this central feature of capitalism.

In every society which pays wages the workers produce surplus value. In other words they are denied the full product of their labour. These societies, no less than the West, are thus exploiting societies – in short, capitalist societies. It's true that the state rather than an individual is the boss but this in no way changes their capitalist nature. As Engels wrote a century ago,

… the transformation … into state ownership does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces … The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine … i.e. workers remain wage Iabourers … The capitalist relation is not done away with.

Anti-Duhring, pp 329-30
Many will therefore agree with us that the USSR, China, et al. are state capitalist but when faced with its tropical version in Cuba they begin to show doubts. They argue that its “different” that it has features of “real'” socialism or that it has to be defended because its “progressive”. Such fantasies of the left can easily be dispelled by looking at the facts.

Class in Cuba

Let’s begin by looking at the conditions of the workers. It’s true that Castro ended the unemployment rate of 25-30% which was common in the 1950s but this has only been achieved through huge Russian subsidies which hide massive unemployment. Workers on state farms work 5 hours and get paid for 8, whilst seasonal workers get paid a full year for 6 months work. This doesn't really matter since there isn't much to buy. Castro also introduced a social security law in 1962 but by 1969 only 6% of Cuban workers had fully qualified for all pension and social security benefits because this depended on a good work record. This was further tightened up in August 1969 by Law No. 225 which established work control cards for all workers. They record each worker's background, political activity and productivity. Without it you cannot work or receive a wage. In addition it is a crime not to work (under the 1971 “Ley contra la vagancia” or “Law Against Idleness'”) whilst increasingly labour is being militarised. Thus the tendency is to increase rather than decrease exploitation.

As a preparation for this, school children are also militarised. They are sent to “schools in the countryside” which are subject to military discipline. The motto of the Ministry of Education is “Study, Work, Rifle'” and the aim of its schools is to teach the virtue of productive work and of dying for the “socialist fatherland” in Soviet proxy wars in Africa. (There are 5,000 Cubans in Angola alone).

But even militarisation has not succeeded in lifting productivity and 20% of Cuban workers are now on piecework whilst 50% have to achieve a production quota before getting paid.

At the same time a new ruling class has emerged. Judges, technicians and ministers get ten times the workers' wage and don't have to depend on their ration card like the rest of the population. They also have access to the fleet of 1,500 Alfa Romeos Castro bought for the use of the elite. As one Castro sympathiser has noted, this has led to

A problem whose existence has only recently been acknowledged (which) is the high degree of social tension between the labour force and the state bureaucracy.

Cuba in Revolution, Valdes and Bonachea p. 378
This is an understatement since workers who go on strike are arrested in their hundreds, whilst some leaders of striking canecutters have been sentenced to death for “sabotage”.

Propaganda against the People

Yet to read books written by Castro’s supporters in the West one would think Cuba was the ideal democracy in which “the people” really take part. This is totally untrue.

In fact Cuba is nearer to the fascist political model than any other. Castro is referred to as the great leader who makes six big speeches every year excusing failures (like Grenada), or setting targets for mobilisation. The much-talked about "People's Power'' is in fact nothing but an attempt to mobilise more Cubans behind the targets Castro sets and to give life to dead bodies like the state unions. All the real decisions aren't taken by the Cuban Communist Party (set up in its modern form in 1965) but by Castro and his immediate cronies Castro owes more to Napoleon than Marx in that he relies on nationalism and plebiscites to win over the masses (97% voted for the 1976 “socialist” constitution – Hitler got similar majorities when he made himself Führer of Germany).

Cuba shows clearly that socialism is not something that can be imposed by this or that dictator or group of dictators. Despite its romantic image, political mobilisation has been very much on the totalitarian model, with children drafted into the "Camilitos'' (a militaristic Boy Scout movement like the Hitler Youth or Stalin's Komsomol). Even in its famous campaign to wipe out illiteracy in 1961 the Cuban state did not have educational but political goals. Like Stalin in the 1930s, Castro realised that the state's political aims would reach more people if they could read. Books used were more like political than teaching manuals, including such definitions as "economic blockade – a state of siege imposed by imperialism (which) we have conquered thanks to the countries which trade with us.” Not bad for beginners! At the end of the campaign all Cubans had to write a letter to Castro, thus getting them to recognise the new state structure and their “great leader”.

Conclusion

To those who still want to believe that there is a “socialist paradise” on earth the facts we have outlined here will seem unpleasant. No doubt some will take comfort in the view that we “must have got them from the CIA” (In fact many are taken from the speeches of leading representatives of the Cuban state). They confirm what genuine Marxists who have not sold their critical capacities to imperialism have always known. Socialism cannot be built in one country alone (as was proved first in Russia in the 1920's). And socialism cannot be imposed on the working class by a small elite trying to make capitalism work more efficiently. The tasks of the Cuban working class remain the same as before. They are the same as for workers everywhere. Only the international workers' revolution will open up the conditions for the realisation of socialism world-wide. Only then will the dictatorship of Castro give way to the dictatorship of the armed workers' councils.

