Pegida: Hostile Take Over

In October 2014 an anti-Islam protest took place in Dresden by an initiative named 'Patriotische Europäer gegen Islamisierung des Abendlandes' (Pegida). The same goes for Pegida as for the rest of the new-right in Europa: Hate towards the Islam is the primary motive and with this it puts itself on one line with Zionism.

 Jürgen Elsässer: “Israel like each State has the right on self-defense"

Although Pegida regularly criticizes the "lügenpresse" (lies press) they detest so much, the founders of this movement remarkably all have a background in the media business. Pegida founder Lutz Bachmann is CEO at a PR agency, which has very close ties with the Axel-Springer Verlag; a strongly Zionist German media network. He supports Israel because according to him this country "confronts the worldwide war of Mohammedans." The other founder, Jürgen Elsässer, changed his leftist background for a lucrative job as the editor in chief with the rightwing populist magazine Compact. In several occasions he defended the Zionist regime and its colonist policies and he is considered to be one of the founders of the "Anti-Deutsche" (Anti-German) antifa-movement.

  

Meanwhile all over Europe demonstrations are organized based on the concept Pegida offered and based on exactly the same islamophobe and philosemetic approach. For instance, recently a Pegida-movement was founded in Belgium, in first instance led by Wim van Rooy, father of the outspoken Zionist and executive of the Vlaams Belang Sam van Rooy. Of course Pegida can also here count on the warm support of Islam haters, like the Flemish Defense League, who on their turn are of course inspired by the Zionist English Defense League. Philosemetic hate bloggers like E.J. Bron and Joost Niemöller take care of the Pegida hate campaigns.

 

The Pegida-movement does not stand on its own. In the whole of Europe Islamophobe new-right movements are on the rise.

Although the attacks on the Islam did not start on 9/11, from this day on they got a new face under the banner of the 'War on Terror'. Where in the past the radical right was characterized by its anti-Zionism, new-right movements such as Pegida can count on the warm support of Zionism. Recently a delegation of the 'Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs' (Austria), 'Sverigedemokraterna' (Sweden), 'Die Freiheit' (Germany) and the 'Vlaams Belang' (Belgium) went to Israel to sign the 'Declaration of Jerusalem'. With this some of the most influential political parties in the far right spectrum honored Zionism and signed their declaration of war against the Islam. It must be clear that this new-right fulfills the agenda of the system.  

We condemn this Zionist smear against Islam!

For a united front from the Islamic world to the Occident!

Anti-Zionist Action

Rightwing-Populism: The failure of leftwing identity politics

In the 21st century we witness the advance of a new kind of rightwing-populism, which spreads itself throughout Europe. In the Netherlands this is currently represented by the PVV, in the UK by the UKIP, in Belgium by the N-VA, the FN in France, the FPÖ in Austria, and so on. This rightwing populism is characterized mainly by an emphatic anti-establishment position, a euro-critical attitude and agitation against immigrants; mainly Muslim. In a relatively short period of time they managed to get a substantial part of the electorate behind them and so became a serious threat for the more vested political parties. To what do they owe this success?     

Le Pen (FN) and Geert Wilders (PVV)

Now the economic crisis is becoming bigger and bigger and its disastrous consequences become more apparent, the discontent against the establishment increases continuously. Now there is less and less to divide, it seems that the fight for survival is going to be fought along ethnic lines: that's the heritage of multiculturalism. This is where this new rightwing populism finds its strength.    

Capitalism is in crisis. The economic bubble which was created by finance capital throughout the last decades has burst and has thrown the world in an unprecedented economic recession. Where a large segment of the European proletariat until now had to enjoy a middleclass life, this seems to be definitively over under the pressure of austerity and welfare cuts. The workers of Europe are the great losers of the globalization. Their existence is directly threatened by the protracted de-industrialization, they became otiose because of the rapidly increasing automatization and outplacement, and feel "alienated" by the ever further advancing mass-immigration. The EU project has also been one big disillusion.

