When the SWP loathed Islam

[cockneyrebel]

But having more power doesn't equate to being more progressive does it, which is what you said.

Indeed the Iranian workers/left movement nearly took power. Given what you're saying it's kind of ironic that they were crushed by Islamic forces and strung from lamp posts.

On Palestine I think it's fair to argue that the PLO in the past was more progressive than Hamas.

 

[cockneyrebel]

But having more power doesn't equate to being more progressive does it, which is what you said.

Indeed the Iranian workers/left movement nearly took power. Given what you're saying it's kind of ironic that they were crushed by Islamic forces and strung from lamp posts.

On Palestine I think it's fair to argue that the PLO in the past was more progressive than Hamas.

 

[Udo Erasmus]

Unfortunately I couldn't open the link provided. Which is a shame because I personally think that Jonathan Neale is one of the most on the ball members of the SWP and a fine speaker and writer.

The Marxist sections of the PLO were never in a position at which they could carry the muscle currently sported by Hamas, as anti-Imperialist movements they were good for thinktanks, not for day-to-day realities on the ground.

The Marxist sections of the PLO were semi-stalinist and guevarist in politics. But this is not I think true.

In the early 70s the PFLP and DFLP came close to toppling the Jordanian dictatorship and it was only the leadership of Arafat and Fatah who believed in a policy of non-confrontation with the Arab regimes that threw away the revolutionary moment.

Also, the semi-stalinist politics of the leftists within the PLO was problematic. For example, they regarded regimes such as Syria, Libya etc. as being somehow socialist.

The PLO also as a military and guerilla force in their heyday of the 70s were far more potent than Hamas now is, they also managed to achieve a profile for the Palestinian struggle viz. Arafat's appearance at the UN - "I carry an olive branch of peace in one hand and a freedom fighters gun in the other. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. Repeat: Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand"

 

[chilango]

Well, DU, you`ve screwed this one up, huh?

Seriously, take some time to read up on the region and its history (hell, even the stuff you get from Bookmarks would be a start), and not only will you see your error...but also how movements far more progressive than hamas, and in a position of relative strength were neutralised by the forces of Islamism you now cheerlead.

 

[Udo Erasmus]

Hamas have control over a government, can access tax and other resources and have the utilities of the State at their disposal (with exception to the Fa'tah policeforce), whilst continually building their own rank-and-file community organisations to dispense food, welfare and education to the communities where they have hold.

In fact my original statement doesn't seem too unplausable.

What delusion!

Hamas don't have control over the government. Hence the ability of the West to topple the government and bring back their Fatah puppets into power and influence via a "Unity government"

Hamas don't control a "state". There is no Palestinian state. They hold "power" in an occupied country.

I think you will find that in it's heyday (whether in Beirut, Amman or Tunis) the PLO was a "government in exile" with departments of culture, military, education, social welfare and with money flowing in from the arab regimes and leftist movements and

 

[Udo Erasmus]

Seriously, take some time to read up on the region and its history (hell, even the stuff you get from Bookmarks would be a start), and not only will you see your error...but also how movements far more progressive than hamas, and in a position of relative strength were neutralised by the forces of Islamism you now cheerlead.

I think that Leftists have to defend Hamas in someways because:

1) Like Cuba it is blockaded by imperialism because unlike the PLO it has refused to capitulate. As the PLO did in the Oslo accords rightly described by Edward Said as "a declaration of surrender".
2) It is the legitimate government of the Palestinian people democratically elected
3) Whatever the limitations of its politics it represents the desire of the Palestinian people to continue resisting occupation, a rejection of the Oslo Frauds and "peace process"
4) It's represents a break with the PLOs politics of compromise with imperialism, croneyism and patronage and corruption.
5) Unlike the PLO, Hamas is prepared to issue challenges to the Arab regimes and dictatorships and the key to the resolution of the Palestinian conflict is the smashing of imperialism in the entire region.

