StWC bans HOPI

[Nigel Irritable]

Sorry Nigel but that simply isnt true. Not only does support for Hezbollah (albeit existing in many different forms) stretch way beyond the shiite muslim community,

No, it doesn't. Unless by support which "exists in many different forms" you mean support which doesn't involve joining the party, voting for it or supporting it in any measurable way and which does involve voting for parties hostile to it. That would, to put it mildly, be a strange use of the word support.

Once more, Hezbollah has 14 seats. All of them from the 27 seats reserved for Shi'a Muslims. It is founded principles are a sectarian Shi'a form of political Islam and while it has certainly evolved over time it remains at its core a confessional party.

Most parties in Lebanon are similar in that regard, although some of the other parties have been better able to gather support outside of their traditional confessional constituencies. The Progressive Socialist Party (which isn't progressive or socialist) is normally seen as a Druze party, for instance, but more than half of its 16 seats are outside of the 8 Druze reserved seats.

Hezbollah are playing a long game. They know that the Lebanese state is unstable and that they have the infrastructure and reliable foreign backers to allow them to try to fill a gap. They also know that the Shi'a are a minority and that they will need to develop at least some non Shi'a support. That doesn't change what they are about. They are not, contrary to SWP illusions, some "anti-imperialist" blank slate. They have a real agenda of their own. And it is not the same as ours.

 

[Udo Erasmus]

They are not, contrary to SWP illusions, some "anti-imperialist" blank slate. They have a real agenda of their own. And it is not the same as ours.

yeah, but this is true of most national liberation movements, same was true of the Irish nationalists, NLF, the Algerian FLN, PLO, Castro etc. (some of whom the SP are soft on), in fact, most national liberation movements.

I don't tend to that the movements that call themselves socialist are necessarily progressive or for workers power.

Consider, the Vietnamese resistance established a one-party state
Castro and the Cuban regime persectute gays possibly far more than Hezbollah

The agenda of the totally imperialist Labour Party in Britain is not the same as ours - but it didn't stop Nigel's cohorts joining it in droves!

Naturally we want to see the emergence of a left in the Middle East that is secular, democratic, feminist etc. but at the same time we have to relate to the movements that exist.

The Socialist Party's position during the Lebanon War was entirely abstract ignoring the reality of the situation in favour of meaningless slogans about Israeli and Lebanese workers uniting.

Whether you like it or not, Hezbollah inflicted the biggest defeat on imperialism since the fall of Saigon in 1975. They were the only force that stood between the stormtroopers of apartheid Israel and the Lebanese people. They fought not to establish shariah law but to drive out the 4th largest military in the world that was invading their country.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

yeah, but this is true of most national liberation movements, same was true of the Irish nationalists, NLF, the Algerian FLN, PLO, Castro etc. (some of whom the SP are soft on), in fact, most national liberation movements.

1. All of the forces you mention were secular movements, dedicated first and foremost to their understanding of national liberation rather than to the establishment of a religious state. All of them contained significant leftist elements as well, or were actually of the left (in a perverted Stalinist form). Castro is a Stalinist dictator. His regime however is much more progressive and much better for the Cuban working class than, say, the Iranian regime.

2. Despite the fact that all of the forces you mention were more progressive than Hezbollah or Hamas, actual Marxists never gave any of them unconditional and uncritical support. And if we didn't hold back on criticising the Stalinism of the Vietnamese revolutionary forces, why in the name of fuck would we prettify the sectarian political Islam of Hezbollah?

I don't tend to that the movements that call themselves socialist are necessarily progressive or for workers power.

Absolutely. And nobody suggested otherwise. But we can take it for granted that movements which are explicitly not socialist and which are dedicated to establishing a capitalist state with significant religious elements are not "for workers power".

Consider, the Vietnamese resistance established a one-party state
Castro and the Cuban regime persectute gays possibly far more than Hezbollah

Your information about gays in Cuba is at best many decades out of date and at worst downright propaganda. That aside, the correct comparison is with the revolution in Iran, where the very strong secular left allied with "anti-imperialist" but pro-capitalist religious forces and was rewarded by being butchered. And your direct ideological predecessors cheered them on, all the way into their graves.