At the same time the vested politicians, both left and right in the political spectra, continue to make empty promises. The failure of the traditional right has paved the way for the rise of a new kind of rightwing populism, which anticipates on the prospect of an age of even more austerity and welfare cuts. On the other hand the left completely fails in offering a concrete answer for the current crisis. Although in the past the left was primarily concerned with the welfare of the working class, these days the left seems to be lost in a helpless "identity politics". Right has already won the decisive economic struggle in Europe a long time ago and implicated its neoliberal policy throughout the continent. As a consolation prize the left still enjoys a certain ideological dominance, which is mainly characterized by anti-racism, anti-nationalism and a devotion to the European Union.    

 Protest against Black Pete in the Netherlands

It’s not surprising that this ideology is perfectly in one line with globalization tailored to the requirements of the international finance capital. Since the mass import of cheap labour forces from foreign countries in favor of maximizing profits for capital, the introduction of multiculturalism became an undeniable fact in Europe. At the same time the left endured an identity crisis, in which the socio-economic discourse was expelled and the emphasis was more and more laid on the cultural and moral aspects of racism, instead of its underlying causes (the class struggle). In this new 'anti-racist' identity politics of the left all 'white' was bad, so all 'non-white' had to be good. With this they only acted as the defender of ethnic minorities, instead of the defender of the entire working class (no matter what origin, or colour of skin). In the age of guilt policy and self-hatred that followed, the left managed to alienate a big part of the working class, which was confronted with the daily reality of multiculturalism.    

'Anti-racists' accuse the majority of the population to carry on racism, without putting the emphasis on the underlying economic reasons for it. They moralize and demonize like crazy. They don't even try to hide their discontent for the ‘white’ working class anymore. Multiculturalism has displaced social solidarity and polarized the community. People no longer think in terms of collective action to advance a certain set of political ideals, but more and more in terms of ethnicity or culture. Although they don’t like to acknowledge it, the contemporary left with its pseudo-ideology greatly contributes to this development. The unconditional support of 'anti-racists' for ethnic minorities to profess their own culture, while at the same time denying the white majority the same, has alienated a large part of the workers from the left and driven them right in the hands of the rightwing populists.    

   Rightwing-populist EDL rally

The vacuum created by the left has been the ideal recruitment grounds for the new rightwing-populist political parties. Their support consists mainly from workers who stood on the wrong side of social change. They have a hard time to keep up in these difficult times and they feel a stranger in a society in which they are left out from the political conversation. Both the political parties on the left and right have abandoned them. However just like the identity politics of the left, the rightwing-populists also put the emphasis on moral and cultural aspects, while completely ignoring the underlying economic causes. The rightwing on their turn blame 'the immigrants' and the seat of power in Brussels for the crisis. While the crisis is solely the direct result of the capitalist system. Rightwing populists anticipate on the sentiments of a great part of the population, who’ve seen the world they grew up in disappear. However despite their false promises, these rightwing-populists can also not offer the workers social justice or a just society.    

Protest for Black Pete in the Netherlands

That in this time of crisis austerity, welfare cuts and growing inequality more and more people turn towards rightwing-populism should sound the alarm to each revolutionary. In a time that class contradictions are rapidly increasing, class consciousness seems to get replaced for a reactionary and misleading identity politics. The ruling class has always relied on a strategy of "divide and conquer" to stay in power by dividing and setting up the workers against each other - both the left and the right way around.  However the workers just have one real enemy; the ruling class who exploits and oppresses them.

Class contradictions are no side issue, they are the most important product of the exploitation; the driving power behind the capitalist system. Both exploitation and oppression are rooted in capitalism itself. Through exploitation the ruling class robs the workers from the prosperity they produce and by oppression the capitalist minority is able to rule the working masses. Therefore as workers we have one and the same enemy. Do we really want to create a just society on the principles of social justice, then we have to show solidarity with all those people who are oppressed and exploited by capitalism. This also means that we shouldn't let ourselves be misled by false prophets such as rightwing-populists or 'anti-racists'. We should collectively aim our efforts towards the real enemy of our peoples!  