Also just because a national liberation movement calls itself marxist doesn't make it so. For example, the Vietnamese communists set up a one party state. In Secular Communist Cuba, gays are persecuted and imprisoned

Naturally, we would question how far an Islamist organisation can challenge imperialism. And we should also remember that these movements are not monolithic and unchanging.

For example, Hamas has been prepared to work with and endorse secular PFLP candidates and councillors at local government level and some of the activists are probably traditional leftists who have switched to Hamas because it's the only organisation that doesn't compromise and is still resisting

 

[cockneyrebel]

In Secular Communist Cuba, gays are persecuted and imprisoned

Out of interest is this still the case?

I think that Leftists have to defend Hamas in someways because

I agree with this in terms of attacks from imperialism and Israel, but it's a long way from what Uberdog is saying.

 

[Tom A]

Naturally, we would question how far an Islamist organisation can challenge imperialism.

Note that the most hardcore of Islamists (who to be fair are a minority, but that doesn't stop them being influential) want the whole Middle East to be one Islamic Caliphate. If we aren't going to denounce groups just cause they put religion at the centre of their politics we at least shouldn't be uncritically supportive of them, and also prepare for the day when their actions run against the interest of the most vunlerable sections of society.

 

[chilango]

I think that Leftists have to defend Hamas in someways because:

2) It is the legitimate government of the Palestinian people democratically elected

So Leftists have to defend democratiaclly elected govts...simply for that reason alone???

3) Whatever the limitations of its politics it represents the desire of the Palestinian people to continue resisting occupation, a rejection of the Oslo Frauds and "peace process"

regardless of political content?

Also just because a national liberation movement calls itself marxist doesn't make it so.

innit.

Naturally, we would question how far an Islamist organisation can challenge imperialism.

I don`t think there's a question here, unless you don`t believe that Islamism in this sense is also imperialist in ambition and action.

And we should also remember that these movements are not monolithic and unchanging.

True.

Hence the importance of rejecting uncritical cheerleading.

 

[Udo Erasmus]

So Leftists have to defend democratiaclly elected govts...simply for that reason alone???

No. But when outside countries are trying to destabilise democratically elected governments we have to defend them against imperialism or do you think that we should let the US and EU rather than the Palestinian people decide who rules them.

Our focus in Britain should be on building solidarity with the Palestinian people and challenging our own government's policies in the Middle East.

 

[articul8]

Apart from anything, every religion is intrinsically sexist and homophobic.

Without wanting to divert criticism from DU's frankly ludicrous idealisation of Hamas, I'm a little surprised this hasn't been questioned -

I think it's hard to talk about the 'intrinsic' character of every religioce, the development of religious ideas depends on social-historical context. Ok, most historically existing religions have demonstrated these characteristics to a greater or lesser extent. but even Christian ideas (all men [sic] are created equal, love thy neighbour etc.) can be inflected to serve progressive causes. What makes these applications less 'intrinsic' to the religion than reactionary crap?

And aren't there also other egalitarian forms of mysticism of which the same couldn't be said? Are they any less 'religious'? I'm an atheist BTW, but I think that socialist writers like Terry Eagleton who point to the appeal of religious worldviews (without accepting them) have a point. Sometimes the left just looks intolerant and superficial in its dismissals of religion in toto.

 

[cockneyrebel]

I think it's hard to talk about the 'intrinsic' character of every religioce, the development of religious ideas depends on social-historical context. Ok, most historically existing religions have demonstrated these characteristics to a greater or lesser extent. but even Christian ideas (all men [sic] are created equal, love thy neighbour etc.) can be inflected to serve progressive causes. What makes these applications less 'intrinsic' to the religion than reactionary crap?

And aren't there also other egalitarian forms of mysticism of which the same couldn't be said? Are they any less 'religious'? I'm an atheist BTW, but I think that socialist writers like Terry Eagleton who point to the appeal of religious worldviews (without accepting them) have a point. Sometimes the left just looks intolerant and superficial in its dismissals of religion in toto.