3. Cuba: Pawn of Imperialism
From Workers Voice, paper of the Communist Workers’ Organisation (January 1984)

Cuba in the twentieth century is a perfect example of how imperialism causes the stagnation of the economies of industrially less developed countries. It is also a perfect example of how “national liberation” from imperialism is impossible today.

All that these weaker economies can do is change from one imperialist master to another (from the USA to the USSR or vice versa).

In fact in the last 100 years Cuba has been a colony of three empires, since it was only in 1902 that it became “independent” from Spain. This independence was, however, more formal than real since Cuba had won its “independence” as a result of the Treaty of Paris which ended the Spanish-American War of 1898-9. No Cuban was present at the peace conference.

>>2296808
>>2296815
>>2296816
Under the Heel of the USA

Until 1902 Cuba was occupied by US troops who left when the Cuban government agreed to include the following clause in “independent” Cuba's Constitution

the US reserves and retains the right of intervention for the preservation of Cuban independence and the maintenance of stable government…

In other words, modern imperialism had arrived in Cuba. Although no longer occupied by foreign troops Cuba was a colony of the USA in all but name. Before 1933 the US Army was to enter Cuba on at least 3 occasions. The US soon began to feel the economic benefits of “our Cuban colony”. In 1903 Cuba was also forced to sign a trade treaty which worked entirely to the benefit of the US. Cuba was allowed to sell sugar (which then, as now, provided over 80% of its earnings) at 20% below the US sugar tariff whilst the USA was allowed to sell to Cuba a whole range of goods at similar reduced tariffs. The effect of this treaty was to force Cuban capital into total dependence on the world price of a single crop whilst cheap US imports prevented the growth of local industry. It wasn't long before Cuba began to pay the penalty for this. By 1910 the cheaper Cuban sugar had pushed all other sugar (which had to pay the full US tariff) off the US market. For Cuban sugar this meant that further increased production only lowered its world price (since the extra would be sold on the world market), ensuring that the sugar industry would never greatly improve its investment returns. Only the extra demand for sugar from the Allies during World War One (1914-18) prevented a crisis breaking out immediately. When the war ended the demand for sugar collapsed and so did sugar prices. So too did any hopes of an independent Cuban capitalism. By September 1921 78% of the Cuban sugar industry and the banks which had supplied them were in the hands of US banks and corporations But instead of cutting sugar production in order to raise sugar prices (the obvious course from the point of view of Cuban capital), these US monopolies increased it.

This lowered the world price of raw sugar (thus hitting Cuban producers) but these banks and sugar companies also invested in refined sugar and so cheap raw sugar was in their interest, even if it did make Cuba poorer. Cheap raw sugar helped to increase profits for refined sugar investors. This is a perfect example of how capitalist imperialism works all over the world, where raw materials are bought below value and then sold back to the supplier as finished goods with grossly inflated prices. Cuba provides another example. Before 1959 there was no canning plant on the island so fresh tomatoes and fruit sold by Cuba to the US often returned there in tins at inflated prices.

The 1933 Revolution

These policies of US imperialism led to the rise of Cuban nationalism and to state intervention in the economy. In 1926 the dictator Machado introduced an Act to limit the production of sugar. Whilst this pleased the local Cuban capitalists (since it raised sugar prices and thus their profits) it threw many Cuban sugar workers out of work. And when the US raised the tariff on Cuban sugar in 1929 sales to the US fell and led to even more unemployment and starvation. In 1933 the result was a popular insurrection, led by sugar workers, which overthrew Machado. A mass strike throughout the whole island led to workers seizing 36 sugar mills and even establishing a “soviet” at the Senado mill. However, lacking the leadership of a revolutionary party, the workers fell under the leadership of the Stalinist Popular Socialist Party (PSP) which contented itself with calling for an 8 hour day and legal unions. The Cuban workers missed their chance to seize state power but the insurrection itself highlights how workers' interests in the 20th Century are NEVER the same as their bosses, even if they have the same nationality. As the working class had exhausted itself in the earlier struggle the army, under Batista, was able to seize power and workers were driven into the mills and fields at the point of the bayonet.

Batista didn't rely on the stick alone. He recognised the leadership of the PSP over the unions as the best way to prevent the class struggle from getting out of control. At the height of the Stalin-Roosevelt alliance Batista even included, with the apparent blessing of his masters in Washington, two leading members of the PSP in his government.