The agenda of the totally imperialist Labour Party in Britain is not the same as ours - but it didn't stop Nigel's cohorts joining it in droves!

The Labour Party in, say, the 1970s was not the same beast as it is today. But even then, the Militant was an organised opposition within that organisation. They didn't ally with the Labour leadership or prettify their politics, instead they were trenchantly critical of them and sought to win their followers over to Marxist politics. That's a far cry from the SWP's decision to paint their would be allies abroad in progressive colours.

Naturally we want to see the emergence of a left in the Middle East that is secular, democratic, feminist etc. but at the same time we have to relate to the movements that exist...

Relate to does not equal uncritically endorse.

Whether you like it or not, Hezbollah inflicted the biggest defeat on imperialism since the fall of Saigon in 1975. They were the only force that stood between the stormtroopers of apartheid Israel and the Lebanese people. They fought not to establish shariah law but to drive out the 4th largest military in the world that was invading their country.

I think that, amongst others the Cubans and Angolans who fought against South Africa might disagree with that sentiment. Either way, the central point is that none of the above means that we are somehow obliged to prettify Hezbollah's politics, hide our disagreements or shield it from justified criticism.

 

[dennisr]

the Irish nationalists, NLF, the Algerian FLN, PLO, Castro etc. (some of whom the SP are soft on)

which one's that then?

The Socialist Party's position during the Lebanon War was entirely abstract ignoring the reality of the situation in favour of meaningless slogans about Israeli and Lebanese workers uniting.

It was based on people in the CWI on the ground in lebanon - or is that 'abstract'?

 

[grogwilton]

No, it doesn't. Unless by support which "exists in many different forms" you mean support which doesn't involve joining the party, voting for it or supporting it in any measurable way and which does involve voting for parties hostile to it. That would, to put it mildly, be a strange use of the word support.

Once more, Hezbollah has 14 seats. All of them from the 27 seats reserved for Shi'a Muslims. It is founded principles are a sectarian Shi'a form of political Islam and while it has certainly evolved over time it remains at its core a confessional party.

Most parties in Lebanon are similar in that regard, although some of the other parties have been better able to gather support outside of their traditional confessional constituencies. The Progressive Socialist Party (which isn't progressive or socialist) is normally seen as a Druze party, for instance, but more than half of its 16 seats are outside of the 8 Druze reserved seats.

Hezbollah are playing a long game. They know that the Lebanese state is unstable and that they have the infrastructure and reliable foreign backers to allow them to try to fill a gap. They also know that the Shi'a are a minority and that they will need to develop at least some non Shi'a support. That doesn't change what they are about. They are not, contrary to SWP illusions, some "anti-imperialist" blank slate. They have a real agenda of their own. And it is not the same as ours.

Different forms- sending your kids to a Hezbollah school/hospital/doctor, supporting them in the fight against the Israeli incursion, doesnt mean youd vote for them, doesnt meand you hate them and think theyre all baby eating sectarians and have no respect for them whatsoever. Besides which hezbollah does have non shia or non muslim members and thats including the fact that in their armed section they only allow the most highly trained fighters, which is why it numbers less then 10,000 despite the fact they could have a lot more.

I do realise the long term aims of the Islamist leadership, Nigel, I also however, unlike you it seems, realise that theyve got themselves into a tight spot. 20 years of agitating with an ideology that appears to be non sectarian and open to all lebanese (in order to turn them from a tiny sect with no support in any community not even the shia, into a real player in lebanese politics), has meant that theyve been attracting members and cadre for 20 years on a non sectarian, nationalist, social justice ticket. A sudden turn to rank sectarianism will only lead them towards failure. Or are you trying to tell me that all those people and supporters theyve recruited will simply like automatons turn into evildoers overnight? Especially when you consider the leadership is divided in itself and each member of the Ulama's authority depends on how many Hezbollah members and supporters he can rally around himself?