Autonomy: Definition and Meaning

The word "autonomy" is a combination of the words "autos" and "nomos", derived from the ancient Greek language, which literally means "own law". "Autonomy" is the designation for a certain way of thinking, in which independence and individual freedom on the basis of social justice and -equality as well as solidarity are the main principles. However this individual freedom is not meant in the way neoliberals underpin this (licentiousness of autonomous and selfresponsible people, that is to say torn apart from the people), but the opposite of it; individual freedom by collectivity!

Being-autonomous, means being undependent. To be undependent means meeting ones own needs, organizing and governing yourself in order to survive. It means self-sufficiency; one takes what one can use to survive and to accomplish certain political goals. Self-organisation is necessary to collectively retain independence and individual freedoms. For this, resistance is the only path towards freedom and thus is self-organisation absolutely necessary. Self-organisation is needed to achieve collective goals, such as social justice and -equality. Independence is what autonomy is all about. We don´t want to be dependend on some kind of State, Party, Union or leader (Führer). Autonomists think for themselves, decide for themselves and act by themselves! They don´t need anybody who offers "help" from above or tells them what to do, they solve their own problems. They rely on their own force and decisiveness and couldn't care less about the laws imposed by the establishment. Autonomists practice self-government, that is to say self-organisation.      

Therefore this leads to fundamental implications, if being-autonomous is seen as merely a means of action. Being-autonomous requires a certain ideological way of thinking, which can be put into practice in different ways.

Being-autonomous means act for yourself, think for yourself and act independent. (and don´t wait for instructions, commands from above, from somekind of leader, pope, chairman, tribune, Union or Party boss, in short any authority whatsoever!) Being-autonomous means being averse to any form of authority, means being aversive of any State authority. Autonomists don´t wait for improvements or changes from above (elections), they take matters into their own hands (therefore "Direct Action"- action from the grassroots, by the masses without intervention of selfproclaimed leaders and mediators of Unions or Political Parties). The masses don´t need leaders from outside, they are their own leader. The masses themselves are the vanguard.

This way (anti-authoritarian, anti-Statist, anti-hierarchic) of thinking logically leads toward methods of action. One example is the concept of "Direct Action" (action without intervention of any authority whatsoever) against the State, against the authority and bosses - by the masses themselves. (Some examples are the Cultural revolution 1966-1969, The Mai revolt of workers in Paris, the student uprise of 1968 and the 1969-movement in Italy.) Another example is the "black block", not only an expression of collective anonymity, but also of collective uniformity; We are all equal, we are one collective unity! No leaders, no followers, no bullshit! There are no leaders, we are all leaders. We are our own vanguard. By means of uniform garb this is stressed; We are all equal (egalitarism). There are no leaders. If there is any case of "leadership" at all, then this is collective leadership by the collective Black Block. The Black Block as collective leader - as collective vanguard (for example in the struggle against the cops). (Such a way of thinking does of course provide issues for discussion, also and above all within the anarchoscene).

Being-autonomous does absolutely and before all else mean the rejection of any authority and all that which is sanctioned by the authorities (uniformed or not). Being-autonomous means opposing any form of hierarchy or authoritarian structures (State, army, church, Party, Union). Only the masses themselves are "pure", revolutionary, so only the actions of the masses themselves can be considered "pure" and revolutionary, all the other must be rejectes as; 

1: Bureacratic 2: Reactionary 3: Bourgeois 4: Hierarchic. 

Being-autonomous means opposing any form of personality cult, only the masses are the true heroes. Averse to any Fuhrer worshipping (Hitler, Stalin, Kim il Sung, etc.). Averse of any chauvinism (political boundaries are not recognized!). "Autonomous" Hitlerists are just as much an impossibility as "Autonomous" Strasserists are.  