Cuba before Castro

After 1933 government intervention in the sugar industry also increased to keep farmers, businessmen, and the sugar millworkers happy. In 1950 the World Bank described what was happening in the Cuban sugar industry as,

… perhaps one of the most elaborate patterns of government control ever imposed on an industry short of actual nationalisation.

Nationalisation didn't happen because the sugar owners still dominated the state, and in any case the Cuban ruling class didn't want to annoy the USA. However, profits were no longer what they were for the US monopolies and because of increased government control they cut their investment in the sugar industry by half and sold half their mills to Cubans. According to Cuba's nationalist leaders, this transfer of ownership should have stopped much of the profits produced by Cuban workers from going out of the country. This should have ended the 30 years of economic stagnation and led to industrial diversification. But it didn't. The Cuban ruling class did get more profits, but not enough to make it worthwhile investing in new productive industry. They could not compete with the prices of US goods. Further, the US wouldn't allow Cuba to run up a national debt – an essential part of all industrial revolutions under capitalism. In the 1950's all US loans were repaid within 30 days. So instead the local capitalists used 60% of their new income to buy houses in West Havana and Miami. Cuba became a playground for US millionaires and the Mafia set up gambling dens and brothels all over Havana.

The rampant corruption of Cuban politics and the wealth and luxury of Havana contrasted markedly with the life of the vast numbers of rural unemployed in the sugar industry. They only worked when the sugar harvest (zafra) was on. The rest of the year was called the “dead time” and for many this was literally true.

How Castro changed Cuba's Master

Castro's take-over ended all this. In 1959 Castro didn't claim to be a socialist. In fact, rather the opposite. The Progamme Manifesto of the 26th July Movement and Castro's speech at his Moncada trial [in 1953 when Batista defeated his first attempt insurrection] are specifically anti-socialist and anti-working class. He said the Cuban worker,

… should not be alien to the Fatherland’s sorrows and should abandon his class isolation and negative passivity …

He went on to say Cuba's ideology “will not be something imported from other places'“ and set out his creed as “democracy, nationalism and social justice”. By “democracy” he meant that of the USA (he quoted US Presidents Lincoln and Jefferson with approval) while his nationalism included a “doctrine of constructive friendship with the USA since “it is improper in America to use the word “imperialism”. On a trip to the USA in May, 1959 he said:

I have clearly and definitely stated that we are not communists …The gates are open for private investment that contributes to the development of Cuba.

Castro was, and is, a nationalist, in essence a typical South American demagogue. How then did he decide to call himself a “Marxist-Leninist” on December 2, 1961?

The answer is very simple. Castro's main aim as a nationalist was to industrialise Cuba. But Cuba's nationalist claims had already gone as far as they could without directly attacking the aims of US imperialism. Thus a minor land reform in May 1959 (which was less radical than the one General Macarthur had introduced in Japan after the Second World War) led to protests and threats by the USA. This was followed by Eisenhower's cuts in the Cuban sugar quota. Previously the threat of such a cut would have been enough for a Cuban government to back down. On television Castro pleaded with Eisenhower that he only wanted a “change of proportion” in relations with the US. Eisenhower refused to listen and US propaganda portrayed Castro as a “communist”.

Castro still wavered, but in February 1960 the USSR offered to take Cuba's unsold sugar for five years (at a relatively high price). Castro saw his chance. With Russian aid he thought Cuba could abandon its dependence on sugar production and industrialise. In a last desperate attempt to stop Castro taking Cuba into the arms of Russia, Kennedy launched the Bay of Pigs invasion (which had been planned by the CIA during Eisenhower's Presidency) in April 1961. This ended in humiliation for the US and provoked a Cuban nationalist reaction which made Castro more secure than ever. However Castro wanted greater military security and so he now declared himself a “Marxist-Leninist” (i.e. a Stalinist). In mid-1962 he persuaded the USSR to send missiles to the now “socialist” Cuba. The withdrawal of these missiles in face of a US threat to start a nuclear war was a setback for Castro. More significantly he began to realise that Cuba had not after all, escaped the clutches of imperialism. He had simply changed one imperialist master for another. In the deal patched up by Kennedy and Khruschev after the 1962 missile crisis, Khruschev, without consulting Castro, allowed the US to enter Cuba to make sure the missile sites had been dismantled. Castro was furious and publicly denounced the USSR. He even thought of turning to China for “disinterested” aid. His economic advisers pointed out that China itself had enormous economic problems in its attempt to balance between the imperialist camps.