 

[grogwilton]

It was based on people in the CWI on the ground in lebanon - or is that 'abstract'?

Yes because

a)the CWI on the ground in Lebanon is tiny
b)it stood no chance of repelling the Israeli attack
c)there was no chance of Israeli workers opposing the invasion
d)everyone in Lebanon (including the rest of the lebanese left know this, which is why they supported Hezbollah)

 

[grogwilton]

Why? What does that mean? It means :We are the new national capitalist state in waiting.

Nigel is arguing that they are purely sectional, I was arguing they werent. Those actions suggest theyre not trying or are unable to follow a sectarian agenda. I didnt claim they were socialists.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Different forms- sending your kids to a Hezbollah school/hospital/doctor, supporting them in the fight against the Israeli incursion, doesnt mean youd vote for them, doesnt meand you hate them and think theyre all baby eating sectarians and have no respect for them whatsoever.

This is one of the problems with arguing with SWP members - on questions like this they seem incapable of appreciating that life does not consist of a series of binary choices. Not thinking that Hezbollah eat babies is not the same as supporting them, for any useful value of the word support. Hezbollah's actual support consists essentially of about half of the Shi'a minority. That's it. The rest of the population have a range of views about them but they do not support them, do not join them and do not vote for them.

Besides which hezbollah does have non shia or non muslim members

Indeed they do, but such people represent a tiny minority of their members just as they represent a tiny minority of their supporters.

I do realise the long term aims of the Islamist leadership, Nigel, I also however, unlike you it seems, realise that theyve got themselves into a tight spot. 20 years of agitating with an ideology that appears to be non sectarian and open to all lebanese (in order to turn them from a tiny sect with no support in any community not even the shia, into a real player in lebanese politics), has meant that theyve been attracting members and cadre for 20 years on a non sectarian, nationalist, social justice ticket.

Here you are both wildly overstating the degree to which Hezbollah represent themselves as a non-sectarian party and wildly underestimating the politicisaton of the party cadre. Of course their nationalist elements, their private schools and hospitals and so on are attractive to new members, but so is their religious certainty and their posturing as the best advocates for Shi'as. The rank and file are more of a mixed bag than the (hardline Islamist) leadership and apparatus, but they too are more than simply "anti-imperialist" blank slates.

The point being that engaging with supporters of Hezbollah is entirely reasonable. But you aren't going to win over that rank and file to working class, socialist ideas by pretending that their current ideas and those of their party are already right, by hiding our criticisms or by mindlessly cheerleading for them. If you were serious about engaging with such people you would be vigorously critical of the problematic elements of their politics, but that isn't what the SWP actually does. Instead it presents groups like Hezbollah and Hamas as non-sectarian, progressive, anti-imperialist, the people who are really fighting, while shielding them from criticism. In so far as you manage to have any impact on people who want to fight back against the Israeli occupation this kind of thing is more likely to drive people towards the politics of Hezbollah or Hamas and away from socialist politics.

 

[chilango]

This is what I mean by challenging prejudices and myths about Hezbollah. I have heard crude stereotypes about this organisation from both Socalist party and AWL activists.

Well quite. These prejudices/myths are shared by many...the same many who will see "We are all Hezbollah" placards on the news and associate the SWP (and by extension the British Left) with these prejudices/myths. Sloganeering and cheerleading Hizbolloah helps noone.

oth. This thread is IS helping me learn a bit more...

 

[chilango]

The point being that engaging with supporters of Hezbollah is entirely reasonable. But you aren't going to win over that rank and file to working class, socialist ideas by pretending that their current ideas and those of their party are already right, by hiding our criticisms or by mindlessly cheerleading for them. If you were serious about engaging with such people you would be vigorously critical of the problematic elements of their politics, but that isn't what the SWP actually does. Instead it presents groups like Hezbollah and Hamas as non-sectarian, progressive, anti-imperialist, the people who are really fighting, while shielding them from criticism. In so far as you manage to have any impact on people who want to fight back against the Israeli occupation this kind of thing is more likely to drive people towards the politics of Hezbollah or Hamas and away from socialist politics.

wot he said.

