Really? So I take it you would rather be an apologist who compromises your convictions in order to make your position more palatable to the fascist right-wingers? Yeah, that's progress. Beg them to like us. I think not.
Elizabeth Allen wrote: > > > Oh great, lets give the right wing lunatics another reason to hate on > progressives/liberals and moderates....great thinking their Lincoln. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Linda Ghaliyaa Richard <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 19, 2009 3:18:02 PM > *Subject:* Re: [bangla-vision] Should the left call for Taliban victory? > > > > Valid points, too. I thought of that myself - but this article is not > written by me. I merely posted it. You did realize that, didn't you? > > Z T Minhas wrote: > >> Certain people from the left should just shut the hell up.... >> >>> AS SOCIALISTS, we support the right of oppressed peoples to fight >>> for self-determination unreservedly, just as we oppose imperialism, >>> without caveat. >> The soviet uniuon invaded afghanistan in 1979.... not a whimper from >> international socialists,. .. and encouraged by Afghan communists.. .. >>> >>> This perspective is generally accepted by the left without question >>> in contexts such as Latin America or Africa, where bitter fights >>> against U.S. and European imperialism have been fought and, in some >>> cases, won. >> But not Russian imperialism >>> >>> Yet, when it comes to the Middle East and Afghanistan today there is >>> suddenly much less clarity about what radicals and Marxists should >>> be saying. Nowhere is that more evident than in the case of >>> Afghanistan, which has suffered under the yoke of U.S. imperialism >>> since 2001 (with active U.S. interference in the country since at >>> least the 1970s). >> Ah yes... the bastards show their true colors... Russia INVADED >> Afghanistn killing millions.. and American involvement in getting >> them out was called an interference. .. where are my brass >> knuckles... i need to find me a commie... especially an Afghan or >> Paki commie!!! >> >> Z T >> >> >> Linda G. Richard wrote: >>> >>> >>> Should the left call for Taliban victory? >>> >>> >>> Socialist Worker >>> >>> >>> AS SOCIALISTS, we support the right of oppressed peoples to fight >>> for self-determination unreservedly, just as we oppose imperialism, >>> without caveat. >>> >>> This perspective is generally accepted by the left without question >>> in contexts such as Latin America or Africa, where bitter fights >>> against U.S. and European imperialism have been fought and, in some >>> cases, won. >>> >>> Yet, when it comes to the Middle East and Afghanistan today there is >>> suddenly much less clarity about what radicals and Marxists should >>> be saying. Nowhere is that more evident than in the case of >>> Afghanistan, which has suffered under the yoke of U.S. imperialism >>> since 2001 (with active U.S. interference in the country since at >>> least the 1970s). >>> >>> The idea that the Taliban, as a movement fighting against U.S. >>> occupation, is a force we should be supporting is, unfortunately, a >>> somewhat controversial position to hold, even on the far left. This >>> is a serious mistake and speaks both to the extent to which >>> Islamophobia has penetrated the left, as well as to the lack of >>> understanding of the social dynamics of an oppressed and devastated >>> country like Afghanistan. >>> >>> We are all familiar with the lies and excuses used to justify the >>> invasion and occupation of Afghanistan in the wake of the September >>> 11 attacks.. Bush and his coterie of crooks and warmongers told us >>> that only a military invasion could liberate the people, and >>> especially the women, of Afghanistan from the brutal, misogynistic >>> and "medieval" Taliban movement. >>> >>> There was no mention, of course, of the substantial support offered >>> to the Taliban regime in the late 1990s when Clinton was president >>> and in the early days of the Bush presidency, nor of the long and >>> ugly history of U.S. intervention in Central and South Asia, which >>> was an important precondition for the rise of Islamism. >>> >>> We should condemn unreservedly the oppression of women and the >>> general social conservatism of the pre-2001 Taliban regime, as well, >>> of course, as their efforts to cut deals with regional and global >>> superpowers against the interests of the vast majority of Afghans. >>> However, we must also unreservedly condemn the racism and >>> Islamophobia used as an ideological fig leaf to justify invasion and >>> imperialism, and it is the left's weakness on this issue, which has >>> blinded many to the new realities on the ground in Afghanistan. >>> >>> Before addressing the important question of who the Taliban actually >>> are, it is important to understand the material conditions Afghans >>> face. Afghanistan is a devastated country. It is ranked at or near >>> the bottom of a broad range of social indicators, such as levels of >>> poverty, infant mortality, literacy, per capita income, prevalence >>> of easily preventable diseases and so forth. Most major cities in >>> Afghanistan, including the capital Kabul, are in ruins (despite >>> claims of "reconstruction" by NATO imperialists) and decent roads, >>> electricity, clean water, sanitation and basic social services are >>> unheard of for most of the population, especially in the rural >>> areas. The majority of the population ekes out a living on a >>> subsistence basis, and the struggle for survival is the overarching >>> concern for most Afghans. >>> >>> In