Russian Imperialism

So Castro found himself Russian “aid” but like American “aid” it came with strings. A 2.5% interest rate was soon added to the USSR’s original interest-free loans. These state capitalist terms may sound more generous but it must be remembered that in every agreement signed by Cuba with the USSR 80% of the “aid” money had to be spent on Russian machines and goods. These were sold to Cuba at between 11% and 53% more than their Western equivalents. But it was through sugar that Cuba once again experienced the bitter taste of imperialism. The USSR doesn't really need sugar since it produces enough sugar beet. But it resells Cuban sugar at a higher price to its East European satellites and thus, like the USA, profits by unequal trade. Castro had hoped to end dependence on sugar by industrialising but Russian advisers encouraged him to develop the industry. They were encouraging him to develop Cuba's dependence on the USSR. In 1964 Castro adopted his Perspective Sugar Plan which aimed to produce a record 10 million tons of sugar by 1970. It had to succeed because the Eastern bloc countries were going to “buy” 8.2 million tons. If Castro was to win any room for manoeuvre he had to get as much convertible (i e. Western) currency as possible by selling Cuba's full international quota of l.5 million tons on the free market. This was why he needed 10 million tons in 1970. The Plan failed and only about 8.5 million tons were produced. It was an economic disaster from which Cuba has never recovered. The effort ruined fields and mills for years after and since then the harvest has always been below 6 million ton. It left Cuba totally dependent on the USSR, owing it 10 million tons of sugar as well as over 6 billion dollars. It is calculated that it costs the USSR $3 million a day to support Cuba.

This shows that imperialism doesn't always operate with shopkeepers' logic. In Cuba the USSR gets returns on its investment in political and military benefits. Castro has become increasingly the faithful “revolutionary” mouthpiece of the Kremlin. In the early Sixties Castro tried to follow an independent foreign policy by promoting “armed struggle” in South America against Moscow's wishes. This collapsed in Bolivia in 1967 when Che Guevara was murdered (after being abandoned by members of the pro-Moscow Bolivian Communist Party). In 1968 we find Castro defending the Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia and in 1973 he made himself particularly useful in denouncing China at the Conference of Non-aligned Countries in Algeria. In 1975 his dependence on the USSR was revealed in fawning terms at the only Congress of the Cuban Communist Party,

… no true revolutionary, in any part of the world, will ever regret that the USSR is powerful, because if that power did not exist . . . the people who fought for liberation would have no place from which to receive decisive help . . . (they would have been turned into colonies once more).

But as we have shown, Castro's Cuba is still a colony. All that has changed is the imperialist master, however much he chooses to disguise state capitalism as “socialism”.

Today the Cuban workers are literally paying back the “decisive help” the USSR has given Castro with their own blood. It is for the interests of Russian imperialism that Cubans died in Grenada and continue to die in countries throughout Africa.

bbc

>>2296819
>ML retardation .org
Bourgeoisie nationalist christian reactionaries

>>2296808
Castro lead a NatLib movement, not a socialist one. He only started calling himself a Marxist after he needed Soviet aid and soon after taking power in 1959 he said in the United States: "I have clearly and definitely stated that we are not communists… The gates are open for private investment that contributes to the development of Cuba."[1] But after Khruschev offered to protect Cuba with Soviet missiles he changed his tune:

"Naturally If we had stood on the top of Pico Turquino [in the Sierras] when we were a handful of men, and said we were Marxist-Leninists, we might never have gotten down to the plain."[2]

This isn't how communists operate. We don't lie to the workers, we're always upfront about what we want as a program. Marx and Engels:

The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.[3]

Castro would proceed to betray the Cuban revolution by selling its economy out as a sugar plantation to the Revisionist, Social imperialist USSR so it could make imperial super profits and attacking the actual socialists Mao and Che, the latter of whom he betrayed to die in Bolivia.[4]

Sources:
[1] https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-3/rcp-cuba.pdf
[2] Ibid.
[3] https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch04.htm
[4] Evaporation of A Myth, https://web.archive.org/web/20220524085623/https://www.efe.com/efe/english/life/fidel-betrayed-che-abandoned-him-in-bolivia-cuban-journalist-says/50000263-2598470, & http://anticapitalismfaq.com/misc/cuba/canefields1/

Modern MLs will look at this and see no contradiction, it is all the essence of calling oneself |communist / socialist", the conclusion being that you can make people communists by paying them to call themselves as such.
Modern MLs don't think revisionism ever took place outside of Gorbachev dismantling the USSR in the last moment. The retarded children of perestroika who think Russia is still on the route to building socialism by reform, too stupid to realize they've already gone into liberalism.

>They won't be happy when Palestinian and Israeli proletariat have united to gut them.
fucking radlibs.

>>2296753
>All of them do actually
Exactly, so why are you signaling out Islam specifically Shmuley? America and Israel haven't murdered enough muslims yet for your liking?