 

[grogwilton]

I wasnt suggesting they were the only two options Nigel. I was merely suggesting that your painting of them as a divisive and dangerous sect bent on imposing sharia law long term doesnt fit with the reality of what people on the ground in Lebanon think of them. People not joining them doesnt express a high level of support for them among the population true. But youre thinking binary yourself if you think (and this is what you imply) that there electoral support reflects there total support.

Were Lebanese willing to cede their sovereignty to Israel inorder to get rid of Hezbollah, they could have easily done so. It has precedent (south lebanese shia initially welcomed the first Israeli occupation in order to get rid of the troublesome and sunni PLO) the fact that the Lebanese rallied around Hebollah (and they did, Hezbollah would have been screwed without a broader level of support then the shia) shows that your membership/electoral measuring stick is incorrect.

On winning them round. Hezbollah aren't stupid. They know our politics, and they can draw their conclusions. I wouldnt personally be comfortable with the 'we are all Hezbollah placards' mainly because of the British context rather then the middle eastern one. But similarly saying: 'its capitalism stupid, your not going to win until your all socialists' (which is effectively how it will be received by someone getting bombed by Israeli F16s) isnt going to turn anyone either.

 

[chilango]

But the SWP is quite happy to use this logic aginst all kinds of other movemnts:

greens, nationalists, antifascists etc. Why the sudden (perhaps perceived) retiscence with "Islamists"?

 

[grogwilton]

But the SWP is quite happy to use this logic aginst all kinds of other movemnts:

greens, nationalists, antifascists etc. Why the sudden (perhaps perceived) retiscence with "Islamists"?

Do we? Is that how we act in UAF? STW? I dont think we do. Nor in defend council housing.

In the past we took that line more, but not that much now. And its a change I agree with.

Our line in UAF is: "Oppose the fascists" not, "only with the destruction of capitalism will you defeat fascism."

 

[treelover]

I wonder what the members of Military Families Against The War would make of their erstwhile colleagues in the STWC, etc sharing a platform with the squaddie
killers of Sadr's army....

For some reason however, they don't seem to think that the IAWM associating itself with Hamas, al-Sadr, or Hezbollah is at all divisive or likely to narrow the movement. Socialists standing up, one after the other, to present all of these movements in an entirely positive light is madness.

 

[Udo Erasmus]

Treelover, you don't think Iraqis have the same rights as the French or Vietnamese to resist foreign occupation?

The Head of the British Army has said that he regards the Iraqi resistance as nationalists and many of them are decent people, and I recall Rey Keys, whose son died in Basra, saying he understood the motivation of those fighting the British Army.

Incidentally, we share platforms with MFAW even though we disagree with some of their ideas.

The problem with the SP position has been dealt with by Grogwilton, but more fundamentally the SP basically implied that Hezbollah and the IDF were equally reactionary.

I just don't recognise Nigel and Dennisr's description of the SWP or indeed other people like Tariq Ali's relation to Hezbollah as uncritical. Any socialist in the Middle East has to relate to Hezbollah in some way, just as a socialist in the UK in the past couldn't ignore the Labour Party, or if you were a Palestinian socialist in the 70s and 80s you have to relate to the PLOs hegemony over the liberation struggle. It's important to note that the class base of both the Al-Sadr and Hezbollah movement unlike other islamic groups is amongst some of the poorest sections of their society.

The way to win Hezbollah activists to socialism is surely uniting with elements of the grassroots in trade union struggles and anti-imperialist struggles and then exposing the limitation of Hezbollah politics in achieving these shared goals. For example, Hezbollah calling off the general strike under pressure from it's middle class allies in the Patriotic alliance. Concretely, if you were a socialist in South Lebanon you would either be taking part in the military resistance (and therefore fighting along Hezbollah, indeed several CP cadre were killed in the war last summer) or part of the solidarity efforts with the refugees.