"He who is not afraid of death by a thousand cuts dares to unhorse the emperor" - Mao Zedong 

Recapitulatory:

1: No leadership (from outside or above) 2: True revolutionary action only comes forth from the masses themselves 3: The masses themselves are the vanguard (without intervention from outside) 

No leaders, no followers! No bull-shit! 

The masses are the vanguard, they are the leaders!

Pavlos, Manolis and Giorgos: Rest in Peace

In the light of the events end of september and last friday we cite comrade Kostas M. who was able to describe the tragic situation in Greece with striking words; 

"We are facing for the second time in less than two months, a murder in ideological and political background. Firstly was Pavlos Fyssas, a left musician, then two members of Golden Dawn (Manolis Kapelonis and Giorgos Fountoulis), with obvious motives of retaliation. We now watch two sides slipping in armed violence with the character of reckoning like thugs, both murders distract from the real problems, secondly they divide the whole society, reviving their old - but existent as it seems - splits into right and left, fascist and antifascist, which without doubt is manageable from the centers of power in Greece and their authorized representatives.

People once again are called upon to play its role, not knowing where all this comes from, choosing the most painful type of death. Which murder is the most heinous? With knife or gun? From one meter, or ten? Complexes or not? Alone or with an accessory?

This is a tottaly sick situation, indicative of rottenness caused from both sides, with the wounds to be added everyday on the body of society. Golden Dawn and far left people have pushed with their fights the whole society into a microcosmos of dissent. At the same time greek government gains in popularity because it guarrantees safety based on peoples fear. Capitalists move on with their plan and Greece is immersed into chaos and decay.

Fortunately, there are now several people (anarchists and nationalists) who wake up and see clearly suspicious of the things. All this turns against us in the end. Violence is not something "bad" itself. Politics are associated with violence. Must be. Because we face democratic violence every day. But violence has its worth and is a part of the game when it is used straight to the target and not to harm an innocent. Unfortunately, both sides, including mass media and governments, act like gangs, while people in Greece should have long finish with their domestic oppressors."

Autonomy: What does it mean?

Every human has to have the individual freedom to do whatever he/she wants within the community. Every human must be able to shape his/her life like he/she wants, without some authority (leader; chairman; union boss), the party or the State having something to say about it. A "State" would only be a representative of the people and can be used as an instrument by the community itself to achieve certain things which serve the interests of the community. It is not intended, in any case, that if something like a "State" is pursued, it will be the same as the current one. (A socialist councilrepublic is what autonomists want.)

Struggle against each form of authority in general, especially against the State, is central in the autonomist thought. The State is the embodiment of the terrorist dictatorship of financecapital with as goal preserving the capitalist modus of production. The State is also responsible for the implementation of cultural genocide, in the form of the destruction of the folkspirit and the alienation of the original culture, in order to create mindless, amorphous, consumption masses (consumptionzombies).

The existing power relations, embodied by the State, are the ones that exploit and oppress their own communities. Between the capitalist elite, which has the power, and the working masses, who make the everyday living possible, is such a big gap that resistance is essential. According to the autonomists nobody and nothing has the right to tell others what they should do. An autonomist has an exceptionally high self-awareness and sense of responsibility.

As mentioned before, independence and individual freedom can be reached through social justice and -equality, by collectivism and solidarity within the community. Collectivism means a revolution will have to take place in the area of relations of production and ownership, so that the community will get ownership of the means of production and not, like it is nowadays under capitalism, in hands of several individuals. The profit which is made using the means of production (land, work, capital, resources, machines, etc.), belongs fully to those who own them according to capitalism. That means that those who produce (the workers) the profit (surplus) get nothing in return for it. This in contradiction to the capitalist owner of the means of production, who, without the provision of (physical) labor, may see the suprlus (profit) of a product as his belongings. Autonomism is aimed against this reactionary philosophical conception. It advocates the collectivisation of the means of production, so that those who produce surplus can pick the fruits of their labour or that it goes to the community.  

