ISIS

What do you guys think of ISIS

I envy how islamism inspires such such an iron will to fight imperialism while western liberals condemn guerilla war as a viable revolutionary method.

It makes me feel like christianism should be the backbone of socialism and inspire an equal will to fight.

IS(IS) is a reactionary and sectarian group, which is the product of the imperialist intervention of 2003 spearheaded by the Anglo-saxons and the Western interventions in the Syrian civilwar. It was in a sense a monster they created themselves and which now seems to turn against them. American imperialism seems to be quickly losing options to secure their interests in the region while it has become a sectarian snake pitt. Obama even turned to the arch-enemy in Teheran to fight the capiphate. Even the Saoudi monarchs have placed tens of thousands elite troops near the Iraqi border because of the rise of IS(IS).

From IS(IS) its perspective expansionalism is probably also their only choice in order to prevent their caliphate to implode. Especially now the Sunni tribes and Ba'athists who helped their fast advance, are turning against the Jihadists.

HomelessArtist wrote:It makes me feel like christianism should be the backbone of socialism and inspire an equal will to fight.

The problem with religion as the backbone of "socialist" struggle, is that it pretty much stops being a socialist struggle. That being said, ofcourse socialists can be solidary with progressive religious movements in the broader struggle for worldcommunism. However, in the case of IS(IS) and modern day christianity, there is nothing to win for revolutionary socialists if you'd asked me.

Socialism is pretty much political christianity. Its about sharing, working for common good and caring for those who can't. The only thing missing is the lager than life desire to stop all suffering.

Rapaille wrote:IS(IS) is a reactionary and sectarian group, which is the product of the imperialist intervention of 2003 spearheaded by the Anglo-saxons and the Western interventions in the Syrian civilwar. It was in a sense a monster they created themselves and which now seems to turn against them.

One of the oddest thing about imperialism is how it creates its own enemies.

HomelessArtist wrote:Socialism is pretty much political christianity. Its about sharing, working for common good and caring for those who can't. The only thing missing is the lager than life desire to stop all suffering.

That's a rather Nietzschean assessment of the political philosophy. Sharing and providing for those incapable of providing for themselves pre-dates the advent of Christianity by millennia. Indeed, as Peter Kropotkin demonstrated, the law of mutual aid even obtains among non-mammalian species. As for the notion of "working for the common good" being equally socialistic and Christian, that only applies to certain varieties of free access communism. The activity of non-alienated labor is intrinsically gratifying to the individual, and social labor should be remunerated according to a fair criteria. So, to view work solely as a public duty is to ignore the very personal element of labor which many socialists (myself included) consider vital to the doctrine.

The one legitimate commonality between socialism and Christianity is the concept of a redemptive future. However, this only really concerns the act of revolution, which figures like Georges Sorel viewed as analogous to the apocalyptic visions which animated the early Christians.

Those are all valid criticism but what I'm trying to say the socialist movement needs a larger-than-life force to boost it and overcome class indifference and identity politics and religion seems to do that.

I really have troubles wording my thoughts.

HomelessArtist wrote:Those are all valid criticism but what I'm trying to say the socialist movement needs a larger-than-life force to boost it and overcome class indifference and identity politics and religion seems to do that.

I really have troubles wording my thoughts.

It's all right, comrade. I have a clearer understanding of what you were conveying now, and I partially agree. Socialism undoubtedly requires a transcendent ethic (i.e., an ethos beyond one's immediate material concerns) and vision of a future society which is capable of mobilizing the masses into revolutionary action. However, until the state and capitalism delegitimize themselves further—e.g., by increasingly severe economic crises which immiserate large sections of the working class—people will remain relatively content with bourgeois ideology and social relations.

HomelessArtist wrote:Socialism is pretty much political christianity. Its about sharing, working for common good and caring for those who can't. The only thing missing is the lager than life desire to stop all suffering.

My point is that christianity is hardly a force of interest anymore in the secular west. This in contrast to the Middle East, where religion is still the most dominant force in society. So ofcourse class struggle is fought along religious lines in the Middle East. However even then we can make a clear distinction between progressive and reactionary Islamism. And for me it's pretty clear it cannot get much more reactionary as a sectarian fundamentalist group like ISIS.