The SPs position during the Lebanon War was only the unity of Israeli and Lebanese workers could defeat imperialism (in the long term this might be true) while failing to recognise that the guns of hezbollah in fact gave imperialism a damn good hiding.

Incidentally, the CWI organisation in Israel is soft on Zionism (left wing Zionist) and refuses to support the right of Palestinian refugees to return to Israel - hardly a good basis for building unity between Jewish and Arab workers in the Jewish State.

 

[Das Uberdog]

Udo - you should have realised by now that you don't have to actually respond seriously to treefucker. He's already plenty proved how unbelievably and obstinantly unreasonable he is - just call him a sectoid and move on.

 

[poster342002]

The Socialist Party's position during the Lebanon War was entirely abstract ignoring the reality of the situation in favour of meaningless slogans about Israeli and Lebanese workers uniting.

Fancy a socialist party campaigning for workers' unity (international workers unity at that) and for workers divided by nationalism to unite, eh? How utterly meaningless. Whatever next?

 

[Das Uberdog]

It was meaningless, because it had no relevance to anyone on the ground in Lebanon. The SP's position was entirely seperated aloft in its Ivory Tower.

What's the use in preaching mass politics if the masses aren't listening? You have to work from the level of class consciousness.

 

[dennisr]

It was meaningless, because it had no relevance to anyone on the ground in Lebanon. The SP's position was entirely seperated aloft in its Ivory Tower.

What's the use in preaching mass politics if the masses aren't listening? You have to work from the level of class consciousness.

"Uber"dog has of course shown the SP up - the same is true of the SPs ivory tower positions on say the poll tax (the SWP did not fall for that one either...), or on Liverpool, or among the local elected councillors we have in Sweden, Germany, UK, Pakistan, Australia, or in the Trade Unions in the UK - all completely unrealistic fantastists (sic). Thats us told.

Anyway - who needs clear class based positions when slander will do (re UDs lies about israeli CWi)

You havent heard of the transitional programme have you? UD

 

[dennisr]

What's the use in preaching mass politics if the masses aren't listening? You have to work from the level of class consciousness.

The point about "the level of class conciousness" for marxists is to raise it not pander to it

 

[poster342002]

What's the use in preaching mass politics if the masses aren't listening? You have to work from the level of class consciousness.

Yet whenever I make that very point with regard to t e situation in the UK - and about the idiotic way the UK left seems ignorant of this and how it carries on regardless of it in the UK, I'm shot down as a miserabilist...

 

[Das Uberdog]

You raise it by working with it, not by chunnering off about it - I didn't intend for this to become a historical commentary of SP and SWP decisions and non-decisions, so let's not make it. This is about Lebanon.

 

[poster342002]

The point about "the level of class conciousness" for marxists is to raise it not pander to it

Nor to delude ourselves that it's far higher than it currently is - something the UK left does habitually.

 

[dennisr]

You raise it by working with it, not by chunnering off about it - I didn't intend for this to become a historical commentary of SP and SWP decisions and non-decisions, so let's not make it. This is about Lebanon.

how very convenient... (given that you where the one who raised the SPs 'abstract thinking along with various distortions of actual positions)

you talk out of your arse and do the SWP more harm than good on these boards - you act out every stereotype other folk have of your organisation

 

[dennisr]

Nor to delude ourselves that it's far higher than it currently is - something the UK left does habitually.

At least you can rely on the SWP not to let you down on that one - lets remember the 'downturn' and the miner's strike

I get the impression that the present pandering shows the actual position the SWP take on working class people - as does DUs comment on "class conciousness"

 

[poster342002]

At least you can rely on the SWP not to let you down on that one - lets remember the 'downturn' and the miner's strike

Yeah, but it's the other way round now. A couple of job centres go on strike for the day (while everywhere else scabs they're way to work as usual) and it's all "brillient! massive! loads of anger! A historic opportunity! An upswing in class struggle! Pant! Pant! Pant!"

 

[Das Uberdog]

how very convenient... (given that you where the one who raised the SPs 'abstract thinking along with various distortions of actual positions)

you talk out of your arse and do the SWP more harm than good on these boards - you act out every stereotype other folk have of your organisation

I said that a specific decision made by the SP was abstract and irrelevant you sectoid loser - keep on topic.