Collectivism means also that they jointly undertake something to realize a common goal. Different individuals organize themselves to achieve collective common goals. In this sense autonomism does not oppose "property". Everybody has to get what he/she deserves. But if this in practice would mean, like today, that a small group owns everything and the great majority nothing, then property is the most decadent thing one can own. In times, like today, of a unprecedented economic crisis, rising mass unemployment worldwide, poverty and famine, the internal repression gets stronger. This because the owners want to protect and secure their private-property. This is the problem, because the working masses who do not own anything but produce everything bear the ruin the capitalist owners, who produce nothing but own everything, have caused. We could not have come up with a better example of social equality and -injustice.      

Solidarity means being there for the community. Solidarity is necessary within the community to serve the interest of all. It´s no shame to give up some "luxury", if this means someone else´s life can improve. This ofcourse doesn´t mean, in every respect, that those who do not contribute can benefit at the expense of the community! Only those who (can) contribute, can count on solidarity, because they fight the same struggle, namely the struggle for social justice and - equality. The struggle for social justice and - equality can´t be achieved without bringing solidarity into practice! Those who harm the interests of the society (speculators, stockbrokers, locusts, etc.), will be expelled from the community and will be seen as enemies of the community. No solidarity can be brought to practice about them! With bringing solidarity into practice we mean an active contribution in the struggle for social justice and - equality.  

in the political struggle one is autonomously and independently organized . That means, on your own way, by your own motives, with your own viewingpoints. Autonomists do not follow a prescribed doctrine, they immerse themselves independently in random issues and compose their own conclusions on the basis of own insights and by their own arguments. This shapes an independend political awareness in the individual, after which he/she, together with other individuals, can organize him-herself in a collective to fight for certain common interests.  

To bring this into practice we first need to analyse the society we are living in today, so that we can determine which means of action should serve which goals. Which form of resistance is best for a certain situation? Which goals should be achieved? To determine this, an internal discussion must be held. The individuals within the collective should know what to expect and they have to know who wants to go how far to achieve these goals. Everybody within the collective needs to have a say in this. Basisdemocracy, also known as "councildemocracy", is uncomparible with the bought "democracy" of capitalism. This "parliamentary democracy" (representative democracy [contra basisdemocracy]) has already sold the interests of the people to the capital. Needless to say the autonomists reject the leadership-principle (Führerprinzip), which propagates unconditional obedience and loyalty to a certain individual. This kind of thought is in total contrast to the principles of autonomism. Being autonomous means freedom in and through the collective, your neighbour in the community is nothing less than you, you're not above someone else, no leader tells you what to do and what not to do, even more important: YOU THINK FOR YOURSELF! And probably the most important : YOU ACT BY YOURSELF!  

Regarding the means of actions that need to be used, individuals and collectives (= groups of individuals) must determine for themselves how far they are willing to go to achieve certain goals. They must determine this by themselves through consultation and consensus.

 "The urge to destroy is also a creative urge. - Bakunin"

"Without destruction there can be no revolutionary building" - Mao Zedong

The State needs to be DESTROYED in its totality! 

The Political Islam: Enemy or Ally? (2)

Although the article below is somewhat outdated, it still hasn´t lost its relevance in 2013. Therefore, also in the light of the recent situation in the Middle East, we have decided to publish this article once again on this blog.


IGNORING ISLAM - THE ORGANIZED LEFT AND ISLAMISM

Afghanistan 2001, Iraq 2003, Libanon 2006, Gaza 2008 - the "free West" is at war. "You are either with us, or you're against us", as George W. Bush stated once. Still, the majority of the left is more busy ignoring these events as well as focussing on other things.