a nutshell, there is no Afghan working class or progressive petit >>> bourgeoisie to speak of, and the major social classes (aside from >>> the puppet regime and it's assortment of bandits and thugs) are the >>> poor peasantry and the Islamic clergy.. >>> >>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >>> >>> THE SIGNIFICANCE of this to a discussion of anti-imperialist >>> resistance in Afghanistan should be obvious to any serious >>> historical materialist. This question cannot be thought about in the >>> abstract, it must be considered in light of the material realities >>> on the ground. Such realities necessarily shape the kinds of social >>> forces and the character of class struggle in that country and make >>> it highly likely that any grassroots resistance will have a strongly >>> religious character, given that the rural clergy are the only force >>> capable of uniting the peasantry against the comprador ruling class. >>> >>> The following point cannot be stressed enough; whilst the U.S. >>> remains in Afghanistan, economic and social development will not >>> occur much beyond current levels. This in turn means that the >>> Taliban, as a broad-based movement of poor farmers and lower clergy, >>> is the face of anti-imperialist resistance in Afghanistan for the >>> foreseeable future. >>> >>> To put it another way, if we, as avowed anti-imperialists, intend to >>> wait around for a resistance movement that agrees with us on every >>> issue, including the need to fight the oppression of women, gays, >>> racial and religious minorities, etc., we'll be waiting a long time. >>> The Taliban is the resistance in Afghanistan and we must support it, >>> critically, but unreservedly. >>> >>> The Taliban that ruled Afghanistan prior to the U.S. invasion no >>> longer exists. The U.S. and NATO routinely refer to any act of >>> resistance as the work of the "Taliban" (meaning the followers of >>> Mullah Omar), much as every act of resistance in Iraq was the work >>> of "Baath loyalists." >>> >>> To be sure, there are attacks being carried out by people who >>> support the former regime, but many, perhaps most, resistance >>> fighters have no particular loyalty to the former leadership and >>> some are actively hostile to it. >>> >>> Anand Gopal, one of the few independent journalists actively trying >>> to find out what is actually happening in Afghanistan has written >>> some very useful and insightful work on this, and as he points out, >>> the ranks of the Taliban have been swelled in recent years by rural >>> peasants who have been radicalized as a result of US/NATO brutality, >>> including the indiscriminate air attacks which have killed thousands >>> of Afghans. >>> >>> The Taliban are increasingly espousing a strong nationalist message >>> and, in some cases, have substantially moderated their social >>> conservatism in order to build a more broad-based and effective >>> resistance movement. >>> >>> It is also the case that the "Taliban" is effectively a blanket term >>> for a coalition of groups, some drawn from the tiny strata of >>> educated middle class Afghans, which aim to eject foreign troops >>> from their country. In short, when the U.S. and its allies use the >>> term "Taliban" they want us to think of public stonings, music bans >>> and ultra-conservative clerics--and if we follow their lead we do a >>> grave disservice to the Afghan resistance and only help to >>> perpetuate Islamophobic caricatures of "crazed, bearded extremists." >>> >>> There is no fundamental difference between the liberation theology >>> movements in South America and the popular Islamist resistance >>> movements in the Middle East and Asia, movements such as Hezbollah, >>> Hamas and the Taliban. To be sure, the former were less socially >>> conservative, but as religiously colored grassroots resistance >>> movements they are essentially the same kind of manifestation of >>> class resistance. >>> >>> The left needs to ask itself why it is much more critical of Muslims >>> expressing class anger in a religious form than of South American >>> Christians; to my mind, unexamined Islamophobia explains much of >>> this discrepancy. >>> >>> Every U.S. and NATO tank that the Taliban destroy, every >>> Karzai-appointed stooge they assassinate and every town or village >>> they liberate is a victory for our side and a grievous blow to U.S. >>> imperialism- -we would do well to remember that and to offer our >>> solidarity and support for a Taliban victory in Afghanistan. >>> >>> Nick K., from the Internet >>> >>> Link: http://www.uruknet. de/?s1=1&p=57087&s2=19 >>> <http://www.uruknet.de/?s1=1&p=57087&s2=19>. >>> -- >>> Linda >>> *http://freedetainee s.org <http://freedetainees.org/> >>> "If we shadows have offended, Think but this, >>> and all is mended, That you have but slumber'd >>> here While these visions did appear..." >>> - William Shakespeare >>> * >>> >>> >>> >> > > -- > Linda > *http://freedetainee s.org <http://freedetainees.org/> > "If we shadows have offended, Think but this, > and all is mended, That you have but slumber'd > here While these visions did appear..." > - William Shakespeare > * > > > > > -- Linda *http://freedetainees.org <http://freedetainees.org/> "If we shadows have offended, Think but this, and all is mended, That you have but slumber'd here While these visions did appear..." - William Shakespeare * --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bangla-vision" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bangla-vision?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