 

[Udo Erasmus]

Does the CWI in Israel support the Palestinian right of return? The answer is no. Instead they fudge the issue by saying that it is up to the working classes of the region in some far off future to decide how to implement the refugee issue. This is an obstacle to Arab and Jewish working class unity?

The CWI attempt to gloss over the nature of the Jewish State

This was a very different position to that taken by (the now defunct) Matzpen, the finest left wing current to emerge in Israeli society who openly challenged the tenets of Zionism

 

[cockneyrebel]

DU can you keep out of this debate, some of it is quite interesting and you're ruining the thread.

Does the CWI in Israel support the Palestinian right of return? The answer is no. Instead they fudge the issue by saying that it is up to the working classes of the region in some far off future to decide how to implement the refugee issue. This is an obstacle to Arab and Jewish working class unity?

The CWI attempt to gloss over the nature of the Jewish State

This was a very different position to that taken by (the now defunct) Matzpen, the finest left wing current to emerge in Israeli society who openly challenged the tenets of Zionism

I have to say I think the SPs position on Israel/Palestine is a poor one. I've never got the logic of having two states for these reasons:

1) It means that you have to deny the right of return, as if everyone did return a Jewish majority state would be impossible regardless.

2) The Israeli working class has material interests in maintaining an apartheid state. If it wasn't for the military technology that the US gives them (and to some extend monetary funding as well) then Israel would be over run. So calling for two capitalist states would be pointless and illogical. But if you've got to the extent where workers are calling for socialism, then surely they'd no longer want two states and would have overcome prejudices about living with the Palestinians.

 

[dennisr]

DU can you keep out of this debate, some of it is quite interesting and you're ruining the thread.

agreed, he tends to on every thread he opens his big gob on

I have to say I think the SPs position on Israel/Palestine is a poor one. I've never got the logic of having two states for these reasons:

1) It means that you have to deny the right of return, as if everyone did return a Jewish majority state would be impossible regardless.

2) The Israeli working class has material interests in maintaining an apartheid state. If it wasn't for the military technology that the US gives them (and to some extend monetary funding as well) then Israel would be over run. So calling for two capitalist states would be pointless and illogical. But if you've got to the extent where workers are calling for socialism, then surely they'd no longer want two states and would have overcome prejudices about living with the Palestinians.

It comes back to a transitional approach. Like you, ultimately one wants a society with no states (so, ultimately calling for any state would be illogical? . its how we get there though isn't it. To get the ear of the jewish working class (which we cannot write off - without them the wider working class in the region will find achieving its aims somewhat difficult) we have to show that we recognise their right to exist and their fears (same would be true of the protestants in the northern irish statelet). Two states is an abstraction - bur it is a demand raised in a transitional way alongside (and raised secondary to...) the more immediately recognised demands to unify working people over action. For instance the role of the israli CWI in recent strikes in israel which united arab and jewish workers around recognistion of their common interests

What you are saying about the israeli (assuming both jewish and arab?) working class is the exactly the same argument made about the northern irish protestants.

Where do we stop with such arguments - poster above often refers to the middle layers of the working class in the UK and tends to write them off because of their precieved 'interests' in maintaining the status quo. Its a mistaken argument. As with those folk, the same is true of the 'priviledged' israeli working class and northern irish protestants - the divisions created do not just keep the more oppressed groups down - it keeps these 'priviledged' folk in their place as well. Ultimately their interests are those of wider working people - regardless of weather they recognise that at the moment or not. And the way to defeat both that false division and to raise the interests of the class as a whole is NOT to appeal to one 'more oppressed' section over another but fight for the necessary unity needed to overcome that division.

That the short summary avoiding internal 'marxist speak'

added: what i do find odd is how this approach is equated, falsely, and by only some (the likes of DU) with pandering to the more priviledged layer over the less priviledged layer of the working clas in these instances - they seem to miss the irony in their critisism given their own confused position