It's a fashion in almost all shades of the left wing to declare solidarity with the vicitims of the " War on Terror" - at least on the moment these victims are brought into hospital, shredded or bombed to pieces by Western bombers. It's a whole different case if they are able to succeed, like in Iraq, to be one step earlier and dodging the deadly American rain of bullets and/ or if they are able to go underground. It's also a different case if they, like in Gaza, give their vote to the "wrong" political party. In these cases the left relies on three principal arguments, with which they declare why political Islam would be "bad" (according to some even worse than American imperialism):      

1. Islamists are reactionary. They deny that religion serves as "the opium of the people" (Marx). Instead of preaching class struggle, they preach religious war and instead of calling for the liberation the women they are calling to veil the women.

2. There are in recent history no known positive examples of an alliance between the left and Islamists, nor a positive example of an Islamic state.

3. Anti-imperialism denies the class contradictions in the imperialist lands itself, as well as those in the countries attacked by imperialism. For example American soldiers would be "exploited workers", while many resistance groups only want to restore the domination of the "local exploiters" and therefore can only be supported with huge reservations.

The left and Imperialism

It's a positive development that finally such a discussion is started, because the left has entered the 21st century rather hopeless. They are against an invasion of Iraq, but also against Saddam Hussain as well as against the (non-Ba´athist) armed resistance in Iraq. In the case of the liberation war for Palestine the left has put its hope (in vain) on a "fraternizing working class" of both sides, this while one "working class" is bombarding the other "working class" with phosphorus bombs on their densely populated residential areas.

With this the uncertainty and wishful thinking of the left has become quite obvious. This in a time in which the old world order is replaced by a new one and a religious tainted movement fights the old and now even stronger enemy that is Western imperialism.

Some communists have consistently become Muslim (1). However most of them nowadays concentrate themselves rather on Latin-America; Here lies Cuba, here you´ll find the Zapatista´s and Hugo Chavez, all leftwing projects, with which they are able to indentify themselves. From here however subcommandante Marcos of the EZLN sends his fraternal greetings to the opressed people of Gaza (the so-called "antisemites" who have voted on Hamas), it's here where Chavez meets the secretary-general of the Hezbullah, Hassan Nasrallah, while the leftwing government of Bolivia expells the ambassador of the Israeli zionist state.

Furthermore there is no open war in the region. There is - not withstanding the inspiring initiatives - no project that directly threatens the survival of imperialism. In the Middle East this is however certainly the case. The US, with the military power standing behind her clenched interests, is involved in a direct showdown; in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Palestine. Already in 1967 Ché Guevara wrote, several months before his execution in Bolivia; "We need to be aware that imperialism is global, a global system, the last fase of capitalism. It can only be beaten in one big, global confrontation."

So also for our Cuba-friends and Venezuala-enthusiasts, the Middle East is of great importance: not only because their idols have given clear statements on the events and the situation there, but also and foremost because imperialism as a global system can emerge stronger from this confrontation, and by that it could also become a direct threat to the liberation projects of the left. Without exaggeration, we can claim that without the defeats in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and Afghanistan the pressure of US imperialism on Latin America would be much stronger - including the related military agression and coups d´etat. Last but not least this point makes one thing very clear: The by old Stalinist groups up to the Trotskist youth groups spreaded and the in the introduction summarized argumentation examples are very problematic.

Lack of information and misunderstandings

What makes the left have such a dismissive attitude towards the strongest threat against world imperialism since the revolutionary tidal wave of 1968? There are several causes which partly overlap each other;

1. Incomprehension of the Arab culture and the Islamic religion, of which the differences between that culture and beliefs and their own are substantially greater than those between them and the countries in Latin America. 

2. The universal claim of the communist idea is questioned by Islamism, because it adopts traditionally "leftwing" issues (social justice, national independence, anti-repression and armed liberation struggle). 

3. Finally many are happy to cite the "classics" (Marx, Engels, Lenin), who in their day never knew such a movement, nor such a threat from the side of imperialism. Furthermore there are little serious information sources about the Islamist movements. The bourgois media is professionally working towards the new enemy image of Islam.  