ISIS is an extremist variant Sunni reaction to the loss of secularism in Iraq.  They may be merely used by the U.S. to try to destabilize Syria, and not direct puppets, but I hardly consider them "anti-imperialists".  Shia Islam is the religion for stability in the middle-east, allying itself with Persia, the more independent of middle-east countries and also having more respect for women. The Sunni regimes are warlord subsidiaries of the U.S.

TriniSary wrote:ISIS is an extremist variant Sunni reaction to the loss of secularism in Iraq.  They may be merely used by the U.S. to try to destabilize Syria, and not direct puppets, but I hardly consider them "anti-imperialists".  Shia Islam is the religion for stability in the middle-east, allying itself with Persia, the more independent of middle-east countries and also having more respect for women.  The Sunni regimes are warlord subsidiaries of the U.S.

I think revolutionaries should not position themselves along sectarian lines, because that will only strengthen the sectarian nature of the conflict in the Middle East. That would be counterproductive from a anti-imperialist point of view.

Both Sunni as Shia know relatively progressive Islamist movements, from the Shia Hezbullah to the Sunni Hizb ut-Tahrir. Both have a broad support among the opressed masses, are in a sense grassroots movements and both are rather pragmatic if it comes to politics. This is ofcourse not the case with fundamentalist hardliners like ISIS or the Taliban. So if we position ourselves we have to look at these individual movements and the general situation from a class perspective, not from a sectarian perspective.

They're just a group of extremists that use socialism as a word to attract support since it tends to go with helping the people.

There's nothing wrong with religion going with socialism, what is wrong when either one of those things is just used as an object to do horrible things or just to get people behind the message.

Its silly to claim that they're US puppets considering they're harmful to their interests. Were they the result of Syria's destabilization though? More than likely yes, however if it wasn't them it'd of eventually been another group for sure. Any country that goes from these kinds of regimes to nothing with no true support isn't going to make a peaceful transition.

Eventually they'll fall apart how that'll happen I got no idea but either way the outcome is going to be bad for the whole region and a lot of people will die.
Just the result of a number of situations that weren't handled right, ignoring them altogether is also wrong.

Rapaille wrote:I think revolutionaries should not position themselves along sectarian lines, because that will only strengthen the sectarian nature of the conflict in the Middle East. That would be counterproductive from a anti-imperialist point of view.

Both Sunni as Shia know relatively progressive Islamist movements, from the Shia Hezbullah to the Sunni Hizb ut-Tahrir.

I find it interested that you would be anti-Assad.  Assad is highly secular.

TriniSary wrote:I find it interested that you would be anti-Assad.  Assad is highly secular.

I'm not opposed to Arab nationalism. However, the Alavite regime has always been repressive towards the Sunni population since their coup within the Syrian Ba'ath party. Furthermore Bashar al-Assad has introduced a neoliberal policy since he has taken over power. He privatized banking, privatized state corporations and liberalized the economy. So he hardly qualifies as a Ba'athist anymore, destroying all the social policies his father Hafez once introduced.

As I said I refuse to take a sectarian standpoint, so I don't support Assad, neither his opposition.

These petit-bourgeois movements, wether they are secular or Islamist, must be assesed on the basis in how far they advance the broader struggle against capitalism. And the only ones who win by the sectarian struggle that is going on in the Middle East at the moment are the imperialists.

Privatization to loyal assets isn't really denationalization. Sometimes a businessman keeps a country more independent than a bureaucrat.

TriniSary wrote:Privatization to loyal assets isn't really denationalization.  Sometimes a businessman keeps a country more independent than a bureaucrat.

Or a dentist in this case. However, my goal is not to achief merely national independence, but to achief (world-)communism.

ISIS is just another islamofascist group that need to be whipped from the earth. I hope the Kurd's stops them.

ISIS or IS is a reaction to the failure of both secular Arab nationalism and various forms of socialism to win a more equal society and in tackling corruption and poverty etc. The intervention by western imperialism has only exacerbated the weaknesses of the bourgeoisie in creating a viable centralised state which allows groups such as IS to develop and even flourish. With such faailures becoming more common then we can expect to see the flourishing ofsuch groups.

ISIS, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and their 'Sovereign Wealth Funds'

http://autonomous-england.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/isis-qatar-saudi-arabia-and-their.html