I haven't denied that religious ideas can sometimes be progressive. But the fact is that every significant religion has always been sexist and homophobic because of the relationship of religion to the state and class, which is exactgly the social-historic context.

OK there might be this or that minor mystic religion that isn't, but that's because they're largely irrelevant and have no power.

But I agree with you that of course there is an appeal to religion, "a heart in a heartless world" and all that. On one hand many of the fundamental ideas of religion are totally illogical and in a different context would be seen as totally insane (parting seas, moving a mountain, talking serpants, men with elephant heads etc etc), but in such an insane world you can see the appeal, especially if the left isn't giving an alternative.

And I agree that you have to be sensitive, that's why marx's piece on it was so good.

 

[articul8]

I don't know enough about Buddhism, Taoism etc.etc. to offer a comment.

All I would say is that maybe the interests of the ruling class under consumer capitalism might make create conditions for the western Christian church to develop a liberal pluralist attitude on gender and sexuality, as prefigured in the US Anglican community. Who knows - maybe we could see a liberal pluralist version of Islam emerge?

But I guess that raises the question of whether sexism or homophobia will necessarily be a feature of all ruling classes until they cease to exist.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

The Lebansese Communist Party are moving in a positive direction according to Gilbert Achar, someone whose writings on the Middle East I take more notice of than some headbanger in the SWP.

http://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1224

http://macuaid.blogspot.com/2007/03/gilbert-achcar-imperialism-and.html

http://macuaid.blogspot.com/2007/04/lebanese-communist-speaks_02.html

 

[fanciful]

You're much too strong F-G, its not Uberdog's fault that's what he's been told. Obviously agree on support Hamas vis imperialism, but that isn't the question. Marxists shouldn't drop their criticism of religion for convenience sake, which is what the SWP have done and they've done it here in the UK, not in Palestine where conditions are qualitatively more difficult. Check out the Dave Crouch article which is quite a good statement of their contemporary line.
On the original link, you have to navigate back to the main menu, the find the article under Islam I think.

 

[poster342002]

Hamas is probably the most progressive, anti-Imperialist, non-corrupt and progressively political organisation which has ever existed in the Middle-East

What do you think of the Taliban, then?

 

[biff curtains]

And you say the Palestinean movement has gone to the right? It blatantly hasn't. You think that Hamas is a rightwing move from Fa'tah and Arafat? Hamas is probably the most progressive, anti-Imperialist, non-corrupt and progressively political organisation which has ever existed in the Middle-East (with the possible exception of Hizbollah). And neither of these organisations gained their popular support through religious means, either - they gained it through grass-roots activity in the community... providing welfare, schooling and support free of charge in communities where there was nothing.

Hah! You're a troll, well done.

 

[junius]

A quick summary of the offending article if people are having difficulty finding it.

1. Fundamentalist Islam is reactionary. No ifs, no buts.
2. The veiling of women is a product of male chauvinism. No ifs, no buts.
3. The left needs to support and build revolutionary and secularist organisations. No ifs, no buts.

It is not young uberdog's fault that he spouts nonsense about Hamas etc. He has been systematically educated to think Islamists are allies, they pose no threat to women and that promoting secularism is Islamophobic.

 

[mk12]

Hamas is probably the most progressive, anti-Imperialist, non-corrupt and progressively political organisation which has ever existed in the Middle-East (with the possible exception of Hizbollah).

 

[Das Uberdog]

Holy Fuck! Overkill, people! I have the good grace to accept it when I've been pwned.

Serious pwnage point score:

Das Uberdog - 6,042,947,839,847,735,943.189303827048
Urban - 1

Hey, you're bound to get one over me some time guys.

 

[Das Uberdog]

PS - Hamas is still progressive, 'cetera 'cetera.