Anti-imperialism and national + social liberation

These days imperialism is not only the foundation for the big multinational concerns and the financieroligarchy, but also nessacery for the profligate and mass-oriented lifestyle which is propagated in the West and which has ensured that the working class is mostly integrated in the existing system as well as stripped it of its revolutionary potential.     

Without the destruction of imperialism on a worldscale, no revolutionary break through is possible. Since 1945 the American imperialists carried out serious interventions in over 70 countries in the world. The reason for these interferences were mostly of an economic or strategic nature. The absolute condition for national and social liberation is therefore the defeat of the "Military Industrial Complex" (NATO imperialism) and the destruction of the myth of the invincibility of the last remaining superpower in the world (the USA). With this we have arrived at those who fight this battle; In the Middle East, the frontline of the current anti-imperialist liberation struggle, this is without a doubt a religious movement.   

The womens issues 

The many shades of the Islamist movement have just as many shades of role image about women. In Iraq women are a tight component of the armed resistance, in Palestine the Islamist resistance movement Hamas knows a firmly-rooted basis among the women, while the Lebanese Hezbullah carries out explicit programs to promote womens emancipation. 

At the same time some simple numbers from the BRD (Germany): The year sales of cosmetics amounts up to 11 billion euro´s, while in the same timeframe more than a million cosmetic surgeries are performed. It's at least doubtfull to which extent this glorification of a so-called "perfect" physical beauty, which apparently doesn´t make emancipated Western women happier, would be superiour to the Islamist view in which the woman accepts her body as a gift from god and in which physical temptations are deliberately not openly shown.     

Religious war and Jihad

Fanatical, vengeful and ruthless - this is how the war in the name of Islam is seen by many. Accordingly the unsympathetic, terrorists are sketched as a mirror of the Western Crusades.

However the Jihad is bound by concrete restrictions and goals. Among these rules we do not only find the commandment to make no innocent victims, but also the commandment to retaliate in moderation and to take up any peace offering. "The most important goal of Jihad (anti-imperialist defensive war) is offering help to those who are oppressed and ensuring a good future for them", thus the Islamic Army in Iraq. An "Islamist State" would also guarantee the protection of the (mostly religous) minorities as well as social justice, enviromental protection and stimulation of education and scholing. Ofcourse also here - just like with the communists - there is a gap between pretension and reality; still the broadly association of the Islamic society with the not so serious reports from the culturally very different and underdeveloped Afghanistan are of a very limited use if one wants to examine the concept of the Islamist resistance movement.        

The Islam as civilization

To get a better understandingof the Islam, especially for the left, one must see that Islam is not "just" a religion, but also asks for very concrete regulations and values for the organization of society. This is also an important difference with traditional Christianity: instead of comforting believers by referring to the afterlife, Islam unmistakenly calls up for active resistance against injustice, oppression and abuses. Also by the ban on usury and the obligation of every muslim to donate 2,5 % of his possesion to the poor and needy on a yearly basis (as well as the payment of Zakat - the faith accomplice tax which immediately flows back into the community) , the values of the Islam are in full conflict with those of the free market.   

"Religious people believe in the Prophet, Bush believes in Profit", as George Galloway, ex-Labour-parliamentary representative and current leader of Respect, put it once.  

This ofcourse doesn't mean political Islam hasn't got immense problems. Just like traditional European communism declared itself universal, but at the same time was deeply divided, we see the same in Islamist circles - not just between Sunni and Shi´a.   

The left and Muslims; Traditional Enemies

Finally arriving at this point, the left falls back on the last two arguments. One argument states that Muslims have never had a society as it's desired by the left. Apart from the fact that Muslims could make exactly the same argument with regard to the communists, ofcourse all models of society are subjected to internal (human failure) as well as external (enemy threat) factors and thus threats or destructions.  

The other argumentation sounds more logical. After the islamic revolution in Iran of 1979 many members of the communist Tudeh-(=workers) Party were prosecuted and executed as spies of the USSR by the Islamic revolutionary government. Similar incidents took place in Algeria, Palestine, Egypt, Sudan and Iraq, mostly deadly conflicts during the 70s and 80s. 

