> I think that there's no doubt that 'Bin Laden' here makes lots of good points > (like many others did before him). At the same time he engages in > arch-reactionary reasoning on two fronts. The lesser is the fact that he > counters the obscurantist Zionist/Christian rightist idea that Palestine was > given to the Jews by God and that this justifies the existence of Israel by the > equally crap idea that the land was given by Allah to the Muslims. A Leninist > list should not give any credit in any way to such nonsense. And of course this > guy does not differ between 'the Jews' and the Zionists. He's a bloody > communalist (I won't call him a racist because as he says correctly the Arabs > are semites themselves). But what is even worse is the fact that by pointing out > to the crimes committed by imperialism and its surrogates (zionism e.g.)he > defends the reactionary and antihuman idea that therefore innocent people can > rightfully be slaughtered. This he justifies by endorsing the claim of the > bourgeoisie that their democracy is really based on the consent of the people > they exploit and oppress in their own country. This is a particularly absurd > idea as concerns the USA where less than 50% of the registered votes care to go > to the polls. This again shows that Bin Laden like lots of other bourgeois > 'antiimperialists' deep in their heart admire imperialism but are only > frustrated by the fact that imperialism doesn't share power and wealth with > them. They want to have a greater share in the exploitation of their own > (muslim) masses. This said it's obvious that imperialism remains public enemy > No.1, but those arch-reactionary 'antiimperialists' are not far behind. It's > okay to publish documents like Bin Ladens on the list, but I think they should > not go uncriticized. > Best A. Holberg
Well, of course Osama is not any kind of reliable political guide for Marxist- Leninists. It's a bourgeois Islamicist line. I don't think there is any danger of any of us giving 'credit' to it. But what interests me about his message is how much of a mirror image it is of the US imperialist. Osama is taking all the concepts and presuppositions which provide the underpinning of the U.S. war drive, and using them, and tossing them right back at the U.S. "You want to civilize us with your superior philosophy? No, WE want to civilize YOU with our superior religion. You hit us because we hit you? No, WE hit YOU because YOU hit US. God gave the land to you? No, he gave it to us. You think it's okay to kill a million and a half Iraqis because they haven't changed their government? OK, then it's OK for us to kill you because you haven't changed your government. You say you're a democratic society, where the people rule? OK, then that means that all your voters really bear the responsibility for your crimes." We ought to be able to use this in our propaganda somehow. Not repeating Osama's line, but using it to expose the line of our own bourgeoisie: "We don't like it when our civilians are attacked, but you see that Osama is just accepting and copying the tactics and the arguments of the Bush and Clinton administrations. It's not just a response, it's a response -in kind- deliberately modeled after the actions of the U.S. government. So what does that tell you about our government?" Of course it's bourgeois ideology. It's the ideology of the oppressed bourgeoisie of the Arab and Muslim region, declaring total war on the imperialist bourgeoisie and saying that every tactic which is permissible to the imperialists is permissible to the oppressed. It's a response to reality. Since every Iraqi, and every Palestinian, and every Afghan, and really every other civilian in the oppressed countries is a permissible target for the U.S., and can be killed by the U.S., either with bombs or with starvation, without a moral qualm, then Osama declares that the people of the Ummah have the right to treat the U.S. the same way. Tit for tat, as they say. Even though they are using the same strategies and arguments, one is using them for global imperialist plunder, and the other is using them in (bourgeois Islamicist) defense against imperialist plunder. So honestly I think that most of the things you are complaining about are just the ordinary result of the fact that Osama is a bourgeois. He wants to exploit the Arab masses, rather than for the U.S. imperialists to do it? Well, that's always an element in bourgeois nationalism, no? And in fact, we defend that right, don't we - or, to be more precise, we aren't concerned with Osama's "rights", but we defend the right of the Arab masses to be exploited by their own bourgeoisie, RATHER THAN by the U.S. imperialists. Lou Paulsen member, WWP, Chicago _______________________________________________ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
