Jihadists are not as bad as western capitalist states. Actually they are one of the main anticapitalist and anti-sistem powers so anarchists and leftists should support jihadists and their fight against the West.
Funfacts:
1.
en.wikipedia.org
2. I'm not trolling and this view is actually serious.
Other urls found in this thread:
isj.org.uk
twitter.com
isj.org.uk
Conclusion
Under Lenin and Trotsky the Bolshevik leadership was true to its Marxist understanding that the revolutionary party must be atheist primarily in word, not deed, while the state must be non-religious but not anti-religious. Religious communities were given remarkable freedoms under the revolution, although the religion of the tsarist empire was the most likely to be circumscribed because of its strong links to the former ruling class. Religious believers, including Muslims, who considered themselves revolutionaries were welcomed into the Bolshevik ranks. Non-Communist believers who backed the revolution occupied leading positions in the state apparatus. Some major Muslim organisations joined the Communist parties in their entirety or joined with the Bolsheviks to defend the revolution.
The demands of Muslims for religious freedom were intimately connected with demands for national rights. The Bolsheviks fought alongside Muslims to win those rights from the tsarists and Russian colonialists, but also from the Communist ultra-lefts. These rights were fought for and won as part of the revolution, not granted as concessions by an anti-religious regime waiting for the moment to pounce on believers. The attacks on these rights originated among the Russian chauvinists of the former regime, many of whom were military men who flooded into the state machine after the civil war and gradually came to see Stalin as the leader of the counter-revolution. However, these elements were assisted by strong ultra-left currents among the Bolsheviks themselves who rejected Lenin’s approach and despised talk of national or religious rights. (These comrades overwhelmingly perished under Stalin.)
The Islamic veil was not an issue for the Bolsheviks under Lenin. The mass assault on the veil was launched in 1927 by Russian chauvinists and Stalinists, a frightening harbinger of the calamity of forced collectivisation a few years later. Forced unveiling was a Stalinist policy that turned Leninism on its head. So in standing up for the right of Muslim women to wear the hijab in Europe today, marching alongside Muslims against the occupations of Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan, defending the right of Muslims to oppose those occupations by force, and joining with left wing Muslims in united front coalitions such as Respect, socialists are upholding a tradition that goes back to Lenin and Trotsky.
Noone will argue? ;_;
Why argue against something which is self-evidently and incontrovertibly correct
All the people who WOULD argue are too busy arguing in the other two islam threads we've got right now
when a nazi does violent shit, we don't support him because he stands against the neoliberal establishment. Throw this in the trash with all that "anti-imperialist thirdworld nationalism" bullshit. There is a difference here between supporting the muslim proletariat and supporting islamism or nationalism. Come revolution, we will support the actions of the class conscious proles in the middle-east and elsewhere, but we don't support reactionaries of any color. End of story.
This post is correct but the idea we should support Jihadists is retarded and sounds like bait. All those groups were created and funded by people who wished to wipe out the left and secularism. Most muslims are fine but the average Jihadist in Syria would kill or forcibly convert you.
Exactly
They are the same entity. U.S. Sponsors ISIS.
wew lad that's some anfem level posting
Spartacist league pedos fuck off.
This.
The real meaning of what you say is that
But, basically, it's like saying we'll fight against Mulsims and we can accept only peaceful Muslims, not Jihadists, despite that they're only important resistance against imperialism and capitalism.
It's basically alliance with imperialist (so reactionary) force against peope who figght for equalization of wealth, only because their ideology is unacceptable for our european secularist culture, and petty bourgeoise morality.
Also, jihadists are not fascists, ie. they're basically internationalist and egalitarian, not hierarchical and nationalist. Only because they want to murder gay people is not making them fascist and reactionary.
Are you even reading what you're tying out holy shit son
what's actually wrong with subjugating women and murdering gays from marxist point of view?
Edgy.
No
shouldn't you have a tankie flag?
it's funnier if people think you actually believe this
Is that even real? wtf?
yep and they're not even the only ones
never go full tankie
Because that's precious subjugation and oppression we could be inflicting on you instead.
Any Arabic translation of any Marxist literature is going to be chock full of the word "jihad." Don't ever use the word "struggle" again.
L E F T I S T H U M A N B O M B W H E N ? ?
This is what I think of when people ask me if I'd bash commies as much as I support bashing fascists. Fucking tankies and turd worldists ruin everything.
It's individualist humanist approach, as well we could say that expropriation is bad because someone would stel your property and what then?
If a group of muslims uses their faith to argue for communism then great.
But groups like ISIS are traditionalist fascists, no better than the average Holla Forumsfag. We share only an enemy, not any ideological ground.
Zizek is right when he says that the left misses a positive project. If we support the overthrow of our imperialist system without offering something in its place, we are just strenghtening reactionary forces.
...