But we need to mind two things in this regard;

First; the hope of the mainstream-left during these days was put upon the USSR, which by Islamist forces was seen as simply the opposite side of the other superpower (the US imperialism). (By this theory which was in that time propagated by chairman Mao and vice-chairman Lin Piao, both superpowers - the USA and USSR - represented two sides of the same imperialist coin, who wanted to divide the world among each other. In this theory the USSR represented the superpower of social-imperialism; socialist in words, but imperialist in actions.)   

Second; The left has always resisted granting any religion whatsoever a positive role. A Moroccan Islamist, who studied the ideas of Mao Tse Tung during the '70's, asked the following question; "Do we renounce the communists because of the social justice they pursue, or because of the fact they mock the Profet" - the answer was ofcourse the latter. 

Nowadays besides the negative experiences with these kind of cooperations, also several positive experiences have took place; under this last category we count the cooperation between Hezbullah and the Communist Party Lebanon (in the context of the United National Front), the cooperation between the Islamist resistance movement Hamas with the marxist Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) (in the context of the Popular Front) as well as several alliances in Europe, like the partnership Respect in Great-Brittain. In this regard it's mainly important which individuals from the Islamist scene work together with which persons from the leftwing scene and for which common goals.    

This is what matters; Keeping an eye on the common interests between the left aswell as muslims. The primary victims of US agression are found throughout the Islamic world, who in their anti-imperialist struggle for liberation fall back on the religion that has shaped their society for many centuries. These kind of phenomena have occurred troughout history and are not necessarily in contrast with the goal of a social and just society. Even if the situation of the Iraqi women would deteriorate on a short term under Islamism, as many in the left scene proclaim, then however on the long term the foundations are shaped by the national liberation war for her obviously legitimate struggle; Because an end is made to the bombings and tortures of the Americans, the Iraqi´s themselves get the opportunity to reshape their own society.     

Claiming in advance that the Arab woman in such a situation would not be able to fight for her rights is nothing more than pure racism and sexism. This even more, because the Prophet formulated human and womensrights over a thousand years before the European feminist movement formulated them.  

As long as an unjust and barbarian economic order (the globalist capitalism) exists, it will be attempted to bring alternative models of society into practice. As long as the armies of the US and NATO keep on occupying other countries, so that the great capitalist concerns can plunder their natural resources, armed resistance against this will keep on taking place.    

The cardinal issue here is on which side of the frontline the leftwing movement is. It comes to providing serious information about resistance movements, in regard of the Islam and the Arab culture. Furthermore, on the ability to be unprejudiced and to have self-criticism. A catholic Chavez is for few in the scene a problem; a shiíte Nasrallah on the other hand is. In reality it's not about retaining any "emancipatory values" whatsoever. It's about the success of the Islamphobic smear in the bourgeois media which arouses irrational fears. Those in the leftist spectrum who do not convincingly take their distance from this, are unequivocally disqualified as exponents of social change and allies to the rejected of the world. 

<<Create one, two - many Vietnams!>> (Ché)

Against global imperialism - the global Vietnam!

Anti-imperialist Resistance!

An answer to Eric Krebbers a.o. (as a reaction to 'Breakthrough against Muslimfundamentalism' - Jan/Feb 2009. Gebladerte series Nr. 32)

--------[1] Some examples of famous Communists who converted to Islam are: The Venezuelan international Communist Ilich Ramirez Sanchez (more known by his name de guerre 'Carlos'), the French Communist (and former member of the Political Bureau of the PCF in the sixties) Roger Garaudy and the, also, French Communist and internationalist Jacques Vergès (co founder of the Parti Communiste de Réunion in the fifties).

The second edition of Resist Magazine is out now!

The second edition of the ACN/AKN affiliated periodical "Resist Magazine" is out now!

The paper version is available through the usual channels.

The online version can be found here:   

Resist Magazine Online